• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What if billions of people are wrong?

Page 16 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
My boss posed the question the other day as to who was the late 90's tennis star from the US who won one or two major's. He was blond with normaly tanned to reddish face, and like Chang rose quickly to the top and then dissapeared due mainly to what he supposed was a blown out knee. Being that I followed tennis during that period as I do now, although not as much, I knew that I should be aware of who it is that he is speaking of. Sampras, Agazzi, Chang, all americans but not fitting the description...
Ah good the meat man is here, "Kerwin, late 90's, American tennis star, one or two major's, blond hair, red face?"
"Borg"
Oh ya, Edberg, Becker... closer to the data bank, but still no winner.
Brent will know, he's a sports buff.
Nope he lists the same names, although at this juncture neither of us can remember Boris Becker's name. The boss thought his last name started with C. Brent "Last name C?", "don't say such things you'll only confuse me, I have to get the first name, or it'll just come to me." Well that's obvious, but sometimes it's the last name that gets the first name that pictures the face.

Following day, Brent:"I think it's connell", me:"conner", Brent:"Jim", me:"courier". His picture graces my cerebreal cortex, ahhh, another puzzle solved.
 
Hey, uh my brain is shutting down.. I'll respond tomorrow.. I might bring the perspective down to more personal focal points.. So bare with me.. off to bed.

😕
 
Nr8: I was using interpretive logic to argue to the existence of God, not necessarily the Christian God. To take the argument to completion, establishing a Christian God, requires a longer and more complex argument. If you're interested, check out the works of N.L. Geisler. He starts with a more complex form of the argument I've already presented and uses it to show why the established necessary being has to be the Judeo-Christian God, i.e., why polytheism is inaccurate, etc. It's pretty good stuff, even though I don't agree with absolutely everything he has come up with.
 
Petrek, I don't understand your salmon eggs allusion, but as far as absolute truth is concerned, but as far as absolute trut........, I'm reminded of the amazing Mullah Nasrudin who once said in regard to that question, "Truth is something I have never spoken, not will I." That, however, has nothing to do with whether or not it exists. Out of curiosity, what absolute truth were you refering to?
 
MB, My Beluga,'s roe analogy was reference to the spriritual darkness of the universe. The Truth that exists outside of the universe is God, and can be found in the Bible.
 
linuxboy:

I would still love the driver. If my child would die by the act of this driver, I would tear my clothes and weep. Then I would see if the driver was OK. The loss of one life does not justify any denial of love and rejection that this person can come to know God and receive salvation(in Christian terms, which I still am). To forgive oneself is alot harder than to forgive others.

Hmm.. I'll trust you on this one. I would certainly be screaming for vengeance at the top of my lungs if it was my child! I'll do more than just scream after that..

Onwards..

I thought I come back and wade into this discussion again, but it's starting to look like a drab to me. All these arguments on intellectual or logic design is at best empty. Somehow, the gestalt equation is misplaced because there is no bridging of a realizable parallel. I can appreciate (as MB said) the honest motivation -- but I sense no resonance with All the strings of words in here combined, except the usual posters who stand out... But nothing emotinally provoking, nothing to stir the soul -- to pierce the heart -- to illuminate the mind. I am more shakened (sic) and stirred by one song in Euphoric Trance than all the religion threads I've seen in ATOT. Either it is a lack of experiences and of the experimental in here or our current inability to express oneselves in words as it was born to be, not choosen..

So I leave with a quote of a Tibetan master:



<< "Study is of no use in gaining true knowledge, it is rather an obstacle. All that we learn in that way is vain. In fact, one only knows one's own ideas and one's own visions. As for the real causes that have generated these ideas they remain inaccessible to us. When we try to grasp them we only seize the ideas we, ourselves, have elaborated about these causes" -- Sakyong Gomchen
 >>




Until then.. I walk above Light and beneath Darkness.. the indivisble awaits me.
 
