NationStates Jolt Archive

This one (obviously) is directed toward those who believe in a higher power.

Do you pray often?

I try to every day but sometimes I go through phases where I don't for weeks on end. It always helps when I do, so there's always a good reason for it.

What about y'all?

Only on sundays and when I need help in the main.

Pray, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911

God punishes us mildly by ignoring our prayers and severely by answering them. ~Richard J. Needham

In other words - no.

Just about every day, usually along the lines of, "Oh God, PLEASE get my son to go to SLEEP!"

Sadly, my prayers are rarely answered before midnight.

Several times a day...

Every meal. Every night when putting the kids to bed. Saying the lords prayer repeatedly as I ride a motorcycle through heavy rush hour traffic to and from work every day :D

I chose "once a day" even though I am an agnostic atheist, because before I go to sleep each night I say several loving kindness meditations.

Every morning I say a quick hello to my household gods. If I have a very important project in the works, the outcome of which matters but is not in my control, I will ask the appropriate god for whatever help he/she may be able to give. I pray for the future happiness of the souls of people I know who die.

Except for the morning respects -- which come between feeding the cat and making my coffee -- I do not pray every day. I do it rarely, actually, because I don't need that much help, in general.

Several times a week.

Most of the time, it's me giving thanks and praising His creation. Just like the other day when I discovered that I have a blackbird's nest on my balcony with four little birds in it. Simply wonderful. And momma blackbird is busy caring for them. So much fun to watch them grow each day... :)

Other than that, it's mostly asking for strength, courage, comfort, and forgiveness for me and others - not asking for things or things to happen.

I mutter along under my breath on occasion. Mainly to avoid telling my grandmother I'm an atheist. I don't think she'd approve.

I've found that prayer greatly reduces my stress level. Even when prayer isn't answered in quite the way I'd have liked, just knowing that placing my life in God's hands is a huge comfort.

I've found that prayer greatly reduces my stress level. Even when prayer isn't answered in quite the way I'd have liked, just knowing that placing my life in God's hands is a huge comfort.

But do you plan to stay in the cradle forever ;) ?

But do you plan to stay in the cradle forever ;) ?

It's not a question of avoiding dealing with one's own problems though. It's what you do when you've exhausted all of your available options and ask God to handle that part which you cannot control. That's comforting.

Several times a week, not on a schedule but when I feel like it. I usually go through how I'm feeling be it grateful, desperate or whatever instead of asking to be nannied. Prayer its the form of meditation that works best for me.

With every stroke of the pedal, with every bite of the fruit, with every laugh and every tear. I try to do it continually. I'm more successful when I'm getting laid regularly.

Does "Blood for the Blood God!!!!" or the spells my D&D Druid or Paladin cast count?

I pray whenever I feel like it, because I think the powers that be are more competent than me in knowing what prayers need answers.

Edit: But it's very rare that I feel like it, maybe once every six months or so.

I don't pray in the same way as I used to because I don't really believe that God is an Interventionist God at the moment. I pray occasionally, thinking through aloud in my head my thoughts on spirituality and God and such.

Does "Blood for the Blood God!!!!" or the spells my D&D Druid or Paladin cast count?

Only if your gods are in the Rulebook (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0786926546/comicweb).

I don't pray as such...

Does "Blood for the Blood God!!!!" or the spells my D&D Druid or Paladin cast count?

But of course. Now, reveal your nerdhood and tell us how often it happens...


BWAHAHAHA

And in fairness, I'll reveal my own answers:

For AD&D: I'm the DM, so I don't have characters who need to pray.

For Warhammer: The Army of Bretonnia gains special advantages (A Ward save of 6 for Str <= 4 and 5+ for Str >=5) for giving up the chance to go first to kneel and pray before battle.

I find prayer the most puzzling concept of religions.

I mean, if you believe that your god is all-knowing and -powerful, and inclined to help humans, why do you assume that praying will have any effect at all? If the two assumptions are true, he knows what you want already and will provide it. If either of the assumptions isn't true, if your god either not all-knowing and -powerful (which in itself doesn't make sense, but that would be for another thread), or if he's not inclined to help, prayer would be a waste of time and energy.

In short, I don't understand what's to be achieved.

I find prayer the most puzzling concept of religions.

I mean, if you believe that your god is all-knowing and -powerful, and inclined to help humans, why do you assume that praying will have any effect at all? If the two assumptions are true, he knows what you want already and will provide it. If either of the assumptions isn't true, if your god either not all-knowing and -powerful (which in itself doesn't make sense, but that would be for another thread), or if he's not inclined to help, prayer would be a waste of time and energy.

In short, I don't understand what's to be achieved.

I've actually puzzled over that myself.

The way I see it, the act of prayer and being subsequently replied to is a faith building exercise. Thus, I figure God has an overall 'big picture' plan but the individual details-things that might be prayed for, are flexible enough to be granted, or not, as apropriate.

But the other thing to remember is that prayer isn't just about addressing needs. It's about taking the time to thank God for blessings you have received from Him, about just getting something off your chest when you ar en't necessarily looking for a reply, or just as a form of meditation. Combining meditation with prayer is a powerful thing to do, and a great way to get centered.

Is it reasonable to pray to something you don't know that's there?
I put once a day, but it would be more like once every 3 weeks.
I guess God could take a little fax once in a while...right?
Not so much to help the God, just to sort out what i want to do.
Oh and if the Warhammer Gods do count them i'm way above the rest of you in getting to heaven/hell.

This one (obviously) is directed toward those who believe in a higher power.

Do you pray often?

I try to every day but sometimes I go through phases where I don't for weeks on end. It always helps when I do, so there's always a good reason for it.

What about y'all?

I don't pray, but then I am not religious, so really my posting here is pointless...
:p

Not sure I believe in a God, as such, but I occasionally find myself calling out for help when I need it. Favourite quote though:

So what's more likely? That an all-powerful, mysterious God created the Universe, and decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that He simply doesn't exist at all, and that we created Him, so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone?

Not sure I believe in a God, as such, but I occasionally find myself calling out for help when I need it. Favourite quote though:

So what's more likely? That an all-powerful, mysterious God created the Universe, and decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that He simply doesn't exist at all, and that we created Him, so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone?

This is why God allows humans and animals to get drunk.
I think you're missing a few other options.
That God isn't all powerful,
he may be evil,
he might not notice us, i mean there's not much genetic difference between humans and apes so why pay more heed to one species over another?
he could be experimenting for his ideal world,
this is in fact hell,
there is no God.
and the list could go on but i've forgotten the other options.

Does ritual sacrifice count?

Does ritual sacrifice count?

Of course.

I find prayer the most puzzling concept of religions.

I mean, if you believe that your god is all-knowing and -powerful, and inclined to help humans, why do you assume that praying will have any effect at all? If the two assumptions are true, he knows what you want already and will provide it. If either of the assumptions isn't true, if your god either not all-knowing and -powerful (which in itself doesn't make sense, but that would be for another thread), or if he's not inclined to help, prayer would be a waste of time and energy.

In short, I don't understand what's to be achieved.

Why do you assume that the only purpose of prayer is to try to get god to give us what we want?

For example, I said that I attempt to pray constantly. Do you then assume that I am constantly trying to squeeze god for an extra few favours? No, you wouldn't, if you thought about it for a few seconds. So I must be doing something else.

If you want, you can ask me what I'm doing.

Why do you assume that the only purpose of prayer is to try to get god to give us what we want?

For example, I said that I attempt to pray constantly. Do you then assume that I am constantly trying to squeeze god for an extra few favours? No, you wouldn't, if you thought about it for a few seconds. So I must be doing something else.

If you want, you can ask me what I'm doing.

Nah, not really bothered. I just keep hearing people constantly calling to "pray for this" and "pray for that", so I was wondering why they thought that made any sense.

Nah, not really bothered. I just keep hearing people constantly calling to "pray for this" and "pray for that", so I was wondering why they thought that made any sense.

I guess a lot of what prayer is is reflection, bot self-reflection and general.

Of course, you don't need prayer for that and many people don't use prayer for that, though many do.

Whatever works for the individual I guess.

I've actually puzzled over that myself.

The way I see it, the act of prayer and being subsequently replied to is a faith building exercise.

Ironically enough it had the opposite effect on me: the experience of repeatedly failing to get the promised response to my prayers (not in the sense of a tangible result, but just in the sense of an acknowledgement) was one of the things which first led to me questioning Christianity.

*leaves before thread is hijacked :p*

I put 'only when I need to' because there wasn't a 'Sabbats and Esbats' option. In all, two, maybe three times a month. So less than once a week.

Unless there's a crisis or something. I don't do it a lot, I'm not big on appealing to deities to solve my problems.

I pray once a day on average, usually when I find myself thinking about those who died before me.

Okay, the truth is my prayers have been reduced completely to one prayer for the family of my friend who died in October. I just find myself saying it over and over.

This:
I've found that prayer greatly reduces my stress level. Even when prayer isn't answered in quite the way I'd have liked, just knowing that placing my life in God's hands is a huge comfort.

Nah, not really bothered. I just keep hearing people constantly calling to "pray for this" and "pray for that", so I was wondering why they thought that made any sense.

Yeah. Praying as a method of getting god to do what you want doesn't make sense.

I base this on the fact that it never seems to work. If it did, all of our favourite sports teams would always win.

But the other thing to remember is that prayer isn't just about addressing needs. It's about taking the time to thank God for blessings you have received from Him, about just getting something off your chest when you aren't necessarily looking for a reply, or just as a form of meditation. Combining meditation with prayer is a powerful thing to do, and a great way to get centered.
Absolutely. Plus, what you said about reducing stress levels.

I pray fairly often. I try to before I fall asleep, and whenever I'm alone (I get lonely very easily). For some reason though, I don't like to pray with other people. It's just a strange quirk of mine.

I petition my totem spirit for inner strength in times of emotional turmoil, but since it's a part of me there's no real need to commune with it through dedicated prayer. It communicates with emotion and instinct.

Several times a day.

Prayer, for me, is just talking with my best friend, so I try to talk with Him as much as possible.

This one (obviously) is directed toward those who believe in a higher power.

Do you pray often?

I try to every day but sometimes I go through phases where I don't for weeks on end. It always helps when I do, so there's always a good reason for it.

What about y'all?

The option of "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 1:17) was not available, so i marked the only when i need to, which is all the time. As a Biblical Christian (who is not very religious), i need not just lots of prayer, but continuous prayer. :)

Prayer is practicing the presence of God -- Brother Lawrence. It is not just an act of talking and listening; but it is a practice, an attitude--a continuous attitude of humility in communion with the transcendent Being that abolishes pride, arrogance, and ruthless ambition. It allows me to draw on the grace of God to sustain the more perfect way. As an attitude as well as an action, it keeps me mindful of the supreme command of Christ to love God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength, and just as important, to love my neighbor like i love myself; and the Golden Rule corollary: to treat other people the way i myself would want to be treated were i them. I am far from perfect, and have not arrived, but can draw strength from the grace to to be that way even when i do not have the strength in myself to follow through. His grace sustains, and His answer to prayer is forthcoming.

Many people view prayer as just a mechanism to get God to do what they want. The Book of James reads that with that type of attitude one can expect to recieve nothing from God. If we have not been in communion with somebody, and then show up unannounced demanding things, even the most gracious of persons would quickly tire of it. God is no exception.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on it.

"Don't be hateful to people, just because they are hateful to you. Rather, do good to each other and to everyone else. Be constantly joyful, and never stop praying. Whatever happens, be thankful to God because of Jesus Christ. This is what God wants you to do… Put everything to the test. Accept what is good and don't have anything to do with evil." 1 Thessalonians 5:15-18, 21.

The option of "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 1:17) was not available, so i marked the only when i need to, which is all the time. As a Biblical Christian (who is not very religious), i need not just lots of prayer, but continuous prayer. :)

Prayer is practicing the presence of God -- Brother Lawrence. It is not just an act of talking and listening; but it is a practice, an attitude--a continuous attitude of humility in communion with the transcendent Being that abolishes pride, arrogance, and ruthless ambition. It allows me to draw on the grace of God to sustain the more perfect way. As an attitude as well as an action, it keeps me mindful of the supreme command of Christ to love God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength, and just as important, to love my neighbor like i love myself; and the Golden Rule corollary: to treat other people the way i myself would want to be treated were i them. I am far from perfect, and have not arrived, but can draw strength from the grace to to be that way even when i do not have the strength in myself to follow through. His grace sustains, and His answer to prayer is forthcoming.

Many people view prayer as just a mechanism to get God to do what they want. The Book of James reads that with that type of attitude one can expect to recieve nothing from God. If we have not been in communion with somebody, and then show up unannounced demanding things, even the most gracious of persons would quickly tire of it. God is no exception.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on it.

Very cool post

The option of "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 1:17) was not available, so i marked the only when i need to, which is all the time. As a Biblical Christian (who is not very religious), i need not just lots of prayer, but continuous prayer. :)

Prayer is practicing the presence of God -- Brother Lawrence. It is not just an act of talking and listening; but it is a practice, an attitude--a continuous attitude of humility in communion with the transcendent Being that abolishes pride, arrogance, and ruthless ambition. It allows me to draw on the grace of God to sustain the more perfect way. As an attitude as well as an action, it keeps me mindful of the supreme command of Christ to love God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength, and just as important, to love my neighbor like i love myself; and the Golden Rule corollary: to treat other people the way i myself would want to be treated were i them. I am far from perfect, and have not arrived, but can draw strength from the grace to to be that way even when i do not have the strength in myself to follow through. His grace sustains, and His answer to prayer is forthcoming.

Many people view prayer as just a mechanism to get God to do what they want. The Book of James reads that with that type of attitude one can expect to recieve nothing from God. If we have not been in communion with somebody, and then show up unannounced demanding things, even the most gracious of persons would quickly tire of it. God is no exception.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on it.

"Don't be hateful to people, just because they are hateful to you. Rather, do good to each other and to everyone else. Be constantly joyful, and never stop praying. Whatever happens, be thankful to God because of Jesus Christ. This is what God wants you to do… Put everything to the test. Accept what is good and don't have anything to do with evil." 1 Thessalonians 5:15-18, 21.

Good post. I think I will be your friend on here :D

Also, I am glad you pointed out the James passage. James is my favorite book of the bible.

I know as an agnostic this thread isn't really directed at me, but:

just knowing that placing my life in God's hands is a huge comfort.

How in the world could this be a comforting thought?

Of course.

Several times a day then, I must appease the Volcano gods somehow.

I know as an agnostic this thread isn't really directed at me, but:



How in the world could this be a comforting thought?

Well, that's a perfectly reasonable question.

The answer is predicated on the following presmises:

1)God, like an earthly parent, wants what's best for us.
2)He has the power to bring about such events as will ultimately result in our own benefit, even if it doesn't seem that way in the short-term.
3)Faith is rewarded.

With that in mind, it's easier to take life in stride and to weather even severe times of pain and tragedy when the outcome will certainly be beneficial. Of course, we're expected to exercise what control we have over our own lives, but as everyone learns sooner or later there are just things you can't control in life, and you have to deal with them as best you can. By placing one's trust in God, one can rest assured that no matter what happens, ultimately, we will be alright.

And that is what I find comforting.

How in the world could this be a comforting thought?

How is not a comforting thought?

The answer is predicated on the following presmises:

1)God, like an earthly parent, wants what's best for us.
2)He has the power to bring about such events as will ultimately result in our own benefit, even if it doesn't seem that way in the short-term.
3)Faith is rewarded.

. . . .

And that is what I find comforting.

And that is what I find so utterly uncomforting about the entire idea. Your position is premised on god wanting what's best for us, able to bring about what's best for us, and him doing so is a reward for our faith.

But I look at what could at best be described as abject, utter suffering in the world and wonder, how is being homeless on the street as a result of severe emotional trauma from being in vietnam what's best for someone? How is being born with HIV in Zimbabwe and dying by the age of five of crippling, excruciatingly painful disease, what's best for someone? How is taking a machette to the face because you voted for the "wrong person" in the congo what's best for someone? How is having your arm ripped off in an industrial accident in china because you've been working for 14 hours straight and you fell asleep at the machine, then dying of infection 4 days later because you can't afford medical treatment and there's no such thing as worker's compensation what's best for someone?

There are horrible, horrible conditions out there, breathtakingly staggeringly horrid conditions, that I can not, in any way, imagine any just and loving entity not stopping if it could. So it seems to me that prayer is either praying to nothing, praying to something that can't change anything, or, at worst, praying to an entity that allows such misery, such abject unyielding suffering to go on every day.

And putting my hands in that kind of being, I find most uncomfortable a thought.

Ok, real answer. As someone with Deistic leanings, I dont ever pray, because I believe its pointless.

Several times a day.

I find prayer the most puzzling concept of religions.

I mean, if you believe that your god is all-knowing and -powerful, and inclined to help humans, why do you assume that praying will have any effect at all?

A lot of non-Christian theists don't agree with any of those three. So, if my much more powerful and knowledgeable than myself gods require action on the part of their worshipers before they will intercede it makes much more sense.

Yeah. Praying as a method of getting god to do what you want doesn't make sense.

I base this on the fact that it never seems to work. If it did, all of our favourite sports teams would always win.

Maybe God only replies to worthy prayers? Maybe sports isn't a worthy issue?

And maybe God doesn't want to show any pattern in his responses, so that it's not too obvious he exists, in order for people to have free will and use it (a lot of people already don't think further than their religion, imagine if some God proved He existed).

Ok, real answer. As someone with Deistic leanings, I dont ever pray, because I believe its pointless.

Do you mean it's pointless in relation in practical terms?
Because i think it may have a psychological effect, in that it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy on what you want to happen.
And praying with other people could bring a social element to it, maybe.

Do you mean it's pointless in relation in practical terms?
Because i think it may have a psychological effect, in that it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy on what you want to happen.
And praying with other people could bring a social element to it, maybe.

Well, Deists believes essentially that God lets the world take its course and doesnt interfere. So, it wouldnt even be psychological for me, because I dont believe that God really cares, if he even listens.

Well, Deists believes essentially that God lets the world take its course and doesnt interfere. So, it wouldnt even be psychological for me, because I dont believe that God really cares, if he even listens.
interesting, Deism.

I'd like to know how you know that a God exists at all. Even one who doesn't interfere with anything.
I mean i suppose you could say that he might not notice earth exists, or that he sees no great distinction between humans an animals so why should he care for humans if he doesn't care for animals (slaughter houses anyone?).

And why do you need a God to pray to make it worthwile?

And why do you need a God to pray to make it worthwile?

Don't see why you would, don't see the point to it (at all, actually) if you do not believe in some sort of higher power though.

Don't see why you would, don't see the point to it (at all, actually) if you do not believe in some sort of higher power though.

Maybe you could instead of praying to a God sort of make up a todo-list for yourself rather than hoping to some random guy.
I suppose some people pray because the thought of a higher power is appealing, to have a form of justice beyond death. Does that not sound slightly enticing?
Sure there's loooads of issues with there even being a God but still it's a sort of comfort thing, you know like chocolate except this sort don't run out or make you fat.
well at least i doubt praying would make you fat.
does that make sense?

Maybe you could instead of praying to a God sort of make up a todo-list for yourself rather than hoping to some random guy.
I suppose some people pray because the thought of a higher power is appealing, to have a form of justice beyond death. Does that not sound slightly enticing?
No, not to me.
Sure there's loooads of issues with there even being a God but still it's a sort of comfort thing, you know like chocolate except this sort don't run out or make you fat.
well at least i doubt praying would make you fat.
does that make sense?
Yep

No, not to me.

Yep

really?
so what's with the short responses then? (i hope i'm not boring you)
care to give a reason why the idea of prayer itself is a bad idea?
I mean, if prayer were useless then what would you suggest people do, just give up and continue living as before? even though it can help you think about things, even promote a positive element in thinking you'd rather not do so?

Now i'm not saying you suddenly have to pray just because i say so, i'm saying why it could be a useful tool to have, a way to inspect your thoughts.

are you still going to give short responses or what?
*taps the desk with his fingers*

Maybe you could instead of praying to a God sort of make up a todo-list for yourself rather than hoping to some random guy.
I suppose some people pray because the thought of a higher power is appealing, to have a form of justice beyond death. Does that not sound slightly enticing?
No, not to me.
Sure there's loooads of issues with there even being a God but still it's a sort of comfort thing, you know like chocolate except this sort don't run out or make you fat.
well at least i doubt praying would make you fat.
does that make sense?Yep


really?
so what's with the short responses then? (i hope i'm not boring you)
care to give a reason why the idea of prayer itself is a bad idea?
I mean, if prayer were useless then what would you suggest people do, just give up and continue living as before? even though it can help you think about things, even promote a positive element in thinking you'd rather not do so?

Now i'm not saying you suddenly have to pray just because i say so, i'm saying why it could be a useful tool to have, a way to inspect your thoughts.

are you still going to give short responses or what?
*taps the desk with his fingers*

I didn't say (and didn't mean to imply) that prayer is a bad idea, redid my responses bolding what exactly I was responding to.

If you find that prayer is helpful to you, then it is definitely a good idea. I personally don't see any point to it (considering the first sentence, obviosly this applies to myself).
I do not believe in any sort of higher power, so the whole idea of prayer is just a little bizarre to me.

I didn't say (and didn't mean to imply) that prayer is a bad idea, redid my responses bolding what exactly I was responding to.

If you find that prayer is helpful to you, then it is definitely a good idea. I personally don't see any point to it (considering the first sentence, boviosly this applies to myself).
I do not believe in any sort of higher power, so the whole idea of prayer is just a little bizarre to me.

ah, yeah that clears things up a little.

But if you don't see any point in it, this implies that there must be a good reason not to do it, i'm trying to find this reason.

What makes you think that praying to a higher power is better than praying to yourself? perhaps i didn't word that right, what i mean is praying on it's own is okay, you don't need to believe in a higher power to pray, what higher power is there than yourself?
In a way people give in to their urges for thirst, food, pleasure, why not the desire for things to improve through prayer?
(by the way boviosly is an ace word you invented)

ah, yeah that clears things up a little.

But if you don't see any point in it, this implies that there must be a good reason not to do it, i'm trying to find this reason.

What makes you think that praying to a higher power is better than praying to yourself? perhaps i didn't word that right, what i mean is praying on it's own is okay, you don't need to believe in a higher power to pray, what higher power is there than yourself?
In a way people give in to their urges for thirst, food, pleasure, why not the desire for things to improve through prayer?
(by the way boviosly is an ace word you invented)

LOL

As to the rest, if you aren't 'praying' to a higher power, I wouldn't consider it prayer.

LOL

As to the rest, if you aren't 'praying' to a higher power, I wouldn't consider it prayer.

ah but, because prayer itself involves a higher power, then logically, if you are your own higher power, then you can pray to yourself.

ah but, because prayer itself involves a higher power, then logically, if you are your own higher power, then you can pray to yourself.

:confused:
You've lost me now...

:confused:
You've lost me now...

Well:
P1) Prayer involves a higher power in order to work
P2) You must have some power over your life
P3) You can be the highest power over your life
_________________________________________
C) Therefore you can pray to yourself

see?

Well:
P1) Prayer involves a higher power in order to work
P2) You must have some power over your life
P3) You can be the highest power over your life
_________________________________________
C) Therefore you can pray to yourself

see?

OK, I follow what you're saying now...
It still doesn't make any sense to me.

OK, I follow what you're saying now...
It still doesn't make any sense to me.

Okay think about it like this
P1) Sex involves another person to work
P2) You must have some sex in your life
P3) Sex can be the most important thing in your life
____________________________________________
C) Therefore you can have sex with other people

better for you yes? (and no freaky smiley, it's scary)

Okay think about it like this
P1) Sex involves another person to work
P2) You must have some sex in your life
P3) Sex can be the most important thing in your life
____________________________________________
C) Therefore you can have sex with other people

better for you yes? (and no freaky smiley, it's scary)

Are you coming on to me now?
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Smiley_Scared.gif

Are you coming on to me now?
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Smiley_Scared.gif

No, you idiot not every sex sentence used on the internet is a way to appease your appetites. I was trying to water down my ideas to fit in with other ways of thinking.
It doesn't appear to have worked.
and why do so many posters think i come on to them if i talk about sex?
weird.
:D
spanks Dyakovo anyway, just for kicks

No, you idiot not every sex sentence used on the internet is a way to appease your appetites. I was trying to water down my ideas to fit in with other ways of thinking.
It doesn't appear to have worked.
and why do so many posters think i come on to them if i talk about sex?
weird.
:D
spanks Dyakovo anyway, just for kicks

:D

Seriously though...

1 a (1): an address (as a petition) to God or a god in word or thought <said a prayer for the success of the voyage>
___(2): a set order of words used in praying b: an earnest request or wish
2: the act or practice of praying to God or a god <kneeling in prayer>
3: a religious service consisting chiefly of prayers —often used in plural
4: something prayed for
Higher Power is a term coined in Alcoholics Anonymous, and used in other twelve-step programs, also sometimes referred to as a power greater than ourselves. It is suggested that members in such programs identify a power greater than themselves for spiritual strength, courage, confidence, and support. A Higher Power can be anything or anyone, dead or alive, that the member feels is adequate – the sky, the Sun, the ocean, Nature, consciousness, existential freedom, their twelve-step group, God, science, Buddha Nature, gravity – it simply should be something "greater" than themselves, which is loving and caring.

Considering those I do not see how you could possibly pray to yourself...

:D

Seriously though...



Considering those I do not see how you could possibly pray to yourself...

because they're wrong.
stop trying to use evidence!
besides that one on wikipedia
something prayed for could imply that you can pray for yourself.
so there.
*is smug*

ah but, because prayer itself involves a higher power, then logically, if you are your own higher power, then you can pray to yourself.

I don't think you can be your own higher power; I would call that meditation. You can have meditative prayer, where you reflect while at the same time addressing a higher being, but without the higher being it's just meditation. I think. It may just be a semantic thing.

I pray several times a day, but they're almost always "stock prayers." You know, what you say before you eat, before you sleep, etc.

