Author Topic: Please validate your belief in your God  (Read 34728 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3748
  • Darwins +67/-10
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1160 on: March 03, 2013, 08:21:11 PM »
There is a prophecy currently pending within one of the stories on my premonitions link page.  I'll let you know if it comes true,  If it doesn't, you won't hear a peep.

Please be specific.  What is the prophecy you are referring to?

Sorry.  I'm going to stay coy here.  I have my reputation to protect. 

I have been wrong about so many things and it has just been my luck not to have broadcast them it like so many failed prognosticators have. 

So your track record of success lies in the fact that you only class as a "prediction" something that later comes true?  Then any one of us has the same 100% success rate.
I'm not in a competition.  I'm a reporter. What I report is true and proves God exists.  Now I have  said that Obama is America's Idi Amin.  I stand by that one and there seems to be more fufilling to be done.  Wait and see.
How is Obama like Idi Amin. Can you give us an example. Like if someone said GW Bush was a war criminal,we would ask if they could point out in what way he was. Can you please do that so we can hold you to those predictions why Obama and Amin are the same.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline muchlove

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1161 on: March 04, 2013, 12:52:45 AM »
Allowing yourself to believe that an unvalidated feeling, idea or situation is true is self-deception.

This seems flawed from the start, but I could be deceiving myself :)  It may be semantics, but to me, the idea that you "believe" something to be true is different than "knowing" something to be true.  Self-deception, imo, seems to imply believing something false to be true.  We may agree or disagree (which makes it subjective) the degree to which we ourselves "believe" someone is in error, but unless we can prove it, calling it self-deception means we're making a judgment call.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1536
  • Darwins +156/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Belief is not a choice.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1162 on: March 04, 2013, 01:19:48 AM »
I care that I'm being directed by the one true God.  If any one belief I'm harboring of him is wrong I want to change that belief.  When navigating the physical world the disciplines you employ here are really important, and I intend to employ them to the best of my ability as they apply to me here.  In that way I probably have a lot to learn from some of you here. 

But in the matters of God, those criteria don't always apply, and by design.  His is a spiritual Kingdom in which he employs different rules.  I'm here to report to you evidence in my life of that other kingdom.

But this is circular reasoning Wayne. And it demonstrates that you (in spite of your efforts to deny it) DO NOT ACTUALLY CARE if your beliefs are true - because if you did you wouldn't be attempting to use fallacious reasoning to backup your arbitrary claims! CLAIMING you are "being directed by 'the one true God'" and demonstrating it are two entirely different things. Secondly, ANY PERSON of any religion can use your argument as a rationalization for continuing their 'faith', and you certainly would not accept their argument and convert. So you are practicing hypocrisy. It's a double standard Wayne. You really need to start getting honest with yourself.

Yes it is a good thing.  You might have noticed that my arguments are all devised to open you to the reality of a supernatural God where man's rational abilities don't apply in the same way they do in the material.

Wayne, you just made yourself a liar. Your argument above is using the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION. You have NOT demonstrated that there is such a thing as a supernatural God, an "immaterial realm", or a place where "man's rational abilities do not apply." You are (once again) making a bald ASSERTION in an attempt to backup yet ANOTHER assertion which has not been substantiated or supported. So by your own words you should be REJECTING your own argument.


Is it BIAS if it is correct?  I look at all the other interpretations that have come to my attention and make my reasoned judgement.

You haven't demonstrated that your interpretation is the correct one Wayne. You just keep ASSERTING it, while simultaneously demonstrating confirmation bias. If a salesmen at your door displayed your same reasoning process you would reject his extraordinary claims and refuse to buy his alleged "supernatural soap". Again, you are demonstrating personal hypocrisy.

I think that all of you here that have read my plethora of accounts of episodes that individually and collectively defy normal chance are being  unreasonable to insist on only a materialistic explanation for it all.  You have a crippling bias.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Wayne. And your "testimonies" have NOT been extraordinary (read Mark 16/John 14) - neither have they met their burden of proof. Why? Because they can EASILY be interpreted in other far more likely scenarios. Providing anecdotes, coincidences, and rare events is NOT EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE. And your religious presupposition (assumption) is blocking you from seeing this.

Wayne, one of the things you fail to see here is that your mind is blatantly one-sided (pertaining to questions of reality). However, many of our minds here are not. Many of us here have lived on BOTH sides of this debate (i.e. - we believed like you, for years, and now do not - we changed our minds). YOU have not. So you cannot see things from our perspective. But we HAVE seen it from yours! Are we biased against WACKO claims? YEP. The only difference is, we are biased against ONE MORE CLAIM than you. That is, you find fault (and reasonably so) with ALL the other religions, new agers, astrologers, and wackos but enter hypocrisy by setting a double standard in order to let the religion of your parents slip in.

Well congratulations Wayne! You're doing EXACTLY what every other religion or superstitious person on the planet does. Big whoop. Refusing to be rational doesn't get you closer to the truth about reality. It pushes you further from it.

The new sound evidence is going to come in a form that you may not like, and that is likely the reason you have turned from trust in God.

I could only agree with your reasoning if it were proven that there is no God, and that is preposterous.  I reject it out of hand, just as George Washington did, who said:

Quote
It is impossible to account for the creation of the universe without the agency of a Supreme Being. It is impossible to govern the universe without the aid of a Supreme Being.  George Washington, A Life of Washington (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1835), Vol. II, p. 209

I hardly needed George to affirm the obvious to me, but he seems to agree with me now doesn't he?

Wayne, I'm sorry to have to say this (because it's going to sound very rude) but you are demonstrating irrational, credulous, idiocy. Your statement above commits two logical fallacies (which are both invalid and need to be REJECTED, as you yourself admitted earlier - i.e. that we ought to be biased against bad arguments). Your first error is called an argumentum ad ignorantium (The Fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof). It is impossible to prove a universal negative, and since the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim (YOU), then YOU are the one responsible for demonstrating your claims are true. The one who denies, or questions, your claims is not responsible for demonstrating a negative. AT BEST, the answer would be "I don't know" - not "Yahweh did it". So saying that we need to "prove there is no Yahweh" is illogical. Can you prove there is no magic Santa Claus? Now, your second logical fallacy is called argumentum ad verecundium (The Fallacy of Appealing to Authority). Arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not on who made them. So appealing to George Washington gets you nowhere - and really just demonstrates (for the thousandth time) the extremely irrational lengths you are willing to go to in order to ratiolize your belief system (i.e. - holding to crappy unreliable faith). If you truly cared whether your beliefs were true you would have known right off the bat that Mr. Washington's argument was ILLOGICAL. Why? Because neither he (nor you) have demonstrated that you have come anywhere near knowing the conditions you would have to know in order to be able to rightly make such a determination. How can you make such a judgment of "impossible"? Upon what qualification of scientific study or discipline can you rightly say, "It's impossible that it happened any other way"?? The answer is that you can't. You just WANT SO BADLY to hold on the assumption you made years ago. I know the feeling very well, but sadly, it is a mistaken one. The truly honest position would be to admit that you simply don't know, and wait for further information. 
« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 01:29:05 AM by median »
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Aspie

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 337
  • Darwins +34/-0
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1163 on: March 04, 2013, 01:29:29 AM »
Wayne, the question is whether you could be merely applying a teleological narrative to rather mundane events after the fact. That you can come up a long list of similarly mundane events with the same exact conclusion in mind that begs the same exact question does nothing to help your case; it's entirely consistent with the idea that you'll find God in any life situation that holds any personal meaning whatsoever. Whether it be a blade of grass, a bowel movement, or an impulse to pick up a rock literally anything can serve as a vehicle of God for you - even when it's not.

