Trust and confidence are probably better terms when used in a secular sense, while faith and belief as better applied to the religious experience. Thanks, Esquilax, for the distinction.

(March 5, 2013 at 6:12 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 4, 2013 at 11:53 pm)jstrodel Wrote: No, because you can't understand what is in those journals. You have to trust that someone else has had the experiences. The verification is only possible if you are a scientist. It is no different from following a religion

I feel like I need to point this out: speak for yourself. All you can honestly say is that you cannot understand what is in those journals; depending on the field, I can understand it just fine.

But there's something more: if I wanted to, I could go out into the real world and replicate any experiments discussed in a journal piece, and get the same results. In fact, it's a safe bet that the professional scientists are doing exactly that, as part of the peer review process. If I wanted to study it, I could, and in doing so find that it is accurate.

This, of course, is a marked distinction from religion, which operates only within personal experiences that are completely unverifiable and impossible to replicate. What you're talking about isn't faith; it's trust. I have a reasonable level of trust in the publication and the scientists involved in the experiments, but I'm also honest enough to recognize when that trust is misplaced and an error has occurred, and when that happens I no longer count the results of that experiment as factual.

By contrast, religion has an attitude wherein it and its god are always right, all the time, with no possibility of correction or redaction. One learns and changes with the facts, the other demands that the facts change to suit its purposes. That's the difference.

No, it is the same. I can verify religious experience, but you cannot. You are just speaking for yourself. But instead of feeling as if you are my spiritual inferior, you claim to know more than I do. Whatever. I realize that some people can verify some of the things that they read in scientific journals. My point was to say that this takes years and years of dilligent study and hard work, much more work than saying "God if you are here, I demand you show yourself in the next 10 seconds, and if you don't, I know you aren't here"

---

Quote:You have no excuse in this day and age. If you seek knowledge in a particular area of science, then jump on the web and enlighten yourself. The difference here between science and religion is that with science you will find the solid justifications for things whereas with religion we get stuck at "just have faith" every time we ask to confirm something.

That is not true. I am not "just stuck at faith" in my religious belief. I have seen many of the things that I have believed, and I know many people that have a life in the spirit that are the same. Your value system says "you have no excuse" but in practice, there is no one on earth who does not rely on trusting different intellectual authorities. There is no one on earth that can read and verify every scientific journal.

I would say that "you have no excuse" to learn how to be a good person.

Quote:What do you mean by "good & bad" here? Are we talking morally, or true/false?

Morality.

Quote:My year 12 calculus & geometry exam was about 30% pure mathematical proofs. I'm now studying engineering and I can't help but literally chuckle at this. Mathematics isn't something you recite in a ritual circle twice a day. It's something derived from pure reasoning that logically builds from foundational maxims. Proofs are the backbone of maths.

You said "my year 12 calculus and geometry exam". I said that in my original post. At a certain point, you can verify and understand the reasons why certain things are and are not. This is the same with religion. You can understand God and God's nature. But it takes a great deal of time and energy to do, similar to the time it takes to understand mathematics. No one starts studying math and the first thing that they learn to do is to build huge mathematical systems. They learn through recitation. You proved my point for me.

Quote:Wrong. The evidence/proofs are out there. If you wish to enlighten yourself, then do so. We live in an age where information isn't bounded, it's everywhere and anywhere you look. Go find it yourself.

So too is the evidence for Christianity out there. But it is not visible to the spiritually immature. It takes skill and discipline and virtue to understand God similar to how it takes skill and discipline and virtue to understand anything else. There is plenty of information about theology and God, but to understand it you must be spiritual. This is very, very hard and takes a lot of work and self denial and commitment. But it can be verified. I have walked in the spirit and seen many miracles, I have correctly prophesied peoples names before. I have seen the Holy Spirit's visible manifestation, felt the annotating on me, received many answers to many deep questions and seen the Holy Ghost transform my life and help me to be a better person. None of this happened through casually reading something on wikipedia, just as you do not learn to do the sort of engineering and mathematics that you do through casually flipping through something. It takes effort and sacrifice and commitment. And it takes faith, you must trust that there is some way to verify what you are learning about that exists somewhere, even if you cannot have access to it immediately.

Quote:I expect proof whenever someone says I should believe claim X. In this instance, you obviously are here to shine the light of "the anointed one" and therefore if you wish for me to believe you, I'll need the solid proofs of what you claim to be true.

