# Tipping point



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 4, 2014)

At what point does hypothesis, or opinion, become law?


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 4, 2014)

When enough people believe it aids the greater good?

Or,

When enough of the people in power believe it aids the greater good.


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 4, 2014)

Or when the one person in power wants it so.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> At what point does hypothesis, or opinion, become law?



Basically, when every time they are tested, they are true.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 5, 2014)

660griz said:


> Basically, when every time they are tested, they are true.



So we have the scientific definition, or process. 

Now what about for other subject areas? 

Is Dripping Rock right, and if you get enough people to repeat something that it can become law with no other corroboration? 

For example, if I told you that France paved their streets in white chocolate, and could get people to agree with me, how many people would it take before you started to come around to the idea, and then started to repeat it yourself as factual?


----------



## 660griz (Nov 5, 2014)

Hmmm.
Maybe you meant, "At what point does opinion, stories, become perceived fact? 

If you told me that streets were paved in white chocolate, I would not take that as your opinion but, either facts as you understand it or you are just not telling the truth. 

In the right setting, with the right folks, this could be made to be perceived fact for the entire group relatively quickly. 

Interesting topic. 

"For god so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son,
 that whosoever would believe in him would believe in anything."
-- unknown


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 5, 2014)

660griz said:


> Hmmm.
> Maybe you meant, "At what point does opinion, stories, become perceived fact?
> 
> If you told me that streets were paved in white chocolate, I would not take that as your opinion but, either facts as you understand it or you are just not telling the truth.
> ...



I'm trying to leave it as an academic discussion on the transition from belief to fact, rather than pointedly at religion or anything else.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Nov 5, 2014)

660griz said:


> "For god so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son,
> that whosoever would believe in him would believe in anything."
> -- unknown



or... could be convinced to believe in anything.


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Nov 5, 2014)

An analogous question: At what point is it decided that things which are accepted, shouldn't be? When is that which is held to be fact (or, at least, plausible), dismissed? I can only speculate; but, I know it is not based merely on physical materiality.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 5, 2014)

660griz said:


> Basically, when every time they are tested, they are true.


So if I say it is a fact that a telephone pole is a dog, and my test produces dog DNA from within the telephone pole every time, what then?


----------



## TTom (Nov 5, 2014)

Unless you use the methodology of science, you cannot claim it to be science or with any integrity claim it to be scientific. If you make a claim of chocolate streets, no matter how many people you convince unless and until you perform some sort of testing of the idea itself it cannot ever be a scientific theory let alone a Law.

You also cannot skip over the theory step in the process and go straight to Law.


----------



## TTom (Nov 5, 2014)

Gemcgrew, to determine species you would do a chromosome count on the sample rather than a DNA test. If you counted 78 chromosomes in your sample from a telephone pole, I would have to see another few dozen counts by other people that matched before I questioned the identity of the telephone poll rather than your process.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 5, 2014)

TTom said:


> Unless you use the methodology of science, you cannot claim it to be science or with any integrity claim it to be scientific. If you make a claim of chocolate streets, no matter how many people you convince unless and until you perform some sort of testing of the idea itself it cannot ever be a scientific theory let alone a Law.
> 
> You also cannot skip over the theory step in the process and go straight to Law.





TTom said:


> Gemcgrew, to determine species you would do a chromosome count on the sample rather than a DNA test. If you counted 78 chromosomes in your sample from a telephone pole, I would have to see another few dozen counts by other people that matched before I questioned the identity of the telephone poll rather than your process.



Again, your perspective is limited to science. 

That one has been answered. 

The remaining question is, I guess, better phrased as; when do anecdotes become something more?


----------



## 660griz (Nov 5, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> So if I say it is a fact that a telephone pole is a dog, and my test produces dog DNA from within the telephone pole every time, what then?



Other folks test it. If everybody who test the pole produces dog DNA then, we can say for certain that that pole has dog DNA. 

If multiple testers, test a large sampling of telephone poles and dog DNA is produced then we could probably say there is dog DNA in all telephone poles. You can find dog DNA on my floor but, it is not a dog. Little more to a dog than just DNA samples. DNA proves it was there.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The remaining question is, I guess, better phrased as; when do anecdotes become something more?



When we have a blurry trail cam pic?


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 5, 2014)

660griz said:


> Other folks test it. If everybody who test the pole produces dog DNA then, we can say for certain that that pole has dog DNA.
> 
> If multiple testers, test a large sampling of telephone poles and dog DNA is produced then we could probably say there is dog DNA in all telephone poles. You can find dog DNA on my floor but, it is not a dog. Little more to a dog than just DNA samples. DNA proves it was there.


Yes, even though my test is valid for identification purposes, it would be subject to additional testing and perhaps peer review. 

But... if I control the testing and withhold information(known or unknown), I can have my results confirmed and validated. 

My test is valid.

My argument is valid.

1) If X, then Y
2) Y
3) Therefore, X 

If contains dog DNA(X), it is a dog(Y).
Telephone poles contain dog DNA(X).
Therefore, telephone poles are dogs(Y).

Valid but worthless.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 5, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> The remaining question is, I guess, better phrased as; when do anecdotes become something more?


When accepted or confirmed as something more.

There can be no facts, absent omniscience.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 5, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> So if I say it is a fact that a telephone pole is a dog, and my test produces dog DNA from within the telephone pole every time, what then?



What then?

It is a totally made up "what if" scenario.
It is hypothetical.

When you have to interject the impossible or make believe in order to have your scenario work out, it is already doomed.

Extract dog dna from every telephone pole instead of pretending to...and then we can talk about "what is".


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 5, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> When accepted or confirmed as something more.
> 
> *There can be no facts, absent omniscience.*



Accepted by whom, or how many whoms? 

It's a fact that I'm sitting in this chair right now, and I know I'm sitting in this chair, does that make me omniscient?


----------



## 660griz (Nov 5, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> My test is valid.
> 
> My argument is valid.
> 
> If contains dog DNA(X), it is a dog(Y).



Your argument is not valid. Just because something contains dog DNA does not mean it is a dog.
Saliva, blood, hair, poop, all contain DNA.

Dogs are also mammals. Does the pole match the characteristics of mammals? Quadrupeds?  
If it does, you didn't sample a pole.


----------



## TTom (Nov 5, 2014)

When do myths become accepted as truth? 

When you collect enough faith in the myths from 50%+ of the group.


----------



## TTom (Nov 5, 2014)

People mistakenly use the term fact when discussing science all the time. I've been guilty of it myself. The only things in science that are facts are the datum. Things that have been measured or observed.

Fact The sample came from an object 30 ft tall and 12 inches in diameter, samples of the pole itself reveal 26 chromosomes. 12,000,000 other examinations made of the catalog of plants and animals indicate that 26 chromosomes means it is a Pine Tree.  

If you somehow test a sample that reveals 78 chromosomes them the test would need to be re-run making sure you don't have cross contamination in the sample from a canine, since again the counts have been measured from a huge number of samples and the results were canines have 78 chromosomes.

The chromosome counts of thousands of species of plants and animals have been measured. Thus can be considered fact.

Now chromosome count would not be enough to differentiate between a chicken and a dog, both have 78.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 6, 2014)

bullethead said:


> What then?
> 
> It is a totally made up "what if" scenario.
> It is hypothetical.
> ...


Correct, according to your own assumptions.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 6, 2014)

660griz said:


> Your argument is not valid. Just because something contains dog DNA does not mean it is a dog.
> Saliva, blood, hair, poop, all contain DNA.


The argument is valid, the conclusion is false.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 6, 2014)

TTom said:


> When do myths become accepted as truth?
> 
> When you collect enough faith in the myths from 50%+ of the group.



