People who believe in god are broken

[MonDie]

There are good things and great wisdom which can come out of religion so we should be careful of on what to minimize or suppress and what to encourage and pass it on to our children.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

[immortal]

http://en.wikipedia....ristian_atheism

 

I have heard that Moses really tried hard to understand the nature of God and failed to do so, that's one of the cornerstone of Abrahmic Religions that one shall not make an idol of God and it is against idolatry which clearly indicates that his true nature is elusive without a particular form and its wrong to represent him with worldly objects.

[MonDie]

I have heard that Moses really tried hard to understand the nature of God and failed to do so, that's one of the cornerstone of Abrahmic Religions that one shall not make an idol of God and it is against idolatry which clearly indicates that his true nature is elusive without a particular form and its wrong to represent him with worldly objects.

His nature isn't elusive, it's imaginary.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[iNow]

Many religious scholars suggest that pre-cognition is possible and it is real.

They also claim that a fella named Jonah lived inside a whale, that there was actually a dude named Noah that built an arc, and that women were made out of a rib bone. Their claims are irrelevant without adequate supporting evidence.

 

How is it so foreign to you that accepting something as true for no good reason is a broken approach to life?

 

I know my argument is weak...

And yet you cling to the extraordinary beliefs you cite in the face of zero good reasons to hold them. Not only is your argument weak, it is bunk, and it is broken.

 

That's the point, there is no need to eradicate the apples as a whole just because there are a few bad apples which ruin the acts of good apples.

This is the classic "no true scotsman" fallacy. You agree with me that we should dismiss THEIR beliefs or THOSE silly ideas, but not YOUR beliefs nor YOUR silly ideas. You are asking for special deference. You are requesting a double standard. You are in need of a double standard so your ideas don't fall apart, and you will not receive it from me.

 

You have provided no good reason to treat your claims as any different than the claims of people who believe in Thor. Sure, we can study these things, but that is the work of psychologists and therapists.

 

Now, if I can make a suggestion to you... It doesn't help your position to continue berating me for disparaging it. What would help is for you to offer some reasonable support or adequate evidence for why your personal set of beliefs are not ridiculous, childish, unfounded, unsupported, baseless wish-thinking and woo worship.

[tar]

Inow,

 

Woo worship.

 

I like to keep a little woo around, just to not blind myself to "connections" I have with other "Earthly" entities.

 

While I agree in most part with your anti woo arguments, I don't think it is either possible or desirable to eliminate woo.

 

I don't have a need to live a woofree existence. I have experiences from time to time, that are sort of "magical" and enjoyable, and not necessarily without basis in fact.

 

Was driving my normal route to work a year or two ago, and a fawn crossed the road ahead of me, I slowed and looked toward the side of the road it had come from, for a follower, and the mother doe was there. I stopped, and she stopped, we made eye contact and she proceeded across the road. She "knew" by looking in my eyes, that I understood the situation, and was letting her go first.

 

I don't recall ever "communicating" with a wild animal like that before, but it was sort of a magical thing, and I "understood" her as a mutual being, with much the same basic "rights" here, as I have. Her home, as much as it was mine, maybe even more hers. Something basic in common.

 

A bit wooish. But not false and broken.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

And I am not sure why you don't consider my knowledge of her, and her knowledge of me, knowledge.

Edited May 19, 2012 by tar

[iNow]

I don't think it is either possible or desirable to eliminate woo.

Then it should be minimized.

 

I don't recall ever "communicating" with a wild animal like that before...

That is an actual experience... An actual exchange between two actual living creatures. You may lack the language or formal training to describe those events more empirically, but they are not equivalent to woo. If you think they are, then you obviously are using a different definition of the term than me.

 

And I am not sure why you don't consider my knowledge of her, and her knowledge of me, knowledge.

You have knowledge that you had an experience. You have knowledge that there was another animal that crossed paths with you that day. You have knowledge that you felt a connection, that it was impactful, and that it has stayed with you as a flashbulb memory or event. You do NOT have knowledge of that deer, its thoughts, its experience, its anything.

