Janie's Got A Gun

[TheDag]

Scientists rarely argue over what the facts are, but over how to interpret those facts. A scientist can't change his threshold of belief; he can't change the fact that things don't add up for him. The best he can do is suspend judgement until different evidence is produced that carries him over the belief threshold.

But they aren't suspending judgement. They may later change their minds but they definitely have an view on the matter. So essentially they are changing their belief and once again as I said you get two scientists arguing opposite positions with the exact same set of facts to support both of them. So clearly something makes them interpret those facts differently. What is that?

I don't see the difference between faith and blind faith. They are both belief without evidence.

Well perhaps you should read the posts made.

That's exactly what I mean. The reason you need to trust is because your threshold of belief has not been crossed. The threshold of belief is different for all of us. We have no control over what that threshold is, how long it will take to cross it or what knowledge/experience will be required to cross it.

Wrong it is a simple acknowledgment that I can't fully understand God. There is a strong basis for my belief. Trust is also a neccesary part of life. Imagine if I never trusted. I would be following my wife to work (and get thrown out by security), I would be hacking into her emails, checking her phone calling her every few minutes to make sure she isn't talking to anyone I don't think she should. Rather I trust her because I love her and I know she loves me. She trusts me also. She has no problem with me spending the day with female friends because she knows I won't cheat on her.
That is just one example of trust there are many more I could give but I'm sure you could think of them.

You say that belief is a choice... Could you choose to permanently stop believing within the next ten minutes?

Of course I can't but that should be obvious because of previous statements of mine. God proved to me he exists. So unless that proof could be discounted I would not be able to change belief. To do so would be blind belief which I don't have. Blind belief is belief without reason by my definition.
So prove my basis for belief is wrong and then I will change.


So my question for you is what was it that caused you not to believe? What facts? I want proven facts as in things that can be replicated.

 

[Argy Lacedom]

You did not answer the question. Would you let your child go out where it is unsafe or keep them hidden away for the rest of their lives?

Depends on circumstances, the consequences and what you mean by unsafe. Would they risk being eternally tortured?

 

[Argy Lacedom]

But they aren't suspending judgement.

Of course they are!

They may later change their minds but they definitely have an view on the matter.

Their view is that they have insufficient information

So clearly something makes them interpret those facts differently. What is that?

Exactly! The difference is their different thresholds of belief!

There is a strong basis for my belief.

That is a subjective view. Another person with a different threshold to you might believe it is a weak basis for belief.

Of course I can't but that should be obvious because of previous statements of mine. God proved to me he exists. So unless that proof could be discounted I would not be able to change belief.

God has never proved to me that he exists. He has never given me sufficient reason to believe he exists. Unlike you, he has not exceded my belief threshold.

So prove my basis for belief is wrong and then I will change.

Exactly!!! Prove MY basis for non-belief is wrong and I will change.

But don't simply tell me that by choosing to believe I will believe. I need proof.

So my question for you is what was it that caused you not to believe? What facts? I want proven facts as in things that can be replicated.

• The bible contradicts itself.
• It's meaning is not clear.
• Different people tell me it should be interpreted their way yet their interpretations differ. No one can give me a method for determining what is metaphore, what is allegory and what should be taken literally.
• There are over 30,000 variations on christianity, all with greater or lesser degrees of divergence.
• There are hundreds of thousands of non-christian religions all clamouring that they are the "one true" religion.
• It is imposible to objectively test the truth of religious statements.
• The concept of original sin and the need for a blood sacrifice offends my sensibilities.
• The idea of a perfect god creating a flawed creation and then blaming it for its imperfections is ridiculous.
• There never was a garden of Eden.
• The Exodus did not happen.
• An omnipotent God would never be defeated by iron chariots.
• The earth is not flat.
• The earth was not created in six days.
• There was no global flood.
• There is no proof that Jesus existed.
• People who believe in Jesus cannot drink any deadly thing.
• Faith healing is bunkum.
• Staffs have never transformed into snakes.
• Donkeys have never talked.
• Moses didn't witness his own funeral.
• Insanity is not caused by bad spirits.
• ...
• ...

