I don't get YEC.

[jaimehlers]

I didn't say I was immune to it. I said it can be recognized in hindsight.

No, what you're talking about here is rationalization, similar to confirmation bias, but not the same thing.  If you rationalize some event after the fact, it can look like you're recognizing confirmation bias.  One difference between the two is that rationalization happens consciously, whereas confirmation bias happens subconsciously.  If you rationalize away, say, traffic lights not operating according to the way you think they should operate, it's different than when confirmation bias alters the way you expect traffic lights to operate.

To put it another way, when you ran across that farmer's field where he'd just made a driveway just when you needed it, you rationalized it to match your expectations that God had done it just for you (since you 'released' yourself to him) even though these things had been done weeks in advance of your arrival, when it was far more likely that chance just broke in your favor.  Confirmation bias is forgetting all those times when things didn't break in your favor, assuming that it just wasn't important enough for God to do something about it when you 'released' yourself, and so on.

And I am aware of when it can happen.  You funny.

First off, there's a difference between recognizing that you can fall prey to confirmation bias and recognizing it when it actually happens to you.  You can't rely on your memory, because your memory is subject to confirmation bias too.  You have to actually write it down or otherwise record it when it happens, along with any other pertinent information.  Only then can you make sure that you aren't forgetting things that didn't conform to your expectations, and only remembering things that did.

Second, lay off of the cheap taunts.  That just makes you look childish and immature - not the best things to be in this situation.

[ParkingPlaces]

Hey, congrats on #3000, jaimehlers.

You and I sure know how to waste time, don't we. 

[Anfauglir]

Some stories I've read were that "God woke me up in the middle of the night to come help you cross the river during the snowstorm."  Such stories helped my come to my current conclusions.

Can I ask: how do you determine the success rate of such stories?  Do the people posting them tell about the times when they believed their god was telling them something, and (when they got to the river) there was nobody there?

Do you think those people simply write it off in the same way as you do your trivial prayers?

[Anfauglir]

1.   I did but you are only using your natural senses, so remain unaware.

Interesting.  Please can you define "non-natural senses", and explain I can use or develop them?

[wheels5894]

1.   I did but you are only using your natural senses, so remain unaware.

Interesting.  Please can you define "non-natural senses", and explain I can use or develop them?

This sounds like a 'get around' for the problem of communication with the non-material world people think is there. Whether it is the ghost of Aunt Pat of Jesus, some people claim to be able to communicate yet, clearly, there would need to be a place in the brain that can detect what these non-material entities are saying and this leaves open the possibility that the communication could be detected - either by detecting the 'signals' as they are received or by monitoring the brain of a person and detecting a change brought on by such 'communication'.

Of course, the problem with this for a believer is that nothing would be detected in the way of signals and the brain would show patterns of sub-conscious activity prior to the subject being away of a 'communication' making it quite likely that the whole is derived in the brain of the subject. This would account for the fact that any 'communication' a person receives always seem to match their own view of the world and their own view of what they might do.

Of course, another test suggests itself - has anyone, ever received a 'communication' from the non-material world which gave information that was not known at the time? If people who claim to talk to gods or whatever only ever hear things that are already known the source of everything would seem to be the subconscious whereas as genuinely new information has the possibility of showing the existence of a non-material world. I'm not expecting anything from this source, though!

[Anfauglir]

1.   I did but you are only using your natural senses, so remain unaware.

Interesting.  Please can you define "non-natural senses", and explain I can use or develop them?

This sounds like a 'get around' for the problem of communication with the non-material world people think is there. Whether it is the ghost of Aunt Pat of Jesus, some people claim to be able to communicate....

I agree with everything you've said, but I think the crucial point for Sky to answer is not so much whether it can be detected, but to provide a concrete explanation of how those senses can be guaranteed to be developed.

His point is that we can't detect his god because we are using the wrong senses.  In which case, let's hear exactly how we can make them work (or work better).

Its not a problem if he can't....but he will then need to answer why a god that desires communication would make communication impossible for a large proportion of his creation.

I'm all ears, SkyWriting.......but I'd prefer to be all psy-spirit (or whatever).  Tell me how this non-natural sense can be gained and developed?

[SkyWriting]

This sounds like a 'get around' for the problem of communication with the non-material world people think is there. Whether it is the ghost of Aunt Pat of Jesus, some people claim to be able to communicate yet, clearly, there would need to be a place in the brain that can detect what these non-material entities are saying and this leaves open the possibility that the communication could be detected - either by detecting the 'signals' as they are received or by monitoring the brain of a person and detecting a change brought on by such 'communication'.

