How do you "KNOW" your religion is true?

[ImmortalFlame]

If they expect an answer, they will never get one.

This seems to be fallacious. Are you telling me that only people who don't expect answers have their prayers heard? I would contend that anyone who prays expects an answer, and that this expectation is what tricks them into thinking random occurrences are somehow a response from God. This is why the millions upon millions of prayers that don't get answered are always forgotten about, while the few that - by sheer coincidence - seem to yield some kind of response are considered "proof of God". It's a basic double-standard.

In your specific language, apparently not. The fact that it seems unprovable to you does not make it untrue. It just makes it unprovable to you.

Anything that is objectively true should be objectively verifiable. If any supposed fact cannot be demonstrated to be objectively true "to me" or anyone else, it very strong indication that that fact is not a fact to begin with.

 

[matthewm]

I think you must be convinced in your own mind. What convinces me is the personal moments I have with God when I feel His Holy Spirit

 

[strikeviperMKII]

This seems to be fallacious. Are you telling me that only people who don't expect answers have their prayers heard? I would contend that anyone who prays expects an answer, and that this expectation is what tricks them into thinking random occurrences are somehow a response from God. This is why the millions upon millions of prayers that don't get answered are always forgotten about, while the few that - by sheer coincidence - seem to yield some kind of response are considered "proof of God". It's a basic double-standard.

That is correct. But this doesn't just happen with prayer.

My point is that when you expect an answer, you have already received it. You already know exactly how it should turn out.
Problem is when do we every know how things should work out?

Anything that is objectively true should be objectively verifiable. If any supposed fact cannot be demonstrated to be objectively true "to me" or anyone else, it very strong indication that that fact is not a fact to begin with.

The distinction is meaningless. What is is. It seems very strange to me that many people cling to this 'objectivity' when the doing so cripples their ability to be objective.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think you must be convinced in your own mind. What convinces me is the personal moments I have with God when I feel His Holy Spirit

I have a few problems with that. Number one is how you know that it is the holy spirit of God you are feeling and not something else. Second, what about the many people of other, contradictory faiths who claim the same thing about their personal God - are their experiences genuine? Third, personal experiences and feelings do not demonstrate that anything is true; again, I have met many people from many different faiths who have had completely contradictory experiences - I have met Christians who believe they feel the holy spirit but for whom Wiccan magic does not exist, and when I tell them that I know Wiccans who claim to have felt or experienced Wiccan magic, they respond by saying "well, they just think they did, but they probably didn't". Finally, if just feeling something is justification (personal or otherwise) for holding a position on the existence of something, then how do we differentiate between what is sane and insane? In essence, what is the difference between a Christian who feels the holy spirit inside them and a person in a mental health clinic who hears voices?

That is correct. But this doesn't just happen with prayer.

My point is that when you expect an answer, you have already received it. You already know exactly how it should turn out.
Problem is when do we every know how things should work out?

I'm sorry, but I can't quite understand what you're trying to say here. Is there any way you could restate your point more clearly?

The distinction is meaningless. What is is. It seems very strange to me that many people cling to this 'objectivity' when the doing so cripples their ability to be objective.

So, you think the distinction between what is objectively true and what is personally perceived as true is meaningless? Am I then right when I choose to believe that coffee cups are able to float, or that the sun revolves around the earth, or that the moon is made of cheese? That's a ridiculous thing to say. There is a very clear line between what is verifiably true and what is personal opinion or belief.

Also, in what way does adhering to objectivity cripple my ability to be objective? That makes no sense.

 

[Hawkins]

All religions have dogmas and rules/laws for people to obey. All other religions are impractical because few people can obey those dogmas/rules/laws set forth for them.

Christianity says that all you need to do is to believe in Jesus Christ. This is as practical as that 1/3 of human beings in the history of humanity just DID.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I have a few problems with that. Number one is how you know that it is the holy spirit of God you are feeling and not something else.

You don't. You can't ever know anything about God.

Second, what about the many people of other, contradictory faiths who claim the same thing about their personal God - are their experiences genuine?

Do we have any reason to dismiss their experiences as false? Simply that their religions are different does not make their experiences false.

Third, personal experiences and feelings do not demonstrate that anything is true;

Why not? Just because?

again, I have met many people from many different faiths who have had completely contradictory experiences - I have met Christians who believe they feel the holy spirit but for whom Wiccan magic does not exist, and when I tell them that I know Wiccans who claim to have felt or experienced Wiccan magic, they respond by saying "well, they just think they did, but they probably didn't".

I believe you have perceived a difference where none truly exist.