Study is of no use in gaining true knowledge, it is rather an obstacle. All that we learn in that way is vain. In fact, one only knows one's own ideas and one's own visions. As for the real causes that have generated these ideas they remain inaccessible to us. When we try to grasp them we only seize the ideas we, ourselves, have elaborated about these causes" -- Sakyong Gomchen


I like this BUT, those who seek are at a loss to what to do. Thus, one must go through the motions and understand with reason. If one does not understand with reason, there is some overcompensation in some other area of development.

Argh, I'm using a bunch of no-good theory here. You are right, this has become really intellectual. I'm trying to change this, although it is hard.

Here's what I mean:

I'm starting out and I need some way to know. How will I know this? I have reason which I use. I cannot just say screw you, I'm seeking esoteric methods of finding out which path to take. That may work but without guidance, the seeker is lost and can actually be damaged in the process. Reason is the cushion. It helps us to survive and even thrive and come to know the world through the senses. Thus, this is absolutely necessary. I was endowed by my Creator with a gift to understand at a far different level than most people. I sit and I think, I try to avoid it but this is who I am, this is what I must do. I cannot deny my own humanity.

With that in mind, I need reason. I need it so that I know with my entire being that fullness and totality that is beyond thought. I need that so I go through the motions which are known and so I can grow on the way by experiencing other people and their selves and try and proceed on this journey together. I need that. To "walk above light and beyond darkness" may be find but I have no idea what in the bloody heck that is. I have an idea of what/who Jesus is. That doesn't provide solace or comfort but it is Real to me. I need reason AND other faculties to understand that. When I start out, I need some direction and a sincere heart so that I understand what this thing called reality and existense is. If I try to do it with a method unnatural to me, I fail because I deny myself my humanity.

Does that make sense? I must use what God has given me. With humility, I proceed, with fear, trembling, and diligence so that I know that this agrees with what I perceive and what is revealed to me. Going "beyond" this reality sure sounds great, but croiky !, I'm stuck here.

I made this argument in the thread.

God features are ground in non-God features. They must be since we are limited.

I'd like to transcend, in my neuroticism, and be outside myself for Christ (see Athanasius' sig), but for you, for people, for those I know, I am still here, in the now, and living as we all are, working so that I save myself and those who listen to me; those who are around me in my life. I keep making allusions to scripture so forgive me for not citing sources. This is more sincere.

your quote however, appears to provide some insight, especially when its reflected upon.

thank you for your post.


Cheers ! 🙂
 
I thought I come back and wade into this discussion again, but it's starting to look like a drab to me. All these arguments on intellectual or logic design is at best empty. Somehow, the gestalt equation is misplaced because there is no bridging of a realizable parallel. I can appreciate (as MB said) the honest motivation -- but I sense no resonance with All the strings of words in here combined, except the usual posters who stand out... But nothing emotionally provoking, nothing to stir the soul -- to pierce the heart -- to illuminate the mind. I am more shakened (sic) and stirred by one song in Euphoric Trance than all the religion threads I've seen in ATOT. Either it is a lack of experiences and of the experimental in here or our current inability to express oneselves in words as it was born to be, not choosen..

Skylark,

I would suggest that ATOT isn?t the place to look for inspiration. This is a forum to voice opinions, but due to the nature of the medium, the posts are generally a bit abbreviated. In fact, these discussions tend to be between Christians and modernist, whose god is Reason. This necessitates the discussion taking on an esoteric quality.

For something emotionally provoking, something to stir the soul, something to pierce the heart and illuminate the mind I would suggest taking a few evenings and reading the Gospel of John, taking the time necessary to understand what you are reading. It would also be helpful is you could ask God that if he is real, and is the God of the Bible, that he would make himself known to you as you read.

I leave you with the words of King David. Knowing that these words apply to me certainly stirs my soul. They could just as easily apply to you.

Because the Lord is my Shepherd, I have everything I need! He lets me rest in the meadow grass and leads me beside the quiet streams. He restores my failing health. He helps me do what honors him the most. Even when walking through the dark valley of death I will not be afraid, for you are close beside me, guarding, guiding all the way.

