I'M BREAKING UP MY RESPONSE INTO 2 PARTSPART ONE: 1.
One example is that he has awakened me and pointed me to Bible scripture and had me focus on a particular scripture to emphasize that the 23 year old stories are things he is remindking me of. That is how I know.
But this is Confirmation Bias. Just like nearly all religions, you are MAKING the text FIT what you already assumed. It is also Circular Reasoning Wayne. You are trying to answer my question with the assumption of the subject of the question. I asked, "How do you know God did X" and you answered with "Because God..." I am asking how you know it's Yahweh - or why you believe it's Yahweh. Lots of religions make your same claims. How do you distinguish true beliefs from false beliefs? 2.
I might have worried about the correct interpretation of why my old stories match new events until God reinforced it with the confirming scripture. And secondly, I do doubt my interpretation of obscure incidences like I had no freaking Idea waht a dream about my leg being amputated means. After finding this site, I interpret it as a premonition of being here. So yes I do question my interpretations all the time.
What you are attempting to call "questioning" your interpretations is indistinguishable from Confirmation Bias. You aren't taking a critical or disinterested look into the facts. You are actively seeking to CONFIRM what you are already believed in the first place (i.e. - You started with the conclusion).
I'll ask again. How, exactly, does a coincidence equate to a miraculous supernatural event? How can you distinguish the two? All you've given us so far is, "I interpret rare events as miracles from the Yahweh I already wanted to believe in." 3.
Sometimes, it is rally easy to figure out,other times I have no idea... for a while.
WOW. You doged the question AGAIN. Really? I asked you what other options of interpretation you have explored. From your response I'll take it the answer is NONE.
Do you know what Confirmation Bias is? How is what you are doing any different? 4.
I'll answer that one with a question. Do you believe that my assertion that single motherhood leads to dependency and the overwhelming of the welfare system? I ask because others here celebrate single motherhood and Barton and I think that's a bad Idea. Your stats, whatever they are, and my stats that some here wish to dismiss could all be misrepresentitive of something, but what we can get form this discussion is that Atheist philosophies as demonstrated here are what Barton and I would call anti family. The anti family element tends to dependence, and a welfare state that is bankrupting the country. Barton and I are pointing to truth. I like that and as you said: But "like" and "trust" are not pathways to truth. However, they ARE often pathways to ERROR. It just may be that my liking Barton is not, in this specific case difinitively a pathway to error. I'm sure you could agree with that.
What "atheist philosophy" Wayne? There is NO
"atheist philosophy"! This is what the idiot in the pulpit of your ward/church keeps telling you, and you buy it b/c you assumed his theology from the outset. Had you read the article I posted, regarding the correlation between nations with less religion and crime, perhaps we'd be having a different discussion. You have these misconceptions that atheism (the lack of belief in a deity) is the cause of broken families. This assertion is 100% false! Again, you are buying bullshit from those you want to believe, instead of looking at ALL of the available facts. You really need to stop only reading those that confirm your bias (unless of course you don't really care if you're beliefs are true). There are lots of countries that have stronger families (less broken) then the US does, and those countries are FAR LESS RELIGIOUS. So this assertion plainly fails. Please go back and read the link to the article I posted in Psychology Today. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion (Societies with less religion are healthier) http://www.gadling.com/2007/08/23/least-religious-countries/ (Atheism/Non-religion affiliated with societal health)http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/zuckerman.htm (Least religious nations are most healthy and successful)
Btw, whether or not welfare is caused by single parents has nothing to do with disbelief in your deity. The overwhelming majority believe in God. Besides, it's only 12% of spending. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/budget_pie_gs.php5.
I'd like to correct myself here. I have used coincidence in cases where that term doesn't apply. Consider that an error of mine.
This is absurd and quite dishonest Wayne. So instead of just admitting to your own words 14 years ago you are erring on the side of supernaturalism, and superstition, instead of admitting that you might not know the actual cause of what happened and that is might be just a coincidence (which is more likely the case)?? Are there any coincidences in the world Wayne? Could you be wrong about this? How about other religions? When they try what you're trying, is it OK for them to practice this tactic and call it a confirmation of their deity?
With all these stories it seems you are desperate to make happenstance into "miracle". 6.
I'll paste some of it in herre for you and comment;
"And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.[a] 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.
Wow, that was really inspired of you to pick that verse. Paul nailed it right on the head didn't he. There is no way I could have picked a better example of what is going on here. See, I'm like Paul, unable to intelectually persuade you, only offer you proof of God's power in my stories.
How did you do that median? That was amazing, the scripture you gave us just answered your question for me. My God is so great! "...that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power."
It hilarious that you can't see your own Confirmation Bias here Wayne. Paul is talking about DEMONSTRATION! Not coincidence, not happenstance, not vague gestures that can be interpreted in many different ways, or sillyness. You didn't have a demonstration of "God's power". You had an occurrence of something that you couldn't explain and so you bought the argument from ignorance and called it Yahweh. This is why I quoted Mark 16. "Greater miracles" Wayne, not lesser vague ones open to your misinterpretation and spin (such as calling a liquid a gas). 7.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the casual observer, hearing that I admit that I'm bigoted with regard to pedophelia, can see it as a wry way of pointing out the direction of psychology in justifying aberrent behaviors as normal is something that I am critical of. It may satisfy a need of yours to dismiss me altogether because I have heard all I need to hear from studies like the one in the news from Britain that is pointing in that direction. Psychology today has published articles that I disagree with. Let's just say, I trust them as much as you trust Barton. Can't we all just get along?
Quote the article you're talking about and we can discuss it. I highly doubt that any distinguished psychologist is going to argue that Pedophelia is "normal". This is why we have fields such as Abnormal Psychology and dismiss the religious witch doctors who call anything abnormal "demon possession". Again, it sounds very much like what you are practicing is gullibility and confirmation bias. If you believe I'm mistaken, please cite the article in Psychology Today and we'll see. 8.
You went a long way to say that I don't like the truth, and you neednt do that. I am fully committed to the truth.
Except when it disagrees with your pressupositions, right? See that is the problem with faith. It is not tentative but FIXED. It is useless and futile because it causes you to START with a conclusion, instead of starting with a question and following the evidence where it leads. This is why I said that it seems you don't care whether your beliefs are actually true. You are actively seeking confirmation of your presumptions. That is backwards.