This has probably been asked before, but humour me...

How do religious people know they have chosen the right religion? I mean, each one is slightly different, and beleive theirs is the one and only true path to heaven to the detriment of all others.

As an atheist, I just can't understand how you could choose one religion and know it is the right one. I mean, what are you going to do if the Catholics were right? Or the Jews? Or the Scientologists? Have you considered looking at all the different strains of Christianity (assuming you are a Christian) before choosing your exact one?

Or have I got it all wrong? Will all Christians go to heaven no matter who they follow?

I guess I am being slightly facecious, but I would honestly like to know.

Many people, being raised into a religion, fail to see other options.

In my opinion...nobody knows they are right.

they simply believe they are right. it's the same with you. how do you know there is no god?

It depends on how you look at it. Most people who follow a specific religion grow up with it and its most likely pushed on them that its what they have to believe and follow. Its sort of like brainwashing children in a way cause children are so susceptible to it. With all that aside though, what religion you think is right is your individual choice, and may be right for you. The way i like to look at it though, no one specific is religion is right or "correct", but the culmination of them all is as close as we could get.

You don't know you're right. Most people are raised from birth a certain religion, and stick with it their whole lives.

Hey Chumpion, the same reason why you believe in your viewpoints is the same reason other religious followers believe theirs.

Science is the only truth!

I can explain my beliefs through math and logic, that's how I know I'm right. Math never lies.

I don't know I'm right about anything.
My beliefs are just ideas that evolve and shift over time as I experience more and more in life.

Will all Christians go to heaven no matter who they follow?

Anyone who has faith in Jesus Christ will be forever with God in heaven. Anyone who doesn't will be cast into hell.

they simply believe they are right. it's the same with you. how do you know there is no god?

Theres no proof for any specific religion whatsoever.

There may or may not be some higher power. It's ignorant to assume that there isn't.

But giving it human traits is beyond childish. How can you possibly think that we're so badass that we're almost exactly like the highest power in the universe? Made in his own image no less.

Three things i'll never believe without seeing it:
1) The idea that whatever higher power is sentient
2) That it actually gives a rats ass about the trivial bullshit everyone prays about.
3) The concept of the immortal soul.

^^^ i agree with this chap

there is no way to know that your religion is the right one, but if it makes sense to you or if it gives you comfort then who's is it to say that they are wrong? i say just do whatever the fuck you want to do

Oops.

Many people, being raised into a religion, fail to see other options.

In my opinion...nobody knows they are right.

5char

If you cant find faults in your own religion, causally for the moments you are alive, you are right as you have "fact".

Although if I am to assume for sake of arguement that the rest of you eist as do I, you cannot "know".

Theres no proof for any specific religion whatsoever.

There may or may not be some higher power. It's ignorant to assume that there isn't.

But giving it human traits is beyond childish. How can you possibly think that we're so badass that we're almost exactly like the highest power in the universe? Made in his own image no less.

Three things i'll never believe without seeing it:
1) The idea that whatever higher power is sentient
2) That it actually gives a rats ass about the trivial bullshit everyone prays about.
3) The concept of the immortal soul.

i didn't mean to say that any religion is right, just that there is a possibility of them being so. just as there is a possibility of there being a flying spaghetti monster controlling our universe. saying that there definitely is a god, or there definitely isn't, is incorrect to say.

chances are, we'll only find out what is after death, after we die.

Well we will always know when we die right?

yeah, i'm just saying that there's a pretty good chance that dying is the only way to find out what happens after death.

(unless of course, the athiests are right)

Most people never get to "into" their religion, but I know (from the Christian view) that people who invest their devotion into it gain a lot from it and generally live easier lives than others.

Most people never get to "into" their religion, but I know (from the Christian view) that people who invest their devotion into it gain a lot from it and generally live easier lives than others.

The people that really invest their devotion are usually pretty fucked up. There are three types of christians(or whatever other religion interchangably)

1) The casual christians that go through the motions because thats the way they were brought up and its a good social gathering, but deep down the really do believe, they just dont make it the driving force in their life.

2) Ex crack-addicts. Again, this is interchangeable with whatever other hardship or chain of fuck-ups. Theres nothing more fanatical then a convert. Also known as 'born-again christians'. These are the people that never even believed for the first 30 years of their life, but since everything else turned to shit, they needed somewhere to turn and fall for the propaganda of the church. Most of the ones that 'invest their devotion' fall under this category. Most of these ones are overly religious, despite the fact that they continue to be horrible people. They usually overlook the 10 commandments or even basic principles of morality in favor of the simple fact that 'jesus saves'.

3) This is where the clergy or priests or...whatever of the church come in. This could actually be split into two groups and create a 4th type, but I wont do that. Because one of the groups really arent christians at all, and are just there to exploit people to make money(or free pastor boy sex). More like capitalists. But thats not what this one is about. Number three includes people that genuinely care about others and want to help people in the community. This isn't refined exclusively to the priests, as some members share this bond. They use the church as a tool to do good works. This group actually confuses me, because I dont understand why faith is so strong in this group. Except for the fact that when they see all the good the church does, it continuously strengthens the bond of their faith.

The people that really invest their devotion are usually pretty fucked up. There are three types of christians(or whatever other religion interchangably)

1) The casual christians that go through the motions because thats the way they were brought up and its a good social gathering, but deep down the really do believe, they just dont make it the driving force in their life.

2) Ex crack-addicts. Again, this is interchangeable with whatever other hardship or chain of fuck-ups. Theres nothing more fanatical then a convert. Also known as 'born-again christians'. These are the people that never even believed for the first 30 years of their life, but since everything else turned to shit, they needed somewhere to turn and fall for the propaganda of the church. Most of the ones that 'invest their devotion' fall under this category. Most of these ones are overly religious, despite the fact that they continue to be horrible people. They usually overlook the 10 commandments or even basic principles of morality in favor of the simple fact that 'jesus saves'.

3) This is where the clergy or priests or...whatever of the church come in. This could actually be split into two groups and create a 4th type, but I wont do that. Because one of the groups really arent christians at all, and are just there to exploit people to make money(or free pastor boy sex). More like capitalists. But thats not what this one is about. Number three includes people that genuinely care about others and want to help people in the community. This isn't refined exclusively to the priests, as some members share this bond. They use the church as a tool to do good works. This group actually confuses me, because I dont understand why faith is so strong in this group. Except for the fact that when they see all the good the church does, it continuously strengthens the bond of their faith.

Your classifications are wrong and misguided. Go die in a fire (WWJD?).

The people that really invest their devotion are usually pretty fucked up. There are three types of christians(or whatever other religion interchangably)

1) The casual christians that go through the motions because thats the way they were brought up and its a good social gathering, but deep down the really do believe, they just dont make it the driving force in their life.

2) Ex crack-addicts. Again, this is interchangeable with whatever other hardship or chain of fuck-ups. Theres nothing more fanatical then a convert. Also known as 'born-again christians'. These are the people that never even believed for the first 30 years of their life, but since everything else turned to shit, they needed somewhere to turn and fall for the propaganda of the church. Most of the ones that 'invest their devotion' fall under this category. Most of these ones are overly religious, despite the fact that they continue to be horrible people. They usually overlook the 10 commandments or even basic principles of morality in favor of the simple fact that 'jesus saves'.

3) This is where the clergy or priests or...whatever of the church come in. This could actually be split into two groups and create a 4th type, but I wont do that. Because one of the groups really arent christians at all, and are just there to exploit people to make money(or free pastor boy sex). More like capitalists. But thats not what this one is about. Number three includes people that genuinely care about others and want to help people in the community. This isn't refined exclusively to the priests, as some members share this bond. They use the church as a tool to do good works. This group actually confuses me, because I dont understand why faith is so strong in this group. Except for the fact that when they see all the good the church does, it continuously strengthens the bond of their faith.

Hm... interesting classificatoins, but since I would belong ... I guess ... to catagory 3 than I would like you to expound a bit on why you are confused. As to the original question, I know 100% because of the spirit that the Lord has given me, but this is not a blind faith either. Yes, I take a step beyond the "not knowing completely" but I believe that my beliefs (hehe) are suffciently backed by reason ... that is, beyond a reasonable doubt. Oh and science is NOT the only truth haha so I would stray far away from that theory or you life will be a little messed up.

First of all, there are no such places as heaven or hell--they are myth and metaphor.

After "death," we all either reincarnate or merge with spirit, regardless of one's religion or what one may have done. God loves and creates, does not judge or punish.

Your classifications are wrong and misguided. Go die in a fire (WWJD?).

Jesus would rape your mother, sacrifice your children, while simultaneously coming out with an intelligent and well thought counter argument.

After "death," we all either reincarnate or merge with spirit, regardless of one's religion or what one may have done. God loves and creates, does not judge or punish.

I'd really like to hear the rationale behind this.

I know 100% because of the spirit that the Lord has given me
You know 100% that there's a god because you're certain you have a spirit? You have zero evidence of a spirit, therefore, you have zero evidence for a god.



but this is not a blind faith either.
Yes, it is.


Yes, I take a step beyond the "not knowing completely" but I believe that my beliefs (hehe) are suffciently backed by reason ... that is, beyond a reasonable doubt.
No, there not. You haven't given any sufficient reasons yet why a god must exist.


Oh and science is NOT the only truth haha so I would stray far away from that theory or you life will be a little messed up.
You would stray far away from scientific theories because they're not the only truth? It's scientific theories that are allowing you to read your monitor right now. It's scientific theories that can cure disease. Please stray far away from all technology including that which is used used in hospitals if you want to stray far away from science.

