Thought for the day

I hardly think of myself as an extremist, Paolo. I didn't arrive at my beliefs at random or just because I like to be a contrarian. I've given a great deal of thought to the history of religions, mythology, and philosophy. I've weighed the evidence and listened to the arguments for and against. After factoring it all I am left with disbelief. How does that make me an extremist? I'm afraid if you're hoping to get me to switch to agnosticism just for the sake of not offending people who hold different views then I will always disappoint you.



Historical events in the bible are not in themselves proof of God, Paolo. If, as these archeologists claim, they've found Mt. Sinai, what does that prove except that there was a Mt. Sinai? Did they also find a talking burning bush? I'm perfectly willing to accept that the shallow continental shelf could be the source of the story of the parting of the red sea, but doesn't it suggest there were natural causes that were simply called miraculous and actually had nothing to do with a magical god performing miracles? The leap from finding a geological feature that could have fascilitated the red sea crossing to "miracles are true" isn't logical. It's the product of starting with a desired result and looking for evidence to justify it, which is backwards from what the scientific method does. In science the evidence comes first, then from that theories are derived. You don't start with the conclusion and work backwards. This is where most of the research trying to prove the bible breaks down. Finding proof that people and places mentioned in the bible actually existed is no more evidence of god than finding a farm is evidence that Charlotte's Web was true. You can't take "barnyards exist" and extrapolate "therefore talking animals are true." You can't take the fact that the moon exists as increasing the likelihood that it's made of cheese. It's not in any way surprising to me that the events depicted in the bible are most likely based on actual historical people and events. It's also not in any way sufficient justification to believe the fantastical claims made in the bible are true... unless you're starting with a preconceived conclusion and working backwards to try and justify it.



If you're waiting for me to become an agnostic you're going to be waiting a very long time. Sorry. I apply the same burdens of evidence and proof towards religious claims as I do towards anything else. I won't lower those standards just to be acommodating to religious people or because I'd like to win a golden ticket to the afterlife.

Take a look at your post from "Today 12:28 AM (central)," #148. Is that post, and others like it, not specifically seeking to make belief in god or spirit "wrong?" When a person makes absolute statements regarding philosophical hypotheses, I consider that to be a form of extremism. I have no qualms with your personal stand, however, this is an open debate. Statements of so-called fact are being batted around as if they are foregonely concluded. Further, I don't have a problem with folks on your side of the debate saying, "You can't prove the existence of God." On that we agree. However, what I can't seem to get you to even remotely consider is the possibility of a god or spirit realm. I'm not even asking you to acknowledge a specific religious tradition; just the possibility of a spiritual existence that is currently beyond our scientific grasp. That's not being agnostic; that's being objectively reasonable.

I never proposed that these findings were anything other than "evidence." I did not use the word "proof." The intent was to suggest the possibility. Are there other possible explanations? Why, of course - that is not being disputed. No problem, whatsoever, if you personally choose to believe that the evidence is inconclusive, but don't belittle those of us who are willing to give it a fair exploration. And by the way, does the empirical method not start with a specific hypothesis (read: outcome) in mind? That's why there is the null hypothetical requirement: To prevent a myopic interpretation of the research.

I'm not asking you to do anything other than state your beliefs as your own. In a rather covert way, posts from your side of the fence infer that dis-belief is the "right" and "correct" position to take. It's that same attitude that draws rebuke on the flip side, and it's from that perspective that I make my statement about extremism.

I've stated my views of what atheism means to me, and part of that was explaining that it's not an absolutist view. If evidence presents itself my view could change. I simply find it incredibly unlikely that it's going to happen... so unlikely that I won't claim to be agnostic about it. How is that extremist or arrogant? In no other topic is it considered impolite, hostile, arrogant, or extremist to follow through to a logical conclusion. We're taught that we're supposed to be offended by atheist views. That offense isn't justified by the reasoned nature of the atheistic viewpoint. I won't mute my views to pander to that social contrivance. I'm sorry if you find that to make me any of the aforementioned adjectives. I ask the next question quite honestly... why do you need me to consider the possibility of God since I don't find there to be sufficient evidence to warrant the consideration? Do you simply need an enabler? I ask you to ponder why you find disbelief to be offensive... truly ponder it. Is it because it somehow deviates from common sense reasoning (and I don't accept that it does) or because of something more deeply rooted in you... like a socially conditioned response that isn't actually warranted?