The problem with your "pattern" as proof is that if your anecdotes can't stand up to muster individually then they don't become any more persuasive when amalgamated. And in each case it's exactly the same scenario - you begin with a personally meaningful event then make a quantum leap into hyperspace and plug in God at the end of the equation. At best your argument can be summed up as "I impulsively picked up a rock x1000, therefore God!"
« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 02:09:31 AM by Aspie »

Offline muchlove

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 66
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1164 on: March 04, 2013, 02:21:02 AM »
There is a prophecy currently pending within one of the stories on my premonitions link page.  I'll let you know if it comes true,  If it doesn't, you won't hear a peep.

Wayne, I don't mean to come across as disrespectful, but how does having prophecies that don't come true fit into your theology and into your claims or understanding regarding your premonitions? 
« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 02:27:42 AM by muchlove »

Offline Tonus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Darwins +28/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
    • Stuff I draw
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1165 on: March 04, 2013, 05:45:54 AM »
This seems flawed from the start, but I could be deceiving myself :)  It may be semantics, but to me, the idea that you "believe" something to be true is different than "knowing" something to be true.  Self-deception, imo, seems to imply believing something false to be true.  We may agree or disagree (which makes it subjective) the degree to which we ourselves "believe" someone is in error, but unless we can prove it, calling it self-deception means we're making a judgment call.
I think that most religious people do not draw a distinction.  At the least they use the terms interchangeably, because faith demands it.  Someone who believes that god exists but does not take any active part in our world or lives can differentiate between "believe" and "know."  Someone who believes that god exists and that he takes an active interest in our lives and that we can "develop a personal relationship with Him" has blurred that line.

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11482
  • Darwins +552/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1166 on: March 04, 2013, 08:41:13 AM »
Let's get back into this Idi Amin comparison.

According to wiki...
Quote
Amin's rule was characterised by human rights abuse, political repression, ethnic persecution, extrajudicial killings, nepotism, corruption, and gross economic mismanagement. The number of people killed as a result of his regime is estimated by international observers and human rights groups to range from 100,000[1] to 500,000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin

Wow.   Torture, "free speech zones", extraordinary rendition, and the whole economic downturn.  As for killing people, at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died because of our invasion and occupation. This does not include the 4000+ US soldiers who were killed and 50,000 + who were wounded.[1] 

I think there is a much stronger argument that Bush was our Idi Amin.
 1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/iraq-afghanistan-war-wounded_n_2017338.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4275
  • Darwins +441/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1167 on: March 04, 2013, 09:18:59 AM »
There's also the fact that Idi Amin pulled a coup d'etat.  That is to say, he took over from the existing leader of Uganda.

He also promised to hold free and fair elections "as soon as possible" after seizing power.  Naturally, this never happened, as he declared himself the next President of Uganda a week after seizing power and established firm military rule over the civilian government.  After a reverse-coup attempt by the former leader and 20,000 Ugandans who had gone into exile, he purged the military and then started executing 'unreliable' civilians.  There's no telling exactly how many Ugandans died under his rule, but the minimum figure is 80,000, nearly 1% of the Ugandan population as of 1971.  If it had happened in America, that'd be 2.5 to 3 million people.

So, no, I don't buy this Obama/Idi Amin comparison.  I don't even buy the Bush/Idi Amin comparison that's being suggested as an alternative.  You're going to have to do much, much better than you've done so far in trying to compare the two to make that 'comparison' work, and frankly, the chances of being successful without having to lie or make stuff up is infinitesimal.
Worldviews:  Everyone has one, everyone believes them to be an accurate view of the world, and everyone ends up at least partially wrong.  However, some worldviews are stronger and well-supported, while others are so bizarre that they make no sense to anyone else.

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11482
  • Darwins +552/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1168 on: March 04, 2013, 09:30:30 AM »
I don't even buy the Bush/Idi Amin comparison that's being suggested as an alternative. 

I don't buy it either.  Of course Bush wasn't Idi Amin.  He wasn't Eydie Gorme either.  But if we are indulging Wayne's fantasies for a moment and comparing US presidents to Amin, Bush is a better match than Obama. 
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11482
  • Darwins +552/-22
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1169 on: March 04, 2013, 11:04:42 AM »
more info for Wayne.  The government didn't force banks to give loans to unqualified people.  They did that all on their own. 
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/bloombergs-awful-comment-what-can-we-say-for-certain-regarding-the-gses/

Item #2 is the key point against your claim:
Quote
2. The next thing to mention is that the “affordability goals” of the GSEs, as well as the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), didn’t cause the problems.  Randy Krozner summarized one of the better studies on this so far, finding that “the very small share of all higher-priced loan originations that can reasonably be attributed to the CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis.”  The CRA wasn’t big enough to remotely cause these problems.

It links a lot of data. 
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5956
  • Darwins +643/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Entropy isn’t what it used to be
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1170 on: March 04, 2013, 11:48:46 AM »
There were loan officers for private lending institutions that were making a commission of $10-15,000 per loan for approving mortgages. And there was no repercussions against those loan officers of the person didn't repay.

What was their incentive to be honest with either the potential borrower or the lending institution (which didn't care because they just sold the loan as part of a package to investors anyway). There are numerous documented cases where these loan officers altered the paperwork to make it look like the borrower was eligible. And there was often times no effort on the part of the loan officer to tell the people they had nowhere near the qualifications.

This was not due to the failure of government institutions. It was a moral failure. A social failure. A monetary failure. And a criminal success.

There is plenty of blame to go around, and there should be prosecutions, etc. But it is silly (and harmful) to think that the problem was caused by only one inept entity. Even the bad-guy loan officers weren't the only problem. But no problem is ever as simple as people like Wayne want it to be.
Never trust an atom. They make up everything!

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1536
  • Darwins +156/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Belief is not a choice.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1171 on: March 04, 2013, 11:51:46 AM »
Two isn't enough median.  My validation is based on the plethora of episodes.  If you are not willing to investigate more of my proof, but only continue to say Prove it, then we will be going nowhere.  You are wise not to take my word at face value for two accounts.  Read more and then let's talk, but until then I will never be able to make my case for you because you haven't seen but 10% of it.  That's fair isn't it.  I went around and around with screwtape who never read any of my accounts to my knowledge. it was total futility, so lets not waste any more of your time until you have the base of my case first.  Read the stories and you will know that God intervenes.

Wayne, as usual, you are quite mistaken. Two or more fallacious arguments (put together) don't make a sound argument. It is YOUR ARGUMENTS that are getting nowhere Wayne, and that is the problem here. You talk about "predetermined result"? HA! Look in the mirror! You've already admitted that you are FILTERING your interpretations of said facts to FIT what your parents taught you from childhood. So you never really had a choice. As I said earlier, you just went all in on the bible (without doing any critical investigation - like you would any other book or claim) and now you refuse to consider any interpretation other than your own. I know the feeling, because I used to be right there with you. But that place is a mistaken haven of errors, misinterpretations, confirmation bias, and desperation. You aren't doing any disinterested work here. You are motivated by confirmation, and that puts you in the confirmation bias category. Take your own advice and reject your own bad arguments! But, of course, you won't because you have far too much invested. Sad.

