[Index] [Menu] [Up] Title[Header]

[Creation] [Age] [Jesus] Religion Stories

Analysis of Creation   Age of the Universe   Did Jesus Really Exist?   Discuss   (Up to OJB's Religion Page)


Religious Stories

There are many stories in the Bible which a lot of Christians accept as being literally true. Others claim they shouldn't be taken literally but have some sort of symbolic meaning. Still others claim they were originally true but some of the detail or meaning has changed after translation. A key point is that all of these stories were originally accepted as being literally true until scientific discoveries showed they couldn't be. If we accept they are no longer true how many other parts of the Bible might end up being in this category later? Can any part of the Bible be trusted? Clearly, the answer is no. For those of you who still hang on to the old stories the following evidence disproves them.

Genesis

The Biblical account of Genesis has many errors. The first book of the Bible is so full of holes that it makes it difficult to take the rest of the Bible seriously. There is no doubt that the Biblical account of creation is wrong. Christians have varying ways of coping with this. First they deny all the evidence, no matter how strong, which disagrees with Genesis. Second, they say the Bible has translation errors which only look like factual errors. And as a final desperate solution they suggest the Bible stories shouldn't be taken literally but their original meaning is still intact. The first defence is irrelevant - the evidence against the creation myths is just too strong. The other two arguments decrease the accuracy of the Bible so much that they make it far less relevant to everyone.

Here's a few points regarding the accuracy of Genesis. First, the timing is all wrong. If you believe each day is a day or a thousand years makes no difference, the order of events is all wrong. Earth and the Sun were not made before the stars. Plants did not appear before the Sun. All the plants and all the animals did not appear together. The Earth is also a lot older than can be deduced from the Bible. The famous prediction of 4004 BC may or may not be what the Bible really says, but it definitely doesn't predict the origin of the Earth in 4,500,000,000 BC! I show why the Universe and Earth aren't 6000 years old here.

There is so much in the Bible that makes no sense. If Earth is the only place God created life, why is the rest of the Universe there? Why are there other suns and planets? Why do we find fossils of creatures not mentioned in the Bible? The questions are just too numerous.

It is possible that the Bible is true and God has just put all the evidence out there to test our faith, but this a very feeble explanation. The most likely explanation is that the Bible is not true and the Christians have it wrong.

There's a thorough analysis of problems with the literal Biblical account of creation here.

Jesus

There isn't even any good evidence that Jesus even existed. Any obscure evidence that does exist makes him just another religious teacher or prophet. People from other cultures treat him as a mythological figure. Other important people from this time, and well before, are documented in multiple places. Note, that documentation in the Bible doesn't count. Supporting Christianity by quoting the Bible which in turn is justified because its the holy book of Christians is the ultimate circular argument! There's also quite a lot of inconsistency in the four gospels describing Jesus' life.

The Great Flood

The scientific evidence shows the Great Flood definitely didn't occur. There are many areas of unrelated evidence which show no event of this type has happened. Examining growth rings of trees, sedimentary deposits, midden, etc would easily reveal any worldwide flood and in every case the result is negative. Some people who support the flood suggest geological strata and accompanying fossils were deposited by the flood. This can't be true because the multiple layers, thickness of layers and well ordered progression of fossils (which also support evolution) are totally inconsistent with a single global flood. Another study shows midden deposits dating back a million years with no lack of continuity suggesting a flood.

Even if you don't accept the scientific evidence, there is still the practical problem of all the existing species surviving on the ark. If all species are accounted for its simply not possible. Finally, there is no mechanism through which the water could have appeared, and subsequently disappeared again. None of the suggested mechanism (comets, subterranean water, etc) are even remotely feasible.

Faith Healing

I have only ever found one unbiased, scientific study of faith healing. It was reported by the Mayo Clinic in 2001. The study found a slightly negative effect associated with prayer. In other words, if your friends prayed for you, you were slightly less likely to get well than those who didn't! Another effect noted was the feeling of abandonment when the patient wasn't healed. This actually produced a more negative outcome due to the effect of depression. If you understand the placebo effect, conscious and sub-conscious bias, and other effects proper scientific studies have to allow for, you will see reports of spectacular success through prayer and faith healing have to be viewed with extreme suspicion.

