@shinyblurry

Finally getting around to this older comment of yours.

M: The first reason is that it's very common among holders of all sorts of mystical beliefs to have gained the belief following such an experience, and to have attributed the belief to whichever mystical force is closest at hand, in your case, Jesus.

SB: Even then I had no religion or belief system. From there, I explored many of the worlds belief systems and philosophies, religions and traditions, for many years, before being led to Christianity. To note, at the time, out of all the religions, I considered Christianity to be one of the least plausible. Again, because it had been uniquely confirmed to me, there was no way to deny it. The evidence was as plain as my reflection in the mirror.

By "closest at hand", I didn't mean that you grabbed it right away. While you did spend years coming to Jesus, it's no coincidence that you did, IMO. You say that among religions, you were particularly prejudiced against Christianity for it's implausibility. This doesn't surprise since it was the one you were most familiar with, and so the one you had seen the most problems with, until you investigated the other ones, and found them even worse. As you have noted several times yourself, growing up in the West, you were also strongly prejudiced towards Christianity, since a large part of our cultural ethos and moral code stems directly from it, even for us atheists. So, if you were going to discover that one religion was the true one, it would almost certainly be a strain of Christianity as it's the one that fits your own culture's moral code the best. If you'd chosen Voodoo instead, then your careful search of religions would be something worth pointing to as evidence.

[God] is the only source of truth, and anyone in contact with Him has access to that truth. The second and lesser power is that of Satan. He is the source of all lies, and anyone in contact with him is deluded and in bondage. Satan is the ruler of the world system, and in general, the people who are enslaved to him are not aware of it. He can only really enslave someone who is ignorant of the truth.

These definitions, especially the ones about Satan are really self-serving. You declare that you have the truth, and part of that truth is that anyone who disagrees with you is possessed by the devil, which of course your dissenters will deny. But you can counter that easily because your religion has also defined satanic possession as something you don't notice. Tight as a drum, and these definitions from nowhere but the religion's own book.

I think it's a natural thought to have, that your life might be something like the Truman show, and everyone else is in on the conspiracy. A belief like that puts you in the very center of the Universe, and from there you could weave together any story you could imagine.

Actually, it was a very different feeling from that. I didn't feel I was the target of any conspiracy. I had stumbled into one --my group of friends-- but I was ignorant of the conspiracy before I had my experience. After I had it, I realized that they were all part of something bigger than me that I could never understand, and that I was actually in their way, that my presence in their group was really cramping their style a lot, slowing things down, forcing them to get things done surreptitiously. I realized they weren't going to directly remove me for now, but I didn't know how long their patience would last. So I removed myself, and hoped they'd leave me alone. In hindsight, they were horrible friends to begin with, so it was no loss for me. Losing those friends was a very good move for me.

The thing is, what I know now is, that everyone who falls into these traps has a little help. That you don't just fall into the abyss, you get pushed in. Satan fuels these types of experiences supernaturally. He can cause people to give you responses or engage you in dialogues which confirm the lies that he has planted and therefore reap a harvert of delusion. He will even give you these kinds of experience in order to debunk them later with the ultimate goal of getting you to doubt the real thing:

Again, you're claiming you are right, and everything untrue comes from Satan, and if I have any logical reason to doubt your story, you can give yourself permission to ignore my logic by saying it is from Satan and that's why it has the power to show the Truth is wrong. So, any Christian who believes a logical argument that conflicts with the dogma is, by definition, being fooled by Satan, and has a duty to doubt their own mind. Even better than the last one for mind control. It does away utterly with reliance on any faculty of the mind, except when their use results in dogmatic thoughts. Genius. Serious props to whoever came up with that. That's smart.

I admit some things I believe may seem counter-intuitive to you, but as you have admitted, our intuitions about what is correct are not always reliable. Quantum physics is a good example of this truth.

I have no problem with counter-intuitive things. I love them. That's why I'm do drawn to quantum physics. I really try hard to wrap my mind around how some of those things can be so, but I really can't. I trust it's so only because experimental evidence bears it out. The only claims of anybody's that I have problems with are A) highly improbable ones only where following such a belief will somehow result in an undesirable outcome; and B) internally self-contradicting or otherwise demonstrably impossible ones.