I don't think you can be your own higher power; I would call that meditation. You can have meditative prayer, where you reflect while at the same time addressing a higher being, but without the higher being it's just meditation. I think. It may just be a semantic thing.

I pray several times a day, but they're almost always "stock prayers." You know, what you say before you eat, before you sleep, etc.

But because you can pray on your own, you're in effect praying to yourself, and seeing as they would involve a higher power from your perspective, this can be made true because it's only your own perspective that will make it true.

And that is what I find so utterly uncomforting about the entire idea. Your position is premised on god wanting what's best for us, able to bring about what's best for us, and him doing so is a reward for our faith.

But I look at what could at best be described as abject, utter suffering in the world and wonder, how is being homeless on the street as a result of severe emotional trauma from being in vietnam what's best for someone? How is being born with HIV in Zimbabwe and dying by the age of five of crippling, excruciatingly painful disease, what's best for someone? How is taking a machette to the face because you voted for the "wrong person" in the congo what's best for someone? How is having your arm ripped off in an industrial accident in china because you've been working for 14 hours straight and you fell asleep at the machine, then dying of infection 4 days later because you can't afford medical treatment and there's no such thing as worker's compensation what's best for someone?

There are horrible, horrible conditions out there, breathtakingly staggeringly horrid conditions, that I can not, in any way, imagine any just and loving entity not stopping if it could. So it seems to me that prayer is either praying to nothing, praying to something that can't change anything, or, at worst, praying to an entity that allows such misery, such abject unyielding suffering to go on every day.

And putting my hands in that kind of being, I find most uncomfortable a thought.

Ok I can understand that, but consider this:

1)God's perspective is Eternal. Taken from a point of view from the grand scheme of things, a human lifetime is but a tiny slice of time.
2)What happens to us in that tiny slice of time is not nearly as important as what WE choose to do with it.
3)Much of what you listed has to do with people hurting each other. We have free will. Some use it wisely, some don't.
4)Some suffering is not the result of free will. Could people in those positions have had an easier time through spirituality? Everything I've read suggests they would. It's not a magic wand, but again, what happens to us isn't as important as what we do with it.
5)More good than bad happens in the world. There is suffering, yes, butt here is also joy and hope and love. Let's not ignore that.

Ok I can understand that, but consider this:

1)God's perspective is Eternal. Taken from a point of view from the grand scheme of things, a human lifetime is but a tiny slice of time.
2)What happens to us in that tiny slice of time is not nearly as important as what WE choose to do with it.
3)Much of what you listed has to do with people hurting each other. We have free will. Some use it wisely, some don't.
4)Some suffering is not the result of free will. Could people in those positions have had an easier time through spirituality? Everything I've read suggests they would. It's not a magic wand, but again, what happens to us isn't as important as what we do with it.
5)More good than bad happens in the world. There is suffering, yes, butt here is also joy and hope and love. Let's not ignore that.


All of which I find is an amazing copout to the question. You feel prayer helps you connect to something bigger than yourself? Fine. To me on the other hand, what you are "connecting with" seems violent, and ugly, and petty and cruel. Something that, if it existed, doesn't care about human life.

The thought of bowing to that is...repugnant. And that is not diminished by some circular logic of "god loves us and wants us to be happy and wants the best for us, except for all those truly horrific things that happaen, but that's not really god that's free will and god didn't do that, except god gave us free will and would know what we'd do with it, so god really wants good things for us, except he set in motion the whole thing knowing exactly what would happen with it".

It's easy I think, being here, in the developed world, where even our bad times, for the most part, aren't THAT bad. I've never been homeless, never gone hungry, never been truly sick. I've had rough times, that's for sure, but nothing compared to many others. It's easy to say that god protects us, and god watches out for us, and god was there at our worst moments, because that forgets that in our worst moments, we were privlidged beyond the hopes of many. It's easy to feel that god is loving, and caring, and looking out for us even on our worst days when on those worst days we still had a roof, and food, and were relatively healthy. we forget that there are literally billions of people out there that would give anything to live our worst day.

And if god is supposed to be caring and loving, then there are a whole lot of people out that that, quite literally, god forgot. Where is this great glory of god I'm hearing about? The woman who had her eight month old preborn child cut out of her stomach and decapitated in front of her because she voted for the wrong person in the congo...where was god for her? Was she not worth it? Did she not pray hard enough? If she had converted the day before to being a christian, would god have saved her then?

*snip*
And if god is supposed to be caring and loving, then there are a whole lot of people out that that, quite literally, god forgot. Where is this great glory of god I'm hearing about? The woman who had her eight month old preborn child cut out of her stomach and decapitated in front of her because she voted for the wrong person in the congo...where was god for her? Was she not worth it? Did she not pray hard enough? If she had converted the day before to being a christian, would god have saved her then?

You're saying that as if everyone believed in an omnipotent God, which is really the only way he can be that evil. And again, you're mistaking God's actions for people's actions. You can blame Him for the hurricanes, not the slaughters of men by men.

You can blame Him for the hurricanes, not the slaughters of men by men.

the hell I can't.

All of which I find is an amazing copout to the question. You feel prayer helps you connect to something bigger than yourself? Fine. To me on the other hand, what you are "connecting with" seems violent, and ugly, and petty and cruel. Something that, if it existed, doesn't care about human life.

I don't think it's a copout. My question to you is (so that I know your perspective) do you believe there's more good in the world, or bad?


The thought of bowing to that is...repugnant. And that is not diminished by some circular logic of "god loves us and wants us to be happy and wants the best for us, except for all those truly horrific things that happaen, but that's not really god that's free will and god didn't do that, except god gave us free will and would know what we'd do with it, so god really wants good things for us, except he set in motion the whole thing knowing exactly what would happen with it".


I think I understand what you're saying, but the thing is, you can't mix freewill with predestiny. In other words, if God has foreknowledge of the actions you, with your freewil would choose, then to act to stop you violates free will.

And free will is *the* most important thing, because ultimately each of us is going to have to exercise that free will to choose what path we will follow. Without it, we have no choices. Without it, we're just marionettes and that, I find to be far more repugnant.


It's easy I think, being here, in the developed world, where even our bad times, for the most part, aren't THAT bad. I've never been homeless, never gone hungry, never been truly sick. I've had rough times, that's for sure, but nothing compared to many others. It's easy to say that god protects us, and god watches out for us, and god was there at our worst moments, because that forgets that in our worst moments, we were privlidged beyond the hopes of many. It's easy to feel that god is loving, and caring, and looking out for us even on our worst days when on those worst days we still had a roof, and food, and were relatively healthy. we forget that there are literally billions of people out there that would give anything to live our worst day.

True, so let's use an example that maybe we can't relate to, but we can certainly understand conceptually. Take an inmate from Auschwitz. One that did not survive. Where is he now? In a better place than we're in, I can assure you. The horrors of the Holocaust are but a memory to him now. Was the Holocaust a good thing? Certainly not, but I like to think that it taught the world a valuable lesson that CAN serve a positive in the long term.

Take the flip side of that coin. Take an example of a survivor. One would think that the survivors of those camps would be the least spiritual people in the world because of what they endured... But that isn't the case. Doesn't it make you wonder what their experience taught them about spirituality? Maybe they found comfort in prayer that enabled them to get through it. Maybe the answer to their prayers came in the form of the Red Army or the U.S. Army breaking down the gates.


And if god is supposed to be caring and loving, then there are a whole lot of people out that that, quite literally, god forgot. Where is this great glory of god I'm hearing about? The woman who had her eight month old preborn child cut out of her stomach and decapitated in front of her because she voted for the wrong person in the congo...where was god for her? Was she not worth it? Did she not pray hard enough? If she had converted the day before to being a christian, would god have saved her then?

No, He didn't forget her. Later on, at lunch I'll go home and pull up a piece I found on the Net that discusses this a lot more eloquently than I can. I'll post it then.

No, He didn't forget her. Later on, at lunch I'll go home and pull up a piece I found on the Net that discusses this a lot more eloquently than I can. I'll post it then.

As promised:

Where was God (http://www.our.homewithgod.com/mkcathy/where.html)

I usually try to pray daily, though sometimes I don't. It's always helpful when I do, though, so there is a reason to keep going at it.

the hell I can't.

I'm sorry, I meant you can't if you agree to the idea that God gave us free will. If we didn't have free will all of life would be pointless, but if we have it, we are the only ones responsible for our actions. See NB's link above.

I'm sorry, I meant you can't if you agree to the idea that God gave us free will. If we didn't have free will all of life would be pointless, but if we have it, we are the only ones responsible for our actions. See NB's link above.

I think that the judeo christian version of god, being an all knowing, all loving, all caring deity that created everything is fundamentally, irrevocably, and absolutly incompatable with the idea of free will.

We have free will, or we have that kind of god. We don't have both. If that god does exist, then we have no more free will than the ball in a pinball machine. It may travel an elaborate and complex path, one that someone of lesser knowledge and intellect may find impossible to predict, one that may appear to be random and complicated, but one that is none the less not a product of the ball's free will, and all the product of the forces acted upon it, which it is helpless to but be pushed along by.

I think that the judeo christian version of god, being an all knowing, all loving, all caring deity that created everything is fundamentally, irrevocably, and absolutly incompatable with the idea of free will.

We have free will, or we have that kind of god. We don't have both. If that god does exist, then we have no more free will than the ball in a pinball machine. It may travel an elaborate and complex path, one that someone of lesser knowledge and intellect may find impossible to predict, one that may appear to be random and complicated, but one that is none the less not a product of the ball's free will, and all the product of the forces acted upon it, which it is helpless to but be pushed along by.

I don't know if you have kids, or if you plan to, but every parent has to walk the fine line between allowing the kids the freedom they need to grow and develop, and protecting them through control. Is allowing your kids free will incompatible with your love for them? Certainly not, just as being an overbearing and controlling parent is a poor expression of parental love.

It's like that, but on a much larger scale.

As promised:

Where was God (http://www.our.homewithgod.com/mkcathy/where.html)

again, a copout, a touchy feely "just think, it would be so much worse without me!" and an appeal to emotion by evoking a national tragidy. It's a game of three card monty. "there could have been more passengers on that plane!" "I could have died from that cancer!" "she could have suffered horribly before dying, but only suffered a short amount of time" THANK GOD!

It's a distraction from the bigger question, if god stopped others from getting on that plane on september 11th, what about those that DID? If god stopped your cancer from killing you, why'd he let you have cancer in the first place? If god graciously spared your wife a long and painful death, why did he allow her to die in the first place?

As I said, it's a shell game, designed to make you forget by focusing on "but it could have been so much worse!"

Yeah, it could have. It also could have been so much better.

again, a copout, a touchy feely "just think, it would be so much worse without me!" and an appeal to emotion by evoking a national tragidy. It's a game of three card monty. "there could have been more passengers on that plane!" "I could have died from that cancer!" "she could have suffered horribly before dying, but only suffered a short amount of time" THANK GOD!

It's a distraction from the bigger question, if god stopped others from getting on that plane on september 11th, what about those that DID? If god stopped your cancer from killing you, why'd he let you have cancer in the first place? If god graciously spared your wife a long and painful death, why did he allow her to die in the first place?

As I said, it's a shell game, designed to make you forget by focusing on "but it could have been so much worse!"

Yeah, it could have. It also could have been so much better.

Actually I don't think that's the message of that at all. When I read it, the message I'm getting is that while God won't interfere in free will, it doesn't mean He isn't there. It means that however awful things seem now, in the end it'll be alright.

I don't know if you have kids, or if you plan to, but every parent has to walk the fine line between allowing the kids the freedom they need to grow and develop, and protecting them through control. Is allowing your kids free will incompatible with your love for them? Certainly not, just as being an overbearing and controlling parent is a poor expression of parental love.

It's like that, but on a much larger scale.

I find that a bit of a false analogy thought. You are absolutly correct that in order to be a good parent, I need to let my child (if I had one) make his own choices. I need to equip him with the skills necessary to live a happy life, a fulfilled life, a just and moral life. And stripping him of free will would not do that. It can't do that. You're definitly right there.

But that's because he is a human being, and so am I. I can do only that, because that's all I can do. God, however, would not be so bound by such limitations.

So let me flip the question on you. I'm sure you raise your kids in such a way, I have no doubt of your parenting skills. I also have no doubt of the love you have for your children. But let me ask you this. If you love them that much, and had it within your power to be sure, to be absolutly and totally sure that your children would never know pain, never know regret, never know hunger or sadness or fear. Would never never know all the evil of this world and would be happy, absolutly happy for their entire lives, without ever knowing a moment's tragedy or suffering, if you could do all that, would you?

I can do only for my children what my frail mortal body will allow me. I can only but prepare them for the world, as a mortal being that's all I can do. I can not take my child's suffering. I can't take his pain. I can't take his fear. But I don't know of one single parent who, if they could, wouldn't do so in a heartbeat.

And surely that is well within god's power.

I find that a bit of a false analogy thought. You are absolutly correct that in order to be a good parent, I need to let my child (if I had one) make his own choices. I need to equip him with the skills necessary to live a happy life, a fulfilled life, a just and moral life. And stripping him of free will would not do that. It can't do that. You're definitly right there.

But that's because he is a human being, and so am I. I can do only that, because that's all I can do. God, however, would not be so bound by such limitations.

So let me flip the question on you. I'm sure you raise your kids in such a way, I have no doubt of your parenting skills. I also have no doubt of the love you have for your children. But let me ask you this. If you love them that much, and had it within your power to be sure, to be absolutly and totally sure that your children would never know pain, never know regret, never know hunger or sadness or fear. Would never never know all the evil of this world and would be happy, absolutly happy for their entire lives, without ever knowing a moment's tragedy or suffering, if you could do all that, would you?

I can do only for my children what my frail mortal body will allow me. I can only but prepare them for the world, as a mortal being that's all I can do. I can not take my child's suffering. I can't take his pain. I can't take his fear. But I don't know of one single parent who, if they could, wouldn't do so in a heartbeat.

And surely that is well within god's power.

That's a really good point.

But (and I know this is beyond the scope of the analogy) there's a certain value to the experience gained by dealing with, or enduring suffering. It helps us to appreciate the good, and better understand its value.

See, I would question whether someone could be truly happy without that appreciation. Who can appreciate a good meal more than someone who has experienced starvation? Who can appreciate a nice comfy mattress more than someone who's had to sleep on a rocky ground?

In a way, that's what we had to come to Earth to do... To experience the crap that mortal life can be, and to choose a path that will return us home. The rewards are virtually unimaginable, and the risks are commesurate with them. A wise person once said "God never said it would be easy, only that it would be worth it."

So would I shelter my kids from all pain and suffering? I don't know. If it means that the cost would be their ability to appreciate the joy and wonder that life can be, then no. I would not shield them. I love them too much to deny them that.

I find that a bit of a false analogy thought. You are absolutly correct that in order to be a good parent, I need to let my child (if I had one) make his own choices. I need to equip him with the skills necessary to live a happy life, a fulfilled life, a just and moral life. And stripping him of free will would not do that. It can't do that. You're definitly right there.

But that's because he is a human being, and so am I. I can do only that, because that's all I can do. God, however, would not be so bound by such limitations.

So let me flip the question on you. I'm sure you raise your kids in such a way, I have no doubt of your parenting skills. I also have no doubt of the love you have for your children. But let me ask you this. If you love them that much, and had it within your power to be sure, to be absolutly and totally sure that your children would never know pain, never know regret, never know hunger or sadness or fear. Would never never know all the evil of this world and would be happy, absolutly happy for their entire lives, without ever knowing a moment's tragedy or suffering, if you could do all that, would you?

I can do only for my children what my frail mortal body will allow me. I can only but prepare them for the world, as a mortal being that's all I can do. I can not take my child's suffering. I can't take his pain. I can't take his fear. But I don't know of one single parent who, if they could, wouldn't do so in a heartbeat.

And surely that is well within god's power.

Without suffering we learn nothing, and "good" is worthless. When we suffer we learn to value the times at which we don't, AND we become wiser in that we learn lessons (such as: don't touch hot stuff). Not matter what you do to protect people, they will hurt themselves more than anyone will hurt them.

That being, the only way even GOD could remove all pain from us is by completely anihilating our personality.

That's a really good point.

But (and I know this is beyond the scope of the analogy) there's a certain value to the experience gained by dealing with, or enduring suffering. It helps us to appreciate the good, and better understand its value.

See, I would question whether someone could be truly happy without that appreciation. Who can appreciate a good meal more than someone who has experienced starvation? Who can appreciate a nice comfy mattress more than someone who's had to sleep on a rocky ground?


Ahh but you're still thinking too limited. No, maybe "someone" can not be truly happy without that appreciation. But that's because you're speaking from the reference point of what we are. We are talking about god here, and surely if all powerful god wanted us to be able to be truly happy, without having suffered those negatives, we could be, no?

Because that's my point. We approach things from a human condition. Maybe I can't no happiness without first knowing sadness. But as I framed my question, if you could be sure that your children would be happy, without ever knowing sadness. Change that part of them so that not only would they never know pain, they'd never need to in order to experience pleasure. Which makes this:

So would I shelter my kids from all pain and suffering? I don't know. If it means that the cost would be their ability to appreciate the joy and wonder that life can be, then no. I would not shield them. I love them too much to deny them that.

Somewhat of an irrelevant concern, in our analogy, because even if we are bound by our puny mortal comprehentions and can not conceive of it differently, surely god is not bound by such a limitation.

Without suffering we learn nothing, and "good" is worthless. When we suffer we learn to value the times at which we don't, AND we become wiser in that we learn lessons (such as: don't touch hot stuff). Not matter what you do to protect people, they will hurt themselves more than anyone will hurt them.

That being, the only way even GOD could remove all pain from us is by completely anihilating our personality.

And again I say the same thing to you. Those limitations are only on what we are now. Are you really claiming to know what god can't do? Because if you believe in an all powerful deity, and remember, that's what we're talking about here, it seems to me that god can do pretty much whatever he wants.

Ahh but you're still thinking too limited. No, maybe "someone" can not be truly happy without that appreciation. But that's because you're speaking from the reference point of what we are. We are talking about god here, and surely if all powerful god wanted us to be able to be truly happy, without having suffered those negatives, we could be, no?

Because that's my point. We approach things from a human condition. Maybe I can't no happiness without first knowing sadness. But as I framed my question, if you could be sure that your children would be happy, without ever knowing sadness. Change that part of them so that not only would they never know pain, they'd never need to in order to experience pleasure. Which makes this:

Somewhat of an irrelevant concern, in our analogy, because even if we are bound by our puny mortal comprehentions and can not conceive of it differently, surely god is not bound by such a limitation.


Well you're right if we accept the premise that God is infinitely powerful.

But one thing I've learned is that there are bounds on what God can do. Either by rule or by physical limitation there are things that simply must be, despite any desire on His part to do otherwise. Is he bound by some sort of larger cosmic legal system? Is He bound by the current limits of his ever-expanding power? Both? I dunno. Maybe.

One of the beliefs we, as Mormons, subscribe to is that God was once a man like us, and through His guidance we could conceivably someday be like He is. This is what makes the Mormon idea of Heaven attractive. I've always been turned off by the boring, stagnant nature of what I was taught Heaven was like before I converted. What I've since learned is that we will continue to learn, grow and progress infinitely. Logic holds that God is doing the same thing now, just way far ahead of us.

So if He continues to increase and grow, that logically implies that His power is not currently infinite in a technical sense, only infinite from our perspective.

Have you ever heard about "Prayer at the Pump" where people pray for cheaper gas?

That is exactly the kind of prayer that will surely not be granted!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080505/lf_afp/usreligionpovertyenergyoil

I pray only rarely now.

I pray only rarely now.
I can change that...
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Sinister.gif

Pray, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911

As always, FTW.
*bows*

*snip*
And again I say the same thing to you. Those limitations are only on what we are now. Are you really claiming to know what god can't do? Because if you believe in an all powerful deity, and remember, that's what we're talking about here, it seems to me that god can do pretty much whatever he wants.

I'm definitely not entering a debate about a God that isn't limited by human logic.

I've always thought God to be within the boundaries of logic, and to speak of a God that isn't just bores me.

I do believe the Bible's classic "all powerful" is just a hyperbole, I would've stuck with omnipresent, for it makes much less pointless discussions.

I never pray.

I believe in a higher power but not one that prayer (in the classic form) would have any meaning torwards.

Thinking that God, an omnipotent entity, would personally listen to YOU is an amazing self-aggrandizement. Far from being humble, praying is the ultimate act of arrogance.

Thinking that God, an omnipotent entity, would personally listen to YOU is an amazing self-aggrandizement.

No, it shows that God loves you. Imagine how awesome that sounds. The creator of EVERYTHING, thinks YOU are important enough that He would talk to you, walk with you, dwell in you. Isn't that a fantastic thought? That is what I have found with Christ. Its the best thing ever. Thats why I try to show people that part of the faith, which is the most important, rather than what the church normally does...preach, abstinence, etc. Focusing on God's presence is by far the greatest thing about life. And it makes me upset to see people on here or in life just diss God, because of the religious aspect, but they have failed to actually grasp God. If people would feel who God is, they would NEVER leave Him. I am certain to death of this.

No, it shows that God loves you. Imagine how awesome that sounds. The creator of EVERYTHING, thinks YOU are important enough that He would talk to you, walk with you, dwell in you. Isn't that a fantastic thought? That is what I have found with Christ. Its the best thing ever. Thats why I try to show people that part of the faith, which is the most important, rather than what the church normally does...preach, abstinence, etc. Focusing on God's presence is by far the greatest thing about life. And it makes me upset to see people on here or in life just diss God, because of the religious aspect, but they have failed to actually grasp God. If people would feel who God is, they would NEVER leave Him. I am certain to death of this.

It's weird the way people seem to have a "Christian voice" in the same way you get a "Teachers voice" or a "Doctors voice"

This one (obviously) is directed toward those who believe in a higher power.

Do you pray often?

I try to every day but sometimes I go through phases where I don't for weeks on end. It always helps when I do, so there's always a good reason for it.

What about y'all?

Continually throughout the day. Nothing formal. Its more like a conversation. I tried setting aside time in the morning to pray, but it didn't work for me. Seeing as God is with me all the time, I act and pray like He's with me all the time. Plus, I forget things if I don't talk to God about it then and there. Or I'll forget to thank Him for certain things, if I don't do it on the spot.

Thinking that God, an omnipotent entity, would personally listen to YOU is an amazing self-aggrandizement. Far from being humble, praying is the ultimate act of arrogance.

Not when Scripture quite clearly instructs us to pray, and assures us that our prayers will be heard. Shall we second guess the Word of God?

Some times, for no reason, I get the Lord's Prayer stuck in my head (just like a song, you know?)... but I don't know if that's considered praying.

Not when Scripture quite clearly instructs us to pray, and assures us that our prayers will be heard. Shall we second guess the Word of God?
Yes, why not? I know craploads of people who's prayers were not heard (or were they ignored?).
No, it shows that God loves you. Imagine how awesome that sounds. The creator of EVERYTHING, thinks YOU are important enough that He would talk to you, walk with you, dwell in you. Isn't that a fantastic thought? That is what I have found with Christ. Its the best thing ever. Thats why I try to show people that part of the faith, which is the most important, rather than what the church normally does...preach, abstinence, etc. Focusing on God's presence is by far the greatest thing about life. And it makes me upset to see people on here or in life just diss God, because of the religious aspect, but they have failed to actually grasp God. If people would feel who God is, they would NEVER leave Him. I am certain to death of this.
Creator of everything? Really? Says who? Himself? Anyway, it's odd though, my grandma was a devout Christian. When my grandpa was dying, she was in great grief and prayed wholehearty for him to live or at least to let her understand why this was happening. Nothing happend, she "left God" as you would say it. So wasn't she important enough? I ask so many times for answers, if people say "God has a plan for you" to me I sure as hell want to know that plan (afterall, it's about me, would mean I would be some kind of puppet) and what do I hear from "God": nothing, zero.

Yes, why not? I know craploads of people who's prayers were not heard (or were they ignored?).


Ever seen Bruce Almighty?


Creator of everything? ... nothing, zero.

The part you quoted there wasn't me. That was Zilam. ;)

Ever seen Bruce Almighty?
Yea, so? It's a movie, fiction, why would I care about that? So, why wouldn't I question the "word of God". Why wouldn't I question that statement anyway, "word of God". It still are people who wrote the books and stories a loooooong loooooong time ago in different places and era's (side note: that's why the Bible can't be seen as a whole coherent book, it's a collection of stories and myths by writers who are probable inspired by eachother or similair events etc etc, ofcourse in succesing order) who make up today's Bible.

The part you quoted there wasn't me. That was Zilam. ;)
True true, I forgot to set his/her name there. Excuse et moi for the confusion.
Edit: that's fixed.

Yea, so? It's a movie, fiction, why would I care about that?


Because it had something interesting to say about what would happen if absolutely every prayer was granted. What we want and what is best for us isn't always the same, and sometimes it's hard to see how.

Because it had something interesting to say about what would happen if absolutely every prayer was granted. What we want and what is best for us isn't always the same, and sometimes it's hard to see how.
Read again, or at least an explanation for what's happening. I never sad I want every prayer granted. But when I think of a wounded soldier in the hands of medics mumbeling "please God, don't let me die, please, think of my family" or something similair, and the soldier still dies, well that's something different then wanting to win the lottery hmm? I could live with that, that such prayers aren't answered, that's just 1 thing. What really bothers me then, is the lack of explanation. Same with the "God has a plan for you" thing. Sure, I can live with that, but explain it to me then. It's a really bad excuse on it's own, a proper cop-out. Why can't I question those things? Why can't I question the "word of God", who's this God person anyway (kudo's to the person who knows where that's from ;))?

Read again, or at least an explanation for what's happening. I never sad I want every prayer granted. But when I think of a wounded soldier in the hands of medics mumbeling "please God, don't let me die, please, think of my family" or something similair, and the soldier still dies, well that's something different then wanting to win the lottery hmm? I could live with that, that such prayers aren't answered, that's just 1 thing. What really bothers me then, is the lack of explanation. Same with the "God has a plan for you" thing. Sure, I can live with that, but explain it to me then. It's a really bad excuse on it's own, a proper cop-out.

