Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Danmark]

Seems to me that you didn't learn anything about what it is to be a Christian from your evangelical friends. Why should I take their word for it? If you don't mind, I'll stick to the Word of God for my guidance.

Setting aside your personal remark about your assumption re: what I learned or did not, what is implicit in your post is that YOUR interpretation of the 'Word of God' trumps the 'Word of God' itself. You make the huge error of claiming YOUR interpretation is the same as scripture. There isn't any theist or non theist here, not one Christian or other here who agrees with your statement about laughing at people who 'go to hell' because they don't believe as you think they ought to.

[Sonofason]

Seems to me that you didn't learn anything about what it is to be a Christian from your evangelical friends. Why should I take their word for it? If you don't mind, I'll stick to the Word of God for my guidance.

Setting aside your personal remark about your assumption re: what I learned or did not, what is implicit in your post is that YOUR interpretation of the 'Word of God' trumps the 'Word of God' itself. You make the huge error of claiming YOUR interpretation is the same as scripture. There isn't any theist or non theist here, not one Christian or other here who agrees with your statement about laughing at people who 'go to hell' because they don't believe as you think they ought to.

And I am to take your word for that? I don't think so.

[no evidence no belief]

I'm sorry friend, there is no righteous person in this entire world that is not in need of the redemption offered through Christ.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Romans 3:23-26)

All have sinned.
All come short.
No one is righteous.

Well, that is the statement of belief. That is what you believe, and you have been conditioned to see your experiences as.

However, what is NOT presented is, you know, evidence.

Is there anything you can 'present' that is not religious literature, dogma, propaganda, or 'personal testimony' that can not be independently verified?

I'm sorry, but you are not qualified to determine what is and what is not evidence.
You are not qualified to determine that religious literature is not evidence.
You are not qualified to determine whether or not religious dogma is evidence.
You are not qualified to determine if propaganda, or personal testimony is evidence.
You are not qualified to determine what is and what is not independently verifiable.

Could you please specify what the necessary qualifications are to determine what is and isn't evidence?

Could you please specify what the necessary qualifications are to determine whether religious literature is evidence?

Could you please specify what the necessary qualifications are to determine if dogma is evidence?

Could you please specify what the necessary qualifications are to determine if propaganda or personal testimony is evidence?

Could you please specify what the necessary qualifications are to determine what is independently verifiable?


What course does one have to take, what school does one have to go to, to obtain a certificate of qualification in determining if propaganda is evidence?.

Are you qualified to determine whether by dogmatic belief in an invisible dragon in my basement is valid evidence for the existence of an invisible dragon in my basement?

Surely you are not claiming to be intrinsically superior to any of us, right? If you claim to be qualified to determine whether my dogmatic belief in invisible dragons counts as evidence, and if you claim that we are not qualified to determine whether your dogmatic belief in flying zombies counts as evidence, then surely it's because you have some kind of doctorate in "Determining whether dogmatic belief counts as evidence". Where did you obtain this education? Harvard? Columbia?

Please outline in great detail the specific differences between you and every atheist on this board, that makes you qualified to determine whether your belief in flying zombies counts as evidence, but makes us unqualified to do the same.

[Sonofason]

I'm sorry friend, there is no righteous person in this entire world that is not in need of the redemption offered through Christ.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Romans 3:23-26)

All have sinned.
All come short.
No one is righteous.

Well, that is the statement of belief. That is what you believe, and you have been conditioned to see your experiences as.

However, what is NOT presented is, you know, evidence.

Is there anything you can 'present' that is not religious literature, dogma, propaganda, or 'personal testimony' that can not be independently verified?

I'm sorry, but you are not qualified to determine what is and what is not evidence.
You are not qualified to determine that religious literature is not evidence.
You are not qualified to determine whether or not religious dogma is evidence.
You are not qualified to determine if propaganda, or personal testimony is evidence.
You are not qualified to determine what is and what is not independently verifiable.

no evidence no belief asks:

Could you please specify what the necessary qualifications are to determine what is and isn't evidence?