Like, if you say you believe God exists, I say fine. If you say you know God exists, I say prove it's not your imagination. If you say evolution is wrong, ordinarily I wouldn't care what you believe, except that if you're on school board and decide to replace it with Creationism or Intelligent Design in the science curriculum, then I have to object because that causes harm to children who are going to think that they are real science, and on equal footing with/compatible with/superior to evolution.

It seems to me that you're still very much interpreting reality through your experience. You make the leap that since you were able to fool yourself to such an extent, and that your experience had the character of the supernatural, that everyone who has a supernatural experience is undergoing a similar process. Yet, this is a classic example of confirmation bias. How do you know that you're still not seeing things according to an unconscious paradigm you haven't yet questioned?

You may be right. I may be right. I think it's more likely that I'm right, but that's neither here nor there. How do you know you're not seeing things that aren't there? My experience proves the human mind is capable of doing so and sustaining it. The bible could have been written by several such people. Maybe in that time and place, people who ranted about strange unconnected things were considered to be prophets, and once plugged into the God story, they went to town. I'm not saying it's true, just a possible theory.

As far as truth, it is by nature, exclusive. There is no true for me, or true for you. Someone is right and someone is wrong. This world was either created with intention, or it manifested itself out of sheer happenstance. There either is a God or there isn't.

Excellent to hear. I agree with everything here and might refer back to this several times when I get to your other comment about the nature of God.

You believe you were just deceiving yourself. What I am telling you is that you had supernatural help, and that you're still in it.

If I was "in it" and deceiving myself then, I was in something and deceiving myself before. My beliefs about all supernatural things remain unchanged by my experience, that's to say, I still don't believe they exist.

First, you can rule out all the gods who make no creation claims. Two, you can rule out the creation claims that contradict the basic evidence.

First, not claiming to have created anything doesn't mean he didn't do it, or that he did [edit] claim it and the records were lost. Two, hold the phone -- this rules out Christianity. Genesis states the world was created in six days a few thousand years ago, or something. You can argue that this is metaphorical (why?), but surely you can't say that world being flat, or the sun rotating around the Earth is a metaphor. These are things God would know and have no reason to misrepresent. Since it's God's word, everyone would just believe it. And why not? It makes just as much sense that the Earth is round and revolves around its axis.

I thought about weighting the probabilities for each religion, but discarded it as unwieldy and unnecessary. There are so many mutually exclusive strains even within a single religion that we are still left with tons of them to choose from.

Your evidence about what the most influential/largest religion is is valid (in the "indication" sense of "evidence") for Christianity's being true, and for it being the only reasonable candidate for being true, but is not conclusive. My counterarguments are several:

1. If having the largest relative numbers is evidence of the probable truth of something, then even larger numbers is stronger evidence that it's probably not true. Around 2 billion people are Christian, so around 5 billion are not. By this method, while it's most probable Christianity is right, it's more probable that none of the religions is right. [On re-reading the preceding argument and the context you made the claim, it is a stupid see-saw argument, so I'm taking it back.] Consider also there are tens of thousands of different strains of Christianity with conflicting ideas of the correct way to interpret the Bible and conduct ourselves. Can gays marry? Can women serve mass? Can priests marry? Can non-virgins marry? And so on. Only one of these sects can be right, and again, probably none of them are.

2. The method itself doesn't take into account why the religion has spread. The answer isn't in how true it is, but in the genius of the edicts it contains. For example, it says that Christians are obliged to go convert other people, and doing so will save their eternal souls from damnation. Anyone who is a Christian is therefore compelled to contribute to this uniquely Christian process. I can't count the number of times I've been invited to attend church or talk about God with a missionary. That's why Christianity is all over the world, whereas no other religion has that spread. Also, there are all sorts of compelling reasons for people to adopt Christianity. One is that Christians bring free hospitals and schools. This gives non-truth-based incentives to join. The sum of this argument is that Christianity has the best marketing, so would be expected to have the largest numbers. The better question is why Islam still has half the % of converts that Christianity does, even though it has no marketing system at all, and really a very poor public image internationally.