I don't know if you have kids or not, but sometimes when a parent denies a request by their child, they explain the reasoning so that the child will understand. And sometimes they don't,. It's not a copout to acknowledge that God is at liberty to explain things to us-or not.

If a soldier dies despite his prayers I have no doubt that once he's on the other side God fill him in on the reasons he was called home, but I think it would be presumptuous to assume that somehow you or I would be entitled to that same explanation.

I mean, honestly, what do you want Him to do? Call you up on the phone and say "Hey, just wanted to give you a heads up, Corporal Smith over in Afganistan just died even though he prayed not to, and here's why:..."

;)

"Unbelief cannot change the truth" J. Roof

Is praying for someone who doesn't believe,like not praying at all?

Prayer,makes me feel better...so yeah,I do.

I don't know if you have kids or not, but sometimes when a parent denies a request by their child, they explain the reasoning so that the child will understand. And sometimes they don't,. It's not a copout to acknowledge that God is at liberty to explain things to us-or not.
I never sad he didn't have that liberty, I just say that if it's sad that every prayer is heard, then show that every prayer is heard (even though that does not mean every prayer is furfilled).
If a soldier dies despite his prayers I have no doubt that once he's on the other side God fill him in on the reasons he was called home, but I think it would be presumptuous to assume that somehow you or I would be entitled to that same explanation.
Does not help the family now does it?
I mean, honestly, what do you want Him to do? Call you up on the phone and say "Hey, just wanted to give you a heads up, Corporal Smith over in Afganistan just died even though he prayed not to, and here's why:..."

;)
Yes, yes indeed.
Just a little bit of explanation, an update on how things are going. We have a book wich is over 2000 years old, would be nice to know if anything changed in those 2000 years.
But a phone, since when does God need thát? Really, he's an interdimensional space alien who apperantly has acces to create portals through space-time from his dimension to ours. O does that sound stupid? It's just the sci-fi translation, instead of using magic and super-natural I use science fiction. In the core, it's the same.
"Unbelief cannot change the truth" J. Roof
Beleif cannot change the truth as well.
Prayer,makes me feel better...so yeah,I do.
Something I can understand, but what has a self-made supreme being to do with that? Can't you pray to yourself, talk courage into yourself?

I never sad he didn't have that liberty, I just say that if it's sad that every prayer is heard, then show that every prayer is heard (even though that does not mean every prayer is furfilled).


How would you go about that?


Does not help the family now does it?

No, no it doesn't. But at the same time they can be comforted through prayer themselves. Even if the reason isn't given, the knowledge that this man is in a better place and awaits them there helps. Believe me.


Yes, yes indeed.
Just a little bit of explanation, an update on how things are going. We have a book wich is over 2000 years old, would be nice to know if anything changed in those 2000 years.


Well that's the Evangelical Christian perspective perhaps, but not the Mormon one.

Mormon theology includes new Scripture that has been written within the last 200 years, some of it within the last Century. We have a living prophet who serves to keep lines of communication open between Heaven and Earth and keeps things current.


But a phone, since when does God need thát? Really, he's an interdimensional space alien who apperantly has acces to create portals through space-time from his dimension to ours. O does that sound stupid? It's just the sci-fi translation, instead of using magic and super-natural I use science fiction. In the core, it's the same.

I'll present a 3rd option: Communication via the spirit. Your spirit remembers Him and responds to His voice.

How would you go about that?
Good question, don't know. Ofcourse, a supreme being can work that out.


No, no it doesn't. But at the same time they can be comforted through prayer themselves. Even if the reason isn't given, the knowledge that this man is in a better place and awaits them there helps. Believe me.
Who says he's in a better place? Why would anyone need that comfort? Can't do it on your own, with family and friends? I never felt the urge the urge of something like that, why would anyone need something like that?


Well that's the Evangelical Christian perspective perhaps, but not the Mormon one.

Mormon theology includes new Scripture that has been written within the last 200 years, some of it within the last Century. We have a living prophet who serves to keep lines of communication open between Heaven and Earth and keeps things current.
I don't care what you beleive is true, or what your perspective is, I care about what IS true. So why are you right? (remember that it does not matter here what you thínk or beleive, either this IS true or it is NOT true) Lots of things cán be true, it cán be true that that "God" is some kind of intergalactic super-ruler who has enslaved entire planets. Or it could be true that "God" is already showing his wrath on earth, Westboro Baptist styl.e
Anyway I'de really like to meet that prophet, who is he?
I'll present a 3rd option: Communication via the spirit. Your spirit remembers Him and responds to His voice.
My spirit you say? What is this spirit? Who I am is decided by my memory's from the things, people etc etc I come along in my life (I don't think I'll be the same person in 20 years) and some basic properties are decided geneticly (how much is decided geneticly is still not sure), so did God, the high-tech pandimensional alien, implent certain memory's in my brain before I was born or something? Nah I asked for a little conversation several times now and I didn't even hear a "no sorry, can't do", I've seen people (and know people) who asked a little more dearly, and still nothing, 0.00.

Good question, don't know. Ofcourse, a supreme being can work that out.

If it were necessary to do so.


Who says he's in a better place? Why would anyone need that comfort? Can't do it on your own, with family and friends? I never felt the urge the urge of something like that, why would anyone need something like that?


I don't know about you, but I've lost people I've cared for. It makes me happy to know that those people are in a place where they're smiling, with loved ones, and will be there for me when my time comes. It makes one realize that when we mourn, we mourn for ourselves, not for the person who dies, whose company we will miss.


I don't care what you beleive is true, or what your perspective is, I care about what IS true. So why are you right? (remember that it does not matter here what you thínk or beleive, either this IS true or it is NOT true)


Of course it's a matter of what is true. Thing is, I haven't the ability to prove it. All I can give you is my own word for it, and you have to decide what to do with that. On the other hand, you certainly have the ability to look into it for yourself.


My spirit you say? What is this spirit? Who I am is decided by my memory's from the things, people etc etc I come along in my life (I don't think I'll be the same person in 20 years) and some basic properties are decided geneticly (how much is decided geneticly is still not sure), so did God, the high-tech pandimensional alien, implent certain memory's in my brain before I was born or something? Nah I asked for a little conversation several times now and I didn't even hear a "no sorry, can't do", I've seen people (and know people) who asked a little more dearly, and still nothing, 0.00.

If you connect a new Cable box to your tv and it doesn't work at first, which conclusion are you more likely to draw?

A)The Cable Company doesn't exist.
B)The Cable box is installed incorrectly.

Your spirit knows Him but that's not the same as saying you'll consciously recognize His voice for what it is. Each person receives a reply in whatever way would be most effective for that person. The trick is to have an open mind and heart. (This has been my experience. Just sayin')

I recieve an reply to my prayers quite frequently (although not always the answer I wanted)

If you connect a new Cable box to your tv and it doesn't work at first, which conclusion are you more likely to draw?

A)The Cable Company doesn't exist.
B)The Cable box is installed incorrectly.



Again, bit of a false analogy. I can know the cable company exists. I can call them up, I can speak with a representative, I have experience getting cable before, I get bills from them. I have a ton of empirical evidence that suggests the cable company does, in fact, exist. And so, armed with that knowledge, I can draw the conclusion that the problem is in the communication.

But if I never saw the cable company, never spoke with them, never experienced them, never saw their advertisements, never received their bills, never had any evidence that they existed, then why would I draw the conclusion that it did?

If it were necessary to do so.
I think it is, now if it's not I'de like to be shown why. Then it's fine.



I don't know about you, but I've lost people I've cared for. It makes me happy to know that those people are in a place where they're smiling, with loved ones, and will be there for me when my time comes. It makes one realize that when we mourn, we mourn for ourselves, not for the person who dies, whose company we will miss.
Yea, I did as well, several times. I think it's happening again pretty soon as well (my grandma isn't really doing well). Still, never felt the urge to think that, since I also realise that it's either true or it's not true. It does not matter what I would beleive, and I never felt the urge to get comfort out of something like that. Why would I?
Of course it's a matter of what is true. Thing is, I haven't the ability to prove it. All I can give you is my own word for it, and you have to decide what to do with that. On the other hand, you certainly have the ability to look into it for yourself.
What's your word worth here? Nothing personal, but I don't want to know what you think, I want to know what's true and what shows it's true.

If you connect a new Cable box to your tv and it doesn't work at first, which conclusion are you more likely to draw?

A)The Cable Company doesn't exist.
B)The Cable box is installed incorrectly.

Your spirit knows Him but that's not the same as saying you'll consciously recognize His voice for what it is. Each person receives a reply in whatever way would be most effective for that person. The trick is to have an open mind and heart. (This has been my experience. Just sayin')

I recieve an reply to my prayers quite frequently (although not always the answer I wanted)
I don't draw a conclusion, I first think of a testable hypothesis, test it, draw a conclusion and if it's needed make a new hypothesis taking the new information from the previous test in account.

Anyway, you keep talking about that spirit-thingy, simply asked: what are you talking about?
But ok, you sad you've gotten a reply, now how did that happen then? Haven't you just made up the reply yourself, e.a reply yourself to your own prayers? I don't get it really.
What would an open heart and mind be then? Willing to accept the existance of such a being? Sure thing, really no problem, even if it's a deadly and awfull dictator. If it exists, it exists and that's something no one can do anything about.
Really, I just ask for a little conversation with God or wich supreme being or interdimensional alien would be out there.

Again, bit of a false analogy. I can know the cable company exists. I can call them up, I can speak with a representative, I have experience getting cable before, I get bills from them. I have a ton of empirical evidence that suggests the cable company does, in fact, exist. And so, armed with that knowledge, I can draw the conclusion that the problem is in the communication.

But if I never saw the cable company, never spoke with them, never experienced them, never saw their advertisements, never received their bills, never had any evidence that they existed, then why would I draw the conclusion that it did?

Meh, no analogy is perfect, but it suffices for the point I was making.

Meh, no analogy is perfect, but it suffices for the point I was making.
Actually, I do not know what point you want to make with that analogy. Either option you stated is perfectly testable.

When I'm in need, I direct my prayers to Nuffle.


Sadly, I still get double skulls :(

I think it is, now if it's not I'de like to be shown why. Then it's fine.


If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. ;)


Yea, I did as well, several times. I think it's happening again pretty soon as well (my grandma isn't really doing well). Still, never felt the urge to think that, since I also realise that it's either true or it's not true. It does not matter what I would beleive, and I never felt the urge to get comfort out of something like that. Why would I?


If it's the truth, wouldn't you want to know it?


What's your word worth here? Nothing personal, but I don't want to know what you think, I want to know what's true and what shows it's true.


That's my point exactly. My word shouldn't mean anything to you. That's why you're better off searching for that by whatever means works best for you.


I don't draw a conclusion, I first think of a testable hypothesis, test it, draw a conclusion and if it's needed make a new hypothesis taking the new information from the previous test in account.


But if one of your base assumptions is incorrect, say, the one that says that you MUST receive a particular type of answer within a particular format within a particulat time period, then it makes the conclusion useless.


Anyway, you keep talking about that spirit-thingy, simply asked: what are you talking about?

Soul = spirit + body

Your spirit is that part of yourself which was created by God long before the world was made, and will live on after your body dies. It is your essence, it is what makes you who you are.

Your experiences and memories have an impact on that, naturally, since that's stored in your brain and your body is a part of you as well.


But ok, you sad you've gotten a reply, now how did that happen then? Haven't you just made up the reply yourself, e.a reply yourself to your own prayers? I don't get it really.

It's not easy to describe the difference, since, as I said, each person's experience with it is unique and personal, and won't necessarily make sense to someone else This, I believe, is by design so that each person MUST have their own experience, rather than simply parrot someone else's true conviction.

I'll give it a try though, since you asked. My replies from prayer come in the form of what I've affectionately refered to as 'downloads.' It's bits of knowledge or insight that simply didn't exist in my head before but are suddenly there, accompanied by the warm fuzzy feeling you get when you recieve a hug from someone you care for very deeply. It's not words, nothing audible that my ears would pick up. (Although I did have a vision once, that's anotehr story)

For someone else, the experience might be very different, so YMMV. In any case, it's a not the same as your own imagination because imagination lacks some of those characteristics. This is also why it's better to pray where it's quiet and you're relaxed, like meditation. Thoughts, imagination and memories are as distracting as external noise.


Really, I just ask for a little conversation with God or wich supreme being or interdimensional alien would be out there.

It took me 24 years to have my first such experience, and the irony was that when it happened I wasn't even expecting it.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. ;)
Explain. Really, apperantly God wants me to do certain things, sure thing, but before I do those things for him I'de like to know a few things.
If it's the truth, wouldn't you want to know it?
But ofcourse, IF it's the truth. Is it, yes/no?
That's my point exactly. My word shouldn't mean anything to you. That's why you're better off searching for that by whatever means works best for you.
It also does not matter what works best for me, it either is true or it is not. It does not matter what I think on that matter.
But if one of your base assumptions is incorrect, say, the one that says that you MUST receive a particular type of answer within a particular format within a particulat time period, then it makes the conclusion useless.
The conclusion is never useless. An example. Say your flashlight doesn't work anymore. Based on that observation and your knowledge of the flashlight you make a hypothesis like "The batteries are empty.". Then you test the hypothesis, in this case you replace the batteries by one's you know are full. If the flashlight works again, you repeat the experiment to confirm you're right. Then your conclusion can be, that the source of the problem were empty batteries and your hypothesis is verified. If it's not verified, you have to make a new hypothesis.
That was what I ment.
Soul = spirit + body

Your spirit is that part of yourself which was created by God long before the world was made, and will live on after your body dies. It is your essence, it is what makes you who you are.

Your experiences and memories have an impact on that, naturally, since that's stored in your brain and your body is a part of you as well.
Still have no idea what your talking about. Where is that spirit then? I've never noticed it. And how do you know it makes who I am? What I observe, is that my experiences in life wich is stored in memory's and my genetic information decides who I am. According to you, I'm wrong then, can you show me why?
It's not easy to describe the difference, since, as I said, each person's experience with it is unique and personal, and won't necessarily make sense to someone else This, I believe, is by design so that each person MUST have their own experience, rather than simply parrot someone else's true conviction.

I'll give it a try though, since you asked. My replies from prayer come in the form of what I've affectionately refered to as 'downloads.' It's bits of knowledge or insight that simply didn't exist in my head before but are suddenly there, accompanied by the warm fuzzy feeling you get when you recieve a hug from someone you care for very deeply. It's not words, nothing audible that my ears would pick up. (Although I did have a vision once, that's anotehr story)

For someone else, the experience might be very different, so YMMV. In any case, it's a not the same as your own imagination because imagination lacks some of those characteristics. This is also why it's better to pray where it's quiet and you're relaxed, like meditation. Thoughts, imagination and memories are as distracting as external noise.
Why can't those bits of knowledge come from yourself? Afterall, while praying you enter a certain state of focuss, you think deep and hard. Why does it have to come from some kind of supreme being, why couldn't you do it yourself? It almost sounds like an inferiority complex, that you hold it impossible that it's not from you. How come?
The thing I ask for btw, is a literal conversation. Apperantly, that's too much, for some reason. Now it's ok if it's too much, a little personal explanation from him would be appreciated then. But even that's not there, it feels like I'm being ignored completly. That's what I've seen around me a couple of times now, people who are apperantly ignored by that "God".



It took me 24 years to have my first such experience, and the irony was that when it happened I wasn't even expecting it.
It's great you got that experience, but what on earth does it have to do with a supreme being? Again, it almost sounds like some kind of inferiority complex.

Because it had something interesting to say about what would happen if absolutely every prayer was granted. What we want and what is best for us isn't always the same, and sometimes it's hard to see how.

So if you've got, to take a contemporary example, a praying woman in a Sudanese refugee camp, who wants to be able to leave the camp to get water for her children without being gang-raped or murdered by roaming militias, you're saying it might be better for her if her prayer isn't granted?

Explain. Really, apperantly God wants me to do certain things, sure thing, but before I do those things for him I'de like to know a few things.

Is it always necessary to explain reasoning to a child before expecting them to obey parents?


But ofcourse, IF it's the truth. Is it, yes/no?


Yes.


It also does not matter what works best for me, it either is true or it is not. It does not matter what I think on that matter.


That isn't what I mean. When I say 'what works best for you' I'm talking about the means by which you might persue that information. The best method needn't be the same for everyone. If you want a really pedantic example, if I want to know a piece of information I'd probably start with Wikipedia. You, on the other hand, might Google it first.


The conclusion is never useless. An example. Say your flashlight doesn't work anymore. Based on that observation and your knowledge of the flashlight you make a hypothesis like "The batteries are empty.". Then you test the hypothesis, in this case you replace the batteries by one's you know are full. If the flashlight works again, you repeat the experiment to confirm you're right. Then your conclusion can be, that the source of the problem were empty batteries and your hypothesis is verified. If it's not verified, you have to make a new hypothesis.
That was what I ment.

Alright, so based on your analogy, if I replace the batteries with known good ones, and still teh flashlight doesn't work, then I might come up with a new one. Say, that the bulb is burnt out. It would be silly not to. It would be silly to conclude that somehow the flashlight was simply broken and discard it. So my question to you is: Why have you (apparently) discarded the possibility that God exists, rathr than continue with a new hypothesis.

I'll offer you some possible hypotheses if you think it'll be useful: Maybe you received an answer but dind't realize it. Maybe the original request for info was not made with an open mind. Maybe you're not quite ready yet for an answer but you'll receive it when you are.

I don't know if any or all of the above are true, but they seem like reasonable questions to ask oneself.


Still have no idea what your talking about. Where is that spirit then? I've never noticed it. And how do you know it makes who I am? What I observe, is that my experiences in life wich is stored in memory's and my genetic information decides who I am. According to you, I'm wrong then, can you show me why?

I haven't said you were wrong. I said that the body (memory/experience) is a factor as well. Let me ask you this: Suppose you have a preference for Hockey over Baseball or Classical music over Jazz. Is that genetic? Can you trace it? Some things you can, some things you can't. Hardly empirical evidence either way.


Why can't those bits of knowledge come from yourself? Afterall, while praying you enter a certain state of focuss, you think deep and hard. Why does it have to come from some kind of supreme being, why couldn't you do it yourself? It almost sounds like an inferiority complex, that you hold it impossible that it's not from you. How come?

It sounds to me like you've already drawn the opposite conclusion, which, speaking scientifically, would be even less valid than mine because I'm speaking from direct first-hand observation while you're fitting what little I've told you into a mold created from your worldview and previously made assumptions.

I told you before there's no way for me to prove it. That isn't the point.


The thing I ask for btw, is a literal conversation. Apperantly, that's too much, for some reason. Now it's ok if it's too much, a little personal explanation from him would be appreciated then. But even that's not there, it feels like I'm being ignored completly. That's what I've seen around me a couple of times now, people who are apperantly ignored by that "God".


Are you saying that regardless of the manner in which God might communicate to you, you will disregard it unless it comes in precisely the form and medium that you demand?


It's great you got that experience, but what on earth does it have to do with a supreme being? Again, it almost sounds like some kind of inferiority complex.

Is that your conclusion?

So if you've got, to take a contemporary example, a praying woman in a Sudanese refugee camp, who wants to be able to leave the camp to get water for her children without being gang-raped or murdered by roaming militias, you're saying it might be better for her if her prayer isn't granted?

You're asking me to give you the exact reason God would not interfere in a hypothetical situation?

Is it always necessary to explain reasoning to a child before expecting them to obey parents?
Yes, communication is véry important. It's important to know why dad and mum are doing things, because then the child knows why his parents are doing what they do and he can correlate that to his own behaviour. That communication lays a foundation for acceptance and respect from children for there parents.
Yes.
Good, why?
That isn't what I mean. When I say 'what works best for you' I'm talking about the means by which you might persue that information. The best method needn't be the same for everyone. If you want a really pedantic example, if I want to know a piece of information I'd probably start with Wikipedia. You, on the other hand, might Google it first.
Aaa, like that, yea that's true.
Alright, so based on your analogy, if I replace the batteries with known good ones, and still teh flashlight doesn't work, then I might come up with a new one. Say, that the bulb is burnt out. It would be silly not to. It would be silly to conclude that somehow the flashlight was simply broken and discard it. So my question to you is: Why have you (apparently) discarded the possibility that God exists, rathr than continue with a new hypothesis

I'll offer you some possible hypotheses if you think it'll be useful: Maybe you received an answer but dind't realize it. Maybe the original request for info was not made with an open mind. Maybe you're not quite ready yet for an answer but you'll receive it when you are.

I don't know if any or all of the above are true, but they seem like reasonable questions to ask oneself.
Indeed that would be a new testable hypothesis. Ofcourse, it could also be something else.
But I have not discarded the option of "God", whatever you mean with it (lots of people mean lots of different things). I can't, because it's not testible. If it is, I'll be happy to hear it.
But ofcourse, it could be that I never realised I got the answer. Would be wierd, if that's the case I politly ask if it could be repeated in a way it's pretty clear (that's why I ask for a literal conversation, that sure is clear). I'm sure I have an open mind, since I want to know the truth, regardless of what it is. I don't care if there is a "God" (meaning I have nothing against the option) but I don't care if there is not a "God"

I haven't said you were wrong. I said that the body (memory/experience) is a factor as well. Let me ask you this: Suppose you have a preference for Hockey over Baseball or Classical music over Jazz. Is that genetic? Can you trace it? Some things you can, some things you can't. Hardly empirical evidence either way.
In a way you did say it, because you sad that your spirit makes you who you are and your experiences are a part of that. I never included that spirit-thingy, so again, where is that thing, what is it, what part is it from my personality then etc,
And like I sad, only a small part ,and we're not sure how large that part is, is genetic. And what's genetic, is the basics, like sentivity to deppresion or aggresion. The details are caused by experiences wich are stored in your brain.
It sounds to me like you've already drawn the opposite conclusion, which, speaking scientifically, would be even less valid than mine because I'm speaking from direct first-hand observation while you're fitting what little I've told you into a mold created from your worldview and previously made assumptions.
I told you before there's no way for me to prove it. That isn't the point.
I have not drawn the opposite conclusion, I applied Occam's Razor. The 2 explanations, you thought it up yourself or a supreme being beamed it into your head, both have equal emperical value. But, the latter explanation requires much more additional assumptions and hypothesises thus making it less favorable. Also, your first-hand experience isn't that usefull, since it's severly colored by your beleives.
Anyway, for me it is the point. Why be so sure a supreme being did it? Why would that be so important anyway?

Are you saying that regardless of the manner in which God might communicate to you, you will disregard it unless it comes in precisely the form and medium that you demand?
The only thing I say, is that I do need a form of communication so I can be sure it's the supreme being you call God. I think that would be a direct and literal conversation, if there would be another option I would be fine as well.
Is that your conclusion?
No, it's an option I keep in mind. Because again, why can't you come up with those bits of information yourself? Why is it so wierd to think that happend, afterall, activities like praying and meditiation (something I really want to learn) really makes you focuss and clears your mind from distractions giving you room to think.

Yes, communication is véry important. It's important to know why dad and mum are doing things, because then the child knows why his parents are doing what they do and he can correlate that to his own behaviour. That communication lays a foundation for acceptance and respect from children for there parents.

I disagree. When I instruct my children to do something, if time and circumstances permit I'll explain my rationale, but their obedience is expected regardless. Sometimes it's neither practical nor prudent to explain things to them. They're sometimes not ready for the information. Obiedience is not conditional upon understanding why. It's not warm and fuzzy, but my kids trust me enough to know that even when they don't know why, my reasons are good.


Good, why?


That's what this conversation is all about ;)


Indeed that would be a new testable hypothesis. Ofcourse, it could also be something else.
But I have not discarded the option of "God", whatever you mean with it (lots of people mean lots of different things). I can't, because it's not testible. If it is, I'll be happy to hear it.
But ofcourse, it could be that I never realised I got the answer. Would be wierd, if that's the case I politly ask if it could be repeated in a way it's pretty clear (that's why I ask for a literal conversation, that sure is clear). I'm sure I have an open mind, since I want to know the truth, regardless of what it is. I don't care if there is a "God" (meaning I have nothing against the option) but I don't care if there is not a "God"


Fair enough.


In a way you did say it, because you sad that your spirit makes you who you are and your experiences are a part of that. I never included that spirit-thingy, so again, where is that thing, what is it, what part is it from my personality then etc,
And like I sad, only a small part ,and we're not sure how large that part is, is genetic. And what's genetic, is the basics, like sentivity to deppresion or aggresion. The details are caused by experiences wich are stored in your brain.

It's all bound together. Remember that Soul=body+spirit. The body part is just as important. The spirit make you who you are in the sense that its influence is not bound by any experience or event here on Earth. Think of it as the control, if you will, for a series of experiments. There's always that one test group/subject that's left alone for comparison.


I have not drawn the opposite conclusion, I applied Occam's Razor. The 2 explanations, you thought it up yourself or a supreme being beamed it into your head, both have equal emperical value. But, the latter explanation requires much more additional assumptions and hypothesises thus making it less favorable. Also, your first-hand experience isn't that usefull, since it's severly colored by your beleives.

I'll concede that my worldview impacts my perception of the event if you'll concede that it doen't necessarily invalidate it.

But you're right. Outside of my own perspective you have no reason to take my word for it. Again, it's not provable, which I've acknowledged form the beginning. Each person's experience MUST be unique and personal.


Anyway, for me it is the point. Why be so sure a supreme being did it? Why would that be so important anyway?


It's not empirically testable whether or not what I am saying is valid. Perhaps if I were a diagnosed schizophrenic that would count as evidence against, if I had been hearing voices. But I am neither schizophrenic nor have I claimed to hear any voices.
(When I talk about the spirit responding to God's voice, I mean it metaphorically, just btw.)

Why am I sure? The only answer I can give you is how do you know when you're in love? Can it be proven? But yet you KNOW somehow when you are. Same thing here. I know God can and does communicate with His children. I know that He has done so for me, and clearly. I know that His Church is the true path to return to His presence.

Why is it important? Precisely because it's a connection to the truth that we all seek. You said you wanted the truth, well of course you do, as an intelligent and reasonable person. If the only means by which you can obtain it is through a personal experience of your own, then no amount of testimony of mine will make any difference until you experience it for yourself.


