chyron8472

TV’s Frink said:

I think this post is about me

TV’s Frink said:

I don’t know much

😃

TV’s Frink said:

I don’t respect that you think

chyron8472 said:

Nuance is text-only

ZigZig said:

chyron8472 said:

Nuance is difficult for me in a text-only setting.

FTFY

Yes.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Chyron, your presupposition, and refusal to elaborate on said presupposition, that God’s existence is completely evident and unquestionable can be frustrating. Your strong faith is quite admirable, but your behavior in this thread today is baffling.

It is evident to me, though. I’m already bad enough at communicating myself in general, and I really have no feeling that I will change anyone’s mind here about God. I can talk about Him. And when I talk about Him, I take His existence and certain aspects of His character as a given. But I don’t see how one can move into a deeper conversation if one is not able to maintain basic assumptions.

I also haven’t thought all of my testimony through in a manner that makes sense written down. I’ve never actually given it before. But like I said, I’m not sure it’s worth the effort to do so here.

ZigZig said:

it seems to me that you do not understand that your “opponents” are not opposed to the idea of God,

It seems to me that they are opposed to the idea of a God who desires relationship with us, if even exists at all.

but to the way you have to impose your way of thinking without nuances.

Nuance is difficult in a text-only setting. MFM said I convey my position as though it’s objective fact. I’m not trying to convert anybody here, but I am devout and admittedly generally opinionated. If I come off as though my position is fact it is because, in the case of God, I treat it as fact for my own self. I admittedly am stubbornly unwilling to entertain the notion that God does not exist or that He cares about me. Whether that’s a quality or a failing is matter of debate I suppose, but it is who I am. Frink kind of called me out for being zero percent uncertain, but I don’t know what to say about that other than I choose to not be uncertain. I hold steadfast to my belief.

Frink also says my position, that the Christian God exists, suggests itself as superior given the underlying consequence for believing otherwise—but I do get the feeling that he himself feels his position is superior in that I’m very likely gullible, foolish, and/or wasting my time focusing on my beliefs since he holds them to be false. That is, I think both positions think themselves superior in their own way.

But I do not look down my nose at him, or any of you, for not believing what I do.

Mrebo said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

I saw a lyric book that censored asshole as “assh*le”, but the “ass” part is the bad part, right? Why was the “hole” censored instead of that?

I think it’s the same reason microbikinis and speedo bathing suits are considered acceptable beach attire but some people.

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

It also makes no sense that there would be over 4000 religions in the world, and god expects us to believe the testimony from one of them while discounting the testimony from the other 3999 – especially when most people in the world are guaranteed to not have even been exposed to that one or its adherents’ testimony.

the testimony ultimately boils down to “I believe in God because he’s been good to me before.”

Actually, no. At least not for me.

Do you care to elaborate?

I’m not sure giving my testimony here would be helpful. It is not my intent to give it only to be shot down. I get the feeling that those present do not find me credible and will not find me credible, and that no amount of testimony on my part will increase that credibility. So I’m not sure it will do any good on my part to elaborate.

In short, I’m not sure you guys would believe me anyway.

moviefreakedmind said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

It also makes no sense that there would be over 4000 religions in the world, and god expects us to believe the testimony from one of them while discounting the testimony from the other 3999 – especially when most people in the world are guaranteed to not have even been exposed to that one or its adherents’ testimony.

the testimony ultimately boils down to “I believe in God because he’s been good to me before.”

Actually, no. At least not for me.

TV’s Frink said:

Believe me, my respect or non-respect for you (see that how you like) has nothing to do with your insistence that God exists. You’re far from alone on that front.

Okay. But to be clear, I do not say that I know better than you (at least no more than you might say you know better than me). I do make assertions based on my beliefs, and I behave as though those beliefs are irrefutable because, to me, they are. I myself do not and will not refute them.

I do not say my position is superior.

TV’s Frink said:

But I don’t see why I should be asked to respect the viewpoint that you know better than I do.