I'm sorry, but I believe you are going to have to choose your own definitions. Honestly, we don't have to agree on this, or anything for that matter. But of course if you care to come to some sort of agreement with me, then you're just going to have to see it my way. You know, it's my way or the highway. Evidence is any indication or testimony that shows that something else exists, or is true.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

no evidence no belief asks:

Could you please specify what the necessary qualifications are to determine whether religious literature is evidence?

Religious literature is evidence if it includes anything which indicates that something exists or is true. This includes personal testimonies and claims. It includes historical documentations. It includes anything that indicates that something in particular exists or is true.

no evidence no belief asks:

Could you please specify what the necessary qualifications are to determine if dogma is evidence?

Dogma is evidence if it contains anything which indicates that something exists or is true. This includes personal testimonies and claims. It includes historical documentations. It includes anything that indicates that something in particular exists or is true.

no evidence no belief asks:

Could you please specify what the necessary qualifications are to determine if propaganda or personal testimony is evidence?

propaganda or personal testimony is evidence if it shows any indication that something exists or is true.

no evidence no belief asks:

Could you please specify what the necessary qualifications are to determine what is independently verifiable?

Something is independently verifiable if it can be verified by others independently.

no evidence no belief asks:

What course does one have to take, what school does one have to go to, to obtain a certificate of qualification in determining if propaganda is evidence?.

Absolutely none. You don't need a certificate of qualification to master anything at all.

no evidence no belief asks:

Are you qualified to determine whether by dogmatic belief in an invisible dragon in my basement is valid evidence for the existence of an invisible dragon in my basement?

Absolutely not. For some reason, you are now bringing up the notion of "valid" evidence. I have no idea if a particular piece of propaganda is true or not. But if there were to be propaganda that an invisible dragon was in your basement, that propaganda would indeed be evidence that an invisible dragon was in your basement. Whether or not it is true, and valid, I don't know. But it is still evidence. The truth of it, as far as I am concerned is yet to be seen. But I accept the notion that there could be some propaganda that is evidence that an invisible dragon is in your basement.

no evidence no belief asks:

Surely you are not claiming to be intrinsically superior to any of us, right? If you claim to be qualified to determine whether my dogmatic belief in invisible dragons counts as evidence, and if you claim that we are not qualified to determine whether your dogmatic belief in flying zombies counts as evidence, then surely it's because you have some kind of doctorate in "Determining whether dogmatic belief counts as evidence". Where did you obtain this education? Harvard? Columbia?

Surely, one does not need a Harvard education or a Columbia education to determine anything at all. I have no idea if I am superior to anyone on this forum. I do not assume to be superior to anyone. When I discover that I am, I will know that I am.

no evidence no belief asks:

Please outline in great detail the specific differences between you and every atheist on this board, that makes you qualified to determine whether your belief in flying zombies counts as evidence, but makes us unqualified to do the same.

Are you claiming that flying zombies exist? Please show me your evidence.

[no evidence no belief]

Wow, this thread has degenerated into a bunch of incoherent, inflammatory ranting and really shows that this forum has a huge troll problem. It sucks how this forum (which used to be a great place for intelligent and thought provoking discussions) has turned into a haven for trolls.

As a Christian, I would say that there is evidence for my supernatural beliefs but this evidence is inconclusive. The evidence available does not, and probably never will, prove Christianity to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the evidence available does establish that these supernatural beliefs are reasonable, warranted and logical.

For example, if I claimed that the 49ers will win the superbowl I would cite evidence such as player stats, scores, league history, etc to support my claim. The evidence available does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 49ers will win with absolute certainty. The evidence simply shows that there are good reasons to believe that the 49ers will win, and that believing in the 49ers is not completely far fetched and irrational.

Ok, that's an argument worth looking into. I applaud you for admitting that you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt the claims of Christianity.

Let's look into the details of your more nuanced position, and specifically your comparison between the 49ers winning and a supernatural claim in the Bible. Unless you object, let's discuss the resurrection/ascention specifically.

So, what does each claim have going for it, and what does it have against it? To determine if it's reasonable to hold a belief we must look at it in detail.