Nowhere in this thread have I belittled anyone. I don't find being in dsagreement to be an uncomfortable position, so I feel no need to append a polite "maybe you're right" to my position. It's certainly possible that you are and I'm wrong. I quite honestly find having an open mind about the possibility of god no more logical than having an open mind about the possibility of giant invisible ballet dancing hippos. At my core I have an open mind about everything. I will believe anything that is proven to be true to a standard of proof that satisfies me. Until then my default position is disbelief, especially concerning matters of the divine or supernatural.



Of course there's an attitude that I'm right and you're wrong. It's inherent in every disagreement about anything. Why, when it comes to God, is that some kind of insult when it's not viewed that way in almost any other topic of discussion? The reason I rebuke statments of religious "right" is because it's used as justification for things that impact my life and the laws I live under. My disbelief in no way does the same to religious people. If in contrasting your own opinions to mine you end up feeling silly or belittled that's not something I'll take credit for. I don't find it impolite to think that you're wrong, nor do I feel belittled by your disagreement. This entire post is a bit ironic in that you seem to be trying to make me feel guilty for having opinions contrary to yours. I, er... don't feel guilty. Sorry.

Fair enough. Keep in mind that I was not only responding to your specific posts, but to other from an atheistic viewpoint, as well (e.g., "your side of the fence". As for a conditioned offense to atheistic views, I think you and I probably grew up significantly different circles of influence. In my case, belief in God was often attacked and demeaned as "small thinking," "illogical fallacy," or even as a "neurotic dependency" (i.e., crutch).

I'm not asking you to mute your views; I'm asking for those of an atheistic bent to take ownership of their own beliefs without imposing them on me (just as the converse would be asked of me). Further, I don't find your disbelief to be offensive; rather, I take offense at being labeled and marginalized, even if done furtively. I think you are more reasonable, actually, than most people representing the atheistic view. However, a few of your statements did come across as subtle criticisms. And lastly, I am in no need of an enabler. As you describe yourself, I too have deeply pondered the evidence and have arrived at a radically different conclusion. I simply ask that my conclusion be respected as equally valid, given the inability of either side to provide a conclusive answer, once and for all.

I don't agree. I see this type of debate as an opportunity to increase understanding. I have no desire to "guilt" you, Chip. I only ask that you play by the same rules that you are asking those on my side of the fence to play by.

Just a little word thing to interject here to satisfy my wierd little inanities. "Debates" inherently don't increase understanding of the other side. They are simply tools to explain your side and find inconsistencies and opposing evidence to disprove the other person's side. In a debate you don't accept the other person's view as valid, becuase it's not... yours is, and all your evidence shows that theirs is wrong.

Discussions are the opposite of debate in that you have your views, you accept that the other people have their views, and you ask open ended questions to understand the interests behind their viewpoint. This in no way corrodes your viewpoint, and giving the reasoning behind your views when asked in no way makes you weaker.

It's an annoyance of mine that people keep sticking to positional arguments and don't go deeper into the interests behind them. Things aren't black and white, right and wrong, god and no god...

This little sidethingie isn't pointed at anyone in particular, it just came about from seeing "debate" and "increasing understanding" in the same sentence. Carry on

with a bunch of people involved could we say it was a mass-debate?

*singing*

You say tomater and I say tomahtoe..
you say potater and I say potahtoe...
you say makin' love and I say fuckin'

lets call the whole thing off!

Siggy.

Tease.

