God gave us Reason, not Religion

[AgnosTheist]

Actually, you had better define what you mean by “objective evidence”–and compare it to what you would accept as valid evidence if the claims of religion were not involved.

Objective Evidences = evidences that are perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

What religion has this? Islam? Christianity? Buddhism?

And before you start citing the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ canard of skeptics (Sagan, Shermer, Randi, etcc…) perhaps you should examine this article
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009bt.asp

Your biased source is a dumb article, my friend. How dumb? Its this dumb:

quote:
“Murders and rapes are extraordinary events”

It happens consistently everywhere & everytime. Its uncommon but its not extraordinary. That phrase shows how much the author have missed the point of the logic: the nature of the evidence should closely match the nature of the claim. For examples: A murder claim should produce a dead body as evidence; a rape claim should produce a rape victim.

Find me an unbiased soruce for the same subject. Perhaps a second opinion can better explain the point.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Agnos Thesist, respectly I ask you this, if you believe that God gave us reason and not religion, what are you doing on a Ctholic discussion forum? Are there no agnostic forums where you can exchange thoughts on no religion? Is it important to post on a catholic board? Why?
GraceAngel.

As what the Moderator Joe Monahan had said, the Non-Catholic Religions section is for exploring the history and beliefs of non-Catholic and non-Christian faiths, dialogue with their adherents

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=145190

I’m here to share my views. It seems like a lot of you have not realized how possible it is to simply believe in God without believing in religion. Like I do.

I also missed discussing religion with catholics. I am being reminded of what catholicism is about.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Objective Evidences = evidences that are perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

What religion has this? Islam? Christianity? Buddhism?

Reply: Certainly not the history and rhetoric of agnosticism and atheism

Your biased source is a dumb article, my friend. How dumb? Its this dumb:

quote:

“Murders and rapes are extraordinary events”
It happens consistently everywhere & everytime. Its uncommon but its not extraordinary.

That phrase shows how much the author have missed the point of the logic: the nature of the evidence should closely match the nature of the claim. For examples: A murder claim should produce a dead body as evidence; a rape claim should produce a rape victim.

Reply: Proving a particular person committed a murder or rape requires “reasonable” evidence and witness. When Christians try to present “reasonable” evidence of the same standard of their claims, the bar of evidence is arbitrarily, prejudicaly raised. This shows pre-disposed bias againstthe claims, which is NOT rational–it is emotive

 

[AgnosTheist]

Reply: Certainly not the history and rhetoric of agnosticism and atheism

I agree. Agnostics dont make any claim at all, so asking evidences from us are irrelevant.

Reply: Proving a particular person committed a murder or rape requires “reasonable” evidence and witness. When Christians try to present “reasonable” evidence of the same standard of their claims, the bar of evidence is arbitrarily, prejudicaly raised. This shows pre-disposed bias againstthe claims, which is NOT rational–it is emotive

the bar of evidence is raised only according to the nature of your claims. you claim the supernatural, then show something that can only be the result of the supernatural. your problem is that you consistently fail in producing something that is objective.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion of Narnia forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
And before you start citing the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’ canard of skeptics (Sagan, Shermer, Randi, etcc…) perhaps you should examine this article
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009bt.asp

Your biased source is a dumb article, my friend. How dumb? Its this dumb:

quote:
"Murders and rapes are extraordinary events"It happens consistently everywhere & everytime. Its uncommon but its not extraordinary. That phrase shows how much the author have missed the point of the logic: the nature of the evidence should closely match the nature of the claim. For examples: A murder claim should produce a dead body as evidence; a rape claim should produce a rape victim.

Why do materialists (those with the “modern mind” [re Belloc]) have a NEED to see murder and rape (and any number of other evil deeds) as relatively common events?

The mindset of folks like this DEMAND that the world conform to the “realities” that exist between their ears, which are one variety or another of utter miserable despair.

In fact, the “modern mind” is such that it impels those who possess it to commit horrific crimes to MAKE the world more like the “God shaped emptiness” that is their interior world, to make them feel “less alone”.

Why is this? Does “God shaped emptiness” give you a clue…?

