How do you "KNOW" your religion is true?

[strikeviperMKII]

Now, the million dollar question (which is the question I asked at the beginning) is: How do you know?

Simply put, as I said before, you don't. God does not work on terms of knowledge. He does not work in terms of certainty. So how do you know its God and not your own mind conjuring up a voice? Does it really matter? Both have something to teach you.

That's complete nonsense. People experience things that are contrary to reality all the time. I already pointed out several examples, don't make me restate them.

If you can imagine something that is not in some way based off of reality, then I'd like to know how. It is impossible. All imaginings are based off of reality.

Then what are those qualities? I have encountered many people who claim to have felt God, yet few provide the same explanation or definition of their experience.

Acceptance. Oneness, awareness, a greater view of things, an ability to accept introspection. Knowing that you don't need to know everything. Peace.

There are others and it is different for each person. This is a profoundly personal experience, so I'm not surprised people don't want to share what their experience was with you. Most of the time, they don't even understand it themselves.

No, it points out that personal belief and experience is insufficient for determining what is true in any objective sense, and that people who believe their experiences are definitive proof of something always reject the experiences of other people that completely contradict their own.

I find that this happens when people rush through this experience, and find an answer too soon. Haste makes waste, I'm afraid.

No, because what you're saying is incoherent it means it's nonsensical. That's what nonsensical means. You appear to be saying that to be objective you must not adhere to being objective, which makes about as much sense as saying "to collect stamps, you have to not collect stamps".

Exactly! At least you were listening. Its the same as knowing without knowing, seeing without seeing, hearing without hearing. It seems utter nonsense, as you have pointed out. That's good, it shows you're logically trained. Classically trained. But just as scientists had to change their way of thinking when they realized light didn't have to traverse through a medium, so to will you have to change how you think when you take God into the equation. You have to set aside your rules and have faith that you don't need them right now. Not forever, just not right now.
In order to do that you must, as you adequately put, 'collect stamps without collecting stamps'.

You accuse me of arrogance, and yet you're the one asserting that the only reason I don't understand your point is because I'm too arrogant to? Go and reread your point again. It literally makes no sense, either grammatically or in terms of logic.

That's the whole point. Again, in order for God to make sense, you have to make God not make sense first. I explained above.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Simply put, as I said before, you don't. God does not work on terms of knowledge. He does not work in terms of certainty. So how do you know its God and not your own mind conjuring up a voice? Does it really matter? Both have something to teach you.

Of course it matters! If you're going to interpret a voice in your head as being the words of a divine creator who dictates how you should act, of course it should matter whether it's actually true or not, otherwise you're in a position to believe all sorts of ridiculous things without basis. If an imaginary voice in your head tells you to hang yourself or kill someone else, by your logic, you might as well conclude that those are God's commands.

As for "both having something to teach you", that's nonsense. How can a voice that only exists inside your own head teach you anything? It's a sign of mental instability, not inner wisdom.

If you can imagine something that is not in some way based off of reality, then I'd like to know how. It is impossible. All imaginings are based off of reality.

So? That doesn't mean that imagining something makes it true, nor does it mean feeling or experiencing something makes it true.

Acceptance. Oneness, awareness, a greater view of things, an ability to accept introspection. Knowing that you don't need to know everything. Peace.

And yet these are all things that a person can feel without accepting or believing in the intervention of any kind of God.

There are others and it is different for each person. This is a profoundly personal experience, so I'm not surprised people don't want to share what their experience was with you. Most of the time, they don't even understand it themselves.

Which, again, is a problem even if you can't see it. This is why relying on personal experience will not get you to truth - because you can interpret almost any personal experience as being evidence or proof for whatever belief you want. You have already admitted that you don't care if the feelings you have in you (or voices in your head) are the voice of God or not, you simply choose to believe that they are. And, if that is the case, then you clearly do not have any interest whatsoever in the truth, only in affirming your own belief. If you care about whether or not what you believe is true - as any person should - these things should matter a lot more to you.

I find that this happens when people rush through this experience, and find an answer too soon. Haste makes waste, I'm afraid.

You don't appear to be addressing the point I made at all.

Exactly! At least you were listening. Its the same as knowing without knowing, seeing without seeing, hearing without hearing.