Btw, read your bible Wayne. Your "premonitions" are nowhere NEAR what Jesus supposedly did (and told any disciple they would do). You're reaching!


Median, why don't you prove to me that you aren't addled with confirmation bias.  I say you are, prove to me you aren't.

There it is. Two more logical fallacies Wayne (argumentum ad ignorantium - Shifting the Burden of Proof) and (Red Herring - changing the subject). I asked you to demonstrate (i.e. validate - as this thread has asked you to do in the beginning) how you know "The Holy Spirit" is talking to you. Just like every superstitious religionist I talk to, you are demonstrating intellectual dishonesty (and confirmation bias - which we have pointed out many times). There is no confirmation bias on the side of those who are doubting your claims. That is absurd Wayne. The burden of proof is on YOU Wayne, not me. It is not my job to prove a universal negative. It is YOUR job to demonstrate your claims (i.e. - valid your beliefs in your alleged Yahweh deity) here, and demonstrate how you think we are "biased" in an unhealthy way. I'm sorry Wayne, but your arguments are really on the losing end of the stick here.

I'm going to entertain your use of the word childlike to make an important point.  Yes, my faith is childlike. Absolutely it's childlike, for the very reason that Jesus said:
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

Yes! Finally we are getting somewhere Wayne. Nice. So you've just admitted that your belief in Jesus/Yahweh is just like a gullible, credulous child, right? Children believe in all sorts of false things (such as Santa Claus) simply "on faith". I don't doubt for a minute that your belief in this Yahweh Elohim deity being is like that, but it is fundamentally no different from a child's belief in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, or Unicorns. It is pure credulity, plain and simple Wayne. You just said it yourself (like a child). And underneath all the smoke and mirrors, beneath the irrational arguments for your imaginary friend, is a childlike credulous assumption that you accepted from your youth and never questioned or tested. Think about it!


Btw, just because a 2000+ year old book says something doesn't make it true (look at the Koran!). The "faith" you have (itself) comes AFTER believing what the bible says about faith - and you accepted that on credulity and youthful gullibility (just like the Muslims do with the Koran) - which brings us all the way back to the beginning of Wayne's story. You believed for bad reasons right from the start.

That could be true for others that haven't had the interventions I have, and you may get some headway with them, but having been visited with so many and redundant proofs, I do not in any way fit that category, nor can you corner me into that category.  You can either read more of my accounts of proof of God or move on to another target.

This is more smoke and mirrors Wayne. Read above. Citing a collection, of your interpretation, of coincidences is not extraordinary - nor is it anywhere CLOSE to biblical miracles. Open your bible! Actual "miracles" are interpretable in only one way. They are not vague, anecdotal, or coincidental like your claims are.

I cannot deny the interventions of God, I can however examine my understanding of them, because it has been the case that at first I didn't fully understand, and was guided later to a greater understanding.  So, yes, I'm flexible.  Now it's your turn.  Read five more of my accounts and open your mind up to what you have been missing.

You are missing the point entirely here Wayne (and you are doing so purposefully b/c you have a vested conflict of interest). You don't know that you had "interventions of God". YOU ASSUME! You have "faith". And that is all b/c you assumed your bible/theology from the beginning and are filtering all experiences in life through it (as you already admitted). That is backwards!

Starting with your conclusion and then actively looking to "fulfill" that conclusion has a name. It's called CONFIRMATION BIAS! It's astonishing (but not unbelievable) that you can't see this - because if you did, it would mean a devastating blow to your presupposition.

What is in question here Wayne is your interpretation of what you think happened (i.e. - how you are so sure it was Yahweh who caused these things - Muslims have similar premonition stories for their Allah!). If I took every one of your claims at face-value those claims would still require interpretation. Again, coincidences and rare occurrences are not extraordinary evidence. You need to first establish how you differentiate between a "miracle" and a rare occurrence. If you have no verifiable method for distinguishing between the two, then all you really have is credulity.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 12:11:24 PM by median »
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1536
  • Darwins +156/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Belief is not a choice.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1172 on: March 04, 2013, 11:54:42 AM »
There were loan officers for private lending institutions that were making a commission of $10-15,000 per loan for approving mortgages. And there was no repercussions against those loan officers of the person didn't repay.

What was their incentive to be honest with either the potential borrower or the lending institution (which didn't care because they just sold the loan as part of a package to investors anyway). There are numerous documented cases where these loan officers altered the paperwork to make it look like the borrower was eligible. And there was often times no effort on the part of the loan officer to tell the people they had nowhere near the qualifications.

This was not due to the failure of government institutions. It was a moral failure. A social failure. A monetary failure. And a criminal success.

There is plenty of blame to go around, and there should be prosecutions, etc. But it is silly (and harmful) to think that the problem was caused by only one inept entity. Even the bad-guy loan officers weren't the only problem. But no problem is ever as simple as people like Wayne want it to be.

HA! I am one of those "cases". I was a lone officer in Arizona from 07-08. Yep, you guessed it. I was greedy and sold loans to people who probably shouldn't have gotten them. Whose to blame? Both sides! My clients wanted money, and so did I. And I had lots of "friends" in the business who did the same thing.

Anyways, back to the topic!
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1536
  • Darwins +156/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Belief is not a choice.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1173 on: March 04, 2013, 04:30:36 PM »
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5640
  • Darwins +676/-1
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1174 on: March 04, 2013, 07:35:27 PM »
ACORN? A nationwide financial and political force to destroy America? Please!

I am probably the only person on this site who actually worked with ACORN, back when I was a social worker. They did grassroots anti-poverty and voter registration work in poor communities. Helping people negotiate with banks to get business loans, helping families figure out how to get a home mortgage. Assisting people in filling out tax forms. Registering voters. You know, trying to help people achieve the American Capitalist Dream of starting a business and owning some property and exercising their constitutional rights. Buncha dirty commies.

I say I worked with them, not for them. You know why I did not work for them? I applied for a job with ACORN and did not accept it, because they paid too little. Less than I was getting as a social worker and no benefits. It was practically an all-volunteer community group with shabby offices staffed by earnest hippies. Doing what Jesus said to do: help the poorest among you.

I was gobsmacked when, years later, this tiny organization with little power that was trying to help some of the poorest communities in the country, suddenly became a household word. A word spat out at Tea Party rallies and bandied around Congress as the epitome of evil.

Why? Despite the small size, they were making an impact. Especially in organizing poor and minority voters. Then came some well-funded attacks by right-wing blogs, tv hosts and radio shows. And they destroyed the organization. It lost its funding, laid off all its volunteer/employees and exists no more.

Who benefits? People who don't want poor folks to become orgainized, to know their rights and to be able to vote. Wonder who that might be?

In other news, Obama=Amin. Not.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 374
  • Darwins +57/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1175 on: March 05, 2013, 02:18:17 AM »
Idi Amin appealed to the masses with platitudes of how the spoils of the wonderful Ugandan economy was finally in the hands of the people.  He then proceeded to destroy that economy. Like Obama

Amin commandeered a complicated machine with absolutely no clue how the machine worked, and then just drove it off a Cliff.  Like Obama.

