My conversion...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-02-2014, 10:28 PM
RE: My conversion...
(07-02-2014 12:35 PM)Noelani Wrote:  And yet you also claim that it is more than a dream.
Ahhh, no Again.
I said in the op I started in bed and I woke up in bed, hence dream. Then I said God can use dreams to communicate to us. Then I said for me this was all the PROOF I needed. Next I said God offers this level of attention to everyone. Not just me. No to say everyone needs to visit the gates of Hell, some may need a winning lottery ticket while others will not learn to humble themselves unless their health or wealth is threatened.. God is willing to do whatever it takes.

Quote:You claim it is proof for a specific god
For me, yes.. For you it may just be a reason to buy new sheets (because you will soil the old ones)Blush

Quote:and proof that you know what happens to people who enter heaven and the gates of hell.
actually never Got to Goto heaven. Just judgement and Hell. I did however very briefly experience the Love God offers.. I can't imagine what an eternity of that must be like.

Quote:Still you said that you have told people, and you think you are in authority to speak for the bible,
defiantly. 'We' all should be able to speak for the bible.

Quote:that hell is different than the bible describes, it's worse. The bible uses the word fire but since you have experienced it you can let everyone know what it is truly like.
read the op again. I said the word fire was used because it only describes the emotion one experiences when being consumed by fire.

If you were to compile all of the descriptions of Hell in the bible the list would read something like this: lake of fire, bottomless pit, void, the grave, the second death, a prison, hell is eternal, a place of great sorrow where their is weeping and gnashing of teeth.. The list goes on and on. So please show me where my description is not consistent with what the bible says.


Quote:From your original post: "That's why when i talk to people about Hell I say the reason the bible uses fire to describe hell it is because Being consumed by fire is the closest thing we can relate to when we are thrown into the void of Hell. Even so fire doesn't even come close."
do you want to know why i said that? I've been burned badly, nothing perminate, but very badly trying to start a camp fire with lantern fuel (white gas). So I am aware of the emotions present when one is on fire.
Then there is hell fire... Again if being on fire is a 10 hell fire is 1000.

I did not know what 'teeth gnashing' was or why it was so bad.. Basically it is when you are so scared or panicked you scream but your jaw will not open, rather it is clinched so tightly your teeth feel like they will shatter. Imagine the pain of being eaten/consumed from every direction all at once.. Kinda like fire..


Quote:And the examples are.....?
I did not know God did this at the time either.

http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?sea...chtype=all

Quote:And what are you using to tell the difference between a dream and a celestial message?
content. Verifiable biblical content.
Quote:This guy also gets messages from god, sometimes up to 50 times a day and instructing him to kill someone. Who are you to say he doesn't? (0:31) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgUnozCxwjg
content. Verifiable biblical content.

Quote:No, I'm not challenging any god. I'm only challenging the people who claim to have invisible friends.
which if you've been following this thread you will know that is EXACTLY what I did.[/quote]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2014, 10:31 PM
RE: My conversion...
(07-02-2014 03:42 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  I'm going to focus on the methodologies you raised, and let drop the other threads of the discussion.

I'm going to draw a distinction between two classes of epistemology. One of them is dogmatic epistemology. Dogmatism begins with some basic axioms or assumptions that cannot be challenged within its own realm of knowledge. It then proceeds to deductively construct conclusions based on the axioms. If these axioms should prove false, then all knowledge based on these axioms is flawed, but Dogmatism is incapable of recognizing when an actual flaw in the axioms exists. In contrast, Self-Correcting epistemology begins only with the recognition that (a) we already have a set of beliefs, as well as means of deriving more beliefs (which is easily verified) and (b) there is a possibility that some or all of these beliefs are in error, and that some or all of these means are unreliable (the rejection of this possibility would be to declare omniscience, which would make any search for truth irrelevant). Self-correction then engages in critical examination of all propositions, seeking to identify which are false and then discard them. It also applies this critical thinking to all new ideas, and all means of acquiring new ideas. It contrasts strongly with Dogmatism in its capacity and willingness to recognize when it has crept into falsehood and to then abandon that falsehood.

In particular, Dogmatism represents a trap. You're essentially playing the lottery when you pick your axioms... and if you don't start with the right picks, you have no way to recognize that they are flawed, and you can't escape it without totally abandoning your framework of knowledge. An inability to recognize that it is in error is the hallmark of Dogmatism. Its only strength... only apparent strength, I should say... is that it expresses more certainty than Self-Correction. Yet this expression of confidence is unjustified. If anything, Self-Correction is the more reliable route to truth, because you can't lose the "lottery" the moment you even begin. Self-Correction actively seeks to prove its veracity, by identifying as many ways as possible for any proposition it holds to be false, and then seeking out whether any of these are the case. Self-Correction takes itself through the proving grounds, while Dogmatism asserts that it need never go anywhere near them.

Now, having explained how I view this search for truth, let's look at the methods you've described.

