A preacher, a salesman, and a hypnotist...

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 3 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
Just to repeat what you actually said: "You will not get a logical answer from a christian if asked why they believe; for no logical answer exists." I did explain quite logically why people believe. Now you are arguing whether what they believe is logical, and not whether the reason why they believe is logical.


It was meant to show that belief isn't logical. If absolute proof is not part of the equation no amount of logical steps will make belief logical. I agreed that the steps (by themselves) were logical. But that doesn't make why you believe logical.

That being said, taking the statement...

Evidence -> Burden of Proof -> Belief

How do you jump from Burden of Proof to Belief? Burden of Proof is not verifiable proof. Therefore the way you got to belief is not logical.



In context: "You will not get a logical answer from a christian if asked why they believe; for no logical answer exists."

I say to you quite plainly, I, as a Christian believe because the level of evidence I aquired met or surpassed my own personal "burden of proof".


I don't find the leap from burden of proof to belief logical. I don't find belief logical. Burden of proof is a logical step but not when going directly to belief. When I reach burden of proof it goes to "more probable given personal experiences". Then there is more probable based on personal and others' experiences. More probable based on visual evidence. Seeing that I can only see a small portion of the light spectrum even the last statement isn't enough for complete belief.




You were not clarifying the context, you were adding to the context.


I did not add to the context. It was a general statement that you have not disproven. Again, I agreed that the steps given were logical. Given what I know about your way of arguing I should've added "were logical by themselves" just as walking up the steps of a building is a logical step in jumping off.




Placed in the context of society, an accurate statement would read: You will not get a logical answer from a christian if asked why they believe because many/most have not logically considered why they believe.


It seems that your complaint is that I made the statement absolute. Fine, the statement shouldn't be absolute because there are always exceptions. But...

"Burden of Proof -> Belief" is not a logical jump. So the statement still stands.




Belief is what you attributed to it. I deal in relative probability. My posts do not represent belief. They represent different planes of understanding based on the subject matter and the general audience.

www.m-w.com - belief
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing


No trust or confidence is placed. Why would these be necessary? They are necessary if I want to get my car fixed and don't know how and don't feel like learning. But I have all the faculties necessary to learn without placing trust or confidence in some person or thing. Granted, it's easier. But it's not required.



That you chose a method of assigning probabilities to give your belief more structure is moot.


Your continued labelling of my thought process as belief does not make it so.


Defensive because they weren't rebuffed based on verifiable experience or evidence. It was based on feeling.

There are 3 ways of assigning probabilities. The classical approach, the relative frequency approach, and the subjective approach. You discount the third as viable because it relies on personal judgement. But, personal judgement does not make it less viable, simply less verifiable.

But I do understand what you saying.


Who's 3 ways are these? I'm not necessarily being argumentive here just think about it? Are there only 3 ways? Are these 3 ways completely correct? I'm responsible so I'm not going to take the chance believing it to be so. I may not follow everything up because it doesn't always interest me. Doesn't mean I believe it.

It's all viable. Still doesn't make it logical. What if you find your belief is wrong? What if important things you need to know were left out or twisted in some way? Would your belief allow you to see it? And there in lies my issue with belief. My issue is not with you or christians or anyone else.



Actually, it is not off target. This one statement gives the rest of your argument the link between correlation and causation. If there were no other cause, then the correlation is more likely to be the true cause.

In effect, you use a false premise to further obscure your "Correlation implies causation" fallacy (cum hoc ergo propter hoc).


Nice try. My experiences are not an argument. They are simply experiences. The first two paragraphs can be completely removed and nothing is taken from it. Try it.

When it was noted that my experiences didn't hold outside the U.S., I asked for clarification. I've yet to see a post that gives the steps of a church service.



Also to note, you failed to take into account Roman Catholic Mass, which from my memory does not fit your model and Roman Catholics account for more than half of the Christians.


I didn't fail. I've never attended mass. Therefore, I can't give a first hand account. You have failed to provide your personal experiences in a church service. If you've gone to any why not give your personal experience to give a contrast to mine?




posted on May, 3 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Lack of verifiable proof does not mean the belief is not logical. It means the belief not scientific. One is not the other.

The burden of proof is the level of evidence needed before a person believes. In your view it would be some percentage of probability less than 100% in which a person makes a statement of certainty. Is this step logical? It is not logical to assume that certainty is error. It is not logical to assume uncertainty is error.

Classical probability does not allow for 100% certainty without infinite events. Logic does. Logic would say that certainty in Classical probability could be a fallacy of slothful induction.

Relative probability only takes into consideration verifiable past events. Logic does not. Logic would say that certainty through Relative probability could be a fallacy of selective sampling.

Edit:

A few other points:

Your failure to take into account RC's shows your statement concerning the programming of Christians is based on a selective sample, and should not be applied to all Christians who hold deep beliefs.