 

Either way, that is completely orthogonal to what I was talking about above anyway. The assertion was made that you could obtain "knowledge" without rational thought, reasonable consideration, or adequate evidence. That was challenged as untrue. None of that is related to your "knowledge" of the deer that day, an experience which very much is based on adequate evidence, rational thought, and reasonable consideration.

 

You have knowledge that it was brown, a given size, and was at a given location. People who claim to have "knowledge" of god have none of those... They have beliefs, beliefs based on faith alone, and nothing more.

[immortal]

They also claim that a fella named Jonah lived inside a whale, that there was actually a dude named Noah that built an arc, and that women were made out of a rib bone. Their claims are irrelevant without adequate supporting evidence.

 

How is it so foreign to you that accepting something as true for no good reason is a broken approach to life?

 

And yet you cling to the extraordinary beliefs you cite in the face of zero good reasons to hold them. Not only is your argument weak, it is bunk, and it is broken.

 

 

I am not clinging to it just because it makes me feel good, I honestly want to know whether such claims are true or not.

 

This is the classic "no true scotsman" fallacy. You agree with me that we should dismiss THEIR beliefs or THOSE silly ideas, but not YOUR beliefs nor YOUR silly ideas. You are asking for special deference. You are requesting a double standard. You are in need of a double standard so your ideas don't fall apart, and you will not receive it from me.

 

You have provided no good reason to treat your claims as any different than the claims of people who believe in Thor. Sure, we can study these things, but that is the work of psychologists and therapists.

 

Now, if I can make a suggestion to you... It doesn't help your position to continue berating me for disparaging it. What would help is for you to offer some reasonable support or adequate evidence for why your personal set of beliefs are not ridiculous, childish, unfounded, unsupported, baseless wish-thinking and woo worship.

 

 

Your critcism is taken positively. No, I am not dismissing any religious beliefs nor do I think that the mainstream religions are silly, what needs to be done is that we should separate religion from the real world as much as possible, this is what I'm arguing for not for dismissal of their beliefs, I don't care whether the beliefs are of Abrahamic religions, Jainism, Buddhism or any other religious beliefs for that matter. Religious studies deserves some respect, calling the works of scholars who give all their life and energy to develop such interesting works as wish-thinking is not what I'm in for.

 

The world would have been a different place if religious works were taken more seriously and if our decisions were based on religion but that's not a common consensus which religion has won and hence it is important to separate it out so that the impact that it has on our modern culture is very very less.

[tar]

 

 

You have knowledge that you had an experience. You have knowledge that there was another animal that crossed paths with you that day. You have knowledge that you felt a connection, that it was impactful, and that it has stayed with you as a flashbulb memory or event. You do NOT have knowledge of that deer, its thoughts, its experience, its anything.

 

 

 

Inow,

 

I DO have knowledge of that deer, its thoughts, its experience. Absolutely, with as much certainty as I have of anything else I have experienced. I do not have to wait for a study on whether or not deer can make eye contact with a human, and exchange the knowledge that was exchanged during the event I experienced. It already happened. It already is true. It is already fact.

I need not wait for you, or science to deem it possible.

 

This is the distinction I am trying to make, between the knowledge of God that a religious person has, and the "false" aspects of the belief, that you concentrate on, in your arguments, as to condemn the whole operation as woo. As to figure that anyone who has a belief is broken.

 

I have not, because of my experience with the deer decided to kill all deer hunters, and level all the houses and roads in her area, to make the place safer for her and her family. I have not become an animal rights activist. I have not even become a vegetarian.

 

I have merely "taken it into consideration". And my theory is, that people have knowledge of the world, on their own, without requiring anybody elses permission, and they absolutely use this privately obtained and held knowledge, along with similiar knowledge obtained and shared by other humans, and take it all into consideration, when determining what to do next.

 

Commonly held "beliefs" are not then all woo. The woo parts can be dismissed when identified as such. But the baby is still in there taking a bath. The dirty water can go down the drain, and fresh water take its place.