Should I go on?

 

[Tahoenite]

Depends on circumstances, the consequences and what you mean by unsafe. Would they risk being eternally tortured?

No, but life happens they could get hurt, hurt someone else, possibly some atrocity that takes their life. Would you still let them out of the house or would you keep them hidden away?

 

[Argy Lacedom]

No, but life happens they could get hurt, hurt someone else, possibly some atrocity that takes their life. Would you still let them out of the house or would you keep them hidden away?

Do you mean would I allow them to take part in the world we find ourselves living within? Of course. But if by doing so they risked eternal torment, no.

Look, your analogy just doesn't work. I did not design the world in which they have to live. I did not create them with flaws. And I did not decide to punish them eternally if they make a mistake because of those flaws.

But your god did all those things. He is a monster.

A better analogy is this...

Imagine I design a cage to house some special mice I want to breed. I breed them to make them exactly how I want them to be; inquisitive. In the cage I make lots of doors so they can use their inquisitiveness and amaze me with their antics, because, you know, I love them so much. But I've made one door different from all the rest. If they go through that door I will pour acid in their eyes, break their legs and slowly roast them alive over a hotplate. Who is to blame when the mice go through the door and get tortured, me or my designer mice? Who is the monster, me or them?

 

[Tahoenite]

Do you mean would I allow them to take part in the world we find ourselves living within? Of course. But if by doing so they risked eternal torment, no.

Look, your analogy just doesn't work. I did not design the world in which they have to live. I did not create them with flaws. And I did not decide to punish them eternally if they make a mistake because of those flaws.

But your god did all those things. He is a monster.

A better analogy is this...

Imagine I design a cage to house some special mice I want to breed. I breed them to make them exactly how I want them to be; inquisitive. In the cage I make lots of doors so they can use their inquisitiveness and amaze me with their antics, because, you know, I love them so much. But I've made one door different from all the rest. If they go through that door I will pour acid in their eyes, break their legs and slowly roast them alive over a hotplate. Who is to blame when the mice go through the door and get tortured, me or my designer mice? Who is the monster, me or them?

Forget about hell and damnation. I would like to know why you would be ok letting a child go out into the world with all the pain, heartache, grief, and hard lessons they are bound to encounter just growing up?

I know as a parent I have lost a lot of sleep and hair over this prospect.

 

[Argy Lacedom]

Forget about hell and damnation. I would like to know why you would be ok letting a child go out into the world with all the pain, heartache, grief, and hard lessons they are bound to encounter just growing up?

I know as a parent I have lost a lot of sleep and hair over this prospect.

You think the prospect of your kids growing up in the real world is more harrowing than the idea that they might be tortured for all eternity?

Boy, sicko.

Why would you even think of having kids if you knew there was even the tiniest chance that they'd end up that way? If I really believed in god and hell the last thing I'd do is have children and expose them to the risk.

 

[Tahoenite]

You think the prospect of your kids growing up in the real world is more harrowing than the idea that they might be tortured for all eternity?

Boy, sicko.

In my experience and from what I have seen the world is bad enough that for some leaving it may seem a sweet escape from their torment. Thankfully I do not have to worry about them suffering for eternity because I am raising them to know God.

Why would you even think of having kids if you knew there was even the tiniest chance that they'd end up that way? If I really believed in god and hell the last thing I'd do is have children and expose them to the risk.

Argy why do you believe in hell if you don't believe in God?

You still have not answered my initial question which was would you allow your child to leave the house with all the hardship that they could encounter in day to do life?

 

[TheDag]

Of course they are!Their view is that they have insufficient information Exactly! The difference is their different thresholds of belief!

Absolute garbage. I assume you have never seen two scientists with opposite views argue. I have. I have been there and witnessed it. I have seen how scientists cut each other down with the purpose of making sure the other loses their funding so they can get it instead. Forget your so called noble belief threshold. It is not a reality. You still are not answering the question. One is saying something did not happen while the other is saying it did happen. They both argue using the same facts to back them up. It is obvious that they have a way of interpreting those facts which is dependent on a prior belief. It is not simply a case of not reaching a threshold as you suggest. If that was the case the scientist arguing against it would be saying it is possible but I have not seen evidence yet. See the difference. They are making absolute statements of belief with no room for argument.