If it is not an argument then your experiences have led you conclude that correlation implies causation.



[edit on 3-5-2005 by Raphael_UO]



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource
So I'm here to give some insight from my experience.

All, of course, against my will.



If you didn't want to be there then of course you are going to find fault with it. God wants people to come to love and know Him because they want too, not because they have too. You can't make somebody love you, that's a choice people make.

I have problems with denominations that aren't Biblical and if you went to them, I don't blame the way you feel.

But if you went to the best possible church service with a very Biblical pastor talking, and you didn't want to be there, you wouldn't get it, nor would anyone else who didn't want to be there.

Going to a local church is not necessary for someone to be saved, and in some cases for someone bedridden or somewhat handicapped it would be impossible. Or if there is not a Bible believing church within reasonable driving distance.

But if there is one close and you can go, you should because God has people set up for you to know. There are people who need you, for encouragement, to listen too when they have a problem, people who need your petitions to God for them. And everyone is going to run into trials and tribulations and you will need the same from them eventually.

Plus if you are in a church that teaches the truth you will learn who God is and will be preparing to live and work in eternity.

The repetitive unison prayers that are said over and over and over again at some denominations would get old and be boring, and God says He doesn't even listen to stuff like that. But if your a real person who desires to know God and you can get there, church is part of christian growth.



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource
If you've gone to any why not give your personal experience to give a contrast to mine?




My one son was skating with a friend, 10 yrs. ago and they had an accident and the friend broke her arm because they bumped into each other, and he felt really bad. He was invited to attend the Wed. night class at their church. He continued to go for a couple of yrs. and then 2 other of my kids got to be old enough to go to the Wed. nights and then they met friends and began to want to go to Sunday School and as there wasn't a set time for Sunday School to begin, it was always set for 10 minutes after church ended, and that varied, so we began to attend church there.

Before that I read my Bible and had already accepted Christ as my Savior. Approximately a month before we started going to church I had a nagging feeling that something was needed/missing and after the first time of going the feeling went away, so I knew this was what was needed/missing that God wanted me to add to my life that I decided to live for Him.

That was 6 1/2 years ago. Since then I have become a member of the missions committee, I am on the deacon board, I've helped teach a Wed. night class, I volunteer for various things. All of these things I had no idea I would be doing if you would have asked me about this 10 years ago. And I do them because I want to do some but some because God wants me too. It was scary to be asked to serve on the deacon board after going there for only 3 years. I would be responsible for decisions on how to interpret God's desires for what this church would do. That's scary, but is do-able by surrendering to God and listening and reading the Bible and praying and making myself available for Him to use.

Some denominations and/or churches are false and lead people to hell. They aren't all that way. You asked for experiences from others to contrast yours. I didn't have to search for one, the first one I went to was a Bible teaching Christ centered Church. Someone may have to search for awhile and put in an hour drive to get there, but it is possible to find one that wants people to be saved and really know God.

If you don't want to be there, then they are all going to seem stupid, but if you do want to get closer in everyway to God then there are good churches. I contrast my experience with yours!!!!



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
Lack of verifiable proof does not mean the belief is not logical. It means the belief not scientific. One is not the other.

The burden of proof is the level of evidence needed before a person believes. In your view it would be some percentage of probability less than 100% in which a person makes a statement of certainty. Is this step logical? It is not logical to assume that certainty is error. It is not logical to assume uncertainty is error.

Classical probability does not allow for 100% certainty without infinite events. Logic does. Logic would say that certainty in Classical probability could be a fallacy of slothful induction.

Relative probability only takes into consideration verifiable past events. Logic does not. Logic would say that certainty through Relative probability could be a fallacy of selective sampling.



You may now feel better since you completely obscured the main point of this thread. I tried to get it back on course but your selfish attitude will have none of it. You have also not taken any of my other words into account. You have simply taken one sentence that you find offense to and mutilated it. I still don't see how your belief can be so strong if you find it necessary to go through this much BS to attempt to prove one statement incorrect. The statement may be incorrect but you sure haven't proven it.

Nor have you proven yourself a Christian. You have a lot to learn about being Christ-like. One principle is giving equal weight to others. To listen and see from their point of view. How could you possibly help anyone when your one track mind will not even digest anything beyond one sentence? As it stands, all you seem to be able to do is defend something that doesn't require it. Is that how you feed your ego? It certainly can't be your spirit that goes on and on about the meaning of logic and how logical your belief is. Take the timber out of your own eye before you start messing with what's in mine. I was not making an argument. This post was never intended for this forum. I would never post in this forum otherwise. Any point I have made has been turned around by jumping to another level of understanding or through use of non-sequitors. I am not going to answer your posts any longer because it's wasting my energy and accomplishing nothing. Except maybe further convincing yourself that the belief you hold so strongly to is logical.