(07-02-2014 09:49 AM)Drich Wrote:  As with ANY personal revelation the method of detection is through scripture. Does EVERYTHING jive with what the bible says or not? If Yes then the message however it was received is from God, then if not then it needs to be discarded.

So, you were already pre-inclined to turn to the Bible in search of truth, rather than in any other holy text, or through empiricism? This jives pretty well with the way you interpreted your dream as being a divine revelation from the Christian god, rather than something naturalistic. It also suggests a degree of confirmation bias.

Turning to the Bible to vet a proposition for truth is a quintessentially dogmatic method. It is based on an axiom that the Bible is an accurate guide to truth. It offers no mechanism to detect whether the Bible itself is an inaccurate guide to truth. And it strongly rejects any outside indications that it might be inaccurate.

This isn't, in itself, reason enough to assert that the Bible is false. But it does suggest that vetting a personal revelation against the truth of the Bible cannot assist one in distinguishing a personal revelation about the truth of the Bible, nor the truth of any of the Bible's claims.

Furthermore, there is considerable reason to believe that the Bible is at least partially erroneous. There are quite a few passages which appear to contradict with other passages... for example, are we told to pass righteous judgement on others, or not to judge at all?

There are also many passages which are empirically falsifiable. I'll point out just three, though there are many others. First, it is claimed that one can control the appearance of livestock by controlling what they are looking at while they breed. Specifically, hitch them up to the breeding post so that they face a striped tree, and the offspring will be striped. Second, it is asserted that a household can be cured of leprosy by sacrificing a pair of birds and sprinkling their blood around the house. Some apologists claim this is talking about mildew, ie, leprosy of the house itself. This seems like a huge stretch to me... and leprosy or mildew, the bird's blood doesn't get rid of it.

And third, the existence of the firmament is asserted from the beginning of Genesis and then several times thereon. I want to devote a bit more time to this one. The firmament was part of a physical and astronomical model, deeply geocentric, meant to describe the apparent motion of the various night lights through the sky. These lights were secured on various solid (firm) spheres, often described as crystal, which then moved around the Earth, causing the lights to rise and set. All the visible planets, plus the moon and the sun, had their own spheres, and the stars were set into the outermost sphere. This was seen as necessary to explain why these objects didn't fall to Earth, and could continue endlessly in motion, and was a popular belief throughout the Mediterranean region through most of history. The firmament has also been proved thoroughly false, first by careful observations, and then by sending people in high-tech tin cans past the moon and them not crashing into a crystal sphere. Not so much as a wineglass! However, your method of vetting ideas against the Bible could never have detected the error that was, at the time the firmament was a popular notion, written into the Bible itself.

This brings me to another fundamental objection to this methodology. The Bible CHANGES. You can find the Firmament explicitly referenced in King James. But more modern translations have reworded it, usually to some phrase like "celestial sphere". Examination of surviving documents from the first few centuries CE show that scribes added several key passages, including the account of Jesus and the adulteress (let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone), as well as the basis for describing Jesus as dual-natured, both wholly man and wholly god. What happened here? Were these facts true before the change and was the Bible in error? How did people know to change it, then, if they were to vet truth against the existing errors of the Bible? Did they receive some direct revelation from God? If so, why should we now value the Bible above what might be direct revelation from god? Was the Bible true before, and then made false by the changes? If so, why trust the Bible we have today? Did the truth change when the Bible changed? What's going on here?

Finally... well, far from finally, but I've gone on about the subject of the Bible about long enough... there's the problem of interpretation. Think back to the Civil Rights movement here in the U.S. Yes, MLKJ was a preacher. But so were the defenders of segregation. More telling is the type of preachers they were. MLKJ turned to the Bible for inspiring imagery and phrases, but most of the time did not hold it forth as some sort of source of truth. Neither did most of his liberal Christian allies. His opponents did, however, citing chapter and verse in defense of segregation. A century before, yes, a religious movement had supported abolition, but an equally religious movement pulled out the Bible and found chapter and verse saying how it supported slavery. Same for women's rights in the 70s. Same for gay marriage today. Same for the end of aristocracy, serfdom, and monarchy. What happened here? Are both sides correct in their totally opposite interpretations of the same text? That's a logical contradiction. Was one side right and the other wrong? Were both sides wrong? Leave aside WHICH faction was in error. The only conclusion is that someone... a great MANY someones... interpreted the Bible incorrectly, and did so on significant points of morality and with extreme consequences, and with the help of much prayer.

This represents a huge opening for error in the A/S/K methodology you describe. More than an opening for error, it shows actual error, committed and repeated more times than we can count. It shows clear unreliability of the method. And yet, despite this obvious opening for error, not one single element of self-correction is present in that methodology.

