Seeking Religion - Page 12

On February 18 2009 16:39 3clipse wrote:
Do you have to count to ten and think of calm, flowing streams whenever you meet a fundementalist Protoss IdrA?

On February 18 2009 16:36 IdrA wrote:

certainly sounds condescending to me

except you dont have any input, whereas my input is something that can be held to logic analysis and so can be discussed. so you are worthless here, i am not.

you did not say hallucination, i did. you said 'personal experience' which generally means you have had 'personal contact' with god, which means you have had a hallucination or something similar in which you believe you have seen or spoken to god or jesus. if 'personal experience' meant something else im curious as to what it meant.
if it did indeed mean contact with god then the point i posed about vishnu still stands, and understandably you have no response. that often happens when you hold an illogical stance.

On February 18 2009 16:44 BanZu wrote:

Just because that's what you interpreted doesn't mean that's how it really is. I'm only stating that simply because you don't understand God's ways doesn't mean he can't possibly exist. Just because I don't understand how a semi-conductor works doesn't mean it's impossible that such a thing could exist.

By personal experience I mean going to church

BTW: I only have protoss because I prefer a corsair over a vulture or lurker (actually lurker doesn't sound like too bad of an idea hmm)

On February 18 2009 16:53 IdrA wrote:

i didnt say he couldnt possibly exist. like i said earlier, spaghetti monster argument. i guess maybe you havent heard of it so ill explain quick. anything given a certain set of properties COULD exist, for example an all powerful spaghetti monster who chooses to hide his existence from us. can you prove such a thing does not exist? does that mean its existence merits consideration when i have no valid reason to suggest it does? so yes, god might exist. i cant prove he doesnt, that doesnt mean he does exist or even that hes likely to exist to any extent worth even thinking about.

how exactly did going to church convince you of gods existence or allow you to understand him?
i have gone to church, my parents raised me christian. listening to stories and eating crackers did not impress me.

On February 18 2009 17:00 IdrA wrote:
so feeling like you're part of a group and sharing something in common with them makes you, a social creature, happy
shocker

On February 18 2009 15:33 IdrA wrote:
btw burden of proof is on you for spaghetti monster reasons. its unlikely god exists until you demonstrate otherwise.

On February 18 2009 17:08 IdrA wrote:
saying its something else doesnt mean it is
the singing,sharing, reading the word is all done as part of a group right?

if its the praying that brings us back to direct communication with god and the vishnu comparison. unless you get a kick out of talking to someone with no recognizable response, and if anything that would logically drive someone away from religion.

On February 18 2009 17:06 fight_or_flight wrote:

I don't see how you can say this. How is one philosophy inherently better than another? (you can't logically say it is unless you state axioms)

You can't use the scientific method in this situation, because it is not practical. When dealing with world views, you cannot (1) concretely prove everything, especially within your lifetime, or (2) have the exact same evidence as someone else.

Personal feelings are an absolutely valid form of evidence here, at this fundamental level. Even when you read Scientific American, your personal gut instincts that you aren't simply being lied to by that magazine must be used in order to even try to use the scientific method. However, unless you prove all of science to yourself, with all original experiments, and assume what your eyes tell you is correct, you are not being completely concrete.

There is no way to know you are not in some type of cruel holographic world. What I'm saying is that when it comes to your own personal awareness about the world around you, things become murky. Just because you are sure of something (as you pointed out) does not mean you are right. In this situation rational though, critical thinking, intuition, and even dreams must be used.

Your evidence for the world is not the same as my evidence, which is different from other poster's evidence. It is true, there is only one objective truth. However, you can't say "this is the default, you must convince me of otherwise". There is not default. Occam's razor doesn't applies only if you admit all evidence, and even then, it is not a proof, actually it is self referencing more than anything. Godel's theorem actually is proven and it states that things are actually infinity complex when logic is used.

The scientific method is based on axioms, and builds up. It essentially assumes you know the truth from the beginning, and you build up with additional evidence. However it is not practical to use except for institutional settings where you can "stand on the shoulders of giants". However, in your own, personal, reality there is no one to stand on. Everything is potentially a lie. You obviously don't believe in religion, however people who have grown up with it are absolutely convinced it is true because of the axioms they start with. Essentially you have no starting place except a number of lies. This includes all philosophies, perhaps one of which is correct, but there is no "default".

The only other method is to assume everything is potentially true unless proven otherwise. This is more effective because it is much easier for a single fact to disprove a thousand lies than to debate endlessly (such as this thread) about a single truth which seems to be supported by a thousand lies. You can argue about them till you die. I prefer the other approach, and the exact method to apply this analysis I posted at the beginning of this thread.

On February 18 2009 17:20 BanZu wrote:

Yes, but in actuality it's fellowship through the spirit.

Do you know anyone that would enjoy reading the Bible for entertainment purposes? Or sharing their testimonies/what they learned because they like attention or some other gain?

The only thing I can think of as being for outward purposes is that some people might enjoy the singing strictly for singing.

On February 18 2009 09:19 Chromyne wrote:


It is clear that anything I say in reply will be insufficient in your eyes. You want absolute certainty with no room for any doubt. That's more certainty than knowing the chair you sit on will hold you up, or that your life won't end any second (or else you would never plan for the future). This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's not possible (as all the aggressive Atheists have already stated multiple times) and I'm quite sure you know it is, so I don't know what you're getting at because that conclusion has already been made.

I made a claim that the fact that the Bible refers to more falsifiable facts (names, places, events) than the Qur'an, that it is put in a better light. However, just looking at text, it should be just as valid as the Bible.

Now [for the sake of this illustration] you have two valid alternatives, but they are contradictory. Islam appears to be a continuation of Christianity as it affirms [parts of] the Bible, but denies many core aspects such as the crucifixion of Jesus, and the nature of God. This sort of pick and choose doesn't bode well with me. We could go into the text and start a whole 'contradictions' debate, but this is just rhetorical head games and won't further discussion.

and you realize that if you were born in the middle east you would believe allah was your father with all your heart and soul right?