Science never tries to equate itself with "the only truth haha". Science is a process for getting to the truth of things. So far, us humans have gotten multitudes further using science as a tool than any other. It's much more effective then your ass backward logic that since you have a spirit (without having evidence for this) that there must be a god.

I'd really like to hear the rationale behind this.

There is just as much rationale (if not more) in this explanation than in any other religion.

No one knows they are right. They believe they are right. It's all about faith.

There is just as much rationale (if not more) in this explanation than in any other religion.

No one knows they are right. They believe they are right. It's all about faith.

The difference here is that ArmsMerchant is telling people that heaven and hell are myths or metaphor, yet states emphatically what God does and doesn't do. I was as curious as nshanin as to how he can make these statements as surely as he did, as if he has some inside knowledge that goes beyond belief based on faith.

There is just as much rationale (if not more) in this explanation than in any other religion.

No one knows they are right. They believe they are right. It's all about faith.

I know that, I'm just looking for a way to get AM to explain his beliefs in an empirical/semi-logical way without using the classic "I believe it's right, and eventually you will too", which is basically what he does every time.

Mere belief in God is not sufficient, God deserves no less than certainty. Faith is a wishful assumption.

@Martini, we'll probably never know why AM believes the things he does, because he can't explain them without using the terminology stated above. It's like me saying "In your heart, you know a Flying Spaghetti Monster created us all, you know it's true, and one day I hope you'll find the truth instead of being the angry atheist/deluded theist that you are." AM can believe whatever he wants, but at the end of the day, his spiritual beliefs come from inside himself, and not all of us can lay claims to spiritual discovery from the inside.

The flying spaghetti monster argument is lame. I mean there arn't books full of information involving spaghetti monsters. Nobody actually believes in spaghetti monsters. People do believe in religion. People have apparently (according to them) witnessed the so called work of God on many occasions. There is way more evidence for there being a God then a flying spaghetti monster and there is WAY more reason to believe in a God then a spaghetti monester. The only reason for this argument is to ridicule God it isn't actually very valid.

The flying spaghetti monster argument is lame.
The argument is not lame. It is a modern version of Russell's Teapot and it quite effectively highlights some of the poor arguments used by the proponents of intelligent design, [insert religion here] representing the truth, nshanin's use of ""In your heart, you know a Flying Spaghetti Monster created us all...", etc.

I mean there arn't books full of information involving spaghetti monsters.Nobody actually believes in spaghetti monsters.
Irrelevant. The amount of books written about the FSM or the amount of people who believe he is real doesn't make Him any more un-real.

People do believe in religion. People have apparently (according to them) witnessed the so called work of God on many occasions.
The same can be said for a multitude of gods, ghosts, monsters, outer space aliens, witches, demons, and a living Elvis. This doesn't make any of those things more real.

There is way more evidence for there being a God then a flying spaghetti monster
No, there isn't.


and there is WAY more reason to believe in a God then a spaghetti monester.
No, there isn't.


The only reason for this argument is to ridicule God it isn't actually very valid.
The purpose of the FLM isn't to ridicule God (which god?). See above.

You know 100% that there's a god because you're certain you have a spirit? You have zero evidence of a spirit, therefore, you have zero evidence for a god.




Yes, it is.



No, there not. You haven't given any sufficient reasons yet why a god must exist.



You would stray far away from scientific theories because they're not the only truth? It's scientific theories that are allowing you to read your monitor right now. It's scientific theories that can cure disease. Please stray far away from all technology including that which is used used in hospitals if you want to stray far away from science.

Science never tries to equate itself with "the only truth haha". Science is a process for getting to the truth of things. So far, us humans have gotten multitudes further using science as a tool than any other. It's much more effective then your ass backward logic that since you have a spirit (without having evidence for this) that there must be a god.

lol Well hello and nice to meet you too. You have given no evidence for there not being a spirit and yet I think that you might have a logical hypothesis, I do not know because you simply have not addressed what your evidences are. Therefore if I do not state my evidence it is because I was simply trying to answer the question without going on and on. Some simple evidence ... or more over reason I can state right now. I adhere completely to noncontradiction, causality, BASIC reliability of sense perception and analogical use of language. All of these are assumed in scripture and thus I do adhere strictly to logic. Excuse me if these principles are worded differently elsewhere, but these are the 'reasons' behind my faith, which is why I am not too fearful of being an ignorant fool. Scientific theories do not allow me to read my monitor ... but nice try. Scientific theories do not cure disease ... but nice try. No theory allows me to see ... my eyes allow me to see(yes yes the brain and all its processes are incuded in that), no theory cures disease ... medicine does. You have basically agreed with me in stating that science is just that ... a tool. It does indeed allow us to look at why we can see the monitor and what medicine can cure disease and in that I agree with you completely. But that does not include the truth of emotions, relatonships, philosophy, religion and many other things. There are truths everywhere and science is most definitely NOT the only way or even the possible way to reach these other truths. In conclusion I have shown the reasons behind my logic ... and these are analytical truths that can not be wrong unless a person would resort to irrationality. Therefore do not judge if I am a logical person or not until you have more information. I believe that I do have a solid case ... and granted this is simply a case that prooves something beyond a reasonable doubt, it is not 100% sealed tight because there is always a chance of error. I will continue this if you are willing to do so as equals in logic.

