# Athiest sets fire to church and temple.



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 24, 2018)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.br...e-church-sikh-temple-political-statement/amp/



> When asked whether this was religiously motivated he stated that he has no issue with any particular religion but his issues are with religion and God in general.”



You just gotta ask if this guy loses sleep over Santa or the Easter Rabbit.  I’m guessing not so much.  Wonder why?


----------



## 660griz (Oct 24, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.br...e-church-sikh-temple-political-statement/amp/
> You just gotta ask if this guy loses sleep over Santa or the Easter Rabbit.  I’m guessing not so much.  Wonder why?



Any evidence of human sacrifice, genocide, rape, murder, slavery, in the name of Santa or the Easter Rabbit?
I'm guessing not so much. 

Take away. Crazy folks come in all beliefs or lack of them.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 24, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.br...e-church-sikh-temple-political-statement/amp/
> 
> 
> 
> You just gotta ask if this guy loses sleep over Santa or the Easter Rabbit.  I’m guessing not so much.  Wonder why?


There are no excuses for extremists. Just solutions of various calibers.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 24, 2018)

660griz said:


> Any evidence of human sacrifice, genocide, rape, murder, slavery, in the name of Santa or the Easter Rabbit?



Well now that you asked: https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/20...logy-and-helps-explain-its-moral-monstrosity/


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 24, 2018)

A troubled person.

Atheism is a difficult position to maintain, for some more so than others.  It denies a supernatural arbiter of moral code.  Without proper understanding of psychology and moral philosophy combined with some Post Modern Deconstructionism it could lead one to become nihilist and narcissistic. That's the argument I made in the thread about Religion being good for stupid people.  Maybe society would be better off if that guy behaved good because he was afraid of the Boogeyman but maybe not.  I'm sure you could imagine how much worse of a person he could have been if he thought he "Heard God speak to him".


----------



## 660griz (Oct 24, 2018)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/04/11/planned-parenthood-shooter-happy-his-attack/32579921/


----------



## 660griz (Oct 24, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well now that you asked: https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/20...logy-and-helps-explain-its-moral-monstrosity/


Searched the page for Santa or Easter Bunny. Nothing. What else you got?

I covered that if you would have read my entire post. 





> Crazy folks come in all beliefs or lack of them.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 24, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> A troubled person.
> 
> Atheism is a difficult position to maintain, for some more so than others.  It denies a supernatural arbiter of moral code.  Without proper understanding of psychology and moral philosophy combined with some Post Modern Deconstructionism it could lead one to become nihilist and narcissistic. That's the argument I made in the thread about Religion being good for stupid people.  Maybe society would be bettr off if that guy acted good because he was afraid of the Boogeyman but maybe not.  I'm sure you could imagine how much worse of a person he could have been if he thought he "Hear God speak to him".



“Good for stupid people?”  That’s precious and highlights the exact evil of athiesm


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 24, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> “Good for stupid people?”  That’s precious and highlights the exact evil of athiesm




Here's a link to the thread.  Look into it.......if you dare.

http://forum.gon.com/threads/religion-is-for-stupid-people.925804/

MUAHHHH  HAA HAA HAA HAAA!!!!!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

All Hail The Hallow's Eve!!!!!


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 24, 2018)

Listen to atheist Douglas Murray at 51:00 say "Rationalism isn't enough". 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="



" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 24, 2018)

So let me get technical for a second -
As quoted - 





> but his issues are with religion and God in general


are an acknowledgement of the existence of God so he's not an Atheist.
This -


> The unemployed 49-year-old admitted to two counts of wilful fire-raising aggravated by religious prejudices


is called copping a plea. Note it specifies "religious prejudices". Prejudice against religion. Not doesn't believe in God but  religious prejudices.
Just as a reminder, by not acknowledging, calling false, a cult etc.... is a form of religious prejudice. Catch my drift?
When asked why he did it he said to make a political statement. Political.

Im sure calling him an Atheist gives the writer and you warm and fuzzies but I think you may be doing some assuming.
If I missed the part where he actually said "im an Atheist" or "I don't believe gods exist"........

On the flip side he's probably an Atheist 
but...….


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 24, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well now that you asked: https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/20...logy-and-helps-explain-its-moral-monstrosity/



Explains the origins of the Bolsheviks in Russia. What about Japan's evil during WWII? Emperor Hirohito and the Shinto religion? Perhaps the false religions are just as evil as Atheism.

False religions can lead to faith based violence.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2018)

So now it’s an individual issue. How convenient.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 25, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> So now it’s an individual issue. How convenient.


I only read about 1 person and I didn't see where he claimed any affiliation with anybody else or a group.
Wouldn't that be an individual issue?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 25, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> So let me get technical for a second -
> As quoted -
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, like spending every waking moment refuting the Idea of religion and God on an internet forum, are an acknowledgement of the existence of God, so those who do that aren't Atheist either.  Gotcha, maybe too technical though.


----------



## PappyHoel (Oct 25, 2018)

660griz said:


> Any evidence of human sacrifice, genocide, rape, murder, slavery, in the name of Santa or the Easter Rabbit?
> I'm guessing not so much.
> 
> Take away. Crazy folks come in all beliefs or lack of them.


So it’s ok with you?  Sounds like it to me.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I only read about 1 person and I didn't see where he claimed any affiliation with anybody else or a group.
> Wouldn't that be an individual issue?


Would it have change it from an individual issue to a systematic ideology if he had claimed affiliation with anybody else or a group? 

A little off topic but...........”guns are not the problem”.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 25, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Yeah, like spending every waking moment refuting the Idea of religion and God on an internet forum, are an acknowledgement of the existence of God, so those who do that aren't Atheist either.  Gotcha, maybe too technical though.


Any chance you can stick to the facts of the article that YOU posted?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 25, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Would it have change it from an individual issue to a systematic ideology if he had claimed affiliation with anybody else or a group?
> 
> A little off topic but...........”guns are not the problem”.


No it still would have been an individual act because he acted alone.
However if he belonged to a group it would certainly be a clue to his motivation other than what he said - to make a political statement.
You are the one who said it was convenient to call it an individual issue when it wasn't convenient it was just a fact.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> No it still would have been an individual act because he acted alone.
> However if he belonged to a group it would certainly be a clue to his motivation other than what he said - to make a political statement.
> You are the one who said it was convenient to call it an individual issue when it wasn't convenient it was just a fact.


I agree it’s an individual issue.

It was convenient because had anyone or any group done anything that remotely points, claims, etc religion, then religion itself is the issue and when religious say not so, the ole “he can use scripture” argument surfaces to force it on an entire group.

It’s still an individual or an individual group issue across the board.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 25, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I agree it’s an individual issue.
> 
> It was convenient because had anyone or any group done anything that remotely points, claims, etc religion, then religion itself is the issue and when religious say not so, the ole “he can use scripture” argument surfaces to force it on an entire group.
> 
> It’s still an individual or an individual group issue across the board.


I agree with you for the most part.... but....
Yes it is not fair/justified to blame Christians because Christian parents didn't take their kid to the doctor based on their beliefs.
BUT I think it is fair to point to Christian doctrine. 
Atheism doesn't have any doctrine. Don't believe gods exist. That's it.
Burning a church, beating up a Christian etc is all on the individual Atheist. There is absolutely zero in Atheism to even suggest they do such a thing.
Do 99% of Christians have the good sense to take their kids to the doctor? Absolutely.
But that other 1% got that idea from Christian doctrine or at least their interpretation of it.
Its a difference that I think makes "across the board" not accurate.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> BUT I think it is fair to point to Christian doctrine


This was more or less my pointing to “it’s not the gun’s fault” statement.

Christian doctrine, and everything else across the board can be misused for many reasons. People actually try using law to find loopholes in the law.

I blame individuals. Atheism may not have a doctrine, but it’s viewed as a group. No doctrine is necessary to assume and perceive how a group may or may not be driven based on the actions of individuals.

I agree with 99% of your post, and this just my opinion only.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 25, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> This was more or less my pointing to “it’s not the gun’s fault” statement.
> 
> Christian doctrine, and everything else across the board can be misused for many reasons. People actually try using law to find loopholes in the law.
> 
> ...





> Christian doctrine, and everything else across the board can be misused for many reasons.


Christian doctrine says Christian doctrine is the word of God.
Surely there is a level of responsibility that comes with that.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 25, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> This was more or less my pointing to “it’s not the gun’s fault” statement.
> 
> Christian doctrine, and everything else across the board can be misused for many reasons. People actually try using law to find loopholes in the law.
> 
> ...



