BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 08:46 PM

Ok, Bill, see you in a few days. I'll just leave this last thought then:

"Most religious ideas just don't fit that category...thus the very USE of the term 'belief' instead of 'know'."

Yes, but up to a point only. Because of course science tests new ideas and gains new knowledge about the physical world and we are certainly physical beings so we can know these things on a physical level.

From the empirical, scientific perspective, religious beliefs are....well, beliefs.

But religion IS, in fact, concerned with gaining new ideas and knowledge. Often I see comments on how the church made up this or that, or invented new parts of religion that were not in the gospels. This equally often seems to be done with a view to casting doubt over the authenticity and sincereity of the religious body.

In fact, what people are actually witnessing is the historical progression of a church probing and exploring the new spiritual revelation and experience and attempting to draw conclusions that will update the body of spiritual and religious knowledge. This does not mean God changes or develops, but that human understanding of Him and our role in things can and does. John Polkinghorne ("Belief in God in an Age of Science") sums this up rather well, pointing to the early church writers and religious councils (such as the Council of Nicea or St.Augustine) and indeed even within the gospels as the significance of events only slowly began to dawn on the apostles.

We tend to take the Christian church for granted today and perhaps assume it was always more or less in its present form with the same basic beliefs, just with bits tacked on for political expediency (a view which assumes that the whole body of the church over 2,000 was singularly corrupt on a level not even found in politics....)

Actually the early church began life as a persecuted underground group which only slowly began to realise the full significance of events that had occured, and delve deeper and deeper into the mystery of it. There were many councils and discussions held over many years to try and update "the knowledge" (as marines might call it) and insights and come to a better understanding of what made it all tick. For once you get into it, you begin to find the spiritual world seems to be goverened by certian rules just as the physical one is, waiting to be uncovered by the curious.

Polkinghorne compares the methodolgy of science and religion and finds many similarities (once the difference of topic of the two fields is taken into account):

1) Both have moments of radical revision in which new phenomena lead to new insights, transcending previous understanding but also building on it.

2) periods of confusion during which old and new models exist alongside in unresolved tension (he gives the example of quantum theory 1900 -1925)

3) moments of new synthesis and understanding in which a theory is revealed as being capable of satisfactorily explaining the new phenomena ina convicing and comprehensive way while at the same time treating the old phenomena as particular limiting cases (again, the discovery of modern quantum mechanics)

4) continuing wretsling with unresolved problems, essential for total understanding of the new theory, but for the moment not capable of final solution (the measurement problem in quantum theory)

5) realisations that the new theory has deep implications of a kind unanticipated when it was first conceived (anti-matter, non-locality etc.,)


Man is by nature a curious, enquiring animal (unless he's had that curiosity hammered out of him, but before anyone rushes to give examples of totalitarianism, a simple boring 9-5 can accomplish that over the years). He (or she!) sets his mind to problems in a similar way, whether of religion or science. Though religion requires an element of belief (that God exists etc) of things not demonstrable according to the empirical (and I deliberatley do not say, scientific - the two are not the same thing) standards, it would be a mistake to assume no thinking is done in religion (that's what theologians are for, the scientists of religion; but as well as them, most individuals also enagage in some of this on their own level, just as not every lay person is a working scientist).

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 06 Jan 08 - 08:58 PM

OOps, perhaps methodolgy was not the word I was looking for - what I actually wanted to say was 'phases' or 'stages' in which new knowledge is acquired and developed from awareness of new phenomena.

Methodolgy is of course another thing, but even here there are *some* similarities. When it comes to prayer, and even the format of ceremony etc., people have applied their centuries of experience to that which seems to work best and many have attempted to understand WHY this or that way of praying seems more effective. That's just one example.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: theleveller
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:33 AM

"What's getting to me these days is when there is insistence from non-believers that their non-belief ought to be adopted by believers-- in particular, me. It's just a crazy way of thinking; I have trouble reconciling that with their insistence that I better not try to tell them what to believe"

Ah, Susan, I'm glad you've come round to my way of thinking. My first post on this thread stated that evangelism is the ultimate arrogance (I include evangelism of any sort) and this brought the wrath of the god-fearing down on me with objections not just to what I was saying but to the way I conducted my argument (remember?). Now, perhaps, you understand what I was getting at.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:59 AM

When it comes to prayer, and even the format of ceremony etc., people have applied their centuries of experience to that which seems to work best and many have attempted to understand WHY this or that way of praying seems more effective.