What do you mean by "proof". You talk about proof as if there is some standard concept by which you can evaluate everything. Of course this is a total misunderstanding of how knowledge and science works. There are many different ways that people approach problems, there is no one standard of proof. And there are many arguments for the existence of God, whether they prove God's existence to the standard you might like, I doubt it, but together they point to a worldview that ought to be investigated seriously on its own terms.

Quote:That's great, but so what? Does this all of a sudden mean Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead?

It is to say that people should have a presupposition of the possibility of the truth of something, and have respect for its contribution to society (including the atheist society) and investigate it on its own terms, not to disprove but to learn from as a legitimate way that people see the world.

Quote:Once again, that's good for you and only you. If you stepped back for once and analysed these "miracles", I'm confident that you would be able to see the reasonable explanations for what you have seen.

You are confident because you are an atheist and have a presupposition against the supernatural, not because you can see from the words I have communicated that there is anything impossible about what I have described. You cannot disprove that spiritual entities exist. What sort of role should the testimony of religious people play in your understanding? Of course this does not prove that the experience was real, by why start with hostility to the testimony claims of religion and at the same time have a rabid fascination with the intellectual fruits of that civilization? Why not have a balanced approach to both?

Quote:I was going to church 4 times a week; Bible study group, worship team practice, youth group & Sunday mass. So my particular commitments to the church was playing for the worship team & being part of the team that would welcome new people to youth group and genuinely build friendships with them. I'm absolutely sure that I gave my life to Jesus because I would actively be doing works to bring heaven to earth. Such actions wouldn't have sprung out from me if I didn't trust Jesus and his claims of who he said he was.

Well, I respect your effort in seeking God. I wish that I could transmit my experience to you. I do not know why you religious belief was not more fruitful, or why you don't recognize the aspects of it which were fruitful. I can say that I know that God is real. I couldn't say why some people fail to get through.

I apologize if my post was harsh. I used to be an atheist, and I feel we probably have plenty in common

(March 5, 2013 at 7:11 pm)jstrodel Wrote:

Quote:You have no excuse in this day and age. If you seek knowledge in a particular area of science, then jump on the web and enlighten yourself. The difference here between science and religion is that with science you will find the solid justifications for things whereas with religion we get stuck at "just have faith" every time we ask to confirm something.

That is not true. I am not "just stuck at faith" in my religious belief. I have seen many of the things that I have believed, and I know many people that have a life in the spirit that are the same. Your value system says "you have no excuse" but in practice, there is no one on earth who does not rely on trusting different intellectual authorities. There is no one on earth that can read and verify every scientific journal.

I remember my dad highlighting something very unique to me about nature when I was younger. I can't remember the exact details of the dispute between Einstein and a group of scientists, but basically there were fifty scientists who were all saying "Einstein, you're wrong about claim x". Einstein supposedly chuckled to himself and said, "it only takes one scientist to disprove a theory". Moral of the story? There is no "trusting" authorities like you would trust your pastor to bring you a Holy-Spirit-inspired word when it comes to science. Nature's self-evident truths are there for all to see and discover, therefore your appeal to authorities is invalid. It doesn't matter how popular or powerful some scientist is because if they're wrong, they will be caught out.

Quote:I would say that "you have no excuse" to learn how to be a good person.

I'm not sure how this ties in with what we're talking about, but I make it my daily task to be someone who contributes and impacts my society in a positive way. I always live by Confucius' moral philosophy from the 6th century B.C.E: "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself".

Quote:

Quote:What do you mean by "good & bad" here? Are we talking morally, or true/false?

Morality.

Right. I don't see what learning a language has to do with morality.

Quote:You said "my year 12 calculus and geometry exam". I said that in my original post. At a certain point, you can verify and understand the reasons why certain things are and are not. This is the same with religion. You can understand God and God's nature. But it takes a great deal of time and energy to do, similar to the time it takes to understand mathematics. No one starts studying math and the first thing that they learn to do is to build huge mathematical systems. They learn through recitation. You proved my point for me.

It's called "studying". I did not prove your point because you said you learn maths through "recitation" and not proofs, which (after you cleared up what you mean by "recitation") are two completely different and non-related things. Maths has proofs which you study in order to master the concepts.

Quote:So too is the evidence for Christianity out there. But it is not visible to the spiritually immature. It takes skill and discipline and virtue to understand God similar to how it takes skill and discipline and virtue to understand anything else. There is plenty of information about theology and God, but to understand it you must be spiritual. This is very, very hard and takes a lot of work and self denial and commitment. But it can be verified. I have walked in the spirit and seen many miracles, I have correctly prophesied peoples names before. I have seen the Holy Spirit's visible manifestation, felt the annotating on me, received many answers to many deep questions and seen the Holy Ghost transform my life and help me to be a better person. None of this happened through casually reading something on wikipedia, just as you do not learn to do the sort of engineering and mathematics that you do through casually flipping through something. It takes effort and sacrifice and commitment. And it takes faith, you must trust that there is some way to verify what you are learning about that exists somewhere, even if you cannot have access to it immediately.

