Well, we are talking about us, so within it.  The problem with your setup is the the assumption that a robot would not change when the input changes, and of course it would.  And again, the system is so complex that actually tracking every variable is impossible.  How do you track every input into a human being from conception through the 30 years before you give the test?  You can't.  And we certainly do not have free choice about how we act.  Look at the current threads here...we can influence moral behavior with external stimuli.  You can use magnets, you can use drugs, you can use surgery...what behavior is not subject to external control?

You say it does, but why does it?  Emotion could just be part of the software, right?  Part of the feedback loop that influences decision making?

1. Interested in what are?  The theist statements of faith I think are distinct?

2. OK, but what criteria am I recording and what method am I using to render judgement?  If you want me to do some sort of experiment you need strict parameters and a method to make a decision.  If I am basing the merits of a group on their behavior, the only way to judge those merits is by my own likes and dislikes.  If you have a list of things that set a theist group 'above' a non-theist group, you'll have to lay them out.  I think you already have, and I think I pointed out the flaws in your list.

3. You seem to have missed the point, but I don't know of a simpler way to phrase it.

 

4. Then get to the point.  If you really don't have any kind of answer for why you are a theist, please just tell me so I don't waste my time, ok?  I have a hard time believing you cannot sum up your reason for belief.  Time to poop or get off the toilet.

 

Maybe try this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God

If your belief is outside of that list, please enlighten us, because that list sums up theistic thought for the last four thousand years.

 

 

Just as was said before.  Here's a perfect example of someone who thinks they can win debates by, "assuming your belief is true and acting incredulous when people don't accept it at face value."

 

yes and what your simple counter to them are. 

forget the list.  I explained that it was not exhaustive.  All you need to do in step 1 is go and observe.  Record all behaviors you see and stimui to those reacitons and/or behaviors.  this will take some time.  From there you compare and contrast.  We would have to sit down and categorize behaviors.  One step at a time.  similarities to differences, then environmental effects on each behavioral observation and whether they were the same in both groups... we should also have a control group, so there probably should be a third that might have a mix of the 2 we are observing.

What we're talking about here is quite an extensive study. 

I know what you're saying.. just sounds like you're giving up.  I understand, you feel like I'm not telling you anything.  the hardest hurtle to get over on this site I've found it the one where the non-believer has to look in the mirror and think about why they believe what they do and why they're so convinced I'm wrong. 

When people think there's a quick simple answer to why I do believe, then I wonder whether they really have a sound basis for their own understanding.

...

uh.. ok i just gave you the quick version and it obviously went over your head.  Read it carefully.  Did you?  Where you getting this idea that i don't have an answer?  ou're not asking me anything specific.   It'd be like me asking you to sum up the history of scientifc discovery in one sentence.  it can't logically be done. 

 

 

lemme guess, you're expecting me to pull out one of those concepts and say... ah!!! thats the one!!!

either that or deny any of those have to do with my belief thus denying the basis of my belief all together.

How about this.  That is a good summary of why i believe with exception of a few angles in each topic that we might not agree with. 

Shall we go from there? 

By the way, I discovered it. If you burn a stack of 7 bibles with a newborn fresh from the womb, the ashes coalesce to form an unholy grail.

This mighty object grants you the power of making completely irrelevant posts, such as mine. behold!

 

@Cap: This is a huge part of what I have been saying.  I still don't see any answer from you, you sort of shoo the point away and act like it is not a central failing of theism, but it really is.  The simply fact that there is no objective way to tell why your faith is justified but an ancient Egyptians faith isn't justified is enough reason to disregard both theistic claims without any further discussion.

 

It really makes more sense to figure both are false...the alternative is, "I'm right because I say I am."

 

And it is even worse than that, Christians don't even agree with other Christians and the Christian faith has changed in dramatic ways over time.

so much for your claim that all believers have easily refuted answers.  My guess is you've only talked to those consumed in legalistic religion.

I did give you a summary in post 1355 on this forum and it went right over your head.  Read through it again.  Unlike a believer consumed in doctern and religion, I have found my belief through of course a relationship a built with Christ,  but based on research and understanding.

I never claimed it devalues my belief, but the Bible makes clear discrepencies.  You want to get into the magic debate.  Ok.  Step 1.  Miracles are very much perspective based.  What to you would be a miracle? 

Step 2.  Will you automatically assume certain claimed miracles pointing to God fake because you can't comprehend a metaphysical being?  If so, we cannot go further. 

Step 3.  If it's a miracle, it would be logical to assume it could not be scientifically replicated...(other wise it's not a miracle) therefore, what evidences would there need to be in order for you to accept such a possibility? 

Until we can get past these steps, we cannot differentiate.  It's only logical to get past this point first.  I'm willing to work with you here... so I'll expect some logical answers to these questions.