Ag,… while I’m grateful that you’d show us those things about yourself that show you “for what you truly are”, I do have to wonder why?

Thank you for your self exposition, as an excellent case study of the the subject in question.

Best to you.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion of Narnia forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Reply: Proving a particular person committed a murder or rape requires “reasonable” evidence and witness. When Christians try to present “reasonable” evidence of the same standard of their claims, the bar of evidence is arbitrarily, prejudicaly raised. This shows pre-disposed bias againstthe claims, which is NOT rational–it is emotive

the bar of evidence is raised only according to the nature of your claims. you claim the supernatural, then show something that can only be the result of the supernatural.

Uh,… claiming the supernatural did something that had a supernatural result sounds rather sensible to me… You have a problem with that,… how…!?

your problem is that you consistently fail in producing something that is objective.

Your definition of objective isn’t objective, because you can’t compare something with something else that you have no experience of.

You have no experience of the supernatural, because you simply assert it’s impossibility, and therefore don’t bother to do what needs to be done to experience it,… THEN complain that your NON-EXPERIENCE doesn’t compare with any other experience you’ve ever had.

Of course it doesn’t…! NOTHING can compare with a non-experience.

Until you have done what is necessary to receive a thing, you have no idea what you’re talking about in relation to that thing.

Why don’t you do what’s necessary? Because it’s not necessary to you. You don’t NEED to. You don’t NEED to because you’re too “comfortable”.

You’re welcome to state your utterly ignorant opinions about your “god”, and the nature of “godly religion”, but your opinion is what it is. Ignorant.

Thanks, though, for giving us some grist. I enjoy your nonsense immensely. Please continue sharing.

You might want to buy a vowel or two, though.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Why do materialists (those with the “modern mind” [re Belloc]) have a NEED to see murder and rape (and any number of other evil deeds) as relatively common events?

whatever gave you that idea? again you are not reading properly.

Uh,… claiming the supernatural did something that had a supernatural result sounds rather sensible to me… You have a problem with that,… how…!?

Im just being like your Saint Thomas. No proof, no deal. You have a problem with that?

Your definition of objective isn’t objective, because you can’t compare something with something else that you have no experience of.

Tell that to Thomas.

You have no experience of the supernatural, because you simply assert it’s impossibility

again you are putting your words into my mouth. i believe in god, obviously i believe that there is something supernatural out there.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Why do materialists (those with the “modern mind” [re Belloc]) have a NEED to see murder and rape (and any number of other evil deeds) as relatively common events?

whatever gave you that idea? again you are not reading properly.

You inflated the “common-ness” of evil doing. My comments are my response to why you would do that. Show me how I’m wrong in my estimation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Uh,… claiming the supernatural did something that had a supernatural result sounds rather sensible to me… You have a problem with that,… how…!?

Im just being like your Saint Thomas. No proof, no deal. You have a problem with that?

But there is proof, as St. Thomas found, I would think, as he’s a saint, and saint’s don’t become saints by being “materialists”.

(( I’m not that familiar with St. Thomas, so if you could enlighten me on what you know about how he impinges on our discussion, I’d be much appreciative. ))

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Your definition of objective isn’t objective, because you can’t compare something with something else that you have no experience of.

Tell that to Thomas.

Are you trying to tell me that a Catholic saint had no personal proof of the supernatural?

I think you’re just making things up, again. Nice tactic, though, to shift off the responsibility for your groundlessness off onto a saint.

You’ll have to explain how your simple contrariness is more than that, for your “St. Thomas Rebuttal” to be anything but a teenager’s “Wasn’t ME, Johnny did it!!!” joke of a response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
You have no experience of the supernatural, because you simply assert it’s impossibility

again you are putting your words into my mouth. i believe in god, obviously i believe that there is something supernatural out there.

You believe in a “supernatural” which is utterly un-touchable by any non-suprenatural thing.

God knows about the supernatural, but no man can, because only God can know about such things,… you say.

You say you don’t believe in things without proof, yet believe in something you define as improvable.

Beautiful contradiction. I used to believe the same, and justified that belief by claiming that there was only ONE singular thing which was worthy of believing in in that way, which is the all good, all loving, omnipotent God.

