Oh yes, the idea of spending an eternity in hell sounds magnificent.

The concept of hell is a funny thing. Nobody believes they themselves are going to hell, they only believe other people are.

A lot of people think they are going to hell.

Bunyan who wrote Pilgrim's Progress was convinced of his own depravity.

Bunyan's wiki:

In his autobiographical book, Grace Abounding, Bunyan writes that he led an abandoned life in his youth, and was morally reprehensible as a result. However, there appears to be no outward evidence that he was worse than his neighbours. Examples of sins to which he confesses in Grace Abounding are profanity, dancing and bell-ringing. The increasing awareness of his un-Biblical life led him to contemplate acts of impiety and profanity; in particular, he was harassed by a curiosity in regard to the "unpardonable sin", and a prepossession that he had already committed it. He was known as an adept linguist as far as profanity was concerned, even the most proficient swearers were known to remark that Bunyan was "the ungodliest fellow for swearing they ever heard". While playing a game, Tip-cat, in the village square, Bunyan claimed to have heard a voice that asked: "Wilt thou leave thy sins and go to heaven or have thy sins and go to hell?" He believed it was the voice of God chastising his indulgent ways, as Puritans held sacred the Sabbath day and permitted no sport. His spirituality was born from this experience and he struggled both with his sense of guilt and self-doubt and his belief in the Bible's promise of Christian damnation and salvation.

As he struggled with his newfound faith, Bunyan became increasingly despondent and fell into mental as well as physical turmoil. During this time of conflict, Bunyan began a four year long discussion and spiritual journey with a few poor women of Bedford who belonged to a nonconformist sect which worshipped in St. John's Church. He increasingly identified himself with St. Paul, who had characterised himself as "the chief of sinners", and believed he was one of the spiritual elite, chosen by God. As a result of these experiences, he was baptised and received into the Baptist church in Bedford in 1653.

If this is the idea, I dont need any questions. Experience is wordless.

I agree, but only in a very limited sense.

This line of thinking is insufficient to explain to anyone else what's going on in your perspective of the universe. Theists who have some sort of "personal experience" are often criticized very strongly for taking this position when attempting to explain and justify their belief system. This does not make their position/experience wrong or false, but it puts a severe limit on communicable ideas.

So as long as you do not wish to convey any information to anyone else about your understanding of the universe, this is fine.

Ah, but that is a different thing, that was not what was asked.

I think they are critized for assuming that others should be the same, and for thinking that it is a strong argument for believing in their god.

It will allow you to have a sensible world view.

So, you don't believe in the law of excluded middle?

Using that law, is 65° F hot or cold?

yes

This is your assertion. Religion is also a matter of fact, not opinion.

Exactly; that's why the fact that Ravi is a Christian is not grounds for your remark that it's as fascinating as a Muslim supporting Islam-see the genetic fallacy.

Your response to me assumes I'm arguing for Ravi's statement as compelling based only on the fact that he said it. In this way no statement, ever, can be compelling from anyone at any time, if you demand this limitation. For instance, if a Harvard scientist with 4 doctorates says there is no case for any view other than common descent, you must have the same reasoning applied that you cannot take that as compelling in any way, but that is ridiculous. It may not make his statement true, but it is noteworthy in some respect. The appeal to authority fallacy is based on believing someone based on who they are, not what they say (the merit thereof) - if I'm not arguing belief based on who Ravi is (which I didn't and am not), nor am I arguing he's correct in his assessment based on what he said, which I am not, I have not committed this fallacy. But his coming to this WV must be accounted for in some way. Even in denying common descent, I must account for that Harvard Ph.D in some way, because it's a compelling statement. My reasoning would be the nature of the theory, that it is vague and ambiguous to the point of not being falsifiable, so it is very easy to support and fall for. So the strong statement from the Harvard Ph.D must be accounted for.

You on the other hand have seemingly dismissed Ravi based on his WV, not being impressed with him NOT because you know the merit of his arguments, but because of what he believes, which is a kind of reversal of the appeal to authority (see the genetic fallacy).

