You quote me saying:
“We make our own realities based on our preconceptions and wants and needs and experience. For example, I know for a fact you will not read any of the above with an open mind. You will filter everything through the same cognitive biases that you accept the problems with the Bible. And to your mind, that is reality.”

Mark, that’s not dogmatic. That’s simply reality. Revealing this is not anti-skeptical, it’s a cornerstone of skepticism! The realization that EVERYTHING you know about yourself, the world, your beliefs, is based on your (anyone’s) personal biases.

Unless you want to convince me you’re a robot, it is simple biology/psychology to state that you (anyone) perceive through a filtering process. Countless tests and studies and research has shown that the brain is not a storage device without flaw. We do not store our experiences like a video recorder. Memory is not exact. Memory deteriorates and changes. The created memory is altered from the beginning by bias and perception.

When I say that you will not read the above with a truly open mind, and in essence calling you closed minded, it’s a statement of fact. For anyone! For myself. For Carl Sagan. For Aristotle. For C.S. Lewis. For James Randi. Everything everyone sees, reads, hears, does, feels, is filtered through preconceptions and biases. Sometimes you can minimize it, but no one is capable of complete unbias. No one. It’s simply a biochemical fact.

That taken into consideration mixed with your appearant strong bias toward a theological belief system that appears to have prevented you from truely looking at it objectively (as much as any human is capable of,) leads me to claim you’re “closed minded.”

Am I being biased? Yes, probably. I’m fully aware of the plank in my own eye. And that’s part of what a skeptic should do, is acknowledge our frailty as humans to be wrong about what we think we know!

You say I’m “out of control,” but in fact, I’m quite in control. My last reply have have included some sarcasm and attitude, but that’s actually normal for me. Trying to be polite and respectful, I generally try to be over-respectful and general. But my latest challenges have obviously struck some nerves with you, and I feel you’re projecting your own emotional reaction upon me.

I think it’s telling that your response to my pointed and reasoned challenges based quite solidly in scrutiny and reason and skepticism and freethinking, that your reaction is quite emotional. When logic and quasi-philosophy you have tried to rationalize your religion upon fails, your mental self-defense triggers and you become emotional. It’s expected and anticipated, and I knew your reaction would be that way. Because I’ve been there. When you’ve wrapped your entire life around a theology that when you really really closely scrutinize it and challenge it, it doesn’t hold up, your psyche rejects it out of hand out of self-defense. I just call it like I see it.

So I feel for you. It took me 13 years, from age 19 when I finally read the Bible in its entirety, until only a couple of years ago, to finally let go of theology. 13 years. And I didn’t have my entire life so wrapped up into the theology like you have. So your reaction to honest scrutiny and reasoned challenging is going to be emotionally violent. You’re appeals to pseudo-reason no longer works, you have nothing left but emotion. I’m sorry. I hope you can work it out.

You quote me saying:
“We make our own realities based on our preconceptions and wants and needs and experience. For example, I know for a fact you will not read any of the above with an open mind. You will filter everything through the same cognitive biases that you accept the problems with the Bible. And to your mind, that is reality.”

Mark, that’s not dogmatic. That’s simply reality. Revealing this is not anti-skeptical, it’s a cornerstone of skepticism! The realization that EVERYTHING you know about yourself, the world, your beliefs, is based on your (anyone’s) personal biases.

Unless you want to convince me you’re a robot, it is simple biology/psychology to state that you (anyone) perceive through a filtering process. Countless tests and studies and research has shown that the brain is not a storage device without flaw. We do not store our experiences like a video recorder. Memory is not exact. Memory deteriorates and changes. The created memory is altered from the beginning by bias and perception.

When I say that you will not read the above with a truly open mind, and in essence calling you closed minded, it’s a statement of fact. For anyone! For myself. For Carl Sagan. For Aristotle. For C.S. Lewis. For James Randi. Everything everyone sees, reads, hears, does, feels, is filtered through preconceptions and biases. Sometimes you can minimize it, but no one is capable of complete unbias. No one. It’s simply a biochemical fact.

That taken into consideration mixed with your appearant strong bias toward a theological belief system that appears to have prevented you from truely looking at it objectively (as much as any human is capable of,) leads me to claim you’re “closed minded.”

Am I being biased? Yes, probably. I’m fully aware of the plank in my own eye. And that’s part of what a skeptic should do, is acknowledge our frailty as humans to be wrong about what we think we know!

You say I’m “out of control,” but in fact, I’m quite in control. My last reply have have included some sarcasm and attitude, but that’s actually normal for me. Trying to be polite and respectful, I generally try to be over-respectful and general. But my latest challenges have obviously struck some nerves with you, and I feel you’re projecting your own emotional reaction upon me.

I think it’s telling that your response to my pointed and reasoned challenges based quite solidly in scrutiny and reason and skepticism and freethinking, that your reaction is quite emotional. When logic and quasi-philosophy you have tried to rationalize your religion upon fails, your mental self-defense triggers and you become emotional. It’s expected and anticipated, and I knew your reaction would be that way. Because I’ve been there. When you’ve wrapped your entire life around a theology that when you really really closely scrutinize it and challenge it, it doesn’t hold up, your psyche rejects it out of hand out of self-defense. I just call it like I see it.

