umm, I thought the “h” stood for “humble” (that’s why I never use that acronym…)
well, a little research will always broaden one’s horizons…
IMHO - Glossary - CNET.com
IMHO in my humble opinion (or in my honest opinion). An acronym often used in email, posting, and chat directly before an opinion that may be honest but is …
I have no reason or need to explain anything to you unless I intend to convince you that my beliefs are correct. I have no such intention. I accept that you don’t believe and honor your right to choose as you will. I can’t prove you are wrong and I’m right and regardless of your semantics you are in the same boat concerning my beliefs.
Science refines itself as it gains more information. So do I.
And here once again you narrowly and incorrectly define evidence. Subjective evidence is a valid way for me to determine what I believe in areas where science offers little or no evidence one way or the other. In fact everyone, including you, uses subjective evidence to form their beliefs. It’s all part of that reality is what it is v. our perception of reality thing.
Since there are still mysteries to be solved and things we know very little about scientifically , you’re also incorrect about zero explanatory capacity.
I never claimed all beliefs are equal or that facts don’t matter. I do assert that many of the things you present as facts are just not facts at all. If, in the spirit of debate we can imply an IMHO on most of your posts thats a little different. From the sarcastic and insulting tone of your posts that’s not how it seems.
I am at a loss as to why you have drawn this conclusion. The experiences that I have read about and the one I experienced myself have been life transforming because they were so not what was to be expected. I could not possibly have imagined anything I experienced. My own experience broadened my interests into other faiths beyond Christianity. I see all of it as part of the Whole. Others seem to as well and that’s why so many people refer to these experiences as having a unifying effect.
You really have some biases that get in your way. I understand firm skepticism. I don’t understand this blind spot that allows you to mischaracterize.
No, my definition of natural is not that.
Consider this. Would you worship, as God, a physical being completely bound by natural law? A being with no knowledge or ability beyond our own grasp, even if that knowledge or ability were unavailable to us now. IOW, a being capable of being understood and explained by science, even if we were not capable of understanding or explaining that being with our current level of techlogy.
With respect, John Mace, it seems as though that argument leaves no direction for debate to go in. I we divorce the existence/nonexistence of God from any material evidence (BTW, I am here using what I think is your definition of the supernatural- it is, quite literally, that which material evidence cannot address, and therefore cannot be addressed by science, which is the study of purely material things), then, since our perception of reality is based exclusively on material evidence*, we cannot ever prove or disprove God’s existence. Furthermore, it is pointless to even argue the question.
Furthermore, once we admit that we cannot prove, disprove or even argue the question of God, we run up against a barrier in life as well as in debate. We, as material beings, can never truly believe in God (that is, never garner evidence of its existence), or demonstrably show its nonexistence. The only sensible position would therefore seem to be an agnostic one.
For the purpose of debate, as well as actually living according to religous principles or not, I think we have to interpret the supernatural through a materialist lens. That is, look for evidence of God (which, no matter what Der Trihs may asset, does exist- just as there is evidence, however limited or poorly interpreted, for a number of incorrect theories), see whether it is more convincing than the evidence that the world is purely composed of matter and energy, and then decide.
Finally, even if you take the position that “we cannot say, as you cannot disprove the supernatural on material grounds”, what would you then do to apply these beliefs to life? Even if we accept the possible existence of a deity, it does not follow that it should be a Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist (yes, I know Buddhism is not strictly theistic) one. Indeed, as far as we can tell from the reported interactions of this “X” with the world, it appears to be carrying a number of contradictory messages- after all, there are just as many people who have visions of peace and love as there are those who are sure God tells them to go out and kill. Any action seems just as likely to antagonise this entity as to placate it, so why bother at all?
*Yes, this is a bald assertion. I also think it is true. Even in those occasions where the supernatural has been claimed to interact with humans (miracles, visions, whatever), it does so through a physical medium: we hear voices, see a burning bush, or undergo a change in our brain’s chemistry so as to become convinced of a certain worldview.
Oh, and I agree that religion plays a role in shaping the growth of mankind, just as science does. The two have even interlapped (such as the important role that Christian philosphers such as Aquinas played in paving the way for the rationalist thought that is the foundation of Western scientific thought). Religion also promotes social cohesion, albeit sometimes by excluding those who refuse to integrate with it- mind you, many other social institutions do exactly the same thing. Religion is no more an absolute evil than is science, although both have been misapplied. For every evil that Der Trihs can name committed in pursuit of religion, I would wager that a religous poster could produce one commited for lofty scientific ideals. Equally, both sides can produce evidence that their discipline has helped to further mankind’s development.
Even if you regard all of religion’s achievements as being tainted because they were committed in pursuit of what might be called ignorance and superstition (not that science has always worked in complete awareness of the truth- see the many eugenics programs of the 19th and 20th century for an example), it cannot be denied that religion plays an important role in many people’s lives, providing solace and sposoring good deeds. Yes, of course it also works towards less positive ends (there is almost certainly a correlation between the spread of AIDS in Africa and the actions of the Catholic church), but religion works both ways.
Did I mention I really like this post. It illustrates a simple point. Beyond the limits of our religion, tradition and culture, there is one source and with one consistant message.
Is that absolutely true?
A brain tumour?
Seriously, if you believe that there is only one supernatural entity, how do you account for the wide variety of supernatural messages received by those who undergo such experineces? Outside of the hypothetical posed by that post, its likely that the Muslim would receive a completely different message than the Hindu, even if both were convinced they were divinely inspired.
