the right religion

[hexler]

So if any Baha'i ever defended his family or nation against aggression then it is a false religion. Peace is not the test for truth. It is an admirable goal and what Christianity teaches but it is not a test for theological truth. Jesus said he brought a sword (not literal but still not peaceful) and that because of him families would even split. Light and darkness do not coexist. The darks railing against the light is evidence of the light and the darkness's disdain for it.

Of course I am not a dreamer and I know there is a long way to <paradise>, whatever it means. The real point is, war is action without thinking, resp. action for low emotions. If there is a conflict, we can talk about. Concerning Christianity I was many times disappointed. Consider the (great) work of christian charity. Today they are seen in Europe as standing on the left (political) side. But what about the Christians some hundred years ago? They did not care of transgressing God's laws. It is only since the sheep run away from the shepherd that they changed their ways. Today they try keep the herd together. They fight against poverty, prejudices, a.s.o. Why was it not so in the past? They felt strong , no they felt almighty.

 

[1robin]

It was illogical, missing the nature of his metaphor.

If someone claims to have metaphorically checkmated you, it is illogical to proclaim that you are a high-ranked chess player.

Trust me on this one. Unlike you, I've read thousands of novels and other fiction. I know all about metaphorical speech.

I am not debating your opinion on metaphor usage any longer. It is worse than two mules fighting over a turnip. You do not know what I have read. I never watch TV and read constantly. I would bet I have read two non-fictional books to every one book you have read of any type, but that is a silly thing to debate.

 

[1robin]

Of course I am not a dreamer and I know there is a long way to <paradise>, whatever it means. The real point is, war is action without thinking, resp. action for low emotions. If there is a conflict, we can talk about. Concerning Christianity I was many times disappointed. Consider the (great) work of christian charity. Today they are seen in Europe as standing on the left (political) side. But what about the Christians some hundred years ago? They did not care of transgressing God's laws. It is only since the sheep run away from the shepherd that they changed their ways. Today they try keep the herd together. They fight against poverty, prejudices, a.s.o. Why was it not so in the past? They felt strong , no they felt almighty.

I was not really making a point about what religion is the best or which one contains the greatest moral commands. I can do so but that was not the point I was making. My point was that your criteria for theological truth was invalid. A religion can be just as valid even if it demanded war and every follower killed a hundred people. A religion is true if it describes the factual nature of theological reality not if it meets your moral demands.

I happen to agree that the truth is that God is good but there is no necessity that he be.

Now to your other points.

1. No demographic in history is more generous than Christianity. We have built more hospitals and public school systems than any other cultural group.
2. No other theological group has as many member that have laid down their lives for the common good.
3. No other doctrine has shaped the moral dimension of mankind than Christianity. Let me illustrate that a bit.

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine. No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish Theologian James Stuart

The far more benevolent western civilizations are based on three concepts.
1. The government of the Greeks.
2. The administration of the Romans.
3. The morals of the Bible.

That is why it is always the US, Britain, France, etc.. on the scene in every international tragedy. It is not China, Iraq, or the Congo that feeds the hungry.

Of course we have our share of immorality as well but you do not judge a teaching by those who do not follow it, but by those that do.

I believe Christianity is true because it explains by far the most evidence than any other. I do not believe it is true because it is good. I believe it is true and it is good.

I see you are a Baha'i and I like debating it. Let me ask you something. Baha'i claims all former religions are true. How can it be true if it claims two self contradictory claims to absolute truth are both correct. This is a philosophic impossibility. Islam claims that Christ was not crucified nor is the savior of mankind. Christianity says he was crucified and is the messiah. Both can't be true. How can Baha'i which claims they are be true?

BTW there have been good Christians and bad Christians since Christ died. There is no exception based on time period for that. That is also true of every religion that ever existed. Nothing meaningful there.

 

[kjw47]

I know the truth very well. Why do I need to learn anyone else's truth?

From your pic--your truth is filled with holes.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Learn Jesus' truths, apply Jesus' truths and its easy to see which one single religion actually teaches Jesus' truths.

