Near-death experiences!

[CFLarsen]

No. The similarities between religions (that most consider diametrically opposed) are more significant than the differences is my reasoning.

What do you base your assumption on, that most consider religions diametrically opposed?

When you compare religions, you will find many similarities. But you can't argue that you have reasoned your way, just because you see similarities.

I can also point to many similarities between various forms of superstitious beliefs. Would you accept that as a reason to believe in something superstitious?

God/spirituality can be considered a circular phenomenon, and logic may or not apply.

But you are arguing that logic does apply, don't you? How else could you have reasoned your way? Reason is based on logic.

No. I believe in God because I have learned as much as I could from theologians of several religions, I have no reason to reject all their teachings, the similarities of thought/belief/opinion are compelling to me, and (because I do believe) I have great respect and appreciation for His Creation.

Whoa. You just abandoned all reason by saying that you do believe, period. You believe because you believe. Not because you have reasoned your way to belief.

Nothing accomplishes anything on a skeptic's board. That is why I wrote:

I disagree very strongly that nothing can be accomplished on a skeptic's board. Nevertheless: If you don't think that anything can be accomplished, why are you posting here?

 

[Meffy]

Show me.

Do you mean that you've never seen anyone prove a claim convincingly? Or that you have, but would like me to waste time digging up links for you? If you're not being disingenuous for effect, try the Forum Spotlight section.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
No. The similarities between religions (that most consider diametrically opposed) are more significant than the differences is my reasoning.

What do you base your assumption on, that most consider religions diametrically opposed?

Maybe "diametrically opposed" aren't the right words to describe the differences between Taoism and Judaism.

How would you compare the two?

When you compare religions, you will find many similarities. But you can't argue that you have reasoned your way, just because you see similarities.

I can also point to many similarities between various forms of superstitious beliefs. Would you accept that as a reason to believe in something superstitious?

Possibly, yes, although I might not call it "superstitious".

Originally Posted by Huntster :
God/spirituality can be considered a circular phenomenon, and logic may or not apply.

But you are arguing that logic does apply, don't you? How else could you have reasoned your way? Reason is based on logic

I can agree that my understanding of the situation(s) is an exercise in reason/logic, but I don't believe God/spirituality is necessarily subject to logic, because (by definition) He/it is "supernatural".

Originally Posted by Huntster :
No. I believe in God because I have learned as much as I could from theologians of several religions, I have no reason to reject all their teachings, the similarities of thought/belief/opinion are compelling to me, and (because I do believe) I have great respect and appreciation for His Creation.

Whoa. You just abandoned all reason by saying that you do believe, period. You believe because you believe. Not because you have reasoned your way to belief.

I believe (accept without proof) because I have reasoned (considered), and have found no compelling reason (consideration) to reject.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Nothing accomplishes anything on a skeptic's board. That is why I wrote:

I disagree very strongly that nothing can be accomplished on a skeptic's board.

You are free to treasure your opinion.

Nevertheless: If you don't think that anything can be accomplished, why are you posting here?

Because it entertains me.

 

[CFLarsen]

Maybe "diametrically opposed" aren't the right words to describe the differences between Taoism and Judaism.

How would you compare the two?

I am not here to do your arguing for you. You have to explain your own stance.

Possibly, yes, although I might not call it "superstitious".

Okie doke.

The belief in necromancy - talking to the dead - relies on the "feedback" the psychic gets from the spirits. The process is well known: The psychic throws out a lot of vague guesses, and hook on to those where you get positive feedback from the client.

The same thing happens with astrologers: Throw out a lot of general statements, and hook on to those where you get positive feedback from the client.

Since there are similarities, do you believe in astrology and spirit communication? Remember, your criterion for believing is similarities. Not whether the belief is validated by evidence.

I can agree that my understanding of the situation(s) is an exercise in reason/logic, but I don't believe God/spirituality is necessarily subject to logic, because (by definition) He/it is "supernatural".

Now you are definitely contradicting yourself. If you don't think that God is subject to logic, how can you reason your way to your belief in God?

I believe (accept without proof) because I have reasoned (considered), and have found no compelling reason (consideration) to reject.

That is not reasoning, that is yet another logical fallacy: Appeal to ignorance. You believe, because you can't find any reason not to believe.

You are free to treasure your opinion.

It's not merely an opinion. We can actually accomplish something here, by presenting our evidence.

Because it entertains me.

I don't believe that for one second. You have argued that you hold your beliefs because you have reasoned your way to them. That is not merely entertainment.

Unless, of course, you are merely making a mockery out of your own beliefs.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Maybe "diametrically opposed" aren't the right words to describe the differences between Taoism and Judaism.

How would you compare the two?

I am not here to do your arguing for you. You have to explain your own stance.

I have done so. After admitting that the words "diametrically opposed" may have been a poor choice, I attempted to get an idea from you as to how you would compare the two.

You don't want to go there. I'm not surprised. You appear not to want to understand my logic, but to seek holes in it.

Thus, my suspicions appear valid, but I'll continue anyway.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Possibly, yes, although I might not call it "superstitious".

Okie doke.

The belief in necromancy - talking to the dead - relies on the "feedback" the psychic gets from the spirits. The process is well known: The psychic throws out a lot of vague guesses, and hook on to those where you get positive feedback from the client.

The same thing happens with astrologers: Throw out a lot of general statements, and hook on to those where you get positive feedback from the client.

Since there are similarities, do you believe in astrology and spirit communication? Remember, your criterion for believing is similarities. Not whether the belief is validated by evidence.

Is prayer "necromancy?" It's "talking to the dead", is it not? Very "similar", is it not?

I believe in prayer.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I can agree that my understanding of the situation(s) is an exercise in reason/logic, but I don't believe God/spirituality is necessarily subject to logic, because (by definition) He/it is "supernatural".