A 49ers victory.
Evidence in favor of it: It doesn't violate the laws of physics. Believing that it will happen does not require the total collapse of everything we know about medicine, biology, chemistry, physics. etc. It's not physically, chemically, biologically, medically impossible as per our understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, medicine - an understanding that must have something to it, otherwise we wouldn't be able to perform heart transplants, travel to mars, have free videochats across the globe, etc.

Also, it is INEVITABLE that one of the teams will win. There are 32 NFL teams. That alone, means that there is a 3% of them winning. They are ranked 9th as of the end of the 12th week of the season which means that it's quite unlikely that the bottom 16th ranked teams might win. So if we assume they are competing with the top 16 teams, that gives them a 6% chance of winning. These are just figures I'm pulling out of a hat, just to get an idea.

Evidence against it: The fact that other teams are trying to win also.

All in all, one could make the case that based on a more in-depth study of statistics, players performance, etc, one could hold the belief that the 49ers could win, and that such belief is not entirely far-fetched and irrational. It's still more reasonable to assume they will not win, but no one would consider either belief crazy.

The resurrection:
The resurrection is the notion that a decomposing maggot infested brain-dead, heart-dead cadaver with all organs failed, with whatever blood left in it after multiple arterial wounds completely clotted in the veins, came back to life, strolled around town and then flew into the sky.

Evidence for it: Some people wrote down that somebody told them that they saw it happen. A bunch of people believed them.

Evidence against it: It is medically, biologically, chemically, physically impossible as per our understanding of medicine, biology, chemistry and physics.

Also, unlike the 49ers which are one of 32 teams of which one will of necessity win, the resurrection is one among millions of supernatural claims none of which must of necessity have happened.

Every single piece of relevant empirical evidence tells us with as close to conclusive certainty as humanly possible that corpses do NOT fly into the air, unless thrown by a catapult, and if so, they usually fall down shortly thereafter.

If you wish to argue that it's not far-fetched or irrational to believe in flying corpses, this is what you have to demonstrate:
That it's not far-fetched and irrational to believe that everything we know about medicine is wrong in the most fundamental of ways, but that somehow we are able to perform heart transplants.
That it's not far fetched and irrational to believe that everything we know about biology is wrong in the most fundamental of ways, but that somehow we are able to establish paternity through DNA testing, create vaccines that save millions of lives, etc.
That it's not far fetched and irrational to believe that everything we know about chemistry is wrong in the most fundamental of ways, but that somehow we are literally able to transform iron into gold (albeit at a cost that makes it economically unfeasible)
That it's not far fetched and irrational to believe that everything we know about physics is wrong in the most fundamental of ways, but that somehow we are able to split the atom, put satellites in orbit, travel to planets millions of miles away.

Thoughts?

[no evidence no belief]

I'm sorry friend, there is no righteous person in this entire world that is not in need of the redemption offered through Christ.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Romans 3:23-26)

All have sinned.
All come short.
No one is righteous.

Well, that is the statement of belief. That is what you believe, and you have been conditioned to see your experiences as.

However, what is NOT presented is, you know, evidence.

Is there anything you can 'present' that is not religious literature, dogma, propaganda, or 'personal testimony' that can not be independently verified?

I'm sorry, but you are not qualified to determine what is and what is not evidence.
You are not qualified to determine that religious literature is not evidence.
You are not qualified to determine whether or not religious dogma is evidence.
You are not qualified to determine if propaganda, or personal testimony is evidence.
You are not qualified to determine what is and what is not independently verifiable.

no evidence no belief asks:

Could you please specify what the necessary qualifications are to determine what is and isn't evidence?

I'm sorry, but I believe you are going to have to choose your own definitions. Honestly, we don't have to agree on this, or anything for that matter. But of course if you care to come to some sort of agreement with me, then you're just going to have to see it my way. You know, it's my way or the highway. Evidence is any indication or testimony that shows that something else exists, or is true.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

no evidence no belief asks:

Could you please specify what the necessary qualifications are to determine whether religious literature is evidence?

Religious literature is evidence if it includes anything which indicates that something exists or is true. This includes personal testimonies and claims. It includes historical documentations. It includes anything that indicates that something in particular exists or is true.

no evidence no belief asks:

Could you please specify what the necessary qualifications are to determine if dogma is evidence?

