[quote]forlife wrote:
I apply the same scrutiny to your beliefs that I apply to my own beliefs. Don’t you think it is less than honest for you not to do the same?
How can you explain my experience, and why do you think you’re immune to the same bias? You use emotionality and skewed rationality to justify your particular religious beliefs, just as I did.[/quote]
I am still waiting for the big fat lie God told…Well?
[quote]jonnyblaze wrote:
Honestly, it tells me a lot more about people than much about God. It is people who have made false claims throughout history based on erroneous claims of God telling them something directly. And it is also people who have in good faith tried to teach truthful doctrines and gotten mixed up along the way. The Catholic Church, for its part, has made relatively few claims of infallibility in its teaching and only when the pope is specifically speaking ex cathedra.
I’d like to see some specific examples though of where God has supposedly confirmed conflicting beliefs, if in fact you can cite any?[/quote]
See my personal example, posted earlier. In his “Varieties of Religious Experience”, William James documents this phenomenon of people having deeply moving spiritual experiences which confirm contradictory religious beliefs. Logically, it’s impossible for these people to be right since their doctrines are mutually incompatible.
How is it possible for people to see the Virgin Mary if she’s long dead and saints don’t exist? Catholics frequently claim to see this vision, but what does it really mean? How is it any different than Joseph Smith seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ?
As human beings, we have a remarkable capacity to convince ourselves that what we want to be true really is true. It’s a survival mechanism, but it doesn’t say anything about the actual facts.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
By reading the book yourself, and not having a human capable of manipulation, deceit, betrayal, and motivated by ulterior motives, you are able to bi-pass the inferiority of the middle man and connect with God directly. This is why I like to interact with God myself rather than have other people and their interpretations get in the way. [/quote]
But that’s exactly what I did. I read the Book of Mormon myself, and prayed alone, to determine if it was from god. And I received a direct, powerful answer to my prayer that it was.
How do you explain that?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Here’s an example from my own religion:
I was promised that if I read the Book of Mormon with a sincere heart and real intent, that god would tell me whether or not it was true. So I read it, sincerely prayed about it, and experienced the most overwhelming spiritual confirmation that it was true. It was a very powerful, undeniable experience. God told me that Joseph Smith was a true prophet who translated the Book of Mormon through divine inspiration.
How do you explain my spiritual experience?
As a Catholic, you’ll readily dismiss my spiritual experience as the product of my own mind. What you don’t understand is that your own spiritual experiences are subject to the same scrutiny.[/quote]
Agreed on both counts. That’s why faith is not left alone and we can also use our faculties of reason. Spiritual experience is a hell of a tricky thing (sometimes literally) and I’d be hesitant of anyone who wants you to believe SOLELY based on some ethereal experience. Just because you think that God told you something doesn’t mean that he actually did. And the same can be said for any Catholic’s experiences – the difference is that is not all that the Catholic faith is based on.
Incidentally, I fear in your case, you’ve had some strong spiritual experiences that left you trying to believe something against your rationality. Now, you’ve swung the pendulum the other way and become “super-rational” at the expense of anything even smacking of faith (and if you don’t already, someday you’ll feel the void of something missing). Hopefully someday you’ll find the truth that others have… which allows for a pretty amazing synthesis of faith and reason without compromising either… Not trying to be an armchair psychologist but just saying because I’ve gone through similar things in my life.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I don’t try to explain your experience, that’s your task. For all I know, you made it up to make your case seem stronger.[/quote]
If you want to have a serious discussion, then treat my posts with at least minimal respect. I explained my spiritual experience to you. It was a very real experience, and I testified of it during two years of proselyting and for several years afterward.
Again, how do you explain it? Are you going to admit that it’s possible for people to convince themselves that “god” is speaking to them when in fact they are mistakenly using emotionality as evidence?
[quote]pat wrote:
I am still waiting for the big fat lie God told…Well?[/quote]
God told me the Book of Mormon was translated through the prophet Joseph Smith, by His divine power.
Or are you saying you actually believe that?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I don’t try to explain your experience, that’s your task. For all I know, you made it up to make your case seem stronger.
If you want to have a serious discussion, then treat my posts with at least minimal respect. I explained my spiritual experience to you. It was a very real experience, and I testified of it during two years of proselyting and for several years afterward.
Again, how do you explain it? Are you going to admit that it’s possible for people to convince themselves that “god” is speaking to them when in fact they are mistakenly using emotionality as evidence?[/quote]
I’m not going to explain it. I can’t be inside your head. So, again, you’re lying as far as I know. I dismiss it for what I know and take a stand. And please, don’t ask me to respect your posts anymore. I’ve grown tired of the wild goose chases you set off on. The bastardization of “force” was a hell of a show, I give you that. But, it’s pretty much killed what little respect I might have had for you as a poster. Now, in the end, you shouldn’t take that to heart. I wouldn’t. Keep on, keeping on. Again, I would too. But let’s not pretend at respect. Maybe some civility, but not respect.
Edit: I mean, look at all the detours you’ve already taken in this thread? Wars, inquisitions, “force,” how you believe Catholics should have married priests, and now the question of God’s existence.