Now you are definitely contradicting yourself. If you don't think that God is subject to logic, how can you reason your way to your belief in God?

My belief in God, based on my education and reasoning, isn't God Himself, who might be not subject to logic because He's (by definition) supernatural.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I believe (accept without proof) because I have reasoned (considered), and have found no compelling reason (consideration) to reject.

That is not reasoning, that is yet another logical fallacy: Appeal to ignorance. You believe, because you can't find any reason not to believe.

I believe because I "can't find any reason not to believe," as well as finding a number of reasons to believe.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
You are free to treasure your opinion.

It's not merely an opinion. We can actually accomplish something here, by presenting our evidence.

You will reject any evidence presented, so why bother?

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Because it entertains me.

I don't believe that for one second. You have argued that you hold your beliefs because you have reasoned your way to them. That is not merely entertainment.

That is correct. What is entertaining is the reaction my belief generates among the clowns on this forum.

Unless, of course, you are merely making a mockery out of your own beliefs.

I don't need to make a mockery out of anything. All I need to do is sit back and let the entertainment come to me.

 

[CFLarsen]

I have done so. After admitting that the words "diametrically opposed" may have been a poor choice, I attempted to get an idea from you as to how you would compare the two.

You don't want to go there. I'm not surprised. You appear not to want to understand my logic, but to seek holes in it.

Thus, my suspicions appear valid, but I'll continue anyway.

What does it matter to your reasoning how I would compare the two? If you don't think the words were a good choice, you come up with something better.

You have to argue your own case.

Is prayer "necromancy?" It's "talking to the dead", is it not? Very "similar", is it not?

I believe in prayer.

What, exactly, is it you believe? That, if you ask God for a Mercedes Benz, he will give it to you? Or are you asking for peace of mind? Do you expect God to answer you, the same way a psychic claims to hear/see/feel messages from the dead?

So you believe in astrology, too?

My belief in God, based on my education and reasoning, isn't God Himself, who might be not subject to logic because He's (by definition) supernatural.

You lost me there. Please elaborate.

I believe because I "can't find any reason not to believe," as well as finding a number of reasons to believe.

And those are?

You will reject any evidence presented, so why bother?

I haven't seen any evidence or reason from you whatsoever. I've seen logical fallacies and blind belief.

That is correct. What is entertaining is the reaction my belief generates among the clowns on this forum.

I don't need to make a mockery out of anything. All I need to do is sit back and let the entertainment come to me.

Do you think your god condones such behavior?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I have done so. After admitting that the words "diametrically opposed" may have been a poor choice, I attempted to get an idea from you as to how you would compare the two.

You don't want to go there. I'm not surprised. You appear not to want to understand my logic, but to seek holes in it.

Thus, my suspicions appear valid, but I'll continue anyway.

What does it matter to your reasoning how I would compare the two? If you don't think the words were a good choice, you come up with something better.

Okay. Judaism and Taoism are "very, very different". For example, "God" is often "personified", but "the Tao" is never personified. The origins of each are separated by the massive Asian continent, and are both as old as recorded human history. They are religions of two separate cultures and races of peoples.

Yet, the principles are very, very similar, and they can be readily and easily compared (as I did with that example of Exodus and Tao Te Ching verses).

The goals of both are very similar; to become one with God/Tao.

These differences/similarities can be found in most major religions of the world, including aboriginal religions.

I seek and try to understand the similarities, and don't pay much attention to the differences. I certainly don't let the differences negate my spirituality. I'm not one to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Is prayer "necromancy?" It's "talking to the dead", is it not? Very "similar", is it not?

I believe in prayer.

What, exactly, is it you believe?

Again, that's a question demanding an answer so huge that it is not possible for me to fully answer.

That, if you ask God for a Mercedes Benz, he will give it to you?

Of course not. And I'm not stupid enough to ask for a Mercedes Benz. I grew up with my dad's Mercedes. I wasn't impressed.

Or are you asking for peace of mind?

Yes, I do pray for peace; not only for "my mind", but for all peoples. I pray for much more than "peace". One of my favorite "rote prayers" is for "peace & prosperity," especially for my children and for those who have not been able to enjoy such.

Do you expect God to answer you, the same way a psychic claims to hear/see/feel messages from the dead?

Absolutely not, but I have been amazed at how He has answered me.

So you believe in astrology, too?

Probably not. I don't know much about "astrology." I don't see much of a need to study it, either.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
My belief in God, based on my education and reasoning, isn't God Himself, who might be not subject to logic because He's (by definition) supernatural.

You lost me there. Please elaborate.

God is, by definition, supernatural. He is exempt from the laws of nature, or at least the physical laws of nature, because He is not physical.

I believe logic and reason are bound by these laws, especially as humans view and use them.

So, my belief (forced upon me because I cannot know or prove, and as a product of reason) is a "natural" and logical reasoning regarding a phenomenon that is supernatural.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I believe because I "can't find any reason not to believe," as well as finding a number of reasons to believe.

And those are?

Some examples of my reasons to believe:

* Scripture
* My reasoning
* Marian miracles
* The faith of others who I admire and trust
* The similarities of my Christian faith and other faiths around the world
* The examples of both other faithful as well as the unfaithful
* The remarkable events of my own life, and the revelations that have been granted me

Originally Posted by Huntster :
You will reject any evidence presented, so why bother?

I haven't seen any evidence or reason from you whatsoever. I've seen logical fallacies and blind belief.

And that is all you are likely to see. For example:

He departed from there and came to his native place, accompanied by his disciples.
When the sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They said, "Where did this man get all this? What kind of wisdom has been given him? What mighty deeds are wrought by his hands!
Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and among his own kin and in his own house."
So he was not able to perform any mighty deed there, apart from curing a few sick people by laying his hands on them.
He was amazed at their lack of faith. He went around to the villages in the vicinity teaching.

