Do you believe in God?

  • Thread starter Patrik
  • 24,489 comments
  • 1,141,823 views

Do you believe in god?

  • Of course, without him nothing would exist!

    Votes: 624 30.6%
  • Maybe.

    Votes: 368 18.0%
  • No way!

    Votes: 1,051 51.5%

  • Total voters
    2,042
If it were that simple, don't you think some of us would've tried it already?

Why should I accept the christian god and not the other bazillion gods mentioned in the other bazillion scriptures, myths, history books, etc.?

And why do I have to go to him? What if I go and I don't find him? Or even worse, what if I go and I find I don't like God? Or I find a different God/Gods?
It's funny. I've asked this question here & other times outside the forum, and the answer I get is typically a passage from the Bible. I once asked a pastor years ago about it & was given a, "thou shoult not worship false prophets". He never truly answered the question, just gave a phrase that essentially says you will go to hell if you accept any other gods above Christianity's.

I'm sure there's some irony somewhere that shows other religions have a similar message, so the answer will always be whatever religion/faith the person asked believes in. :P
 
Christians claim God can't be proven scientificaly or be found in a lab or a test tube.

But if only we could make this experiment (1 Kings 18)


21 And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

22 Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men.

23 Let them therefore give us two bullocks; and let them choose one bullock for themselves, and cut it in pieces, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under:

24 And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God.
And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.

25 And Elijah said unto the prophets of Baal, Choose you one bullock for yourselves, and dress it first; for ye are many; and call on the name of your gods, but put no fire under.

26 And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made.

27 And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.

28 And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.

29 And it came to pass, when midday was past, and they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that there was neither voice, nor any to answer, nor any that regarded.

30 And Elijah said unto all the people, Come near unto me. And all the people came near unto him. And he repaired the altar of the LORD that was broken down.

31 And Elijah took twelve stones, according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, unto whom the word of the LORD came, saying, Israel shall be thy name:

32 And with the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD: and he made a trench about the altar, as great as would contain two measures of seed.

33 And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid him on the wood, and said, Fill four barrels with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice, and on the wood.

34 And he said, Do it the second time. And they did it the second time. And he said, Do it the third time. And they did it the third time.

35 And the water ran round about the altar; and he filled the trench also with water.

36 And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice, that Elijah the prophet came near, and said, LORD God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, let it be known this day that thou art God in Israel, and that I am thy servant, and that I have done all these things at thy word.

37 Hear me, O LORD, hear me, that this people may know that thou art the LORD God, and that thou hast turned their heart back again.

38 Then the fire of the LORD fell, and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench.

39 And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God.


40 And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.


Wouldn't that be great? Why don't they (religious people) perform something like this?
Just imagine how nice it would be to see it!


But no. They won't do it because they "know" it wouldn't work. And then, they would be the ones hearing Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked.
 
You guys get away with the nastiest statements on here. I've said much less and ended up with points on my account. Kudos to @SuperCobraJet for not falling to that level.

You don't know if anybody has got points or not, and you clearly haven't read all the nonsense SCJ posts in here. Not just nonsense, actually, but bigotry, condescension, endless, misplaced, commas, deliberately misleading statements*, possibly unintentionally misleading statements, and abuse of the word obvious.

*Search the creation versus evolution thread for the word theory posted by SuperCobraJet for proof of deliberately misleading statements.
 
You don't know if anybody has got points or not, and you clearly haven't read all the nonsense SCJ posts in here. Not just nonsense, actually, but bigotry, condescension, endless, misplaced, commas, deliberately misleading statements*, possibly unintentionally misleading statements, and abuse of the word obvious.

*Search the creation versus evolution thread for the word theory posted by SuperCobraJet for proof of deliberately misleading statements.

I wasn't talking about false or misleading statements (or bad grammar), I was talking about mean and hurtful statements.
 
I'd have to agree with Jmoney a bit here, it does seem that the lack of scientific evidence to support a god gives some the confidence to be a little more "direct" with their opinions, which can be pretty disrespectful sometimes. The most vitriolic posts seem to come from the anti-religious types.
 
A little clarification is needed here I believe.

If anyone is attacking any other member directly and personally then it may well be an AUP issue, in which case it should be reported.