I'm more than willing to do that.  However, I've been on this site long enough to learn that consistency and thought process is not a popular commodity here.  Therefore, instead of me working hard to figure out what out of 1000 topics will grab your interest long enough to have a legitimate conversation, I'm asking you where you want to start.  What topic or specific focus is something you will take into consideration and actually discuss without resorting to baseless conclusion when the conversation gets difficult? 

Think hard about your post here on #3.  If i was as avoidant as you seem to assume, do you really think this forum would have gotten as far as it has?  That assumption seems to insult the intelligence of a lot of people who have been talking wtih me through most of it. 

To fill you in about this particular forum, it started with a purpose, but... surprise! the conversation got to a point where consistancy went out the window.  I eventually stopped trying and only gave time to those who had legitimate statements or questions and were willing to stick to it.  This progressed into a forum that for a while was just humoring me and therfore, i didn't give serious answers.

It has now gotten to a point where I will be as redundant as possible (redundancy is a very popular commodity here) with my expectations for anyone who wants to challenge me and promise to stick to anyone who is willign to give me something legitimate to work with.  I will wait you out and see if you're someone who actually wants to stick to a conversation, or play the avoidance game and never really make an effort toward progress.  I will continue to give you prompts along the way, but the choice to move on with any of them will be up to you.

Ok, so you're looking at the robot from the outside, but you conclude without disecting its mainframe.

The parts of study now should move to cause of stimuli... or experience in the physical world and why the choice result was the way it was in that particular situation.  Be it that each person is different, each result is different.  You can sit there and assume it's how they were programmed, but how can you be sure that's the case?  Scientifically, it's not intelligent to conclude based on you not understanding any other reasoning. 

Science would take particular experiences and trace them back to their source.  Then the source would be studied in depth to understand the ultimate outcome.  Again this experiment we're discussing, no matter how you look at it is much more in depth than you want to make it.  This is not avoidance either, it's logic.  If you disagree, understand I'm not trying to avoid your point.  i see your point, but explain to me why it does not need to go deeper.

Be it that today, more and more people are showing less constraint by their environment, geographical culture does not play a part when you look at it from a world point of view. 

For example.  The northern Hemesphere has always had a stronger hold on Christiandom.  Reasoning is simple as you suggested... g...eologically, this is where it started..  Here's the problem.  The source of Christianity geologically is now one of the weakest places for a Christian stronghold... in fact, statistical trends show that the north is losing a grip on Christiandom and the south is gaining even though the south has never had a basis in it, nor any logical reason to start following it.  Some may blame missionaries, but missionaries aren't ignoring the North and just preaching to the South.  In fact, there is more concentration on the north from what i can see. 

Conclusion... religious ideas are less constrained by the environment than they used to be... statistically, it seems environment no longer is a factor.  (The Next Christiandom, book)

... a reaction you had no choice over?  In other words, due to your experiences and information translated through your brain, you had no other option and/or did not have the ability to not write on here or do something else instead.

Some would do that... I wouldn't just assume for your sake that all believers are that way.   The #1 biggest mistake i've seen people on here do is assume that all believers believe or have faith in God because it's the only way they can explain what they don't know.  Even legalistic denominationalists wouldn't adhere to that reasoning in most cases.

Just to clarify to you, if you ask most who have been talkign to me for a while on here, I think they'll agree that I'm not a "goddidit" type follower.

Beyond that, am I safe to assume then that what your saying is that becasue God would have to be something beyond our understanding, he couldn't possibly exist?

I have mentioned being in a group of theists has made me feel a certain way.  It would be ignorant of you to assume that meant it always happened that way.

I also don't understand be it that I've explained many times that you're going to observe only why you think I'm expecting you to go and feel something?

Be careful with the assumption that it's any random group of theists be it that denominationalism claims theism.  I'm talking about followers who would statistically be categorized as unafilliated.  It would be hard to do and most likely you'll find a mix, but a majority will be sufficient for our purposes.

What you'd be comparing to is a group of non-believers gathering for a similar reasoning. (which is why i suggested music)

You have to get past the feeling thing.  Why are you stuck on that?  As I've said, i've explained to you now... at least twice that you're going to simply observe and record.  Where in that statement do I ask you to feel?

as far as the question as to why I believe, you're being vague, you're expecting me to tell you something simple like:

1. well, I grew up in it

2. my friends told me/ family told me...

3.  I felt something cool when...

4.  I was told X and it made sense to me, so I believe.

when it's much more than that.  I'm willing to discuss with you, but you can't seem to get out of that rut.

Other than that, yes, you're starting to get specific with teh whole robot thing and studying people groups. 

just a point.. If I've used the term "arguement", I'm sorry.  I have made statements challenging you to give me a focus to which you'd be interested in discussing about my belief.  

i have given you a statement as you requested summarizing why I beleive including agreeing with the summary that Wikipedia gave for belief.  The summary I gave it seemed you didn't even read... either that or it didn't answer your question (as I said it wouldn't) and you didn't grasp it as a summary. 

