The real religion?

[Nay_Sayer]

Pastafarianism. Easy

[robvalue]

Since it's been brought up a few times now, I'm going to reference an older thread I made concerning personal relationships with deities, and what this might actually mean.

---

This is a phrase I've heard thrown about so much that I thought it deserved its own topic. To me, this is a sensible, loose definition of a personal relationship:

An independent observer can verify that

1) Both parties in the relationship exist, and are easily distinguishable from being imaginary.
2) Both parties have an independent intelligence.
3) Both parties directly communicate with the other party in a meaningful, observable way.

In this way, I can have personal relationship with any human, any animal that has some way to at least acknowledge my interaction with it, and arguably with an artificial intelligence. It seems to me that if these 3 criteria are not met, it is not a meaningful personal relationship. The only exception I can think of is where one party becomes unable to communicate at some point, such as a friend going into a coma. You could maybe argue that you can continue to have a personal relationship with them, based on your history together, even though they can't directly answer back.

However, it seems to me that most people's personal relationship with God/Jesus/Allah etc. satisfies not even one of these criteria. In those cases, I would expect to witness them simply sitting in a room by themselves, either talking out loud to no one or just thinking things. How can I possibly accept this as a relationship? I've asked for indirect confirmation, such as the other party telling them something they couldn't already know, but I've never received this even using very simple criteria.

If there is anyone here who thinks their relationship with a deity actually does meet all these criteria, I'd be very interested to hear about it. Do you think you could convince an independent observer of those points? If someone wants to argue you can have a relationship while not meeting any of these criteria, then feel free. Then there is the problem of people all having a personal relationship with supposedly the same being (God/Jesus etc) but then coming back with contradictory messages. This means that one of these must be the case:

(1) Most of the people who think they are having this relationship actually aren't
(2) The relationship is such that the being cannot accurately express itself in a meaningful way
(3) The being is deliberately sending out conflicting messages
(4) There is no such being and people are imagining the responses

This last point is covered well in this humorous video by Nonstampcollector.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLBDFe3mDtk

---

[brewer]

The real religion is evangelical christian. Got it.

[robvalue]

All I've heard so far is that belief in something (Christianity or otherwise) can have beneficial effects. Or being part of a social group. Of course it can. It can work for any religion, or any other set of beliefs. It's also easily explainable, and doesn't require those beliefs to be true.

What I've been looking for here is some actual benefit further than this, to being in a certain religion. It's quite clear to me that there is none. If there was, other religions would see that they were "wrong", and it would be obvious to uninvested bystanders like myself. All I see is confirmation bias, placebo effects and other easily explained things which any old rubbish can produce.

[SteveII]

em·pir·i·cal
əmˈpirik(ə)l/
adjective
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

This discussion is not scientific. You can't put a persons brain under a microscope and examine experiences and why they do or say things. So, 'scientific' standards of proof do not apply. 

Are you willing to throw out human intuition as a source of knowledge? It seems so. How do you justify that?

News flash, Steve:  you don't get to throw around phrases like "proof", "evidence", and "cause and effect", and then turn around and declare this isn't a scientific discussion.  You can't have your cake, and eat it too.  Sorry.  Thanks for playing though.

Human intuition?  Do I think it is relevant?  Yes.  Do I think it's important?  Sure, up to a point.  Does it, by itself, qualify as indisputable "proof" of ANYTHING without corroborating scientific evidence?  Of course not.

Proof, evidence and cause and effect are definitely not scientific terms. While they are used by science, they are also used in a number of different fields: philosophy (reason, logic, philosophy of mind, etc.), social sciences, mathematics, as well as intuitively used a thousands times every day by people (if I do x then my wife will do y). 

Why must I have 'corroborating scientific evidence'? How is examining and coming to conclusions about anything that has to do with the mind, emotions, human experiences, love, suffering, self-sacrifice, hope, etc. etc. have anything to do with being corroborated by scientific evidence? While I do not believe this to be the case, it could be that God only reveals himself to us as one mind to another. How would you go about corroborating that?

[LadyForCamus]

[quote='LadyForCamus' pid='1359124' dateline='1470924871']


News flash, Steve:  you don't get to throw around phrases like "proof", "evidence", and "cause and effect", and then turn around and declare this isn't a scientific discussion.  You can't have your cake, and eat it too.  Sorry.  Thanks for playing though.

Human intuition?  Do I think it is relevant?  Yes.  Do I think it's important?  Sure, up to a point.  Does it, by itself, qualify as indisputable "proof" of ANYTHING without corroborating scientific evidence?  Of course not.

Proof, evidence and cause and effect are definitely not scientific terms.

LOL. Okay...if you aren't going to debate with intellectual honesty, then I'm out. I thought you were different from Drich and Huggy, but I was wrong. Lying to yourself for Jesus is still lying, Steve-o.

[LadyForCamus]

Actually, to Rob, this would be a perfect segway to your, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence " video if you have it to share here.

[SteveII]

News flash, Steve:  you don't get to throw around phrases like "proof", "evidence", and "cause and effect", and then turn around and declare this isn't a scientific discussion.  You can't have your cake, and eat it too.  Sorry.  Thanks for playing though.

Human intuition?  Do I think it is relevant?  Yes.  Do I think it's important?  Sure, up to a point.  Does it, by itself, qualify as indisputable "proof" of ANYTHING without corroborating scientific evidence?  Of course not.

Proof, evidence and cause and effect are definitely not scientific terms.

LOL.  Okay...if you aren't going to debate with intellectual honesty, then I'm out.  I thought you were different from Drich and Huggy, but I was wrong.  Lying to yourself for Jesus is still lying, Steve-o.

First, you clipped out my second sentence: 
While they are used by science, they are also used in a number of different fields: philosophy (reason, logic, philosophy of mind, etc.), social sciences, mathematics, as well as intuitively used a thousands times every day by people (if I do x then my wife will do y). 
No reply to that? You still think these terms apply only to science? Then tell me why this particular sentence is wrong.
Second, when you make a point and I reply (with reasons why I believe my point to be true) and then you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty is an unjustified leap and seems more like you don't know how to respond. Attacking one's character is pretty low.

[robvalue]

Actually, to Rob, this would be a perfect segway to your, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence " video if you have it to share here.

Sure This one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX7mdUh9yUE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOrP9nb-yrk

[SteveII]

The real religion is evangelical christian. Got it.

It is the "bucket" that best describes my beliefs and the ones I argue for. It is also interesting that this "bucket" is the fastest growing of all the different ways to slice Christianity.