However if the subject of the vitriol is the religion itself then that is not an AUP issue (religions are not members here and as such don't get protection under the AUP).

This is however a discussion that falls well outside the bounds of this thread.
 
You guys get away with the nastiest statements on here. I've said much less and ended up with points on my account. Kudos to @SuperCobraJet for not falling to that level.

Do you have anything on-topic to contribute to the conversation? I can see from your sig that you're a Christian, can you provide us with an answer to the question we've been unable to get SCJ to answer?

I'd love a religious person of any religion to answer the question "What specific set of circumstances would convince you that your belief was wrong?"
 
I'll reply to that. With two answers:

"What specific set of circumstances would convince me that my belief in the teachings and doctrine of my own religious following (in my case, catholic christian) is wrong":

Logical thought. I consider myself a free spirit and all organized religions a mix of divine inspiration and of the human attempt to understand God. I do believe, without any scientific proof, that Jesus Christ was God in human condition, I do believe what he teached to be what the spirit within us all needs to reach close proximity to God, I do believe the Catholic Church to be the one he founded and the one that, through the last 2000 years of existing among the society of Men and sharing all that was (and still is) wrong, will in the end, as has been always, the main force for human progression. I accept all this may be completely wrong, and I have no problems with the very interesting discussions one can have about all I already wrote in this paragraph, much of it sounding ridiculous mainly to the atheists that come from countries where protestants ruled for centuries.


"What specific set of circumstances would convince me that my belief in the existence of God is wrong":

Death

EDIT - This is interesting. If God exists and my everlasting soul survives my body, death won't truly happen. If I'm wrong, I won't exist after dying therefore I won't be convinced, not even by Death, because I'm nothing after it. I guess this means the correct reply to the second question is ...

None.
 
@Hun200kmh, I read your Logical thought paragraph, and I wonder what brought you to those beliefs about Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church? You have said it's not based on any scientific proof, but I'm wondering how these beliefs got into your head?

I hope this doesn't come across as rude. I know how Jesus Christ got into my head, and I'm wondering if this is a shared experience or you had a different path to belief?
 
I'll reply to that. With two answers:

A very sincere thanks to you, then. :cheers:

"What specific set of circumstances would convince me that my belief in the teachings and doctrine of my own religious following (in my case, catholic christian) is wrong":

Logical thought. I consider myself a free spirit and all organized religions a mix of divine inspiration and of the human attempt to understand God. I do believe, without any scientific proof, that Jesus Christ was God in human condition, I do believe what he teached to be what the spirit within us all needs to reach close proximity to God, I do believe the Catholic Church to be the one he founded and the one that, through the last 2000 years of existing among the society of Men and sharing all that was (and still is) wrong, will in the end, as has been always, the main force for human progression. I accept all this may be completely wrong, and I have no problems with the very interesting discussions one can have about all I already wrote in this paragraph, much of it sounding ridiculous mainly to the atheists that come from countries where protestants ruled for centuries.

Logical thought should tell you that the particular doctrine that you subscribe to is no more or less valid than any other religion, no? How does that fit in to your views?

"What specific set of circumstances would convince me that my belief in the existence of God is wrong":

Death

EDIT - This is interesting. If God exists and my everlasting soul survives my body, death won't truly happen. If I'm wrong, I won't exist after dying therefore I won't be convinced, not even by Death, because I'm nothing after it. I guess this means the correct reply to the second question is ...

None.

That's rather binary, don't you think? What if there is another non-death possibility, just not the one that Catholicism describes? You wouldn't change your views then?
 
I believe it was the Roman Emperor Constantine who, after seeing a flaming cross (UFO?) in sky prior to the Battle of Milvian Bridge, declared Christianity to be the state religion. So Jesus is off the hook. :yuck:
 
@Hun200kmh, I read your Logical thought paragraph, and I wonder what brought you to those beliefs about Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church? You have said it's not based on any scientific proof, but I'm wondering how these beliefs got into your head?

I hope this doesn't come across as rude. I know how Jesus Christ got into my head, and I'm wondering if this is a shared experience or you had a different path to belief?

My path to belief is not something I am able to explain clearly. I was born and raised within a catholic family in a predominantly catholic country so that obviously influenced me ... a lot in my childhood. However, my faith degraded thruogh my adolescent years up to a point when (about 17 to 18 years old) I considered myself as an atheist. I didn't believe in "any of it".