3. This kinda follows from #1, but I want to make it explicit, as this, IMHO, is one of the strongest arguments I've ever come up with. I've never presented it nor seen it presented to a believer, so I'm keen for your reaction. It goes something like this: If God is perfect, then everything he does must be perfect. If the bible is his word, then it should be instantly apparent to anybody with language faculties that it's all absolutely true, what it means, and how to extrapolate further truths from it. But that's not what happens. Christians argue and fight over the correct interpretation of the bible, and others argue with Christians over whether it's God's word at all based on the many, many things that appear inconsistent to non-Christians. In this regard, it's obvious that it's not perfect, and therefore not the word of God. If it's not the word of God, then the whole religion based on it is bunk.

I agree to some extent about psychological motivations but reject the premise as a whole that people need religion to live in a scary Universe. Most atheists aren't aware of the vast intellectual and philosophical traditions of Christianity, or how self-critical it can be. Even Paul said that if Jesus is not resurrected that we are all fools. We're not just a bunch of ignoramouses who drank the kool-aid and are waiting for the UFO to arrive.

I didn't say people needed it. I said having a religion in a scary universe with other people with needs and desires that conflict with your own makes life a lot easier and more comfortable. Religion, in general, is probably the greatest social organizing force ever conceived of, and that's why religions are so attractive and conservatively followed in places with less beneficial social organization (i.e., places without democracy), and lower critical thinking skills (i.e. places with relatively poor education).

In contrast, in times and places where people on a large scale are well off and have a tradition of critical thinking, the benefits of having a religion as the system of governance are less apparent, and the flaws in this system come out. It becomes more common for such nations to question the authority of the church, and so separate religion from governance. The West has done so, and is leading the world. Turkey is the only officially secular Muslim nation in the world and has clearly put itself in a field apart from the rest, all because it unburdened itself of religious governance when an imposed basic social organization structure was no longer required.

It's funny but science functions in the same way for atheists as you say a god does for theists.

You're right, and you may not know how right you are. Modern scientific investigation, as away of life, comes almost entirely from the Christian tradition. It once was in the culture of Christianity to investigate and try to understand the universe in every detail. The thought was that understanding the universe better was to approach understanding of God's true nature -- a logical conclusion since it was accepted that God created the universe, and understanding the nature of something is to reveal the nature of its creator (and due to our natural curiosity, learning things makes us feel better). The sciences had several branches. Natural science was the branch dealing with the non-transcendent aspects of the universe. The transcendent ones were left to theologists and philosophers, who were also considered scientists, as they had to rigorously and logically prove things as well, but without objective evidence. This was fine, and everyone thought knowledge of the world was advancing as it should until natural science, by its own procedures, started discovering natural facts that seemed inconsistent with the Bible.

That's when people who wanted truth had to decide what their truth consisted of: either God and canon, or observable objective facts. Natural science was cleaved off from the church and took the name "science" with it. Since then, religion and science have both done their part giving people the comfort of knowledge. People who find the most comfort in knowledge that is immutable and all-encompassing prefer religion. People who find the most comfort in knowledge that is verifiable and useful prefer science.

"Remember kids, when peddling BS, be wise and safe about it!"

Seriously though, this man of all people should know he's spouting bs. "No one ever spoke that way", eh? Siddhārtha Gautama is from India, Ravi, and one of the only ways in which his message does not anticipate that of Jesus is the lack of all that hellfire, eternal damnation and "you're either with me or against me" crap that Jesus introduced (and I won't mention all the Greek philosophers whose ideas were far more sophisticated than the carpenter's).

Sorry Ravi, but the Jeebs character, like all good tyrants, has two sides to his message: the stick and the carrot. Apologists today have simply put the stick behind their backs, now that centuries of beating humanity with it have borne its fruits.

