As far as misrepresenting what I say, for one thing: you said I only cut and paste without making an argument.
Again, NOT what I said. What I said was "Cutting and pasting isn't making an argument. It's dumping a cut and paste. I know that when people ask questions and make you prove your assertions it can seem contrary, but really it's the only way to prove your ideas."
Not sure what point you are trying to make. It's clear you see you cut off part a sentence and took a quote out of context to make it seem like I was arguing something I wasn't. Move on. My point was that you dumped a lot of cuts and pastes into the thread. What I said about that was an opinion. You dishonestly misrepresented something I said.
To specify WT literature it is implied or inferred: saying I sound like them is saying I am like them (having read the literature, making their arguments).
I was very specific in that your dishonesgt quote mining as a form of debate sounded like them. Any suggestion of more is something you are promoting, not me.
I still believe, hold firm, that we know reality through leaps of faith.
OK. Some people believe that, others do not. One side has fact, math, science that is proven to work. The other side has a huge differing amount of opinions that are completely unverifiable.
Many people think it is the same God, only different perspectives of the same entity. That is how I feel. So the question you really should ask, in my opinion, is not "Is it just your [God] that is right?" but instead "Is it just your perception that is right?"
Most that believe in a higher power do not. WRT to "Is it just your perception that is right"....define a "right" perception so that we can discuss this.
I asked an atheist friend what he did believe or think of the world.
I don't care what he thinks. I am not debating him :)
Reading a little bit on Hinduism there are chief god(s) and many, many lesser gods... reminds me of Catholicism's one god, many saints.
OK. I am honestly not sure if you are making a point there. Hinduism and Catholiscm are not related.
- Many old religions all have a flood story. Check it out for yourself: The Flood Myth
I knew that. I am not sure what the point is except people usually settled near rivers, lakes, seas and oceans and those things often flood.
- All the largest and oldest religions generally teach the same values concerning peace and love. I listened to the Dali Lama speak at UCLA and I've heard Pope John Paul II speak in Rome: generally it was the same message.
Not sure what the point of that is either. The message was usually a mixture of internal love for your fellow man, but death and destruction for those that weren't, which was usually people who weren't in the religion. Today that's not really an acceptable message so it's just the peace and love parts, but historically they didn't generally teach to love everyone.
We know where to get a beer and where to take a dump, but we can have very different opinions on the cleanliness of these places, how they are designed, what is attractive, comfortable, practical.
Which has zero bearing on the reality of what those rooms are.
Some people may not have a bathroom and prefer an outhouse or they may be homeless so they have no bathroom or kitchen.
Which has zero bearing on the argument I was making.
To define "atheist" you can only define it by what it is not, which presupposes knowledge of what it is not. So we all know the concept of God: our perceptions of what God is and if God exists are different. Interesting how much time we spend talking about God...
That's not uncommon. The word "retrograde" is defined by what it it isn't as well. To define something as "down" is irrelevant unless you first know what "up" is. I know, it IS crazy how much time some people like to spend talking about silent, invisible person.
Thus said, it is my understanding that yes: God exists, is constant, a reality if you have faith in God or not; it is religion and lifestyle that differ. Religion, for me, has always been a form of discipline, a source of joy and a place for a family community.
I'm totally cool with that if it works for you.
This goes to show the point I was making in the very beginning. We believe something is true/We know reality based on either our senses or based on what other people tell us.
And that's the part where you are wrong. We can find out things beyond our senses using tools and science, prove them true and test the validity of things other people say. It's not blind faith as you are suggesting. It's belief after evidence and verification. Just because I choose to beleive what someone says does not make it a blind faith like beleiving in god.
Anything we do not experience ourselves we are trusting another persons' experience.
Completely untrue.
There are lots of videos, documentaries, people who have seen it when it comes to miracles and supernatural things as well. I've talked to people who have seen supernatural things.
And not one of those things is testable, repeatable or proveable.
I agree that reality doesn't change, however I stand firm that we do not know for certain what is reality except based on faith.
Well, history proves you wrong. See Einstein and Gallileo for excellent reference points.
There are miracles/supernatural events that have been well documented, many observers, etc... some repeated... favorites of mine, being a Catholic, are the Marian Apparitions.
Are they testable, repeatable? Can you show me the documentation to test their validity?
