Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see any need for deeper philosophy to distinguish between the two words. "Know" means to a reasonable certainty. Use the court term. Beyond reasonable doubt. I bought the bag of coffee in the coffee aisle. The bag was marked coffee. The UPC code scanned as coffee and charged the the price appropriate for coffee. When I opened it, it looked and smelled like coffee. When I brewed it, it tasted like coffee. That's good enough for me to "know" I had coffee, and that is the kind of certainty that would stand up in court. "Beyond reasonable doubt" doesn't mean 100% certainty as as been implied by a couple of others here.
303Guy says he had beer, and he was clearly certain about that. He could probably taste the floral or citrus characteristics of the hops used in the brew, and the slightly sweet taste of the malted barley, and experienced the carbonation (which indicated that yeast had been used), so, even though he probably didn't go to the brewery to make sure the brewer was adhering to Reinheitsgebot (Beer purity laws), he's as certain he had a beer yesterday evening as I am that I had coffee yesterday morning. That is "KNOWING," not "BELIEVING."
I don't know anything about deep meditation. However, I do know that a person who has been hypnotized cannot testify in court, so, if deep meditation is anything like self-hypnosis, many reasonable people would consider what you claim as "knowledge" as "belief." That doesn't make it any less real to you. It simply means that it is not subject to objective analysis like the beer and coffee are. You can testify in court about your deep meditation experience. The jury will be given clear instructions about the definition of reasonable doubt before they begin deliberations.
Christians and other religious people sometimes refer to themselves as "believers." Sometimes, our Atheist members refer to themselves as "non-believers." That makes perfectly good sense to me. None of them can provide any objective, testable evidence to defend either position. The only position that comes from "knowledge" is agnosticism, which states that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproved.
There you have it; a description of the difference between "KNOW" and "BELIEVE."
You mention court.
One of the most common forms of evidence presented in courts is personal testimony, and many judges and juries have made determinations and rulings off of it.
Very few things has as much corraborating personal testimony as the existence of a God Entity.
So, based upon your argument of what counts in courts: The overwhelming consensus of corroborating personal testimony of hundreds and hundreds of millions of people (the vast majority of all those who have lived over the last couple thousand years) that they are aware of the existence of a God Entity, and they "know" it anecdotally...it must be determined and ruled that God Exists. Right?! Based upon your argument that what does or doesn't count in courts is a valid supportive basis, of course.
Round and round the circular argument goes (sorry, but rolling the eyes is the only response to this) we have done this. Personal testimony is allowed in court - eyewitness, old chum, not secondhand. But is immediately put to test and if it does not stand up to scrutiny, is deemed not valid evidence.
Only scientific evidence is given some well -earned credibility at the outset.
And miracle -claims are given no credibility at all. And I'm surprised that you even field the law -court analogy when you have shown little regard for the validity of law in the past - except where it suits you.
Round and round the circular argument goes (sorry, but rolling the eyes is the only response to this) we have done this. Personal testimony is allowed in court - eyewitness, old chum, not secondhand. But is immediately put to test and if it does not stand up to scrutiny, is deemed not valid evidence.
Only scientific evidence if given some well -earned credibility at the outset.
And miracle -claims are given no credibility at all. And I'm surprised that you even field the law -court analogy when you have shown little regard for the validity of law in the past - except where it suits you.
I was noting mensaguys appeal to what courts use to make rulings and determinations.
As you know I think "The Courts" and "The Law" are bogus appeals. It is those like mensa (and you) that try to use them. So, I switch it up on you.
The government commonly uses consensus to determine assignment of certain titles...such as what can be titled "obscene", or "hateful", or "charity", etc...based upon the perception of the masses that that which can be titled as such exists and can be deemed to be through that mass perception.
By that same logic...there is mass consensus that that which can be titled "God" is perceived to exist.
You cannot use The Law/Courts to argue your point...but dismiss it when it works against you.
There is no question that people absolutely positively "believe" that the experience they are having with the deity of their choice is valid and real. The experience is certainly valid and real to them. The question for the rest of us becomes, is this experience based on actual physical contact with a deity of some kind, or is the condition entirely mental and occuring only within the mind of the individual who is experiencing the feeling of connection to something greater?
I was raised Penetcostal, and I remember attending tent revival meetings when I was a youngster in the early fifties. These were the sights of the famous, or infamous, Holy Roller meetings. I cannot say that the sight of grown people, including members of my own family, babbling out incoherently while in a state of apparent religious ecstasy EVER moved me to undergo the same experience. As a kid of four and five it was all very overwhelming. I would say the feelings I experienced watching matrons in their Sunday dresses flopping about on the ground babbling out nonsense were closer to horror, and yes, contempt, even as a child, than a religious experience for me. I was too young to understand the concept of crazy, but I did understand that suddenly adults that I was counting on to be responsible for my well being had been reduced to babbling imbiciles. Those in the throes of "tongues" fully believed though, that the Lord had touched and moved them. Or at least so they claimed. So the real question here is, in what way is the belief and the claim that this condition was a physical manifestation of the workings of the Lord, or simply a total delusion and a form of self induced state of religious ecstasy that I myself never once experienced? And if it is NOT real, then it must be a form of hysteria, though deeply felt, which was no different from a form of self deception which is ultimately little different from personal self gratification. In other words, what difference is there between bringing onself to a state of religious ecstasy, and simply being full of the stuff that the little bird left on the rock?