Your failure to take into account RC's shows your statement concerning the programming of Christians is based on a selective sample, and should not be applied to all Christians who hold deep beliefs.



You just proved it again. You can only focus on one sentence and your interpretation. You may have read what I wrote but you just ignore it. Since it's not coming from you then it can be of no consequence, right?

Are you more secure with your belief now? Are you closer to God because you have carefully ignored the vast majority of what I wrote? Good job rationalizing. You are good at it. I see thru it simply because I used to do the same and got tired of it. It doesn't allow for progression. But it's not my place to convince anyone. It's only my place to share the experiences afforded to me. You may continue to use this thread to rationalize the programs you hold so dear. I am no longer going to take part.




If it is not an argument then your experiences have led you conclude that correlation implies causation.



And here you go again. Now you are telling me what I have concluded. You have told me that I have fooled myself. You have told me what I belief. You have told me the context of a past event based on your present interpretation. How is it you know so much about me? You must be God. Either that or you read my F.B.I. profile. I mean seriously. You are obviously not that secure in your beliefs or you wouldn't feel the need to defend them. But you are secure enough in your grasp on the infinite that you can tell a complete stranger all this stuff. Doesn't make much sense but then again that's your lesson to figure out.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
If you didn't want to be there then of course you are going to find fault with it. God wants people to come to love and know Him because they want too, not because they have too. You can't make somebody love you, that's a choice people make.



As soon as this thread was moved to this forum I knew this was going to ensue. Nothing against you but it is rather predictable.

I didn't want to be there because there I was in a group of people that read one book and then went about defining God. It's not because I was some heathen that hissed and cowered in the face of the cross. It was not because good lessons were taught. It was because there were little indiscrepcies that I seen harmed my spirit. But these indescrepcies were held so dear by the preacher and thus by those that fed off the preacher.

It has absolutely nothing to do with loving God. The church itself has little to do with the love of God. If it did the benches would be beds and the congregation would be taking time not to worship that which doesn't need worshipping but to help that which does need helping. And here I'll get all how this church and that church help this person with food or give to that charity. And unfortunely, there is little defense for such non-sequitors. Especially, if the other person refuses to see what is meant and only sees from their own programs that form the interpretation.



I have problems with denominations that aren't Biblical and if you went to them, I don't blame the way you feel.



It's not just a feeling. It's a conclusion I came to after experiencing so much hypocrisy and so much misuse of good words to boost the false center known as the ego. I found that the churches were a crutch for many. I don't discount the help that has been provided but the good that's done makes it even easier to cover the deceit.



But if you went to the best possible church service with a very Biblical pastor talking, and you didn't want to be there, you wouldn't get it, nor would anyone else who didn't want to be there.



The not wanting to be there did not cause me not to get it. I got it and then decided I did not want to be there.

I don't know how to explain the little nuances that rob christians of many things because I'm explaining to preprogrammed responses. Once those preprogrammed responses are dropped to allow for learning to progress again, then it would be far easier to explain. I can't change how you see things. Nor do I wish to. You nor the other person would probably never had read this thread if it wasn't for another person's bias that put it in this forum. We would never be having this discussion because I would never post here. I have had this discussion before. It is predictable. I know the conclusion already. I wish not to bother. But I was basically forced because I feel the obligation to answer those that take the time to answer things I may write.



Going to a local church is not necessary for someone to be saved, and in some cases for someone bedridden or somewhat handicapped it would be impossible. Or if there is not a Bible believing church within reasonable driving distance.



I will give you something that could be used to break apart your programs or to reinforce them. It is your choice.

You are correct that going to church is not necessary to be "saved". But, taking Jesus as your personal savior is not necessary to be "saved" either. Jesus will not save you. Jesus gave you the information to save yourself. This is one of the things that is detrimental to the spirit. The belief that something outside of you is meant to save you from something. The belief that there is something to be saved from. And the belief that you need saving to begin with.



But if there is one close and you can go, you should because God has people set up for you to know. There are people who need you, for encouragement, to listen too when they have a problem, people who need your petitions to God for them. And everyone is going to run into trials and tribulations and you will need the same from them eventually.


I try not to interact with christians if it's going to run into their belief. Continued attempts to give cataylst to break programs usually only reinforces them. Which means my interactions would only have a detrimental effect. Christians have all the tools needed to figure it out. It was my basis for my current level of understanding so I know it's very viable. But it has to be something that is a personal decision. Unfortunately, not too many that choose the path are of the type that are constantly asking the whys to things.




Plus if you are in a church that teaches the truth you will learn who God is and will be preparing to live and work in eternity.



I have all the tools I need to learn to work with creative infinity. Church helped me to realize that by being a negative catalyst. The Bible and Church are unnecessary. And in some cases they can be of hinderance.

