Insidious, Lief and RÃ*an debate all things great and small.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
What do you mean by 'usable data format'?


something recordable, repeatable and verifiable.

Spiritual experiences are still usable. They may not fit your "usable data format", but that doesn't make them invalid or useless as evidence. Eyewitnesses have vital impact in courtrooms. Rightly so, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

so you assume as a base that god or demons drive reality? And that everything else must correspond to this point of view?

There very well could be more things in the spiritual realm, which I'm unaware of. If someone denies my God or the reality of demons and angels though, I'd know they were incorrect. Wouldn't you know someone was incorrect if they denied that you had ever seen a dog?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
So my normal system I'd say would be first: Hear the account. Second (if it sounds convincing): Ask God about it.

you realize of course that that would not be sufficient enough verification from a scientific point of view. Its instead a way of approaching reality simply based on your religion. You become your own self contained universe in that way. And when something happens it is explained only through the lens and limits of your universe.

If something comes up however that is an evidence my worldview is inaccurate, I'll consider the matter very closely. I've already done so with evolution, (science explains everything; there is no need for God!) with the existence of pain, etc. If the evidence is good enough, it might turn me away from my faith.

However, I don't see that as likely in the slightest to ever happen. As I grow older, I've been constantly delighted with how strong the evidence supporting Christianity is.

It's only been three years since I came to know Christ personally. At the time when I came to know him, I only went to church because I had to and I hadn't picked up a Bible in probably years of my own will. My faith was at its all time weakest. I had so little faith I didn't dare set a meeting with God for fear he wouldn't show up, and my house of cards (my religion) would collapse. I was completely weak, pathetic and sinful. The only thing I did have was persistence, and that came from the Lord. The persistence was in seeking his way. I didn't even know of the scripture, "seek and you will find." I didn't know I was guaranteed success. The persistence came from God, because he called me. After he found me, the best part of my life started, and continues up to this day. It has been utterly amazing seeing God at work in so many ways. It has become personal. It's not all mystical experience, sensing things without seeing correspondence to reality. Very many of the times, the experience connects with the physical events around me in extremely real ways. Only about two times out of what is probably now at least 200 different experiences have I been led to disbelieve what appeared to be a genuine experience.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
I'm not either asking you just to trust my own experience. I'm asking you to take it into account and weigh it in your mind, along with other Christian experiences, as you decide your own stance on this matter.

well is this not the same as asking me to trust your (and others) experience since I have none of my own of that type and if I do I see them in a scientific light and not a religious light?

You can see them in a scientific light. Look through your own lens until you see it doesn't work, just as I would. (Frowns) Hmm. There are a couple rather severe problems with this, though.

Firstly, many of my experiences are deeply personal. I wouldn't be comfortable with exposing some things to you. (Smiles) Actually, some would cause you to doubt my psychiatric health, if you refused to accept a religious interpretation to events. However, my point is some are very deeply personal.

The second problem is that I personally doubt any experience is ever going to convince you. You need to have your own experience. That should convince you. It would require a search of your own for God. I am positive that he would answer that, if you were serious about it. It's possible that even if you weren't serious about it, you'd be changed. God is really remarkable sometimes about reaching to people that weren't even looking for him, and then causing them to do so.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

a computer sits right in front of you. you buy them at the store. They can be opened and taken apart and each part can be explained. There is no direct analogy to god in this way. Or the soul. The soul is an immaterial object it sounds like from the way you describe it.

Granted.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And therefore cannot be detected by “purely scientific, physical matter reaching methods�.

Granted.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But where you see a soul I see something else. And because we cant take APART a soul and study it then we cannot simply assume that it exists and we certainly cant simply assume that it apparently controls us more then our instincts and our brain.

Definitely agree. We don't assume anything. We believe, based upon evidence.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You can say theres a magic invisible sphere orbiting the earth that keeps everything on earth from floating away and that it cant be detected by any scientific means but that I need to believe you because its as plain as day to you. My response would be well let me know if you get any real data. But until that point im gonna stick with the whole gravity thing.

Alas, I think your belief of what makes real data is deeply flawed. It looks to me like unless you can take something apart and scrutinize every part of it, you won't believe in it. This doesn't make sense though. We can't take apart and scrutinize every part of the stars, yet we believe they exist. For thousands of years, people believed in the stars solely because of the evidence of their own senses.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Prayer is a part of my everyday life. The microwave is a part of yours. Do you understand everything about the microwave? Definitely not. Do I understand everything about prayer? Definitely not.

yeah but we know how the microwave works. What if prayer is simply a psychological phenomenon. Would you stop using it?