Either you didn't know about the sarcasm tag or I've just been trolled.>> ^shinyblurry:

I wouldn't wish that on anyone..I hope he reforms and gets saved.
>> ^lampishthing:
I hope he enjoys eternal damnation!>> ^shinyblurry:
He is definitely uncomfortable there. Notice he is turned away and doesn't even look Dan in the eyes in some parts? I've heard rumors Bill was gay, or bi and through that interpertation this makes sense. His sin is staring him in the face so he turns adversarial towards Dan..doesn't go along with his jokes, doesn't support his conclusions and is even somewhat mean.
>> ^ponceleon:
Is it me, or does Bill seem uncomfortable with Dan?

Except, you know, Hell and eternal damnation.
>> ^bareboards2:
And no, I don't think Christians consider God and Jesus the same. Jesus is strictly New Testament and brought a message of love. I think that is why no one laughed at that joke -- it doesn't match his message.
>> ^hpqp:
Don't most christians consider God and Jeebs to be one and the same?
That being said, while the Bible's misogyny (some examples) is for the most part not directly attributable to Jeebs himself, doesn't his actions count for something? Out of 12 disciples, not a single worthy woman? I guess there's always the possibility of him being gay

I wouldn't wish that on anyone..I hope he reforms and gets saved.

>> ^lampishthing:
I hope he enjoys eternal damnation!>> ^shinyblurry:
He is definitely uncomfortable there. Notice he is turned away and doesn't even look Dan in the eyes in some parts? I've heard rumors Bill was gay, or bi and through that interpertation this makes sense. His sin is staring him in the face so he turns adversarial towards Dan..doesn't go along with his jokes, doesn't support his conclusions and is even somewhat mean.
>> ^ponceleon:
Is it me, or does Bill seem uncomfortable with Dan?

@bareboards2

The Jeebs character definitely made some interesting points about love, compassion and charity (it is suggested he got some of these from Buddhism), and ideas of social reform that could almost qualify him as proto-socialist. But the view of all-good all-loving Jeebs that moderate Christians are raised with today is a relatively recent phenomenon, with its roots in the deistic revisions of the Bible and Christian doctrine that began with the Enlightenment.

Having been raised in an evangelical cult, I know the Bible quite well, and can assure you that Jeebs is not all good. For one, the invention of eternal torture and hell is his invention (cf self-quote below); some of his parables are terribly authoritarian (e.g. Lk 19:11-27); he is divisive ("you're either with me or against me","I come not to bring peace but a sword", etc...) and even his treatment of women comes off as condescending at times, albeit much better than the patriarchal misogyny of the OT and St Paul (one example: he doesn't allow Mary to touch him after resurrecting, but allows Thomas (Jn 20:17-27).

I understand the urge to see Jeebs in a purely positive light though, heck, even my favourite poet (Percy Shelley), an avowed atheist and antitheist, tried to project Jesus in his (Shelley's) own image, i.e. as a humanist social reformer.

>> ^hpqp:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK and @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/smooman" title="member since October 28th, 2008" class="profilelink">smooman (quoting doesn't work)
Eternal damnation and hellfire are inventions of the character of Jesus (some of the more explicit examples: Mt. 10:28, Mt. 25:41, Mt. 25:46, Mk 9:47-48, Lk 10:15, Lk. 12:5, etc., not counting all the parables where "bad fruit/branches" are cast into "unquenchable fire").
One main point of departure between Christianity and Judaism is hell.
Some good online tools for Bible "study":
http://www.biblegateway.com/
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

That, is awesome, Lann. I'll bet you look kickass flying around with your bright red hair!
I'm a huge klutz, so I can barely walk and talk at the same time without ending up with a bruise, so I'm easily impressed. *grin*
I'm sorry it took so long for me to get back to you...I'm also sorry you can't get that board! Drats and Damnation!

In reply to this comment by Lann:
I'm just starting longboarding (once I get a board) but I used to skateboard with my brothers back in the day. I can't go snowboarding here so I wanted something else to do.

I can't get that awesome board because of shipping.

In reply to this comment by AdrianBlack:
Gasp! Whoa!
I don't know which is cooler...that you can skate, or that you found one with her artwork on it.
That looks stunning!
(What are the odds I just changed my avatar to that particular picture? lol.)

