What's the best way to push theism into the minority?

[YY]

If you're a fan of the show Hoarders, you'd know the answer is usually "no".  They think everyone else has the problem.  That is how come people have to be committed to mental health facilities.  They don't normally stroll in on their own.

You can continue to hope that I live like an uniformed, ignorant lunatic to keep you on your shining pedestal of superiority. The paragraph above shows what you think of me. It's painfully obvious that you need me to be "below" you and live a life of delusion and fantasy. Don't you think it's possible that theists live extremely full lives on a normal everyday basis AND believe in God.

I will say it YET AGAIN, that these are all my views. I don't claim to be correct. I ONLY say what I say as an example of how one theist thinks. You can frame me any way you want, but that's only projection in your mind.

[screwtape]

You can continue to hope that I live like an uniformed, ignorant lunatic

I don't think you are a lunatic at all.  I do think you sound rather self important and I do think you are unaware of just how silly you sound with your "best of both worlds" malarkey. 

Don't you think it's possible that theists live extremely full lives on a normal everyday basis AND believe in God.

Of course I do.  I used to be one.  My old catholic granny is still one.  I know lots of people who are happily deluded by religion.  But I don't try pretend that what I did then nor what she does now is the height of logic and rationality.   I actually did ask myself the questions Alzael asked you and I answered honestly.  Which is what lead me right out of religion.  How do you know?  That is the most important question to ask.  If the best answer you can summon is "I just know" or "I have faith", then you, my friend, have no answer at all.

I will say it YET AGAIN, that these are all my views. I don't claim to be correct.

save it.  not interested in faux humility. 

[pianodwarf]

Ahhh, good question. This is where I use my limited logic to determine that a certain story makes sense.

Have you ever taken a course in logic?  Please note that I am not being snarky when I ask you this.  There are certain fields that a lot of people seem to think they are expert in, or otherwise qualified to engage in, without having studied them, and logic is one of them.  I don't know why this is the case, but it is -- I had the same problem, myself, until I took two semesters of logic in college and realized how much I hadn't previously understood about it.  If you truly do feel your logic is limited, you might think about it.

Anyway...

The story of source energy expanding into physical form makes more sense to me than something coming from nothing and randomly forming into what we see today. Either story is just as "true" because neither can be proven or disproven.

That's not quite right -- it's also a question of probabilities -- but let's set that aside for the moment.

Random occurances are "possible" that is true. But to really fathom the reality of "random possibility", let's take this example.

It's been said that you could get a room full of monkeys typing for a million years (or more) and eventually, they'll hammer out "War and Peace". Has anyone really run the numbers on that? In fact, I posit that it would take trillions of years for that to occur if a room full of monkeys were hammering away at a keyboard.

Proof: There is a mathematical equation that gives the exact probability of shuffling a deck of 52 playing cards, in random order, so that they come out as a perfectly arranged deck of cards in order from Ace to King of every suit. This mathematical equation then goes on to calculate the number of times a deck of cards has been shuffled from the advent of the 52 card deck.  This theory goes on to state that NEVER in the history of our existence has a random deck of cards been shuffled so that they arranged themselves into perfect order. The theory also points out that it would take MILLIONS of years more to have this unlikely even occur.

Now, take the infinate varibles of getting letters and spaces to randomly line up to write the novel "War and Peace" much less, a 10 page pamphlet?

Now, extrapolate this into the Universe as we know it and take into account the supposed age. Does it seem logical that our Universe is a random event?

Speaking of "limited logic", I'll respond to your question with another question: Do you know which two logical fallacies you are committing here?  One of them is one I know by name... the other one, I'm not sure whether it has a name or not -- it probably does -- but regardless, I can still explain it to you.

I repeat, I get the best of both worlds.

How do you know there are two worlds?

[YY]

Speaking of "limited logic", I'll respond to your question with another question: Do you know which two logical fallacies you are committing here?  One of them is one I know by name... the other one, I'm not sure whether it has a name or not -- it probably does -- but regardless, I can still explain it to you.

I understand you're not being snarky and I appreciate that. Please continue with the logical fallacies. I'm all ears.

How do you know there are two worlds?

Pretty simple. Just from all of the back and forth on these boards. It's very obvious that people dismiss some things they classify unprovable for fear of being wrong or irrational. There may be some truth behind the hocus pocus or woo woo that has no basis in rational or logical thought, but if it works, AND if you can differentiate between these things affecting your life and that of those around you (which is what most thests do), then why wouldn't you want to allow (what you might consider) hocus pocus and woo woo in your life?

[JeffPT]

It's very obvious that people dismiss some things they classify unprovable for fear of being wrong or irrational.