 

And in the end, objectively speaking, Inow has no greater claim on reality and truth than does that deer.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited May 19, 2012 by tar

[Moontanman]

Inow,

 

I DO have knowledge of that deer, its thoughts, its experience. Absolutely, with as much certainty as I have of anything else I have experienced. I do not have to wait for a study on whether or not deer can make eye contact with a human, and exchange the knowledge that was exchanged during the event I experienced. It already happened. It already is true. It is already fact.

I need not wait for you, or science to deem it possible.

 

This is the distinction I am trying to make, between the knowledge of God that a religious person has, and the "false" aspects of the belief, that you concentrate on, in your arguments, as to condemn the whole operation as woo. As to figure that anyone who has a belief is broken.

 

I have not, because of my experience with the deer decided to kill all deer hunters, and level all the houses and roads in her area, to make the place safer for her and her family. I have not become an animal rights activist. I have not even become a vegetarian.

 

I have merely "taken it into consideration". And my theory is, that people have knowledge of the world, on their own, without requiring anybody elses permission, and they absolutely use this privately obtained and held knowledge, along with similiar knowledge obtained and shared by other humans, and take it all into consideration, when determining what to do next.

 

Commonly held "beliefs" are not then all woo. The woo parts can be dismissed when identified as such. But the baby is still in there taking a bath. The dirty water can go down the drain, and fresh water take its place.

 

And in the end, objectively speaking, Inow has no greater claim on reality and truth than does that deer.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

TAR2 are you really asserting you knew that deer's thoughts? You exchanged a look, you were driving a car, it's doubtful the deer was even aware a human was behind the wheel. I honestly understand the feeling you had, it was in fact a feeling, something that originated in your brain and no place else, but to assert it as objective truth is really stretching a point...

[iNow]

what needs to be done is that we should separate religion from the real world as much as possible

They've managed to do a pretty fine job of this all on their own.

 

Religious studies deserves some respect

I have no problem with the religious studies. What I have a problem with are the religious conclusions, and conclusions of believers who accept these extraordinary claims as true despite the profound lack of adequate evidence to do so.

 

The world would have been a different place if religious works were taken more seriously and if our decisions were based on religion...

I'm really not sure where you're going with this. Religion has been perhaps one of the single most powerful influencers on the lives of humans for centuries. Their works have been taken so seriously that they were almost entirely unquestioned. Decisions were and are still being made today "based on religion." You're asserting that they needed more influence than they have enjoyed already? That is dumbfounding.

 

---

I DO have knowledge of that deer, its thoughts, its experience.

I'm sorry, TAR... But, no. You don't. You have beliefs about those things, but not knowledge.

 

And my theory is, that people have knowledge of the world, on their own, without requiring anybody elses permission, and they absolutely use this privately obtained and held knowledge, along with similiar knowledge obtained and shared by other humans, and take it all into consideration, when determining what to do next.

Again, as I've tried to make clear repeatedly in this thread... you and others like you are misusing the term. You are simply conflating the word "knowledge" with the word "belief," and it's both inaccurate and unnecessarily confusing to readers.

 

And in the end, objectively speaking, Inow has no greater claim on reality and truth than does that deer.

Not sure why you felt this was an argument against anything I've said. I'm merely suggesting that beliefs do not equal knowledge, and that accepting an extraordinary claim as true and valid despite the profound absence of adequate evidence is broken. I'm not claiming to have a "greater claim on truth and reality" than anyone or anything else. I'm claiming that there are holes in certain positions and that we should minimize ignorance resulting from them.

[immortal]

I'm really not sure where you're going with this. Religion has been perhaps one of the single most powerful influencers on the lives of humans for centuries. Their works have been taken so seriously that they were almost entirely unquestioned. Decisions were and are still being made today "based on religion." You're asserting that they needed more influence than they have enjoyed already? That is dumbfounding.

 

 

 

We both agree that the dark age thinking of religions is purely based on faith and there is no evidence what so ever and no way the decisions being made based on such ideologies is justfiable. Religion can be divided into two kinds one is the Institutional religion which normally interacts with the society and has an impact on the political decisions which are being made and the other one is the personal religion which is the quest to know the truth and one's purpose in the comos. So let's not confuse the two. I really do think that such influences from religious institutions needs to be minimized but there is no need to suppress one's freedom of religious expression. When it comes to religion I'm nonsectarian.