Here's the scary part.  Obama was a lawyer working for Acorn that sued Citibank forcing them to give loans to unqualified homeowners.  That started the process that spread throughout the banking system until the system finally broke in Bush's second term.  Bush's White House warned the fed Thirteen times that the policies were leading to disaster, but was powerless to reverse the trend started by.....Obama and his Acorn thugs in Chicago. 

Now Obama waltzes into the presidency blaming Bush for failed economic policies that he (Obama) initiated starting before Bush's first term.  Now, the guy that crashed the greatest economy on the planet is now the president.

Just wait until the riots start.  As they say, socialism only works until you run out of other peoples money,and that's about where were at.  Don't you think?

Now remember, this is God's metaphor, not mine.  Just think of some of Idi Amin's other quirks, and then you can speculate how those quirks might have their counterparts in an Obama administration.  Think drones, think gun confiscation. 
Just think.

I asked you to give these examples to illustrate the magnitude of your bias, Wayne. You have repeatedly referred to your "Obama is Idi Amin" story as evidence that your "visions" are undeniably true, but you are ridiculously far off.

As others here have pointed out (thanks to all, BTW), there is no actual evidence to support your Obama=Amin claims. You say Obama ruined the economy, but it is a fact that the Dow Jones Average has more than doubled since the start of Obama's first term[1] , and it is presently within a few points of all-time record highs[2]. Your assertion that the U.S. economy has worsened under Obama is factually and demonstrably incorrect.

But let's get real here, do you honestly think the first thing people think when the name Idi Amin is mentioned is "Wow, that guy was a lousy economist!"? Of course not, because the thing for which Amin is primarily known is butchering hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen. This is not some "quirk". While you certainly don't have to agree with Obama's politics, there is no way he (or any U.S. president) even approaches the level of this brutal, genocidal dictator. You are so desperate to paint Obama as a villain that you will believe and/or fabricate anything negative about him, even that which is clearly false.

As I said weeks ago, the only real similarity between Obama and Amin is that they both have darker skin tone than yours, and that says more about you than it does Obama.

edit: clarity
 1. from a low of 6547.05 in early '09 to closing at 14,127.82 today
 2. highest Dow ever: 14,164.53
« Last Edit: March 05, 2013, 02:19:49 AM by DumpsterFire »
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Offline Tonus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Darwins +28/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
    • Stuff I draw
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1176 on: March 05, 2013, 06:12:19 AM »
People tend to give American Presidents far too much credit or blame for the US economy.  They simply do not have the power to change it or even shift it very much or very quickly.  They are much more at the mercy of the economy than it is at theirs.  A dictator like Idi Amin had almost direct access to the economic engine of Uganda.  He forcibly took many businesses from their legit owners and handed them to party cronies, who mismanaged them.  The damage to the economy was a direct result of his policies and actions.

Offline WayneHarropson

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
  • Darwins +2/-39
  • Gender: Male
  • BANNED
    • Wayne Harropson Contractor
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1177 on: March 05, 2013, 12:18:03 PM »
I'm not in a competition.  I'm a reporter. What I report is true and proves God exists. [/quote]

Nope.  If all a person "reports" are the hits that feed a particular viewpoint, then there is no proof offered at all.  Its the favourite trick of sham psychics and con-men, to remain vague and to ensure only their hits are broadcast.


What "viewpoint" was my cold eggs at Paul's episode feeding? 

Take your "stone" story.  You present it that the ONE time you decided to pick up something slightly unusual, it was worthwhile - so you present a 100% success rate.  But the true success rate - if there had been, let's say, a dozen other times when you picked up something slightly unusual and it was NOT proved worthwhile - may be significantly less.
You need to read the part of my clarification that talks about how I was arrested at the door, and in effect made to look at the rock, and how my rational mind tried to dissuade me from taking it.  I was being lead by the Holy Spirit to take the rock, it is the still small voice.  It matches biblical scripture, and it was for the sake of a bible lesson to be taught.  My testimony of this incident proves God guides.  I can understand how outsiders might struggle with it, and try to attribute alternative explanations, but you'd be wasting your time trying to change my mind about it, the best you can do is dissuade others from lending credibility to my account.  There are hucksters and phonies that you should be cautious of but to be fair to yourself you need to admit the possibility that I'm not one of them.

Reporting ONLY the successes is no proof at all - no matter how many of them you report.  For your stories to be "proof", they need to be balanced against all the times when a prediction did NOT come true, the times when a feeling did NOT translate into a "hit".

Unless and until you are prepared to be completely open about your predictions and feelings, there is no need at all to analyse the "hits" you present - however many of them there may be, and however "oooh!" they may be - because without the full story of misses, they mean precisely nothing.


I think you have a good point except that very few, I mean very few of the episodes have anything to do with my expectations and predictions coming true.  Very Few.  Your point would be well taken that my expectations being filled would not be a high percentage, because no one knows that better than I do.  Take a closer look at  what we are talking about here.  Re read my stories and you will find that even in the case of the premonitions, the element of my forknowledge is not of the type that applies.  In fact, now that you bring it up in that way, I can pretty much discount my predictive abilities altogether, and still maintain the full integrity of the value of the episodes as proof of God.

It's like I'm being surprised by God's interventions, not prognosticating them.
The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something.
He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald 
I write because I've been given something to say.
*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodes 
Have Wayne Committed, Win a Prize!  (V

Offline WayneHarropson

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
  • Darwins +2/-39
  • Gender: Male
  • BANNED
    • Wayne Harropson Contractor
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1178 on: March 05, 2013, 12:52:24 PM »
  Wayne, your "repetitive demonstrations" simply aren't stringent enough to meet the standard of evidence we look for here.  You've interpreted a group of events as being divine in origin, but we don't have an objective data pool to analyze.  All we have is your post hoc interpretations, and so far the events only seem to be meaningful to you.

They are then testimonies that are meant to persuade you of the truth of a God who has chosen to work outside the standards you have set.

To paraphrase what I said earlier in the thread, what does any of this have to do with us?  What do we do with all this stuff?

Here's what I'd do with this stuff if I was you.  Compare it to other people's reports of interventions.  I mentioned before that some of my favorite books were a series called God's Mysterious Ways.  I read the stories sometimes more than once and then to my young daughter.  What's great about reading others accounts and believing them, because they appear to be written by honest people, you begin to appreciate the mystery of the Heavenly Father, and in so doing cultivate a faith that has a chance of attracting personal demonstrations of your own.  He will require coming to him on his terms however, so be ready to submit to his principles.

So even if what you're experiencing is legitimate, factual and divine, from our POV it might as well be "feelings" because we can't test it, duplicate it, falsify it, or utilize it in any practical way.

I see what you mean, but it's not what you think.
The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something.
He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald 
I write because I've been given something to say.
*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodes 
Have Wayne Committed, Win a Prize!  (V

Offline WayneHarropson

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
  • Darwins +2/-39
  • Gender: Male
  • BANNED
    • Wayne Harropson Contractor
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1179 on: March 05, 2013, 04:09:44 PM »

It was broke when he got it as a result of Bush tax cuts, two wars, a housing bubble and a financial meltdown from deregulation of the financial industry.  Specifically, what did Obama do to "destroy" the economy?

You probably thought you shut me up didn't you?

You put forth some counter arguments that feed your need for your confirmation bias, and have made up your mind that your counter arguments are the only ones to be considered.