Obvious, eh?  Actually, is it not more logical to take a stance of neutrality when faced with something that is literally unprovable?  I think it has nothing to do with fear at all.  It's just the most logical position to take.  In fact, I would think that in this case, taking the positive stance would be the most illogical stance to take.  It would be more logical to take the negative stance, because in the grand scheme of the universe, the number of things we are capable of postulating are infinite, and just about all of them are likely wrong.   

If you put a huge box in front of me without telling me what's inside, and you asked me to guess what was inside, I would say I didn't know.  I wouldn't say that out of fear of being wrong.  I'd say it because it's the truth.   

There may be some truth behind the hocus pocus or woo woo that has no basis in rational or logical thought,

If it had no basis in rational thought, how would you know it's the truth?  Don't you use rational thought to arrive at the truth?  I am not disagreeing that there could be some truth behind the hocus pocus crap, but how could we ever know one way or the other if not for rational thought? 

but if it works,

What do you mean... 'if it works'?  If it's not based in rational thought, how would you know it works?

AND if you can differentiate between these things affecting your life and that of those around you (which is what most thests do), then why wouldn't you want to allow (what you might consider) hocus pocus and woo woo in your life?

Because some of us have a healthy respect for the truth.  Others don't. 

Nobody's ever been able to prove the hocus pocus or the woo woo works.  Nobody.  Yet we have millions of things in the world that HAVE been proven to work.  Science has been at the forefront of just about all of them.  The scientific method has a really good track record.  If you can't prove it through that (which is the best method we currently have to determine truth from fiction), then you just aren't talking about something useful.  Again, I am not about to claim with certainty that you are wrong... But unless you've come up with a better way to determine truth, and that method has determined that you are correct, who in their right mind would say that you're right? 

The woo doesn't work.  It just doesn't. 

[YY]

If you put a huge box in front of me without telling me what's inside, and you asked me to guess what was inside, I would say I didn't know.  I wouldn't say that out of fear of being wrong.  I'd say it because it's the truth.

Agreed. But, if you take a stance of neutrality, you're not opening the box.

If it had no basis in rational thought, how would you know it's the truth?  Don't you use rational thought to arrive at the truth?  I am not disagreeing that there could be some truth behind the hocus pocus crap, but how could we ever know one way or the other if not for rational thought? 

What do you mean... 'if it works'?  If it's not based in rational thought, how would you know it works?

You know if it works when it enriches your life.

Because some of us have a healthy respect for the truth.  Others don't.

I also respect the truth so there are limits as to how much woo I will accept before I choose not to "open a box". I just think my woo meter is set to a lower level than yours.

[Azdgari]

Agreed. But, if you take a stance of neutrality, you're not opening the box.

If you make a supposition, you are also not opening the box.

[pianodwarf]

Speaking of "limited logic", I'll respond to your question with another question: Do you know which two logical fallacies you are committing here?  One of them is one I know by name... the other one, I'm not sure whether it has a name or not -- it probably does -- but regardless, I can still explain it to you.

I understand you're not being snarky and I appreciate that. Please continue with the logical fallacies. I'm all ears.

The first one is "Argument from Incredulity", which is to say that you find it fantastically impossible to believe that X is true, therefore, X must be false.  It can be an easy trap to fall into, especially when you're considering something like the Theory of Evolution and the incredible complexity of the human body.  (I still find myself falling for it sometimes.)  Nevertheless, the ease or difficulty of believing something has nothing to do with whether that something is true.

The other one is the one I don't know the name of, but this is the problem: attempting to calculate the odds of something that has already happened.  For example: I once one $100 in the Powerball lottery.  The odds of my winning that $100 were one in 19,000.  (By way of comparison, the average chance of being struck by lightning at some point in your life, all other things being equal, is one in 5,000.)  However, you would not say that just because the odds of my winning that $100 were so slim, I must not have actually won it.  Once an event has or has not taken place, the odds are either zero percent or one hundred percent.

Similarly, there is no "likelihood" that the universe we live in could or not could be the universe that we live in, because it already is the universe we live in.  Even if someone were to somehow prove that there was only one chance in a trillion that our universe could have come to be the way it is the way it is today, that would only mean that that one-in-a-trillion chance had paid off, not that something else must have been the cause.

It's very obvious that people dismiss some things they classify unprovable for fear of being wrong or irrational.

Most of us do, including me.  That is the proper attitude of a skeptical mind: not to believe something unless and until there is reason to think that it is true.  It never ceases to amaze me how few people who are who think that this is a reasonable way to approach the world.