So I feel for you. It took me 13 years, from age 19 when I finally read the Bible in its entirety, until only a couple of years ago, to finally let go of theology. 13 years. And I didn’t have my entire life so wrapped up into the theology like you have. So your reaction to honest scrutiny and reasoned challenging is going to be emotionally violent. You’re appeals to pseudo-reason no longer works, you have nothing left but emotion. I’m sorry. I hope you can work it out.

Liam, when you make statements like this, where you unilaterally declare me to be close-minded and worse, you cease to be a free thinker and a skeptic. You have become dogmatic. You are no longer presenting arguments, you are making proclamations. You are no longer proposing ideas, you are imposing them.

And that, sir, is sad. This is precisely what I was hoping to avoid.

“Likewise, I live my life as no less or more of a human than you, ocassionally ignoring and focusing on things that match my preconceptions and filtered perception. But I strive, as do the other 12-15% of the world that claimes no religious belief, to try to keep my filtering of perception based on reason and skepticism and inquiry and investigation, knowing that Aristotle’s Pillars are flawed and inconclusive and absolutely subject to cognitive biases.”

We’re out of control here Liam so I’m out. See ya…thanks for the intense discussion.

Liam, when you make statements like this, where you unilaterally declare me to be close-minded and worse, you cease to be a free thinker and a skeptic. You have become dogmatic. You are no longer presenting arguments, you are making proclamations. You are no longer proposing ideas, you are imposing them.

And that, sir, is sad. This is precisely what I was hoping to avoid.

“Likewise, I live my life as no less or more of a human than you, ocassionally ignoring and focusing on things that match my preconceptions and filtered perception. But I strive, as do the other 12-15% of the world that claimes no religious belief, to try to keep my filtering of perception based on reason and skepticism and inquiry and investigation, knowing that Aristotle’s Pillars are flawed and inconclusive and absolutely subject to cognitive biases.”

We’re out of control here Liam so I’m out. See ya…thanks for the intense discussion.

The problem is (a) The four pillars are not necessarily a perfect or error-free or comprehensive judge of…anything. So anything judged “valid” against the Four Pillars does not necessarily mean it is THE ultimate truth. It can still be flawed, incomplete.

For example, The Basic Valibility of Sense Perception is fundamentally flawed and can not be trusted. Back in ancient Greece the senses were the best you had, but not any more. Not only because there’s a lot going on in reality that the senses can’t detect, but there’s a LOT that your senses fool you about.
Not only are your senses fooled by natural phenomina (optical illusion, unusual properties of sound transmission, the various levels of sense ability from person to person,) but also are HIGHLY affected by the bias of our minds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Our entire perception of the world comes from our five senses, and our minds affect those senses and how we interpret what we sense. Our eyes aren’t cameras. What we see is our brain’s interpretation filtered through our preconceptions of the light that reaches our eyes. We can not use our senses as an error-free pillar of reality.

Also, the Analogical Use of Language is by no means a measure of reality, but simply a modality of how we define reality. And it fully depends on humans agreeing on the definition, which is simply our imposition of meaning upon something. The word “faith” has various valid meanings. An object can be both a planet and an asteroid. Relativism can be argued using its absurd extreme or its real-world application.

There is no way “truth” can be measured against these “Four Pillars” and be found objectively valid.

(b) Even against the For Pillars, if they WERE a good method of evaluating anything, the Christian religion doesn’t measure up. The Law of Causality applies to the time/space we live in, and I don’t think even Aristotle believed something outside the reality we live in could be forces into the concept of causality as we know it. It’s entirely possible that nothing “creature-like” like a deity created the universe and that Pillar does not mean that’s the case.
Even so, even IF some human-like deity outside our reality created the universe, there’s nothing that says it HAS to have been Yahweh. Or Elohim or whatever name you want to use at the moment. Why couldn’t it have been the Muslem version of Allah? Does the Pillar preclude that? Or that Tiamat or Shiva is the one who created the universe? Or something completely beyond our human ability to imagine?

On a dogmatic level, Christianity fails the Law of Non-Contradiction because Jesus is quoted as saying he was not God, and nothing is as great as God, yet at other times saying he is the Son of God and, well the entire reason the Trinity was created to explain the contradictions. Jesus being God, yet Jesus praying TO God, etc. How’s that stack against that Pillar?

Again, how does say Buddhism fail this Pillar? I see nothing contradictory about Buddhism, but I see it all over Christianity. God so loves the world, we are his children, yet he’s willing to send any and everyone to hell for not following his rules, giving us “the greatest gift” of self-determination, but only so long as we chose his will, etc etc.

Back to senses, how does Christianity hold up against this Pillar? Meanwhile, back to Buddhism, one of its tenants is to not trust what can’t be proven. But Christianity relies on believing on faith. Orthodox Christianity requires belief without proof.

The Pillars don’t stand up as any reasonable gauge for the truth of anything, Christianity doesn’t hold up very well to the Pillars anyway, and other philosophies do at least as well as Christianity does.

