@XXSpadeMasterXX,
Krumple wrote:There must be a way, there HAS to be a method. If there is no method then you would HAVE to accept anything and everything regardless of how silly or absurd it is. To be intellectually honest you would HAVE to accept everything. I know you will try to wedge in that you do, but you honestly don't.
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:There also does not HAVE to be Science or math to explain everything either!!
If there isn't a demonstrable method that can be tested then it is not reliable. You can't just make a claim and say you don't have anything that supports it but you know it is true. Science doesn't try to explain "everything" but more than likely if science can't explain it then nothing else can either. In otherwords you would just be guessing or making stuff up. Religion/theology doesn't explain anything, it just says something is true without anything to back up the claim with. That isn't an explanation.
Krumple wrote:You don't believe Zeus is real
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:Correct!
See this is what makes you contradict yourself. You try to hide by using the term reliable later to explain why you can believe in jesus and not in zeus to being real. But I don't even know what you mean here when you say jesus is more reliable. It seems like a meaningless statement to cloak your reasoning. How can you arrive at your conclusion? Not to mention that jesus never claimed to be god in the first place.
Krumple wrote:yet by your very argument here, you would HAVE to accept the possibility that Zeus is real and Yaweh is not.
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:No I would not, By my experiences, I know there is a God, and Jesus is the most reliable, out of all of them...A God, over Gods, Is not reliable, or logical at all....
You will have to explain what you mean by "reliable" because it doesn't make any sense to me.
Krumple wrote:You will refuse to accept that because this argument you are trying to use here is actually absurd itself.
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:It is absurd to position myself as saying, Math and science do not hold the keys to EVERY door? and Zeus is not as reliable as a man named Jesus Christ?
Just because math or science can not explain something it doesn't mean guessing or wishful wanting is valid for claiming truth. Still don't know what reliablity has to do with jesus or zeus being real or not.
Krumple wrote:You are only trying to promote your idealistic concept of your god existing yet not requiring any evidence to base it on.
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:If you call "my experiences", which lead me from skepticism, to evidence...A PROMOTE OF "MY" IDEALISTIC CONCEPT OF GOD....(I will describe more below)....
Your experiences are yours, they don't hold anything for actual validation for anyone else. If someone is convinced because of "your experiences" then they are convinced by nothing at all. That would mean it is nothing different than a person who claims they were abducted by aliens then.
Krumple wrote:Yep and I call it a cop out. Sure there might be some information we learn that is not very appealing or isn't very productive. Yet I would much rather know the truth even if I don't like it, than to blindly turn away and just say, "It doesn't matter because something are better off unknown..."
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:Well, what do you call what your exactly doing, toward other people in the BILLIONS who have claimed to have experiences of a God? Apposed to your silly, It has not happened to me, So it can not be, theory??
I do not believe that these billions have ever had anything actually happen to them that originated from some god or gods. If they have had actual experiences from some god, then why have I not? This god only plays favorites? Seems this god would know what sort of experience would convince me, yet doesn't provide that experience? I'm still waiting. Or maybe, just maybe, those so called experiences are NOT infact experiences from a god?? I think that is more likely the case.
Krumple wrote:I would say many of these people who are suffering from experiences that are false are people of faith when they realize that theology is nonsense. They realize the vale they were under was causing a huge majority of their misery in life.
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:This would be a valid argument to battle with, if I was talking about theology when I said "thousands"...But I was referring to "Alien encounters"...When I said, " Thousands are Suffering from traumatic experiences, that are bullshit? "....
Alright fair enough, yet have you considered that a huge majority of people who have claimed to have had alien obductions actually have health issues and physcological issues prior to their "obduction" stories? A large group of claimers are known to have some form of mental illness common among their group. Strange how they all share the same health issue? Not a coincedence of course now is it?
Krumple wrote:Easy. If there is no supporting evidence for something, then I can say at that moment it is not real or worthy of changing my life style over. I won't lose any sleep over it until it can be proven to effect my life in some way. Just like I don't have trouble falling asleep because monsters are not living in my closet who will come out at night to feed on me.
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:Easy, and if other people have experienced something that validates "truth" or "reality" than by your above statement(s) then they are being "truthful" or their "experiences", are certainly NOT THIS....
If your experiences are what you claim they are, then good for you. However; they do absolutely nothing to convince me of your claim. Sorry to remind you of that but why should I believe your experiences are authentic and were provided by some "god"?