The problem with that belief is that it is utterly sterile. God is reduced to having no effect on the world.

That sterility results in barrenness and desolation, which is the landscape of despair, and the garden of “man as crop and prey”.

That is,… the land of slavery,… which minds like yours drive us toward while claiming their god is God.

You’ll realize that at some point, if you do have a need for God,… as your god will eventually trip up, and reveal himself as what he is,… unless you’ve come to love the god you have over the God you do indeed yearn for.

Best to you on your path.

Do keep up the great conversation, and please do learn to use the shift-key…! Text-message spelling is a sure sign of a lazy and superficial mind. That’s not the REAL you, now is it?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[AgnosTheist]

That’s nice. And why?

what makes christianity (catholicism included) unreasonable compared to judaism & buddhism is the belief in a savior (& all that stuff about sin & salvation) that only came in 2000 years ago, when humanity itself is more than 200,000 years old. Like what took him so long? It doesnt make any sense.

one of the things that makes orthodox catholicism more rational than roman catholicism is their optional stance on priestly celibacy.

You see ALL religion as a dangerous mental disease.

no i dont.

Little do you seem to see that all “belief systems” are equivalent to “religions”. Even you religion, which you call whatever you do, but which I call anti-religiousity, which is some form of materialistic humanism.

mind explaining how my beliefs classify as a system?

My position is that any belief system that isn’t based on the revelation of God is, indeed, a dangerous mental disease, because it is based on the “fallen” (concupiscent) desires of man, which will always tend toward the institution of slavery (human misery/idolatry).

thats funny, i thought i heard that rationalization before from a Muslim talking about catholicism.

Reasoning produces reasons according to the reasoning applied. When you say that reasoning is “a (singular) talent” you imply that there is only one reasoning that people do. That is inaccurate.

your interpretation is inacurate. i never meant to imply that.

God gave us many reasonings. Does this upset your theory that the only things that God gives man that are “revealed” are singlular things?

you wish. really, the idea that the bible was inspired by god is really nothing more than an assumption. it wasnt god who gave you these reasonings, it was your parents. it was your priests. there is not one speck of objective evidence that there is anything divine with those words in the bible.

 

[AgnosTheist]

You inflated the “common-ness” of evil doing. My comments are my response to why you would do that. Show me how I’m wrong in my estimation.

I said “Its uncommon but its not extraordinary”.

But there is proof, as St. Thomas found, I would think, as he’s a saint, and saint’s don’t become saints by being “materialists”.

(( I’m not that familiar with St. Thomas, so if you could enlighten me on what you know about how he impinges on our discussion, I’d be much appreciative. ))

Thomas was one of the 12 apostles. He refused to believe his comrades that jesus had risen. Nothing would convince him short of witnessing an actual proof.

According to the stories he got his proof and he believed. I too would believe as soon as I get some proof. Though I’m not as strict as thomas. Anything that is objectively extraordinary would do for me.

You say you don’t believe in things without proof, yet believe in something you define as improvable.

for me the sophisticated universe & the mysteries of life is evidence enough that there is a manipulating divine intelligence out there.

its just a personal belief. i will never claim as a fact the existence of god.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif*That’s nice. And why?*what makes christianity (catholicism included) unreasonable compared to judaism & buddhism is the belief in a savior (& all that stuff about sin & salvation) that only came in 2000 years ago, when humanity itself is more than 200,000 years old. Like what took him so long? It doesnt make any sense.

Like, what makes you the arbiter of what universally “makes sense”…!?

Like,… Huh…!?

You demand that all knowledge should be obvious, and you should have it. And if you don’t have it, it’s not real knowledge.

Have fun with that…!

one of the things that makes orthodox catholicism more rational than roman catholicism is their optional stance on priestly celibacy.

You’re very VERY funny…! How old are you…?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif*You see ALL religion as a dangerous mental disease.*no i dont.

OK, if you say so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif*Little do you seem to see that all “belief systems” are equivalent to “religions”. Even you religion, which you call whatever you do, but which I call anti-religiousity, which is some form of materialistic humanism.*mind explaining how my beliefs classify as a system?