That is a subjective view. Another person with a different threshold to you might believe it is a weak basis for belief.

Exactly!!! Prove MY basis for non-belief is wrong and I will change.

Ah so your willing to tell me I'm wrong and that my God does not exist yet you aren't willing to provide the proof. How interesting.

But don't simply tell me that by choosing to believe I will believe. I need proof.

I have never told you that so please don't suggest I have.

• The bible contradicts itself.
• It's meaning is not clear.
• Different people tell me it should be interpreted their way yet their interpretations differ. No one can give me a method for determining what is metaphore, what is allegory and what should be taken literally.
• There are over 30,000 variations on christianity, all with greater or lesser degrees of divergence.
• There are hundreds of thousands of non-christian religions all clamouring that they are the "one true" religion.
• It is imposible to objectively test the truth of religious statements.
• The concept of original sin and the need for a blood sacrifice offends my sensibilities.
• The idea of a perfect god creating a flawed creation and then blaming it for its imperfections is ridiculous.
• There never was a garden of Eden.
• The Exodus did not happen.
• An omnipotent God would never be defeated by iron chariots.
• The earth is not flat.
• The earth was not created in six days.
• There was no global flood.
• There is no proof that Jesus existed.
• People who believe in Jesus cannot drink any deadly thing.
• Faith healing is bunkum.
• Staffs have never transformed into snakes.
• Donkeys have never talked.
• Moses didn't witness his own funeral.
• Insanity is not caused by bad spirits.

I asked why you did not believe not what problems you have with other people.

You have made the statement that faith healing is false (bunkum) so please provide absolute evidence that I was not healed by faith. If what you say is true and you so strongly value evidence you must have evidence that this statement is true. Or are you (as I suspect) practising double standards with your belief system?

Other statements you have made have been answered previously so there is no need to go into them as you won't accept the answer given despite the fact that you could easily look it up and see that it is true. Note I am not saying it is something you could automatically believe but you could easily look in the bible and realise that it is in there and therefore is true for christians.

Wow the meaning is not clear. Please tell me in say 1000 years time if people were to read a book and it said "Lets hit the road Jack" how will they understand it if for example they have no roads. They would probably be wondering what they are supposed to hit the road with (sticks? stones?) whatever this thing called a road is! So yes obviously there are going to be problems in understanding meaning clearly. That is why I go on the most important commandments which is to love God and love thy neighbour as myself. If I focus on those then I am most unlikely to go wrong. Of course I may stuff up from time to time because I'm not perfect. of course we have discussed essebtial beliefs before and yet you did not respond despite continuing in that thread so i wonder what you think of the majority of churches believing the same basic doctrine. You just don't want to accept it happens.

Not sure what the whole earth is flat statement is all about. Ok yes I do know where that is in the bible but not sure what it has to do with anything. If those passages are supporting a flat earth belief then many, many scientists and others today also believe the earth is flat. Seems yet again there is double standards applied. I will certainly acknowledge there have been those who call themselves christian that did believe the earth was flat but that was not representative of christianity.

 

[Argy Lacedom]

In my experience and from what I have seen the world is bad enough that for some leaving it may seem a sweet escape from their torment. Thankfully I do not have to worry about them suffering for eternity because I am raising them to know God.

Oh my! You are very smug aren't you?

You cannot be certain your children will not reject christianity at some time in the future. Whatever you teach them they still run the risk of being tortured for eternity by your "loving" god.

I was also raised to "know god". My family was catholic. I now reject it.

Argy why do you believe in hell if you don't believe in God?

For Pete's sake!!! Don't you understand how argumentative techniques work? One doesn't have to believe a thing in order to use it to argue against it.

You still have not answered my initial question which was would you allow your child to leave the house with all the hardship that they could encounter in day to do life?

I think you need reading lessons. I already answered that.