I hope it's not that simple.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 6, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> The argument is valid, the conclusion is false.



Ok. It is not sound then.


----------



## TTom (Nov 6, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I hope it's not that simple.



Avoiding this (myth becoming accepted as truth based on popularity alone) is in large part why the scientific method was created.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 6, 2014)

TTom said:


> Avoiding this (myth becoming accepted as truth based on popularity alone) is in large part why the scientific method was created.



But the scientific method doesn't work in all applications, like on myths. 

How does myth, or anecdote, skip straight to law?


----------



## 660griz (Nov 6, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But the scientific method doesn't work in all applications, like on myths.
> 
> How does myth, or anecdote, skip straight to law?



Can you please give an example of this happening?
My brain is fried today.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 6, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> But the scientific method doesn't work in all applications, like on myths.
> 
> How does myth, or anecdote, skip straight to law?





660griz said:


> Can you please give an example of this happening?
> My brain is fried today.



Yes.  An example would help.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 6, 2014)

TTom said:


> When do myths become accepted as truth?
> 
> When you collect enough faith in the myths from 50%+ of the group.





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I hope it's not that simple.




I don't think it's that simple.  

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"

besides, when something is considered a "myth" it has already been moved into the "most likely didn't happen" realm.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 7, 2014)

Take the urban legend of the Kentucky Fried mouse. Only a handful of people saw it, if it happened, and "historical evidence" of it is limited to grainy pictures and a few accounts from the people "who were there." 

What would it take for that experience to be considered factual and be not only basis for repetition of the story, but for reasons why people would stubbornly avoid KFC and recommend to their friends that they do the same?


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 7, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Accepted by whom, or how many whoms?


I would say just one.



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It's a fact that I'm sitting in this chair right now, and I know I'm sitting in this chair, does that make me omniscient?


No, nor can you know it as fact. It appears to be a fact based on your own assumptions.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 7, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> I would say just one.
> 
> 
> No, nor can you know it as fact. It appears to be a fact based on your own assumptions.



So if one person believes something that no one else can observe, then it is universal fact? 

My sitting in this chair is universal fact because it is objectively observable while I am doing it. If no one is around then I know it to be fact for me, but there's no way to convince you of it after the fact. 

You have the choice to take my word for it, or to ignore it.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 7, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So if one person believes something that no one else can observe, then it is universal fact?


My answer was in regard to anecdotes becoming something more... only. 



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> My sitting in this chair is universal fact because it is objectively observable while I am doing it. If no one is around then I know it to be fact for me, but there's no way to convince you of it after the fact.
> 
> You have the choice to take my word for it, or to ignore it.


So, you are relying upon your senses. 

Perhaps you are the victim of an elaborate hoax. 
Perhaps you fallaciously learned the meaning of the words, or group of words, used in your statement of fact. Perhaps you were taught that one can sit in a chair, whereas I was taught one can only sit on the seat, armrest or leg of a chair. If "sitting in a chair" is an acceptable way of describing the action, was it always? Or did it become acceptable after enough people adopted the phrase? If something is acceptable, is it always accurate?
Perhaps you are dreaming. 
Perhaps you are hallucinating.
This is a small sample of know possibilities.

What of the unknown?
Perhaps you are the subject of a mind control experiment and you are only recalling false implanted memories.
Perhaps an intelligent organism is controlling your very thoughts and actions.

etc.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 7, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> My answer was in regard to anecdotes becoming something more... only.
> 
> 
> So, you are relying upon your senses.
> ...



Okay. But if you take that tact then nothing can be real or universal truth.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2014)

Some people live by "what if" where anything is possible.
Others live by "What Is" where reality thrives.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 7, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Some people live by "what if" where anything is possible.
> Others live by "What Is" where reality thrives.


Sometimes the "what is" bungee jumps to death, never fully considering "what if".


----------



## bullethead (Nov 7, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Sometimes the "what is" bungee jumps to death, never fully considering "what if".



Use a new cord. Double check your Knots. Measure twice cut once. Secure to a solid anchor.


----------



## Israel (Nov 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Use a new cord. Double check your Knots. Measure twice cut once. Secure to a solid anchor.


Trust the cord was manufactured to the correct specs, trust the inspector responsible was not remiss, trust that batch of cord did not sit in an environment that would quietly and unknowingly degrade its center, trust the hardware manufacturer...etc...
Ahhh a case for Holmes.

"The deceased was quite meticulous in all his preparation, his hardware, which did not fail was to the highest standard, cord likewise retains it's advertised tensile strength without signs of undo stretch or failure, harness was found properly secured upon the corpse showing no slippage... fortunately my investigation revealed one hitherto unnoticed detail, hidden to all of untrained eye, see that there Watson? There, on the center of his tape measure, that scoring across the screw head? As though a screwdriver had slipped across it, in trying to force it to yield? I propose our killer had substituted the original tape with a fraudulent one. It need only be bare millimeters off over an inch, but due to the hundreds of feet measured, it would be quite sufficient if only slightly inaccurate and would cause our poor victim to think he had cut the cord to 278 feet, when in actuality it was cut to 284! Just long enough to cause the unfortunate impact that compressed his cervical verterbrae to sever his spinal cord at C-2. Of course he had used his laser to measure from the bridge to the rocks below, but he would not use that to fashion his cord, would he?
I am proposing Watson, that whoever had access to his locked workshop and hastily replaced the counterfeit guts of this tape measure with the proper ones after his equipment preparation is our killer.
Watson, we are looking for a redheaded woman, 5'4" whose preferred scent is L'Air du Temps, fond of fish tacos, likes Lynyrd Skynyrd, has a conspicuous mole behind her left knee, and whose birthday last, fell on a Tuesday.

Silly and sophomoric, of course. And yet, when the internal measuring device is off, all else is off.

Truth in the inward parts...who has it, how may it be had?
Can it be?...or is all our communication vain and worthless, trying, ever trying, to put "of ourself" into one another for equity and understanding.
3 am dorm conversations are fun, but life...is real.
We are all trusting in something...or someone. And I have been convinced, all will know in what basket their eggs lay.

Ahh yes Watson, what a peculiar and telling turn of phrase...of a thriving reality!


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 8, 2014)

Israel said:


> Watson, we are looking for a redheaded woman, 5'4" whose preferred scent is L'Air du Temps, fond of fish tacos, likes Lynyrd Skynyrd, has a conspicuous mole behind her left knee, and whose birthday last, fell on a Tuesday.


You just robbed me of even considering bungee jumping. 

I am married to that woman!


----------



## Israel (Nov 8, 2014)

Lol...


----------



## bullethead (Nov 8, 2014)

Abduct it. Adapt it. Adopt it.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 8, 2014)

Israel said:


> Trust the cord was manufactured to the correct specs, trust the inspector responsible was not remiss, trust that batch of cord did not sit in an environment that would quietly and unknowingly degrade its center, trust the hardware manufacturer...etc...
> Ahhh a case for Holmes.
> 
> "The deceased was quite meticulous in all his preparation, his hardware, which did not fail was to the highest standard, cord likewise retains it's advertised tensile strength without signs of undo stretch or failure, harness was found properly secured upon the corpse showing no slippage... fortunately my investigation revealed one hitherto unnoticed detail, hidden to all of untrained eye, see that there Watson? There, on the center of his tape measure, that scoring across the screw head? As though a screwdriver had slipped across it, in trying to force it to yield? I propose our killer had substituted the original tape with a fraudulent one. It need only be bare millimeters off over an inch, but due to the hundreds of feet measured, it would be quite sufficient if only slightly inaccurate and would cause our poor victim to think he had cut the cord to 278 feet, when in actuality it was cut to 284! Just long enough to cause the unfortunate impact that compressed his cervical verterbrae to sever his spinal cord at C-2. Of course he had used his laser to measure from the bridge to the rocks below, but he would not use that to fashion his cord, would he?
> ...



