-->
@3RU7AL
Conversion is a part of the Christian religion. You don't get to have as many followers as you do without it. Not sure what that has to do with them being wrong or right.
Proving all (other) religions wrong.
Posts
Total:
526
Atheists with no soul concept feel all spiritual experiences are invalid because they are spiritual or had by a theists. Theists are mental deficients and therefore not able to have an experience without mixing supernatural into it. Even though there are atheists who believe in such things, for instance atheistic witches who work with the dead and land spirits.
Many can have very meaningful "spiritual" experiences without mandatory belief in any sort of gods. [LINK]
Conversion is a part of the Christian religion. You don't get to have as many followers as you do without it. Not sure what that has to do with them being wrong or right.
If the "YHWH" struck all the baddies with either a blinding light and a voice from the sky or a holy hit-man and a talking donkey, I'm pretty certain we'd have a world population of about 99.999% christians.
My main question is, if god can do this then why haven't they already done this? They did it before, so it can't be "against the rules" or whatever...
-->
@3RU7AL
Would we? I was a Christian and believe in God and Christ as deity and don't worship them. Not sure people would still fall down at His feet. You still have to believe all the Hell stuff is true. Which isn't in the Old Testament so why did it pop up with Jesus? Cause it's for Christians.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@3RU7AL
Loving God for who God is should really be enough.
The Truth.
If you prefer the things of this world, you would sooner place your faith in the miracles themselves than God.
-->
@Mopac
Loving God for who God is should really be enough.
It didn't seem to be "enough" for the apostle Paul.
He still needed a little godly bullying.
-->
@3RU7AL
When theophany happens, and you realize the whole time you have been persecuting the one you love, the effects that this has on a person can be very dramatic.
Paul was always a man who loved God. It was Paul's love of God that drove him to persecute the church to begin with. Just like many people who even call themselves atheists love God very much.
-->
@RoderickSpode
I'm not an expert on monkeys, but I don't see any reason to think they imagine a great monkey/chimp in the sky. You mention them shaking sticks at rivals. If they only do that with other chimps, and thunderstorms, that might be one thing. But if they shake sticks at any animal they feel threatened by, like a lion (which I think is the case), then I don't see any reason to think a monkey is seeing (or hearing) anything other than simply a threat to them. I don't think they contemplate what species a lion is, or from. They may notice the physical difference, but I don't think there's much of a thought process that goes on as far as what is that 4 legged thing with a mane. I don't think it any different than the thunderstorm
I See a difference from the thunderstorm. Namely that while the chimp is still shaking a stick no animal is visible. Whether it imagines a chimp or a lion or just some vague conception called "enemy" he clearly is behaving in a way that suggests he thinks there is something to the thunderstorm that is impressed by his stick shaking. Not much different from imagining there is something to the universe that is impressed by prayer if you ask me. Can you tell the difference other than the level of sophistication to the belief?
Sure, well Zeus is not a creator deity.
I think what you mean is that the mythology presented by humans concerning Zeus does not mention that he is a creator god. That is co.pletely different from proof positive that Zeus was involved. Ditto the flyi g spaghetti monster. The number of people who believe something has nothing to do with the truth. Unless you can prove it doesn't exist then I have exactly as much logical reason to believe in it as to believe in the Yahweh.
In short what makes you right and poly wrong? Her beliefs seem more logically consistent to me since she does not distinguish between one unprovable being or another bit merely accepts many beings with equal (that is to say only testamonial) evidence.First off, there's really not much difference between you and I in this manner, except you believe in one less God than I do.
You seem to have missed the point. What reason do I as an outsider have to consider ypur belief more rational than poly's? It seems exactly as likely to me that she is right as that you are.
My belief is based on my experience(s).
Experiences (otherwise known as testimonial evidence) is notoriously untrustworthy. It does not justify belief in the way that evidence in the scientific sense does.
