Questioning Religion & the Religious

[Knowledge=power]

No, because my personal experience is real. I do not place a great deal of faith in ANY religion because all religion is man-made and tainted by human constructs. Christianity is more...........it is about a personal relationship with Christ and adherence to his gospel. Any Christian who disagrees......is sadly........not Christian. Churches have perverted this relationship over the years to accomodate their own self-interests and this is why I suppose I have become sort of a non-denominational, Christian "purist." It's the best explanation that I can give. :shrug:

Hmm, well, thanks for trying

 

[Cephus]

It's the best way for me.....and who's being harmed in the process of me having faith?

It's a comfortable way for you. Is anyone being directly harmed by it, other than you, of course? Probably not. Then again, someone who wants to be racist or sexist is probably not directly harming anyone by their beliefs either. That doesn't make those beliefs true or valid though, any more than yours necessarily are. However, when we find people who are racist or sexist or hate others, we do try to educate them into a better way of thinking, whether their racist or sexist beliefs are the "best way for them" or not.

 

[FluffyNinja]

It's a comfortable way for you. Is anyone being directly harmed by it, other than you, of course? Probably not. Then again, someone who wants to be racist or sexist is probably not directly harming anyone by their beliefs either. That doesn't make those beliefs true or valid though, any more than yours necessarily are. However, when we find people who are racist or sexist or hate others, we do try to educate them into a better way of thinking, whether their racist or sexist beliefs are the "best way for them" or not.

You're now equating my faith in Christ to "sexists" and "racists". Poor analogy.....very poor. You should be ashamed....yes....even you Cephus. :doh

 

[Cephus]

So in other words, as I was saying before, at least 30,000.

At least 30,000 claimed. Doesn't mean there were 30,000.

Ha! Who is going to coordinate getting the signed affidavits of 30,000 people? What you ask for is impossible; you're trying to find weak excuses for very strong evidence.

You're the one claiming that 30,000 saw it, how do you prove that? 30,000 people may have been present, that doesn't mean more than a handful claim to have seen anything. You're the one with the burden of proof because you're the one claiming this event happened. People can't even agree how many people were even there!

One definition of miracle is a suspension of the laws of physics. That no one else saw it does not mean that the miracle did not occur. The sun may have not actually moved, and it probably did not. However, does that disprove what the 30,000 people there did see? And why did 30,000 people see it exactly when the children of Fatima said they would?

There's no evidence that there's ever been such a thing as a miracle, ever. You can't prove anyone saw anything, at most, you have a couple of claims from people. So if you're now admitting that the sun never moved and that the people who claimed it did were either mistaken or delusional or lying, what do you really have? When you get a bunch of people whipped up into a religious frenzy, expecting to see something, is it any surprise that either people saw something, or at least claimed to have seen something so they didn't feel left out?

Positivism is illogical.

It's not positivism, we're trying to determine if a reported event actually happened as it was reported. It doesn't matter what people thought they saw, it doesn't matter what people wanted to happen, it only matters what actually, objectively occurred. Therefore, we need to look at objective evidence and in doing so, we find that there is no reason to think that anything actually happened at the site because had it happened, it would have been observed over a huge range. This is the same reason the story in the Old Testament of the sun stopping in the sky for a day never happened. People worldwide, in particular, literate sun-worshippers would have written it down, we'd have tons of accounts, yet we have none. We can also compare the accounts of those few who actually directly said they saw something and find that those accounts simply do not agree with each other. Clearly, these people did not see the same thing. Therefore, we've established that the sun didn't actually move, we've established that there wasn't some sort of local illusion that lots of people saw, it's a case of delusion, people expecting something to happen and internally, their brains either generated an experience whereby it happened, or they didn't want to be left out of this mystical experience and therefore just said they saw something.

Either way, you've got nothing when it comes to thinking this thing actually happened.

 

[Cephus]

You're now equating my faith in Christ to "sexists" and "racists". Poor analogy.....very poor. You should be ashamed....yes....even you Cephus. :doh

Nice dodge, since that appears to be all you're capable of.