Understand I'm approaching you as I am with experience.  I know your state of mind (I've been there) and I've been working with people like you on this site for quite some time.  I'm trying to avoid redundancy and pointless conversation and get to a point that you will actually be interested in talking about vs. blindly refuting my belief without basis.  This again comes from experience on this site.

no, at this point, i have... you still haven't looked at 1355 have you?  Also, your wikipedia reference, i agreed to that being a good summary of why I believe with exception of bits and peices of information that we might not agree with.

I'm trying to show you why i say I cant' just summarize by giving you a summary that I already know won't answer your questions or satisfy your request for my reasoning.

I understand you want me to tell you X so you can tell me Y, but c'mon, we've both been there... let's get to a point where we both can discuss for a bit.  I think we've started... maybe... with the people group study or the robot thing???

Of course you don't believe me, if you did, you wouldnt' be talking to me here.. I dont' believe you either, but your reasoning seems to be as detailed as you're claiming mine is.  

4:  I'd be more than happy to tell you in my own words... the question you have yet to answer... maybe can be answered now... Where do you want me to start?

This defintely clarifies your state of mind here.  What you have to understand is a follower should have done more homework before believing so as to have a relationship with Christ and understand why it's even important to begin to seek a relationship with Christ. 

I'm sorry to disappoint you, i dont' have a simple anectdote to give you for my reasoning or an excuse through family or friends or church I grew up in.  It's not why i believe.  I know this is hard for you to grasp, but there are many out there just like me.  If you're going to challenge my belief, you must first accept that there's not always going to be a simple answer to why.  i believe and I will back up my belief from every angle that is thrown at me.  Most denominationalists cannot claim this because their belief is based in doctern alone.  Most other religious people will base it on environment like family, friends, or heritage.  Followers will base it on research and a long process of building a legitimate relationship not with their church or church friends, but with Jesus Christ.  Once you can comprehend that, we can move on. 

I find it interesting that denominaitonalists and those who declare themselves "unafiliated" claim differences despite having so much in common.

Both groups pick and choose the parts of doctrine that they want to follow. The "unaffiliated" are only different in that they are making their doctrine up on the fly instead of having a document to fall back on.

1. You didn’t give an answer in post 1355, you said, “It is too complicated to explain.”

 

 2. I am going to assume any magic claim is false without actual evidence. To me, involving a deity has nothing to do with it. In either case we are talking about some sort of magic/sorcery/miracle. If the miracle had an impact on the physical world, then it could be tested. 

 

Necromancy would be impressive. Healing a non-ambiguous wound instantly would be impressive. A flood that covered the entire world would be impressive. 

 

Unfortunately, there is no evidence that any of these actually happened beyond what the fact that someone wrote a book claiming they did. If we accept that as a standard of evidence, we have to accept all magic and miracle claims ever put to paper.

 

3. Ok, if you don’t think I am behaving in that way, stop talking. Otherwise, stop whining about how no-one understands you and everyone on this board is stupid, and the intellectual weight of this board is resting on your shoulders.

  Robots again.  

1.   We do try to find actual causes for behavior. At some point though we have to stop and start using generalizations. I can assume the case is that we are a result of our inputs because there is no evidence for any other hypothesis and what data we *do* have supports the idea that we are ‘robots’.

2. Are you trying to argue that religion is no longer primarily influenced by geography? If so, you’re wrong, just go look at the data. I agree though that things have changed some, but that is due to a more rapid exchange of ideas due to international travel, modern communications and the Internet. If your point was valid, it would have always been like that, even before those things.

3-4. Yes, I think free will is an illusion. If I had a different life, I would be doing something else.

God stuff again.

1.  I was not arguing against your points, I was answering your previous request. And no, I am not saying that God does not exist because we could not imagine what God is.

2. OK, you’re making me nuts now. Observe and record behavior, fine. Why? To what end? What is your hypothesis? I am assuming it has something to do with subjective feeling because you said that once and you’ve never answered my requests for what the heck you want after that! Just in that paragraph alone you ignored every single question I asked! Arrrghh!

  The gagging.  

I can’t think of anything to say that isn’t just calling you names, so I’ll skip to 4.

4. Start wherever you want to, I don’t care. Just make a concrete claim so we can have a discussion instead of this endless wishy-washy nonsense.

Last response:

This is what I am interpreting, “I can’t tell you why I believe other than generic platitudes and telling people my belief is super-complicated. This isn’t a weakness; it is a strength because when I am questioned I never have to say anything.”

 

I’m tired of this Cap. I’m tired of writing pages and having zero growth in the conversation either way. This entire experience has been on giant stall, I am still asking the same questions I did in my first posts and you are still giving the same non-answers. Either say something meaningful or end the conversation.