[quote]jonnyblaze wrote:
Spiritual experience is a hell of a tricky thing (sometimes literally) and I’d be hesitant of anyone who wants you to believe SOLELY based on some ethereal experience. Just because you think that God told you something doesn’t mean that he actually did.[/quote]
Thanks for having the honesty to admit this. For some reason, the other guys keep beating around the bush on this issue, as if it’s not possible for Catholics to suffer from the same bias in evaluating the truth of their own faith.
Catholics aren’t so different from Mormons and other religions in this regard. Believers rarely base their convictions solely on spiritual experiences. They also believe that there is a rational basis for their faith. I certainly believed there was objective proof for my convictions as a Mormon. After all, no uneducated farm boy could possibly have produced a book so inspired as the Book of Mormon, right?
However, when you drill past the generalities to specifics, inevitably these rational proofs fail, and believers retreat to their spiritual experiences as the real proof. We’ve had many discussions in this forum on just this point.
For example, why in the history of mankind is there not a single recorded instance of an amputee’s limb being restored? Cancer can spontaneously remit, but limbs cannot spontaneously grow back. So claiming that god has cured your cancer means nothing…provide real proof of something that can’t be explained by other than divine means.
I hear this often from believers. You said earlier that you accept rationality as grounds for belief. That’s great, so do I. The difference between us is that I’m unwilling to trust emotionality as further evidence, beyond what rationality can provide.
Another thing I frequently hear from believers is that as an agnostic, I can’t possibly be fulfilled, integrated, happy, and at peace as a human being. None of that is true, and in fact I have these things in greater abundance now than I ever did as a believer. Of course, your church leaders aren’t going to tell you that.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m not going to explain it. I can’t be inside your head. So, again, you’re lying as far as I know. I dismiss it for what I know and take a stand. And please, don’t ask me to respect your posts anymore. I’ve grown tired of the wild goose chases you set off on. The bastardization of “force” was a hell of a show, I give you that. But, it’s pretty much killed what little respect I might have had for you as a poster. Now, in the end, you shouldn’t take that to heart. I wouldn’t. Keep on, keeping on. Again, I would too. But let’s not pretend at respect. Maybe some civility, but not respect. [/quote]
Thanks for the permission to keep posting, but I have better things to do than waste my time responding to someone that can’t maintain at least basic respect, despite disagreeing on the points being discussed.
[quote]forlife wrote:
jonnyblaze wrote:
Spiritual experience is a hell of a tricky thing (sometimes literally) and I’d be hesitant of anyone who wants you to believe SOLELY based on some ethereal experience. Just because you think that God told you something doesn’t mean that he actually did.
Thanks for having the honesty to admit this. For some reason, the other guys keep beating around the bush on this issue, as if it’s not possible for Catholics to suffer from the same bias in evaluating the truth of their own faith.
And the same can be said for any Catholic’s experiences – the difference is that is not all that the Catholic faith is based on.
Catholics aren’t so different from Mormons and other religions in this regard. Believers rarely base their convictions solely on spiritual experiences. They also believe that there is a rational basis for their faith. I certainly believed there was objective proof for my convictions as a Mormon. After all, no uneducated farm boy could possibly have produced a book so inspired as the Book of Mormon, right?
However, when you drill past the generalities to specifics, inevitably these rational proofs fail, and believers retreat to their spiritual experiences as the real proof. We’ve had many discussions in this forum on just this point.
For example, why in the history of mankind is there not a single recorded instance of an amputee’s limb being restored? Cancer can spontaneously remit, but limbs cannot spontaneously grow back. So claiming that god has cured your cancer means nothing…provide real proof of something that can’t be explained by other than divine means.
Incidentally, I fear in your case, you’ve had some strong spiritual experiences that left you trying to believe something against your rationality. Now, you’ve swung the pendulum the other way and become “super-rational” at the expense of anything even smacking of faith (and if you don’t already, someday you’ll feel the void of something missing). Hopefully someday you’ll find the truth that others have… which allows for a pretty amazing synthesis of faith and reason without compromising either… Not trying to be an armchair psychologist but just saying because I’ve gone through similar things in my life.
I hear this often from believers. You said earlier that you accept rationality as grounds for belief. That’s great, so do I. The difference between us is that I’m unwilling to trust emotionality as further evidence, beyond what rationality can provide.
Another thing I frequently hear from believers is that as an agnostic, I can’t possibly be fulfilled, integrated, happy, and at peace as a human being. None of that is true, and in fact I have these things in greater abundance now than I ever did as a believer. Of course, your church leaders aren’t going to tell you that.[/quote]
Fair enough man. Do your thing and I’ll do mine. FWIW though, I don’t need my Church leaders to tell me anything on that specific subject. I’ve got my own experiences thank you very much. I’m out on this thread
[quote]forlife wrote:
I hear this often from believers. You said earlier that you accept rationality as grounds for belief. That’s great, so do I. The difference between us is that I’m unwilling to trust emotionality as further evidence, beyond what rationality can provide.[/quote]
Then this, without batting an eye at the contradiction:
…all of which is predicated on “emotionality”.