 

[phattonez]

At least 30,000 claimed. Doesn't mean there were 30,000.

So you're going to claim that all of the reporting was biased?

You're the one claiming that 30,000 saw it, how do you prove that? 30,000 people may have been present, that doesn't mean more than a handful claim to have seen anything. You're the one with the burden of proof because you're the one claiming this event happened. People can't even agree how many people were even there!

At least 30,000, most of them reporting to have seen it.

There's no evidence that there's ever been such a thing as a miracle, ever. You can't prove anyone saw anything, at most, you have a couple of claims from people. So if you're now admitting that the sun never moved and that the people who claimed it did were either mistaken or delusional or lying, what do you really have? When you get a bunch of people whipped up into a religious frenzy, expecting to see something, is it any surprise that either people saw something, or at least claimed to have seen something so they didn't feel left out?

They all saw the same thing, at the same time. 30,000 people are all wrong about what they saw?

It's not positivism, we're trying to determine if a reported event actually happened as it was reported. It doesn't matter what people thought they saw, it doesn't matter what people wanted to happen, it only matters what actually, objectively occurred. Therefore, we need to look at objective evidence and in doing so, we find that there is no reason to think that anything actually happened at the site because had it happened, it would have been observed over a huge range. This is the same reason the story in the Old Testament of the sun stopping in the sky for a day never happened. People worldwide, in particular, literate sun-worshippers would have written it down, we'd have tons of accounts, yet we have none. We can also compare the accounts of those few who actually directly said they saw something and find that those accounts simply do not agree with each other. Clearly, these people did not see the same thing. Therefore, we've established that the sun didn't actually move, we've established that there wasn't some sort of local illusion that lots of people saw, it's a case of delusion, people expecting something to happen and internally, their brains either generated an experience whereby it happened, or they didn't want to be left out of this mystical experience and therefore just said they saw something.

Either way, you've got nothing when it comes to thinking this thing actually happened.

A vision is not a miracle?

 

[Cephus]

So you're going to claim that all of the reporting was biased?

You've already admitted that no one can verify that number, that no one went around and asked all of those people if they saw something, so the reporting seems likely to be incorrect, or at the very least, unsupported. We can only validate the number of people who were actually interviewed and actually gave a report.

At least 30,000, most of them reporting to have seen it.

Yet I already asked you where those reports were and you said that people hadn't interviewed the majority of them. Make up your mind.

A vision is not a miracle?

When a drunk sees a pink elephant, is that a miracle?

 

[phattonez]

You've already admitted that no one can verify that number, that no one went around and asked all of those people if they saw something, so the reporting seems likely to be incorrect, or at the very least, unsupported. We can only validate the number of people who were actually interviewed and actually gave a report.

Yet I already asked you where those reports were and you said that people hadn't interviewed the majority of them. Make up your mind.

All I said was that they didn't sign an affidavit. All kinds of people were interviewed.

When a drunk sees a pink elephant, is that a miracle?

Probably not, but if 30,000 people see it, then there's probably something to it.

 

[Knowledge=power]

And how did they all come to visualize basically the same thing? And as I argued before, that it was not visible from other places does not disprove that a miracle occurred. That all of the people there saw the same thing is a miracle in itself, even if not physically manifested in the sun's movement.



Among at least 30,000 people? You're stretching it.

Here's your explanation chief.

Joe Nickell notes: "Not surprisingly, perhaps, Sun Miracles have been reported at other Marian sites—at Lubbock, Texas, in 1989; Mother Cabrini Shrine near Denver, Colorado, in 1992; Conyers, Georgia, in the early to mid-1990s".[23] Nickell also suggests that the dancing effects witnessed at Fatima may have been due to optical effects resulting from temporary retinal distortion caused by staring at such an intense light.[23]

