Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I disagree! After years of study and observation, I give zero (0) weight to the possibility of the reality of phenomena allegedly experienced by millions and I give zero(0) weight to the possibility of such claims by the mere five, thus they are given the same weight.
All I said was that people believed, and some still believe, that Zeus is real. Should I believe them? Should I believe them more if more people agree with them?
It's very rational. Let me put it another way: if one Nigerian prince says he's going to let you have some of his money if you send him some of yours, do you believe him?
How can you be sure that what you, or *anyone* else, has experienced was a "transcendent" moment?
Is all we have your word for this?
How can you demonstrate this 'transcendence' to me?
Sure. This is why the testimony for Buddhism, Catholicism and Islam are obviously superior to that of Evangelical Protestant Christianity.
Or was that not what you wanted to demonstrate here?
I was following the conversation -- your first claim that I indicated the believers in Santa to which I referred were adults
The point I was making in the first post, and you were dodging was that eyewitness testimony is very unreliable.
I pointed out that it is the testimony of adults I was speaking of, and not children.
Of course they are unreliable as a method of providing certitude. But why do you reckon juries are allowed to consider them?
You cannot? How can you be *sure* that what you experienced was "transcendence"? How did you verify this?I cannot be sure about anyone but myself. But I cannot doubt that which I have experienced.
Indeed. Why do you then tell us about these experiences?Yes, but that is not a problem, since I am not trying to convince you that it was real. That would be foolish on my part.
I did not think you could. But does not your inability to demonstrate the authenticity of your experience as 'transcendance' (whatever that means) justify my dismissal of your experience as a genuine but *misinterpreted* as 'transcendent'?I can't. Why would you think I would think I could?
So why do you say I am stubborn? because my opinion is different than yours? Is the only way I can be open minded is if I agree with you? Ever consider the possibility that you might be wrong?[/color]
Well, there you go. Not much more can be said about such blind stubborness, other than how you remind me of the stereotypical scientist in 50's B sci-fi flicks, who scoffs at even the remote possibility that all those citizens can be anything other than delusional.
.Yes. I sure do. But don't take the "should" as a moral imperative, but rather what would be in line with commmon sense.
If everybody in the entire world were able to see Jesus Christ but i could not, I would assume there were something wrong with me. But as you know, that ain't the case; only a tiny fraction of the world's population claim to have experienced your concept of God so I consider the possibility that there might be something wrong with them.That is a very strange position. So let's go even further: Suppose all 6 billion people on the planet claim to have seen Jesus Christ, that is all except you. Meanwhile, only three people claim to have seen a flying purple unicorn. You'd give EQUAL weight to the even the remote possibility of either experience being genuine? I don't believe I'd admit that.
If everybody in the entire world were able to see Jesus Christ but i could not, I would assume there were something wrong with me. But as you know, that ain't the case; only a tiny fraction of the world's population claim to have experienced your concept of God so I consider the possibility that there might be something wrong with them.
Ken
BELIEVE them, based on numbers? Of course not. We're not talking about believing, but rather the amount of weight given to the EVEN REMOTE POSSIBILITY that a testimony of someone who claims to have EXPERIENCED X should even be considered.
And as I said, I know of no one who claims to have EXPERIENCED Zeus. Earlier, you suggested that was in "mythology books." Please tell me what mythology books report ancient Greek citizens as having experienced Zeus.
No. Only if I heard people who claimed to have EXPERIENCED getting wealthy by that means. I really don't know anyone who has. Do you?
Regarding what? All I said was many people believe in Santa.
You said but they're not adults.
I said I never said they were adults.
You said but the majority of believers are adults.
I'm guessing you're referring to a second type of believer in the latter statement, where I was following the original course of our side-discussion. Nouns and adjectives go a long way in avoiding typographical confusion.
Juries are allowed to consider them, sure.
But typically as an addendum to evidence, not the main piece of evidence.
You cannot? How can you be *sure* that what you experienced was "transcendence"?
How did you verify this?
Indeed.
Why do you then tell us about these experiences?
I did not think you could.
But does not your inability.....
So why do you say I am stubborn? because my opinion is different than yours?
Is the only way I can be open minded is if I agree with you?
I am not taking your word "should" as a moral imperative, I am taking it as you claiming that popularity is some kind of indicator of the truth
After all; it was only a few hundred years ago when millions thought the earth was flat and only a hand full said it was round. So much for popular opinion huh?
only a tiny fraction of the world's population claim to have experienced your concept of God
so I consider the possibility that there might be something wrong with them.
That is incorrect, unless the definition of "tiny" changed overnight.
The remote possibility of what?You just put it up there:
that a testimony of someone who claims to have EXPERIENCED X should even be considered.
Ancient Greeks believed Zeus was real.
You know of ancient Greeks who claim to have experienced the reality of Zeus? Who?
Please answer the question. You don't believe one Nigerian prince's offer of money, but if a hundred million Nigerian princes offer you money in exchange for some of yours, do you believe them more? You've said it's irrational not to.
Again, I know of NO ONE (ZERO: ZILCH) who claims to have gotten a dime from that Nigerian scheme, and yet I know hundereds (and there are millions I don't know) who claim to have experienced the reality of Christ.
I'd guess he means that your specific concept of god is that of the non-dominational church. Which differs from the catolic concept of god aswell as the protestant concept of god.
As such, the non-dominational church is a tiny fragment of the population. Thus the people who have experienced its specific concept of god are even smaller.
No, I was just pointing out the obvious: that millions claim to have experienced the reality of Jesus Christ and that that is definitely not a tiny fraction of the world's population. Denominations have nothing to do with it.
If you are only going to look for simularity and ignore all the contradictions then you will end up with such a poor conclusion I guess.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?