Learn The Flying Spaghetti Monster's truths, apply the Flying Spaghetti Monster's truths and its easy to see which one single religion actually teaches the Flying Spaghetti Monster's truths.

 

[Muffled]

Of course I am not a dreamer and I know there is a long way to <paradise>, whatever it means. The real point is, war is action without thinking, resp. action for low emotions. If there is a conflict, we can talk about. Concerning Christianity I was many times disappointed. Consider the (great) work of christian charity. Today they are seen in Europe as standing on the left (political) side. But what about the Christians some hundred years ago? They did not care of transgressing God's laws. It is only since the sheep run away from the shepherd that they changed their ways. Today they try keep the herd together. They fight against poverty, prejudices, a.s.o. Why was it not so in the past? They felt strong , no they felt almighty.

I don't think it was because they thought that might makes right but only that they thought they were right which gave them the right to supremecy. We see that with terrorist groups that believe they are right and that gives them the right to fight.

I don't believe this is always the case. Hitler had his rationale for going to war, even if it wasn't a very good rationale. The Crusaders had a rationale for fighting in Palestine although often enough they strayed from it. The Jews had a rationale for invading Canaan and fighting with the Canaanites. However I believe the expansion of Islam was lubricated by a belief in war, that the Bible terms, trading in a belief in Allah for a belief in the god of war.

This usually becomes arguing and the reality is that someone has to win one way or the other or the conflict is left to fester to emerge at a later time.

I believe there was never an appointment but it wouldn't suprise me if one had unreasonable expectations.

 

[Muffled]

Learn The Flying Spaghetti Monster's truths, apply the Flying Spaghetti Monster's truths and its easy to see which one single religion actually teaches the Flying Spaghetti Monster's truths.

I believe truth is not what JW's make it out to be and I don't give a flying **** what the spaghetti monster thinks is true, since he isn't God.

 

[Quirkybird]

In my opinion there is no 'right' religion as they are all manmade creations, some crazier than others.

 

[1robin]

In my opinion there is no 'right' religion as they are all manmade creations, some crazier than others.

Prove that to be true. Let me give you a question to illustrate the problematic nature of your claim that I cannot get anyone else to answer so far.

You go to an unfamiliar town with 1 million citizens.

1. 300 - 400 thousand of them claimed to have met a man named Bill. He was a great moral teacher and his teachings had inspired those people to build hospitals, feed the towns poor, and become a more generous and content group of citizens.
2. Another 300 - 400 thousand said they had not met Bill but had enough evidence to conclude Bill existed (even though their descriptions of him may differ a bit in details from those that had met Bill). They all had a very common core of belief about Bill.
3. 200 - 300 thousand said they never met Bill and did not believe he ever existed.


A. Which group has the most and best evidence to make a decision about Bill's existence upon?
B. Is the evidence more reliable that Bill existed or that he did not?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Prove that to be true. Let me give you a question to illustrate the problematic nature of your claim that I cannot get anyone else to answer so far.

You go to an unfamiliar town with 1 million citizens.

1. 300 - 400 thousand of them claimed to have met a man named Bill. He was a great moral teacher and his teachings had inspired those people to build hospitals, feed the towns poor, and become a more generous and content group of citizens.
2. Another 300 - 400 thousand said they had not met Bill but had enough evidence to conclude Bill existed (even though their descriptions of him may differ a bit in details from those that had met Bill). They all had a very common core of belief about Bill.
3. 200 - 300 thousand said they never met Bill and did not believe he ever existed.


A. Which group has the most and best evidence to make a decision about Bill's existence upon?
B. Is the evidence more reliable that Bill existed or that he did not?

If Bill was invisible, is still invisible, left no writings, no personal records, no mention in the media, no other physical evidence and was claimed to have walked on water and raised folks from the dead... then the best group to make a decision about Bill's existence are the skeptics.

Under the circumstances, it appears to be a case of magical-thinking people who have convinced themselves that an invisible god hero walked among them.

 

[1robin]

If Bill was invisible, is still invisible, left no writings, no personal records, no mention in the media, no other physical evidence and was claimed to have walked on water and raised folks from the dead... then the best group to make a decision about Bill's existence are the skeptics.