It is a wonder you trust the very structure you dwell in.


----------



## Israel (Nov 8, 2014)

bullethead said:


> It is a wonder you trust the very structure you dwell in.


I don't. 
Specifically.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 9, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Okay. But if you take that tact then nothing can be real or universal truth.


Correct, according to your own assumptions.

Omniscience alone, knows facts. 

But that would be my own assumption, unless Omniscience revealed it.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 9, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Correct, according to your own assumptions.
> 
> Omniscience alone, knows facts.
> 
> But that would be my own assumption, unless Omniscience revealed it.




But you have to assume  "omniscience" by making it up in your head


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 10, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> But you have to assume  "omniscience" by making it up in your head


Omniscience is required, in order for you to know this.


----------



## Israel (Nov 10, 2014)

It becomes more than "dogma" to realize...the head of every man is Christ.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 10, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> *Correct, according to your own assumptions.
> 
> Omniscience alone, knows facts. *
> 
> But that would be my own assumption, unless Omniscience revealed it.



Where is that ever stated as my assumptions?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 10, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Omniscience is required, in order for you to know this.



Are you saying that if there wasn't a critter that knows EVERYTHING that no critters could know anything?

If that's what you're saying, can you lead me through that thought process?


----------



## Israel (Nov 11, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Are you saying that if there wasn't a critter that knows EVERYTHING that no critters could know anything?
> 
> If that's what you're saying, can you lead me through that thought process?


Isn't all knowing resident only "in the head"?
You know (?) that place a lot of folks make reference to as being the culprit in other folks expression...as in..."it's all in your head".
What "is known" except there?
The man who relies on only his natural senses to put anything there is _known_ as a natural man...a man who has often discovered on witness stands he often doesn't really know...what he thinks he knows.
The myriad assumptions about the reliability of sense knowledge becomes suspect in a hundred other simple ways, and explaining them, doesn't change the "fact" that we may see things that aren't there, and not see things that are.
To truly "know" anything, would require the impartation from a sure and unbiased source of true knowing which has the ability to bypass the utterly fallible and suspect physical senses. One must assume then, that there either exists a true knowing apart from himself...or even the atheist must say "I, at best, believe..."


----------



## 660griz (Nov 12, 2014)

Israel said:


> You know (?) that place a lot of folks make reference to as being the culprit in other folks expression...as in..."it's all in your head".


 Which means it isn't really anywhere...except in your head.


> What "is known" except there?


 Relating to God? Nothing. 


> The man who relies on only his natural senses to put anything there is _known_ as a natural man...a man who has often discovered on witness stands he often doesn't really know...what he thinks he knows.
> The myriad assumptions about the reliability of sense knowledge becomes suspect in a hundred other simple ways, and explaining them, doesn't change the "fact" that we may see things that aren't there, and not see things that are.


 This 'phenomenon' has been well studied, explained and documented. 


> To truly "know" anything, would require the impartation from a sure and unbiased source of true knowing which has the ability to bypass the utterly fallible and suspect physical senses.


 No. To truly know something takes effort and more than just a passing glance or one source.


> One must assume then, that there either exists a true knowing apart from himself...or even the atheist must say "I, at best, believe..."


 You mean 'YOU' as in Israel, must assume.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2014)

Israel said:


> Isn't all knowing resident only "in the head"?
> You know (?) that place a lot of folks make reference to as being the culprit in other folks expression...as in..."it's all in your head".
> What "is known" except there?
> The man who relies on only his natural senses to put anything there is _known_ as a natural man...a man who has often discovered on witness stands he often doesn't really know...what he thinks he knows.
> ...



Saying it enough times over and over has convinced yourself.
You are going to have to back up these assumptions and assertions if your goal is to get others in here to agree with you.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 12, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Where is that ever stated as my assumptions?


This very question is based upon a false assumption. Your senses are unreliable.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 12, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Are you saying that if there wasn't a critter that knows EVERYTHING that no critters could know anything?


No, I am not saying that.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 12, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> This very question is based upon a false assumption. Your senses are unreliable.



If that's true then how can you "know" God? You rely entirely on your senses and emotions for that relationship. 

I assume you're saying that my OP is based on a false assumption? 

That uncorroborated stories can be held as factual accounts given enough believers but no remaining evidence?


----------



## Israel (Nov 12, 2014)

660griz said:


> Which means it isn't really anywhere...except in your head.
> Relating to God? Nothing.
> This 'phenomenon' has been well studied, explained and documented.
> No. To truly know something takes effort and more than just a passing glance or one source.
> You mean 'YOU' as in Israel, must assume.



Really?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 12, 2014)

Israel said:


> Really?



Why wouldn't it?


----------



## Israel (Nov 12, 2014)

Oh, I get it...some of you actually believe what you "know" is not in your head...but verifiably able to manifest "out there". So...your knowing extends outside of yourself...the more I talk with some of you the more apparent an original predisposition shows itself...you do really think you are god, in your self worship.
It's not that you don't believe there's a god, you just don't like competition.


----------



## Israel (Nov 12, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Why wouldn't it?


Because the knowing of a thing is not added to by effort, nor diminished by facility.
But...from some it becomes clearer, you have done the "hard" work of thought, of investigations, the heavy lifting of intellectual pursuit, and having put in a "lot of time"...you then feel entitled to believe you have a right to a greater surety of "knowing".
Basically you are the lawyers, but I've been won by grace.
But we worked hard!
OK.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 12, 2014)

Israel said:


> Oh, I get it...some of you actually believe what you "know" is not in your head...but verifiably able to manifest "out there". So...your knowing extends outside of yourself...the more I talk with some of you the more apparent an original predisposition shows itself...you do really think you are god, in your self worship.
> It's not that you don't believe there's a god, you just don't like competition.



Wow, really? 

I mean, if we're going to derail into slanderous insults, then let's pull out all the stops. I just didn't think you were that kind of person.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 12, 2014)

Israel said:


> Because the knowing of a thing is not added to by effort, nor diminished by facility.
> But...from some it becomes clearer, you have done the "hard" work of thought, of investigations, the heavy lifting of intellectual pursuit, and having put in a "lot of time"...you then feel entitled to believe you have a right to a greater surety of "knowing".
> Basically you are the lawyers, but I've been won by grace.
> But we worked hard!
> OK.



I _know_ that the sky is pink. 

I can say that from a position of ignorance, if I've never seen the sky, or maybe in some manifestations of color blindness, but that's overridden the moment you look at it. 

You can maintain a belief that the sky is pink, but you can't say you know it to be true. Unless you're going to disconnect reality from your knowledge base, at which point anything is possible and real.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2014)

Israel said:


> Oh, I get it...some of you actually believe what you "know" is not in your head...but verifiably able to manifest "out there". So...your knowing extends outside of yourself...the more I talk with some of you the more apparent an original predisposition shows itself...you do really think you are god, in your self worship.
> It's not that you don't believe there's a god, you just don't like competition.



More misguided assumptions and assertions based off of what makes sense in YOUR head.


----------



## Israel (Nov 12, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I _know_ that the sky is pink.
> 
> I can say that from a position of ignorance, if I've never seen the sky, or maybe in some manifestations of color blindness, but that's overridden the moment you look at it.
> 
> You can maintain a belief that the sky is pink, but you can't say you know it to be true. Unless you're going to disconnect reality from your knowledge base, at which point anything is possible and real.