The only thing I say, is that I do need a form of communication so I can be sure it's the supreme being you call God. I think that would be a direct and literal conversation, if there would be another option I would be fine as well.


Well I can tell you there is another option. Besides, simple audio or visual phenomena can be explained away, can't it? If you suddenly experienced a voice when there was nobody in the room, you might well, and reasonably, conclude that youre hallucinating.

God's way of speaking to us is superior to that.


No, i't's an option I keep in mind. Because again, why can't you come up with those bits of information yourself? Why is it so wierd to think that happend, afterall, activities like praying and meditiation (something I really want to learn) really makes you focuss and clears your mind from distractions giving you room to think.

Meditation isn't necessarily about deep thought. Many forms of meditation are all about CLEARING the mind as much as possible. When I pray for guidance or wisdom, I speak my prayer, and then clear my mind. Sometimes an reply comes immediately, sometimes not, but it always comes. Sometimes it's just a nudge to get my thoughts on the right track for a solution, sometimes it's a detailed series of instructions.

You're asking me to give you the exact reason God would not interfere in a hypothetical situation?

Who said it was hypothetical? It's not an uncommon situation in Sudan, to the extent that it quite routinely features as one of the 'survivor stories' published as full-page ads in national newspapers here in the UK. I'd be very surprised if none of the women prayed before going out.

I disagree. When I instruct my children to do something, if time and circumstances permit I'll explain my rationale, but their obedience is expected regardless. Sometimes it's neither practical nor prudent to explain things to them. They're sometimes not ready for the information. Obiedience is not conditional upon understanding why. It's not warm and fuzzy, but my kids trust me enough to know that even when they don't know why, my reasons are good.
Even when they're not. My dad tries the same thing, simply saying "Listen to me because I say so, I'm your dad." I hate it, certain things he does are so illogical and plain stupid I demand and explanation. He won't give it. There isn't even a trace of mutual respect and understandement. And also, if I hate ánything it's forcing things op kids, religion or not.
That's what this conversation is all about ;)
I thought it was something different. Anyway, care to explain why it's true then?

It's all bound together. Remember that Soul=body+spirit. The body part is just as important. The spirit make you who you are in the sense that its influence is not bound by any experience or event here on Earth. Think of it as the control, if you will, for a series of experiments. There's always that one test group/subject that's left alone for comparison.
Again you talk about that spirit-thingy, what is that? Where is it? Why do you even think it's there? How do you mean that's not influenced by things that happen on earth, what part of your personality does it govern then?

I'll concede that my worldview impacts my perception of the event if you'll concede that it doen't necessarily invalidate it.
Ofcourse, that is true.

But you're right. Outside of my own perspective you have no reason to take my word for it. Again, it's not provable, which I've acknowledged form the beginning. Each person's experience MUST be unique and personal.
Why does it HAVE to do unique and personal? That only makes everything confusing.
It's not empirically testable whether or not what I am saying is valid. Perhaps if I were a diagnosed schizophrenic that would count as evidence against, if I had been hearing voices. But I am neither schizophrenic nor have I claimed to hear any voices.
(When I talk about the spirit responding to God's voice, I mean it metaphorically, just btw.)
I know that it can't, but ofcourse you can still apply Occam's Razor.

Why am I sure? The only answer I can give you is how do you know when you're in love? Can it be proven? But yet you KNOW somehow when you are. Same thing here. I know God can and does communicate with His children. I know that He has done so for me, and clearly. I know that His Church is the true path to return to His presence.
Yes, that can be proven, or at least confirmend by other people. You SAY that those things happens, you SAY that your church is the one. But loads of people also SAY that there way is thé way. You guys aaaall "know", but who's right hmm? Again, what you think, know or beleive does not matter. Either something is true, or it is not true. It does not matter what you beleive, your definition of God exists for me as well, even if I don't beleive it exists.

Why is it important? Precisely because it's a connection to the truth that we all seek. You said you wanted the truth, well of course you do, as an intelligent and reasonable person. If the only means by which you can obtain it is through a personal experience of your own, then no amount of testimony of mine will make any difference until you experience it for yourself.
If it's true, my own personal experience does not matter. If something is true, e.a if your God really exists, is not dependant on what someone thinks. It either exists, or it does not exist, regardless of what you think/beleive/hope/whatever. You say it's the truth, e.a that that being exists, I question that. But even if it exists, why is it important? Fact is you got your information, why isn't the option there you got that information yourself? Why do you wánt to think it's from a supreme being?

Well I can tell you there is another option. Besides, simple audio or visual phenomena can be explained away, can't it? If you suddenly experienced a voice when there was nobody in the room, you might well, and reasonably, conclude that youre hallucinating.

God's way of speaking to us is superior to that.
That's arrogant, we would be lower then that being and less developed, but it still tries to communicate on it's own level. I ask politely if the being, if it exists, would want to communicate to me on my level of development. And, who says you don't create that voice yourself? I talk in my own head as well, heck while I'm typing this I'm reciting it in my head in a Texan accent (just for fun).
Why didn;t you do it yourself? I don't understand.



Meditation isn't necessarily about deep thought. Many forms of meditation are all about CLEARING the mind as much as possible. When I pray for guidance or wisdom, I speak my prayer, and then clear my mind. Sometimes an reply comes immediately, sometimes not, but it always comes. Sometimes it's just a nudge to get my thoughts on the right track for a solution, sometimes it's a detailed series of instructions.
It's not cleared in that way ofcourse, since you recite your prayer you go through the problem or question you have. And ofcourse, you can't shut down the connections in your brain wich contain the problems.
Again, why is it so impossible that you thought of it yourself, that you came up with an answer of an idea for an answer in your uncounciousness?
Also, I still wonder about my first question: why shouldn't we question the texts you call "the word of God"? Why would I bother with it, there are so many different holy texts, and different interpretations of those texts and lots of people are saying that those texts are "the true word".

I disagree. When I instruct my children to do something, if time and circumstances permit I'll explain my rationale, but their obedience is expected regardless. Sometimes it's neither practical nor prudent to explain things to them. They're sometimes not ready for the information. Obiedience is not conditional upon understanding why. It's not warm and fuzzy, but my kids trust me enough to know that even when they don't know why, my reasons are good.


You know, you hit a fundamental point for me. If my parents told me to do what they said, without explanation, and informed me that they "expected my obedience", I'm not entirely sure what my reaction would be but I assume it would involve me me informing them that should they ever spoke to me in that way again I will physically remove them from my home.

And why any adult would willingly assume the role of a child, to just blindly trust and obey, to willfully believe that they're not worthy, deserving, and in fact entitled to an explanation is beyond me.

I'm nobody's child, and I refuse to humiliate myself so far as to act like one (this isn't to say I haven't been called "daddy" once or twice in my life, but that's neither here nor there....).

And why any adult would willingly assume the role of a child is beyond me.
Indeed, or the metaphore that we're all little lambs needed to be herd. That makes me think there is something like an inferiority complex involved.

Even when they're not. My dad tries the same thing, simply saying "Listen to me because I say so, I'm your dad." I hate it, certain things he does are so illogical and plain stupid I demand and explanation. He won't give it. There isn't even a trace of mutual respect and understandement. And also, if I hate ánything it's forcing things op kids, religion or not.

My kids and I have mutual respect. (Trust me) They also understand that I never give them a directive on a whim or out of some kind of self serving motive. My younger son (who is 12) especially is like you, he wants to be 'in' on the decision making process and for the most part I try to give that to him so that he can learn in a hands on way.

But he and I have an understanding that sometimes my reasoning is beyond what he can grasp at this stage of his life. (This is especially true of the rules regarding his conduct around the young ladies. He's old enough to understand the birds and the bees, but still young enough to be mystified at why I'd not let him have a girl in his room with the door shut. That understanding will come in due course.) he understands that what I say must go, whether he agrees with the reasoning or not, and especially if he doesn't even know it.

Just out of curioisty, how old are you? You kinda sound like you're still dealing with this issue first-hand.


I thought it was something different. Anyway, care to explain why it's true then?

Seriously... this is the point of the conversation, isn't it?


Again you talk about that spirit-thingy, what is that? Where is it? Why do you even think it's there? How do you mean that's not influenced by things that happen on earth, what part of your personality does it govern then?


To answer that any deeper than I have already would go in-depth beyond the scope of this thread, although I'll do my best if you really want. For now, suffice it to say that the spirit did not originate in this world and is not subject to it.


Why does it HAVE to do unique and personal? That only makes everything confusing.

Good question.

The answer is faith. Look at it this way: if the experience were universal, then it would be provable somehow. It would be like if one day Jesus overrode all the TV stations and announced He would be at the Mall in Washington to prove everything once and for all, complete with all the Biblical relics like the Ark of the Covenant, Noah's ark, the Cross, etc. Sure, lots of people would look at the proof and many would become religious based on the sheer weight of the evidence. And what would all those conversions mean? Nothing. A computer would convert to Christianity with evidence like that.

In a way, with such overwhelming evidence, you'd have no choice but to accept the truth of God's existence, His plan for you, and so on. That part about choise is important, because unless a person comes to Him through their own initiative, out of love and a desire to realize their true potential as a child of God, then it's completely meaningless. Like getting Baptized but only going through the motions to impress a cute girl at church.


I know that it can't, but ofcourse you can still apply Occam's Razor.


Sure, but Occam's Razor isn't the pinnacle of wisdom, either. I mean, after all, if we're going to use philosophical cliche's, why not apply Pascal's Wager to it, and say that one should believe because if they're right, they reap all the benefits but if they're wrong, it won't matter anyway.


Yes, that can be proven, or at least confirmend by other people. You SAY that those things happens, you SAY that your church is the one. But loads of people also SAY that there way is thé way. You guys aaaall "know", but who's right hmm? Again, what you think, know or beleive does not matter. Either something is true, or it is not true. It does not matter what you beleive, your definition of God exists for me as well, even if I don't beleive it exists.

Of course, but the testimony of that universal and objective truth has to come to each individual my whatever means is most effective to that person.


If it's true, my own personal experience does not matter. If something is true, e.a if your God really exists, is not dependant on what someone thinks. It either exists, or it does not exist, regardless of what you think/beleive/hope/whatever. You say it's the truth, e.a that that being exists, I question that. But even if it exists, why is it important? Fact is you got your information, why isn't the option there you got that information yourself? Why do you wánt to think it's from a supreme being?


It's not about what I want to think, it's about what I conclude is true based on the observable data around me, including the 'download' analogy I made earlier. When I first encountered this I had been living my entire life as a Catholic and had resisted the teachings of Mormonism because they were so different from what I already believed. I came from a Catholic worldview. It wasn't easy to accept the truth, but so strong is the testimony I recieved that I did what I needed to do to persue the truth.


That's arrogant, we would be lower then that being and less developed, but it still tries to communicate on it's own level. I ask politely if the being, if it exists, would want to communicate to me on my level of development. And, who says you don't create that voice yourself? I talk in my own head as well, heck while I'm typing this I'm reciting it in my head in a Texan accent (just for fun).
Why didn;t you do it yourself? I don't understand.

I don't think it's arrogant. Why assume that God would HAVE to lower to our level to communicate with us? We are His children and perfectly capable of communing with Him at His level. It's what he wants, after all.


It's not cleared in that way ofcourse, since you recite your prayer you go through the problem or question you have. And ofcourse, you can't shut down the connections in your brain wich contain the problems.
Again, why is it so impossible that you thought of it yourself, that you came up with an answer of an idea for an answer in your uncounciousness?

Because firstly, that wouldn't account for the additional experiences associated with the 'download' as I described earlier. Second, it doesn't account for external solutions, over which I have no control, that defy coincidence or probability in response to my prayer.


Also, I still wonder about my first question: why shouldn't we question the texts you call "the word of God"? Why would I bother with it, there are so many different holy texts, and different interpretations of those texts and lots of people are saying that those texts are "the true word".

Another good question. I'll think on that one but for now I can only give you an example off the top of my head. When I first converted to the Church, I had absolutely no knowledge of, or belief in the Book of Mormon. Based on the spiritual experience I had that guided me to join the church I accepted logically that the veracity of the Book of Mormon was a component of that, but I had no true internal belief in it. In accordance with advice contained both within it and the Bible, I prayed to God for some sort of verification that this bok was, in fact, the truth. The result was another 'download,' which seemed to transform this book I held in my hands from an interesting little piece of literature to a real and honest book of fact, history, and wisdom.

You know, you hit a fundamental point for me. If my parents told me to do what they said, without explanation, and informed me that they "expected my obedience", I'm not entirely sure what my reaction would be but I assume it would involve me me informing them that should they ever spoke to me in that way again I will physically remove them from my home.

And why any adult would willingly assume the role of a child, to just blindly trust and obey, to willfully believe that they're not worthy, deserving, and in fact entitled to an explanation is beyond me.

I'm nobody's child, and I refuse to humiliate myself so far as to act like one (this isn't to say I haven't been called "daddy" once or twice in my life, but that's neither here nor there....).

But you're an adult, so of course it would be inapropriate for your parents to demand your obedience. I'm talking about children.

And compared to God, we are like children. It's a good thing. I find it exciting to think that there's so much out there to learn, to experience, and that I'm just beginning my overall path. I don't see how that's any more humiliating than for a 6-year-old to be humiliated by that fact that he is, in fact, 6 years old.

(LOL on the last part)

My kids and I have mutual respect. (Trust me) They also understand that I never give them a directive on a whim or out of some kind of self serving motive. My younger son (who is 12) especially is like you, he wants to be 'in' on the decision making process and for the most part I try to give that to him so that he can learn in a hands on way.

But he and I have an understanding that sometimes my reasoning is beyond what he can grasp at this stage of his life. (This is especially true of the rules regarding his conduct around the young ladies. He's old enough to understand the birds and the bees, but still young enough to be mystified at why I'd not let him have a girl in his room with the door shut. That understanding will come in due course.) he understands that what I say must go, whether he agrees with the reasoning or not, and especially if he doesn't even know it.

Just out of curioisty, how old are you? You kinda sound like you're still dealing with this issue first-hand.
O I never sad I wanted to be in the decision making progress, I just want to know what the hell is going on (I can't claim that I can be part of the decision process). Would be the same with a divine being, sure ok if something like that exists, but just explain me what the hell is going on. That's all.
On the 2nd, I would clearly explain why I would not let him do it. Although I do see a problem ofcourse, kids on that age can't fully rationalise things like that. I never éver want to do the "listen to me because I'm your dad and I know best", but I do understand that there is a problem communicating with kids that age and younger.
I'm 17 btw ;)

Seriously... this is the point of the conversation, isn't it?
That's not what I've noticed if I'm honest since we're talking about personal experiences and things like that, and not about the reality outside our personal minds.

To answer that any deeper than I have already would go in-depth beyond the scope of this thread, although I'll do my best if you really want. For now, suffice it to say that the spirit did not originate in this world and is not subject to it.
I it would be very very nice if you could go deeper into it, because it really does not make any sense to me, this spirit-thingy. Sure I've seen people use it as a metaphore lots of times, but you seem to use it much more literall, as an actual part of a person. The last really doesn't suffice to me ;) It's origins are the least of my concerns, I want to find the thing if it exists, heck make sure it exists in the first place, find out what it does then etc etc. Also, what do you mean that it's not subject to this world? You mean it does not change no matter what? What part of someboy's personality is governed by that spirit then?



Good question.

The answer is faith. Look at it this way: if the experience were universal, then it would be provable somehow. It would be like if one day Jesus overrode all the TV stations and announced He would be at the Mall in Washington to prove everything once and for all, complete with all the Biblical relics like the Ark of the Covenant, Noah's ark, the Cross, etc. Sure, lots of people would look at the proof and many would become religious based on the sheer weight of the evidence. And what would all those conversions mean? Nothing. A computer would convert to Christianity with evidence like that.

In a way, with such overwhelming evidence, you'd have no choice but to accept the truth of God's existence, His plan for you, and so on. That part about choise is important, because unless a person comes to Him through their own initiative, out of love and a desire to realize their true potential as a child of God, then it's completely meaningless. Like getting Baptized but only going through the motions to impress a cute girl at church.
Again, faith or hope does not matter. Either a plan and the existance of that "God" you speak of exists, or it does not. You don't have a choice whereither God exists, it's either true or false.

Sure, but Occam's Razor isn't the pinnacle of wisdom, either. I mean, after all, if we're going to use philosophical cliche's, why not apply Pascal's Wager to it, and say that one should believe because if they're right, they reap all the benefits but if they're wrong, it won't matter anyway.
No ofcourse not, it's just pretty damn practical. And if you apply Pascal's Wager, you should all follow the Westboro Baptist Church or something like that.

Of course, but the testimony of that universal and objective truth has to come to each individual my whatever means is most effective to that person.
Who says it's the truth in the first place? Before I would want to look deeper into the details of the subject, I'de like to see why it's the truth.

It's not about what I want to think, it's about what I conclude is true based on the observable data around me, including the 'download' analogy I made earlier. When I first encountered this I had been living my entire life as a Catholic and had resisted the teachings of Mormonism because they were so different from what I already believed. I came from a Catholic worldview. It wasn't easy to accept the truth, but so strong is the testimony I recieved that I did what I needed to do to persue the truth.
I don't understand really. How can you say it's the truth, with nothing more then some personal happenings?

I don't think it's arrogant. Why assume that God would HAVE to lower to our level to communicate with us? We are His children and perfectly capable of communing with Him at His level. It's what he wants, after all.
Because apperantly, we fail to do so. There are countless of different religions in this world, not even counting the old one's who died out. Even if we narrow down on the monotheistic religions there is apperantly some misscommunication, just look at the difference of Christian, Islamic and Jewish culture (and even the differences inside them).

Because firstly, that wouldn't account for the additional experiences associated with the 'download' as I described earlier. Second, it doesn't account for external solutions, over which I have no control, that defy coincidence or probability in response to my prayer.
Why doesn't it correlate to your downloading analogy? I don't understand why not. I also don't understand the second, wich external solutions?

Another good question. I'll think on that one but for now I can only give you an example off the top of my head. When I first converted to the Church, I had absolutely no knowledge of, or belief in the Book of Mormon. Based on the spiritual experience I had that guided me to join the church I accepted logically that the veracity of the Book of Mormon was a component of that, but I had no true internal belief in it. In accordance with advice contained both within it and the Bible, I prayed to God for some sort of verification that this bok was, in fact, the truth. The result was another 'download,' which seemed to transform this book I held in my hands from an interesting little piece of literature to a real and honest book of fact, history, and wisdom.
Huh? So it wasn't fact before you got that download, and apperantly it was after. Really, how on earth does a personal and lone experience transforms rubbish into the truth? Really, something is a fact or something is not, and even then a fact can be true or not. What's with the correlation between reality and your personal experience.



But you're an adult, so of course it would be inapropriate for your parents to demand your obedience. I'm talking about children.

And compared to God, we are like children. It's a good thing. I find it exciting to think that there's so much out there to learn, to experience, and that I'm just beginning my overall path. I don't see how that's any more humiliating than for a 6-year-old to be humiliated by that fact that he is, in fact, 6 years old.

(LOL on the last part)
First of all, I wish I was an adult, I don't think I am and I don't think I'll be one in a pretty long time.
Second, if your books say that we're all children from that "God" person, I'de like to see the why and how.

Bottom-line for is that I really don't understand that how you can say all those things are the truth, wich would mean that it doesn't matter if you beleive in it or not since it's either true or false, based on a foundation made of nothing more then air. Just from some personal experiences wich amazed you, I can't understand why someone would wánt to do that and hów someone would do that. I mean really, why not just convert to the old Roman religion or Mayan tradition (yummy, human sacrifice), why aren't the true?

O I never sad I wanted to be in the decision making progress, I just want to know what the hell is going on (I can't claim that I can be part of the decision process). Would be the same with a divine being, sure ok if something like that exists, but just explain me what the hell is going on. That's all.
On the 2nd, I would clearly explain why I would not let him do it. Although I do see a problem ofcourse, kids on that age can't fully rationalise things like that. I never éver want to do the "listen to me because I'm your dad and I know best", but I do understand that there is a problem communicating with kids that age and younger.
I'm 17 btw ;)

Ok so at 17 you are basically grown up, so it's much more reasonable for you to expect complete openness between your parents and you. That's fine. But the relationship between us and God isn't like that of a 17 year old, who is on the brink of legal adulthood, and his parents we're (relatively speaking) more like little kids by comparison, so even if He did fill us in on every detail, we'd be hard pressed to understand even the smallest part of it.


That's not what I've noticed if I'm honest since we're talking about personal experiences and things like that, and not about the reality outside our personal minds.

That's the difference in our respective worldviews, I guess. You're starting from the perspective that all of this is based on subjectivity while my perspective is that it's a subjective view of an objective truth.


I it would be very very nice if you could go deeper into it, because it really does not make any sense to me, this spirit-thingy. Sure I've seen people use it as a metaphore lots of times, but you seem to use it much more literall, as an actual part of a person. The last really doesn't suffice to me ;) It's origins are the least of my concerns, I want to find the thing if it exists, heck make sure it exists in the first place, find out what it does then etc etc. Also, what do you mean that it's not subject to this world? You mean it does not change no matter what? What part of someboy's personality is governed by that spirit then?

Ok I'll see what I can do here... The spirit is what we are before we receive a physical body (birth.) Each of us is LITERALLY God's child in spirit. Before the world was, imagine a bunch of spirits running around Heaven, all God's children. Now, in order for us to develop beyond that point, we needed to be joined to a physical body. That's the first reason we came here to Earth. At some point your spirit was joined to your body. The combination of the two is what we call a soul.

What it's made of is some sort of matter finer than what we're used to thinking of (protons and neutrons, etc). A recent study has found patterns of quantum tubules in the brain that would exist outside of space-time and thus survive the death of the body. Is that the spirit? Maybe. I don't know but it's a good analogy at any rate.


Again, faith or hope does not matter. Either a plan and the existance of that "God" you speak of exists, or it does not. You don't have a choice whereither God exists, it's either true or false.


Yes, exactly, but awareness of Him requires faith. He's there whether we have faith or not, but it's our faith that enables us to know Him.


No ofcourse not, it's just pretty damn practical. And if you apply Pascal's Wager, you should all follow the Westboro Baptist Church or something like that.

Which is why I don't use that one either ;)


Who says it's the truth in the first place? Before I would want to look deeper into the details of the subject, I'de like to see why it's the truth.
I don't understand really. How can you say it's the truth, with nothing more then some personal happenings?
Because apperantly, we fail to do so. There are countless of different religions in this world, not even counting the old one's who died out. Even if we narrow down on the monotheistic religions there is apperantly some misscommunication, just look at the difference of Christian, Islamic and Jewish culture (and even the differences inside them).
Why doesn't it correlate to your downloading analogy? I don't understand why not. I also don't understand the second, wich external solutions?


Let me put it another way:
When humans communicate with each other we use some combination of our 5 senses. It is a commonly held belief that there are more ways than that for humans to interact with their environment but nobody knows the exact nature of any others. It is reasonable to theorize that such an extra awareness might be the medium that a supreme being would use to communicate to His children, in order to leave NO DOUBT as to the origin of such a communication.

With that premise, if someone DOES receive information by that means, then it would have the unique characteristics of being both true and unprovable, beyond the individual experience.


Huh? So it wasn't fact before you got that download, and apperantly it was after. Really, how on earth does a personal and lone experience transforms rubbish into the truth? Really, something is a fact or something is not, and even then a fact can be true or not. What's with the correlation between reality and your personal experience.


No that's not what I'm saying. It was ALWAYS true. I just didn't have the testimony of its truth until that moment.


First of all, I wish I was an adult, I don't think I am and I don't think I'll be one in a pretty long time.
Second, if your books say that we're all children from that "God" person, I'de like to see the why and how.


This part of my post was for Neo Art, and he's an adult. ;)

But to answer your question, we're His children in a literal sense, in terms of our spirit as I mentioned before.


Bottom-line for is that I really don't understand that how you can say all those things are the truth, wich would mean that it doesn't matter if you beleive in it or not since it's either true or false, based on a foundation made of nothing more then air. Just from some personal experiences wich amazed you, I can't understand why someone would wánt to do that and hów someone would do that. I mean really, why not just convert to the old Roman religion or Mayan tradition (yummy, human sacrifice), why aren't the true?

Good question. I'll answer it with a question. Were ancient Mayans or Roman pantheon worshippers known to have converted by means of personal revelation, or did they just go along with what they were told? That same question holds true for modern religions as well. Do they believe because of personal revelation, or because they were told to?

And while we're asking questions, ask yourself this: When people talk to you about religion, they try to convince you quantitatively that they believe in the truth. How often are you told to seek after the truth for yourself? I'm not asking you to take my word for it, because my personal conversion experience was for me. I only share it as an example of how it can work.

But just to clarify because I think we may be getting off the same page... The truth I'm talking about is objective and true beyond the scope of my experience or anyone else's. What's individual and personal is the means by which we arrive at an understanding of that truth.

I Pray/Meditate daily. It's a centering experience, and it is linked to nightly ritual, which includes writing in my journal, sleeping with a glass of water on the night stand, flipping the calendar page and taking a leak.

Regardless of the efficacy, it feels good and it helps me relax.

Ok so at 17 you are basically grown up, so it's much more reasonable for you to expect complete openness between your parents and you. That's fine. But the relationship between us and God isn't like that of a 17 year old, who is on the brink of legal adulthood, and his parents we're (relatively speaking) more like little kids by comparison, so even if He did fill us in on every detail, we'd be hard pressed to understand even the smallest part of it.
I wouldn't call myself grown up ;) Even though I'm reaching the line of legal adulthood, my brain isn't fully developed untill (about) 21-25 years.
If that would be our relation with God, I'de like to be shown that, because I don't feel that way.

