The game Spore combines Creation and evolution. "Crevolution" I think they called it. I think the belief is God watching over the process of Evolution. In which case, God made Evolution. Sounds like some weak willed compromisers made up that idea. You have to pick a side, not ride the fence. 

Why does it take having the experience to explain it? Most people I have talked to about their so-called experience can't quite explain what they have experienced if they are even willing to try to explain it. Interesting that most think you need to join or attend a church so that you can attain such a divine revelation. Those who I know that do to some extent try to explain their experience seem to be explaining something that is easily reasoned to be caused by something very different from what they think.it is. Emotions and the biological and chemical actions that control them do some very interesting things to people.

Sounds like the game was intelligently designed by Will Wright to prevent sales from being boycotted by some overzealous consumer group or competitors posing as such.

That's a nice, general reply that assumes a lot of specifics and depends on those assumptions to remain a valid argument.

"Most people"--that you have talked to?  Statistically in the population?  That you read about on the internet?  That you imagine?

"So-called experience"--you are familiar of all possible experiences then and have a clear understanding of their natures?

The rest is generalization.  You might not have to have an experience in every case to explain something but you assuredly have to know what the experience is to explain it--and you don't.

Ignorance does not equal expertise.

Your point is basically, "Whoowhee!  I don't believe  that stuff no matter what anyone says!".  It's an opinion.

 

I guess you are just screwed then ... else you will have to wait for the rest of humanity to get 'experiencing'. The rest of what (?) exactly is just generalization, humm? 

Sinperium; Sorry, but all your arguments relate to your own personal 'experiences' and your assertion is always that one has to have an 'experience' to understand. I have not seen such badly and angrily used imponderables like 'Statistically in the population' and 'all possible experiences'.  This is a Catch-22 for you if ever there was one … but this nonsense does you an injustice.  

Experience doesn't seem to equate well either if one cannot explain something they experienced in words that at least make sense. You cannot justify everything with the catchall “well, you have to have an experience to understand”. This is exactly how the secular society sees ALL RELIGIONS and all their miracles and other mysticism; you are just pretending it is all about you and your experiences … but it isn’t.

All we all have are opinions silly. My opinion causes me no discomfort and within reason, I can explain everything I state. But religious folk are not at all prone to reason ... at least no ‘reason’ besides their own, and they can explain little to nothing whatsoever as you have aptly demonstrated here. I offered you a private forum for this for good reason ... you chose to remain here. Why should anything someone has to say without any proof or even an accounting of, claim to qualify as knowledge worth listening to? You have to actually make an argument to defend it.

PS: You said you would write … I take it you changed your mind? You are just acting petulantly here.

 

 

I'll write you--we've had a contractor in remodeling and that and work have taken a bit of my time.

I won't speak for other religions or even for Christian "religions"  but genuine Christianity is an experience.  You can dogmaticaly insist to every self-identified believer its just another "organized, human religion" and then demand that it be examined that way but that's redefining it to fit your terms--not describing it as it actually is.

If what your saying is, "We dismiss the idea it can be a genuine experience and so refuse to discuss it--we only want to talk about organized religion."...well, there isn't much to say to that.

My point in "petulantly commenting" here is that it's annoying to her over and over this same sequence:

• We say your so-called faith is this.
• Since it is that--it's therefore absurd and indefensible.
• How can you be so stupid?

You're confining the conversation to a narrow strip of territory (your own) for examination and then out-of-hand with mantras declaring it "invalid".

It's akin to me saying everyone on the forum is a Communist, prove to me you aren't Communist but you can't because I already know you're a Communist.  Kinda dumb.  I know there are a lot of ignorant "faith-based" comments on the net but it isn't all one-sided.  It's either an actual discussion or just a series of soap box proclamations.  I let the politicians do that.

I'll have a big part of the day free tomorrow and will write you then.

General? No it is actually quite specific. I am referring to my personal interactions with friends, colleagues,the people who come knocking at my door from time to time, and a few pastors that I have interacted with in the past. All have given me different answers which leads me to believe it is a personal thing and that the only "expert" is the individual and that specific individual is the only "expert" about their own specific experience. As far as statistics I do not use them with this issue. I think the meaning of god is different for everybody and do not discriminate because someone doesn't practice one religion as opposed to any other. In light of that statistics have no bearing. I do not need to validate my disbelief through statistics because I know my disbelief is as different from any other individuals disbelief or belief. And I do believe we are all created equal.

 

Yes, but some are more equal than others....

Well I guess that part happens after creation. Thought it might be baptism that does it, but I was baptized as a baby and still feel equal. Guess it wasn't in a church that teaches "genuine" Christianity.

You should be in charge of something Jafo... oh wait, you are! lol

Oh heck, no....in charge of 4.5 million Stardockians?

..........eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek.....................

What is equal?   Is a man equal to a woman?   IS a man a woman??   I mean that's what equal means, right?   Is Michael Jordan equal to Carrie Underwood?   Michael Jordan can't sing, and Carrie Underwood can't play basketball.   Every living thing is unique.   Different color skin, different talents, different sizes.  And dare I say some have more talent than others.  Some have more social standing than others, which though man-made, well...Paris Hilton did nothing to earn a privileged life.  She was born, or "created", that way.   So all men are NOT created equal, right?  Let alone men and women.

I would say that in things like the Declaration of Independence where "all men are created equal" or in Christianity terms, what it means is equal value.  Equal value in God's eyes; equal value morally.  Madonna is clearly "worth" more than the homeless guy on the street, but morally speaking, they are of equal value.  Which to confuse things even further, why am I even putting "Madonna" and "moral" in the same sentence?   All these terms "equal" and "moral" are heavily overloaded, and mean different things to different people.   And that means when you say "equal", what you're thinking in your head probably does not match up with what your listener has in his.

Or how about to express it in computer science terms (since I think we have a fair number of computer literates in the forum):  equal is not always the same in software, either.  (int* a == int* b ) and (a* == b*) are not the same.  One says the two values are the same; the other says that not only the values are the same, but it is literally THE SAME VALUE--as in, the same location in memory.   I think it's safe to say the latter is "more equal" than the former.  a==b and a=b are not the same--one tests for equality, the other is automatically equal, because you assigned it equality.   In Perl, "eq" and "==" are not the same.  "One" == 1 would return true, whereas "One" eq 1 would not.  It's the same principle.

It is not all about what someone is thinking in their head. It is about the context in which the statement is made and how that is interpreted by the reader. You hit the nail on the head in your second paragraph when stating:

From there it is certainly about what the "listener" has in their head, and although the "listener" may at the time be thinking about money, or computer science, if they think that is the context of the statement then they might not actually be listening to start with.
 

No problem there.  But the specificity was relative to your experince and generalized to "everyone" in how you stated it.  Now it's specifically more specified and I find that specifically satisfactory in this specific case.

@Boobz--Christians often are quite specific in describing their experience but when the hearer decides its impossible and dismisses it out-of-hand that isn't for lack of description--it's for lack of consideration by the hearer.  There is a difference in "No explanation is given" and "I don't accept the explanation".

You are the one who chose to generalize not me. You tend to put everyone in a category and really don't listen to the individual.You also tend to respond by trying to put words in others mouths instead of replying to what is actually being asked (Hint: ? means somebody is asking a specific question). Although you may wonder why I am asking a certain question I am not looking for what you perceive my motivation to be (I already know that) I am actually looking for your answer to the question.

There certainly is. Who cares if others don't accept one's explanation as it is. Everyone perceives and understands things on their own terms. Lack of consideration from the other side....don't kid yourself. You are better to ask yourself what faith means in nonreligious terms before you make such assertions.