Is Faith Valuable?

[Storm]

Yes, unlike invisible gods.

The fact remains that your usage of "delusional" is unjustifiable.

And, just a tip, but if you want to change my mind, best to make your own argument, rather than relying on quotes from someone from my ignore list.

 

[dogsgod]

The fact remains that your usage of "delusional" is unjustifiable.

And, just a tip, but if you want to change my mind, best to make your own argument, rather than relying on quotes from someone from my ignore list.

Belief in invisible dragons and or the invisible gods interacting with humans defines delusional any way we cut it. So yes, my usage of delusional is justifiable as it is defined in dictionaries. I don't care to change your mind, that's up to you.

 

[Storm]

That amounts to little more than "NUH-UH!"

 

[PureX]

It's pretending when they say that they've had an experience that they cannot explain and so they call it god. They're pretending to have the answer, but they don't, they just don't know, they're ignorant just like the rest of us.

One's ability to explain an experience is not a prerequisite for having an experience. I have had many experiences that I can't explain.

And the fact that they attribute their experience to "God" is their prerogative, as it's they who have had the experience, not you. Yet you presume to know better than they what they did or did not experience. Doesn't that strike you as somewhat irrational?

 

[dogsgod]

One's ability to explain an experience is not a prerequisite for having an experience. I have had many experiences that I can't explain.

And the fact that they attribute their experience to "God" is their prerogative, as it's they who have had the experience, not you. Yet you presume to know better than they what they did or did not experience. Doesn't that strike you as somewhat irrational?

So, it's one's prerogative to attribute their experience to the invisible entity of their choice and irrational to question. I see.

 

[PureX]

So, it's one's prerogative to attribute their experience to the invisible entity of their choice and irrational to question. I see.

It's not irrational to question anything. And that's not what I posted. It's irrational to presume to know better than the person who had the experience, what that experience was or was not.

 

[PureX]

It's delusional because it resists evidence contrary to the god claim, not becuase it's simply a belief

Look:

If a man claims to have purple pet dragon that breaths pink and gold bubbles and lives in his attic and his friend investigates the claim as to which the man says that the dragon was unobservable, it would not be unresonable for the friend to call the man delusional.

This is a wildly false analogy, as "God" is not so defined.

We can test the claim of a purple pet dragon that breaths pink and gold bubbles and lives in an attic, very easily, and ascertain that it almost certainly does not exist. Therefor, the man making the claim is almost certainly delusional. But almost every claim of a God experience that I am aware of, including my own, is such that it cannot be tested. Therefor, it's unjustified to presume that such claims are the result of a delusion.

I have had such an experience in my life, when I was a young child, and even I can't explain it. I cant even barely describe it. I don't know what it was except to say that every aspect of it at the time caused me to believe it was a legitimate God-experience.

 

[dogsgod]

This is a wildly false analogy, as "God" is not so defined.

We can test the claim of a purple pet dragon that breaths pink and gold bubbles and lives in an attic, very easily, and ascertain that it almost certainly does not exist. Therefor, the man making the claim is almost certainly delusional. But almost every claim of a God experience that I am aware of, including my own, is such that it cannot be tested. Therefor, it's unjustified to presume that such claims are the result of a delusion.

The very real dragon in my garage is invisible and can't be tested for.

I have had such an experience in my life, when I was a young child, and even I can't explain it. I cant even barely describe it. I don't know what it was except to say that every aspect of it at the time caused me to believe it was a legitimate God-experience.

Your experience was real but your interpretation is based on your belief in a God. A Hindu or an atheist with the same experience would interpret it differently. There's no reason why it can't be explained in natural terms. You can't explain it so instead of not knowing you would rather pretend to know by filling in the blanks with God.

 

[PureX]

Your experience was real but your interpretation is based on your belief in a God. A Hindu or an atheist with the same experience would interpret it differently. There's no reason why it can't be explained in natural terms. You can't explain it so instead of not knowing you would rather pretend to know by filling in the blanks with God.