Professor Auguste Meessen of the Institute of Physics, Catholic University of Leuven, has stated sun miracles cannot be taken at face value and that the reported observations were optical effects caused by prolonged staring at the sun. Meessen contends that retinal after-images produced after brief periods of sun gazing are a likely cause of the observed dancing effects. Similarly Meessen states that the color changes witnessed were most likely caused by the bleaching of photosensitive retinal cells.[24] Meessen observes that Sun Miracles have been witnessed in many places where religiously charged pilgrims have been encouraged to stare at the sun. He cites the apparitions at Heroldsbach, Germany (1949) as an example, where many people within a crowd of over 10,000 testified to witnessing similar observations as at Fatima.[24] Meessen also cites a British Journal of Ophthalmology article that discusses some modern examples of Sun Miracles.[25] While Meessen suggests possible psychological or neurological explanations for the apparitions he notes, "It is impossible to provide any direct evidence for or against the supernatural origin of apparitions".[24] He also notes that "[t]here may be some exceptions, but in general, the seers are honestly experiencing what they report." [24]

De Marchi claims that the prediction of an unspecified "miracle", the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied religious backgrounds of the observers, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any known scientific causative factor make a mass hallucination unlikely.[26] That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometres (11 mi) away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria.[26]

Despite these assertions, not all witnesses reported seeing the sun "dance". Some people only saw the radiant colors. Others, including some believers, saw nothing at all.[27] No scientific accounts[clarification needed] exist of any unusual solar or astronomic activity during the time the sun was reported to have "danced", and there are no witness reports of any unusual solar phenomenon further than 64 kilometres (40 mi) out from Cova da Iria.[28]


Miracle of the Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[phattonez]

Here's your explanation chief.

Joe Nickell notes: "Not surprisingly, perhaps, Sun Miracles have been reported at other Marian sites—at Lubbock, Texas, in 1989; Mother Cabrini Shrine near Denver, Colorado, in 1992; Conyers, Georgia, in the early to mid-1990s".[23] Nickell also suggests that the dancing effects witnessed at Fatima may have been due to optical effects resulting from temporary retinal distortion caused by staring at such an intense light.[23]

Professor Auguste Meessen of the Institute of Physics, Catholic University of Leuven, has stated sun miracles cannot be taken at face value and that the reported observations were optical effects caused by prolonged staring at the sun. Meessen contends that retinal after-images produced after brief periods of sun gazing are a likely cause of the observed dancing effects. Similarly Meessen states that the color changes witnessed were most likely caused by the bleaching of photosensitive retinal cells.[24] Meessen observes that Sun Miracles have been witnessed in many places where religiously charged pilgrims have been encouraged to stare at the sun. He cites the apparitions at Heroldsbach, Germany (1949) as an example, where many people within a crowd of over 10,000 testified to witnessing similar observations as at Fatima.[24] Meessen also cites a British Journal of Ophthalmology article that discusses some modern examples of Sun Miracles.[25] While Meessen suggests possible psychological or neurological explanations for the apparitions he notes, "It is impossible to provide any direct evidence for or against the supernatural origin of apparitions".[24] He also notes that "[t]here may be some exceptions, but in general, the seers are honestly experiencing what they report." [24]

De Marchi claims that the prediction of an unspecified "miracle", the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied religious backgrounds of the observers, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any known scientific causative factor make a mass hallucination unlikely.[26] That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometres (11 mi) away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria.[26]

Despite these assertions, not all witnesses reported seeing the sun "dance". Some people only saw the radiant colors. Others, including some believers, saw nothing at all.[27] No scientific accounts[clarification needed] exist of any unusual solar or astronomic activity during the time the sun was reported to have "danced", and there are no witness reports of any unusual solar phenomenon further than 64 kilometres (40 mi) out from Cova da Iria.[28]


Miracle of the Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The others are just speculation about what could have happened, there are no tests that prove it is just optical effects. Btw, I know what photobleaching is, and it doesn't cause dancing.

 

[Adagio]

And how did they all come to visualize basically the same thing? And as I argued before, that it was not visible from other places does not disprove that a miracle occurred. That all of the people there saw the same thing is a miracle in itself, even if not physically manifested in the sun's movement.



