?????Ridiculous Belief????? vs ?????Ridiculous to Believe?????

[_Some Schmo]

We all will die one day. We all live in the same boat (universe), and it is wracked with death which was the direct result of the first man and his rebellion from the creator. We can complain that we are his offspring, and have to live in this situation, where natural disasters kill people, but it doesn't change the fact that this life, as we now know it, is only temporary.

That doesn't support the point you were making earlier about god not being less than we are. In fact, the idea that he would punish all of humanity because some ancient chick ate an apple is outrageously petty, and seems to support the idea that god is very much less than we are.

For the sake of our conversation, it would probably be helpful if you didn't use the Bible as a reference to back up your ideas. It hurts your arguments, not helps. To me, it's just an old book and has no more truth in it than your average Stephen King novel. If you deny the fact of evolution and prefer to rely on mythical, contradictory nonsense as your source for history, that's a whole other can of worms. I don't think we should go there.

I'm not the Creator. I only know what he's taught us. I don't know why many people don't hear from God. It doesn't always make sense to me. But, the longer I'm on this journey, I'm amazed at how large the role of humility plays in it.

So you'd rather chalk it up to "god is mysterious" than see it for what's obviously in front of you without the blinders: that god (if there is one) doesn't actually communicate with all of us, and that there's a really good chance that those who think they're talking to god are misinterpreting their experience? That god probably doesn't do it because he doesn't exist?

It's amazing how people can't see that the only reason they believe is because they really really want to. This is another great example of the power of the mind I was talking about before.

Watch this video and tell me, is this guy magic or does he just understand certain things about the way the human mind works?

Seems to me that he set them up. What they thought was just a simple cab ride, he had completely planned out everything.

LOL... Of course it was a set up! That's the whole point!

The question is how does his set up plan work if not for the mind's ability to record things unconsciously? How did he know that driving past those places would cause them to think of this stuff as though it was coming from their own imagination? Do you not see the point here: how it relates to the kid's NDE story?

So, of course they have a bias, but what fascinates me about the story is that it's from a 4 year old boy.

I don't find that fascinating at all. It's actually pretty banal. Can you imagine how much love and attention this kind of story would bring a child from religious parents? I bet he was all over it.

Kids say some wacky stuff, and sometimes, they say simple things that strike a chord with us because of what seems to be zen-like simplicity. My daughter has taught me a ton of stuff over the years. It's not like she set out to do it. It has more to do with me hearing than her talking. As they say, when the student is ready, the teacher appears. I have little doubt that book is primarily the father's story, not the kid's.

It's story isn't nearly as remarkable as the extent to which people actually latch onto this silly stuff to help support a supernatural worldview.

[_Hughes]

That doesn't support the point you were making earlier about god not being less than we are. In fact, the idea that he would punish all of humanity because some ancient chick ate an apple is outrageously petty, and seems to support the idea that god is very much less than we are.

For the sake of our conversation, it would probably be helpful if you didn't use the Bible as a reference to back up your ideas. It hurts your arguments, not helps. To me, it's just an old book and has no more truth in it than your average Stephen King novel. If you deny the fact of evolution and prefer to rely on mythical, contradictory nonsense as your source for history, that's a whole other can of worms. I don't think we should go there.

There's a difference between being judged, and living under the same situation as they did. If we were all on the Titanic, yet we aren't the captain who hit hit the ice burg, but we have to deal with the situation we are in.

I've tried to keep it as basic as possible, Creator/creation... evolution is still possible in that scenario. Regardless, if there's no real Adam and Eve, then there's no sin, and if there's no sin, then there's no reason for salvation or God for that matter. So, the historicity of Adam and Eve is paramount. Even Jesus referenced them.

So you'd rather chalk it up to "god is mysterious" than see it for what's obviously in front of you without the blinders: that god (if there is one) doesn't actually communicate with all of us, and that there's a really good chance that those who think they're talking to god are misinterpreting their experience? That god probably doesn't do it because he doesn't exist?

It's amazing how people can't see that the only reason they believe is because they really really want to. This is another great example of the power of the mind I was talking about before.

Well, I agree that God doesn't communicate with everyone. Rather, what I was saying is that he made a way for all of us to communicate with him, if we desire. We have free will.

