So I got in trouble

[Drich]

You have confirmation bias working on different levels here.
One of them is your pre-recognition of the divine... you already believed in god, the god of christianity, the trinity... you were already aware of this god and believed it exists.

Then you had your dream.
Biasing from your prior belief led you to accept it as divine.

And then proceeded to search for more details.
Biasing from your dream made you find the details you wanted in the text.
It is not surprising that others may have written about similar experiences.

Take the famous light at the end of the tunnel experienced by some NDE patients.
If one associates this light with some afterlife place, and the others, previously attuned to acknowledge the divine, come across this interpretation, they will agree with the interpretation, thus strengthening their belief in that divinity.

So, is the light at the end of the tunnel an actual place or is it neurochemistry in the brain of a few people making them see that... or something else?
What seems more likely? (provided we have no actual way of measuring all this)

Confirmation bias looks for evidence that fits a forgone conclusion.

How does this definition fail to describe ask seek knock for the Holy Spirit? Because one need know nothing about God the Holy Spirit or Christianity, to receive the same direction and guidance found in the bible.

Wrong... one needs to know something... that's why someone wrote about it. Had no one wrote a word about it, would you know that you had to do it?
You need to know about the existence of some sort of a divine being... and you need to know that this methodology can lead you to further acknowledging it.
Given that, how do you differentiate the reality of this divinity from "it's all in your head"?

Matter of fact by the admission of many of you, the Christianity I repersent is unknown to most of you. To the point that I have been labeled a heretic by atheists...

So again, how can the term confirmation bias apply if the result is counter the forgone conclusion of what many of you would identify as main stream Christianity.

Well, you must be talking to someone else... to me, christianity is all the same thing... mainstream or mega delusional rabit-hole christianity... they all believe in the existence of a divinity which showed up as a human and got nailed.
I go further and lump christianity with islam, hinduism, buddhism, and any other dead religion...all based on the unsubstantiated assumption that a person's personality/individuality/knowledge/wisdom goes on existing, somehow, after the death of the biological body.
This is wishful thinking... and anything that confirms this wishful thinking is relying on confirmation bias.

What does my foundations of belief have to do with what God has offered any of you?

God has offered to give you your own experiences. Mine were for me, and intentionally mean nothing to do ourside of sparking an intrest to maybe have your own.

[pocaracas]

You have confirmation bias working on different levels here.
One of them is your pre-recognition of the divine... you already believed in god, the god of christianity, the trinity... you were already aware of this god and believed it exists.

Then you had your dream.
Biasing from your prior belief led you to accept it as divine.

And then proceeded to search for more details.
Biasing from your dream made you find the details you wanted in the text.
It is not surprising that others may have written about similar experiences.

Take the famous light at the end of the tunnel experienced by some NDE patients.
If one associates this light with some afterlife place, and the others, previously attuned to acknowledge the divine, come across this interpretation, they will agree with the interpretation, thus strengthening their belief in that divinity.

So, is the light at the end of the tunnel an actual place or is it neurochemistry in the brain of a few people making them see that... or something else?
What seems more likely? (provided we have no actual way of measuring all this)


Wrong... one needs to know something... that's why someone wrote about it. Had no one wrote a word about it, would you know that you had to do it?
You need to know about the existence of some sort of a divine being... and you need to know that this methodology can lead you to further acknowledging it.
Given that, how do you differentiate the reality of this divinity from "it's all in your head"?


Well, you must be talking to someone else... to me, christianity is all the same thing... mainstream or mega delusional rabit-hole christianity... they all believe in the existence of a divinity which showed up as a human and got nailed.
I go further and lump christianity with islam, hinduism, buddhism, and any other dead religion...all based on the unsubstantiated assumption that a person's personality/individuality/knowledge/wisdom goes on existing, somehow, after the death of the biological body.
This is wishful thinking... and anything that confirms this wishful thinking is relying on confirmation bias.

What does my foundations of belief have to do with what God has offered any of you?

God has offered to give you your own experiences. Mine were for me, and intentionally mean nothing to do ourside of sparking an intrest to maybe have your own.

You mean to say you got all the evidence you wanted without A.S.K.ing?
Now, that's a bit disingenuous... do as I say, not as I do, huh?

[Drich]

You have to make two foregone conclusions before a/s/k can work, according to your own words.
1. God exists
2. If you approach him the right way, he will prove his existence to you

At this point we are not talking about A/S/K We are talking about asking God to give you another mustard seed.