That's the difference in our respective worldviews, I guess. You're starting from the perspective that all of this is based on subjectivity while my perspective is that it's a subjective view of an objective truth.
For me it boils down to this: is your perspective in correlation with the objective reality outside our minds? Because it does not matter if you beleive that the earth was created by some kind of uber-alien, something like that is either true or not true regardless of what you beleive (and ofcourse we found out that it's most likely not true, unless you want to give gravity the name " God")

Ok I'll see what I can do here... The spirit is what we are before we receive a physical body (birth.) Each of us is LITERALLY God's child in spirit. Before the world was, imagine a bunch of spirits running around Heaven, all God's children. Now, in order for us to develop beyond that point, we needed to be joined to a physical body. That's the first reason we came here to Earth. At some point your spirit was joined to your body. The combination of the two is what we call a soul.

What it's made of is some sort of matter finer than what we're used to thinking of (protons and neutrons, etc). A recent study has found patterns of quantum tubules in the brain that would exist outside of space-time and thus survive the death of the body. Is that the spirit? Maybe. I don't know but it's a good analogy at any rate.
Could you link me the published, scientific article about that? Becase how do you know that I have something called a spirit in my body, I never found something like that and never found any trace of it. It's also something completly illogical. Afterall, we know that sometimes people can completly change when they have massive brain trauma, e.a that they're nothing like the previous person (there was a pretty cool documentary about that on National Geographic a while ago). Or schizofrenia, would that be a little mistake from God, 2 spirits in 1 body? Really, I don't understand where the thought of that spirit comes from, originated from.

Yes, exactly, but awareness of Him requires faith. He's there whether we have faith or not, but it's our faith that enables us to know Him.
I don't understand why that would be the case. Because that being would indeed exist outside our minds, regardless of what you beleive, but the being won't show itself unless you strongly beleive in it. Even then, my grandma I spoke of earlier was devout, but after the incident I spoke of she got nothing. Would that mean she wasn't devout enough? That's the problem with that: it's such a cop-out. I'de like to talk with that being if it exists in our reality. Apperantly the being wants me to do something completly irrational, I won't do that because it does not make any sense. I still want to talk, but if that "God" exists outside our minds, I don't see any use of beleiving the being exists without anything but some personal idea's in my mind. There is also a "danger" in there, because you're sure the being exists even though there is nothing wich shows that (indeed I do not take your personal experiences in account, they're much too colored and biased to serve as a proper source, maybe for you but again I'm talking about the reality outside our minds) you easely see something as proof even though it means nothing for the reality outside our minds. Fact is, I don't beleive like that, I don't hold faith like that because I see danger and nonsense in it.

Which is why I don't use that one either ;)
Ofcourse it's something different. Occam's Razor doesn't have anything to do with personal feelings, it simply shows wich idea or hypothesis is more likely to be true and a more logical choice.



Let me put it another way:
When humans communicate with each other we use some combination of our 5 senses. It is a commonly held belief that there are more ways than that for humans to interact with their environment but nobody knows the exact nature of any others. It is reasonable to theorize that such an extra awareness might be the medium that a supreme being would use to communicate to His children, in order to leave NO DOUBT as to the origin of such a communication.

With that premise, if someone DOES receive information by that means, then it would have the unique characteristics of being both true and unprovable, beyond the individual experience.
O it may be a commonly held beleive, but that means nothing, 0.00. The only thing that matters, is whereither it's in correlation with reality (e.a true) or not. It's not reasonable to theorise something based on nothing more then the personal idea of the majority. Because what's more to show that such a magical 6th sense exists?

No that's not what I'm saying. It was ALWAYS true. I just didn't have the testimony of its truth until that moment.
Well then, why is it true then? Is your interpretation even correct? Afterall, we know that the literal interpretation of Genesis is bullcrap, not in correlation with reality.

This part of my post was for Neo Art, and he's an adult. ;)

But to answer your question, we're His children in a literal sense, in terms of our spirit as I mentioned before.
That would be interesting, I'de like to see proof of that. Afterall, the history of the human species is pretty well known and says nothing about descent from a devine species.

Good question. I'll answer it with a question. Were ancient Mayans or Roman pantheon worshippers known to have converted by means of personal revelation, or did they just go along with what they were told? That same question holds true for modern religions as well. Do they believe because of personal revelation, or because they were told to?

And while we're asking questions, ask yourself this: When people talk to you about religion, they try to convince you quantitatively that they believe in the truth. How often are you told to seek after the truth for yourself? I'm not asking you to take my word for it, because my personal conversion experience was for me. I only share it as an example of how it can work.

But just to clarify because I think we may be getting off the same page... The truth I'm talking about is objective and true beyond the scope of my experience or anyone else's. What's individual and personal is the means by which we arrive at an understanding of that truth.
I bet lots of the people from the old religions were just as devout as some people from today's religions, and also that lots of people just followed the majority. And yes indeed, I am told to seek the truth myself, but they alwayse direct to certain sources, mostly holy texts like the Bible or the Quran. I don't want to see personal experiences to show why that "truth" is well, true. If it's true, that means personal experiences from anyone, wich includes me, does not matter. I don't care for personal experiences, I only care about things outside my mind.

Why am I sure? The only answer I can give you is how do you know when you're in love? Can it be proven? But yet you KNOW somehow when you are. Same thing here. I know God can and does communicate with His children. I know that He has done so for me, and clearly. I know that His Church is the true path to return to His presence.

Well, actually, yes, it can be proven if you're in love or not. Certain chemical reactions and brain activity (both measurable) are what love is, essentially.

Well, actually, yes, it can be proven if you're in love or not. Certain chemical reactions and brain activity (both measurable) are what love is, essentially.What does love have to do with prayer? That in both the other side's existence or willingness/ability to communicate is in fact irrelevant?

What does love have to do with prayer? That in both the other side's existence or willingness/ability to communicate is in fact irrelevant?

NB claimed that you cannot prove that you're in love, same way as you cannot prove that god is communicating with you.

I wouldn't call myself grown up ;) Even though I'm reaching the line of legal adulthood, my brain isn't fully developed untill (about) 21-25 years.
If that would be our relation with God, I'de like to be shown that, because I don't feel that way.

But you do understand what I'm getting at, in terms of communicating wth parents, yes?


For me it boils down to this: is your perspective in correlation with the objective reality outside our minds? Because it does not matter if you beleive that the earth was created by some kind of uber-alien, something like that is either true or not true regardless of what you beleive (and ofcourse we found out that it's most likely not true, unless you want to give gravity the name " God")

Yes it is.


Could you link me the published, scientific article about that? Becase how do you know that I have something called a spirit in my body, I never found something like that and never found any trace of it. It's also something completly illogical. Afterall, we know that sometimes people can completly change when they have massive brain trauma, e.a that they're nothing like the previous person (there was a pretty cool documentary about that on National Geographic a while ago). Or schizofrenia, would that be a little mistake from God, 2 spirits in 1 body? Really, I don't understand where the thought of that spirit comes from, originated from.


If you're talking about the quantum tubules no I can't because I heard about it on the radio. (Paul Harvey, to be precise.) But it doesn't matter anyway I said MAYBE that's what it is.

Beyond that, it's one of those things that we may or may not have the technology to detect. That doesn't guarantee it doen'st exist, remember. More on that below.


I don't understand why that would be the case. Because that being would indeed exist outside our minds, regardless of what you beleive, but the being won't show itself unless you strongly beleive in it. Even then, my grandma I spoke of earlier was devout, but after the incident I spoke of she got nothing. Would that mean she wasn't devout enough? That's the problem with that: it's such a cop-out. I'de like to talk with that being if it exists in our reality. Apperantly the being wants me to do something completly irrational, I won't do that because it does not make any sense. I still want to talk, but if that "God" exists outside our minds, I don't see any use of beleiving the being exists without anything but some personal idea's in my mind. There is also a "danger" in there, because you're sure the being exists even though there is nothing wich shows that (indeed I do not take your personal experiences in account, they're much too colored and biased to serve as a proper source, maybe for you but again I'm talking about the reality outside our minds) you easely see something as proof even though it means nothing for the reality outside our minds. Fact is, I don't beleive like that, I don't hold faith like that because I see danger and nonsense in it.


A couple of things:

1)Remember that I'm not asking you to take my experience as proof. I've said so since the beginning. ;)
2)What danger do you mean?
3)If what I'm saying *IS* objectively true, then it wouldn't be nonsense, would it?


Ofcourse it's something different. Occam's Razor doesn't have anything to do with personal feelings, it simply shows wich idea or hypothesis is more likely to be true and a more logical choice.


Occam's Razor is equally useless. It breaks down completely at the quantum level but even in the macroverse it's not a reliable means of problem-solving, only a rule of thumb.


O it may be a commonly held beleive, but that means nothing, 0.00. The only thing that matters, is whereither it's in correlation with reality (e.a true) or not. It's not reasonable to theorise something based on nothing more then the personal idea of the majority. Because what's more to show that such a magical 6th sense exists?


Google it and you'll fine plenty of evidence ;)


Well then, why is it true then? Is your interpretation even correct? Afterall, we know that the literal interpretation of Genesis is bullcrap, not in correlation with reality.


Do we know that?

Actually while I would agree that many parts of the Old Testament are parables, I do hold more of it to be literally true than one might suppose. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon itself is more internally consistent and accurate because of the fact that it hasn't been rescribed and retranslated a gazillion times.

Mind you, while I could offer objective proof it it's veracity I will not, for purposes of this discussion, because belief based on proof is weak. Belief based on faith is nigh indestructible.


That would be interesting, I'de like to see proof of that. Afterall, the history of the human species is pretty well known and says nothing about descent from a devine species.


Remember I said we are literally His children spiritually not physically. Your physical father is a human man who I presume you probably live with. Physically, you and I apre probably not related. Spiritually, you and I have the same dad, God the Father, and we are brothers. (I'm assuming you're male. Apologies if I'm mistaken.)


I bet lots of the people from the old religions were just as devout as some people from today's religions, and also that lots of people just followed the majority. And yes indeed, I am told to seek the truth myself, but they alwayse direct to certain sources, mostly holy texts like the Bible or the Quran. I don't want to see personal experiences to show why that "truth" is well, true. If it's true, that means personal experiences from anyone, wich includes me, does not matter. I don't care for personal experiences, I only care about things outside my mind.

You bet but you don't KNOW that, do you? :)

And as for searching for the truth... There's nothing in the Bible, Koran or the Book of Mormon for th at matter that inherently prooves itself. Testimony of the truth must be derived elsewhere, as previously discussed.

Well, actually, yes, it can be proven if you're in love or not. Certain chemical reactions and brain activity (both measurable) are what love is, essentially.

No. We can prove certain physiological responses, we can prove physical attraction or even emotional attachment, but those results are based entirely on the premise that the test subject loves the data subject, based on their OWN given information.

For example, physiologically prove that I love my wife without my telling you I am, or showing me pictures of her or anyone else. In other words, prove it by removing that as a given.

No. We can prove certain physiological responses, we can prove physical attraction or even emotional attachment, but those results are based entirely on the premise that the test subject loves the data subject, based on their OWN given information.

For example, physiologically prove that I love my wife without my telling you I am, or showing me pictures of her or anyone else. In other words, prove it by removing that as a given.

True, we can't prove memory and any kind of long-term storage yet. But we know it's there, and we're looking. Ask me again in 10 years time.

True, we can't prove memory and any kind of long-term storage yet. But we know it's there, and we're looking. Ask me again in 10 years time.

Alright if we're still posting on here in 10 years I will :)

...oh gawd... imagine if we ARE still on here in 10 years... Is that even a good thing? :eek:

Alright if we're still posting on here in 10 years I will :)

...oh gawd... imagine if we ARE still on here in 10 years... Is that even a good thing? :eek:

I could imagine this place might be a bit flashier then ;)

I could imagine this place might be a bit flashier then ;)

Complete with animated avatars for each of us, and when we get into a really intense debate maybe a virtual boxing ring will rise form the floor and a bell will sound for each exchange...

Complete with animated avatars for each of us, and when we get into a really intense debate maybe a virtual pool of jello will rise form the floor and a bell will sound for each exchange...

Clothing strictly optional ;)

Clothing strictly optional ;)

...a thought which inevitably leads to, just WHAT would my avatar be? Would I be Snoopy? A puddle of Jell-O? hmmm this miught call for a new thread...

...a thought which inevitably leads to, just WHAT would my avatar be? Would I be Snoopy? A puddle of Jell-O? hmmm this miught call for a new thread...

I'll be a pirate :)

Prayer. The cheapest kind of therapy.
At least J.C. don't mind that I rant so much.

But you do understand what I'm getting at, in terms of communicating wth parents, yes?
I think so, but I am still skeptical that's really the case. At least I want it to hear from God himself, from daddy himself ;)

Yes it is.
Come on you know that's not enough. I don't want an empty statement, those are useless in the first place.

If you're talking about the quantum tubules no I can't because I heard about it on the radio. (Paul Harvey, to be precise.) But it doesn't matter anyway I said MAYBE that's what it is

Beyond that, it's one of those things that we may or may not have the technology to detect. That doesn't guarantee it doen'st exist, remember. More on that below..
Yea, maybe, if they even exist. Really, Paul Harvey is a radio journalist (at least, that's what I understand when I read his bio). Besides, it would be wierd if we can't detect it. Afterall, it directly interferes with us, is a part of us and decides who we are (again, wich part and how?).


A couple of things:

1)Remember that I'm not asking you to take my experience as proof. I've said so since the beginning. ;)
2)What danger do you mean?
3)If what I'm saying *IS* objectively true, then it wouldn't be nonsense, would it?
You just sad it's objectively true, a couple of points above, why would it be nonsense? I mean, who knows what kind of technology those interdimensional aliens have you are describing.
And with the danger I mean that you won't have a clear mind anymore, e.a faith is blinding.

Occam's Razor is equally useless. It breaks down completely at the quantum level but even in the macroverse it's not a reliable means of problem-solving, only a rule of thumb.
Quantum level?? What the hell does Occam's Razor have to do with the quantum level? It's simply a logical statement, not necceseraly something scientific (however, it's very important in science).

Google it and you'll fine plenty of evidence ;)
No, I find lots of personal storie. What I mean are experiments and published (peer-reviewed) scientific articles about that 6th sense. That's evidence, that's support.



Do we know that?

Actually while I would agree that many parts of the Old Testament are parables, I do hold more of it to be literally true than one might suppose. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon itself is more internally consistent and accurate because of the fact that it hasn't been rescribed and retranslated a gazillion times.

Mind you, while I could offer objective proof it it's veracity I will not, for purposes of this discussion, because belief based on proof is weak. Belief based on faith is nigh indestructible.
Yes we do, we've got a pretty clear (yet incomplete as alwayse) view on how stars and planets come into existance. Ofcourse we're not done, or else there wouldn't be anything left to study.
But yes, the Book of Mormon looks more like it was like it's was first written then much older holy texts. But that doesn't say anything about the level of correlation with reality.
And the last, that's also the danger I was talking about: faith blinds. I do not understand why anyone would éver have such faith in certain things concerning reality (not morality or anything personal like that). Really, how the hell?



Remember I said we are literally His children spiritually not physically. Your physical father is a human man who I presume you probably live with. Physically, you and I apre probably not related. Spiritually, you and I have the same dad, God the Father, and we are brothers. (I'm assuming you're male. Apologies if I'm mistaken.)
Now it looks like you're mixing things up. Spiritualism is the beleif that there is an afterlife and that the "spirits" (whatever that may be) can communicate with the living through mediums (it's very popular). How do you mean that we have the same dad "spiritualy". I don't understand that part, since it looks like you're using those words in ways I find very wierd, since they don't reflect the concensus. What do you mean with those words then?


You bet but you don't KNOW that, do you? :)

And as for searching for the truth... There's nothing in the Bible, Koran or the Book of Mormon for th at matter that inherently prooves itself. Testimony of the truth must be derived elsewhere, as previously discussed.
Ofcourse I don't know, but it's very likely. Afterall, there were priests, those Mayan people even sacrificed other people. If thát isn't devout, well then I don't know what is. Anyway, I'm not also directed to those books, but also people say I have to discover through personal experience (I think you're saying the same). Problem is, personal are far from a reliable source for gathering knowledge about reality. They're heavely colored (for example by faith)



No. We can prove certain physiological responses, we can prove physical attraction or even emotional attachment, but those results are based entirely on the premise that the test subject loves the data subject, based on their OWN given information.

For example, physiologically prove that I love my wife without my telling you I am, or showing me pictures of her or anyone else. In other words, prove it by removing that as a given.[/QUOTE]

I'll be a pirate :)

Just don't be Jack Sparrow. If you are, nobody will be able to tell the millinos of them apart...

I think so, but I am still skeptical that's really the case. At least I want it to hear from God himself, from daddy himself ;)

It is my sincere hope that, in time, you will.


Come on you know that's not enough. I don't want an empty statement, those are useless in the first place.


Are you asking me for proof that my religion is true?


Yea, maybe, if they even exist. Really, Paul Harvey is a radio journalist (at least, that's what I understand when I read his bio). Besides, it would be wierd if we can't detect it. Afterall, it directly interferes with us, is a part of us and decides who we are (again, wich part and how?).


Do you mean quantum microtubules, or the spirit?


You just sad it's objectively true, a couple of points above, why would it be nonsense? I mean, who knows what kind of technology those interdimensional aliens have you are describing.
And with the danger I mean that you won't have a clear mind anymore, e.a faith is blinding.


It is objectively true. It would be nonsense otherwise. True?


Quantum level?? What the hell does Occam's Razor have to do with the quantum level? It's simply a logical statement, not necceseraly something scientific (however, it's very important in science).


Everything. Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb. It's not a 100% reliable way of determining the truth. I simply use quantum physics as a broad example of where it's utterly useless.


No, I find lots of personal storie. What I mean are experiments and published (peer-reviewed) scientific articles about that 6th sense. That's evidence, that's support.

Maybe you should consider that as a career ;)


Yes we do, we've got a pretty clear (yet incomplete as alwayse) view on how stars and planets come into existance. Ofcourse we're not done, or else there wouldn't be anything left to study.


Yes... but even astrophysicists have to frequently admit that an old model doesn't work. For example, the Star 51 Pegasus has a gas giant planet many times larger than Jupiter orbiting it at an orbital altitude lower than that of Mercury. According to all previous models of system formation, this configuration is impossible and yet, there it is.

My point is that one shouldn't be too quick to dismiss any part of Genesis.


But yes, the Book of Mormon looks more like it was like it's was first written then much older holy texts. But that doesn't say anything about the level of correlation with reality.

You're right, they don't. That's my point.

(Just as a side note: The Book of Mormon was translated from material written in a time ranging between 600 BC and AD 450.)


And the last, that's also the danger I was talking about: faith blinds. I do not understand why anyone would éver have such faith in certain things concerning reality (not morality or anything personal like that). Really, how the hell?


Faith CAN blind, it can also illuminate.


Now it looks like you're mixing things up. Spiritualism is the beleif that there is an afterlife and that the "spirits" (whatever that may be) can communicate with the living through mediums (it's very popular). How do you mean that we have the same dad "spiritualy". I don't understand that part, since it looks like you're using those words in ways I find very wierd, since they don't reflect the concensus. What do you mean with those words then?


It may look that way. Spiritualism is indeed what you defined there, but I'm not talking about that. Here's what I mean by spirits:

Your spirit is OLD. It's all you were prior to your being born on Earth. Same as me. We both (as well as everyone else in this world) were born as spirits long before the Earth was formed. We were born of the same father, namely God. That makes us brothers in terms of spirit. What constitutes your spirit? There's a quite from Brigham Young I can look up later, but paraphrasing him, a spirit is made of a finer matter than that which is of this Earth. It resides in the physical body during life, and survives after the body's death.


Ofcourse I don't know, but it's very likely. Afterall, there were priests, those Mayan people even sacrificed other people. If thát isn't devout, well then I don't know what is. Anyway, I'm not also directed to those books, but also people say I have to discover through personal experience (I think you're saying the same). Problem is, personal are far from a reliable source for gathering knowledge about reality. They're heavely colored (for example by faith)


To the first, Maybe they acted out of devotion, maybe they acted out of fear, maybe they just did what was expected of them.

To the last, Exactly. People are NOT a reliable source of information. That's why I'm not asking you to take my word for it, either. The one and ONLY source of reliable information is God Himself.

It is my sincere hope that, in time, you will.
Thank you, I'll just keep waiting in the meantime.

Are you asking me for proof that my religion is true?
Not exactly, just partially. The only thing I want to see, are those parts form any religion or whatever opinion regardless of it's religion, are the literal real things. The things who are outside our minds, who exists for anyone regardless of beleif. That would be, for example, your interpretation of the word/name "God" (since there are millions of interpretations, and not all fall in the same catagory as yours), that spirit-thingy and an afterlife. Stuff like that.

Do you mean quantum microtubules, or the spirit?
The spirit.

It is objectively true. It would be nonsense otherwise. True?
No it wouldn't. Stories and myths like that can be perfect sources for several moral idea's, I don't see the need for them being in correlation with reality. Take Jesus Christ, I don't think it matters if that man really existed or not, fact is that the portrait wich is painted from Jesus in the Bible has an impact of people's life, regardless of whereither he existed or not.

Everything. Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb. It's not a 100% reliable way of determining the truth. I simply use quantum physics as a broad example of where it's utterly useless.
No no no that's not what Occam's Razor is ;) It's just a logical tool, it's not even ment as a way of determing the truth, it's just another tool. It's applied on idea's, theories and hypothesis, it's just as usefull with quantum theory research. It only determines wich theory, idea or hypothesis would be more likely to be true, based upon how many assumptions and other hypothesis are needed to back up that idea, theory or hypothesis. In other words, by determing the strenght of the base of the idea/theory/etc.

Maybe you should consider that as a career ;)
Already did, and doing right now (Bachelor bio-informatics). Found out it I'm not suitable for it, I don't think I'm analytical and betá enough. Also, with my type of high-school pre-education, I'm not able to do a lot of scientific studies. I think I'm going to persue a Bachelor in journalism next year.

Yes... but even astrophysicists have to frequently admit that an old model doesn't work. For example, the Star 51 Pegasus has a gas giant planet many times larger than Jupiter orbiting it at an orbital altitude lower than that of Mercury. According to all previous models of system formation, this configuration is impossible and yet, there it is.

My point is that one shouldn't be too quick to dismiss any part of Genesis.
Ofcourse, that's how science works: new observations keep testing existing hypothesis and theories, wich means they keep changing and developing. And don't be afraid we dismiss parts of Genesis to quick. That took a couple of ages of research. But ofcourse, it can alwayse happen we observe something só wierd that it can change everything. And when things like that happens, scientists go hysterical with joy and plunge themselfs into the new phenomenon like a pack of hyena's.



You're right, they don't. That's my point.

(Just as a side note: The Book of Mormon was translated from material written in a time ranging between 600 BC and AD 450.)
I wonder how the latter was determined, in the age where it was translated (1800's or something?) there wasn't any carbon dating.

Faith CAN blind, it can also illuminate.
Depending on the degree of faith and subject. For example, scientists can either have faith or confidence in the reliability of other people's work. Now what's different, is that such faith or confidence isn't unsupported or just supported. Scientists use references for example to determine if a colegue can be trusted. The faith you have is not an example of that, I would really call that blinding faith since you really won't budge from it.

It may look that way. Spiritualism is indeed what you defined there, but I'm not talking about that. Here's what I mean by spirits:

Your spirit is OLD. It's all you were prior to your being born on Earth. Same as me. We both (as well as everyone else in this world) were born as spirits long before the Earth was formed. We were born of the same father, namely God. That makes us brothers in terms of spirit. What constitutes your spirit? There's a quite from Brigham Young I can look up later, but paraphrasing him, a spirit is made of a finer matter than that which is of this Earth. It resides in the physical body during life, and survives after the body's death.
Sounds cool, but who's the Mother then? And ofcourse, what supports those claims? Old texts?



To the first, Maybe they acted out of devotion, maybe they acted out of fear, maybe they just did what was expected of them.

To the last, Exactly. People are NOT a reliable source of information. That's why I'm not asking you to take my word for it, either. The one and ONLY source of reliable information is God Himself.
To the first, the same accounts for people today. To the last, and the way wich would make clear that it is indeed God himself speaking and not some byproduct of my mind, I would need a literal conversation like I can have with my dad or something. I'm critical, and not easely convinced like that. And ofcourse, not only other people can't be trusted, you can't trust yourself (and thus myself) on these matters as well. The best trickster in the world is your own mind.

Not exactly, just partially. The only thing I want to see, are those parts form any religion or whatever opinion regardless of it's religion, are the literal real things. The things who are outside our minds, who exists for anyone regardless of beleif. That would be, for example, your interpretation of the word/name "God" (since there are millions of interpretations, and not all fall in the same catagory as yours), that spirit-thingy and an afterlife. Stuff like that.

That's the whole point. At this level of human development/tecnology/science it may not be provable at all.


The spirit.


See above


No it wouldn't. Stories and myths like that can be perfect sources for several moral idea's, I don't see the need for them being in correlation with reality. Take Jesus Christ, I don't think it matters if that man really existed or not, fact is that the portrait wich is painted from Jesus in the Bible has an impact of people's life, regardless of whereither he existed or not.


True, but that's the difference between philosophy and Religion


No no no that's not what Occam's Razor is ;) It's just a logical tool, it's not even ment as a way of determing the truth, it's just another tool. It's applied on idea's, theories and hypothesis, it's just as usefull with quantum theory research. It only determines wich theory, idea or hypothesis would be more likely to be true, based upon how many assumptions and other hypothesis are needed to back up that idea, theory or hypothesis. In other words, by determing the strenght of the base of the idea/theory/etc.


But people tend to rely too heavily upon it to the point of it becoming a blinder.


Already did, and doing right now (Bachelor bio-informatics). Found out it I'm not suitable for it, I don't think I'm analytical and betá enough. Also, with my type of high-school pre-education, I'm not able to do a lot of scientific studies. I think I'm going to persue a Bachelor in journalism next year.


I wish you the best :)


Ofcourse, that's how science works: new observations keep testing existing hypothesis and theories, wich means they keep changing and developing. And don't be afraid we dismiss parts of Genesis to quick. That took a couple of ages of research. But ofcourse, it can alwayse happen we observe something só wierd that it can change everything. And when things like that happens, scientists go hysterical with joy and plunge themselfs into the new phenomenon like a pack of hyena's.