Even the skeptics who were witnesses to Jesus' resurrection weren't simply believers because they wanted to. When I started this journey, I didn't care if it was true or not. I had no agenda, so I didn't care, I just wanted to know the truth. Your theories that it's all the power of the mind don't come close to explaining what is happening, in my observation.

LOL... Of course it was a set up! That's the whole point!

The question is how does his set up plan work if not for the mind's ability to record things unconsciously? How did he know that driving past those places would cause them to think of this stuff as though it was coming from their own imagination? Do you not see the point here: how it relates to the kid's NDE story?

I understand the point you are making, but it doesn't work. The kid was 4 years old. He related things that he didn't care about nor could have known about.

I don't find that fascinating at all. It's actually pretty banal. Can you imagine how much love and attention this kind of story would bring a child from religious parents? I bet he was all over it.

Kids say some wacky stuff, and sometimes, they say simple things that strike a chord with us because of what seems to be zen-like simplicity. My daughter has taught me a ton of stuff over the years. It's not like she set out to do it. It has more to do with me hearing than her talking. As they say, when the student is ready, the teacher appears. I have little doubt that book is primarily the father's story, not the kid's.

It's story isn't nearly as remarkable as the extent to which people actually latch onto this silly stuff to help support a supernatural worldview.

Everything in life supports the supernatural world view, in my opinion.

[_Hughes]

I firmly believe that the only reason theists interpret feelings as communication from God is that an authority figure in their life told them exactly how to interpret "good feelings". Probably because this authority figure had been taught the same thing.

This is exactly how Mormons do it.

"Read this Book of Mormon and then pray to see if you get a good feeling"
"Okay"
... several days later
"Did you read it?"
"Yes"
"And how did you feel?"
"Good, I guess?"
"SEE!! That's the Holy Ghost telling you that it's true!"
"It is? WOW! I spoke to God through the Holy Ghost!"

From this point forward, a "good feeling" is now associated with communication with God. Why? Because 2 19 year old boys told this person that it was. You could also replace this conversation with a child and a primary teacher.

Good enough reason to continue to believe good feelings are conversations with God?

I guess my only response is that what would you expect?

Oh I have a bad feeling, that must be from God.

Oh I feel sick, that must be from God?

I agree, that the LDS manipulate people into thinking that the Book of Mormon is true, using the old "pray for a witness... "

However, that doesn't negate all good things that come from God. Such as feeling good about things. Not only that is sound doctrine, and logic.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Basil Wolverton does a fair job of contextualizing the Bible.

[_Scottie]

I guess my only response is that what would you expect?

Oh I have a bad feeling, that must be from God.

Oh I feel sick, that must be from God?

I agree, that the LDS manipulate people into thinking that the Book of Mormon is true, using the old "pray for a witness... "

However, that doesn't negate all good things that come from God. Such as feeling good about things. Not only that is sound doctrine, and logic.

I would expect that the all powerful creator of the universe could devise a method of communicating with us that is significantly different than typical good feelings. That's what I would expect.

Lets take this example. A person reads the Book of Mormon, has a good feeling, and the missionaries tell them it's from God. The person believes that the church is true based on this feeling and the subsequent missionary explanation. Yet, it's NOT true, is it. So... what good is communication via good feelings if we are so susceptible to interpreting them wrongly?

[_Some Schmo]

That doesn't support the point you were making earlier about god not being less than we are. In fact, the idea that he would punish all of humanity because some ancient chick ate an apple is outrageously petty, and seems to support the idea that god is very much less than we are.

For the sake of our conversation, it would probably be helpful if you didn't use the Bible as a reference to back up your ideas. It hurts your arguments, not helps. To me, it's just an old book and has no more truth in it than your average Stephen King novel. If you deny the fact of evolution and prefer to rely on mythical, contradictory nonsense as your source for history, that's a whole other can of worms. I don't think we should go there.

There's a difference between being judged, and living under the same situation as they did. If we were all on the Titanic, yet we aren't the captain who hit hit the ice burg, but we have to deal with the situation we are in.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. What does this have to do with god's very human (childish human, no less) reaction to Eve?

I've tried to keep it as basic as possible, Creator/creation... evolution is still possible in that scenario. Regardless, if there's no real Adam and Eve, then there's no sin, and if there's no sin, then there's no reason for salvation or God for that matter. So, the historicity of Adam and Eve is paramount. Even Jesus referenced them.