Yes. All things are possible to him who believes.
That "knowledge base", if indeed there be such a thing, and I don't dispute there is, is at best...always open to all revision.
We are all on common ground in that regard.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 12, 2014)

Israel said:


> Yes. All things are possible to him who believes.
> That "knowledge base", if indeed there be such a thing, and I don't dispute there is, is at best...always open to all revision.
> We are all on common ground in that regard.



I did not ever find evidence of that when I believed.
Is this something you can prove to us...before we are dead?


----------



## Israel (Nov 12, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Wow, really?
> 
> I mean, if we're going to derail into slanderous insults, then let's pull out all the stops. I just didn't think you were that kind of person.


Perhaps it may seem that my "natural inclinations" are viewed with greater indulgence than another's...they are not. I do not sense a slander when, in my own attempts, I am shown to be manipulative, or at least attempting to, of whatever we may concede is contained in the concept of "reality".
When found as such and reproved, I am no less in need of proper judgment to reveal itself that I might be sobered. 
That a man considers himself a possessor of some, or many things, comparatively, is of no consequence, having been "through a lot or...little" is also moot, for before the truth, that thing we may dare call reality...we are all at its mercy. 
I am simply one who is being convinced, mercy is indeed there.
(And that has never come by either being reluctant to appear as a "person like that" or my own attempts to not appear so)
I am not shocked to find myself, when I have it revealed of myself, to see "gee, I thought I was God".
If I have indeed slandered you, or anyone, with a judgment I have either not borne or refuse to accept, it will be made clear.
I am, in every way, just the most common of men.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 13, 2014)

Israel said:


> Yes. All things are possible to him who believes.
> That "knowledge base", if indeed there be such a thing, and I don't dispute there is, is at best...always open to all revision.
> We are all on common ground in that regard.



No, we are not. I can choose to believe in things that are not visible, and not able to be proven, but I don't hold them out as factual bases for anyone's life but my own. 

I believe that there is something out there, whether it's an ambiguous natural energy that connects us all, or some kind of benign architect who created the universe and then abandoned it. The difference between us is that I don't use that belief to impose a morality upon anyone else. 

Moreover, I subscribe to the Big Bang Theory because it's the current best fit model for how things came to be. But I also don't rail on anyone as that being the reason to abandon their religion. For that discussion, and I don't evangelize it without the conversation being invited, such as it is now in this forum, I rely on the logical rather than the metaphysical. I choose to show the believer how derivative all religion is thus showing 1 of two possibilities. Either all religions are different languages telling the same story, which makes religious infighting all the more pointless, or all religions were contrived as stories to mystify, pacify, and ultimately subjugate the masses into belief in a moral code that benefit the powers that be at the time and has only followed a natural progression of progeny being indoctrinated as early and as vehemently as possible. Why else would we baptise children before they could even speak, or walk, or think for themselves? Sure, there's the old biblical commandment thing, and "wanting to start them off right" argument, but I challenge all who would counter my arguments to step outside of your own perspectives to analyze the whole thing dispassionately. 

However, if people would, or could, do that with greater regularity I highly doubt we would even be here having this discussion. 

We could talk on matters of faith, even after that, but it would be recognized, by most, as what it truly is. 

An individual belief, based on individual feelings about a single book shared with like minded individuals. That's not to say it's a bad thing. Not at all. Faith and belief are great things. Where they become something altogether different is when those individual beliefs are pushed upon others, who don't share them, with the delusion that you're somehow doing them a favor. 

If I want to drink at 8AM on a Sunday, and someone is willing to sell to me, and you're in church from sunup to noon, how exactly does that impact you? And yet, most of your fellow believers have decided that I can't do what I wish to my own body, on the day of YOUR Sabbath, without planning ahead. 

Sure, I could plan ahead, and it's pretty easy, but that's ignoring the larger problem and again trying to force your beliefs on me. It's ludicrous. 

If people could step out of their own blindness, about their own God, they would see that. You would be up in arms about a Muslim trying to force you to pray 5 times a day because that's what they do. Or if a Catholic tried to pass a law that forbade restaurants from serving anything but fish on Fridays. And rightfully so, we'd be on the same side of that argument. However, it's the same justifications used to push any religious belief on anyone else who doesn't already subscribe to them. 

It is inarguable. 





Israel said:


> Perhaps it may seem that my "natural inclinations" are viewed with greater indulgence than another's...they are not. I do not sense a slander when, in my own attempts, I am shown to be manipulative, or at least attempting to, of whatever we may concede is contained in the concept of "reality".
> When found as such and reproved, I am no less in need of proper judgment to reveal itself that I might be sobered.
> That a man considers himself a possessor of some, or many things, comparatively, is of no consequence, having been "through a lot or...little" is also moot, for before the truth, that thing we may dare call reality...we are all at its mercy.
> I am simply one who is being convinced, mercy is indeed there.
> ...



So you admit the insult happened, but don't apologize for it. Why not just say that?


----------



## 660griz (Nov 13, 2014)

Israel said:


> ...you do really think you are god, in your self worship.



Well, I am pretty good. All I have is because of me. My happiness...depends on me. Raised 4 kids. Have a nice roof over my head and get to enjoy a few hobbies. 
I wouldn't go so far as calling it God but, I can see how you would come to that conclusion since all you have is from a mythical being. If more folks tried the 'self worship', the world would probably be in a better place.

Oh, and when I do bad things, that is me too. I don't blame another mythical being for that. I take full responsibility for my life. 

Seriously, try it some time. 

“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.”
Albert Einstein


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 13, 2014)

> Originally Posted by Israel View Post
> ...you do really think you are god, in your self worship.


Have heard this a number of times and it never made a lick of sense to me. 
You are telling a person that doesn't believe gods exist that they think they are a god


----------



## gtparts (Nov 13, 2014)

Perspective shapes the "realities" of individuals, even groups of people. And, most certainly, on the matter of belief or faith, the problem of semantics and definition cause much fruitless discourse.

 The issue most at fault is subjective truth vs. objective truth. Subjective truth, scientific or otherwise, almost universally includes, at least in part, some error. For that reason alone, the use of the words "subjective truth" is oxymoronic. It is unworthy of our trust in its complete accuracy. The (postmortem) expression of the slowest or weakest impala is far different than that of the first alerted impala that escapes the lion's claws and teeth.

That pretty much leaves us to consider "objective truth". Is it trustworthy? Well, if the pursuit is exhaustively and unerringly exercised and the observation is perfectly observed and recorded, "objective truth" could be 100% trustworthy..... or could it?

Can we exhaust the application of objectivity to all samples, especially if there logically is no end to the number of samples? Of course not! We stop testing at some point and make a declaration of what is true. We then operate as though there is certainty, when obviously there is only a high degree of certainty.

The question then arises as to whether there is such a thing as truth, "absolute truth". If such exists, how is it observed or experienced? Is it manifest so that we humans can identify it? Or, is it beyond our ability to comprehend in any meaningful way? Just because we may articulate the concept does not necessarily mean it exists. Why is it so elusive? And, would we accept it as "The Method" by which we might acquire an understanding of perfect, eternal truth? Is there a penultimate truth that far surpasses our feeble, flawed attempts to answer, "Why? What is my purpose? Do I even have a purpose? Is there a plan? Whose plan?

I would suggest that at this point we can discard science as a means to answer these questions. Science's only purpose is to accumulate information so that we might answer "How?" It is an organized set of languages used to describe the natural world. Given that our  natural information will always be incomplete and sometimes just plain wrong, it is the wrong tool for the task of answering the aforementioned questions.

Now, suppose that this absolute truth is far less a thing, less a concept, but a being, supreme and perfect in all ways. Indeed, knowable, though in form, unlike us! 