Ideally, that would be true. In the real world... not so much.


I wonder how the latter was determined, in the age where it was translated (1800's or something?) there wasn't any carbon dating.


How do we know the age of the Bible? Context, references to concurrent events, etc. (For example, a passage in the BoM references the reign of King Zedekiah of Judea. That was around 600 BC so....)


Depending on the degree of faith and subject. For example, scientists can either have faith or confidence in the reliability of other people's work. Now what's different, is that such faith or confidence isn't unsupported or just supported. Scientists use references for example to determine if a colegue can be trusted. The faith you have is not an example of that, I would really call that blinding faith since you really won't budge from it.


Actually I don't think your analogy works, because you're basing it on the idea that faith grows from external proof. This is not the case. If it were, faith would be meaningless. It would be equivalent to simple acceptance of empirical evidence, which isn't faith at all.

Don't be too quick to assume my faith blinds me. I've found quite the opposite to be true. If I were one to be blinded by faith, I'd never have moved on from my old belief system.


Sounds cool, but who's the Mother then? And ofcourse, what supports those claims? Old texts?

To the first... That's beyond the scope of the discussion but by all means reason it through if you like :) To the last, yes, in part.


To the first, the same accounts for people today. To the last, and the way wich would make clear that it is indeed God himself speaking and not some byproduct of my mind, I would need a literal conversation like I can have with my dad or something. I'm critical, and not easely convinced like that. And ofcourse, not only other people can't be trusted, you can't trust yourself (and thus myself) on these matters as well. The best trickster in the world is your own mind.

You would indeed need a literal two-way of communication of some kind. I've been saying that from the beginning. It's just not likely to be God knocking on your front door then sitting down with you in the living room over a can of Pepsi and Doritos.

And I know all about what the mind can do. That doesn't mean that such an experience as mine MUST be attributed to it. That's a completely invalid conclusion to draw with the absence of any evidence on your part, yet you do seem to want to cling to that ;) If you want to think like a scientist then DO IT! :)

That's the whole point. At this level of human development/tecnology/science it may not be provable at all.
Could be, but a bit presumptious to say that now tbh. They sad we couldn't break the speed of sound as well ;)

True, but that's the difference between philosophy and Religion
What that it does matter? No what I mean is that it wouldn't get any better from it, even if Jesus never existed, the person described in the Bible already had/has a huge impact on our society.

But people tend to rely too heavily upon it to the point of it becoming a blinder.
That's also a point indeed. Also dogmatism.

I wish you the best :)
Thanks, same here ;)

Ideally, that would be true. In the real world... not so much.
Ooo I think it would. If scientists get a boner from something, it's ground shattering discoveries they can sink there fangs in.

How do we know the age of the Bible? Context, references to concurrent events, etc. (For example, a passage in the BoM references the reign of King Zedekiah of Judea. That was around 600 BC so....)
Ofcourse, how could I ever forget that! Also, texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls help determining the age as well. But yes, indeed, historical research.

Actually I don't think your analogy works, because you're basing it on the idea that faith grows from external proof. This is not the case. If it were, faith would be meaningless. It would be equivalent to simple acceptance of empirical evidence, which isn't faith at all.

Don't be too quick to assume my faith blinds me. I've found quite the opposite to be true. If I were one to be blinded by faith, I'd never have moved on from my old belief system.
And that's why I don't like faith: it's not supported by anything, in other words it's blind, hollow, to me at least. Now ofcourse, you did change beleif system, but I was merely talking about the existance of a supreme being you call God.

To the first... That's beyond the scope of the discussion but by all means reason it through if you like :) To the last, yes, in part.
True true.
Anyway, those old texts are, well, pretty damn shitty support for such emperical claims (that's what they are, since they involve the reality from you and me regardless of what we both beleif and think). Who says they're ment literal anyway? That's a whole claim on it's own as well.

You would indeed need a literal two-way of communication of some kind. I've been saying that from the beginning. It's just not likely to be God knocking on your front door then sitting down with you in the living room over a can of Pepsi and Doritos.

And I know all about what the mind can do. That doesn't mean that such an experience as mine MUST be attributed to it. That's a completely invalid conclusion to draw with the absence of any evidence on your part, yet you do seem to want to cling to that ;) If you want to think like a scientist then DO IT! :)
Well it could be a little less emmm, casual ;) But yea, a face to face or emm face to emm, whatever maniphastation as long as it's preeetty clear what I'm dealing with. I'll be honest, faith won't come from me, I'm really really skeptical on loads of things (not just a supreme being, whatever that being might be). When it's about emperical things, like a supreme being, I need much more.
Anyway, evidence? Well it's hard for me to give because A I'm not a psychologist and B I don't know the case. Ofcourse it's hard to say, but it's a likely option. I won't say I cling to it, it's just an option wich is logically appealing, but it's not the true answer. More research is needed, for how far that's possible.

Could be, but a bit presumptious to say that now tbh. They sad we couldn't break the speed of sound as well ;)


I didn't say it could NEVER be. I just said it can't at the current level of technology and development.


What that it does matter? No what I mean is that it wouldn't get any better from it, even if Jesus never existed, the person described in the Bible already had/has a huge impact on our society.


Yes but philosophies come from men. Men are, by definition, imperfect. Religion, at least if we accept the premise that there can be a single true path, comes from a perfected Being.


That's also a point indeed. Also dogmatism.


Granted.


Ooo I think it would. If scientists get a boner from something, it's ground shattering discoveries they can sink there fangs in.


True but nothing threatens a scientist who makes a lot of money from book sales and research grants like a new discovery that would undermine their own theories.


Ofcourse, how could I ever forget that! Also, texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls help determining the age as well. But yes, indeed, historical research.


Precisely.


And that's why I don't like faith: it's not supported by anything, in other words it's blind, hollow, to me at least. Now ofcourse, you did change beleif system, but I was merely talking about the existance of a supreme being you call God.


There's a distinction to be made here. What you're thinking of, in terms of faith, is a simple blind belief in something with no real basis for that belief. In a case like that, one may as well believe the Easter Bunny comes from the Moon, (which is made from green cheese) and celebrates Thanksgiving every year with Bigfoot.

But faith, as I think of it, is the courage and conviction to believe in the testimony received from God, and to follow it, despite hardships and the philosophies of men.


True true.
Anyway, those old texts are, well, pretty damn shitty support for such emperical claims (that's what they are, since they involve the reality from you and me regardless of what we both beleif and think). Who says they're ment literal anyway? That's a whole claim on it's own as well.


Which is a fascinating topic for discussion among Biblical scholars. Did Jonah really spend 3 days in a giant fish, or was that just a parable? Did Job really suffer due to a contest between God and the Devil or was that another parable? One could debate those all day. (Personally, I believe those are parables. After all, that's the way Jesus taught most effectively in person, so it stands to reason...)


Well it could be a little less emmm, casual ;) But yea, a face to face or emm face to emm, whatever maniphastation as long as it's preeetty clear what I'm dealing with. I'll be honest, faith won't come from me, I'm really really skeptical on loads of things (not just a supreme being, whatever that being might be). When it's about emperical things, like a supreme being, I need much more.

Well you'd be surprised at how easily that can eventually happen.


Anyway, evidence? Well it's hard for me to give because A I'm not a psychologist and B I don't know the case. Ofcourse it's hard to say, but it's a likely option. I won't say I cling to it, it's just an option wich is logically appealing, but it's not the true answer. More research is needed, for how far that's possible.

Right. And I like that you used the word "appealing" since that's most often the factor that drives us, as humans, to come to the conclusions about things that we do.

I didn't say it could NEVER be. I just said it can't at the current level of technology and development.
O yes that is true, we can't do so many things, like directly see dark matter, break the speed of light or create wormholes.

Yes but philosophies come from men. Men are, by definition, imperfect. Religion, at least if we accept the premise that there can be a single true path, comes from a perfected Being.
O no no, fact is that those books, stories and myths are penned down by man. Whereither they got "divine inspiration" is something else, the strange thing is is that we put people like that in nuthouses nowadays. Heck, there are plenty of completly honest people who swear who had to kill someone as an asignment from God or some other supreme being. Really, same foundation, different act.
Also, a perfect being? Now thát's something strange, since when is "perfect" something universal? Would I call something perfect wich you call perfect as well? Why would that God be perfect anyway, what means perfect in this context?


True but nothing threatens a scientist who makes a lot of money from book sales and research grants like a new discovery that would undermine their own theories.
The scientific community pops bubble's like that with ease. For that reason we've got peer-review and the need to publish (not in books, I mean journals). And even then, something complétely revolutionary would be a fertile soil to make craploads of money for the cash-hungry man.


There's a distinction to be made here. What you're thinking of, in terms of faith, is a simple blind belief in something with no real basis for that belief. In a case like that, one may as well believe the Easter Bunny comes from the Moon, (which is made from green cheese) and celebrates Thanksgiving every year with Bigfoot

But faith, as I think of it, is the courage and conviction to believe in the testimony received from God, and to follow it, despite hardships and the philosophies of men..
There is indeed just as much support that the Easter Bunny comes from the moon (and comes here in his purple teapot spaceship) then the existance of such a supreme being you describe. What you have, are some personal experiences, good for you but they make one hell of a lousy support.
The latter is what I would definatly call stubborness and stupidity, what you say there is dogmatism in it's purest form. Keep hanging on to that despite anything, something I would call a lack of thinking.

Which is a fascinating topic for discussion among Biblical scholars. Did Jonah really spend 3 days in a giant fish, or was that just a parable? Did Job really suffer due to a contest between God and the Devil or was that another parable? One could debate those all day. (Personally, I believe those are parables. After all, that's the way Jesus taught most effectively in person, so it stands to reason...)
O yes, yes it is indeed. The strange thing is though, is that some people do say about some passages "Ooo don't worry, those are just parables, nooo just metaphores." and from other passages "But this sure is ment literal, yes this is historical!". I alwayse wonder on what they make those choices, and if it's the way the writers wanted there stories to be read.

Well you'd be surprised at how easily that can eventually happen.
Would be nice, would clear up a lot of stuff and would keep science busy for centuries.

Right. And I like that you used the word "appealing" since that's most often the factor that drives us, as humans, to come to the conclusions about things that we do.
It's the base what counts, the foundation of such an appeall.

O no no, fact is that those books, stories and myths are penned down by man. Whereither they got "divine inspiration" is something else, the strange thing is is that we put people like that in nuthouses nowadays. Heck, there are plenty of completly honest people who swear who had to kill someone as an asignment from God or some other supreme being. Really, same foundation, different act.

Not the same foundation at all. Killing someone over something like that is the result of criminal insanity. It's a diagnosed condition. What is your evidence to suggest that the writers of, say, the Bible had the same condition?


Also, a perfect being? Now thát's something strange, since when is "perfect" something universal? Would I call something perfect wich you call perfect as well? Why would that God be perfect anyway, what means perfect in this context?

Perfect = free from corruption, flaw.


The scientific community pops bubble's like that with ease. For that reason we've got peer-review and the need to publish (not in books, I mean journals). And even then, something complétely revolutionary would be a fertile soil to make craploads of money for the cash-hungry man.


Are you suggesting that money is a prime motivator?


There is indeed just as much support that the Easter Bunny comes from the moon (and comes here in his purple teapot spaceship) then the existance of such a supreme being you describe. What you have, are some personal experiences, good for you but they make one hell of a lousy support.
The latter is what I would definatly call stubborness and stupidity, what you say there is dogmatism in it's purest form. Keep hanging on to that despite anything, something I would call a lack of thinking.


Are you really that comfortable openly insulting somebody whom you don't even know?

You said yourself that religions like Christianity have had an immense effect on civilization and yet you equate it with the rabbit in the purple spaceship? I hope you see that is a form of self-imposed blindness that's beyond anything you're suggesting I've experienced.


O yes, yes it is indeed. The strange thing is though, is that some people do say about some passages "Ooo don't worry, those are just parables, nooo just metaphores." and from other passages "But this sure is ment literal, yes this is historical!". I alwayse wonder on what they make those choices, and if it's the way the writers wanted there stories to be read.


A wise Biblical scholar reads the Scriptures prayerfully.


It's the base what counts, the foundation of such an appeall.

I once read a book that was written by a psychologist (I could look it up if you're interested) that talked about what motivates people's decision making process. The point they made was this: People base their decisions on what they FEEL not what their intellect says. Disagree? Think of a common cigarette advertisement in a magazine. It typically pictures a bunch of young attractive people having a great time, laughing, smiling, wearing bright colors etc. At the bottom of the ad, in a big block, is the Surgeon General's Warning right there on the ad, saying, in effect "If you smoke, you DIE."

And yet the ads work. Why? Because the happy, colorful picture appeals to the emotion, and the block of information appeals to the brain. Emotion wins.

Think about that when you talk about the more 'appealing' solution.

Not the same foundation at all. Killing someone over something like that is the result of criminal insanity. It's a diagnosed condition. What is your evidence to suggest that the writers of, say, the Bible had the same condition?
Could be, could be. Difference is they didn't kill people, but wrote all kinds of things down.

Perfect = free from corruption, flaw.
I knéw you would say that ;) Now what's a flaw then, what's corruption? And wich flaws and what kind of corruption then? Why would some of those things, think Ying Yang, make something less perfect? Why does that mean perfect, and why isn't something else perfect? I bet that, according to at least some people (from the 6 billion) the thing you're describing isn't perfect at all.

Are you suggesting that money is a prime motivator?
For some people, mainly private companies, yes ofcourse. They do research so they can make a lot of money with the results.

Are you really that comfortable openly insulting somebody whom you don't even know?

You said yourself that religions like Christianity have had an immense effect on civilization and yet you equate it with the rabbit in the purple spaceship? I hope you see that is a form of self-imposed blindness that's beyond anything you're suggesting I've experienced.
A I don't think I was insulting you ;) Now if it felt to you that way, I never want to insult anyone, nor would I attack someone's person. I attacked a way of thinking, that's something different.
I equate those 2 júst on levels of realism, I wasn't talking about the impact either one of them had (even the Easter Bunny has some impact, at least on culture, and certainly on kids, just like Santa Claus). The only thing I sad, is that the Easter Bunny from the moon, or a giant invisible teapot or anything like that is not less likely to exist then a supreme being you're describing, and that the supreme being isn't more likely to exist then those other 2. Again, I was not talking about the impact either of those would have on society.

A wise Biblical scholar reads the Scriptures prayerfully.
I beg to differ really. Imo, a true scholar, Biblical or not, isn't prejudged e.a not religious like that or at least not letting his view meddle with his studies.

I once read a book that was written by a psychologist (I could look it up if you're interested) that talked about what motivates people's decision making process. The point they made was this: People base their decisions on what they FEEL not what their intellect says. Disagree? Think of a common cigarette advertisement in a magazine. It typically pictures a bunch of young attractive people having a great time, laughing, smiling, wearing bright colors etc. At the bottom of the ad, in a big block, is the Surgeon General's Warning right there on the ad, saying, in effect "If you smoke, you DIE."

And yet the ads work. Why? Because the happy, colorful picture appeals to the emotion, and the block of information appeals to the brain. Emotion wins.

Think about that when you talk about the more 'appealing' solution.
I partially disagree with that, since we're ofcourse not only at the mercy of our emotions. For example, I do not let my personal opinion about emm, the night sky meddle with what I think is the origin of that night sky because I realise that those 2 have nothing to do with eachother. The fact that I find the night sky incredibly amazing does not say anything, 0.00, about the origin of that night sky. People rationalise as well, that may be 1 of our unique attributes.
Also, about that smoker example, remember that smokers are drug addicts (yes, nicotine), ofcourse emotion (and the body) wins then ;)

Could be, could be. Difference is they didn't kill people, but wrote all kinds of things down.

Ok, since you want evidence for every point I make, it's time for you to step up to the plate. Show me the data, the proof that the writers of the Scripture were suffering from some sort of psychosis. Show me the same level of evidence you have been demanding that I provide.

What you need to understand is that your point of view is no more a given than mine is.


I knéw you would say that ;) Now what's a flaw then, what's corruption? And wich flaws and what kind of corruption then? Why would some of those things, think Ying Yang, make something less perfect? Why does that mean perfect, and why isn't something else perfect? I bet that, according to at least some people (from the 6 billion) the thing you're describing isn't perfect at all.


Are you suggesting that truth is truth only when a majority believes it?


For some people, mainly private companies, yes ofcourse. They do research so they can make a lot of money with the results.


Then their objectivity means nothing.

What I find interesting is that you put your faith in imperfect human words, whose objectivity can be compromised by monetary and reputation concerns, over the possibility that there may be a higher, purer source of truth.

Hm. And you're saying *I* am following blind faith? ;)


A I don't think I was insulting you ;) Now if it felt to you that way, I never want to insult anyone, nor would I attack someone's person. I attacked a way of thinking, that's something different.


You have to understand something. A person's beliefs are sometimes held so deeply and are so valuable to them, that to casually dismiss them as meaning no more than a moonbound easter bunny in a flying teapot is inherently insulting and rude. Does that mean you have to believe in them? Of course not, but don't people deserve enough respect to at least acknowledge its meaning to them? If for no other reason than to keep a discussion friendly? Earlier you suggested I was being arrogant. Where's the arrogance now?


I equate those 2 júst on levels of realism, I wasn't talking about the impact either one of them had (even the Easter Bunny has some impact, at least on culture, and certainly on kids, just like Santa Claus). The only thing I sad, is that the Easter Bunny from the moon, or a giant invisible teapot or anything like that is not less likely to exist then a supreme being you're describing, and that the supreme being isn't more likely to exist then those other 2. Again, I was not talking about the impact either of those would have on society.


But I am. Even if you believe in neither, to casually dismiss the value of the religious belief is shortsighted. Not that you should believe in it, only acknowledge its relevance.


I beg to differ really. Imo, a true scholar, Biblical or not, isn't prejudged e.a not religious like that or at least not letting his view meddle with his studies.


But you're forgetting something. Prayerful study introduces a third element, one that comes from outside the individual and this clarifies meaning. The benefit is SPECIFICALLY to eliminate personal prejudices from clouding the meaning of the passages.


I partially disagree with that, since we're ofcourse not only at the mercy of our emotions. For example, I do not let my personal opinion about emm, the night sky meddle with what I think is the origin of that night sky because I realise that those 2 have nothing to do with eachother. The fact that I find the night sky incredibly amazing does not say anything, 0.00, about the origin of that night sky. People rationalise as well, that may be 1 of our unique attributes.
Also, about that smoker example, remember that smokers are drug addicts (yes, nicotine), ofcourse emotion (and the body) wins then ;)

Those articles suck new smokers in every day. That's who the ads are targeted for. If you're already addicted to cigarettes, you hardly need a commercial to convince you to go out and buy cigarettes, do you?

Ok, since you want evidence for every point I make, it's time for you to step up to the plate. Show me the data, the proof that the writers of the Scripture were suffering from some sort of psychosis. Show me the same level of evidence you have been demanding that I provide

What you need to understand is that your point of view is no more a given than mine is.
.[/quote]
I sad it was an option, 1 wich is not thát wierd. Afterall, they claimed to have divine inspiration, something people still do today sometimes with horrific results. With those people we diagnose some sort of psychological problem, I'm just saying that's it's a realistic option of what happend to the writers. It's hard to do research to those topics, because I don't know how much information is left behind from the writers wich could contain clues about there lives. It's the same with Mohammed. The man went alone in the mountains for several weeks to meditate, and at some point he got his revelations. According to some people, that came with seizures. Now, is a dillusion from something like a water shortage thát strange to think?
Another funny thing now I brought up Mohammed anyway. Remember that his followers make up the 2nd largest religion in the world. They say that Jesus and Moses misinterpreted, thus distorted, the teachings from God and they say that Mohammed restored the original faith. Would you say that those 1.2 billion people would be wrong? Why wouldn't you be wrong?

But, what do you mean that my p.o.v is given? How would you know that?


Are you suggesting that truth is truth only when a majority believes it?
Not really, afterall that would mean Christian teachings are true, and Jewish and Islamic teachings are not.
But, again, what is perfect then? Why isn't your version of God perfect and not the one from someone else? Since when is "perfect" something universal?

Then their objectivity means nothing.

What I find interesting is that you put your faith in imperfect human words, whose objectivity can be compromised by monetary and reputation concerns, over the possibility that there may be a higher, purer source of truth.

Hm. And you're saying *I* am following blind faith? ;)
Ofcourse not, they aren't objective at all! Those aren't the only organisations who are researching things. The scientific way of working is designed so we can see if someone is being objective or not, if someone or someone's research results are trustworthy. That has nothing to do with "imperfect" human words.
The last sentence is a bit of a strange one, a higher purer source of truth doesn't even sound like correct English. Something is either true, or not, that doesn't have anything to do with a source. Either a supreme being exists, or a supreme being does not exist.

You have to understand something. A person's beliefs are sometimes held so deeply and are so valuable to them, that to casually dismiss them as meaning no more than a moonbound easter bunny in a flying teapot is inherently insulting and rude. Does that mean you have to believe in them? Of course not, but don't people deserve enough respect to at least acknowledge its meaning to them? If for no other reason than to keep a discussion friendly? Earlier you suggested I was being arrogant. Where's the arrogance now?
Yes I've seen that more often, that if I or other people compare certain things other people feel personally attacked because they bonded emotionally with 1 of those things, in your case a supreme being (could be something totally non-religious as well). But, that is not the case, I do not attack you personally, I attack a way of thinking. I never talked about what it means to you. Btw, that's also something wich contributes to dogmatism: emotional bonding, unwillingness of letting go from something. I do not hold that in high regard (I think that's a pretty crappy sentence, excuse et moi), such stubborness (and again, it does not necceseraly have something to do with religion, it can also happen in politics for example or a discussion about some videogame, those fanboys sometimes ;)). However, I do find it very intrueging and interesting. How something like that can arise in something. Yes humans are very interesting beings, that's why I may do a Master in Sociology or Antropologie after my Bachelor.
And no, I did not call you arrogant, I called a certain action from God arrogant.

But I am. Even if you believe in neither, to casually dismiss the value of the religious belief is shortsighted. Not that you should believe in it, only acknowledge its relevance.
Ooo no no no, please don't make that mistake, I do recognise the value of religion. It has brought mankind a lot of good, it has been a source for certain moral and social aspects for centuries in almots all cultures all around the world in the whole of human's history. Personally however, I don't feel the need to use religion as a ground for my moral p.o.v. I can do without it, plus I don't see the relevance of a dogmatic beleive in some kind of supreme being when talking about morality. Meaning, even if I would get certain moral points from certain religions, I don't see the need to have such a firm beleive in a supreme being. Afterall, I'm getting those points from a book, or scrolls or whatever.

But you're forgetting something. Prayerful study introduces a third element, one that comes from outside the individual and this clarifies meaning. The benefit is SPECIFICALLY to eliminate personal prejudices from clouding the meaning of the passages.
The problem is though, that then you as a Biblical or Qu'ran or Hindi scholar are severly biased towards certain points, something wich is definatly not deseriable.

Those articles suck new smokers in every day. That's who the ads are targeted for. If you're already addicted to cigarettes, you hardly need a commercial to convince you to go out and buy cigarettes, do you?
Imo, I highly doubt those articles and advertisments suck in new smokers. Here in Holland, advertising for smoking is no longer allowed, and still more youngsters are starting to smoke.

I sad it was an option, 1 wich is not thát wierd. Afterall, they claimed to have divine inspiration, something people still do today sometimes with horrific results. With those people we diagnose some sort of psychological problem, I'm just saying that's it's a realistic option of what happend to the writers. It's hard to do research to those topics, because I don't know how much information is left behind from the writers wich could contain clues about there lives. It's the same with Mohammed. The man went alone in the mountains for several weeks to meditate, and at some point he got his revelations. According to some people, that came with seizures. Now, is a dillusion from something like a water shortage thát strange to think?


Of course, but there's a double standard being aplied here. You've repeatedly said that you just can't hold to a belief that can't be tested scientifically, yet you routinely gravitate toward explanations for these things that you can't prove either. You are quick to admit that you can't prove it, but admit it... it's more than just a hypothesis to you, isn't it?


Another funny thing now I brought up Mohammed anyway. Remember that his followers make up the 2nd largest religion in the world. They say that Jesus and Moses misinterpreted, thus distorted, the teachings from God and they say that Mohammed restored the original faith. Would you say that those 1.2 billion people would be wrong? Why wouldn't you be wrong?


Because of my own observable data, like I said before. I don't care if 5 people or 50 million people or 1.2 billion disagree with me. I have a source of information that they lack.

There aren't 1.2 billion atheists or agnostics in the world. Would YOU say that 1.2 billion were wrong? Why can't YOU be wrong?


But, what do you mean that my p.o.v is given? How would you know that?


I said your point of view is NOT given, any more than mine is.


Not really, afterall that would mean Christian teachings are true, and Jewish and Islamic teachings are not.
But, again, what is perfect then? Why isn't your version of God perfect and not the one from someone else? Since when is "perfect" something universal?


Why would't perfection be universal?


Ofcourse not, they aren't objective at all! Those aren't the only organisations who are researching things. The scientific way of working is designed so we can see if someone is being objective or not, if someone or someone's research results are trustworthy. That has nothing to do with "imperfect" human words.

And suppose your acceptance among the scientific community-and thus your career-are all dependent upon your agreement with the majority? What h appens to scientists who question the conclusions about global warming? They get blacklisted. There's even been efforts in some places to have such scientists driven out of the scientific community. Debate is frowned upon in those circles. So if t omorrow a scientist came out and said "I'm sorry but I can no longer see the validity of the theory of Evolution" Can you honestly tell me you think all the ot her scientists would say "Really? Neat! Let's see what you've got!"


The last sentence is a bit of a strange one, a higher purer source of truth doesn't even sound like correct English. Something is either true, or not, that doesn't have anything to do with a source. Either a supreme being exists, or a supreme being does not exist.


What people perceive as the truth comes from many sources. Parents, teachers, politicians, etc. God is a higher source of truth than a scientist.