Of course, the problem with this for a believer is that nothing would be detected in the way of signals and the brain would show patterns of sub-conscious activity prior to the subject being away of a 'communication' making it quite likely that the whole is derived in the brain of the subject. This would account for the fact that any 'communication' a person receives always seem to match their own view of the world and their own view of what they might do.

Of course, another test suggests itself - has anyone, ever received a 'communication' from the non-material world which gave information that was not known at the time? If people who claim to talk to gods or whatever only ever hear things that are already known the source of everything would seem to be the subconscious whereas as genuinely new information has the possibility of showing the existence of a non-material world. I'm not expecting anything from this source, though!

I'm nor sure what you're saying but I'll try to address the topic because it fascinates me.   The only "communication" I've personally received is a "Peace" or "Assurance" that I've been heard.

This has been followed by a complete "solving" of the emergency I was concerned about.  This "communication" is one of "peace" followed by a very dramatic "solving" of my problem.   I use the term "conversation" for these two events.  The "conversation" is one sided at first, but by fully solving the crisis, and assuring me that it "has been" solved, it really feels like I have been listened to better than any human could possibly could have. 

It's a feeling that is impossible to dismiss.  I knew one person in my life that really listened.  As the cards go, she was married.  But wow, could she listen and hear.

[SkyWriting]

Some stories I've read were that "God woke me up in the middle of the night to come help you cross the river during the snowstorm."  Such stories helped my come to my current conclusions.

Can I ask: how do you determine the success rate of such stories?  Do the people posting them tell about the times when they believed their god was telling them something, and (when they got to the river) there was nobody there?

Do you think those people simply write it off in the same way as you do your trivial prayers?

There is more to the story.  In the snow storm, on the other side of the river was a man escorting people who were being persecuted for their faith.  They got to the river in the middle of the night and the boat was the only way across, during daylight hours of course.

The group prayed for help in this crisis situation and the boat-man arrived as they prayed.  During the crossing, he told them about being woken up an hour earlier by what he called the "Holy Spirit" to go to the river and help people waiting there.

Granted.  The whole supposedly true story could have been fiction.  I have no way to know.
But it was just like my own experiences, so I never forgot it. 

[SkyWriting]

Nearly every religion on the planet makes similar claims to having a special god detector but it doesn't make them real.

I'm not aware of that.  I don't know of any such Christian claims either.
Most claim that God is a mystery and invisible.

[SkyWriting]

To put it another way, when you ran across that farmer's field where he'd just made a driveway just when you needed it, you rationalized it to match your expectations that God had done it just for you (since you 'released' yourself to him) even though these things had been done weeks in advance of your arrival, when it was far more likely that chance just broke in your favor.

Not likely at all.  The emergency was immediate, as was my conversation.
And it has worked like that each time so chance is ruled out.

[median]

There are no claims of faith that stand up to logical rigor.
I'm amused that no one has figured that out and you
need a person of faith to tell you that.  The rules of this
forum do not allow people like myself to engage you in
conversation.  I'm not supposed to be here and am being
monitored so that I don't make any statements that are
contrary to your world view.

There you go again making more assumptions. What worldview? Have I stated my view? NOPE. This is (once again) your delusion , likely sold to you by other religious followers who got it from those before them. Atheism is NOT a worldview. How many times do we have to tell you people this? Atheism is the lack of belief is god or gods. That is all. Anything else is NOT atheism.

Secondly, stop crying about being moderated. The moderation you are now receiving is completely warranted given your actions here at WWGHAF - especially your childish refusal to answer questions directly and forthrightly.

Finally, thanks for admitting that faith fails. So why are you living by that which fails? Could it be b/c you ASSUMED the bible was "the word of God" and absolutely refuse to consider any interpretation of it other than the one you assumed? More confirmation bias! More importantly, it is quite a contradiction to claim that you care whether or not your beliefs are true only to base your life upon big assumptions which have their foundation in credulity and confirmation bias.

Can you see why many of us find you dishonest? 

But you folks are under the illusion that faith is logical.
It's not.  Faith is the opposite of logic.   It is accepting
the unseen.  Sorry.   Your rules only allow for liars.
So that who you get to talk to.

So you admit that you are deliberately lying to us in your conversations here? WOW. That is quite amusing for someone who claims to be a follower of Christ. However, you are quite wrong in your charge. I am not at all under some delusion that faith is logical. I know faith is irrational (aka - illogical which is the opposite of logical) - and that is why it is to be rejected. How comical it is that you rejected my quotation of House ("If you could reason with religious people there would be no religious people.") only to then demonstrate exactly the point of the quote. Your belief system is irrational - and as such ought to be rejected. But like nearly every religious person on the planet, you hold onto it IN SPITE of the knowledge that it is absurd and irrational (just as I did for over a decade) - and you do so in hypocrisy b/c you don't live your life that way in consistency (aka the salesman at the door asking you to just have faith in his magic product).