There is just as much rationale (if not more) in this explanation than in any other religion.

No one knows they are right. They believe they are right. It's all about faith.

Faith and reason do not clash ... they belong together and if they are not coinciding than maybe there needs to be a reevaluation of why you believe.

lol
Glad you're amused.


You have given no evidence for there not being a spirit
Are you not very familiar with typical atheist arguments? No one has to have evidence for there not being a spirit. It is the one who claims that there is a spirit to bring forth proof. Until then, there is zero evidence for a reasonable person to believe that sort of supernatural claim.


I adhere completely to noncontradiction, causality, BASIC reliability of sense perception and analogical use of language. All of these are assumed in scripture and thus I do adhere strictly to logic. Excuse me if these principles are worded differently elsewhere, but these are the 'reasons' behind my faith, which is why I am not too fearful of being an ignorant fool.
What does that mean that "all of these are assumed in scripture"? You have just spoken gobbly-gook and claimed that you gave reasons behind your faith. You did no such thing.

Scientific theories do not allow me to read my monitor ... but nice try.
Nice try? Without science and scientific theories, your monitor wouldn't exist.

Scientific theories do not cure disease ... but nice try.
And that's a lame try on your part. Scientific theories and science are directly responsible for the existence of modern medicine. Your childish semantics games won't get you anywhere with any one who is reading this and has some semblance of intelligence. I'm fairly certain you knew exactly what I was saying but are somehow enjoying making strawman arguments, as if you thought for a second that I thought theories allow you to see or cure disease, and not what those theories bring forth. Grow up.


You have basically agreed with me in stating that science is just that ... a tool.
You never stated that science was a tool- I did. You made a lame strawman argument that science is not the only truth, as if anyone is making the claim that science is a synonym of truth.


In conclusion I have shown the reasons behind my logic
Where? You have shown no logical reason why there must be a god.


I will continue this if you are willing to do so as equals in logic.
You have given me every reason to concluded that we are most certainly NOT equals in logic.


Faith and reason do not clash ... they belong together...
More evidence that we a not equals in logic. Their is nothing at all reasonable about belief based on faith. Faith has zero to do with reason.

How is it not to ridicule God? The entire thing was MADE UP to ridicule God. That is the entire point. Like I clearly pointed out it is a completly irrelevant argument. Because NOBODY believes in a flying spaghetti monster and this is why people use it. "Oh the concept of believing in a God is as ridiculous as someone believing in a spaghetti monster". Well no it flat out isn't. If you believed in a spaghetti monster you would be crazy. You would believe in something with no social basis that was made up as a skeptics argument. I know this is why people use this argument to make people who believe in God seem childish or insane. But think about it.

People OBVIOUSLY believe in God for some reason or another. Those reasons being many but including books supposedly passed down by the words of God. BTW I don't care if you think the bible (or other books) are bullshit because thats not what people who believe in it think. Irrelevant whether YOU believe it's the word of God or not. It still exsists. Not to mention all the personal experiences of people talking to God, God answering prayers, Visions, etc, etc, etc. All these people who had these experiences can now use say the bible to varify their encounter. Doesn't matter what your opinion on their encounter is. Still exsists for them. Now tell me why the fuck should they believe in say a Spaghetti monster over God. There is nothing to back up the spaghetti monster but they have personal experiences and a book and the experiences of others following their faith to back up God. Once again it doesn't matter what you believe. The argument is void. They have alot of reasons to say God is responsible for what is going on and no reason to believe in a Spaghetti monster.

As far as ghosts and paranormal stuff goes there is way more evidence for all that stuff then a flying spaghetti monster as well. The fact that many many people have expereinced these phenomenon since the dawn of time alone makes it worth investigating where as there is no reason to persue the exsistance of a spaghetti monster. There is reason to look into what exactly a ghost is or what happens when somebody astral projects. These are all worthwhile things to research and further understand. Same with God and religion. And we will. Because skeptics don't get it. They say it's up to religious people to prove a God. Well no it's up to anybody scientific because it's a part of the world around us. Skeptics are content to just say no god doesn't exsist and move on. I am not. I need to know why and how these things are around. What happens in the mind to cause these things or happens in the outside world? Thats the question.

How is it not to ridicule God? The entire thing was MADE UP to ridicule God.
I already explained that it is a modern day version of Russel's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot). Click the link and maybe you'll understand.


