Was religion invented by man?

[Cheiron]

Your knowledge of Islam didn’t even extend to what took me ten seconds to google, and you can’t even spell Muhammad.

I’m not a native English speaker. In my language, Muhammad’s name is spelled as Mohammed. Thomas Jefferson even spelled it as Mahomet.

The view you express here, that Islam is a personality cult, is disrespectful to the religion,

In my experience, muslims try to imitate Mohammed as best as possible, because he was seen as the best muslim. How is this not a personality cult? This was entirely on-topic. If it sounds offensive, that’s just too bad. I don’t mean to be offensive by the way, but I can’t help it if someone feels offended. A lot of things in the Qu’ran related to unbelievers is disrespectful and offensive to my worldview. Respect must go both ways.

and the view you expressed in post #167, “On 9/11, America wasn’t attacked by the faithless, but by pious muslims” is in essence calling all Muslims terrorists, which the stickies give as an example where “suspension may be immediate and without prior counseling”.

I did not call all muslims terrorists and it’s dishonest to accuse me of such a thing. Pointing out that these terrorists were muslims does not mean that all muslims are terrorists. Or do you think that if I say that pigeons are birds, that all birds are therefore pigeons?

I invite you to retract any unintended disrespect towards Islam.

I invite you to retract your false accusation. You twist my words and then try to get me banned because of it. “False statements maliciously made to defame another’s reputation” is a banned topic.

 

[inocente]

I’m not a native English speaker. In my language, Muhammad’s name is spelled as Mohammed. Thomas Jefferson even spelled it as Mahomet.

In my experience, muslims try to imitate Mohammed as best as possible, because he was seen as the best muslim. How is this not a personality cult? This was entirely on-topic. If it sounds offensive, that’s just too bad. I don’t mean to be offensive by the way, but I can’t help it if someone feels offended. A lot of things in the Qu’ran related to unbelievers is disrespectful and offensive to my worldview. Respect must go both ways.

I did not call all muslims terrorists and it’s dishonest to accuse me of such a thing. Pointing out that these terrorists were muslims does not mean that all muslims are terrorists. Or do you think that if I say that pigeons are birds, that all birds are therefore pigeons?

I invite you to retract your false accusation. You twist my words and then try to get me banned because of it. “False statements maliciously made to defame another’s reputation” is a banned topic.

I’m not trying to get you banned, I didn’t report you.

Your knowledge of Islam didn’t include something it took me ten seconds to google. It isn’t a personality cult, their most fundamental creed is “There is no god but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God”. 9/11 was an attack by Islamists, not the same as Islam, they were political fanatics, not one billion moderate Muslims worldwide.

Hopefully that puts the record straight on those details, enough said. The Pope, I seem to remember, suggested we need to build more bridges, not more walls. Don’t know if there’s a secular humanist take on that philosophy.

By all means send me a PM if you want to let off steam at the above, but meanwhile, back on topic, the OP asks “How do we know religion isn’t something that was made up by primitive man to explain the world around him, or for comfort to escape the fear of death as many atheists claim?”

 

[goout]

Durn it. I was with you almost all the way until that point.

Something can’t be natural and supernatural at the same time. So you do realize that your argument means that nothing can be considered natural?

Don’t know about other religions, but the concept of both/and is key for Christianity, as opposed to either/or. Natural and supernatural are part of the same nature.

Either/or does not require nuanced thought. It rejects or accepts on very simplistic terms.
For example:
“scripture says the world was created in 7 days, and so I believe it was just like that, down to the scientific jot and tittle”.
or conversely
“scripture says the world was created in 7 days, that’s scientifically incompatible and so Christianity is false”.
No nuance of thought either way.

Both/and asks us to look for something more than simple proofs.

Sexuality has a physical nature and a supernatural, or metaphysical, nature which has unseen elements. There is something more than the mere physical act. The physical act signifies a deeper super-natural reality.

A human being has a physical nature and a supernatural nature.