Among at least 30,000 people? You're stretching it.

Not stretching at all. There are a number of scientific explanations for what happened at Fatima, which I could list here but it would take a lot of time. If there is something miraculous about it, it's the fact that the event occurred at the exact time predicted isn't explained.

 

[Adagio]

Do people really need faith or a religious dogma to motivate them to do horrible things? How many horrible crimes are committed each and every day without "religious motivation"?

If people need faith to do good things, the opposite must also be a factor. We certainly have examples of faith justifying some of the most unimaginably horrible things. I once saw a picture of a plane crashing into the WTC on 9/11 with the caption; Behold the Power of Faith. A skeptic would never fly a jet into a building. The very idea of a crusade, and Inquisition or a jihad shows us what some of the negative aspects of blind true faith can provide.

 

[Adagio]

No, because my personal experience is real. I do not place a great deal of faith in ANY religion because all religion is man-made and tainted by human constructs. Christianity is more...........it is about a personal relationship with Christ and adherence to his gospel. Any Christian who disagrees......is sadly........not Christian. Churches have perverted this relationship over the years to accomodate their own self-interests and this is why I suppose I have become sort of a non-denominational, Christian "purist." It's the best explanation that I can give. :shrug:

I do not place a great deal of faith in ANY religion because all religion is man-made and tainted by human constructs

I think that's the best approach to take. All religion is man made and therefore all of them are fallible. An infallible idea cannot come from a fallible source. Just remember, you yourself are a fallible human. You could be wrong too. Your own interpretations of what you regard as Christianity are shaped by your own bias's and needs. You're shaping the dogma to fit your own ideas. You don't need faith to be a good person or do good things. Ultimately you're regarded for what you do in life. Not what you believe.

 

[FluffyNinja]

An infallible idea cannot come from a fallible source.

True. Which is why my faith comes from Christ who is infallible.

Just remember, you yourself are a fallible human. You could be wrong too.

Again, true. Which is why I put my faith in God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit who are infallible.

Your own interpretations of what you regard as Christianity are shaped by your own bias's and needs. You're shaping the dogma to fit your own ideas.

Wrong. What I regard as Christianity was "shaped" by one greater than me or anyone else.

You don't need faith to be a good person or do good things.

No we don't......but good deeds aren't the only thing that Christians are all about. Doing good things can only achieve fulfillment and accolades in this life.........I'm also concerned with the whole "immortality of the soul thing" ...remember?

Ultimately you're regarded for what you do in life. Not what you believe.

Then why does it matter what the 9/11 terrorists that you so conveniently pointed out believe? Why did it matter what those who propagated the Inquisitions believed? You seem to be contradicting yourself......either humans are responsible or the religion itself is. Which is it?

 

[FluffyNinja]

A skeptic would never fly a jet into a building.

Really? I suggest you Google "Samuel Byck." His plan, which nearly succeeded, certainly was not motivated by religion or faith.

 

[Cephus]

The others are just speculation about what could have happened, there are no tests that prove it is just optical effects. Btw, I know what photobleaching is, and it doesn't cause dancing.

Funny, isn't that exactly what you're doing? You're just speculating it was a miracle, you can't demonstrate it was or even produce a shred of evidence.

 

[Adagio]

All I can say is...."Oh ye of little faith....."

If you've never truly surrendered your "rational side" to the belief in something greater than we as humans can comprehend, then I'm sorry , but we'll simply continue bouncing off of one another and speaking from points of view which neither can fully comprehend. I have no need nor desire to justify my experiences through rational processes and have never made the claim that I could accomplish such.........I am content with my choices regarding faith.

All I can say is...."Oh ye of little faith....."

Very little.

I have no need nor desire to justify my experiences through rational processes and have never made the claim that I could accomplish such.........I am content with my choices regarding faith

You know...that's actually a rational way of looking at an irrational position. There is no rational justification for any belief. But since you know that, and are happy with it, go for it. As long as you don't legislate it, you have no problems from me. I'm interested in truth...not beliefs. I don't surrender my rationality to hold onto a belief that has no basis. I know that any attempt to justify a belief leads to infinte regress. That's a black hole with no escape. Well...there is one. I believe it because I believe it. Which is no escape at all. I can't accept a logical fallacy as a way of life. I know that's not going to get me closer to the truth.

