Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   This belief thing
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 39 of 162 (782669)
04-27-2016 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by jar
04-27-2016 10:24 AM


Re: Religion as a path
I was going to end this topic anyway, when Admin came along, so this will be my transition post. I believe I've answered you sufficiently but of course nothing would ever convince you or those who would rather believe things are as you say they are. The only point I failed to make to my satisfaction was that the RCC would torture me TODAY too if they could get away with it, but the political situation is against them. Nevertheless all the same rules that fueled the Inquisition are still on their books and if and when they get power again you can bet any real Biblical Protestants that are still left in the world WILL be tortured and killed. And of course it is their murderous dealings with "heretics" and insistence that all bow to the Pope that was the reason for eventually denying Catholics political power in the Protestant countries. Most Catholics in these countries today think more like Protestants, which is a good thing, but that doesn't stop the RCC papal powers from having other plans.
As for "the nature of belief" I think I may already have said all I have to say on that too. I hope Vimesey will answer my post to him eventually but to explain how belief in religion in general comes about I have only the view that it's either inherited or a supernatural experience was the convincing factor. I guess sometimes people are persuaded by what a religion seems to offer, but others would have to present that argument. And as for the origin of the religions from a general worldly point of view I think it's about myths that become hero worship for starters. Nimrod became the "god" of a religion in his time for instance, as one of the "mighty men." And supernatural experiences were probably a part of that too.
Unless somebody has something to say to me about what I've said along these lines I think I'll "abandon" this topic now for lack of any more to say about it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 04-27-2016 10:24 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 46 of 162 (782708)
04-27-2016 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Tangle
04-27-2016 6:36 PM


It's an obvious logic error but, as we've seen with Faith's comments above, the belief is stronger than the logic. Faith simply can not believe that a fervant believer in Shinto has an equally strong claim to the truth as she does or that both could have invented, despite the fact that she believes other belief systems than her's have been invented.
I believe you have completely misunderstood what I'm saying. If I'd ever said that the fervency of my faith was evidence for the truth of what I believe you'd have a point, but I've never said any such thing. I'm quite aware that followers of all religions believe their religion is THE truth and that should go without saying, so this compulsion to inform me of it is just weird.
I believe I've said, though perhaps not clearly enough, that there are OBJECTIVE criteria for evaluating religions, that I was persuaded by the EVIDENCE given in the Bible to its truth over all other religions, by its account of historical events including miraculous events that demonstrate the character of God and His plan of salvation; and that my arriving at belief had absolutely nothing to do with some psychological or emotional condition of my own, some need I had to believe it, and I've certainly never claimed that my believing it to be the truth is evidence that it is the truth. So the fact that everybody believes their own religion is the truth is completely irrelevant to the question of whether it IS the truth or not.
I don't believe the psychological explanations given by unbelievers. If they apply in any cases at all of any conversion to any religion, it must be only in a very insignificant percentage of cases. Christian conversion is a REAL conversion by the way, as something in the person is ACTUALLY converted, meaning changed, from one state to another: one is "born again" of the spirit and now has a new spiritual perspective. But the term "conversion" is usually misunderstood to mean only the act of choosing a particular religion to follow.
Anyway that other kind of conversion which is a mere choosing is the question being addressed here -- what brings people to believe in something supernatural or transcendant anyway? I've given my speculations. I've answered in terms of truth claims. Let's drop that and just stick to the question of what motivates people to join a religion, any religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Tangle, posted 04-27-2016 6:36 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Tangle, posted 04-28-2016 4:15 AM Faith has replied
 Message 52 by Admin, posted 04-28-2016 9:41 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 51 of 162 (782730)
04-28-2016 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Tangle
04-28-2016 4:15 AM