Mark 6:1-6

He was "not able." The footnote to that verse in the RCC New American Bible states:

He was not able to perform any mighty deed there: according to Mark, Jesus' power could not take effect because of a person's lack of faith.

Conversely:

A woman suffering hemorrhages for twelve years came up behind him and touched the tassel on his cloak. She said to herself, "If only I can touch his cloak, I shall be cured." Jesus turned around and saw her, and said, "Courage, daughter! Your faith has saved you." And from that hour the woman was cured.

Matthew 9:20-22

The recurrent theme of Judaism and, especially, Christianity, is faith. Indeed, the theme of the physical is "evidence", or "proof." The theme of the spirit is "faith" and "love."

Ask, and ye shall receive. Knock, and it shall be opened to you.

Conversely, if you do not ask (and, indeed, refuse to ask), why should it be given to you? How can it be given to you?

Originally Posted by Huntster :
That is correct. What is entertaining is the reaction my belief generates among the clowns on this forum.

I don't need to make a mockery out of anything. All I need to do is sit back and let the entertainment come to me.

Do you think your god condones such behavior?

He most certainly does. Both the behavior of my ideological opponents on this forum as well as my behavior.

We are all of free will.

 

[CFLarsen]

Okay. Judaism and Taoism are "very, very different". For example, "God" is often "personified", but "the Tao" is never personified. The origins of each are separated by the massive Asian continent, and are both as old as recorded human history. They are religions of two separate cultures and races of peoples.

Yet, the principles are very, very similar, and they can be readily and easily compared (as I did with that example of Exodus and Tao Te Ching verses).

The goals of both are very similar; to become one with God/Tao.

These differences/similarities can be found in most major religions of the world, including aboriginal religions.

I seek and try to understand the similarities, and don't pay much attention to the differences. I certainly don't let the differences negate my spirituality. I'm not one to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Oops.

That's not good.

You are searching for patterns that confirms your beliefs, and reject the patterns that does the opposite. That's not reasoning your way, that's selecting the data to fit your hypothesis. Yet another logical fallacy.

Again, that's a question demanding an answer so huge that it is not possible for me to fully answer.

I'm sure we can work our way to some answer.

Of course not. And I'm not stupid enough to ask for a Mercedes Benz. I grew up with my dad's Mercedes. I wasn't impressed.

So, you are not claiming that you can pray for something that could not have happened without the intervention of God?

Yes, I do pray for peace; not only for "my mind", but for all peoples. I pray for much more than "peace". One of my favorite "rote prayers" is for "peace & prosperity," especially for my children and for those who have not been able to enjoy such.

Absolutely not, but I have been amazed at how He has answered me.

That's what I would like to know: Has he answered you in any supernatural way? Has something happened that could only have happened by supernatural means? If so, what?

If not, why does that make you believe in God? As in "reasoning".

Probably not. I don't know much about "astrology." I don't see much of a need to study it, either.

But, by your own reasoning, you should believe in astrology.

God is, by definition, supernatural. He is exempt from the laws of nature, or at least the physical laws of nature, because He is not physical.

I believe logic and reason are bound by these laws, especially as humans view and use them.

So, my belief (forced upon me because I cannot know or prove, and as a product of reason) is a "natural" and logical reasoning regarding a phenomenon that is supernatural.

And that is why I ask you if you in any way base that belief on a supernatural phenomenon.

Some examples of my reasons to believe:

* Scripture

As the infallible word of God?

* My reasoning

Well, that's lacking a bit in reasoning....

* Marian miracles

You need to be very specific here. What miracles are you talking about?

* The faith of others who I admire and trust

That has nothing to do with reason.

* The similarities of my Christian faith and other faiths around the world

That cannot be said to support your reasoning, since you discard the differences.

* The examples of both other faithful as well as the unfaithful

You need to explain this.

* The remarkable events of my own life, and the revelations that have been granted me

You need to be specific here.

And that is all you are likely to see. For example:

You do understand that, as a skeptic, I am less-than-convinced when people who claim that their faith is based on reason begin to quote the Bible to back up their claim?

Bible quotes are simply not convincing when we are talking about reason. If you want to claim that reason is behind your belief, you cannot use a religious argument.

Conversely, if you do not ask (and, indeed, refuse to ask), why should it be given to you? How can it be given to you?

So, since I am not asking for it (It isn't a case of me refusing to ask - I don't see any need to ask), I will go to Hell?

He most certainly does. Both the behavior of my ideological opponents on this forum as well as my behavior.

I have to admit that I am confused. You speak of religious belief, try to argue that you have reasoned your way to your belief, but now you speak of ideology? A slip of the tongue, perhaps?

We are all of free will.

How do you know?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Okay. Judaism and Taoism are "very, very different". For example, "God" is often "personified", but "the Tao" is never personified. The origins of each are separated by the massive Asian continent, and are both as old as recorded human history. They are religions of two separate cultures and races of peoples.

Yet, the principles are very, very similar, and they can be readily and easily compared (as I did with that example of Exodus and Tao Te Ching verses).

The goals of both are very similar; to become one with God/Tao.

These differences/similarities can be found in most major religions of the world, including aboriginal religions.

I seek and try to understand the similarities, and don't pay much attention to the differences. I certainly don't let the differences negate my spirituality. I'm not one to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Oops.

That's not good.

You are searching for patterns that confirms your beliefs, and reject the patterns that does the opposite. That's not reasoning your way, that's selecting the data to fit your hypothesis.

That is not what I said I was doing, and it is not what I am doing.

The similarities support each other. They are not my hypothesis. They are the results of the comparisons.

