‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Is your religion mythology?

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17707
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
09 July 2019 18:13
 
Jefe - 09 July 2019 10:43 AM
Jan_CAN - 09 July 2019 10:18 AM
Garret - 09 July 2019 10:04 AM

If we are going to credit religion for MLKjr, then we need to also talk about the religion of the police officers who used fire hoses and dogs on children during those protests.  We need to talk about how religion was used to create and justify the system of oppression that MLKjr was fighting against.

If we’re going to talk about how religion influenced Ghandi, are we also going to talk about how religion influenced the deaths of a million of people during the partition of India?

And when we say “religion” in these situations, are we crediting supernatural powers?  Or are we talking about community of humans who falsely believed in supernatural powers?

There are countless examples of when religion influenced oppression, injustices, cruelty, etc.  But to deny that it has also provided focus and strength for good people to do good work is a mistake, in my opinion.  People should be judged on their actions, not criticized for their personal spiritual beliefs just because we do not share them.

People inspired (for good or for bad) are still inspired by stories that are largely mythological.
Talking snakes, flying horses, golden tablets, negative-energy-monitors, magic underpants, feeding a crowd from a small basket of fish….  it’s all just extensions of previous stores of magical powers employed by fickle ‘gods and goddesses’ used to explain mysteries or impress simple folk, many of which have been explained by employing tools that help keep our brains from fooling themselves with inherent perception-and-opinion-traps that seem to be built-in to our evolved cognition.

So while people who do laudable things - even if inspired by mythology - should be applauded, people who do despicable things - while inspired by mythology - should face the public consequences of their actions.  But we still need to recognize that some of the foundational stories of our cultures are simply the extension of ‘legends and fables’ from our story-telling pasts.

But religion gets a pass on bad shit, because people (like Jan) talk about how good it is and so the bad is written off as people not following the religion, when in fact they are, which keeps the cycle going.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3468
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
09 July 2019 18:36
 
Garret - 09 July 2019 05:26 PM

I’m not making prior judgments of people.  I am making judgments of arguments AFTER that have been presented.  It just happens that often new people will try to trot out OLD arguments in defense of their religion.  I don’t have to sit and listen to the whole argument with an open mind in that moment…. because I already heard it and have analyzed it.  I don’t look down on the people, I look down on the argument.  The problem is that those people often view their identity through association with that argument.  That’s not my problem, that is their problem.

I’m down for the sentiment that we should all try to get along.

I am not down for the sentiment that we should take bad ideas seriously.

Religion is a bad idea.

I was not intimating that it was you that was making these prior judgements, but there are atheist writers/commentators who speak in a manner that is less than tolerant and is condescending to believers.

And I’m not suggesting that we take bad ideas seriously, but I do think we should truly listen to each other, including people of faith, as there is always the possibility that we might learn something from their perspective.

On first look, I might agree that “religion is a bad idea”; however, I’d prefer to say that:  Fundamentalist religion is a bad idea.  Moderate religion/spirituality, while fulfilling some human need for purpose, hope, community, etc., is primarily based on doctrine for which there is no basis in fact.

 

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  507
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
09 July 2019 19:53
 

Moderate religion/spirituality is oxygen to fundamentalist religion, allowing the fundamentalists to exist without too serious objection.  Moderate religion/spirituality concedes the argument that the supernatural exists, and now we have to debate over a thing that cannot be conclusively shown to be one thing or another.  By conceding that God exists, or even is likely to exist, it becomes harder to object to claims within fundamentalist religions.

While moderate religionists are at least morally superior in that they cherry pick which parts of their religious text to use to justify their acceptance of modern morality, fundamentalists have a stronger religious claim to the truth by adhering to more of the tenets ascribed to their deity.

Go back to my first arrival on these boards.  Debating Abel Dean I refused to concede that he could define race through genetics until he could actually do it.  If I conceded this fact to him, I then have to debate him on all sorts of findings.  By requiring proof of the initial premise though, I show that all arguments based on that premise should be considered suspect until such proof can be given.

Middle ground is not inherently good.  In fact, middle ground is often some of the deadliest ground on Earth.