I ask that you respect me.

I do not ask that you believe my viewpoint. But I do assert certain things based on that viewpoint.

I believe God exists and that he desires a relationship, and I assert that that relationship is too important for overbearing parents to get in the way.

TV’s Frink said:

I have trouble respecting your belief that you absolutely beyond a doubt 100% know that God exists, because I don’t respect that you think there’s zero chance you could be mistaken.

That’s your prerogative.

moviefreakedmind said:

I never said anything was fact.

You said that I expect people to take my testimony as objective fact:

moviefreakedmind said:

I’d appreciate not being expected to think of your personal experiences as objective fact for everyone to take seriously.

I don’t expect that. All I expect is respect for my belief; I don’t require you to find it credible.

If you believed that you saw ghosts, I would not think you cracked by default.

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:
Assuming there are no ghosts just because you can’t recreate your experiences in a lab doesn’t make it fact that there are no ghosts.

I’m going to need some explanation here because this sentence is confusing me.

You say you have experiences with ghosts. You say it may not have been ghosts. To say it was not ghosts, is not “fact” just because you can’t prove in a lab that it was ghosts. Science is content with saying “I don’t know”. Science doesn’t say “No, because you can’t prove yes.”

It would be much closer to fact and reality to blame my ghost sightings on paranoia or mental illness than it would be to assume or even consider the possibility that they were real ghosts that were harassing me.

You don’t know that. You can’t verify that.

No, but it is obviously the healthy and sensical conclusion to draw. Wouldn’t you say?

My point is, whether I say so or not, and whether you say so or not, does not make it fact that there were not ghosts.

I’m just taking issue with the assertion that God not existing is fact, nor closer-to-fact. I do not claim my testimony is fact. But it is not not-evidence just because you don’t find it credible.

JEDIT: And no, I would say the healthy conclusion to draw is “I don’t know.” Not to just assume you’re a few cards short of a full deck.

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:
Assuming there are no ghosts just because you can’t recreate your experiences in a lab doesn’t make it fact that there are no ghosts.

I’m going to need some explanation here because this sentence is confusing me.

You say you have experiences with ghosts. You say it may not have been ghosts. To say it was not ghosts, is not “fact” just because you can’t prove in a lab that it was ghosts. Science is content with saying “I don’t know”. Science doesn’t say “No, because you can’t prove yes.”

It would be much closer to fact and reality to blame my ghost sightings on paranoia or mental illness than it would be to assume or even consider the possibility that they were real ghosts that were harassing me.

You don’t know that. You can’t verify that.

It is not a fact that there is no God. The “fact” is you don’t know.

And also that there is no evidence for God. Not counting personal experiences of divine intervention.

There is evidence. What evidence you accept is your choice. It doesn’t make testimony not evidence.

You believe there is not. I believe that there is. Neither is fact.

No, but the rationale behind those beliefs are not equivalent.

It doesn’t have to be equivalent. And your rationale is not closer to objectivity by default of me not proving mine.

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:
Assuming there are no ghosts just because you can’t recreate your experiences in a lab doesn’t make it fact that there are no ghosts.

I’m going to need some explanation here because this sentence is confusing me.

You say you have experiences with ghosts. You say it may not have been ghosts. To say it was not ghosts, is not “fact” just because you can’t prove in a lab that it was ghosts. Science is content with saying “I don’t know”. Science doesn’t say “No, because you can’t prove yes.”

It is not a fact that there is no God. The “fact” is you don’t know.
You believe there is not. I believe that there is. Neither is fact.

moviefreakedmind said:

There are people that have seen aliens. They seen em with their own two eyes. I don’t get why religious (namely Christian) testimony is expected to be taken seriously and literally in these matters.

Because it’s important to show respect. If someone believes they saw aliens, they might be wrong but it’s important to show them respect. It’s up to you whether you believe them, and why you do or don’t while weighing the evidence given.

ray_afraid said:

chyron8472 said:

It’s an issue of credibility of the witness, not scientific verifiability.