You provide delicious food for me in the presence of my enemies. You have welcomed me as your guest; blessings overflow!

Your goodness and unfailing kindness shall be with me all of my life, and afterwards I will live with you forever in your home.
 
I don't have time to read the whole thread, but I saw the topic and have an answer for you...

Humans have a bad habbit of taking what masses say as truth. The world used to be flat didn't it? So for now at least there is a God. Maybe not in the future, but for now ....
 
Humans have a bad habbit of taking what masses say as truth.

Well, here's some more insane babble related to that.

When there is an attraction, say, a simple photo booth at a mall, if you were to hire people to pretend to be standing in line to have their picture taken, the amount of legitimate passerbys who stop to stand in this (again, unknown to them) staged line would rise exponentially, as opposed to what most would normally do, just ignore the ?uninteresting? (as defined by a lack of collective interest, to clarify) attraction. I?m sure there?s some sociological term for it, but this is the power of the herd. People invariably follow (and take comfort in) what others do. If a group is excited about something, it must be a for a good reason, so they join the group.

Another example is women?s makeup. Everyone knows what makeup is. Try looking at it from the POV of a non-human, intelligent being: Female human creatures putting colored substances on their faces in order to subscribe to the socially contrived notion that this makes them more attractive to male human creatures, who?s sex drive they entice which results in a feeling of social validation on the woman?s part. How many women wear makeup?

Sure, you could dismiss this as overanalyization, but the fact remains that the things we do, the things we take for granted, even at a fundamental level, are only meaningful relative to us. The way we think has been collectively defined. There exists a parallel state of mind that is congruent with ours, in which the meaning in all these contrivances is non-existant.

The only way a discussion on religion would be fair is if we had representatives from all religions throughout time. Presented with a whirring myriad of relative truths, none would be able to shut their eyes and say ?well you?re just wrong and I?m just right and that?s all there is to it?, as there are some who would still insist. Then I think it would be fundamentally clear that none of us have the slightest clue, and we?d all be able to walk away with a little enlightenment in our pockets.
 
MB:

skylark, the seeker knows not the path he should take.

Just a thought.

Heehee.. I was trying to stir the pot a bit.. Roused the natives up... Before this thread plummets into the recess of darkness, again. 😀

Here's something for you to munch on:


The Prophet


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And a man said, "Speak to us of Self-Knowledge."

And he answered, saying:

Your hearts know in silence the secrets of the days and the nights.

But your ears thirst for the sound of your heart's knowledge.

You would know in words that which you have always know in thought.

You would touch with your fingers the naked body of your dreams.

And it is well you should.

The hidden well-spring of your soul must needs rise and run murmuring to the sea;

And the treasure of your infinite depths would be revealed to your eyes.

But let there be no scales to weigh your unknown treasure;

And seek not the depths of your knowledge with staff or sounding line.

For self is a sea boundless and measureless.

Say not, "I have found the truth," but rather, "I have found a truth."

Say not, "I have found the path of the soul." Say rather, "I have met the soul walking upon my path."

For the soul walks upon all paths.

The soul walks not upon a line, neither does it grow like a reed.

The soul unfolds itself, like a lotus of countless petals.

--Kahlil Gibran
Linuxboy:

Bwahah, linux-san speaks.. heheh

I'm starting out and I need some way to know. How will I know this? I have reason which I use. I cannot just say screw you, I'm seeking esoteric methods of finding out which path to take. That may work but without guidance, the seeker is lost and can actually be damaged in the process. Reason is the cushion. It helps us to survive and even thrive and come to know the world through the senses. Thus, this is absolutely necessary. I was endowed by my Creator with a gift to understand at a far different level than most people. I sit and I think, I try to avoid it but this is who I am, this is what I must do. I cannot deny my own humanity.