If you can prove prayer is simply a psychological phenomenon, I would probably believe it. We're talking PROOF PROOF PROOF here, of course. In my experience, prayer works. It performs miracles. I've seen that done. So it would take a lot of evidence to convince me it's all psychology, just as it would take a lot of evidence to convince me microwaves don't work.

Also, we do know some of the details of how prayer works. The more deeply one studies the different concepts brought forth in the scripture, the better an understanding of them one gains. We may not see "spiritual particles" making up different spiritual substances. We can understand better and better God, his nature, his being, what he's like and made of, and more and more about prayer too. I guess this type of knowledge is different from what you mean, though. Rather like reading a manual, I can understand how the microwave works. That manual doesn't show how all the nuts and bolts connect, and the electricity flows, and all of that. That's the difference.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

yer talking the hexadecimal machine language here Im assuming? I think that’s C in hex and 00001100 in binary. Do you know what A + E is?

certainly - 24 decimal, 18 hex (I assume you're talking A + E hex) Bases are so fun!

Will answer more later - in-laws still visiting ...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Is this just basically a faith-based belief for you? Because I don't see how you could possibly claim this is scientific Are you making that claim?

whats so hard to understand? Are you saying genes have some other ultimate purpose other then to create new versions of themselves? Theres no faith involved at all. That’s a well established biological fact. That’s what genes are for. Try not to lump everyone who understands genetics into your faith based camp thanks.

Could you please clarify something for me? I don't understand who the sentence on "ultimate goal" is referring to. From what I can tell, you're claiming that it's really important to genes to pass themselves on, which is a faith-based belief, as far as I can tell

and you would be incorrect about that as indicated above.

Now here's where I'm confused - your next sentence says "Because they help lead to the ultimate goal." Are you saying that humans are AWARE of the goal of their genes to pass themselves on and are helping the genes out? Or that humans are driven to seek food, shelter and social structure by their genes but aren't aware that they're being driven to do this? Or none of the above? Could you please explain this a bit further for me?

humans (some humans apparently) are quite aware that their genes purpose is to reproduce themselves. And they are also aware that they do this by programming us with such things as instincts and biological urges that cause us to seek out food and shelter and the like. KNOWING this certainly DOESN’T make us IMMUNE from it however. Its just a bit of knowledge we have. That’s what science provides. No different then learning how the heart works or how the nerves work.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Hemel

Oopie, I still really don't see this. I thought it was the case that less successful creatures would breed less because in order to breed in the first place you need a certain level of physical condition (example - severely underweight human females whose periods stop).

just because you arent the dominant male or genetically the top of your tribe doesnt mean yer automaticaly sickly and unable to breed. far from it. Humans are primarily monogamous remember so theres lots of breeding opportunities. They aren’t all hogged up by the one dominant male usually. Our distinction was in talking about poor versus rich. And if you think about it it makes lots of sense. If you lived under conditions that made the likelihood of your kids growing to breeding age unlikely would you tend to have less kids or more kid? While if you lived under conditions that almost ensured the viability of your children why have a ton of kids and expend all that extra energy and resources and put yourself into such danger?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I agree with you, Hemel, and also point out that many females die during childbirth, and the more kids you have, the more likely you'll have a pregnancy that will make you die.

all the more reason NOT to have as many kids as possible. basically you are repeating what i was stressing which is that breeding is dangerous so there needs to be a BALANCE. so the rich having less kids makes sense.

Do you have data to back up those claims, IRex, or are these just surmises that you feel make sense?

data to back up which claims? that theres a breeding balance in nature? sure theres countless studies of animal populations showing this.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I may not be keeping up quite so well anymore, on all of this. I'm mentally tired a bit more often of late, because I'm involved with another site that's extremely taxing.

take your time. I don’t see any need to rush responses on this. I take em as I have time for em myself. And I try to keep em in order.

It's not a study. It's just what I've believed from what I observe of most of our movie stars.

that they remain childless? I don’t know about that. If that were true we wouldn’t have this wave of goofy ridiculous celebrity baby names I hear about every time I look in the style section of the paper.

I really think that poor families have many more children in modern society then most rich ones, and also the poor survive with a great deal of success.

yeah I thought I had covered this point two or three times already. Let me know if you want me to elaborate again.

Many of the rich in America, because of their professions, choose not to bother with having children. That's just what I observe.