That is the entire point. Like I clearly pointed out it is a completly irrelevant argument. Because NOBODY believes in a flying spaghetti monster and this is why people use it.
It's relevant because no one actually believes in TFSM or a teapot in orbit. That's why it's effective at getting people to see the ridiculous of believing in God/gods without evidence and seeing why the burden of proof doesn't lie upon the skeptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims, but up to the believer to provide evidence for unsubstantiated claims.


"Oh the concept of believing in a God is as ridiculous as someone believing in a spaghetti monster". Well no it flat out isn't. If you believed in a spaghetti monster you would be crazy. You would believe in something with no social basis that was made up as a skeptics argument. I know this is why people use this argument to make people who believe in God seem childish or insane. But think about it.
A "social basis" does not make claims any more real. The fact that huge amounts of people once believed the Earth was flat, doesn't make it any more true. The fact that millions of Muslims believe that the angel Gabriel revealed the word of God to Muhammad, doesn't make it any more real.


People OBVIOUSLY believe in God for some reason or another.
And they believe in the other things I've mentioned in my other post and believe what I just wrote above Muhammad. Nothing makes it any more real than the existence of a FSM.



Irrelevant whether YOU believe it's the word of God or not. It still exsists. Not to mention all the personal experiences of people talking to God, God answering prayers, Visions, etc, etc, etc. All these people who had these experiences can now use say the bible to varify their encounter.
The Bible verifies none of these types of encounters as being supernatural in origin. People have been having all of those experiences and beliefs long before the Bible.


Doesn't matter what your opinion on their encounter is. Still exsists for them.
No such thing as "exists for them". Something either exists or it doesn't. There is zero evidence that anything supernatural has ever occurred and plenty of evidence that these types of experiences can be explained through natural means.


Now tell me why the fuck should they believe in say a Spaghetti monster over God.
They shouldn't. There is zero evidence for both, or any of the other millions of possible gods.

I already explained that it is a modern day version of Russel's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot). Click the link and maybe you'll understand.

I read it already and contrary to what you think I do understand I just disagree strongly.

It's relevant because no one actually believes in TFSM or a teapot in orbit. That's why it's effective at getting people to see the ridiculous of believing in God/gods without evidence and seeing why the burden of proof doesn't lie upon the skeptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims, but up to the believer to provide evidence for unsubstantiated claims.

It isn't effective thats my whole point. It's meant to make Christians feel like their beliefs are ridiculous. That is it. Nothing else. It doesn't 'prove a good point'. It just throws out a ridiculous thing and says your beliefs are as ridiculous as this. When they arn't.

Of course it doens't lie on skeptics to 'disprove'. It lies on Scientists who are trying to understand the world around us to understand it. Not disprove but understand. Considering it is a part of the world around us and science is about trying to understand the universe around us it's inevitable that we will get to the point where we actually do understand the religious and paranormal scientificaly.

A "social basis" does not make claims any more real. The fact that huge amounts of people once believed the Earth was flat, doesn't make it any more true. The fact that millions of Muslims believe that the angel Gabriel revealed the word of God to Muhammad, doesn't make it any more real.

Yeah but what causes people to view angles? What happens to peoples minds when they hear the word of God? Who were these prophets really? What happens to a normal person to allow them to have a mystical experience? Is it chemical? You don't know. But we know something like this does happen to people. Also these people are otherwise completly normal. So is there a part of the brain responsible for these kinds of experiences? It it an actual external force? We have no clue. We should relentlessly seek the answer and we definitly shouldn't be limiting ourselves with such heavy skepticism at this point. Esspecialy considering we don't have answers for what skeptics are skepticle of.

And they believe in the other things I've mentioned in my other post and believe what I just wrote above Muhammad. Nothing makes it any more real than the existence of a FSM.

Yes but there are alot of first hand accounts of all kinds of paranormal stuff. I mean if there really were a bunch of accounts of a flying spaghetti monster I would want it to be taken seriously. If there had been countless witnesses of such a flying pasta since the begining of time I would consider this being as a possibility of our earth.


The Bible verifies none of these types of encounters as being supernatural in origin. People have been having all of those experiences and beliefs long before the Bible.

Even more of a reason to take them seriously and figure out whats really going on.

No such thing as "exists for them". Something either exists or it doesn't. There is zero evidence that anything supernatural has ever occurred and plenty of evidence that these types of experiences can be explained through natural means.

No it exists for them and doesn't for you. So it is like that. What is undeniable is the fact that something is really happening in the brain to cause this. Or it is something in the outside world. The testimony of countless people is enough evidence to take all this stuff seriously as a possibility untill something else is offered. Since science has not explained any of this we are all still in the dark here. But like I said I believe it will be explained through natural means in time when we have developed and understand those means which we don't at this point.

They shouldn't. There is zero evidence for both, or any of the other millions of possible gods.