 

If there was enough evidence to support such dark age thinking I would have made an effort to force everyone around me to implement such thinking in every aspect of our society because I personally think that societal models based on religion was better than our current democratic system, can you imagine a world where you would give offerings to priests for your sins and the priests praying for the good of the society as a whole so that there is good rains all through out the season with sufficient food to feed everyone and to keep everyone happy and lead a righteous life. There is no need to make it facetious, it deserves respect.

 

However as you can see in the modern world it is not such dark age thinking which feeds the seven billion people of the world, its biotechnology and science which is based on evidence based thinking and passing every known product to clinical trials and other tests is what has kept us happy and is feeding our seven billion people of the world, its not magic which has come to our rescue and hence I would never ever try or allow such dark age thinking to influence our life and our society. Just because of some blind dark age beliefs which we cannot comprehend let's not allow people going so crazy as to they start killing out each other and affect our well being.

[MonDie]

iNow said TAR knew the deer was brown but didn't know the deer's thoughts. Actually, TAR only has a different level of certainty about each of these visual perceptions due to one being perceived more directly than the other. However, this doesn't apply if TAR perceived the deer's thoughts directly through supernatural faculties, which I'd be disinclined to believe.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[iNow]

I really do think that such influences from religious institutions needs to be minimized but there is no need to suppress one's freedom of religious expression.

Nobody here has been arguing that we should do any such thing. Perhaps you can at least attempt to avoid arguing against such obvious strawmen of my position as we move forward?

 

---

TAR may have some idea of what the deer was thinking...

Ideas? Yes. Beliefs? Sure. Speculations? Of course. Knowledge? No, not of its thoughts or beliefs or anything similar. If he thinks he does, then he is mistaken and potentially deluded.

[immortal]

Nobody here has been arguing that we should do any such thing. Perhaps you can at least attempt to avoid arguing against such obvious strawmen of my position as we move forward?

 

 

Religious scholars are not spokespersons of some religious institutions, they are individuals who have made an honest effort to study both the scriptures as well as religious practices, they might have indeed communicated with god and concluded that god exists and if that is true they don't qualify as broken to me, I am not saying religion should be made incontrovertible, but this generalization of yours to call all people who believe in god as broken just because the evidence doesn't qualify your criteria to be called as evidence is what I'm against of and cannot accept it. For us it might be broken to conclude that god exists without any evidence but for those who have seen god its not broken to assert that he exists as a fact.

 

This is what I'm arguing from the begining of this thread, you cannot really convince anyone with faith and revelations alone so there is nothing wrong if you keep your personal beliefs with you but if you want to enforce your beliefs on others then you either need to show empirical evidence or guide the person to have the revelations which you had, if religion evolves and grows in this way then there is no problem rather than accepting things based on faith alone with out questioning it.

[tar]

 

Ideas? Yes. Beliefs? Sure. Speculations? Of course. Knowledge? No, not of its thoughts or beliefs or anything similar. If he thinks he does, then he is mistaken and potentially deluded.

 

knowl·edge   /ˈnɒlɪdʒ/ Show Spelled[nol-ij] Show IPA

noun

1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.

2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.

3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.

4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

 

She knew the road was dangerous, she knew her fawn was on the other side, she looked in my eyes, and knew she could go, so she went.

 

If you take out the erudition and conversance from the above definitions, it still leaves the knowledge that the deer had of the situation, and the knowledge I had of the situation, and still leaves the fact that both the deer and I, had knowledge of the SAME situation.

 

I am calling no supernatural powers in to play. Just the facts.

 

And I knew some of what the deer knew, and the deer knew some of what I knew. We were both there, knowing the same things.

 

...