In reply to this comment by Lann:
So I was shopping around for a longboard...

His interpretation is incorrect. There are several passages in the Bible which condemn homosexuality, both in the Old and New Testaments, most notably in Leviticus, Corinthians (written by Paul), and Romans (also written by Paul). As Paul (and most Christians at that time) was a Hebrew, he would have been referring to the Hebrew law derived from the Old Testament.
The passage mentioned in the video above is most likely referring to Corinthians, one of Paul's letters that contains references to both of homosexuality and the hair issue. It should be noted that the passage referring to homosexuality is what Paul refers to as "unrighteousness," or actions that will result in damnation, most notably for those who are Christians that still participate in these actions. This is important to note, because, if I recall correctly, the first letter Paul wrote to the Corinthians was one to admonish them for their significant deviations from Christian beliefs. He was pointing out sins that were occurring amongst their own membership, especially in the first part of his letter.
The second half of this letter, in which the references to hair can be found, consists more of guidelines for a more holy life for the members of the Corinthian church. This is more of a cultural constraint, since during this period of time, it was accepted that men wore their hair short and women wore theirs long. Those wearing their hair otherwise were rebelling against societal norms, which Paul contended was not the Christian attitude that should be displayed. For modern Christians, this passage states that going against societal norms is perhaps not the correct attitude a Christian should take.
Now some modern Christians are a little more literal in their interpretation of this guideline. My own church, for example, is a bit more strict and does follow the whole "men=short hair, women=long hair" deal, but it depends on the church's interpretation. (Also, I'm simplifying here, as there's a bit more to that passage than just how you look to others, but I'll keep it at that for now.)

So what does this all mean? Dudley's example was an incorrect one. Perhaps he misspoke, or perhaps he did get some of his research incorrect. He is right that many Christians are somewhat hypocritical in their actions. I certainly have had my own issues in this area. However, it does not mean that just because they are hypocritical in one area, they should be hypocritical in another. Better to correct the issue at hand than to bring another issue into the mix.

>> ^shinyblurry:

If this is all the respect an atheist can come up with for his fellow man, it doesn't go very far in convincing me of his so called superior truth..it really just shows the whole ignoble farce for what it is..


Wait a minute, don't you believe every single human being on the planet is a wretched sinner deserving of eternal damnation?

@GeeSussFreeK and @smooman (quoting doesn't work)

Eternal damnation and hellfire are inventions of the character of Jesus (some of the more explicit examples: Mt. 10:28, Mt. 25:41, Mt. 25:46, Mk 9:47-48, Lk 10:15, Lk. 12:5, etc., not counting all the parables where "bad fruit/branches" are cast into "unquenchable fire").

One main point of departure between Christianity and Judaism is hell.

Some good online tools for Bible "study":

http://www.biblegateway.com/
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

@ghark I never understood where everlasting damnation came from. The only place something like that is even close to mentioned in Revelation, which is a hard book to take on face value (because it even mentions the lake of fire itself being destroyed if memory serves). The rest of the new Testament just talks about it like blackness, destruction, or how I would think someone would describe non-existence. I could very well be theologically mistaken, but even Jews, close kin with Christian, don't believe in eternal suffering.

But indeed, to your point; yes, it is a shame that those of faith doesn't even really practice the most important part of it, forgiveness and love . Is the "to those" a type-o and did you mean "from those" instead? If not, I don't actually understand

Well, I am not sure how else to describe it. My third eye chakra was opened and my energy system changed to a different voltage. It was a whole body thing, it wasn't in my mind.

I don't like to tell people about this because it leads to esoteric knowledge but..I can see through my third eye with my eyes closed. Not all the time, but occassionally. It wasn't me imagining things..it was me being transformed by the power of God. My eyes were opened. The bible talks about this here:

Matthew 6:22-23

"The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!"

In regards to your Christian experience..I'll tell you what I tell every other ex-Christian..

John 6:39

And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

Your problem is you didn't actually do what God told you to do. You were a kid, you didn't understand, fine..Now you're old enough to know. Are you content to lean on the reasoning of a child? You say God reveal yourself to me! What amazing arrogance. Why don't you try doing what God told you to do first? Then ask God to show you He is real.