And I do not "reject" opposite "patterns". "I don't pay much attention" to them. And they don't even have to be "opposite patterns." For example, many Old Testament passages describe violence that skeptics just love to attribute to a violent God. These are 2,000 to 4,000 year old texts. Am I to attribute 2006 New World ideologies and realities to them? Do I "reject" them, even though they are likely historical accounts?

Or do I just make a note, and pay them little attention?

That, Claus, is reasoning.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Again, that's a question demanding an answer so huge that it is not possible for me to fully answer.

I'm sure we can work our way to some answer.

Somehow, I doubt that. Call me a "skeptic", or even "He who has little faith."

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Of course not. And I'm not stupid enough to ask for a Mercedes Benz. I grew up with my dad's Mercedes. I wasn't impressed.

So, you are not claiming that you can pray for something that could not have happened without the intervention of God?

Multiple negatives in that question, Claus. I'm afraid to attempt an answer, lest it be used against me. Please consider re-phrasing it.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Yes, I do pray for peace; not only for "my mind", but for all peoples. I pray for much more than "peace". One of my favorite "rote prayers" is for "peace & prosperity," especially for my children and for those who have not been able to enjoy such.

Absolutely not, but I have been amazed at how He has answered me.

That's what I would like to know: Has he answered you in any supernatural way?

"Supernatural way?" No.

Has something happened that could only have happened by supernatural means?

Nope.

If not, why does that make you believe in God? As in "reasoning".

Because I prayed in faith, and an answer (maybe not even the one I sought) came. Sometimes in remarkable (not supernatural) ways. Sometimes incidents occurred which I hadn't prayed about at all. Sometimes I was involved as the beneficiary of the prayers of others.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Probably not. I don't know much about "astrology." I don't see much of a need to study it, either.

But, by your own reasoning, you should believe in astrology.

Since I don't know what you mean by the term "astrology", I cannot comment with authority.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Some examples of my reasons to believe:

* Scripture

As the infallible word of God?

No. As the words of men who believed themselves to be inspired by God, and who other men (theologians) later also believed (and assembled into what we now know as the Bible, as well as other books not included).

Originally Posted by Huntster :
* My reasoning

Well, that's lacking a bit in reasoning....

It works for me.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
* Marian miracles

You need to be very specific here. What miracles are you talking about?

Those which occurred at Lourdes and Fatima come to mind.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
* The faith of others who I admire and trust

That has nothing to do with reason.

It does if you observe those people, listen to their reasoning, learn of them, consider it all, and find all that a positive consideration.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
* The similarities of my Christian faith and other faiths around the world

That cannot be said to support your reasoning, since you discard the differences.

I do not discard differences. I consider them and try to understand why they occur. I usually arrive at pretty simple answers for those differences, too, which allows me to then focus on the similarities, which are much more significant.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
* The examples of both other faithful as well as the unfaithful

You need to explain this.

Maybe later.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
* The remarkable events of my own life, and the revelations that have been granted me

You need to be specific here.

Maybe. That's pretty personal stuff.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
And that is all you are likely to see. For example:

You do understand that, as a skeptic, I am less-than-convinced when people who claim that their faith is based on reason begin to quote the Bible to back up their claim?

Of course. That's why I quoted those passages in particular. Skepticism and Faith are diametrically opposed. If your skepticism cannot be moderated, you may never understand.

Bible quotes are simply not convincing when we are talking about reason. If you want to claim that reason is behind your belief, you cannot use a religious argument.

Reason:

The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Note at because. See Usage Note at why.
A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.
An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.
The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
Good judgment; sound sense.
A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.
Logic. A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.

According to that definition I can.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Conversely, if you do not ask (and, indeed, refuse to ask), why should it be given to you? How can it be given to you?

So, since I am not asking for it (It isn't a case of me refusing to ask - I don't see any need to ask), I will go to Hell?

Since Hell is defined as "the state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives f you reject God", yes. If you reject God, you have demanded "self-exclusion." You get what you wish.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
He most certainly does. Both the behavior of my ideological opponents on this forum as well as my behavior.

I have to admit that I am confused. You speak of religious belief, try to argue that you have reasoned your way to your belief, but now you speak of ideology? A slip of the tongue, perhaps?

Many of those on this forum reject God. I consider that an ideology. It might be considered atheism. If you prefer me to call my opponents "religious", that's fine with me.

Frankly, I consider "skepticism" as a religion for some, as well as "science" a religion for some.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
We are all of free will.

How do you know?

Education and experience in life.

 

[CFLarsen]

That is not what I said I was doing, and it is not what I am doing.

The similarities support each other. They are not my hypothesis. They are the results of the comparisons.

And I do not "reject" opposite "patterns". "I don't pay much attention" to them. And they don't even have to be "opposite patterns." For example, many Old Testament passages describe violence that skeptics just love to attribute to a violent God. These are 2,000 to 4,000 year old texts. Am I to attribute 2006 New World ideologies and realities to them? Do I "reject" them, even though they are likely historical accounts?

Or do I just make a note, and pay them little attention?

That, Claus, is reasoning.

Ehhhh....no, it isn't. It is selecting the data. You are discarding anything that doesn't fit your belief.

Somehow, I doubt that. Call me a "skeptic", or even "He who has little faith."

You have very little idea of what a skeptic is.

Multiple negatives in that question, Claus. I'm afraid to attempt an answer, lest it be used against me. Please consider re-phrasing it.

Do you claim that you can pray for something could not have happened without the intervention of God?

Since I don't know what you mean by the term "astrology", I cannot comment with authority.

Of course you know what astrology means. Don't feign ignorance.

No. As the words of men who believed themselves to be inspired by God, and who other men (theologians) later also believed (and assembled into what we now know as the Bible, as well as other books not included).