Krumple wrote:I would say many of these people who are suffering from experiences that are false are people of faith when they realize that theology is nonsense. They realize the vale they were under was causing a huge majority of their misery in life.
If someone else says they have had an exprience, I say to them, good for them. However; that does NOTHING to help me.
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:But that is silly, That would mean I should not even be wasting my time to talk to you, nor you to me...But we keep on doing it....
Why can't you see the perspective that you are trying to push on me. You say that you are convinced because of your experiences. That is great. I am saying I don't have those experiences so why is it, you have them and I don't? I am not convinced by your personal experiences, and nor should I be. Yet you keep trying to have it both ways. I guess this god plays favorites or maybe expects the person to suppend their rational mind and just blindly believe without anything to base that belief on. If that is the case I would never arrive at that conclusion because NOTHING in my reality expects that of me, so why start now>?
Krumple wrote:I will not accept someone's testimony of their experience because I know how fickle the human experience is.
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:How fickle is it? Are you fickle as well? Does that mean that science and math to equate everything, since it is based upon human experiences...Is fickle as well?
Science and math can be testable between people however; your personal experiences can not. There is no way for me to test to see if what you claim your experience to be, to orginate from some god. Yet math and science can be tested and that is why they are not fickle but your claim "could be".
Krumple wrote:So until these things start happening to me, I willl remain skeptical of them. Till this day, nothing has happened to me and I must ask why not?
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:Well, I have never first hand seen and felt compelled to feel that science validates my personal visions and dreams of going into Hell, Nor seeing demons, and fighting them, nor going to Heaven like places, and seeing angels, and deceased loved ones, Nor God, and the Devil, Nor aliens too!
Here is the thing. There are experiences that are universally common among people with similar sense falculties. For example if you have functioning eyes, and I have functioning eyes, we can agree on... oh, the color red, for example. We can test this, by asking pick out the color red from a group of colors. You pick out what you think is red, and I do the same. More than likely unless there is a physical problem with your eyes, we will pick out the same color.
Now with your visions, this can not be done. This test can not be done because I do not have those experiences that you claim to have. So your experiences can not be tested to anything. Sure there might be others who claim the same thing but it is not universal. So I must ask some questions and there is only so many possible answers.
If your visions are authentic then why doesn't everyone have them? Seems a little absurd to only grant them to a small few. Why play favorites?
Or if your visions are not authentic, then why are you claiming to have them? Some mental illness gone undiagnosed? Perhaps you have a very vivid imagination or want see these things and believe that you actually have? Or flat out lying?
So which is it?
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:
Is it fair for me to believe I can question why not, to science???
You can, and you should question anything scientific. Never said you had to blindly accept anything. However; are you in a position where you can test everything? Probablly not. So it is best to put them away then and not claim anything pertaining to them until you can varify them. To do otherwise is not reasonable.
Krumple wrote:Why do all these people have these so called experiences and I don't?
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:Because your eyes are open to it, when you open your eyes to them...
Male cow feces. Eyes aren't open? You mean in otherwords I have to suspend my rational mind and just blindly accept them to be true. Or you have to explain what "eyes open" means. Otherwise it is just more non-sense. But ONCE again, if there was a god, that god would percisily KNOW what sort of experience to give me. It wouldn't just give me some vague experience that I might confuse with something else. If it does give some vague experience that I could mistake for something else, then it is not doing a very good job at it. It would know what would convince me, yet still has not done it. Why?
Krumple wrote:It leads me to believe that they are actually in error and what they thought was happening really didn't happen.
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:And that is a bullshit way to conjure up explaining unexplained things in your eyes...But keep doing if it is working, I doubt it is...and you seem to be unhappy as if you WANT to see these experiences...But are not willing to take the steps to have this "Vale" lifted to seem the things that which others speak of....
Take the steps? What steps? You mean once again, suspend my rational mind? Just blindly accept something is true without anything to validate it? Why? When NOTHING in this reality expects that I do that, should I do that for this one thing? It is silly. If there is a god, it would know what sort of experience would convince me, so why hasn't it?
Krumple wrote:Also there have been many theists turned atheist who support this idea.
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:I do not doubt it, they gave up...there are many who have abandoned atheism, for theology, including me!
They gave up? Since you say something like that convinces me that you were never actually an atheist. Sure you might have been a non practicing theist but I doubt you were skeptical of theology and then all of a sudden convinced by some experience. I bet it was the other way around. You always believed there was a god but never did anything about it until you had this so called experience, and then you attributed this experience coming from a god. Why would I suggest this being the case? Because an atheist would have understood what I meant, yet you respond by saying they gave up. No a skeptic doesn't give up and just accept something, doesn't work that way.