And I would agree with you for the most part with that observation. I have actually seen a study that shows a direct correlation between age of first child (age of mother) and the education level of the mother. The more educated the older the mother tends to be when she has her first child. I think a lot of that has to do with the use of birth control in today’s world. I don’t think the rich are having any less sex then the poor. I think you find the poor that become rich tend to follow the same pattern.

Don't people adjust over time? Wouldn't the genes deactivate if they aren't applicable anymore for the given situation, allow them to become dormant while more useful ones gain strength?

are you talking about evolution here? Or do you mean in one person’s life time? Unfortunately our technology is moving at a rate that our evolution has no chance of keeping up with. we went from stone age to rocket ships in a measly blink of the geologic clock. Our bodies (and our genes) are still thinking like they did when we were wandering around the savannah looking for something to eat. It never anticipated cars. Or sun screen. Or food ready to eat in forms that we would never find in nature. So while our bodies benefit from our scientific discoveries as far as health and medicine and such we suffer from no longer using our bodies the way they were designed to be used.

Large numbers of people are not fat. Do they not live as we did 10,000 years ago?

but more and more and more of us are. And more and more kids are fatter then ever before and it corresponds directly to a lack of exercise that we used to have before cars and before escalators (and before video games). Coincidence? But it doesn’t mean we are doomed. People can survive and breed fat or not. Sure theres those freaks who can eat whatever they want and still be thin but they aren’t going to replace us all because coronary heart disease and cholesterol poisoning tends to kill off very few humans below breeding age. Im simply pointing out the trend that’s all.

Why not just as many as you can take care of?

because every child is a risk. And the more children you have the thinner your resources. The thinner your resources the less likely your are to be able to maximize each childs genetic potential. But if you have a small number AND you have the resources to maximize their genetic potential then why have more? Look at it this way if you have the resources to send three kids to college and give them a good safe place to grow and live then why would you go ahead and have twenty more? You would be sabatoging the potential of those first three by having the other 20 since you couldn’t raise all 23 as well as you could the three. And since you couldn’t give all 23 what you could give the three. Meanwhile if you couldn’t afford to send one kid to college anyway then why not have a bunch so that its more likely that some of them will be lucky enough to do well genetically. Even is most of them fail you still help your odds by having lots and lots of carriers of your genes out there trying to keep things going.

Cupid . That's funny. No, I was speaking of the soul again. We see the chemical reactions, but we don't know if the soul is causing them or not. I should have used the word soul instead of spirit. Sorry.

so the soul is what causes us to love then?

[Hemel]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

just because you arent the dominant male or genetically the top of your tribe doesnt mean yer automaticaly sickly and unable to breed. far from it. Humans are primarily monogamous remember so theres lots of breeding opportunities. They aren’t all hogged up by the one dominant male usually.

Well, coming at it from a sociological point of view, I'd suggest that it isn't the case that humans are primarily monogamous at all! But that's beside the point ... but this ....

Our distinction was in talking about poor versus rich. And if you think about it it makes lots of sense. If you lived under conditions that made the likelihood of your kids growing to breeding age unlikely would you tend to have less kids or more kid? While if you lived under conditions that almost ensured the viability of your children why have a ton of kids and expend all that extra energy and resources and put yourself into such danger?

Yes, but the point is ... is this actually a genetic decision? I maintain that (thinking purely genetically) the better the conditions the more likely breeding will be

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Actually, that wouldn't measure it. You don't know if the friend is lying. You don't know whether or not he's betrayed you behind your back. You don't know if your own parent is doing that. You're taking it on faith. Faith backed by evidence .

you could determine those things if you really wanted to. Through research. It requires no faith at all. generally however most people don’t go to that extent to determine if someone is a friend or not (and by the way even a person who betrays you can still be considered your friend. It depends on how you define the word). So if they call someone a friend and they are NOT actually their friend then they aren’t taking it on faith they are simply mistaken.

Lol! Can only RÃ*an do that ? Millions can.

millions can hear the same voices you hear?

So can we. So can you. Everyone can find this relationship. Anyone can meet this person and can get the same information from the same source.

but nobody is able to measure it apparently. That’s the problem.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Hemel

No. Because you're suggesting extent of breeding is based on whether you're rich or poor. But wealth is a social thing, and so your argument is based on social circumstances. (As might be, incidentally, poorer people having numerous children ... I understand some societies believe in this in order that the parents be guaranteed of support in their old age.) But I'd have thought that pure genetic drive would have been more inclined to get everyone breeding as much as possible.

That last sentence is an excellent point IMO, Hemel. I agree. (sorry I'm so behind on this thread - my in-laws were over, and now school is starting - things should be back to normal next week)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

no you believe more.

