The Parietal Cortex - Home of the Holy Ghost

[StuartJ]

The ONLY thing members here have offered as evidence for the biblical Yahweh as "God" -- or the biblical "scriptures" as having come from Yahweh -- is the supposed influence of the "Indwelling Holy Spirit".

NOTHING ELSE

But NOT ONE member has demonstrated that the IHS is anything more than the voices in their head.

The voices that tell us that "God and the Holy Scriptures" are real and are greater than us, may simply emanate from the very human, and very physiological, parietal cortex that dwells within us.

During their varied transcendent states, all subjects showed similar activity patterns in the parietal cortex, which processes sensation, spatial orientation, and language, and is thought to influence attention, among other functions. In other words, whether the thing that makes a person feel connected to something greater involves church, trees, or a stadium full of sports fans, it appears to have the same effect on the brain. https://qz.com/1292368/columbia-and-yal ... ur-brains/

Do we feel a sense of intellectual satisfaction with an answer that does not involve some version or other of "God" ...?

Can we trust the Columbia and Yale scientists ...?

(One typo edit made)

[Tcg]

But NOT ONE member has demonstrated that the IHS is anything more than the voices in their head.

The voices that tell us that "God and the Holy Scriptures" are real and are greater than us, may simply emanate from the very human, and very physiological, parietal cortex that dwells within us.

At first glance it seems odd that so many would hold so tightly to a cause (the IHS) they can't demonstrate exists in favor of a cause (parietal cortex) we can demonstrate exists. But, once you understand the payoff they gain, or rather think they gain, it makes perfect sense.

To accept a reasonable explanation, they'd have to give up the idea that they are extra-special because they have an extra-special buddy living inside them given to them by an extra-special God leading them to extra-special understanding. That's simply to much extra-specialness for many to give up to accept a perfectly rational possibility.

Facts at that point become irrelevant. To consider them is simply too great a risk for those who need to feel extra-special.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 5 by Jagella]

There isn't any substance to imaginary gods.

You are correct, as long as there is substance to the idea that such a god would be imaginary, as we will demonstrate with your, Easter Bunny analogy. In other words, if we can give very good, and solid reasons that a particular god would be imaginary, and there are very few, if any reason to believe in the existence of such a god, then there would be no substance, or very little substance to this god.

That's the whole basis for skepticism.

My friend, "skepticism" can be completely baseless. You see, I can be skeptical about something that I would rather not believe. If this is the only reason for my unbelief, then I have no basis for my unbelief. Therefore, simply because one claims to be skeptical, would not mean they have a basis for their, skepticism.

When there is a lack of substance for gods, many people wisely doubt their existence.

It would be wise to doubt the existence of a god that had no substance, but it would first need to be established that this god had no substance. In other words, one cannot simply say, "This Atheist has long understood that "God" is nothing more than an invention of the human imagination", until, or unless such a one had established that all gods, did indeed lack substance.

Of course I realize, this may be difficult to understand for those who may have allowed themselves to believe something to be true, for a good number of years of their adult life, without using the mind to determine if there would be any substance to what they have given their whole life over to.

However, simply because they allowed themselves to do such a thing, would not in any way demonstrate, there would have been no substance to what they once believed. Rather, it only demonstrates a type of person who allowed themselves to believe something, without determining if there would be any reason to believe. Can you see the difference?

Do you have any "substance" for your understanding that the Easter Bunny is an invention of the human imagination?

As a matter of fact, I certainly do! Because you see, all one would have to do, would be to go back in history, and read all they could find concerning the Easter Bunny, and what they would determine is, no one other than children, and maybe parents attempting to get their children to believe in something the parents know is fiction, claimed the Easter Bunny was a real figure.

Moreover, you will not find anyone at all throughout history, who claimed to have spent time with the Easter Bunny, and wrote letters to others at the time, as though they were writing about a real historical event, and there would be no one in history we could point to who lived out the rest of their lives going to prison proclaiming, "the Easter Bunny is real."

Although you will find a lot written about the, Easter Bunny throughout history, most of what you will find is, writings about how it was always intended to be, an imaginary hare who laid colored eggs, in order to amuse children.

So yes! I have plenty of substance for my, "understanding that the Easter Bunny is an invention of the human imagination."