There is much more evidence for other Gods then the FSM. Definitly. Like I have already made clear it doesn't matter if you believe or not. Also if they believe What harm is it doing anyone?


"People with a psychological need to believe in marvels are no more prejudiced and gullible than people with a psychological need not to believe in marvels."
- Charles Fort

Please don't post like that anymore, it makes it difficult to quote...


I read it already and contrary to what you think I do understand I just disagree strongly.

I'd like to hear an explanation, otherwise you're just as bad as those people who believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

It isn't effective thats my whole point. It's meant to make Christians feel like their beliefs are ridiculous. That is it. Nothing else. It doesn't 'prove a good point'. It just throws out a ridiculous thing and says your beliefs are as ridiculous as this. When they arn't.

It does prove a good point, specifically that we shouldn't waste our time on claims that are unsubstantiated beyond a person's own beliefs... and as any psychologist knows, there is already a reason (many actually) behind why people suffer such paranoid delusions as the belief that God speaks to them, visions, etc.

Of course it doens't lie on skeptics to 'disprove'. It lies on Scientists who are trying to understand the world around us to understand it. Not disprove but understand. Considering it is a part of the world around us and science is about trying to understand the universe around us it's inevitable that we will get to the point where we actually do understand the religious and paranormal scientificaly.
No, it lies on psychologists, because if I told you that an African tribal God (let's call him Ubuntu) spoke to me on a daily basis, you'd know that this God doesn't exist in reality, but rather, this is a paranoid delusion occuring in my brain... later, you would realize that I tend to smoke rather copious amounts of marijuana, that I have a history of mental diseases in my family, and when people hold beliefs, they are much more likely to witness visual and auditory stimuli relating to those beliefs. <---- That accounts for the majority of delusions. If you're interested, google stuff on the psychology behind visions, delusions, etc...
Yeah but what causes people to view angles? What happens to peoples minds when they hear the word of God? Who were these prophets really? What happens to a normal person to allow them to have a mystical experience? Is it chemical? You don't know. But we know something like this does happen to people. Also these people are otherwise completly normal. So is there a part of the brain responsible for these kinds of experiences? It it an actual external force? We have no clue. We should relentlessly seek the answer and we definitly shouldn't be limiting ourselves with such heavy skepticism at this point. Esspecialy considering we don't have answers for what skeptics are skepticle of.

1. View angles? WTF? Anyway, look it up if your really want to know.
2. Depends on the person, the intelligent ones reject it.
3. Crazy people that tended to smoke rather copious amounts of marijuana, that had a history of mental diseases in their families, and held beliefs that (through willful perception) caused them to witness visual and auditory stimuli relating to those beliefs... they were generally good liars and great speakers, not unlike politicians.
4. They usually force it upon themselves i.e. "I want to see a vision, please, please", and then their brain shows them what they want to see. It could be random chance, or they could place their own interpretation upon an unrelated vision.
5. Usually, empirical psychologists have determined the cause, all that's left is for you to look it up instead of pretending like nobody knows anything, and that somehow that's proof for a god.
I am otherwise completely normal, but I see visions as well, and I receive commands from what feels like a higher power, but then I realize that it's just my brain playing tricks on me, the process is not unlike how we see dreams, and we don't interpret all of those to mean something on a grander scale (except for the Native Americans).
Of course there's an external force, go to PD or headshrinkers, and you'll find all about it, if that doesn't convice you, justfuckinggoogleit. We know it's not an external force because it comes from INSIDE OUR HEADS goddammit. We don't pursue the presupposition of an external force because it's unprovable.
Yes but there are alot of first hand accounts of all kinds of paranormal stuff. I mean if there really were a bunch of accounts of a flying spaghetti monster I would want it to be taken seriously. If there had been countless witnesses of such a flying pasta since the begining of time I would consider this being as a possibility of our earth.
So you're saying you believe in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Zoroastrianism as well? Wow, seriously? You have to take all these accounts at face value, and even if there wasn't a rational explanation for these religions (and there is), there would be equal proof for all paranoid delusions, and that is less proof for a god than anything. No it exists for them and doesn't for you. So it is like that. What is undeniable is the fact that something is really happening in the brain to cause this. Or it is something in the outside world. The testimony of countless people is enough evidence to take all this stuff seriously as a possibility untill something else is offered. Since science has not explained any of this we are all still in the dark here. But like I said I believe it will be explained through natural means in time when we have developed and understand those means which we don't at this point.
So then my truth is as rational and "true" as theirs. It's something in the brain... It was a possibility, that is, until psychologists did some research and figured it out, now we know the explanation for these delusions. We do understand it, you're just too ignorant to go out and do some research for yourself.
Also if they believe What harm is it doing anyone?
Lol you MUST be trolling.