 

[Tahoenite]

Oh my! You are very smug aren't you?

You cannot be certain your children will not reject christianity at some time in the future. Whatever you teach them they still run the risk of being tortured for eternity by your "loving" god.

I am very confident that my children will know God, because the same love God has shown me I convey to them.

I was also raised to "know god". My family was catholic. I now reject it.

What did your family do to you to turn you away from Christianity so much?

For Pete's sake!!! Don't you understand how argumentative techniques work? One doesn't have to believe a thing in order to use it to argue against it.

Why do you hate Him so much if you don't believe in Him?

I think you need reading lessons. I already answered that.

You still have not answered the question why you would allow your child to experience the world even though you know there are a multitude of threats out there?

 

[Argy Lacedom]

One is saying something did not happen while the other is saying it did happen.

Balderdash. Scientists will often argue over what constitutes sufficient proof or the interpretation of events, but they do not argue over that. I suspect you are making this up as you go along. What was the debate you witnessed? Who was arguing and what were they arguing about?

Ah so your willing to tell me I'm wrong and that my God does not exist yet you aren't willing to provide the proof. How interesting.

I have never said that it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of gods. This is because of the way believers define them, not because of any shortcomings of those who disbelieve.

The point I was making is that your challenge to me to "choose" to become a believer is based on a false premise. If you think a person can change their belief by making a simple choice then you should accept that you are able to become a non-believer if you choose. My challenge to you is to prove your point by becoming a non-believer.

I asked why you did not believe not what problems you have with other people.

Please get your facts right.

You asked me the following..."So my question for you is what was it that caused you not to believe? What facts? I want proven facts as in things that can be replicated."

I gave you a list of some of the facts that caused me not to believe.

You have made the statement that faith healing is false (bunkum) so please provide absolute evidence that I was not healed by faith.

It is an absolute fact (observable and verifiable) that faith healing has NEVER been shown to have occurred.

Wow the meaning is not clear. Please tell me in say 1000 years time if people were to read a book and it said "Lets hit the road Jack" how will they understand it if for example they have no roads.

I don't give a damn how people will interpret our culture in a thousand years. All I know is that the bible is unclear, contradictory and open to so much interpretation that over 30,000 sects have been spawned by it.

Those facts alone are enough to make anyone in their right mind question why an omniscient, omnipotent being would rely on it to get her message across.

That is why I go on the most important commandments which is to love God and love thy neighbour as myself. If I focus on those then I am most unlikely to go wrong.

The 9/11 bombers did what they did because they loved god. Did they do wrong?

If history tells us anything it is that people who "love god" are the most likely to go to extreme measures to impose their ideas on others.

Not sure what the whole earth is flat statement is all about. Ok yes I do know where that is in the bible but not sure what it has to do with anything.

You asked me for facts that caused me to disbelieve. The bible says the world is flat. If it gets something verifiable like that wrong there is no reason I should believe anything it has to say that is unverifiable; like the existence of god.

 

[Argy Lacedom]

I am very confident that my children will know God,

But you cannot be 100% sure. Why would you risk having children even there was the tiniest possibility that they would be tortured for all eternity?

What did your family do to you to turn you away from Christianity so much?

They gave me an ability to think clearly.

Why do you hate Him so much if you don't believe in Him?

I hate him about as much as I hate the tooth fairy.

You still have not answered the question why you would allow your child to experience the world even though you know there are a multitude of threats out there?

I believe I have answered that question, but let me put it in terms you might understand... Because I have no choice. They are grown up and can make up their own minds.

 

[Tahoenite]

But you cannot be 100% sure. Why would you risk having children even there was the tiniest possibility that they would be tortured for all eternity?

I have to have faith that they will make that choice since I am part of the reason they are in the world.

They gave me an ability to think clearly.

This seems like a contradiction, you said that you were raised to know God, but then your family grants you the ability to move away from Him. I don't know of anyone like that. I know those that weren't in the church that don't think much of Christianity, and I know of those that were forced into it as children and break away and never want to go back.

I hate him about as much as I hate the tooth fairy.