 

[Adagio]

True. Which is why my faith comes from Christ who is infallible.

Again, true. Which is why I put my faith in God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit who are infallible.

Wrong. What I regard as Christianity was "shaped" by one greater than me or anyone else.
No we don't......but good deeds aren't the only thing that Christians are all about. Doing good things can only achieve fulfillment and accolades in this life.........I'm also concerned with the whole "immortality of the soul thing" ...remember?

Then why does it matter what the 9/11 terrorists that you so conveniently pointed out believe? Why did it matter what those who propagated the Inquisitions believed? You seem to be contradicting yourself......either humans are responsible or the religion itself is. Which is it?

Which is why I put my faith in God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit who are infallible.
.

According to who?

Again, true. Which is why I put my faith in God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit who are infallible.

That's an appeal to authority. What is the source of the authority?

Wrong. What I regard as Christianity was "shaped" by one greater than me or anyone else.

So you reject the foundations of the Christian Church? What parts do you reject? The virgin birth? The Miracles? The Resurrection? Do you reject the Bible itself? The teachings of Jesus Christ can only be found in the Bible. And the contents of the Christian Bible came out of the First Council of Nicaea. I posted this before: The First Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical council of the Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first, uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent local and regional councils of Bishops (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom. Your knowledge of Christ comes from the teachings of Christ as found in the books put together at the Council. So...are you rejecting the Bible as your source of knowledge of Christ?? Did he float into your head like the Koran floated into Mohammed? Are you a nominal Christian that cherry picks the parts you like?

No we don't......but good deeds aren't the only thing that Christians are all about. Doing good things can only achieve fulfillment and accolades in this life.........I'm also concerned with the whole "immortality of the soul thing" ...remember?

So you're a Christian because you want a reward. If you believe this, you'll get that? A Grand Bargain? So being a Christian is about making a bargain? If you do good things and believe...the reward is immortality? So we have the Christian who says that miracles support his faith in God, which is hypocritical? After all, faith is faith. It does not require proof. Similarly, from a Christian perspective, if a person is “good” because he wants to go to heaven, is he not being “bad” as he is pursuing selfish ends. You're not willing to justify your belief, and then you do that very thing by telling me that being a Christian isn't just about doing good, it's about immortality. You're justifying your belief by telling me that you believe this because of the promise of immortality.

Then why does it matter what the 9/11 terrorists that you so conveniently pointed out believe?

It doesn't. That's my point. It's about what you do. Beliefs are easily taken to extremes as 9/11 and the other examples bears out. They can't demonstrate the truth of their beliefs, but they act on them nonetheless. And the rest of us pay for insane actions based on irrational beliefs.

Why did it matter what those who propagated the Inquisitions believed?

It matters when they act on their belief and the results become the very things you're pointing out. Theyacted in the name of their beliefs which they could never demonstrate as true. People suffered horribly as a result.

You seem to be contradicting yourself......either humans are responsible or the religion itself is. Which is it?

There is no contradiction. They're always responsible for their actions. Free will remember. They choose the particular religion. they
choose to believe in it. They're always responsible for the choices they make. Religion is an enabler. Just like guns. Both make killing easy. Religion doesn't kill people. People kill people, and use their religion to justify it. You don't need a gun to kill somebody. It just makes it easier. This is why I feel it's important to question our beliefs. Thomas Jefferson said; ”Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.”

Being a Christian because you fear what comes after death, strikes me as a poor reason. I can't imagine a God that makes deals.

 

[Adagio]

Really? I suggest you Google "Samuel Byck." His plan, which nearly succeeded, certainly was not motivated by religion or faith.