Funny -- when I conisder the bowdlerisms of the Nicea council and the doctrinaire and authoritarian traditions of most creeds, I am inclined to think this is exactly what is not the case.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: theleveller
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 08:22 AM

"Man is by nature a curious, enquiring animal ....He (or she!) sets his mind to problems in a similar way, whether of religion or science. Though religion requires an element of belief (that God exists etc) of things not demonstrable according to the empirical "

I'm reminded here of the story of the Irishman who, when asked the way by a stranger, replied: "If I was going there, I wouldn't start from here". Enquiry into spiritual matters does not (and, I could argue, should not) require a belief in god and should not bring preconceived ideas as to the nature of god. Otherwise you will be using the search in the same way that a drunk uses a lampost - for support rather than illumination.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 08:47 AM

A good many of them, however, are often handicapped pretty early on, by having been subjected to the abusive concept of Sunday School.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 08:59 AM

Ah, Susan, I'm glad you've come round to my way of thinking.

LOL-- like I just came to that idea yesterday?!?!?!?

[shaking head]

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 09:53 AM

Mrzzy said, "And I don't think it a kindness anymore to allow people their insistence on refusing reality."

It seems to me she is saying that she believes that she knows what "reality" is, and that she is entitled to resort to anything in her powers to convince people that they are wrong. and that she is right.

It also seems to me that people who think like that are very dangerous when they have power over other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 12:03 PM

Reality is defined by demonstration - if it can't be demonstrated, it probably isn't real. But if it can be, then it is. Not my definition - just reality!

All I resort to is reason - I have no powers other than pursuasion. But yes, I will use that power as much as possible, to convince people to accept reality rather than mythology when the 2 are in direct conflict.

Seems to me you're feeling challenged, M.Ted - could it be you're one of those people who prefer to cling to their beliefs even when contradicted by demonstrable reality - and to whom I am therefore seen as being unkind, because I don't support you in your, um, delusion? I wouldn't have thought so, but your recent anger towards me is most readily explained by someone breaking your idols at your feet, or whatever the biblical quote is.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 12:17 PM

I had a question for you Mrrzy - but it's all been hashed over before. The horse is dead. So why continue to beat it? Why not just agree to disagree?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 12:18 PM

People may demonstrate bible code prphsies come true.

Does that make them real?

The devil is in the details of interpretation, statistics, nonsense and non science.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Donuel
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 12:57 PM

" it's all been hashed over before. The horse is dead. So why continue to beat it?


Methinks he doth also believe that God is dead.
The strict linear fundamentalist word for word interpretation of the bible is also dead but there will always be people who thump it.
Metaphors have gotten narrow minded people in trouble for a long time. When the words in the bible "to the ends of the Earth" appeared some used it as justification that the Earth is flat.
Some people just can't handle metaphors.   
The horse is dead. So why continue to beat it?   ..... perhaps to tenderize the meat.



but seriously it would be nice if the world agreed to disagree in a civil manner regarding the differences of religion.

The horse will continue to be beaten...
A black US president is more likely than an atheist President for a long time to come.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:27 PM

"A black US president is more likely than an atheist President for a long time to come..."


                   That's so true, and I find it very frustrating when people who pretend to be tolerant refuse to admit it.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:29 PM

Mrzzy-If reality what can be demonstrated, what you have demonstrated is that you are petty, mean-spirited, and irrational.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:32 PM

Sorry, left a word out--if "If reality is what can be demonstrated, what you have demonstrated is that you are petty, mean-spirited, and irrational."

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 01:52 PM

Well, Ted. I have to disagree. Strong-headed, sure. Maybe a tiny bit abrasive. But if you review her history of posts you will NOT find her being mean-spirited, and not (AFAIK) irrational, within normal human use of the term.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 02:20 PM

IRrational? Demonstrate, please. (Thanks, Amos!)

What question, Wes?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 02:25 PM

theleveller - I don't think that was what I was trying to say. But anyway, we all bring preconceived ideas to the table when making our enquiry - scientist and theologian alike. These preconceptions, as you call them, are usually the result of our experience. Further enquiry is pursued to see if these conceptions hold up. Along the way we may make new unexpected discoveries that either confirm what we know or add new dimensions to it, or refute it.

What scientist does not start out with the preconception that gravity is a force that attracts objects? If s/he discovers that something alotogether different is happening s/he may be taken by surprise and hurry to investigate the new phenomena. But the fact that it comes as a surprise is the sign that a preconception was held in the first place.