Yes, faith is the opposite of logic. It is pretending to know things you don't know, believing things when you have no good reason to do so, and deliberately blinding yourself from contrary evidence. Again you have demonstrated, quite clearly, that you do not care whether or not your beliefs are actually true - otherwise you wouldn't be relying on faith (but rather logic, reason, and evidence). You just want to believe what you want to believe b/c it makes you feel comfortable.

Faith defies logic.  Your rules only allow liars who pretend
that faith is logical.  They are sucking up to the lie that
faith is logical. It never is. That's the Truth.

I appreciate your honesty, but it still doesn't give you a pass on separating fact from fiction. See how you've sacrificed your rational mind for credulity and superstition? Faith is absolutely useless in separating fact from fiction in any reliable sense. I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. Your problem is that you merely read the bible and believed what it said BEFORE doing any critical disinterested investigation (like you would with other books or weird claims). You believed it "on faith" merely because IT SAID to do so. Yet you DO NOT do that with other claimed holy books, salesmen at your front door, or other supernatural claims. So, you are practicing intellectual hypocrisy.

[jaimehlers]

^Actually, his statement that faith is not logical/rational and thus he can't present evidence to support logic or rationality is fairly honest.  How many theists have ever come out and just admitted that?  I know there's been a few, but I think they're in the minority.

The problem is not that faith is illogical/irrational.  The problem is basing your entire worldview on something that you know is illogical/irrational, and moreover, acting like it's then supported by the evidence that actually exists - even though it is 'unseen' and thus doesn't produce any such evidence.  And moreover, claiming that it's then virtuous because you can't prove it, but believe it anyway.

Forget logic and rationality - that attitude doesn't even make sense.  It's like claiming that someone who falls for a con job is virtuous because they believed the con man.

[Anfauglir]

Some stories I've read were that "God woke me up in the middle of the night to come help you cross the river during the snowstorm."  Such stories helped my come to my current conclusions.

Can I ask: how do you determine the success rate of such stories?  Do the people posting them tell about the times when they believed their god was telling them something, and (when they got to the river) there was nobody there?

Do you think those people simply write it off in the same way as you do your trivial prayers?

There is more to the story.....

And, once again, Sky dodges the questions that were actually posed.   And is ignoring my questions about how to develop "non-natural senses". 

[SkyWriting]

The problem is basing your entire worldview on something that you know is illogical/irrational, and moreover, acting like it's then supported by the evidence that actually exists - even though it is 'unseen' and thus doesn't produce any such evidence.  And moreover, claiming that it's then virtuous because you can't prove it, but believe it anyway. Forget logic and rationality - that attitude doesn't even make sense.  It's like claiming that someone who falls for a con job is virtuous because they believed the con man.

I don't lord over others that my faith is virtuous.  I just believe that it is.  It's not "more" virtuous  than when I was not a believer, nor am I more now because of it. I understand now that I'm a much bigger problem than I thought.   I thought I could deal with my badness myself.   I am simply better informed about reality now as a believer than I was before.

Before, I had unanswerable questions about the most fundamental aspects of human experience.  Why are people bad, why are they good, why are we self aware, what caused humans to exist, why do we exist, ???

Now I understand better.  Not all, just much better. Now I have a "handle" on all those questions and more. I have "tools" useful for understanding, pride, murder, death, life, love, sex, and why man is so weird and confused about all those subjects.

It "happens" that the answer is not "natural".   As a result of not being "natural" it will not be rational or logical to the natural worldview.

My worldview is now based on a number of new-to-me assumptions about reality, and all of those questions listed above.  Because of my answers to all those questions,  my worldview has changed and I don't have to be able to justify everything or prove everything naturally.   Some of my "proofs" are now "constructs of thought" rather than facts and figures.
If I say something about someones worldview, I'm simply acknowledging than mine is different.  I'm not going to put somebody down because they are thinking just like I used to think.  I honor their journey wherever it leads.  They, or me, may be gone tomorrow.
   

[SkyWriting]

There you go again making more assumptions. What worldview? Have I stated my view? NOPE. This is (once again) your delusion , likely sold to you by other religious followers who got it from those before them. Atheism is NOT a worldview. How many times do we have to tell you people this? Atheism is the lack of belief is god or gods. That is all.

That's a pretty big difference in worldview from mine.  Mine covers good, bad, right, wrong, life , death, love, marriage, where humans come from and where they are going, how long we live, and why.  My world-view even differs from 99% of Christianity. 