Now, the old guys here will probably drop their jaws in incredulity, or indeed roll in your own floors laughing with what comes up next, but the thought of God reentered my mind watching the modern american TV series that, in the good old "Hill Street Blues" tradition, featured urban societies where mostly lonely people lived meaningless lives that nobody would ever care to remember after their deaths. I knew, of course, all that was fiction, but fiction is based on reality and many times tries to portray it, although - granted - with a "big saturation of colors" on what sells most ( be it violence, be it sex, it rarely is anything good)

It will be more simple to say that the thought of God came from the search of "The Meaning of Life". And Monty Python's view on that particular subject was also taken into account, especially the song Eric Idle, out of a refrigerator, sings about the vastness of the Universe. And also with the joke on the Catholics at the beggining, with the song "Every drop of sperm is sacred". Maybe my thought process is both antagonistic and binary, but the short sighted nature of those jokes, disguised with a supposed modernity and freedom of thought, was interesting food for thought.

From a re-belief in God to the rereading of the New Testament came a re-belief in Christ. About the Catholic Church, it was of course the easy way to reconcile myself with a way to an established religion. In any case, where mainstream media only sees wrongdoings (paedophilia and whatever else is trendy to say about the catholic church) what I mostly see is a world network, mostly silent and humble, working for the good of the less favoured. If there's one human institution I truly admire it is the Catholic Church. And I'll underline Human Institution, because that's what the Catholic Church is. With many sins, sure, but the Good being done everyday in all the continents fof this Earth by their priests, their nuns, their missionaries, their volunteers, is unequalled.

So, it was easy to "get back in" to this church. I feel good there, no reason to pick another. And no, I don't think that by being a catholic I have better odds in "Heaven" entry :lol: . I only think belonging to this church may help my personal, spiritual journey towards being a good person



A very sincere thanks to you, then. :cheers:


Logical thought should tell you that the particular doctrine that you subscribe to is no more or less valid than any other religion, no? How does that fit in to your views?

I don't consider that by being a Catholic or even a Christian I'm superior to other believers of other religions, with one or several Gods, from anywhere in the world. I feel "at home" with Christ and I do believe he was God in human form. But as long as the core values are the same I will respect any following and I will also think that God inspired those other beliefs.


That's rather binary, don't you think? What if there is another non-death possibility, just not the one that Catholicism describes? You wouldn't change your views then?


R: After the physical death you mean? Yes, of course, depending on what, if anything, I find on the "other side". I'm quite curious about what will happen after the death of my body. I have a close relative that won't probably last more than a few months now. He is a very clever person, although his body is failing him his mind is thankfully still sharp as a knife. And he knows his days are numbered (our days are too, of course, but you understand). When he told me that the other day, very "matter-of-factly", I asked "Are you afraid?" and his reply was "Not really. Either I am mistaken and it'll be lights out, the end, or indeed my spirit will survive. I'm a bit nervous about what's next, but not really afraid. And very, very curious."

I then told him something like "don't forget to call or send a postcard" and he laughed and said "Don't want to be a ghost. If I'm leaving I'm leaving, but when your time comes I will try to be at the station to receive you on the other side". "Deal" I said, and that was it.

So, yes, there are many possibilities. Including a date with Venus, if she exists ;)


I'm curious about this. What exactly did Christ say about the papacy in order for this to be the case?


Nothing. He did however, set Peter as "primus inter pares" among his followers, and Peter, historically, has been credited as being the first leader of the roman christians. This is disputed, I know, and I will leave it to scholars, it's not of much interest to me. The Catholic Church itself grants to both the Orthodox Churches and their patriarchs, and also to the Protestant Churches that come from a secession during the reformation, equal status in religious terms.

This means any protestant or orthodox priest is a priest for the catholics too. Because all come, in a direct line of succession (in ordonance) from Christ.

(not sure what happens with the women priests and bishops some protestant churches now have though ... :dopey: )
 
Nothing. He did however, set Peter as "primus inter pares" among his followers, and Peter, historically, has been credited as being the first leader of the roman christians.
That's fine, but there's a leap between "Peter being the voice of Christ on Earth" and the papacy. As far as I'm aware, Jesus gave no instruction that this power - which was not above the apostles or the church - be passed on from Peter, much less the mechanism for doing so or the fact it became an honour bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome. I'd have thought that, if it were that important, the papacy would be mentioned somewhere in the Bible...