You are indeed very funny. You can call your belief system whatever you like,… like,… uh,… like,… is that OK with you?

Like,… is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif*My position is that any belief system that isn’t based on the revelation of God is, indeed, a dangerous mental disease, because it is based on the “fallen” (concupiscent) desires of man, which will always tend toward the institution of slavery (human misery/idolatry).*thats funny, i thought i heard that rationalization before from a Muslim talking about catholicism.

I would expect that from a moslem. Heretics always try to usurp what they revolt against.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gifReasoning produces reasons according to the reasoning applied. When you say that reasoning is "a (singular) talent" you imply that there is only one reasoning that people do. That is inaccurate.your interpretation is inacurate. i never meant to imply that.

OK,… if you,… like,… say so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif*God gave us many reasonings. Does this upset your theory that the only things that God gives man that are “revealed” are singlular things?*you wish. really, the idea that the bible was inspired by god is really nothing more than an assumption. it wasnt god who gave you these reasonings, it was your parents. it was your priests. there is not one speck of objective evidence that there is anything divine with those words in the bible.

Thanks for your opinion. It’s very common. You’re welcome to it.

See what it does for you…!

What it DOES tell me about you, though, is that:

*) You have deep trust issues.
*) You have “parent” issues. Most likely “father” issues.
*) You have authority figure issues.
*) You seek something worthy of your trust, yet believe that it is unattainable.

You make your god inert, so as to insulate yourself from disappointment.

Frustration is your driving force. More accurately, your striving to relieve the pain OF your frustration is your driving force.

Best to you in your journey, either in or out of that frustration.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*But there is proof, as St. Thomas found, I would think, as he’s a saint, and saint’s don’t become saints by being “materialists”.

(( I’m not that familiar with St. Thomas, so if you could enlighten me on what you know about how he impinges on our discussion, I’d be much appreciative. ))*

Thomas was one of the 12 apostles. He refused to believe his comrades that jesus had risen. Nothing would convince him short of witnessing an actual proof.

According to the stories he got his proof and he believed. I too would believe as soon as I get some proof. Though I’m not as strict as thomas. Anything that is objectively extraordinary would do for me.

OH,… THAT St. Thomas…!! I thought you were refering to Aquinas. Sorry about that…!

Anyway,… Why do you think “God’s Plan” had this little episode in it? To highlight the superiority of believing WITHOUT proof over believing only WITH proof.

You wish to identify with St. Thomas in this way? That’s an interesting choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
You say you don’t believe in things without proof, yet believe in something you define as improvable.

for me the sophisticated universe & the mysteries of life is evidence enough that there is a manipulating divine intelligence out there.

For me too, actually. So, how 'bout that,… we agree on something…!!

But as you don’t know what you’re missing, and have no interest (expressed) in finding out about it, and constitutionally unwilling to do the work necessary anyway, do the best you can in life, and keep hoping you know enough to get where you want to be.

its just a personal belief. i will never claim as a fact the existence of god.

That’s fine, and quite honest of you.

We’ll see, or at least, YOU’LL see, what happens when/if you get uncomfortable with the results of your little “experiment” in religion.

Best to 'ya…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Like, what makes you the arbiter of what universally “makes sense”…!?

Like,… Huh…!?

You demand that all knowledge should be obvious, and you should have it. And if you don’t have it, it’s not real knowledge.

Have fun with that…!

John: For god so loved the world the he gave his only begotten son that whomsoever may believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Me: Excuse me, what about the world for the last 198,000 years. didnt God love them enough to send his only begotten son 198,000 years ago?

John:

You’re very VERY funny…! How old are you…?

I’m very young. What about you?

What it DOES tell me about you, though, is that:

*) You have deep trust issues.
*) You have “parent” issues. Most likely “father” issues.
*) You have authority figure issues.
*) You seek something worthy of your trust, yet believe that it unattainable.

wow you completely described my bizzarro double from the alternate reality where everything is the opposite.

Best to you in your journey, either in or out of that frustration.

thank you. I am enjoying it.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Anyway,… Why do you think “God’s Plan” had this little episode in it? To highlight the superiority of believing WITHOUT proof over believing only WITH proof.

yes thats obviously it. anyway i dont see that thomas was penalized for being a skeptic.