I disagree completely.

Why should your testimony of your experiences not be compelling evidence?

Because people lie ALL THE TIME.

And? It’s still not a scientific issue. People lie, yes. So they are not credible. Not to you, anyway. That doesn’t make the only evidence acceptable of the scientific sort. And it doesn’t make the position opposing testimony “fact”.

You have to decide who you believe and why. You can’t recreate everything in this life in a lab, and you can’t assume the things you yourself can’t reproduce didn’t or can’t happen, nor claim that assumption is fact.

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I’d appreciate not being expected to think of your personal experiences as objective fact for everyone to take seriously.

People can take my testimony or opinions however they choose. That isn’t to say that your position is objective, or fact by default, just because I can’t scientifically prove mine.

It’s an issue of credibility of the witness, not scientific verifiability.

It isn’t even really credibility so much as we know that the human mind interprets things so strangely that it just makes more sense to attribute these experiences to that rather than to gods.

But again, you’re making an assumption there. Assuming there are no ghosts just because you can’t recreate your experiences in a lab doesn’t make it fact that there are no ghosts.

moviefreakedmind said:

I’d appreciate not being expected to think of your personal experiences as objective fact for everyone to take seriously.

People can take my testimony or opinions however they choose. That isn’t to say that your position is objective, or fact by default, just because I can’t scientifically prove mine.

It’s an issue of credibility of the witness, not scientific verifiability.

moviefreakedmind said:

I doubt very seriously that anyone, including you, would find a statement from me saying “Ghosts are real, I’ve had experiences that prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, I just can’t reproduce those experiences . . .” to be all that compelling.

Case in point. Why should your testimony of your experiences not be compelling evidence? Just because I can’t recreate it in a lab doesn’t make it not valid testimony.

moviefreakedmind said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

My mom is starting to talk about having just discovered 9/11 trutherism and she sounds super hyper and it almost sounds like she’s starting to believe this shit…

This arose as she flipped throigh channels and came across Schindler’s List and she started asking “why do people hate Jews? They’re just people!” I was in strong agreement of course because anti-semites are vile, until she took a hard turn to say “they aren’t like the Moosluhms who blow everything up. Hey, speaking of, did you know there are whole conspiracy theories around 9/11? I just found an article on it recently, like where was the plane in the Pentagon…” and it spiraled from there.

Ow.

This is where you can, and should just tell her, “Mom, I refuse to talk about or listen to this.”

Agreed.

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

I do assert that your relationship with God is truly important, but your relationship with Him is between you and Him.

I’m not sure how popular this opinion will be here, but I assert that having no relationship with God or any god whatsoever is completely healthy and ultimately would make most people better off.

That would be healthy if there was no God, but there is.

You can tell yourself that all you want, but there’s no way to know that there’s a god

Yes there is. I’ve had personal experiences that prove it beyond the shadow of the remotest possible doubt. I just can’t reproduce those experiences in a controlled environment with verifiable scientific data to corroborate conclusions drawn from them.

moviefreakedmind said:

When people get banned, can they send PMs to mods or something

No. When someone is banned, their account is disabled and they can’t log in. No logging in means no PMs.

One can, however, send emails to and recieve them from jay@originaltrilogy.com, and I think more than just Jay has access to read emails sent to that.

moviefreakedmind said:

chyron8472 said:

I do assert that your relationship with God is truly important, but your relationship with Him is between you and Him.

I’m not sure how popular this opinion will be here, but I assert that having no relationship with God or any god whatsoever is completely healthy and ultimately would make most people better off.

That would be healthy if there was no God, but there is.

What I’m concerned about here is that just because people be crazy, religious people or otherwise, that doesn’t affect the importance of one’s relationship with God. In my opinion, relationship with God is too important to let bad experiences with foolish, ignorant, overbearing people stand in the way of it. Be they parents, pastors, or whoever else. Even us. But one has to do it themselves. To choose to do it themselves. You have to make up your own mind what you want.