They're similar to explaining the floating phenomena in space as having sucking too much helium from a balloon to get that squeaky voice.
Both of these phenomena are imminently explainable from a scientific perspective. One is caused by the fluid in the inner ear "floating" and giving a false positive to the sense that determine if you are falling and the other has to do with helium effect on the vocal cords. I'm not sure why that doesn't "add up" to you but the answers to these and Amy other questions van be found with a simple Google search.
-->
@secularmerlin
The name "Yahweh" literally means "I exist".
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I think psychics, at least some, might be an example of this as well.Atheists with no soul concept feel all spiritual experiences are invalid because they are spiritual or had by a theists. Theists are mental deficients and therefore not able to have an experience without mixing supernatural into it. Even though there are atheists who believe in such things, for instance atheistic witches who work with the dead and land spirits.
-->
@3RU7AL
Good point. Paul was merely struck down by a blinding light and heard a voice from the sky.I'd settle for that too.
As far as conversion experiences, they tend to differ. Some Christians cannot even identify any conversion experience at all because they've believed ever since they can remember. I had a pastor like that. Each person is unique.The apostle Paul was a zealot. He was either going to be zealous for the Jewish law, or for the Gospel of Jesus who was in conflict with the Jewish law.
Most people who claim a particular experience along with their conversion express a feeling of extreme joy. That certainly how it was with me. And mine was actually a pretty profound experience. Maybe because I needed that to convince me. The apostle Paul's experience however was we could say probably far more profound than mine. But was obviously extremely frightening. Paul made a comment in one of his letters that it's a frightful thing to fall into the hands of God. While the statement may have different references, like maybe after death, I'm pretty sure he had his conversion experience in mind. So it's probably not the preferable way to become a believer.
I think what you're leading into is the alleged predestination conflict that cause some to believe that there actually is no choice, and that God simply chooses some, rejects others, and the one's he rejects really have no chance.
The problem is that I don't see any reason to suggest anything other than a monkey observing potential danger. I think a monkey will shake a stick at anything they feel is a threat. I don't see any reason to think there's any particular thought process as to what it is. To think otherwise to me would be assuming an agency of an agency. Assuming a monkey observes a thunderstorm as one if it's own on a higher level to support the idea of similarity between tribesmen who assign an agency to nature. Not seeing the enemy doesn't really change anything because the monkey may not see a roaring lion obscured by bushes, or not seeing an animal making a noise it's not familiar with. It seems one has to make leaps and bounds to support your particular theory. Even in the scenario of the caveman seeing depressed grass. He might have a better chance of survival assuming it's a lion, but may also have a less chance of surviving if he doesn't learn to fight. If most available food for hunting is in the area of dangerous predators for instance, he may eventually suffer from hunger. In other words, most of the theories involving survival also have variables.I See a difference from the thunderstorm. Namely that while the chimp is still shaking a stick no animal is visible. Whether it imagines a chimp or a lion or just some vague conception called "enemy" he clearly is behaving in a way that suggests he thinks there is something to the thunderstorm that is impressed by his stick shaking. Not much different from imagining there is something to the universe that is impressed by prayer if you ask me. Can you tell the difference other than the level of sophistication to the belief?
I think what you mean is that the mythology presented by humans concerning Zeus does not mention that he is a creator god. That is co.pletelydifferent from proof positive that Zeus was involved. Ditto the flyi g spaghetti monster. The number of people who believe something has nothing to do with the truth. Unless you can prove it doesn't exist then I have exactly as much logical reason to believe in it as to believe in the Yahweh.
No, it's not that the mythology doesn't mention Zeus being a creator allowing it to be an option. Zeus cannot be a creator according to the mythology itself because any deity produced by, say a thunder storm, cannot be a creator of the universe or the world. In Zeus' case, he actually had parents. So how could he be a creator?
You see you really need to make the distinction between creator, and created deity. With a creator for one, unless one tries to make mythological comparisons, he can have a more universal identification (Yahweh, Allah (which means god), The Great Spirit, The Grand Designer, etc.