The word super does not mean the merely observable is superseded.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…They were completely wrong about what they thought was the entire thing. The blind man feeling the tail thought that the elephant was made entirely of rope.

No I don’t think so. They just weren’t aware that they still had more to learn.
That doesn’t mean they were all completely wrong.

The person feeling the elephant tail never asserts anything beyond what he believes he is experiencing. Moreover, all of them would agree that whatever their differences, an elephant of some sort does exist.

Perhaps we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this because, like you…

…I don’t want to get into word games.

I would argue, (as a biblical theist looking on,) that all those other ‘blind men’ are partially right.
But if you think they are all completely wrong, so be it.

…So Jesus was right and the Aztec mode of worship was wrong. Why then, did God not send a prophet to the Aztecs?

I think you will find that The Gospel of Jesus Christ has reached South/Central America. And there’s plenty of scriptural support for the claim that God indeed wants the entire world to hear the Gospel.

… Why was He perfectly content to let Aztecs kill their family and friends in a vain attempt to please Him?

“Perfectly content”?
I don’t think you can substantiate that claim.
If God was content to let evil continue in this world He would never intervene - ever.

…Not all claims are the same. Global warming doesn’t conflict with what we know about nature.

Now you’re picking and choosing what evidence you wish to believe. When I said God is natural, you said you didn’t want to get into ‘word games’. Now you’re invoking nature.

My point was about methodological skepticism - you express skepticism about religious truth claims because they disagree with one another and I just was pointng out that, to be consistent, you should apply that same standard in other areas of controversy or doubt.

Your central claim is that because religions don’t agree they should all be treated as equally questionable. But apparently you don’t apply that same epistemic standard to things which you believe are consistent with your idea of what is “natural”.

…Secondly, scientists work in a very competitive environment where fame is earned by disproving other scientists. There is nothing like that in theology.

Yes that’s the so-called “beauty” of science. Correcting its own -]evidence/-] mistakes.
If only biblical theology had the luxury of going back and changing stuff.

But you see, we don’t need to - God is not a hypothesis. The bible STILL includes all the same fact claims it has always made. (The ‘singular’ moment of creation. An expanding universe. All humans having a common ancestor. The inception of monotheistic religion in the same part of the world where writing was invented. etc.)

… Even the atheists? Then why bother being a member of the Chuch at all?

That was a quote from pope Francis by the way.

 

[PRmerger]

Sounds like Tertullian. Credo quia absurdum.The absurdity of it diminishes the likelihood that it’s made up. To me it’s exactly opposite. However, I’ve read stuff that is far weirder. Scientology for example. Human imagination is big.

Oh, be careful, Cheiron, about calling one of the central dogmas of Christianity “weird” and
absurd".

Contempt for Catholicism is not permitted here.

That the dogma of the Trinity is complex, and fully inaccessible to reason, and an ineffable mystery is not to be interpreted as “therefore it’s weird and absurd”.

At any rate, do you have any proof that Tertullian made up the dogma of the Trinity?

 

[Cheiron]

No I don’t think so. They just weren’t aware that they still had more to learn.
That doesn’t mean they were all completely wrong.

The person feeling the elephant tail never asserts anything beyond what he believes he is experiencing. Moreover, all of them would agree that whatever their differences, an elephant of some sort does exist.

Perhaps we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this because, like you…

I would argue, (as a biblical theist looking on,) that all those other ‘blind men’ are partially right.
But if you think they are all completely wrong, so be it.

I could and should have phrased that much better. Sorry about that.

I think you will find that The Gospel of Jesus Christ has reached South/Central America. And there’s plenty of scriptural support for the claim that God indeed wants the entire world to hear the Gospel.

Yes, but it only spread to the Americas in the early 16th century. It was the result of a local religion spreading out across the globe. I would be thoroughly impressed if there is evidence of, for example, a Marian apparition before the first missionaries arrived.

“Perfectly content”?
I don’t think you can substantiate that claim.
If God was content to let evil continue in this world He would never intervene - ever.