Your previous post seem like they have a lot of animosity toward God.

I believe I have answered that question, but let me put it in terms you might understand... Because I have no choice. They are grown up and can make up their own minds.

You always have a choice, you had a choice to have children, you also had the choice on how to raise them ie. keeping them sheltered or helping them experience the world.

Since they have grown up and can make their own decisions. Are the decisions they make similar to the ones you would in the same situations?

 

[Argy Lacedom]

This seems like a contradiction, you said that you were raised to know God, but then your family grants you the ability to move away from Him.

I did not say that. I said that my family gave me the ability to think clearly. That allowed me to discover that the Christian god does not exist.

Your previous post seem like they have a lot of animosity toward God.

In the past I have also expressed animosity to the sock fairy and Harry Potter. Fictional characters often attract that sort of sentiment. It doesn't make them real.

You always have a choice, you had a choice to have children, you also had the choice on how to raise them ie. keeping them sheltered or helping them experience the world.

You obviously haven't had kids.

Since they have grown up and can make their own decisions. Are the decisions they make similar to the ones you would in the same situations?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. What is your point?

If I knew for certain (or had faith) that a god existed who made people go to hell for something as trival as not believing in him I would never have kids. The risk is too great.

 

[TheDag]

Balderdash. Scientists will often argue over what constitutes sufficient proof or the interpretation of events, but they do not argue over that. I suspect you are making this up as you go along. What was the debate you witnessed? Who was arguing and what were they arguing about?

Ah the arguing method of someone who comes across something that doesn't fit in with their way of how they think things work. There is a big difference over what constitutes sufficient proof and arguing over what is right and wrong. I have worked amongst many scientists. I am friends with many scientists.

I have never said that it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of gods. This is because of the way believers define them, not because of any shortcomings of those who disbelieve.

This contradicts other statements you have made in this thread. Do you think I don't read every post or something??? You have said for certain God does not exist. You can not make that statement if you can't prove it. If you do it is only a matter of opinion.

The point I was making is that your challenge to me to "choose" to become a believer is based on a false premise. If you think a person can change their belief by making a simple choice then you should accept that you are able to become a non-believer if you choose. My challenge to you is to prove your point by becoming a non-believer.
Please get your facts right.

but you are still assuming it is a blind faith. The problem is when it is not based on nothing one can not simply change their minds. You keep telling others to get their facts right. Pity you can't take your own advice. I never once said you just simply choose based on nothing. Therefore I also can't beexpected to choose against facts. I am aware of when I went through a phase of hating God I could find all kinds of reasons not to belief. So basically from my preconceived view that affected how I saw things which affected my choice. A friend eventually confronted me and I saw things differently. Instead of looking for reasons to hate God they got me to remember why I believed and then asked if God is real what response should that get from me.

You asked me the following..."So my question for you is what was it that caused you not to believe? What facts? I want proven facts as in things that can be replicated."

I gave you a list of some of the facts that caused me not to believe.

However some of the things you listed were to do with other people not why you don't believe. See nobody is perfect so they make mistakes. Sin can easily explain why some of the things in your list have happened. Even pagans have understood that and told people not to give up on christianity because of actions of individuals. Always interesting what you come across on a pagan-christian dialogue group.

It is an absolute fact (observable and verifiable) that faith healing has NEVER been shown to have occurred.

Please provide proof that it did not happen to me. Once again you claim something as fact yet refuse to back it up.

I don't give a damn how people will interpret our culture in a thousand years. All I know is that the bible is unclear, contradictory and open to so much interpretation that over 30,000 sects have been spawned by it.

Those facts alone are enough to make anyone in their right mind question why an omniscient, omnipotent being would rely on it to get her message across.

Now we get to the truth of the matter. You are not interested in considering anything but rather more interested in justifying the choice you have made. Once again I have addressed this previously in another thread but you did not respond.

The 9/11 bombers did what they did because they loved god. Did they do wrong?

If history tells us anything it is that people who "love god" are the most likely to go to extreme measures to impose their ideas on others.