Maybe we can just move forward with the Robot conversation, because at least we have a dialog there even it isn’t much of one. 

If an argument is of somethings existence, and we don't know if it exists or not, for example ghosts. It would be reasonable to assume the thing in question didn't exist. So I may not be able to disprove that ghosts exist but being a reasonable person I assume they don't (although some people do). So believing in ghosts because their existence has not been disproven is illogical. It is not up to atheists to disprove Gods existence, it is up to theists to prove it exists. Being a reasonable person and having no evidence (not including ignorant, preachy or contradictory evidence) for Gods existence, one would assume the God in question doesn't exist.  

To quote "Fatal Attraction":

I WILL NOT BE IGNORED DAN!

What the f? Cap is my chew toy. It's like that old song.

You are my chew toy

My only chew toy

You make me happy

When skys' are grey

You'll never know dear

How much I love chew toys

Please don't take my chew toy from me.

 

Just for the record, we do not "declare" ourselves unafiliated.  As I said, statistically speaking, that's what we are categorized as.  We just reference ourselves as "Christ Followers", or something of that nature. 

With that said, none of us ever claim that we are "so different" or better or worse than any denominationalist.  The reason why we have so much in common is because even though denominationalists follow a particular type of doctern, we still follow the same belief.  The differences come in key docternal structure that may or may not coenside with Biblical teachings.  We as "Christ followers" just don't rut ourselves into a particular denominational standard for a few reasons.  the main one isn't that we necessarily disagree, though there are many that we do disagree with, it's that we want to make sure that if we learn something new about our following and understanding, we don't have to concern ourselves with whether it goes against our docternal belief or not.  The Bible is what we answer to and not an entity of denominationalism which would tend to shy away from any change from its norm.  It also leaves no room for generational changes that are necessary for the following. 

So you've actually done the research then?  Please recheck your results.

We never make up ou doctern on the fly.  We have not made up any doctern and try to strictly adhere to the Bible.  For someone who has been told many times by me in particular that we do not change our belief or reasons for believing, it amazes me that you can stil make such a confirming statement with nothing to back it up. 

I've always thought you were one of the smarter ones on here... your starting to make me wonder.  What are you trying to prove and why are you so willing all of a sudden to start pulling random information out of the air with no basis? 

Are you even reading the post?...

Here I'll make it easy for you.  In the post prior to 1355, you asked me for a summary for my belief... Now quoting directly from 1355, I responded with:

"If you want my simple answer, I believe because through extensive research, personal experience and challenging others and talkign to knowlegeable sources, I have found that it is a logical conclusion to understand that there must be a higher intelligence/power behind what we understand to be reality.  Einstein has agreed with this statement. 

As far as this particular following, historically, geologically, rationally, it seems to make the most sense and growing a personal reliationship with this God being has only further assured me that this following is correct.  I wouldn't expect you to understand the personal aspect of it and am not using it to defend my belief here. 

I will be truly shocked if that is a sufficient answer for you however."

You have effectively proven my point that it wasn't sufficient for what you want, but as you so desperately wanted, I summarized my belief... I'm guessing you were looking for one sentence or one quick paragraph doctern.  Sorry to disappoint you again, but I don't follow doctern, i follow the Bible.  That of course still is a broad statement.  Are you looking for 'I beleive in one God, maker of heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen... etc. etc. etc.."  Well, I do agree with that part of the creed.  I also believe that Jesus died for us and took our sins upon himself so that we may live and not be in bondage to sin and that we live to serve each other in humanity.  This statement of my belief is (and I'll bold it so maybe you won't miss it this time) barely scratching the surface and is quite incomplete.  Therefore, this does not even partially describe my following, but only a few key aspects of it. 

Anything yet, or are you still going to ignore the direct answer to your question.

Is that a better start of what you're looking for?  If not, you need to clarify your request. 

 What is a miracle to you?  What defines it?  If it is testable and explainable, is it still a miracle?  What would you need for this "evidence of magic"????  If it is explainable, does it mean that God didn't do it????? So are you saying that you'd need to die in a flood in order to believe?  What about the random unaffiliated culture groups around the world that have a similar flood story ironically taking place around the same time?  Though all are assumed to be false stories, is it not suspicious?The problem here is you're taking the miracles and assuming that they are the basis for our belief.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  It's like this... would you take a can and some string and conclude from that that after 50 feet it is impossible to have any sort of direct communication from any source?  This we know is false with cell phone technology and internet today, but it's basically the conclusion you're coming up with for Christianity. What are you talking about?  I'm not whining about anything.  don't get all huffy-puffy here.  I'm just trying to get us on the same level of conversation, you're getting all defensive.  Relax and just discuss.  Remember, you chose to talk to me.  You can stop at any time.  

Free will right?  Ok, what is free will to you?  If we are in fact robots, how is it that you can deduce?  What is the line between control and freedom?

Geography has a part, but the expansion/growth doesn't... check out "The Next Christiandom"  YOu should be able to find it in any Christian college library, if not, in any Christian book store.  dont' buy it, just skim it.  I'm not the one that made that conclusion.   This author also backs himself up with about 20 pages of references. 

Ok, by what manner  would you be doing something different in a different life... let's assume for a moment that you were born in approximately the same location with similar type family life and went to the same school etc... you'd still be living a different life and you'd be a different person.  What would you be doing differently and how would those changes compare. (e.g. causes, reasoning, etc.) to your life now?  What would have made your choices different?  or is it that in that scenaio because both lives are so alike you'd probably end up doing the same thing.

sorry if I ignored everything.  keep in mind I'm one person trying to focus on at least 6 or 7 different conversations on this forum alone.  You may have to remind me of certain things if you feel I'm ignoring them.  I'm not doing that on purpose.My hypothesis is that you will see statistical differences in a general personality of each people groupUnless of course you have something else you want to focus on at this point.  It's also why I mentioned if you actually want to make progress in a conversation, it'd be easier to start a new forum.  I think it was you I said that too.  if not, then this applies here as well. 

Ok, so then you're willing to start anywhere and stick to it... great... is this goign to be a general topic or specific... I'll make it easier:

1.  General topic #1:  Jesus is "The Christ"

2.  Specific topic #1:  We are here to serve and love one another.

Pick one and we'll go from there.

that seems to be the general consensus on this forum for non-believers, but no, I don't adhere to that.  There are a lot of topics that can cover why I believe and exactly what my belief covers.  It's why the bible is 66 books long.  Believe it or not, that's a summary.  I can tell you why I believe, but instead of shooting at a target I can't see, I ask you to show me the target, then I'll shoot from there.  The point is, I can tell you 1000 different topics and either hit or miss until I find a topic you're goign to be willign to stick with.  The problem is that wasts both my time and your time.  I don't know you well so instead, it's easier for me to ask you where you want to begin. It's not ignoring or evading, it's putting the ball in your court.  Understand, though i haven't expressed it, to me and others, it seems that you are evading or ignoring direct responses to your questions. It would lead me to conclude that instead of having an intelligent conversation about truths, you want to shoot and run and bypass a logical conclusion for either side.  I hope I'm wrong about that.

Been trying.  I've explained myself well.  Again, you don't have to be here.  I am having great conversations with others on this site.  that has only happened because they were willing to work with me on a topic they were willing to tackle instead of shying away from the challenge.  At this point it doesn't bother me what you choose.  You can walk away, or we could end up having a really great conversation, but the ball is in your court. 

Now that is all I was asking for.  Sure we can.  Focus on my question from above, lets' go from there.

I agree with you here, however the big question comes as to how to show you. 

First, to blatently demand as many do on here that God does not exist is to suggest you have some incriminating evidence to support the point.  Otherwise, a logical thinker would deduce that they have not yet seen enough evidence to believe... and I have accepted that response. 

From there however, I ask what they'd need to see or understand in order to consider the possibility.  Herein lies the brick wall.  Due to the meta-physicality of the beings in question, the basis for your belief; e.g. physical sciences, doesn't work.  So when the questino is asked, most refer to a physical means of proof, to which is not a logical demand for something meta-physical.  It'd be like me asking you to example the existance of helium using horses.  They have no relation with one another and therefore it cannot be done. 

So to clarify to you, at this point i have challenged any and all non-believers to "give me a topic" they would be willing to discuss that would maybe help them consider the possibility if it ended up presenting the right kind of evidences.  After more than 2 years on this site, i can count on one hand the number of people who took on that challenge. 

In conclusion, i'm willing to prove, but you must be willing to initiate the focus.

To both, i had established many pages ago that I gave up on this conversation and left it up to the masses.  I have been following all of you on here and only responding to your lead.  I have been very humored that the non-believers have led it to this point, then still try to blame me for the lack of focus. 

Just to make sure it wasn't me, I double and triple checked with others on that perspective.  They are in agreement. 

Brian, does this mean you're finally going to confront the challenges?  You claim that i"m your chew toy, yet I haven't felt you bite.  your only defense has been blaming me for things I had clarified were not the case.  Yet every time I destroy your basis, you run back to your doghouse and whimper until it looks like the topic has been forgotten.

c'mon, stop being an ankle-biter and attack already. 

 

 

Huh, good way of putting it, I'll remember that.

Alright, lets use your scenario above.  Let's say I asked you why you believed in X (now X could be a general topic or specific, in your scenario, we don't know)

YOu give me the answer as I gave you exampled above.  I am impressed and understand that you've really taken the time to research it and understand the topic before accepting it (this would be a logical and reasonable reaction understanding that it could really cover a great basis).  I would also be happier because I at least know now you're not blindly or ignorantly accepting that political view like most would.