Dogma is evidence if it contains anything which indicates that something exists or is true. This includes personal testimonies and claims. It includes historical documentations. It includes anything that indicates that something in particular exists or is true.

no evidence no belief asks:

Could you please specify what the necessary qualifications are to determine if propaganda or personal testimony is evidence?

propaganda or personal testimony is evidence if it shows any indication that something exists or is true.

no evidence no belief asks:

Could you please specify what the necessary qualifications are to determine what is independently verifiable?

Something is independently verifiable if it can be verified by others independently.

no evidence no belief asks:

What course does one have to take, what school does one have to go to, to obtain a certificate of qualification in determining if propaganda is evidence?.

Absolutely none. You don't need a certificate of qualification to master anything at all.

no evidence no belief asks:

Are you qualified to determine whether by dogmatic belief in an invisible dragon in my basement is valid evidence for the existence of an invisible dragon in my basement?

Absolutely not. For some reason, you are now bringing up the notion of "valid" evidence. I have no idea if a particular piece of propaganda is true or not. But if there were to be propaganda that an invisible dragon was in your basement, that propaganda would indeed be evidence that an invisible dragon was in your basement. Whether or not it is true, and valid, I don't know. But it is still evidence. The truth of it, as far as I am concerned is yet to be seen. But I accept the notion that there could be some propaganda that is evidence that an invisible dragon is in your basement.

no evidence no belief asks:

Surely you are not claiming to be intrinsically superior to any of us, right? If you claim to be qualified to determine whether my dogmatic belief in invisible dragons counts as evidence, and if you claim that we are not qualified to determine whether your dogmatic belief in flying zombies counts as evidence, then surely it's because you have some kind of doctorate in "Determining whether dogmatic belief counts as evidence". Where did you obtain this education? Harvard? Columbia?

Surely, one does not need a Harvard education or a Columbia education to determine anything at all. I have no idea if I am superior to anyone on this forum. I do not assume to be superior to anyone. When I discover that I am, I will know that I am.

no evidence no belief asks:

Please outline in great detail the specific differences between you and every atheist on this board, that makes you qualified to determine whether your belief in flying zombies counts as evidence, but makes us unqualified to do the same.

Are you claiming that flying zombies exist? Please show me your evidence.

Hi Sonofason, although some on this board reject your definition of evidence, I'm ok with using it for the purpose of our discussion.

By your definition (which I don't reject) dogma, propaganda, fairy tales, personal testimony, etc can be described as "evidence" for something.

For example, the book Peter Pan could be described as evidence of the existence of fairies, and the Bible could be used as evidence of talking donkeys.

Now, if somebody cares about whether something is true, they must try to determine the strength of the evidence, and weigh it against the evidence that contradicts the claim.

For example, if I had a dream that flying elephants existed, it would count as "evidence for flying elephants" by your definition. But to establish if flying elephants actually exist in reality, this "evidence" would have to be balanced against two facts: First, everything we know about the laws of gravity tells us that elephants can't fly. Second: It's an established fact that dreams are unreliable determinants of what is true in reality.

Similarly, if somebody wrote down that they saw a cadaver of a carpenter walk around and fly into the sky, it would count as "evidence for walking and flying cadavers" by your definition. But to establish if walking and flying cadavers actually exist in reality, this "evidence" would have to be balanced against two facts: First, everything we know about medicine, biology, chemistry, physics tells us corpses can't walk and fly. Second, it's an established fact that self-contradictory anecdotal hearsay testimony from anonymous sources written decades after an event is an unreliable determinant of what is true in reality.

So I don't mind of you wish to consider dreams, comic books, communist propaganda, fairy tales, the Lord of the Rings, the Koran, the Bible "evidence" of flying elephants, radioactive spiders, the supernatural strength of Kim Jung Il, fairies, bigfoot, magic rings, flying horses or talking donkeys.

You are welcome to use the word "evidence" to describe this stuff, as long as you agree that it's not evidence sufficient to counter the overwhelmingly strong evidence against the claims, and as long as you agree that it's not even close to sufficient to establish that belief in those claims is anything short of completely and unabashedly irrational.