Are you sure the church knows the truth? How do you know for sure? If it did tell the truth why are there so many interpretations? Who's interpretations is correct?



The repetitive unison prayers that are said over and over and over again at some denominations would get old and be boring, and God says He doesn't even listen to stuff like that. But if your a real person who desires to know God and you can get there, church is part of christian growth.


There is so much lack of understanding of Christ consciousness in church I cannot lend much agreement to your statements. I find real life and it's infinite wealth of interactions to be a much better school that a confined space with confined ideas and interpretations on a book created by men across many different centuries and with many different agendas.

But let's stop this. It will get neither of us anywhere. Again, I never meant to post in this forum. I am only entertaining out of my duty to answer others that take the time to respond. If I had intended to post in this forum I would have expected this discussion and would continue. I have explained myself. You have explained yourself. Time to move on.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource
If you've gone to any why not give your personal experience to give a contrast to mine?




My one son was skating with a friend, 10 yrs. ago and they had an accident and the friend broke her arm because they bumped into each other, and he felt really bad. He was invited to attend the Wed. night class at their church. He continued to go for a couple of yrs. and then 2 other of my kids got to be old enough to go to the Wed. nights and then they met friends and began to want to go to Sunday School and as there wasn't a set time for Sunday School to begin, it was always set for 10 minutes after church ended, and that varied, so we began to attend church there.

Before that I read my Bible and had already accepted Christ as my Savior. Approximately a month before we started going to church I had a nagging feeling that something was needed/missing and after the first time of going the feeling went away, so I knew this was what was needed/missing that God wanted me to add to my life that I decided to live for Him.

That was 6 1/2 years ago. Since then I have become a member of the missions committee, I am on the deacon board, I've helped teach a Wed. night class, I volunteer for various things. All of these things I had no idea I would be doing if you would have asked me about this 10 years ago. And I do them because I want to do some but some because God wants me too. It was scary to be asked to serve on the deacon board after going there for only 3 years. I would be responsible for decisions on how to interpret God's desires for what this church would do. That's scary, but is do-able by surrendering to God and listening and reading the Bible and praying and making myself available for Him to use.

Some denominations and/or churches are false and lead people to hell. They aren't all that way. You asked for experiences from others to contrast yours. I didn't have to search for one, the first one I went to was a Bible teaching Christ centered Church. Someone may have to search for awhile and put in an hour drive to get there, but it is possible to find one that wants people to be saved and really know God.

If you don't want to be there, then they are all going to seem stupid, but if you do want to get closer in everyway to God then there are good churches. I contrast my experience with yours!!!!



I understand your experiences. I respect them and your decisions.

My experiences were not necessarily stupid. My experiences taught me a good deal about diserning the intent of others. My correlations with hypnotism is the point of the thread. My point was not about the intent of those that preach. It was not about the intent of christians. Most christians are good people with the best intentions. But we all know what the path to hell is paved with.

My original intent was to show the correlations of church services to hypnosis. I didn't come to that conclusion over night. It came long after I had quit going to church. The intent of this thread was misinterpreted due to it being moved to this forum which was due to it being misinterpreted. Christians don't often get into faith based discussions in the conspiracy forum. And that is the general audience for which it was intended. Please understand this. I already know the conclusions to our discussions. It will solidify each of our viewpoints but will help the other none.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Speaking of salemen:

"Buildup", "sales pitch", "reinforcement".

Your original post followed this exact methodology. Your buildup and reinforcement show an intent to promote your sales pitch with anti-christian bias. Your claim that it was intended for another audience shows the intent behind this promotion of bias.

I addressed the bias through logic; the use of which was implied in your opening build up. Your final reply did nothing to counter the logic presented; it was an argumentum ad hominem.

Some things for you to consider:
You show simularity through opinion, but fail to show they are the same. You also present no verifiable evidence to support your opinion. It is the very lack of verifiable evidence which you attempt to "explain away" in Christians.

When one presents evidence, one should try to remove the bias from that evidence.

I think you try too hard to tie in the hypnotist angle, and your argument may be better served without it. Hypnosis is not the only form of manipulative psychology.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource
I hope that this may help lend some understanding to those that get frustrated with christians. Once you understand how it's done the frustration should slip away. Hopefully, you will also be able to see the futility of attempting to open up their minds to something beyond their beliefs.

So isnt it ironic now, after several posts and a derailed thread that these statements hold so much truth?



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by I_s_i_s

Originally posted by ShadowHasNoSource
I hope that this may help lend some understanding to those that get frustrated with christians. Once you understand how it's done the frustration should slip away. Hopefully, you will also be able to see the futility of attempting to open up their minds to something beyond their beliefs.

So isnt it ironic now, after several posts and a derailed thread that these statements hold so much truth?




The irony is definitely not lost on me.





new topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join