I'm sorry, but I can't quite understand what you're trying to say here. Is there any way you could restate your point more clearly?

Let's try it this way. You said this above:
"Finally, if just feeling something is justification (personal or otherwise) for holding a position on the existence of something, then how do we differentiate between what is sane and insane? In essence, what is the difference between a Christian who feels the holy spirit inside them and a person in a mental health clinic who hears voices?"

Why do you even compare feeling the holy spirit to hearing voices? Why are these the same?

So, you think the distinction between what is objectively true and what is personally perceived as true is meaningless? Am I then right when I choose to believe that coffee cups are able to float, or that the sun revolves around the earth, or that the moon is made of cheese?

Are you? Doesn't really matter to me, though it seems to matter a great deal to you.

That's a ridiculous thing to say. There is a very clear line between what is verifiably true and what is personal opinion or belief.

I never said there wasn't a difference.

Also, in what way does adhering to objectivity cripple my ability to be objective? That makes no sense.

You adhere to objectivity, and you reject anything that is not 'objcetive', which is an inherently exclusive action. The very act of adhering to a certain form of objectivity you loose it entirely.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You don't. You can't ever know anything about God.

So then why assert anything about God whatsoever? In fact, why even assert the existence of a God if nothing about God is knowable?

Do we have any reason to dismiss their experiences as false?

Yes. The same reasons we use to dismiss people who believe they hear voices..

Simply that their religions are different does not make their experiences false.

But it does mean that their experiences aren't indications of any fundamental truths. They're just experiences.

Why not? Just because?

Because "feeling" something and making up an explanation does not make that explanation true.

I believe you have perceived a difference where none truly exist.

I wasn't pointing out a difference - I was pointing out fallacious reasoning and hypocrisy.

Let's try it this way. You said this above:
"Finally, if just feeling something is justification (personal or otherwise) for holding a position on the existence of something, then how do we differentiate between what is sane and insane? In essence, what is the difference between a Christian who feels the holy spirit inside them and a person in a mental health clinic who hears voices?"

Why do you even compare feeling the holy spirit to hearing voices? Why are these the same?

From my point of view, hearing imaginary voices and communicating with or "feeling the presence of" God are exactly the same. Both are simply personal delusions with no basis in reality. In any case, the point was I asked for a means to differentiate between the two.

Are you? Doesn't really matter to me, though it seems to matter a great deal to you.

It matters to anyone who cares what's true and what's not.

I never said there wasn't a difference.

In that case, to what were you referring when you said "the distinction is meaningless"?

You adhere to objectivity, and you reject anything that is not 'objcetive', which is an inherently exclusive action. The very act of adhering to a certain form of objectivity you loose it entirely.

You've lost me. None of this seems to make any kind of sense.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

So then why assert anything about God whatsoever? In fact, why even assert the existence of a God if nothing about God is knowable?

You can experience something without having a clue what it is, or having to know anything about it. Until you do, you will never know anything. God is the ultimate experience. You can experience God over and over and still know nothing about God. Life is the same way, no?

Yes. The same reasons we use to dismiss people who believe they hear voices..

And why do you dismiss them? Because you don't hear voices? Don't you think to yourself? Doesn't that mean you hear voices that aren't spoken?

But it does mean that their experiences aren't indications of any fundamental truths. They're just experiences.

And as such, they are all indications of fundamental truths. If they were not, there would be no reason to experience them.

[quot]
Because "feeling" something and making up an explanation does not make that explanation true.[/quote]

Hey, hey, hey. Making stuff up? You've jumped to conclusions here.

I wasn't pointing out a difference - I was pointing out fallacious reasoning and hypocrisy.

Then we are in agreement then? Religion is the same?

From my point of view, hearing imaginary voices and communicating with or "feeling the presence of" God are exactly the same. Both are simply personal delusions with no basis in reality. In any case, the point was I asked for a means to differentiate between the two.

You know, sometimes I wish God would come right out and say what she wanted from me. It would make life so mush easier. But he never does. Not once did I hear a voice in the middle of the night (or any other time for that matter) say 'now do this'. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.
There is a quote from a bishop that my uncle uses when he is baptizing new members. To the parents and godparents, the bishop said "You are the first teachers of Christ to this child. Teach it in all that you do. If necessary, use words."
The point being, words don't say a whole lot.
People many times attribute voices to god experiences, and say God said this, but in reality, it was just them telling themselves what to do.

It matters to anyone who cares what's true and what's not.

See, here you have lost your objectivity. You have drawn a line and refuse to cross it. What is objective about that?

In that case, to what were you referring when you said "the distinction is meaningless"?

What does the distinction get you?