You wish to identify with St. Thomas in this way? That’s an interesting choice.

For me too, actually. So, how 'bout that,… we agree on something…!!

That’s fine, and quite honest of you.

Best to 'ya…!

Thank you. Best to you too, pal.

 

[edwest2]

My brothers and sisters in Christ, this is an example of maybe-ism, who-can-say-ism and who-knows-ism.

As you know the truth, speak the truth to those who engender strife but do not behave like them.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*Like, what makes you the arbiter of what universally “makes sense”…!?

Like,… Huh…!?

You demand that all knowledge should be obvious, and you should have it. And if you don’t have it, it’s not real knowledge.

Have fun with that…!*

John: For god so loved the world the he gave his only begotten son that whomsoever may believe in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Me: Excuse me, what about the world for the last 198,000 years. didnt God love them enough to send his only begotten son 198,000 years ago?

Uh,… He didn’t need to, because deceased men were in a “holding pattern” (which was a rather BIG and varied place depending on your “disposition” in God’s eyes) until Jesus came, and rose.

You REALLY should check out the catechism, and basic Catholic doctrine. It is very good that you asked the question though.

At the point when Jesus “catechized/quized” the dead, to bring them “up to date” and give them the “big choice”, as only He could, all of God’s creation God knows as “man” not presently alive in the world went to their appointed “place”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
You’re very VERY funny…! How old are you…?

I’m very young. What about you?

Young, not so much,… as Borat would say.

Should I believe you? Who knows…!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*What it DOES tell me about you, though, is that:

*) You have deep trust issues.
*) You have “parent” issues. Most likely “father” issues.
*) You have authority figure issues.
) You seek something worthy of your trust, yet believe that it unattainable.

wow you completely described my bizzarro double from the alternate reality where everything is the opposite.

Are you channeling him again…!!? You KNOW that always confuses the conversation…!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Best to you in your journey, either in or out of that frustration.

thank you. I am enjoying it.

I’m really not that sure we have too much to talk about anymore, unfortunately.

It would be nice if we could discuss actual confusions/misunderstandings/points-of-view that you have. Simply being contrary isn’t that much fun.

And thanks for using the shift-key…! Good grief,… I’m SO shallow…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Anyway,… Why do you think “God’s Plan” had this little episode in it? To highlight the superiority of believing WITHOUT proof over believing only WITH proof.

yes thats obviously it. anyway i dont see that thomas was penalized for being a skeptic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*You wish to identify with St. Thomas in this way? That’s an interesting choice.

For me too, actually. So, how 'bout that,… we agree on something…!!

That’s fine, and quite honest of you.

Best to 'ya…!*

Thank you. Best to you too, pal.

Nawwwwwwwwwwww,… I deserve a good “kickin’ around” for being such a pushy grouchy goof…!

Thanks for smacking me around, dude,… of dudette. You’re probably a dude, but’cha never know.

Try out a rosary. You might be surprised. Who knows. Just a goofy idea. I am nothing if not an inveterate perveyor of goofy ideas.

 

[Keikiolu]

My brothers and sisters in Christ, this is an example of maybe-ism, who-can-say-ism and who-knows-ism.

As you know the truth, speak the truth to those who engender strife but do not behave like them.

God bless,
Ed

Amen,… and spiritual warfare is an interesting concept in this light, is it not…?

 

[Peregrino]

Your just being contrary. Either explain what you mean by “Sure it could”, or sit down with the other 2nd graders and finish your finger-painting.

Not at all. I just don’t want to take time to comment fully on this and derail the discussion. Once again it seems you are incapable of carrying on an intelligent discussion with out being derogatory. Once again I forgive you but I am disappointed in you…

Things happen regularly, and from observation a belief is formed that if the same “pre-thing-happening situation” occurs again, the THING will happen again.

The belief that “this situation looks a lot like the situation before the THING happens” proceeds REASONING as to WHY that pre-thing is followed by the thing happening.