Wrong, it makes no difference what Bill is or did. The best people on earth to evaluate his existence are those the met the criteria to know Bill. Only one group did what was necessary to know if Bill existed or not. Conclusions based on massive claims to knowledge are always better than conclusions based on massive claims to having no knowledge. Supernatural events are no less likely to exist that natural events. They occur less frequently because by definition miraculous events are the exceptions. To reject an exception because it is not the rule is absurd. BTW nothing about what I said makes Bill invisible. In fact what I said eliminates that possibility, so the reason you invented that out of this air betrays your bias in your analysis. I can give you one thing, at least you tried. No one else is either bold enough to try and mangle it into a convenient form or honest enough to draw the obvious conclusion even if it disagrees with them. Also I did not credit any walking on water, raising any dead, and there was no media beyond the 40 extra biblical authors that mention either him, a miracle, or the early explosion of a faith based on him. Regardless the only group that can make any claim is the ones who have met the criteria for knowledge. If a enormous group of people who looked through a telescope that could see it say they found another set or rings around Saturn the group that did not look through a telescope having nothing to contribute.

Under the circumstances, it appears to be a case of magical-thinking people who have convinced themselves that an invisible god hero walked among them.

I have little idea what that means.

1. Supernatural experiences have no reason what ever to deny their existence. They would be less frequent that natural events as would be expected.
2. The people who claimed to have met Christ and illustrated what he did are those most in a position to know.
3. At least hundreds of millions and probably several billion claim to have experienced God. It is far more magical-thinking to determine without any way what so ever to know that 1/3 of the population is lying or mistaken about en event they are perfectly capable of evaluating and which you are not.


If it was claimed a new food cured cancer. It would those that ate the food who claims matter, not those who refused to try it.

As bad as you argument was it was far better than most of your posts and did not even contain irrelevant and flippant sarcasm. Good job. I do not care how wrong a person is, I want sincerity and civil discourse.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Wrong, it makes no difference what Bill is or did. The best people on earth to evaluate his existence are those the met the criteria to know Bill.

Sure. And the best people to evaluate Bigfoot's existence are those who have actually met Bigfoot. Whatever you want to believe, you should believe, I guess.

Only one group did what was necessary to know if Bill existed or not.

Right. The guys who actually went out in the woods and met Bigfoot. I understand.

Supernatural events are no less likely to exist that natural events.

Sure. Bigfoot can actually disappear whenever skeptical types come around. Nothing unlikely about that supernatural power.

...and there was no media beyond the 40 extra biblical authors that mention either him....

Do you really have no idea how ridiculous that sounds... that '40 extra biblical authors' business? It reminds me of your '30,000 biblical corroborations' and your '20 greatest evidence experts' and your '95% agreement on biblical truths'.

You're speaking to some educated, intelligent people here, man. If you could see your argumentation as others see it, I think you'd probably fold your pulpit and go home.

Anyway, there are actually billions and billions of mention of Jesus. I've probably heard him mentioned a good hundred thousand times myself. But, of course, there are no credible mentions of him by his contempories or by any historian writing during his supposed lifetime.

Regardless the only group that can make any claim is the ones who have met the criteria for knowledge.

Right. The guys who actually shook Bigfoot's big hand. They are the only ones qualified to judge Bigfoot's reality. I understand your position on this.

If a enormous group of people who looked through a telescope that could see it say they found another set or rings around Saturn the group that did not look through a telescope having nothing to contribute.

Except they've all looked through the telescope and many of them are scientists, and none of them can see the new rings of Saturn. Not only that, but all their scientific instrumentation cannot detect those rings. Plus, the ring-believers worship the new rings as a deity. So under the circumstances, it is best to understand that the ring-believers are just wishful thinkers so far as the rings go.

1. Supernatural experiences have no reason what ever to deny their existence. They would be less frequent that natural events as would be expected.

Forgive me but I have to say that I find most of your prose just impenetrable. In my wordworld, 'experiences' cannot either affirm or deny their own existence. Nor can they 'have reasons'.