There may be some truth behind the hocus pocus or woo woo that has no basis in rational or logical thought, but if it works, AND if you can differentiate between these things affecting your life and that of those around you (which is what most thests do), then why wouldn't you want to allow (what you might consider) hocus pocus and woo woo in your life?

You'd have to give me some specific examples.  My cousin, for example, is a chiropractor, and uses spinal adjustments to "treat" a variety of maladies.  I could easily explain to you why I reject her woo.  For example: her daughter suffers from chronic recurring ear infections.  When an infection arises, my cousin "treats" her daughter by wrenching her daughter's neck in a particular fashion.  Some days later, the infection clears up; my cousin then crows that this constitutes proof that the neck adjustment cured the infection, even though she herself says that neither she nor anyone else can explain how the adjustment cured the infection.  Explaining why I reject her woo is child's play.  Her woo, however, is not necessarily your woo, of course, so I would need an example of your own woo to explain why I do or do not accept it.

[JeffPT]

Agreed. But, if you take a stance of neutrality, you're not opening the box.

Disagree.  A stance of neutrality holds that I am not going to commit to a stance until I see what's inside the box.  Until it opens, I am not going to speculate on it's contents.  Though I may really want to see inside the box, I am content not knowing. 

You know if it works when it enriches your life.

So any belief system that enriches one's life... works?  What if that belief system enriches one's life, but is seen as delusional and inherently dangerous to everyone else?  Does it still 'work' then?

I also respect the truth so there are limits as to how much woo I will accept before I choose not to "open a box". I just think my woo meter is set to a lower level than yours.

Or perhaps your woo meter is EXACTLY the same as mine for everything else in the world EXCEPT when it comes to this strange belief you hold.  That, I think, is the real difference.  You use a different woo meter for one area of your life, and a more stringent, normal level one for everything else.  Just think about it for a moment.  Here is an example:  You are walking through the woods and a snowball hits you in the back of the head.  You turn around and you see your friend standing behind you with a stupid grin on his face, and some snow still sticking to the glove on their right hand.  Your normal woo meter would tell you (as it would tell me) that your friend threw the snowball.  Now, if you were using the same, altered woo meter that you use when thinking about God, you would be forced to entertain other possibilities such as the snowball fell out of the sky, or that an invisible person in the woods threw it. 

Long story short, your woo meter is working fine for every day life, but it's on the fritz when it comes to woo. 

[velkyn]

[You know if it works when it enriches your life.

  How does it enrich anyone's life?   I only see pure hypocrisy here and the desire by one more human that it knows some secret of the universe so it feels important.  You want to claim to be open minded, but it seems that the idea that you can be and are wrong is not included in what you'll accept.

Also, YY, I would like an answer to my post. 

So you claim all of the gods mentioned are real existential entities?   or do you mean that they are all concepts, evidently created by mankind and have no more impact than any other man-made concept, with no need of the supernatural at all? 

If' you've already replied, can you direct me to that? 

[Hatter23]

[You know if it works when it enriches your life.

  How does it enrich anyone's life?   I only see pure hypocrisy here and the desire by one more human that it knows some secret of the universe so it feels important.  You want to claim to be open minded, but it seems that the idea that you can be and are wrong is not included in what you'll accept.

Also, YY, I would like an answer to my post. 

So you claim all of the gods mentioned are real existential entities?   or do you mean that they are all concepts, evidently created by mankind and have no more impact than any other man-made concept, with no need of the supernatural at all? 

If' you've already replied, can you direct me to that?

I've asked essentially the same question and cannot see a reply. I would be very interested in the answer as well

[YY]

The first one is "Argument from Incredulity", which is to say that you find it fantastically impossible to believe that X is true, therefore, X must be false.  It can be an easy trap to fall into, especially when you're considering something like the Theory of Evolution and the incredible complexity of the human body.  (I still find myself falling for it sometimes.)  Nevertheless, the ease or difficulty of believing something has nothing to do with whether that something is true.

OK, sounds about right. There are a lot of incredulous things that I just don't believe. Since we're talking about Evolution, I think the theory makes perfect sense. But, I'm hearing a lot of new findings that make this theory a little harder to believe. I mean, I know that there are a lot of different species of parrots lets say, but the jump from Gorilla to human sounds a little unproven. I'm not sure they've found conclusive evidence that this is necessarialy the case and the evidence that they do provide is spotty at best.

The other one is the one I don't know the name of. . .

Similarly, there is no "likelihood" that the universe we live in could or not could be the universe that we live in, because it already is the universe we live in.  Even if someone were to somehow prove that there was only one chance in a trillion that our universe could have come to be the way it is the way it is today, that would only mean that that one-in-a-trillion chance had paid off, not that something else must have been the cause.