If not, then you are special pleading demanding substance for an understanding that there are no gods while understanding there is no Easter Bunny with no substance at all.

As we can now see, there is no, "special pleading" on my part, because I have supplied plenty of substance for my understanding that the Eastern Bunny, was never intended to be more than an imaginary figure.

The idea of gods doesn't work for us because we can see that the talk of gods is empty, confusing, and contradictory.

Here, you seem to be attempting to add some substance to your idea, but again there is no substance to be found. Because again you see, you cannot simply say, "because we see that the talk of gods is empty, confusing, and contradictory." Rather, there would need to be some substance added to this statement, that would at least give us reason to believe your statement, as I have with the Easter Bunny.

The thing is, there can be things one may find "empty, confusing, and contradictory" but this would have no bearing at all upon what the truth may be. As it stands, you are simply sharing with us your opinion, with no substance.

In fact, the statement is made as if, "since the idea of gods doesn't work for us, this is evidence they simply do not work."

I'd like to see an argument that there is no Easter Bunny. According to your own logic, you need an argument and substance that there is no Easter Bunny.

I have supplied you with a fantastic argument, with substance that the Easter Bunny was always ever intended to be imaginary.

People can and do write letters about myth.

Oh really? Well, can you supply us with one? And I am not talking about a letter in which a myth may have been mentioned, (which may be hard enough to find). Rather, I am talking about on the same scale as we have with the letters in the NT.

Because you see, the letters in the NT were addressed to particular audiences at the time, and they not only record the events, as if they were real historical events, there is also overwhelming evidence in these letters, that theses folks went on to live out the rest of their lives, as if these things were real historical events.

So then, please supply with these letters, where folks are writing about myth, along with the evidence that these folks were going on with the rest of their life, as if the myth were in fact historical?

There is no law of nature saying that a piece of papyrus won't stand still for baloney, nor is there any law of nature that prevents such baloney being sent out as letters.

You are correct, but we would need far more than this to come to the conclusion that what is contained in the NT would have to be myth, especially with the evidence I have supplied that would insist they never intended these things to be thought of as myth. You see, you are simply giving us possibilities, while I am supplying facts, and evidence.

Talking snakes and talking donkeys in addition to dragons and unicorns and levitating zombies sounds pretty imaginative to me.

As it does to me as well. However, I have come to learn not to make a decision simply based upon what something sounds, or seems like to me. It's just not wise to do so.

It's called "changing one's thinking to consider new evidence and reasoning." It's prudent to abandon old ideas as one discovers evidence that casts doubt on those old ideas.

But here is the thing my friend. I have easily demonstrated with not one, but with two different members here now, of how there is no evidence, and the thinking has not changed at all.

In other words, there are two members of this site who freely, and readily admit to not using the mind properly to embrace Christianity as an adult. They would now like us to believe their thinking has changed, and they have used evidence, and logic to change their mind.

However, it was easily demonstrated, simply by allowing their own writing to speak for itself, that there is no evidence, and the thinking is exactly like that with Christians who do not use the mind.

In fact, this was so plain, and undeniable, that another member attempted to come running in defense, but had no choice but to agree that I was correct, and could only attempt to make the case that this could have been intentional in the first post I pointed out.

I would be fine with this idea, but the author of this post had every opportunity to tell us his intent, but this was never done.

And then look, and behold, all of a sudden, before the dust has time to settle on this exchange, we have another member, who freely, and readily admits to not using the mind to become a Christian, who supplies us with the same exact evidence that the thinking has not changed in the least, and all one has to do is to allow the post to speak for itself, because there are no facts, there is no evidence, and as demonstrated, the thinking is in no way different than the many Christians who embrace the faith without the mind.

You would think that after I pointed this out in the first post, one would have been careful not to do this again so soon, to supply me with more ammunition, but it is almost like they cannot help it, because this seems to be the way they naturally think.

So I really do not understand how you can call it, "changing one's thinking to consider new evidence and reasoning."

Just because a person has been wrong in the past doesn't mean that that person is wrong now.

No one has made that argument! However, simply because one changes the mind, does not necessitate that the thinking has changed, and it would not be evidence in the least that what one once believed would be false.

Moreover, as evidenced by the two post I'm referring too, the thinking has not changed.

In that case you consider the first six chapters of Genesis to be myth.