So, it's the same as "assuming something is true without any good reason"?

It seems utter nonsense, as you have pointed out. That's good, it shows you're logically trained. Classically trained. But just as scientists had to change their way of thinking when they realized light didn't have to traverse through a medium, so to will you have to change how you think when you take God into the equation. You have to set aside your rules and have faith that you don't need them right now. Not forever, just not right now.

Not a chance. Faith is not a pathway to truth, faith is a pathway to delusion, and any concept which requires faith to accept it as being true is not a concept with any validity or basis in reality. Anything that requires that degree of blind submission to an idea without any supporting facts cannot possibly be worthy of accepting as true.

Faith is not a virtue. It is a prison.

In order to do that you must, as you adequately put, 'collect stamps without collecting stamps'.

So, in order to have faith, you have to do something that is completely illogical and makes no sense whatsoever.

No thanks.

That's the whole point. Again, in order for God to make sense, you have to make God not make sense first. I explained above.

And it was as stupid and flawed then as it is now.

Honestly, if your entire argument just boils down to "you have to have faith" then this discussion is over, and you lose. As soon as faith enters in the equation, any link with reality breaks down, because you can use "faith" to literally justify anything. As said above, faith is not a pathway to truth, and any point of view that requires faith to believe it is obviously not worth believing. Faith does not trump facts, nor is it a suitable substitute for them. Faith is what is resorted to by people who want to believe something without any justification or basis whatsoever, because their beliefs are not strongly supported by reality in any way.

I have absolutely no interest in having faith, and most certainly no interest in sharing yours. If you wish to continue this discussion, keep that in mind if you ever wish to tell me I should have faith. You might as well be telling me to give myself a full frontal lobotomy.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Of course it matters! If you're going to interpret a voice in your head as being the words of a divine creator who dictates how you should act, of course it should matter whether it's actually true or not, otherwise you're in a position to believe all sorts of ridiculous things without basis. If an imaginary voice in your head tells you to hang yourself or kill someone else, by your logic, you might as well conclude that those are God's commands.

As for "both having something to teach you", that's nonsense. How can a voice that only exists inside your own head teach you anything? It's a sign of mental instability, not inner wisdom.

You can learn from that instability, can you not? Watch A Beautiful Mind sometime. Listen to the speech at the end and you'll find the difference you are looking for.

So? That doesn't mean that imagining something makes it true, nor does it mean feeling or experiencing something makes it true.

If by true you mean actually feeling and sensing with nerves, then no, its not. True in that you are experiencing it and you can learn from it? Of course. That is the basis of fundamental truth.

And yet these are all things that a person can feel without accepting or believing in the intervention of any kind of God.

Who ever said God was intervening? God does nothing.

Which, again, is a problem even if you can't see it. This is why relying on personal experience will not get you to truth - because you can interpret almost any personal experience as being evidence or proof for whatever belief you want. You have already admitted that you don't care if the feelings you have in you (or voices in your head) are the voice of God or not, you simply choose to believe that they are. And, if that is the case, then you clearly do not have any interest whatsoever in the truth, only in affirming your own belief. If you care about whether or not what you believe is true - as any person should - these things should matter a lot more to you.

If I believe it, then it is true, if by no other standards than my own. I don't say this to proclaim that I am right, but simply to state a fact. We don't believe things that aren't true in some way. And what we say we believe in is almost one hundred percent of the time really not what we believe it, merely an extension of something else.

So, it's the same as "assuming something is true without any good reason"?

Who said there was no good reason? I said there was a good reason, yet you obviously think I'm lying to you or something.

Not a chance. Faith is not a pathway to truth, faith is a pathway to delusion, and any concept which requires faith to accept it as being true is not a concept with any validity or basis in reality. Anything that requires that degree of blind submission to an idea without any supporting facts cannot possibly be worthy of accepting as true.

Faith is not a virtue. It is a prison.

Spoken from behind the bars of your own cell. Because of them, actually. Why can it not possibly be worthy? Because you don't understand it? Or because you think you do, and are unwilling to change that understanding?

So, in order to have faith, you have to do something that is completely illogical and makes no sense whatsoever.

If that is how you see it, then that is how it is.