From there if I really had the interest in persuing it further or thought I had the knowlege to discuss the topic deeper, I'd ask you about Y aspect of X.  (if X was a general topic, it just got more specific)

At this point we might be starting a good conversation.  If for some reason Y was too broad of a focus, I would probably pick up on that as you tangent from here to there about certain parts and i would then ask you Z (which would focus in again on the already focused topic)

From here we have a start and can beat out the details of Z before going to the more general Y and way before even considering to understand your full perspective on X.  Thus, we have had a successful conversation about the general topic of X. We may not have changed each other's mind or agree with each other, but at least we've come to an understanding about each other's perspective on the topic. 

In conclusion:  Instead of getting frustrated with the fact that some followers of Christ out there might be well versed in their following, when they give you the understanding that their believe is based on a broad spectrum you have the freedom at that point to choose a point of interest and expertise on your part... therefore, you can have a conversation with the person without any of it going over your head or beyond what you can comprehend from their perspective. 

It's interesting that you find my approach unfair and yet others have been able to 'pick out a topic' as mentioned and have a successful conversation with me. 

It seems that you don't want to believe that it's quite broad because your background only gave you a narrow minded perspective of the topic.  Sorry to tell you there's much more to it.  It is a fair tactic and you can make progress in the conversation if you take the time and effort to do so.  It is not a one sided conversation.  It never will be.

Sure, knock yourself out

There are many perspectives on that... now don't get frustrated.. I'll example a few. 

1.  Some do believe it was world wide.  If you look at cultural stories from around the world, each has a story that iroincally consists of a major flood happening.  Many don't mention specific time frames, therefore, it can only be assumed that it was the same big flood the Bible is talkign about.

2.  Geologically, there was a flood during that time in the assumed area.  This flood however was not world wide, but at that time and from the perspective of the story, it didn't need to be.  To anyone who would have observed the flood, to them it would have been the whole world (their knowlege of the whole world mostly consisted of the land they were familiar with and not the whole world as we understand it today)  Mankind at that time may not have even covered the whole world. 

And no, your definition of miracle and magic are the same as any other non-believer... not unique to that following.

I don't remember all of them and there are a few more, but it gives you an idea of just looking at the story as is in English and not looking into the history and cultural differences of the times and languages, you can miss a few key aspects that might give you a different perspective and make it look a little less... shall we say 'magical'? 

Therefore, to conclude that I am ignorant of geology for accepting the story is being ignorant of geology, history, generational and cultural perspectives.  Granted, you said if I believe the flood covered the whole world that would be the case, but I'm assuming your implication was focused on the story. 

Everyone tries to put those words in my mouth.  I never have claimed that.  I know it's the only way you can explain my belief. 

I have mentioned that some miracles could have been misunderstood due to lack of knowlege of the sciences.  I never once claimed I could explain every single miracle in the Bible, nor that all of them were simply misunderstood technology. 

I give that perspective because I do believe that some can be explained as possible natural based happenings.  I also try to give you something to think about.   A general escape conclusion i've seen quite a few times on here is that if I believe in 'magic' as non-believers would word it, then I'd believe in anything and therefore have no logical basis for my belief.... as if the basis for my belief was the miracles.  

Miracles are not a topic to discuss if you actually want to make progress with a believer.  A few reasons.

1.  Either they'll be very knowlegeable in their following and have natural explanations for some and admit to not having an understanding of how many of them happened, but still believe, or

2.  They will have very little knowlege and give you the generic "God is God" answer.  

Neither of which will give you a satisfactory answer or make progress to anything and only waste your time.  

I wouldn't expect anyone to grasp the concept of God's work until they could at least begin to grasp the idea that there is a greater being out there who created everything we know.  

I wouldn't expect you to accept that until we discussed why that is even a topic to be considered.  Most don't seem to want to take it one step at a time however.

Or, define it as being able to make a concious choice when confronted with a situation.  Hard to percieve from the outside, but easy to percieve if you're making the choice.

maybe not, but some scientists have claimed such.

sure... until you actually start looking at the definition and the science of it.

Scientists have claimed free will even to plants in some cases.  unfortunately for your defense, that's a pretty simple living creature. 

Viruses have been known to send chemical signals to its other virus buddies that hold specific information, not evolution information, but immediate progression information. 

If you want to say they were designed that way, then I guess they were designed to have free will as much as humans were designed to have free will. 

Boy you really just like it all handed to you on a silver platter don't ya.  The fact that this person has over 20 references to his findings means nothing to you... you still expect me to do your homework for you and tell you all the details.  I talk to many other people besides you that actually pull their own weight in the conversation.. What makes you think I have the time to do it all for you?  I actually live a life outside this website. 

note:  I don't believe I ever said it's not tied to culture in some way be it that religion is culture based in many ways.  If I did say that then I'm sorry, I meant geography.  I think your map proves my point though for geography. 