 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5179
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
09 July 2019 20:29
 
EN - 09 July 2019 03:27 AM
MrRon - 08 July 2019 01:26 PM
Brick Bungalow - 08 July 2019 08:46 AM


I would rather embrace atheism not necessarily as a positive assertion but at least an active and self conscious position that takes responsibility for both the positive and negative conclusions and consequences. Not because I owe anyone an explanation but because it empowers me as a citizen.

Brick,

Can you please elaborate on the “positive and negative conclusions and consequences” of atheism?

Thanks.
Ron

One negative is the blind hubris that some (not all, by any means) atheists exhibit in asserting that they have the only way of discerning truth and reality or the best way in all circumstances.  It leads to the weakness of complete self-assurance.  An example is their rejection of personal revelation or private experience as even a possible method of discerning some realities.

I agree that this is a weakness but are you suggesting that it corresponds to atheism in some particular way? I find unjustified confidence everywhere.

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3468
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
09 July 2019 20:47
 
Garret - 09 July 2019 07:53 PM

Moderate religion/spirituality is oxygen to fundamentalist religion, allowing the fundamentalists to exist without too serious objection.  Moderate religion/spirituality concedes the argument that the supernatural exists, and now we have to debate over a thing that cannot be conclusively shown to be one thing or another.  By conceding that God exists, or even is likely to exist, it becomes harder to object to claims within fundamentalist religions.

While moderate religionists are at least morally superior in that they cherry pick which parts of their religious text to use to justify their acceptance of modern morality, fundamentalists have a stronger religious claim to the truth by adhering to more of the tenets ascribed to their deity.

Go back to my first arrival on these boards.  Debating Abel Dean I refused to concede that he could define race through genetics until he could actually do it.  If I conceded this fact to him, I then have to debate him on all sorts of findings.  By requiring proof of the initial premise though, I show that all arguments based on that premise should be considered suspect until such proof can be given.

Middle ground is not inherently good.  In fact, middle ground is often some of the deadliest ground on Earth.

I know too many good, moderately religious people to judge them harshly.  And I usually see middle ground as preferable, if not inherently good.

I do not for a minute suggest that we concede that God exists, or compromise any other principle we see as the truth.

Don’t laugh, but I’m going to quote Christian scripture at you, somewhat out of context.  (No, I don’t have hidden Christian beliefs, though I admit to early-life influences.)  “Ye shall know them by their fruits”.  My point is, that if we wish to be heard, I think we should show kindness and understanding rather than rigidity.  Atheists are often characterized as being dogmatic, harsh and lacking a moral centre – showing the faithful that this isn’t true can only help our case.

 

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  507
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
09 July 2019 22:47
 
Jan_CAN - 09 July 2019 08:47 PM
Garret - 09 July 2019 07:53 PM

Moderate religion/spirituality is oxygen to fundamentalist religion, allowing the fundamentalists to exist without too serious objection.  Moderate religion/spirituality concedes the argument that the supernatural exists, and now we have to debate over a thing that cannot be conclusively shown to be one thing or another.  By conceding that God exists, or even is likely to exist, it becomes harder to object to claims within fundamentalist religions.

While moderate religionists are at least morally superior in that they cherry pick which parts of their religious text to use to justify their acceptance of modern morality, fundamentalists have a stronger religious claim to the truth by adhering to more of the tenets ascribed to their deity.

Go back to my first arrival on these boards.  Debating Abel Dean I refused to concede that he could define race through genetics until he could actually do it.  If I conceded this fact to him, I then have to debate him on all sorts of findings.  By requiring proof of the initial premise though, I show that all arguments based on that premise should be considered suspect until such proof can be given.

Middle ground is not inherently good.  In fact, middle ground is often some of the deadliest ground on Earth.

I know too many good, moderately religious people to judge them harshly.  And I usually see middle ground as preferable, if not inherently good.

I do not for a minute suggest that we concede that God exists, or compromise any other principle we see as the truth.

Don’t laugh, but I’m going to quote Christian scripture at you, somewhat out of context.  (No, I don’t have hidden Christian beliefs, though I admit to early-life influences.)  “Ye shall know them by their fruits”.  My point is, that if we wish to be heard, I think we should show kindness and understanding rather than rigidity.  Atheists are often characterized as being dogmatic, harsh and lacking a moral centre – showing the faithful that this isn’t true can only help our case.