I agree that we will understand any experience relative to whatever world paradigm we hold. And that as a result we may disagree in our understanding of such experiences. But this does not invalidate the experience, nor does it invalidate the claim of an experience of God.

Nor does a natural explanation invalidate the experience, nor invalidate it as being an experience of God. There is no reason we should presume that a God-experience must be supernatural.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

One's ability to explain an experience is not a prerequisite for having an experience. I have had many experiences that I can't explain.

And the fact that they attribute their experience to "God" is their prerogative, as it's they who have had the experience, not you. Yet you presume to know better than they what they did or did not experience. Doesn't that strike you as somewhat irrational?

No one's saying that the experience never happened or that the experience didn't happen through a diety (though i doubt) what I'm saying is that if someone says that they can't explain something, why label it "god." They're saying "I don't have the answer, therefore I give it an answer" it makes no sense.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

It's not irrational to question anything. And that's not what I posted. It's irrational to presume to know better than the person who had the experience, what that experience was or was not.

Swing and a miss yet again. We're not saying it's irrational to question, we're saying it's irrational to give explainations to the unexplained when it's unjustified.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

I agree that we will understand any experience relative to whatever world paradigm we hold. And that as a result we may disagree in our understanding of such experiences. But this does not invalidate the experience, nor does it invalidate the claim of an experience of God.

Nor does a natural explanation invalidate the experience, nor invalidate it as being an experience of God. There is no reason we should presume that a God-experience must be supernatural.

Missing it again! :O No one's trying to invalidate the experience, we're trying to show you that it's irrational to suggest that you have the answer when you don't. If you had the answer there would be no need for faith, it should be easily conveyed to someone else.

 

[Storm]

Faith does have value

What value might that be? (Not that I disagree, I'm just curious as to your thinking.)

if its kept in the right place, SELF.

Where else can it go?

 

[PureX]

No one's saying that the experience never happened or that the experience didn't happen through a diety (though i doubt) what I'm saying is that if someone says that they can't explain something, why label it "god." They're saying "I don't have the answer, therefore I give it an answer" it makes no sense.

They are labeling it as best they are able, according to what they believe it to be, even though the know they can't prove it to be so. This is not irrational, and in fact we are all doing this all the time.

 

[PureX]

Swing and a miss yet again. We're not saying it's irrational to question, we're saying it's irrational to give explainations to the unexplained when it's unjustified.

But YOU are not the yardstick by which these things are "justified". Other people label their experiences as best they are able according to their own paradigms. This has nothing to do with you.

When they tell you their story, you are free to take it as you wish, but you would be an arrogant fool to presume to stand in judgment of their experiences. You were not there. You have no idea what they experienced.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

They are labeling it as best they are able, according to what they believe it to be, even though the know they can't prove it to be so. This is not irrational, and in fact we are all doing this all the time.

If you cannot explain something you should put it under the "Can't Explain It" category, don't lie and put it under the "god" category. What distinguishes something from "god" and "not god" anyway? Why is this one unexplainable event god and why not others. If you cannot make this line then the belief is not justified most likely.
It's like people who see UFOs and call them aliens UFO stands for UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object, not Extraterrestrials.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

But YOU are not the yardstick by which these things are "justified". Other people label their experiences as best they are able according to their own paradigms. This has nothing to do with you.

When they tell you their story, you are free to take it as you wish, but you would be an arrogant fool to presume to stand in judgment of their experiences. You were not there. You have no idea what they experienced.

Yes, but usually neither do they! I'm not the yardstick, I know! I never claimed to be, but if you cannot define your belief or explain why it's god, then you're not even the yardstick for your own belief!
If you don't know, say you don't know, it doesn't invalidate the experience at all, that's not even the point, just don't claim it was god if you're unjusitifed in doing so. Calling a mystery "god" invalidates it as a mystery, pretending to know is in no way justified.

 

[PureX]

Yes, but usually neither do they! I'm not the yardstick, I know! I never claimed to be, but if you cannot define your belief or explain why it's god, then you're not even the yardstick for your own belief!

Well, in the case of "God", that would be expected, wouldn't it? After all, one of the things most people would agree on regarding a definition of "God" is that it surpasses or transcends us. So it would only be natural that we would have difficulty defining or explaining our experience of it.