In which case, you have to believe in astrology. Astrology is also based on the words of men who believed themselves to know the celestial secrets, and who other men (astrologers) later also believed (and assembled into what we know as standard astrological works).

It works for me.

Perhaps, but you cannot possibly claim that you have reasoned your way to your faith.

Those which occurred at Lourdes and Fatima come to mind.

OK, so you do believe in an intervening God.

It does if you observe those people, listen to their reasoning, learn of them, consider it all, and find all that a positive consideration.

By that same logic, you have to believe in astrology: You will find that astrologers are just as convincing as those people you are talking about. They certainly are using exactly the same means of "reasoning".

I do not discard differences. I consider them and try to understand why they occur. I usually arrive at pretty simple answers for those differences, too, which allows me to then focus on the similarities, which are much more significant.

But what do you base that decision on, if not your faith? You sure don't use reason.

Maybe later.

It's been two days. Feel up to it now?

Maybe. That's pretty personal stuff.

I'm sure you can de-personalize it. Try, please.

Of course. That's why I quoted those passages in particular. Skepticism and Faith are diametrically opposed. If your skepticism cannot be moderated, you may never understand.

It isn't a question of whether my skepticism can be moderated or not. It is a question of whether your faith can be moderated by evidence or not. Can it? If you experienced something that you knew was true, but against your faith, would you accept that your faith was wrong?

Reason:

According to that definition I can.

But God is inherently illogical. That's the whole idea of religion: To explain the world by supernatural, illogical means.

You point to a definition that includes sanity. Does that mean you consider non-believers insane? Without reason? Not in a normal mental state?

Since Hell is defined as "the state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives f you reject God", yes. If you reject God, you have demanded "self-exclusion." You get what you wish.

That means that you would not lift a finger to help those whom you believe are destined for Hell?

Many of those on this forum reject God. I consider that an ideology. It might be considered atheism. If you prefer me to call my opponents "religious", that's fine with me.

Frankly, I consider "skepticism" as a religion for some, as well as "science" a religion for some.

Really? Can you explain just what is so supernatural about skepticism and science?

Education and experience in life.

If I gave you the same explanation for my beliefs in astrology, would you find it convincing?

 

[CFLarsen]

Bump for Huntster.

 

[Huntster]

Sorry for the delay, Claus. I was out in the woods with Mrs. Huntster. It's that time of year. Hunting season is coming up. I've gotta get her on a caribou this year.

Good company out there. Just me, her, God, and His creation.

Ehhhh....no, it isn't. It is selecting the data. You are discarding anything that doesn't fit your belief.

No, it's not. And if you can't see the difference after a few attempts at pointing it out to you, it's probably a lost cause.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Somehow, I doubt that. Call me a "skeptic", or even "He who has little faith."

You have very little idea of what a skeptic is.

Perhaps not. And perhaps you don't, either.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Multiple negatives in that question, Claus. I'm afraid to attempt an answer, lest it be used against me. Please consider re-phrasing it.

Do you claim that you can pray for something could not have happened without the intervention of God?

No, I don't.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Since I don't know what you mean by the term "astrology", I cannot comment with authority.

Of course you know what astrology means. Don't feign ignorance.

Claus, I don't "feign" anything. I write it as I know it; no more, and no less.

I have no idea what astrology encompasses. I have read that prophets have been learned in it. I have read that it was an early form of timekeeping. I have read that current scam artists have used it to woo fools.

Other than that, I know nothing about it.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
No. As the words of men who believed themselves to be inspired by God, and who other men (theologians) later also believed (and assembled into what we now know as the Bible, as well as other books not included).

In which case, you have to believe in astrology. Astrology is also based on the words of men who believed themselves to know the celestial secrets, and who other men (astrologers) later also believed (and assembled into what we know as standard astrological works).

I don't have to believe in anything that you so dictate.

I reason through what I know. I know very little (if anything) about celestial alignments or movements.

As far as "horoscopes", and anything like it, I think that's a bunch of BS.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
It works for me.

Perhaps, but you cannot possibly claim that you have reasoned your way to your faith.

I have justified my faith (to my satsifaction) through reason.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Those which occurred at Lourdes and Fatima come to mind.

OK, so you do believe in an intervening God.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
It does if you observe those people, listen to their reasoning, learn of them, consider it all, and find all that a positive consideration.

By that same logic, you have to believe in astrology: You will find that astrologers are just as convincing as those people you are talking about. They certainly are using exactly the same means of "reasoning".

Again, I know nothing of astrology, and I do not have to believe in it.

I do wish I knew more about it, just so that I could form a better opinion regarding it.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I do not discard differences. I consider them and try to understand why they occur. I usually arrive at pretty simple answers for those differences, too, which allows me to then focus on the similarities, which are much more significant.

But what do you base that decision on, if not your faith? You sure don't use reason.

It is based on both faith and reason.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Maybe later.

It's been two days. Feel up to it now?

Nope.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Maybe. That's pretty personal stuff.

I'm sure you can de-personalize it. Try, please.

Sorry.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Of course. That's why I quoted those passages in particular. Skepticism and Faith are diametrically opposed. If your skepticism cannot be moderated, you may never understand.

It isn't a question of whether my skepticism can be moderated or not. It is a question of whether your faith can be moderated by evidence or not.

Doesn't the very definition of moderation require both sides come nearer to each other?

Can it? If you experienced something that you knew was true, but against your faith, would you accept that your faith was wrong?

Of course. That scenario is a blessing. If something becomes "knowable", faith is no longer required.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Reason:

According to that definition I can.

But God is inherently illogical. That's the whole idea of religion: To explain the world by supernatural, illogical means.