OK, good on the evolution thing. That's encouraging.

But about sin... yeah, that's just a religious concept. I agree with "there's no real Adam and Eve, there's no sin, there's no reason for salvation or God for that matter."

And I love the idea that because Jesus makes references to parts of the Old Testament, it lends weight to the story. It's like Yoda mentioning that Darth Vader would bring balance to the galaxy and poof, it happens! Wow... Yoda must be real! How could he have known?

Well, I agree that God doesn't communicate with everyone. Rather, what I was saying is that he made a way for all of us to communicate with him, if we desire. We have free will.

But I very much did desire. That's the point! I exercised my free will and looked for him.

It's like I sent several letters to my congressman and didn't hear back, and you're telling me, "Well, ya got to send mail to get it! It's not his fault."

Even the skeptics who were witnesses to Jesus' resurrection weren't simply believers because they wanted to. When I started this journey, I didn't care if it was true or not. I had no agenda, so I didn't care, I just wanted to know the truth. Your theories that it's all the power of the mind don't come close to explaining what is happening, in my observation.

You are clearly more invested in it than you think.

I understand the point you are making, but it doesn't work. The kid was 4 years old. He related things that he didn't care about nor could have known about.

How on earth do you know that? What, 4-year-olds don't have a subconscious? When do they get one?

Everything in life supports the supernatural world view, in my opinion.

Well sure, if you're predisposed to look at it that way. People believe all kinds of wacky stuff if they want to. The way it works is that they tend to notice and inflate the importance of the stuff they think supports their world view and discard or minimize what doesn't.

The problem is that the empirical evidence we have doesn't help the idea of the supernatural, so all we're really talking about is what you imagine.

[_Hughes]

I would expect that the all powerful creator of the universe could devise a method of communicating with us that is significantly different than typical good feelings. That's what I would expect.

Lets take this example. A person reads the Book of Mormon, has a good feeling, and the missionaries tell them it's from God. The person believes that the church is true based on this feeling and the subsequent missionary explanation. Yet, it's NOT true, is it. So... what good is communication via good feelings if we are so susceptible to interpreting them wrongly?

It seems to me as well that God could have made it easier for us, I agree. He couldn't have implanted in each of us a program of what we needed for communication or anything we needed to know (ala the matrix). But, that doesn't seem to be how he's set up the world, now why is that? Could it be possible, that he set it up the way he did on purpose?

It does appear that communication was easier in the beginning, so perhaps something got in the way? Or perhaps the skill was lost for some reason.

As for the Book of Mormon example. There are countless other ways to determine the veracity of a book or individual. Joseph Smith didn't appear to be a trustworthy person, and it appears from what I've read that many people around him felt that way.

So, yes a person can be deceived by something like the Moroni promise, but a person could also be deceived by other things as well. Learning discernment and growing in maturity go hand in hand me thinks.

[_Hughes]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. What does this have to do with god's very human (childish human, no less) reaction to Eve?

Adam and Eve were judged based on God's justice. They were told before hand what the situation was, that they would die if they ate of the fruit. God's justice demands judgement. Now they died, as we will. How is this childish exactly? I'm certain we're not on the same page here. Help me out.

OK, good on the evolution thing. That's encouraging.

But about sin... yeah, that's just a religious concept. I agree with "there's no real Adam and Eve, there's no sin, there's no reason for salvation or God for that matter."

And I love the idea that because Jesus makes references to parts of the Old Testament, it lends weight to the story. It's like Yoda mentioning that Darth Vader would bring balance to the galaxy and poof, it happens! Wow... Yoda must be real! How could he have known?

Well, many call Jesus a good teacher, but don't actually know what he taught.

But I very much did desire. That's the point! I exercised my free will and looked for him.

It's like I sent several letters to my congressman and didn't hear back, and you're telling me, "Well, ya got to send mail to get it! It's not his fault."

So, your dichotomy is set up. There must not be a god since I looked for him and he didn't respond.

Wouldn't be more accurate to say that he didn't respond they way you expected or wanted him to?

You are clearly more invested in it than you think.

We all have a history and/or perspective that gives us bias. This is true. However, I've never seen any evidence to contradict what the plain truth of what I'm saying, that there is a creator, that we can communicate with him.

