(June 28, 2014 at 6:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote: [Hold the phone......are you telling me that your own experience with the divine is insufficient evidence - to you- of the divine? That you've made a special concession?

Once I believed, then I recognized the experiences as being influenced by God. Now that I know him I've opened my eyes to his work. Jesus referred to some of the pharisees as "having eyes, but not seeing". I think we all experience the divine at times, but don't recognize what we see for what it is.

(June 28, 2014 at 6:40 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 28, 2014 at 6:28 pm)Rhythm Wrote: [Hold the phone......are you telling me that your own experience with the divine is insufficient evidence - to you- of the divine? That you've made a special concession?

Once I believed, then I recognized the experiences as being influenced by God. Now that I know him I've opened my eyes to his work. Jesus referred to some of the pharisees as "having eyes, but not seeing". I think we all experience the divine at times, but don't recognize what we see for what it is.

Lek, how do you know this isn't some bias speaking? Such as confirmation bias?

---

By the way, thanks for taking the time to respond and being respectful. I hope I've come off as being respectful towards you as well.

(June 28, 2014 at 6:40 pm)Lek Wrote: Once I believed, then I recognized the experiences as being influenced by God. Now that I know him I've opened my eyes to his work. Jesus referred to some of the pharisees as "having eyes, but not seeing". I think we all experience the divine at times, but don't recognize what we see for what it is.

Right, I get that, but again, -before you believed- would any of this have been sufficient evidence to you? Does it meet the standard of evidence you have applied to all other claims, the standard that you use everyday. The standard of evidence that you ostensibly possessed, before....you believed?

Right now, you are essentially stating the definition of special concessions, special pleading. I doubt that your beliefs are founded upon special pleading (even if the only claims you feel comfortable with are)...and I know that what you're expressing to me here is textbook theology....so it occurs to me that while you may be reciting the theology (as you feel compelled to do - by belief-) there is likely to be a more elaborate and well constructed base upon which all of this is standing. It's speculation, but very favorable speculation of an ordinary sort - I hope you don't mind.

(course, I can't be too gentle can I. Doesn't "I believe that these things are from god because I believe in god, and I believe in god because I believe these things are from god" sound a tad bit too circular to you?)

A good starting question would be "What do you believe?" instead of making assumptions about something like religion.
I believe that there is good in the universe, that and that people think of ways to identify and bring that good upon themselves, some calling it 'God' and writing books about it like the Torah to share with other people.
I believe that some theories concerning this 'good' have been misguided or rooted in the darker human nature.
I also think that there was a Jewish rabbi who was more accurate in answering the question of what is good and so I subscribe to his teachings and follow his advice.
So, "The needy are human beings deserving of your help?" Yeah. I know for a fact it's true. And only FOX News would think otherwise.

(June 28, 2014 at 11:47 pm)Irrational Wrote: Lek, how do you know this isn't some bias speaking? Such as confirmation bias?

---

By the way, thanks for taking the time to respond and being respectful. I hope I've come off as being respectful towards you as well.

There is a bias involved. Once I've established that there is a God and he's involved in my life, then I will attribute certain things to him. I don't call it circular reasoning. In science, once we establish one fact, we can use that as a point for determining other facts. I'll make a concession here - I have doubts about my beliefs and experiences, and always have. I think any christian who doesn't possess doubts, at least from time, is not being honest with him or herself. I won't speak for others here, but for me it's a leap of faith. I've found throughout my life that you usually have to make a decision, with some doubt present, and run with it or else you'll go nowhere. As far as being respectful - thanks and same to you.

---

(June 29, 2014 at 12:15 am)Rhythm Wrote: Right, I get that, but again, -before you believed- would any of this have been sufficient evidence to you? Does it meet the standard of evidence you have applied to all other claims, the standard that you use everyday. The standard of evidence that you ostensibly possessed, before....you believed?

Right now, you are essentially stating the definition of special concessions, special pleading. I doubt that your beliefs are founded upon special pleading (even if the only claims you feel comfortable with are)...and I know that what you're expressing to me here is textbook theology....so it occurs to me that while you may be reciting the theology (as you feel compelled to do - by belief-) there is likely to be a more elaborate and well constructed base upon which all of this is standing. It's speculation, but very favorable speculation of an ordinary sort - I hope you don't mind.

(course, I can't be too gentle can I. Doesn't "I believe that these things are from god because I believe in god, and I believe in god because I believe these things are from god" sound a tad bit too circular to you?)