 

Today, a package came from my cousin, unexpectedly. I asked, "what do you think is in it?". As my daughter and wife stood around the kitchen table, telling me, (with the letter opener in my hand) to "just open it". I told them that I had mentioned the way my cousins and aunt and I each had our own wooden goblet that we would use for our beverage at the dinner table, in an E-mail Birthday letter I had sent to my Aunt on her 80th birthday, depicting various found memories of the years I had spent with them on the farm in PA. I predicted that my cousin had found my Goblet and was sending it to me. I opened the package, moved the wadded newspaper and as my daughter read the enclosed card, revealed two wooden goblets. Mine and my cousin's, who suggested in the note that with a simple stoke we could change her initial scratched on the underside of the base, to that of my wife's, and have continued "fond memories".

 

I would not suggest that I have any supernatural powers. But I knew the thoughts in the head of my cousin half way across the continent, and I knew what might be in a closed and wrapped box, based on my knowledge of reality, the possible existence of the goblet, the weight and size of the box etc.

 

Yet you tell me, that can not be considered "knowing" the thoughts in someone else's head. Why the heck not?

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

And I knew some of what the deer knew, and the deer knew some of what I knew.

Bullshit. You believe that happened, but you have zero knowledge of the deers thoughts. You have speculations, and speculations only.

 

Either way, as I already shared above, my comments were specific to people claiming to "know" that god exists based on their faith-based beliefs alone. Your deer story is a separate issue entirely. I believe you felt a connection. Likewise, religious people often feel a connection with some ambiguous concept of god(s). I believe you found the experience with the deer to be profound. Likewise, I believe religious people find the experience of religious thinking to be profound. I don't "know" these things, but I believe them based on the information at hand.

 

Along similar lines, you CANNOT claim to "know" what the deer was thinking. You can "assume," you can "speculate," you can "believe," or "contemplate" or "hypothesize" about what the deer was thinking, but you CANNOT "know" what the deer was thinking. That's been my argument against you these last few posts. You are conflating knowledge with belief, and you are quite mistaken in your claims every time you assert that you "know" the deers thoughts.

 

Similarly, theists regularly claim to "know" god, or to "know" what god wants. This is not the correct term here. As your own definition makes clear, knowledge pertains to facts... And there are no facts when it comes to religious belief. As has already been established several times right here in this very thread, all you have is faith. Faith [math]\ne[/math] Facts, and Faith [math]\ne[/math] Knowledge. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.

 

---

For us it might be broken to conclude that god exists without any evidence but for those who have seen god its not broken to assert that he exists as a fact.

What if they saw pink unicorns or talking garden gnomes? They may assert as fact that they saw these things, but that would make them no less broken. I notice there hasn't yet been an answer to this question I've asked like 10 or 12 times already. Why should religion get a special pass? Why do you continue to request we offer it special deference? Why do you ask us to apply a double standard just for these religious beliefs in an ill-defined ambiguous unsupported term called "god?"

[Iggy]

My statements were based on the assumption that predictability is preceded by reason. Irrationality is the lack of reason.

When I argued that religion can make predictable changes in response to historical events and/or human social nature, I was arguing that religion involves some reasoning even if it's bad reasoning.

Next, I emphasized the role of rational individuals within the religious framework. I originally intended for the hypothetical religious leader's (irrational) transformation to be a contrast to the reasoning individuals, who buffer the irrationality.

Finally, I concede that religion isn't entirely rational or irrational.

 

However, I assumed that broader cultural factors that impact religion are thus part of religion. If that's not included in the definition of religion, my argument doesn't apply, and it becomes true that religion only contorts otherwise secular ideas into less rational dogmas even while preserving them.

Fair enough. I do see where you were coming from and it seems well enough reasoned to me not to want to bicker.

 

...You just read a story where someone killed and burned the body of their daughter because God granted them a victory in a field of battle. Any morally normal person reading such a story has to be sickened by it. It is amoral garbage and basic human decency demands that anyone discussing it denounces it as amoral garbage...

You seem to think that we are born with moral values or that there are definite moral rights and wrongs. On what basis do you have the right to decide what is moral for the human species?

Your point is irrelevant. Either morals are partly innate and partly learned (which, of course, they are) and a 2,500 year old story tricked you into thinking that it might be a good idea to murder and burn your child if you had a good day on the battlefield, or morals are divine and there is a god who capriciously decided that it might be moral for you to do this disgusting thing.