>> ^MaxWilder:
Well, that explains a lot. You must understand that from our perspective, you've simply flipped your lid. You had a "kundalini awakening" and you think that is rational and logical? Again we are back to differences of opinion in regards to the definitions of words.
Let me tell you, in brief, that I did not abandon God. He abandoned me. I was raised Christian. I believed when I was younger. But the older I got, the more I thought about God and religion, heaven and hell, scripture and prophets... the more I realized how much it was all crap. Piece by piece, the lies that had been the foundation of my spiritual life became evident. I went from believer, to questioner, to skeptic, to atheist of the course of many years and many prayers.
But you think you can convince people? Even, hypothetically, if your experience is completely and truly God entering your life and revealing Himself, what reason could he possibly have for withholding that revelation from the rest of us?
I will say right here and now, I welcome God to reveal himself to me!
But you know what? It won't happen. Because the truth is that even if God was real, for some reason he won't simply let everybody know. He has to remain behind the curtain, condemning souls to eternal damnation for having the audacity to be curious and skeptical and logical. That's repulsive.
I'll give you the only version of spirituality that makes ANY sense. Whatever happens to us after we die, it happens to all of us the same. Either we simply cease to exist, or we are reborn, or we all ascend to some other plane of existence. Because anything else, especially the Christian view of "salvation", is so repulsively unfair that it is gonna take waaaay more than a few ancient words to convince me that a loving God could ever allow a human being to be condemned in that way. For simply failing to believe? In a world with so many lies, so much deceit, so many charlatans that just want to use our money and obedience for their own selfishness... we're supposed to sift through thousands of possible religions and pick the ONE that gives us a Get Out Of Hell Free card? It's patently absurd.
So I say again. God, if you exist, you gave me a sharp mind. You made me logical. You made me skeptical. You put me in this world full of lies. If you want my faith and love, you have some explaining to do.
The God of the Bible is an invention by frightened and ignorant savages. Every other religion has a similar origin. If God wants me to believe different, He can tell me himself. I'm all ears.

Well, that explains a lot. You must understand that from our perspective, you've simply flipped your lid. You had a "kundalini awakening" and you think that is rational and logical? Again we are back to differences of opinion in regards to the definitions of words.

Let me tell you, in brief, that I did not abandon God. He abandoned me. I was raised Christian. I believed when I was younger. But the older I got, the more I thought about God and religion, heaven and hell, scripture and prophets... the more I realized how much it was all crap. Piece by piece, the lies that had been the foundation of my spiritual life became evident. I went from believer, to questioner, to skeptic, to atheist of the course of many years and many prayers.

But you think you can convince people? Even, hypothetically, if your experience is completely and truly God entering your life and revealing Himself, what reason could he possibly have for withholding that revelation from the rest of us?

I will say right here and now, I welcome God to reveal himself to me!

But you know what? It won't happen. Because the truth is that even if God was real, for some reason he won't simply let everybody know. He has to remain behind the curtain, condemning souls to eternal damnation for having the audacity to be curious and skeptical and logical. That's repulsive.

I'll give you the only version of spirituality that makes ANY sense. Whatever happens to us after we die, it happens to all of us the same. Either we simply cease to exist, or we are reborn, or we all ascend to some other plane of existence. Because anything else, especially the Christian view of "salvation", is so repulsively unfair that it is gonna take waaaay more than a few ancient words to convince me that a loving God could ever allow a human being to be condemned in that way. For simply failing to believe? In a world with so many lies, so much deceit, so many charlatans that just want to use our money and obedience for their own selfishness... we're supposed to sift through thousands of possible religions and pick the ONE that gives us a Get Out Of Hell Free card? It's patently absurd.

So I say again. God, if you exist, you gave me a sharp mind. You made me logical. You made me skeptical. You put me in this world full of lies. If you want my faith and love, you have some explaining to do.

The God of the Bible is an invention by frightened and ignorant savages. Every other religion has a similar origin. If God wants me to believe different, He can tell me himself. I'm all ears.