Not really. Religion is the study of the supernatural as it pertains to spirituality.

There may be other aspects of the supernatural that may be unrelated to the spirit.

I just don't know, nor am I learned in such other areas. I've focused on God, and the human spirit.

You point to a definition that includes sanity. Does that mean you consider non-believers insane?

Not at all. What gave you that idea?

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Since Hell is defined as "the state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives f you reject God", yes. If you reject God, you have demanded "self-exclusion." You get what you wish.

That means that you would not lift a finger to help those whom you believe are destined for Hell?

Their destiny is of their own choice. I can try to convince them otherwise, but (as this forum so clearly illustrates), the more one tries to convince others of the mere existence of God, the more those who refuse to accept it dig in their heels.

It appears to be counterproductive.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Many of those on this forum reject God. I consider that an ideology. It might be considered atheism. If you prefer me to call my opponents "religious", that's fine with me.

Frankly, I consider "skepticism" as a religion for some, as well as "science" a religion for some.

Really? Can you explain just what is so supernatural about skepticism and science?

Absolutely nothing. Skepticism and science absolutely refuse to even entertain the possibility of anything supernatural.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Education and experience in life.

If I gave you the same explanation for my beliefs in astrology, would you find it convincing?

I don't know.

You seem to have some knowledge and/or experience in astrology. I'm interested enough to learn about it.

I'll become convinced in something after learning about it, and comparing it to what I already know.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, it's not. And if you can't see the difference after a few attempts at pointing it out to you, it's probably a lost cause.

Perhaps not. And perhaps you don't, either.

Perhaps I don't understand what being a skeptic is. I don't think it is likely, though. Do you? Honestly? Me?

No, I don't.

And yet, you accept miracles that require the intervention of God?

Claus, I don't "feign" anything. I write it as I know it; no more, and no less.

I have no idea what astrology encompasses. I have read that prophets have been learned in it. I have read that it was an early form of timekeeping. I have read that current scam artists have used it to woo fools.

Other than that, I know nothing about it.

Take a few moments to read a bit about it here. Then please explain why you don't believe in Astrology.

I don't have to believe in anything that you so dictate.

I reason through what I know. I know very little (if anything) about celestial alignments or movements.

As far as "horoscopes", and anything like it, I think that's a bunch of BS.

It isn't me dictating. If you follow the words of men who believed themselves to know the celestial secrets, and who other men later also believed (and assembled into what we know as standard theological works), then you have to believe in Astrology.

I have justified my faith (to my satsifaction) through reason.

We've been through that. No, you haven't.

Yes.

But he can't - or won't - help you?

Again, I know nothing of astrology, and I do not have to believe in it.

I do wish I knew more about it, just so that I could form a better opinion regarding it.

You have your chance now.

It is based on both faith and reason.

And, as we have seen, what you think is reason, is really faith.

Nope.

Will you ever feel up to it?

Sorry.

If you won't explain it, then I won't understand. If you can't explain it, then you don't understand.

Doesn't the very definition of moderation require both sides come nearer to each other?

No. That's a compromise. The evidence itself is not up for moderation.

Of course. That scenario is a blessing. If something becomes "knowable", faith is no longer required.

What will it take for you to accept that your faith is wrong?

Not really. Religion is the study of the supernatural as it pertains to spirituality.

There may be other aspects of the supernatural that may be unrelated to the spirit.

I just don't know, nor am I learned in such other areas. I've focused on God, and the human spirit.

God and spirituality are not subject to reasoning.

Not at all. What gave you that idea?

Just asking.

Their destiny is of their own choice. I can try to convince them otherwise, but (as this forum so clearly illustrates), the more one tries to convince others of the mere existence of God, the more those who refuse to accept it dig in their heels.

It appears to be counterproductive.

If their destiny is their own choice, how can God be omnipotent? If you see someone whom you believe is destined for Hell, how can you lift a finger to help them?

Absolutely nothing. Skepticism and science absolutely refuse to even entertain the possibility of anything supernatural.

That is evidence that you have understood neither skepticism or science.

Skepticism certain entertains the possibility of anything supernatural. Skeptics just need evidence of something supernatural.

Science doesn't concern itself with the supernatural - it is by definition outside the scope of science. But science doesn't refuse to entertain the possibility of anything supernatural either.

I don't know.

You seem to have some knowledge and/or experience in astrology. I'm interested enough to learn about it.

I'll become convinced in something after learning about it, and comparing it to what I already know.

Read the link I gave you. Let's take it from there. Let's see how far you are willing to go, reason-wise.

 

[Huntster]

Perhaps I don't understand what being a skeptic is. I don't think it is likely, though. Do you? Honestly? Me?

Yup.

There's a difference between being a skeptic and being a denialist.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
No, I don't.

And yet, you accept miracles that require the intervention of God?

Yes, I accept that some miracles are a result of the intervention of God. Others are a result of the intervention of other powerful spirits, as a result of the instrument of God.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Claus, I don't "feign" anything. I write it as I know it; no more, and no less.

I have no idea what astrology encompasses. I have read that prophets have been learned in it. I have read that it was an early form of timekeeping. I have read that current scam artists have used it to woo fools.

Other than that, I know nothing about it.

Take a few moments to read a bit about it here. Then please explain why you don't believe in Astrology.

It will take a bit more than "a few moments" to read enough to comment on why I "don't believe in Astrology."

AT this point, I don't know if I will believe in it or not.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I don't have to believe in anything that you so dictate.

I reason through what I know. I know very little (if anything) about celestial alignments or movements.

As far as "horoscopes", and anything like it, I think that's a bunch of BS.

It isn't me dictating. If you follow the words of men who believed themselves to know the celestial secrets, and who other men later also believed (and assembled into what we know as standard theological works), then you have to believe in Astrology.