 

Either way, it's quite sad. You can't denounce the most morally reprehensible thing imaginable. You somehow got yourself to the point, or someone led you weakly willed as you might have been to the point, where you keep making excuses for child murder.

 

I fear you didn't get that. Let me put it a little differently,

 

Either christianity is true and God created you a morally corrupt thing who thinks morally corrupt and scripturally reinforced thoughts about child murder -- or, christianity is false, and you've been poisoned into making excuses for child murder by a disgusting and ongoing tradition. Either way, the problem of being a morally corrupt thing is entirely yours. I'm not the one making excuses for child murder. I hope I am understood. Everything you keep saying only reinforces this problem you keep having and all I can think to do is to keep pointing it out.

[MonDie]

Nobody here has been arguing that we should do any such thing. Perhaps you can at least attempt to avoid arguing against such obvious strawmen of my position as we move forward?

 

---

 

Ideas? Yes. Beliefs? Sure. Speculations? Of course. Knowledge? No, not of its thoughts or beliefs or anything similar. If he thinks he does, then he is mistaken and potentially deluded.

I didn't see your response before I simplified the post, but I only clarified my original message. I suppose you only require a certain degree of certainty for something to be considered knowledge. Of course, that's part of science. You're not like Plato. But the level of certainty that's acceptable is determined arbitrarily, so others may have it set at different heights.

 

It's like you're a criminal court judge, and TAR is a televised civil court judge that airs the audience's opinions before the commercial break.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[immortal]

What if they saw pink unicorns or talking garden gnomes?

 

The language used in the scriptures is quite clear about what they are describing and the available literature has validated the scriptures again and again. This is not alien to bible or any other religious scriptures, its quite common to all religions, they are not describing unicorns, they are describing anthropomorphic gods.

 

 

Revelation 1:12

Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands,

Revelation 1:13

and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest.

Revelation 1:14

The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire,

Revelation 1:15

his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters.

Revelation 1:16

In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.

 

When John says "I turned back" he doesn't mean to turn his neck around and see as though the angel had appeared in the empirical world, No, it means to turn back and see one's own pysche, now this is not childish, this is weird psychology, revelation requires that a self exists and through it a new observation is said to be possible which is different from empirical observation.

 

They may assert as fact that they saw these things, but that would make them no less broken.

 

Now even after communicating with God and knowing he exists is it not evidence beyond any doubt to assert that he exists as a fact, they are not broken unless they are lieing to themselves, unless the countless scholars are lieing or are there any other reasonable explanations that you can give to dismiss such claims or you want to dismiss it because you want to dismiss it anyway irrespective of knowing what the truth is.

 

I notice there hasn't yet been an answer to this question I've asked like 10 or 12 times already. Why should religion get a special pass? Why do you continue to request we offer it special deference? Why do you ask us to apply a double standard just for these religious beliefs in an ill-defined ambiguous unsupported term called "god?"

 

Its very important for me and for many others to know on which worldviews we should base our future actions on, the worldview given by religion is a competely different worldview and it drastically changes one's frame of thoughts and one's way of living, so your comparison that we should dismiss belief in god and accuse people who believe in god in the same way as we dismiss beliefs in tooth fairy is fatuous in the face of literature available for god accross different cultures compared to a tooth fairy.

 

I'm not saying religion deserves a special pass, no, we don't have to accept anything as true before we have seen it with our eyes or through any other means but that doesn't mean those who have a special talent to access a reality which we cannot access, are broken, I'm unsure of it, that's all.

[iNow]

The language used in the scriptures is quite clear about what they are describing and the available literature has validated the scriptures again and again. This is not alien to bible or any other religious scriptures, its quite common to all religions, they are not describing unicorns, they are describing anthropomorphic gods.

The relevant point here is not the object being described. It is the evidence supporting the assertion being made, or more correctly, the lack of adequate evidence supporting the extraordinary assertion being made.

 

Whether it's an anthropomorphic deity, a unicorn, or Puff the Magic Dragon is really moot.

