License, registration.....and religious status?

[IndyDave1776]

This is where I think you are giving too much ground. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had the exact same personal experience as Steve. The beholder is delusional. Personal experience carrying over to others is the definition of religion, else they wouldn't have a clue about the experience. Or, experiences would be competing and we would see an even distribution of experiences, religions. We don't.

This is an aside but I saw Karen Armstrong recommended upthread. Please read the academic review of her works before buying in.

While your position makes sense from the perspective of a nonreligious individual, I would caution you that your position rests on the notion that your non-observation of a certain phenomenon demonstrates that the phenomenon is false. I could make the same argument defending the notion that you do not exist since I have never seen you.

 

[level.eleven]

While your position makes sense from the perspective of a nonreligious individual, I would caution you that your position rests on the notion that your non-observation of a certain phenomenon demonstrates that the phenomenon is false. I could make the same argument defending the notion that you do not exist since I have never seen you.

No, you can't. I can prove that I exist. We can meet in the natural world.

Testable.

Repeatable.

Falsifiable.

 

[IndyDave1776]

No, you can't. I can prove that I exist. We can meet in the natural world.

Testable.

Repeatable.

Falsifiable.

Let's see...I have witnessed events that fall squarely outside the realm of conventional 'reality' (and, NO, I WILL NOT ATTEMPT A REPETITION!) and you are not going to convince me that I did not see what I saw or experience what I experienced, which happened within the natural world.

Evolution, which is held up as 'settled science' does not meed the criteria of being testable or repeatable.

 

[level.eleven]

Let's see...I have witnessed events that fall squarely outside the realm of conventional 'reality' (and, NO, I WILL NOT ATTEMPT A REPETITION!) and you are not going to convince me that I did not see what I saw or experience what I experienced, which happened within the natural world.

Evolution, which is held up as 'settled science' does not meed the criteria of being testable or repeatable.

Testable. Repeatable. Falsifiable.

0 for 3.

Vishnu approached me last night.

And no, evolution is testable and repeatable. As well as falsifiable. But, I don't want another evolution discussion. The last time I tried that on INGO I was presented with power crystals on the Ark that grew plants for the dinosaurs in the galley of a boat.

 

[Lowe0]

This is where I think you are giving too much ground. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had the exact same personal experience as Steve. The beholder is delusional. Personal experience carrying over to others is the definition of religion, else they wouldn't have a clue about the experience. Or, experiences would be competing and we would see an even distribution of experiences depending largley on geography, religions. We do. No one comes to Jesus in India unless someone sells them their own thoughts. Evidence be damned.

This is an aside but I saw Karen Armstrong recommended upthread. Please read the academic review of her works before buying in.

ETA: Theses discussions are difficult to have via print. We could be saying the same thing but teasing out minutiae will always prove to be difficult.

I'm not sure about that. I mean, convincing evidence is just that - convincing. I know plenty of people who are religious who aren't idiots.. They profess to have felt the Holy Spirit. The only conclusion that I can come to is that they have convincing evidence, and I don't.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

This is an aside but I saw Karen Armstrong recommended upthread. Please read the academic review of her works before buying in.

Such as?

For those who would like a brief synopsis of A Case for God, this is a decent summary:

The Case for God: What Religion Means

 

[BehindBlueI's]

No, you can't. I can prove that I exist. We can meet in the natural world.

People meet space aliens, ghosts, and boner drones all the time.

 

[level.eleven]

People meet space aliens, ghosts, and boner drones all the time.

I rest my case.

 

[Dead Duck]

People meet space aliens, ghosts, and boner drones all the time.

I rest my case.

So now these don't exist because you guys haven't personally seen them?

 

[Destro]

No, you can't. I can prove that I exist. We can meet in the natural world.

Testable.

Repeatable.

Falsifiable.

your trying to fit a square peg inside a round hole

 

[steveh_131]

This is where I think you are giving too much ground. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had the exact same personal experience as Steve. The beholder is delusional. Personal experience carrying over to others is the definition of religion, else they wouldn't have a clue about the experience. Or, experiences would be competing and we would see an even distribution of experiences depending largley on geography, religions. We do. No one comes to Jesus in India unless someone sells them their own thoughts. Evidence be damned.

Two people witness a car accident. One claims that the red car ran the red light. The other claims that the blue car ran the red light. Because the two claims are different, both witnesses must lying?

Does this really pass for logic in the academic world?

Passing along the things that I have seen and experienced makes me a witness. Witness testimony is valid evidence in any court of law. Is it always accurate? Of course not. But it is evidence. And it is not inherently unreasonable to consider that evidence when deciding what world-view you subscribe to.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So now these don't exist because you guys haven't personally seen them?

I can only say I haven't seen two of the three....uh...I meah yeah, they totally don't exist and no one has seen it. Them. Them.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I rest my case.

That doesn't mean you won. It means you don't have anything left to say. I suspect this is because you realize you can't actually prove you exist and continuing down that path results in it being quite obvious you can't.

You can prove that I will behave as if you exist, should we meet. You can prove my existence is consistent with you existing. You cannot prove you actually exist.

You cherry-picked a post.

This is the last time I will engage you in this thread. Honesty matters.

Sort of like that. Evasion, but with the added bonus of a veiled ad hominem attack.

 

[Woobie]

Yeah, what's with the personal attacks? This isn't the only time recently that someone's honor has been impugned by accusation of honesty. Maybe, just maybe, the accuser misunderstands the motive behind the post, the full context of the post, etc. but among certain people there is a tendency to scream "liar!" I don't know if that is the crutch of a failing argument, or just a narrow minded perception of Internet language, often written hastily and without the time or space to fully develop a thought.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

There comes a time when we must shake the dust from our proverbial sandals.

 

[Lowe0]

your trying to fit a square peg inside a round hole

Does someone who tries to put a peg in wrong deserve to suffer without end? How is that just?

 

[jamil]

There comes a time when we must shake the dust from our proverbial sandals.

I generally do that when this particular conversation starts.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I generally do that when this particular conversation starts.

It's OK. We know that you are a barbarian who wears dusty combat boots while reading Proverbs!

 

[steveh_131]

Does someone who tries to put a peg in wrong deserve to suffer without end? How is that just?

There is an entire book of the bible that deals with this very subject. The book of Job. I highly recommend it.

 

[Destro]

Does someone who tries to put a peg in wrong deserve to suffer without end? How is that just?

I was referring to his attempt to reconcile the differences between modernist principles and post-modernist beliefs. If you can prove a tangible existence of God, then it’s no longer God, because the existence of God is dependent on faith.