There's nothing about atheism that wouldn't allow someone to believe in the mystic healing power of crystals or the Loch Ness Monster or Forest Spirits.  Atheists tend to be skeptical in general and place a high premium on being rational but there's no rule that they do either.  There are no rules for atheism.  It's a descriptor like "vegetarian".  It says nothing else about how that person should live or behave.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 25, 2018)

Maybe it can all work both ways concerning extremism. The radical Atheist burns a Methodist Church & a Sikh Temple. A radical Christian bombs an abortion clinic. Were either of those extremes working for the basis of Atheism or Christianity? 
Does the parent organization of Atheism have guidelines concerning when it is correct to use death like maybe Islam or Christianity?

Now let's bring the roots of the Bolsheviks to power in Russia. Is this an example of individual Atheist or the results of organized Atheism?
Does atheism systematically influences people to do bad things in a government, nationwide, or start a war? 

Maybe the argument is if world leaders/dictators can justify war and socialism based on a belief in God, can they also do it based on no belief in a God?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 25, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> This was more or less my pointing to “it’s not the gun’s fault” statement.
> 
> Christian doctrine, and everything else across the board can be misused for many reasons. People actually try using law to find loopholes in the law.
> 
> ...



I would agree that even though it's not an Atheist doctrine, it  would still have to define your mindset. Somehow though we would have to figure how much of the prevailing nation's religions are a part of that individual Atheist's mindset.
Was he a previous member of a religious sect? Then he quit believing? If he then saw or perceived what the nations are doing in the name of religion. He would then see religion as being more evil than Atheism.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 25, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> There's nothing about atheism that wouldn't allow someone to believe in the mystic healing power of crystals or the Loch Ness Monster or Forest Spirits.  Atheists tend to be skeptical in general and place a high premium on being rational but there's no rule that they do either.  There are no rules for atheism.  It's a descriptor like "vegetarian".  It says nothing else about how that person should live or behave.



"What Bolsheviks rejected was an ethical framework based on God’s commandments or anything resembling them, such as abstract principles, timeless values, universal human rights, or any tenet of philosophical idealism."

https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/20...logy-and-helps-explain-its-moral-monstrosity/

Does this set any kind of precedent of organized Atheism?

Maybe they used Atheism the way some dictatorial countries used religion.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Christian doctrine says Christian doctrine is the word of God.
> Surely there is a level of responsibility that comes with that.


Being the word of God implies what about extremism?

We are still blaming guns or maybe the manufacturer of guns fir gun violence here, it seems.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 25, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe it can all work both ways concerning extremism. The radical Atheist burns a Methodist Church & a Sikh Temple. A radical Christian bombs an abortion clinic. Were either of those extremes working for the basis of Atheism or Christianity?
> Does the parent organization of Atheism have guidelines concerning when it is correct to use death like maybe Islam or Christianity?
> 
> Now let's bring the roots of the Bolsheviks to power in Russia. Is this an example of individual Atheist or the results of organized Atheism?
> ...





ambush80 said:


> A troubled person.
> 
> Atheism is a difficult position to maintain, for some more so than others.  It denies a supernatural arbiter of moral code.  Without proper understanding of psychology and moral philosophy combined with some Post Modern Deconstructionism it could lead one to become nihilist and narcissistic. That's the argument I made in the thread about Religion being good for stupid people.  Maybe society would be better off if that guy behaved good because he was afraid of the Boogeyman but maybe not.  I'm sure you could imagine how much worse of a person he could have been if he thought he "Heard God speak to him".



I don't deny the connection between atheism and some atrocities for the reason I highlighted.  Most atheists I know place a premium on rationality but it's not a requirement.  There are no requirements for atheism and as Douglass Murray posited "Rationality is not enough".  I'm not convinced of that just yet.  As Sam Harris said in the video "There are perfectly rational reasons to love your neighbor as yourself".   Sam also said ":Communist atrocities weren't caused by an explosion of rationality". Atheism doesn't cause anyone to do anything.  People who think that religion or deism is a problem with the world will probably become atheists and might try to "solve" the "problem" but it's not the atheism that motivates them.  Atheism has no marching orders.  It's a descriptor like "vegetarian".


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 25, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> "What Bolsheviks rejected was an ethical framework based on God’s commandments or anything resembling them, such as abstract principles, timeless values, universal human rights, or any tenet of philosophical idealism."
> 
> https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/20...logy-and-helps-explain-its-moral-monstrosity/
> 
> ...



They got that stuff from Neitzche and Postmodernists and Deconstructionists.  There are different types of personalities.  Some people will be moved to activism or extreme activism.  It doesn't really matter what their "Cause de Jour" might be.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 25, 2018)

The OP dwells on the negative or evilness of Atheism. What is it about dictators that make them evil? Is it religion or Atheism? Perhaps power and not either. Why do so many leaders do evil in the name of God or Atheism?

So let's switch to goodness. Why aren't we all good? Why aren't Atheist more righteous than Christians or vice-versa? Instead of doing what the Democrats and Republicans do with badmouthing each other, can we each see good or bad in each other?

I guess what I'm saying is even within the confines of an organized religion or non-organized Atheism I see good and bad. I don't think none of us are righteous. 
I don't see one world leader being more good or evil than the next. Some nations just have more power to rein in their leaders. 

Did Stalin and Lenin define their actions on Atheism or were they just evil? Did Jim Jones and David Koresh define their action on Christianity or were they just evil?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 25, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Any chance you can stick to the facts of the article that YOU posted?



Any chance you overlooked the title of the article I posted?


WaltL1 said:


> Any chance you can stick to the facts of the article that YOU posted?



 I’m not the one trying to refute the title mind you.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 25, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Atheism doesn't have any doctrine. Don't believe gods exist. That's it.



I’m always astonished when an atheist makes a statement such as this.  It’s as if the statement carries no ramifications.  Totally baffling.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I’m always astonished when an atheist makes a statement such as this.  It’s as if the statement carries no ramifications.  Totally baffling.


What is the doctrine of Atheism sfd?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> What is it about dictators that make them evil? Is it religion or Atheism? Perhaps power and not either.


I would agree.......nothing but a power trip.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2018)

http://www.atheistdoctrine.com


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 25, 2018)

bullethead said:


> http://www.atheistdoctrine.com


I'm hoping this will be looked at lightheartedly.
I take it as proof that atheist do indeed have a sense of humor.
From the other end of the row of links:
https://www.atheistappreciationday.com/
One would assume there is a decoder ring available.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 25, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> I'm hoping this will be looked at lightheartedly.
> I take it as proof that atheist do indeed have a sense of humor.
> From the other end of the row of links:
> https://www.atheistappreciationday.com/
> One would assume there is a decoder ring available.



When I became an atheist my range of things to make fun of expanded immensely.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 25, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I’m always astonished when an atheist makes a statement such as this.  It’s as if the statement carries no ramifications.  Totally baffling.


Im astonished you don't know the meaning of doctrine.


> doc·trine
> [ˈdäktrən]
> NOUN
> a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.


Like I said Atheism has no doctrine other than the lack of belief in the existence of gods.
Why don't you do us all a favor and list the rest.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 25, 2018)

bullethead said:


> http://www.atheistdoctrine.com


SFD doesn't care.
It makes him feel good to say these things regardless of how ridiculous they are.
You can prove him wrong 1,000 times over and he will still go back for his fix.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 25, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I’m always astonished when an atheist makes a statement such as this.  It’s as if the statement carries no ramifications.  Totally baffling.





WaltL1 said:


> Im astonished you don't know the meaning of doctrine.
> 
> Like I said Atheism has no doctrine other than the lack of belief in the existence of gods.
> Why don't you do us all a favor and list the rest.




Yes.  What is the doctrine of atheism?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 25, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Any chance you overlooked the title of the article I posted?
> 
> 
> I’m not the one trying to refute the title mind you.


Of course you aren't. The title was tailor made for people like you.
Unfortunately nowhere in the article did the facts given prove he was an Atheist.
It can just as easily be claimed he was a disgruntled Christian by the facts given.
But I didn't do that because I would have to do what you are doing.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 25, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Yes.  What is the doctrine of atheism?


He either -
Wont respond or
Will list a number of things that aren't doctrine.
He got his fix. Backing up his statements would just harsh his buzz.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> I'm hoping this will be looked at lightheartedly.
> I take it as proof that atheist do indeed have a sense of humor.
> From the other end of the row of links:
> https://www.atheistappreciationday.com/
> One would assume there is a decoder ring available.


You worship flying zombies, atheists don't believe in them.
I guess there is something laughable there.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> SFD doesn't care.
> It makes him feel good to say these things regardless of how ridiculous they are.
> You can prove him wrong 1,000 times over and he will still go back for his fix.


Hit and run. He thinks his nonsense is legit if he doesn't address the refutations.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Yes.  What is the doctrine of atheism?


Not saying I agree or disagree......just saying there’s tons of info regardless of accuracy or not out there. A lot of times, inaccurate info is used against Christianity.

https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/atheism.htm


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Not saying I agree or disagree......just saying there’s tons of info regardless of accuracy or not out there. A lot of times, inaccurate info is used against Christianity.
> 
> https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/atheism.htm


Anyone that claims to know FOR SURE that there is a god or there is not a god has a lot to prove. All it takes is just enough of whatever either decides is evidence to convince that particular individual.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Anyone that claims to know FOR SURE that there is a god or there is not a god has a lot to prove. All it takes is just enough of whatever either decides is evidence to convince that particular individual.





> Anyone that claims to know FOR SURE that there is a god or there is not a god has a lot to prove.


Absolutely


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Absolutely


Do not change my quote. That is not what I said in it's entirety. That is low down and dishonest.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 25, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> When I became an atheist my range of things to make fun of expanded immensely.


I didn't think "to make fun of" was considered humor or humorous.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Do not change my quote. That is not what I said in it's entirety. That is low down and dishonest.


Really? So inserting a word the way you did in another thread is not?

It said “Anyone that claims to know FOR SURE that there is a god or there is not a god has a lot to prove. All it takes is just enough of whatever either decides”

I focused on those claiming no God or god and saying they have nothing to prove. There are several parts to your statement. None are false. I only focused on a portion that doesn’t change your intent but clarifies yes you do need to prove your claims just as anyone else does.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 25, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> I didn't think "to make fun of" was considered humor or humorous.



Really?  That's too bad.  Don't go to the Political Forum if you're that thin skinned.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 25, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Really? So inserting a word the way you did in another thread is not?
> 
> It said “Anyone that claims to know FOR SURE that there is a god or there is not a god has a lot to prove. All it takes is just enough of whatever either decides”
> 
> I focused on those claiming no God or god and saying they have nothing to prove. There are several parts to your statement. None are false. I only focused on a portion that doesn’t change your intent but clarifies yes you do need to prove your claims just as anyone else does.


What word did I insert in another thread?

And did you honestly have to condense down what I said in order to say one thing twice?
I was very clear when it was said the first time.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 25, 2018)

Maybe the Atheist doctrine is that creation was not the result of a supreme being or divine entity. Therefore humans do not receive any ethics from that being.
That those ethics and morals became a part of man's requirements for civilization. That as man became more civilized than the rest of the animals, he needed more ethics than most of the other animals.

That the reason man is evil is because he either still has animalistic instincts or uses his own power to become evil. That perhaps some of what we think is evil is really not. It's just human or animal survival skills.

That there is no divine intervention of freewill. Nothing predestined. Just things happening by happenstance within the defines of the laws of nature.

Finally no eternal life after death.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 25, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Really?  That's too bad.  Don't go to the Political Forum if you're that thin skinned.


1) What did I say that made reference to the receiver of the "making fun of", or to myself, other than my understanding of humor?
2) My intended reference was what I was taught as a child were good manners, or common courtesy.
3) I read a little on the PF a few years ago—haven't been back.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 25, 2018)

bullethead said:


> What word did I insert in another thread?
> 
> And did you honestly have to condense down what I said in order to say one thing twice?
> I was very clear when it was said the first time.


Spotlite - "_I found this one time when researching evolution.
https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/"_

bullet_ - "You found that "interesting" while "researching" evolution....
Oh BROTHER!, david,..
From the ABOUT link on the website you linked:…………."_

I rarely forget what is said 

There was no need to dwell on the believer having a lot to prove, we have been told plenty of times we are required to do so, but it is a rare find when a non believer states that they have a lot to prove as well. If condensing your post to focus on one point without changing the intent is an issue, I will refrain from doing that in the future. I am editing the post to include all of your comment


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Spotlite - "_I found this one time when researching evolution.
> https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/"_
> 
> bullet_ - "You found that "interesting" while "researching" evolution....
> ...


I did not "quote" your comment and change the quote to suit me.
I quoted what you said, and then replied to it.

It seems that while you rarely forget what is said, you remember it incorrectly.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I did not "quote" your comment and change the quote to suit me.
> I quoted what you said, and then replied to it.
> 
> It seems that while you rarely forget what is said, you remember it incorrectly.


Yea, more than one way to skin a cat - emphasizing on “found it interesting” changed the intent because it came with a long explanation of the link, almost trying to justify evolution.........the intent was Christianity is thrown under the bus for not all being in agreement by the same ones trusting others that are not in 100% agreement. “Pot calling the kettle black” was the intent, bullet, not that I found the content interesting. 

I’m not debating a play on words battle, it’s fixed, and now used as a diversion and didn’t make a difference in what you posted. Carry on solo over that if you if you please. 

But for the said post, maybe you didn’t intend on placing a burden of proof on those saying FOR SURE there is no God or god.....but it’s there and a burden of proof does come with any and all claims.

If a person is for sure, my question is when one states “no God or god did it” or “your God is a myth” or the sarcastic “invisible friend”............why are they not providing proof rather than the canned response of “burden of proof rest on the one claiming there is a God” ??? (We know how that lack of evidence is evidence thingy works, that’s not the answer) 

If they’re not for sure, why are they making unsubstantiated claims, you know, the same kind of claims that Christians make when they give God credit? More pot calling kettle black??? 

I’m asking in general, and if you don’t know that’s fine, maybe we could just refer back to the statement here about a lot to prove and unsubstantiated claims when it comes back up in another thread.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Yea, more than one way to skin a cat - emphasizing on “found it interesting” changed the intent because it came with a long explanation of the link, almost trying to justify evolution.........the intent was Christianity is thrown under the bus for not all being in agreement by the same ones trusting others that are not in 100% agreement. “Pot calling the kettle black” was the intent, bullet, not that I found the content interesting.
> 
> I’m not debating a play on words battle, it’s fixed, and now used as a diversion and didn’t make a difference in what you posted. Carry on solo over that if you if you please.
> 
> ...



The burden of proof does not lay significantly more heavily on the side of the thesis or the antithesis ("significantly" because there are claims that, to a minor degree create exceptions).  Such claims are simply a red herring.

The exceptions to the above are absurdities, which claims of physicality and supernaturality are proven not to be by their long, long, long history.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Yea, more than one way to skin a cat - emphasizing on “found it interesting” changed the intent because it came with a long explanation of the link, almost trying to justify evolution.........the intent was Christianity is thrown under the bus for not all being in agreement by the same ones trusting others that are not in 100% agreement. “Pot calling the kettle black” was the intent, bullet, not that I found the content interesting.
> 
> I’m not debating a play on words battle, it’s fixed, and now used as a diversion and didn’t make a difference in what you posted. Carry on solo over that if you if you please.
> 
> ...


Tell me in detail how you can prove something does not exist. Honest. I am dying to know.


It is impossible simply because there is no evidence to be had, therefore non existent until proven otherwise.

If you tell me you have a very strong mouse that can fly and sings "here I come to save the day... " then provide evidence. Until then me saying such a thing does not exist because of lack of evidence holds more clout than you saying it does exist due to the lack of evidence.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> The burden of proof does not lay significantly more heavily on the side of the thesis or the antithesis ("significantly" because there are claims that, to a minor degree create exceptions).  Such claims are simply a red herring.
> 
> The exceptions to the above are absurdities, which claims of physicality and supernaturality are proven not to be by their long, long, long history.


Agreed.
Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> But for the said post, maybe you didn’t intend on placing a burden of proof on those saying FOR SURE there is no God or god.....but it’s there and a burden of proof does come with any and all claims.



"Anyone that claims to know FOR SURE that there is a god or there is not a god has a lot to prove. All it takes is just enough of whatever either decides is evidence to convince that particular individual."
That post I made could not be more clear as to what I intended.



Spotlite said:


> If a person is for sure, my question is when one states “no God or god did it” or “your God is a myth” or the sarcastic “invisible friend”............why are they not providing proof rather than the canned response of “burden of proof rest on the one claiming there is a God” ??? (We know how that lack of evidence is evidence thingy works, that’s not the answer)


I don't know if you are familiar with the way the legal system works, the LACK of evidence or PREPONDERANCE of evidence absolutely decides the answer.



Spotlite said:


> If they’re not for sure, why are they making unsubstantiated claims, you know, the same kind of claims that Christians make when they give God credit? More pot calling kettle black???
> 
> I’m asking in general, and if you don’t know that’s fine, maybe we could just refer back to the statement here about a lot to prove and unsubstantiated claims when it comes back up in another thread.


I was talking about whatever unsubstantiated evidence that individuals use to justify to themselves. That may not hold up anywhere else.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Agreed.
> Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence.


Yep.
Extra-ordinary claims require Extra-ordinary evidence.
Metaphysical claims require Metaphysical evidence.
Physical claims require physical evidence.
Attempting to define out either is absurd.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Tell me in detail how you can prove something does not exist. Honest. I am dying to know.
> 
> 
> It is impossible simply because there is no evidence to be had, therefore non existent until proven otherwise.
> ...


Don’t create another diversion.

This isn’t about me telling you anything or what holds more clout. It’s asking you for justification of telling me that God isn’t in one post and telling me that to say that FOR SURE has a lot to prove in anothe. Either you know or you don’t, if you know, I’d like the a lot to prove be brought out, if you don’t know, can you tell us why you’re making unsubstantiated claims and requiring proof from others?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> "Anyone that claims to know FOR SURE that there is a god or there is not a god has a lot to prove. All it takes is just enough of whatever either decides is evidence to convince that particular individual."
> That post I made could not be more clear as to what I intended.
> 
> 
> ...


Yes I’m familiar with the legal system. On the same token, a lack of evidence only means that. It’s not necessarily proof of anything. It’s just enough to convince a said audience at the time. Future findings could change that outcome. 

The rest, I agree with, and if it’s a personal issue that God isn't real for you, I can respect that stance.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 26, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Yep.
> Extra-ordinary claims require Extra-ordinary evidence.
> Metaphysical claims require Metaphysical evidence.
> Physical claims require physical evidence.
> Attempting to defining out either is absurd.


Which category(s) does the claim "the Christian God in fact exists" fall into?


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 26, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Which category(s) does the claim "the Christian God in fact exists" fall into?


Your question indicates that we are not participating in the same conversation.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 26, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Your question indicates that we are not participating in the same conversation.


You gave different categories for types of claims.
I made a claim and asked what category it fit into.

I think its better we cease trying to communicate if something that basic cant be addressed.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 26, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> You gave different categories for types of claims.
> I made a claim and asked what category it fit into.
> 
> I think its better we cease trying to communicate if something that basic cant be addressed.


If memory serves, this where I accept your proposal and you come back with a series of disparagements and accusations.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Don’t create another diversion.
> 
> This isn’t about me telling you anything or what holds more clout. It’s asking you for justification of telling me that God isn’t in one post and telling me that to say that FOR SURE has a lot to prove in anothe. Either you know or you don’t, if you know, I’d like the a lot to prove be brought out, if you don’t know, can you tell us why you’re making unsubstantiated claims and requiring proof from others?


It is not a diversion.
You expect me to provide evidence against something that isnt there.

It is like you pointing to an area on a white wall and claiming that there is a  6" purple spot on it. There is no color purple there, there is no purple paint, the wall is completely white from top to bottom, left to right. There is nothing there. I can provide nothing else other than what evidence is already there that shows a white wall. If you want to continue to say it is purple, then the burden of proof is on you. Saying, "well it could be purple later and you cannot be sure that from now and 100,000 years from now it won'tbe purple"...isnt evidence that it is in fact purple.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Yes I’m familiar with the legal system. On the same token, a lack of evidence only means that. It’s not necessarily proof of anything. It’s just enough to convince a said audience at the time. Future findings could change that outcome.
> 
> The rest, I agree with, and if it’s a personal issue that God isn't real for you, I can respect that stance.


So how long is long enough to wait to see if whatever is possible actually comes to fruition?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> It is not a diversion.
> You expect me to provide evidence against something that isnt there.
> 
> It is like you pointing to an area on a white wall and claiming that there is a  6" purple spot on it. There is no color purple there, there is no purple paint, the wall is completely white from top to bottom, left to right. There is nothing there. I can provide nothing else other than what evidence is already there that shows a white wall. If you want to continue to say it is purple, then the burden of proof is on you. Saying, "well it could be purple later and you cannot be sure that from now and 100,000 years from now it won'tbe purple"...isnt evidence that it is in fact purple.


That's a pretty good analogy but.....
You just cant see the purple because you don't believe its there


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> That's a pretty good analogy but.....
> You just cant see the purple because you don't believe its there


Well, yeah!
Anything is possible when you suspend reality.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> So how long is long enough to wait to see if whatever is possible actually comes to fruition?


It’s fruition for us now, it’s working just as explained in scripture. 

I know you’ll ask how do I know which God / god.....

As long as it’s working, I know at least one.....I guess he’s just coincidentally doing it in a manner that coincides with the scriptures I believe in. 

If it’s just luck of the draw that can happen to anyone.......I guess it’s just again coincidentally happening every time. I may need to buy lottery tickets.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> It is not a diversion.
> You expect me to provide evidence against something that isnt there.
> 
> It is like you pointing to an area on a white wall and claiming that there is a  6" purple spot on it. There is no color purple there, there is no purple paint, the wall is completely white from top to bottom, left to right. There is nothing there. I can provide nothing else other than what evidence is already there that shows a white wall. If you want to continue to say it is purple, then the burden of proof is on you. Saying, "well it could be purple later and you cannot be sure that from now and 100,000 years from now it won'tbe purple"...isnt evidence that it is in fact purple.


I only expect you to provide evidence if you know for sure it isn’t, that’s at least consistent with your post. If you rely on most likely, then ok. That’s not the same as FOR SURE.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I only expect you to provide evidence if you know for sure it isn’t, that’s at least consistent with your post. If you rely on most likely, then ok. That’s not the same as FOR SURE.


Honest spotlite, how would you provide evidence of something that you were sure did not exist?
Please give me an example of how I can go about that.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2018)

Below in between the two stars is my lengthy detailed evidence that shows exactly why something that does not exist, does not in fact exist. 

*                                 *


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> That's a pretty good analogy but.....
> You just cant see the purple because you don't believe its there


Or......you could be color blind and convinced it’s not there.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2018)

Proving Non-Existence

Description: Demanding that one proves the non-existence of something in place of providing adequate evidence for the existence of that something.  Although it may be possible to prove non-existence in special situations, such as showing that a container does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence.  The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims.

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn’t.

If you can’t, X exists.

Example #1:

God exists.  Until you can prove otherwise, I will continue to believe that he does.

Explanation: There are decent reasons to believe in the existence of God, but, “because the existence of God cannot be disproven”, is not one of them.

Example #2:

Sheila: I know Elvis’ ghost is visiting me in my dreams.

Ron: Yeah, I don’t think that really is his ghost.

Sheila: Prove that it’s not!

Explanation: Once again we are dealing with confusion of probability and possibility.  The inability to, “prove”, in any sense of the word, that the ghost of Elvis is not visiting Sheila in her dreams is an impossible request because there is no test that proves the existence and presence of a ghost, so no way to prove the negative or the non-existence.  It is up to Sheila to provide proof of this claim, or at least acknowledge that actually being visited by Elvis’ ghost is just a possibility, no matter how slim that possibility is.

Exception: If Ron were to say, “That is impossible”, “there is no way you are being visited”, or make some other claim that rules out any possibility no matter how remote (or crazy), then Sheila would be in the right to ask him for proof -- as long as she is making a point that he cannot know that for certain, and not actually expecting him to produce proof.

Tip: If you think you are being visited by aliens, gods, spirits, ghosts, or any other magical beings, just ask them for information that you can verify, specifically with a neutral third-party that would prove their existence.  This would be simple for any advanced alien race, any god or heavenly being.  Some ideas of things to ask for:

future lottery numbers (of course you will give all your winnings to charity)

answers to scientific problems that do have scientific answers, but aren’t yet known

exact details of major future events

But if these beings just tell you things such as:

passages / ideas from the Bible

whether you should take that new job or not

where you left your car keys

that they really exist, and others will continue to doubt you

that you should never question their existence

...or anything else which is just as likely to come from your imagination that is untestable and unfalsifiable, then you might want to reconsider the fact that your being of choice is really paying you visits


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> Yep.
> Extra-ordinary claims require Extra-ordinary evidence.
> Metaphysical claims require Metaphysical evidence.
> Physical claims require physical evidence.
> Attempting to define out either is absurd.






WaltL1 said:


> Which category(s) does the claim "the Christian God in fact exists" fall into?





hummerpoo said:


> Your question indicates that we are not participating in the same conversation.



He made a claim, that's clear.  You said claims can be categorized.  Which category does his claim belong to?



hummerpoo said:


> If memory serves, this where I accept your proposal and you come back with a series of disparagements and accusations.



I don't see where he's doing that.  Can you explain what you mean?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Honest spotlite, how would you provide evidence of something that you were sure did not exist?
> Please give me an example of how I can go about that.


Well I’m in the same boat.......most likely Bigfoot isn’t out there. I don’t see it as a possibility either. But what am I to tell a man that said he saw him? How do I tell him he didn’t see what I say isn’t there? I’m only left with I just don’t believe it because I’ve not found anything to support it.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Or......you could be color blind and convinced it’s not there.




Now we're getting somewhere.   What you are claiming, in regards to the purple dot analogy, is that we don't have the proper _ability _to see the dot, which you claim you have_.  _Your claim is either that non-believers in the purple dot _have_ the ability to see it but refuse to access it, as if somehow all people have the ability to see in another wavelength but either just don't know how to access the ability or refuse to, or that believers have been _given_ the ability to see in a different wavelength than non-believers. 

Tell you what.  I can use my imagination and there is the purple dot, real as anything.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Or......you could be color blind and convinced it’s not there.


But I am not color blind.
Use an empty bucket. You say it is filled with fairies dancing and singing.
But when I look in the bucket there are no fairies. I reach my hand in the bucket and there are no fairies to feel. There is nothing but a bucket and air. If I  pick up the bucket and weight it, it weighs exactly as much as another empty bucket. There is no vibration from the dancing, and no noise from the singing.

The proof that it is empty is the fact that there is absolutely nothing but air in the bucket. A person cannot go into more detail than that.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Well I’m in the same boat.......most likely Bigfoot isn’t out there. I don’t see it as a possibility either. But what am I to tell a man that said he saw him? How do I tell him he didn’t see what I say isn’t there? I’m only left with I just don’t believe it because I’ve not found anything to support it.




You use evidence and logic to come to the conclusion.  You can even categorize it:  "Less possible in North Georgia", "More possible in the Pacific Northwest", "Even more possible in the Arctic".  Based on something like "Population Density".


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Oct 26, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> SFD doesn't care.
> It makes him feel good to say these things regardless of how ridiculous they are.
> You can prove him wrong 1,000 times over and he will still go back for his fix.



SFD understands the noun “doctrine” can be singular in form.  Atheist like to keep it plural because it better helps the argument “Atheism isn’t a worldview.”  Shallow, shallow, shallow.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Or......you could be color blind and convinced it’s not there.


Science has come up with those new fangled color blindness correction glasses.
For $20 you could prove there is color there regardless of what he is convinced of.
Thank you science


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> But I am not color blind.
> Use an empty bucket. You say it is filled with fairies dancing and singing.
> But when I look in the bucket there are no fairies. I reach my hand in the bucket and there are no fairies to feel. There is nothing but a bucket and air. If I  pick up the bucket and weight it, it weighs exactly as much as another empty bucket. There is no vibration from the dancing, and no noise from the singing.
> 
> The proof that it is empty is the fact that there is absolutely nothing but air in the bucket. A person cannot go into more detail than that.




You're using the wrong tool (or sensory apparatus) to see the angels.  The closest thing I can understand to use to see the angels is my imagination.

Imagine a bonfire on the floor just to the right of you wherever you are right now.  Feel the heat warming you.  Smell the smoke. Feel it burning your eyes.  Can you imagine training yourself to such a degree that you might feel your hand burn if you touched it?   It seems entirely possible that one could do that.  Who could tell you there is no bonfire there?  That seems to be the best sensory tool to experience what they describe.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Science has come up with those new fangled color blindness correction glasses.
> For $20 you could prove there is color there regardless of what he is convinced of.
> Thank you science




Science doesn't have the right tool.  No physical tool exists to measure it.  Do these claims sound more reasonable or more silly coming from me?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 26, 2018)

SemperFiDawg said:


> SFD understands the noun “doctrine” can be singular in form.  Atheist like to keep it plural because it better helps the argument “Atheism isn’t a worldview.”  Shallow, shallow, shallow.


Waiting on that list of Atheist doctrine...………..
Remember I already said "other than not believing gods exist".


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Well I’m in the same boat.......most likely Bigfoot isn’t out there. I don’t see it as a possibility either. But what am I to tell a man that said he saw him? How do I tell him he didn’t see what I say isn’t there? I’m only left with I just don’t believe it because I’ve not found anything to support it.


And since people have been searching for bigfoot not a single one has been able to provide a clear picture of one, a dead body, a live body, a single DNA sample or literally ANYTHING that proves it is a bigfoot.
On the other hand, EVERYTHING that has been submitted as evidence of bigfoot such as those things has been refuted, debunked and shown to be a hoax. Which is great evidence against.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Science doesn't have the right tool.  No physical tool exists to measure it.  Do these claims sound more reasonable or more silly coming from me?



That's the "problem" that Harris sees and that I agree with.  If you say you're religious, it gives you cover to make weirdo claims about things that society wouldn't grant you if you made them outside of a religious context.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 26, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Science doesn't have the right tool.  No physical tool exists to measure it.  Do these claims sound more reasonable or more silly coming from me?


Equally inaccurate


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> You're using the wrong tool (or sensory apparatus) to see the angels.  The closest thing I can understand to use to see the angels is my imagination.
> 
> Imagine a bonfire on the floor just to the right of you wherever you are right now.  Feel the heat warming you.  Smell the smoke. Feel it burning your eyes.  Can you imagine training yourself to such a degree that you might feel your hand burn if you touched it?   It seems entirely possible that one could do that.  Who could tell you there is no bonfire there?  That seems to be the best sensory tool to experience what they describe.


But the reality is, there is no bonfire despite what anyone believes.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Now we're getting somewhere.   What you are claiming, in regards to the purple dot analogy, is that we don't have the proper _ability _to see the dot, which you claim you have_.  _Your claim is either that non-believers in the purple dot _have_ the ability to see it but refuse to access it, as if somehow all people have the ability to see in another wavelength but either just don't know how to access the ability or refuse to, or that believers have been given the ability to see in a different wavelength than non-believers.
> 
> Tell you what.  I can use my imagination and there is the purple dot, real as anything.




This is actually quite an amusing game. I can change the hue and shade of the dot at will and I think this reveals something about why there are so many denominations.  
"It says purlple.  My purple is kind of lavender, soft and gentle".  
"NO!!! It's more like grape jelly!!  Deep and rich."  
"No no, no, no NO!!!!!  You're both wrong!!! It's obviously the purple of royalty, like on King James' underwear!!"


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> But the reality is, there is no bonfire despite what anyone believes.



Tell that to a schizoprhrenic.  That's not a dig on believers.  It's an observation about how powerful belief and the mind are.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Tell that to a schizoprhrenic.  That's not a dig on believers.  It's an observation about how powerful belief and the mind are.


Again, to the individual it is real. 
Not real in reality.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Tell that to a schizoprhrenic.  That's not a dig on believers.  It's an observation about how powerful belief and the mind are.



Can "normal" people induce schizophrenia in themselves?  I've brushed up to it with chemicals so I know that we're capable of it.  Could there be a way to access it that's subtle and profound, something that we wouldn't call "imagination"?  "I'm picturing what it might be like to lose my daughter tragically and to go into her room and "feel" her as I lie in her empty bed.  That would be powerful stuff.  It would take all my strength not to stay there.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Again, to the individual it is real.
> Not real in reality.



"Reality".  That's a good discussion.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Can "normal" people induce schizophrenia in themselves?  I've brushed up to it with chemicals so I know that we're capable of it.  Could there be a way to access it that's subtle and profound, something that we wouldn't call "imagination"?  "I'm picturing what it might be like to lose my daughter tragically and to go into her room and "feel" her as I lie in her empty bed.  That would be powerful stuff.  It would take all my strength not to stay there.



That's not true.  I think reality would snap me out of it eventually because I know that she's not there.  But what if I still felt her "spirit"; a part of her that can't be seen or smelled or recorded in any way?  Is that really there or not?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 26, 2018)

SFD here's why we cant follow your thinking -
I said -


> Like I said Atheism has no doctrine other than the lack of belief in the existence of gods.
> Why don't you do us all a favor and list the rest.


That's one. Lack of belief in the existence of gods.
Your translation -


> Atheist like to keep it plural because it better helps the argument


plural = more than one. The exact opposite of what I said.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> That's not true.  I think reality would snap me out of it eventually because I know that she's not there.  But what if I still felt her "spirit"; a part of her that can't be seen or smelled or recorded in any way?  Is that really there or not?


You have quoted and answered yourself a few times already,  you may be in the midst of an episode now!!! Lololol


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> SFD here's why we cant follow your thinking -
> I said -
> 
> That's one. Lack of belief in the existence of gods.
> ...


He just likes to hear himself. Blah blah blah, meme, blah blah blah, morals, blah blah blah, atheist...and on and on.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> You have quoted and answered yourself a few times already,  you may be in the midst of an episode now!!! Lololol



Yeah.  I'm thinking pretty fast and typing pretty slow.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> You have quoted and answered yourself a few times already,  you may be in the midst of an episode now!!! Lololol


Don't tell Ambush I said this but..... I think when he said he took chemicals he meant like he took them 30 minutes ago


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Don't tell Ambush I said this but..... I think when he said he took chemicals he meant like he took them 30 minutes ago




Peaking, Breh!!!!!!!


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 26, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Yeah.  I'm thinking pretty fast and typing pretty slow.


I generally have the exact opposite problem


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

I'm serious, though.  I never thought about belief like that until your "purple dot" analogy.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I generally have the exact opposite problem



God help us if I ever get some software like Dragon where it writes what I say. I'd drown out Isreal.   Look how much I spew with just my two pointer fingers.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I'm serious, though.  I never thought about belief like that until your "purple dot" analogy.


I am right along with you. I know what you are saying and I follow.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> I am right along with you. I know what you are saying and I follow.



Do you think I'm on to something?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Equally inaccurate



How so?


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think I'm on to something?


If you mean that: in an individuals mind their version of evidence can and does differ from what testable and verifiable evidence actually is... then yes. But I don't think it is new or groundbreaking.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> But I am not color blind.
> Use an empty bucket. You say it is filled with fairies dancing and singing.
> But when I look in the bucket there are no fairies. I reach my hand in the bucket and there are no fairies to feel. There is nothing but a bucket and air. If I  pick up the bucket and weight it, it weighs exactly as much as another empty bucket. There is no vibration from the dancing, and no noise from the singing.
> 
> The proof that it is empty is the fact that there is absolutely nothing but air in the bucket. A person cannot go into more detail than that.


I’m good with that bullet. Maybe you’ll find them the next time you reachbin the bucket. Others have.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Science has come up with those new fangled color blindness correction glasses.
> For $20 you could prove there is color there regardless of what he is convinced of.
> Thank you science


Lol it was just an analogy.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Now we're getting somewhere.   What you are claiming, in regards to the purple dot analogy, is that we don't have the proper _ability _to see the dot, which you claim you have_.  _Your claim is either that non-believers in the purple dot _have_ the ability to see it but refuse to access it, as if somehow all people have the ability to see in another wavelength but either just don't know how to access the ability or refuse to, or that believers have been _given_ the ability to see in a different wavelength than non-believers.
> 
> Tell you what.  I can use my imagination and there is the purple dot, real as anything.


For imagination purposes only, yea you’re in the right track.

But no, I only sugggested that maybe the reason a person couldn’t see the purple was due to color blindness. You may have other reasons. And for you, it may very well not be there.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> You use evidence and logic to come to the conclusion.  You can even categorize it:  "Less possible in North Georgia", "More possible in the Pacific Northwest", "Even more possible in the Arctic".  Based on something like "Population Density".


That’s fair. God is more possible to the believer than the non believer.


----------



## bullethead (Oct 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I’m good with that bullet. Maybe you’ll find them the next time you reachbin the bucket. Others have.


Insert gif of Lurch shaking his head and saying Uh-oh-Uh-oh-Uh-oh here. 

Where has anyone reached in a bucket and found fairies spotlite?
I mean in spotlite's realm of endless possibilities that never ever, ever never come true...yeah, but show me where else.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> Insert gif of Lurch shaking his head and saying Uh-oh-Uh-oh-Uh-oh here.
> 
> Where has anyone reached in a bucket and found fairies spotlite?
> I mean in spotlite's realm of endless possibilities that never ever, ever never come true...yeah, but show me where else.


You were looking for them lol ?

In all fairness, you’re not supposed to use an analogy for facts lol

But since you did, I will fall back on this, I’m a Christian and therefore I sometimes don’t always think before I speak because I like to be just as surprised as everyone else. 

I will put the buckets away now. Maybe next time you can play with the purple ones ?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

bullethead said:


> If you mean that: in an individuals mind their version of evidence can and does differ from what testable and verifiable evidence actually is... then yes. But I don't think it is new or groundbreaking.



Of course it's not groundbreaking but I like how it relates to the subject at hand.  Watch.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> I'm serious, though.  I never thought about belief like that until your "purple dot" analogy.


But ambush, belief is only a portion of this. If it was left simply at I believe, I’d be in your team right now.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> For imagination purposes only, yea you’re in the right track.
> 
> But no, I only sugggested that maybe the reason a person couldn’t see the purple was due to color blindness. You may have other reasons. And for you, it may very well not be there.



Two questions:

1. Do you "see the dot" because you have an ability that I don't have?
2. Do I have the ability but don't know how to use it?

As far as "And for you, it may very well not be there."  Can that be used the same way to talk about Bigfoot?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> That’s fair. God is more possible to the believer than the non believer.



Exactly.  That's why people who want to see Bigfoot or ghosts or flying saucers see them.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> But ambush, belief is only a portion of this. If it was left simply at I believe, I’d be in your team right now.



Fair enough.  You say "there's a dot".  1/3 of the world agrees with you.  But then you ALL say "You can't see the dot with your regular vision.  You need this 'special kind' of vision to see it".  Then you all have different descriptions of the dot.  Should we really say that the dot is real anymore at that point?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 26, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Two questions:
> 
> 1. Do you "see the dot" because you have an ability that I don't have?
> 2. Do I have the ability but don't know how to use it?
> ...


I believe you have the ability but you’ve allowed doubt to restrict you. 

Yes, Bigfoot May very well not be there.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> But ambush, belief is only a portion of this. If it was left simply at I believe, I’d be in your team right now.



What are the other parts besides just belief.  You're so close to talking about evidence right now.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I believe you have the ability but you’ve allowed doubt to restrict you.
> 
> Yes, Bigfoot May very well not be there.



There you go.  Now we're in business.  So I _have_ the ability to "see" another realm that I don't access because of doubt, but if I shed my doubt, meaning I believed that I had the ability, then the dot would be plain as day?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I believe you have the ability but you’ve allowed doubt to restrict you.
> 
> Yes, Bigfoot May very well not be there.



What do you perceive would cause an individual or nation to believe in a false god or gods? 
Why do many Christians believe it is better to believe an "any" god than no god at all?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> What do you perceive would cause an individual or nation to believe in a false god or gods?
> Why do many Christians believe it is better to believe an "any" god than no god at all?



You've brought this up a couple of times now and I know you want to discuss it.  The answer that a Christian would give to this question "What do you perceive would cause an individual or nation to believe in a false god or gods?" might be "They are blinded or deceived by Satan".

To your second question "Why do many Christians believe it is better to believe an "any" god than no god at all?". It's because people who believe in Bigfoot have empathy for people who believe in the Loch Ness Monster.  Indeed, they gather in like minded conventions.

http://www.creatureweekend.com/

Don't you recognize that one of the major criticisms that we non-believers have of Christians is that they think believers in Mohammad are stupid but their belief in Jesus is OK?  Imagine overhearing someone at the convention I linked above at a Bigfoot booth talking about the "crazy people" at the Werewolf booth.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 26, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> You've brought this up a couple of times now and I know you want to discuss it.  The answer that a Christian would give to this question "What do you perceive would cause an individual or nation to believe in a false god or gods?" might be "They are blinded or deceived by Satan".
> 
> To your second question "Why do many Christians believe it is better to believe an "any" god than no god at all?". It's because people who believe in Bigfoot have empathy for people who believe in the Loch Ness Monster.  Indeed, they gather in like minded conventions.
> 
> ...



That would be funny.

Still though many Christians would join forces with the Hindu and Jews to go after the Atheist. I guess maybe it's like countries do in a world war. Ally with the ones they don't particularly agree with.

I'm reminded of fraternities that only require a belief in any God. Maybe that's enough in common to rub elbows for some people.

Then there are some who say just a belief in any god is enough to get your morals and ethics from that god. Even if that god is false. I don't see how a Christian can use the lack of morality argument against an Atheist and not the Hindu.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 26, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> That would be funny.
> 
> Still though many Christians would join forces with the Hindu and Jews to go after the Atheist. I guess maybe it's like countries do in a world war. Ally with the ones they don't particularly agree with.
> 
> ...



"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

You guys give cover to each other.  You will align at "There is a God" even though you will disagree in which one.  That's something. 

As Sam Harris said "There's no reason to do good things for bad reasons when perfectly good reasons exist".


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 26, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> I believe you have the ability but you’ve allowed doubt to restrict you.
> 
> Yes, Bigfoot May very well not be there.


Same thing for those of us that were believers and now aren't?
We had the ability for years and then we allowed doubt to restrict that ability?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 26, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> That would be funny.
> 
> Still though many Christians would join forces with the Hindu and Jews to go after the Atheist. I guess maybe it's like countries do in a world war. Ally with the ones they don't particularly agree with.
> 
> ...