Let’s recap: “emotionality” = bad if it leads you to “irrational” beliefs in higher power and warm fuzzies associated with afterlife…“emotionality” = good if it leads you to “irrational” beliefs in being “fulfilled” (purely emotional and subjective), “integrated” (whatever that means), and “happy” (purely emotional and subjective).
Always good for a laugh, if nothing else.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’m not going to explain it. I can’t be inside your head. So, again, you’re lying as far as I know. I dismiss it for what I know and take a stand. And please, don’t ask me to respect your posts anymore. I’ve grown tired of the wild goose chases you set off on. The bastardization of “force” was a hell of a show, I give you that. But, it’s pretty much killed what little respect I might have had for you as a poster. Now, in the end, you shouldn’t take that to heart. I wouldn’t. Keep on, keeping on. Again, I would too. But let’s not pretend at respect. Maybe some civility, but not respect.
Thanks for the permission to keep posting, but I have better things to do than waste my time responding to someone that can’t maintain at least basic respect, despite disagreeing on the points being discussed.[/quote]
Hah! At what point in this thread have you even tried to show me, or any other reader, an ounce of respect? You come up with an oddball definition of “force” and stick with it, even when no one is buying it. Heck, I don’t think you even believed it. But, once down that road, you were too proud to back off and accept you were wrong. You flailed around trying to find an issue you might make stick (wars, inquisition, “force,” the question of God) in a thread that really doesn’t involve any of those. That’s right, you went into Dawkinite/Hitchenstholic “Crusader” mode. And, come now, you’ve never attempted to show my “fairy tale” beliefs any respect. Now, don’t mistake that for caring, I don’t. Think what you will about my beliefs, I’ve experienced worse. I just think it’s ironic, now, this demand for respect.
[quote]jonnyblaze wrote:
Fair enough man. Do your thing and I’ll do mine. FWIW though, I don’t need my Church leaders to tell me anything on that specific subject. I’ve got my own experiences thank you very much. I’m out on this thread[/quote]
I do understand where you’re coming from. As a believer, I was 100% convinced that my testimony was directly from god, and that it was indpendent of anything my church leaders told me.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts. It’s refreshing for someone to discuss things openly instead of playing debate games to make a point.
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
I am still waiting for the big fat lie God told…Well?
God told me the Book of Mormon was translated through the prophet Joseph Smith, by His divine power.
Or are you saying you actually believe that?[/quote]
God actually told you this?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Hah! At what point in this thread have you even tried to show me, or any other reader, an ounce of respect? You come up with an oddball definition of “force” and stick with it, even when no one is buying it. Heck, I don’t think you even believed it. But, once down that road, you were too proud to back off and accept you were wrong. You flailed around trying to find an issue you might make stick (wars, inquisition, “force,” the question of God) in a thread that really doesn’t involve any of those. That’s right, you went into Dawkinite/Hitchenstholic “Crusader” mode. And, come now, you’ve never attempted to show my “fairy tale” beliefs any respect. Now, don’t mistake that for caring, I don’t. Think what you will about my beliefs, I’ve experienced worse. I just think it’s ironic, now, this demand for respect.[/quote]
I’m talking about basic respect, not about disagreeing with one another’s perspectives. I’ve never questioned your sincerity or called you a liar.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
God actually told you this?[/quote]
Yes, that is what I sincerely believed at the time.
Of course, I no longer believe that, since I don’t believe there is a “god” in the first place. I think we make our own “gods”, in order to deal with the fears and sorrows of life, and to feel better about ourselves.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Hah! At what point in this thread have you even tried to show me, or any other reader, an ounce of respect? You come up with an oddball definition of “force” and stick with it, even when no one is buying it. Heck, I don’t think you even believed it. But, once down that road, you were too proud to back off and accept you were wrong. You flailed around trying to find an issue you might make stick (wars, inquisition, “force,” the question of God) in a thread that really doesn’t involve any of those. That’s right, you went into Dawkinite/Hitchenstholic “Crusader” mode. And, come now, you’ve never attempted to show my “fairy tale” beliefs any respect. Now, don’t mistake that for caring, I don’t. Think what you will about my beliefs, I’ve experienced worse. I just think it’s ironic, now, this demand for respect.
I’m talking about basic respect, not about disagreeing with one another’s perspectives. I’ve never questioned your sincerity or called you a liar.[/quote]
You used yourself as an example. I said I can’t be inside your head, that you could be lying in the first place, “for all I know.” So, ultimately, I dismiss an experience you don’t believe you actually had, and stand by mine.
You can at least acknowledge that I believed the experience to be divinely inspired at the time, instead of accusing me of lying about it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
You can at least acknowledge that I believed the experience to be divinely inspired at the time, instead of accusing me of lying about it.[/quote]
No, I can’t.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
forlife wrote:
You can at least acknowledge that I believed the experience to be divinely inspired at the time, instead of accusing me of lying about it.
No, I can’t.
Edit: In any event, you’ve already stated that such statements are lies. If only to one’s self.[/quote]
There’s a difference between saying that people can lie to themselves in the search for meaning, and accusing me of lying about an experience as a debate tactic on a message board.