Issue of faith. Yes, I do have faith in some things, and must in order to be able to live. I have faith the sun will rise each day. Why? Because it has for every day of my life so far, and I have reasonable expectation to believe when people say it has since the dawn of man. So my faith that it will tomorrow is pretty well founded.

But believing someone rose from the dead 2000 years ago despite the fact there’s nothing in verifiable history or biology to support such a claim, is MUCH harder to have faith in. That’s a claim that requires extraordinary proof to believe in while belief in the sun coming up does not.

Indeed, either Christ arose or didn’t. Under that realm of “did not” also includes the concept that he didn’t even exist, which in all realms of realistic possibilities, that one is a possibility as well.
Even so, just because there are no bones doesn’t prove he arose.

Mark, I have an invisible dragon in my garage who can fly and can become incorpreal at will. You don’t believe me? Why not? Don’t you trust me? I wrote a story about him. I’ll show you the story. I have a good friend that can support my claim.
You still don’t believe me?! OK, prove he doesn’t exist. Go on, do it. There’s no bones, er, body because like I said, he’s invisible and incorpreal. So, guess you have to just have faith in what I say.

Because there’s no bones means nothing. If I recall, didn’t Mohammad ascend into Heaven directly? There’s no body of Mohammad, so he must be God’s prophet and the Koran is fact. I mean, it’s the same logic. Either Mohammad ascended or he didn’t right? We have no body of Mohammad, ergo Mohammed ascended and Islam is the true religion.

There are no bones because (a) Jesus didn’t actually exist, (b) No one has been able to find them because of incorrect information of where he was put or, (c) Someone stole the bones either intentionally or even unintentionally (not knowing it was Jesus,) and disposed of them, (d) he arose.
Now, using Occam’s Razor, which one of those is most reasonable? Which one is least reasonable?

The least reasonable one needs to have a LOT of evidence behind it. And that evidence is wanting. Basically 4 (or seven) gospels, a story of acts, and some letters all written by followers of this religious leader. That’s pretty much it.

Now, let’s say Waco, Texas didn’t happen the way it did, and Koresh and his followers stood trial. (OK, or any cult leader.) Koresh claims he healed someone as proof of his prophet status. Are we to just trust him on faith? OK, one of his followers says he saw it. Can we trust him? Seven of his followers say they saw him heal someone. Is that enough to believe the claims?
Oh, they wrote it down on paper. Does that add more validity to their claims? We can’t find the person he supposedly healed, but that’s OK, we don’t need any proof except the word of his followers, right? That’s enough for me.

Oh! Buth Koresh, er, Jesus speaks to us. Well, dang! You have to trust your own inner voice that, that must be Jesus, right? Because that same inner voice that someone thinks is the Virgin Mary, someone thinks is Vishna, someone thinks is Saint Christopher, someone else thinks it’s their dead father, someone else thinks is the spirit of an ancient Atlantian. Put bluntly, the reason you converse with Jesus, and I used to, is no different than why sane and honest people believe in alien visitation, in ghosts, in ESP, in magnet therapy, in chi, in fung shui, in astrology, in Quija boards, in water dowsing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

We believe what we want. Our minds are not computers. Our conciousness is not binary. We see what we want, ignore what doesn’t fit, filter reality through our desires and fears. We make our own realities based on our preconceptions and wants and needs and experience.

For example, I know for a fact you will not read any of the above with an open mind. You will filter everything through the same cognitive biases that you accept the problems with the Bible. And to your mind, that is reality. And yet you are perfectly sane and honest. Likewise, I live my life as no less or more of a human than you, ocassionally ignoring and focusing on things that match my preconceptions and filtered perception. But I strive, as do the other 12-15% of the world that claimes no religious belief, to try to keep my filtering of perception based on reason and skepticism and inquiry and investigation, knowing that Aristotle’s Pillars are flawed and inconclusive and absolutely subject to cognitive biases.

We can learn from experience, all we have to experience with is our senses, and we have to use some shared concepts of language in order to express our experiences, but we must, MUST realize that we are ALL subject or logical falicies and biases! We MUST accept that in ourselves and strive as hard as human possible to overcome them, if we’re not to fall prey to them and live in a skewed and erroneous, if reassuring, reality.

The problem is (a) The four pillars are not necessarily a perfect or error-free or comprehensive judge of…anything. So anything judged “valid” against the Four Pillars does not necessarily mean it is THE ultimate truth. It can still be flawed, incomplete.

For example, The Basic Valibility of Sense Perception is fundamentally flawed and can not be trusted. Back in ancient Greece the senses were the best you had, but not any more. Not only because there’s a lot going on in reality that the senses can’t detect, but there’s a LOT that your senses fool you about.
Not only are your senses fooled by natural phenomina (optical illusion, unusual properties of sound transmission, the various levels of sense ability from person to person,) but also are HIGHLY affected by the bias of our minds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Our entire perception of the world comes from our five senses, and our minds affect those senses and how we interpret what we sense. Our eyes aren’t cameras. What we see is our brain’s interpretation filtered through our preconceptions of the light that reaches our eyes. We can not use our senses as an error-free pillar of reality.