Yes I've seen that more often, that if I or other people compare certain things other people feel personally attacked because they bonded emotionally with 1 of those things, in your case a supreme being (could be something totally non-religious as well). But, that is not the case, I do not attack you personally, I attack a way of thinking. I never talked about what it means to you. Btw, that's also something wich contributes to dogmatism: emotional bonding, unwillingness of letting go from something. I do not hold that in high regard (I think that's a pretty crappy sentence, excuse et moi), such stubborness (and again, it does not necceseraly have something to do with religion, it can also happen in politics for example or a discussion about some videogame, those fanboys sometimes ;)). However, I do find it very intrueging and interesting. How something like that can arise in something. Yes humans are very interesting beings, that's why I may do a Master in Sociology or Antropologie after my Bachelor.
And no, I did not call you arrogant, I called a certain action from God arrogant.

Don't confuse devotion with dogmatism. The details of my religious belief are constantly changing as I learn more and more. My understanding of God and Creation is not, in any way, set in stone. To be a true believer in God is to posess an open mind.

I know a lot of people are very closed-minded. That is not a good thing.

Here are a couple thoughts from a couple of guys who were a lot smarter than we are.

"Faith... must be enforced by reason... when faith becomes blind it dies."
-Mahatma Ghandi

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science in blind”
-Albert Einstein


Ooo no no no, please don't make that mistake, I do recognise the value of religion. It has brought mankind a lot of good, it has been a source for certain moral and social aspects for centuries in almots all cultures all around the world in the whole of human's history. Personally however, I don't feel the need to use religion as a ground for my moral p.o.v. I can do without it, plus I don't see the relevance of a dogmatic beleive in some kind of supreme being when talking about morality. Meaning, even if I would get certain moral points from certain religions, I don't see the need to have such a firm beleive in a supreme being. Afterall, I'm getting those points from a book, or scrolls or whatever.


What about consistency? No offense, but what makes you so certain that you're able to choose the very best moral structure all by yourself? People get that wrong all the time. Open up any newspaper and you'll see that for yourself. Humans are flawed, short sighted and self centered. We need a source for our morality that's above all that.


The problem is though, that then you as a Biblical or Qu'ran or Hindi scholar are severly biased towards certain points, something wich is definatly not deseriable.


True, and that's exactly why having God Himself give you the testimony of the truth is critical. Listening to another human without consulting God does nothing but expose you to their biases.


Imo, I highly doubt those articles and advertisments suck in new smokers. Here in Holland, advertising for smoking is no longer allowed, and still more youngsters are starting to smoke.

A bunch of market researchers who know alot more about it than you or I do, and who get paid a lot more than both of us combined, seem to think they do.

Of course, but there's a double standard being aplied here. You've repeatedly said that you just can't hold to a belief that can't be tested scientifically, yet you routinely gravitate toward explanations for these things that you can't prove either. You are quick to admit that you can't prove it, but admit it... it's more than just a hypothesis to you, isn't it?
No no I don't "beleive" in that option, I hold that option as it is, an option. Yes, 1 that sounds reasonable and likely to me, but I don't know if it was the truth and I won't claim I do. It's just a hypothesis to me, but 1 more likely then knowledge beamed in by a supreme being.

Because of my own observable data, like I said before. I don't care if 5 people or 50 million people or 1.2 billion disagree with me. I have a source of information that they lack.

There aren't 1.2 billion atheists or agnostics in the world. Would YOU say that 1.2 billion were wrong? Why can't YOU be wrong?
About the first: you know that they exáctly the same about you ;)
About the second: yea, I say they could be wrong, they can also be right and I can be wrong. Bottom line is that there is nothing conclusive. I never sad that I was right, I could be very wrong, no problem for me at all. Heck, I'll be happy that new knowledge is found and that we would have solved another piece of the puzzle.


I said your point of view is NOT given, any more than mine is.
Missread then, excuse et moi, but could you still explain that? I don't really understand.

Why would't perfection be universal?
Different people have different standards, live in different enviroments that require different ways of thinking. Something that would be perfect to you, isn't immidiatly perfect to something else. And the questions still stand btw ;)

And suppose your acceptance among the scientific community-and thus your career-are all dependent upon your agreement with the majority? What h appens to scientists who question the conclusions about global warming? They get blacklisted. There's even been efforts in some places to have such scientists driven out of the scientific community. Debate is frowned upon in those circles. So if t omorrow a scientist came out and said "I'm sorry but I can no longer see the validity of the theory of Evolution" Can you honestly tell me you think all the ot her scientists would say "Really? Neat! Let's see what you've got!"
In science, it doesn't matter on wich side you're on, what you think or what the majority thinks. It's all about 1 thing: support. Scientists don't get blacklisted by other scientists if they would question some conclusions about global warming. Scientists get blacklisted by other scientists if they lack any support. It's about the evidence, not about opinions. If indeed tommorow a scientist comes who has published a conclusive and reliable experiment wich would prove certain aspects of the theory of evolution wrong, scientists would put that experiment to the test: they peer-review it, try to repeat the experiment to get the same results.

What people perceive as the truth comes from many sources. Parents, teachers, politicians, etc. God is a higher source of truth than a scientist.
The truth is not linked to people, not to God or scientists. The truth has nothing to do with people. Something is either true or it is not, the only thing people can do is to find out something is true or not. That's the only thing scientists do, find out if something is true or not. They don't give us the truth.

Don't confuse devotion with dogmatism. The details of my religious belief are constantly changing as I learn more and more. My understanding of God and Creation is not, in any way, set in stone. To be a true believer in God is to posess an open mind.

I know a lot of people are very closed-minded. That is not a good thing.

Here are a couple thoughts from a couple of guys who were a lot smarter than we are.

"Faith... must be enforced by reason... when faith becomes blind it dies."
-Mahatma Ghandi

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science in blind”
-Albert Einstein
How far does that open mind go? Would you honestly hold the option open that supreme being could not exist? Would you be willing to accept that? Anyway, I don't care if those people would be smarter then me. Why would science without religion be lame? What has science to do with religion anyway (except fields of science who study religion, ofcourse).

What about consistency? No offense, but what makes you so certain that you're able to choose the very best moral structure all by yourself? People get that wrong all the time. Open up any newspaper and you'll see that for yourself. Humans are flawed, short sighted and self centered. We need a source for our morality that's above all that.
There is no "best" overall moral structure. The world changes constantly, new knowledge is gathered, people change, country's change, you name it. What's best depends on the situation. Sure some humans are shitty, but lots of them are not and don't want all that crap. The fact that a part is really shit doesn't mean we're all shit. Even then, using a "higher source" isn't a guarantee for anything. Think Crusades, think Inquisition, think the Europians in Asia and America. Even then, just because that being would be supreme, that isn't a guarantee the being knows best or has the best moral structure. I would still question beings like that, why wouldn't I? Just because they're further developed, doesn't mean they're always right.
Bottom line is that I'm fine without some supreme being telling me what to do, thank you very much.

True, and that's exactly why having God Himself give you the testimony of the truth is critical. Listening to another human without consulting God does nothing but expose you to their biases.
IF God exists, but even then I don't care about personal experiences. I care about facts and support, things that are outside my mind.

A bunch of market researchers who know alot more about it than you or I do, and who get paid a lot more than both of us combined, seem to think they do.
Too bad those market researches can't do anything here in Holland, still more teenagers start smoking. And it's kinda hard to pursuade people to buy what you want, if you're not allowed to advertise.

No no I don't "beleive" in that option, I hold that option as it is, an option. Yes, 1 that sounds reasonable and likely to me, but I don't know if it was the truth and I won't claim I do. It's just a hypothesis to me, but 1 more likely then knowledge beamed in by a supreme being.

Then what *do* you believe in?

About the first: you know that they exáctly the same about you ;)


Of course they do.


About the second: yea, I say they could be wrong, they can also be right and I can be wrong. Bottom line is that there is nothing conclusive. I never sad that I was right, I could be very wrong, no problem for me at all. Heck, I'll be happy that new knowledge is found and that we would have solved another piece of the puzzle.

I'm curious as to what you would consider conclusive.


Missread then, excuse et moi, but could you still explain that? I don't really understand.

All through this conversation you have wanted proof of some kind of the existence of God, and offered me reasons why you'd conclude He does not exist. Your baseline assumption is that He does not exist until you find some kind of indisputable proof otherwise.

Then, you've suggetsed a number of times that somehow by my starting form the baseline that there IS a God, somehow I'm being self-delusional.

What I'm saying is your baseline is no more valid than mine is.


Different people have different standards, live in different enviroments that require different ways of thinking. Something that would be perfect to you, isn't immidiatly perfect to something else. And the questions still stand btw ;)


The definition is set by God. Who else? His is the highest authority.


In science, it doesn't matter on wich side you're on, what you think or what the majority thinks. It's all about 1 thing: support. Scientists don't get blacklisted by other scientists if they would question some conclusions about global warming. Scientists get blacklisted by other scientists if they lack any support. It's about the evidence, not about opinions. If indeed tommorow a scientist comes who has published a conclusive and reliable experiment wich would prove certain aspects of the theory of evolution wrong, scientists would put that experiment to the test: they peer-review it, try to repeat the experiment to get the same results.


If only it were truly that way.

Many scientists have a vested interest in advancing their own theories. They are not as objective as you would like them to be. Scientsis who make a living writing about Evolution sren't simply going to disregard a lifetime of work and belief just because someone new comes out with a theory that disproves it. It's already happened. Do you think the Evolutionist Scientists objectively sit down and try to repeat the same research? No. What they do instead is search hard for things to criticize about the new theory, ways to question the methodology, and never actually make the effort to test for themselves.

Science is every bit as dogmatic as religion.


The truth is not linked to people, not to God or scientists. The truth has nothing to do with people. Something is either true or it is not, the only thing people can do is to find out something is true or not. That's the only thing scientists do, find out if something is true or not. They don't give us the truth.


The truth is indeed objective, you are correct. The problem is that humans are unable to see it objectively. That's why we need an outside source to help us to see it.


How far does that open mind go? Would you honestly hold the option open that supreme being could not exist? Would you be willing to accept that? Anyway, I don't care if those people would be smarter then me. Why would science without religion be lame? What has science to do with religion anyway (except fields of science who study religion, ofcourse).


I've already investigated that possibility for myself and have concluded that it is false. Yes, I went through a period in my life when I wasn't able to believe in any religion at all.

Religion and science are two ways of looking at reality. Neither is sufficient alone. They must be used in conjunction.


There is no "best" overall moral structure. The world changes constantly, new knowledge is gathered, people change, country's change, you name it. What's best depends on the situation. Sure some humans are shitty, but lots of them are not and don't want all that crap. The fact that a part is really shit doesn't mean we're all shit. Even then, using a "higher source" isn't a guarantee for anything. Think Crusades, think Inquisition, think the Europians in Asia and America. Even then, just because that being would be supreme, that isn't a guarantee the being knows best or has the best moral structure. I would still question beings like that, why wouldn't I? Just because they're further developed, doesn't mean they're always right.

So you're criticizing God's morality on the assumption that He instigated the Crusades?

Isn't that an implicit acknowledgement that He exists?


Bottom line is that I'm fine without some supreme being telling me what to do, thank you very much.


Now THAT sounds arrogant. ;)


IF God exists, but even then I don't care about personal experiences. I care about facts and support, things that are outside my mind.


So even if you did recieve a direct communication from God you'd disregard it?

Without 'proof' that it was indeed a "direct communication from god", yes.

Dude you gotta go back a few pages ;)

Nothing (on that scale), why would I?


Then on what scale?


Then, for me, as an outsider from both: who's right? I'm not in 1 of those groups, and the only thing I see is about 40.000 different religions saying they're true. Odd to me, very.
Another example, I'm having a dejá-vu. Is it a distortion in the Matrix, or a little problem in my brain?


So you're telling me that you are completely open to the possibility that there's a God?


Some very good support is needed for that, a lot, since it's a very hefty emperical claim wich would overthrow a really large body of knowledge.


Specifically, what would you condier sufficient?


No I did not conclude that that supreme being did not exist, I never made that conclusion. My conclusion for now is that I don't know, and I don't feel the urge to feel either 1 of the options.


You seem fairly well versed on the reaosns to believe He does not exist considering you keep saying you're open to either possibility.


No, it's not. The world God would live in isn't the same as the jungle in Borneo. There is no solid definition of what's the best moral system, since humans are not equal (note: they're equal worthy, not equal, that would be dull). If God would say in my face that there is one, I would say he's wrong. Besides, who says God is the highest authority? Who says he's just not something like a kid with a box of ants?


So you're suggesting that God, who created the world and everything in it, is not qualified to present the best system of morality?


If they're not, that's easely spotted because of how that system is designed. And yes, those evolutionary biologists keep testing there own hypothesis. Every new bit of knowledge tests existing hypothesis. In science, persons do not matter, evidence matters. You can say science is dogmatic, but that's simply not true. It's simple: if new data does not overthrow a hypothesis, the hypothesis still stands. That's not dogmatic, that's how science works.


You're assuming the data is being objectively examined. It is not.

I'll give you an example of scientific dogma.

(I forget the name off the top of my head but if you're interested I can find out later) There was a well known evolutionary biologist who drew a series of pictures to illustrate the idea that each form of animal life looks very similar during the embryonic stage of development. He drew something like 6 embryos from different species to show this. This was hailed as a wonderful proof of the common origin of these species and this drawing is found in textbooks, even to this day. (I have a good friend who is a high school teacher and he acknowledged t hat this is so.)

Problem: Of the 6 embryos, only 2 were drawn from actual observed embryos. 2 more were deliberately drawn inaccurately so that they would better prove what this scientist wanted to prove, and the remining 4 were drawn from assumption, not from actual data. In other words, the data and conclusions were adjusted to fit the hypothesis he wanted to prove.

Want another example? How about the paleoarchaeologist who excavated a skeleton and hypothesized that it had lived 50,000 years ago. he sent samples to the 3 major world carbon dating labs to verify these findings. The results: One found the articaft to be 15,000 years old. Another said it was 200,000 years old, and the third said 45,000 years old. This scientist then took the findings form the third one, the one that was close to his hypothesis, and ignored the other two. He then hailed this as yet another piece of evidence to support evolutionary theory.

THAT is dogmatic slavish devotion. It's what happens when experimental data is interpreted through the filter of pre-existing assumptions.


We have a system to research things objectivly, we don't need a higher source for that. People may be subjective, the system is objective.


Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. People are subjective. We need an objective source of truth because people don't get it right on their own very well.


See, that's what I mean, you've already concluded that those options are false. Are they false no matter what?

Are you suggesting that I should alter my conclusion? Based on what? I have seen no evidence to cause me reason to question it.


And why would religion still be a viable methode of uncovering reality? What does science lack then? Science just describes reality and does that as rigorous as possible. What does that have to do with religion?


Science doesn't describe ALL of reality. Science has failed to describe how the 51 Pegasus system came to be. It has failed to explain the existence of paranormal phenomena. It fails to explain what causes gravity. It's not perfect. It has limited scope. Why do you insist it's the only possible tool for learning about reality?


Nope, people started the Crusades, they did it based on God's morality.


Which morals, exactly?


O really? Why? Why would I need a supreme being to tell it for me?


Are you objective? Are you wise enough to know the best way at all times? Are you able to determine the future and know how those choices will turn out?


As long as it's clear that it's indeed God. Or better sad, that it's a being wich is in correlation with the being described by certain people who call that being God.

And what would you accept as absolute proof?

Nah, I've been skimming most of this 'cause your's and tGD's posts have been too long and unwieldy...

How dare you. :smack: We must duel now.

So even if you did recieve a direct communication from God you'd disregard it?

Without 'proof' that it was indeed a "direct communication from god", yes.

Dude you gotta go back a few pages ;)

Nah, I've been skimming most of this 'cause your's and tGD's posts have been too long and unwieldy...

Then what *do* you believe in?
Nothing (on that scale), why would I? I don't find my personal opinion about reality important.

Of course they do.
Then, for me, as an outsider from both: who's right? I'm not in 1 of those groups, and the only thing I see is about 40.000 different religions saying they're true. Odd to me, very.
Another example, I'm having a dejá-vu. Is it a distortion in the Matrix, or a little problem in my brain?

I'm curious as to what you would consider conclusive.
Some very good support is needed for that, a lot, since it's a very hefty emperical claim wich would overthrow a really large body of knowledge.

All through this conversation you have wanted proof of some kind of the existence of God, and offered me reasons why you'd conclude He does not exist. Your baseline assumption is that He does not exist until you find some kind of indisputable proof otherwise.

Then, you've suggetsed a number of times that somehow by my starting form the baseline that there IS a God, somehow I'm being self-delusional.

What I'm saying is your baseline is no more valid than mine is.
No I did not conclude that that supreme being did not exist, I never made that conclusion. My conclusion for now is that I don't know, and I don't feel the urge to feel either 1 of the options.

The definition is set by God. Who else? His is the highest authority.
No, it's not. The world God would live in isn't the same as the jungle in Borneo. There is no solid definition of what's the best moral system, since humans are not equal (note: they're equal worthy, not equal, that would be dull). If God would say in my face that there is one, I would say he's wrong. Besides, who says God is the highest authority? Who says he's just not something like a kid with a box of ants?



If only it were truly that way.

Many scientists have a vested interest in advancing their own theories. They are not as objective as you would like them to be. Scientsis who make a living writing about Evolution sren't simply going to disregard a lifetime of work and belief just because someone new comes out with a theory that disproves it. It's already happened. Do you think the Evolutionist Scientists objectively sit down and try to repeat the same research? No. What they do instead is search hard for things to criticize about the new theory, ways to question the methodology, and never actually make the effort to test for themselves.

Science is every bit as dogmatic as religion.
If they're not, that's easely spotted because of how that system is designed. And yes, those evolutionary biologists keep testing there own hypothesis. Every new bit of knowledge tests existing hypothesis. In science, persons do not matter, evidence matters. You can say science is dogmatic, but that's simply not true. It's simple: if new data does not overthrow a hypothesis, the hypothesis still stands. That's not dogmatic, if the data does overthrow a hypothesis, we're forced to make a new one. That has happend on a lot of occasions.

The truth is indeed objective, you are correct. The problem is that humans are unable to see it objectively. That's why we need an outside source to help us to see it.
We have a system to research things objectivly, we don't need a higher source for that. People may be subjective, the system is objective.

I've already investigated that possibility for myself and have concluded that it is false. Yes, I went through a period in my life when I wasn't able to believe in any religion at all.

Religion and science are two ways of looking at reality. Neither is sufficient alone. They must be used in conjunction.
See, that's what I mean, you've already concluded that those options are false. Are they false no matter what?
And why would religion still be a viable methode of uncovering reality? What does science lack then? Science just describes reality and does that as rigorous as possible. What does that have to do with religion? Why would I need a religious system to describe reality?

So you're criticizing God's morality on the assumption that He instigated the Crusades?

Isn't that an implicit acknowledgement that He exists?
Nope, people started the Crusades, they did it based on God's morality.

Now THAT sounds arrogant. ;)
O really? Why? Why would I need a supreme being to tell it for me?

So even if you did recieve a direct communication from God you'd disregard it?
As long as it's clear that it's indeed God. Or better sad, that it's a being wich is in correlation with the being described by certain people who call that being God.

You're thinking of Ernst Haeckel, a man who died almost eighty years ago.

Thanks.


None of my biology text books, nor any of the ones I've ever checked, have ever included the embryo pictures. Where they do appear it is a problem with the textbook publishers, not science: scientists dismissed the Biogenetic Law years ago.
Who do you think exposed the problem: genuine scientists or Creationists? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't Creationists...
I've never seen a single textbook containing the pictures, but it's irrelevant anyway: it represents a problem with publishers rather than one with science.


I'm glad you haven't seen it. Hopefully it's gone forever. It represents a problem with more than just publishers. Publishers didn't draw it and publishers rely on what's presneted to them when they research for their book.


Source?

I find the whole story rather suspicious: a scientist would be unlikely to date a skeleton which they suspected to be 50,000 years old using only C14 dating as 50,000 is the boundary for reliable dating with this method. Most would use several different methods (Potassium-Argon for example) and cross-reference the results.

Then presumably they did use several methods. I heard about this on a radio show a couple of years ago where there was a discussion on these kinds of problems and it included a side not that ironically, traditionally Christian Universities were unwilling to accept any argument AGAINST Evolution and were unwilling to support scientists who came out against it because they feared losing status and acceditation.

I find that to be a sad statement on the scientific community.

Utter rubbish. Evolution is one of the best supported theories in science. it could easily be falsified by any number of possible observations (rabbits in the Precambrian for example) but it never has been.

And if it had, how would you know it? Do you regularly read non-mainstream scientific information?


But just suppose that Evolution was falsified: do you honestly think Evolutionary Biologists would all be out on the streets? Of course not. They'd be the ones who'd be employed to find a new theory and expand on it; they'd be inundated with grants and research funding; and they'd by getting into the research early they'd be in with a chance of becoming pioneers of a new science, gaining fame and riches into the bargain. Disproving a generally accepted theory is one of the best ways to make a name for yourself in science: it worked for both Darwin and Einstein.

Riiight so you're saying all scientists are perfectly honest, have perfect integrity, are perfectly objective at all times, and never, eveer cover up mistakes.

You know, I've got some oceanfront property in Nevada to sell you.

The guys who have built their careers on something like Evolution would NOT necessarily be the ones tasked with coming up with something else, becaue there are ALREADY scientists out there who have a head start on them. The ones who dropped Darwinism long ago already have new and alternate explanations in place. Why would I, if I were a Government Agency, University or whatever... go to the guys who got it wrong and who built their entire careers on wrong information, who systematically persecuted and ignored the guys who got it right? Especially when the ones who did get it right are right there, available?


So no, the very idea that Science is as dogmatic as religion is laughable: falsifiability is at the core of scientific thought; religious apologetics are mostly concerned with wriggling around the evidence that prove them wrong, even going to the extreme of declaring that if reality conflicts with their beliefs then reality is in the wrong (employees of AiG and ICR, the two most prominent Creationists organisations, are both obliged to sign a Statement of Faith to this effect, as are staff at many fundamentalist colleges).

Laugh all you want but you're elevating simple human beings up on a pedestal. I'm not sure what it is about becoming a scientist that you think makes a person honest and pure beyond reproach. Your faith is very strong.

From prayer to evolutionary theory?

I guess I could see how that might have happened.

LOL

You're assuming the data is being objectively examined. It is not.

I'll give you an example of scientific dogma.

(I forget the name off the top of my head but if you're interested I can find out later) There was a well known evolutionary biologist who drew a series of pictures to illustrate the idea that each form of animal life looks very similar during the embryonic stage of development.

You're thinking of Ernst Haeckel, a man who died almost eighty years ago.

He drew something like 6 embryos from different species to show this. This was hailed as a wonderful proof of the common origin of these species and this drawing is found in textbooks, even to this day. (I have a good friend who is a high school teacher and he acknowledged t hat this is so.)

None of my biology text books, nor any of the ones I've ever checked, have ever included the embryo pictures. Where they do appear it is a problem with the textbook publishers, not science: scientists dismissed the Biogenetic Law years ago.

Problem: Of the 6 embryos, only 2 were drawn from actual observed embryos. 2 more were deliberately drawn inaccurately so that they would better prove what this scientist wanted to prove, and the remining 4 were drawn from assumption, not from actual data. In other words, the data and conclusions were adjusted to fit the hypothesis he wanted to prove.

Who do you think exposed the problem: genuine scientists or Creationists? I'll give you a clue, it wasn't Creationists...

I've never seen a single textbook containing the pictures, but it's irrelevant anyway: it represents a problem with publishers rather than one with science.

Want another example? How about the paleoarchaeologist who excavated a skeleton and hypothesized that it had lived 50,000 years ago. he sent samples to the 3 major world carbon dating labs to verify these findings. The results: One found the articaft to be 15,000 years old. Another said it was 200,000 years old, and the third said 45,000 years old. This scientist then took the findings form the third one, the one that was close to his hypothesis, and ignored the other two. He then hailed this as yet another piece of evidence to support evolutionary theory.

THAT is dogmatic slavish devotion. It's what happens when experimental data is interpreted through the filter of pre-existing assumptions.

Source?

I find the whole story rather suspicious: a scientist would be unlikely to date a skeleton which they suspected to be 50,000 years old using only C14 dating as 50,000 is the boundary for reliable dating with this method. Most would use several different methods (Potassium-Argon for example) and cross-reference the results.

No, they didn't draw it: Ernst Haeckel drew it. Publishers don't tend to be keen to pay money for new illustrations if they can avoid it.



Call me cynical but I'm not inclined to take hearsay from a radio programme as a sad statement on anyone, let alone the entire scientific community. At most it's malpractice by one person, and as I say, I find the whole story very dubious: Creationists have spread similar stories in the past and they've turned out to be innaccurate or, in some cases, completely invented.

Ah, but we're not talking about Creationists. No offense, but you seem to keep bringing them up as a way to avoid discussing the reasoning behind such great faith in people who generally don't have much reason to be objective.

Where it has support, a solid foundation.


Specifically?


Good question. What would be sufficient to prove that some kind of interdimensional space alien exists. Hmm, I don't know really. Something to think about.


You're not coming across as being objective at all when you use phrases like "interdimensional space alien". You make your true intentions quite clear and they're not objective.


That's because I'm looking at reality first before I'm moving on to the supernatural.

So you're saying nothing supernatural is real. By your own words you categorize 'reality' and the 'supernatural' separately. You've already drawn conclusions. Not objective. You reveal yourself again.


Indeed. O and for the record, we know fairly sure how our world came into existance. Had nothing to do with a supreme being.


According to one theory.


As sad, the first is dismissed by science, so there goes the dogmatic slavish devotion. Sure, some people like that can exist, but as you can see science picks it out. And indeed, what's the source of the latter?


And yet it took decades for people to stop using it in texts. Does that tell you nothing?


There is no source of truth, only ways to find if something is true or not. Science is the way we use to describe natural phenomon, to find out if hypothesis are true or not (even then, science rather works with probability, you can't be 100% of anything since anything can happen, you never know).