First of all, I appreciate your concern, but don't worry about being gentile with me. I did make a comment about showing respect to each other, but that doesn't mean don't hit hard. What I meant was like this. I could say to you "I completely disagree and I think you're totally wrong - here's why." Or I could say "I think you're totally wrong and, by the way you and all atheists are idiots." As soon as I've said that, I've lost your respect and ended any possibility of a profitable discussion. As far as hitting me with your best punch - I can take that (I hope!).

Before I believed as I do now this would not have been sufficient evidence for me to think that it was anything but chance. I was raised as a catholic, but it never clicked, and I was living against how I was taught. Once I believed in God working in my life, then it gave me another option to consider about these experiences that I didn't have before. This is probably not the greatest analogy but I think it will work. When I was younger if I wanted to know what kind of fuel a certain car runs on I would consider gasoline or diesel. If it was now, because I'm now aware of alternative power sources, I'd also consider electric, solar or whatever. So I'm not believing these experiences are directly from God solely because I believe in him, but that is a factor I consider. Also, I don't believe in God because these things occurred, but rather because I opened myself to him and he came to me. This may be textbook christianity, but it's true textbook christianity.

---

(June 29, 2014 at 2:52 am)Purplundy Wrote: A good starting question would be "What do you believe?" instead of making assumptions about something like religion.
I believe that there is good in the universe, that and that people think of ways to identify and bring that good upon themselves, some calling it 'God' and writing books about it like the Torah to share with other people.
I believe that some theories concerning this 'good' have been misguided or rooted in the darker human nature.
I also think that there was a Jewish rabbi who was more accurate in answering the question of what is good and so I subscribe to his teachings and follow his advice.
So, "The needy are human beings deserving of your help?" Yeah. I know for a fact it's true. And only FOX News would think otherwise.

So do you believe that there are other faiths that are paths to God without the atoning sacrifice of Jesus?

(June 29, 2014 at 4:01 pm)Lek Wrote: So do you believe that there are other faiths that are paths to God without the atoning sacrifice of Jesus?

Paths to God I see as paths to good. Of course, we might not all always agree on what is good, but the human race has a pretty general idea. It's possible to hold a belief that blocks you from the path to good. But I think most people get it right.
I'm a Christian because I feel that Jesus had the best idea, and other religions don't exactly hit the mark. That's all.

(June 29, 2014 at 4:29 pm)Purplundy Wrote:

(June 29, 2014 at 4:01 pm)Lek Wrote: So do you believe that there are other faiths that are paths to God without the atoning sacrifice of Jesus?

Paths to God I see as paths to good. Of course, we might not all always agree on what is good, but the human race has a pretty general idea. It's possible to hold a belief that blocks you from the path to good. But I think most people get it right.
I'm a Christian because I feel that Jesus had the best idea, and other religions don't exactly hit the mark. That's all.

Sorry all. It just hit me that I'm going off subject. I'll try to continue this discussion on another thread Purplundy.

(June 29, 2014 at 4:01 pm)Lek Wrote: In science, once we establish one fact, we can use that as a point for determining other facts.

I won't speak for others here, but for me it's a leap of faith.

Snipped by me for relevance.

In this response Itrrational you made allusions between faith and science. I have to point out that "taking a leap of faith" is in no way interchangeable with "starting with a fact"

This invalidates the rest of that response by itself. I understand that you may feel that the two are somehow similar, I would love to hear about why you think that - but again, right from the outset, I can't call that anything but dead wrong from the ground floor to the penthouse.

Quote:Before I believed as I do now this would not have been sufficient evidence for me to think that it was anything but chance. I was raised as a catholic, but it never clicked, and I was living against how I was taught. Once I believed in God working in my life, then it gave me another option to consider about these experiences that I didn't have before. This is probably not the greatest analogy but I think it will work. When I was younger if I wanted to know what kind of fuel a certain car runs on I would consider gasoline or diesel. If it was now, because I'm now aware of alternative power sources, I'd also consider electric, solar or whatever. So I'm not believing these experiences are directly from God solely because I believe in him, but that is a factor I consider. Also, I don't believe in God because these things occurred, but rather because I opened myself to him and he came to me. This may be textbook christianity, but it's true textbook christianity.

Meh, I can easily accept that all christianity is "true christianity" as "christianity" is just a name for a group of claims. Whoever makes the claim is giving me their "true christianity" or "textbook christianity".