Point and case:  Christianity started in the middle east, yet the bulk of it is not only in the America's, but the southern Hemisphere including Australia.  Stranger yet, it bypasses its origin almost completely.  the closest geographical location for Christianity to its origin in concentration seems to be Europe. 

For your geology theory to stick, you would logically need to see a fan out of believers from the central point of origin.  This is not the case. 

Either that or an expanding ray (if you will) from the point of origin toward migration patterns over time.  this is also not the case. 

Though Christianity does break cultural barriers showing that it is not have a reliance on culture, you can see the cultural progression somewhat like Europe to Australia and America. 

I have told you to go to a specific type of gathering in order to nullify any outside influences.  I said a music festival with similar music styles would be a good start.  Therefore, you are getting specific people groups who are gathering for the same reason. 

Remember where the point started now.  It was all about how you can tell a true Christian from a non-Christian and what makes them so different.  Granted I believe that God makes them different, but that means nothing to you.

Instead, I figured to observe the differences as I did (which is the only way I'd believe it) would be a good way of exampling what seems to be difficult to just explain to someone. 

It's like explaining love to a child.  They've never seen it or felt it (not to be confused here, I'm not asking you to feel anything)

therefore no matter what you say, they won't understand it until they see it first hand.  

Eventually they may be able to pick out people who are truly in love vs infactuated with each other, but still may not fully understand love until they are in it themselves.  but at that point they at least can see the difference. 

So right now, step 1 is to observe, record and eliminate outside influence by puruposefully seeking out like scenarios for each group.  Then your examples of different groups gathering for different reasons will not be a factor. 

I don't expect you to come back a believer, but just to see what i was talking about, why?  You asked me. 

Then why with me do you run from the shadows? 

you haven't challenged me.  I've been trying to work with you, but you shy away from that.  Others have somehow been able to challenge me and I have had great conversations with them.  With you it seems to be a comfort choice, when you start stepping out of the box, it looks scary and you retreat back in.

and you claim one doesn't.... now that we've cleared that up, let's move on

you mean.. your evidence for why you believe what you do...

Maybe you should stop trying to respond to me with nothing and start reading other posts I make. or other forums I'm on.  I will ask you out of respect to the others who are actually having good conversation with me to not add your input on those forums unless you have an on topic point to make besides, "you believe in fairytales". 

and here you go again, shying back into your box. 

As I've said in the past, you're so sure I'm wrong, please show me.  Why can't you do that?  Right, can't prove a negative. 

That's fine, I get that, don't try to prove me a negative, just show me why you believe what you do.  If you tell me you don't believe in anything, then stop trying to pretent you believe there is no God, that would be claiming you believe in something.  In this case, that there is no God and that everything naturally evolved by itself with no intelligent help.

I have..  It failed when you failed to tell me what logical evidence for that you are looking for or would accept.  If you're going to ask me to show you something of that magnitude, i will need some sort of basis for what you are looking for just as you would from me. 

e.g. i don't believe that star X exists.  So you pull out a telliscope and show me.  I still don't believe because I think you're pulliing my leg and just pointed it at some random star claiming it to be star X.  Now you have to ask me what I'm looking for and I have to give you a basis so that you can look in the right place.  Maybe I'm just looking for a constillation map with it's labeling of star X.  maybe I need to talk to an astronomist, maybe I actually need an astrologist, but you don't know unless you ask, and you can't show me unless I tell you exactly what I'm looking for. 

Do you get it yet?  Now if I tell you to show me by throwing a rope around it and pulling it closer to me so I can see it better, are you honestly gonig to take me seriously?  Do you wonder why I dont' take you seriously?

 