We have not even talked about the first six chapters of Genesis? We have been talking about the letters contained in the NT. Your mind seems to be entrapped to the idea that these things are somehow tied together, when Genesis would have been written some thousand years before the letters in the NT.

I mean you act as if the first six chapters of Genesis could be demonstrated to be myth, then this somehow has a bearing upon the letters of the NT?

We could talk about what I think about the first six chapters of Genesis, but this would get us way off track, and have no bearing upon the letters of the NT.

Scientists haven't demonstrated that there is no Easter Bunny either.

They have no need to, because as I have demonstrated science would not have to be involved, since there is enough substance to understand it was never intended to be real, and no one who is sane takes it any other way, other than maybe children for which is was intended.

However, there have been real claims made concerning Christianity, and there are many who believe it to be true, and there are scientists who would love to prove it to be false, but have failed.

But religious leaders wrote much of the Bible. Would delusion and deception on their part have no bearing on the truth of Christianity?

It certainly would! Which one of them can you demonstrated were delusional, and or used deception?

It seems reasonable to me that a real god would not allow corrupt clergy to interfere with his efforts.

Do you really make decisions simply based upon the way things, "seem to be?" Because you see, when I walk outside, and look up in the sky, it certainly seems to me that the Sun is moving across the sky. What should I do with that?

So if there is much corruption in the clergy, and there is, then the existence of the Bible gods seems to be unlikely.

My friend, good luck with that type of thinking! Would this be like saying, "if there is much corruption in police departments, and there is, then the existence of a police department that actually protects it's citizens seems unlikely?"

[Jagella]

In other words, if we can give very good, and solid reasons that a particular god would be imaginary, and there are very few, if any reason to believe in the existence of such a god, then there would be no substance, or very little substance to this god.

Well, you just described Yahweh. There are many reasons to conclude that Yahweh is imaginary considering that almost every story about him involves myth.

My friend...

We're not friends.

...simply because one claims to be skeptical, would not mean they have a basis for their, skepticism.

Oh sure--many people who are skeptical about the truth claims of Christianity may not base their skepticism in good logic. But so what? No matter how illogical skeptics might be, such irrationality gets you nowhere in demonstrating the truth of your religious beliefs. You have the burden of proof, and if people don't buy what you're selling, then that's your problem.

It would be wise to doubt the existence of a god that had no substance, but it would first need to be established that this god had no substance.

In that case you may need to avoid doubting the existence of the Easter Bunny. You have not established that he has no substance.

Of course I realize, this may be difficult to understand for those who may have allowed themselves to believe something to be true, for a good number of years of their adult life, without using the mind to determine if there would be any substance to what they have given their whole life over to.

However, simply because they allowed themselves to do such a thing, would not in any way demonstrate, there would have been no substance to what they once believed. Rather, it only demonstrates a type of person who allowed themselves to believe something, without determining if there would be any reason to believe. Can you see the difference?

Yes. In fact I can think of at least one person who radically changed his mind like you post here: Paul (Saul) of Tarsus. According to his story, for "a good number of years" he mindlessly and without substance persecuted Christians. So as you argue, Paul's conversion to Christianity does not in any way demonstrate that his desire to persecute Christians as heretics had no substance. He had allowed himself to become "a type of person who allowed themselves to believe something, without determining if there would be any reason to believe."

So your own argument invalidates much of the New Testament.

Do you have any "substance" for your understanding that the Easter Bunny is an invention of the human imagination?

As a matter of fact, I certainly do!

No you don't! All you have posted is your own arm-chair reasoning that there is no Easter Bunny. While reasoning can be very useful, it does not constitute substance. Substance is something that can be observed or demonstrated to be true, You have not offered any such substance that there is no Easter Bunny, and so you are inconsistent claiming there is no substance for concluding there is no Bible god but that there is substance to doubting the Easter Bunny.

Although you will find a lot written about the, Easter Bunny throughout history, most of what you will find is, writings about how it was always intended to be, an imaginary hare who laid colored eggs, in order to amuse children.

That's simply wrong. Just check Amazon, and you'll find many books about the Easter Bunny with not one word that the Easter Bunny is imaginary. You know--just like the books about gods and Jesus.

The thing is, there can be things one may find "empty, confusing, and contradictory" but this would have no bearing at all upon what the truth may be.

It works for me! What is the alternative? Should I disregard my judgments about claims and believe them anyway?