Byck was not a skeptic. In fact, he was a true believer, and the cause he truly believed in was the assasination of Nixon. He was a fanatic in the belief in his cause. I've never said Fanaticism is restricted to religion. Like the TeaParty of today. They are fanatics as well, willing to take down the full faith and credit of the United States to get their way. Uncompromising, irrational fanatics. They apply the very same religious fanaticism to their politics. The problem of course is that they can't demonstrate the truth of their beliefs in either case, and all of us have to deal with their extremism. Ideologues are always dangerous people.

 

[Knowledge=power]

Being a Christian because you fear what comes after death, strikes me as a poor reason. I can't imagine a God that makes deals.

This is a great point. To add to this, many Christians believe because they were born into Christianity and raised to go to church, pray, etc. In the bible, it clearly states that God does not like it when people turn their backs on him, worship other gods, etc. The fear of leaving God is a massive deterrent and people are afraid even to question God. I know this, because I felt it. It took a long time to gather the courage to start asking questions using rational, logical inquiry and to let go of the fear of consequence of abandoning the Christian religion. The fear of death, the fear of hell, its all a fear tactic to control people.

 

[Adagio]

This is a great point. To add to this, many Christians believe because they were born into Christianity and raised to go to church, pray, etc. In the bible, it clearly states that God does not like it when people turn their backs on him, worship other gods, etc. The fear of leaving God is a massive deterrent and people are afraid even to question God. I know this, because I felt it. It took a long time to gather the courage to start asking questions using rational, logical inquiry and to let go of the fear of consequence of abandoning the Christian religion. The fear of death, the fear of hell, its all a fear tactic to control people.

I know the same experience.eace

 

[FluffyNinja]

Byck was not a skeptic. In fact, he was a true believer, and the cause he truly believed in was the assasination of Nixon. He was a fanatic in the belief in his cause. I've never said Fanaticism is restricted to religion. Like the TeaParty of today. They are fanatics as well, willing to take down the full faith and credit of the United States to get their way. Uncompromising, irrational fanatics. They apply the very same religious fanaticism to their politics. The problem of course is that they can't demonstrate the truth of their beliefs in either case, and all of us have to deal with their extremism. Ideologues are always dangerous people.

Gimme a break....he was skeptical of government, which he felt to be completely corrupt and beyond repair. The point, which you so conveniently seem to keep dodging, is that he was not motivated by religion...........this, in and of itself, proves the earlier statement regarding planes and buildings to either be (1)ignorance or (2) intellectual dishonesty.

 

[FluffyNinja]

Being a Christian because you fear what comes after death, strikes me as a poor reason. I can't imagine a God that makes deals.

Where did you get the notion that I feared what comes after death....? You think I've been somehow "frightened" into becoming a Christian? :lol:

You really know nothing at all about me. I spent at least 14 years (my undergrad years and much of early adulthood) as an open and argumentative atheist. Logic and reason dominated my very existence. Some things happened while I was in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 that's are still too painful for me to talk about right now as well as some issues surrounding the birth of my first baby girl in 1998 which began to challenge my "unbelief".

I have neither the time, nor do I feel the need to share these things with you at this point. Let's just say that faith in Christ and my ultimate submission to it changed my life forever. I realize that you don't care, as you are only concerned with "truth" and that which is "proveable"...........meh.......I've said my piece......so I feel better anyway. :shrug:

 

[Adagio]

Gimme a break....he was skeptical of government, which he felt to be completely corrupt and beyond repair. The point, which you so conveniently seem to keep dodging, is that he was not motivated by religion...........this, in and of itself, proves the earlier statement regarding planes and buildings to either be (1)ignorance or (2) intellectual dishonesty.

No. Sorry but You don't get a break. Byck was a fanatic with a cause. You can be skeptical of the government without plotting an assasination. That's fanatical belief in your cause that brings you to that. A skeptic would think twice. This might be your dumbest comment yet.