Enquiry into spiritual matters may not require a belief in God - at the outset. But the same can be said of the first steps of any journey of enquiry. The 12 year old starting out on a study of science subjects may have little or no knowledge of the topic and is not required to believe in the theory of relativity, much less understand it; but even s/he early on is expected to learn as truth various axioms which in turn are based on centuries of experience. With the total of knowledge available today, no one has the time to go back to alchemy and work their way up all over again in order to pass their school finals. If one had the time it would certainly be an interesting exercise and give one a far more comprehensive grasp of the subject than the 'learn-by-heart' method favoured by many students in order to get them through their exams. So there is some value in the 'authoritariansim' of this system for short term benefit and gain of the student. As s/he progresses, further study and experiment give wider understanding of knowledge already gained as well as opening the eyes to new knowledge.

The same thing happens in language acquisition. Most students these days learn a langauge idiomatically at the outset. They have to accept the 'authority' of the teacher that XYZ is the correct way of saying and pronouncing the phrase, in order to get by and get a foothold in the langauge. As they progress, they can learn more about the underlying structures of the language and wean themselves off the dependence on the authority of the teacher. This process can continue indefinitely. Anyone who tries to learn a language by first trying to learn the whole underlying grammar and insisting that it be 'proved' every step of the way, challenging the authority, will find themselves quickly frustrated (no matter how good the teacher) and probably give up. As a language learner myself I find I need patience and humility as well as determination. One has to defer to higher authority until one reaches the same level of proficiency, and accept their superior knowledge; one has to endure the unmalicious and genuine laughter of others as one comes out with odd phrases and idioms; one has to be determined to reach a level of satisfaction in knowing the langauge.

I think there can be something of the same approach with organised religion and indeed even with our individual spiritual quests. But a bad and unprofessional teacher can leave a student put off and carrying a chip on the shoulder, which Ringslinger mentions with his comment on abusive Sunday school. I'm not sure what your personal experience of Sunday school is, Ringslinger, so I can only hazard a guess; but it sounds like you had one of those 'bad teachers' that puts people off for life. A good teacher will waken the curiosity fo their student for teh subject rather than turning them off, and will ease the path of the student. There is "authority", I suppose, rather than "authoritarianism". Perhaps that's what you have in mind as well, Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:16 PM

Amos--call it "strong minded" and "abrasive", I won't disagree-- Mrzzy has certain beliefs about God, and she says that those beliefs entitle her to behave agressively toward people who she perceives to have different beliefs than she does. Other people have called that fanaticism.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:19 PM

Oh, by the way, the title of this thread itself, created by Mrzzy, is mean-spirited.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: theleveller
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:27 PM

Hmmm. Nick, I hear what you're saying. I think it's probably just a difference of approach. Personally, I will have nothing to do with organised religion, regarding it as largely a force for evil in the world. For me it's always been a very personal quest that I've undertaken alone.

Robert Graves said that when writing The White Goddess (in my view, a must-read for anyone interested in spirituality and comparative religion) any information that he needed just seemed to present itself at the right moment.Perhaps what Jung would describe as synchronicity. This has happened to me, many times; so much so that I once decided to trust to synchronicity to conduct my search. I started with one book then waited for others to present themselves, usually from something quoted in the text or that jumped out from the bibliography. It was an interesting and most enlightening period that, to some extent, is still continuing and some of the 'coincidences' were surprising and, at times, alarming. Where did it lead to? Don't know because I haven't got there yet and probably never will.......

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:29 PM

Unm, TEd---I think you are misinterpreting her communication.

She is (I think) suggesting a standard of empirical, or at least heuristic, demonstration be used in assertions about non-material phenomena.

One reason (I think) she might be doing so is that without some sort of standard, any assertion from Gilgamesh to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and everything in between has no differentiating merit.

One could argue that in this arena one acts on faith and agrees with a source teaching or does not, based purely on internal resonance or something. But it is a very clear lesson of history that mass agreement is not a reliable crityerion for measuring the value of data or its truthiness or usefulness. ANd certainly, one individual's subscription on faith is nowhere sufficient as grounds for another to choose the same subscription, at least not if the other is looking for truthiness or usefulness.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 03:41 PM

Amos "ANd certainly, one individual's subscription on faith is nowhere sufficient as grounds for another to choose the same subscription, at least not if the other is looking for truthiness or usefulness"

Quite so. I would just add though by way of observation that if someone seems to have hit on something that really 'moves' them (again for lack of better vocabulary) curiosity alone would make the other enquire what that person had discovered.