[no evidence no belief]

Hi Sonofason,

you seem to have had 'on site' experience with this phenomena. Receiving the Holy Spirit is such a vague and benign concept that I would have little difficulty with it. I can accept your stated truth, ie that it is visible and tangible.

My sceptical nature would find it difficult to distinguish this phenomena from something like for example 'plucking up courage' or 'feeling inspired' etc. In this context, I would see it as being a self induced calling up of resources, perhaps very natural and normal. Is it like that in your view .

The Holy Spirit has never been visible to me. When the Holy Spirit is notably present in me, it does however induce a physical response in me that can be seen.

Please outline a way in which whatever physical response that can be observed in you can be differentiated from a person having a physical response to something other than an invisible skydaddy.

[Sonofason]

I'm sorry friend, there is no righteous person in this entire world that is not in need of the redemption offered through Christ.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Romans 3:23-26)

All have sinned.
All come short.
No one is righteous.

Well, that is the statement of belief. That is what you believe, and you have been conditioned to see your experiences as.

However, what is NOT presented is, you know, evidence.

Is there anything you can 'present' that is not religious literature, dogma, propaganda, or 'personal testimony' that can not be independently verified?

I'm sorry, but you are not qualified to determine what is and what is not evidence.
You are not qualified to determine that religious literature is not evidence.
You are not qualified to determine whether or not religious dogma is evidence.
You are not qualified to determine if propaganda, or personal testimony is evidence.
You are not qualified to determine what is and what is not independently verifiable.

no evidence no belief asks:

Could you please specify what the necessary qualifications are to determine what is and isn't evidence?

I'm sorry, but I believe you are going to have to choose your own definitions. Honestly, we don't have to agree on this, or anything for that matter. But of course if you care to come to some sort of agreement with me, then you're just going to have to see it my way. You know, it's my way or the highway. Evidence is any indication or testimony that shows that something else exists, or is true.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evidence

no evidence no belief asks:

Could you please specify what the necessary qualifications are to determine whether religious literature is evidence?

Religious literature is evidence if it includes anything which indicates that something exists or is true. This includes personal testimonies and claims. It includes historical documentations. It includes anything that indicates that something in particular exists or is true.

no evidence no belief asks:

Could you please specify what the necessary qualifications are to determine if dogma is evidence?

Dogma is evidence if it contains anything which indicates that something exists or is true. This includes personal testimonies and claims. It includes historical documentations. It includes anything that indicates that something in particular exists or is true.

no evidence no belief asks:

Could you please specify what the necessary qualifications are to determine if propaganda or personal testimony is evidence?

propaganda or personal testimony is evidence if it shows any indication that something exists or is true.

no evidence no belief asks:

Could you please specify what the necessary qualifications are to determine what is independently verifiable?

Something is independently verifiable if it can be verified by others independently.

no evidence no belief asks:

What course does one have to take, what school does one have to go to, to obtain a certificate of qualification in determining if propaganda is evidence?.

Absolutely none. You don't need a certificate of qualification to master anything at all.

no evidence no belief asks:

Are you qualified to determine whether by dogmatic belief in an invisible dragon in my basement is valid evidence for the existence of an invisible dragon in my basement?

Absolutely not. For some reason, you are now bringing up the notion of "valid" evidence. I have no idea if a particular piece of propaganda is true or not. But if there were to be propaganda that an invisible dragon was in your basement, that propaganda would indeed be evidence that an invisible dragon was in your basement. Whether or not it is true, and valid, I don't know. But it is still evidence. The truth of it, as far as I am concerned is yet to be seen. But I accept the notion that there could be some propaganda that is evidence that an invisible dragon is in your basement.

no evidence no belief asks:

Surely you are not claiming to be intrinsically superior to any of us, right? If you claim to be qualified to determine whether my dogmatic belief in invisible dragons counts as evidence, and if you claim that we are not qualified to determine whether your dogmatic belief in flying zombies counts as evidence, then surely it's because you have some kind of doctorate in "Determining whether dogmatic belief counts as evidence". Where did you obtain this education? Harvard? Columbia?