So I note that you don't bother to rely on your own judgments and go ahead and believe what seems empty, confusing, and contradictory to you. Such faith is necessary to be a Christian.

People can and do write letters about myth.

Oh really? Well, can you supply us with one?

I sure can supply you with an example of a letter about myth. Just give me your address, and I'll get busy writing you a letter about myth. If you wish, I can email my myth-letter to you.

So it's simply wrong to conclude that a letter cannot be about myth. While this conclusion should be obvious, I understand that you rely on letters to believe what you do.

...you see, the letters in the NT were addressed to particular audiences at the time, and they not only record the events, as if they were real historical events, there is also overwhelming evidence in these letters, that theses folks went on to live out the rest of their lives, as if these things were real historical events.

You're moving the goalposts here. You started out claiming that letters prove your beliefs, and now you post additional stipulations for those letters hoping that other letters about myth cannot meet those ad-hoc stipulations.

But I'm afraid even those additional demands won't work. I can easily write a letter about myth and address it to any audience and in that letter "record" events as if they are historical. And if you want the same evidence for my living out what I said in my letter, then just like Paul I can write all that in my letter!

We have not even talked about the first six chapters of Genesis?

You said you loved science. If so, then you won't ignore what science has to say about your religious beliefs. If you truly love science, then Genesis is myth.

...I have demonstrated science would not have to be involved, since there is enough substance to understand it (the Easter Bunny) was never intended to be real, and no one who is sane takes it any other way, other than maybe children for which is was intended.

Intending something to be real doesn't mean it is real, and that goes for your religious beliefs.

Which one of them can you demonstrated were delusional, and or used deception?

I can point to all the corruption in modern-day Christianity and logically conclude that Christianity never was anything but corrupt.

Do you really make decisions simply based upon the way things, "seem to be?"

Yes! I certainly don't make decisions based on what things don't seem to be.

...you see, when I walk outside, and look up in the sky, it certainly seems to me that the Sun is moving across the sky. What should I do with that?

If your observation of the sun's apparent movement across the sky was all the evidence you had, then it would make sense to conclude that the sun moves across a stationary earth. After all, concluding what seems to be true is obviously more reasonable than to conclude what seems to be false. So if religion seems like bunk to me, then I will of course conclude it is bunk.

...good luck with that type of thinking!

And good luck to you ignoring what seems wrong to you.

Would this be like saying, "if there is much corruption in police departments, and there is, then the existence of a police department that actually protects it's citizens seems unlikely?"

If I knew that the police are as corrupt and as deceitful as the Christian clergy, then I would not be confident that they can protect people.

In any case, your analogy here doesn't fit well my doubt about the existence of gods. The police don't make claims that something exists like the clergy does but claim to do things.

In summary, your post here uses very sloppy logic and is often self-defeating in that what is argued in it often can be used to cast doubt on what you believe.

[tam]

Peace to you!

[Replying to post 1 by StuartJ]

During their varied transcendent states, all subjects showed similar activity patterns in the parietal cortex, which processes sensation, spatial orientation, and language, and is thought to influence attention, among other functions. In other words, whether the thing that makes a person feel connected to something greater involves church, trees, or a stadium full of sports fans, it appears to have the same effect on the brain. https://qz.com/1292368/columbia-and-yal ... ritual-par...

I'm sorry, Stuart, but I'm just not sure what you are suggesting that this article is proving?


From the bold: feeling a connection to something greater appears to have the same effect on the brain.

Please note that the stadium full of sports fans are real. The trees are real. At least, I assume you will not argue that these things are real. All the article seems to be doing is explaining what area of the brain is being affected when a person feels a connection to something 'greater' (whatever that might be). The article is not claiming that the thing people feel connected to is imaginary.



Peace again to you.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 14 by tam]

The ONLY thing members here have offered as evidence for the biblical Yahweh as "God" -- or the biblical "scriptures" as having come from Yahweh -- is the supposed influence of the "Indwelling Holy Spirit".

NOTHING ELSE

But NOT ONE member has demonstrated that the IHS is anything more than the voices in their head.

Science has shown us where the voices live.

Please feel free to demonstrate that any version of "God" or the IHS exists outside the parietal cortexes of humans ...

Or macaque monkeys ....