You've lost me. None of this seems to make any kind of sense.

Join the club. Everything is hard when you first start to think about it. I know I went in circles trying to figure this out in the beginning. Then I realized that it really wasn't worth the fight to try and make everything make sense.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You can experience something without having a clue what it is, or having to know anything about it. Until you do, you will never know anything. God is the ultimate experience. You can experience God over and over and still know nothing about God. Life is the same way, no?

But if it's an experience that you know nothing about, then how do you know it's God? This is a completely self-defeating point.

And why do you dismiss them? Because you don't hear voices? Don't you think to yourself? Doesn't that mean you hear voices that aren't spoken?

Except I understand than when I think to myself, it is not another voice talking to me. Have you never encountered or heard about people who believe the voices in their heads are not their own? It's a fairly well noted psychological disorder.

And as such, they are all indications of fundamental truths. If they were not, there would be no reason to experience them.

That's wrong, since people can experience and feel things that are entirely false. People feel floating sensations all of the time, yet they do not float. Have you ever woken up from a dream in which you thought you were falling? None of these are indications of "fundamental truths".

Hey, hey, hey. Making stuff up? You've jumped to conclusions here.

That's exactly what people do when they have an experience and then ascribe it to God. They're making up an explanation.

Then we are in agreement then? Religion is the same?

It's not a point about religion. It was a point about delusions, hypocrisy and the subjectivity of personal experiences.

You know, sometimes I wish God would come right out and say what she wanted from me. It would make life so mush easier. But he never does. Not once did I hear a voice in the middle of the night (or any other time for that matter) say 'now do this'. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.
There is a quote from a bishop that my uncle uses when he is baptizing new members. To the parents and godparents, the bishop said "You are the first teachers of Christ to this child. Teach it in all that you do. If necessary, use words."
The point being, words don't say a whole lot.
People many times attribute voices to god experiences, and say God said this, but in reality, it was just them telling themselves what to do.

And what the is the difference between ascribing voices in your head to God and ascribing "feelings" to God. They're exactly the same.

See, here you have lost your objectivity. You have drawn a line and refuse to cross it. What is objective about that?

Where have I drawn a line? That I refuse to accept things that are false as being true?

What does the distinction get you?

You seem to have completely missed the question I asked. The distinction between what and what?

Join the club. Everything is hard when you first start to think about it. I know I went in circles trying to figure this out in the beginning. Then I realized that it really wasn't worth the fight to try and make everything make sense.

No, I mean your statements make no sense. You're not confounding me, you're constructing sentences and arguments that are nonsensical.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

But if it's an experience that you know nothing about, then how do you know it's God? This is a completely self-defeating point.

At first you don't. You do know enough about it to distinguish the god experience from say, a mental disorder.

Except I understand than when I think to myself, it is not another voice talking to me. Have you never encountered or heard about people who believe the voices in their heads are not their own? It's a fairly well noted psychological disorder.

Of course. But I must point out again that people who say they hear God talking to them generally aren't hearing God at all.

That's wrong, since people can experience and feel things that are entirely false. People feel floating sensations all of the time, yet they do not float. Have you ever woken up from a dream in which you thought you were falling? None of these are indications of "fundamental truths".

If you can experience it, it is true. Otherwise you would not be able to experience it. You cannot imagine something unless it has some basis in reality, and because of that, all experiences are examples of fundamental truths, regardless of how false they may seem.

That's exactly what people do when they have an experience and then ascribe it to God. They're making up an explanation.

Or they are simply attributing a name and a set of qualities to an experience.

It's not a point about religion. It was a point about delusions, hypocrisy and the subjectivity of personal experiences.

That points out what exactly? That people are flawed? Well, we agree on something there.

And what the is the difference between ascribing voices in your head to God and ascribing "feelings" to God. They're exactly the same.
Where have I drawn a line? That I refuse to accept things that are false as being true?

Here's your line. Actually, its a line you've failed to draw and that is ruining your objectivity. There is a difference. God is not about some 'sky-daddy' who puts warm fuzzy feelings in you. That is not God, as much as you may want to think so. The conception is immature, and should be discarded, yet you cling to it. Why? Because you know exactly what God is? Is that not arrogant?

You seem to have completely missed the question I asked. The distinction between what and what?

The distinction between belief and delusion. Faith and delusion.

No, I mean your statements make no sense. You're not confounding me, you're constructing sentences and arguments that are nonsensical.

So what I say doesn't make sense because I am the one not saying it right? That is quite possibly the most arrogant thing I've ever heard. Just because you can't make sense of what I'm saying doesn't make what I'm saying nonsensical. It just means you cannot understand them, which basically means I have confounded you. This is where this whole discussion got started. Makes sense does not equal makes sense to you.

