Customer Discussions > Religion forum

To the theist:: how do you know you are right?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-141 of 141 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 5:17:29 PM PDT
Ariex says:
Elijah E. Stephens says: "You are right about there being psychological factors involved in thinking. However, one can take them into account, and work pass them."

Ariex: YES! We are all individuals, and yes, we all have biases, whether we want to believe that or not. Nobody is able to completely "take into account" one's own biases, nor can anyone "work pass them". They are a part of who we are.

Elijah E. Stephens says: "I became a Christian at a young age, and was involved in the church. As I recognized them, I started to have deep doubts, and so I started studying the resurrection from both sides."

Ariex: If this were true, it would be reflected in your presentations. From what you offer, it appears that you allowed apologists to present "both sides" for you. Otherwise you would recognize that your "facts" are not at all established as FACTS.

Sorry, Elijah, but your bias is clearly showing (as is mine, freely admitted), but your evidence is not so clearly in evidence.

(one large clue is your repeated reference to the Holocaust in comparison to the resurrection---the former is within the natural realm, the latter is not. Large scale murder is well documented, resurrection is completely undocumented. No, the Gospel stories are not "documentation", they are fantastic tales, anecdotes from unknown sources about things only known in stories.)

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 5:39:10 PM PDT
Ariex says:
Elijah E. Stephens says: "A). For someone to die they have to exist. Thus preaching after Jesus death, requires an existing Jesus to die."

Ariex: Very poor logic for someone who claims a degree in psychology. (?) Since all we have are fantastic tales about a divine figure who lived and died, there is no requirement at all for any particular part of the tale to be factual. Mythical divine figures have often served as the religious basis of highly detailed stories about their lives, exploits, and deaths.

Elijah E. Stephens says: "If a man counts his cows, and that list survives I don't think it odd that Jesus isn't mentioned."

Ariex: But if the Son of God is going about performing miracles in public, it is quite odd that nobody recorded anything about him until well after he had died, and then only for the purpose of promoting their own authority as His representatives.

Elijah E. Stephens says: "There are a lot of external evidence from the first and second century for the existence of Jesus. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CycbvARsxWU

Ariex: Forgive me here, Elijah, but GROAAAAANNNNNNN!!! Not again! NONE, absolutely NONE of these documents was written by a person who actually knew or saw Jesus. All these reports were derived from what Christians commonly believed, not from records or from personal knowledge of Jesus. The "evidence" is hearsay from secondary sources. Here again you demonstrate that your "critical research" consists ONLY of the examination of apologetics. You are a long way from getting past your bias, Elijah.

Elijah E. Stephens says: "You are making assumption about Paul's possible diagnoses."

Ariex: Here's another "diagnosis": Paul was a con artist who made the whole thing up in order to become an important person.

Elijah E. Stephens says: "Paul's vision lasted for a few moments, and his blindness lift after three days."

Ariex: According to Paul, that is. Joseph Smith saw Jesus and God in the woods when he was 14, according to Joseph Smith. Why should a reasonable person believe either story? Both men were able to convince a large following of gullible and ignorant people, after all. What motivated Smith to make the claims he successfully promoted?

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 5:43:11 PM PDT
J. Harding says:
jpl,

As Mickey pointed out, I was just quoting the post to which I was replying.

Here are my thoughts on this thread, for the interested:

One of the debates that pops up regularly in religion discussions is whether absolute truth exists. Some theists will claim that yes, absolute truth is revealed in their scripture. This has often led to me to wonder how an imperfect human, with only their imperfect senses and knowledge, could decide that something is absolute truth. To rephrase, even if perfect absolute truth existed, how could you know it? Wouldn't your limited, imperfect knowledge prevent you?

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 5:44:05 PM PDT
Ariex says:
Elijah E. Stephens says: "Denial is minimizing facts. If the disciples where in denial then they would be saying the equivalent of "He's not dead.""

Ariex: Sorry to repeat this, but we don't know what the disciples said or thought. All we have are expanded and enhanced stories from people of a generation later, promoting their own versions (conflicting) of the Jesus saga. As you note, it is useless to diagnose the disciples.

In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2012 8:55:42 PM PDT
Re Harding, 5-9 5:43 PM: " ... whether absolute truth exists." It no doubt does -- but also, no doubt, we will not be able to recognize it if we see it. The progress of science is an iterative approach to absolute truth, but unlike the runner in Zeno's paradox, we will never actually get there. All we can do is to identify things that are wrong.

Posted on May 10, 2012 2:32:25 AM PDT
Everything can be traced back to 'One' thing, therefore this 'One' thing is in every other thing that came into existence after it.
It could be that this 'One' thing gives every other thing the power to grow and create, therefore this 'One' thing could be the most powerful thing in existence.
Could this 'One' thing be God?. Ponder on that 'One'.

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2012 8:09:17 AM PDT
Rothery says:
Indeed, ponder is all we can do, there being no evidence or proof one way or the other (at least not as of the moment I post this). And in the exercising of our free will and independence, we can rightly believe what we wish. So the question is, why have there been, continue to be, and always will be a googol posts from each camp trying to convince, convert and recruit the other? Can you imagine all that energy, brainpower, and bandwidth used for a more productive endeavor? Maybe if we put our time and minds together we can cure cancer! :-)

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2012 9:14:01 AM PDT
Re Rothery, above: Good post. "why have there been ... posts from each camp trying to convince, convert and recruit the other?" The god proponents are exhibiting the placebo effect: they consider that their supposed god is beneficial, and find their belief in it to be pleasant (not to mention addictive). The opponents see the whole god business as a foolish delusion, uselessly diverting resources away from things like curing cancer.