Also, the Analogical Use of Language is by no means a measure of reality, but simply a modality of how we define reality. And it fully depends on humans agreeing on the definition, which is simply our imposition of meaning upon something. The word “faith” has various valid meanings. An object can be both a planet and an asteroid. Relativism can be argued using its absurd extreme or its real-world application.

There is no way “truth” can be measured against these “Four Pillars” and be found objectively valid.

(b) Even against the For Pillars, if they WERE a good method of evaluating anything, the Christian religion doesn’t measure up. The Law of Causality applies to the time/space we live in, and I don’t think even Aristotle believed something outside the reality we live in could be forces into the concept of causality as we know it. It’s entirely possible that nothing “creature-like” like a deity created the universe and that Pillar does not mean that’s the case.
Even so, even IF some human-like deity outside our reality created the universe, there’s nothing that says it HAS to have been Yahweh. Or Elohim or whatever name you want to use at the moment. Why couldn’t it have been the Muslem version of Allah? Does the Pillar preclude that? Or that Tiamat or Shiva is the one who created the universe? Or something completely beyond our human ability to imagine?

On a dogmatic level, Christianity fails the Law of Non-Contradiction because Jesus is quoted as saying he was not God, and nothing is as great as God, yet at other times saying he is the Son of God and, well the entire reason the Trinity was created to explain the contradictions. Jesus being God, yet Jesus praying TO God, etc. How’s that stack against that Pillar?

Again, how does say Buddhism fail this Pillar? I see nothing contradictory about Buddhism, but I see it all over Christianity. God so loves the world, we are his children, yet he’s willing to send any and everyone to hell for not following his rules, giving us “the greatest gift” of self-determination, but only so long as we chose his will, etc etc.

Back to senses, how does Christianity hold up against this Pillar? Meanwhile, back to Buddhism, one of its tenants is to not trust what can’t be proven. But Christianity relies on believing on faith. Orthodox Christianity requires belief without proof.

The Pillars don’t stand up as any reasonable gauge for the truth of anything, Christianity doesn’t hold up very well to the Pillars anyway, and other philosophies do at least as well as Christianity does.

Issue of faith. Yes, I do have faith in some things, and must in order to be able to live. I have faith the sun will rise each day. Why? Because it has for every day of my life so far, and I have reasonable expectation to believe when people say it has since the dawn of man. So my faith that it will tomorrow is pretty well founded.

But believing someone rose from the dead 2000 years ago despite the fact there’s nothing in verifiable history or biology to support such a claim, is MUCH harder to have faith in. That’s a claim that requires extraordinary proof to believe in while belief in the sun coming up does not.

Indeed, either Christ arose or didn’t. Under that realm of “did not” also includes the concept that he didn’t even exist, which in all realms of realistic possibilities, that one is a possibility as well.
Even so, just because there are no bones doesn’t prove he arose.

Mark, I have an invisible dragon in my garage who can fly and can become incorpreal at will. You don’t believe me? Why not? Don’t you trust me? I wrote a story about him. I’ll show you the story. I have a good friend that can support my claim.
You still don’t believe me?! OK, prove he doesn’t exist. Go on, do it. There’s no bones, er, body because like I said, he’s invisible and incorpreal. So, guess you have to just have faith in what I say.

Because there’s no bones means nothing. If I recall, didn’t Mohammad ascend into Heaven directly? There’s no body of Mohammad, so he must be God’s prophet and the Koran is fact. I mean, it’s the same logic. Either Mohammad ascended or he didn’t right? We have no body of Mohammad, ergo Mohammed ascended and Islam is the true religion.

There are no bones because (a) Jesus didn’t actually exist, (b) No one has been able to find them because of incorrect information of where he was put or, (c) Someone stole the bones either intentionally or even unintentionally (not knowing it was Jesus,) and disposed of them, (d) he arose.
Now, using Occam’s Razor, which one of those is most reasonable? Which one is least reasonable?

The least reasonable one needs to have a LOT of evidence behind it. And that evidence is wanting. Basically 4 (or seven) gospels, a story of acts, and some letters all written by followers of this religious leader. That’s pretty much it.

Now, let’s say Waco, Texas didn’t happen the way it did, and Koresh and his followers stood trial. (OK, or any cult leader.) Koresh claims he healed someone as proof of his prophet status. Are we to just trust him on faith? OK, one of his followers says he saw it. Can we trust him? Seven of his followers say they saw him heal someone. Is that enough to believe the claims?
Oh, they wrote it down on paper. Does that add more validity to their claims? We can’t find the person he supposedly healed, but that’s OK, we don’t need any proof except the word of his followers, right? That’s enough for me.

Oh! Buth Koresh, er, Jesus speaks to us. Well, dang! You have to trust your own inner voice that, that must be Jesus, right? Because that same inner voice that someone thinks is the Virgin Mary, someone thinks is Vishna, someone thinks is Saint Christopher, someone else thinks it’s their dead father, someone else thinks is the spirit of an ancient Atlantian. Put bluntly, the reason you converse with Jesus, and I used to, is no different than why sane and honest people believe in alien visitation, in ghosts, in ESP, in magnet therapy, in chi, in fung shui, in astrology, in Quija boards, in water dowsing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

We believe what we want. Our minds are not computers. Our conciousness is not binary. We see what we want, ignore what doesn’t fit, filter reality through our desires and fears. We make our own realities based on our preconceptions and wants and needs and experience.