God did not send a revelation or a prophet to the Aztecs to correct them.

Now you’re picking and choosing what evidence you wish to believe. When I said God is natural, you said you didn’t want to get into ‘word games’. Now you’re invoking nature.

My point was about methodological skepticism - you express skepticism about religious truth claims because they disagree with one another and I just was pointng out that, to be consistent, you should apply that same standard in other areas of controversy or doubt.

Your central claim is that because religions don’t agree they should all be treated as equally questionable. But apparently you don’t apply that same epistemic standard to things which you believe are consistent with your idea of what is “natural”.

The fact that all religions disagree with each other is the result of religion being a reflection of the local culture and knowledge. The knowledge of the gods of each religion seem to be tied to the historical context in which that religion arose. The commandments set forth in the Hebrew Bible are typical for an agrarian society. Also, not all religions are equally questionable. I think it’s far more likely that Mormonism is made up then Catholicism, because the rise of Mormonism is much more recent and therefore far better recorded in documents other than the holy book. So it’s easier to check for factual errors and to investigate the moral character of the supposed prophet.

I see we disagree on what God is. God, in my mind, is not a natural entity, that is: not present in this universe. That conclusion is the result of the comparative religion classes in school and my own interpretation of what religious people say. What do you mean with God being natural? It’s the first time I read it. I don’t like word games, but I’m a fan of clarification and definitions!

EDIT: I suddenly realized I didn’t answer your point about my double standards. I accept that I don’t apply the same epistemic standards to every claim, because not all claims are the same and/or have the same consequences. Extraordinary claims, such as resurrection or having a pet dragon, require extraordinary evidence. If you tell me you have a pet dog, I don’t need any evidence. I will take your word for it. I think I’ve repeated this example to the point of tedium.

Yes that’s the so-called “beauty” of science. Correcting its own -]evidence/-] mistakes.
If only biblical theology had the luxury of going back and changing stuff.

Science is a human effort after all and humans make mistakes. Changing one’s mind when the facts change is a good thing.

But you see, we don’t need to - God is not a hypothesis. The bible STILL includes all the same fact claims it has always made. (The ‘singular’ moment of creation. An expanding universe. All humans having a common ancestor. The inception of monotheistic religion in the same part of the world where writing was invented. etc.)

I do regard God as a scientific hypothesis and I think the Bible fails on that point. We do not descend from one man and one woman from Mesopotamia, but from a group of hominids from Africa. I really wish I could say more about evolution, but it’s a banned topic, unfortunately.

That was a quote from pope Francis by the way.

I am really surprised by that. But now I understand the conservative catholic friend of my uncle a lot better. He wastes no moment complaining about pope Francis being much too liberal and that pope Benedict XVI should never have resigned.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Oh, be careful, Cheiron, about calling one of the central dogmas of Christianity “weird” and “absurd”.

Contempt for Catholicism is not permitted here.

But earlier, calling things “absurd” did not constitute contempt, and was allowed on these forums. Which is it?

FOLKS, especially ATHEIST FOLKS: *do you see what absurdities must be embraced in order to hold to one’s atheism?
*

 

[Cheiron]

I’m not trying to get you banned, I didn’t report you.

You did say that I could get banned for calling all muslims terrorists – a claim I did not make.

Your knowledge of Islam didn’t include something it took me ten seconds to google.

I did know the stuff you brought up about muslims dealing with the Ramadan in places where the sun doesn’t go down. I refuted it even before your brought it up. It’s in post 167, where I write that the Qu’ran specifically commands muslims to fast from dawn till dusk. Now, in Islam the Qu’ran is the highest authority because it’s supposedly Allah’s holy word, dictated by the angel Gabriel to Mohammed. That’s why I objected to the scholars using a hadith to circumvent what has been clearly revealed in the Qu’ran.

It isn’t a personality cult, their most fundamental creed is “There is no god but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God”.