objective evidence
I've seen you claim this many times and I've seen your 'evidence' shot down in flames more often. There is no objective evidence for what you believe, if there was, I'd believe it too.
Objective evidence: If you have no direct evidence of an event such as a miracle, or a historical occurrence of any kind, then you have to depend on the witnesses to the event. The only reason you think my evidence isn't good is that you reject the witnesses because you prefer to believe they were deluded or nonexistent or whatever, out of bias. I accept them as truthful good witnesses and therefore what they witnessed is evidence, and the Bible is nothing but evidence after evidence reported by trustworthy witnesses. You should at least acknowledge that the principle is valid even though your prejudice makes you prefer to impugn the character of the witnesses.'
The mere fact that you're incapable of addressing and accepting simple truths about geology, biology and physics - where there is real evidence - makes your arguments defunct.
Ah well, I know that where I differ with conventional science on those things it's because the evidence is subject to interpretation, and what I'm rejecting is their interpretation, not the evidence itself, and I've many times shown that the evidence better supports creationist views rather than evolutionist views, and it's only because the conventional interpretations are so entrenched that their falseness is hard to expose.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Tangle, posted 04-28-2016 4:15 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Tangle, posted 04-28-2016 9:53 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 67 of 162 (783106)
05-03-2016 3:15 PM


Reliability of witness testimony
If this is going to get me suspended, may I have the option of deleting it instead?
Admin ruled in Message 52:
I've read ahead to your Message 51 and think your argument that claimed eyewitness accounts should be accepted as evidence would be a good discussion subtopic, but do not use any examples that are in any way connected to Christianity.
Intro:
I would like to try to demonstrate this principle but ruling out Christianity does make it difficult. The problem is that Christianity is the only religion that is based on an abundance of eyewitness accounts. The Bible gives the standard that two or three witnesses are required in order to establish a truth, such as an accusation of the commission of a crime. Islam has one witness, Mohammed himself, and he isn't witness to anything historical anyway, just to his meeting with the angel he calls Gabriel and what the angel dictated to him. Mormonism has one witness, Joseph Smith, to his meeting with the angel Moroni and his finding of the golden plates which recount the events of the Book of Mormon. Some claimed to be witnesses to the existence of the plates, but that's not the same thing as being a witness to the historical events themselves. There have been many similar claims in recent times, as the Seth Books, Urantia, A Course in Miracles, and other occult teachings were also claimed by a single individual to have been dictated to him or her by a spirit being. Otherwise, most religions are based on teachings rather than on witnesses to anything historical at all, teachings sometimes based on the personal experience of a particular revered guru, such as Buddha's teachings based on his experiences in meditation, and similar teachings of various Hindu gurus or avatars.
I think the witness testimony in all those cases except the Bible is disqualified because it's the testimony of only one witness. I personally believe that spirit beings probably did dictate the teachings in some of those cases, but I can't argue the case for witness testimony on the basis of only one witnss, AND BESIDES, they aren't witnesses to historical events, they are just people who experienced an encounter with a spirit being who imparted teachings they wrote down, which may best be known as "dpctrines of demons." There was a spate of "channeling" back in the 70s and 80s where a single "chosen" individual would pass on advice and "wisdom" from some demonic entity or other. Most of these incidents aren't exactly religions but they are matters of belief so I guess they belong on this thread.
How about some UFO abduction stories? Some of them have multiple witnesses: 100+ Alien Abduction Stories That Will Make You Believe | Thought Catalog
I believe all these stories in the sense that I believe these people experienced what they describe, but I think what they experienced was probably an engineered deception of some kind by spirit beings, i.e. demons, so that although they witnessed something that happened, exactly what that something was may not be what they thought it was. The UFO researcher Jacques Vallee came to the conclusion from his studies of claimed UFO phenomena that they were similar to experiences reported by people in earlier times with more primitive technology, of fairies and other spiritual phenomena, therefore he concluded they had the same source and are all an engineered deception of some sort. I attribute it all to demons myself, but he didn't, just to some kind of spiritual deception. He believed in the reality of the accounts though, as do I.
Probably the most trustworthy historical witness accounts we rely on are histories of normal events rather than supernatural events, which could be accounts of anything. Books written about historical events in the past have more reliability the more witnesses they are able to discover and quote, other written accounts for instance. Biographies make use of the testimony of the person's friends and family, and if they're all dead, of whatever written accounts may exist. While there are often gray areas that can't be resolved, nobody dismisses the witness testimony as false just because it's witness testimony.
But this thread is about belief in the supernatural. I have to conclude there are no witness accounts except the Bible's that are truly trustworthy, and that's because the Bible has so many witnesses whose testimonies agree, to the existence of God, to miracles, to the difference between the one true God and the demonic gods of other religions.
But I'm not supposed to talk about Christianity, so I'm trying to make this post about witness reports in a more general sense, but it does seem to require me to come back to Christianity as the standard of comparison.
If this is going to get me suspended, may I have the option of deleting it instead?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Admin, posted 05-04-2016 7:54 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 77 of 162 (783598)
05-07-2016 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Tangle
05-07-2016 3:54 AM


If the interventionist god of your belief system really existed and needs us to believe in the one way to him and only one way to him, all these other absurdities could not exist.
Except that if GDR's God is the same as my God -- and that is true only to some extent I'm never really clear about -- then far from all the other religions not being able to exist, the Bible explains why all those other religions you call absurdities exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Tangle, posted 05-07-2016 3:54 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Tangle, posted 05-07-2016 8:39 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 79 of 162 (783603)
05-07-2016 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Tangle
05-07-2016 8:39 AM


Pretty much all belief systems explain why only theirs is correct and why all the others are wrong.
This is actually not true. People are always claiming this but it is not true. Islam may do this, because it's basically an imitation of Biblical religion, but the nonbiblical religions don't. Please quote one if you think I'm wrong.
ABE: Also, it's not wrong to wonder if GDR's God is the same as mine because his God didn't tell the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites and other similar events in the Old Testament. So to some extent he's made up his own God in contrast with the Biblical God.
And I may be misremembering this, but I think his God also didn't die to pay for our sins and save us from Hell. That's an entirely different God from mine if so.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Tangle, posted 05-07-2016 8:39 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Tangle, posted 05-07-2016 9:19 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 81 by Tangle, posted 05-07-2016 9:24 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 85 of 162 (783659)
05-07-2016 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Tangle
05-07-2016 9:24 AM


And I may be misremembering this, but I think his God also didn't die to pay for our sins and save us from Hell. That's an entirely different God from mine if so.
You're not helping your case by claiming that you have a private god that only you understand. It just shows how these things are invented.
Oh good grief. It would be helpful if you knew just a little about the history of western civilization, -- supposedly the civilization you grew up in (?) -- and the religion that built it. Sigh.
abe: and those supposed 34,000 different Christian groups is a gigantic misrepresentation of the truth, because probably more than 33,000 of them all agree on the Christian basics and differ only on secondary points, and the rest are likely not really Christian at all.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Tangle, posted 05-07-2016 9:24 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Tangle, posted 05-07-2016 7:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 89 of 162 (783702)
05-07-2016 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Tangle
05-07-2016 9:56 AM


jar writes:
Actually many such as Hinduism can also accept Christianity as just another set of gods.
So long as you do the other stuff as well. They have hundreds of gods, it's not the precise god that matters it's the practices that need to be followed that define Hinduism.
Not really, they're very egalitarian when it comes to any god you want to offer them and don't require anything in terms of practice. Of course they'll be happy to teach you their practices if you're interested. Kind of the way Roman Catholicism is these days: you can believe anything you want, even be an atheist, and they'll pronounce you within the pale.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Tangle, posted 05-07-2016 9:56 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 91 of 162 (783704)
05-07-2016 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Tangle
05-07-2016 8:00 PM


Sure, people, as we know, will happily believe what they would like to believe.
And that of course includes atheists and evolutionists and Pessimists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Tangle, posted 05-07-2016 8:00 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Tangle, posted 05-08-2016 4:22 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 93 of 162 (783726)
05-08-2016 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Tangle
05-08-2016 4:22 AM


I really wasn't sure what you'd say. Interesting that of course it's only people you disagree with who believe what they want to believe, not the people you agree with or humanity at large as you originally said. I just threw pessimists in for comic relief, although one could seriously ask if their pessimism reflects a desire to see things pessimistically.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Tangle, posted 05-08-2016 4:22 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Tangle, posted 05-08-2016 5:43 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 95 of 162 (783762)
05-08-2016 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Tangle
05-08-2016 5:43 AM


I just threw pessimists in for comic relief, although one could seriously ask if their pessimism reflects a desire to see things pessimistically.
Now now, let's not do the disingenuous thing. You inferred and are now stating it outloud that atheists are pessimists. How do you arrive at that conclusion?
Uh, I didn't arrive at that conclusion, I didn't even suspect the possibility of such a connection. The truth is what I said, I threw in the pessimist as a completely independent whimsical thought, no more than that, no connection with atheism or anything else, just another kind of "ist" that for some reason popped into my head, that I also thought humorous.
And the question is serious: where do you draw the line between the sorts of people who believe things because they are stu*pid enough to believe what they desire to believe, and those who are toughminded enough to reject their own subjectivity in a sincere desire to get at the truth.
Well, you seem to draw that line at the people who believe things you think are stu*pid and unfounded, out of personal bias.
It was God who led me to belief of course, but I could think it was my own toughmindedness that allowed me to see the truth in Christianity against a tidal wave of cultural and intellectual reasons not to, and I would never make the division between people that you do based on the CONTENT of their belief. Yes I saw what you said about atheists being mush-headed sometimes too but then you went on to claim that nevertheless in general they are more toughminded than those who believe in "superstitions and primitive belief systems." You do know I was an atheist for at least thirty years between my childhood nominal belief in a God and my being persuaded to Christianity after much reading about religions in my mid-late-forties? I don't know what the statistics are but your own personal bias is the biggest part of this judgment you are making.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Tangle, posted 05-08-2016 5:43 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Tangle, posted 05-08-2016 3:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 100 of 162 (783855)
05-09-2016 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Tangle
05-09-2016 4:51 AM


I didn't say what you are quoting in the quote box under my name, GDR did.
As you say, they can hold different views but it's still the same politician. Faith is claiming that she and you may be voting for different politicians whilst calling him by the same name.
If the characteristics are different it seems likely we're not talking about the same person.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Tangle, posted 05-09-2016 4:51 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Tangle, posted 05-09-2016 11:40 AM Faith has replied
 Message 102 by jar, posted 05-09-2016 12:06 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 110 by Modulous, posted 05-09-2016 3:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 103 of 162 (783863)
05-09-2016 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Tangle
05-09-2016 11:40 AM


This is the problem all religions have - they can't even agree amongst themselves even core belifs like which god they believe in. Two supposed Christians saying that they worship different gods. What more evidence is required to show that you're all making it up to suit?
Um, that's an odd conclusion to draw from what I said. The Bible provides a portrait of God and His doings. If someone decides he doesn't like some things about that portrait and throws out parts of the description for that reason, as a result he's going to come up with a different portrait, and if it's different enough how can we call it the same God? If the Bible says Jesus died to pay for our sins but the tamperer doesn't like that idea so pretends it isn't there, that's a different Jesus. This isn't the Bible's fault, or the fault of those who believe what's written, it's the tamperer's fault.
Jar does something else. Since God is presented in the Bible as being both severe and merciful, wrathful and patient, jealous and longsuffering, jar decides there is more than one god there. Most normal readers of the Bible understand that there is a time for wrath and a time for patience in the same personality, but not jar.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Tangle, posted 05-09-2016 11:40 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Tangle, posted 05-09-2016 1:29 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 106 by jar, posted 05-09-2016 1:54 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 107 of 162 (783875)
05-09-2016 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by jar
05-09-2016 1:54 PM


Re: Faith, please stop misrepresenting what I post, say or believe.
I was guessing at why you come up with different gods, true, so I apologize for that, but you also haven't said exactly why you think there are different gods. Isn't it fair to suppose that you are seeing different characteristics given as descriptive of God in different parts of the scripture and concluding from that fact that there are different gods?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by jar, posted 05-09-2016 1:54 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by jar, posted 05-09-2016 2:27 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 109 of 162 (783881)
05-09-2016 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by jar
05-09-2016 2:27 PM


Re: will the real god of the Bible please stand up?
Well, my basic guess was correct except that you add your own words to the text ("bumbling" for cryin out loud) which is tampering with the text. Yes you've said all that before, I just have trouble believing anyone could say something so obnoxious about the God of the Bible. My characterization was right in principle, just left out your personal embellishments and interpretations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by jar, posted 05-09-2016 2:27 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by jar, posted 05-09-2016 4:19 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024