"But it is a very clear lesson of history that mass agreement is not a reliable crityerion for measuring the value of data or its truthiness or usefulnes"

Up to a point. there have of course been many cases of mass popular delusion in many fields as well as religious - political, cultural etc., And of course we only need to look at our century to see that just because whole nations follow the leader doesn't mean the leader's right!

But while mass subscription to an idea or belief is no guarantee of its usefulness or reliablity, it would be equally uncalled for to dismiss it out of hand unless first proved through personal experience. If 50 million Frenchman tell you gravity will pull you rapidly downwards if you step off a cliff, and assuming that somehow you have no prior experience of this, it would be foolish to insist on discovering whether there is truth the 'hard way'. A prudent person might first stop and think to themselves "well, if so many people are saying it for so long, there might be something in it, and it might be worth looking into a bit more first".

We may end up finding that the 50 million Frenchmen are wrong afterall, but we can learn and be forwarned through the experience of others. Afterall, this is what every parent tries to do with more or less success!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 04:35 PM

I think you *like* her, Amos;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 05:17 PM

Accidentally posted to the other thread... sorry!

Um - The original thread, begun last year by another freethinker, was titled "There aren't any gods (not even Jesus)." I continued it, after it passed 800 some-odd posts, as "Still no gods 2008." If my shorter title is so much meaner, I apologize, but I really don't see the massive difference in spirit.

M.Ted, what do you mind so much about my intolerance of empirical-reality-deniers, assuming you aren't one of them? Do you disagree that a child's right to an education trumps a parent's desire to keep them ignorant? Do you believe that a leader should consult their personal supernatural force or being when making decisions involving your actual life? Why do you think it mean to argue forcefully against these and other immediate harms stemming from basing human actions on faith-in-something-undemonstrable-and-unfalsifiable?

I've started threads about celebrating midwinter godlessly, about whether atheists are the new gays, and posted the lyrics of godful songs I've liked enough to rewrite into godless songs. Others have started very similar threads. Look for the words to Atheists in Foxholes, for instance.

Don't read any further without a sense of humor...
(I also insist that people not smoke in no-smoking zones around the hospital where I work. Meanie, meanie.)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 05:28 PM

"M.Ted, what do you mind so much about my intolerance.." that about sums it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 05:34 PM

It's really confusing to have both of these threads running at the same time.


             M.Ted - You left off: "of empirical-reality-deniers..."

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 07:16 PM

If I left you out, Riginslinger, I am truly sorry;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 07:20 PM

But seriously, "empirical reality deniers" is just a perjorative term for everybody that "The Mrzz" doesn't like? Kind of counterpart to "secular humanists"?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 07:37 PM

I suppose I come in closer to the "secular humanists" than the "empirical reality deniers," though the latter is a little more poetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 08:04 PM

Mrrzy

M.Ted, what do you mind so much about my intolerance of empirical-reality-deniers, assuming you aren't one of them?

Oh yes he is. On the other thread he tried to tell me that bacon sandwiches (amongst other things) don't exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 08:07 PM

M. Ted:

No. Empirical reality-deniers is a functional definition, not an affinity class. "People Mrzzy doesn't like" probably includes lots of empiricists, as well, and may even exclude some ERDs who are nice about it.

An empirical reality denier is one who rejects empirical standards for defining the scope, attributes and nature of reality. "Pigs fly when no-one is watching" is an example of an ERD proposition. "The world was created in 16 seconds by an overflowing pot of pasta". is another. "There are four (three, seven, two, one, eleven) aspects to Divinity." is another. These propositions all have in common the denial of the empirical standard.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 08:27 PM

Which ever you like--I'm easy.

"Empirical Reality Denier" could mean a lot of things--one who empirically denies reality, for instance--or "Empirical Reality" could be some sort of Multi-User game, with a moderator call the Denier--and it seems like there were various gnostic sects that believed that our earthly reality was an illusion created by the Demiurge, which would have made them "Empirical Reality Deniers"--also, the could be people who, for whatever reason, denied the reality of any of a number of historic empires, Rome, Byzantium, etc.