Not just knowable, but desiring that he be known. Not that we could catalog his attributes and recite facts about him, but that we could be in a relationship with him, knowing him and being known by him. And suppose that his means of making himself manifest started with his handiwork, continued with personal revelations, progressed to his incarnation, the death and resurrection of the incarnate "absolute truth". Sound familiar?

Yeah, I know I lost some of you. It just doesn't gee and haw with what some believe is true, because they, perhaps you, are still worshiping science as the means to all solutions for all questions.

Only those who seek the answers because their motivation is completely expressed in knowing him (instead of knowing about him) will ever come to the answers. No one can short-cut the process. The path determines the destination.  

If you found this exercise worthwhile, I am pleased that you found it so. If not, I am not offended. Either way, the questions are far more important than this crumb from my keyboard.

Grace and peace.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 13, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> If that's true then how can you "know" God? You rely entirely on your senses and emotions for that relationship.
> 
> I assume you're saying that my OP is based on a false assumption?
> 
> That uncorroborated stories can be held as factual accounts given enough believers but no remaining evidence?


The second line that you highlighted in post #50 is my statement. I did not intend for it to be perceived as your assumption.

I would like to address the rest of your questions/comments when time permits. My dad(81 yrs) suffered a stroke yesterday morning and is in ICU. They have stopped the bleeding and are hopeful that the swelling will subside. Thankfully, I was able to visit him today. He talks, but his words are garbled.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 13, 2014)

Best wishes for your Father Gem.


----------



## Israel (Nov 13, 2014)

gtparts said:


> Perspective shapes the "realities" of individuals, even groups of people. And, most certainly, on the matter of belief or faith, the problem of semantics and definition cause much fruitless discourse.
> 
> The issue most at fault is subjective truth vs. objective truth. Subjective truth, scientific or otherwise, almost universally includes, at least in part, some error. For that reason alone, the use of the words "subjective truth" is oxymoronic. It is unworthy of our trust in its complete accuracy. The (postmortem) expression of the slowest or weakest impala is far different than that of the first alerted impala that escapes the lion's claws and teeth.
> 
> ...



Quite...worthwhile.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 13, 2014)

Sorry to hear about your Dad Gem. Our thoughts are with you both.


----------



## Israel (Nov 14, 2014)

A man may use "reason" to reason reason completely out of his reason.
God is the reason.
His logos, word, logic, has allowed for this.
The full allowance for man, toward man, is the man, Jesus Christ.
Thus, he said "ye are gods"...endowed.
How that endowment/allowance is occupied, and with what it is occupied, determines a thing.
Reason, which is, and the reason for all, Who is, observes all in their disposition of this gift, this endowment, His logos.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 14, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> The second line that you highlighted in post #50 is my statement. I did not intend for it to be perceived as your assumption.
> 
> I would like to address the rest of your questions/comments when time permits. My dad(81 yrs) suffered a stroke yesterday morning and is in ICU. They have stopped the bleeding and are hopeful that the swelling will subside. Thankfully, I was able to visit him today. He talks, but his words are garbled.



Please, take your time and be with your dad. We can pick up our silly little tete a tete later. My dad just got out of the hospital himself. 

My thoughts are with you.


----------



## Israel (Nov 14, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> No, we are not. I can choose to believe in things that are not visible, and not able to be proven, but I don't hold them out as factual bases for anyone's life but my own.
> 
> I believe that there is something out there, whether it's an ambiguous natural energy that connects us all, or some kind of benign architect who created the universe and then abandoned it.



Wouldn't that be a little less than benign? 



> Why else would we baptise children before they could even speak, or walk, or think for themselves?


Never done that, nor do I recall ever having  recommended that in 47 years



> Where they become something altogether different is when those individual beliefs are pushed upon others, who don't share them, with the delusion that you're somehow doing them a favor.


All the favor has been done me. 



> If I want to drink at 8AM on a Sunday, and someone is willing to sell to me, and you're in church from sunup to noon, how exactly does that impact you? And yet, most of your fellow believers have decided that I can't do what I wish to my own body, on the day of YOUR Sabbath, without planning ahead.


Again, can't recall ever feeling it was appropriate to deny a man a beer based on calendars and clocks, nor do I hope to encourage those so engaged, either by vote or filling their pew.



> Sure, I could plan ahead, and it's pretty easy, but that's ignoring the larger problem and again trying to force your beliefs on me. It's ludicrous.



Agreed. Couldn't "make myself" believe.



> If people could step out of their own blindness, about their own God, they would see that. You would be up in arms about a Muslim trying to force you to pray 5 times a day because that's what they do. Or if a Catholic tried to pass a law that forbade restaurants from serving anything but fish on Fridays. And rightfully so, we'd be on the same side of that argument. However, it's the same justifications used to push any religious belief on anyone else who doesn't already subscribe to them.
> 
> It is inarguable.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 14, 2014)

Israel said:


> Wouldn't that be a little less than benign?
> 
> 
> Never done that, nor do I recall ever having  recommended that in 47 years
> ...



Those were all infinitive "you" and "your". Not specifically directed at you, per se, but the body of the public you represent. 

What's important here is that the rest of your fellow believers, Christians specifically since they are the only religion on these shores that make up a significant voting bloc come time for referendum, have decided it, perhaps, for you. Unless when the time came in your county you voted AGAINST blue laws. I would be curious to know the answer to that question, but you're not obligated to. 

Also, ever take a kid to Sunday school earlier in their lives than you've taken them to regular school? Home education notwithstanding, most kids see the inside of a bible study class long before they see the inside of a "formal" classroom. That's the kind of indoctrination prior to the age of reason that I'm referring to. You're teaching them things about something that can't be objectively observed, and if it could there would be precisely 0 non-believers, at a time in their lives when they also believe in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny. Now, who could blame them on those, there's "evidence" to support them. They get money for lost teeth, presents at Christmas with the cookies being partially eaten, and a basket of goodies on Easter Sunday. Other than the person telling them that the good feelings they experience come from God, and the bad feelings come from the devil tempting them/God testing them, there is no corroboration of the Christ story, outside of the fact that there was a man named Jesus who lived in Nazareth. But it all gets bought, hook/line/sinker, because it's told to them by the same people who self-corroborate the other fictions in their lives, all without the kids being any the wiser. 

"Well, if I've never seen the Easter Bunny, but I still get all these cool candies, and I can't see God, but I still get this tickle in my pleasure center every time I think about Him, then He must be as real as the Easter bunny." It's kid logic. 

I notice you didn't even attempt to argue with the last paragraph. Is that an oversight, or because you also know that it is inarguable?


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2014)

Israel said:


> A man may use "reason" to reason reason completely out of his reason.
> God is the reason.
> His logos, word, logic, has allowed for this.
> The full allowance for man, toward man, is the man, Jesus Christ.
> ...



Spot on for YOU.
Nonsense worldwide.

Your claims do not hold true outside of yourself.


----------



## Israel (Nov 14, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Spot on for YOU.
> Nonsense worldwide.
> 
> Your claims do not hold true outside of yourself.


Yes.
It's enough I be true to what is true within me.
May all my own claims fall and fail as they should.


----------



## Israel (Nov 14, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Those were all infinitive "you" and "your". Not specifically directed at you, per se, but the body of the public you represent.
> 
> What's important here is that the rest of your fellow believers, Christians specifically since they are the only religion on these shores that make up a significant voting bloc come time for referendum, have decided it, perhaps, for you. Unless when the time came in your county you voted AGAINST blue laws. I would be curious to know the answer to that question, but you're not obligated to.
> 
> ...