To me "oh yeah I believe in a god but it aint yours" is "worse" than not believing in any gods.
At least not believing in any gods puts your god at the same level of their god.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 26, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> To me "oh yeah I believe in a god but it aint yours" is "worse" than not believing in any gods.
> At least not believing in any gods puts your god at the same level of their god.



For some reason though there is this notion from some Christians that a belief in any god is better than not believing in any god. That if one can at least believe in a god it shows something more than a belief in no god.
I can't figure out what that "something" is. From a Christian perspective why is that better? Why a fraternity requirement, just believe in any god. I can't wrap my head around that concept.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 27, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> For some reason though there is this notion from some Christians that a belief in any god is better than not believing in any god. That if one can at least believe in a god it shows something more than a belief in no god.
> I can't figure out what that "something" is. From a Christian perspective why is that better? Why a fraternity requirement, just believe in any god. I can't wrap my head around that concept.


If there was  common belief among Christians that all the other gods was really the Christian God but in a different "form", I could see it. But, I don't know how common that is. Don't hear it a lot. I think I remember you bringing it up as a possibility one time.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> For some reason though there is this notion from some Christians that a belief in any god is better than not believing in any god. That if one can at least believe in a god it shows something more than a belief in no god.
> I can't figure out what that "something" is. From a Christian perspective why is that better? Why a fraternity requirement, just believe in any god. I can't wrap my head around that concept.



The common denominator seems to me to be that at least you all believe in some supreme being.  You guys agree that there is some good reason to believe in a God.  It doesn't matter as much what that reason is., until you want to kill each other over it.


----------



## Israel (Oct 27, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> That's the "problem" that Harris sees and that I agree with.  If you say you're religious, it gives you cover to make weirdo claims about things that society wouldn't grant you if you made them outside of a religious context.



I don't think I disagree. Or at least in seeing the certain operation of a contextually driven assumption.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 27, 2018)

Israel said:


> I don't think I disagree. Or at least in seeing the certain operation of a contextually driven assumption.


And I think I support your position.  However, I'm not sure I have properly categorized his objective term "weirdo claims".


----------



## Israel (Oct 27, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> If there was  common belief among Christians that all the other gods was really the Christian God but in a different "form", I could see it. But, I don't know how common that is. Don't hear it a lot. I think I remember you bringing it up as a possibility one time.



Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, _Ye_ men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by _that_ man whom he hath ordained; _whereof_ he hath given assurance unto all _men_, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this _matter_. So Paul departed from among them. Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which _was_ Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.


----------



## Israel (Oct 27, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Exactly.  That's why people who want to see Bigfoot or ghosts or flying saucers see them.



If god is object, then "it" is not God.


----------



## Israel (Oct 27, 2018)

hummerpoo said:


> And I think I support your position.  However, I'm not sure I have properly categorized his objective term "weirdo claims".



I understand.

I don't know "all" that Harris or Ambush (if _in agreement) _would categorize as such. My being able to think of a few is probably not helpful, only speculation.

But I am inclined toward that "non disagreement"_ if_ my understanding is at least in some part, consistent with theirs.

If I hear _complaint _it falls somewhere along the line of finding fault in this proposition: "religious views are (in some way) sacrosanct, and therefore off limits to derision, rejection (or any number of less than acceptable responses established by the proponent)  as result of examination"
So when a man may say "I am religious" he is automatically inserted into that place, and therefore, has right to claim (and _does indeed_ claim) exemption from whatever he may deem "illegitimate" examination.

In short...everything I do not see to this point, in Jesus Christ.

It's interesting to note though that this is _contextually driven _only "in the west" so to speak. For there a many places where: 



> it gives you cover to make weirdo claims about things that society wouldn't grant you



this does not take place.

Which (I don't really know if it) is lost on Sam Harris.

I think it's not lost at all on this man. Even if he does not understand the fundamentals of it.

https://www.breitbart.com/national-...christianity-bulwark-against-something-worse/


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 27, 2018)

Israel said:


> I understand.
> 
> I don't know "all" that Harris or Ambush (if _in agreement) _would categorize as such. My being able to think of a few is probably not helpful, only speculation.
> 
> ...


I think you will find this is a much more common view among AAs than you might think. I know we here on this forum have expressed the same a number of times -


> “There are no Christians, as far as I know, blowing up buildings,” Dawkins said. “I am not aware of any Christian suicide bombers. I am not aware of any major Christian denomination that believes the penalty for apostasy is death.”
> “I have mixed feelings about the decline of Christianity, in so far as Christianity might be a bulwark against something worse,” he said.


I personally think this statement is crap -


> Referring to the clerical sex abuse crisis, Dawkins wrote that as “horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.”


----------



## Israel (Oct 27, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I think you will find this is a much more common view among AAs than you might think. I know we here on this forum have expressed the same a number of times -
> 
> I personally think this statement is crap -



Not sure so asking...did you mean the crap (how did that ever sneak through...when the other word for further... farther ...gets the gas taken out of it?)was this statement:



> Referring to the clerical sex abuse crisis, Dawkins wrote that as “horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.”


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 27, 2018)

Israel said:


> Not sure so asking...did you mean the crap (how did that ever sneak through...when the other word for further... farther ...gets the gas taken out of it?)was this statement:


Yes the crap applied to that statement.
In my opinion it shows that supposedly intellectually superior people can still say stupid stuff.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 27, 2018)

By the way Israel just to clarify -
When I said "supposedly intellectually superior people" above, I was referring to Dawkins and not Atheists.
The way I worded it could leave the wrong impression.


----------



## Israel (Oct 27, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> By the way Israel just to clarify -
> When I said "supposedly intellectually superior people" above, I was referring to Dawkins and not Atheists.
> The way I worded it could leave the wrong impression.



That's the way I heard it. The way you are saying you intended.

LOL...don't worry, there's no way it_ could be taken_ to be offensive.
(But that's _only if_ you were concerned about offense)


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2018)

Israel said:


> I don't think I disagree. Or at least in seeing the certain operation of a contextually driven assumption.





hummerpoo said:


> And I think I support your position.  However, I'm not sure I have properly categorized his objective term "weirdo claims".



I meant claims like "I hear the voice of God".  That in itself makes interesting things happen.  If by God you mean Zeus it will draw more snickers than if you mean Jesus, but if you say "I hear the voice of Allah" to a Christian they might think that you're really hearing the voice of another mythical creature instead, like Satan.

It's more acceptable for a Native American to say "I heard the voice of my dead grandfather" than it would if an Anglo said it.  Everybody knows that that _their_ schtick.


Odd stuff....


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2018)

Israel said:


> I understand.
> 
> I don't know "all" that Harris or Ambush (if _in agreement) _would categorize as such. My being able to think of a few is probably not helpful, only speculation.
> 
> ...




Douglass Murray is a huge believer in this as well and he makes equally good arguments.  Maybe one day atheists will be persuaded by Peterson's analysis of the utility of religion for some people and will realize that maybe in the net it's better to let them keep their Boogey Men, so long as it's the right kind of Boogey Men.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2018)

Isreal and Hummerpoo,

What do you think of the "purple dot" analogy?  Is it useful at all in regards to the discussion of  faith or belief or truth?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2018)

A question for believers, what if I or Bullethead or Walt said in our next post "I heard the voice of God.  I'm certain of it."  Would you rejoice?  Would you tell us to go see a shrink?  Would it depend on what He said to us?  What if we said it was Allah?


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 27, 2018)

Artfuldodger said:


> What do you perceive would cause an individual or nation to believe in a false god or gods?
> Why do many Christians believe it is better to believe an "any" god than no god at all?


People are and can be mislead for many reasons. Think of the Jim Jones congregation.

I don’t know that it’s better to just believe in anything. If there’s no purpose / conviction from within, there’s really no need in them believing anything just to please others.


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 27, 2018)

Israel said:


> That's the way I heard it. The way you are saying you intended.
> 
> LOL...don't worry, there's no way it_ could be taken_ to be offensive.
> (But that's _only if_ you were concerned about offense)


Depends on who I am talking to.
Some folks I am more concerned about unintentionally offending than others.
Mostly I was concerned about accurately communicating my thoughts.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 27, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> Same thing for those of us that were believers and now aren't?
> We had the ability for years and then we allowed doubt to restrict that ability?


Did doubt cause you to look at other options? 

Honestly, I don’t know what you had or didn’t have, I can only take your word. Whatever you had.......there’s a reason you looked the other way, only you know what that is. I’m just assuming it started with doubt?


----------



## WaltL1 (Oct 27, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Did doubt cause you to look at other options?
> 
> Honestly, I don’t know what you had or didn’t have, I can only take your word. Whatever you had.......there’s a reason you looked the other way, only you know what that is. I’m just assuming it started with doubt?


I guess yes, but it didn't start with doubt in God.
It started with doubt in organized religion. My belief in God was the last thing to go and I really tried to avoid that.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 27, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> What are the other parts besides just belief.  You're so close to talking about evidence right now.


Experience, and that’s rejected as evidence.

The primary experience after believing begins with the in filling of the spirit.

That’s something that you can feel. 

One reason I say that science will never ever be able to test that is because they don’t know what it is in order to recreate or simulate it to test to figure out what “possibly” is going on. Only a fool would step up and say he could be the test subject knowing that’s it God given, so how is that simulated or recreated?

The reference to the overwhelming sensation or happiness you get that’s compared to a concert or ballgame isn’t it. I know the difference between what a Christian experiences and a home run hit or a upbeat song or any other poor attempts of descriptions........and those are the  most off topic, out in the left field descriptions there is and a good indicator that they really are clueless about this.

For the rest, when talking about healings, blessings, etc. Those are  things they can explain and we can understand regardless how it happened, there was a spiritual source to initiate it.

Maybe if science got a little closer on the  primary experience, Christians still would not leave their belief but they’d give science a little more credit in other areas. The misconception is people think we want science to tell us what it is, that is the farthest imiginary concept there is. We are just saying until you get that one right, you don’t have our undivided attention with anything else.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 27, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I guess yes, but it didn't start with doubt in God.
> It started with doubt in organized religion. My belief in God was the last thing to go and I really tried to avoid that.


I too, have issues with “organized” religion. You’re not alone there.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2018)

Spotlite said:


> Experience, and that’s rejected as evidence.



It's a kind of evidence.  But examine how you value the experience of a Muslim or Pananimist.  You may say "There experience was real to them but it wasn't _REAL".  _Or am I assuming too much?



Spotlite said:


> The primary experience after believing begins with the in filling of the spirit.
> 
> That’s something that you can feel.
> 
> ...




Here's one way to think about being filled with the holy spirit:

https://loverev.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/the-neuroscience-of-the-holy-ghost/


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 27, 2018)

WaltL1 said:


> I guess yes, but it didn't start with doubt in God.
> It started with doubt in organized religion. My belief in God was the last thing to go and I really tried to avoid that.


Organized religion is a part of "the world" just as science is.  It just hit me, as I was wondering if I should comment on the differences between the two, that maybe the biggest difference, relative to this forum, is that science (the community of true scientists) knows that it is not "of the spirit" (some recognize there roll as observers) while organized religion is sometimes, perhaps often, confused on that point.

Case on point:


ambush80 said:


> It's a kind of evidence.  But examine how you value the experience of a Muslim or Pananimist.  You may say "There experience was real to them but it wasn't _REAL".  _Or am I assuming too much?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> I should begin this post with a disclaimer that I have no delusions that this is a “final theory” on religious experience, nor do I even assert that this is a comprehensive model for the highly variable phenomena which people ascribe to Christianity specifically, much less religion generally


BTW the recommended reading that he mentions in his next sentence I would consider very bad advice.


----------



## Israel (Oct 27, 2018)

You know...when all is said and done, not any "one" believer is even able to _prove_ to another, he has seen/heard/experienced God. Nor does he have the expectation or "burden" of requirement to even consider doing so. We are made freest to share what may indeed seem most questionable, even with one another, (even weird if you care to see it that way), knowing also that in the sharing it is all "up for grabs" to its discerning. We know (if we know) that the putting it out there is precisely for its picking apart and examination, having relinquished control of it...precisely again..."in the telling". Our confidence is never that we have power to establish any word...and particularly...our own.

That would be an oppressively heavy weight to bear...to be tasked with "making sure" anyone, some, or everyone "knows" you have touched or been touched. That is the burden religion takes to itself (too fine a point?) to try to ensure it is recognized. It's onerous. And endless in demand.

One asked "If we (of some number) said we had just heard something from God...would you..." Can I chuckle without offense? I'm already overjoyed in the broaching of that consideration...for (to me) hearing from God is all and everything that delivers from all care about anyone else's reaction to it.

Were the promise of love and joy dependent upon any of us "getting it right", I can only see love and joy would then be at the very furthest remove, in truth...a _perfect remove._

Why would a man deny what he has tasted to be so very sweet? That's more than rhetorical for me.

I see two men. One in deep regret, being that man who recognizes...he didn't recognize...when he had it good, and took a step he knew forbidden him to make it what it could never be except in vain imagination...better. And _only able_ to learn this in all the pain of knowing it to be so.

And I see a man totally free of vain imagination, walking only in truth. And such that all he says and does quite appears...to be making matters _only the worse_...for himself.

But to see the end of each man...is to begin to apprehend his beginning. One just perfect as "start". One perfect in start...and finish.


----------



## Israel (Oct 27, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> Isreal and Hummerpoo,
> 
> What do you think of the "purple dot" analogy?  Is it useful at all in regards to the discussion of  faith or belief or truth?



I don't find it so.


----------



## hummerpoo (Oct 27, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> It's a kind of evidence.  But examine how you value the experience of a Muslim or Pananimist.  You may say "There experience was real to them but it wasn't _REAL".  _Or am I assuming too much?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




When I was a young man, and some of you were not yet experiencing this world, as deer season approached, I found myself laying in bed each night imagining that I was out in the woods.  In my minds eye a deer would appear, at different distances, moving in different directions, moving in the many ways that deer move, at different speeds.  I would then make a decision whether I should shoot or wait.  If I decided the time was right for a shot I would select the appropriate bullet placement.  That season was a new experience; I saw more deer, was more successful, and enjoyed the experience more because I became part of what I was experiencing.  I probably don’t need to say that I intentionally applied the lesson to future hunts.  Some years later I spotted a buck and doe at a field edge, through a fence row, and about 250 yards away.  Couldn’t make out much with my binoculars because of the brush.  They were a good ways from the property I had permission to hunt and showed no sign of coming my way, so I kept track of them while looking around as usual.  Suddenly they started running diagonally across the field toward the far corner of the property I was on, so I followed them with my scope.  As I followed them they disappeared under the rise between me and them and reappeared running flat out down the fence row on the far side of the small field across the creek from my position.  As I followed the buck my 270 suddenly went off.  I then saw head, rump, and legs traveling in a rotating fashion for about 15 or 20 yards.  I couldn’t see the ground over there because of the contour of the ground and weeds.  As I crouched there, I considered whether I had hallucinated (I had never imaged attempting such a shot at a deer running full speed with nose out and ears laid flat; nor had intentionally done it this time ).  Obviously, the only thing to do was go over there and see what I found.  118 yards away, I found, what I judged to be, a 2 y.o.  6 point buck with a trail of hair, blood, and scuffed ground 18 yds. long leading up to him.  He was hit high in the lungs.  I am not that good of a shot, and I would never try to duplicate that experience.

Do I think that experience is related to what the linked article describes?  Yes, I do.  Do I think that what the author is exploring describes a possible mechanism that effects our experiences in fishing, playing tennis, repairing cars, or laying brick?  Yes, I do.  Do I hope that the author continues his work with the same attitude that he appears to apply to the endeavor?  Yes, I do; he shows every sign of being a keen observer.  Do I think that he is on a path that can lead to discovery of the essential cause of anything?  No, I don’t, and that does not appear to be the task that he has set about, rather he is pursuing the mechanism.  Discussing that with him would be interesting.


----------



## Spotlite (Oct 27, 2018)

ambush80 said:


> It's a kind of evidence.  But examine how you value the experience of a Muslim or Pananimist.  You may say "There experience was real to them but it wasn't _REAL".  _Or am I assuming too much?
> 
> Here's one way to think about being filled with the holy spirit:
> 
> https://loverev.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/the-neuroscience-of-the-holy-ghost/



I don't think you are assuming too much - based on a lot of feedback from some of Christianity the "wasn't real" is sort of misleading. I am not sure if most even consider what they are actually saying. It was and is indeed REAL for them, but it is not in the way that we know and recognize God, and not in a way that we see him operate, therefore the correct assumption should be left at it was not of God.    

For the article, yea that is one way to think about it, but it reinforces what I previously said -  _"a good indicator that they really are clueless about this"_

That is not intended to sound derogatory but I don`t know of any other way to concisely put it.

I can agree with what the writer states - _"I’m not  convinced that scientific models of spiritual phenomena  necessarily demand an abandonment of spiritual practices…"_

That being said, it should be recognized that you cannot just recreate or simulate a spiritual experience and have an honest outcome.

hummerpoo nails it with - "_Do I think that he is on a path that can lead to discovery of the essential cause of anything?  No, I don’t_"


----------



## 660griz (Oct 31, 2018)

PappyHoel said:


> So it’s ok with you?  Sounds like it to me.


So, what is ok with me? Sounds to me like you quoted the wrong post.


----------