For example, I know for a fact you will not read any of the above with an open mind. You will filter everything through the same cognitive biases that you accept the problems with the Bible. And to your mind, that is reality. And yet you are perfectly sane and honest. Likewise, I live my life as no less or more of a human than you, ocassionally ignoring and focusing on things that match my preconceptions and filtered perception. But I strive, as do the other 12-15% of the world that claimes no religious belief, to try to keep my filtering of perception based on reason and skepticism and inquiry and investigation, knowing that Aristotle’s Pillars are flawed and inconclusive and absolutely subject to cognitive biases.

We can learn from experience, all we have to experience with is our senses, and we have to use some shared concepts of language in order to express our experiences, but we must, MUST realize that we are ALL subject or logical falicies and biases! We MUST accept that in ourselves and strive as hard as human possible to overcome them, if we’re not to fall prey to them and live in a skewed and erroneous, if reassuring, reality.

Filled with hubris? My personal experience more valid someone else’s?

I’m uncertain of your thinking here. The written word may be betraying us. My last comment posting could be summarized as “You and I may not agree, but I think it is cool that we both are interested in discovering truth.”

All people have faith, even you. You have faith that when you drive down the highway that opposing traffic will not cross the little yellow line we paint on our roads and destroy you. You have faith that the airline pilot actually knows how to do his job.

You have faith that humanity could potentially better itself once all the religious myths are gone. You have faith that “All humans are valuable and created by nature as equal.”

I do not conclude that you think your beliefs are more correct than other people’s beliefs because of the intensity or certainty in which you hold to them. I would guess that you are convinced of your beliefs because of data you have collected and researched and then studied. I’m guessing you hold to your beliefs because based upon your experiences, education, philosophy and knowledge…they make the most sense.

It is the same for me. I would guess it is the same for just about everyone.

That is why, I thought I had made quite clear, I find it to be very important that I base my beliefs on an event from history. It is a digital reality for me. I’m either right or I’m wrong.

Here is the flow:

Mark was born. He was taught religion. After observing reality he rejected religion. He studied many of the world’s explanations of reality. He discovered the four pillars of knowledge. He found only one worldview which did not violate the four pillars of knowledge. He studied this worldview and found that this worldview could only be valid if it was rooted in history.

Either Christ rose or He did not.

Mark studied the history of this event. Mark concluded that Christ did rise. Mark surrendered to Christ. Mark now experiences a supernatural relationship with Christ.

Now, that is the flow…my faith rises and falls NOT based upon my experiences (even though they are powerful) but rather based upon the historical facts.

If someone produced Jesus’ bones, then I would chuck the whole thing…but since I talked with Him this morning I have a pretty good idea that won’t happen.

Now, when you read that last sentence, you probably rolled your eyes and thought you might actually throw your keyboard this time. I submit to you that you need to relax and accept what I was trying to say in my last post:

You and I arrive at different conclusions, but I think we begin at similar places: we see our world and we try to make sense of it. That quest leads us to study and learn. When you and I talk with someone who thinks they have the answer, we should accept that they are on the same quest…even if they don’t agree with us. We should celebrate the quest itself!

So, once again, I sincerely applaud you, your values and your passion and celebrate the fact that you will not go along with the crowd “just because.” Neither will I.

Filled with hubris? My personal experience more valid someone else’s?

I’m uncertain of your thinking here. The written word may be betraying us. My last comment posting could be summarized as “You and I may not agree, but I think it is cool that we both are interested in discovering truth.”

All people have faith, even you. You have faith that when you drive down the highway that opposing traffic will not cross the little yellow line we paint on our roads and destroy you. You have faith that the airline pilot actually knows how to do his job.

You have faith that humanity could potentially better itself once all the religious myths are gone. You have faith that “All humans are valuable and created by nature as equal.”

I do not conclude that you think your beliefs are more correct than other people’s beliefs because of the intensity or certainty in which you hold to them. I would guess that you are convinced of your beliefs because of data you have collected and researched and then studied. I’m guessing you hold to your beliefs because based upon your experiences, education, philosophy and knowledge…they make the most sense.

It is the same for me. I would guess it is the same for just about everyone.

That is why, I thought I had made quite clear, I find it to be very important that I base my beliefs on an event from history. It is a digital reality for me. I’m either right or I’m wrong.

Here is the flow:

Mark was born. He was taught religion. After observing reality he rejected religion. He studied many of the world’s explanations of reality. He discovered the four pillars of knowledge. He found only one worldview which did not violate the four pillars of knowledge. He studied this worldview and found that this worldview could only be valid if it was rooted in history.

Either Christ rose or He did not.

Mark studied the history of this event. Mark concluded that Christ did rise. Mark surrendered to Christ. Mark now experiences a supernatural relationship with Christ.

Now, that is the flow…my faith rises and falls NOT based upon my experiences (even though they are powerful) but rather based upon the historical facts.

If someone produced Jesus’ bones, then I would chuck the whole thing…but since I talked with Him this morning I have a pretty good idea that won’t happen.

Now, when you read that last sentence, you probably rolled your eyes and thought you might actually throw your keyboard this time. I submit to you that you need to relax and accept what I was trying to say in my last post:

You and I arrive at different conclusions, but I think we begin at similar places: we see our world and we try to make sense of it. That quest leads us to study and learn. When you and I talk with someone who thinks they have the answer, we should accept that they are on the same quest…even if they don’t agree with us. We should celebrate the quest itself!

So, once again, I sincerely applaud you, your values and your passion and celebrate the fact that you will not go along with the crowd “just because.” Neither will I.

But, nearly a billion and a half people are absolutely 100% certain in the teachings and prophesies of Mohammad. And have a relationship with Allah. Are they liars? Insane?

Nearly a billion people believe in Shiva and Krishna and are certain they lived past lives. Are they all liars? Or insane?

Do you have any clue how many people believe in astrology? That are 100% absolutely certain that the stars predict their lives and can give you enough examples of it happening in their life to make your ears bleed. Are they lying? Or insane?

Do you have any idea how many millions of people are 100% absolutely certain they have seen ghosts? Talked to the dead? Been abducted by aliens? Believe in chi? Have been healed by magnets? Have seen Elvis? Have evidence we never went to the moon? Have seen the Virgin Mary? Talk to saints? Certain their animal sacrifices changed the weather? Have dowsed for water? Have been cured by a faith healer? Have astrally projected?

I have no doubt the number of people in the world from the smallest villiage to the most urban center, is probably more than 80% of the world, can regale you for hours with all the evidence they have as to why their personal relationship with their deity, their experiences with the supernatural, their experiences with aliens, their experiences with pseudoscience, their experiences with the occult, is what makes them 100% certain of their beliefs.

Are all of them lying? Or insane?

Why are you so arrogant, so filled with hubris, that you can say that your 100% certainty of personal experience is more valid and “real” than the billions of other people who are equally convinced and certain of their various experiences and beliefs?

All I ask is that you think upon that for a while. How can this be so?

But, nearly a billion and a half people are absolutely 100% certain in the teachings and prophesies of Mohammad. And have a relationship with Allah. Are they liars? Insane?

Nearly a billion people believe in Shiva and Krishna and are certain they lived past lives. Are they all liars? Or insane?

Do you have any clue how many people believe in astrology? That are 100% absolutely certain that the stars predict their lives and can give you enough examples of it happening in their life to make your ears bleed. Are they lying? Or insane?

Do you have any idea how many millions of people are 100% absolutely certain they have seen ghosts? Talked to the dead? Been abducted by aliens? Believe in chi? Have been healed by magnets? Have seen Elvis? Have evidence we never went to the moon? Have seen the Virgin Mary? Talk to saints? Certain their animal sacrifices changed the weather? Have dowsed for water? Have been cured by a faith healer? Have astrally projected?

I have no doubt the number of people in the world from the smallest villiage to the most urban center, is probably more than 80% of the world, can regale you for hours with all the evidence they have as to why their personal relationship with their deity, their experiences with the supernatural, their experiences with aliens, their experiences with pseudoscience, their experiences with the occult, is what makes them 100% certain of their beliefs.

Are all of them lying? Or insane?

Why are you so arrogant, so filled with hubris, that you can say that your 100% certainty of personal experience is more valid and “real” than the billions of other people who are equally convinced and certain of their various experiences and beliefs?

All I ask is that you think upon that for a while. How can this be so?

Thank you for a lively discussion. After reading your post I want to be cautious as to not allow our thoughts to spin into arguments. Therefore, I will leave you with these thoughts:

I understand that you reject the Resurrection of Christ. I respect you as a person even if I don’t hold to the same conclusion.

I concluded that the Resurrection of Christ did happen and I have since entered into a full relationship with Him. My relationship with Him is quite real. It is not a fairy tale or some psycological opiate.

It has a dramatic effect upon the decisions I make and my focus becomes one of being on others instead of being on myself. I still have a lot to learn and I appreciate the fact that you have been one of the people who helps me do just that.

In the mean time, I applaud your sense of purpose, your committment to goodness, and your incredible and wonderful focus on being a father and a husband. These things are what makes life so much better…do not lose them. You are quite correct that you do not “need” a deity to have these values and I apologize if I ever came across to you as someone on a higher plane than yourself…because that is NOT how I feel.

Instead, I see us as equals, two people who look at the universe we live it and recognize the imbalance that exists within it. We see that imbalance and then seek to find balance. We study, we yearn and we learn. In some places we find balance and in other places we don’t. In some places we agree on balance, and in other places we don’t.

No matter what happens, don’t ever stop seeking the balance…but I would urge you to not always denounce others who are on the same quest…even when they think they’ve found it. This lesson speaks to me even louder and I will strive to do better!

Thanks,
Mark

Thank you for a lively discussion. After reading your post I want to be cautious as to not allow our thoughts to spin into arguments. Therefore, I will leave you with these thoughts:

I understand that you reject the Resurrection of Christ. I respect you as a person even if I don’t hold to the same conclusion.

