Brother Edward wrote:
How would you distingush between a patient who averred to the same unsupported belief system as yours and one who, say, believed he was guided by My Little Pony?
How would you distingush? If you say that you have "truth" there must be a way. Your "thought experiments" fail, there is no evidence, there is no internal support in your books for a grand being. How then do you prove anything?
If you say "proof is not necessary, in fact proof gets in the way of belief" then we have the answer.
One thing's for sure when it comes to atheism: It's not about proof. You guys aren't looking for proof. You already have all the proof you need. What you won't accept is being told what to think. That's not a bad thing.
Proof? What sort of proof and for what? There is no proof of the existence of a supernatural alien godlike critter. If there were, we would not be having this discussion. If it exists and you are being coy about presenting it then you are being dishonest. If you are referring to some argument fraught with illogic that is a basic appeal to ignorance then you have nothing. I assume that you are not being ironic and suggesting that we have all the evidence we need for our beliefs. Maybe you are.
Unfortunately, your anti-authoritarianism also leads to skepticism, and with skepticism you throw out the baby with the bathwater. You reject Christ when you reject Christianity.
As Abdul said, skepticism leads to anti-authoritarianism. Sceptics, actually, are far more likely to hold onto the baby and ditch the bathwater than the religious. Interesting, the role of the churches during the Holocaust. Babies, bathwater, jews, all aus. All for the good of the church. All for god.
And that's a poor choice (But then you would never consider that you could make a poor choice, now would you?).
I suspect I am far more likely to introspect than you are. You "know" the truth already, nu?
The only way you're ever going to believe in God is if you come to the conclusion yourself that God exists.
A tautology. I have been asking for any proof that you can muster. I pointed out that the books that you refer to as the source of your beliefs provide no authority for those beliefs. None. Zero.
The only way you're going to accept Jesus Christ as a teacher is if you read the Gospels and you suddenly have an insight into them.
I have read them. They are inconsistant and of questionable authority. I would defer to Dr. X on that score, you should ask him why he thinks the way he does. You may learn something. When is Jesus returning? During the lives of those that hear him or something?
Frankly, I picture the Gospels as being mirrored by Manzarek Densmore and Krieger after Jim snuffed it.
Ray: Fuck. Drunken bastard finally did it.
Robbie: I told him, I ...
Ray: Jesus Christ Robbie, shut the fuck up.
John: Question is, my friends, do we give up the sex and drugs and rock and roll and go back to the Taco Bell gig or can we, miraculusly, conjure up the semblence of old drunken Jim ...
Ray: Hmm ... you mean like JC maybe?
John: Just like that.
Robbie: But noone will believe that he rose again, will they?
Ray: they don't have to. Say, think you would get sick of playing Light My Fire?
Robbie: Do we get S&D&R&R?
Ray: More than ever because ...
John and Robbie: Yes?
Ray: We KNOW the way Jim would have wanted it.
Same damn thing. Hell of a lot better inventing miricles and defining what JC meant than going back to fishing. Can you imagine how pissed those disciples were when the gravy train ended? Makes a pretty strong prima facie case for fraud.
I can't give you proof that will work. I can't show you anything that will change your mind. If you don't find it; you will not accept it.
Finally. Why didn't you say that there was no proof weeks ago?
My current work in this ministry is not so much to convert you, but rather to study you. To find a way of evangelizing that works. I haven't found it yet, but I will.
Well, you seem to be at a loss to both define a clear consistent purpose and to be honest about it.