Muslims all over the world try to impersonate Mohammed, because he was seen as a perfect man. Kurt Westergaard, the Danish cartoonist, did not draw a picture of Allah. He drew a picture of Mohammed. The Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus were burned because of that. That’s an unhealthy obsession with somebody who, theologically speaking, was only a man. It’s obvious that muslims regard Mohammed as much more than that.

9/11 was an attack by Islamists, not the same as Islam, they were political fanatics, not one billion moderate Muslims worldwide.

Hopefully that puts the record straight on those details, enough said. The Pope, I seem to remember, suggested we need to build more bridges, not more walls. Don’t know if there’s a secular humanist take on that philosophy.

I think many humanists will emphasize reciprocity in this regard. Respect is not a one way street and I’ve a lot about that since that terrible beheading of a priest in France. Christians have behaved exemplary, considering the stress they’re under in the Middle-East. I’ve not yet heard of any Christian car bombings or kidnappings, despite the seemingly endless persecution in that region. But I wouldn’t be surprised if there comes a breaking point.

Oh, be careful, Cheiron, about calling one of the central dogmas of Christianity “weird” and
absurd".

Contempt for Catholicism is not permitted here.

That the dogma of the Trinity is complex, and fully inaccessible to reason, and an ineffable mystery is not to be interpreted as “therefore it’s weird and absurd”.

At any rate, do you have any proof that Tertullian made up the dogma of the Trinity?

You asked “Who would make up such a thing?” which led me to believe that you thought the Trinity was absurd. That’s why I quoted Tertullian, because your question reminded me of that famous quote of him. I don’t know if he made the dogma of the Trinity up. The point was that it’s not beyond human imagination to make it up.

 

[Bradski]

Don’t know about other religions, but the concept of both/and is key for Christianity, as opposed to either/or. Natural and supernatural are part of the same nature.

Then that may be the difference between us. To me, something is natural or it is not. If it is supernatural, then it is beyond anything that could happen naturally - by natural processes.

This is partly why we have the ID crowd, because there are some things that have happened for which we do not yet have satisfactory explanations. Abiogenesis for example.

But we need to be careful about attributing things for which there is no current explanation as *therefore *being supernatural. Otherwise if we experience anything we cannot explain, then we could class it as supernatural.

It’s not a placeholder we should use until further information becomes available.

 

[inocente]

You did say that I could get banned for calling all muslims terrorists – a claim I did not make.

I did know the stuff you brought up about muslims dealing with the Ramadan in places where the sun doesn’t go down. I refuted it even before your brought it up. It’s in post 167, where I write that the Qu’ran specifically commands muslims to fast from dawn till dusk.

Little bit late after you thanked me for “bringing that rebuttal to my attention” in post #175.

*Now, in Islam the Qu’ran is the highest authority because it’s supposedly Allah’s holy word, dictated by the angel Gabriel to Mohammed. That’s why I objected to the scholars using a hadith to circumvent what has been clearly revealed in the Qu’ran.

Muslims all over the world try to impersonate Mohammed, because he was seen as a perfect man. Kurt Westergaard, the Danish cartoonist, did not draw a picture of Allah. He drew a picture of Mohammed. The Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus were burned because of that. That’s an unhealthy obsession with somebody who, theologically speaking, was only a man. It’s obvious that muslims regard Mohammed as much more than that. *

Not much point inventing a cartoon version of Islam and then saying look folks, Islam is invented.

*I think many humanists will emphasize reciprocity in this regard. Respect is not a one way street and I’ve a lot about that since that terrible beheading of a priest in France. Christians have behaved exemplary, considering the stress they’re under in the Middle-East. I’ve not yet heard of any Christian car bombings or kidnappings, despite the seemingly endless persecution in that region. But I wouldn’t be surprised if there comes a breaking point. *

Respect is not a one way street? Arbitrarily divide up the Middle East into colonies, then just leave, then further destabilize the region with arms for oil, then invade countries and leave them as broken states. Then pin a Muslim label to all the baddies and a Christian label to the goodies, award a secular humanism label to the wannabe judges and hey presto, hands clean.