Once again, good for you and only you! I'll be honest here and say it gets tiring hearing about god x doing miracle/deed y. From the Father of History himself, Herodotus:

"Then it is related by the Lydians that [Lydian king] Crœsus, having learned how Cyrus had changed his mind, and seeing that every one was trying to put out the fire but that they were no longer able to check it, cried aloud entreating Apollo that if any gift had ever been given by him which had been acceptable to the god, he would come to his aid and rescue him from the evil which was now upon him. So he with tears entreated the god, and suddenly, they say, after clear sky and calm weather clouds gathered and a storm burst, and it rained with a very violent shower, and the pyre was extinguished."

Croesus saved his life by summoning Apollo's powers. Why is this relevant do you ask? Well, isn't it funny how he believes in Apollo and not Osiris, not Baal, not Thor but Apollo therefore Apollo saved him, which is one of the gods he believes in? So when a Muslim/Christian/Hindu tells me their god(s) did x, what do you think is the most reasonable explanation? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say their biased view of the world makes them fervently believe that what they have experienced is of their god, but at the same time, every other god than theirs is false.

Maybe you're seeing the things you want to see and believe?

Quote:What do you mean by "proof". You talk about proof as if there is some standard concept by which you can evaluate everything. Of course this is a total misunderstanding of how knowledge and science works. There are many different ways that people approach problems, there is no one standard of proof. And there are many arguments for the existence of God, whether they prove God's existence to the standard you might like, I doubt it, but together they point to a worldview that ought to be investigated seriously on its own terms.

By proof I mean a reasonable amount of conclusive evidence to support a particular proposition. No offence, but your god is too ambiguous, too shy & and mysterious to really say he exists and messes about in human affairs. All the "miracles" I hear about from friends are so mundane and common that the only thing they're proving is that their view on reality is skewed by their culture's religious belief -- nothing more, nothing less.

Quote:You are confident because you are an atheist and have a presupposition against the supernatural, not because you can see from the words I have communicated that there is anything impossible about what I have described. You cannot disprove that spiritual entities exist. What sort of role should the testimony of religious people play in your understanding? Of course this does not prove that the experience was real, by why start with hostility to the testimony claims of religion and at the same time have a rabid fascination with the intellectual fruits of that civilization? Why not have a balanced approach to both?

I can see that your presupposition is that anyone who disagrees with you must be an atheist. I'm a Deist.

I discard all anecdotes about miracles because every religion & civilization has claimed the same things over and over and over again about their beloved god(s) (like what I highlighted with Croesus' story). So what do we do? Do we say all these gods exist? No, that's obviously contradictory in every way possible. Do we say just one of these gods exist? Sure, but how can we tell if everyone is fervently claiming the same sort of stuff? This is why I leave it at "good for you", because that's all I can really say for you. Good for you that your life has purpose and meaning and you think you're interacting with a character who only seems to exist inside a book. It makes you happy, so go for it, but don't go around the place claiming that he's real because of [most likely] your personal delusions.

Quote:Well, I respect your effort in seeking God. I wish that I could transmit my experience to you. I do not know why you religious belief was not more fruitful, or why you don't recognize the aspects of it which were fruitful. I can say that I know that God is real. I couldn't say why some people fail to get through.

I apologize if my post was harsh. I used to be an atheist, and I feel we probably have plenty in common

You haven't been harsh in the slightest! I've really enjoyed our discussion so far.

It seems like my entire church is fruitful in the area of "warm feelings" because I would see so many people crying and other weird manifestations of joy and happiness during worship. When it comes to miracles though, a community of almost 1000 devout believers have failed to produce just one miracle in the 5-6 years I spent there. That's hundreds upon hundreds of attempts at prayer over those years which I was involved in that never happened. It's quite entertaining hearing about "miracles" that happen/ed though, because you analyse the particular individual and it's evident they haven't healed, or it takes a week/month (depending on the severity of the injury) to heal, like it would naturally. Yet they attribute the recovery to Jesus the Christ. The mind is a very powerful thing I tell you.