Well you could ask muslims about it. The muslim equivalent of CF I am a member of those attacks were condemned by all and there were plenty of links to leading figures condemning it. Scripture was also provided to show why the attacks were wrong. Putting "love" in quote marks like you did is accurate. It isn't really love. lets look at a different example. Why did more and more vietnamese people support the VC or join? it is because of the way they were treated. They were abused and pushed around till they reacted. Even though they don't see it the US does bully other countries around and people react. What I find with extremists is that they are the ones who have not studied stuff for themselves and operate using blind faith (according to my definition of blind faith not yours). It is a sad fact that people will use anything they can for their own achievements. Lets remember what Osama Bin Ladens group wants. One of their main goals is to get the USA out of certain countries. The US put the taliban and Osama into the position of influence and power and then pushed them around trying to tell them what to do. Just like it didn't work in the phiilipined, Iran, Iraq and other countries it also didn't work in Afghanistan.

In any case i think any death is sad and so when I see people with no belief killing others either on purpose or accidentally I think it is sad. So lets do a comparison shall we. How many people were killed in 9/11, bali bombings, London attacks and compare that to the number of people killed in those countries in the same year those events happened. i think you would find that there were less deaths from the attacks. Just to start of around 6000 estimated to have died in the attacks while there were over 16,000 murders. It is hard to tell if the 9/11 attacks are included in that figure or not however seem as there is no spike like you would expect it most likely isn't. So how many of those murders were commited in the name of a God? I'm sure most wearn't and many were done by non-believers making non-believers very dangerous.

You asked me for facts that caused me to disbelieve. The bible says the world is flat. If it gets something verifiable like that wrong there is no reason I should believe anything it has to say that is unverifiable; like the existence of god.

The bible does not say the world is flat. There was a small number who suggested the earth was flat because of the bible but that was a minority. The main rederene to a flat earth in the bible is in abook of poetry and songs. That should tell you something or should I be a unbeliever simply because Pink in one of her songs said God doesn't exist. Same as creation account is not and never intends to be a scientific explanation but rather saying God created the earth. The bible and scientific theory on how the earth was created do not conflict. of course science have not proven they are right about creation of the earth. Scientific fact is proven when something can be replicated. So far they have failed to replicate the creation of the universe.

 

[Argy Lacedom]

This contradicts other statements you have made in this thread. Do you think I don't read every post or something??? You have said for certain God does not exist.

It is impossible to prove that no gods can exist (because of the way believers define them). But it is not possible for bibleGod to exist. For example, he is supposed to be all powerful, but he was defeated by iron chariots. That contradiction means he cannot logically exist.

but you are still assuming it is a blind faith. The problem is when it is not based on nothing one can not simply change their minds.

Ah, good! You are starting to see my point. You think you have come to your belief by more than just a wild stab in the dark and so it is not simply a matter of choosing to believe something else. Likewise for me, I have reached a state of non-belief via a long process of discovery. I cannot simply choose to believe.

So next time you see a believer say to a non-believer that it is a matter of choice you will know they are speaking from their wrong end.

Please provide proof that it did not happen to me.

I can't prove that because I have insufficient detail. Perhaps a thorough medical check would show that your recovery was perfectly natural. One other important reason I cannot prove it is that you are claiming a supernatural event caused it. By definition supernatural things are beyond our natural world and beyond investigation.

Another important fact is that you are making an exraordinary claim and it is up to you to prove it, rather than me disprove it. If I claimed that there was an invisible pink unicorn standing next to you I don't think you would accept I was telling the truth simply because you could not prove me wrong!

I feel totally justified in rejecting your claim of a supernatural cure until you are able to prove it.

The bible does not say the world is flat.

The bible contains so many absurdities it is a joke. How can anyone with an ounce of common sense believe the unverifiable things the bible says when it gets so many of the verifiable things wrong?

Scientific fact is proven when something can be replicated. So far they have failed to replicate the creation of the universe.

LOL!!

Are you suggesting that the universe does not exist because science can't explain it?

Or perhaps you are suggesting that in the absense of any hard evidence we are entitled to accept that any crazy idea about its beginning. If that's your criteria then I suggest that we adopt Douglas Adams' theory that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the great green arkleseizure...