[tam]

[Replying to post 15 by StuartJ]



I'm sorry, Stuart, but your article does not demonstrate or even claim what you seem to be suggesting.


Peace again to you.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 14 by tam]
Please feel free to demonstrate that any version of "God" or the IHS exists outside the parietal cortexes of humans ...

Or macaque monkeys ....

We of course know that no such evidence will be forthcoming. We are to believe on faith alone. If we contradict the claim that anybody has spoken to Christ, we will be told that our contrary claim(s) are false.

Crazy, isn't it?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 15 by StuartJ]



I'm sorry, Stuart, but your article does not demonstrate or even claim what you seem to be suggesting.


Peace again to you.

Please feel free to demonstrate that any version of "God" or the IHS exists outside the parietal cortexes of humans ...

Or macaque monkeys ....

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 13 by Jagella]

Well, you just described Yahweh.

Do you see what I am saying? You simply make comments as if they were facts, with no evidence or reason to back your comments.

There are many reasons to conclude that Yahweh is imaginary

Here is another example, and all you give us to back this statement up is,

considering that almost every story about him involves myth.

Where is the meat here? We cannot have a discussion if we continue on this way? In other words, I could say something like. "There are many reasons to conclude that Yahweh is the God of the universe?"

You see, if I were to do that, we would be getting nowhere at all. It would be like two kids arguing on the playground, which is why I supply reason, facts, and evidence to support what it is I say.

We're not friends.

Sorry to hear that, but let the record show that it is not on my account. I can have disagreements with friends, and continue to be friends. Just ask some of my friends.

Oh sure--many people who are skeptical about the truth claims of Christianity may not base their skepticism in good logic. But so what? No matter how illogical skeptics might be, such irrationality gets you nowhere in demonstrating the truth of your religious beliefs.

But that is just it though. I have never claimed to be able to demonstrate the truth of my religious beliefs. I have been on this site for a good number of years now, and have posted many, many times, and I have never made such a claim, and there is plenty out there for you to examine to verify this.

What I have claimed is, there are very good, and solid reasons to believe Christianity may in fact be true, and I have supplied those reasons, many times.

You have the burden of proof

Exactly what do I have to prove? If I am not insisting that Christianity must, and has to be true, then I do not own the burden to prove that it is true. What I have to do is to supply good, and solid reasons, along with the evidence that would suggest there are very good reasons to believe the claims.

Simply because I can do this, would not in any way mean, there would not be any reason to doubt the claims, because I will assure you there are reasons to doubt, and although I do not agree with those who doubt, I understand the reasoning.

and if people don't buy what you're selling, then that's your problem.

Well then, I do not have a problem, because I am not attempting to sell anything to anyone.

In that case you may need to avoid doubting the existence of the Easter Bunny. You have not established that he has no substance.

You are correct, because it was not me who established this, but was rather history which has established this. The substance would be the fact that there is absolute silence throughout history concerning the Easter Bunny having a real existence, while history screams with those who explain that the Easter Bunny was never intended to be a real historical figure.

So then, I cannot take credit for this, but will allow history to take credit for it, and history has done such a good job at establishing the fact that the Easter Bunny would have no substance, that I am confident that even those who admit to not using their mind properly, to make major life decisions do not even believe the existence of the Easter Bunny has substance.

Yes. In fact I can think of at least one person who radically changed his mind like you post here: Paul (Saul) of Tarsus. According to his story, for "a good number of years" he mindlessly and without substance persecuted Christians. So as you argue, Paul's conversion to Christianity does not in any way demonstrate that his desire to persecute Christians as heretics had no substance. He had allowed himself to become "a type of person who allowed themselves to believe something, without determining if there would be any reason to believe."

So your own argument invalidates much of the New Testament.

Whoaaaa........ hold on a minute here! I am not the one who accuses you of, "not using the mind properly" to make a major life decision. Rather, it would have been you who, freely, and readily admits to such a thing.

You see, it would be very different if you were saying something like,

"You know what, I was a Christian for a good number of years, and before I made this decision, I put in a lot of time, and effort, studying, and analyzing the evidence for, and against Christianity. This process of studying spanned over a 2 year period, and at the end of this study, and analyzation of the facts, and evidence, I became convinced Christianity was true."