In the same vein, an Empirical Reality Denier could be some some one like Luke Skywalker, who fought to keep the Empire from becoming a reality. It's very flexible--

I think, to make it complete, you need the idea of an "Empirical Reality Affirmer", so you could have little bands of Deniers and Affirmers stealing each others mascots and such. Just a thought...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 08:28 PM

"...bacon sandwiches (amongst other things) don't exist..."


                     Well, they aren't kosher and they don't exist for Muslims.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 08:41 PM

How can something that doesn't exist have the property of being not kosher? If they don't exist, why are Muslims forbidden to eat them? Come on, be rashernal.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 08:43 PM

I'm thinking!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 10:36 PM

I ate the bacon sandwiches. And now they don't exist. I was hungry and I couldn't deny that empirical reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 11:06 PM

Fat lot of good that did you, eh?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Jan 08 - 11:50 PM

Yes, from a good lot of fat.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 02:45 AM

So if I tell you I am at this moment (between key bashing) eating a delicious bacon butty...would you believe me? You only have my word for it.
If I tell you I have a relationship with Jesus, the living God, would you believe me?   I guess it all comes down to how much you trust people at their word...or does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 06:39 AM

M.Ted

and I couldn't deny that empirical reality

BREAKTHROUGH!!!!

Don't worry, M.Ted, bacon sandwiches are a continuously renewing force for good.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: theleveller
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 08:20 AM

"I guess it all comes down to how much you trust people at their word...or does it?"

Probably depends more on the nature of your relationship, Georgiansilver. I have a great relationship with my dog and often talk to her but, apart from the obvious words of command, I don't really believe that she understands what I'm saying. If I did believe it, I'd probably deserve to be subjected to psychiatric help. And, despite what some people are saying, my dog really does exist - or who is it who's crapping on my lawn?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 08:25 AM

The trick to empirical reality is that it's demonstrable. Note that this includes the word Demon... yikes!

And another trick is that you don't HAVE to trust anybody's word for it - if it's empirical, it can be shown, so no authority is involved.

And bacon sandwiches are delicious.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 08:26 AM

It is an empirical fact that there is such a thing as a bacon sandwich.

WHen you invoke a relationship with a hypothetical, that's when you step beyond the bounds of empiricism. It is impossible for another to understand what the referent is, because you are using semantic fireworks I know what's behind the label sandwich to a 90% probability of accuracy. But your religious expression might as well be about Poonjab the Big Blue Power Dot.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 08:27 AM

My dog is brilliant. He often gives lectures on quantum mechanics and string theory, you know, when he can fit it into his schedule.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: theleveller
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 08:50 AM

Ah, but does your dog catch pheasants and rabbits? You can't eat quantum physics - or can you (and do they taste better than a bacon buttie)?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 10:34 AM

All approach him with a bacon sandwich and see what he does.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 10:52 AM

"So if I tell you I am at this moment (between key bashing) eating a delicious bacon butty...would you believe me? You only have my word for it.
If I tell you I have a relationship with Jesus, the living God, would you believe me?   I guess it all comes down to how much you trust people at their word...or does it?" - Georgiansilver

It's entirely possible (for me) to trust people at their word in almost all things except their perception of the supernatural in any form.

I have had experiences I think many people would have identified as 'religious experiences'. I personally identified them as a mental state influenced by various factors, all of them physical. Our own bodies, and our tremendously complex environment, are more than capable of producing phenomena which may appear to be encounters with gods, ghosts, or goblins, or just euphoria.

I have often heard people describe such experiences, people who are convinced they have been touched by a god, or an angel, or communicated with a ghost, or been taken up by ecstasy. It always seems to me that when they describe factors surrounding the experience, be it their own physical state, their environment at the time, or a combination, that they simply have not been able to recognise, usually through not knowing enough about such things, the physical foundations of these no doubt powerful experiences.

A person I trust above all others, and know to be very intelligent, is very devout, partly because of a religious experience she had as a young woman. At the time of this experience, she was deathly ill, full of toxins and running an extreme fever. She very nearly died. She experienced a long period of hallucinations and delirium, during which time her mother sat by praying aloud, the minister visited, and many people in white garments hung about her bedside.

I am not in the least surprised she regained health with a firm belief that she had been touched by God. It doesn't in any way reduce my trust in her - I just think she interpreted her experiences much differently than I have interpreted mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 11:36 AM

That dog will tell you anything to get bacon, but he's a goddamn liar. He never done none of them things... ;>)



A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Jan 08 - 11:37 AM

I'll find out; I'll have him tailed!