How could this be? Well, let's ask this question. If the assertions of the religion were wrong, could this method produce a false positive? Quite clearly, yes. Most modern religions have their holy texts or oral traditions or some such, most approach these texts with much the same method as you describe (just with a different book described, maybe substituting meditation for prayer, so on), and most reach the same conclusion that their religion is true. Unless ALL religions, or even most religions, are true, then it is obvious that this method leads a great many people with false positives, and cannot be considered reliable.

And then another question... can this method produce a false negative? Or a true negative? NEVER. Because of that K step. If it doesn't work on the first try, keep trying until you think it worked. As in, FOREVER. No part of this methodology, under any scenario, can ever reach a true OR false negative. There is only "positive" or "still working".

So. We have a methodology that is based on a holy book that is demonstrably in error on many of the points we can test, that is self-contradictory in other respects, that has been changed several times throughout history in significant ways that defy the proposed methodology. The methodology has clearly produced severely erroneous answers, is clearly prone to false positives on the specific question of its accuracy, and is incapable of producing a true negative even if the case were actually negative.

Is this a reliable method for vetting a proposition for truth?

If you want a reply I ask that you put this in the boxing arena.. There is way too much content to try and let everyone have a go. Or at the very least start a new thread as this will side line my thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2014, 10:31 PM
RE: My conversion...
(08-02-2014 10:28 PM)Drich Wrote:  I said in the op I started in bed and I woke up in bed, hence dream. Then I said God can use dreams to communicate to us.

You don't have any evidence at all that this "god-thing" exists. Much less what it supposedly can or can't do.


You are pathological liar.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2014, 10:35 PM
RE: My conversion...
(08-02-2014 10:31 PM)Drich Wrote:  If you want a reply I ask that you put this in the boxing arena.. There is way too much content to try and let everyone have a go. Or at the very least start a new thread as this will side line my thread.

Fuck you and fuck "your" thread. You don't make the rules here. You don't respect others' threads (proselytizing in a 16-yo's thread), and we are under no obligation to respect what you call "yours".

[Image: 208xpg1.gif]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
08-02-2014, 10:35 PM
RE: My conversion...
(07-02-2014 06:34 PM)joben1 Wrote:  I don't know why he keeps spouting the A/S/K nonsense seeing as this isn't how he "converted".

And as for the others in the babble that had chats with god or whatever in their dreams, so what? They suffered the same type of lucid dream that you (Drich) did, and proves, like yours, nothing.

Actually this was how I converted. I asked when I was going through my tough time and I got nothing back. I sought in the debates and even fights I had with the Christians I tormented, and I knocked by making a commitment to make the torment continue till the truth was fully exposed..

Then when I began to read a bible I learned of luke 11 and have been asking since.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2014, 10:39 PM
RE: My conversion...
(07-02-2014 07:38 PM)Colourcraze Wrote:  (Yesterday 11:04 AM)Drich Wrote:
I asked this like a dozen times... What makes you think God doesn't use dreams to speak to us? there are several examples of God doing this very thing. (Using dreams to communicate to us)


How has nobody said this yet? God doesn't use dreams to speak to us because GOD ISNT REAL.

End of story.

Good point we are 20 pages in and no one has challenged the existence of God.. Kinda how you all accused me acknowledging the existence of God when I said I wanted to spit in his eye.

No true Scotsman anyone? Or should I say no true Scotsman Everyone!

Thanks for reminding everyone. Be ready in 5 pages or so they will forget again
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2014, 10:41 PM
RE: My conversion...
No one here is acknowledging the existence of god though. They're acknowledging your belief in the existence of god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2014, 10:41 PM
RE: My conversion...
(08-02-2014 10:39 PM)Drich Wrote:  Good point we are 20 pages in and no one has challenged the existence of God.

Bullshit, you lying asswipe.


(08-02-2014 10:31 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  You don't have any evidence at all that this "god-thing" exists. Much less what it supposedly can or can't do.


You are pathological liar.



Not the first time, either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2014, 10:42 PM
RE: My conversion...
(08-02-2014 12:02 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(07-02-2014 10:04 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  Meanwhile he jumps on a 16 year old kids thread, who has concerns about meeting with a pastor and starts proselytising, whilst in other threads claims that's not why he's here.

... dang, he deliberately went after a kid in a vulnerable place? Could you link me that thread? That's low. That's LOW.

Wow, project much?

The kid had questions. I provided biblically supported answers. If the kid wanted to remain in the dark he would not have ask the questions to begin with. I have no problem allowing what I believe to be scrutinized by anyone old enough to ask about it. Why is it you seem so frightened for both sides of the discussion to be properly represented?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2014, 10:44 PM
RE: My conversion...
(08-02-2014 10:35 PM)Drich Wrote:  Actually this was how I converted. I asked when I was going through my tough time and I got nothing back. I sought in the debates and even fights I had with the Christians I tormented, and I knocked by making a commitment to make the torment continue till the truth was fully exposed..

Then when I began to read a bible I learned of luke 11 and have been asking since.

You never stopped believing in your fairy tale monster. You admitted this. You are a fucking liar. Everyone here can see it.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: