Conversations with God

How can you understand Jesus if you do not understand the Essenes? How can you understand the Essenes if you do not understand Judaism?

Would that help him in his understanding of reality? Seems to me that just layering another body of superstitions over his present ones (or under them, however that works) doesn’t sound like it would be all that enlightening.

Don’t get me wrong, studying other cultures and religions can be very instructive into how and why societies are as they are. But your motives seem more sinister. Are you trying to strengthen his delusions?

As an intellectual exercise, to see the various crap the different religions concoct to explain their own existence and claims to power, other cultures can be fascinating.

I don’t think that’s what you had in mind, though. But, it might be just my lunch.

Phat writes: For the record, I don't believe in Flat Earth.

You might as well. You scoff at evidence and even thinking. If you "believe" in a round earth, it's most likely a religious belief rather than a scientific conclusion.

Phat writes: But how can (or could) you test God?

Same way as we test anything else. Your claim that there "can not" be evidence of God has no basis. It's just a convenient cop-out.

Phat writes: How can or could you test whether Jesus existed...

Same way we test whether Napoleon existed.

Phat writes: ... and why if so, He should be treated no differently than any other human?

If you think he should be treated differently, the onus is on you to provide the reasoning and evidence why he should.

Phat writes: At best I see a gallery of skeptics.

You remind me of the guy on Evolution Fairy Tale who called me a "Skeptic!" with a sneer. He might as well have been calling me an asshole.

"Gallery of skeptics" is a compliment. Most of us here would be glad to be included in that gallery, I think. It doesn't need to get any better than that.

Phat writes: And why do you insist I claim infallibility?

Because you do. You claim that your interpretation of your "experiences" can't possibly be wrong.

Phat writes: All that I claim is rationality within the context of my experience.

Rationality implies that you have reasons but you claim you don't need reasons to believe. Belief is not rational.

Phat writes: And the fact that many people claim the same thing gives me a reasonable assurance that I am not crazy or delusional.

On the contrary, the fact that many other people (Mormons, Raelians, etc.) have contradictory claims indicates that somebody's claims must be wrong.

Phat writes: Only you and your colleagues make that accusation.

It's not an 'accusation". It's an observation based on the facts.

Phat writes: Personally, I would be careful before so casually tossing God out with the eggshells.

But that's exactly what you do. You throw out Zeus and Thor. You only preserve your one favorite eggshell.

Phat writes: I would ask myself why I had no need for the product.

Do that then. Ask yourself why you have need for one eggshell and not the others.

Of course there are millions of products in the world that you don't need. The real question is whether you need an ivory back-scratcher at all.

Phat writes: I'm not simply going to doubt my personal experience due to some idea that it "can't happen"...

And I have never said you should. But it certainly makes more sense to consider the explanations that could happen.

Phat writes: ... or that rational science shows otherwise.

Well, it does. Rational science (the only kind of science we have) does provide rational explanations for experiences like yours. But you irrationally choose to reject them.

Phat writes: First, a lot of people have had similar experience.

As I have told you, I have had similar experiences - but I don't jump to the conclusion of demons.

Phat writes: Second, I know what I have experienced.

You really don't. Remember the story i told you about the thief/non-thief in the black/blue/red coat? What your mind perceived is not an accurate depiction of what your senses sensed - and what you remember is not an accurate record of what your mind perceived.

A fellow named Edward de Bono proposed a demonstration of how memory works: 1. Make some jello in a shallow pan. 2. Set one end of the pan on a book. 3. Drip hot watter at the high end and watch it trickle down to the low end.

Guess what? The water will find the channels that are already there and deepen them - i. e. what's already in your memory will be reinforced by everything new that enters it. The more often you remember something, the stronger the memory becomes - but it might not be an accurate memory at all.

Phat writes: ... for now I wont challenge your hypothesis...i'm just asking why you are so set on it.

And I keep telling you, I'm so set on it because it matches reality. In reality, you are not infallible. Your pre-conceived ideas, based on your religious beliefs, do not trump evidence.

Phat writes: Finally, there are many scientists such as Dr.John Lennox who are also believers.

Why would a mathematician know anything about how the mind works?

And what about the scientists from other religions who disagree with your interpretation?

Phat writes: You need to ask yourself why you have such a zeal to attempt to falsify belief...

You need to ask yourself why you think I do.

Phat writes: ... and also why you think that there is only one proper way to think, reason, and conclude.

Why do you think logic has rules? Why do we have a whole list of fallacies? There certainly are right and wrong ways to think.