Freiheit

"I don't know" is not the same as "leave it at that." I say, "I don't know, so I'm not going to lie and say that I do know, but let's try and find out." You, on the other hand, seem to be saying "I don't know, but this feels good, so I'll believe it even if it is wrong--I don't care." I do care, because I care about the truth.

Again, if something is important enough to speculate on it is too important to take on faith.

You have not presented reasons why you DO believe this particular mythology, so while I may be "jumping the gun" I am considering this as one possible reason that someone might choose to be a part of a cult, even if that cult doesn't provide anything real/does real harm/doesn't have evidence backing it up. Even if it doesn't apply to you, it applies to others so it is worth stating. Rather than criticize, you could present your own reasons for believing.

You are again confusing belief with knowledge. They are not the same. And you could just as easily reverse your statement as so:

You can believe in God and say "well, nothing came out of that did it?"

or

You can believe in Santa and say "well, now I know Santa and Santa is Santa."

You say Santa is Santa is meaningless to everyone else, but Santa is Santa is meaningful to people who have met Santa.

Since you bring it up, Jhuger also addresses this issue (http://www.jhuger.com/biblethumpers.php). I'd certainly like honest answers if you have them:

Even if an idea is useful, that doesn't make it true. It making you feel good or keeping you from going crazy are also irrelevant to its truth. God is God might mean a lot to those who have "met God" (what does he look like, by the way?), but WHAT does it mean, and HOW is it relevant? Santa is Santa is meaningful to lots of children. That doesn't mean that Santa is real.

I find that people often start talking in poetry and psuedo-profundity when they don't really have any basis for their assertions but don't want to admit it or give up their position at any cost.

John A. Broussard

That's also known as speaking in parables.

TimberJesus

Because religion is a billion dollar industry. One way to fill the seats is telling the people that thier way is the right way, the one and only way, this is how they turn a profit. All churches need a buisness liscence.

John A. Broussard

Don't let your cynicism run away with you.

I agree that religion is big business, but there are many adherents who believe and don't make a profit from believing. There are even many leaders who believe and spend the money they receive for worthwhile purposes. Christian charities aren't to be sneezed at, even if they tag conversion attempts on to the bread they hand out.

That having been said, there are obviously many scam artists right at the top of the religious pyramid. Some, occasionally, get caught. Unfortunately, most don't.

911

Non falsifiable means that science is - to put it another way - not interested.

Science, knowing it's own limitations, set limits where it will not go beyond.

That goes not mean that non falsifiable equals false and or impossible. It means just that; non falsifiable.

Many religions tell you to have faith and: In the sweet by and by; we shall meet on that beautiful shore...

Implying that faith is no longer needed "In the sweet by and by..."

I am telling you that while you start off by Faith; you meet God even while on earth.

You then come to know God and the existence of God.

If you tell me that after I put my faith in Santa; a jolly old man who flies around on a raindear chariot will visit me; I will be interested. You can't because you yourself know that it is just something that you or somebody made up.

This is not the case with God.

If God was like Santa; we might have religions just like we have Mall Santas but everyone would treat God just as they would Mall Santas.

You will not have a couple of billion people doing it and making claims that God changed their lives for the better.

Find me a couple of normal people who claims that Santa changed his life or Santa spoke to him or Santa revealed himself to him.

What does God look like? Personally I had a revelation where I saw a flight of steps leading up to a throne and on the throne sat God and I was prostrate on the floor, alone.

There was no ceiling and nothing around the flight of steps and nothing behind. It was like just floating in space.

I find it hard to make a picture in my mind and yet I saw this clearly.

I know you might say that even if I am not schizo it is meaningless to you and everybody else.

I am telling you this to show you why people hold on to the belief that God exists.

This to me is why God exists. This to me is why I know God exists. It is not falsifiable and I open myself up to ridicule. Since we are debating the existence of God; how do you account for testimonies like mine?

It is not just "feeling good." Otherwise God would certainly have gone the way of Santa.

TimberJesus

Dont worry my cyncism will stay intact. However I get frustrated with religion that preeches reliance based on the the chruch and their set of beliefs. Thus turning a profit because it has sold their philosophy to thousands of people, the underlying theme being preeched is if your against us then your going to hell, but if your with us then you will apease the church and God.

I applaud religion based charities. That is not what wish to question or frustrated with.

"The purpose of religion is not to build beautiful churches or temples, but to cultivate positive human qualities such as tolerence, genorosity and love."

-The Dali Lama

Freiheit

Of course, and your Dali Lama quote may or may not be suggesting this, not all religions do have doctrines such as those of Hell, Sin, and Satan and preach that they are the only way and try to convert the masses. These are a part of Christianity and a number of other religions and they are clearly a sales tactic and nothing more--but this is not a necessary quality to make something a religion.

I know a number of Pagans who find proselytizing anything from unnecessary to morally abhorrent. I think the difference is to be found in creative versus reactive systems--master morality versus slave morality respectively. Christianity is a reactive system. Without the belief in Satan, Sin, and Hell--without something to expand into and people to convert--Christianity has nothing to do. They focus constantly on the negative and what they hate about life because they have nothing to actually offer.

Pagans don't need to do this because their system is based around celebrating life--they don't need anyone else to celebrate their way, because they are happy on their own. But without conversion and fear of hell, what would Christians do? Sit around feeling bad all the time? Nobody wants that. As Nietzsche said "We would rather will nothingness than not will." Pretty much sums up Christianity. And Buddhism too, in my opinion. The difference is that whereas Christianity is founded upon principles of hatred, Buddhism is founded upon principles of exhaustion.