"People with a psychological need to believe in marvels are no more prejudiced and gullible than people with a psychological need not to believe in marvels."
- Charles Fort

Us skeptics would love to believe in marvels, but we save our beliefs for that which is based on evidence, not want. We don't have a psychological "need" to not believe in anything. Regarding Charles Fort:

One of Fort's amusements as an adult seems to have been to speculate about such things as frogs falling from the sky. He postulated that there is a Super-Sargasso Sea above the Earth (which he called Genesistrine) where living things originate and periodically are dumped on Earth by intelligent beings who communicate with secret societies down below, perhaps using teleportation.
http://skepdic.com/fortean.html

It's no wonder that he would use such a quote as a lame attempt to belittle true, healthy skepticism.

Yes I am ignorant on the subject of Science. Once it gets into scientific theories and stuff I don't really know that much and I definitly am out of my territory. Not that I don't read and think about religion alot. An example of what I read is stuff by people like Ram Dass so you can see where our perceptions could cross. But I do know enough to know that we don't know. I think it's pretty ignorant for you to say you or psychology understand God.

Some psychologists have opinions and theories. I would hardly call this understanding God, Religion, or the Supernatural. I have heard a theory from alot of sceptics about God being a delusion caused by our brain because our conciousness can't grasp death and needs to cope with exsistence ending. Fair enough if you believe this. I think there is more to it. I mean I can't say that we arn't trying to understand it and that we don't have ideas and that we arn't looking because all those things are true. But it is a very safe thing to say we don't understand these things fully. And I will say it again and again and again because we don't.

I am just starting to get interested in a scientific way to answer these questions and believe me if you come across me posting again in a year I will know what i'm talking about from a scientific view point. And it won't be what you believe in. Even if your view comparable to a religious persons is more scientific doesn't mean it is the correct view and how things actually are. Just wait untill somebody uses science in a valid way to prove God and other supernatural phenomenon and writes a nice little best selling book that is beyond pseudoscience. The difference between me and you is you don't believe that is a possibility. What i'm trying to say when I say we don't have the science yet and we don't understand is that we will have the science and it won't be something as simple as a delusion caused by conciousness being aware of death. I believe it will be alot more complex then that and involve currently non understood theories and methods and that we will understand some of what is now unknown beyond a shadow of a doubt.

In conclusion I have shown the reasons behind my logic ... and these are analytical truths that can not be wrong unless a person would resort to irrationality.

Oh brother! Here we go again with another Christian preaching their views with the nerve to mention that anyone who disagrees with them is irrational. Everyone strives to be right but not everyone is. Nobody is going through life saying, "Ok, now what can I get wrong today?" Admit you're a self-aware human being that can express opinions and get on with your life.

Oh brother! Here we go again with another Christian preaching their views with the nerve to mention that anyone who disagrees with them is irrational. Everyone strives to be right but not everyone is. Nobody is going through life saying, "Ok, now what can I get wrong today?" Admit you're a self-aware human being that can express opinions and get on with your life.

Hmm thank you for that. I am not saying that anyone who disagrees with me is irrational. It is true that anyone who rejects those principles will be dealing in irrationality, but I am not perfect either and I do not claim to be. I do think that I am able to express opinions, but I also believe that some opinions hold more weight than others. Not because of the person speaking them but because of the reasoning behind what they are saying.
Your friend, VD+MA

Quote:
Originally Posted by VD+MA View Post
lol
Glad you're amused.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VD+MA View Post
You have given no evidence for there not being a spirit
Are you not very familiar with typical atheist arguments? No one has to have evidence for there not being a spirit. It is the one who claims that there is a spirit to bring forth proof. Until then, there is zero evidence for a reasonable person to believe that sort of supernatural claim.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VD+MA View Post
I adhere completely to noncontradiction, causality, BASIC reliability of sense perception and analogical use of language. All of these are assumed in scripture and thus I do adhere strictly to logic. Excuse me if these principles are worded differently elsewhere, but these are the 'reasons' behind my faith, which is why I am not too fearful of being an ignorant fool.
What does that mean that "all of these are assumed in scripture"? You have just spoken gobbly-gook and claimed that you gave reasons behind your faith. You did no such thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VD+MA View Post
Scientific theories do not allow me to read my monitor ... but nice try.
Nice try? Without science and scientific theories, your monitor wouldn't exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VD+MA View Post
Scientific theories do not cure disease ... but nice try.
And that's a lame try on your part. Scientific theories and science are directly responsible for the existence of modern medicine. Your childish semantics games won't get you anywhere with any one who is reading this and has some semblance of intelligence. I'm fairly certain you knew exactly what I was saying but are somehow enjoying making strawman arguments, as if you thought for a second that I thought theories allow you to see or cure disease, and not what those theories bring forth. Grow up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VD+MA View Post
You have basically agreed with me in stating that science is just that ... a tool.
You never stated that science was a tool- I did. You made a lame strawman argument that science is not the only truth, as if anyone is making the claim that science is a synonym of truth.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VD+MA View Post
In conclusion I have shown the reasons behind my logic
Where? You have shown no logical reason why there must be a god.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VD+MA View Post
I will continue this if you are willing to do so as equals in logic.
You have given me every reason to concluded that we are most certainly NOT equals in logic.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VD+MA View Post
Faith and reason do not clash ... they belong together...
More evidence that we a not equals in logic. Their is nothing at all reasonable about belief based on faith. Faith has zero to do with reason.

