logo Sign In

Religion — Page 88

Author
Time

Not only that, but you know what familiarity breeds, right? Right now you can keep a lid on it. Right now you can go through the motions. What about another year of it? What about ten more years of it?

If you want to keep an amicable relationship going with your family in the long term, I’d say keep your bags packed and be on the lookout for escape opportunities. One way or the other, the way you describe things, something’s going to give eventually, and it might not be pretty.

On the bright side, you may yet find support from unexpected quarters in your family. It’s funny who ends up pulling through for you in a pinch, and it’s not always who you’d expect. Don’t burn any bridges you don’t have to.

Project Threepio (Star Wars OOT subtitles)

Author
Time

I plan to burn as few bridges as possible. I still firmly believe they mean well, they just make things rough.

.

Author
Time

CatBus said:

Not only that, but you know what familiarity breeds, right? Right now you can keep a lid on it. Right now you can go through the motions. What about another year of it? What about ten more years of it?

Truth. Give it another ten years, and you’ll come to hate at least one of your parents.

Author
Time

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.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

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.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

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, so to many people just excising the whole equation from their life is comforting and liberating.

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.

Well, he’s obviously not enjoying a relationship with God even aside from the southern US religious setting he’s in.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

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.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

chyron8472 said:

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.

Here’s the problem with that. Just because you had a powerful experience doesn’t mean that it’s god. I’ve had experiences with ghosts. I mentioned it on this forum a few times. I’ve heard ghostly sounds, I’ve seen ghostly apparitions, and I’ve felt demonic presences. I sometimes, depending on the day, feel like those were real spiritual experiences, but I at least can acknowledge that it could have been (and probably was) just an uncomfortable and startling situation where those feelings or sensations were caused by something else. 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. So, I’d appreciate not being expected to think of your personal experiences as objective fact for everyone to take seriously.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

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.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

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.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

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.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

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.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

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.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

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.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

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.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

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.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

I think he means that, even though Ghostbusters is not a documentary, ghosts could still hypothetically exist. Or something.

Anyway, I remember a book I read several years ago written by a preacher whose soon allegedly had a near-death experience and went to heaven. Then he went on to claim that his son never actually flatlined in his surgery, so that obviously meant his son was as holy and pure as the prophet Elijah who ascended while still alive. It was ridiculous and insulting, but it’s sold as nonfiction and the kid got to play himself in his movie biopic IIRC.

.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

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.

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.

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

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

The Person in Question

Author
Time

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.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.

Author
Time

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?

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.

I guess so, but eyewitness testimony is the weakest evidence of all.

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.

It’s a little closer at least.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

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.

TV’s Frink said:

chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.