|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Conversations with God | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
It's not a rationalization. It's a rational conclusion, like concluding that Santa Claus doesn't bring your presents.
You rationalize by saying that you in effect "grew up" and that many of the rest of us cling to childish fantasy regarding our religious beliefs. Phat writes:
Nonsense. That's like saying I swapped Santa for critical thinking and scientific standards. The critical thinking and scientific standards are there whether belief in God is there or not. YOU use critical thinking and scientific standards in practical areas of your life. You only compartmentalize God as immune to them.
You simply swapped God (and in your mind unicorns and Leprechauns) for Critical Thinking and scientific standards. Phat writes:
YOU told us what you experienced. According to YOUR description, I have had the same or similar experiences. YOU are the one who is trying to crawl inside MY head and claim that my experiences are less valid than yours.
You cant crawl inside our head and tell us what we have experienced. Phat writes:
You're the one who's assuming. My conclusion is based on fact. We know that intellectual aberrations do occur. And your assumption is contradicted by the existence of other religions, which all make the same assumptions about their own gods.
You cant even assume the nature of why we experienced it. Phat writes:
Nonsense. You can always be proven wrong if you are wrong.
The idea that you could be proven wrong was your faux pas. Phat writes:
Well, I proved that YOUR belief is juvenile and simplistic. I'm not saying that ALL beliefs about God are necessarily juvenile and simplistic.
You only proved that the belief that you chose to have regarding God was juvenile and simplistic. Phat writes:
It's the best process, period. As I have pointed out umpteen-squared times, YOU use the same process in 99% of your life - because it works best. You just keep your precious Sky-Daddy belief protected from scrutiny - likely because you know deep down that it can not pass any scrutiny.
Indeed you chose the process that worked best for you at that time.... Phat writes:
"If somebody told you to jump in the river, would you do it?" I am only suggesting that you chose prematurely. And now you're saying it's "premature" NOT to do it?
Phat writes:
You're the one who claims that Hell is a choice. Why would I trust your opinion about choices? Dont pretend you only had one option."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
It's not an assertion. It's a conclusion based on the facts. Everyone DOES get their own god. That's why there are so many of them.
Just as you once told me that I dont get to have my own private definition of "evidence"...you dont get to assert that everyone gets their own god. Phat writes:
Sez you. The Hindus disagree. The Romans disagreed. The Greeks disagreed. The Egyptians disagreed. Etc.
There is only One God. Phat writes:
I concluded it's a myth for the same reasons that you concluded leprechauns are a myth.
Just because you dont see it and concluded it a myth... Phat writes:
Everyone can reach the same conclusion for themselves. I don't need to tell them what to conclude. ... gives you no room to assume that your conclusion should be adopted by everyone. And AGAIN, YOU have reached the same conclusion about leprechauns, for the same reasons. You have no basis for reaching a different conclusion about gods.
Phat writes:
If you can't provide facts, you can't reasonably make a conclusion.
You claim facts but I see no way to provide them. Phat writes:
Take the word "never" out of there. When there is no evidence to support leprechauns, YOU conclude absence.
And absence of evidence never suggests evidence of ab sense. Phat writes:
As I have pointed out before, your interpretation of your experiences is wrong.
I insist that my beliefs are the right way because of my experiences. Phat writes:
As I have also pointed out before, my experiences are the same as yours or similar. It's your interpretation that's wrong. You have no basis for your conclusions except for presuppositions based on your beliefs. Your "reasoning" is circular. You insist that yours are right based only on tour deductive logic. I have had experiences that can not be explained. So guess what - I don't explain them. I don't know what caused them - and neither do you.
Phat writes:
Of course it is. Which is no default conclusion."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
You prove that conclusion every day. You've thrown out the Bible, which is the only basis for your God (Jesus in particular). Everything you believe about your God is made up in your head or somebody else's.
Thats only based on your assumption/conclusion that God is strictly a made-up character... Phat writes:
Nonsense. If you had been born in India, you'd claim that Vishnu chose you. If you had been born a thousand years ago, you'd claim that Odin chose you.
God chose me long before I even had the capability to choose Him. Phat writes:
It's not a vote. Reality does not require majority assent.
