[Previous entry: "penguins"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Chickens five"]

12/07/2001 Archived Entry: "More chickens, 4"

Chickens and PattyKake, installment 4..........

For time sequence,
PattyKake posted first >: > >
then da chickens first is prefaced by >: >
then PK responses by >
and da chickens unprefaced

>Granted, my words cannot adequately define or explain ANYTHING to
>anybody else in a way to convey exactly what I mean. How you read or
>hear my words is colored not only by my reference point but by yours.

That's not what I am talking about. There is acceptance of testimony -
within reason. It is reasonable to accept testimony that two different
people can corroborate, unless they are attempting to "interpret" what
they witnessed.

Religious testimony is not a presentation of facts as observed by
witnesses which allows free-form discussion of the possibilities and
further investigation. Religion is the act of interpreting those
witnessed events and assigning them meaning without the knowledge of
how to do so or the information to apply to them.

I would accept your testimony as to a car accident. And if a bright
light tells you to worship cheese burgers, I'll eventually believe you
saw it if you insist enough and convince me you aren't just jerking my
chain. But if you then attempt to interpret who the light was and what
it means, then you are out of your depth since you are not capable of
doing so.
>What is truth????????

My wife engages in solipsism during these discussions as well. Once
begun, such a tactic renders all discussion meaningless. It is best
avoided.

>: > I agree with that. Therefore the Bible is wrong. The Koran is wrong.
>: > The Tao Te Ching is wrong.

>Wrong is the wrong word.

No, "wrong" is dead on. Any output not processed from input is wrong.

>Doesn't negate the reality for the person who experienced it

That I agree with. What you experience directly must be dealt with
internally by you. However, I seriously, seriously doubt you have had
a life experience that directly speaks to Jesus being the only path to
God and the alternative being descent into hell. Especially since all
these beliefs stem from the one line "I am the light, I am the way"
verse from one book in the Bible.

>what 260 beats per minute for a sustained period means
>and how it affects a person.

I suffer from PAT as well.

>: > >That would be like a blind man saying the sky nor the top of a tree
>: > >nor lightning nor a flying eagle exist because he cannot see them

>: > A classical logical fallacy used by the religious. You twisted it so
>: > it is backwards from the actual analogy. More correctly: Religion is
>: > the equivalent of a blind man telling others what color everything is,
>: > how tall things are, and how beautiful the sunset is.

>You da backwards chicken---I am not telling you about something you
>have experienced which I have not, but you are trying to tell me what
>I have experienced is false.

No, I'm not trying to tell you anything about what you have
experienced at all. I'm simply stating that you can only witness what
you see and hear and touch and taste. You are not capable of then
"interpreting" those events using descriptions of things beyond your
own reasoning and knowledge.

>: > Christianity and other testimonies as to the structure of the
>: > afterlife, the wants and needs of the supposed super being, and the
>: > other data that supposedly come from unperceivable existence beyond
>: > our senses - these are the things described by blind and deaf men for
>: > other blind and deaf men. And that's what's wrong with the testimony.
>: > That's what's wrong with organized religions.

>me too. Couldn't agree more.

And that paragraph above is the _only_ point I've been trying to make
in this entire thread. I just don't believe that another human alive
today can say "God likes it when you..." or "There is a hell and I
know who's going..." or "God is blue."

>: > Then you cannot include things such as the holiness of Jesus Christ in
>: > your belief system - otherwise the above is untrue. By adopting
>: > Christianity, you, by default, have decided to accept unexperienced
>: > testimony of other people for your beliefs - the very antithesis of
>: > your response to me.

>I can include anything I choose to include. It is MY belief and what
>works for ME and gives ME strength, hope, sustenance.

You seem to be attempting to turn this into a discussion of personal
freedom and liberty. You are free to believe what you like. However,
some beliefs are unreasonable given that no human could have known
them, and there is no other source for such knowledge other than
personal experience, and it is impossible that you or I, were either
of us to experience the supernatural, could interpret that experience
properly and rule out other possibilities other than "divine" ones.

>There is a shortage of people as smart as you are. Gotta have
>messengers for everybody.

No, I don't believe that we know that "IT" wishes to send messages. It
is entirely possible that such messages come from somewhere else and
simply have IT's return address - but are really confusing
supernatural spam. It could be that revelations of the world beyond
our knowing would ruin our experience of this one.

But the reason I say that intelligence is a pre-requisite is that
without knowledge, you cannot process data input into information
output. We lack the information necessary to produce such knowledge to
handle supernatural input.

The less intelligence someone has, the more likely they are to produce
output that is invalid from limited input that they processed
incorrectly.

>Okay, my restatement: the intelligent dude wanted Jesus to tell him
>some of what he knew about God and other spiritual things. The dude
>wouldn't even believe when he was told about healing of the sick
>(anybody you know?) or other manifestations of power that people had
>witnessed, so why should Jesus take the time to explain things that
>can't be seen?

Because healing of the sick is only evidence that sick people got
better. It is not evidence that Satan or Pleadians didn't do the
healing. It is not evidence that Jesus is not a healing robot from
Planet X. It is not evidence, in fact, that Jesus was the catalyst.

Jesus' expectation was remarkably indicative of low intelligence. His
expectations were unreasonable. Were he truly God incarnate, he should
have understood the limitations of his creations. Were he truly in
mulitplex communication with God, he should have been informed as to
what would be reasonable to provide evidence.

I see the act as being indicative of a man thrust into a role he did
not assume himself. He was not the son of god, and did not want to be
known as such. He may have simply been a great rabbi with a jar full
of penecillin that people kept insisting was religious.

Let me ask you this: If I levitate and heal the sick, will you believe
everything I say know matter what anyone else says? That's what you do
when you believe the gospel. You are letting someone's personal
abilities as witnessed stand as evidence of things they are not
relevant to.

>You doubt yourself because somebody else doesn't/won't corroborate
>your feelings, experiences? You feel a pain in your gut, nobody else
>can feel it, so it isn't really there?

No. I doubt my own interpretations of things I witness which I have no
capability to know. If I have a headache, I believe it is real. If I
see a ghost, I believe I saw something, but I am quick to avoid
attempting to explain the mechanism behind what I saw and the meaning
of it.

>Hearing voices is not what it's about.

It's exactly what it is about.

>So, going to a previous paragraph, others DO verify for me the reality
>of God and his power and strength in my life.

Together, you celebrate the ignorant practice of attempting to define
and explain experiences that you did not have directly without the
knowledge to do so. Together, you support one another against any
logical debate that might change your minds and create an unsettled
and uncomfortable feeling of The Unknown, the enemy of those who
embrace religion.

>Thank you so very much for helping me realize and almost be able to
>put into words why I look forward to Sunday mornings.

An intellectual tragedy. An emotional cocoon.