Gotcha. Only problem is that we still don't know how the universe came about! So yes, it could have been a random accident, but neither is proven. So in effect, I'm choosing to believe my story about how the universe came about (more or less).

It's very obvious that people dismiss some things they classify unprovable for fear of being wrong or irrational.

Most of us do, including me.  That is the proper attitude of a skeptical mind: not to believe something unless and until there is reason to think that it is true.  It never ceases to amaze me how few people who are who think that this is a reasonable way to approach the world.

It's probably not human nature to question interactions to prove their validity. It would be like you're watching a magic show and you're always trying to figure out how the magician is trying to do the trick instead of enjoying the wonder of the illusion. So there's nothing wrong with having a skeptical mind, although, when someone is too skeptical, they probably alienate themselves a little for being a nerd. I'm also guilty of that at times.

I would need an example of your own woo to explain why I do or do not accept it.

Clearest example of woo might be something like going to a psychic. I know exactly how it all works. I know that they speak in generalities until they latch onto something that would be of significance to you and they run with it. I know that if there is no significance to someone with an R in your life, they'll dismiss it or say something like "There WILL be so look out for it". I know that the "better" psychics (or intuitives), will actually pick up on body language or small clues that actually lead them to being more correct. All that being said, I am always the most skeptical person in the audience when it comes to seeing psychics or intuitives. I actually try not to get their attention because I don't want to be called. My wife always wants to be the one to get the reading so she's particularly annoyed because psychics always call ME for some reason. Anyway, I'm not going to be an ass and give them a hard time and not "play along", so I'll be fair and if they touch upon something, I'll go with and if they are totally off target, I'll just nod my head and honestly say, I don't have a dead cat. So I get readings every once in a while just because of the people I'm around and I must say, I look at these readings as "maybe's" in my life. I'll take what they tell me with a grain of salt and try to incorporate some of their advice into my life. One example was when a psychic called on me and I saw my life as pretty much being perfect. She surprised me when she said to take it easy on political discussions because it'll just lead to frustration and stress. She'd probably say the same about spending time on atheist message boards. Anyway, it takes some time to soak in and when I give it the distance of time, I look back at what the psychic told me that time and other times, and I always find that they actually did allow me to reexamine things in my life that I had no clue could be affecting me in the least bit, but the small changes led and still lead to my life being happier as a whole. So now, I acknowledge political views, but I don't have heated debates about them like I used to. It's like trying to convert an atheist to theism. You won't be able to change anyone's mind, so you're really stressing yourself out if you think you'll change anyone. And like anything, it's those tiny 1 degree shifts that make all the difference in the long run.

[YY]

So you claim all of the gods mentioned are real existential entities?   or do you mean that they are all concepts, evidently created by mankind and have no more impact than any other man-made concept, with no need of the supernatural at all? 

For now, I have no proof for you and cannot say that they are real existential entities. For myself, I can say that my definition of God is valid and God is thus, real to me. Until we have actual proof (for you), all gods (except for actual people like Buddah, Dalai Lama etc.) are conceptual and cannot be proven to be supernatural.

Of course, there are "versions" of the same God that undergo refinement with time and new information. These versions sometimes split into entirely different Gods. The purpose I suppose is that there are many paths that lead back to the source and it's different for every individual. We all have our own set of beliefs and values and we'll understand God in whatever way works best for our perspective of the world at this point of time in our lives.

Personally, I think the God in "Conversations with God" by Neale Donald Walsh makes the most sense.

[velkyn]

OK, sounds about right. There are a lot of incredulous things that I just don't believe. Since we're talking about Evolution, I think the theory makes perfect sense. But, I'm hearing a lot of new findings that make this theory a little harder to believe. I mean, I know that there are a lot of different species of parrots lets say, but the jump from Gorilla to human sounds a little unproven. I'm not sure they've found conclusive evidence that this is necessarialy the case and the evidence that they do provide is spotty at best

  That is probably because no one is claiming that there was any "jump from Gorilla to human".  It might really help if you actually knew something about what you think is faulty about a theory, yy, rather than parroting what willfully ignorant creationists say. 

and all evidence we have supports the BBT and what it predicted long before we had the sensors to see that.  You wish to declare it a "random event" but there is this evidence supporting it.  And what do you have supporting your personal myth?  You are choosign to believe something with no evidence over something with.   I am curious, do you approach your medical care this way, choosing magic spells over proven antibiotics and surgery?  If you don't, why not?   

[velkyn]

So you claim all of the gods mentioned are real existential entities?   or do you mean that they are all concepts, evidently created by mankind and have no more impact than any other man-made concept, with no need of the supernatural at all? 