Surely, one does not need a Harvard education or a Columbia education to determine anything at all. I have no idea if I am superior to anyone on this forum. I do not assume to be superior to anyone. When I discover that I am, I will know that I am.

no evidence no belief asks:

Please outline in great detail the specific differences between you and every atheist on this board, that makes you qualified to determine whether your belief in flying zombies counts as evidence, but makes us unqualified to do the same.

Are you claiming that flying zombies exist? Please show me your evidence.

Hi Sonofason, although some on this board reject your definition of evidence, I'm ok with using it for the purpose of our discussion.

By your definition (which I don't reject) dogma, propaganda, fairy tales, personal testimony, etc can be described as "evidence" for something.

For example, the book Peter Pan could be described as evidence of the existence of fairies, and the Bible could be used as evidence of talking donkeys.

Now, if somebody cares about whether something is true, they must try to determine the strength of the evidence, and weigh it against the evidence that contradicts the claim.

For example, if I had a dream that flying elephants existed, it would count as "evidence for flying elephants" by your definition. But to establish if flying elephants actually exist in reality, this "evidence" would have to be balanced against two facts: First, everything we know about the laws of gravity tells us that elephants can't fly. Second: It's an established fact that dreams are unreliable determinants of what is true in reality.

Similarly, if somebody wrote down that they saw a cadaver of a carpenter walk around and fly into the sky, it would count as "evidence for walking and flying cadavers" by your definition. But to establish if walking and flying cadavers actually exist in reality, this "evidence" would have to be balanced against two facts: First, everything we know about medicine, biology, chemistry, physics tells us corpses can't walk and fly. Second, it's an established fact that self-contradictory anecdotal hearsay testimony from anonymous sources written decades after an event is an unreliable determinant of what is true in reality.

So I don't mind of you wish to consider dreams, comic books, communist propaganda, fairy tales, the Lord of the Rings, the Koran, the Bible "evidence" of flying elephants, radioactive spiders, the supernatural strength of Kim Jung Il, fairies, bigfoot, magic rings, flying horses or talking donkeys.

You are welcome to use the word "evidence" to describe this stuff, as long as you agree that it's not evidence sufficient to counter the overwhelmingly strong evidence against the claims, and as long as you agree that it's not even close to sufficient to establish that belief in those claims is anything short of completely and unabashedly irrational.

The problem is you don't know everything about science and medicine. When you do, then you can tell me that it is impossible for the dead to live again. If a human being could be cloned, and if the memories of the person were salvaged by some means, don't you think it possible for the dead, even long dead persons to live again? I do. And I believe that God knows all science. He knows all possibilities, even the possibilities that you nor science will never know. Science today is primitive compared to what it could be one day if humanity is given such a chance. But I don't see God letting that happen. No, our end is quite near. I see no reason to think that God can not raise the dead. One day you will be dead. And you will be raised. And I hope on that day that God allows you to see flying elephants, radioactive spiders, the supernatural strength of Kim Jung Il, fairies, bigfoot, magic rings, flying horses and talking donkeys in person.

[Artie]

[Replying to post 2189 by Artie]

Honestly, I have to some extent. I can't say that I've had any of their brains scanned, but I have met quite a few of them, and have drawn my own conclusions. And from what I see, people who experience the Holy Spirit are always vested in Christ. And there is a wide range of people who experience the Holy Spirit seemingly ranging from the crazy to the most sane of individuals. It appears to me that sanity has absolutely nothing to do with it.

And there is also a wide range of people who experience alien abductions. Why should we consider your claim that some Christians actually experience the "Holy Spirit" any more valid than the claim that alien abductees actually experience aliens without any actual evidence for the existence of the "Holy Spirit" or aliens no matter how many claim to experience them?

[Artie]

The Holy Spirit has never been visible to me. When the Holy Spirit is notably present in me, it does however induce a physical response in me that can be seen.

Like demons induce a physical response in sufferers of epilepsy? What about people suffering from anxiety disorder who suddenly are overcome by fear and start shaking and sweating due to panic attacks? Which supernatural entity is responsible for that?