Krumple wrote:They confess that their past experiences they had were them projecting these ideas because they really wanted them to be true.
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:And you believe this to be 100% true? Why? Because it fits in with your own Ideology....and you are just as bias as these so called religious are!
Nope, because I have had similar experiences with this issue. If a person is so convinced by their experience, that they claim it originated from a god, but later recant it and say it was only their wishful thinking, that is their claim. But I would have to ask, why did they think it was from a god and then turn arround later and say it wasn't. That is what I am explaining. Sure their statements are still anecdotal, but what would compel someone to do that then? Just to lie? They wouldn't need to lie about it. There would be no incentive to lie about it.
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:
I could make the case, that they gave up on faith, Or never had it to begin with, So they really did not see anything at all...But were trying to fool a God into believing they were....
Yeah you could make that case but it really doesn't put them anywhere. If they were fooling themselves or lying to themselves or others it wouldn't actually change the fact. So what would you call a person who never had faith to begin with yet claims to be a theist? Seems a little odd, what would motivate them to do that? If they believe a god exists, then they are a theist. Faith is easy to come by, it is just simply believing something is true without anything to base it on.
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:
Or I could flip that around, and say, I was just a rebel when trying to fight a God, and hide from him, And I wanted to do as I please, with no consequence, Till I needed him, and saw his wrath at me! I rejected the devil, accepted God, and it has been blissful ever since, even though there are defiantly very rough patches I endure...
Here is the thing, if it is true what you say above then that god is beyond wicked. First of all, the god starts off by not revealing itself in any testable way. Then on top of that expects certain behavior or else it will punish you for not doing so? And you accept this as being reasonable? You think it is perfectly fine for a god to expect certain behavior yet never actually substantiate itself?
Krumple wrote:You could live that way, and in fact it would be a rational way to live. I call it being a skeptic. There is nothing that says you MUST believe something that someone tells you.
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:Which I necessarily do not!
Krumple wrote:Until you experience it first hand you don't have to accept anything anyone says to be factual.
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:And what happens when I experience something of the abnormal? Pointing toward factual existence of a God? I could list thousands, But if you would like me to, I will explain in my next post maybe ten very strong cases of this...I am interested, in what you would call or explain them to be??
I don't think you would be interested because you didn't like my last explanation of your experiences. You took offense to my explanations. Which is very telling, because if you actually had them, you wouldn't feel threatened by my disbelief.
Krumple wrote:However; I must also ask what you mean by seeing?
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:EVERYTHING THAT WOULD ENTAIL THIS....
Krumple wrote:Until you experience it first hand you don't have to accept anything anyone says to be factual.
Absolutely silly expectation of science. However; I must say that perhaps one day we will have the capability of this. But as of right now there are so many factors involved and perhaps some things we don't know yet that would allow us to make such a prediction. It is not outside the realm of science to do so, but it IS right now. So are you saying that since science can't predict your death then it is in some way less valid? That is absurd.
Also where would accidents come into play? How would we predict that you would die in, let's say, an airplane crash? How would we be able to extract that result from physical things? We would have to collect so much data that in fact the plane would never then crash because we would be aware of the faulty problem that caused the crash in the first place.
So really your question is unreasonable but I am also not surprised you asked it because you are unreasonable.
XXSpadeMasterXX wrote:Fine, I will give you another example...
Explain to me, Using math and science, what it is when you have that feeling that another person is in the room with you, or watching you, but none are there?? Explain the feeling of feeling like you have done this before...Such as in Deja-Vu? (maybe from a reincarnation) Explain to me, using math or science what they call a conscience to be??
You honestly think this is a good example? Well to explain that very simple experience I will have to mention evolution. We evolved from other animals, and those animals relied on being aware of their surroundings to avoid preditors. We still have this in us however it is not as hightened as it is in other animals because over time we had fewer and fewer preditors so there was no need for us to maintain this ability. Now we have these senses but they are retarded and trigger randomly giving us the impression that someone is watching us.
We have tested this phenomina in the lab and just about everyone responds in the same way. Not only that but there are also cases when people are exposed to toxic substances, who also trigger these dormate traits and who also feel they are surrounded by invisible beings. As soon as they get treated for their exposure the problem goes away. Very similar cases happen with soldiers who have had traumatic war experiences. They will also have this turned on because war training and combat trauma tend to utilize this survival instinct because we are still animals weather we want to admit it or not.
