The real religion?

[bennyboy]

SteveII

Here's the core of your belief, and the failing of your belief, with regards to empiricism.

Empirical evidence is what can be experienced-- NOT the interpretations of experience. If we look at an apple, that is an apple for 100% of the people, whether they call it that or not. People can do stuff to apples, and consistently observe the effects of their interactions with apples.

This is not so with the "empirical" evidence for God. What you actually experience is a sense that someone is looking over you, or a sense of peace, or whatever. In fact, you listed many of these "empirical" feelings a few pages back, claiming that only Christianity could lead one to have some of these experiences, and implying that they are evidence for God.

Your problem is that these feelings have been variously interpreted by people. EVERYONE agrees that an apple is an apple, because it is so by definition. People across cultures have attributed their feelings to Krshna, to Buddha, to Allah, to Freya, to Mother Nature, to whatever.

There is no evidence for God. There is plenty of evidence for religious experiences and feelings. Your failure is that you happily draw a bridge between them, when you have no sensible means of doing so.

[LadyForCamus]

You did not address how you can examine a supernatural claim with natural science-

I'm sorry; did I need to?  The clear answer is: you can't, because such a proposition is absurd to begin with.  Which is my whole point.  

You put forth an unfalsifiable claim, then offer evidence in support of this claim that you, yourself, admit cannot be scientifically evaluated in any way.  THEN, you turn around and declare we cannot judge the quality of the evidence you provided because the claim is unfalsifiable, and not subject to scientific scrutiny!  Make up your mind already. If there is no way to evaluate the likelihood of your theory being true, then you can't say you have proof of its cause and effect, lol.

Secondly, what does "supernatural" even mean?  If God really does exist as a pure and eternal entity; the source of all things in existence, wouldn't that make him the embodiment of all things natural?  

Thirdly, I'd still like to know your thoughts on the extraordinary claims of the Mandela Effect.

That is scientism and is a very tenuous (at best) worldview that does not hold up to scrutiny. There are many other truths that science cannot and does not comment one.

And...?  What follows this?

So, you say we cannot know anything for sure if it is comes from the human mind. I don't think you live that way, you just want to use that in your argument because you don't like the conclusion. This version of the "eyewitnesses aren't reliable" argument against the existence of God has all the same flaws as the original.

Since I am not the one making a positive claim, it is not my duty to provide an "argument against the existence of God."  It is YOUR duty to demonstrate evidence in support of your claim.  I am merely pointing out factual reasons why eye-witness testimony is not reliable evidence; especially for such an extraordinary claim. If you have something better to show us, I'd be happy to see it.

Scientism is a belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning—to the exclusion of other viewpoints. Accordingly, philosopher Tom Sorell provides this definition of scientism: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture."[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

=a poor worldview that is self-refuting.

Okay...so...'there is stuff we don't know, may never know, may never be able to know via the scientific method,' somehow magically leads to, 'God exists, and the Christian God is the one true God?'  

*scratches head*

Science has gotten us quite far if you haven't noticed...[emoji53]

There are thousands (if not more) cases where people become Christians based on reading the NT alone. No convincing there. No outside pressure. No ulterior motives. How do you account for those conversions?

So, other people believe stupid crap for crappy reasons.  So what?  Lots of people are convinced by accounts of the Mandela Effect when they read of it.  This is not evidence of the truth of its claims.  People are gullible.  This shouldn't surprise you.

And who said anything about no evidence. There is plenty of evidence contained in the NT alone. You might not find it convincing or have beliefs about it's truth claims, but it will [u]always be evidence

But, I thought your claim was supernatural, and therefore not subject to examination via natural means?  [emoji848]

[LadyForCamus]

That would be an ad hominem rebuttal.

That wasn't my rebuttal, as I haven't read the article yet. It's just what I think of the guy. [emoji41]

[robvalue]

Empty vessels get the grease! And they don't come much greasier than WLC.

[LadyForCamus]

Empty vessels get the grease! And they don't come much greasier than WLC.

You are never awake at this time, are you?! What time is it over there?

[robvalue]

Lol no I'm not meant to be 2:30 AM

Woke up in the night and trying to clear my head before getting back to sleep

[LadyForCamus]

Lol no I'm not meant to be 2:30 AM

Woke up in the night and trying to clear my head before getting back to sleep

Ahhh...I had a feeling. [emoji846] I never see you posting at this time. Nighttime wake-ups suck, I'm sorry!

[SteveII]

(1) I rather doubt that LFC is actually a 'scientism-ist' (just to increase the clumsy ugliness of your pet word), no matter how desperately you wish to paint her that way. Your claim isn't exclusively supernatural. After all, you (Steve II) are not supernatural, but verifiably natural and fallible. And you, natural and fallible man, are claiming to have had an encounter with a supernatural being in this world, not in some supernatural realm. Oh, and not just any supernatural being, but a specific one who is claimed in your holy book to have done much more than simply encounter believers "in their minds somehow" but to have actually walked the Earth, eaten a meal with a guy, etc. It isn't unreasonable to suppose that such a being might occasionally verifiably affect things in the world by its 'presence' in such a way that these effects could be observed and studied. So far, all you're giving us is, "I just know that this was a supernatural experience!" and when pressed to provide evidence of such an experience you point to the 'a lot of believers who have similar experiences are less dickish than they used to be' gambit.

And you still haven't done a thing to dispel the notion that you believers are indulging in wish fulfillment, errors in discerning the causes for powerful emotional experiences, etc. You seem fairly convinced that the religious experiences of people outside your faith tradition are less reliable but you haven't given us any good reason not to lump you in with them.