How on earth do you know that? What, 4-year-olds don't have a subconscious? When do they get one?

Not concerned about his subconscious, but rather his innocence. He had no reason one way or the other to make up his story. And if he did it wouldn't have had the substantive details about real life situations that it does. No made up 4 year old story does. It actually sounds more like he had an encounter with someone, and when asked, he can describe in detail who it was, how tall, what he smelled like, etc.

Well sure, if you're predisposed to look at it that way. People believe all kinds of wacky stuff if they want to. The way it works is that they tend to notice and inflate the importance of the stuff they think supports their world view and discard or minimize what doesn't.

The problem is that the empirical evidence we have doesn't help the idea of the supernatural, so all we're really talking about is what you imagine.

It doesn't do anything to the idea of the supernatural, because it can't.

What is interesting that the problems of origins still exist, and theorists make outlandish claims about the origin of the universe too, that might as well be supernatural.

[_Some Schmo]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. What does this have to do with god's very human (childish human, no less) reaction to Eve?

Adam and Eve were judged based on God's justice. They were told before hand what the situation was, that they would die if they ate of the fruit. God's justice demands judgement. Now they died, as we will. How is this childish exactly? I'm certain we're not on the same page here. Help me out.

I think it's childish to punish all of humanity over one person who was disobedient. It's petulant and not very forgiving.

But I very much did desire. That's the point! I exercised my free will and looked for him.

It's like I sent several letters to my congressman and didn't hear back, and you're telling me, "Well, ya got to send mail to get it! It's not his fault."

So, your dichotomy is set up. There must not be a god since I looked for him and he didn't respond.

Come on, man. Why do you say this when I've been very clear about my stance on god? You need to quit insisting that I think "there must not be a god." I'm willing to accept the possibility there's a god who ignores people.

Wouldn't be more accurate to say that he didn't respond they way you expected or wanted him to?

Now I think we're approaching the real issue with your belief. Essentially, you're saying something about certain experiences you've had that have signaled to you there's a god speaking. What you seem to be implying is that I *have* had these experiences too, but that I've chalked them up to something other than god.

Well guess what? That just shows that god's form of communication sucks. Some god he turned out to be. If a simpleton like me can't get it, what good is it?

We all have a history and/or perspective that gives us bias. This is true. However, I've never seen any evidence to contradict what the plain truth of what I'm saying, that there is a creator, that we can communicate with him.

Back to this again...

I've never seen evidence to contradict unicorns. Therefore, I'm justified in believing unicorns are real. Right?

How on earth do you know that? What, 4-year-olds don't have a subconscious? When do they get one?

Not concerned about his subconscious, but rather his innocence. He had no reason one way or the other to make up his story.

I already named a plausible reason: the love and interest he'd receive from his parents for telling this story. You don't give little kids much credit, do you?

What is interesting that the problems of origins still exist, and theorists make outlandish claims about the origin of the universe too, that might as well be supernatural.

For instance...?

[_Hughes]

I think it's childish to punish all of humanity over one person who was disobedient. It's petulant and not very forgiving.

He didn't just punish all of their offspring, but all of creation. I guess you don't believe there should be consequences to evil actions?

I don't see it as childish in the least though, but rather justice.

Well guess what? That just shows that god's form of communication sucks. Some god he turned out to be. If a simpleton like me can't get it, what good is it?

So, what is the Bible to you?

Back to this again...

I've never seen evidence to contradict unicorns. Therefore, I'm justified in believing unicorns are real. Right?

Interesting you jump to something like this. Do unicorns have historical evidence? Do unicorns make claims to be God?

I already named a plausible reason: the love and interest he'd receive from his parents for telling this story. You don't give little kids much credit, do you?

Having read the book and had a 4 year old boy myself at one time, I don't see what you're claiming in this situation. The boy simply wanted to be better so he could play and eat and have fun. No different than anyone else. To him, it wasn't that big of a deal, he thought everyone had the same experience he had. His parents had to ask him questions to get him to reveal what happened.

What is interesting that the problems of origins still exist, and theorists make outlandish claims about the origin of the universe too, that might as well be supernatural.

For instance...?

The big bang for instance. My understand is that the big bang 'singularity' was so unique that our understanding of time and space don't apply. There are different theories or models on the subject, but that's the point. It's all highly speculative.