For now, I have no proof for you and cannot say that they are real existential entities. For myself, I can say that my definition of God is valid and God is thus, real to me. Until we have actual proof (for you), all gods (except for actual people like Buddah, Dalai Lama etc.) are conceptual and cannot be proven to be supernatural.

I see you added “for now”.  Do you expect this to change in the future?  How so?  What do you find mistaken about simply calling them man made concepts?

It is also curious that you have decided that your definition of god is “valid”.  How so?  Valid only to you?  And do you think things can be real to someone and no one else?  It seems that you are attempting to redefine “real”. 

Of course, there are "versions" of the same God that undergo refinement with time and new information. These versions sometimes split into entirely different Gods. The purpose I suppose is that there are many paths that lead back to the source and it's different for every individual. We all have our own set of beliefs and values and we'll understand God in whatever way works best for our perspective of the world at this point of time in our lives.

Now this sounds quite familiar, the theist who wishes to make believe that all gods are “really” his god and thus he’s the “right” one.  Of course there is a problem in that these different gods contradict each other and disagree with each other, usually majorly in that they condemn all non-beleiverse to some horrible fate.  How does that work if they are all “one”?  Your last sentence is pretty spot on to SPAG though, no supernatural nonsense needed.   

Personally, I think the God in "Conversations with God" by Neale Donald Walsh makes the most sense.

Yep, one more made up one.  And definitely not a person I would think would be a great source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neale_Donald_Walsch  He seems like one more theist who is sure that they can speak for god.  Gee, that idea seems awfully familiar doesn’t it……
 

[YY]

You know if it works when it enriches your life.

So any belief system that enriches one's life... works?  What if that belief system enriches one's life, but is seen as delusional and inherently dangerous to everyone else?  Does it still 'work' then?

If this belief is seen as delusional, that's the problem of the viewer. If it is inherently dangerous to everyone else, then it doesn't "work". Since we're all connected, it has to work for everyone. Take for instance my (and many others) belief in helping a child who's fallen down. This act makes me feel better and it makes the child feel better. Now, take what Jeffery Immelt said on 60 minutes on Sunday:

Stahl: Shouldn't American corporations - don't they have some kind of civic responsibility to create jobs? No?
Immelt: My name is not above the door. I work for investors. Investors want to see us grow earnings and cash flow. They want to see us be competitive. They want to see us prosper.
**He wishes the public felt the same.
Immelt: I want you to root for me. You know, everybody in Germany roots for Siemens. Everybody in Japan roots for Toshiba. Everybody in China roots for China South Rail. I want you to say, "Win, G.E."
Stahl: Do you not see any reason that maybe the public doesn't hold American corporations up here in the highest...
Immelt: I think this notion that it's the population of the U.S. against the big companies is just wrong. It's just wrong-minded and when I walk through a factory with you or anybody, you know, our employees basically like us.
Stahl: They do. I saw it.
Immelt: They root for us, they want us to win. I don't know why you don't.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to whether this "works" or not.

[YY]

I am curious, do you approach your medical care this way, choosing magic spells over proven antibiotics and surgery?  If you don't, why not? 

What do you mean? You can't suck the poisons out of your body with leeches? JK

I try not to take antibiotics unless necessary and I think there's a lot of great things about surgery. I've never used a magic spell to cure anything so I don't know how you jumped to that conclusion.

[RaymondKHessel]

Personally, I think the God in "Conversations with God" by Neale Donald Walsh makes the most sense.

Well, that's fantastic Sport! <musses hair>

And may I say, I think it's just so swell that your various truths and realities fall right in line with "whatever random bullshit I can understand".

Sure would be inconvenient if reality or Truth didn't care about what you can or can't make sense out of, wouldn't it? Thank goodness THAT doesn't happen. Phew!

[YY]

I see you added “for now”.  Do you expect this to change in the future?  How so?  What do you find mistaken about simply calling them man made concepts?

Maybe or maybe not. Time will tell.

It is also curious that you have decided that your definition of god is “valid”.  How so?  Valid only to you?  And do you think things can be real to someone and no one else?  It seems that you are attempting to redefine “real”. 

My definition of God is valid to myself and anyone else who agrees. Yes, something is real to me and not to others. This is because we don't agree on what is real.

Yep, one more made up one.  And definitely not a person I would think would be a great source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neale_Donald_Walsch  He seems like one more theist who is sure that they can speak for god.  Gee, that idea seems awfully familiar doesn’t it……
 

This is how we're so different. You judge the author for something you read on Wikipedia and I don't care. I know that there's a difference between the message and the messenger. What's even funnier is that I know NDW personally and the Wikipedia article is extremely tame compared to how this man really lives his life. But like I said, that doesn't matter. It's the message that matters. And in that sense, maybe he's the perfect messenger.