So you also see that religion is a matter of fact, not preference. I suppose what someone subscribes to is a matter of preference, but the substance of whatever that religion is, is a matter of truth. I.e., I can say science is a matter of opinion in the sense that I can choose to believe scientific facts or deny them, but whether something is a scientific fact is a truth issue.

This is something you should take for yourself. And I never argued something is true because of who someone is, but rather the context of his body of knowledge allows for that statement to have more meaning.

This is your ignorance. "Evolution" is agreed by all religions in the minimalistic definition (small-scale, or microevolution). Regarding the theory of common descent, I disbelieve because it lacks merit (as my evolution thread states explicitly); we don't observe it, we can't verify or falsify it; it's not scientific.

I could fit the modern theory of evolution into my belief system; it's not really an issue for me. I almost did. But then I researched it and realized it wasn't true, so that went out the window. I'll be continuing in that thread soon, hopefully within a week with another long series of posts.

Grunch:

1) What is "a complete and coherent worldview"?

2) Where can I get one?

I'm not even trying to be funny or snide here - I think the idea of a 'complete and coherent worldview' is... silly. At least, as described from the inside, it's vacuous - all worldviews, surely, must be regarded as 'complete' by those who hold them - no? In the same way that there's no word for 'a thing of whose existence I am unaware'.

At best, this 'C&C worldview' mentioned in the OP is some sort of trophy item, contained within one's actual worldview - a mirror or model or map of the actual worldview, a worldviewview. And the notion of actual completeness/coherence as applied to the worldviewview makes no sense.

What if its a continually unfolding worldview?

How can you know that it is 'continually' unfolding? Wouldn't you have to say, at each point, that you don't know whether it will continue to unfold, or stop where it is?

I think its why they talk about a "path" so much in religion. A path unfolds in front of you as you walk it.

Karen Armstrong says the ancient world was not so hung up on religious questions as we are today. It was all about practice.

Its interesting your posts just happened to coincide with me finding this article with this quote from it:

leadership of God's people is a response to an understanding of God as he reveals himself to human beings. The use of this form of the commissioning narrative would emphasize that God is active in the world, that he is at work in unfolding historical events, and that leadership of God's people must be grounded in an understanding of that activity of God in the world (the prophetic phrase "stand in the council of God" carries the same theological implication, e.g., Jer. 23:18-22).

http://www.crivoice.org/prophetcall.html

... OK.

Jeremiah 23:

23 "Am I only a God nearby,"
declares the LORD,
"and not a God far away?

24 Can anyone hide in secret places
so that I cannot see him?"
declares the LORD.
"Do not I fill heaven and earth?"
declares the LORD.

I said 'OK'. What more do you want?

Thank you. I knew you were a reasonable man Flynn.

I'm just showing you something I came across.

lol, this is fun.

youre saying the law of excluded middle prevents there from being genuine statements of opinion?

no.

They are often criticized merely for believing based on the personal experience.

I don't think it's common for people to argue that someone else should believe based on their experiences that are not shared by the other person (ie, "This is why you should believe.) It's far more common that something is being communicated in an attempt to explain some aspect of the experience which is what causes this person to believe (ie, "This is why I believe"). Whether you want to call that an "argument for believing" or if it's closer to "experience is wordless" probably depends on whether you agree with the conclusion.

What do you mean, no?

the law of excluded middle is relevant only to propositions.

not all utterances are propositions. in fact, plenty aren't. questions, commands, ungrammatical sentences, etc. are not propositions.

at some point there is contention about what constitutes a proposition. but most philosophers do not think value judgements (opinions) count. these are expressions of feeling, but are not statements about the way the world actually is.

whether or not 65 degrees counts as hot or cold is an entirely subjective valuation, and hence, not a proposition. so no truth or falsity is attached.

I agree, hence my response to the question.

The question did not make any sense. Neither did my answer.