Honestly, if your entire argument just boils down to "you have to have faith" then this discussion is over, and you lose. As soon as faith enters in the equation, any link with reality breaks down, because you can use "faith" to literally justify anything. As said above, faith is not a pathway to truth, and any point of view that requires faith to believe it is obviously not worth believing. Faith does not trump facts, nor is it a suitable substitute for them. Faith is what is resorted to by people who want to believe something without any justification or basis whatsoever, because their beliefs are not strongly supported by reality in any way.

I have absolutely no interest in having faith, and most certainly no interest in sharing yours. If you wish to continue this discussion, keep that in mind if you ever wish to tell me I should have faith. You might as well be telling me to give myself a full frontal lobotomy.

So your definition of faith comes out at last. I can see why this is so hard for you to accept. Partly because you're right. You can justify anything you want. And people do. They do because they think they have the right to do so. The danger of faith is very high, and a lot of people have paid the price for it.
I'm not trying to convince you to 'have faith'. You asked what faith was, I explained, you rejected. You already knew your answer from the very beginning. Only you can decide to change that answer.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You can learn from that instability, can you not? Watch A Beautiful Mind sometime. Listen to the speech at the end and you'll find the difference you are looking for.

You seem to have missed my point entirely.

If by true you mean actually feeling and sensing with nerves, then no, its not. True in that you are experiencing it and you can learn from it? Of course. That is the basis of fundamental truth.

Now you're just using buzzphrases like "fundamental truth" that don't mean anything. The fact is that experiencing something does not make the thing that you experienced or the cause you may assert to the experience real. That's not an opinion, it's how reality works.

Who ever said God was intervening? God does nothing.

So, you feel God inside you and you feel all those feelings, but God didn't do anything to make you feel them? You've already gone around in circles on this issue a couple of times already, and you've gone around again. You cannot assert that you know a feeling is caused by God, then assert that God doesn't cause that feeling.

If I believe it, then it is true, if by no other standards than my own.

Then your personal definition of truth is completely useless, since it does not concern itself with what is actually true. I prefer the actual definition of the word.

I don't say this to proclaim that I am right, but simply to state a fact. We don't believe things that aren't true in some way.

Yes, you do. People do it all the time - hence why different people can believe completely contradictory claims.

And what we say we believe in is almost one hundred percent of the time really not what we believe it, merely an extension of something else.

And, again, we return to nonsensical claims. What on earth are you talking about?

Who said there was no good reason? I said there was a good reason, yet you obviously think I'm lying to you or something.

Well then, go ahead and tell me this good reason.

Spoken from behind the bars of your own cell. Because of them, actually. Why can it not possibly be worthy? Because you don't understand it? Or because you think you do, and are unwilling to change that understanding?

Once again, this is arrogance on your part. I understand faith perfectly well - was surrounded by it throughout my youth and the vast majority of people I know throughout my life have had it. The fact is, I see that faith is not a path to truth. It simply isn't.

If you have any evidence or reason to the contrary, please state it. Otherwise, don't bother telling me what I "don't understand". That's not an argument, it's an attitude children take when they refuse to budge from a position that they cannot defend. I understand faith perfectly well, and right I feel I have sufficiently demonstrated a clearer understanding of faith than you have, because I know it's not only useless, but destructive; while you continue to live under the delusion that faith is a virtue, and that those who say other wise simply "don't understand".

If that is how you see it, then that is how it is.

Is that a "yes"?

So your definition of faith comes out at last. I can see why this is so hard for you to accept. Partly because you're right. You can justify anything you want. And people do. They do because they think they have the right to do so. The danger of faith is very high, and a lot of people have paid the price for it.
I'm not trying to convince you to 'have faith'. You asked what faith was, I explained, you rejected. You already knew your answer from the very beginning. Only you can decide to change that answer.

I've been asking, from the beginning, for your evidence of a God, and evidence that what you claimed to experience was "God". In the end, you resorted to the ultimate excuse: "I just have faith", and that's all it boiled down to. I did not expect that from the beginning, I was actually hoping you could pull out an argument that didn't basically make your entire belief structure a logical dead end. Your reverting to faith to justify your position makes your position nothing but baseless, and the fact that you can't understand why illustrates to me exactly everything that is wrong with your personal beliefs.