Here's an example. Let's say you won a million dollars. Let's also say that Adolf Hitler was the delivery boy and was personally bringing it to your house. Would you turn him away?  hmmmm

[YY]

Personally, I think the God in "Conversations with God" by Neale Donald Walsh makes the most sense.

Well, that's fantastic Sport! <musses hair>

And may I say, I think it's just so swell that your various truths and realities fall right in line with "whatever random bullshit I can understand".

Sure would be inconvenient if reality or Truth didn't care about what you can or can't make sense out of, wouldn't it? Thank goodness THAT doesn't happen. Phew!

Just being honest.

[velkyn]

this might be best for another thread but I'll have to say that those "conversations with god" books seem amazingly, well, bad.  Just the wiki makes it seem like such a bunch of plagiarism.  I mean really, this is supposed to be new ""All these devices are mine. All these avenues are open to me. I will speak to you if you invite me." {CwG1 page 58.}"????  What happens if I say well, golly, I have invited this god? Of course, I'll get the usual Christian "but you didn't really listen because if I agreed that you did, my claims are crap" excuses.   And the rest is no better, all rehashes with false claims of originality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversations_with_God 

However, it's not suprising that YY likes these.  It's all the standard feel-good woo stuff.

[Hatter23]

this might be best for another thread but I'll have to say that those "conversations with god" books seem amazingly, well, bad.  Just the wiki makes it seem like such a bunch of plagiarism.  I mean really, this is supposed to be new ""All these devices are mine. All these avenues are open to me. I will speak to you if you invite me." {CwG1 page 58.}"????  What happens if I say well, golly, I have invited this god? Of course, I'll get the usual Christian "but you didn't really listen because if I agreed that you did, my claims are crap" excuses.   And the rest is no better, all rehashes with false claims of originality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversations_with_God 

However, it's not suprising that YY likes these.  It's all the standard feel-good woo stuff.

or make the definition soft and fuzzy enough, it can just squish out of the way of a direct question. Say...like "DOES THIS ENTITY ACTUALLY EXIST? DO YOU HAVE PROOF?"

[YY]

And definitely not a person I would think would be a great source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neale_Donald_Walsch  He seems like one more theist who is sure that they can speak for god.  Gee, that idea seems awfully familiar doesn’t it……
 

PS - take a read of "Home with God" . This book talks about what happens after you die. Again, he's the messenger, not the message.

So, to further answer other people's questions about the woo I allow into my life, I submit "Home with God" as another example.

[YY]

this might be best for another thread but I'll have to say that those "conversations with god" books seem amazingly, well, bad.  Just the wiki makes it seem like such a bunch of plagiarism.  I mean really, this is supposed to be new ""All these devices are mine. All these avenues are open to me. I will speak to you if you invite me." {CwG1 page 58.}"????  What happens if I say well, golly, I have invited this god? Of course, I'll get the usual Christian "but you didn't really listen because if I agreed that you did, my claims are crap" excuses.   And the rest is no better, all rehashes with false claims of originality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversations_with_God 

However, it's not suprising that YY likes these.  It's all the standard feel-good woo stuff.

You're doing a book review without reading the book. Right?

[velkyn]

Maybe or maybe not. Time will tell.

Really?  So, how much longer do we have to see if your claims are “valid”?  A decade?  A hundred years?  A million?  10 billion?  When does a belief turn into a delusion when you can’t ever admit that you are wrong, yy?  You are quite like the usual Christian when they keep clinging to their prophecies of the “end times” desperate for some evidence of their religion “some time soon now”. 

My definition of God is valid to myself and anyone else who agrees. Yes, something is real to me and not to others. This is because we don't agree on what is real

Nice bit of solipsism there.  So, will you grab a white hot bar of iron if I hand it to you if we can’t agree on what’s real?  Who knows, it might not burn your hand to the bone *if* what you say is valid.  Are you willing to actually put your beliefs to the test?  I suspect not. 

This is how we're so different. You judge the author for something you read on Wikipedia and I don't care. I know that there's a difference between the message and the messenger. What's even funnier is that I know NDW personally and the Wikipedia article is extremely tame compared to how this man really lives his life. But like I said, that doesn't matter. It's the message that matters. And in that sense, maybe he's the perfect messenger.