As a matter of fact screwtape, you have a history of maintaining a position by specifically avoiding to even read  counter arguments.  I spent a considerable amount of time going over and over points with you with the faulty notion that you were even reading what I have submitted.  It was ridiculous  then and I don't expect it to be any better now.

I will offer an answer here for the sake of other readers who can do just like anyone else can and do a simple search of the subject, read both sides and come to their own conclusions.  And I'll pose one simple question to anyone that is willing to look at both sides.  When we talk about Barack Obama, are we talking about someone that has a history of promoting mortgages for those who can't pay or someone that promoted sound banking practises.

My argument does not require Obama to have single handedly crashed the American economy, only that he has always promoted the very policies that did such, and now is in the bully pulpit to preside over the completion of the task.  He is America's Idi Amin.  It is as clear as day.

Now, the truth for liberals that populate his fan base is like garlic to Dracula so I don't really expect much more from you that attack me with expletives because that's pretty much the meat of your argument.

For casual readers here that want to know the truth just do a search of two words together citibank and Obama.  You are going to find the truth and then you will find a strident criminal defense.  Read them both and see whether I should follow screwtapes profane advice for me for being on the side of the truth.

Here's an example that you don't even have to read, it's a video. http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/09/03/did-obama-court-case-help-bankrupt-black-homeowners-daily-caller-reveals-presidents-legal-backfire/

Brace yourself for the profanities to follow.


Wayne

Sorry, I missed this one when I was approving your other posts. Had I seen it, I would have approved it many hours ago. You will appreciate that I first fact-checked this post and made sure it was wrong before approving it, though. Took over a minute. I'll let others tear you apart. Not my job.

Sadly, we have no rules about watching Fox News around here. I'm going to suggest we institute such a bylaw.

ParkingPlaces

« Last Edit: March 06, 2013, 01:48:25 AM by ParkingPlaces »
The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something.
He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald 
I write because I've been given something to say.
*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodes 
Have Wayne Committed, Win a Prize!  (V

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2792
  • Darwins +220/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1180 on: March 05, 2013, 10:13:56 PM »
They are then testimonies that are meant to persuade you of the truth of a God who has chosen to work outside the standards you have set.

Well, Wayne, I for one am thoroughly unconvinced.

Quote
Here's what I'd do with this stuff if I was you.  Compare it to other people's reports of interventions... What's great about reading others accounts and believing them, because they appear to be written by honest people...

Honesty isn't the issue here, Wayne.  Credibility and gullibility and superstition and confirmation bias and Texas Sharpshooter fallacies and wishful thinking are the issues.  The more accounts like yours that I read, the closer I move to strong atheism.

Quote
...you begin to appreciate the mystery of the Heavenly Father, and in so doing cultivate a faith that has a chance of attracting personal demonstrations of your own.  He will require coming to him on his terms however, so be ready to submit to his principles.

Wayne, I have never for one moment of My 55+ years believed in this alleged "Heavenly Father."  I see no benefit in attempting to deliberately lie to Myself to cultivate a faith that doesn't even interest Me.

If your divine buddy wants to get My attention, it must show up in person.  This is My sole condition for dealing with other gods, and it is an absolute and non-negotiable condition.

Life is far too short to spend searching the physical world for "signs" and attributing them to some invisible, intangible entity that speaks in goofy riddles.

"An owl statue in the thrift store window!  Must be Athena."

"Those crossed jet trails look like the rune Gebo.  Allfather Odin must have a message for me."

"The swan in the pond looked at me funny.  That man in the sexy dream last night must've been Zeus."

"It's Midsummer Eve, and the clerk at the convenience store set my sandwich on fire by microwaving it in a foil-lined paper wrapper.  Then I noticed her nametag read 'Brigid.'  The Celtic gods are mad at me for something."

Get the picture, Wayne?
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline WayneHarropson

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
  • Darwins +2/-39
  • Gender: Male
  • BANNED
    • Wayne Harropson Contractor
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1181 on: March 05, 2013, 10:33:03 PM »
jaimehlers you portray my beliefs as having only a foundation in feelings when you know that they are based upon God's direct demonstrated interventions in my life.

I know no such thing.

 You simply refuse to differentiate my evidence which has a solid basis with the kind of faith you usually pillory.  You act like I don't have you off guard with the reality of intervention but it shows by you resorting to the feelings thing when you know it doesn't apply.


The reason is because you have consistently refused/been unable to provide any solid evidence to back up your stories.  You believe them to be true because they feel true to you, but that is not even close to the same thing to being able to demonstrate them to be true.  This goes back to your mistake of certitude when there's nothing solid to base it on - you might as well build a house on sand.

It would be a mistake not to have certitude with the evidence I have.  It would be a mistake for you to have certitude that my evidence is true, but not for me.  If you were honest with your fellow bloggers here that speak with certitude that god isn't real, or that it is a fairy tale you would correct them.

Certitude that there is no God is a bigger fallacy than ones certitude that there is one, particularly if that person has the evidence I have.

So let's hear it, "It is wrong to speak with certitude that Wayne's God is a fantasy".  "It is wrong to speak with certitude that confirmation bias controls Wayne's accounts of intervention, thus renders them invalid."

Can you be honest and make those to declarations, or are your peers going to punish you for going off the reservation?

On the contrary, it's exactly like the following quote:  "Search your feelings, you know it to be true."

Are you saying I said that?

Quote from: WayneHarropson
What you are trying and failing to do is box me in with others whose faith you have managed to dislodge that base their "beliefs" on un-demonstrated faith.  You cannot do that with me though you're doing your best.
I'm not trying to 'dislodge' anyone's faith.
 

Really.  Let me think about that.  Let's take a poll and see how many of you here can make that declaration.  Having heard that statement I will look at your arguments differently than before because I may have been under a false impression.  Maybe you could suggest that it become a Forum Maxim.  Would anyone else here like to make that statement?

This isn't about 'dislodging' faith in the first place.  I couldn't care less that you believe in your god.  It's about getting people off of the idea that their faith can substitute for actual knowledge.
  Who said it was a substitute for knowledge?  Men of faith have helped get us to the moon.  Give me an example of how I've substituted faith for knowledge, that you need to save me from.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
But what has happened is you discredit your arguments and diminish the credibility of your reason to continue hounding me about having unsubstantiated faith, when you know all too well that I would be unreasonable to dismiss the continual interventions.  They may fail your standards of courtroom evidence but only if a circumstantial cases were never allowed, but you know that a circumstantial case can be a good case, and in my case it's open and shut.


This is not a courtroom, Wayne (thankfully).  It isn't about technicalities, or objections, or any of the other things you see in courtrooms.  What it's about is providing us with evidence to support your argument.  And you've not been able to do that.  What you're actually giving us are stories which you believe are so compelling that a person who hears them all cannot help but agree with you that your god exists (which, incidentally, is why you've declaring that I know your stories are true, etc).  But they aren't compelling, especially to someone who doesn't share your belief system to begin with. 
  Thee's that belief system thing again.  If you put together all the interventions and remove the Christianity, you would still have a bunch of supernatural stuff to rationalise. 