(March 5, 2013 at 6:44 am)EGross Wrote: Trust and confidence are probably better terms when used in a secular sense, while faith and belief as better applied to the religious experience. Thanks, Esquilax, for the distinction.

I don't think I can do without any of these words. Each conveys something distinct though trust and faith probably come closest. So I'm not willing to give over "faith" and "belief" to purely religious purposes. I prefer "faith" to describe my regard for the basic value this life has for me and for the value of remaining open to what the intuitive mind may sometimes come up with. It is the religious use of "belief" which truly bastardizes that word. "Belief", I feel, should be reserved for that which you find reason to believe. The religious use turns it into a muscular sort of wishing or self hypnosis.

Check out these words for belief.

It is obvious that we assign certain words to religion because the religious experience normally speaks of these things. For example while the atheist may have a "mystical experience", he will most likely not use that word, and will struggle to find one since that association is normally a religious one.

My act of making such a disctinction was to derail the idea that there is no different between the faith that the alarm clock will wake me up and the faith that Jesus ever lived. And in trying to pidgeon-hole these terms, it was probably a disservice by me, but because of the limitations of language, I did not see an alternative way to explain to the religious that "faith" in one sense, which is based on non-provable past is not the same as "faith" in a possible present or future.

So the title of the thread has nothing to do with me having faith that my alarm clock will wake me up in the morning, but has everything to do with believing in the supernatural, for which there is no relationship.

(March 5, 2013 at 7:11 pm)jstrodel Wrote: No, it is the same. I can verify religious experience, but you cannot. You are just speaking for yourself. But instead of feeling as if you are my spiritual inferior, you claim to know more than I do. Whatever. I realize that some people can verify some of the things that they read in scientific journals. My point was to say that this takes years and years of dilligent study and hard work, much more work than saying "God if you are here, I demand you show yourself in the next 10 seconds, and if you don't, I know you aren't here"

Not even a little. See, here's the thing about scientific experiments: if you're doing them right, and following the same methodology, they will always produce results, and those results will be consistent with the initial experiment.

Oddly though, that doesn't seem to be how religions works. There are plenty of people here testifying to have attempted every possible "experiment" to contact god, all of which have failed. And even the ones who've succeeded, nobody seems to be able to provide a consistent result, it always varies.

You can do science if you try. Everyone can. But it seems that only certain people can do religion. I'd call them gullible, but you'd call them righteous. Because you seem to pride yourself on not wanting to know, in just being satisfied with the answers in your head.

I submit to you that the answers of reality are superior.

(March 6, 2013 at 5:36 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 5, 2013 at 7:11 pm)jstrodel Wrote: No, it is the same. I can verify religious experience, but you cannot. You are just speaking for yourself. But instead of feeling as if you are my spiritual inferior, you claim to know more than I do. Whatever. I realize that some people can verify some of the things that they read in scientific journals. My point was to say that this takes years and years of dilligent study and hard work, much more work than saying "God if you are here, I demand you show yourself in the next 10 seconds, and if you don't, I know you aren't here"

Not even a little. See, here's the thing about scientific experiments: if you're doing them right, and following the same methodology, they will always produce results, and those results will be consistent with the initial experiment.

Oddly though, that doesn't seem to be how religions works. There are plenty of people here testifying to have attempted every possible "experiment" to contact god, all of which have failed. And even the ones who've succeeded, nobody seems to be able to provide a consistent result, it always varies.

You can do science if you try. Everyone can. But it seems that only certain people can do religion. I'd call them gullible, but you'd call them righteous. Because you seem to pride yourself on not wanting to know, in just being satisfied with the answers in your head.

I submit to you that the answers of reality are superior.

I would also add that religion is too messy to begin with even before we do the "experiments". E.g. on one hand, we have someone like Drich saying God doesn't make your wishes come true, and on the other hand, we have jstrodel saying God does make your wishes come true. Two contradictory propositions which means we have no way of setting up an hypothesis to test, given that both are allegedly true from their experiences.

There is an interesting recorded debate here, on you tube between Tony Blair, who makes a passionate case for why faith, and religion in particular is important, and Christopher Hitchens equally passionate case for the opposite. The latter is willing to concede that faith is useful for those who do not have a humanist bent, but would prefer that believers keep their beliefs to themselves. The former shows that Religion does do some good, and people of faith do good for the sake of good, while having amnesia about how some of that good came about, which the latter remiinds him.

It was a good even-handed debate.