Honestly, I have no issue with people who believe whatever they want as long as it is a tool of self-reflection.  If you are using something to make yourself better, more power to you (proverbial you, not you specifically).  The problem I have is when people bring it into the public sphere or insist others adhere to it too, or that we should all use it to decide what is right and wrong.

Also, if you want to see a world with less religion, then you should give less credit to the belief system of the good people you know, and more credit to the people themselves.  Don’t prop up their religion as a positive impact in their lives.  Give them (and their community) the credit they deserve for having a positive impact on their own.  The religion is not the thing that deserves credit.  It’s the people who did good who deserve it.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17707
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
09 July 2019 23:05
 

Is doing good for the sake of reward and the fear of punishment anything more then how dogs are trained? Dogs aren’t trained with reward and punishment so that they can learn to someday become independent and make their own judgements of right and wrong, they are trained to be subservient and do what they are told is right and wrong. That is what religion is, dog training.

 
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5179
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
09 July 2019 23:58
 
Jan_CAN - 09 July 2019 08:47 PM
Garret - 09 July 2019 07:53 PM

Moderate religion/spirituality is oxygen to fundamentalist religion, allowing the fundamentalists to exist without too serious objection.  Moderate religion/spirituality concedes the argument that the supernatural exists, and now we have to debate over a thing that cannot be conclusively shown to be one thing or another.  By conceding that God exists, or even is likely to exist, it becomes harder to object to claims within fundamentalist religions.

While moderate religionists are at least morally superior in that they cherry pick which parts of their religious text to use to justify their acceptance of modern morality, fundamentalists have a stronger religious claim to the truth by adhering to more of the tenets ascribed to their deity.

Go back to my first arrival on these boards.  Debating Abel Dean I refused to concede that he could define race through genetics until he could actually do it.  If I conceded this fact to him, I then have to debate him on all sorts of findings.  By requiring proof of the initial premise though, I show that all arguments based on that premise should be considered suspect until such proof can be given.

Middle ground is not inherently good.  In fact, middle ground is often some of the deadliest ground on Earth.

I know too many good, moderately religious people to judge them harshly.  And I usually see middle ground as preferable, if not inherently good.

I do not for a minute suggest that we concede that God exists, or compromise any other principle we see as the truth.

Don’t laugh, but I’m going to quote Christian scripture at you, somewhat out of context.  (No, I don’t have hidden Christian beliefs, though I admit to early-life influences.)  “Ye shall know them by their fruits”.  My point is, that if we wish to be heard, I think we should show kindness and understanding rather than rigidity.  Atheists are often characterized as being dogmatic, harsh and lacking a moral centre – showing the faithful that this isn’t true can only help our case.

I find that personal judgments are rarely justified and rarely useful. I know many fine people who identify as religious. I don’t judge them for that. I have no place to.

That said, I do hold them responsible. If someone supports an institution they bear some responsibility for the actions of that institution. Especially when those actions and consequences are documented and a matter of organizational policy.

On the same coin I do not want a pass if I am complicit in a similar way. If I send money to an organization that is an active source of harm I want you to correct me. I want the kind of feedback that allows me to be a better citizen.

I realize it’s not black and white. Not with people. Not with organizations. But I think we have to develop the stomach to call out abuse. We have to do whatever is in our small power to confront injustice. I’ve seen too many people neglect to do this out of loyalty to some authority or some group. 

 

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1878
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
10 July 2019 06:28
 
EN - 09 July 2019 02:25 PM
MrRon - 09 July 2019 09:17 AM

If the personal revelations are unfalsifiable, then on what grounds should they be considered as valid sources of knowledge? Moreover, some personal revelations are in direct conflict with other people’s revelations. How then, do we determine which one is correct? Without a checking mechanism, there is no good reason to believe that revelations can discern objective reality.

I mentioned two types of non-empirical sources of information: revelation and experience.  An example of the second:  I saw a mountain lion once on an early morning walk near my house. No one saw it other than me. It cannot be scientifically verified that I saw the mountain lion. Yet, I know what I saw, and based on my own experience with the reliability of my senses, I accept it as real, even though I know that I can be mistaken. I consider it knowledge to me, even though I cannot prove it to anyone else. Regarding revelation, I have also had experiences that have, over the course of my life, given meaning to me and still appears to be true and valid.  So I consider it a source of at least information to me about objective reality, just like my experience with the mountain lion.  Whether it conflicts with someone else’s revelation, I have no idea.  I do know that at least three people on this forum have related revelatory experiences of God, and while every person’s revelation will have unique components, those revelations do not conflict in their ultimate conclusion - there is a God. I don’t expect anyone else to be convinced by that, but those revelations continue to be a source of information to people that is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and forms the basis of faith about a reality beyond empirical testing.