We all (by a large majority) agree that Leprechauns were a cultural myth, as is bigfoot as is Loch Ness. Phat writes:
I'm not. The Hindus', Romans', etc. beliefs are as wrong as yours.
... I dont know why you are so afraid to proclaim the beliefs of another culture as WRONG. Phat writes:
The Apostle Paul was certainly wrong about a lot of things.
The Apostle Paul certainly was not. Phat writes:
Yes. What are you suggesting? That we all will,after all, arrive at the same conclusion? You're assuming that there is a "correct" conclusion. If the question is, "What is the best flavour of ice cream?" you'll get a lot of different opinions. But the honest conclusion is that it's a matter of personal taste and there is no "right answer". The same applies to the question of gods. There is no right answer.
Phat writes:
Not at all. You embarrass yourself by never telling us what the difference is. Your only argument seems to be the fallacy of popularity. In which case, you lose anyway because your perverted vision of Jesus Christ is by no means the most popular version of God.
You embarrass yourself by suggesting that Leprechauns are anywhere near on par with Jesus Christ or Allah Phat writes:
Neither does ringo of Saskatchewan. It's not a personal conclusion. It's an objective conclusion.
I do NOT concluse that all claims of personal healings, more than coincidental manifestations, and signs and wonders experienced by large groups of people in the mainstream religions should all simply be rejected because ringo of Saskatchewan personally concluded it all a load of crap... Phat writes:
Now you're just being silly. I don't suggest that everyone else is wrong. Even YOU agree with me that most of the beliefs about gods are wrong.
... and then has the gall to suggest that he was right and everyone else was wrong. Phat writes:
No, your presuppositions were based on belief in the Christian God and belief in other spooks including demons.
My presuppositions were based on voices that I and others heard... Phat writes:
I have heard scary things too. You are wrong in thinking you know the cause of those noises.
... that sounded like chipmunks and which literally caused my hair on my arms and legs to stand on end. Phat writes:
I don't believe it. Four eyewitness accounts are unlikely to agree five minutes after the event, much less 27 years later.
To this day,27 years later, the 4 of us present would tell the same basic story. Phat writes:
Your mistake there is in thinking, "Not coincidence, therefore the God that I have been told about since I was born." Think of a few other possibilities before you rubber-stamp your confirmation bias.
There were countless times where a particular scripture that I would be studying was repeated back to me from laymen and Pastors alike that same day. I suppose I could call it coincidence though it happened too often for that. Phat writes:
Well, YOU'RE dishonest about them. You won't discuss them here, so we can't point out any discrepancies that you might have missed.
In addition, Isaiah Saldivar,Alexander Pagami, Vlad Savchuck and other supernatural revivalists have yet to show me that they are in any way dishonest, lying, or making stuff up. Phat writes:
I'm not interested in their human imperfections either. I'm only interested in the wrong things that they teach. But you refuse to discuss that.
... I freely admit that any Christian can turn out to be evil, selfish, or a bad witness for their faith. I am not looking for perfect teachers or perfect humans. Phat writes:
You could look for a cheap way to turn base metals into gold. Doesn't mean there is one to find.
I am looking for an absolute truth vs a Relativistic truth. Phat writes:
Because deep down you know there's something to what people ae telling you? So why do I even bother hanging around here?"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
What? You're going to have to explain that.
Look at what you believe: Everything is made up in ...somebodies head... That is one of the flaws in your thinking which led you to atheism. Phat writes:
Explain that too. I have never fallen for any doctrines of demons.
You fell for too many doctrines of demons. Phat writes:
Your refusal to follow Biblical Jesus' instructions is just evidence that your "Jesus" is made up in your head.
Even if I sold all that I had and went and split it with homeless people you would never change your beliefs. Phat writes:
You forget that I respect characters in books. You can learn as much from a character in a book as you can from a carny barker on YouTube.
You might think that I finally respected Jesus, but you would still think of it all as characters in a book. Phat writes:
It's not a PRATT. It has never been refuted.
ringo writes:
Its time we exposed this PRATT for what it is. If you had been born in India, you'd claim that Vishnu chose you. If you had been born a thousand years ago, you'd claim that Odin chose you. Phat writes:
See? There you go, denying. That isn't refuting.
people dont simply choose cultural objects and local icons to believe in. Phat writes:
We are definitely not in a war with spooks. There are no "signs" that spooks exist.