A pox upon me for mixing metaphors. Yes, I should have used the term "discussion." However, the sentiments I was trying to express were not obscured when taken in context.

As for the second statement, that was a nice summation of what I so ineloquently wanted to express. I need to learn the art of brevity - admittedly, not my strong suit.

Proof is out there Chip, you just do not want to believe it. Paolo is right, you are so closed minded about this subject that there is little point in discussing it with you.

You will never understand why millions and millions of people believe in God and feel more comfortable in labeling them as you wish. That is is a shame because Christ has made a real difference in millions of lives and could in yours too... if only you eyes were open to the truth.

Excellent. Offer it up



No proof has ever been given so this is a rather silly statement, Billy. If what's available is sufficient to meet your burden of proof that's up to you. It doesn't meet mine. Do you have any to offer or was this post just an ad hominem?



It's no great mystery why millions of people believe in God. They are taught to. Most people's religions are determined by geography, not epiphany. You believe what you were raised to believe.

I think your reply expresses my feelings very well.

The vast majority of historians agree that Jesus was a real person and lived 2,000 years ago. There is far more evidence of this than most of the historical figures throughout the ages. I will assume that you do not dispute that fact.

So, for you to be correct then Jesus was just a man and not who He claimed to be, the Son of God. That means that he was a flat out liar. That means that a man who preached an unprecedented moral, peaceful and loving way of life, a teaching that survived for thousands of years that millions now follow was not a good man at all, he was a liar.

Why did He do this? This is a very good question. Did he use His power and followers to make Himself rich? No. As a matter of fact neither He nor His followers had money, did he use it for political power? No, he was not a political person at all and instructed His followers to submit themselves to the authority of their respective government. Maybe He used His power to create a great army to conquer the Romans, their oppressors? Again, no. He preached peace and love. Was He revered for his teachings by the masses? Heck no. As a matter of fact He was brutally murdered, something that was not an unexpected fate at all. It was highly predictable that His fate would be what it was.

If he in fact did none of these things then you can only conclude that He was a madman bent on dying for stirring up the masses with nothing whatsoever to gain.

Let’s take a look at His followers too. Did Jesus go around performing miracles from God? Heck no, He wasn’t the Son of God at all… right? Maybe He tricked the masses of people with parlor tricks but there is no way possible that His closest friends, His disciples, were not in on the fix. These men knew that He was not the Son of God right? They knew that He not only was a liar but quite mad pursuing neither financial gain nor any kind of power at all.

What happened next? Jesus was crucified. What did they do? Here is a good idea, instead of calling the party over, going home to our families and getting on with our lives what did these men do? They came up with some crap story about Jesus rising from the dead. What did they do with their new power, their new followers? Surely they had something to gain. Well… not only did they do as Jesus and not gain monetarily or politically every one of them preached the word until they themselves died horrible deaths for their belief. Surely knowing that it was all a lie they all recanted the crap story and saved themselves at the end to avoid Jesus’ fait. Um… no. Every one of them except for John who died of old age died for their belief that Jesus was the Son of God. Every one of them must have been tortured and died for a lie… right Chip? Make sense to you?

Of course you could say that this didn’t happen but I offer as proof that there is mounds of evidence about Jesus’ life but not one shred of evidence that these men finally, according to you, told the truth. Had they in fact revealed the so-called lie at their death the Romans would have spared them and had them proclaim to huge crowds what they had done so the religion would die. Did this happen? Nope.

If this was all a cleaver lie by a manipulating evil madman then everything would have died with Him. I submit that the teachings of a madman could have never survived for thousands of years and even if it did there certainly would not be millions of modern day followers of such a horrible person. I submit that nobody would be willing to die a horrible death for a lie, taking it to his death. I submit that if Jesus was as you claim just a man who misled thousands during His lifetime and millions after that there would have to be a plausible reason why He did this.

I am interested in your theory. Why exactly did Jesus do this and why were His followers willing to die for a lie?

There is other proof, creation itself, the complexity of nature, a leaf, the human body etc… The millions of people who claim to have experienced a relationship with the risen Christ has to be proof too. The simple fact that a human being is more then the sum of our parts is perhaps the greatest proof. What is it that makes us different and unique? Why do we have consciousness at all? Do you really believe that if you take all of the parts of a person, slam em together, add energy and whala… you have a human fully aware of him/herself, with a conscience, with morals, with what many would call a soul? I don’t.

There is much more but even this is ground that we have covered in other threads. Proof is out there, unfortunately you are unwilling to open your eyes and accept that maybe, just maybe you are wrong and that there is in fact a God.

Billy, most historians agree that Mohammed and Budda were real historical figures as well. Does that cause you to believe that the Quran is the direct word of God or that humans can ascend to a higher spiritual splane without any god at all?

I think that Jesus probably existed and was a sincere and wise person, who like many spiritual leaders was able to see the potential in human nature and was eloquent enough to cause others to see it as well. Miracles of some sort are claimed by almost every religion and occur in the legends of many heros as well. Do you discount those miracles that are not Christian in nature as mere exaggerations or flights of fancy? If so, why would you consider those accounts to be less real or accurate than those of the religion you subscribe to? For some truely spectacular miracles you might read the Hindu story called Ramayana, especially the bit where the monkeys and bears fight the demons.

Many people have suffered and died for their beliefs, the thousands of Muslims, Jews, and Pagans that died screaming at the stake during the Spanish inquisition for example. Their deaths do not mean that their beliefs were the truth, only that they were sincere in them. Jesus and his apostles were probably very sincere, that does not mean that they were right.

The beauty, order, and complexity of nature is indeed sublime, it inspires such awe in me that the god that I have been told of by Christians seems a small and petty creature beside it. There is wisdom in the teachings of Christianity, but there is is also wisdom in Buddism, Hinduism, and just about every religion. I know that there is more to the universe than I perceive because I know that my senses are quite limited and I don't claim to grasp the nature of it with my limited conciousness but that doesn't make me want to invent an omnipotent father figure who will take away the need to keep trying to understand as much as I can.

To me gods are simply an easy explanation for the unknown, religions are one of humanity's method of explaining and ordering the unknown and I think the need to know what we are and why we are here is a basic human impulse, I don't however see that Christianity has greater merits than other religions when it comes to explaining this. You Billy, are sure you have found the truth, that must be nice for you, but I see a world with many different versions of the truth, and I am not satisfied with any of them.

*As a footnote, could you point out the passage in the Bible where Jesus calls himself the son of God? In all the bits I have read he refers to himself as the son of man and I find that rather confusing.

Akuma - Billy makes a valid point, though. You have to take into consideration what Jesus is claimed to have said about himself. Here are some examples:

http://baharna.com/logos/log039.htm

If Jesus' grand claims of divinity are delusional, then why give him any credit for anything, at all?



This may be true about religion, but I would strongly disagree that it applies to faith. Despite repeated attempts to equate religion to faith, they are not one and the same. I have a relationship with God because God literally injected himself into my life. Many times, actually. These divine appointments often arrived at points where I would rather have just put the whole God thing aside to do my own thing. And when I say God, I literally mean God and not some moment of religious euphoria produced within the context of a church or religious event.

Growing up, my family was not a church-going family. Both of my grandmothers practiced a passive form of religious science (basically, metaphysical Christianity that essentially asserts that you can evoke your own reality via affirmations). It wasn't until my teens that either of them made any real effort to pass on these teachings. So, although American culture and politics may have an underlying Judeo-Christian foundation, it wasn't shoved down our throats back then in the manner it is, today. Besides, if the cultural/political influence were really as strong as you imply, why then is the US such a pluralistic society?

So, while I agree that cultural religiosity is probably learned behavior, a relationship with deity is not.