Sure, but we know that mountain lions are a real thing. And that people occasionally see them. So a claim that one saw a mountain lion is neither extraordinary, nor does it have the potential to motivate extremists to fly planes into buildings.

Regarding revelations, I don’t doubt that you had personal experiences, and that those experiences have meaning in your life. But what if someone has a revelation that there is no God? Or that there is more than one God? Or if it’s the same God, but with different demands and prohibitions? The varied world’s religions (inspired by Gods?) are proof positive that there can indeed be conflicting revelations. So the problem is twofold; 1) the initial premise of God(s) is unfalsifiable, and 2) there is no way to reconcile conflicting claims. Additionally, Occam’s razor dictates that there are better/more plausible natural explanations for the brain experiences that people report. I see no reason to eschew Occam in favor of someone’s unfalsifiable and extraordinary claim. By the way, some people also sincerely claim to have been abducted and probed by extraterrestrials. To them, it’s every bit as real and meaningful as your experience is to you. How much credence should we give to those claims?

What specific “information” are the revelations a source of? And is there anything one can NOT take on faith?

I do acknowledge that you recognize the inability to provide some sort of objective proof for your experiences. You have always been honest and consistent in that regard. And your responses are always thoughtful and well-meaning. So I do appreciate that. Thanks.   

Ron  

 

[ Edited: 11 July 2019 06:07 by MrRon]
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  507
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
10 July 2019 06:51
 
EN - 09 July 2019 02:25 PM

Regarding revelation, I have also had experiences that have, over the course of my life, given meaning to me and still appears to be true and valid.  So I consider it a source of at least information to me about objective reality, just like my experience with the mountain lion.  Whether it conflicts with someone else’s revelation, I have no idea.  I do know that at least three people on this forum have related revelatory experiences of God, and while every person’s revelation will have unique components, those revelations do not conflict in their ultimate conclusion - there is a God. I don’t expect anyone else to be convinced by that, but those revelations continue to be a source of information to people that is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and forms the basis of faith about a reality beyond empirical testing.

I’m with Ron, I believe you’ve had an experience.  I believe you that you’ve gleaned information from it.

I have a myriad of questions though:
How do you know that it was God?
How did you rule out that it was Satan?
How did you rule out that it was the God of Islam?
How did you rule out that it was Lord Brahma?
How did you rule out that it was an hallucination?
How did you rule out that the experience was real, but the information wasn’t a product of your own mind?
How did you verify that the information is true?
If revelation is not something we can test or verify, what about it supports the idea that it came from God at all?

I would add a little to the mountain lion story.  I agree and concede that we can’t verify that the exact time you saw the mountain lion that one day in the past, that you actually did.  We can verify that there are mountain lions in the region though.  We can go out and search, find evidence that they exist, and be reasonably certain on whether or not it is possible for humans to come in contact with them by accident.

To equate the mountain lion example with revelation, we would need to change it to an invisible pink unicorn that you saw.  Invisible pink unicorns have never been documented.  We have no evidence that an invisible pink unicorn exists.  Claims about invisible pink unicorns suggest that we cannot investigate them through science and reason.  If I claimed that I saw an invisible pink unicorn, would your first assumption be that I actually saw it?  Would you think it even likely that I saw it?  What if I said that you had to believe it was real first, but even then, the invisible pink unicorn might never reveal itself to you?  What if you spent years praying and hoping that the invisible pink unicorn would reveal itself to you, but it never did?  Would it be reasonable and rational to believe that invisible pink unicorns exist, just because I said one revealed itself to me?

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21683
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
10 July 2019 09:25
 
Brick Bungalow - 09 July 2019 08:29 PM
EN - 09 July 2019 03:27 AM
MrRon - 08 July 2019 01:26 PM
Brick Bungalow - 08 July 2019 08:46 AM


I would rather embrace atheism not necessarily as a positive assertion but at least an active and self conscious position that takes responsibility for both the positive and negative conclusions and consequences. Not because I owe anyone an explanation but because it empowers me as a citizen.

Brick,

Can you please elaborate on the “positive and negative conclusions and consequences” of atheism?

Thanks.
Ron

One negative is the blind hubris that some (not all, by any means) atheists exhibit in asserting that they have the only way of discerning truth and reality or the best way in all circumstances.  It leads to the weakness of complete self-assurance.  An example is their rejection of personal revelation or private experience as even a possible method of discerning some realities.

I agree that this is a weakness but are you suggesting that it corresponds to atheism in some particular way? I find unjustified confidence everywhere.

That’s true.  Just the particular form of it mentioned in my post seems to relate more to atheism.

 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21683
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
10 July 2019 09:35
 
Garret - 10 July 2019 06:51 AM

I have a myriad of questions though:
How do you know that it was God?
How did you rule out that it was Satan?
How did you rule out that it was the God of Islam?
How did you rule out that it was Lord Brahma?
How did you rule out that it was an hallucination?
How did you rule out that the experience was real, but the information wasn’t a product of your own mind?
How did you verify that the information is true?
If revelation is not something we can test or verify, what about it supports the idea that it came from God at all?

It could have been any of those things. But my senses at the time told me that it was God in the person of Jesus.  I trust my senses, inner and outer, for things every day.  My senses could be deceiving me that the traffic light is green instead of red.  But I trust them and cross the intersection.  My senses could deceive me that I was experiencing Jesus when in fact I was experiencing Shiva. But most of the time I find that they don’t deceive me in daily life, so I trust them. The thing about it that supports the idea that it came from God is the same thing that supports the validity of my senses every day - my every day experience.  I don’t expect anyone else to trust my experience, but it is sufficient for me.

Garret - 10 July 2019 06:51 AM

To equate the mountain lion example with revelation, we would need to change it to an invisible pink unicorn that you saw.  Invisible pink unicorns have never been documented.  We have no evidence that an invisible pink unicorn exists.  Claims about invisible pink unicorns suggest that we cannot investigate them through science and reason.  If I claimed that I saw an invisible pink unicorn, would your first assumption be that I actually saw it?  Would you think it even likely that I saw it?  What if I said that you had to believe it was real first, but even then, the invisible pink unicorn might never reveal itself to you?  What if you spent years praying and hoping that the invisible pink unicorn would reveal itself to you, but it never did?  Would it be reasonable and rational to believe that invisible pink unicorns exist, just because I said one revealed itself to me?

If people worldwide were getting revelations of pink unicorns, I might agree with you. To my knowledge, they don’t.  (Maybe you have a data bank of pink unicorn sightings).  People worldwide and for all human history have been getting revelations of the existence of God. Sure, they are culturally divided, but they have the common thread of being about God.  It’s part of the human experience.  And again, I’m relying on my own experience, not those of anyone else. I’ve never experienced a pink unicorn, so I have no reason to think they exist.

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3468
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
10 July 2019 10:15
 
GAD - 09 July 2019 11:05 PM

Is doing good for the sake of reward and the fear of punishment anything more then how dogs are trained? Dogs aren’t trained with reward and punishment so that they can learn to someday become independent and make their own judgements of right and wrong, they are trained to be subservient and do what they are told is right and wrong. That is what religion is, dog training.

There is something to this; re Christianity, I particularly see an element of brainwashing with Catholics, where the lessons are more doctrinal, by rote and questioning not encouraged.  However, in more liberal churches, the focus is often on kindness and good works rather than fear of punishment (I don’t remember hell or damnation being mentioned in the church I was raised in), which can serve to bring out the ‘better angels’ in some people.  It can’t be ignored that there are many fine charities run by Christian organizations.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3468
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
10 July 2019 10:18
 
Brick Bungalow - 09 July 2019 11:58 PM
Jan_CAN - 09 July 2019 08:47 PM

I know too many good, moderately religious people to judge them harshly.  And I usually see middle ground as preferable, if not inherently good.

I do not for a minute suggest that we concede that God exists, or compromise any other principle we see as the truth.