 

Now even after communicating with God and knowing he exists is it not evidence beyond any doubt to assert that he exists as a fact, they are not broken unless they are lieing to themselves, unless the countless scholars are lieing or are there any other reasonable explanations that you can give to dismiss such claims or you want to dismiss it because you want to dismiss it anyway irrespective of knowing what the truth is.

Wouldn't that depend on how one defines broken? For example, your punctuation and syntax in many of your posts is broken. Can we not make similar claims about people who assert extraordinary truths based on faith and wish thinking alone?

 

Its very important for me and for many others to know on which worldviews we should base our future actions on, the worldview given by religion is a competely different worldview and it drastically changes one's frame of thoughts and one's way of living, so your comparison that we should dismiss belief in god and accuse people who believe in god in the same way as we dismiss beliefs in tooth fairy is fatuous in the face of literature available for god accross different cultures compared to a tooth fairy.

Yes, you've asserted this many times now, but you have yet to explain precisely why we should treat religious claims any differently and how these claims differ from things like the tooth fairy.

 

I'm not saying religion deserves a special pass, no, we don't have to accept anything as true before we have seen it with our eyes or through any other means but that doesn't mean those who have a special talent to access a reality which we cannot access, are broken, I'm unsure of it, that's all.

"A reality we cannot access?" Sorry, mate... but if it truly is "reality," then it's accessible to us all... empirically.

[immortal]

The relevant point here is not the object being described. It is the evidence supporting the assertion being made, or more correctly, the lack of adequate evidence supporting the extraordinary assertion being made.

 

Whether it's an anthropomorphic deity, a unicorn, or Puff the Magic Dragon is really moot.

 

There are anecdotal evidences for anthropomorphic deities and such an evidence is sufficient enough for me to cling on to my position to doubt the existence of god rather than dismissing it completely.

 

 

Wouldn't that depend on how one defines broken? For example, your punctuation and syntax in many of your posts is broken. Can we not make similar claims about people who assert extraordinary truths based on faith and wish thinking alone?

 

How do you know it was purely based on faith and wish thinking alone, they might assert such extraordinary truths because they might have had such extraordinary profound revelations.

 

 

Yes, you've asserted this many times now, but you have yet to explain precisely why we should treat religious claims any differently and how these claims differ from things like the tooth fairy.

 

I don't have any personal bias to either say that the idea of god was purely an imaginary concept or to say that god exists in reality for sure, I like to hear the arguments from both sides and I have learnt a lot by holding such a position.

 

 

"A reality we cannot access?" Sorry, mate... but if it truly is "reality," then it's accessible to us all... empirically.

 

 

Not if your so called empirical reality is a virtual reality and the objective reality that these people have access to is the real reality.

[tar]

Immortal,

 

When dreams are described in the Bible, I am pretty sure, that they are dreams being described. Not "revelations" of the "true reality", but "revelations" of a more inner nature. That we have this inner world to "live in" and notice things about, and experience is evident.

 

Tooth fairies and Gods, both belong to this inner world. The "understandings" arrived at, by oneself, need not "fit" reality. Even if they are "about" reality. In fact, like reaching nirvana, it is a purely subjective thing, even if you imagine you are applying it to the "real" world, and believe you have "lost" yourself, and found everything to be one, you, in reality, have done no such thing. Because you are still you, standing there on the mountaintop, "thinking" you are not you. Sort of obviously broken. A false ascertion to be sure.

 

I am not in favor of such revelations as you describe as being important or real. That you would think certain people can see the "real" reality, while everybody else is just wallowing about in a virtual one. I do believe it is quite the other way around. Reality is the one that has the Earth populated with mortals. Virtual realities are those that imagine it is some other way.

 

The "proof" of the status of revelations, as compared to evidence requiring beliefs, has been rather well made by the often mentioned fact, in this thread, that there are nearly as many "ideas" of God, as there are people on the planet.

 

That means to me, that those ideas are of an inner and "dreamlike", imaginary nature, and are "true" only within the individual's mind, who is having the revelation.