That's a good question. He didn't invent love, or forgiveness, or pacifism, or peace. If you believe none of those things were around before Jesus then you're delusional. As for his claims about being the son of god, it's easy to understand why he would make them. He wanted to reform the Jewish church. He wanted people to follow him so he needed to be seen as a higher authority than the temple priests. If the priests were seen as auxiliaries to God, then being the son of god would be a rung up the hierarchical ladder. Do you honestly think it's more likely that he was telling the truth than lying to bolster his ambitions? If the best and most moral person you know were to tell you tomorrow that they are actually an android, would the fact that they're a good person make you believe them? We don't even know if Jesus made the claim at all. It may very well have been an embelishment added by his followers or the authors of the gospels. Don't forget that the gospels were an oral tradition for a very long time before they were written down. Is it more likely that Jesus was the son of an omnipotent being or that his story was exaggerated greatly by zealous followers?




I know people who believe they've been abducted by aliens. Does their belief prove the existence of aliens or does it simply prove that otherwise rational people can talk themselves into believing outlandish things through misinterpretation of their perceptions?



Someone taught you Paolo. At some point you went through heavy religious indoctrination.



Cultural religiosity is not just "probably" a learned behavior. It is a learned behavior. "A relationship with deity" is also. You didn't pop out of the womb believing in God. You had no concept of God or deity until someone taught it to you. You didn't just have a spontaneous revelation one day. The seeds had already been planted.

Extremely well said, you seem to have taken the words right out of my mind.

I find it interesting that all of humanity has documented stories through the ages of extremes in both alturistic behavior and greed. Both are valid mechanisms of survival of the fittest.

Locally applied societial guidelines [moral codes] have served well to put pressure on humans to adhere to one behavior or the other, either with threat to terminate the individual directly through torture and death or to terminate the entire tribe through a natural disaster at the hand of the unknown [drought, flood, fire, earthquakes].

Those that had the ability to predict disaster (either through luck/divine intervention or good observational skills), were given the task of telling the tribe what behavior would best allow them to survive.

Alturism, is a quality that has served greatly to prepetuate the human species, but is extremely difficult to enact because it frequently conflicts directly with the individuals survival. For example, elders who have died of starvation so that they could give their food to individuals of childbearing age. The individuals died but the tribe survived.

Most Religions serve to create societal pressures that promote alturistic [or defensive] tribal behavior. Those who have served as the best leaders are remembered and because their advice and teachings perpetuated humanity, they become a pattern for future tribes.

It is conceivable to me that Jesus, Mohammed and Budda were all outstanding tribe leaders who led their individual tribes well. Stating that their leadership had anything to do with something larger than humanity [divine], cannot at this juncture be physically proven but is instead is accepted upon "faith". A concept encouraged and even forced by religion.

Faith in a specific god is not something that I personally have, but I take no issue with those that do unless their faith becomes a mission to control or eliminate those that do not share their faith.

I can credit Jesus with having said some wise things without believing that he was the son of God, for instance I was particularily impressed with this interpretation of the 'turn the other cheek' teaching. http://southerncrossreview.org/39/wink2.htm

My point to Billy was that by choosing one religion, one god, one saviour, to the exclusion of all others he is essentially labeling the leaders, prophets, and followers of other religions as either liars or deluded and I can see no basis for deciding that Jesus was truthful and correct while, for example, Mohammed, was not.



I would be interested to hear about these spiritual experiences in more detail. Please be assured that although I will undoubtedly interpret them in a secular context I don't ask this in order to mock you, but am genuinely interested in such things.



The US is primarily a society of immigrants and I think you will find that most religious people in it adhere to the religion of their culture of origin. As for a personal relationship with a diety, what is it that makes you think that your relationship is with the Christian god in particular?



Thanks Rose

Been hanging out with those hippos a bit too long, maybe?