Really, I can understand very little of what you write at times.

2. The people who claimed to have met Christ and illustrated what he did are those most in a position to know.

But we don't know of anyone who met Christ. So what is your point here?

3. At least hundreds of millions and probably several billion claim to have experienced God. It is far more magical-thinking to determine without any way what so ever to know that 1/3 of the population is lying or mistaken about en event they are perfectly capable of evaluating and which you are not.

People have experienced all sorts of variant things and labelled those experiences with the same word. "God." And that's fine for them. I don't mind it at all.

As bad as you argument was it was far better than most of your posts and did not even contain irrelevant and flippant sarcasm. Good job.

My argument patted your position on its cute little head and sent it off for a nap.

But I'm sure you can do better one day. I have a lot of confidence in your potential.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If it was claimed a new food cured cancer. It would those that ate the food who claims matter, not those who refused to try it.

And what if after eating the new food, the cancer worsened? What about the cost that I would have spent to get that food. Does the new food provides any guarantee, or are we supposed to buy it just on empty assurances? Does one blindly believe advertisements?

 

[1robin]

Sure. And the best people to evaluate Bigfoot's existence are those who have actually met Bigfoot. Whatever you want to believe, you should believe, I guess.

Not when those that claim to have done so are a tiny miniscule fraction of the total who could know. Oregon, Washington, California, and Idaho are swarming with hunters, hikers, and adventurers. Less than 1/10,000 who could know claim to. That data set is so pathetic it warrants no consideration. However if you have got 1 out of 3 or four people in general, and maybe 9 out of ten who have actually done what is necessary to know claiming they do know, your dismissal of their claims is unjustifiable. I do not even care if the total number was less that 10,000 if even 1 out of four people who looked for Bigfoot claimed to have seen him I would not dismiss the claim. I would not and I do not expect you to accept my claims based on numbers alone. I expect you not to dismiss what can't be and include it in your investigation as I would for Big foot if the actual numbers were meaningful. The only reason I give an old earth and evolution credibility at all, is primarily due to the fact the numbers of those best in a position to know are significant and in favor. I am consistent, you are biased, and use terribly inaccurate analogies because you are.

Right. The guys who actually went out in the woods and met Bigfoot. I understand.

Nope, I said they met the criteria to have had the experience. Anyone who spent significant time in the woods would go into the data set. The same would be true of those who had spent significant time studying the Bible. For bigfoot it is 1 - 10,000 or worse. For God it is 1 -3 or 4 in general and making an educated guess are between 1 in 2 and 9 in 10 (depending on what is meant by significant time in study. A few sensationalists claiming what others should have experienced if true is meaningless, a few billion among the few billion who could know is an avalanche of evidence. Ok that is enough absurd analogies. Either draw similar analogies or I will not address them. The relevance of an analogy is it's representative similarity. You are not even in the same realm with Big foot and wrong about it anyway.

Sure. Bigfoot can actually disappear whenever skeptical types come around. Nothing unlikely about that supernatural power.

It is no less likely that big foot exists than any ape because his name is bigfoot. God is no less likely to exist than dark matter or ice cream because he is a supernatural being. The probability of big foot existing is effected by the numbers that claim to have seen him. God's (or at least the Bible's promises) are enormously likely given the numbers that believe they have received them.

Do you really have no idea how ridiculous that sounds... that '40 extra biblical authors' business? It reminds me of your '30,000 biblical corroborations' and your '20 greatest evidence experts' and your '95% agreement on biblical truths'.

If you have some intolerance of numerical values that is your business not mine.

You're speaking to some educated, intelligent people here, man. If you could see your argumentation as others see it, I think you'd probably fold your pulpit and go home.

Almost every argument I make comes from people as smart as people get and as well educated as they get. If you do not recognize their merits that says more about you than my argument.

Anyway, there are actually billions and billions of mention of Jesus. I've probably heard him mentioned a good hundred thousand times myself. But, of course, there are no credible mentions of him by his contempories or by any historian writing during his supposed lifetime.