For more on this, see: Dawkins, The God Delusion.

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2012 9:43:06 AM PDT
Rothery says:
I posit that the opponents (the atheists in this case) spend an inordinate amount of time trying to prove the inexistence of God to the proponents or agnostic, while they could better use their time to contribute more to scientific efforts that they essentially hold to be _their_ religion. I just spent about an hour in the past couple of days on these topics on this forum and already I feel guilty for having wasted time on this issue, time I could have used more productively elsewhere :-). Ahh... whatchya gonna do?

Posted on May 10, 2012 3:06:54 PM PDT
Greenwood says:
Hmmm, how do I know I'm right? Good question.

I don't know. I will never be 100% certain of my experiences, though maybe when I die I'll find out how correct I am.

So why continue, if it may be wrong? Because, good people, I'm having fun. If this is the only life we live, I'll have my feet on the ground and head in the clouds. Besides it's not like I'm forcing my beliefs or opinions on others.

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2012 3:18:44 PM PDT
Rothery

Speaking, kinda, sorta, for some atheists, we believe that since deities and other supernatural beasties are an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on the believers to provide empirical evidence to support your claim. We merely explain that there is non-existent evidence to support the 'god' conjecture, and that believers never provide any.

Posted on May 10, 2012 3:30:32 PM PDT
Greenwood says:
As I say to others, go find the evidence you desire. I don't purport to be a scientist, and I don't do things scientifically(though I have a strong skeptic streak). My evidence is merely anecdotal and significant to my own life and POV, not yours. Then again I don't force dogma down others throats...

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2012 5:55:50 PM PDT
Aardwizz says:
Kimber Zercher: "Besides it's not like I'm forcing my beliefs or opinions on others. "

If that's true, then go in peace and godspeed.....

But consider:

How do you vote? Do you pick candidates on their record and policies, or on their apparent character? And how do you judge their character?

How "obvious" do you make your Belief known to others? (I note that you *are* posting on this forum, so you are unlikely to be a closet Believer) How much social pressure do you think you might put on others who differ from your beliefs? You can tell those who've you imposed upon -- not by their vocal retorts, but by their awkward silence.

How is you personal space decorated? Any items with religious iconography, which again imposes your beliefs upon your visitors.

I don't know if you are guilty of any of these, nor do I really care. If you were guilty, it would a small hypocrisy, and there are worse out there that demand my attention.

But I did want to point out that how we think we treat others, and how were are percieved as treating others are sometimes very different things, and we are often unaware of the latter.

õ¿õ¬

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2012 6:22:54 PM PDT
Ariex says:
Rothery says: "I posit that the opponents (the atheists in this case) spend an inordinate amount of time trying to prove the inexistence of God to the proponents or agnostic,"

Ariex: I posit that you posit a straw man. The existence of a god is an extraordinary claim. Therefore those who make the claim that god exists are trying to prove their case. We atheists merely point out that there is no evidence to support the claim and that natural processes seem to support a great deal that was in times past attributed to god.

In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2012 8:09:41 PM PDT
S. Friedman says:
Hi Brian,
OK, I pondered it. Yes, this 'One' thing could be God. (whatever it is you deem that "God" is)

Now, something for you to ponder:
Is there any basis to suggest that this one most powerful thing in existence responds favorably to praise, worship, ritual, or acknowledgement?

If you claim 'yes' -- thereby suggesting that it's in my best interest to alter some aspect of the way I live my life -- I'd simply ask why I should believe you.

Posted on May 11, 2012 12:45:03 AM PDT
Greenwood says:
To Aard:

"If that's true, then go in peace and godspeed....."

Same to you. :)

"How do you vote? Do you pick candidates on their record and policies, or on their apparent character? And how do you judge their character?"

I do not vote because I have no faith in the system as so many others do, I also find myself turning my nose at them because of the "fake" feel I get from them. But that is how I feel.

"How "obvious" do you make your Belief known to others? (I note that you *are* posting on this forum, so you are unlikely to be a closet Believer) How much social pressure do you think you might put on others who differ from your beliefs? You can tell those who've you imposed upon -- not by their vocal retorts, but by their awkward silence."

Obvious...You mean like crosses and the like? I don't wear religious symbols of any kind. If people want to know my spiritual orientation they can ask, and I'll sheepishly give it to them. I don't do impositions; while I'm rather disgusted with most of Christianity it's not my place to force my belief on those who get some solace from it. Ironically many think they should with me and others -,-

"How is you personal space decorated? Any items with religious iconography, which again imposes your beliefs upon your visitors."

Nope. I like having a separate room for those things, as I don't like to plaster it everywhere. Of course, I've never felt ones personal house decorations to be imposing when visiting another's house.

"But I did want to point out that how we think we treat others, and how were are percieved as treating others are sometimes very different things, and we are often unaware of the latter."

That is very true. I wish people would take a step back more often.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  25
Total posts:  141
Initial post:  May 8, 2012
Latest post:  May 11, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions