To know there is no god?

[SnakeLord]

you said that in this instance (regarding atheism) I would be the high school drop out - that must make you the person with direct perception - intriguing ...

Uhh, no.. I would in future advise you to wait until you've actually woken up to respond to my posts.

because they both operate on the same general principle - surely you have heard of analogies before

As I have requested, let's use Lenny. The analogy better fits the discussion. Understand?

surrendered to god is a good one to begin with

Define 'surrendered to god'.

ahhh - so you do you have direct perception regarding god's non-existence - intriguing .....

Again, kindly wait until you've woken up to respond to posts.

what makes you say that?

You do. Here, let me quote something you say in the very post I am now responding to.. Lol:

"direct perception cannot be validated without qualification"

So you're telling me now that you can validate/invalidate who really does have direct perception of gods/space beings without going through the process? How exactly?

I never encountered a credible christian who says all you have to do to get god to reveal himself is ask

Oh, and because you havent, it must mean no such person exists? Lol, see LG this is all about you. A) Who defines what is a "credible" christian? B) On what basis do you try and justify your personal lack of 'encountering' a christian that says all you have to do is ask as meaning there aren't any? C) Have you tried the process? (These are called questions LG. For once, try answering them).

but according to your insistence all you have to do is ask - my point is that no christian will tell you that is all you have to do

You've met every christian? Holy kebabs! However, you're wrong. I dunno, maybe it's an English thing but I've met many. (Of course you have to ask honestly/with an open heart but not only did I think you were smart enough to know this but I knew you'd try and drag the issue down to semantics while completely ignoring the actual point of the matter if I mentioned it).

Your point however is easily refuted on the basis that you haven't met every christian.

I guess the next issue would be sincerity - certainly seems to be what credible christians confirm too

Have you even tried the process? So much for 'sincerity'. Btw, who decides who is a 'credible' christian?

for a start ones that can offer philosophical reasoning behind practices

Seems I was right when I said "you do".

the reason the process is foolish is because any fool can determine that it doesn't work

Have you tried?

I didn't say you were a fool therefore you are wrong

Sure you did. It's a common tactic to encase an insult in a question to make it appear like you're not actually insulting them. * Are you so retarded that you weren't even aware of that? *

I was saying that the process is wrong

This is a question, it only requires a yes or no answer: Have you tried it?

there's nothing to go through with the process - just ask

Have you tried?

if that is all there is to it, and there is no question of the qualification of the person doing the asking, what else is there to examine in the process?

Have you tried? (Do remember the bit about an honest/open heart. You are well aware that this is espoused by many christians - it was indeed the reason I included it in the Lenny analogy. As I saw though you forgot all about answering the question and instead just got the conversation hung up on semantics. I didn't want to have to go through that again because it was pointless). I contend that you're lying. I contend that you are well aware that many christians espouse, (given the statements in Luke etc), that all one needs to do is ask, (with an open heart), but that you had to dismiss it as quickly as you could to save it serving as my point. It's the same you did with Lenny.. diverting the conversation to semantics in order to avoid the point.

lol- millions of christians?

Certainly, better than your "every christian" - lol.

and which prominent christian advocated the "jusr ask" process

John Brown to name just one.

From christian to 'qualified' christian to 'credible' christian to 'prominent' christian.. what next LG?

I wrote off your strawman version of it

Please, your entire argument seems to now be stuck on strawmen.

One can do your process in less than 2 seconds - hence it only appeals to the foolish

I can make a cup of tea in 10 seconds. Only fools make tea? I'm sorry, was there something in the cosmic rule book saying that processes must take longer to be of any value? But anyway.... have you tried the process?

I did however mention that the process can be examined
since your process is not particularly complicated, and also since it is not backed up by any philosophy, it can be easily disregarded

So.. any process that isn't complicated can be disregarded? Lol.. And you would be wrong, it is backed up. Of course I can understand your objection. You've been likening direct perception to rocket science. Does this stem from some knowledge or evidence that getting direct perception of gods is seriously that difficult or simply that you cannot get direct perception of this god or gods that you want to? Thus if we make it seem the most difficult thing to do, it would excuse you for not being able to do it.

so what do you make of physicists or rocket scientists then, since you are probably not qualified to either validate or invalidate their evidences?

I don't get the question.. What do I make of them? They're nice I suppose. What do you make of them seeings as you're probably in the same position?

so you have faith that the news is non fiction and that the cinema is fiction - hence its media based (after all, they both use the exact same technology - actually they have better technology in the film industry since there is more money in it)

No. There is a difference between them, shown by evidence. (i.e the evidence shows that the news reports on real people/events). If you really want me to I'll say sure, perhaps all the news channels etc are some fakes made by little green men from Mars that wear dungarees and bright purple jumpers, that eat frogs legs on Sundays and piddle through their ears. Sure LG, it's all faith, (big lol).

You are yet to provide a single example within the writings of christianity of one who abides and promotes the "just ask" process

Wrong, I did so on my last post. Unless of course you now mean some modern day christian in which case we'll now amend the list: 'qualified', 'credible', 'prominent', 'christian author'. When I asked "what's next" I didn't realise it would come this quickly. Damn those shifty goalposts of yours.

(without it mattering an iota how qualified you are - just flap your lips and it will be done - if this is what you seriously consider to be th e process advocated by christianity its understandable why you are an atheist)

A) Have you tried?

B) I am an "atheist" purely because I do not have belief in gods. Ergo my statements concerning your lack of understanding of what an atheist is.

direct perception cannot be validated without qualification, but the process can be analyzed to determine credibility

And.. what exact process must it conform to in order to be "credible", (according to LG)? Have you even tried this process?

then if you received an education in the field it should be easy for you to quote the historical emergence of the "just ask" process

I did in the last post.

referencing various christian philosophers and theologicians who have confirmed this

Estelle, Bob, Jane, Jack, Dave.. the list goes on.

(all though it beats me what there would be to write about if all that was required was to "just ask" and issues of qualification, purity, sin, sincerity etc were irrelevant)

Why must people write about it?

thats your process

Once again: You haven't done that process and thus by your own arguments can't say anything about it.

you have to understand that as an atheist, your interpretation of scripture, at the very least, runs the risk of diverging from the understanding and practices of theists - you may claim that this is all one has to do, but unless you can also illustrate how this is firmly advocated by theists too

Sure I can. Seemingly though you want me to go to the bookshop lol. But then you must understand that as a non-christian your interpretation of christian scripture runs the risk of diverging from the understanding of christians. Seems we're in the same boat LG.

I asked you to take the word of a practitioner in the field of christianity and back your statements up with historical reference

I did both of them. Now let's ask you the same? You didn't do either. Doh!

as it stands at the moment, we have about 2000 years of christian writing on one side of the scales and the strawman argument of a disgruntled atheist on the other

Now you're being plain silly. From what I can gather, you're the disgruntled one here, refusing to accept that someone can get direct perception of a god easily when you clearly can't. This ancient text states it, many christians state it, it is supported. You dismiss it - without trying it, without being able to show anything that would go against it, (other than to just continually shift the goalposts in a pathetic attempt to undermine it).

it was a reccomendation for you to re-examine your own qualifications

This is not an answer to the question I asked. Seems to be a nasty habit with you. I shall label this disease itaqtenitis. You are seemingly a terminal case.

at the very least your version of christianity doesn't tally with Anselm, Tertullian, Origen, Saint Augustine, Thomas Acquinas or even CS Lewis or Pope John Paul

How foolish of me.. *bangs head repeatedly on desk* must... listen... to.... famous/ancient... people.

Out of interest, did they try the process?

apart from you, who else is a firm advocate of the "just ask" process as the be all and end all of christianity?

Do they have to be famous? Lol.. Uhh.. Mel Gibson!

there is no evidence of this process being backed up by persons who are held of credible in the field of investigating scriptural practices

Credible to who?

(you have to admit that your investigation of scriptural practices, as an anonymous atheist, is not particularly credible)

Here is the dilemma I have been pointing out through my posts. As an anonymous nobody, any investigation you make of Lenny 'scripture' or processes wont be credible according to your very own statement here. In saying, it is pointless for any unqualified person to investigate anything.

but you stated previously there was no question of qualification for your version of the "just ask" process

The 'qualification' is direct perception of this space being. Before that time nobody is qualified so of course there was no question of qualification. When I said "you weren't doing it right" I was speaking of process, not qualification. Now, the person conducting the process can fail on the point of sincerity. I didn't bring it up earlier, (well I did), because, (as was seen), you dragged the conversation down to semantics. It was pointless going through that again and I was under the impression, (faith sucks), that you were knowledgeable enough to know exactly what I was referring to.

if you conceded earlier that there is more to the process of "just asking" that hinges on qualification there would have been no need for this discussion

Forgive me, I wont give your intelligence benefit of the doubt from now on. But once again: if I knew you wouldn't drag it all down to semantics I would have mentioned it.

previously you were adamant that all one had to do was ask - now it seems that you are admitting that the process is not so simple

Sure it is. All you have to do is ask, (sincerely). I don't see why someone should ask a question if they don't want the answer, (which is understandbly why I get frustrated when you continually fail to answer mine). I suppose that depends upon the nature of the person, but when I ask a question I am being sincere.

Does the "just ask" process involve any question of qualification,

The qualification is direct perception of god. The process involves just asking, but if you don't want the answer why would you think you'd ever get it? If you start studying genetics but are not interested in finding out about genetics, do you think you'll ever get anywhere? C'mon LG, I shouldn't have to explain that to you.

it seems that you are failing to understand normative descriptions in scripture, since you come up with crazy interpretations of scripture that don't at all appear normative according to the body of work that surrounds christianity.

I asked you to cite examples remember? You refused to answer. And they do appear, you clearly just haven't been looking. Or.. are you going to claim that you have been looking?

if a person fails (and the process is correct) its because they mess up on the process

Duh..

in the case of your wife, she didn't use the "tea" process but used the "urine" process

Incorrect, she did the tea process but fucked it up. However, this is just semantics, you're actually just reiterating what I've already said. The person will be faulted, not the process.

you've had ample opportunity to back up your claims - we are after names (preferably ones associated with christian theology and not accounts of your workplace encounters)

I've already given you a list.

according to your process, anyone can do it in two seconds

Once again: You claim the 'process is nutty' without even having done it. According to you, you can't do that.

maybe you could establish why it takes longer than two seconds to apply your "just ask" process

Why must it take longer than two seconds?

ok name one

jesus.

for instance you are giving me theory about the practice of seeing leprechauns

Incorrect. I am giving you the facts.

if you think that simply because you are giving theoretical knowledge, all theoretical knowledge is identical

I didn't mention or imply theoretical anything. Wake up.

then I guess one would investigate it further in that direction

And then what? When does investigation end and undertaking the process begin?

if you have knowledge without someone advocating direct perception, obviously it won't go further than theory

Wasn't an answer to my question. "how do you determine the reliability of a practitioner?"

once again, without a credible reference in the field of christianity (apart from "millions" and "ancient people") you seem to be standing by yourself (or perhaps in the snug association of your atheist buddies) when you say such things

A) What makes you assume I have atheist buddies?

B) jesus should be considered a 'credible' reference. Then again it's unsure quite how far you would move those goalposts of yours.

C) How much investigation have you undertaken into the issue, and.. wouldn't there be a problem with that investigation's credibility given that you're not a christian?

then why insist on knocking on wood or doing anything in particular if it all boils down to will (seems like we can also reject your "just ask" process in that case as well, since its all will - hence there is no process to apply at all)

Why bother going through the process of chatting up a woman when she might just tell you to piss off? We go through that process simply on the off chance that we might get what we want. That's not to say, as you inaccurately state, that there is no process to apply.. there is. Conducting that process might not get you where you want, but not conducting that process definitely wont.

qualified
if there is a scientist in the field who has come through with the chemical make up for the mind, you could be the first to break it to the world right here on sciforums

Qualified heh? What qualifications exactly?

P.S Have you read Thursdays New Scientist?

Unlike you, I don't pose the argument that for anything to be true I must directly perceive it

Sure, you adopt a life of faith, I don't. That's why you're unlike me, see..

so you have faith that the physical laws are constant and hence enable experiments to be repeatable

No, which is why I used the sun as an example.

precisely - one's normal faith would dictate the action - in this case drinking the tea

Incorrect. Need I mention the wongle dongle monster again?

actually the problem is that you cannot detect the inextricable link between inductive knowledge and faith

Actually no, the problem is that you cannot discern the difference between evidence and faith.

just as I suspected - you didn't speak to a saintly person after all

Yet again you prove my point: I did that already, you told me they were talking bollocks. You have no evidence or just cause to do so. You are indeed just pulling the assumption out of your rectum based upon nothing but your own personal faith.

If you apply the process and it doesn't work and if it cannot be answered why the process didn't work then obviously you have no room for further progress

It can be answered: You did the process wrong.

I said: Perhaps he just does an LG and states it's all bollocks without just cause

You said: seems you are making progress

There you go then..

so you not only have a different ......

Wait.. I asked you a question. It only required a yes or no. Instead you ignored it and asked me one in return. Why can you not answer questions LG?

 

[Godless]

Why can you not answer questions LG?

Apparently he has no answers, falls back on redundant argument tactics, then acts as if he had the common sense, and we just fail to understand! LOL... Quite comical really, I'm impressed Snake that you so continue with this idiot! Your patience is commendable.

 

[grover]

Ok. I'm frankly fed up with most theists here constantly basing arguments on the idea that atheists claim that there is absolutely no god or even the possibility of one.

When I search for the definition of athiest or atheism, I find there are sites that get it right, sites that get it wrong, and sites (usually xian) that just plain lie about it.

So, for the sake of clarity, let's get it right here.

The atheists that I know and associate with and any atheists that I've read will not take the stance that there is proof for the non-existence of some kind of god. Our stance is simply that there is no compelling evidence to support one. Others find holy-book references enough. Not us.

There are many competing gods but any given theist is an atheist regarding all but the one he chooses to believe in.

So, the typical atheist argues that there is no good reason to believe in any gods as they are presented. There is nothing that leads us to the inescapable conclusion that some form of supernatural being is in existence.

So, can we please stop using this particular lie in our theist vs. atheist discussions?

Anyone care to add to this?

The way I see it this is science claiming that science can answer all questions about the universe. But there is no scientific proof that science can answer all questions, so it's a preposterous assertion to not believe in God based on science. (It is not however preposterous to disbleive in certain religous texts as literal truth based on science, i.e., evolution is true and creationsim is not). I think we can all agree that science is a method of studying the material world. Science does not make any claims that only the material world exists, and it is fundamentalism to make the leap of faith to say that the world is only material based solely on science. That is not to say there are not other modes of inquiry (philosophy and religious practice) that could allow one to determine whether or not God exists, it's just that science can't do it because it is only a method for studying the material world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Philosophically it is possible that God exists but it is impossible to prove with finality that God exists or does not exist since philosophically sound arguments can be made both for and against its existence.
-Faith is useless; one is basically just saying something is true more or less cause they want it to be.
-So here is the true crux of the religous issue: When people have direct experience of the transcendent are their experiences valid? What everyone has to understand(both scientific fundamentalists and religous fundamentalists) is that religous experiences do happen, i.e., people are capable of directly perceiving the transcendent. Religion is not something simply made up by men who want power and cowards that fear death, the transcendent is something that has been directly experienced. So the question is, is the expeience the truth or some kind of illusion? The simple fact is that anyone that has had the experience without exception has said it is the truth.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Good points Grover.

 

[Sarkus]

The way I see it this is science claiming that science can answer all questions about the universe. But there is no scientific proof that science can answer all questions, so it's a preposterous assertion to not believe in God based on science. (It is not however preposterous to disbleive in certain religous texts as literal truth based on science, i.e., evolution is true and creationsim is not). I think we can all agree that science is a method of studying the material world. Science does not make any claims that only the material world exists, and it is fundamentalism to make the leap of faith to say that the world is only material based solely on science. That is not to say there are not other modes of inquiry (philosophy and religious practice) that could allow one to determine whether or not God exists, it's just that science can't do it because it is only a method for studying the material world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Philosophically it is possible that God exists but it is impossible to prove with finality that God exists or does not exist since philosophically sound arguments can be made both for and against its existence.
-Faith is useless; one is basically just saying something is true more or less cause they want it to be.
-So here is the true crux of the religous issue: When people have direct experience of the transcendent are their experiences valid? What everyone has to understand(both scientific fundamentalists and religous fundamentalists) is that religous experiences do happen, i.e., people are capable of directly perceiving the transcendent. Religion is not something simply made up by men who want power and cowards that fear death, the transcendent is something that has been directly experienced. So the question is, is the expeience the truth or some kind of illusion? The simple fact is that anyone that has had the experience without exception has said it is the truth.