 

If the revelation should "really" be true, then everybody would have it, and there would be no question, but that it fit reality exactly. Every time, every where, and every time it is considered. ...such is not the case with white bearded, firery eyed images.

They are dreams.

 

I fear that your belief that certain people can actually see real reality and the rest of us should listen to them is probably broken. It does not "fit" reality.

 

Regards, TAR2

[immortal]

And why not? I can see an argument for the christian God creating the universe and it goes something like "To God a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day!" Simple case of a bunch of broken people misinterpreting the meaning of a book written by a bunch of broken people. I find it best to not try and eliminate any possibility and I simply respect that there are sides to the story and I choose the one that I like best--I choose to not believe. I like this thread 'cause it asks an interesting question, and although it implies that theists are crazy, it does not assert it because broken =/= crazy and so we are left to interpret our own meaning.

 

** again I don't believe in a 'God' . . . maybe a groverlord . . . but not a 'God!'

 

http://farm5.static...._57a4765b43.jpg

 

^groverlord (maybe more Grover meets Einstein or something, but is fallible and limited to a universe or a set of them!)

 

^ I only state this to make known my position as I feel it may have relevance to the conversation

 

 

The people who wrote the book hardly knew a thing about Modern Science and its inappropriate to think that they wanted to fit their god with science, they didn't had any motivations of that sort. As to this thing about "To God a day is like thousand years, and a thousand years like a day" is not an idea existing only in Abrahamic religions, similar ideas exists in other disconnected religions as well, something to think about it, isn't it. A misuse of an idea doesn't mean the idea itself is broken or that the people who developed such an idea is broken, there might be genuine reasons as to why they wrote it like that.

 

 

 

Psalms 90:4

For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.

Edited May 20, 2012 by immortal

[tar]

Inow,

 

Not bullshit.

 

It is evident to me that people can know the thoughts of other people. Not magically, but because the thoughts I have, are of the same real things, had with real human equipment as the thoughts had by another human with similar equipment and the same world from which to draw evidence. Language is a vehical we use to express our thoughts, and compare meanings. You can, and do, know what I am thinking, what arguments I make, what I am driving at, and where I am driving off the road. How else would you be able to agree or disagree with my words?

 

Now, the dear that looked me in the eye, does not know English, does not know how an internal combustion engine works, and I can make these determinations of said deers thoughts. I can know what that deer is not thinking.

 

However, the same way I can know another human's thoughts, being a human myself, I can know another mammal's thoughts, being a mammal myself. On some level, on that "fellow mammal" level, is the level I claim knowledge of that deer's thoughts.

 

I do not believe it to be bullshit. I am not claiming anything imaginary. Real deer, real road, real fawn having just crossed.

 

Regards, TAR2

[immortal]

Immortal,

 

When dreams are described in the Bible, I am pretty sure, that they are dreams being described. Not "revelations" of the "true reality", but "revelations" of a more inner nature. That we have this inner world to "live in" and notice things about, and experience is evident.

 

 

If you're pretty sure about it then its good for you, Tar while I want to probe and analyze it.

 

 

Tooth fairies and Gods, both belong to this inner world. The "understandings" arrived at, by oneself, need not "fit" reality. Even if they are "about" reality. In fact, like reaching nirvana, it is a purely subjective thing, even if you imagine you are applying it to the "real" world, and believe you have "lost" yourself, and found everything to be one, you, in reality, have done no such thing. Because you are still you, standing there on the mountaintop, "thinking" you are not you. Sort of obviously broken. A false ascertion to be sure.

 

 

From what I have read, such understandings indeed has many advantages to the one's who have it, their entire functioning of the sense organs changes dramatically, they say that they can see things through their legs and they don't even need their eyes for seeing. Weird claim.

 

 

I fear that your belief that certain people can actually see real reality and the rest of us should listen to them is probably broken. It does not "fit" reality.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

I am not here to convince others to listen to them, it seems the word "broken" has become relative and starting to mean different for different people, while you've concluded that such revelations are mere dreams, I'm yet to conclude that that's what they are.

Edited May 20, 2012 by immortal