Now, please explain to me how and why faith is not a terrible, mind-blocking, intellectually vapid justification for any kind of belief.

 

[gerobbins]

This is mostly for those who claim unashamedly and outright that they have the truth. They know they have it, no question in their minds. Also, their religion is true and everyone else's is false.

For people like this, how do you know this? Explain?

Whatever religion brings you closer to God or your own spiritual belief is the true religion.

However, remember man made religion not God.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

You seem to have missed my point entirely.

Now you're just using buzzphrases like "fundamental truth" that don't mean anything. The fact is that experiencing something does not make the thing that you experienced or the cause you may assert to the experience real. That's not an opinion, it's how reality works.

The experience happened, did it not? Why say that it is not real? Why avoid it? Why shun it because it is not something that you can understand as readily as physical things?

So, you feel God inside you and you feel all those feelings, but God didn't do anything to make you feel them? You've already gone around in circles on this issue a couple of times already, and you've gone around again. You cannot assert that you know a feeling is caused by God, then assert that God doesn't cause that feeling.

Of course I can. It is both ways. I cause the feeling, God causes the feeling, yet neither at the same time. And both. Kinda screws with the law of excluded middle, doesn't it?

Then your personal definition of truth is completely useless, since it does not concern itself with what is actually true. I prefer the actual definition of the word.

Oh pshaw. Here's you cage I mentioned earlier. Do you think yourself safe behind those actual definitions? Do you think you are immune to the innate chaos of the human condition? We are illogical beings, despite our efforts to stop it.

Yes, you do. People do it all the time - hence why different people can believe completely contradictory claims.
And, again, we return to nonsensical claims. What on earth are you talking about?

Too much, I guess. Beliefs are not based on the thing that people are believing in, but what that thing stands for in their minds. I know a person who puts butter on everything her family eats because somehow, more butter translates into more love for her family. When you ask her, she'll say, 'well it tastes better'. In her mind, she isn't seeing the connection that most other people see.

Well then, go ahead and tell me this good reason.

Where is the gain if you already know what is going to come of something? What's the point if you already know? Good things come from the known. Great things come from the unknown.

Once again, this is arrogance on your part. I understand faith perfectly well - was surrounded by it throughout my youth and the vast majority of people I know throughout my life have had it. The fact is, I see that faith is not a path to truth. It simply isn't.

I've been there. I was paraded to church every weekend for a long while before I decided to quit. To me, faith was the exact same as it is to you. Just an excuse for people to indulge in self-reassuring delusions. And I told them so, got them angry. Eventually, I just kept my mouth shut and went to church because my mom wanted me to.
The thing is, though I had been surrounded by church life, I hadn't witnessed faith at all. Why? Because I hadn't seen it myself. You can't see in others what you haven't seen in yourself.

If you have any evidence or reason to the contrary, please state it. Otherwise, don't bother telling me what I "don't understand". That's not an argument, it's an attitude children take when they refuse to budge from a position that they cannot defend. I understand faith perfectly well, and right I feel I have sufficiently demonstrated a clearer understanding of faith than you have, because I know it's not only useless, but destructive; while you continue to live under the delusion that faith is a virtue, and that those who say other wise simply "don't understand".

You sound so much like I did its almost scary.

Is that a "yes"?

I can't answer that for you. If it is a yes, go from there. If it is a no, then go from there.

I've been asking, from the beginning, for your evidence of a God, and evidence that what you claimed to experience was "God". In the end, you resorted to the ultimate excuse: "I just have faith", and that's all it boiled down to. I did not expect that from the beginning, I was actually hoping you could pull out an argument that didn't basically make your entire belief structure a logical dead end. Your reverting to faith to justify your position makes your position nothing but baseless, and the fact that you can't understand why illustrates to me exactly everything that is wrong with your personal beliefs.

Now, please explain to me how and why faith is not a terrible, mind-blocking, intellectually vapid justification for any kind of belief.