There's a source for moral truth. There's a source that gives us an honest and accurate accounting of the objective truth. God is in a position to do that.


As I sad, there isn't anything yet wich points to either option (does or does not exist).


...in your experience. My experience tells me otherwise.


No, science did not "failed" to describe that. That's not how science works. First there is an emperical observation made, then questions are asked about that observation where a hypothesis comes out. Then the testing starts etc. The discovery of the 51 Pegasus system is an example of such an emperical observation. From that, new questions are asked etc etc etc.


Show me where it has succeded, then. And what about the other phenomena? And will you now answer? Why you put such great faith in a system that, by definition, isn't meant to describe ALL of reality?


Wich subject?

You pick. You brought it up.


I bet I'll make mistake, that's why I'm glad I've got a lot of people around me to point at my mistakes. And no ofcourse I can't predict the future (although I'm 1 of the causes of the future, you and I make the future), that's why I adapt when it's needed.


So you're prepared to trust the people around you. That's good, but people are imperfect. They can give conflicting advice.


Like I sad before, it's not about wich side you're on nor who you are. It's about the evidence. If they have some interesting theories who would falsify parts of the evolutionary theory, we'de love to see a peer-reviewed publication. Then we can try to repeat the experiments, to see if the results are trustworthy.

Peer-reviewed is utterly meaningless. All it means is that other scientists who didn't do the research approve of it. How is that even pretending to be objective?


And there is where the scientific system comes in: with that you can see those cover-ups and correct them. Science is self-correcting, thát's the strenght of science.


Only as long as an incentive exists. When an incentive is present to avoid self-correction it won't. Have you ever heard of groupthink?


Again, people don't matter, evidence matters. On what basis did those people drop Darwinism? Where are the publications, where are the experiments, where are the emperical observations who are at the base of all that. And really, "mainstream" science systematically persecuted them?? Please don't tell me you've seen Expelled...

I haven't seen Expelled.

Actually the publications are out there. All you have to do is go read them.

If only it were truly that way.

Many scientists have a vested interest in advancing their own theories. They are not as objective as you would like them to be. Scientsis who make a living writing about Evolution sren't simply going to disregard a lifetime of work and belief just because someone new comes out with a theory that disproves it. It's already happened. Do you think the Evolutionist Scientists objectively sit down and try to repeat the same research? No. What they do instead is search hard for things to criticize about the new theory, ways to question the methodology, and never actually make the effort to test for themselves.

Science is every bit as dogmatic as religion.

Utter rubbish. Evolution is one of the best supported theories in science. it could easily be falsified by any number of possible observations (rabbits in the Precambrian for example) but it never has been.

But just suppose that Evolution was falsified: do you honestly think Evolutionary Biologists would all be out on the streets? Of course not. They'd be the ones who'd be employed to find a new theory and expand on it; they'd be inundated with grants and research funding; and they'd by getting into the research early they'd be in with a chance of becoming pioneers of a new science, gaining fame and riches into the bargain. Disproving a generally accepted theory is one of the best ways to make a name for yourself in science: it worked for both Darwin and Einstein.

So no, the very idea that Science is as dogmatic as religion is laughable: falsifiability is at the core of scientific thought; religious apologetics are mostly concerned with wriggling around the evidence that prove them wrong, even going to the extreme of declaring that if reality conflicts with their beliefs then reality is in the wrong (employees of AiG and ICR, the two most prominent Creationists organisations, are both obliged to sign a Statement of Faith to this effect, as are staff at many fundamentalist colleges).

Firstly, as I've already explained, a Palaeontologist who made such a discovery would become world-famous: they're not going to hush it up.


For failing to tow the party line? I doubt that.


Secondly, as far as I know not even Creationists claim to have found vertebrate fossils in the Precambrian: that's why they spend so much time concocting moronic explanations (sic) for why the fossils line up exactly as Evolution predicts.

Back to Creationists. Is this the only tactic in your arsenal?


You do realise that you're slipping into the sphere of conspiracy theories here? "Of course there's no evidence for alien abductions, the Government hushed it up!" Of course, there's nothing to stop you from going digging in Precambrian strata if you don't trust scientists to do their jobs: ask a Creationist organisation for a grant and take yourself off to one of the places where Precambrian strata can be found at the top of the geological column (it's rare, but there are places in Siberia IIRC) or somewhere where lower strata have been exposed by geological processes and look for yourself.


Um.. okay.


While we're on the subject, why do you think not even one Creationist group has gone out looking for out of place fossils? Even one advanced vertebrate fossil in early strata would sink Evolution but to my knowledge they've never tried looking for them. Could it be that they know it'll be a waste of time?


I'm calling B.S. "to my knowledge?" Have you been looking? Or does that just mean you haven't noticed?


Funny, that doesn't bear the slightest resemblence to what I've said. I didn't even make one reference to the integrity of scientists. You, on the other hand, are implying that all scientists are perpetually dishonest. This borders on slander.


I never said all scientists are perpetually dishonest. I said there's a big incentive out there to protect existing theory in this area. Do you deny this?


Pitifully few of them, and 'Creation' Scientists rarely if ever do any work relating to Creationism. Indeed, one of the distinguishing features of Creationism is their persistent refusal to sketch out a coherent model for their ideas.

Again with the Creationists. Is your thinking on this matter so dogmatic that you automatically assume that anybody who fails to fall in lock step with evolutionary theory MUST be a Creationist?


Also, you do realise that even if Evolution was falsified that wouldn't make Creationism any less wrong, no? Creationism was falsified centuries ago when DaVinci observed that the fossil record couldn't be explained by a global flood. Even if Evolution was wrong (which it isn't), no amount of flogging it's corpse would bring Creationism back to life.
Then why are they so reluctant to tell anyone what these new explanations are? The explanations they do have are either old ones or 'God diddit'. Take the Intelligent Design Creationists: has even one of them presented a testable mechanism for change? Why does the Discovery Institute have more lawyers than researchers? Why hasn't their 'research wing', the Biologic Institute, published anything in the years it's been running and why did they refuse to answer any questions about their research from science journalists?


I'm not arguing Creationism here. Why do you mention it?

Oh right. Strawman.


Persecuted? Source? I should warn you that if you cite Expelled I will feel justified in laughing at you.

Never seen it.

Want to play the source game? Ok since you brought up sources first, why don't you go up there and show me a source that supports your assertion that no scientist who doens't buy Evolution has ever gone looking for the data you referenced?


Bullshit. Now you're just making stuff up.


Yes that must be it. So much easier to call somebody a liar than to just reply openly. Why are you bothering with this conversation if that's what you think?


Apparently you know nothing about the field of scientific research. Even a hint of dishonesty or falsification of results can utterly destroy a career. I don't think scientists are more intrinsically honest than the general population, but they have other scientists to keep them honest. Unless you want to slander the entire profession then you're talking nonsense.


Unless there's a common interest, that is.

The fact is that all discoveries made these days in this field are filtered through the assumptions made by evolution. In an environment like that, it's not at all surprising that things are as they are. Nobody questions the baseline, so nobody detects the problems with it. (Until someone does, t hen they get steamrolled. How often have we heard people say "The question of evolution is absolutely proven?" Not a very objective statement IMHO.


EDIT: Incidentally, don't you find it rather hypocritical to accuse anyone else of having too much faith in other people's honesty when you apparently consider talkshow gossip to be sufficient evidence to condemn the entire scientific community?

What talkshow gossip? What are you even talking about?

Thanks.



I'm glad you haven't seen it. Hopefully it's gone forever. It represents a problem with more than just publishers. Publishers didn't draw it and publishers rely on what's presneted to them when they research for their book.

No, they didn't draw it: Ernst Haeckel drew it. Publishers don't tend to be keen to pay money for new illustrations if they can avoid it.

Then presumably they did use several methods. I heard about this on a radio show a couple of years ago where there was a discussion on these kinds of problems and it included a side not that ironically, traditionally Christian Universities were unwilling to accept any argument AGAINST Evolution and were unwilling to support scientists who came out against it because they feared losing status and acceditation.

I find that to be a sad statement on the scientific community.

Call me cynical but I'm not inclined to take hearsay from a radio programme as a sad statement on anyone, let alone the entire scientific community. At most it's malpractice by one person, and as I say, I find the whole story very dubious: Creationists have spread similar stories in the past and they've turned out to be innaccurate or, in some cases, completely invented.

Then on what scale?
Where it has support, a solid foundation.

So you're telling me that you are completely open to the possibility that there's a God?
Ofcourse.

Specifically, what would you condier sufficient?
Good question. What would be sufficient to prove that some kind of interdimensional space alien exists. Hmm, I don't know really. Something to think about.

You seem fairly well versed on the reaosns to believe He does not exist considering you keep saying you're open to either possibility.
That's because I'm looking at reality first before I'm moving on to the supernatural.

So you're suggesting that God, who created the world and everything in it, is not qualified to present the best system of morality?
Indeed. O and for the record, we know fairly sure how our world came into existance. Had nothing to do with a supreme being.

You're assuming the data is being objectively examined. It is not.

I'll give you an example of scientific dogma.

(I forget the name off the top of my head but if you're interested I can find out later) There was a well known evolutionary biologist who drew a series of pictures to illustrate the idea that each form of animal life looks very similar during the embryonic stage of development. He drew something like 6 embryos from different species to show this. This was hailed as a wonderful proof of the common origin of these species and this drawing is found in textbooks, even to this day. (I have a good friend who is a high school teacher and he acknowledged t hat this is so.)

Problem: Of the 6 embryos, only 2 were drawn from actual observed embryos. 2 more were deliberately drawn inaccurately so that they would better prove what this scientist wanted to prove, and the remining 4 were drawn from assumption, not from actual data. In other words, the data and conclusions were adjusted to fit the hypothesis he wanted to prove.

Want another example? How about the paleoarchaeologist who excavated a skeleton and hypothesized that it had lived 50,000 years ago. he sent samples to the 3 major world carbon dating labs to verify these findings. The results: One found the articaft to be 15,000 years old. Another said it was 200,000 years old, and the third said 45,000 years old. This scientist then took the findings form the third one, the one that was close to his hypothesis, and ignored the other two. He then hailed this as yet another piece of evidence to support evolutionary theory.

THAT is dogmatic slavish devotion. It's what happens when experimental data is interpreted through the filter of pre-existing assumptions.
As sad, the first is dismissed by science, so there goes the dogmatic slavish devotion. Sure, some people like that can exist, but as you can see science picks it out. And indeed, what's the source of the latter?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. People are subjective. We need an objective source of truth because people don't get it right on their own very well.
There is no source of truth, only ways to find if something is true or not. Science is the way we use to describe natural phenomon, to find out if hypothesis are true or not (even then, science rather works with probability, you can't be 100% of anything since anything can happen, you never know).

Are you suggesting that I should alter my conclusion? Based on what? I have seen no evidence to cause me reason to question it.
As I sad, there isn't anything yet wich points to either option (does or does not exist).

Science doesn't describe ALL of reality. Science has failed to describe how the 51 Pegasus system came to be. It has failed to explain the existence of paranormal phenomena. It fails to explain what causes gravity. It's not perfect. It has limited scope. Why do you insist it's the only possible tool for learning about reality?
No, science did not "failed" to describe that. That's not how science works. First there is an emperical observation made, then questions are asked about that observation where a hypothesis comes out. Then the testing starts etc. The discovery of the 51 Pegasus system is an example of such an emperical observation. From that, new questions are asked etc etc etc. A discovery like the planet about Pegasus 51 is amazing. If an emperical observation overthrows current theory's, it's food for those hungry scientists. Because it means we learn, and that's what's important: learning stuff about things. Here's an interesting article about it: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/51peg.html

Which morals, exactly?
Wich subject?

Are you objective? Are you wise enough to know the best way at all times? Are you able to determine the future and know how those choices will turn out?
I bet I'll make mistake, that's why I'm glad I've got a lot of people around me to point at my mistakes. And no ofcourse I can't predict the future (although I'm 1 of the causes of the future, you and I make the future), that's why I adapt when it's needed.

And what would you accept as absolute proof?
Good question, like I sad before, it really is something I would need to think about.

Mkay, even because the following quotes I'll react on are not ment against me, I still feel like reacting:
And if it had, how would you know it? Do you regularly read non-mainstream scientific information?
Like I sad before, it's not about wich side you're on nor who you are. It's about the evidence. If they have some interesting theories who would falsify parts of the evolutionary theory, we'de love to see a peer-reviewed publication. Then we can try to repeat the experiments, to see if the results are trustworthy.
Riiight so you're saying all scientists are perfectly honest, have perfect integrity, are perfectly objective at all times, and never, eveer cover up mistakes.
And there is where the scientific system comes in: with that you can see those cover-ups and correct them. Science is self-correcting, thát's the strenght of science. And if a scientist indeed dares to fraud things up, there career is gone.
The guys who have built their careers on something like Evolution would NOT necessarily be the ones tasked with coming up with something else, becaue there are ALREADY scientists out there who have a head start on them. The ones who dropped Darwinism long ago already have new and alternate explanations in place. Why would I, if I were a Government Agency, University or whatever... go to the guys who got it wrong and who built their entire careers on wrong information, who systematically persecuted and ignored the guys who got it right? Especially when the ones who did get it right are right there, available?
Again, people don't matter, evidence matters. On what basis did those people drop Darwinism? Where are the publications, where are the experiments, where are the emperical observations who are at the base of all that. And really, "mainstream" science systematically persecuted them?? Please don't tell me you've seen Expelled...

And if it had, how would you know it? Do you regularly read non-mainstream scientific information?

Firstly, as I've already explained, a Palaeontologist who made such a discovery would become world-famous: they're not going to hush it up.

Secondly, as far as I know not even Creationists claim to have found vertebrate fossils in the Precambrian: that's why they spend so much time concocting moronic explanations (sic) for why the fossils line up exactly as Evolution predicts.

You do realise that you're slipping into the sphere of conspiracy theories here? "Of course there's no evidence for alien abductions, the Government hushed it up!" Of course, there's nothing to stop you from going digging in Precambrian strata if you don't trust scientists to do their jobs: ask a Creationist organisation for a grant and take yourself off to one of the places where Precambrian strata can be found at the top of the geological column (it's rare, but there are places in Siberia IIRC) or somewhere where lower strata have been exposed by geological processes and look for yourself.

While we're on the subject, why do you think not even one Creationist group has gone out looking for out of place fossils? Even one advanced vertebrate fossil in early strata would sink Evolution but to my knowledge they've never tried looking for them. Could it be that they know it'll be a waste of time?

Riiight so you're saying all scientists are perfectly honest, have perfect integrity, are perfectly objective at all times, and never, eveer cover up mistakes.

You know, I've got some oceanfront property in Nevada to sell you.

Funny, that doesn't bear the slightest resemblence to what I've said. I didn't even make one reference to the integrity of scientists. You, on the other hand, are implying that all scientists are perpetually dishonest. This borders on slander.

The guys who have built their careers on something like Evolution would NOT necessarily be the ones tasked with coming up with something else, becaue there are ALREADY scientists out there who have a head start on them.

Pitifully few of them, and 'Creation' Scientists rarely if ever do any work relating to Creationism. Indeed, one of the distinguishing features of Creationism is their persistent refusal to sketch out a coherent model for their ideas.

Also, you do realise that even if Evolution was falsified that wouldn't make Creationism any less wrong, no? Creationism was falsified centuries ago when DaVinci observed that the fossil record couldn't be explained by a global flood. Even if Evolution was wrong (which it isn't), no amount of flogging it's corpse would bring Creationism back to life.

The ones who dropped Darwinism long ago already have new and alternate explanations in place.

Then why are they so reluctant to tell anyone what these new explanations are? The explanations they do have are either old ones or 'God diddit'. Take the Intelligent Design Creationists: has even one of them presented a testable mechanism for change? Why does the Discovery Institute have more lawyers than researchers? Why hasn't their 'research wing', the Biologic Institute, published anything in the years it's been running and why did they refuse to answer any questions about their research from science journalists?

Why would I, if I were a Government Agency, University or whatever... go to the guys who got it wrong and who built their entire careers on wrong information, who systematically persecuted and ignored the guys who got it right? Especially when the ones who did get it right are right there, available?

Persecuted? Source? I should warn you that if you cite Expelled I will feel justified in laughing at you.

Laugh all you want but you're elevating simple human beings up on a pedestal. I'm not sure what it is about becoming a scientist that you think makes a person honest and pure beyond reproach. Your faith is very strong.

Bullshit. Now you're just making stuff up.

Apparently you know nothing about the field of scientific research. Even a hint of dishonesty or falsification of results can utterly destroy a career. I don't think scientists are more intrinsically honest than the general population, but they have other scientists to keep them honest. Unless you want to slander the entire profession then you're talking nonsense.

EDIT: Incidentally, don't you find it rather hypocritical to accuse anyone else of having too much faith in other people's honesty when you apparently consider talkshow gossip to be sufficient evidence to condemn the entire scientific community?

The fact is that all discoveries made these days in this field are filtered through the assumptions made by evolution. In an environment like that, it's not at all surprising that things are as they are. Nobody questions the baseline, so nobody detects the problems with it. (Until someone does, t hen they get steamrolled. How often have we heard people say "The question of evolution is absolutely proven?" Not a very objective statement IMHO.

What "baseline" would this be?

Ah, but we're not talking about Creationists. No offense, but you seem to keep bringing them up as a way to avoid discussing the reasoning behind such great faith in people who generally don't have much reason to be objective.

Really? So what was this radio programme which accused a palaeontologist of fraud? Alleged discrepencies in radio-isotope dating are rarely mainstream news...

EDIT: You seem to continuing in your casual slander of scientists world-wide (as well as your lazy use of 'faith'). I've already countered this point in my other post.

For failing to tow the party line? I doubt that.
A person who would discover something like that just overthrew 1 of the biggest scientific theories around. That sure as HELL makes you famous.

Back to Creationists. Is this the only tactic in your arsenal?
He sad, "not even creationists" as an extreme. It's about the data: where is the data that overthrows the evolutionary theory?

I'm calling B.S. "to my knowledge?" Have you been looking? Or does that just mean you haven't noticed?
Simply asked: where are the scientific publications?

I never said all scientists are perpetually dishonest. I said there's a big incentive out there to protect existing theory in this area. Do you deny this?
It's about the data. Simply sad, the data supports the evolutionary theory. That theory isn't protected because of nothing. If the data is shit or even not there, and scientists are still defending it, there career is over.

Never seen it.

Want to play the source game? Ok since you brought up sources first, why don't you go up there and show me a source that supports your assertion that no scientist who doens't buy Evolution has ever gone looking for the data you referenced?
Don't dodge the question here. If data like that is there: where are the scientific publications?

Unless there's a common interest, that is.

The fact is that all discoveries made these days in this field are filtered through the assumptions made by evolution. In an environment like that, it's not at all surprising that things are as they are. Nobody questions the baseline, so nobody detects the problems with it. (Until someone does, t hen they get steamrolled. How often have we heard people say "The question of evolution is absolutely proven?" Not a very objective statement IMHO.
That's not how science works. Data is not filtered by the evolutionary theory, it's rather the other way around; the evolutionary theory is filtered/tested by the data.


What talkshow gossip? What are you even talking about?
He ment what you sad about the dating of some bones.

Edit: what's with the incredibly odd placement of posts, it looks like the order they're posted in is scrambled up. It confuses me.

Specifically?
For example if a scientist is trustworthy at what he's saying. I'de begin with checking his Ph.D for example.

You're not coming across as being objective at all when you use phrases like "interdimensional space alien". You make your true intentions quite clear and they're not objective.
Those phrases are just my view on things. The God you describe looks like some kind of highly developed interdimensional space alien to me. That's it, I wouldn't have any problems with the existance of highly developed interdimensional space aliens some people would call God.

So you're saying nothing supernatural is real. By your own words you categorize 'reality' and the 'supernatural' separately. You've already drawn conclusions. Not objective. You reveal yourself again.
The supernatural is a strange thing to me. Because, if certain things would be above our nature, why are they still in our nature and apperantly notice they're there. So either the things you label "supernatural" are just "natural", or they're simply not what they seem to be. I've not drawn any conclusions, I don't know if anything exists outside our reality, different dimensions for example.

According to one theory.
Yea, a really really good supported theory (wich has changed recently with the discovery of Pegasus 51).

And yet it took decades for people to stop using it in texts. Does that tell you nothing?
But not anymore: it has been filtered out, that's what matters.

There's a source for moral truth. There's a source that gives us an honest and accurate accounting of the objective truth. God is in a position to do that.
Moral truth? Again, sounds like morality is something universal, something wich I questions for reasons stated before. And also, science doesn't concern with morals. Science describes, nothing more.



...in your experience. My experience tells me otherwise.
No, my experiences do not matter, neither do yours. Afterall, we're talking about a reality outside our minds. I'm talking about emperical data here.

Show me where it has succeded, then. And what about the other phenomena? And will you now answer? Why you put such great faith in a system that, by definition, isn't meant to describe ALL of reality?
Again, that's not how science works. Science does not "succeed" like that, it's an ever-process without an end. And I put my "faith" in that system, because it has shown it's worth, it has shown that it works. An easy example: modern medicine.

You pick. You brought it up.
Hmmm, really it's so broad, give me a real or hypothetical situation ;)

So you're prepared to trust the people around you. That's good, but people are imperfect. They can give conflicting advice.
Not just there people, I care about the support they give for what they say.

Peer-reviewed is utterly meaningless. All it means is that other scientists who didn't do the research approve of it. How is that even pretending to be objective?
You apperantly don't understand what peer review does. In science, it's about the data, peer review is there to detect flaws or strange things in the data of the published article.

Only as long as an incentive exists. When an incentive is present to avoid self-correction it won't. Have you ever heard of groupthink?
Again, it's not about people, it's about data. If the data is flawd, it doesn't matter how much groupthink there is; flawed data stays flawed data.



I haven't seen Expelled.

Actually the publications are out there. All you have to do is go read them.
Wow, can you link me some? I'm curious.

For failing to tow the party line? I doubt that.

'Toeing the party line'? What on earth are you talking about? We're not talking about interpretation of data, we're talking about observations. Colleagues might challenge the scientist's explanation for finding vertebrates in the Precambrian but they couldn't challenge the fact that they'd been found.

All the great scientists of the past became great by challenging consensuses. To take a recent example, Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge became world-famous for their attack on the standard model of Darwinian Gradualism (although with hindsight their views weren't nearly as revolutionary as they were seen to be at the time).

Back to Creationists. Is this the only tactic in your arsenal?

Oh stop being so disingenuous: if these people who you refer to who have 'already rejected evolution', are 'working on alternative theries' and 'are persecuted by the scientific mainstream' aren't Creationists then who are you refering to?

Um.. okay.

In other words you know you're talking nonsense? Come on: you're not stupid and you know as well as I that once you've sunk to the depths of "those fossils could have been discovered but the evil scientists covered them up" you might as well be talking about aliens, the Illuminati or the Elders of Zion. It's paranoid nonsense.

If you're so convinced that the world's scientists are lying to you then don't just sit in front of your computer slandering them: go out and do some actual field work, you know, like real scientists do.

I'm calling B.S. "to my knowledge?" Have you been looking? Or does that just mean you haven't noticed?

As it happens I have looked on several occasions and I've asked numerous Creationists. Please feel free to correct me if you want to 'call bullshit'...

I never said all scientists are perpetually dishonest. I said there's a big incentive out there to protect existing theory in this area. Do you deny this?

You suggest that scientists are ignoring evidence against evolution and even covering up fossil finds: you're either accusing them of dishonesty or gross incompetence.

There may be some incentive, but not a big one: can you name a single scientist who gained international renown for doing nothing but maintaining the status quo? Of course not: if you want to make it big then the only way is to either branch out into a completely new field or to challenge part of an existing one.

Again with the Creationists. Is your thinking on this matter so dogmatic that you automatically assume that anybody who fails to fall in lock step with evolutionary theory MUST be a Creationist?

I'm not arguing Creationism here. Why do you mention it?

Oh right. Strawman.

Again, stop being so disingenuous:

becaue there are ALREADY scientists out there who have a head start on them. The ones who dropped Darwinism long ago already have new and alternate explanations in place. Why would I, if I were a Government Agency, University or whatever... go to the guys who got it wrong and who built their entire careers on wrong information, who systematically persecuted and ignored the guys who got it right? Especially when the ones who did get it right are right there, available?

If you're not refering to Creationists then who are you refering to?


Want to play the source game? Ok since you brought up sources first, why don't you go up there and show me a source that supports your assertion that no scientist who doens't buy Evolution has ever gone looking for the data you referenced?

Are you nuts? How on earth do you expect me to prove that nobody ever went looking? I told you that 'to the best of my knowledge' they never have and invited you to correct me: it shouldn't be hard to do if I am wrong.

Now, why don't you stop evading and provide some sources? Or would that mean admitting that you've been talking about Creationism all along, even if you don't want to admit it?

Yes that must be it. So much easier to call somebody a liar than to just reply openly. Why are you bothering with this conversation if that's what you think?

What are you talking about? You completely misrepresented what I said: what do you expect me to do?

Unless there's a common interest, that is.

The fact is that all discoveries made these days in this field are filtered through the assumptions made by evolution. In an environment like that, it's not at all surprising that things are as they are.

Explanations are based around Evolution because it works. If you want to replace it then you need to provide a model which is better than the current one (i.e. predicts everything that Evolution predicts but also makes sucessful predictions which Evolution doesn't). Evolution is tested every single day: the fact that it's survived every test so far is an indication of its merit.

Nobody questions the baseline, so nobody detects the problems with it.

And what problems would these be?

(Until someone does, t hen they get steamrolled.

Again, source?

How often have we heard people say "The question of evolution is absolutely proven?" Not a very objective statement IMHO.

Presumably you feel similar outrage when people talk about the fact of Gravity... It's not unfair to state that the evidence for common descent is overwhelming: there's room for debate on the exact mechanisms and rates of change, but unless some major new evidence comes to light then there's nothing wrnog with telling it like it is: Evolution is fact.

What talkshow gossip? What are you even talking about?

You're condemnation of science based on the alleged misdemenours of a single Palaeo-Archaeologist that you heard about on the radio?