Yes, but I'm also positive Zeus exists. Writing, and the evolution of civilisations from being hunted to becoming the APEX creature of life. It's off topic, but briefly. If you look at ancient history and early texts, God or gods are mentioned first, and they are always involved in human affairs, whether it's teaching or destroying entire cities because according to the God of the bible, they deserved it based on Gods moral compass. What's interesting is, we seemingly don't have interactions like we supposedly did with god(s) and you might say, well science discovered how the storms are formed naturally which is perfectly valid. The western world has had no direct contact knowingly with a god since Jesus it seems.
You can't be sure about anything though, as you said. A statement about which I have to criticize. One can't be absolutely sure about anything, but there are degrees of confidence. One can't be absolutely certain that the sun will come up tomorrow, but I'm reasonably certain to a degree that is indistinguishable from being "sure". The evidence of something like evolution is about as sure as things can get in science. But you REALLY can't be sure about anything in religion because there is no credible evidence.
I have touched on this in my last post on another thread. At some point everyone has to accept things like evolution, religion, career... etc. because you want to build your version of reality based on things you believe. People generally are ignorant and just haven't got time to think about big questions so they believe in experts to build their reality. I believe in experience and personal experience in reality, I don't think there is a more reliable source for a belief. You might not be in the majority on this one but is it not your disbelief that is holding you back? Theists get stick for not questioning their beliefs when atheists are exactly the same, it's just they think differently. Maybe it's the God gene that makes people more susceptible to a belief in God? I don't know, but I do know people tend to not change their core beliefs no matter how much evidence they get(including theists). I've just proved the New Testament in Matthews book mentions Jesus was in a house when the wisemen came to see him. No one took notice. This is a fundamental change to the whole birth story of Jesus, the bible changed. How? Why? Mandela Effect is a possibility. This shows that people are blind to the truth, and that no matter what you say, an atheist will always be an atheist unless they have a personal experience involving the supernatural, which I 100% understand and agree with. Like I say, I regard my reality as the only one that matters to me, and anything supernatural or not that I experience I take on board. What you can't do is disprove something that has no evidence, so after you have had an experience you can't simply dismiss it due to peer pressure, believe what you want without forcing your belief onto others.
You want your beliefs to be true. And the only way to be even reasonably sure that something is true is that it has been demonstrated with evidence. You are wrong. Personal experience is notoriously unreliable as an indicator of truth. It's OK to have (conditional) trust in experts who claim to base their expertise on evidence, where the consensus of neutral parties agrees that the methods are sound. Back from what? I'm advocating for science, which is a reliable demonstrated process for finding things out. Part of it's power is the ability to question assumptions when new data comes along. This is a human trait. Pride. Science addresses this, but religion embraces rigidity, they call it faith. As opposed to what? A manger? How do you know it was the supernatural that you experienced? You can't dismiss the actual experience, but are you sure about your interpretation of that experience?
How do you know? It is, but it's wrong to write everything else out because you worship the "brain" and science.
But, we did notice you like to ignore people's posts that give bible references against which and what you chose to go with... My bold below You say your going with that quote and agree the character Jesus never talks to God? So, you chose to ignore Sideshow here: Mark 14.36 and Matthew 27.45 Chelsea 2 Millwall 4. BTW. Your finding of a changing of the Bible (barn to house) I have just heard the Vatican have called a meeting of all Christian faiths.
Optical illusions, inaccurate folk wisdom, superstitions, witchcraft as an explanation for disease, the Flat Earth Society, etc... It's not wrong to dismiss arguments out of hand that are unfalsifiable. One does need to keep an open mind, but not so open that all the true stuff falls out.
and again... What quote? I must of missed Sidehow's post, I'll try to find it. Lack of knowledge results in your last line... trying to make me look foolish to top it off. Good luck with that.
If that is what you choose to believe fine, like I said I understand. I respect it. I was waiting for that line, you do know it's scientifically impossible right? Let me word that differently. Truth's to you may be wrong, yes? So is it healthy to replace what you once considered the truth with another truth? It's how science works.
Exactly. Can you remember a reply to me with biblical references? I understand I may of failed to respond.
This one: Mark 14.36 and Matthew 27.45 Just to remind you, that was in reply to your post: You saying your going with the quote that's saying the character Jesus ''never talks to God''. Yet, Sideshow show he does. If the Vatican never invited you to the meeting, don't take it out on me.
Dave, you do know if you click the little arrow beside the name in the quote box, it takes you to that post.. click the little arrow by Sideshows name in the quote box in post #109 on this thread.
I didn't cite the references but they're well-known enough that most people should recognize them: Jesus asking God in the Garden of Gethsemane to, "Take this cup from me," and Jesus asking God on the cross, "Why hast thou forsaken me?" SweetPea gave the references.
Truth in this case is the colloquial definition of truth, meaning as sure as possible with given information, not scientific absolute truth, which isn't worth talking about outside of mathematics.
That'll do Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I know the quote was not technically correct on a few levels, but as a general opinion of what Jesus was like on a day to day basis is interesting to me. So I said I'd accept the quote, it was purely from a Jesus the man viewpoint, and not a biblical one. So the reason I started the thread was to see other peoples view of Jesus, but I understand why people didn't share their opinion and it just turned into nothing of value. Sorry for missing your post.
I don't know what you are talking about spidergoat. I just said I respect your position, I didn't want to debate "what is the truth?", that is relative to each person.