Can’t beat flat-pack rational rat pack religions. “Ikea: just some oak and some pine and a handful of Norsemen. Ikea: selling furniture for college kids and divorced men. Everyone has a home. But if you don’t have a home you can buy one there.” - youtube.com/watch?v=IUPu_ipbVB0

 

[Lion_IRC]

Extraordinary claims …]require extraordinary evidence.

I agree.
But the most extraordinary claim of all is the one made by skeptics - namely, that every single human experience of divinity throughout history is a delusion/lie in EVERY SINGLE CASE.

Think about it. In order for atheism to be true, every reported miracle, every prayer heard, every theophany, every case of sensus divinatus, every near death/afterlife experience, every unexplained supernatural occurence in the entire course of human history must ALL be false!

For such an extraordinary claim by skeptics, I am going to need some evidence.

Do you really think THAT many people are deluded?

Do you really expect me to believe your extraordinary claim that early Christians “invented” the religion which was subjected to the most rigorous lie detector test ever devised?



Would a NASA scientist making claims about global warming die for their belief?

 

[PRmerger]

But earlier, calling things “absurd” did not constitute contempt, and was allowed on these forums. Which is it?

Contempt for Catholicism is not permitted here, JK.

When you are in our home, being hosted by our people, a certain degree of respect is demanded.

And calling one of the central tenets of Catholicism “weird” and “absurd” could be interpreted as contemptuous.

 

[PRmerger]

Extraordinary claims [snip] require extraordinary evidence.

No, Cheiron. That is something you’ve been duped into believing.

Extraordinary claims require sufficient evidence.

 

[PRmerger]

Extraordinary claims, such as resurrection or having a pet dragon, require extraordinary evidence.

From William Lane Craig on the “extraordinary claims” dogma:

This sounds so commonsensical, doesn’t it? But in fact it is demonstrably false. Probability theorists studying what sort of evidence it would take to establish a highly improbable event came to realize that if you just weigh the improbability of the event against the reliability of the testimony, we’d have to be skeptical of many commonly accepted claims. Rather, what’s crucial is the probability that we should have the evidence we do if the extraordinary event had not occurred. This can easily offset any improbability of the event itself. reasonablefaith.org/steph…us-of-nazareth.).

So, again, extraordinary claims require** sufficient **evidence…just like any other kind of claim.

Espousing Sagan’s dogma of “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is simply to believe in that dogma blindly.

 

[Bradski]

Think about it. In order for atheism to be true, every reported miracle, every prayer heard, every theophany, every case of sensus divinatus, every near death/afterlife experience, every unexplained supernatural occurence in the entire course of human history must ALL be false!

You aren’t saying that. You are saying that all those things are true when it relates to your specific religion.

There has never been a miracle that has enough evidecne to support it that cannot be therefore discounted. The more recent and the more it can be investigated, the more obvious it is that they are not what they claim.

Pray for enough things and you will never guess what will happen. Some of them will be answered! Whether you believe or not. Whether there is a God or not. The keys will be found. Your mother will survive the operation. Your cat will get better.

And because people feel a sense of the divine, there must be something to it? Does that inlude Aboriginals, Native Americans, Aztecs, Hindus? Or again, just those that believe in what you believe.

And everyone who comes close to death has a near death experience. Of course, some of those involve bright lights, flowers, unicorns, a few words from Grandad. And after life experiences are nil. Zero. There aren’t any because’ and the clue is in the name, ypu are dead.

And every unexplained event in the history of the planet is exactly that. An event for which someone has no explanation. There’s no explanation for Dark Matter. What’s that? Good grief, it must be supernatural!

And are you seriously telling me that all those stories of alien abductions are just stories? Every single one? And the countless gods that people have believed in since time immemorial…surely all those people weren’t wrong. And Trump cannot be a buffoon with less qualifications for President than a box of rocks because all those millions of people think he’s the man.