No, I SEE more. (Or a better term might be I am aware of more, because I'm not always talking about seeing things with my physical eyes.) Don't tell me what I see and don't see and I'll give you the same courtesy

And assume your beliefs must be backed up by data.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I am aware of many things beyond "things that can be measured in labs". I'm aware of love beyond wanting to pass my genes on, and courage beyond wanting to preserve my genes, and beauty beyond wanting to whatever you would say beauty is for; maybe getting someone in the mood to pass on their genes?

Well, I'm aware of MORE, and I need to deal with what I am aware of. And again, your explanation is too simple for what I'm aware of, so I can't use it. But if it fits what YOU are aware of, then by all means, take it

you are asking me why you are ignorant? that would be too easy rian. I wont even go there. That would be playing rough and I know you don’t like that anymore

Seriously, I was just wondering about your thoughts on this. It seems to me that the majority of people, when they love someone, are not just consumed with the thought "I'm gonna get to pass on my genes!" (at least on a conscious level). So I was wondering if you were suggesting that it was at a subconscious level and people were just not aware of it, and only a few people, like you, were aware of what was really going on.

Im aware of it because ive looked into it. You could be aware of it too if you study it some. But if you disagree outright because you hold belief systems that aren’t compatible then why bother asking this question? Its not as if its not in your power TO understand it. You just don’t agree. So your question is pointless.

I ask the question because I'm trying to understand your thinking, and if I see some problems with your thinking then I bring them up, just like I hope you would do with me. So again, are you saying that people that believe that love is more than just passing on genes are just ignorant? I'd really like to understand your position on this.

is it your contention that organisms DON’T need some kind of motivation to mate? Why would they ever do it then? Why would they spend the bulk of their lives around winning a mate and ensuring their offspring are taken care of and do well in life after them? Why would they expend a ridiculous amount of resources and time and energy and massive risk just for the heck of it? And why would they do this by the MILLIONS and BILLIONS generation after generation after generation? You think that would EVER work in nature? There NEEDS to be an incentive. There needs to be a tug. A compulsion. Without love how could we ever operate as a species the way we do? We would… choose to?

The motivation is love. "Mating" (what a cold, totally inadequate word for a beautiful thing!) is the proper consumation of falling in love and marrying.

Really, this is the perfect example of what can be seen in a lab and what CAN'T be seen in a lab, and how the fact that some things can't be seen in a lab doesn't mean that they aren't there and we don't experience them. "Mating" can be seen in a lab; what's inside people's hearts and minds can't. But that doesn't mean it's not there. I'm married, and engage in the behavior you call "mating" with my husband. And I know that passing on our genes is about the last thing on our minds - we love each other, both in feelings and in action. He's held my hand thru 3 childbirths. We've been there for each other for the 3 surgeries of our middle son (another one coming up this year...). We've supported each other thru the tough times and rejoiced together in the fun times. When I see him I am glad, for he is an honorable, fun, intelligent, sensitive, manly MAN (he has such a wonderful laugh!), and we are committed to each other thru thick and thin. Choosing to only pay attention to the incredibly SMALL subset of things in our relationship that can be observed in labs makes me throw out too many other things that I constantly observe, and therefore is wholly inadequate for me.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'd love to read those books - would you please give me some titles? Thanks

Book recommendations? Sure. Probably the first place you want to focus on of course is Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene. Dawkins states a lot of the stuff ive been attempting to explain only 100 times better then I could. And in such great detail too. He brings out the mathematics of genetics without getting ridiculously dry. But im guessing you are already familiar with this work since its so well known.

Jared Diamond wrote an interesting and thorough examination of the nature of the human animal in his book The Third Chimpanzee. It’s a good read. I think youd find the chapter on How We Pick Our Mates and Sex Partners quite interesting…

Matt Ridley’s Genome is quality stuff too. He actually uses data from the human genome project to break down specific genes and show us how they play out in real life in the human being. This might help you see that genes in fact impact directly on some really quite complex behavior.

He also wrote a book called Nature Via Nurture: Genes, Experience and What Makes Us Human which somewhat bucks the trend in some corners of scientific thought in proposing just how our genes and our environment engage in a kind of complex dance that determines our behavior. He points out that “genes not only predetermine the broad structure of the brain, they also absorb formative experiences, react to social cues, and even run memory. They are consequences as well as causes of the will.� Maybe even check out his book called The Agile Gene : How Nature Turns on Nurture. Although a chunk of that is covered in Nature Via Nurture.