Now, with the analogy about power sources - what does your new understanding have to say about any of those experiences you had in the past? Nothing. You now know that there are electric cars, but that doesn't mean that you saw one as a kid, and it certainly doesn't even increase the possibility of any of those cars having been electric cars. If you walked through the countryside circa 1920 - considering just how many of those cars might be electric- I;d call you a loon..and I;d be right. I don't think you would though, because again you are making a special pleading argument. I doubt that a special pleading argument can convince you of anything.

Here, let me try:

There is no god, I don't have to prove it or give any evidence, because in this special case none of the normal rules apply. I know this because I started believing it was true, and then realized that it was true, ad infinitum.

Do you concede?

(June 29, 2014 at 8:55 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Now, with the analogy about power sources - what does your new understanding have to say about any of those experiences you had in the past? Nothing. You now know that there are electric cars, but that doesn't mean that you saw one as a kid, and it certainly doesn't even increase the possibility of any of those cars having been electric cars. If you walked through the countryside circa 1920 - considering just how many of those cars might be electric- I;d call you a loon..and I;d be right. I don't think you would though, because again you are making a special pleading argument. I doubt that a special pleading argument can convince you of anything.

I might have seen an electric car in the past before I knew there were electric cars and thought it was gasoline powered. Later when I learned there were electric cars, I might have thought "that car was really quiet and there was no exhaust. It must have been an electric car." I made my latest decision based on new found information.

---

(June 29, 2014 at 8:55 pm)Rhythm Wrote: In this response Itrrational you made allusions between faith and science. I have to point out that "taking a leap of faith" is in no way interchangeable with "starting with a fact"

This invalidates the rest of that response by itself. I understand that you may feel that the two are somehow similar, I would love to hear about why you think that - but again, right from the outset, I can't call that anything but dead wrong from the ground floor to the penthouse.

We're not on common ground here because we're defining things differently. To me God is a fact and to you he's not. I guess the only way we could arrive at a conclusion that we both accept is for you to experience God or for me to drop my belief in him.

---

(June 29, 2014 at 8:55 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Here, let me try:

There is no god, I don't have to prove it or give any evidence, because in this special case none of the normal rules apply. I know this because I started believing it was true, and then realized that it was true, ad infinitum.

Do you concede?

If I thought you were sincere in what you believed, though it wasn't a proven fact, and I saw that your life was effected in a good way by that belief, I might consider investigating the validity of what you are saying. Another thing I wanted to throw in, but I forgot where I wanted to put it - have you ever made a decision based on an unproven fact, but you acted on that decision because you felt sure that it was true?

(June 29, 2014 at 10:20 pm)Lek Wrote: I might have seen an electric car in the past before I knew there were electric cars and thought it was gasoline powered. Later when I learned there were electric cars, I might have thought "that car was really quiet and there was no exhaust. It must have been an electric car." I made my latest decision based on new found information.

-that information includes the presence, in the here and now, of electric cars. You haven't modified the analogy, you're actually doubling down on the broken part of it.

Quote:We're not on common ground here because we're defining things differently. To me God is a fact and to you he's not. I guess the only way we could arrive at a conclusion that we both accept is for you to experience God or for me to drop my belief in him.

I don't require a pet definition of the word fact to make my point. God is not a fact, not even to you. This is because the word "fact" already has meaning..and there is already a better word for what you're describing. To use the word "fact" in this manner...or any word, really, is to render language useless. I can imagine a hundred other ways we could arrive at a conclusion we would both accept that doesn't rely on my having a brush with the divine - or you losing your faith. Some acknowledgement of the points I;ve been making and how they modify the way in which you communicate your faith in the future would be just one obvious and convenient example. We are not disagreeing on the existence of a god here. We are disagreeing on the process by which you came to that conclusion. Perhaps our disagreement is manufactured...because you didn't actually use the process you're describing to reach the conclusion.

Quote:If I thought you were sincere in what you believed, though it wasn't a proven fact, and I saw that your life was effected in a good way by that belief, I might consider investigating the validity of what you are saying.

Of course I'm sincere in my lack of belief. Wouldn't want to start questioning that - or I'll start questioning the sincerity of your beliefs until our noses fall off. We'll never get past that, because - as trolls often remind us - it;s not something so easily "proven". I have a nice house in the country, my crops grow, my children are healthy, I';m not broke. Look at all the increase that no god has brought me? Isn't this evidence identical to your own, doesn't it have the same weight?

Quote:Another thing I wanted to throw in, but I forgot where I wanted to put it - have you ever made a decision based on an unproven fact, but you acted on that decision because you felt sure that it was true?

LOL, wtf is an "unproven fact"? Meh, I understand what you're trying to say so I'll bend and say yes...all the time.