You would have to attribute it to something unnatural.  I know that philosophically belief systems exist for other people, but you must allow for the possibility that there is one overarching truth of which those who are aware of it, and point themselves to it,  end up transending the world of "belief systems".  Jesus Christ was the truth incarnate, so much so that a whole lot of faulty belief systems make the best use of his name as they can, but apart form the fallacies that men are afflicted with there is a core truth, Christ, and he is that one solid rock.  With regard to that truth, belief system seems a little inappropriate... for me anyway.


Your certitude that you know the truth is blinding you to the way things are actually working out.  That's why it's such a serious flaw for you.

Things could work out bad for me, and it wouldn't change the reality of God. It couldn't change the certitude that is the natural result of all the interventions.  It was like with Job.  He may not have liked what was happening to him but it didn't cause him to say God didn't exist.  I suppose you could even curse God as many have but in cursing him they acknowledge him. 

Quote from: WayneHarropson
I'm absolutely uncertain of my interpretations of God's intentions, but in all that uncertainty of myself is absolutely no uncertainty about God's repetitively demonstrated power in my life. That repetitively demonstrated power does find its counterparts in the Scriptures so my reasoned judgement is that those that wrote the scripture were  experiencing the same repetitive demonstrations that caused them to write of the phenomena that characterizes my experience.  It is both reasoned and rational to arrive at the certainty that God exists, and for me it would be the height of idiocy to arrive at any other conclusion.

You having "no uncertainty about God's repetitively demonstrated power" is exactly the problem.

It's funny to hear you say that. You should feel funny saying it.

For all that you actually know, for all that you've actually been able to prove, it could simply be coincidence (you've admitted as much by saying that my explanations are plausible).  Therefore, your certitude is built on a foundation of sand.


I like that.  Where did you get that building on sand thing anyway?

I may be the biggest fool in the world in how I have conducted my life, and for being that way it would be true that I've built my life on a foundation of sand, and earthly failure may be my just dessert, but none of that has any relevance to the fact of God.  I am a man, I am imperfect, but none of my folly changes the truth of God.  Your sand argument is good for me, but irrelevant to the reality of God.

 
It may seem solid to you, in your own mind, but it doesn't stand up to examination.  Yet your certitude is actually leading you to ignore the warnings of others who are able to see the problems that you've blinded yourself to.  It is leading you astray. 

Again, don't make the mistake of equating my certainty of God with a certainty of my understanding of God.  My faulty understanding of him and his machinations doesn't make him not exist.  The interventions prove Him, my understanding of it all is subject to scrutiny, even my own.

Blindness takes more than one form.  Convincing yourself that what you want to believe in exists and then refusing to even consider the slightest possibility that it doesn't actually exist is also blindness.


What if I didn't want to believe and all this stuff happened to me?  Would you not be hounding me for not allowing for the possibility that he exists?  What you are exposing here is your flaw not mine.

  What you're actually asking us to do is to take your word for it, and that isn't going to work.


I just can't wait to here one of "you say, well, now, I guess God could be real if what Wayne is saying is true'.  But I'm not sure if any of you are honest enough about it to concede that point. You have this certitude hang up. I'm waiting.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
What's so touchy feely about an earthquake for heaven sake?, give up jaimehlers.
Earthquakes happen all the time, as you said yourself.


I don't know how my conceding that earquakes happen all the time has any relevance to my having been specifically placed, and directed, and given visions.  Of course they happen just as often as they happen, that has nothing to do with diminishing the impact of my experience with them.  You have a useless argument to even point out frequencies.  A lightning strikes happen all the time as well, so what?

You hold your own arguments in high regard, yet how many people have you actually managed to persuade with them?  And how many of those didn't already share your religious belief?
You wanna know something?  I don't have a particularly high regard for my ability to argue, I just have true incidents to report, and against the background of that reality all I need to do is navigate to the best of my ability around all the unnecessary scepticism.  Now, OJs defense team, they have the argument down to a science, and they better, because they are perpetrating a lie.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
Your explanations were worthy of regard even though they fell short of overturning the repetitive pattern they sought to dismember.

That 'pattern' only exists in your own mind and those you've successfully managed to convince, you know.  To everyone else, it's meaningless.  And as long as you refuse to provide verifiable evidence, you're not going to succeed in proving that this pattern you've detected has any real meaning.

It's funny to hear you say it is a pattern in my mind, when, truth be told, some of this is as bizarre as a mind can conceive.  Now if Idi Amin that I had only a passing knowledge of was driving a big black Crown Vic ascending a hill with US Government Plates and a big Obama Grin in nineteen ninety and he was conceived from a pattern that I picked up in my sunday school class when I was eight years old... that is some pattern.

I will remind you that I was awakened, lead to the scriptures, and was made to read one passage specifically that said that the Holy Ghost would teach me all things and then bring those things back to my memory.  John 14:26

He instructed me with the obscure dream of Idi Amin, and then lead me to find it 20 years later when I had forgotten completely about it to remind me so I could write about it.  Hardly the stuff of patterns in the mind.  Re Read the account here and then use your critical analytical skills to determine how that could be a pattern in my mind.  http://tinyurl.com/ObamaAmin   

Here's some trivia.  Why would we need 2700 of these puppies?  http://tinyurl.com/2700mrap
« Last Edit: March 05, 2013, 11:21:06 PM by WayneHarropson »
The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something.
He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald 
I write because I've been given something to say.
*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodes 
Have Wayne Committed, Win a Prize!  (V

Offline WayneHarropson

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
  • Darwins +2/-39
  • Gender: Male
  • BANNED
    • Wayne Harropson Contractor
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1182 on: March 05, 2013, 10:44:42 PM »

But let's get real here, do you honestly think the first thing people think when the name Idi Amin is mentioned is "Wow, that guy was a lousy economist!"? Of course not, because the thing for which Amin is primarily known is butchering hundreds of thousands of his own countrymen. This is not some "quirk". While you certainly don't have to agree with Obama's politics, there is no way he (or any U.S. president) even approaches the level of this brutal, genocidal dictator. You are so desperate to paint Obama as a villain that you will believe and/or fabricate anything negative about him, even that which is clearly false.

As I said weeks ago, the only real similarity between Obama and Amin is that they both have darker skin tone than yours, and that says more about you than it does Obama.

I'll say two things in response to you. 

1. The Idi Amin thing was not my idea.

2. Your Racial inuendo is preposterous. 

Look here for proof, and I mean proof.  http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,23483.msg544462.html#msg544462

Notice how Obama is the deer in the headlights in this video.
The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something.
He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald 
I write because I've been given something to say.
*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodes 
Have Wayne Committed, Win a Prize!  (V

Offline WayneHarropson

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
  • Darwins +2/-39
  • Gender: Male
  • BANNED
    • Wayne Harropson Contractor
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1183 on: March 05, 2013, 10:51:58 PM »
People tend to give American Presidents far too much credit or blame for the US economy.  They simply do not have the power to change it or even shift it very much or very quickly.  They are much more at the mercy of the economy than it is at theirs.  A dictator like Idi Amin had almost direct access to the economic engine of Uganda.  He forcibly took many businesses from their legit owners and handed them to party cronies, who mismanaged them.  The damage to the economy was a direct result of his policies and actions.

God authored the metaphor not me.  What you are saying is true but America's Idi Amin is a customization.  Idi Amin did all he could do in his setting, and Obama is doing all he can do in America's setting.  You don't have to have a line by line parity for the metaphor to work.  What Idi did for Uganda Barry is doing for America.
The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something.
He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald 
I write because I've been given something to say.
*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodes 
Have Wayne Committed, Win a Prize!  (V

Offline WayneHarropson

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
  • Darwins +2/-39
  • Gender: Male
  • BANNED
    • Wayne Harropson Contractor
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1184 on: March 05, 2013, 11:03:21 PM »
So, no, I don't buy this Obama/Idi Amin comparison. 

The metaphor belongs to God.
I may toy with my interpretation of it, but I think it' s safe to say that it's not a good thing.  Just wait and see.
The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something.
He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald 
I write because I've been given something to say.
*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodes 
Have Wayne Committed, Win a Prize!  (V

Offline WayneHarropson

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
  • Darwins +2/-39
  • Gender: Male
  • BANNED
    • Wayne Harropson Contractor
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1185 on: March 05, 2013, 11:17:18 PM »
.
Wayne, as usual, you are quite mistaken. Two or more fallacious arguments (put together) don't make a sound argument.
Then it isn't an argument it is a report of intervention.  It is a testimony of intervention.   

What is in question here Wayne is your interpretation of what you think happened (i.e. - how you are so sure it was Yahweh who caused these things - Muslims have similar premonition stories for their Allah!). If I took every one of your claims at face-value those claims would still require interpretation. Again, coincidences and rare occurrences are not extraordinary evidence. You need to first establish how you differentiate between a "miracle" and a rare occurrence. If you have no verifiable method for distinguishing between the two, then all you really have is credulity.

I hope you will forgive me for not going point by point, I think we have covered all the ground pretty well in past discussions.  I'm, simply reporting divine intervention, and lots of it.  That's my case.

Thanks for your comments.
The reason one writes isn't the fact he wants to say something.
He writes because he has something to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald 
I write because I've been given something to say.
*** SEARCH FOR PROOF OF PSYCHOSIS HERE***> http://tinyurl.com/WaynesEpisodes 
Have Wayne Committed, Win a Prize!  (V

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2792
  • Darwins +220/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1186 on: March 05, 2013, 11:31:50 PM »
...You simply refuse to...

...it shows by you resorting to the feelings thing when you know it doesn't apply...

...If you were honest with your fellow bloggers here...
Wayne, quit it with the "I can read your mind" schtick.  It's very rude.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4275
  • Darwins +441/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1187 on: March 06, 2013, 12:03:18 AM »
Wayne, crediting your 'hits' to a god is no different than crediting them to your own predictive capability.  You're still only counting the 'hits' as meaning anything, while disregarding the 'misses'.  If something works out in your head after the fact, it was your god at work, otherwise it was just coincidence or random chance.

You're exactly like someone who gambles and credits the wins to a god, while the losses don't mean anything.  And just like that gambler, you've bankrupted yourself, albeit in credibility rather than money.  Sure, you can still make claims and try to get people to accept them, but your credibility is so low that you can only tell people that they have to trust you (and your god); you don't dare admit even to yourself just how sketchy and threadbare the 'evidence' for your claims really is.  Because if you do, you'll have to acknowledge that you've been deceiving yourself all this time.

I'll be honest here; I don't care at all if you want to believe in your god.  But you're not going to make any headway trying to convince me - or virtually anyone on this website - that your god is real by telling us anecdotal stories and then claiming that your god is hiding the evidence that would prove your stories true from us, especially when your stories are more easily explained by coincidence.

When you say your god is hiding the evidence, that tells us that your god is dishonest.

When you say your god sent earthquakes to comfort you (and demonstrate omni-whatever), that tells us that your god is indifferent to suffering.

When you say you'd be happy to have been played the fool by your god, that tells us that your god is malicious.

At this point, even if you suddenly did get evidence to prove your god existed, I would be much more likely to conclude that you were worshiping "the god of this world", the one you claim is evil.  Such a god would have no problems fooling you into a false belief, and would get a kick out of lying to you and having you present its lies to other people as truth because of your certitude.
Worldviews:  Everyone has one, everyone believes them to be an accurate view of the world, and everyone ends up at least partially wrong.  However, some worldviews are stronger and well-supported, while others are so bizarre that they make no sense to anyone else.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4275
  • Darwins +441/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Please validate your belief in your God
« Reply #1188 on: March 06, 2013, 02:29:42 AM »
You simply refuse to differentiate my evidence which has a solid basis with the kind of faith you usually pillory.  You act like I don't have you off guard with the reality of intervention but it shows by you resorting to the feelings thing when you know it doesn't apply.
You've not given any solid evidence to begin with, so there's no reason for me to treat your stories any differently than anyone else who says "trust me" without giving a reason to.  You don't have me off-guard because you've failed to provide any evidence of this "reality of intervention", and you've actually stated that your god must be hiding the evidence.  And if you aren't going off of feelings rather than knowledge, prove it.  Don't just say, "you know it doesn't apply".  Because I'm pretty well convinced by now that your entire belief system is based off of feelings that you're rationalizing as knowledge inside your own mind.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
It would be a mistake not to have certitude with the evidence I have.  It would be a mistake for you to have certitude that my evidence is true, but not for me.  If you were honest with your fellow bloggers here that speak with certitude that god isn't real, or that it is a fairy tale you would correct them.
Even if you had actual evidence rather than episodes you've interpreted to suit your beliefs, taking the position that you're justified in being certain of your beliefs is wrong, Wayne.  And you don't have that evidence, otherwise you would have presented it by now.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
Certitude that there is no God is a bigger fallacy than ones certitude that there is one, particularly if that person has the evidence I have.
They don't have certitude that gods don't exist.  You know what they also don't have?  Evidence to show that any gods exist. 

Quote from: WayneHarropson
So let's hear it, "It is wrong to speak with certitude that Wayne's God is a fantasy".  "It is wrong to speak with certitude that confirmation bias controls Wayne's accounts of intervention, thus renders them invalid."
Since you still don't seem to get it, let me point out that they (and I) have reached those conclusions because of the fact that you've refused to give any evidence to support your belief, and clearly demonstrated confirmation bias in favor of your beliefs.  No, it doesn't absolutely prove that your god is a fantasy, or that you're suffering from confirmation bias, but based on what you've told us, those are the most reasonable conclusions.  You don't have to agree, but you should at least acknowledge that they are reasonable conclusions and that you'll need more than just anecdotal stories to accomplish your goal.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
Can you be honest and make those to declarations, or are your peers going to punish you for going off the reservation?
Can you be honest and admit that you can't prove your god exists?  I mean that quite literally; leaving aside your own personal certitude, it should be evident by now that you've had no luck whatsoever in convincing anyone here of what you say.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
Are you saying I said that?
No, I'm quoting from Star Wars.  They were very fond of implying that you could gain knowledge from your feelings, through The Force.  It struck me as being appropriate, because whatever you might say, your argument is coming across in a very similar way.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
Really.  Let me think about that.  Let's take a poll and see how many of you here can make that declaration.  Having heard that statement I will look at your arguments differently than before because I may have been under a false impression.  Maybe you could suggest that it become a Forum Maxim.  Would anyone else here like to make that statement?
It may or may not be true for others here (I don't know, I haven't asked), but as for me, I don't particularly care what a person believes.  What I care about is what they do with that belief.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
Who said it was a substitute for knowledge?  Men of faith have helped get us to the moon.  Give me an example of how I've substituted faith for knowledge, that you need to save me from.
None of those "men of faith" (as you put it) attempted to substitute prayer, or Christian beliefs, for the science that got us to the Moon.  Contrast that with what you've been doing, namely piling up anecdotes that you can't back up and claiming that those anecdotes prove your god exists.  Your faith is what leads you to believe those anecdotes have meaning, so in a very real sense all you've been doing here from your very first post is substitute faith for knowledge.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
Thee's that belief system thing again.  If you put together all the interventions and remove the Christianity, you would still have a bunch of supernatural stuff to rationalise.
Why?  I've already shown in at least two or three of your episodes that there are perfectly natural explanations for them (there's no reason to expect that any of the others will be substantively different).  If you remove the presumption that they are supernatural to begin with, then there's no reason to look for supernatural causes for them.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
You would have to attribute it to something unnatural.
No, because everything in the universe is natural.  If gods were somehow shown to exist, they would be natural too.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
I know that philosophically belief systems exist for other people, but you must allow for the possibility that there is one overarching truth of which those who are aware of it, and point themselves to it,  end up transending the world of "belief systems".  Jesus Christ was the truth incarnate, so much so that a whole lot of faulty belief systems make the best use of his name as they can, but apart form the fallacies that men are afflicted with there is a core truth, Christ, and he is that one solid rock.  With regard to that truth, belief system seems a little inappropriate... for me anyway.
Sure, I'll allow for that possibility.  But I see no reason to assume it has any special relevance or meaning without evidence to show that to be the case.  Until then, there's no reason to treat your belief system any differently than the myriad other belief systems that humans have come up with, but not been able to provide evidence for.  To put it simply, if there's a possibility that your belief system is right, there's also the possibility that it's wrong.  If it's wrong to state that your belief system is certainly incorrect, then it is equally wrong to state that your belief system is certainly correct, as you've been doing.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
Things could work out bad for me, and it wouldn't change the reality of God. It couldn't change the certitude that is the natural result of all the interventions.  It was like with Job.  He may not have liked what was happening to him but it didn't cause him to say God didn't exist.  I suppose you could even curse God as many have but in cursing him they acknowledge him.
No matter how things work out for you, no matter how many 'interventions' you have, it won't prove your god exists.  No amount of certitude on your part, especially when you can only support it with anecdotes, will make a difference in whether your god actually exists.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
It's funny to hear you say that. You should feel funny saying it.
Why?  It isn't as if there haven't been plenty of people who have been absolutely convinced they knew The Truth about something, yet been unable to provide verifiable evidence to support their convictions.  It isn't as if they haven't had what they called 'evidence' to support their convictions, which nonetheless failed to convince people who didn't already agree with those convictions.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
I like that.  Where did you get that building on sand thing anyway?
I read it somewhere.  I forget where offhand.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
I may be the biggest fool in the world in how I have conducted my life, and for being that way it would be true that I've built my life on a foundation of sand, and earthly failure may be my just dessert, but none of that has any relevance to the fact of God.  I am a man, I am imperfect, but none of my folly changes the truth of God.  Your sand argument is good for me, but irrelevant to the reality of God.
Nothing you (or I) do makes a difference in whether your god exists or not.  Thus the problem with your claim that your god is withholding the evidence.  If your god exists, there must be evidence that would satisfy skeptics such as the people here.  Vice versa, if your god does not exist, there will be no such evidence.  So, your claim that your god is withholding the evidence is indistinguishable from your god not existing in the first place.  Without evidence to support it, there's no point in concluding that there's such a god to begin with.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
Again, don't make the mistake of equating my certainty of God with a certainty of my understanding of God.  My faulty understanding of him and his machinations doesn't make him not exist.  The interventions prove Him, my understanding of it all is subject to scrutiny, even my own.
You being certain proves nothing except that you are certain.  That's why it's a trap.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
What if I didn't want to believe and all this stuff happened to me?  Would you not be hounding me for not allowing for the possibility that he exists?  What you are exposing here is your flaw not mine.
This does not make sense to me.  Are you suggesting that I would hound you about your lack of belief?

Quote from: WayneHarropson
I just can't wait to here one of "you say, well, now, I guess God could be real if what Wayne is saying is true'.  But I'm not sure if any of you are honest enough about it to concede that point. You have this certitude hang up. I'm waiting.
Are you honest enough to concede that you could be completely wrong, and your certainty could be nothing more than an illusion?  This "certitude hang up", as you call it, is because you've been utterly unwilling to even admit that it might be a possibility.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
I don't know how my conceding that earquakes happen all the time has any relevance to my having been specifically placed, and directed, and given visions.  Of course they happen just as often as they happen, that has nothing to do with diminishing the impact of my experience with them.  You have a useless argument to even point out frequencies.  A lightning strikes happen all the time as well, so what?
Very simply, there's no reason that the earthquakes that you think were specifically placed and directed had to have been specifically placed and directed.  Your certainty only proves that you're certain.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
You wanna know something?  I don't have a particularly high regard for my ability to argue, I just have true incidents to report, and against the background of that reality all I need to do is navigate to the best of my ability around all the unnecessary scepticism.  Now, OJs defense team, they have the argument down to a science, and they better, because they are perpetrating a lie.
Just because you believe the incidents are manifestations of your god's power doesn't make that true.  That's where the evidence that we keep asking for comes in.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
It's funny to hear you say it is a pattern in my mind, when, truth be told, some of this is as bizarre as a mind can conceive.  Now if Idi Amin that I had only a passing knowledge of was driving a big black Crown Vic ascending a hill with US Government Plates and a big Obama Grin in nineteen ninety and he was conceived from a pattern that I picked up in my sunday school class when I was eight years old... that is some pattern.
Idi Amin doesn't look a thing like Obama except that they are both black men.  They don't even smile the same way.  And Idi Amin never came to the United States, to the best of my knowledge.  He fled first to Libya and then to Saudi Arabia.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
I will remind you that I was awakened, lead to the scriptures, and was made to read one passage specifically that said that the Holy Ghost would teach me all things and then bring those things back to my memory.  John 14:26
This is just you trying to attribute something that you did to your god.  Frankly, your 'rock' story is more impressive than this, and that's not saying much.

Quote from: WayneHarropson
He instructed me with the obscure dream of Idi Amin, and then lead me to find it 20 years later when I had forgotten completely about it to remind me so I could write about it.  Hardly the stuff of patterns in the mind.  Re Read the account here and then use your critical analytical skills to determine how that could be a pattern in my mind.  http://tinyurl.com/ObamaAmin
In the interests of getting to sleep sometime within the next hour, I'll keep it simple and say, "not believable".  This is no different than what you've been saying here about how you're completely certain and that somehow proves that it's true.  Reminds me of the song, Henry VIII.  You know the refrain?  "Second verse, same as the first".

Quote from: WayneHarropson
Here's some trivia.  Why would we need 2700 of these puppies?  http://tinyurl.com/2700mrap
Better question.  Why should we take this seriously when his sources are a blog and an op-ed?  This isn't the first time I've seen someone make claims that were based on someone else's claims that were based on someone else's claims, etc.  Find the actual evidence, not just someone's opinion, and then show it to us.
Worldviews:  Everyone has one, everyone believes them to be an accurate view of the world, and everyone ends up at least partially wrong.  However, some worldviews are stronger and well-supported, while others are so bizarre that they make no sense to anyone else.