But one of my favorite science authors is Desmond Morris. Read The Naked Ape. Its not the most thrilling book but he pretty much breaks down every complex human behavior to its biological fundamentals. Sex, rearing, exploration, fighting, feeding, comfort, you name it its all covered in there. Some interesting and sometimes controversial stuff. Sometimes a little over the top but very much worth taking in.

You may also want to check out Morris’s The Human Zoo which talks more about how high density of humans (in crowded cities for example) fundamentally and universally change human behavior. Really interesting stuff. It really makes you realize just how much we are truly animals. I think you will especially like the sex and super-sex chapter.

Speaking of that subject, other books I would recommend are:
The Red Queen : Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley and The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation by Ridley as well.

The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature by Geoffrey Miller.

The Birth of the Mind: How a Tiny Number of Genes Creates the Complexities of Human Thought by Gary Marcus.

And well Ill stop there before I get out of control. Let me know when yer done with those. I have plenty more. The good thing about all those is that you don’t have to be some kind of lab coat to understand them. They do a great job of writing in a way that’s comprehendible by laymen.

And if someone had a stack of money and told each person before they went into the lab, even those that don't know you or don't like you, "Hey, I"ll give you a million bucks if you say you're IRex's friend!" that would make large parts of your lab data false.

as I said to Lief, this is quite determinable. I could hire special agents to carefully monitor and determine which one of these people were ACTUALLY my friends from the total of their behavior and base my measurements on that as well. Not simply what they say. The point is that this is a quantifiable thing. A friend is something that can be determined based on your definition of friend. A soul cant be so easily measured and studied. In fact its impossible to. So the comparison doesn’t work really.

I'd like to remind you that I've had many, many years of education on evolution, both in high school and college. And frankly, reading books on creationism should be considered just checking out different opinions You should try it! It's fun to be openminded

I think its great reading books on religion. You can learn a lot about religion that way. Really interesting stuff. Even books on mythology can be intriguing. But I would never read a book on biology to learn about religion or mythology. In the same way I get nothing from a book on religion in regard to biology. And Ive read and heard enough creationist double talk to realize that its about religion. Not about science.

[Lizra]

"Ive read and heard enough creationist double talk to realize that its about religion. Not about science."

I agree. True.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Book recommendations? Sure. ...

Thank you very much! I joined a large library in the next city at the beginning of summer (our library in our city is really podunk!) and I imagine they'll have at least some of those books there. It's 60 bucks a year, but it's a VERY nice library.

as I said to Lief, this is quite determinable. I could hire special agents to carefully monitor and determine which one of these people were ACTUALLY my friends from the total of their behavior and base my measurements on that as well. Not simply what they say. The point is that this is a quantifiable thing. A friend is something that can be determined based on your definition of friend. A soul cant be so easily measured and studied. In fact its impossible to. So the comparison doesn’t work really.

I would say that it's SOMEWHAT observable to determine if people are your friends or not, but it certainly will never be ENTIRELY observable. You can never read people's thoughts, and observers can err in their observations (i.e., a true friend might do something out of love for you that you wouldn't consider particularly fun and an observer would record as "not a friend"). So IMO, it IS a valid comparison. But our opinions differ

A soul cant be so easily measured and studied. In fact its impossible to.

So does that mean that you think this means that a soul does NOT exist? Or do you just think that you can't PROVE that it exists in a lab, but that has nothing to do with whether it exists or not?

I think its great reading books on religion. You can learn a lot about religion that way. Really interesting stuff. Even books on mythology can be intriguing. But I would never read a book on biology to learn about religion or mythology. In the same way I get nothing from a book on religion in regard to biology. And Ive read and heard enough creationist double talk to realize that its about religion. Not about science.

And I would read a book on biology to learn about biology. But the difference is that I would see the difference between truly scientific information in that book and the stuff that is mere extrapolation and guesses. And I would recognize the extrapolations and guesses that are present in some areas (and these are the important areas) of the theory of evolution for what they really are - faith-based beliefs without scientific proof, for they cannot be tested in labs.

It's no slur to say parts of the theory of evolution are faith-based! It's just mere fact. You're saying basically (correct me if I"m wrong) that you aren't satisfied that a soul exists because you can't measure it in a lab. Well, why do you believe the parts of the theory of evolution that can't be measured in a lab? Sounds like a faith-based belief to me and this is fine - if you can't measure things in a lab, then you gotta go on the indirect indicators that you DO have to make decisions about things.

The important parts of evolution are very much faith-based.