Prophecies

While there have been plenty of prophecies pointed out after the fact (in other words, highlighting things that have already happened that might have been predicted) there as a suspicious lack of predictions ahead of time. In fact there have been hundreds of predictions of the second coming of Christ, the end of the World, etc which have just turned out to be another ordinary day.

Also, many prophecies are expressed in terms which can be open to many interpretations - its easy to select one possible interpretation to events which have already occurred and claim its a Biblical prediction. Finally, everyone can predict the future, but not be right every time. There's a common fault in people to conveniently forget the false predictions and focus on the true ones, even though the success rate might be entirely due to chance. On balance, I think for lack of an outstanding unquestionable prophecy, we have to reject the idea that Biblical prophecies are accurate.

Discussion

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-03-13 at 13:35:08: In the blog I just read, you talked about Genesis having holes in it. I'm a Christian and I'm pretty new at the thing too, but I was told you shouldn't just read the book from the beginning, you should start at the book of John. It makes more sense. Just a tip from a new Christian.

Comment by OJB on 2007-03-13 at 15:28:17: As far as I'm aware there isn't very much in John which is relevant to what's in Genesis, so I'm not sure how that is supposed to help. I think that's a bit of a red herring. Are you saying Genesis is true, or not?

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-03-14 at 05:05:48: Absolutely true.

Comment by OJB on 2007-03-14 at 08:07:38: Well you are out of touch with reality then. You really are. There is no way to support Genesis as being literally true. If you choose to think it is, because of faith or whatever, you're just ignoring the facts and dooming yourself to ignorance.

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-03-24 at 19:52:03: What if the story related in Genesis is much stranger than you or the majority of Christians have begun to consider? What if the 'days' of Genesis are 'days of Brahma' or 4.32 billion years as the? The universe and earth is then considerably older than the current scientific estimate of 4 billion years. What about the variable nature of time and matter? And lets not forget the tendency of people to frame all interpretation in terms of their current and fleeting contemporary concepts. The su...

Comment by OJB on 2007-03-25 at 09:23:07: We now know that the Universe is about 13.7 billion years, so you're still not right. Also, the Earth is only 4.5 billion years. And the order of events in Genesis is wrong, even if you ignore the time period. And many of the events would have occurred in the last few billion years not spread out evenly as the Genesis chronology suggests. The only way to make Genesis work is to change it so completely that it is a totally different story. Its as simple as that: its pure fiction.

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-03-25 at 17:28:18: Nice 'lude by the way, I have a 4th gen as well. The point I was trying to make about Genesis is that the 'days' are actually huge expanses of time (each billion of years) and the order of events is incorrect, as you say, when framed in comtempory ideas of what a 'plant' or 'animal' is. In order to begin to understand Genesis (and other parts of the bible) people will have to think so much further outside of the little box they currently inhabit its not funny. It doesn't help that meaning ha...

Comment by OJB on 2007-03-25 at 17:40:13: Yes, I have heard the old argument about days being long periods of time before. It still doesn't work for the reasons I outlined above. Changing what a plant or animal is just to suit Genesis is rather arbitrary. We could make a hundred changes to what we think about the world to suit Genesis, or make one change to Genesis: admit its fiction. Thinking outside the box is fine, but for the Bible to be true we would have to change just about everything we know from geology, biology, history, ar...

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-03-26 at 20:42:30: Most people 'believe' what they believe because it suits a personal bias or agenda in some way and not because of the hard facts or 'truth'. Are you sure you are objective in your apparent quest against Christianity or does it suit a bias or agenda? You should know I am not religious in the conventional sense. Truth is my only interest and like you I am frustrated by those who refuse to think for themselves. As for evidence, or 'proof' - this is an external demonstration of 'truth' - truth ...

Comment by OJB on 2007-03-26 at 22:08:34: Everyone has some bias, and no matter how hard we try to be objective and fair there will always be some subjectivity. I admit I am biased against Christianity, but this is mainly because the arguments supporting it are so weak. As I keep saying: I'll change my mind when I see the evidence. I've discussed ideas of proof elsewhere. I agree that we can never prove anything 100% except in the areas of maths and logic. But we can have strong evidence for a theory and accept that theory as true un...

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-03-28 at 09:18:50: To be specific: The events described in Genesis are not physical events - they are 'spiritual'. If you had been present all that time ago your physical eyes would have seen darkness and void I expect. The contemporary materialistic mind frames everything in the material hence the current interpretation problems from the camps of Christians, Agnostics and Atheists alike. The other point is, the order in which entities are spiritually created in their prototype or 'blueprint' form does not nec...