It would be a religious belief if I believed I am called to represent "christianity".
Being true to the one who has called me is a bit different than that.
What others do about, and with their faith, is ultimately between them and whatever they name as the object of that faith.
In all, my comfort and consolation is in this alone, the Lord knows those who are his. I can neither "make one" nor "undo one". At best I am just a sign stuck in the dirt, read or unread, believed or not. It's enough.
Being "tempted" to vote is something it appears, I have in some measure, apprehended grace to resist.
I can't rule out that someday, sometime, I may be _allowed_ to (perhaps even instructed to). For now, it appears no more than a temptation.

As to "kid's logic". What would you call a man who went flying with a box full of randomly assembled, by let's say a three year old, items...and said "this I will be using as my altimeter in a foggy flight"?
Might you say "Friend, that thing isn't gonna give you any useful information at all, it's just two pennies, a Pez dispenser, a dried out pen and a picture of Mickey Mouse! Here, take this instead its _designed_ and specifically to tell you how far you are above the ground"
And yet, there seem those who subscribe to the random happenstance of intellect and consciousness, then use that device's output to determine...reality. 
Funny, no?
If consciousness and intellect, (that is, reason)...is purposed, a man may at least have a hope of some hope in its utility. As to the rest, at best, to disregard a Designer, a Purposer, well, tell me, why would they believe they have anything to output...except that of the nature of their claimed progenitor...just time and random utterings? Spurious data is often worse than none at all.

But even that is borne, in hope, by those born in hope. For the God who is all reason, gives reason...in hope. And so he invites whosoever he will, to come, and reason with him. And he shows Jesus, his reason, his logic, _the_ Logos.
I can well understand the resistance to accept an understanding granted rude fishermen, mendicants and desert nomads who probably smelled of goat stew and sweat, who wandered in awe of what they had been granted to comprehend, by a 21st Century man. After all, I am one. Even with a portable GPS that I could be tempted to believe tells me _exactly_ where I am, in the schema, by its technology. I just never knew how lost a man could be...till it was shown me. But, with _that_ lovingly pressed admission came the light of the way home.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 14, 2014)

Israel said:


> Yes.
> It's enough I be true to what is true within me.
> May all my own claims fall and fail as they should.



I can appreciate you sharing your personal experiences.
The same claims applied to all mankind just do not hold true.


----------



## Israel (Nov 15, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I can appreciate you sharing your personal experiences.
> The same claims applied to all mankind just do not hold true.


The: "You can't say that applies to all men" is two edged.
In truth, our quite opinionated dealings with one another belie that, don't they?
"Kid's logic" appears to be applied to at least a whole class of people, even if that sub class may be decried by the speaker as not including...well...all men, you know...except whomever the speaker deigns to grant "true (adult) logic".
Need we go back through each post and find where, at least a "theist" (if not christian) is described as one who is merely that because he is either bound by fear, driven by a fool's hope of some reward, a "good" boy because his religion was good enough for his daddy, a gullible simpleton still adhering to myths...and on and on?
You see there's one thing left out in all those surmisings...whether you care to believe it or not. And here, in either what is my great presumption, or simple truth, I speak for all those who have placed their hope in the Lord Jesus Christ alone...we know what it is to live without God, and hope in this world. Yes, we know what it is to wear atheist's clothes...practically speaking. Yeah, we've seen "that side". (here's your opportunity to insert "Obviously, _you_ were not able to withstand, (through whatever defect of character you care to assign) living in the "real world", like we brave and noble atheists...meeting life head on, chiseled of jaw, without resorting to a mythical friend, we are "our own men"!)
Now, here's the funniest part of all, for it will no less apply to you, and all others, than it applies to me.
When some say "I was a christian...but I got wise to the scam (in so many words)" and I say "But did you ever meet the Christ of God?" you would rightly infer my question contains a qualifying implication.
In no less manner, you would at least be granted to (if one cares to) assume of all those who have passed from death to life, they never were "real atheists" for with a slight twist, your religious group of God deniers can easily say "they were never really _of us_ for had they been _of us_ they would have remained with us." Now, you can say "but they never really had the true piety and intellectual devotion we have had in our diligently attained wisdom about the "no-God" reality. Yeah, right. Like christians have never said that about one another, except with the "no" excluded. 
See? And you don't like the notion we are all on common ground...but...we are.
But, don't fret, in the seeming quagmire of who is the "true" christian, who is, or was a "true" atheist...who has had the _true_ epiphany...it'll all come out in the wash.
Let God be true, and every man a liar.
My own words are those of a fool.
As is, my own understanding.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2014)

Israel said:


> The: "You can't say that applies to all men" is two edged.
> In truth, our quite opinionated dealings with one another belie that, don't they?
> "Kid's logic" appears to be applied to at least a whole class of people, even if that sub class may be decried by the speaker as not including...well...all men, you know...except whomever the speaker deigns to grant "true (adult) logic".
> Need we go back through each post and find where, at least a "theist" (if not christian) is described as one who is merely that because he is either bound by fear, driven by a fool's hope of some reward, a "good" boy because his religion was good enough for his daddy, a gullible simpleton still adhering to myths...and on and on?
> ...



Plenty of people lived and died LONG before the stories of Jesus were told. He wasn't there for them.
The majority of people worldwide get along just fine without the notion of him in their brains.

Personally I am convinced that the real Jesus was not near what he was made out to be later.

You feel the need to interject Jesus and God into every minute of every thought and every experience in your every day life. 
It gets you through the day.
That is really great for you.

I lead just a happy life and attribute none of it to any higher power.

I just do not HAVE to include my No-Beliefs into EVERY single post and conversation and assert those no beliefs into bold unsubstantiated claims to end every post.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 15, 2014)

Israel said:


> The: "You can't say that applies to all men" is two edged.
> In truth, our quite opinionated dealings with one another belie that, don't they?
> "Kid's logic" appears to be applied to at least a whole class of people, even if that sub class may be decried by the speaker as not including...well...all men, you know...except whomever the speaker deigns to grant "true (adult) logic".
> Need we go back through each post and find where, at least a "theist" (if not christian) is described as one who is merely that because he is either bound by fear, driven by a fool's hope of some reward, a "good" boy because his religion was good enough for his daddy, a gullible simpleton still adhering to myths...and on and on?
> ...


While I enjoy reading your posts and yes at times they make me think, I have to say that your own misconceptions drive most of what you say.
For example -


> they never were "real atheists"





> "but they never really had the true piety and intellectual devotion we have had in our diligently attained wisdom about the "no-God" reality.





> who is, or was a "true" atheist


Ever heard an Atheist say any of that in reference to other Atheists? 
You cant just take what CHRISTIANS say about OTHER CHRISTIANS and then insert Atheist instead of Christian and go from there. 


> Need we go back through each post and find where, at least a "theist" (if not christian) is described as one who is merely that because he is either bound by fear, driven by a fool's hope of some reward, a "good" boy because his religion was good enough for his daddy, a gullible simpleton still adhering to myths...and on and on?


And where would some Atheists get those opinions?
Maybe from -


> he is either bound by fear,


You mean like the threat of He11?


> driven by a fool's hope of some reward


You mean like the reward of Heaven?


> a "good" boy because his religion was good enough for his daddy,


You mean like the indoctrination of children?


> a gullible simpleton still adhering to myths


You mean like all the myths that Christians reject except this one?
Any chance that they are merely observations and not just some baseless insult?


> and I say "But did you ever meet the Christ of God?"


No and neither have you. Maybe in your mind, in your heart, in your thinking, in your trust....... in any of those places of emotions you have. But you haven't actually met him. If you did you wouldn't need faith.


> When some say "I was a christian...but I got wise to the scam (in so many words)


Im hoping for a simple answer here -
How we would you describe all the other religions that people believe in that you DONT believe to be true?