Lizra, do you buy all this stuff about how the driving force behind every human behavior is basically to reproduce their genes?

[Lizra]

Our bodies are certainly the driving force behind our life, and genes are the building blocks of our bodies, but your statement is too oversimplified sounding to have much value...IMO.

[Lief Erikson]

Sorry, don't have time now or mental stamina enough to respond to everything. Just a few things in particular I'll respond to now.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

because every child is a risk. And the more children you have the thinner your resources. The thinner your resources the less likely your are to be able to maximize each childs genetic potential. But if you have a small number AND you have the resources to maximize their genetic potential then why have more? Look at it this way if you have the resources to send three kids to college and give them a good safe place to grow and live then why would you go ahead and have twenty more? You would be sabatoging the potential of those first three by having the other 20 since you couldn’t raise all 23 as well as you could the three.

Granted. But that doesn't really answer what I was saying. I said: "just as many as you can take care of." If three is the maximum you can take care of, have three. If you've a better job and income, take seven. If a marvelous job and income, twenty. If you can take care of twenty, make sure they're all well off, wouldn't the genes be pushing for twenty?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

so the soul is what causes us to love then?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I think its great reading books on religion. You can learn a lot about religion that way. Really interesting stuff. Even books on mythology can be intriguing.

Agreed- I frankly really enjoy mythology. Films with mythology I often particularly enjoy.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But I would never read a book on biology to learn about religion or mythology.

Actually, one of the marvelous things about Christianity is that reading biology, you can actually learn about God. I was watching General Science video tapes recently about the solar system and universe around us. It was amazing seeing how some of those things mirrored the nature of God. That's one reason why so many scientists go into philosophy and religion.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Sadaam Hussein allowed many of this people to be subjected to having their hands cut off.

My husband and I allowed our son's feet to be cut off. (sorry if that's a little harsh-sounding, but it's true.)

Is there a difference between Sadaam's actions and the actions of my husband and me? (careful, IRex )

well sure. sadam hussein did that to be purposefully cruel and to intimidate others. you did it out of medical necessity (from what i gather from what you have said about your son). It was the logical choice im assuming. so there is no comparison really. one was an evil act and one was a parent making a small sacrifice in order minimize the chance of a much larger one happening. hardly an evil act. no different then me cutting your hand off while you are strapped to a rock left to die rather then just letting you die. but youll have to remind me of the specific details involved.

ok so what trap did i walk into by answering that anyway?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

you could determine those things if you really wanted to. Through research. It requires no faith at all.

Research might get you the answer. That's a might, only.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

generally however most people don’t go to that extent to determine if someone is a friend or not (and by the way even a person who betrays you can still be considered your friend. It depends on how you define the word). So if they call someone a friend and they are NOT actually their friend then they aren’t taking it on faith they are simply mistaken.

I think the fact is that you don't research to find out whether people are your friends or not. You take it on faith. And yes, you were mistaken when you called the person a friend and they're not your friend. However, you also had your faith broken.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Lol! Can only RÃ*an do that ? Millions can.

millions can hear the same voices you hear?

Yes. However, not everyone hears in the same way. I have not yet heard a physical voice with my physical ears. I have some reason to believe I will, in the future. However, one doesn't have to hear in that way in order to be sure they're hearing. You have never heard a spiritual voice, so you as yet don't know what they sound like. Hearing and sensing can be incredibly real. I don't want to describe some of the details of my experiences out here on the open forum, though.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
So can we. So can you. Everyone can find this relationship. Anyone can meet this person and can get the same information from the same source.

but nobody is able to measure it apparently. That’s the problem.

What do you mean by 'measure' in this case? You can't measure your relationship with another human either. You can't know exactly what's going on in their mind, what their feelings toward you really are, except by the way they express those feelings to you. What evidence you can see of their feelings through other means. You can check up on your friend. If you find he's been regularly stealing your property, you can guess he's not a real friend. You can see the existence of pain in the same way and guess God's not a real friend. But you cannot measure the human relationship. I doubt you can measure it any more easily then you can measure a relationship with God.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Eyewitnesses have vital impact in courtrooms. Rightly so, in my opinion.

so then if someone were to bring up personal accounts of what he experienced of hearing god that a court of law would have to accept that?

If someone denies my God or the reality of demons and angels though, I'd know they were incorrect. Wouldn't you know someone was incorrect if they denied that you had ever seen a dog?

some people see dogs all the time that don’t exist. It doesn’t mean ALL dogs don’t exist no but it certainly doesn’t mean EVERY dog story people tell is about a real dog. People can be mistaken or deluded. It happens by the millions every day.