I concluded that the Resurrection of Christ did happen and I have since entered into a full relationship with Him. My relationship with Him is quite real. It is not a fairy tale or some psycological opiate.

It has a dramatic effect upon the decisions I make and my focus becomes one of being on others instead of being on myself. I still have a lot to learn and I appreciate the fact that you have been one of the people who helps me do just that.

In the mean time, I applaud your sense of purpose, your committment to goodness, and your incredible and wonderful focus on being a father and a husband. These things are what makes life so much better…do not lose them. You are quite correct that you do not “need” a deity to have these values and I apologize if I ever came across to you as someone on a higher plane than yourself…because that is NOT how I feel.

Instead, I see us as equals, two people who look at the universe we live it and recognize the imbalance that exists within it. We see that imbalance and then seek to find balance. We study, we yearn and we learn. In some places we find balance and in other places we don’t. In some places we agree on balance, and in other places we don’t.

No matter what happens, don’t ever stop seeking the balance…but I would urge you to not always denounce others who are on the same quest…even when they think they’ve found it. This lesson speaks to me even louder and I will strive to do better!

Thanks,
Mark

OK but seriously.
Again, your attacks on relativism and subjectivity assume the absurdistly extreme example of the concept. You’re railing against the ultimate definition of the word itself, constructing a false dichotomy based on semantics, and forcing a false logic upon the concept where in reality, one doesn’t exist.

Please please PLEASE please parsniply pleeaassee read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism#Defenses.

Contradictions such as “all beliefs are equally worthless” appear irrelevant, as they constitute arguing from the premise. Once you have said if the X is absolute you have presupposed relativism is false. And one cannot prove a statement using that statement as a premise. There is a contradiction, but the contradiction is between relativism and the presuppositions of absoluteness in the ordinary logic used. Nothing has been proven wrong and nothing has been proven in and of itself, only the known incompatibility has been restated inefficiently.

That really should be all that needs to be said. But I’ll babble on.
Even if I were to say “Everything is relative” (which I don’t believe) even that statementis NOT a philosophical contradiction despite its appearance because WHAT the phrase is intending to describe does NOT include the semantics of the phrase itself.
It’s simply a badly worded statement.

To say there IS an objective standard does not contradict the idea of relativistic philosophy. Logic is pretty objective (when applied correctly.) If I were to say properly applied logical reasoning is objective, (which it is,) that does not imply that societal morals can not be subjective.
To whit: (Pardon my crassness and cynicism in the following extreme example,) Humanity as a biological collective of living entities, strives to thrive and survive. IF one subscribes to the idea that the prosperous survival of humanity is a desireable thing, promoting actions that assist the goal of the thriving of humanity is “good” and actions that deter or hinder humanity’s progress is “bad.”
Ergo, the removal of a human life against its will is “bad,” while promoting the creation of life-saving medicine is “good.”
Now, to what degree this is excersised can legitimately vary. The harming of a human by this logic is “bad.” But, what if the harming of one human is certain to improve the life, liberty, and happiness of millions of humans? Well, arguements of morality that can be equally valid can arise from there, and that exhibits a relative nature of morality, while logic and reason remains intact.

OK, I’m officially sick of the whole relative/absolutist arguement. I’m sorry, but it’s as clear as crystal to me and I can’t understand how a person can see otherwise without using disingenuous obfuscation or misunderstanding or misrepresentation.

Once again, pardon my bluntness, but I sincerely doubt the sincerety of your religious investigation for fact and truth. I insist that your cultural, if not familial, upbringing has forced you to scrutinize Christianity in a FAR more forgiving light than you do other religions and philosophies. Have you REALLY completely and objectively and rationally examined Christianity? Because I don’t see how it’s possible to do so and come away a believer of the literal “truth” of the religion and the supernatural claims.

Just starting with the facts that
(a) There are NO non-religious historical documents verifying anything from the gospels or Acts. All non-religious documents that refer to Christ are NOT 1st-hand accounts and were written after the religious documents (the gospels and Paul’s letters) had already been circulated.
(Coralary(sp): This does not prove that the events DIDN’T happen. Just because there is no one who recorded “A fellow named Yeshua came in to see Pilate today. Pilate spoke to him, and then he was brought before the Hebrews for display. The chicken today was very tasty,” does not mean it DIDN’T happen. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the very skewed, very biased, somewhat contradictory (without using inference and personal interpretation,) religious stories which sources cannot be verified do not count as extraordinary evidence.)

(b) The Hebrew texts that the Christian religion is based on does not match with known history, geology, science, and in some cases, logic. It has more in common with other “fertile basin” mythologies than it does with reality.

(c) There is nothing emperical, and only anecdotal evidence that the Christian concept of a personal God exists. (Again, this does not DISPROVE the Christian concept of a personal God exists, but does not PROVE he does, and the burden of proof is on the believer.)

Those are just the basics. A TRUELY skeptical (not even cynical, just honestly skeptical,) examination of Christianity using the same criteria as you would to disprove Hinduism, Wiccaism, or any other religion, reveals no literal factuality and historacity to Christianity. The only way a person believes a literal or even generally orthodox version of Christianity is through some collection of Cognitive Biases.

I can’t accept that Christ arose when there are no facts. Because five (seven at best) people 2000 years ago say they saw it happen, doesn’t make it so when it’s doubtful at best any of those seven people who wrote about actually was there and aren’t just reporting 2nd-hand stories and information, we can’t corroborate their stories, and they contradict facts we do know for sure. Extraordinary evidence is needed. Especially when there are more people today who claim to be first-hand witnesses to Elvis’ continued existance than there are people who were recorded first-hand witnesses of Jesus. And this is supposed to be the Son of God for goodness’ sake! The redeamer of the world. And the best we have are some very biased and erroneous stories written by some guys who weren’t even witnesses to the events.

One one side of the scale there is overwhelming evidence that the Jesus story is myth. That the Jewish religion is certainly and absolutely myth (and orthodox Chritianity demands the validity of Judaism,) and on the other scale is flimsy at best evidence for an event that requires pretty stupifying evidence to be reasonably accepted.

Sorry, but the scale is tipped pretty drastically against literal or orthodox Christianity. Wicca has more evidence of its validity (gag!)

Finally, is there is no Christian idea of a personal God and no validity to the Christ religion, by what do you determine “life is a sick joke?” By what definition of “sick” and who made up the joke if there’s no sentient human-like deity in charge?

Life just IS! See my friend, you have come to the very, the absolute, bottom line as to why mythologies exist! Why nearly every culture has some sore of myth, religion, spirituality, even today. We humans are sentient. We are able to recognize our existance and our mortality. We are capable of questioning it. We desire meaning. We place meaning upon things. From the anthropomorphising of stuffed animals to the seeing of faces in toasted cheese sandwitches, we impose meaning. Your very desire to refuse to accept an existance that may be cosmically meaningless belies your very human nature to grasp and latch onto meaning even if it’s wrong. We need something to tells us “It’s OK, there is a reason for everything, you’ll be fine, don’t fear, there is a nicer place than this,” because we fear death. We fear mortality. We don’t understand the mysteries of death and existance and we so desperately need to.

“It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong.” -Thomas Jefferson, (letter to Rev. James Madison, July 19, 1788)

“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” -Carl Sagan

And so humans create bigger than life parental figures in the sky to assure us. To create explanations for things we don’t understand. Weather. Nature. How we got here. Why people get sick. Why people do things that harms and we consider “evil.” We’re expert pattern finders so we create ritual, we assume pattern in nature. We create rules of behavior and believe the father figures in the sky have everything under control.

We are afraid. You say so yourself. You’re afraid of getting side-swiped by an SUV. So am I! My wife is driving to KC right no and I’m horribly afraid for her. Always am. My daughter is at the Y right now, and I am terrified of her drowning. I’m a human. I am mortal. I am afraid. I seek comfort in the idea of everything going to be OK, everything having a reason. Even when the truth is ugly. Children die. No matter what faith they or their parents are, children die universally. Everyone dies no matter how much you pray, you will die. Quick, slow, young, old, death does not care what god you pray to. And that terrifies us to no end as biologically mortal creature who are unlucky enough to realize this truth.

So we create god in our image, who share and understand our fears and ideas of right and wrong to make us feel better about existance and life and death.

But, does the fact we need that reassurance make God real? Just because we WANT so much for him to be real, does that poof him info existance?

So he doesn’t exist. So humans die. It’s sad that you feel the alternative to religion and myth is wanton nihilism and philisophical anarchy.

I speak for myself, but I find meaning like you wouldn’t believe in my family.
If you had incontrovertable and absolute prrof that God didn’t exist, Mark, would you really seriously become an amoral and meaningless person? Think about that very seriously. Why would it follow if God and an afterlife that reassures you didn’t exist, that suddenly you would become a sociopath?

I find meaning in my daughter. I have goals and hopes and dreams. My love for her is real. My desire to see her succeed and have a happy life while she’s on this planet is so very real. And my not believing in a personal God does not change that. I have hope for humanity. I expect that one day humans will populate the stars. I may not be alive to see it, but that has meaning for me. My love for my wife is deep and real, my devotion to her absolute, and I don’t need a deity to tell me that is “good.” I have meaning in the dream of living the rest of my painfully short number of days on this planet with her. Because I don’t believe in a absurdly human-like deity telling me this and that is wrong or right, doesn’t mean I have any desire to harm myself or those around me with harmful actions or behavior. And because there’s no book or scroll or tablet to tell me how to judge others, I don’t. All humans are valueable and created by nature as equal. We’re all on this planet for a short time, why not improve the conditions here for ourselves, for our children?

It really, really deeply saddens me that people have to cling to myths to find meaning, instead of being able to find meaning in reality. When the world can realize that there are no Yahwehs and Allahs and Vishnus ready to give us wings or 40 virgins or a new life a sa sacred cow or whatever, we will be less inclined to kill other humans based on these beliefs or ignore or harm the Earth or umanity in general, and will work together, all of us, to make the world a better place for everyone now and in the future.

People bandy the word “humanist” and “secularist” around like they’re synonymous with criminal. But that’s what secular humanism is. It’s hope and desire to see a better world for all! For the future. Not for our individual “salvations.”