Your ‘cure’ for skepticism is to be open minded. But you want to specify EXACTLY what we can be open minded about. Which kinda defeats the purpose…

 

[Cheiron]

Little bit late after you thanked me for “bringing that rebuttal to my attention” in post #175.

I knew the argument, though I was surprised to see scholars invoking the Hadith to bypass the Qu’ran. I hadn’t seen that before.

Not much point inventing a cartoon version of Islam and then saying look folks, Islam is invented.

I agree. That’s why I didn’t.

Respect is not a one way street? Arbitrarily divide up the Middle East into colonies, then just leave, then further destabilize the region with arms for oil, then invade countries and leave them as broken states.

That’s a travesty of two centuries of history.

Then pin a Muslim label to all the baddies and a Christian label to the goodies, award a secular humanism label to the wannabe judges and hey presto, hands clean.

This is the second time you suggest that I think all muslims are bad. I did not say such a thing and it’s wrong of you to imply that I did. I’m not going to respond to you anymore.

I agree.
But the most extraordinary claim of all is the one made by skeptics - namely, that every single human experience of divinity throughout history is a delusion/lie in EVERY SINGLE CASE.

Think about it. In order for atheism to be true, every reported miracle, every prayer heard, every theophany, every case of sensus divinatus, every near death/afterlife experience, every unexplained supernatural occurence in the entire course of human history must ALL be false!

In order for Christianity to be true, every unexplained supernatural occurence of every other religion must be false.

For such an extraordinary claim by skeptics, I am going to need some evidence.

Pretty much of all those experiences are interpreted through the lens of the religion people grow up in or know about.

Do you really think THAT many people are deluded?

Yes. Whatever turns out to be true, billions of people must be deluded. There are 7.1 billion people on Earth. If Christianity, the largest religion on the planet, is true, then 5 billion people are deluded. Whatever way you cut it, billions of people have a wrong idea of the universe they live in.

Do you really expect me to believe your extraordinary claim that early Christians “invented” the religion which was subjected to the most rigorous lie detector test ever devised?

http://communio.stblogs.org/Martyrs.jpg

Would a NASA scientist making claims about global warming die for their belief?

Those Christians could be sincerely mistaken. The fact that people are willing to die for what they believe in does not give any credence to that belief. If that were the case, then we have to apply it to Islam as well. And then we end up with a contradictory worldview in which Christianity and Islam are both true.

No, Cheiron. That is something you’ve been duped into believing.

Extraordinary claims require sufficient evidence.

But the next question is how much evidence is sufficient. I guess that depends on how we judge a particular claim.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

From William Lane Craig on the “extraordinary claims” dogma:

This sounds so commonsensical, doesn’t it? But in fact it is demonstrably false. Probability theorists studying what sort of evidence it would take to establish a highly improbable event came to realize that if you just weigh the improbability of the event against the reliability of the testimony, we’d have to be skeptical of many commonly accepted claims. Rather, what’s crucial is the probability that we should have the evidence we do if the extraordinary event had not occurred. This can easily offset any improbability of the event itself. reasonablefaith.org/steph…us-of-nazareth.).

So, again, extraordinary claims require** sufficient **evidence…just like any other kind of claim.

Espousing Sagan’s dogma of “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is simply to believe in that dogma blindly.

I agree, that’s why it is clear that aliens are the best explanation for the NT events. There is sufficient evidence for aliens, and insufficient evidence that they were actually supernatural aliens.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…In order for Christianity to be true, every unexplained supernatural occurence of every other religion must be false.

Nope. Two people can interpret the same evidence in different ways without invalidating the evidence itself. (Blind men, elephant, etc.)

…Pretty much of all those experiences are interpreted through the lens of the religion people grow up in or know about.

I didn’t grow up in Bronze Age Palestine. The Ten Commandments arent a 21st Century phenomenon. My priest washes peoples’ feet
If I took my religion from the society I grew up in I would be worshipping Mammon.

…The fact that people are willing to die for what they believe in does not give any credence to that belief.

