Why Doesn't Heaven Have An 'Open House' Day?

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by jimmiej

You assume because I'm a Christian, I am unthinking. That's typical of your ilk.

You say I'm one of the convinced. This is true. You assume I was brainwashed, or at least weak-minded, no? Isn't it possible I experienced God to the point I became convinced?

Why do you think so many people throughout human history have felt God's presence, no matter what religion they were attached to? Can all these people be wrong? Is most of mankind that gullible? Are there only a small minority of intellectually honest people, as you claim to be?

Don't "ilk" me. I make no such assumptions but I have not yet found a Christian, particularly those who operate at the lower end of the intellectual honesty range (like c34 for instance, and demonstrably so...) who has been able to honestly answer direct questions that would, if so dealt with, prove even to that person the improbability or lack of necessity for a God.

I also didn't call you weak-minded, BTW. Rather, you perhaps have either not had the opportunities to consider the alternatives that I have, or, as with most dedicated Christian adults, you may have chosen to never consider, or to quickly dismiss, alternate rational evidence, no matter how compelling and confirmed by multiple independent study.

Yet, oddly, such folk always jump on to the latest religious "findings" no matter how poorly done or undocumented, that provide "proof" of their God. When such frauds are easily shown-up, the yowling of science's bias and dishonesty fill the halls.

Since there is no God (IMHO), one comes to expect such a paucity or weakness of evidence. That's just logical after all; the nonexistent cannot be easily proven to be. As well, all the things He is credited for, all the wildly improbable things, have long since been demonstrated to be the result of simple logic or natural occurrence. Yet even those reproducible demonstrations are denied, relentlessly.

As AREQUIPA so succinctly and correctly states above, and it bears repeating here:

"You have to understand that belief in what is unproven and actually has become ever more unlikely and unnecessary as a theory is irrational and illogical.

We do not have statistically or evidentially compelling evidence for an afterlife or any kind of personal god, and even First Cause is looking unnecessary these days."

That's all that need be said, frankly.

[TRANSPONDER]

in reply to jimmie's

"Why do you think so many people throughout human history have felt God's presence, no matter what religion they were attached to? Can all these people be wrong? Is most of mankind that gullible? Are there only a small minority of intellectually honest people, as you claim to be?"

Originally Posted by rifleman

...I also didn't call you weak-minded, BTW. Rather, you perhaps have either not had the opportunities to consider the alternatives that I have, or, as with most dedicated Christian adults, you may have chosen to never consider, or to quickly dismiss, alternate rational evidence, no matter how compelling and confirmed by multiple independent study.

Yet, oddly, such folk always jump on to the latest religious "findings" no matter how poorly done or undocumented, that provide "proof" of their God.

The distinction is we (skeptics; questioners) look at this feeling of presence but we ask what it is. Why do peple feel this way? Is it just a feeling humans have, like anger or pain or hunger? Is it some force like a shock we get from electricity or gravity or light which affect us all? Is it something else?

But jimmie alreasy knows. "felt God's presence, no matter what religion they were attached to" The assumption that it is some kind of invisible superhuman is understandable, but it really is now open to question and the appeal to numbers or tradition or something like our chum Kramer's preference for untaught (at least by ayone other than the theists) conclusions about what it is surely short - sighted.

I can understand presenting it this as data to be considered, but it isn't. It is presented as proof of something and why doubting it is supposedly wrong.

"Can all these people be wrong? Is most of mankind that gullible? Are there only a small minority of intellectually honest people," jimmie asks.

I have to say, yes. It's not their fault. It's how we evolved. As Matrix (explaining Plantinga) pointed out, our evolved senses and faculties are (by definition) intended to help us survive, not to discover the truth. Illogical, deceptive and self - justifying persuasion is the norm in our life. Objective appraisal of fact is not common and sound logic and the scientific method is only correctly applied in those areas and by those people trained to use it.

It is not taught in our schools. We are taught rather by the 'book says so' system because it is quicker than debating everything. But, yes, the majority are rather gullible and it is encouraging that a good 40 % are now beginning to learn to question what they fed by politicians, advertisers, the religious, cultists and other con - men.

All we ask is that you apply the methods of intellectual honesty. They are well -known. If your views are soundly based, you have nothing to fear. If they are not, you can only benefit from amending them. How about it?