Every single author I have supplied was a relative contemporary and had first hand knowledge of one or more of three things. There are many examples of exactly what you said does not exist. This is just abject failure. Were Paul, Peter, John, Luke, and Timothy not his contemporaries. Come on man.

1. Knowledge of Christ by direct inference of eyewitnesses. This is as good as historical testimony usually gets and better than 90% of it.
2. An immediate explosion of a faith based on aspects involving a well known man. Kind of hard to have that in the 2nd century AD concerning a man that did not exist or was no more extraordinary than you or me. Once again the best explanation of the extremely early explosion of faith is that it is based in truth. What you mentioned would only apply to accounts written hundreds of years later and once again was not an equality with what I said. If your biases will not allow you to draw meaningful analogies or comparisons then against every impulse you have maybe you should instead talk about what I actually said.
3. There is at least one that records the witnessing of a miraculous event that occurred during the crucifixion.

Right. The guys who actually shook Bigfoot's big hand. They are the only ones qualified to judge Bigfoot's reality. I understand your position on this.

That is. Using a bigfoot analogy this obsessive and this incorrectly is proof of a bias so rabid and a methodology so insincere that it does not mandate further response.

 

[Urban Dharmic Warrior]

An old man once told me;-

You'll never win an argument with a Baptist Christian or a Scientologist, because they don't 'argue' using the same toolbox as those outside their faith.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

However if you have got 1 out of 3 or four people in general, and maybe 9 out of ten who have actually done what is necessary to know claiming they do know, your dismissal of their claims is unjustifiable.

There you go with your numbers again. Do you really think anyone here accepts you as a reliable pollster regarding belief in God?

Anyway, one out of two Americans believes in ghosts, but I dismiss their claims. How about you? Do you spend a lot of time running down evidence of ghosts?

I do not even care if the total number was less that 10,000 if even 1 out of four people who looked for Bigfoot claimed to have seen him I would not dismiss the claim.

OK. Good luck with your ghost hunting. Me, I've got better stuff to do. God's work.

I would not and I do not expect you to accept my claims based on numbers alone. I expect you not to dismiss what can't be and include it in your investigation as I would for Big foot if the actual numbers were meaningful.

I've spent my life searching for God. So you can stop your worrying now.

The only reason I give an old earth and evolution credibility at all, is primarily due to the fact the numbers of those best in a position to know are significant and in favor.

Oh, my. So since scientists are worthy of some credence, then ghost-believers are also worthy of it?

I think I will stick to my skepticism. It has served me quite well so far.

I am consistent, you are biased, and use terribly inaccurate analogies because you are.

The really odd thing is that I suspect you really and truly believe that. As I say, the human mind is capable of all manner of self-deception. It's why some of us trust scientific truth over mystical truth.

Nope, I said they met the criteria to have had the experience. Anyone who spent significant time in the woods would go into the data set. The same would be true of those who had spent significant time studying the Bible. For bigfoot it is 1 - 10,000 or worse. For God it is 1 -3 or 4 in general and making an educated guess are between 1 in 2 and 9 in 10 (depending on what is meant by significant time in study.

A big poll awhile back determined that atheists know more about the Bible and religion in general than any other theological group, including Christians. Yep.

So you are just plain wrong. Most who have studied the Bible reject it and reject the Biblical God.

[Fun with numbers!]

A few sensationalists claiming what others should have experienced if true is meaningless, a few billion among the few billion who could know is an avalanche of evidence.

Evidence of self-delusion and of cultural pressure to claim the same belief as one's neighbors.

Ok that is enough absurd analogies. Either draw similar analogies or I will not address them.

Oh, give it up. Everyone knows that you could no more quit me than Laurel could quit Hardy.

It is no less likely that big foot exists than any ape because his name is bigfoot. God is no less likely to exist than dark matter or ice cream because he is a supernatural being.

I see you are suffering some Bigfoot confusion. He's no ape. He is a supernatural being who likes to dress in gorilla suits. And therefore, by your own admission, Bigfoot iis no less likely to exist than ice cream because he is a supernatural being.

(Wow. That was weird, just typing out that statement. Made me feel woozy.)

If you have some intolerance of numerical values that is your business not mine.