-->
@secularmerlin
Then why is it used in court?Experiences (otherwise known as testimonial evidence) is notoriously untrustworthy. It does not justify belief in the way that evidence in the scientific sense does.
But keep in mind, I just gave you a reason why I believe, not why you should believe.
Both of these phenomena are imminently explainable from a scientific perspective. One is caused by the fluid in the inner ear "floating" and giving a false positive to the sense that determine if you are falling and the other has to do with helium effect on the vocal cords. I'm not sure why that doesn't "add up" to you but the answers to these and Amy other questions van be found with a simple Google search.
What I mean was, if you were in a space craft and upon returning brought back film showing you floating, you hear a child ask his parent how you were floating, and the parent says, he sucked too much helium from a balloon to get that Mickey Mouse voice to make the crew laugh. This parent would have to be very ignorant of course not understanding that in space one needs gravity boots. The parent can only understand that since a balloon will float away when filled with helium, a human will float too.
To give an example, Ludo just indicated that people choose their religion based on where they're brought up. While it's true that helium makes things float, it's also true that people often become cultural Christians (like Richard Dawkins), cultural Hindus, etc., due to where they grew up. But conversions are a different story. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned to Ludo that I was brought up in an atheist home, and if I was to be culturally influenced by a religion it would probably have been Buddhism because we had Buddhist icons in our home instead of Christian icons. I also brought up that China, which has a tremendous growth of Christianity, not only was a non-culturally Christian nation, there was tremendous opposition
resulting in imprisonment, torture, and execution for Christians and Buddhists.
Now imagine explaining to that parent you were floating because you were not being held down by gravity, and the parent still insisted you sucked on too many helium balloons? That's kind of how it comes across when someone keeps trying to pull the cultural influence card.
I'll also refer to the constant equating of hearing from God in one's spirit man, and hearing voices in one's head. It's an endless game.
-->
@RoderickSpode
Experiences (otherwise known as testimonial evidence) is notoriously untrustworthy. It does not justify belief in the way that evidence in the scientific sense does.Then why is it used in court.
Because lawyers do not care about truth.
-->
@RoderickSpode
You did not ask for THE answer. You asked for AN answer.The problem is that I don't see any reason to suggest anything other than a monkey observing potential danger.
I never claimed to be certain where the tendency came from only gave a possible candidate for the phenomenon which was monkey gets frightened by thunderstorm. Imagines danger shakes stick and this imagination evolves to be something more sophisticated such that it can imagine god(s). If we brainstorm together we might come up with others as well with no way to know which to believe over any other we just don't know for sure but I'm not claiming a provable truth here I'm just pointing out possible evolutionary avenues to the behavior. You are far overstating my actual argument.
What I mean was, if you were in a space craft and upon returning brought back film showing you floating, you hear a child ask his parent how you were floating, and the parent says, he sucked too much helium from a balloon to get that Mickey Mouse voice to make the crew laugh.
Huh. I had never heard this chestnut. I am afraid I didn't get your reference. The faith of a child is not unlike faith in god(s). Just because a child always believes their parent does not mean the parent is correct. As you said many people believe in fictional gods so faith in god(s) does not mean the god(s) are real. As a child grows up they begin to understand that many stories like this were just in fun. In religions (fictional ones included) you are never told this. If they are incorrect they continue to have faith anyway. As you said one could be forgiven if one were to conclude that there is no observable difference between the methods you use to confirm your faith and the way practitioners of fictional religions confirm theirs.
While it's true that helium makes things float, it's also true that people often become cultural Christians (like Richard Dawkins), cultural Hindus, etc., due to where they grew up. But conversions are a different story. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned to Ludo that I was brought up in an atheist home, and if I was to be culturally influenced by a religion it would probably have been Buddhism because we had Buddhist icons in our home instead of Christian icons. I also brought up that China, which has a tremendous growth of Christianity, not only was a non-culturally Christian nation, there was tremendous oppositionresulting in imprisonment, torture, and execution for Christians and Buddhists.