I've already done so with evolution, (science explains everything; there is no need for God!)

tut tut. Evolution and god are NOT mutually exclusive. I thought you knew that already?

If the evidence is good enough, it might turn me away from my faith.

I don’t think it’s a black or white picture. I think there may be human mistakes in detailing religion. Which over time get corrected despite some kicking and screaming. But the base essence of religion is irrelevant to the details. And could certainly stand up to the scrutiny of even the most illuminating discoveries of science. The problem is that many who hold religious views figure THEIR particular view is the literal one and no change needs to be made from there on out. And therefore any scientific progress we make that counters their way of thinking is automatically wrong. and thus you get reasonable intelligent people arguing for creationism like their life depends on it. Shame if you ask me.

My faith was at its all time weakest. I had so little faith I didn't dare set a meeting with God for fear he wouldn't show up, and my house of cards (my religion) would collapse. I was completely weak, pathetic and sinful. The only thing I did have was persistence, and that came from the Lord

so when something that appeared to you as the divine came to you you accepted it hole heartedly. And it made complete and perfect sense to you. and that’s certainly understandable. But what of someone like me who had a different perspective and sees the very same things as physiological and psychological phenomenon. Are either of us to be discounted outright for the way we perceive our reality? Or one of us automatically more right then the other? It seems to me it only comes down to how we were raised and the lens through which we view reality to begin with.

You need to have your own experience. That should convince you.

hey id love that. That would rock. And ive studied many religions and um.. altered my consciousness in many ways to see if I can find something more then what I know through my senses and what ive learned. But all those experiences have been ultimately explainable to me. Guess gods holding out on me eh.

Alas, I think your belief of what makes real data is deeply flawed. It looks to me like unless you can take something apart and scrutinize every part of it, you won't believe in it.

believe in it? All im saying is that if something can be broken down then we can explain it. If something CANT be measured and CANT be duplicated and requires faith or naked unsubstantiated belief (is there a difference?) of its reality then we cant assume it’s a given. We just cant. There are plenty of REAL things TODAY that we cant assume are a given because we don’t have enough data yet. Hopefully some day we will. I think the things you’ve been arguing for either fall into this camp or are an illusion or some sort. But they certainly don’t fall into the camp of verifiable catagorizable known phenomenon.

This doesn't make sense though. We can't take apart and scrutinize every part of the stars, yet we believe they exist. For thousands of years, people believed in the stars solely because of the evidence of their own senses.

well we have means to measure the substance of the stars. We know they are real. Thousands of years ago EVERYONE saw them with their own eyes. Now it could have been some great illusion sure. But how do your senses pick up god in the same way? How do mine?

If you can prove prayer is simply a psychological phenomenon, I would probably believe it. We're talking PROOF PROOF PROOF here, of course. In my experience, prayer works. It performs miracles. I've seen that done. So it would take a lot of evidence to convince me it's all psychology, just as it would take a lot of evidence to convince me microwaves don't work.

well im not here to debunk prayer. I don’t think theres a point to that. I think prayer is a good thing whether it’s a spiritual phenomenon or a psychological one. Just as placebos can be a good thing.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

well sure. sadam hussein did that to be purposefully cruel and to intimidate others. you did it out of medical necessity (from what i gather from what you have said about your son). It was the logical choice im assuming. so there is no comparison really. one was an evil act and one was a parent making a small sacrifice in order minimize the chance of a much larger one happening. hardly an evil act. no different then me cutting your hand off while you are strapped to a rock left to die rather then just letting you die. but youll have to remind me of the specific details involved.

ok so what trap did i walk into by answering that anyway?

Trap? Oh fergoodnesssakes! I swear, you must think my head spins around in circles when I'm off Entmoot and I'm an extra on the Exorcist movies! Really, Lief's post in my defense was the truth - pure and simple. I post because I really like you guys. I'm very straightforward, and if I see something I don't think is logical, then I go after it and point it out, as I hope others would do with me.

There's no trap here. I was commenting on Lief's post saying that I would say that God allows evil, by pointing out that several types of people can "allow" evil, and MOTIVE is the difference, and your answer to Lief's post was critical of God's motive, and I had an explanation for it. That's all But unfortunately, I have more in-laws coming in tomorrow, and school started this week, and I won't be able to post until mid next week SO have fun guys! See you in a bit

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
Eyewitnesses have vital impact in courtrooms. Rightly so, in my opinion.


so then if someone were to bring up personal accounts of what he experienced of hearing god that a court of law would have to accept that?