The point, which you so conveniently seem to keep dodging, is that he was not motivated by religion

What does that have to do with anything I've said? Did you miss this: "I've never said Fanaticism is restricted to religion" Maybe you should read my sig. Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad. Did you think that extremism is only found in religion? The true believer doesn’t care how hard it is; he knows that he either wins or dies. He only knows the cause. Byck was a true believer in his cause. Anybody motivated to political assasination is devoted totally to his cause, whether that cause is trying to impress Jodi Foster, or a radical religious jihad. You're pretty desperate in you attempts to prove something aren't you? What you're proving is your own ignorance.

I totally oppose ideologues in every stripe, whether they are religious or political. They are all coming from the same absolutist way of thinking and the all invest that same belief into their cause, and that makes them all dangerous. Every last one of them including YOU, are fallible to the core. And yet you insist that your ideology is infallible, and your an example of that very thing. Your hypocrisy has been pointed out here numerous times, but that really doesn't matter, since you always force fit the ideology to serve your needs. Your entire argument about your own personal brand of Christianity is full of holes. Like it's a custom made Christianity. How convenient. Either you accept the authority of the Bible or you don't. The problem is that you can't explain what it's based on, and that's because it's based on itself. Which of course is logically ridiculous. A theory cannot be based on itself. Of course this isn't a theory is it? Nope. It's a Religion, and in your eyes that makes all the difference. Therefore it's based on its own authority. Not that it can demonstrate that it's true...but that really doesn't matter since you aren't after the truth anyway. Belief is more important to you than Truth.

 

[Adagio]

Where did you get the notion that I feared what comes after death....? You think I've been somehow "frightened" into becoming a Christian? :lol:

You really know nothing at all about me. I spent at least 14 years (my undergrad years and much of early adulthood) as an open and argumentative atheist. Logic and reason dominated my very existence. Some things happened while I was in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 that's are still too painful for me to talk about right now as well as some issues surrounding the birth of my first baby girl in 1998 which began to challenge my "unbelief".

I have neither the time, nor do I feel the need to share these things with you at this point. Let's just say that faith in Christ and my ultimate submission to it changed my life forever. I realize that you don't care, as you are only concerned with "truth" and that which is "proveable"...........meh.......I've said my piece......so I feel better anyway. :shrug:

Where did you get the notion that I feared what comes after death....? You think I've been somehow "frightened" into becoming a Christian?

Gee, I don't know.:roll: Maybe it was this: "I'm also concerned with the whole "immortality of the soul thing" ...remember?
Yes. I think you are frightend. Especially with regards to examining the basis of your belief. It's hard to let go of irrational beliefs. They're very comforting.

You really know nothing at all about me.

I don't have to any more than I have to have a personal relationship with Edmund Burke or Aristotle or Jefferson to know how they think and what they value. I've read their works. Nobody writes about one thing and believes the opposite.

I spent at least 14 years (my undergrad years and much of early adulthood) as an open and argumentative atheist. Logic and reason dominated my very existence. Some things happened while I was in Iraq during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 that's are still too painful for me to talk about right now as well as some issues surrounding the birth of my first baby girl in 1998 which began to challenge my "unbelief".

Uh huh. I don't know where you were in Iraq in Desert Storm since we weren't in Iraq then. Unless you were in SF. We were in Kuwait. We didn't invade Iraq until 03, and my son was part of that invasion. You aren't alone in dealing with personal issues. I've had my share, including the death of a child back in 88. That has a sobering effect on you. It can wake you up to reality. **** happens. And I find it more to my liking to be centered in the real world then a fantasy.

As for being only interested in truth, that's a fact. But you misunderstand my ideas about "proof". We can't prove anything. But we can disprove things. It's the difference with inductive reasoning and deductive. One leads from the specific to the general. The other from the general to the specific. With deductive reasoning, if the premises are true the conclusion MUST be infallibly true. I never set out to prove any theory or idea. I always look for what might disprove the idea. Those that hold up to criticism, we keep and accept for the time being. Those that fall, we can discard and get closer to the truth. Religion and God are not things that can be proven or disproven. They're metaphysical in nature, and I don't bother with them other than to get into debates with True Believers.