---

(March 6, 2013 at 7:06 am)FallentoReason Wrote: [quote='Esquilax' pid='410354' dateline='1362562586']
I would also add that religion is too messy to begin with even before we do the "experiments". E.g. on one hand, we have someone like Drich saying God doesn't make your wishes come true, and on the other hand, we have jstrodel saying God does make your wishes come true. Two contradictory propositions which means we have no way of setting up an hypothesis to test, given that both are allegedly true from their experiences.

Ask a Catholic and a Baptist about how God works, and you will get different answers. The problem is that people of different dogmas will have different ways of viewing how the whole system works. We've had different sects of Christianity killing themselves over this very thing. Ireland is not the sole example of this.

There is, however, an overwhelming amout of belief in the idea of reward and punishment. If you do good, you will get good in the end. If you do bad, you will receive bad in the end. There is also an overwhelming amount of belief in doing prayer to beg God to do something. When that something happens, God gets the credit. When it fails, well, God said no due to his mysterious ways. Either way, God wins.

Now, to say that one makes a demand of God for 10 minutes and gets fed up waiting is a pointless act, one needs to ask - "What, was God busy on the other line and I am # 11,254 in the queue?" No. The normal answer I get from this is that I have to pray for a very long time until I believe. "What, God is only around when I believe he is around? Is he like my invisible childhood friend, Sparky?" There are those who know that God will answer if you are suffering. So they will fast, sacrificing their own fat, go without sleep and spend the night praying, some beat themselves, forgo pleasures, and suffer so that God will hear them. "What, God gets off watching this, and when he has had enough he will reward you with a reply?"

And in the end, He still might say no, the highest form of sadism after making one grovel and self-inflict for a handout.

Actually, God doesn't make us do this, to be fair. It is the keepers of His special religion (insert here) who tell you what works. And when it fails, well, you didn't do it long enough, you didn't have enough faith, you haven't suffered enough, or God works in mysterious ways and sometimes he says "No."

That pretty much says it all. Although there are those who use magic charms to control God, when all else fails. (Below is a picture of some you can buy from a small stand in Jerusalem).

(March 6, 2013 at 7:09 am)EGross Wrote: Ask a Catholic and a Baptist about how God works, and you will get different answers. The problem is that people of different dogmas will have different ways of viewing how the whole system works. We've had different sects of Christianity killing themselves over this very thing. Ireland is not the sole example of this.

There is, however, an overwhelming amount of belief in the idea of reward and punishment. If you do good, you will get good in the end. If you do bad, you will receive bad in the end. There is also an overwhelming amount of belief in doing prayer to beg God to do something. When that something happens, God gets the credit. When it fails, well, God said no due to his mysterious ways. Either way, God wins.

Now, to say that one makes a demand of God for 10 minutes and gets fed up waiting is a pointless act, one needs to ask - "What, was God busy on the other line and I am # 11,254 in the queue?" No. The normal answer I get from this is that I have to pray for a very long time until I believe. "What, God is only around when I believe he is around? Is he like my invisible childhood friend, Sparky?" There are those who know that God will answer if you are suffering. So they will fast, sacrificing their own fat, go without sleep and spend the night praying, some beat themselves, forgo pleasures, and suffer so that God will hear them. "What, God gets off watching this, and when he has had enough he will reward you with a reply?"

And in the end, He still might say no, the highest form of sadism after making one grovel and self-inflict for a handout.

Actually, God doesn't make us do this, to be fair. It is the keepers of His special religion (insert here) who tell you what works. And when it fails, well, you didn't do it long enough, you didn't have enough faith, you haven't suffered enough, or God works in mysterious ways and sometimes he says "No."

That pretty much says it all. Although there are those who use magic charms to control God, when all else fails.

Isaiah
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, said the LORD."

The real humor here is we (as humans) chose the way it is!

Ask any true Atheist if he/she would want a God, over Free Will? i.e. Eden !
And you will get a resounding NO! And a kick to His groin for good measure.

Jesus said: "It is not me, but my Father who works through me."
And..."If you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you could say to that mountain, throw yourself in the sea and it would be done!"

So, why would God lift a finger....when you have magic charms to play with? Or Jesus' Words?

The problem with a lot of peoples prayers are that they don't include God's Will. Its prayers that are self-serving, unreasonable and (in some cases) last minute!

In sincere Faith.... Pray for God's Will to be done? You will always have an answer!

Rom 12:12
Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. AMEN!

So about 3500 years ago, and then 2000 years ago (sort of), God got off of his ass and made himself known to the world to a few backward people. And then he sat back on his ass and refused to speak to anyone ever again, because if he did, well, who knows what might happen!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm3zV1pCTQ8