If you don't know, say you don't know, ...

But that's a rule of YOUR philosophical paradigm. They are defining the experience by their own paradigm, which is all they CAN do. It's all they have. Just as your paradigm is all you have and is why you're having some trouble accepting and understanding theirs.

... it doesn't invalidate the experience at all, that's not even the point, just don't claim it was god if you're unjusitifed in doing so. Calling a mystery "god" invalidates it as a mystery, pretending to know is in no way justified.

For them, the name of that divine mystery source is "God". For them, the source of their "divine experience" is "God". They aren't lying to you. They aren't trying to mislead you. By their philosophical paradigm, they ARE justified in calling it exactly what they're calling it.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Well, in the case of "God", that would be expected, wouldn't it? After all, one of the things most people would agree on regarding a definition of "God" is that it surpasses or transcends us. So it would only be natural that we would have difficulty defining or explaining our experience of it.

They can't explain the experience, they can't define god, but they can label god as being the cause of the experience...??? It doesn't follow...

But that's a rule of YOUR philosophical paradigm. They are defining the experience by their own paradigm, which is all they CAN do. It's all they have. Just as your paradigm is all you have and is why you're having some trouble accepting and understanding theirs.

Are you condoning lying? And I don't have trouble understanding that they've had an experience, I understand and accpet that, I'm wondering what makes them call it "god" oppose to "fairies" or "santa clause." Again, they can't define their god, they can't explain their experience, yet they are able to label god as the cause for the experience? It doesn't follow.

For them, the name of that divine mystery source is "God". For them, the source of their "divine experience" is "God". They aren't lying to you. They aren't trying to mislead you. By their philosophical paradigm, they ARE justified in calling it exactly what they're calling it.

First, for one to call something a "divine experience" or "divine mystery" they must define what makes it "divine." If they say "I can't describe it" or "I don't know" then what makes them label it so?

Lying doesn't entail just misleading people, but they are misleading themselves, by that I mean that they are most likely mistaken. They don't have an answer, so they give it an answer. Again, it doesn't follow.

 

[PureX]

They can't explain the experience, they can't define god, but they can label god as being the cause of the experience...??? It doesn't follow...

It's something you'd have to experience, yourself, to fully understand.

Are you condoning lying? And I don't have trouble understanding that they've had an experience, I understand and accpet that, I'm wondering what makes them call it "god" oppose to "fairies" or "santa clause." Again, they can't define their god, they can't explain their experience, yet they are able to label god as the cause for the experience? It doesn't follow.

Well, I was just a child when I "experienced God". And I can only speak for myself. But I knew that what I was experiencing was God, instantly. I can't explain how I knew this. I just knew it. So I began singing. I didn't know what else to do. I saw people sing "to God" in church, so that's what I did. I was only about 6 years old. I also was not frightened. Somehow I was given to know that what was happening would only happen with my permission. If I wanted the experience to stop, it would. And I remember making the decision to deliberately let it go on because I wasn't at all frightened by it. And so it continued.

It was an amazing and transcendent experience that I would find both difficult and embarrassing to describe. But the point is that the experience was real, and so was the knowing that it was "God" at the time. Now that I'm an adult, I'm still puzzled by it. And I still can't explain it. And I can still be skeptical of it.

First, for one to call something a "divine experience" or "divine mystery" they must define what makes it "divine." If they say "I can't describe it" or "I don't know" then what makes them label it so?

What I would call "divine" really means transcendent. Anything that helps me to transcend myself is of a divine nature. What I experienced that day was a form of physical and spiritual transcendence.

Lying doesn't entail just misleading people, but they are misleading themselves, by that I mean that they are most likely mistaken. They don't have an answer, so they give it an answer. Again, it doesn't follow.

You cannot be expected to understand what you have not experienced. They are not lying, and they are not mistaken. They are telling you what they experienced in their bodies and minds at the time. Your godless paradigm simply can't accept what they are saying, and so has to find some other explanation. But they don't have another explanation to give you.