Chip, you don't know me anywhere near well enough to make the above claim. I can just as easly say that at some point you went through heavy atheistic indoctrination. Making a statement like that, from either perspective, is just another ad hominem. All human behavior is more or less learned behavior. How can you so smugly assume that your learned behavior is more correct than mine?

Earlier, you asked me a series of rather condescendingly leading questions. The questions implied that I have some neurotic need for you to believe as I do -- a false assumption, by the way. All I have asked of you is to consider my views and respect my right to them. My subsequent answers and follow-up questions have been largely ignored until you found just the right sound bites to ambush. So, let me now return the favor. Why do you care if I believe? Do you need me to enable your disbelief, or are you running scared from the possibilities implicit in my ruminations? If you are so secure in your own beliefs, why the need to dismiss mine?

I had originally included some details in my post, but later decided that those experiences are/were far too personal for general consumption. I might consider sharing some of my life story with you in-world, but to be perfectly honest, it's enough for me to state in these forums that I've had them without sharing the finer details. I need to do a better job of respecting my own boundaries, so I must politely decline your request.

You're taking all of this much too personally Paolo, and it's making it difficult to have a rational discussion about the topic at hand... evidence to support the existence of God and possible interpretations thereof. I respect your views, and I repsect Billie's views, but if I ask for evidence and instead get emotional hyperbole I'm going to call you on it. This isn't about how anything makes you "feel." It isn't about whether or not Jesus existed and was or was not a great man. Not that it's not important. It's simply not relevent to whether or not something can be consdired evidence of the existence of God.

One of us is wrong. In order to have a rational discussion you have to allow for the possibility that what you consider to be manifistations of God in your life and a relationship with deity are something else instead. If they're something else, what are they? These are valid things to consider. They aren't personal. It has nothing to do with me ambushing you. I didn't use the word "delusional" to describe those experiences. I used that word to describe any notion that Jesus invented love, forgiveness, and pacifism. None of those things were new ideas when Jesus came along. If you sense a tone in my posts of "I'm right and you're wrong" it's because I asked for rational objective evidence and I still haven't gotten a shred of it from either of you. These are not emotional issues for me. In order to discuss the logical merits of your experiences you need to get out of emotional mode and into critical objective thinking mode. I can't meet you in the middle because I have no emotional attachment to your ideas about God. I have no emotional attachment to God at all. If you want to sway me you have to do it with objective fact.

As for not knowing you well enough to assert that you were taught about God, deity, and Christianity before you were able to label your personal experiences as being within that realm, that's simply a statement of objective logic. Unless you personally invented all those concepts, you got them from somewhere else, ergo they were taught to you.

What makes these discussions between believers and non-believers difficult is that it can't receive equal treatment from both sides. When debating the merits of fantastical claims, the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, not with the doubter to prove them wrong. If I told you that I'm a Martian and we had a discussion about whether or not it's true, would you find it acceptable that your burden to prove that I'm not is equal to my burden to prove that I am? I doubt that you'd accept that. For me, any claim of a personal relationship with an omnipotent being of the spirit realm is every bit as fantastical and unlikely. I can couch my arguments in pretend sensitivity to things I don't believe in, but does that make for an honest discussion? If I don't believe in god, deity, or personal relationships with it/them and I pretend I think there's a good possibility I'm wrong even though that's not what I feel, then I actually would be being condescending. I prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt that you can discuss these things in logical terms without the candy coating. I'm sorry if you find that rude. To my way of thinking it's what's most respectful. I understand that other people don't necessarily see it that way.

Different things:

First, "Gosh numbers" prove the existence of God. The only way you can deny that truth is by being excessively anthropomorphic and nihilistic at the same time. Of course, "gosh numbers" say nothing about the character of God, or what he/she/they/it is.

Second, while the majority of historians believe Jesus of Nazareth was a historical person, the majority cannot and will not say that he was anything more than a local rabbi who may have had some interesting ideas and got himself into some bad trouble. Others following sensed the opportunity and took advantage of his story. In truth, or at least historical truth, we don't know what the historical Jesus may or may not have said. We know what he was purported to have said.