In Acts of the Apostles, we see Paul collapsing while on the road to Damascus. One reason, at least, for his collapse is actually given in the text of Acts. He went three days without drinking. Three days without drinking, especially in a dry desert clime, is a critical condition. People go out of their heads when the become severly dehydrated. Hallucionations are not only to be expected in such a state, they can be counted on. And, sure enough, Paul believed after his recovery, and while he was being cared for by a Christian man, that he, Paul, had met with the years dead Jesus. This was a life altering experience for Paul. But in the light of reason, are we, two thousand years later, REALLY compelled to "believe" that Paul actually met with a dead man while he was desperitally ill? Because you see, THIS is the difference between belief, having faith in that belief, and pure reason and knowledge. Because knowledge and reason tell us that Paul could not possibly ACTUALLY have met with a dead man. And that the experience was entirely in his head. But it was real to Paul. Because some people are more given to ascribe deep spiritual meaning to experiences they do not have the means to understand, while others are more pragmatic in their view of reality. Even as a small child, when I was told that God would touch me and speak to me, I actually expected God to physically touch me in some way, and that I would physically hear the sound of His voice. But these things never once occurred. By the time I was 13 I had become convinced that Christian claims specifically, and religion in general, are far to silly to be vlaid.
And no one can convince me that this is anything but foolish nonsense.
The experience of religious ecstasy is not restricted to Christians. "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 facinating 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." Understanding this is the key to the whole experience of being "touched by God." Watch this video to the end, because it explains so much.
I was raised Penetcostal, and I remember attending tent revival meetings when I was a youngster in the early fifties. These were the sights of the famous, or infamous, Holy Roller meetings.
I had limited exposure to it in the South. Did they look like this:
One thing I notice: you never see the cameramen holding $8000 camcorders on their shoulders get slain in the Spirit. Thankfully the Holy Spirit knows the value of an extremely expensive piece of AV equipment to the church till.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 08-19-2017 at 09:45 AM..
I was noting mensaguys appeal to what courts use to make rulings and determinations.
As you know I think "The Courts" and "The Law" are bogus appeals. It is those like mensa (and you) that try to use them. So, I switch it up on you.
The government commonly uses consensus to determine assignment of certain titles...such as what can be titled "obscene", or "hateful", or "charity", etc...based upon the perception of the masses that that which can be titled as such exists and can be deemed to be through that mass perception.
By that same logic...there is mass consensus that that which can be titled "God" is perceived to exist.
You cannot use The Law/Courts to argue your point...but dismiss it when it works against you.
I don't care to whom you were replying; if you talk crap, I will point it out. I am not falling for your piddling point scoring tricks.
And I couldn't care less about your views on the law and courts, any more than I do about yopur views on atheism or it's rationale. You lost touch with credibility months ago.
Have a very mice weekend. Enjoy the eclipse?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-19-2017 at 09:58 AM..
One thing I noticed: you never saw a cameraman holding a $3000 camera on his shoulder get slain in the Spirit. Thankfully the Holy Spirit knows the value of an extremely expensive piece of AV equipment to a church service.
Good point. I think we have seen enough evidence that this stuff is staged and faked. Everybody knows it is, and yet we still get it presented as Evidence when it is just a hoot. It's because nobody dares to say so. I think the operative post was by a deconvert saying that he was called forward to speak in tongues. He didn't know what to do, so the pastor leaned forward and whispered: "Fake it; everybody does".
But you can't say so. This is one of the prime revelations of the Tracie Harris 'Family values' video - that you don't need to believe it; you don't even need to make everyone else think you believe it, but you must not stand up in public and say so. If you pretend - it's ok. If you stop pretending, You are Out.
If you are Jewish or Amish, they will shun you. If you are Christian, you will lose your Job, friends and probably family. In Islam, you will lose your freedom and probably your life.
Did I hear someone ask "What about atheism?" What will you lose if you stand up and say you don't believe it any more? You will lose rationality, in that one area at least. That's all you will lose.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-19-2017 at 09:55 AM..
I don't care to whom you replying; if you talk crap, i will point it out.
And I couldn't care less about your views on the law and courts, any more than I do about atheism or it's rationale. You lost tought with credibility months ago.
Have a very mice weekend. Enjoy the eclipse?
I never "talk crap". That is just bogus ad Hom cuz you can't rebut what is logical and reasonable...and that is the only thing I put forth.
The eclipse will only be about 60% here in Northeast, USA...but I'm still gonna check it out.
Been great meteor showers lately. Really good, huge sky view from on top of my mountain...and very little light to wash it out.
I never "talk crap". That is just bogus ad Hom cuz you can't rebut what is logical and reasonable...and that is the only thing I put forth.
The eclipse will only be about 60% here in Northeast, USA...but I'm still gonna check it out.
Been great meteor showers lately. Really good, huge sky view from on top of my mountain...and very little light to wash it out.
Yes you do, and deny it. Nobody is fooled by your denial. Probably not even your hero, Mystic, wh no doubt regards you as a profound embarrassment because your clumsy attempts to imitate him, shows up what tricks he's pulling
You're worth a rifle company to us.
The eclipse wasn't yesterday? But I got the meteors.
Yes you do, and deny it. Nobody is fooled by your denial. Probably not even your hero, Mystic, wh no doubt regards you as a profound embarrassment because your clumsy attempts to imitate him, shows up what tricks he's pulling
You're worth a rifle company to us.
The eclipse wasn't yesterday? But I got the meteors.
The eclipse is Mon the 21st.
Mystic is much smarter, and a (subjectively) much nicer person than me...I could never "imitate him", nor do I try. He has taught me a lot...but I put forth my own views.
I put forth only unequivocally irrefutable, logic, reason, and facts-on-the-ground based views that match observations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(sorry, but rolling the eyes is the only response to this) we have done this. Personal testimony is allowed in court - eyewitness, old chum, not secondhand. But is immediately put to test and if it does not stand up to scrutiny, is deemed not valid evidence.
Enjoy the eclipse?