Yet you failed to realize the signs that we are in a war. Phat writes:
And I tell YOU to look closer. Yes, God is missing from my phone and it still works.
And godless humanistic socialism is a rather attractive idol...it seems to work. I say look closer. God is missing. Phat writes:
Non suquitur. Being wrong about gods has nothing to do with righteousness.
ringo writes:
And yours. We are all wrong. None are righteous. The Hindus', Romans', etc. beliefs are as wrong as yours. Phat writes:
Start a topic.
ringo writes:
Prove it. Name 4 of them. The Apostle Paul was certainly wrong about a lot of things. Phat writes:
Moral relativism is a fact.
Moral relativism is a convenient copout. Phat writes:
"Absolute truth" has always suffered from the fact that every denomination, sect and cult has its own mutually-exclusive "absolute truth".
Absolute truth suffered due to the rise of Right ing Authoritarianism, which hijacked the purpose and goal. Phat writes:
Rejecting what Jesus said in a "dusty old book" is not mainstream.
ringo writes:
I disagree. I am quite mainstream. You embarrass yourself by never telling us what the difference is. Your only argument seems to be the fallacy of popularity. In which case, you lose anyway because your perverted vision of Jesus Christ is by no means the most popular version of God. Phat writes:
How can you disagree with an objective conclusion?
ringo writes:
Oh I get your argument. I simply disagree. It's not a personal conclusion. It's an objective conclusion. Phat writes:
Your conclusion is not objective.
My objective conclusion is that there is a Creator. Phat writes:
If there is no evidence, how can there be objectivity?
You whine for evidence and refuse to consider the objectivity. Phat writes:
You quoted me and then you didn't respond to what I said. The problem is, as a potential Bride of God, you stand at the altar forever waiting for evidence before even considering marriage. I took the plunge. And it ain't koolaid neither. Try again:
quote:Respond to that and keep your rants to yourself. "I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
This is a discussion site. You can do your processing on your own time.
My rants are part of my processing. Phat writes:
You should always go out of your way to avoid confirmation bias.
Your problem is that you went out of your way to avoid confirmation bias... Phat writes:
Not at all. Lack of confirmation for one idea is not automatic confirmation of the opposite (if there even is an opposite).
... and ended up confirming the opposite.... Phat writes:
I haven't concluded that a god or gods doesn't exist. I've concluded that there's no reason to think that they do exist, the same as there's no reason to conclude that leprechauns exist.
How did you conclude that God did not exist when you once believed He did exist? Phat writes:
Wrong. As I have told you before, I have heard strange noises, etc. I didn't make the same mistake that you make and assume an explanation.
...you realized that you never heard any audible answers or encouragements from the Deity Himself, right? Phat writes:
The onus is on you here to expalin how those scholarly explanations are wrong.
You probably read a few scholarly articles on the phenomenon of inner voices and of how it was generally depicted among psychotics. Phat writes:
Something that is not real can not "become unreal".
How did God become unreal to you? Phat writes:
Take out the word "merely". All books are a product of humans - and I respect the Bible as a book more than you do.
How did the book become merely a product of humans... Phat writes:
Again, the onus is on you to explain why your particular doctrines come directly from God while those in the Qur'an and Book of Mormon do not.
... and not a rhema word confirmed through the Holy Spirit? Phat writes:
The same way that you willfully and actively choose to deny that leprechauns are real.
Matter of fact, how did you willfully and actively choose to deny that the Holy Spirit is real? Phat writes:
And you yourself claim that you once believed in Santa Claus. You yourself claim that you once accepted such beliefs."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
So you're infallible.
I will NOT doubt...and would feel personally ashamed were I to embrace doubt willfully. Phat writes:
Just out of curiosity, have you actually seen True Grit or are you just quoting somebody who quoted somebody who quoted somebody who quoted somebody who quoted somebody? AZ can and likely will use the vain imaginations of J.Noble Daggett...."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
As I keep telling you, everybody has experiences. Christians interpret their experiences in Christian terms. Rational people interpret their experiences in rational terms.