Your religion is far from unique in this way many religions have adult converts sometimes joining the faith at great personal cost. What separates this from exactly the same thing happening in fictional religions?
I'll also refer to the constant equating of hearing from God in one's spirit man, and hearing voices in one's head. It's an endless game.
I do not recall bringing this up but I promise I will drop it if you can supply a method whereby I can tell the difference when it happens to you.
You see you really need to make the distinction between creator, and created deity. With a creator for one, unless one tries to make mythological comparisons, he can have a more universal identification (Yahweh, Allah (which means god), The Great Spirit, The Grand Designer, etc.
I have no problem saying that I do not know where the universe originally came from or even if that is a nonsensical thing to say about the universe. As far as I can tell there is equal valid scientific evidence for all gods, spirits, deities and pasta monsters. I'm just curious how you have counted every single other cause besides your preferred one out of the running.
I know why I don't believe in them (because there is no sufficient evidence) but why do you not believe (you believe one thing without sufficient scientific evidence why not two? If two why not a thousand?) What makes poly wrong? Specifically.
-->
@secularmerlin
And judges don't?Because lawyers do not care about truth.
An example of the flaw in your theory is that people do become believers because of someone's personal testimony.
So God places his giant finger in the sky so everyone in the world can see it, and sort of does a skywriting message about his existence. Some people will say it's scientific proof (because we all can see it) that God exists, and a number of people become believers. Inevitably, some people will say the performance was manufactured by aliens. There are people who already claim religious experiences are somehow crafted in our minds via extraterrestrial experimentation.
However, if someone they highly respect becomes a believer, gives their personal testimony, that may hold far more water to said individuals as opposed to a giant skywriting finger.
-->
@secularmerlin
You did not ask for THE answer. You asked for AN answer.I never claimed to be certain where the tendency came from only gave a possible candidate for the phenomenon which was monkey gets frightened by thunderstorm. Imagines danger shakes stick and this imagination evolves to be something more sophisticated such that it can imagine god(s). If webrainstorm together we might come up with others as well with no way to know which to believe over any other we just don't know for sure but I'm not claiming a provable truth here I'm just pointing out possible evolutionary avenues to the behavior. You are far overstating my actual argument.
Fair enough. You don't see reason to assign a god agency, and I don't see any reason to assume any mental thought process in monkeys. I can
respect that.
Huh. I had never heard this chestnut. I am afraid I didn't get your reference. The faith of a child is not unlike faith in god(s). Just because a child alwaysbelieves their parent does not mean the parent is correct. As you said many people believe in fictional gods so faith in god(s) does not mean the god(s) are real. As a child grows up they begin to understand that many stories like this were just in fun. In religions (fictional ones included) you are never told this. If they are incorrect they continue to have faith anyway. As you said one could be forgiven if one were to conclude that there is no observable differencebetween the methods you use to confirm your faith and the way practitioners of fictional religions confirm theirs.
Well it's definitely not about children and what their parents tell them.
The illustration was simply a way to compare the absurdity of how claims are considered etched-in-stone answers to why individuals believe in God, or identify with a religion. The observation that nations and regions have cultural religions is of course correct though. So my analogy I admit is over-the-top. But cultural religion is a separate entity with religious conversion, becoming a believer (a reference usually referring to Christianity), and theism. An example would be within the prison system. Some atheists use the fact that the majority of inmates statistically identify with a religion, or Christian denomination when stats are employed, to suggest that atheists are less likely to commit a crime than a believer. The problem is that there are many Christian converts within prison (inmates who convert to Christianity). So who are these converts? Obviously most of them are those who statistically fall into the Christian or denominational category. Cultural Christians that were not believers. Ludo would probably say I'm using a No True Scotsman Fallacy. Of course the problem is that if these converts are mostly atheist (in American prisons), that would suggest that there's a whole lotta atheists in prison.