  Well, you’ve seen my opinion of your author.   I know you don’t care, yy, you have someone who agrees with you and that makes you sure you are the only “right” one.  I find it hilarious that you want to excuse someone who is rather obviously a liar.  You don’t question him since it agrees with you.  How convenient.  Suddenly the message is all important.

Here's an example. Let's say you won a million dollars. Let's also say that Adolf Hitler was the delivery boy and was personally bringing it to your house. Would you turn him away?  hmmmm

  ROFL.  You see, yy, when a man turns up again and again to be a plagiarist and tries to present other’ ideas as his own, I have little reason to think that “gee, he may have gotten the “real” right idea from some magical source!”  No, I just see a man who regurgitated what he read and like you, decided that he found a secret, so he could feel special and have people praise him on his wisdom.  The praise of the ignorant, how desirable    And if I thought that Adolph in anyway was responsible for me winning, no I wouldn’t take it.  That’s problem with your attempt at an analogy, yy.  You want to play pretend that as long as NDW agrees with you it’s okay whatever he’s done since he does agree with you.  You get the external validation that most if not all theists desperately need. You can assure yourself that your god “used” him, and not to worry about what kind of a god would use such an idiot.  So, to address your rather bizaare analogy, no I would not accept any money from Messenger Boy Hitler, if I thought the people I was winning it from were just as horrible as he.   

Seems like Home with God is just more SPAG.   The usual pat on the heads to Christians who would feel bad if they had to acknowledge their bible god as something that kills and harms people with less reason than a human.  He, and you, yy, have remade God into something you like.  No surprise there at all. 

And I’m doing a book review without reading the book?  I suppose I am, but how many quotes from a book does it take to know what it’s about, yy?   Nothing I’ve seen of it is anything new at all.  If you think there is one bit that isn’t the usual woo-sodden universalist nonsense that assures everyone that God is just some big fuzzy wuzzy thing that loves everyone with smooches and kittens(damn Ray is so much better than me at this) , please do show me.  However, it doesn’t’ seem that way from your very own cited book review of “Home with God”.  It’s just one more cherry picking mess from one more Christian who doesn’t like being told he worships a primitive Iron Age god that kills people constantly.


OH and here's a link to even more of that NDW book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743267168/evolvbeing-20#reader_0743267168  Realding is, all I can see in it that isn't crap is his father saying "horseshit."  As all religions, it makes promises that aren't kept and the beleivers can't answer why.

[JeffPT]

PS - take a read of "Home with God" . This book talks about what happens after you die. Again, he's the messenger, not the message.

I will again claim that you are using one woo meter for most things in your life, yet you turn it off for things like this.  Nobody knows what happens after we die and you KNOW it.  Believing that someone can tell you what happens after you die is like believing in someone who says they can tell you lottery numbers a year in advance.  Would you believe them if they simply said they could do that? 

Just analyze how you see those 2 things for a moment.  Do you process them in the same way?  What is the difference between the way you process those two claims?  One claim says... this is what happens after you die.  The other claim says... here are the lottery numbers for October 11, 2012.  It seems you allow yourself to ignore the fact that nobody knows what happens after we die in order to believe what is being said (because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy?).  Do you also allow yourself to forget that nobody can know the lottery numbers a year in advance, just so you could make yourself feel warm and fuzzy at knowing you're going to win the lottery next year?   

So, to further answer other people's questions about the woo I allow into my life, I submit "Home with God" as another example.

Facepalm.  Just look at this quote... lol. 

"There is no way to get into the Kingdom of God. It is not a place you get into or out of. It is a place where you always ARE. It is the only place you can ever be.”

Lets forget the fact that this is completely unsupported biblically... you religious folk just fall all over yourselves for things like this.  You start with a phrase that most of us already have a decent, common understanding of, then tell us that understanding is wrong and make something up about what it really is.  It's all the same. It's stuff like, "God isn't something you seek... God is within you!", or "God can't give you purpose in life.. God IS the purpose!"  When you read them, you all get this "Ah HAH!" moment like you're Archimedes in your bathtub or something.  Suddenly you've understood the meaning of the universe because some fool told you their strange interpretation of something that you yourself never thought about before.  You react with your feelings instead of your brains, so you accept it without stopping to really consider what's being said.  A warning for you... Feelings are not good at determining the truths in our universe.  They can be easily manipulated.   

Your woo meter is screwed up.  Bigtime.  Hit yourself on the side of the head with a hammer.  That should reset it.  If it doesn't work, you aren't hitting hard enough.  It works just like prayer that way. 

[YY]

I will again claim that you are using one woo meter for most things in your life, yet you turn it off for things like this.  Nobody knows what happens after we die and you KNOW it.  Believing that someone can tell you what happens after you die is like believing in someone who says they can tell you lottery numbers a year in advance.  Would you believe them if they simply said they could do that? 