There is a notional gulf between Jesus and the Pope. In fact the papacy itself seems to be just as much the pursuit of the power hungry as any kingdom was over the centuries - hence the huge number of antipopes, disputed claims to the papacy and... well... Alexander Sextus.
 
I don't consider that by being a Catholic or even a Christian I'm superior to other believers of other religions, with one or several Gods, from anywhere in the world. I feel "at home" with Christ and I do believe he was God in human form. But as long as the core values are the same I will respect any following and I will also think that God inspired those other beliefs.

That's good. Doesn't really answer my question though. It's entirely possible that I wasn't clear, so let me rephrase:

Imar's original question:
I'd love a religious person of any religion to answer the question "What specific set of circumstances would convince you that your belief was wrong?"

Your reply:
Logical thought should tell you that the particular doctrine that you subscribe to is no more or less valid than any other religion, no? How does that fit in to your views?

In other words, if logical thought says that your particular faith is no more valid than any other, then why haven't you discarded it? By your own answer, you say that logical thought is what would be required to discard your Catholic doctrine. To me, it looks like the required logic is in place, but there's a disconnect between your answer and your actions.

Maybe you could go more in-depth about this? What sort of "logical thinking" in particular would be required for you to change your belief?
 
That's fine, but there's a leap between "Peter being the voice of Christ on Earth" and the papacy. As far as I'm aware, Jesus gave no instruction that this power - which was not above the apostles or the church - be passed on from Peter, much less the mechanism for doing so or the fact it became an honour bestowed upon the Bishop of Rome. I'd have thought that, if it were that important, the papacy would be mentioned somewhere in the Bible...

There is a notional gulf between Jesus and the Pope. In fact the papacy itself seems to be just as much the pursuit of the power hungry as any kingdom was over the centuries - hence the huge number of antipopes, disputed claims to the papacy and... well... Alexander Sextus.

Yes, many bad Popes throughout history. The Catholic (as any other) Church, is - as I said - a Human organization, and just as the priest from my Parish can be a total moron, many Popes weren't worthy of the role. Also, during many centuries the bishop of Rome was only that, a very important bishop but he wasn't elected by peers or even by the Catholic church as a whole.

You know, when Ratzinger became Pope and chose "Benedictus XVI" as his papal name I asked my 3 oldest kids to give a home presentation to their parents about the previous 15 Benedicts (5 Benedicts per kid ;) ). And of course, no big surprise there, there were some "meaty" stories to be told. My kids were more surprised than I was, but then again they never heard much about the history of the Catholic Church, or how the "bishop of Rome" was elected, or nominated, throughout the ages.

Just for a bit of interesting, if not scandalous, trivia, check the fascinating stories of "Benedict V" , and also of the amazing three-time (NASCAR style :D ) Pope Benedict IX
 
Last edited:
The Catholic (as any other) Church, is - as I said - a Human organization, and just as the priest from my Parish can be a total moron, many Popes weren't worthy of the role.
Indeed, but the point is that Jesus never spoke of this role. Like... ever. You'd think that the job of being God's actual mouthpiece and the rules over who gets to be the next one would have been important enough to mention, surely?

Literally nothing about the Pope, the papacy or the Vatican is mentioned in the Bible. All the ceremonies surrounding the Pope - from Conclave upwards - are the creations of this human organisation and a distinct and separate fantasy from the teachings of the dude whose teachings everyone's supposed to follow.
 
Famine, I don't think you think Jesus and the Apostles meant to write a Constitution and forgot or were too busy to bother. As for saying that all the ceremonies within the catholic or any other church are distinct and separate fantasies from the teachings of the dude, I will say that they are no fantasies, they are rituals, and rituals are human creations, but I'm sure you know that, as any other dude like you would know.



huskeR32 I didn't say my particular faith was no more valid than any other, what I said is that I didn't feel superior because of it. And also that I would respect any other belief as long as the core values of my own were also present. Because I think my own is the "right" one (that being self-evident, or else I wouldn't be following it). In my own religious belief Jesus Christ is God himself, and therefore His words are God's words. Now let's say that one day it becomes scientifically proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Jesus Christ did not exist (it is claimed already, I know). That would make me question my faith, not in God, but in the New Testament. And that would make me look for the true source of all that's written there and attributed to Jesus Christ.
 