Three, Christianity, the New Testament, and the "Christian" character of Jesus shows an incredibly strong Greek influence, largely attibutable to that most important early Christian leader, Paul. If you're speaking of "cultural religiousity" and learned behavior, then know that Christianity became such a powerful force in the West because it marked the confluence of Greek and Hebrew culture, ethics, and learning. Coupled with the Roman sense of law, order, and discipline, it "created" western culture. Thus we all suffer from learned behavior, Christian or not. Along the same lines of reasoning, while you can use Islam as an example of similar "learned" behavior, you cannot use Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism, Shintoism, etc., because they belong to entirely different traditions and would have to be carefully qualified.

Four, nobody in this discussion is wrong. And nobody is right. For such statements to be valid, there would have to be a standard of evaluation that nearly all of us have agreed is impossible to achieve at this point.

What are gosh numbers and how do they prove the existence of a god.? If they say nothing about the character of this entity, what exactly is it that they are supposed to prove the existence of?

There are an enormous number of variables in the universe, without which intelligent, sentient life could not exist. The breadth of these variables and their exactitude have kicked off a twenty-year debate among physicists, biologists, and philosophers as to whether this means the universe was intelligently "designed" with a "purpose". Most say that it's a good possibility, many say a probability, some say it's demonstrable proof.

The implications of these so-called "gosh numbers" were first pointed out by Max Planck and Albert Einstein eighty years ago, but more recently the issue has been energized by new breakthroughs in physics, astronomy, and molecular biology.

One way to deny the importance of gosh numbers is to appeal to the philosophical point of "strong anthropomorphism." That's generally regarded as an "inelegant" argument to make.

Notice the winky-face emoticon I put after making the point in the prior post.

edited to add point about strong anthropomorphism

Emotional hyperbole? And what do you call your retorts? Rational and purely objective observations? I'd say that you've got just as much vested in your position as I do in mine, or you wouldn't have stuck with this thread through 11 pages. Sure, I am a human being and I have feelings. Why aren't feelings a valid attribute of what we are coming to agree is a form of persuasion speech, herein? True, I don't particularly like being criticized, especially when it is done with subtlty. With that said, I am not going to pretend that I don't have feelings, and if a hint of emotion comes out here, so be it. The expression of emotion is one of the fundamental elements of being a human. Don't use my "feelings" as an excuse not to address my questions (which, by the way, you still have not addressed).

OK, then. I'm willing to ponder further the source of my experiences. On the flip side, how about allowing for the possibility of there being a spirit realm without first requiring empirical proof? Doesn't scientific fact necessarily begin as scientific theory? That's all I've been asking, all along: Consider the possiblity. And, now those words are being turned back upon me. To be certain, I am no more or less human than anyone else here. If I am wrong, then I am wrong. Though, as oft stated before, I acknowledge the many many shades of gray out there. I'm not perceiving that same flexibility from you. I am sure you knew, full well, that neither Billy and I could ever provide you with a God artifact. All we can do is present a lot of circumstantial evidence to that effect. That puts you in the position of unaffected cynic, a much easier burden to bear. However, even when asked to respond equilaterally to questions you pose to us, you seem to evade response. How is that reasonable, objective or fair?

As were yours. I take exception to your trying to invalidate my arguments with something that fundamentally applies to everything we know, or that we think we know.

The bottom line is this. There is no point to this debate. There is no winner, no loser. Until there is a means by which to empirically prove the existence of spirit (let alone the claims of a specific religion), we will forever be at impasse. I will never satisfy your need for "proof," and even if I could, I highly doubt that it would receive a fair hearing. Let's just put this one to bed.

Chip, I addressed your questions specifically with great detail. You however did not bother to address mine at all. I am still waiting for you to do so before I continue "discussing" this with you. Otherwise, it is not a "discussion" at all but a lecture.

*taps foot while waiting*