Just analyze how you see those 2 things for a moment.  Do you process them in the same way?  What is the difference between the way you process those two claims?  One claim says... this is what happens after you die.  The other claim says... here are the lottery numbers for October 11, 2012.  It seems you allow yourself to ignore the fact that nobody knows what happens after we die in order to believe what is being said (because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy?).  Do you also allow yourself to forget that nobody can know the lottery numbers a year in advance, just so you could make yourself feel warm and fuzzy at knowing you're going to win the lottery next year?   

Here's the difference. When October 11, 2012 rolls around, I'll know if the number were correct or not. As far as death, there will be no knowing who's right or wrong, so then it comes down to what I choose to believe. Therefore, I'd rather believe NDW's version of what happens after death than the current atheist stance that it all ends. It simply feels MUCH better to me, and it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong. Why go through life with the added emptiness of there being nothing when life ends? I'd much rather believe that when it ends, it's the beginning of another fantastic voyage! And guess what? I'm going to be right, because if this is what I believe in my dying breath, it will go with my last bit of earthly consciousness. I'll be in this place because that's what I believe will happen! So, in my own mind, I'll be good.

It's like a pastor said at a sermon: Death is just like going through a door. You don't know what's on the other side, but why be afraid of it? Why not go through that door with excitement and wonder knowing that you're going on to your next adventure, your next higher self. I much prefer this notion to the door that leads to nowhere.

"There is no way to get into the Kingdom of God. It is not a place you get into or out of. It is a place where you always ARE. It is the only place you can ever be.”

Lets forget the fact that this is completely unsupported biblically... you religious folk just fall all over yourselves for things like this.  You start with a phrase that most of us already have a decent, common understanding of, then tell us that understanding is wrong and make something up about what it really is.  It's all the same. It's stuff like, "God isn't something you seek... God is within you!", or "God can't give you purpose in life.. God IS the purpose!"  When you read them, you all get this "Ah HAH!" moment like you're Archimedes in your bathtub or something.  Suddenly you've understood the meaning of the universe because some fool told you their strange interpretation of something that you yourself never thought about before.  You react with your feelings instead of your brains, so you accept it without stopping to really consider what's being said.  A warning for you... Feelings are not good at determining the truths in our universe.  They can be easily manipulated.   

Your woo meter is screwed up.  Bigtime.  Hit yourself on the side of the head with a hammer.  That should reset it.  If it doesn't work, you aren't hitting hard enough.  It works just like prayer that way.

I'm not sure how you're reading this quote and I'll admit, it's not for everybody, especially atheists. But, imagine this . . .

Many theists live their life only ever knowing the traditional story of biblegod. They think that they are sinners and their entire life's purpose is to cleanse themself of that sin so they can one day enter the pearly gates of heaven or be damned for all eternity to the fires of hell. This is truly what they believe.

Now, someone comes along and tells them that they heard God tell them something extraordinary, that there IS no way to get INTO the Kindom of God because you're already there! You have been and always will BE in the Kindom of God.

Do you know what this can do to the Christian faith if they simply turn that belief around? What about the Muslims? Don't you think this is an extraordinary statement when put into that perspective? It's not a statement meant to convert atheists into believing in God. It's a statement that frees the "indoctrinated" from a life of servitude into a life they can start to live.

[Hatter23]

 As far as death, there will be no knowing who's right or wrong


It simply feels MUCH better to me, and it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong.

So why do you post here if you want to believe in the happy happy hereafter, regardless of their being no facts to support that?

[screwtape]

Death is just like going through a door. You don't know what's on the other side, but why be afraid of it? Why not go through that door with excitement and wonder knowing that you're going on to your next adventure, your next higher self. I much prefer this notion to the door that leads to nowhere.

If you don't know what's on the other side, how do you know it is going to be an adventure?  How do you know it will lead to your "next higher self", whatever the fuck that means?  I'm sure I would prefer that too.  But I would also prefer to believe I have a trillion dollars in my bank account, I can fly and I have a harem full of Salma Hayek[1] and Jessica Simpson[2] clones.  Unfortunately, none of that is true either.  Reality is a bitch, aint it?

Essentially your entire argument here has been you believe dumb shit because you like to.  You are living in a fantasy, which, as far as I can tell, only hurts you.  As long as you keep it that way - by not trying to influence public policy, not voting, not reproducing - then I have no problem.  Just don't try to pretend you are doing something rational.  You're not.  You are participating in a LARP^Wiki and cannot tell the difference between it and reality.

1.	before she got knocked up
2.	before she got fat