I'm sorry:

the only man ever to have sold the papacy.

Wow. Real "money is evil, so give it to us" stuff there.


The Pope Famine mentioned has a far, far, darker story. People should know more, ignorance only allows people with knowledge to tell you only what they want you to know. I'm quite glad that I made my kids look for the history of the Benedicts, I think I saved them from having their faith questioned in some online Forum by someone coming up with a medieval Pope's name. As if God could be put into question because some humans unworthy of uttering His name were in fact elected or chosen by other similarly vile humans for a religious office.
 
Last edited:
This man has as much legitimacy as the Pope.

KLS0nbc.png
 
Famine, I don't think you think Jesus and the Apostles meant to write a Constitution and forgot or were too busy to bother.
Do you not think the role of God's spokesperson on Earth is really, really important? Like the most important job there can be, because he is literally interpreting the words of God for human ears, just as Jesus himself did?

Do you not think, therefore, that if Jesus himself created the role and granted it to Peter, he'd have included some idea of what should happen if Peter could no longer do it? Only he didn't. There is literally no way that you can draw a line that starts with Jesus saying "Hey, Pedro? You're God's mouth now" and ends with Pope Francis I using the Bible alone as a guide.

So where did it come from? It's not from Jesus or the Bible...
As for saying that all the ceremonies within the catholic or any other church are distinct and separate fantasies from the teachings of the dude, I will say that they are no fantasies, they are rituals, and rituals are human creations, but I'm sure you know that, as any other dude like you would know.
Sure they're human rituals - and they're also fantasies. There's no mention of them in the Bible. Just as there's no mention of the Vatican or the Pope.
I think I saved them from having their faith questioned in some online Forum by someone coming up with a medieval Pope's name. As if God could be put into question because some humans unworthy of uttering His name were in fact elected or chosen by other similarly vile humans for a religious office.
It's not the faith that's in question, but the religious office.

The Catholic Church seems to have built up centuries of tradition, ritual and pomp that is not only completely at odds with how Jesus himself lived but not supported by any statement attributable to Jesus. How can this body be the true custodian of Christianity if it neither follows the path of nor was described in any way by Christ? One only has to see the shocked reactions of Pope Francis literally doing what Jesus would have done to realise that, actually, the Catholic Church hasn't been doing what Jesus would do for the last 600 years (or more).

Indeed the gilded palaces and ostentatious monuments to the lucrative nature of organised religion that surround the papacy has done more to drive people away from Christianity than anything else.
 
I'd have to agree with Jmoney a bit here, it does seem that the lack of scientific evidence to support a god gives some the confidence to be a little more "direct" with their opinions, which can be pretty disrespectful sometimes. The most vitriolic posts seem to come from the anti-religious types.
As someone who is not religious at all, I've actually experienced quite the opposite. I don't believe in god, so I'm the bad one.
 
As someone who is not religious at all, I've actually experienced quite the opposite. I don't believe in god, so I'm the bad one.

I was referring more to the thread, rather than real-life experiences, I'm sure they are wide and varied, and mostly anecdotal.
 
That would make me question my faith, not in God, but in the New Testament. And that would make me look for the true source of all that's written there and attributed to Jesus Christ.

And if that source was simply a really smart person, or a group of really smart people who saw a way to try and improve the quality of the community around them?

It's entirely possible the New Testament was written the way it was because the authors thought that was the best way to get their message across. The same way anti-smoking campaigns feel that the best way to get their message across is to bombard you with disgusting images of all the ways you're probably not going to die.

I was referring more to the thread, rather than real-life experiences, I'm sure they are wide and varied, and mostly anecdotal.

There's plenty of religionists being just as aggressive towards the non-religious in this very thread. It simply happens that you placed that comment at the end of a period where a particularly irrational religious-type was spouting near gibberish, and most of those who had wasted their time attempting to debate with him were getting their kicks in.

It's hard work attempting to speak with people who have their own definitions for words but won't share them. It's hard work attempting to debate with someone who has evidence to support their opinions but won't describe it. It's hard work attempting to communicate with those who would rather quote chapter and verse than explain in their own words.

I think it's right that those people get given somewhat of a hard time. That's how people learn to communicate properly, but being shown when they're doing it poorly. Of course, it's nicer to simply explain to them what they're doing wrong, but if you look back through the thread that didn't really work very well.
 
Yes, he's annoying, yet he provides a great case study in what can be done to a human mind if taught early enough.

To believe in God requires taught skills in the suspension of disbelief. Not just such as those required to enjoy a James Bond movie, but really serious capabilities to ignore reality.

Taught skills can't decide for you individually, any more than, untaught skills.
They provide the concept as known and acceptable, but it is still up to you to weigh it and decide.
BTW, life is lived in the vast majority motivation of belief, not unbelief.
There is no suspension needed.
It does not ignore reality, but rather analyzes all aspects of reality.

It requires the creation of a parallel "spiritual" world which has no fixed rules like the actual physical world. Think about that word "spiritual". It has so many meanings. There are so many experiences which may be described as "spiritual" ranging from contemplation of the magnificence of the universe or the proliferation of life on this planet, to watching a sunset or experiencing a superb orgasm. Some restrict it to descriptions of religious experiences.

You do not have to create it, it already exists, and with fixed rules as well.

We can be almost sure that that if SCJ had been born in a Muslim country, he'd have a totally different attitude towards Jesus Christ.

Possibly.

In a sense, SCJ is helpful as part of the evidence that "God" is invented by man, since the choice of God is so heavily based on who got into the immature human mind first, and that the defense of belief relies on a suspension of disbelief combined with torrents of meaningless words.

No more so than the man made invention of his own reasoning infallibility and determination of what exists and what doesn't.
On that note, you are employing a taught philosophy as well.


If you read the Corinthians link he posted, tell me, did you understand anything much there other than that it's gibberish?

I tried to tell Imari the same thing.
It is spiritually discerned, so you need the key.
Gran Turismo is tangible. Your deity is not.
Gran Turismo is tangible. Your deity is not.
If we believed that people who hadn't played Gran Turismo were lesser people. Also, Gran Turismo is tangible. Your deity is not.

The only difference is God is spiritually tangible, not physically tangible.
Lesser or greater has nothing to do with it.
Just like the game, it is available to anyone who wants it.

This is not what you were saying with regards to your God. You said that I would not and could not understand, even if it were explained to me.

Well lets see.
Did you read the 1st Corinthians reference?
If so, did you understand it?

Complete bollocks.

It makes you an arrogant and selfish person if you wish to treat people who haven't played Gran Turismo as lesser.

I'm happy to tell them all about my experience with the game, try and relate it to some experiences that they might have had, and even try and help organise to get them some game time if I can. If it's a friend, they're welcome to come around to my house and play.

I see how you can interpret it that way, but there is no lesser or greater.
There is just "in common" with it or not.
It is something you, personally have to investigate and pursue.
I can't do it for you.

This is not what you do with regards to your God. You will not tell people about your experience, you will not try and relate it to anyone else's experiences, and you will not assits people who want to experience God with anything more than trite and unhelpful cliches.

Don't try and paint your failings as general failings of the human race. We're not all like you.

I have been attempting for several years now in this thread to relate it.
But it's not relatable to anything outside of it, because as said previously, it is totally unique and unlike anything else.
It is exactly the same as the game in principle, but not in application.
 
And still you seem to be utterly unaware of what the scientific method does and how it works.

I do like that you are now also switching at random between what could be considered a fact from the perspective of the scientific method and a colloquial (and inaccurate) use of the term.

So just to be clear you have over the course of just the most recent conversation redefined the scientific method, conflated objective and subjective and switch the meaning of 'fact' when you feel like it! And you actually think that doing so is fine and everyone should just understand you?



Well maybe you should be a bit clearer given that I referred to the last message you posted.

I trust that you can supply a source to back up this "worldwide legal and official recognition of subjective evidence", as given that it subjective I don't think you will find a global agreement of what subjective evidence is, given that its subjective.

Which does also quite clearly highlight the issue with subjective evidence and the reason why objective evidence sits a long way above it.
@SuperCobraJet

Still awaiting that source for "worldwide legal and official recognition of subjective evidence"

Along with what makes Christianity unique and why that unique item sets it apart.
 
Back