Christian believers have support in the way of experience. Phat writes:
"God's character" is defined in your head, to fit the lack of evidence. "Everyone was never meant to accept God en masse," is a handy copout, made up in your head to fit the reality. Critics contend that such a "God" is unworthy of worship, but they don't understand that Gods character is not defined by and through the book exclusively..."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Nobody ever did. People can talk at whatever god they believe in and they can believe that they hear it talking to them - but there is no more reality in you "communing" with God than there is in somebody else communing with Quetzalcoatl.
When is the last time you talked(prayed communed with) God? Phat writes:
From your posts.
How can you be so sure that I am disconnected with reality... Phat writes:
The fact that it's "us guys" and not just me. Collective reality is usually more reliable than individual reality. ... while you guys are rational and logically sane? Also the fact that you scoff at rationality and logic. The guy who thinks everybody is crazy but him is usually the crazy one.
Phat writes:
You said it yourself: rationality and logic.
How do you know that you are not deceived? Phat writes:
Read that again. Does it make sense to you? ... I would say that a guy who simply listens to a character in a book and does not believe that the character is actually real is just as delusional. I don't believe that Long John Silver is real. How does that make me delusional?
Phat writes:
What advice do I give? All I advise you to do is use your head. And yes, I do follow that advice. And since my head is not infallible, I look for logical, rational agreement from other heads. And by the way....all this advice you give....do you yourself follow it?"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Your disagreement has no value unless you have an argument to back it up.
Oh, come on, you won't even bet your spare change on your "faith", much less your life.
That's because your perspective is wrong. We know that because you draw your conclusions in defiance of the evidence. "I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
It isn't the altar of socialism. It's the altar of Christianity. It's what Jesus said to do. Do you think all of the early Christians were rich?
Stop it. You wouldn't be homeless.
No. Fact. You have mocked the idea of evidence many times.
Again that's just a convenient copout. As AZPaul3 pointed out to you the other day, there is evidence for everything we know to be true. That's how we know something is true - evidence. To say that there is "no evidence possible" is just egregious.
It is the default. And you know it because it's the default for you in everything except your belief.
No it doesn't.
Then how do you differ from the person who believes in Shiva or the person who believes in Ahura Mazda? You use the same arguments against them as we use against you.
And so do you, in every case but one.
So you're infallible.
Sure you could. Anybody can. "I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Not trusting rational people is a sure sign of mental illness. They dont trust what you and ringo and AZ Paul call "the rational people"."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
The problem is that we're not labeling enough mentally unstable people as unstable. As long as they really, really, really believe, we wait for them to do something really unspeakable before we act. We should be fixing the little instabilities before they become big ones.
And I worry that in the future, the "rational" secular majority will label anyone who is religious as mentally unstable as well. Phat writes:
Yup, they sure do. It's called "society". They dont get to use the standard which they have adopted to govern everybody."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Funny how you swallow the prophecies hook, line and sinker, yet you denigrate the words of the Master.
Yeah it is prophesied that you will get your turn. Phat writes:
No you don't. ... I know for a fact that it is real."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
And I keep telling you, you're misinterpreting what you see.
I have seen it happen in front of me time and time again. Phat writes:
You have no basis for reaching that conclusion - and there is certainly nothing "obvious" about it. People with different cultural backgrounds than yours will reach different conclusions and consider them "obvious" too.
Even if a few people are dramatically exaggerating in front of crowds, the vast majority of deliverance is an actual physical and mental (and obviously spiritual) manifestation. Phat writes:
Eyewitness accounts are extremely unreliable. I am sure there is a way to test such an event, though you likely would dismiss interviewing the participants for their reaction. I'll give you an example: When I worked at the RCMP Training Academy, a bunch of us were accidentally involved in an experiment when we were having coffee with some cadets. What I saw was: A tall man in his mid-twenties wearing a dark ski jacket came into the room and took an appointment book out of somebody's gym bag and ran away. Then the instructor came in and asked for eyewitness accounts. The man was variously described as tall/average with dark/light hair, wearing a black/blue/red jacket and he took a book/camera. (By the way, he didn't take anything at all.) And what I describe to you today is not necessarily what I saw years ago. Every time I tell the story, it reinforces the "memory". I am not infallible, but you claim that you are."I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024