With that in mind, I need reason. I need it so that I know with my entire being that fullness and totality that is beyond thought. I need that so I go through the motions which are known and so I can grow on the way by experiencing other people and their selves and try and proceed on this journey together. I need that. To "walk above light and beyond darkness" may be find but I have no idea what in the bloody heck that is. I have an idea of what/who Jesus is. That doesn't provide solace or comfort but it is Real to me. I need reason AND other faculties to understand that. When I start out, I need some direction and a sincere heart so that I understand what this thing called reality and existense is. If I try to do it with a method unnatural to me, I fail because I deny myself my humanity.


Yess, understood. The glue [Reason] that keeps your sanity intact and your benediction cohesive. Are we bound by it? Sometimes we must silence it by 'ungluing' the glue [process] in order to glimpse a moment of transcendence. A "stilled mind" needs no reason. A noisless mind becomes thinkless. Instead, it turns inwards to re-process how it externalizes the world, internally. Such as my previous comment (you did not understand) is about. There is no process of thinking involved. It will either resonate or not through the Yin side of you. If it did, there is that nanosecond, a reverberation permeating your body before your intellect envelops the awareness of insight..

Reflect on my last comment again, it is pre-symbolic of the Tibetan's quote: I walk above the Light and beneath Darkness..

It is up to you to discover what it is..

I'd like to transcend, in my neuroticism, and be outside myself for Christ (see Athanasius' sig), but for you, for people, for those I know, I am still here, in the now, and living as we all are, working so that I save myself and those who listen to me; those who are around me in my life. I keep making allusions to scripture so forgive me for not citing sources. This is more sincere.

I'm with you on that one.. I bet you always wanted to walk on water like Jesus.. 😀


PastorDon:

Because the Lord is my Shepherd, I have everything I need! He lets me rest in the meadow grass and leads me beside the quiet streams. He restores my failing health. He helps me do what honors him the most. Even when walking through the dark valley of death I will not be afraid, for you are close beside me, guarding, guiding all the way.

You provide delicious food for me in the presence of my enemies. You have welcomed me as your guest; blessings overflow!

Your goodness and unfailing kindness shall be with me all of my life, and afterwards I will live with you forever in your home.

Yesss... A friend once told me afte a few months of receiving my chants: "I feel like a son lost for 26 years but finally he finds his way home.."


Edit: OOps


 
If they are right, at least someone gets to be something besides nothing. If they are wrong, then all you do, all you say, and all you are is irrevelent and the cosmos means nothing. Bummer ain't it?
 
Hayabusarider, even assuming you have deliniated the choices with anything even approaching approximation, why a bummer? I would be interested in the assumptions that rests on.

Engine, women use makup to simulate the blod that colors those parts of their faces that redden upon sexual arousal which makes them look aroused.

skylark, you want me to munch on the Prophet? Oh oh, I see, the words.

I think what we have here is the problem that arises when we think of truth as something you can say, like the words in the Bible. They may be true, but in what way they are true, to whom that truth was relevant, how to apply it, and a host of other techicalities get easily lost when we become literal and for the reason that truth is a state of awareness, not a formula. As soon as a question is asked, "Speak to us of self knowledge" that which is beyond words can be crystalized into an applicable response. But the answer is not the truth, it is a finger point to the truth. The answer doesn't mean diddly squat if it doesn't bring awareness closer to The Awareness, the awareness that fuses the lover and the beloved inseparably.
 
"I think what we have here is the problem that arises when we think of truth as something you can say, like the words in the Bible."

I think truth can be said, and is said in the Bible. I think the problem arises when we try to express in words how that truth makes us feel emotionally.
 
The problem with using the bible to support the christian god is that god and the bible are one and the same entity. Without the bible there would be no concept of this god. When you consider that from this group of people during the time period from which the bible originated, there are many different interpretations (islam, judiasm, and the many others that for whatever reason did not gain popularity). Within each interpretation you have the X figure doing the Y miracle that thereby proves his legitimacy. If history did not play out the way it did it we would have had different religions being predominate. To buy into a particular religion is to believe that you are from a special "chosen" group, and there's obviously an inherent fallacy with that line of thinking, in that it caters to the ego.
 
Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac?



He lays awake at night wondering if there really is a DOG.



Sorry, I could not resist.
 
In re"The problem with using the bible to support the christian god is that god and the bible are one and the same entity. Without the bible there would be no concept of this god. When you consider that from this group of people during the time period from which the bible originated, there are many different interpretations (islam, judiasm, and the many others that for whatever reason did not gain popularity). Within each interpretation you have the X figure doing the Y miracle that thereby proves his legitimacy. If history did not play out the way it did it we would have had different religions being predominate."

Yah, but, speculating on what might have been is pointless. We must look seriously and honestly at what we are confronted with, anything else is mere speculation and will not solve anything.
Again, I will raise the question with you. If the God of the Bible is the true God, and Creator of the Universe, and everthing in it, what better way to make us aware of His existance than to provide us with a historically, scientifically, and prophetically accurate account of the beginning of the universe to the end with close attention paid to His choosen people the Jews, which He claims are His witnesses to the world that He exists? Do you think that if God came out of the sky every morning saying "I am God, believe in me" that you would then believe in Him? I say you would make up some excuse as to why that isn't really happening, just a mind trick by some powerful people. Likewise, the Bible does not only contain the words, "I am God, this is my word, believe in me or spend eternity apart from me", if it did I for one would not accept it. The Bible however, contains an accurate account of the history of the Jews, as well as numerous prophecies, some of which have been fulfilled, some of which are in the process of being fulfilled, and some which will be fulfilled at a future date.

Dave
 
Linuxboy, if I may also address this:

"how do you know God exists?
Well the Bible tells me so
and how do you know the Bible is right?
Well, it's in the Bible"

point.

The Bible does tell us of the Biblical God's existance and character, that is not in doubt. But to suggest that the reason I know the Bible is True (it is a matter of true and false, not right and wrong) is because the Bible says so is grosely misleading. I believe the Bible is True, and thus the word of God, not because the Bible says so, but because my senses and ability to reason say it is so. Clearly if the only reason I believed in the Bible was because the Bible told me too I would be a fool, and a severely blind one at that.
If a person is unsure what God meant by a certain passage, then that person would logically turn to scripture to understand what God was saying (to further develop, and grasp the meaning of a passage). Once, however, a person is convinced (correctly or incorrectly, as man's mind is finite and thus prone to err) as to what God meant by a certain passage (assuming it was a passage not easily understood) then one must look to historical texts, and present day news to verify that what was said is true. As, I maintain, along with numerous others, that if one false statement is found in the Bible then it is useless, for it no longer maintains the standard that it has set, that being that the Bible is entirely True. And I have always found that when what I understand to be what God has said conflicts with what reason and my senses tell me, upon further research, it was I and not the Bible that was in error.

Dave
 
everytime something worst happen to me, i'd be joking: screw you god. most of my friends would say that i'd be punished for that.

then, i'd shrug: which one?

of course, GOD's are man-made! proof me i'm wrong
 
Hayabusarider, you make this point: "Stand up and defend you arguments on their own merits, not by belittling the opposiion." in another thread, yet here I get the idea that you are poo pooing what some might think is a serious topic by addressing a rather negatively famous Clinton quote to me. 😀 I wonder, then, if I'd just be wasting time by explaining how deep the point is you may have accidentally made. The search for meaning is tough, but an analysis of the need for meaning, penetrating the common assumption that we need it, and surrender to meaninglessness might also have its rewards.

petrek, a good Moslem can doubtless paint an equally air tight but different case just as you can. The point for me is that none of the inevitable conclusions you come to I come to. I can only conclude that you want to buy into something that doesn't self sell. The ordinary reaction to people who believe in what appears to be bunk is to dismiss everything they believe. I would like to preserve the part about the possibility of an experience that if experienced reveals the core source from which religion is generated. My opinion is that your truth has had it's day and the world is moving on. The rose that grows in your garden also blooms elsewhere. Don't worry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top