[nogodsforme]

I would be willing to bet that in your day-to-day life, you act pretty much the same as any of us. Despite your worldview giving you a much greater understanding of life, the universe and everything, you can't really explain more. Strange, how knowing so much more does not seem to make much of a difference in the lives of religious people. They are not healthier, wealthier or wiser because of believing things they cannot prove. They expend so much time and energy fighting against reality.

I almost wish there was a heaven for them all to go to. Otherwise it is such a sad waste.

[jaimehlers]

My worldview is now based on a number of new-to-me assumptions about reality, and all of those questions listed above.  Because of my answers to all those questions,  my worldview has changed and I don't have to be able to justify everything or prove everything naturally.   Some of my "proofs" are now "constructs of thought" rather than facts and figures.
If I say something about someones worldview, I'm simply acknowledging than mine is different.  I'm not going to put somebody down because they are thinking just like I used to think.  I honor their journey wherever it leads.  They, or me, may be gone tomorrow.

This, I think, illustrates the problem with your worldview.  You're basing it on a number of assumptions.  And the problem with assumptions is that they tend to be based on bad information or simply wrong, especially when the person making them thinks they don't need to be validated.  There's a reason we have things like Occam's Razor, to remind us that assumptions should be kept to the absolute minimum.

You might be satisfied with those assumptions of yours.  So, too, are the millions of other people who make similar assumptions that they can't support.  But even at that, if it were only your own personal beliefs, there would be no problems.  However, you're acting as if you've discerned universal truths, rather than personal ones.  And that's a serious problem.

[William]

My world-view even differs from 99% of Christianity.

That is arrogant disdain for all the great theologians who have gone before you.
That is also an insult to your deity - because it implies that it would wait, through all the turmoil and suffering of religious history, for little you to turn up so that truth can finally find the light of day.

Sorry to pop your bubble 

[Anfauglir]

(Sky's) point is that we can't detect his god because we are using the wrong senses.  In which case, let's hear exactly how we can make them work (or work better).

Its not a problem if he can't....but he will then need to answer why a god that desires communication would make communication impossible for a large proportion of his creation.

I'm all ears, SkyWriting.......but I'd prefer to be all psy-spirit (or whatever).  Tell me how this non-natural sense can be gained and developed?

Oh my.  Still waiting for Sky to tell me how to develop the senses to find his god.  Anyone would think he doesn't WANT me to find his god.....

[screwtape]

Oh my.  Still waiting for Sky to tell me how to develop the senses to find his god.  Anyone would think he doesn't WANT me to find his god.....

SkyWriting is bogarting god. 

SkyWriting, quit bogarting god.  Nobody likes a god hog.

[SkyWriting]

SkyWriting is bogarting god. 
SkyWriting, quit bogarting god.  Nobody likes a god hog.

I agree.
and

…10and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

and
 
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen,
being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. ...
//bible.cc/romans/1-20.htm

[SkyWriting]

My world-view even differs from 99% of Christianity.

That is arrogant disdain for all the great theologians who have gone before you.
That is also an insult to your deity - because it implies that it would wait, through all the turmoil and suffering of religious history, for little you to turn up so that truth can finally find the light of day.

You've logiced me into being a Catholic.   Rats.

[median]

There you go again making more assumptions. What worldview? Have I stated my view? NOPE. This is (once again) your delusion , likely sold to you by other religious followers who got it from those before them. Atheism is NOT a worldview. How many times do we have to tell you people this? Atheism is the lack of belief is god or gods. That is all.

That's a pretty big difference in worldview from mine.  Mine covers good, bad, right, wrong, life , death, love, marriage, where humans come from and where they are going, how long we live, and why.  My world-view even differs from 99% of Christianity.

You just missed my point a second time. Are you that dense? Atheism IS NOT a worldview. It deals with ONE question on ONE claim. That is all.

Secondly, just because your worldview covers the things you listed above (XYZ stuff), so what! It doesn't mean your beliefs (and/or interpretations) about those things are actually accurate or true.

[median]

Before, I had unanswerable questions about the most fundamental aspects of human experience. 

By what standard (exactly), or what method of evaluating evidence, did you use to determine that these questions are "unanswerable"??

You do know this is called the Argument from Incredulity fallacy, don't you?

Why are people bad, why are they good, why are we self aware, what caused humans to exist, why do we exist, ???

And even if we had no answers for these questions what makes you think we should just make your same assumptions? Why not just admit when you don't know things instead of jumping to conclusions just b/c you feel uncomfortable?