Who said I did that?

What do "celestial secrets" have to do with God and spirituality?

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I have justified my faith (to my satsifaction) through reason.

We've been through that. No, you haven't.

Yes, we have been through that.

And yes I have. You simply reject it. And that's fine for you.

But you have no right, authority, or power to reject it for me.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Yes.

But he can't - or won't - help you?

He can - and does - help me.

He and Christ have saved me from myself.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
It is based on both faith and reason.

And, as we have seen, what you think is reason, is really faith.

Since you clearly have no concept of faith, and you have clearly shown yourself to be unreasonable in many threads in this forum, you couldn't describe faith if you tried, and appear to have even less grasp on the concept of reason.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Nope.

Will you ever feel up to it?

Probably not with you.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Sorry.

If you won't explain it, then I won't understand. If you can't explain it, then you don't understand.

If I did explain it, you would simply try to find holes in it. You don't want to understand.

I can explain it in words I understand.

You will never understand, no matter which words are used.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Of course. That scenario is a blessing. If something becomes "knowable", faith is no longer required.

What will it take for you to accept that your faith is wrong?

Physical death, then nothingness.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Not really. Religion is the study of the supernatural as it pertains to spirituality.

There may be other aspects of the supernatural that may be unrelated to the spirit.

I just don't know, nor am I learned in such other areas. I've focused on God, and the human spirit.

God and spirituality are not subject to reasoning.

That's exactly what I've tried to get across to you.

My understanding of God and spirituality is subject ot reasoning.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Their destiny is of their own choice. I can try to convince them otherwise, but (as this forum so clearly illustrates), the more one tries to convince others of the mere existence of God, the more those who refuse to accept it dig in their heels.

It appears to be counterproductive.

In some cases, it most certainly is.

If their destiny is their own choice, how can God be omnipotent?

Our choices control our own destiny, not that of others, or that of "the world".

If you see someone whom you believe is destined for Hell, how can you lift a finger to help them?

In ways which I am weak.

By example, for one. By trying to steer them to Scripture, or the fellowship of Christianity, for another.

I am weak in both accounts.

I drip with sin.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Absolutely nothing. Skepticism and science absolutely refuse to even entertain the possibility of anything supernatural.

That is evidence that you have understood neither skepticism or science.

Apparently so.

Educate me otherwise.

Skepticism certain entertains the possibility of anything supernatural. Skeptics just need evidence of something supernatural.

Claus, obviously, there can be no physical evidence of a supernatural thing.

Science doesn't concern itself with the supernatural - it is by definition outside the scope of science...

But science doesn't refuse to entertain the possibility of anything supernatural either.

I think it does.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yup.

There's a difference between being a skeptic and being a denialist.

Very well, then: What is a skeptic?

Yes, I accept that some miracles are a result of the intervention of God. Others are a result of the intervention of other powerful spirits, as a result of the instrument of God.

How do you distinguish between the two? How do you know that it isn't the work of Satan?

It will take a bit more than "a few moments" to read enough to comment on why I "don't believe in Astrology."

AT this point, I don't know if I will believe in it or not.

How much will it take, then?

Who said I did that?

What do "celestial secrets" have to do with God and spirituality?

Call it a metaphor. God is in Heaven, right?

Yes, we have been through that.

And yes I have. You simply reject it. And that's fine for you.

But you have no right, authority, or power to reject it for me.

You know, that's a dead give-away. You really believe that I am here to force my argument on you? Are you so used to people forcing their arguments on you that you immediately assume that everyone will do the same?

I can only present you with the arguments. I cannot - and will not - force you to accept or reject it.

He can - and does - help me.

He and Christ have saved me from myself.

Was a religious belief really the only way?

Since you clearly have no concept of faith, and you have clearly shown yourself to be unreasonable in many threads in this forum, you couldn't describe faith if you tried, and appear to have even less grasp on the concept of reason.

That's very condescending.

Probably not with you.

No, I can understand why. I don't accept what you say, uncritically. I question what you say.

If I did explain it, you would simply try to find holes in it. You don't want to understand.

You know what? You're right! I would try to find holes in it! Because that's what skeptics do: They try to find holes in believers' reasoning. That's how we find out if an argument is sound. If it is backed by logic. If there is reason behind it.

I can explain it in words I understand. You will never understand, no matter which words are used.

That's a cop-out, and you know it. The "reason" you have used is only understood by yourself?

Physical death, then nothingness.

That's pretty final. That's also pretty fundamentalist.

That's exactly what I've tried to get across to you.

My understanding of God and spirituality is subject ot reasoning.

Since God and spirituality cannot be found outside the mind, there is no difference.

In some cases, it most certainly is.

"It appears to be counterproductive" was your comment, not mine.

Our choices control our own destiny, not that of others, or that of "the world".

Do you realize that you just said that God is not omnipotent? If I control my own destiny, God cannot be omnipotent.

In ways which I am weak.

By example, for one. By trying to steer them to Scripture, or the fellowship of Christianity, for another.

I am weak in both accounts.

I drip with sin.

If you "drip with sin", then who are you to "steer" people towards their salvation?

Apparently so.

Educate me otherwise.

I showed you the first step. Have you read the link?

Claus, obviously, there can be no physical evidence of a supernatural thing.

That depends on how you define "supernatural". To the Vikings, were thunder and lightning not supernatural?

I think it does.

You keep returning to what you think. It's not a question of what you think science does. It's a question of what it really does.

 

[Ipecac]

Yet, the principles are very, very similar, and they can be readily and easily compared (as I did with that example of Exodus and Tao Te Ching verses).

The goals of both are very similar; to become one with God/Tao.

These differences/similarities can be found in most major religions of the world, including aboriginal religions.