Oh, yeah? Well 93.4% of this forum's members agree with me that you make up silly and irrelevant numbers to sprinkle around in your arguments.

Almost every argument I make comes from people as smart as people get and as well educated as they get. If you do not recognize their merits that says more about you than my argument.

I know a chimp who loves to bang on his piano. It's an awful, jarring, ear-hurting mess.

I tried to help the guy. I suggested that he should maybe think about taking some actual piano lessons. But he wouldn't listen. He just jumped up and down on the piano bench and screamed at me: "All of these pieces that I'm playing were composed by actual piano maestros! Musical genuises! You just don't know anything about good music!"

I mostly wear ear plugs these days when I'm around him.

Every single author I have supplied was a relative contemporary and had first hand knowledge of one or more of three things. There are many examples of exactly what you said does not exist. This is just abject failure. Were Paul, Peter, John, Luke, and Timothy not his contemporaries. Come on man.

Paul was his contemporary, which makes it extremely suspicious that he seems not to have known any details about Jesus' supposed life.

The others probably didn't exist.

1. Knowledge of Christ by direct inference of eyewitnesses. This is as good as historical testimony usually gets and better than 90% of it.

There were no eyewitnesses to Jesus' life.

As for your 90%-better nonsense, what can I say. I find it so bizarre.

2. An immediate explosion of a faith based on aspects involving a well known man.

You're talking about Mormonism?

Kind of hard to have that in the 2nd century AD concerning a man that did not exist or was no more extraordinary than you or me.

Actually a fictional Jesus better explains the explosion of faith than does an historical one. Do you ever wonder why Jesus, of all the supposed Jewish messiahs, exploded? Well, it was because he was fictional. The others were flesh and blood and so much harder to embrace as heroes.

3. There is at least one that records the witnessing of a miraculous event that occurred during the crucifixion.

What are you talking about?

That is. Using a bigfoot analogy this obsessive and this incorrectly is proof of a bias so rabid and a methodology so insincere that it does not mandate further response.

Heehee.... I love you, man. You’re special.

 

[1robin]

And what if after eating the new food, the cancer worsened? What about the cost that I would have spent to get that food. Does the new food provides any guarantee, or are we supposed to buy it just on empty assurances? Does one blindly believe advertisements?

That is one strange monkey wrench to throw in there.

The original claim was that a new food cured cancer.
My claim was that those that ate it would be in the best position to know.
That would also apply if the food did not cure cancer but made it worse.
My point here was not the food or cancer but which group is in the best position to know the truth.


I am not sure why you took an analogy, forgot what it was an analogy of and became very inquisitive about the food (that does not actually exist).


My point was that as Christians who claim to have experienced God more than any other faith in history by orders of magnitude we would be in the best position to know whether he exists. Atheists that claim to have never experienced God are in by far the worst position to make a claim. My food and cancer story was an analogy.

I have no idea why you would ask but since cancer was an analogy of sin and food was an analogy of Christ and death an analogy of Hell. Exactly what would avoiding Hell cost that would be too high? Why ask how much the food costs (Christ) if it gives an infinite gain? I do not think you get the concept of an analogy.

 

[1robin]

An old man once told me;-

I can't imagine what kind of thought process would include in the same category a Baptist and a scientologist. However since Christianity contains truth in it's tool box and atheism does not (at least no theological truth) I am happy with the distinction minus the cultish scientology reference.

 

[1robin]

There you go with your numbers again. Do you really think anyone here accepts you as a reliable pollster regarding belief in God?

Why re you constantly referring to an invisible army of people that apparently have elected you general here? Make your own points and quit trying to back them up with numbers you have no access to condemn numbers I do have access to. I supplied the data that back up my estimates. But it does not matter. I could be off by an entire order of magnitude and my point would not be affected. Even divided by ten the numbers are still so huge that only the most desperately biased would even attempt to dismiss them.

Anyway, one out of two Americans believes in ghosts, but I dismiss their claims. How about you? Do you spend a lot of time running down evidence of ghosts?