Noone questions the occurrence of an "experience", nor does anyone deny that the person has subjectively interpreted it as a "religious experience" (and as evidence of the transcendental).

It's just that the subjective interpretation has never before stood up to rational scrutiny in favour of a simpler explanation.

 

[grover]

What's the simpler explanation?

 

[SnakeLord]

The simple fact is that anyone that has had the experience without exception has said it is the truth.

The simple fact is that anyone that has ever told me they hear voices telling them to kill people etc has said that these voices are real without exception.

 

[grover]

Did it. They are wrong and misguided. All of them. There is no one who ever directly percieved a god. They have all been shown to have an agenda, or a brain malfunction.

That is just plain and simply not true. You are either misinformed or dishonest.

 

[Sarkus]

What's the simpler explanation?

Doesn't work like that - you have to provide example first.

 

[grover]

What are you talking about? You're the one that said there is a simpler explanation (see above posts). What is it?

If you're asking what I think the legitimate perception of God is look up "perennial philosophy."

 

[grover]

The simple fact is that anyone that has ever told me they hear voices telling them to kill people etc has said that these voices are real without exception.

You raise a legitmate point Snakelord. But, since people that are hallucinating don't know they are hallucinating how do you know you aren't hallucinating? How can one be sure of their experience as real? The method usually used is to get external validation, i.e. someone is having the same experience as you. In other words if people share the same experience this would indicate that it is true and not a hallucination right? Schizophrenics never share the same experience which indicates they are experiencing something not real. Whereas people who have a "mystical experience" as it is called in the west or "enlightenment" as it is called in the east do share the same experience and come up with identical descriptions of the transcendent.

 

[Sarkus]

What are you talking about? You're the one that said there is a simpler explanation (see above posts). What is it?

But obviously the simpler explanation differs from case to case - all of them being merely material in cause and effect.

If you're asking what I think the legitimate perception of God is look up "perrenial philosophy."

Thanks.

 

[SnakeLord]

In other words if people share the same experience this would indicate that it is true and not a hallucination right?

If we need to go down that road, not really. These other people would merely be a part of your hallucination. However, that's neither here nor there.

Schizophrenics never share the same experience which indicates they are experiencing something not real.

No two humans ever share the same experiences. Does that indicate that human don't exist? Of course many people share the same ideas and beliefs. You'll probably find that the overwhelming majority believe that humans only use 5-10% of their brains, (the details vary slightly much like with religious beliefs). These people are not 'hallucinating', they're just wrong.

Of course, to continue, no two theists have the same experiences - the only constant factor is that they believe a god/s exist. In the same way all people that hear a voice would concur that the voice exists, the details of what that voice says differ but not the base belief.. same with belief in gods.

Whereas people who have a "mystical experience" as it is called in the west or "enlightenment" as it is called in the east do share the same experience and come up with identical descriptions of the transcendent.

Incorrect. The only thing that is constant is that a god exists, (just like the only thing constant is that a voice exists). The experiences will differ for everyone.

What we need to acknowledge is that, to use a Dire Straits line: "first came the churches, then came the schools.."

Belief in sky beings has been taught from generation to generation. It is absolutely entrenched in society. Every cartoon, every song, every nook and cranny is stuffed to the brim with gods.. The days are named after gods, the planets are, schools are named after religious icons etc and so on. It's impossible to escape, and as I saw with my daughter, society is trying to shove it down your throat before you're even old enough to walk. You are told what to believe, it's no surprise you'll find the majority believe it.

Of course the majority don't really believe it, it just becomes another vague part of who they are so they tick the 'christian' etc box whenever it's asked. Those that really believe, (IAC, Photzio etc), get to that position because they need it. The brain, (largely disrespected by humans), is not a potato. When you're about to be smudged out of existence by a fast moving bus, you'll most likely 'see your life flash before your eyes'. It's not a sign of anything mystical, it's your brain making your final moments a more pleasurable experience. It's no wonder that born-agains go actually find belief after going through a very traumatic event. People don't just wake up and say "well, I feel like being a believer today", nope - it is spawned by a personal need. Much like heroin, it does the job but is impossible for the addict to look at in a reasonable manner. They will defend their addiction to the death. If they could be freed of their addiction boy would they see the idiocy in most of their arguments.

 

[grover]

Of course, to continue, no two theists have the same experiences - the only constant factor is that they believe a god/s exist. In the same way all

Plain and simply not true. Your just giving away your ignorance on the subject when you state that.

Incorrect. The only thing that is constant is that a god exists, (just like the only thing constant is that a voice exists). The experiences will differ for everyone.

Nope.

Belief in sky beings has been taught from generation to generation. It is absolutely entrenched in society. Every cartoon, every song, every nook and cranny is stuffed to the brim with gods.. The days are named after gods, the planets are, schools are named after religious icons etc and so on. It's impossible to escape, and as I saw with my daughter, society is trying to shove it down your throat before you're even old enough to walk. You are told what to believe, it's no surprise you'll find the majority believe it.

I'm not talking about that which is taught. I'm not even talking about that which can be told. I'm talking about that which must be known directly.

 

[SnakeLord]

Plain and simply not true. Your just giving away your ignorance on the subject when you state that.

What a waste. People are so quick to claim others are ignorant but so slow to actually explain how/justify their statement.

As explained, it is dependant upon what level exactly we're talking. In the case of people that hear voices I have met several that have the same 'experience' in that they hear voices, or that those voices tell them to hurt people, or hurt themselves etc.

So, if you have some issue with something specific I have said then please explain. Do not for one second think that the old "you're ignorant" excuse to justifying your own beliefs has any value here.

I'm not talking about that which is taught. I'm not even talking about that which can be told. I'm talking about that which must be known directly.

If it was "known" the word belief would never come into the equation. Further to which, from what I can gather most theists, (christians at least), espouse that one must believe in god on faith, (lack of knowledge of something). If god were to make himself 'known' there'd be no free will, (so they claim).

Anyway, which specific version of god were you saying is known... and to who?

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

You are a real bitterman Snake.

 

[grover]

Snake,
If someone says something that isn't true but they believe it is, that's ignorant right?
You have the the world's most advanced reference tool right at your fingertips, I'm not going to dig up a bunch of quotes and descriptions of the transcendent from various times and religions to show you that there is a remarkable degree of similiarity between them just so you can dismiss it by saying I selectively picked things to support my case. No it makes much more sense for you to do some actual research yourself so you can have an educated opinion on the subject instead of an ignorant one. (I'm not saying your ignorant in general but I'd be willing to bet that you aren't exaclty well-read when it comes to religion).

A couple things to read if you're interested:
-http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/001324.html (from a guy who wrote a book on the evils of faith, rebuts some atheists for his practice of meditation. Pretty interesting).
-do a google search for "perennial philosophy"
-http://www.philosophos.com/philosophy_article_105.html (medieval christian)

And I went back through my posts and couldn't find my use of the word "belief" once. Did I use it somewhere that I missed. Besides, so what if I did. I hear you scientific fundamentalists harp on the word belief alot as if it actually means something is automatically not true when someone uses the word. Funny, how I never hear them bring it up when I tell them I believe in evolution.

 

[SnakeLord]

You are a real bitterman Snake.

Ok. Come back when you have something of value to offer this discussion, (or any others for that matter).

If someone says something that isn't true but they believe it is, that's ignorant right?

I think misguided is a better word, it doesn't smell so much of personal insult.

You have the the world's most advanced reference tool right at your fingertips, I'm not going to dig up a bunch of quotes and descriptions of the transcendent from various times and religions to show you that there is a remarkable degree of similiarity between them just so you can dismiss it by saying I selectively picked things to support my case.

Great, so the terms have changed from "identical" to similar. Where did I ever state they weren't similar? Likewise the claims of most people that hear voices are incredibly similar.. again - you need to state what level we're talking at.

(I'm not saying your ignorant in general but I'd be willing to bet that you aren't exaclty well-read when it comes to religion).

You'd be wrong.

I hear you scientific fundamentalists...

Ah, that's where the problem lies. It's not about the discussion, it's about your dislike for me, based not upon knowledge of who I am, but how you would categorise me.

Funny, how I never hear them bring it up when I tell them I believe in evolution.

I don't see the relevance to anything. I would personally suggest you not 'believe' in evolution. Once you acknowledge the facts it ceases to be a belief, you simply have no choice in the matter.

However, the problem seems to be the level at which you mention experience, and where I mention experience.

You have many christians for example that claim that their prayers have been answered. At this level you could say the experience was the same. However, one man prayed and got a new leg, another prayed and got a job and yet another prayed and lost his virginity. This is the level of experience I am talking about - the individual experience.

In the same instance one man heard a voice and killed his mother, another beat up an inanimate object and another jumped off the roof.

To add: some theists don't believe prayer works, don't believe going to church is the way to talk to god, don't beieve in a trinity, etc.. The only constant among them is that a god or gods exist - but even the nature, image, and attitude of these gods differs.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
but according to your insistence all you have to do is ask - my point is that no christian will tell you that is all you have to do
”
You've met every christian? Holy kebabs! However, you're wrong. I dunno, maybe it's an English thing but I've met many. (Of course you have to ask honestly/with an open heart but not only did I think you were smart enough to know this but I knew you'd try and drag the issue down to semantics while completely ignoring the actual point of the matter if I mentioned it).

okay then you have redefined your definition - now you are admitting that some qualification is involved

BTW as far as your leprechaun thing goes you might want to redefine it too, since you seem to be mixing it as an analogy- are you saying that it is a metaphor for religious processes ("My process is the same as your process") or are you presenting the process as something that could fall within the folds of religion by actually elaborating on the process)

The problem is that when you start elaborating on the leprechaun process it appears incongruent with religious processes, and its not clear which side of the analogy you want to ride

 

[grover]

Great, so the terms have changed from "identical" to similar. Where did I ever state they weren't similar? Likewise the claims of most people that hear voices are incredibly similar.. again - you need to state what level we're talking at.

No, I still mean identical, sorry that I confused you by saying "remarkable degree of similiarity" instead.

Ah, that's where the problem lies. It's not about the discussion, it's about your dislike for me, based not upon knowledge of who I am, but how you would categorise me.

Ah, no that's not where the problem lies. I don't have a dislike for you. I'm categorizing you based upon what I've read from you.

I don't see the relevance to anything. I would personally suggest you not 'believe' in evolution. Once you acknowledge the facts it ceases to be a belief, you simply have no choice in the matter.

And that's precisely I'm saying is the case with God/Brahman/Nirvana...once you know it directly belief has nothing to do with it. (An iteresting side question....most people that believe in scientific facts such as evolution or atoms have not personally taken the time to understand for themselves how these things have been proven but simply accept it as true because higher authorites have said it is true...how is this different than people accepting things as true in the middle ages because a higher authority said it is true? How is it not faith?

However, the problem seems to be the level at which you mention experience, and where I mention experience.


You have many christians for example that claim that their prayers have been answered. At this level you could say the experience was the same. However, one man prayed and got a new leg, another prayed and got a job and yet another prayed and lost his virginity. This is the level of experience I am talking about - the individual experience.

In the same instance one man heard a voice and killed his mother, another beat up an inanimate object and another jumped off the roof.

To add: some theists don't believe prayer works, don't believe going to church is the way to talk to god, don't beieve in a trinity, etc.. The only constant among them is that a god or gods exist - but even the nature, image, and attitude of these gods differs.

Your right, the problem is where we are talking about experience. When I say experience I don't mean praying, speaking in tongues, going to church, hearing a voice of god, seeing a vision of jesus or vishnu...I'm talking about a mystical experience(western term) in which on directly perceives God(western term). It is exactly the same as in the east when one attains Nirvana and sees the Buddha-nature in all things. If you compare these two religions it is clear that they are talking about the exact same thing using different terminology.

It would be comparable to if schizophrenics at different places where having the exact same hallucination (never happens, you will never get to schizophrenics in the same room having the same hallucination). Thats one of the ways its so obvious to outsiders that a person is experiencing something isnt real, because no one else sees what they are talking about. It is exactly the opposite with the religous experience I'm talking about which is consistent across time and culture which means that it isn't a hallucination.