I can kindly mention that to Ludo, with no response, and one or two months down the road I'll say something that will cause him to retort with the
empirical claim that I only became a believer because I live in America. This is just one example by the way.
We might equate this, if we could say, frustration, with maybe me constantly saying we didn't evolve from monkeys. And then you correct me without a response, and 1 or 2 months down the road I say the same thing.
Your religion is far from unique in this way many religions have adult converts sometimes joining the faith at great personal cost. What separates this from exactly the same thing happening in fictional religions?
But I never claimed it was unique. That's why I mentioned Buddhists in China were persecuted as well to make sure I didn't give that impression.
-->
@RoderickSpode
No that is an example of a flaw in the way people examine evidence.An example of the flaw in your theory is that people do become believers because of someone's personal testimony.
-->
@RoderickSpode
That is interesting. I would reject both those claims.Some people will say it's scientific proof (because we all can see it) that God exists, and a number of people become believers. Inevitably, some people will say the performance was manufactured by aliens.
-->
@secularmerlin
And likewise I'll try to avoid giving the impression that I'm claiming you personally make said claims. Because in this case I wasn't. Obviously claiming someone is hearing voices in their head (a sign of mental illness) is pretty derogatory. And usually made by people with less tact, or have the specific intent of insult.I do not recall bringing this up but I promise I will drop it if you can supply a method whereby I can tell the difference when it happens to you.
I'll just have to try and use the closest analogy I can think even though it's not an absolute description.
Let's say someone is trying to make a business deal with you, you strongly consider it, but something tells you to back off from the deal (whether justified or not, or whether you back off or not). When this intuitive phenomena happened (I'm assuming you experienced something like this)?, did you hear a voice in your head?
I have no problem saying that I do not know where the universe originally came from or even if that is a nonsensical thing to say about the universe. As faras I can tell there is equal valid scientific evidence for all gods, spirits, deities and pasta monsters. I'm just curious how you have counted every single other cause besides your preferred one out of the running. I know why I don't believe in them (because there is no sufficient evidence) but why do you not believe (you believe one thing without sufficient scientific evidence why not two? If two why not a thousand?) What makes poly wrong? Specifically.
Well I'm not implying Poly is wrong. But I have to ask, why do you suggest I don't have evidence, and why do you think my belief is preferred?
-->
@RoderickSpode
I don't think that hearing voices (or more to the point immaginimg you hear voices) makes you crazy. It is when you do not recognize that the voices have no external source that I would recommend that some one seek help.did you hear a voice in your head?
I have to ask, why do you suggest I don't have evidence, and why do you think my belief is preferred?
I did not say no evidence. I recognize that testimonial evidence is,evidence it just isn't sufficient evidence. Sufficient scientifically proven evidence is what all the god claims that I know of lack. As to preferred I only mean the belief that you subscribe to.
I'm not implying Poly is wrong.
When you claim your god is the only true god you are more than implying poly is wrong you are staying it plainly.
-->
@RoderickSpode
I don't see any reason to assume any mental thought process in monkeys. I canrespect that.
May I recommend that you check out the cited sources for this article to see how we have determined that chimpanzees display intelligence (otherwise known as sophisticated thought processes).
But I never claimed it was unique. That's why I mentioned Buddhists in China were persecuted as well to make sure I didn't give that impression.
I appreciate the honesty. I will in turn be honest with you. If the conversion process of which you speak is not unique to christianity it does not separate christianity from other religions in any way and does nothing to answer the op.
-->
@secularmerlin
But we're not talking about trying solve a crime.No that is an example of a flaw in the way people examine evidence.
What exactly would you do if you wanted to find God?
There's a big difference in wanting to find God for trivial reasons, and wanting to find God for answers that no one else can provide.
-->
@secularmerlin
That is interesting. I would reject both those claims.
