“Because someone said so"

[Zzyzx]

“Because someone said so or because it was written in a 'holy' book.

In another thread Inigo Montoya wisely oberved:

You know... I'm beginning to think "because someone said so" is really the foundation for the bulk of apologetics here if you cut out all the flowery language and shell games.

When all the flowery language, word games, word salads, definition stretching, translation "corrections", diversions, dodges, excuses, etc are cut out what remains is “Believe because someone said so� or “Because my favorite “holy� book says so.�

None of the supernatural claims upon which Christianity (and religion in general) is based can be shown to be true and accurate. They may be “historical� in that they were made a long time ago, but that is no assurance of validity. The stories may contain reference to real people and places but the key (supernatural) events and characters cannot be shown to be anything more than imagination.

In fact, all the flowery language, word games, word salads, definition stretching, translation "corrections", diversions, dodges, excuses, etc are mere attempts to avoid admitting that ALL religion has to offer is “Because someone or some 'holy book' says so.� Adherents / Believers may expand upon that by having personal mental “experiences� based upon what they have been told and/or upon wishful thinking and desire to believe.

Is there anything else?

[Monta]

"L religion has to offer is “Because someone or some 'holy book' says so.� Adherents / Believers may expand upon that by having personal mental “experiences� based upon what they have been told and/or upon wishful thinking and desire to believe. "

I am sure those who will vote for Trump/or.. would have had some mental experience
or will vote for him on the basis on what they have been told or some wishful thinking.

Any book we treasure is a holy book to us.

[Inigo Montoya]

It is both very frustrating and very satisfying that the refuge taken by apologists here, over and over and over, is to completely ignore supernatural claims when comparing their favorite holy book with texts about Alexander and Caesar. The difference in claims being made, which is to say the difference between claiming to see the mundane and the magical, NEVER gets addressed. Except with such powerful rebuttals as "you have a bias against the supernatural" or "well I don't automatically dismiss supernatural explanations."


For the eleventy billionth time, stories about mortals doing what we know is possible don't belong in the same category as stories about demigods doing what we have no reason to think is possible.


I have a daughter whose favorite book asks if things are the same or different. She's very good at it. She's not quite 2.


And to the point about it all being experiential. While that is your right to take as a stance, surely you must know it is of zero use in debate. Which is where we happen to be.

[catnip]

.

Is there anything else?

I have not ceased to assert that it is experiential. I will never stop asserting that no matter how hard you try to ignore me.

It is quite reasonable to ignore / dismiss unsupported assertions and unverifiable claims of personal experience.

Debate differs from preaching by expecting / requiring that claims be supported, preferably with verifiable sources. Preaching is the epitome of "Take my word for it" (and the same applies to testimonials about personal experiences).

Remove "Take my word for it (or his or this book)" and what is left of religion or personal testimonials?

Why? Your twice repeated list of assertions in the OP are not supported:

When all the flowery language, word games, word salads, definition stretching, translation "corrections", diversions, dodges, excuses, etc are cut out what remains is “Believe because someone said so� or “Because my favorite “holy� book says so.�

In fact, all the flowery language, word games, word salads, definition stretching, translation "corrections", diversions, dodges, excuses, etc are mere attempts to avoid admitting that ALL religion has to offer is “Because someone or some 'holy book' says so.� Adherents / Believers may expand upon that by having personal mental “experiences� based upon what they have been told and/or upon wishful thinking and desire to believe.

But there are evidences that it is not all simply, "Because someone said so." In the numerous claims made, there is a great deal of similarity in the reported experience. One who does have these experiences and does know what imagination is and does know that these things could not possibly be imagined is good reason to know that it is not imagination.

I have seen research into the effects of prayer and meditation, impact on health that is measurable, photographs taken of healers hands and resent research on NDEs that all indicate that claims made by religions may indeed be true. It isn't quack science but reputable research.

Your assertions are not founded on anything more than your own personal opinion.

[marco]

But there are evidences that it is not all simply, "Because someone said so." In the numerous claims made, there is a great deal of similarity in the reported experience. One who does have these experiences and does know what imagination is and does know that these things could not possibly be imagined is good reason to know that it is not imagination.

I have seen research into the effects of prayer and meditation, impact on health that is measurable, photographs taken of healers hands and resent research on NDEs that all indicate that claims made by religions may indeed be true. It isn't quack science but reputable research.

Your assertions are not founded on anything more than your own personal opinion.

I am not at all antagonistic towards what you say but have you thought that there may be a non-religious explanation? I don't even mean one that science would endorse, at least science as we have it today.

The problem with allocating explanations to the Office of Yahweh is that he doesn't speak; he's been terminally ill for 2 millennia. After he shouted out from the sky about his son he must have suffered something serious. Of course his illness has had no effect on humanity.
Of course if your views extend beyond the being who rages in the OT, then there are golden possibilities and I don't reject them. Essentially I believe that were there a divine overseer, he would find our discussions hilarious, and perhaps he is too convulsed with laughter to make any comment. If there exist intelligences far above our vegetable state, then that would be interesting. Religion messes things up abominably, and gets folk to kill each other over a comma or a name .... or even a teddy bear. Go well.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 13 by catnip]

But there are evidences that it is not all simply, "Because someone said so." In the numerous claims made, there is a great deal of similarity in the reported experience. One who does have these experiences and does know what imagination is and does know that these things could not possibly be imagined is good reason to know that it is not imagination.