I can't. If you think I have an answer somewhere in my hat to your question, you've been misled. There is no answer. There is no reason to believe. And to add to that, your reasons for not believing are perfectly valid. I'll give that do you any day of the week.
That is the challenge in the invitation. "Many will try, but few will succeed." Why? Because of the reason you just stated. This is hard, not only mentally, but emotionally as well. You put your heart on the line for this kind of thing and sometimes it gets run over. That sucks, big time. Faith is allowing this to happen, and knowing that something good will come out of it. Not for any particular reason. Not because of any logical proof, but because it's faith. The whole point is to not have any logical reason to believe.
The idea has become twisted and tainted so much that few can see the good in it. So many people have taken advantage of it that its just shoved aside as something useless and even dangerous.

Faith isn't something you point to and say 'I have faith that I am right'. Socrates said "Wise men know that they know not." That's faith.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Whatever religion brings you closer to God or your own spiritual belief is the true religion.

However, remember man made religion not God.

Thanks for warning me not to take anything you say seriously, due to that last line of your comment.

 

[gerobbins]

Thanks for warning me not to take anything you say seriously, due to that last line of your comment.

Its true though, none the less....

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The experience happened, did it not?

And? Does that mean that the experience is an accurate representation of reality? If you go to the cinema and "experience" the Harry Potter movies, because that experience happened does it make those movies true?

Why say that it is not real? Why avoid it? Why shun it because it is not something that you can understand as readily as physical things?

So you should conclude that everything you experience - even in a dream, or even if it's entirely contrary to reality - is real? Are you serious? It's logic like that that gets people sectioned.

Of course I can. It is both ways. I cause the feeling, God causes the feeling, yet neither at the same time. And both. Kinda screws with the law of excluded middle, doesn't it?

Except you can't define God or God's part in the process, nor can you demonstrate that God had anything to do with the process, nor can you attribute any specific sensation you experience to a God with any veracity.

Oh pshaw. Here's you cage I mentioned earlier. Do you think yourself safe behind those actual definitions? Do you think you are immune to the innate chaos of the human condition? We are illogical beings, despite our efforts to stop it.

So you think it's fine, therefore, to be completely illogical and cast aside all reason and rationality?

Too much, I guess. Beliefs are not based on the thing that people are believing in, but what that thing stands for in their minds. I know a person who puts butter on everything her family eats because somehow, more butter translates into more love for her family. When you ask her, she'll say, 'well it tastes better'. In her mind, she isn't seeing the connection that most other people see.

Could you explain, precisely, the point of that anecdote? I must have missed it.

Where is the gain if you already know what is going to come of something? What's the point if you already know? Good things come from the known. Great things come from the unknown.

I didn't know - that's the point. Hence why I asked you. Now, what is the "good reason" for your beliefs?

I've been there. I was paraded to church every weekend for a long while before I decided to quit. To me, faith was the exact same as it is to you. Just an excuse for people to indulge in self-reassuring delusions. And I told them so, got them angry. Eventually, I just kept my mouth shut and went to church because my mom wanted me to.
The thing is, though I had been surrounded by church life, I hadn't witnessed faith at all. Why? Because I hadn't seen it myself. You can't see in others what you haven't seen in yourself.

But you can also see others for what they are even if they can't see it themselves. Hence, it's impossible for someone to acknowledge if they have a mental disorder (most of the time), and it must be diagnosed by another.

You sound so much like I did its almost scary.

Ah, the old "I used to be like you but now I'm wiser" argument. Sorry, not buying it. If you were anything like me at any point in your life you would realize how poor your arguments have been.

I can't answer that for you. If it is a yes, go from there. If it is a no, then go from there.

Are you utterly incapable of answering a single question?

I can't. If you think I have an answer somewhere in my hat to your question, you've been misled. There is no answer. There is no reason to believe. And to add to that, your reasons for not believing are perfectly valid. I'll give that do you any day of the week.
That is the challenge in the invitation. "Many will try, but few will succeed." Why? Because of the reason you just stated. This is hard, not only mentally, but emotionally as well. You put your heart on the line for this kind of thing and sometimes it gets run over. That sucks, big time. Faith is allowing this to happen, and knowing that something good will come out of it. Not for any particular reason. Not because of any logical proof, but because it's faith. The whole point is to not have any logical reason to believe.
The idea has become twisted and tainted so much that few can see the good in it. So many people have taken advantage of it that its just shoved aside as something useless and even dangerous.