I disagree. Plus I think you need to take into account the huge weight of numbers of people who aren’t willing to die - or be tortured - because they realise that it is quite possible they are honestly mistaken. And folks certainly don’t de for something they know is a lie.

Did you know that scientific studies into torture show that it’s a pretty ineffective means of determining truth? Why? Because most people will lie (say anything) to avoid torture!

So I maintain that those relatively small numbers of people who cling to the truth in the face of torture/death are in fact more likely to be giving credible evidence - notwithstanding your incredulity.

…If that were the case, then we have to apply it to Islam as well. And then we end up with a contradictory worldview in which Christianity and Islam are both true.

Contradictory? Hardly.

Islam Checklist
Adam & Eve (yep)
Moses (yep)
Noah (yep)
Abraham (yep)
Ten Commandments (yep)
Jesus (sort of)
Isaiah (yep)
Final judgment (yep)

 

[tonyrey]

This is quite a complex matter. But yes, unscrupulous people can take advantage. But it’s the fact that society couldn’t exist if everyone was unscrupulous gives certain people that advantage.

I guess that evolutionary psychology would also be a banned subject coming under the umbrella of evolution itself.

The fact that society won’t exist doesn’t bother the unscrupulous in the slightest. Provided they get what they want everyone else can “go to hell”. So the hypothesis that it is merely a belief our genes have ‘encouraged’ as a means for survival is unjustified.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…There has never been a miracle that has enough evidence to support it that cannot be therefore discounted.

I can apply the same brute skepticism to whatever method you use to deny a miracle.

…The more recent and the more it can be investigated, the more obvious it is that they are not what they claim.

Meh. Post-modern skepticism is basically not much more that gainsaying.
…I saw a ghost.
…No you didn’t.
…Yes I did.
…No you didn’t. You saw a mirage.
…How do you know it wasn’t a ghost?
…Because ghosts aren’t real.

…Pray for enough things and you will never guess what will happen. Some of them will be answered! Whether you believe or not. Whether there is a God or not. The keys will be found. Your mother will survive the operation. Your cat will get better.

Wut? Who prays to God “whether there is a God or not”?
Who prays without believing that God hears prayer?
Science validates the effectiveness of prayer.
Science shows that stress causes disease. And science shows that prayer (AKA meditation) reduces stress. Therefore prayer does work. QED

…And because people feel a sense of the divine, there must be something to it? Does that inlude Aboriginals, Native Americans, Aztecs, Hindus?

Yes it does.
You do realize that humans have experienced God since long before the bible was written?

…And everyone who comes close to death has a near death experience. Of course, some of those involve bright lights, flowers, unicorns, a few words from Grandad.

I don’t think EVERYONE has a near death experience.
Atheist and former media magnate Kerry Packer said he experienced nothing.

…And after life experiences are nil. Zero. There aren’t any because’ and the clue is in the name, you are dead.

Speak for yourself.

…And every unexplained event in the history of the planet is exactly that. An event for which someone has no explanation. There’s no explanation for Dark Matter. What’s that? Good grief, it must be supernatural!

There are frequently more than one possible explanation.
How open-minded are you?

…And are you seriously telling me that all those stories of alien abductions are just stories? Every single one? And the countless gods that people have believed in since time immemorial…surely all those people weren’t wrong.

I think angels (higher beings from another space/time dimension) are real.
So no, I don’t think they are all wrong.
Do you believe in Higher Beings? Do you think there is a parallel universe called Heaven?
If an ‘alien’ came to earth and turned water into wine would you call it a miracle or quantum spookiness?

…And Trump cannot be a buffoon with less qualifications for President than a box of rocks because all those millions of people think he’s the man.

Not sure why this is relevant. What’s so amazingly special about the job is Trump is seeking that he isn’t the man?

…Your ‘cure’ for skepticism is to be open minded. But you want to specify EXACTLY what we can be open minded about. Which kinda defeats the purpose…

On the contrary. I am at least as open-minded as you.