I understand that you recognize that not all "relgious" people believe what you indicated above. In my experience, many "religious" people do not take the bible literally, nor do all relgious people even refer to the bible within their belief systems.
True. So? Muslims don't; but they believe in the scriptures of their own religion.
I asked you this: "What specific facts are all religious people ignorant of, in denial of, or not recognizing the value of? Or, what are the reasons that they all use that are reasons not based upon facts?"
There need not be specific facts that they ALL disagree with. What I am saying, is that so far, none of their 'fact's are actually true.
Your examples were specific beliefs, specifically geared toward a particular group of religious Christians. I think it would be distracting at this moment, to expand this conversation into a discussion about a variety of particular beliefs that various religious groups may or may not hold. You were making a general statement about an entire (religious) group of people. I was asking for your specific reasons for applying it across the board.
Because religious people believe, per definition, the scriptures of their religion. And it's a fact that these stories are not the truth.
Perhaps a better way for me to have stated it would have been, "What is the common denominator fact(s) that is either unknown, held, or denied, by all religous people -- regardless of which religion they adhere to?"
There isn't one. One that would come close, is the age of the earth, and the creation of humanity (not by just adam and eve, per example).
I think that you would agree with me that the one common denominator would be a belief in God, and the issue of "facts" as it relates to holding a belief in God, or not. (If you do not agree, please correct me.)
It seems that you are making the point that in the absence of hard facts that proves something to be so, the only reasonable assumption would be to assume that it is not so. I think that is often a valid assumption, but I do not think that it applies to all issues -- across the board.
Kind of.. my point is that in the absence of facts, you cannot be sure of your statement. When then the facts show that your assumptions are wrong, you HAVE to assume you are wrong about your story in general.
Can you prove with facts that Love exists? Do you believe that Love exists? Are there any "facts" that a person can present that unequivocably verify that it is Love and not simply an action presented or interpretted as an expression of Love?
Yes actually. Neuropsychology can show this. And an action interpreted as love is love. This is because the actions were the definition of love to begin with.
Can you prove your computer is a computer and not just an object interpreted as an expression of a computer? Yes. because we all agreed that is a computer -_-
I agree that you are free to have your opinion. What I have on this matter is only my opinion, too. It is really only the absolute nature of the opinion that you presented that I was objecting to. Actually, though, your second sentence about girls is how I interpretted your introductory post about "religious" people, and really was what I was taking issue with. If you say that was not your intended communication, then I will accept that.
I am willing to change my thesis, but only when i see at least 1 fact that would disprove my idea. Until then, I still think I am right.