"However, as I continued to read, and study over the years as I was a Christian, I happened to run across a few things that must have escaped my attention, and as I began to study more upon these things, I became convinced I was in error to begin with, and now I am no longer a Christian, and here are the reasons why."

You see, if you were saying something like this, then I would have no problem at all, and I would have no problem listening to your objections, and it may even be the case that as I listen to your objections, I may even be persuaded myself, or I may help you work through the issues, or we may not come to an agreement, but we continue to challenge each other, as we continue to converse together.

But this is not what you have done. Rather, it is your claim that your error was not using the mind properly, and you certainly seem to be suggesting that if one were to use the mind properly they could not possibly come to the conclusion that Christianity may in fact be true.

If I am correct, then this seems to suggest, that you are under the impression that all Christians must, and have to come to their conclusions, in the same way that you did, and they could not possibly be using the mind. Or, at least not properly.

Now, as we turn our attention to Paul, he never claimed to not be using the mind, but it would have rather been the exact opposite. The fact of the matter was, Paul was a student of the Law, as a Pharisee, and it is his claim that he was ahead of his peers in this endeavor. If this is the case, then Paul surely cannot be accused of not using the mind, and was recklessly going around persecuting the Church, but was rather convinced he was correct to do so, by the use of the mind.

However, Paul and another claim, something happened that got his attention, and convinced him that he was in error. Whatever it was that convinced him, we can know beyond any reasonable doubt that Paul became the biggest missionary for Christianity, and he was the reason for the spread of Christianity over all the known world at the time, and we can also know beyond any reasonable doubt, that this would have been the very same Christianity that he was out to do away with, by any means in his power.

The point is, Paul was not claiming not to have been using the mind, and that there would be no reason to believe as he once did. Rather, Paul understood the reasons he believed as he once did, and because he used the mind, and knew the Law so well, he was able to explain why, and how he was in error.

So no! I do not believe that "my argument invalidates much of the New Testament" but rather gives more validity to it.

No you don't! All you have posted is your own arm-chair reasoning that there is no Easter Bunny.

I have never said, "there is no Easter Bunny", because there is. The only question would be, is it for real, or was it only always intended to be fictional?

Now, could you kindly demonstrate how the complete, and utter silence of all of history never claiming that there is, or was a real Easter Bunny, as opposed to the overwhelming amount of all that was ever written concerning the Easter Bunny, would explain how it was always, ever, intended to be an imaginary figure to amuse children, would be, "armchair reasoning?"

I am convinced, this overwhelming evidence throughout history concerning the Easter Bunny, is even enough to convince those who would freely, eagerly, and openly admit that they did not use the mind to make a major life decision to embrace a religion that they now claim there would be no reason to believe, that the Easter Bunny was never intended to be anything more than, an imaginary figure to amuse children.

Or, would you like to prove me wrong about this, and attempt to make the argument that there may be good, and solid reasons to believe the Easter Bunny may in fact have been a real historical figure?

I sort of doubt you will take this challenge, which sort of demonstrates my point.

While reasoning can be very useful, it does not constitute substance. Substance is something that can be observed or demonstrated to be true

Allow me to ask you, "can it be observed, and demonstrated" that it would be true that we do not have a word throughout all history that the Easter Bunny would be anything but imaginary? I would say that is, "substance."

You have not offered any such substance that there is no Easter Bunny, and so you are inconsistent claiming there is no substance for concluding there is no Bible god but that there is substance to doubting the Easter Bunny.

There is no one, throughout all of history who has claimed the Easter Bunny is anything other than imaginary, other than children who it was intended to amuse, and parents who knew it to be fiction.

Next, we do not have letters written between anyone at all, at any point in time, writing as though there were real historical events concerning the Easter Bunny, on top of evidence that these folks would have continued on with there life, as if the Easter Bunny would have been a real historical figure, to the point that these folks ended up in prison for continuing to claim certain historical events about the Easter Bunny.

On the other hand, we have all these things concerning Jesus, and the resurrection. In fact, Jesus, and the resurrection more than likely has more mentions in history than we can even imagine, to the point that a modern magazine, some 2000 years later, proclaims Jesus to be, "the most influential figure in history."

Now, do you really want to continue to talk about, "substance?" You see, your analogy concerning the Easter Bunny has backfired on you, and has allowed me to not only demonstrate just how much substance there is to the Easter Bunny being a fictional character, it has also allowed me to demonstrate just how much substance there is to Jesus, and and the resurrection.