In other words, the observation shows a pattern (revelation),… the pattern is recognized as preceeding the happening (belief),… the observer then observes more closely to discover the reasons the happening happened (reason).

Observation of pattern is not REASON. Reason is purposeful observation (and integration/connection) to discover causality.

Belief that a hypothesis is “apparently true” always preceeds the act of reasoning out WHY the hypothesis is apparently true.

Belief always comes before reason. Then reason is used to confirm, or modify, or negate, belief.

So to follow your logic, any “proof” in the syllogistic sense (all those famous historical “proofs” of the existence of God)) are bogus if you don’t believe already. The “reasonableness” of Catholocism that is so touted by Catholics only flies if you already believe. An atheist stands not a chance.

His divinity informed His sayings, because He was divine. How do I know He was divine? Because it has been revealed to me, by the Church, that He was indeed divine.

Ah, but how do we know objectively that the church is correct on this proposition?

This knowledge (His divinity) is true, to me, because I’ve conducted the experiments, holding the requisite beliefs, whose results confirmed to me that that belief is worthy of faithful holding.

The subjective possession of a truth? Sounds like something I would say…

Until you’ve done the necessary experiments to discern the divinity of Christ Jesus, you have no standing to comment on YOUR results of those experiments (which are null unless you do), and certainly no standing to comment on the results of my experiments.

I would never presume to comment on your “results”, just your ability to expand those “results” and comment on other’s faith traditions. There is a reason that they are called “faith” traditions and not “fact” traditions or “universally true” traditions.

The child who believes that the easter bunny is UNreal, because it is unreal, and it is completely shown that it IS unreal, is more intelligent than the child who still believes in the now totally debunked easter bunny.

Why? Because it is fact that the E-Bunny is unreal, and it is easily demonstrated that it is unreal, and only the unintelligent person believes the demonstrably unreal is real.

Sure, but your original statement was that the believer is more intelligent that the non-believer and it now seems that you are supporting the intelligence of the non-believer due to his reliance on facts. It would seem that the atheist is more intellgient than us fools who believe in God because she is working from solid evidence and conclusions from that evidence, rather than the whispy suppositions and assumptions of faith.

God won’t allow the situation where our choosing to “choose Him” (as real) is dictated only by our level of intelligence. It needs to be a FREE choice, of human will,…

You speak for God? How do you know? Maybe God has tried and we just don’t accept God’s “clear revelation…” How much knowledge of God does God allow before that knowledge tramples the miracle of “free will”? What is the purpose of revelation then? To prime the “free will” pump?

What we DON’T agree on is the “need” to do the required experiments, under the required conditions, to prove the faith as a valid belief held due to confirmation of that belief.

Outline the experiment and “required conditions” and I will give them to my atheist friends and have them test drive it…

The whole point of what I’m trying to convey is that materialists have no idea what they’re talking about until they’ve done the experiments required to allow them to speak, in any way, about the veracity of faith.

What if they conclude that faith is a delusion? How will you then choose to denigrate them? Call them stupid?

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

I agree. Agnostics dont make any claim at all, so asking evidences from us are irrelevant.

**Reply: all too often, they’re not even trying to determine the truth of religious claims or atheist claims. I was a “gutless atheist” (i.e. agnostic) myself for 21 years–and mostly I just followed the clicheof “God existence cant be proven or disproven”. **

the bar of evidence is raised only according to the nature of your claims. you claim the supernatural, then show something that can only be the result of the supernatural. your problem is that you consistently fail in producing something that is objective.

Reply: even “reasonable evidence” that would be accepted in other non-religious circumstances is discounted out of hand by the skeptics–and worse. Many a skeptic will even use this highly subjective standard agaist other non-supernatural claims of religious believers, such as maters of history, textual accuracy, etc… In short, the skeptics are playing in a game of their devising and doing everything they can to stack the deck in their favor.

There are several examples of this egregious, biased mindset. One of the most spectacular was the writer and miltant atheist Emile Zola, who actually did witness a miraculous healing at Lourdes (recalled in Karl Keating’s The Usual Suspects) Zola had NO explantion for the healing–yet declared he would not believe in miracles if he witnessed a million of them. THAT’s "invincible ignorance"