There are indeed similarities reported right around the world. The conclusions drawn from these "experiences with God" are often remarkably quite dissimilar, however.






"The path to true ecstasy begins by earnestly seeking ecstasy, which requires the rebuking of one's ego. Attaining that ecstasy requires drowning of the ego. Without doubt, true ecstasy is a blessed elusive state. It is indeed closeness to God." "Although it is a fascinating state, those who give themselves to it entirely become unbalanced, for too much of anything can be self-destructive." "Yet in time the aspirant realizes that this wonderful ecstasy is ultimately a form of intoxication."
DIVINE ECSTASY IN THE SUFI TRADITION

Understanding this is the key to the whole experience of being "touched by God." Watch this particular video to the end, because it explains so much. Some things are not really just imaginary. These experiences are physical. And yet they not really real either.

[Zzyzx]

.

But there are evidences that it is not all simply, "Because someone said so." In the numerous claims made, there is a great deal of similarity in the reported experience.

Notice that “numerous claims made� refers to taking someone's word for the claimed experience. Those are testimonials about claimed experiences or “take my word for it�.

Similarity of claimed experiences is no assurance that the effects are anything but mental / psychological. People taking various recreational drugs may report “experiences� that are very similar to one another. Does that mean that what they “see� and “hear� and “experience� is real?

One who does have these experiences and does know what imagination is and does know that these things could not possibly be imagined is good reason to know that it is not imagination.

When one has a psychological “experience� exactly HOW can they determine that it is not possible it was imaginary? Mental / psychological experiences CAN be delusions, hallucinations, deceptions that the person thinks are very real.

How can religious experiences be shown to be different – not possibly imagination?

I have seen research into the effects of prayer and meditation, impact on health that is measurable,

The topic of “effects of prayer� has been discussed many times in these threads, including currently http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=29870

Believers have NOT been able to show that prayer is any more effective than placebo effect or chance alone. Credible studies show that it is not.

photographs taken of healers hands

Exactly what do photographs “taken of healers hands� indicate? Citations? URLs?

and resent research on NDEs that all indicate that claims made by religions may indeed be true. It isn't quack science but reputable research.

Kindly cite sources

Your assertions are not founded on anything more than your own personal opinion.

If you wish to dispute what I present feel free to do so. Show that religion is based on more than taking someone's word that supernatural characters and events are real.

[catnip]

But there are evidences that it is not all simply, "Because someone said so." In the numerous claims made, there is a great deal of similarity in the reported experience. One who does have these experiences and does know what imagination is and does know that these things could not possibly be imagined is good reason to know that it is not imagination.

I have seen research into the effects of prayer and meditation, impact on health that is measurable, photographs taken of healers hands and resent research on NDEs that all indicate that claims made by religions may indeed be true. It isn't quack science but reputable research.

Your assertions are not founded on anything more than your own personal opinion.

I am not at all antagonistic towards what you say but have you thought that there may be a non-religious explanation? I don't even mean one that science would endorse, at least science as we have it today.

The problem with allocating explanations to the Office of Yahweh is that he doesn't speak; he's been terminally ill for 2 millennia. After he shouted out from the sky about his son he must have suffered something serious. Of course his illness has had no effect on humanity.
Of course if your views extend beyond the being who rages in the OT, then there are golden possibilities and I don't reject them. Essentially I believe that were there a divine overseer, he would find our discussions hilarious, and perhaps he is too convulsed with laughter to make any comment. If there exist intelligences far above our vegetable state, then that would be interesting. Religion messes things up abominably, and gets folk to kill each other over a comma or a name .... or even a teddy bear. Go well.

Whatever the phenomenon it is experienced the world over. I have participated in a group comprised of Sufis, Buddhists, and Christian contemplatives and we agree with each other better than most of our co-religionists who do not claim the mystical faith.

But I do hope that the religion haters don't succeed in wiping religion off the face of the earth before we have learned exactly what it is and why it happens. There is a reason for religion and I don't think it will ever really end because it is natural, it can arise without any story behind it--it is just that traditions will be destroyed that actually provide structure and guidance. New Age belief is a good example of reinventing religion from bits and pieces here and there.

And I can tell you that the dedicated practitioners of the various religions are not the problem.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 12 by Inigo Montoya]


"And to the point about it all being experiential. While that is your right to take as a stance, surely you must know it is of zero use in debate. Which is where we happen to be."

I have copied this paragraph alone
but as with the rest, what is is about?

[Monta]

[Replying to post 16 by Zzyzx]

"and resent research on NDEs that all indicate that claims made by religions may indeed be true. It isn't quack science but reputable research."

Catnap wrote:

Kindly cite sources

>>>>Google NDE

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 12 by Inigo Montoya]


"And to the point about it all being experiential. While that is your right to take as a stance, surely you must know it is of zero use in debate. Which is where we happen to be."

I have copied this paragraph alone
but as with the rest, what is is about?

What is what about? I don't imagine anything I wrote was terribly hard to follow. Ask me specifics and I'm happy to answer you.