----------



## Israel (Nov 15, 2014)

You see, I am a reformed atheist, from...no faith or knowing of  God...to...the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ, by which I now live.

Here's an observation I hope you do not take as insult. What you don't seem to grasp is the most fundamental matter (yes, applicable to all men) that in all things, their only reality is "in the mind".
"But, I saw him, one says." 
"No," says the other, "you didn't, I was there and saw that you didn't see him."
"I met him"...."I saw, heard, smelled, touched him"
Cut the optic nerve, discover where sight is resident. Remove the stapes, discover where hearing is resident. Touch? What space remains between any two "objects" in proximity that they "sense" one another...or simply sever again a nerve bundle and discover where touch is resident. Smell, too.
All is in the mind...so...when someone appears in the mind...who cares what a billion other witnesses may say regarding what they imagine is taking place?
Consensus? Majority? That's fine, if one opts for it, each is free. Just then concede that by consensus, by majority, at one time you'd also most likely have been a flat Earther. Just like I was. 
Nothing wrong with it...nothing at all.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 15, 2014)

Israel said:


> You see, I am a reformed atheist, from...no faith or knowing of  God...to...the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ, by which I now live.
> 
> Here's an observation I hope you do not take as insult. What you don't seem to grasp is the most fundamental matter (yes, applicable to all men) that in all things, their only reality is "in the mind".
> "But, I saw him, one says."
> ...



Plenty of people share those same experiences and attribute them to something other than what you do.
Can you agree that theirs are as real as yours?
Is it conceivable that on an individual level Jesus is no less or no more real because of the senses you attributed to above?
Jesus is not a universal solution nor a universal option. That god, like all the others, exists nowhere except in the minds of people that were first told about him and the stories filled a need.


----------



## WaltL1 (Nov 15, 2014)

Israel said:


> You see, I am a reformed atheist, from...no faith or knowing of  God...to...the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ, by which I now live.
> 
> Here's an observation I hope you do not take as insult. What you don't seem to grasp is the most fundamental matter (yes, applicable to all men) that in all things, their only reality is "in the mind".
> "But, I saw him, one says."
> ...





> Here's an observation I hope you do not take as insult. What you don't seem to grasp is the most fundamental matter (yes, applicable to all men) that in all things, their only reality is "in the mind".


Not taken as an insult at all. And I may be wrong but I don't think you are here with the intention of insulting anybody.
But my own observation is that this -


> their only reality is "in the mind"


is exactly what the A/As here have been saying from the get go. Its exactly what A/As say to the "look around the evidence of God is everywhere" and every other claim that has belief behind it and not facts.
Its exactly why we/I don't have any problem whatsoever with you believing and worshipping. In your homes. In your churches. Not in OUR public schools. Not in OUR government. Not in OUR laws.
In other words, this -


> by which *I* now live.


----------



## Israel (Nov 16, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Not taken as an insult at all. And I may be wrong but I don't think you are here with the intention of insulting anybody.
> But my own observation is that this -
> 
> is exactly what the A/As here have been saying from the get go. Its exactly what A/As say to the "look around the evidence of God is everywhere" and every other claim that has belief behind it and not facts.
> ...


Sometimes the discussion appears at least two headed.

I get very well there are people who say "they have put God out of our schools!!!" And then may take whatever means they consider appropriate after the great decry of this, to "allow" God back in. You might see why this makes me scratch my head. 
Likewise, on the other hand, when an "unbeliever" takes issue with what a man does with his children as far as "indoctrination" (if there be that at all, truly), I think the unbeliever may be able to come clean about his own kids "immersion" into something (a family)...they likewise didn't choose...and just as surely as one may feel they have the right to speak on behalf of that "other guy's" children..."hey, don't put that mush into their heads"...unless we now clearly define mush, we'd not be sure who was speaking...the professed atheist, or the professing believer. 

It's kinda funny, because when it's examined to its roots, I believe it all springs from "What _you _do... (with you and yours... your kids, with your vote, with your words and opinions, ultimately with _your life_ and all it seems to entail) seems to affect "my" reality...and experience...so...STOPPIT WOULDJA?"

The very nature of this peculiar thing, I believe, if reduced further to the absurd...(and by absurd, I mean "real" in the mind of all who subscribe to it) is the notion beneath...that the world is better served by _my being _in it (and whatever folks I care to assign such a companionship) than you. It goes back to what I believe Striperr made a derivative reference to...the idea that some go about, or at least seem to go about in certain enedeavors...cherishing, finding as bulwark for "their work"...that they are doing the world a favor by being here.


> Where they become something altogether different is when those individual beliefs are pushed upon others, who don't share them, with the delusion that you're somehow doing them a favor.



I can't deny I have at least been familiar with this operating in me...and cannot know precisely to what measure it has operated through me. That I may now say it is all "wrong"...still does not make me clear of it, for a man may know yelling at his wife isn't right...and simply be reminded again the next time he does it...it still isn't.
That I may affirm in word, and an inward conviction, as I had spoken, that "all the favor is done me", still may not, until appropriated in a fullness I have yet to apprehend, clear me of such a behavior.
( The wise may see where being "dead" in Christ...is not just an esoteric or arcane doctrine, but a help to the man who believes, perhaps, still in his heart he is "God's gift to the world"...for in that is a great salvation, for the letting go of that delusion is a great help, actually, to both the man _and_ the world)
Now, were I to detail to you all the many actions, words, indeed the whole of my once "inner life" in the wholehearted devotion to this delusion of being "God's gift"....I do not doubt that it would be beyond any of you to say "Buddy, I have known some self centered people...but I gotta admit, you really do take the cake" (and rightly so)
Were I also to detail the crushing sensation when this is revealed..well, in truth, I know _that_ would be a vain exercise.
It would most easily lend itself to "Ha! You think you _were_ self centered _once_? But now you think whom you say is the author of all creation is _your_ Father! Tell me boyo...what could be more self centered than that?!"

Yes. But again, I could never convince you I have seen a different self...and it ain't me.

And this "self" that is not me, and whom I also recognize at work in many others quite notably, is precisely the one who, when recognized (and strangely...even when denied), helps deliver me from what remains, and may remain of that delusion.
You see, there's a remaining part, made clearer as delusion, that I cannot help but believe yet "contaminates" me...and in that lies the strangest of all true paradoxes, and it is this:
That were I able to rightly, and fully represent the Lord Jesus to any of you, I have no doubt you would love him...yet...to do that would require of me an entrance into what strangely (again) in the knowing would be totally beyond me...for I am not Him. Only he is the fullness, and all my efforts and desire...here find grace...not so much for my falling short, or inability...but that allows me to see Him, and not be confused as to who I am, and who he is. (in any relationship, this appears important)

He is the lover of souls, and I am but one soul...but greatly loved...just like you are... greatly loved. (But oh! how there be a resistance! Yet there seems a thing wanting to make me "more real" than you in my own sight...that "delusion"...that "I" am in some way, more worthy of that love! Yes, this is everything, the _very thing_, that is precisely against the truth, everything that is against the gospel...everything that is against what I seem to seek with a heart that cannot but also carry with it, for how long, God knows...that seemingly shameful admission)
I am, simply, a talking stone, a bit of mouthy clay...but, it's always more than enough when I see Him.
And, I am forgiven "the me"...the all, that I see, that might, (were he not Lord), impede him.
But, he is.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2014)

Israel said:


> ..............But, he is.




This part.  Prove it.


----------



## TTom (Nov 16, 2014)

Proof that the divine exists is something not always available in the context of rational debate. It is impossible for me to prove to you that the entity/ ies that I attribute my Gonstic proof of the divine exist. Gnostic approaches though are not entirely rational, they include personal interpretations of the experienced events. And those personal interpretations are not replicable exactly enough to meet the tests of rationality.

This is why I have the spiritual beliefs that I have as well as the spiritual approach I take. I don't ask you (infinitive) to take my interpretation as fact, I ask you to consider doing the things that give me access to the divine directly yourself if they speak to you, see if the spirit reveals itself to you as it has and does to me. If not then, the spirit may want you to take another pathway, to enter the room through a different door.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2014)

Or another possibility is that the spirit (infinitive) does not want and cannot do because it does not exist.


----------



## Israel (Nov 16, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> This part.  Prove it.



It alone is the singular knowing, and because of that, I know you will know.
I can do nothing.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 16, 2014)

Israel said:


> It alone is the singular knowing, and because of that, I know you will know.
> I can do nothing.



It
Isn't


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 16, 2014)

Israel said:


> It alone is the singular knowing, and because of that, I know you will know.
> I can do nothing.



Do you consider the possibility that It doesn't want me to know?


----------



## Israel (Nov 17, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Do you consider the possibility that It doesn't want me to know?


No.
(And the "it" I referred to is the knowing, not the Lord.)


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Nov 17, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> At what point does hypothesis, or opinion, become law?



From what I can recall from my 7th grade Science class, and if I'm interpreting your definition of 'hypothesis or opinion' correctly as a theory, according to my understanding, a theory never actually becomes a law.
I don't think I ever was taught or learned anything to the contrary.  

A theory remains a theory forever.  It may become stronger as more evidence mounts in its support, even to the point of becoming accepted as a defacto law, but it never becomes a law.

I very well may be wrong, but this has always been my understanding.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 17, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> From what I can recall from my 7th grade Science class, and if I'm interpreting your definition of 'hypothesis or opinion' correctly as a theory, according to my understanding, a theory never actually becomes a law.
> I don't think I ever was taught or learned anything to the contrary.
> 
> A theory remains a theory forever.  It may become stronger as more evidence mounts in its support, even to the point of becoming accepted as a defacto law, but it never becomes a law.
> ...



hypothesis is,  basically, a guess.
Theory, is a proven guess.

Correct, theories pretty much never become law. 
Laws are stuff like Ohm's law. The relationship between amps, resistance and voltage. 
Why is there a relationship, well, one theory...

However, ignore all that because I think SH made it clear this was not about scientific stuff.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 17, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> From what I can recall from my 7th grade Science class, and if I'm interpreting your definition of 'hypothesis or opinion' correctly as a theory, according to my understanding, a theory never actually becomes a law.
> I don't think I ever was taught or learned anything to the contrary.
> 
> A theory remains a theory forever.  It may become stronger as more evidence mounts in its support, even to the point of becoming accepted as a defacto law, but it never becomes a law.
> ...




I don't know how advanced your 7th grade class was but take 5 minutes and look up the definition of Scientifc Theory. Your understanding  may not change but you will be informed on how the process works and what it means.


----------



## TTom (Nov 17, 2014)

The term Law in science is reserved for theories that have been exhaustively tested and the results have confirmed the theory over a long period of time.

Newton's Laws of Motion being the most commonly known scientific laws.

Although if you know much science, you know that even Laws are subject to review. Quantum Physics has proven much of Newton's laws to be less than settled science, hundreds of years after they were accepted as Law.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 24, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> If that's true then how can you "know" God?


By revelation to the mind.


StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You rely entirely on your senses and emotions for that relationship.


But I don't.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 24, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> By revelation to the mind.
> 
> But I don't.



Beyond emotion and senses, what is there?


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 24, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Beyond emotion and senses, what is there?


Knowledge, independent of the senses.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 24, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Knowledge, independent of the senses.



Okay. Have a nice day and a great holiday.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 24, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Knowledge, independent of the senses.




What's that?


----------



## 660griz (Nov 24, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> What's that?



Instinct?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 24, 2014)

660griz said:


> Instinct?




The ***** in the heart?


----------



## Israel (Nov 30, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> The ***** in the heart?


yes


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 1, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Knowledge, independent of the senses.



I think it was Ambush(if it wasn't you Ambush I apologize) that asked me once how I KNEW.  

I told him about my being filled with the Holy Spirit when I was about 14.  I took a lot away from that experience even though it only lasted a few minutes at most. 

As I come to appreciate the legitimacy of A/As reasoning the more time I spend here, I often wonder if this is what separates us.  

I honestly don't know what my stance would be today if it were not for that experience.  Given the tract my education took, it's highly likely I would be an A/A as my studies were heavily laden with sciences and math.  

However, that experience was what I think Gem was speaking of above "knowledge, independent of senses", at least senses in the traditional sense, i.e. taste, touch, smell, etc.

One thing, perhaps the biggest thing, my experience imparted on me (my consciousness) was that Christ is Savior.  Of that I was left with no doubt.  The best term I can use to describe it is Revelation.  It became as concrete to me as the law of gravity.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 2, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think it was Ambush(if it wasn't you Ambush I apologize) that asked me once how I KNEW.
> 
> I told him about my being filled with the Holy Spirit when I was about 14.  I took a lot away from that experience even though it only lasted a few minutes at most.
> 
> ...





> I often wonder if this is what separates us.


I think that may be exactly right. On a subject with no actual answer (yet or maybe not ever), how we individually process and reason the available information is about all there is. None of that "you hate God" or the often askewed "think you are a God" and all that other nonsense.
Just a difference in reasoning. I really think its that simple.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 2, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I think it was Ambush(if it wasn't you Ambush I apologize) that asked me once how I KNEW.
> 
> I told him about my being filled with the Holy Spirit when I was about 14.  I took a lot away from that experience even though it only lasted a few minutes at most.
> 
> ...



It's a personal experience.  No one can tell you that you didn't experience what you experienced but there are alot of other things that people experienced that they are absolutely certain are real.  I won't give examples, valid examples none the less, because for some reason they seem to trivialize the conversation.  (You know what things I'm talking about). 

We can talk about gravity and ALL of us will be in agreement about what it does.  What you are taking about isn't like gravity at all.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 2, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Just a difference in reasoning. I really think its that simple.



Agreed.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 3, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> It's a personal experience.  No one can tell you that you didn't experience what you experienced but there are alot of other things that people experienced that they are absolutely certain are real.  I won't give examples, valid examples none the less, because for some reason they seem to trivialize the conversation.  (You know what things I'm talking about).
> 
> We can talk about gravity and ALL of us will be in agreement about what it does.  What you are taking about isn't like gravity at all.



I would absolutely agree with only one caveat.  That being:  For those who _have_ experienced it,  it is just as real.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 3, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I think that may be exactly right. On a subject with no actual answer (yet or maybe not ever), how we individually process and reason the available information is about all there is. None of that "you hate God" or the often askewed "think you are a God" and all that other nonsense.
> Just a difference in reasoning. I really think its that simple.



Agreed. If we experienced something so powerfully moving that we couldn't argue with it I believe that more of us would believe. 

Just like we don't _know_ gravity, but we feel it moving us nonetheless.


----------



## 1eyefishing (May 4, 2017)

It has taken me a long time to come back this forum history; getting to know the background of people I see posting these days on the Forum fascinates me. Much insight to be had as far as interpreting their present conversations.
Looking back into the origins of my own beliefs and attitudes also interests me.
No, don't go back and reread the long thread. This is a stand-alone post.

This is for the OP. This subject matter also fascinates me...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/epistemology
The reading can get a little bit convoluted, but you can find much easier stuff to study on this subject, once you know what you were looking for.

Respect to all...
... and apologies for the three-year bump.


----------