It's up to the judge and jury what they are going to believe.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
If someone denies my God or the reality of demons and angels though, I'd know they were incorrect. Wouldn't you know someone was incorrect if they denied that you had ever seen a dog?

some people see dogs all the time that don’t exist. It doesn’t mean ALL dogs don’t exist no but it certainly doesn’t mean EVERY dog story people tell is about a real dog. People can be mistaken or deluded. It happens by the millions every day.

Well, even if you would doubt your own eyes just because someone tells you he thinks they're faulty, I wouldn't doubt mine. And I don't . Seems a bit silly to me.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
I've already done so with evolution, (science explains everything; there is no need for God!)

tut tut. Evolution and god are NOT mutually exclusive. I thought you knew that already?

Some people do argue that science explains everything, so there's no need for God. I research and think, hence I can argue against it.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I don’t think it’s a black or white picture. I think there may be human mistakes in detailing religion. Which over time get corrected despite some kicking and screaming. But the base essence of religion is irrelevant to the details.

I think that's a matter of opinion. If historical documentation or archaeology very powerfully showed that details of the Bible were incorrect, I would find it extremely distressing. Every word from the Word of God has to be correct. There is no margin for error.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And could certainly stand up to the scrutiny of even the most illuminating discoveries of science. The problem is that many who hold religious views figure THEIR particular view is the literal one and no change needs to be made from there on out.

It's actually quite nice to have a base for understanding. Because of belief in the infallibility of scripture, the Hittites were discovered. Other major discoveries have also been made, seeking for evidence regarding Biblical accounts.

It's only according to your worldview that there's a problem with people assuming their religion's complete accuracy. Oh well, you've a right to that worldview.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And therefore any scientific progress we make that counters their way of thinking is automatically wrong.

Alas, some do take an improper stance that way. People ought to realize that if their religion is correct, science isn't going to invalidate it. Therefore science isn't an enemy and should be delved into to learn more about God.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

so when something that appeared to you as the divine came to you you accepted it hole heartedly. And it made complete and perfect sense to you. and that’s certainly understandable. But what of someone like me who had a different perspective and sees the very same things as physiological and psychological phenomenon. Are either of us to be discounted outright for the way we perceive our reality?

Not discounted outright. However, your view of reality is more subject to flaw then mine. I had the experience- you didn't.

Let's say you were down by Loch Ness and saw a plesiosaur climb out of the loch onto the sand, roll over a few times and then swim away. I didn't see it. I said, "It was probably just a large seal." You said, "no, I saw it! It was a plesiosaur!" I answer, "probably a trick of the light."

Our viewpoints are not equally valid, here. I did not see this, therefore what I say, though not to be discounted right off the bat by everyone, is less valid an opinion.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Or one of us automatically more right then the other?

Definitely . If our viewpoints are to a large extent contradictory, one of us is automatically more right then the other.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
You need to have your own experience. That should convince you.

hey id love that. That would rock. And ive studied many religions and um.. altered my consciousness in many ways to see if I can find something more then what I know through my senses and what ive learned. But all those experiences have been ultimately explainable to me. Guess gods holding out on me eh.

Alterring your consciousness will not cause God to reveal himself. He reveals himself when and how he chooses.

But he's not going to throw fireworks for someone that just wants a show. You have to be serious about asking. You need to be willing to dedicate your life to following him, if he does reveal himself for who he is.

One neat thing is that you don't even have to address your initial prayer to Jesus. If I were you, I'd just ask the true God to reveal himself. That way you would hear from whichever religion is true. Make the prayer even broader if you like, to potentially include polytheistic religions. The important thing is that you need to be willing to follow God, if he is real. To turn your life over to him. If he proves himself, will you prove yourself, is basically what it amounts to.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Alas, I think your belief of what makes real data is deeply flawed. It looks to me like unless you can take something apart and scrutinize every part of it, you won't believe in it.

believe in it? All im saying is that if something can be broken down then we can explain it. If something CANT be measured and CANT be duplicated and requires faith or naked unsubstantiated belief (is there a difference?)

Yup.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

of its reality then we cant assume it’s a given. We just cant.

I didn't. Oh fine, all right, I believed in God's existence and ability to speak to people personally in advance. I believed, but I didn't believe. I believed they'd experienced all that they said they did, but I didn't really believe Jesus could speak to ME.

I think it can take faith just to ask God to reveal himself. I asked, and I wasn't in the least confident he would or could respond.