That's just one example on how might one become a believer. For some, they may want to kill that person who they respected. I think if a high profile atheist activist, like the white Fu Manchu looking dude from Texas became a believer he'd be bashed all over the internet. This seems to be the case with Antony Flew, and possibly even Richard Dawkins.
So what would you consider favorable evidence?
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't think that hearing voices (or more to the point immaginimg you hear voices) makes you crazy. It is when you do not recognize that the voices have no external source that I would recommend that some one seek help.
You veered completely away from the question.
I did not say no evidence. I recognize that testimonial evidence is,evidence it just isn't sufficient evidence. Sufficient scientifically proven evidence is what all the god claims that I know of lack. As to preferred I only mean the belief that you subscribe to.
The evidence is for me. The evidence of God has already been provided. Wouldn't you agree that the creator of the universe would be able to provide evidence, and/or proof of his existence to where an individual would know he was the creator?
As far as preferred religion, I probably would have chosen Buddhism. Or, possibly Catholicism strictly for superficial reasons.
-->
@secularmerlin
When you claim your god is the only true god you are more than implying poly is wrong you are staying it plainly.
From what I understand, Poly doesn't believe in a creator, whereas I do. (Egads, we disagree). But I could be wrong about that. Since thegods that poly believes in (small 'g' meaning non-creators) are not creators, they wouldn't rule out any creator God. At least not from my standpoint. But I don't really know enough about her beliefs to make any substantial claims.
May I recommend that you check out the cited sources for this article to see how we have determined that chimpanzees display intelligence (otherwise known as sophisticated thought processes).
Well of course there's no reference to primitive humans and deities since this is a religiously neutral article. So basically the idea is that since monkeys show signs of considerable intelligence, then assumingly they might have the ability to imagine a higher form of monkeyhood.
Well so do octopuses. And they're intelligence is a bit more puzzling. In light of intelligent design, we could say monkeys have common design with
humans with remarkably high intelligence, and octopuses have far less common design with humans with remarkably high intelligence.
I appreciate the honesty. I will in turn be honest with you. If the conversion process of which you speak is not unique to christianity it does not separate christianity from other religions in any way and does nothing to answer the op.
Christianity is not unique with Buddhism, and any other religion that faced persecution. More specifically, Christianity is not the only religion that faces persecution. That's all I meant.
I may not be sure what you're getting at, but specific religious conversions are unique. For instance, Buddhists don't adhere to any god or deity.
Buddhists generally, particularly western Buddhists don't convert due to deity identification.
-->
@RoderickSpode
Like can I please live forever? I can! Oh thank you god, I never have to die it's so great to have that question answered and that fear pacified. Now I can believe in you.There's a big difference in wanting to find God for trivial reasons, and wanting to find God for answers that no one else can provide
-->
@RoderickSpode
Are you seriously asking that question?Then why is it used in court?
In court, testimonial evidence pertains to REAL people, REAL facts, REAL evidence and REAL events. Testimonial evidence supports all of those things, they do not support assertions of things that have never been shown to exist.
Of course, feel free to walk into any court room and provide testimonial evidence for God, then see how quickly you are escorted out of the court room to a nearby clinic where the judge would have ordered a psychiatric evaluation.
Testimonial evidence is completely useless, worthless and not valid in any way when it comes to religious beliefs.
-->
@RoderickSpode
A Creator with a brain in his head would never just give YOU personally evidence of it's existence, a Creator would provide hard evidence to it's existence to everyone equally. This is simple basic logic.The evidence is for me. The evidence of God has already been provided. Wouldn't you agree that the creator of the universe would be able to provide evidence, and/or proof of his existence to where an individual would know he was the creator?
Try to remember, YOU are not special.
-->
@RoderickSpode
That person doesn't know how to use their brains, they are naive, gullible and very ignorant.An example of the flaw in your theory is that people do become believers because of someone's personal testimony.