Note that you interjected the term supernatural entity, not I. I simply meant that truth both known and unknown is consistant.
As for the rest. We have plenty of examples of messages that are claimed to be divinely inspired that contradict. There’s at least two reasons.
Take the purest water and pour it through a series of impure filters. Each filter will leave the water that passed through it with traces of it’s impurity. The water that comes through each filter will be different than the water from that passed through the other filters. All from the same source.
So Jesus and Buddha were pretty clean filters.
Perhaps Gandhi and Mother Theresa were fairly pure filters as well
Jimmy Swaggart would be a filter full of shit.
Warning; don't drink the water.
Reason two would be; people can choose to declare anything divine inspiration.
Those that are mistaken or purposely bogus are simply that.Again , I don’t get your point. The being you describe would not be God.
Remember the old Star Trek episode where they found Apollo was some very powerful alien who actually visited earth and was worshiped? If I was in ancient Greece I would probably worship him. If I was a member of the enterprise crew I wouldn’t. So what? Having more scientific knowledge and a broader experience with unexplained phenomenon the crew of the enterprise is less likely to jump to the God conclusion.
I understand science and the application of Occam’s razor. I find that reasonable and understand why people choose atheism. I also think it’s reasonable for people to consider more spiritual answers for some of life’s mysteries.
If someone was limited by geography and education we wouldn’t describe their lack of understanding as irrational. If people surround themselves with like minded believers and are shielded from an real examination of the available evidence I don’t call that irrational. Just unfortunate.
I do however have a problem with people who choose their belief system and then declare anyone who doesn’t agree with them to be wrong, no matter what their belief system is.
Oh my Lord Gord! I shall worship you, verily… til something better comes along!
I’m not sure how you view worship. It isn’t always a form of subservient groveling.
For me it’s reverence for concepts such as “Love thy neighbor as thyself” and “The truth shall set you free” When you find something better than those please let me know. I’m all ears.
Seriously, in real life I work in the circus. this is me
I apologise for interjecting the term supernatural entity, but it appears to me that what you are describing- a force dwelling completely outside the universe as we know with power and knowledge surpassing human comprehension and with a set of rules it “wants” us to follow (the best way for a culmsy human to describe this force)- is a supernatural entity. If that is not what you are describing- if the “truth” you speak of is something else- I apologise for having misunderstood you.
But how do you determine the purity of the filter without making a purely subjective judgement? How do you know that the message is actually one of intolerance and hate, but that Jesus related the information in a very faulty manner? That is, if you are saying that these messages are from some form of communication from a literally divine being, rather than an expression of ideas that you think are a good idea (which you may not be).
We can tell that water is impure because we make a judgement about what “impure” means. But if we are talking about actual philosophical concepts, the only absolute rules are those that would be coming, literally, from God. Here’s the problem- since we rely on inherently falible mediums to learn this message, we can never know what “real” truth is- if someone is preaching any given message it has an equal probability of having come from God as any other given message does. How do you sort out the good prophets from the false ones?
You made an understandable assumption. No harm done. I chose those words specifically to allow different belief sets still apply.
I would say the truth, the part of it we don’t yet see, is knowledge surpassing human comprehension. I use the term God but in a more fluid sense than most. I don’t see God as a supreme being out there somewhere who created everything and has a set of rules for us to follow and meets out punishment or reward. I see God as something as yet unexplained that we are all a part of.
That determination is exactly what the spiritual journey is all about. We all have to make a subjective judgement call about what we value. To me, concerning spirituality, I prefer the simple measure spoken of here
IMO it’s all about love and truth. “The truth will set you free” and “Love they neighbor as thyself” It really doesn’t matter to me if a person holds these things as valuble out of a philosophical belief rather than a spiritual one. There are varied winding paths but I think love and truth will eventually lead us to the same destination.
I think the basic message of Jesus and Buddha was that each individual has equal access to love and truth. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would lead us into all truth and the truth will set us free. He also said the kingdom of heaven is within you. You might describe my view of God as love and truth in the absolute. As it happens I agree with one of the boards notable atheists Sentientmeat in that what is called for is personal examination and personal honesty. or “to thine own self be true” So in my view of God and spirituality we each have one infallible medium through which to learn his message. Ourselves.
I’m a lot of things…‘humble’ isn’t one of them. 
I give an HONEST opinion however.
I suppose its all in how you learned the acronym…I learned it as honest not humble. Different strokes and all that.
-XT
So the spiritual truths that I arrive at may be totally different from yours? Doesn’t that kind of undermine the idea of “truth”, which seems to me to suggest some sort of absolute philosophical position. While the positions you suggest are laudable ones, what if I were to engage in earnest inner searching and arrive at the conclusion that I was the centre of the universe and was justified in doing anything to advance my own happiness, even conventionally “evil” acts? Would this conclusion be equally valid to your principles (which I don’t attack, incidentally, I just question the methodology you used to arrive at them).
Common mistake, but my sreen name is cosmos…with that second S.
The choices we make based on our subjective evidence and our own perception of the truth, and the interaction that follows is all part of the process. When Muslim extremists decide they need to kill to please Alllah we must choose how best to respond. Our choices bring consequences, consequences and experiences hopefully bring learning and an examination of our belief system, which may cause a change in our beliefs and new choices in dealiing with our world.
In my case my faith is that love and truth are eternal and positive. Eventually through our varied winding paths that is the place we all come to.
But without the “c”?