 It is almost like you read what I wrote, and somehow managed to not read what I wrote at the same time, like...like Schroedinger's post.  Your example explicitly violated all of my listed complaints. Obviously that is a lost cause, so never mind.   @Flood:  Example 1 is unhelpful.  You can prove that societies living on flood plains experienced floods and used superstitions to explain them.  Societies living by active volcanoes had superstitions about those too, but no-one says Pele http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pele_(deity) is real because there are lots of ancient volcanoes myths. Example two is fine.  I don't have any problem with there being a limited flood, tsunami or hurricane at some point in the history of the Jews, which caused some damage and caused them to have a flood myth, sans miracle claims.  As I say before, it is common. And no, my claim of you being ignorant about geology was specifically aimed at a global flood theory.  There is no reason why a limited flood could not happen in the Middle East at some point. @Miracle:  If everyone puts these words in your mouth, perhaps you should modify the way you present your ideas so they cause less confusion?  You've tried many times in this specific discussion, and I still don't see what separates miracles from magic except your personal preference.  You've given no objective way to tell magic claims from miracle claims, other than claiming some are true or false in a seemingly arbitrary way.  If it is not arbitrary, feel free to enlighten me. @Free Will:  Sorry, you have to back this up.  I know biologists have said there is a possibility of plants having some sort of sentience, but you'll need to cite if you want me to buy the idea that there is some kind of movement in science that theorizes metaphysical free will among plants and lower life forms.  I think you are confusing consciousness with free will. @Geography:  If that is the way you want to play, I'll just start telling you to read books too, and we can see how far we both get with that. My map shows clearly that religion spreads geographically.  There are blobs, not tiny dots scattered randomly.  Christianity spread to north America because European converts killed the native population and spread their own culture through the continent.  This is another case where I literally cannot fathom your point or how your argument supports your claims. @Groups:  Huh?  How did that answer my question?  Individuals with specific beliefs form groups and display homogenous behavior when put into proximity with other members of their group.  You have provided no objective way to measure what I am looking for, you are asking me to observe and gain insight via some form of osmosis and I can't imagine gaining that insight without an appeal to my emotions. 

 

So then you're saying we believe true Christians can't make a mistake or be stupid?  Quite an assumption on your part and not true.

Read the Gospels where Jesus talks about what he expects.... also into Acts, Romans and so on. 

I never denied this and believe its true.  Which is why I try to explain the difference. 

of course not, they're happy in their ignorance.  If you're happy, why move right?

open-mindedness and a willingness to change if needed is completely different than intelligence. 

eh... except for the fact that they dont' follow the Biblical standard of what it is to be a Christian.

They do so because of doctern and not challenging their own understanding as we should always be doing according to the Bible. 

that statement is ignorance be it that many Christians I talk to believe science supports or at least doesn't disprove the Christian following.  I could say that if Christianity didn't support itself as such in many aspects than people like Strobel wouldn't have written their books.  Then we're back to square 1 again.  Next topic.

and so on and so on, yes, I could list of a number of authors who wouldn't have written book X for support in Christianity based on Y, but it's not going to make progress to the point. 

no arguement there.  i never defended my belief on popular vote.

it's not up to you.  It never was.  I have been trying to explain, though each needs their own wording it seems.  I have gone into the religious aspect of Christianity and explained how I don't like religion and follow a religion as much as any non-believer does. 

of course not.  It's funny you assume I think i know that Ray Comfort and others aren't true christians.  They very well could be with a misunderstood perspective.  What makes a true Christian is many things, but one key aspect is a willingness to change their perspective and understanding if new evidence comes their way that shows them how they were mistaken instead of running away from it.  I dont' know if he would run or if he would change.. I've never had the opportunity to confront him.   It doesn't mean i agree.  I have a different perspective than many only becasue I've done my homework.  No, i'm not the only one, there are thousands like me in the United States, possibly millions in the world.
True Christians may disagree with each other, but will still hear each other out and not be stubborn about what they think they know.  It seems that most on this website would fall under the "other" category.

no, that would be the denominationalists and most likely not true followers.  If they are, then they forgot that it's their job to better their current church and not run away from change. 

i don't wonder why people are confused and upset.  I know exactly why.   I've been trying to set the records straight and can back up the differences Biblically.

I didn't expect you to so don't worry, but if you read the beginning, the name was from a book I read and wanted to talk about.  AT this point, it's obviously gone way beyond the book and probably will never go back.  Which is fine with me, I have more focused forums on this site that i'm involved in.  This one is just entertainment for me and a median to grab those who actually want to have a serious discussion.  to all who do, i'm willing to go into a new forum with them to do so. 

Hey, I don't disagree with you there.  It's that skewed point of view on Christianity that I want to destroy because I know that's not what is taught through the Bible to us. 

For someone who came in from left field, I have to say you made some pretty good points.  I'll admit, at first, i thought you were going to be just another one of those ranting fools who has no clue of why they are here, but think they have a score to settle with every theist they come across yet can't back themselves up if their life depended on it.  I feel like there's more to you.  I'd be interested in further conversation if you want to discuss something specific. 

What "box"?

My position is so fucking weak that you have repeatedly been able to convince the world outside this website and me that your superstition is repeatable and falsifiable to the point that every major credible university science lab in every country in the world accepts what you say is law like teaching mitosis to a Jew, or DNA to a Muslim. Wow, forgive me, I didn't know your pet god was more than a personal wish like the rest of humanity outside your club, in human history. I wasn't aware of the overwhelming peer reviewed material that makes me look like a retard. Thank you so much for setting me on the right track.

I was so foolish telling you that you are not immune to the trap of "wishful thinking" like the rest of humanity who have made up their gods who have fallen into the category of myth. You're overwhelming evidence has convinced me that it should be taught in every science class.

WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN ALL MY LIFE?