No they do not. However even if they did that has no relevance. I was not talking about beliefs, (for what must be the 20th time) I was talking about experience. Unlike you however I would be consistent. If instead on maybe 1 out of 100 people claimed to have experienced a Ghost it was 1 out of 4, I would not dismiss the likelihood ghosts exist. I am consistent with my methodology. You are not. You have one for everything else and one for things you do not wish were true.

OK. Good luck with your ghost hunting. Me, I've got better stuff to do. God's work.

Judging from these posts you hunting Ghosts would be more productive.

I've spent my life searching for God. So you can stop your worrying now.

That does not mean anything. Maybe the next bill you get you can tell them not to worry about payment because you have been looking for money all your life.

Oh, my. So since scientists are worthy of some credence, then ghost-believers are also worthy of it?

I would give some ghost hunters more credence than some scientists. Ghosts are certainly more evidenced than multiverses. If a person saw a ghost they would be just as valid a witness (in fact far more so) than any scientists trying to acquire grant money by inventing a hypothesis about what happened several billion years ago. Any claim to actual experience (which by the way used to be what science demanded) is vastly superior to a claim to intellectual agreement with a proposition about which there is no access. It really gets serious when it there are billions of them. If by some weird event a billion of the stupidest people who ever lived went back a billion years ago and said they saw dinosaurs covered in fur. That would have more credibility than any modern scientists who has never seen a dinosaur saying they were covered in feathers or reptilian skin. Eyewitness testimony from even the most idiot if in large numbers is superior to speculation of even the greatest thinkers, or at least on average would be. However as usual you have left the realm of reason far behind. There exists not even the scientific potential to evaluate the existence of God. So on one side there are billions that experienced a risen Christ and no one on the other side at all.

I think I will stick to my skepticism. It has served me quite well so far.

If you think serving you well is to allow you to maintain preferred illusions then I am sure it has.

The really odd thing is that I suspect you really and truly believe that. As I say, the human mind is capable of all manner of self-deception. It's why some of us trust scientific truth over mystical truth.

It sure is but that is not necessary here.

A big poll awhile back determined that atheists know more about the Bible and religion in general than any other theological group, including Christians. Yep.

That cannot possibly be true (I have seen many studies on that subject) but even if it was the only thing it means is you still do not understand my claim. I do not care if no Christian who ever lived has any idea what a single verse claims. If they in huge numbers make claims to experiences of God that are consistent in their core claims they are by far in the best position to know if God exists. I can read all about Dinosaurs over a lifetime, but would gain far more certainty given a few hours of observing them.

So you are just plain wrong. Most who have studied the Bible reject it and reject the Biblical God.

That is complete crap. Most of those who have not accepted the Bible as truth have done almost no research into it. That does not mean exceptions do not exist. The norm is the exact opposite of your claims.

[Fun with numbers!]

Only the most rabid anti-theist could object to the concept of numbers, especially since in every other industry, academic field, and legal methodology numbers are constantly relied on.

Evidence of self-delusion and of cultural pressure to claim the same belief as one's neighbors.

That did not have anything to do with what I said.

Oh, give it up. Everyone knows that you could no more quit me than Laurel could quit Hardy.

The last thread where you said that I never responded with a single word. Not to mention this is an appeal to numbers minus the numbers. Appalling, arrogant, and meaningless are not good characteristics for your claims to generate.

I see you are suffering some Bigfoot confusion. He's no ape. He is a supernatural being who likes to dress in gorilla suits. And therefore, by your own admission, Bigfoot iis no less likely to exist than ice cream because he is a supernatural being.

Bigfoot is a word.

(Wow. That was weird, just typing out that statement. Made me feel woozy.)

Have no idea what your talking about. Do you?

Oh, yeah? Well 93.4% of this forum's members agree with me that you make up silly and irrelevant numbers to sprinkle around in your arguments.

Appeals to numbers you could not know even if true are not an argument against numbers that I can know.

I know a chimp who loves to bang on his piano. It's an awful, jarring, ear-hurting mess.

Well that's it. You do not even take yourself seriously, so I can't. I am done for now.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I am done for now.

Laurel used to tell Hardy that... just to make him cry.