If you a/s/k and you don't have at least the faith of a mustard seed, again according to you, you'll get only silence.

So again ask for one. (God give me the mustard seed I need to properly A/S/K)

This does not take faith in God. Just enough humility to sit in silence away from everyone and read that little prayer i just left for you. and keep asking till you get it.

The fact that a/s/k can only work if you start out having faith makes it impossible for a/s/k to provide a legitimate means for someone without faith to acquire it. It only works if you've already decided it will. It is a deliberately-designed example of confirmation bias.

ah, no.
One does not need a forgone conclusion to A/S/K. Just humility.

[pocaracas]

One does not need a forgone conclusion to A/S/K. Just humility.

And the working assumption that there is a god actually listening.

The method is flawed right off the bat!

[Drich]

You mean to say you got all the evidence you wanted without A.S.K.ing?
Now, that's a bit disingenuous... do as I say, not as I do, huh?

What makes you think that?

---

One does not need a forgone conclusion to A/S/K. Just humility.

And the working assumption that there is a god actually listening.

The method is flawed right off the bat!

how so?

[pocaracas]

You mean to say you got all the evidence you wanted without A.S.K.ing?
Now, that's a bit disingenuous... do as I say, not as I do, huh?

What makes you think that?

You keep telling us to ASK...
And when I say that your own path was biased and show it to you, you say it has nothing to do with ASKing...

---

And the working assumption that there is a god actually listening.

The method is flawed right off the bat!

how so?

Assume god exists -> ASK -> get a mental confirmation that god exists -> confirmation bias appears to be in action -> just another loony.

Assume nothing -> get confirmation that a god exists -> write paper -> Be on the news -> collect million dollars.


The first scenario requires your mustard's seed of faith...
The second requires none.

You've been told this a number of times in this thread alone... and in other threads lots of other times... but still... it's like you don't pay attention.

[Drich]

[Drich]

You keep telling us to ASK...
And when I say that your own path was biased and show it to you, you say it has nothing to do with ASKing...

What makes you think I was not A/S/K the only way I knew how?

Assume god exists -> ASK -> get a mental confirmation that god exists -> confirmation bias appears to be in action -> just another loony.

Assume nothing.> A/S/K as pointed out in Luke 11. > Get whatever confirmation you yourself specifcly needs to establish and maintain belief, apart from the religious ideas you have placed on God.

Assume nothing -> get confirmation that a god exists -> write paper -> Be on the news -> collect million dollars.

Assume nothing -> get confirmation that a god exists -> write paper -> Get ridiculed for writting a paper, because the system of education we have will never accept God in any form, because it was designed not to.

You've been told this a number of times in this thread alone... and in other threads lots of other times... but still... it's like you don't pay attention.

I think your catching on.

[Esquilax]

Your approach is that of one who believes God will be static through out this process. This is not the case. When you do things right (Follow HIS instructions) He is the that will interact with you. Not me, the writter of your autobiography or anyone else. I'm not selling a religion here. I am trying to put you on a track that bring you directly before God. If God does not have the power or inclination to follow up on what He has promised then he is no god and not worthy of worship.

That's a big ol' dodge, given that we were originally talking about Tyre, and how you've comprehensively failed to "stomp" our contentions regarding it, as you've initially claimed.

[Drich]

Your approach is that of one who believes God will be static through out this process. This is not the case. When you do things right (Follow HIS instructions) He is the that will interact with you. Not me, the writter of your autobiography or anyone else. I'm not selling a religion here. I am trying to put you on a track that bring you directly before God. If God does not have the power or inclination to follow up on what He has promised then he is no god and not worthy of worship.

That's a big ol' dodge, given that we were originally talking about Tyre, and how you've comprehensively failed to "stomp" our contentions regarding it, as you've initially claimed.

I was actually talking to mini about his failed arguement of tyre. That his city was the thrid or even fourth encarnation of that city (depending on where you start counting.)

His arguement states that the last version of Tyre was the same as Ezekiel's prophecied tyre. It wasn't plain and simple. the two citys share a name, they don't even share the same space.

Jerusalem although is not the same city it was back then, at least it has not moved, and therefore can be identified as the same city. This is not the case with tyre. it foundations were move 4 times making each encarnation a seperate city from the last.

Ezekiel's prophesy did not say there would never be another city name tyre, only that His city would be completely destroyed. it was. The damage was so extensive they could not build where the first city was.

Thus stomping mini's arguement.