Jatravartids

Jatravartids are small blue creatures of the planet Viltvodle VI with more than fifty arms each. They are therefore unique in being the only race in history to have invented aerosol deodorant before the wheel.
Many races believe that the Universe was created by some sort of god or in the Big Bang. The Jatravartid people, however, believe that the Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. They live in perpetual fear of the time they call "The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief" (their version of the End of the Universe). The theory of the Great Green Arkleseizure is not widely accepted outside Viltvodle VI.

 

[Tahoenite]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. What is your point?

I am working up to my point, but why do you think your children do things they way you think they should be done sometimes and other times they don't? Is it because you granted your children with the same ability to think clearly that you were given?

 

[TheDag]

It is impossible to prove that no gods can exist (because of the way believers define them). But it is not possible for bible God to exist. For example, he is supposed to be all powerful, but he was defeated by iron chariots. That contradiction means he cannot logically exist.

You are welcome to believe he was defeated. Perhaps you could even provide a reference for your claim to make sure I know what your talking about. I could guess but then your previous practice shows you would ridicule me if i got it wrong

Ah, good! You are starting to see my point. You think you have come to your belief by more than just a wild stab in the dark and so it is not simply a matter of choosing to believe something else. Likewise for me, I have reached a state of non-belief via a long process of discovery. I cannot simply choose to believe.

So next time you see a believer say to a non-believer that it is a matter of choice you will know they are speaking from their wrong end.

Wrong wrong and wrong! I have no idea what your point is. I never once claimed that anyone should just make a choice based on nothing. I have seen the statement that it is a choice made in this thread but not once have I seen that accompanied by, implication or otherwise, that it should be a choice based on nothing.

I can't prove that because I have insufficient detail. Perhaps a thorough medical check would show that your recovery was perfectly natural. One other important reason I cannot prove it is that you are claiming a supernatural event caused it. By definition supernatural things are beyond our natural world and beyond investigation.

The injury was muscle strain (doctors diagnosis not mine). I've had enough of those in my life to know they don't go away the way this one did.

Another important fact is that you are making an exraordinary claim and it is up to you to prove it, rather than me disprove it. If I claimed that there was an invisible pink unicorn standing next to you I don't think you would accept I was telling the truth simply because you could not prove me wrong!

I feel totally justified in rejecting your claim of a supernatural cure until you are able to prove it.

You made the claim that faith healing is false. I asked you to back up that claim. So sorry you made the claim first not me. Burden of evidence rests with you. Of course you could argue it doesn't but isn't it interesting how quickly that becomes a double standard with people when you apply the same principle at other times. Well I've noticed that with other athiests anyway.

The bible contains so many absurdities it is a joke. How can anyone with an ounce of common sense believe the unverifiable things the bible says when it gets so many of the verifiable things wrong?

Well so far I haven't seen you produce any examples. So you just go on thinking how clever you are and ignore what people say so later you can say people can't answer the questions because that appears to me to be what you want to do.

LOL!!

Are you suggesting that the universe does not exist because science can't explain it?

Or perhaps you are suggesting that in the absense of any hard evidence we are entitled to accept that any crazy idea about its beginning. If that's your criteria then I suggest that we adopt Douglas Adams' theory that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the great green arkleseizure...

Of course I'm not suggesting that the universe does not exist. Once again you want to resort to argument by ridicule rather than answering the question. I am simply asking you to prove science has the theory right. Scientfic proof is considered to be achieved when something has been replicated. So many athiests want us to use faith to accept science is 100% correct about how the universe came to be yet are happy to reject the use of faith in other matters such as FAITH!

 

[Argy Lacedom]

I am working up to my point, but why do you think your children do things they way you think they should be done sometimes and other times they don't? Is it because you granted your children with the same ability to think clearly that you were given?

No. I granted them nothing. They were born with innate abilities that are result of their genetic herritage. These abilities have been refined by their invironment including their family life, friends, schooling and life experience.

And let me ask one last time. What is your point?