Woman "lets god take the wheel," runs over motorcyclist and drives off - Page 25 - Religion, God, and Theology

Ok, I guess I'm done, assuming that I don't change my mind in a couple of days because the urge to say something else overwhelms my current feeling of simply being overwhelmed.

Thanks to everyone who contributed,there are some great posts ITT.

Quote

10-09-2014 , 08:18 PM

#603

LucidDream

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 10,714

Quote:

Originally Posted by craig1120

It's like there are two people standing outside a building continuously arguing back and forth about what's really inside and I'm over here saying why don't you guys just go in and look. One person says he doesn't need to because this book already tells him what's inside and the other says you first need to prove to me there is something there before I move. This is way too simplistic of an analogy but still useful.

The real reason why they won't walk into the building is because there is someone standing in front of each of them impeding their path and constantly telling them not to walk in that direction. This person is their own personal bodyguard hired to protect them. The problem is he sucks at his job and they have been controlled and manipulated by this person their entire lives under the guise of protection. In order to get into the building, they first have to acknowledge their bodyguard is there, take an objective look at him, and then they have to accept the psychological pain that he has been lying to them their entire lives about always having their best interest in mind. Finally they have to muster up the strength to fight through him.

I get why people don't want to go through that but they should realize it and not delude themselves into believing that they should feel secure in their conclusions.

This is a really great post as simplistic as it may be. Ego is a helluva drug!!

Quote

10-13-2014 , 09:47 AM

#604

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aaron W.

It is often the case that in debates, the entire reason debate exists is due to the inability to clearly arbitrate facts.

For example, if this were a discussion of policy, we could potentially end up debating the merits of policy decisions based on the best estimates that are each founded upon different assumptions.

it is true that debate (often) is a result of being unable to clearly arbitrate something, but the implied argument here is that the "fact" (the spiritual experience) can't even be expressed, communicated or explained and therefore any debate is negated.

And I don't really see the point of that. "I believe something, but any disagreement is void because I can't tell you what, why or how." Why even bring it up?

Quote

10-13-2014 , 10:53 AM

#605

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

As with most things related to human experiences, there is the opportunity for a shared experience. We all believe that everyone else has some sort of experience of consciousness similar to ours, but it's really hard to communicate it in a way that would make sense to someone who lacks it. The "fact" of our basic sensory experiences would be negated in that case. But in many cases, it isn't because of the existence of those shared experiences.

I can talk to you about "seeing" things because you understand "seeing" from your own experiences. I have a lot harder time talking about "seeing" things to someone who is born blind. And the more sensory experiences you take away, the harder it is for me to communicate.

Quote:

And I don't really see the point of that. "I believe something, but any disagreement is void because I can't tell you what, why or how." Why even bring it up?

The point of it is to attempt to communicate (at least at some level) the experience. Maybe we can't quite explain "seeing" to the blind person, but we can at least communicate some information about the objects we see in a way that might connect to him. Or not. But the point is that those experiences may still carry useful content.

What MB is doing (as the blind man in this analogy) is insisting that because he can't see that it must be that the person who can see should negate the experience of seeing. Indeed, if MB is actually interested in seeing, he should simply allow the person who can see to attempt to explain seeing as best as possible, and not challenge the seeing itself. (Of course, I don't think that MB any more interested in that as he is capable of changing his perspectives as the result of rational conversation.)