Why wouldn't you expect to find such similarities between major religions? Religions are invited by people and people, no matter where they are born, tend to have a lot of common experiences. It would be more remarkable if none of the religions in the world shared similarities. I mean, sheesh, being surprised by the similarities of different religion strikes me as looking at the world with blinders on.

 

[CFLarsen]

Bump for Huntster.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Yup.

There's a difference between being a skeptic and being a denialist.

Very well, then: What is a skeptic?

Skeptic:

One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
Philosophy.
often Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.
Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?-272? B.C.).

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Yes, I accept that some miracles are a result of the intervention of God. Others are a result of the intervention of other powerful spirits, as a result of the instrument of God.

How do you distinguish between the two?

Who says that I do?

How do you know that it isn't the work of Satan?

By the fruits of the works.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
It will take a bit more than "a few moments" to read enough to comment on why I "don't believe in Astrology."

AT this point, I don't know if I will believe in it or not.

How much will it take, then?

I don't know.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Who said I did that?

What do "celestial secrets" have to do with God and spirituality?

Call it a metaphor. God is in Heaven, right?

Kinda, sorta. God is Heaven.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Yes, we have been through that.

And yes I have. You simply reject it. And that's fine for you.

But you have no right, authority, or power to reject it for me.

You know, that's a dead give-away. You really believe that I am here to force my argument on you?

I don't know.

Are you so used to people forcing their arguments on you that you immediately assume that everyone will do the same?

Yes, I am.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
He can - and does - help me.

He and Christ have saved me from myself.

Was a religious belief really the only way?

I don't know.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Since you clearly have no concept of faith, and you have clearly shown yourself to be unreasonable in many threads in this forum, you couldn't describe faith if you tried, and appear to have even less grasp on the concept of reason.

That's very condescending.

Oh, well.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
If I did explain it, you would simply try to find holes in it. You don't want to understand.

You know what? You're right! I would try to find holes in it! Because that's what skeptics do: They try to find holes in believers' reasoning. That's how we find out if an argument is sound. If it is backed by logic. If there is reason behind it.

That's also why some people might not want to bother with you.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I can explain it in words I understand. You will never understand, no matter which words are used.

That's a cop-out, and you know it. The "reason" you have used is only understood by yourself?

Of course not. It is understood my millions of others.

But not you. And it is unlikely that you will accept it, regardless what words are used to explain how others understand it.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Physical death, then nothingness.

That's pretty final. That's also pretty fundamentalist.

It's also the only way one is likely to get "proof" of an afterlife, if you're unwilling to accept the testimony of people who have died and returned.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
In ways which I am weak.

By example, for one. By trying to steer them to Scripture, or the fellowship of Christianity, for another.

I am weak in both accounts.

I drip with sin.

If you "drip with sin", then who are you to "steer" people towards their salvation?

Human.

Like them.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Claus, obviously, there can be no physical evidence of a supernatural thing.

That depends on how you define "supernatural". To the Vikings, were thunder and lightning not supernatural?

Yup.

I'm not a Viking. You are.

I know thunder and lightning to be perfectly natural phenomena.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I think it does.

You keep returning to what you think. It's not a question of what you think science does. It's a question of what it really does.

And what is that?

 

[Huntster]

Yet, the principles are very, very similar, and they can be readily and easily compared (as I did with that example of Exodus and Tao Te Ching verses).

The goals of both are very similar; to become one with God/Tao.

These differences/similarities can be found in most major religions of the world, including aboriginal religions.

Why wouldn't you expect to find such similarities between major religions? Religions are invited by people and people, no matter where they are born, tend to have a lot of common experiences. It would be more remarkable if none of the religions in the world shared similarities. I mean, sheesh, being surprised by the similarities of different religion strikes me as looking at the world with blinders on.

No blinders here.

The same can be said about the differences in religions. One would and should expect them.

 

[CFLarsen]

Skeptic:

And why am I not a skeptic, according to that?

Who says that I do?

...

By the fruits of the works.

How so? Others can be fooled by the devil, but not you? What makes you so much more holy?

I don't know.

That's not a satisfactory reply. It looks very much to me like you are trying to avoid learning about astrology, so you won't have to think about why you don't believe in it.

Kinda, sorta. God is Heaven.

If you say so.

I don't know.

I'm not. Will that change anything for you?

Yes, I am.

I find that sad. You really view the world with innate suspicion?

I don't know.

So why choose religion?

Oh, well.

Aren't you the least bit worried that people find your treatment of people who don't share your beliefs condescending? Do you treat everyone who don't share your beliefs this way?

That's also why some people might not want to bother with you.

Yeah. I'll find a way to live with that. But, contrary to you, I don't base my argument on a blind belief that I am right. I argue my case, I show evidence.

Of course not. It is understood my millions of others.

Is it? How can you be sure that your god is exactly the same as their god? Isn't the experience of god inherently a solitary experience? I can never know exactly what you feel like, when you meet/feel/see/touch your god?

But not you. And it is unlikely that you will accept it, regardless what words are used to explain how others understand it.

I don't have any reason to accept it. E.g., I have never seen any evidence of a supernatural phenomenon. Why should I merely believe?

It's also the only way one is likely to get "proof" of an afterlife, if you're unwilling to accept the testimony of people who have died and returned.

Who have "died and returned"? Names, please.

Human.

Like them.

I am human, too, and - according to you, dripping with sin even more than you. Does that make me better at steering people towards their salvation?

Yup.

I'm not a Viking. You are.

I know thunder and lightning to be perfectly natural phenomena.

You do now, yes. But if you were a Viking then, and didn't know what you know today, wouldn't you also have thought that thunder and lightning were the works of Thor?

And what is that?

Science gives us an explanation of the natural world, based on natural laws.