 

[it's all a joke]

You don't know your religion is "true", and to think that it is, is rather small minded of you.

YES I AM AN ATHEIST.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

You don't know your religion is "true", and to think that it is, is rather small minded of you.

YES I AM AN ATHEIST.

Well what if more then one religion could be true at once? What if they could all be true? They're all true to somebody. Mine is true to me, but not to everyone.

 

[PolyHedral]

Well what if more then one religion could be true at once? What if they could all be true? They're all true to somebody. Mine is true to me, but not to everyone.

They can't all be objectively true, because most of the claims are mutually contradictory.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

They can't all be objectively true, because most of the claims are mutually contradictory.

I did not mention objectivity at all

I don't think humans could understand "objective truth", our mind works in too many dualisms.

 

[PolyHedral]

Math and formal logic are objective.

 

[it's all a joke]

Ahh, but... Our species is a young one we may think we know it all but in my view.. If there is a God, our minds would not be able to comprehend it and is again foolish of us to think that we possibly could. We know so much of this world yet so little, i'm sure you will agree with me.

 

[it's all a joke]

oh, you're Buddhist which means you're not some kind of robot being controlled by the church! GREAT MUCH RESPECT!

 

[PolyHedral]

Ahh, but... Our species is a young one we may think we know it all but in my view.. If there is a God, our minds would not be able to comprehend it and is again foolish of us to think that we possibly could. We know so much of this world yet so little, i'm sure you will agree with me.

We know how to get the fundamental constituents of the universe to do our bidding. We know how to construct devices smaller than visible light and larger than the Earth. (Though we're still trying to make the materials needed for the latter.) We know how to construct weapons that destroy a small section of "reality" as a power source. We know a lot.

Comprehending God would merely be a matter of time, space and patience.

 

[it's all a joke]

We know how to get the fundamental constituents of the universe to do our bidding. We know how to construct devices smaller than visible light and larger than the Earth. (Though we're still trying to make the materials needed for the latter.) We know how to construct weapons that destroy a small section of "reality" as a power source. We know a lot.

Comprehending God would merely be a matter of time, space and patience.

I would in fact argue that we know nothing. This is because we have only started these great and rapid discoveries in the past 'few' years. So fast forward in time and i would say we will know a great deal more then we do now. We can make devices with such power yet we cannot solve the simplest of problems, like providing the world with food, we have had a good try but with no luck. It will take years but i still argue we are a primitive race still, on our own time scale.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

At first you don't. You do know enough about it to distinguish the god experience from say, a mental disorder.

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

People who have mental disorders, don't know that they have mental disorders - that's one of the things that defines a mental disorder. So, how do you know that what you are perceiving as God is not a mental disorder? Also, how have you gone from "you don't know anything about the experience" to "you know enough to know it's not a mental disorder"? What is it that makes you "know" that? How could you possibly know?

Of course. But I must point out again that people who say they hear God talking to them generally aren't hearing God at all.

How can you tell? And if you can tell, why not apply the same reasoning to your experience of "feeling" God? That's a double-standard.

If you can experience it, it is true. Otherwise you would not be able to experience it. You cannot imagine something unless it has some basis in reality, and because of that, all experiences are examples of fundamental truths, regardless of how false they may seem.

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.

Or they are simply attributing a name and a set of qualities to an experience.

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.

That points out what exactly? That people are flawed? Well, we agree on something there.

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.

Here's your line. Actually, its a line you've failed to draw and that is ruining your objectivity. There is a difference. God is not about some 'sky-daddy' who puts warm fuzzy feelings in you. That is not God, as much as you may want to think so. The conception is immature, and should be discarded, yet you cling to it. Why? Because you know exactly what God is? Is that not arrogant?

Where have I said anything of the like? I've not said anything even remotely resembling any of what you just accused me of saying. I feel you're just dodging my question at this point.

The distinction between belief and delusion. Faith and delusion.

So the distinction between faith and delusion is meaningless? I pretty-much agree.

So what I say doesn't make sense because I am the one not saying it right? That is quite possibly the most arrogant thing I've ever heard. Just because you can't make sense of what I'm saying doesn't make what I'm saying nonsensical.

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".

When I first failed to understand your point, I made a concession and asked you to repeat your point. I was very clear with you from the beginning, and continue to remain clear. Do not claim that your lack of coherence is somehow a fault on my part.

It just means you cannot understand them, which basically means I have confounded you. This is where this whole discussion got started. Makes sense does not equal makes sense to you.

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.