John A. Broussard

Christian "principles" can produce this (from a Christian chat group):

"There is much discussion today concerning the Bible translation issue. Here we will discuss the many translations in a Christian manner. You are welcome to join and express your opinion but please keep your posts Christ honoring. This is a Christian group and JWs, RCs, Agnostics, Atheists etc. etc. will not be allowed to participate in discussions. So, the question is Which Version is God's word?"

For more of same, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/whichversion/

Freiheit

911,

Non falsifiable does not mean “not interested.� All it means is that if you say something like “there are gummy bears at the core of the earth� it is up to you to provide evidence for it. Otherwise, there is no basis for assuming one outrageous claim over another. If someone comes up to you and tells you that you are going to hell because you believe in God, are you going to take the person’s word for it or are you going to expect the person to provide evidence in order to be taken seriously?

Many religions that are trying to manipulate you and get you to do what they say without having any actual basis for the authority they claim tell you this, yes.
Have you ever read “Kissing Hank’s Ass�? You really should: http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php What would you do in a situation like that? How is what you are talking about relevantly different?

I think that it is entirely acceptable to make provisional assumptions in order to have new experiences and experiment, but I think it is equally important to think critically about the experiences that you have and determine what, if anything, can actually be claimed based upon them.
Or do you?

It’s not as clear cut as that. I don’t know that Santa isn’t real. I think that Santa isn’t real because I can trace the origin and evolution of the legend and can see that this suggests an idea that was made up rather than an entity that actually exists--but I can do the same thing with God, and more specifically the Judeo-Christian God.

For example, the Jewish God YHWH evolved out of the God YHW of chaos and the stormy sea--a lesser deity in the Levantine Pantheon. The Jews were originally henotheistic or even polytheistic. Judaism did not establish itself as monotheistic and Yahweh did not become their sole God until King Josiah, who reigned as king of Judah from 640 BCE-609 BCE. He established one god as being the official god of the Jews as a way of establishing solidarity among the people.

This is just one of many examples.

But what is more, this is yet another fallacious appeal to ignorance. Just because you don’t know that someone made God up doesn’t mean that God is real. And just because you think that someone made Santa up doesn’t mean that Santa isn’t real.

And what is the difference? Children believe that Santa is real, go and ask Santa for things, and try to act in a manner that they believe will please Santa so that they don’t miss out on his rewards. Some know that it is a lie and say so. Others know that it is a lie but perpetuate it because they see some advantage in doing so.

Show me children that believe in Santa and don’t “do it� and make claims that Santa changed their lives for the better. But what is more, this is what is known as a fallacious appeal to popularity. The number of people that believe something is entirely irrelevant to whether or not it is true. That many people exist that are easily deceived is neither unprecedented nor evidence.

First off, see above. Second, find me a couple of normal people who claim that God changed their lives or God spoke to them or God revealed himself to them. Do you understand? The dismissal is implied in the question. What makes someone “normal�? And how is the existence of people who are easily deceived count as evidence?

Not at all. I would, however, be interested in the particulars of your experience and the conditions surrounding it. While I may agree that your experience was valid, I may disagree with your interpretation of it. The problem is that people often jump to conclusions, especially regarding what they consider supernatural experiences, and fail to think critically. People often assume the religious worldview they were brought up with is being confirmed when they have such experiences—even if the experience has nothing to do with such. Also, if an extraphysical realm does exist it is entirely possible that extraphysical entities would intentionally assume the guise of a religious figure (Jesus, the Buddha, Krishna, etc) because they know they can manipulate people by doing so.

Let me tell you a story. I have a friend that studies out of body experiences. He has these experiences regularly. He has had the experience of traveling to different “dream times� in which the environment is affected by the observers thoughts and expectations. Have you ever seen “What Dreams May Come�? It is very similar to that. He has also had the experience of encountering any number of entities with various attributes. He belongs to a group of like individuals all dedicated to exploring this phenomena, studying it, and understanding it.

Is he actually leaving his body, or is this experience just happening in his brain? I don’t know. If we have the means, it certainly seems like a question worth exploring. But we mustn’t jump to conclusions. If I were to tell him that it was impossible for the consciousness to exist independently of the body this would be a bit like a fish saying that it is impossible for life to exist outside of water, but I certainly don’t have the basis to say that the consciousness can separate from the body. This isn’t even necessarily what he is claiming though--he is just trying to investigate the phenomena.

Now, this friend has an Aunt that is a Fundamentalist Christian. I don’t know how much she knows about what he is doing, but he said she told him once “Gabe�--that’s his name--�Gabe,� she said “I don’t know about all this consciousness study stuff. I think we aren’t supposed to ask those questions. It’s from the devil.�

He asked her once why she was a Christian. She said that she was raised Christian but she never really believed in any of it. She became an atheist. Then one night the most amazing thing happened. She felt herself leave her body. She was hovering above her body which was lying in the bed, and then she encountered this bright being of light. It doused her with this wonderful energy and then she snapped back into her body. She woke up feeling wonderful and energized. This proved to her that God was real and that Christianity was true.

Do you see the problem? There was nothing like that in her experience, but that is the only context she has in which to place her experience and she isn‘t thinking critically about it. She isn’t thinking about alternate explanations. She is jumping to conclusions.

Ditto.

I hope from what I have said you can think of a number of alternative explanations on your own, but if you like we can discuss your experience more and I can make a list with you. My advice to you is to keep having experiences and experimenting but to also think critically and analyze the experiences you have thoughtfully.

You are right. It is more complicated than that. All I meant was that I think people often hold ideas not based on how likely they are but on how good they make the person feel. Some people aren’t willing to sacrifice comfort for truth.

911

Freiheit> You are like; somebody I can do business with. (What Margret said of Gorby)

Just read your post. Will give you a response soon.