That's simply wrong. Just check Amazon, and you'll find many books about the Easter Bunny with not one word that the Easter Bunny is imaginary. You know--just like the books about gods and Jesus.

You continue to assist me in making my point. I do not know about Amazon, but if we were to go to a library, or a bookstore, in what section would you imagine that we would find things written about the Easter Bunny? That's right, there you go, these books would all be found in the, "fiction" section.

Now, let us continue to think about this. Would we find the Bible in the same section? Why, no we would not. So then, what would this tell you? One thing it will tell you is that you continue to demonstrate for me, that there is plenty of substance behind knowing beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Easter Bunny is imaginary, while the Bible is not considered to be in that category.

It works for me!

Do I really have to point out the fact that this sounds exactly like what a lot of Christians who do not use the mind properly may say? In other words, let's imagine you have just given a brilliant argument against the truth of Christianity, using reason, and logic, and the Christian has nothing logical left to say, I can hear them saying exactly the same thing.

What is the alternative? Should I disregard my judgments about claims and believe them anyway?

Allow me to give you another option, which is the one I use. There are many things that I couldn't care less about, that I may choose to doubt, because I do not care enough to know anything about it. However, with these sort of things, I do not make absolute judgements about them, rather I simply choose to doubt.

Now, the things I am passionate about, I will dig in and study, analyze, and weigh all the evidence, and I may make certain judgements. However, I do not assume that my judgements must, and have to be correct, and therefore I am always questioning my judgements, and comparing my judgements with others who may have completely different judgements.

Let's take Islam for example. I couldn't care less about it, which means I have not investigated any of it's claims to understand if there may be reasons to believe it. Therefore, I choose to doubt it, but you will not see me on a web site debating the subject, because all I would have to offer would be my doubt.

On the other hand, I have studied, and analyzed the facts, and evidence surrounding Christianity, and this has caused me to make certain judgements, but I do not simply assume that I must, and have to be right, and therefore I continue to analyze my thinking by comparing them with those who are opposed, which is exactly why I am here on this site.

What I am about to say next, is in no way an attempt to suggest this is evidence that I must be right, because I understand it is not. Rather, it is simply a fact.

After, some six years here in this site, comparing, and analyzing my judgements concerning Christianity with those opposed, I am even more convinced concerning these judgements, because it has been exactly as I had supposed.

This does not mean that I am convinced that I must, and have to be right, and I also understand it has nothing to do with the truth of the matter. Again, it is simply a fact, that would mean nothing to anyone else.

So I note that you don't bother to rely on your own judgments and go ahead and believe what seems empty, confusing, and contradictory to you.

This is not what I am saying in the least. What I am saying is, it is not wise to discard something, simply because it "seems to be." Because, as demonstrated, everything is not what it seems to be.

Such faith is necessary to be a Christian.

Please allow me to tell you where "faith" comes in for me as a Christian.

I do not need faith to believe that Jesus walked the face of the Earth, because there is ample evidence for this. I do not need faith in order to understand that Jesus was crucified, because there is evidence for this. I do not even need faith in order to believe that Jesus was Resurrected, because there is evidence for this as well.

You see, I do not have to believe any of these things on the basis of faith, because there is evidence to base one's beliefs upon, concerning these things, and I can look, study, analyze, and weigh this evidence.

What I would need faith to accept would be, these events atoned for my sins. In other words, forgiveness. Because you see, I cannot touch, feel, study, analyze, nor weigh forgiveness. Rather, I can only accept it by faith.

I sure can supply you with an example of a letter about myth. Just give me your address, and I'll get busy writing you a letter about myth. If you wish, I can email my myth-letter to you.

So it's simply wrong to conclude that a letter cannot be about myth

I have never said, "a letter cannot be about myth." Rather, it was you who said,

People can and do write letters about myth.

Therefore, I ask you to supply us with one of those letters you were referring to, and thus far you have failed. I certainly was not asking you to demonstrate a letter could be written about myth. Rather, I was asking you to demonstrate that there have been letters written between folks anywhere in history, on the same scale as the letters we have in the NT, where there is evidence that these folks who were writing these letters, were living out there life as if these myths were in fact true, to the point that at least one of them goes to prison for continuing to claim this myth was no myth.