She probably doesn't. However, when it comes to debating religions, many atheist fall back to that position as a rebuttal not realizing it comes with baggage. The question being discussed is whether a mind existing in the natural world can have a relationship with a supernatural mind. That is not a question for science--rather a psychological and metaphysical question. I never suggested that God has not interacted with the natural world. He has many many times. The most obvious is in the NT. So, if God has interacted with the world in the NT, the NT describes this relationship, people say this relationship is real, why isn't this further proof that God exists?

Why do I have to dispel anything? We are not arguing about my particular experience. What is more probably, that a billion people are all describing the same delusion or that a billion people all describe the same real relationship? Other religions do not claim this relationship (or even anything similar) so there is nothing to compare. 

(2) No, we don't normally live our lives disbelieving every eye witness report we hear. Most of us assign a degree of significance to what is being claimed. You tell me you saw your neighbor eating sausage for breakfast? I have no good reason to disbelieve you and don't really care. You tell me you have had a personal encounter with the supernatural creator of the universe, you are going to get a different standard of scrutiny -- WLC notwithstanding. In a court of law, where 'reasonable doubt' is the gold standard, we don't uncritically accept eye witness testimony. Why on earth would you expect us to accept a lesser standard when it comes to such claims as you're making -- self-serving claims at that, since I imagine it would be devastating to most believers if they were to learn definitively that their most cherished experiences are based on error and falsehood.

Never said to we should accept uncritically. I just have not heard a coherent reason why a relationship with God is not possible and therefore delusional. Compared to a billion testimonies, what is the basis for your 'reasonable doubt'? On what do you base your determination that such a relationship is "based on error and falsehood"? 

(3) Who, aside from the logical positivists from bygone days, can you name who actually matches this characterization?

Atheist like to slide in and out of that worldview when convenient. I have heard a thousand times a hundred different ways that the notion of God needs scientific proof. Experiential, eyewitness, metaphysical, revealed theology, and natural theology evidence is not enough. That's just nonsense and to say otherwise is scientism/logical positivism and you are stuck with it's baggage. 

(4) What's to account for? So some people convert based on reading the NT. Big fucking deal. People also convert to Islam based on reading the Koran. I'm sure you're about as impressed by that as good evidence for the truth of Islam as I am by people converting to Christianity after reading the NT as being good evidence for the truth of your faith. People come to ridiculous conclusions about all manner of things for bad reasons every single day.

Believing the truth of the NT was not my point. You could believe and still not freely enter into a relationship with God. There is no relationship with God in Islam so there is no comparison. My point was in response to the theory that Christians have some sort of vested interest to further the delusion in others to reinforce their delusion. Since there are many cases where that was not the case, that theory fails.

[SteveII]

1. Sure. But the doctrine of salvation in Christianity is unique. No other religion describes a personal relationship with God. 

ALL religions have unique aspects. Christianity's unique aspects make it different than other religions, just as the other religions unique aspects make them different that Christianity.  

That tells us nothing about the truth of one over another, or the truth of any of them.

2. Muslims do not attempt to have a relationship with God. They specifically believe that is not possible. 

Book 97, Hadith 34 seems to be describing some sort of relationship. Maybe not the same as the one Christians claim.

3. Since there are no comparable religions to Christianity (specifically the doctrine of salvation), there is no special pleading.

Your claimed uniqueness of Christianity does not excuse your special pleading.

4. Empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

The word "verifiable" in the above definition negates your use of the word.

If a Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jew, Sikh, etc all do an experiment to measure the speed of light, they will all get the same results. That is empirical.

When a Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jew, Sikh, etc all claim that their experiences are evidence for their gods, and there is no way to verify them, as in the measurement of the speed of light, that is not empirical.

5. No. I don't believe everyone who claims to be a Christian has experienced the event of 'salvation' and the effect of regeneration as described in the NT. Does that really change anything?

Yes, it changes things.

How are you able to tell the difference between a real 'personal experience' and a delusional or mistaken one? I'm sure there are plenty of Christians that absolutely believe, with extreme sincerity, their 'personal experience' is real, yet they are mistaken or delusional.

It is entirely possible, that a Christian that claims to have had 'personal experience', but did not, has not only fooled themselves, but has fooled you too.

And here I am, sitting outside your Christian (Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, etc) belief bubble, and they ALL look like they are mistaken or delusional to me. How am I supposed to tell the difference?

Moderator Notice
Quote tags fixed by robvalue.

1. I agree. However, we are discussing a unique aspect of Christianity and the truth value of that particular belief. The fact that there are other religions does not at all impact that question.
2. Certainly nowhere near the Christian/God relationship. Galatians 5 talks a lot about that relationship (among other places). 
3. In light of 2, you will have to clearly describe what you think is special pleading then. 
4. You think empirical and verifiable only relates to the scientific method? That is not the definition of those words. Regarding expiriences, first you do not have more than one religion claiming a personal relationship with God so...no problem there. Second why isn't personal testimony (or a billion personal testimonies) of such an internal experience evidence? Sure, they could be lying, the could be delusional, but on what philosophical basis can you the determination that in any case it is definitively false?
5. See 4. How do you tell the difference between religions? Read their founding docs, examine the philosophical basis, and if a personal experience is involved, talk to someone that claims that experience...and then decide for yourself.

[SteveII]

First, we were very specifically talking about positive and negative changes in the life of a person. You have listed out of context verses that don't have any bearing on the subject. From your post...

They have bearing. You asked "What negatives are there in NT Christianity?" This is what is in the NT. They are negative. To pick only the nicey verses is, let's see, maybe in your terms, to bear false witness.

I don't know what you think these verses mean. By your context, it seems you think they mean something other than they do. You will have to look at the verses in context and then tell me what you think they mean for me to reply.