Well alright, my goodness. Again I state things in brevity and you assume I do not know because I have not given you the exhaustive reasoning. I will give small proofs for each of these principles of reason from scripture. Non contradiction- assumed when adam and eve were given the commandment not to eat of the tree or they would surely die. A)Eat of the tree B)surely die. Then Satan comes in and states that if you eat of the tree you will not surely die. A)Eat of the tree non-B)not surely die. Adam and eve knew that this was a false statement which assumes that they knew the principle of non-contradiction. The trinity itself assumes non-contradiction. A)One Essence and B)Three persons. Notice that it is not A)One in Essence and non-A)Three in essence or vice versa. All the attributes of God assume non-contradiction as well ... all of those in scripture. Causality- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. This assumes that the earth was an effect, which most scientists will assume as well, and assumes that this effect had a cause:God. Basic reliability of sense perception- scripture assumes that you can know nothing if you can not rely on your sense in a basic degree, meaning a degree that is enough to glean information from the external world. This is assumed in many places but I will give a prominent one. Romans 10:14-16, "But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" This law is assumed all over the place in this passage. Analogical use of language- We were created in his image, we rest like him Gen. 2:2, talk Ex. 6:10-11, and reason Isa. 1:18 thus scripture assumes that we can understand God because though we are not good to the same degree we can understand goodness, though our reason is not as great we can still understand the concept. So, all of these things are seen in scripture and that means that scripture adheres to logic. Now please understand that I have much more evidence, but right now simply look at what I have given because it would be much too long to read in one sitting. I have given the basic backing for why these principles adhere to scripture.

You have just entirely left the subject. You are so far out of touch with reality that you can't even sustain a coherent argument. Please save us all the headache of attempting to rerail you or get some sort of an argument out of you by quitting before you get even deeper.

You have just entirely left the subject. You are so far out of touch with reality that you can't even sustain a coherent argument. Please save us all the headache of attempting to rerail you or get some sort of an argument out of you by quitting before you get even deeper.

Hmm, the statements above were in response to an earlier post. I do not know if you read that post but I was simply explaining those 4 principles in a little more detail. I do not appreciate your insults. You have given no reason for your statement or why exactly I am "out of touch with reality" so I would appreciate it greatly if you would respect me enough to not degrade me or my arguments without reason.

I have given the basic backing for why these principles adhere to scripture.
No, you haven't. This type illogical reasoning doesn't cut it:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. This assumes that the earth was an effect, which most scientists will assume as well, and assumes that this effect had a cause:God.

Science doesn't assume that the cause of the Earth was God. A book that has a creation story is evidence of nothing, neither is anything else you blathered on about. I'm with Uranium238 on this one- you are out of touch with reality. Seek professional help.

Hey Chumpion, the same reason why you believe in your viewpoints is the same reason other religious followers believe theirs.

Science is the only truth!

I think every great scientist to have ever lived would want to smack the shit out of you for how you ended that post. I think recognizing the flaws within any system (including science and logic) is the only way to prevent oneself from becoming obsessively attached to the idea of an immortal truth. Truth is as fluid as geriatric fecal matter after a banana shake...the vessel's shape determines the truth more than the substance it carries. Spin, if you're not quite following.

I know I'm right because I have facts and logic to back me up. Also, the people espousing the other viewpoints are some of the dumbest motherfuckers on the face of the Earth.

I know I'm right because I have facts and logic to back me up. Also, the people espousing the other viewpoints are some of the dumbest motherfuckers on the face of the Earth.

Surak, I'm a believer of sorts, but that's a damned fine post of yours. Had me chuckling.

I have facts and logic to back me up.

Bwahahahahahahahaha.

I think every great scientist to have ever lived would want to smack the shit out of you for how you ended that post. I think recognizing the flaws within any system (including science and logic) is the only way to prevent oneself from becoming obsessively attached to the idea of an immortal truth. Truth is as fluid as geriatric fecal matter after a banana shake...the vessel's shape determines the truth more than the substance it carries. Spin, if you're not quite following.


Just shut-up, guy. You are thinking too deeply into your own subjective opinions of truth, and in a world where everyone has their own, yours doesn't matter to anyone. Nor does mine for that matter.

Drop it

Bwahahahahahahahaha.

Care to expand on that?

Sure.

As I've said in my first reply, IMO nobody knows anything.