Sorry, but I'm still not buying it. You lost this debate the moment you said "there is no reason to believe".

You have a brain, and you think it's a virtue not to use it. Faith is not a good thing, in any circumstance. I don't know how I can illustrate it to you any more clearly than I already have, and if you still continue to assert that blind faith is anything other than absolute poison then you are utterly deluded. The truth is, you hold to a position for which there is no valid justification whatsoever. "Faith" is not a justification, it is waste of a mind. It is an intellectual dead end. It is the epitome of delusion to think that blindly submitting your mind to some preconceived notion based only on the fact that you want it to be true, and it is the exact same mentality that causes so many people to kill, murder, rob and rape in the name of their unjustifiable belief. That is all faith is. It is a barrier that keeps otherwise intelligent people from realizing that their beliefs are utterly indefensible.

Faith isn't something you point to and say 'I have faith that I am right'. Socrates said "Wise men know that they know not." That's faith.

No, that's not faith, that's humility and acknowledging ignorance.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

And? Does that mean that the experience is an accurate representation of reality? If you go to the cinema and "experience" the Harry Potter movies, because that experience happened does it make those movies true?


So you should conclude that everything you experience - even in a dream, or even if it's entirely contrary to reality - is real? Are you serious? It's logic like that that gets people sectioned.

It has to be all or nothing with you, doesn't it?

Except you can't define God or God's part in the process, nor can you demonstrate that God had anything to do with the process, nor can you attribute any specific sensation you experience to a God with any veracity.

I didn't ever say I needed to, did I? You put that condition there.

So you think it's fine, therefore, to be completely illogical and cast aside all reason and rationality?

Why do you assume that? Your all or nothing mentality is shining through.

Could you explain, precisely, the point of that anecdote? I must have missed it.

If action A means X to person 1, but the person says it means Y, and person 2 tells person 1 that action A doesn't really mean Y, person 1 gets angry, not because action A doesn't mean Y, but because if action A no longer means Y, then it can't mean X either.

I didn't know - that's the point. Hence why I asked you. Now, what is the "good reason" for your beliefs?

Good things come from the known. Great things come from the unknown.
There it is.

But you can also see others for what they are even if they can't see it themselves. Hence, it's impossible for someone to acknowledge if they have a mental disorder (most of the time), and it must be diagnosed by another.

Impossible no. Improbable, difficult, yes. I've illustrated this point in my example of the butter=taste=love example. You could call that a mental disorder if you wanted.

Ah, the old "I used to be like you but now I'm wiser" argument. Sorry, not buying it. If you were anything like me at any point in your life you would realize how poor your arguments have been.

If you'd bought it, I would have been surprised. It doesn't make it untrue however.

Are you utterly incapable of answering a single question?

An answer not only has to be spoken, but it has to be heard as well. It works both ways. It seems I am incapable of answering questions with the answers you want to hear.

Sorry, but I'm still not buying it. You lost this debate the moment you said "there is no reason to believe".

You have a brain, and you think it's a virtue not to use it. Faith is not a good thing, in any circumstance. I don't know how I can illustrate it to you any more clearly than I already have, and if you still continue to assert that blind faith is anything other than absolute poison then you are utterly deluded. The truth is, you hold to a position for which there is no valid justification whatsoever. "Faith" is not a justification, it is waste of a mind. It is an intellectual dead end. It is the epitome of delusion to think that blindly submitting your mind to some preconceived notion based only on the fact that you want it to be true, and it is the exact same mentality that causes so many people to kill, murder, rob and rape in the name of their unjustifiable belief. That is all faith is. It is a barrier that keeps otherwise intelligent people from realizing that their beliefs are utterly indefensible.

Ahh, so here we go. Person 1 (you) says that action A(faith) means Y(not using your brain). Person 2(me) tells person 1(you) that action A(faith) doesn't mean Y(not using your brain). Person 1(you) disagrees because action A(faith) doesn't really mean Y(using your brain) but in fact means X(...) and if action A(faith) doesn't mean Y(not using your brain) it means action A(faith) can no longer mean X(...)
So, what's your X?

No, that's not faith, that's humility and acknowledging ignorance.

Which is exactly what faith teaches. Look it up.