Don’t laugh, but I’m going to quote Christian scripture at you, somewhat out of context.  (No, I don’t have hidden Christian beliefs, though I admit to early-life influences.)  “Ye shall know them by their fruits”.  My point is, that if we wish to be heard, I think we should show kindness and understanding rather than rigidity.  Atheists are often characterized as being dogmatic, harsh and lacking a moral centre – showing the faithful that this isn’t true can only help our case.

I find that personal judgments are rarely justified and rarely useful. I know many fine people who identify as religious. I don’t judge them for that. I have no place to.

That said, I do hold them responsible. If someone supports an institution they bear some responsibility for the actions of that institution. Especially when those actions and consequences are documented and a matter of organizational policy.

On the same coin I do not want a pass if I am complicit in a similar way. If I send money to an organization that is an active source of harm I want you to correct me. I want the kind of feedback that allows me to be a better citizen.

I realize it’s not black and white. Not with people. Not with organizations. But I think we have to develop the stomach to call out abuse. We have to do whatever is in our small power to confront injustice. I’ve seen too many people neglect to do this out of loyalty to some authority or some group.

I agree, including the need to hold institutions responsible for their policies, and ourselves for which ones we choose to support.

 

[ Edited: 10 July 2019 13:24 by Jan_CAN]
 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  507
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
10 July 2019 15:13
 
EN - 10 July 2019 09:35 AM
Garret - 10 July 2019 06:51 AM

I have a myriad of questions though:
How do you know that it was God?
How did you rule out that it was Satan?
How did you rule out that it was the God of Islam?
How did you rule out that it was Lord Brahma?
How did you rule out that it was an hallucination?
How did you rule out that the experience was real, but the information wasn’t a product of your own mind?
How did you verify that the information is true?
If revelation is not something we can test or verify, what about it supports the idea that it came from God at all?

It could have been any of those things. But my senses at the time told me that it was God in the person of Jesus.  I trust my senses, inner and outer, for things every day.  My senses could be deceiving me that the traffic light is green instead of red.  But I trust them and cross the intersection.  My senses could deceive me that I was experiencing Jesus when in fact I was experiencing Shiva. But most of the time I find that they don’t deceive me in daily life, so I trust them. The thing about it that supports the idea that it came from God is the same thing that supports the validity of my senses every day - my every day experience.  I don’t expect anyone else to trust my experience, but it is sufficient for me.

Garret - 10 July 2019 06:51 AM

To equate the mountain lion example with revelation, we would need to change it to an invisible pink unicorn that you saw.  Invisible pink unicorns have never been documented.  We have no evidence that an invisible pink unicorn exists.  Claims about invisible pink unicorns suggest that we cannot investigate them through science and reason.  If I claimed that I saw an invisible pink unicorn, would your first assumption be that I actually saw it?  Would you think it even likely that I saw it?  What if I said that you had to believe it was real first, but even then, the invisible pink unicorn might never reveal itself to you?  What if you spent years praying and hoping that the invisible pink unicorn would reveal itself to you, but it never did?  Would it be reasonable and rational to believe that invisible pink unicorns exist, just because I said one revealed itself to me?

If people worldwide were getting revelations of pink unicorns, I might agree with you. To my knowledge, they don’t.  (Maybe you have a data bank of pink unicorn sightings).  People worldwide and for all human history have been getting revelations of the existence of God. Sure, they are culturally divided, but they have the common thread of being about God.  It’s part of the human experience.  And again, I’m relying on my own experience, not those of anyone else. I’ve never experienced a pink unicorn, so I have no reason to think they exist.

Do you agree that we can go to a zoo and see mountain lions?  Or I could go hiking in (California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado… etc) and if I went enough times and was quiet enough, I would probably see one eventually?  (I’ve actually gone hiking and tracked one before, didn’t catch sight, but I was probably a day or two behind him/her)  I’ve also seen them at various zoos.  Seen them in various nature documentaries and lots of photographs.

If you want to equate God/Jesus to a mountain lion, I’ll agree to the comparison as long as you can provide a single shred of evidence, like we can with mountain lions.

I used the invisible pink unicorn as a proxy for a claim that is made without any substantiated evidence.  The fact that you immediately made an appeal to popularity is also telling.

[ Edited: 10 July 2019 15:17 by Garret]
 
‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›