Allow me to share with you what one of the authors of the Biblical letters has to say.

2 Peter 1:16
For we did not follow cleverly devised stories or myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

Of course, this in no way demonstrates that what was said would have been true. However, it does in fact demonstrate that this author was well aware of myths, legends, stories, and tales, and he was going to the trouble of ensuring that his audience at the time, understood that this was not the type of thing that he, and the other Apostles were doing, but were rather reporting what he claimed to be, "eyewitness" accounts.

So then, right here we have the evidence that these authors were not intending to write, myth. It may not be true, it may be a lie, but he cannot be said to be based on a myth, when you have one who is clearly claiming to have witnessed the events.

While this conclusion should be obvious, I understand that you rely on letters to believe what you do.

Allow me to share with you a true story concerning letters.

I bought my first house from an aunt, and uncle. Because we were related, they asked if they could leave a few things in the attic, and come back at a later date to retrieve them. Of course, I happily obliged, and of course they never came to get them.

One day, as I was in the attic attempting to do some chores my wife had left me to do, I ran across what look to be some sort of small file cabinet. When I opened this cabinet up, what I saw was personal hand written letters to my aunt from her sister, that was dated in the 1940's, which would mean these letters were some 40 years old.

Of course I had no business reading these letters, but my curiosity got the best of me, and I set out to simply read a line or two, and before I knew it, I had spent several hours devouring these letters, because I was so intrigued.

At any rate, once I snapped out of it, I realized I had just read history. I understood that if I had the ability I could write a book, or make a movie about these events, and there would be no reason to doubt the events contained, since it was simply two folks conversing back and forth, concerning the events of their lives, and these letters were the by product of the life they lived.

It is the same with the letters contained in the NT. These letters are evidence of the lives of those who wrote them, and evidence of the way in which they lived their lives, which means these letters are a by product of their lives, and the only reason we have to doubt the content, is the miraculous events contained.

Again, this may be enough for some to doubt, and I understand this. However, I cannot imagine anyone at all caliming, there would be no reason to believe these letters, when the fact of the matter would be, if we were to strip the miraculous content from these letters, there would be no reason whatsoever to doubt the content.

You're moving the goalposts here. You started out claiming that letters prove your beliefs

I'm not sure if you are not reading carefully? Or, that you simply assume what I must believe? Or, maybe I am not communicating very well, but I have never, claimed that I, nor anything else for that matter, "prove my beliefs." Rather, it is my claim that these letters would be, and are evidence, which is a far cry from proof.

Next, I have not "moved the goalposts" because the "goalposts" were set by those who lived their lives, and left the letters we have that is a testament to their lives.

But I'm afraid even those additional demands won't work. I can easily write a letter about myth and address it to any audience and in that letter "record" events as if they are historical. And if you want the same evidence for my living out what I said in my letter, then just like Paul I can write all that in my letter!

And again, no one is arguing that a letter cannot be NOW written about myth, but rather the challenge is to supply letters written about myth that would be on the same scale with those we have in the NT.

You said you loved science. If so, then you won't ignore what science has to say about your religious beliefs. If you truly love science, then Genesis is myth.

Well go ahead and tell us what science has to say about, "religious beliefs?"

Intending something to be real doesn't mean it is real, and that goes for your religious beliefs.

Agreed! But what's your point?

I can point to all the corruption in modern-day Christianity and logically conclude that Christianity never was anything but corrupt.

Tell you what, I am going to allow this logic to speak for itself for all to see.

[tam]

Peace to you Stuart,

[Replying to post 15 by StuartJ]



I'm sorry, Stuart, but your article does not demonstrate or even claim what you seem to be suggesting.


Peace again to you.

Please feel free to demonstrate that any version of "God" or the IHS exists outside the parietal cortexes of humans ...

Or macaque monkeys ....

Stuart, this is your thread and your hypothesis; you posted that article as evidence of your claim and you drew conclusions from the article (conclusions that are not supported BY the article).


What I can or cannot do has nothing to do with your claim about the parietal cortex of humans or monkeys. As far as I can recall, I did not take part in any previous discussion about 'evidence for God'. I am simply questioning your claim and conclusions from the article you posted on this thread (since I can find nothing in the article to support your conclusions)... and you are refusing to even address those questions. What am I to conclude from that?



Peace again to you.