Now I understand better.  Not all, just much better. Now I have a "handle" on all those questions and more. I have "tools" useful for understanding, pride, murder, death, life, love, sex, and why man is so weird and confused about all those subjects.

Being confused about these things (when you claim you were) doesn't give you logical justification for assuming your interpretation of your bible (as an answer) - anymore than any other religion. Just because an answer tickles your ears doesn't make it true. For that you need actual sound evidence, and it is that which you do not have.

It "happens" that the answer is not "natural".   As a result of not being "natural" it will not be rational or logical to the natural worldview.

It just so 'happens' that Magical Unicorns are not natural. Does that convince you? Just CLAIMING there is something "not natural" doesn't mean there is. Saying it is so doesn't make it so.

My worldview is now based on a number of new-to-me assumptions about reality, and all of those questions listed above.

Thank you for admitting that you have ASSUMED your position in advance instead of actually withholding judgment and investigating. We only wish you would have done this earlier. Now, why have you done this? Do you think it's A-OK to merely assume your worldview? I'd like to see you be a little bit more consistent with that line of assuming.

Because of my answers to all those questions,  my worldview has changed and I don't have to be able to justify everything or prove everything naturally.   Some of my "proofs" are now "constructs of thought" rather than facts and figures.
If I say something about someones worldview, I'm simply acknowledging than mine is different.  I'm not going to put somebody down because they are thinking just like I used to think.  I honor their journey wherever it leads.  They, or me, may be gone tomorrow.

Well now it just sounds like you're backing away from your own prior statements on this forum (where you, many times, have attempted - in one way or another - to either show others wrong or poke holes in their reasoning) - all the while failing to demonstrate there is anything such as the "non-natural".

Now, you think "constructs of thought" are not natural? How so? Because, so far as has been shown (in neuroscience and elsewhere) minds are products of physical substrates (brains). I'm sorry, but it really looks as if your alleged 30 years of studying wasn't as exhaustive as you would have some believe.

[nogodsforme]

Now SW says that there is a "natural" worldview and some "other" worldview, based on who knows what, which is the worldview that he holds.

Well, I would argue that every worldview is natural. Every worldview comes from the workings of someone's brain, and brains are natural. Brains are made up of biological and chemical reactions, as far as anyone can tell. So, until someone can demonstrate a non-biological, non-chemical brain process or function, we have to continue to assume that there are only natural worldviews. The difference is that some natural worldviews are based on concrete evidence, ie reality, and some are not.

And atheism is not by itself a worldview at all, only an observation about the world. Just look at the discussions we have about guns, education, health care, free will and so on to see that atheists don't all have the same worldview--we just don't think there are any gods.

[Anfauglir]

(Sky's) point is that we can't detect his god because we are using the wrong senses.  In which case, let's hear exactly how we can make them work (or work better).

Its not a problem if he can't....but he will then need to answer why a god that desires communication would make communication impossible for a large proportion of his creation.

I'm all ears, SkyWriting.......but I'd prefer to be all psy-spirit (or whatever).  Tell me how this non-natural sense can be gained and developed?

Oh my.  Still waiting for Sky to tell me how to develop the senses to find his god.  Anyone would think he doesn't WANT me to find his god.....

<< rocks on heels, whistles tunelessly, glances at watch >>

[William]

You've logiced me into being a Catholic.   Rats.

  You can thank your deity's cryptic and selective communication strategy for that.

I can understand, even sympathise, if you don't like the Pope's version of God's MO on earth, but I don't see that as a valid excuse for behaving like a mini-Pope in your own right.  Doing exactly what the Pope does by claiming to be God's only anointed representative on earth, but in your case only for your personal cocoon in space and time.

How can you expect anyone to share or even respect your little subset beliefs - unless you successfully assert mini-Pope-like authority?  You have to claim to have superior access to your deity's wavelengths.

[wheels5894]

Obviously it isn't me that thinks that if there are so many versions of gods based on the same texts then, really, we know for certain that most are wrong. That's based on the premise that there is actually one version that describes an 'actually existing' god and that one of the various holy books was actually written with the truths about that god. Now given that there are quite a lot of holy books, with the bible being just one, then any one person's take on a god based on any of the books must be, entirely, a god concept generated by the person who then looks back to a holy book to justify that god concept.

Now various people seem to be claiming that they can know about a god or other by themselves with no books needed - a sort of god-sense. All we need to know about that is 'how can a person claiming this distinguish between the subconscious part of their brain telling them things as a god telling them things'. That answer would help enormously in understanding how people get beliefs and what they are.

Come on, Skywriting, tell us.

[median]

^^^ Yes SW, please tell us how you distinguish between SPAG and an alleged deity.