Comment by OJB on 2007-03-28 at 10:02:34: So now we get down to the real core of the argument. I have a few problems with your points... 1. The description in Genesis doesn't sound very spiritual. Its talking about light, and animals, and plants, and water and solid surfaces, etc. It seems to me these are, at the very least, physical manifestations of the spiritual process, and therefore could be examined physically. 2. How do we know that a spiritual realm even exists? If its completely independent from the physical world then ef...

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-03-28 at 19:29:45: 1. Yes, it does sound like that. Hence all the Christians who refute evolution theory (evolution is basically sound but misses a few things). I understand your irritation with Christians, however Jews and Muslims are actually just as bad in defending their doctrine, absurd or not. You will have to did deeper than just the Bible to find information to supporting the non physicality of Genesis. Try some other sources, for instance Theosophy or the Hindu religion which is one of the most ancient ...

Comment by OJB on 2007-03-28 at 19:52:28: Yeah, I know that other religions are just as annoying as Christianity. I do pick on Christianity a lot, but my criticism also applies to other religions. I'm afraid the rest of your post is a load of unsupported superstition. Do you have any evidence to support belief in a spiritual world?

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-03-29 at 09:19:15: Yes, well. Keep in mind I've had this discussion before, several times. And in case you think I am an uneducated, a layman if you will, I should point out I have a 1st class honors and PhD in Physics. Understand I don't wish to 'prove' anything to you. I simply encourage you look into the subject carefully and with as little bias as possible. Do I internally know the truth of spirits existence? Yes, through personal experience which cannot be related in a public forum. Can I manifest ...

Comment by OJB on 2007-03-29 at 11:21:47: Yeah well there are plenty of well educated people who have bizarre beliefs. Its not common, but it certainly happens. I'm afraid that if the limit of the support for your belief is some unspecified personal experience then we might as well stop there. If I took half the personal beliefs people tell me about seriously I would be overwhelmed with contradictory nonsensical world views which would be of no value at all. Thanks for your opinion though.

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-03-29 at 12:17:27: Fair enough, though 'bizarre' is a point of view. The inability to see past the physical is bizarre for me. At this point in human development I'm afraid most knowledge of the spirit will be an internal personal experience, though as it becomes more common I expect external demonstrations in the physical and biological sciences will arise. Quantum mechanics, zero point energy and genetic experiments (cloned individuals with notably difference personalities?) for example. And I understand...

Comment by OJB on 2007-03-29 at 13:08:02: I agree that bizarre has an element of subjectivity, but there is a consensus amongst educated people which doesn't really encompass your belief system so I think the word has some relevance. (bizarre adjective: very strange or unusual, esp. so as to cause interest or amusement) Are you really a scientist? I've only heard the use of quantum mechanics to support pseudo-science by people who are ignorant of what it is really about. I'm afraid I don't see any reason to think those areas of scien...

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-03-29 at 20:19:04: Yes, I am a scientist. What makes me a little different is that I am a scientist of the physical world *and* the spiritual :) Its unusual in that academics are typically thoroughly brainwashed in conventional science and often exhibit an antipathy to anything that is unfamiliar and may challenge their intellect and established knowledge base or authority. Now, what makes QM interesting is the great deal of powerful maths involved in its formulation and the starting conclusions that drop out ...

Comment by OJB on 2007-03-29 at 20:50:48: I have never seen a definition of science which encompasses the supernatural. The definitions I have seen specific limit it to the natural world. I really don't think your beliefs in the spiritual have anything to do with science. I think I have a fairly good basic understanding of QM and I can't see anything there which is relevant to spirituality. I agree that its impossible to prove a negative. In fact, outside of maths and logic, its impossible to prove anything, isn't it. Like everyone, ...

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-03-29 at 21:19:28: There is nothing 'supernatural' about the spirit. Its only as supernatural as electromagnetism was in the 12th century. Science continually progresses. The spirit is part of reality and I'm confident it will be incorporated into science in time in a logical and consistent way. It will then be used in the advanced 'technology' of the future and people will regard humanity from our era perhaps as many now regard humanity from the time of the dark ages. Do I believe in the literal truth of...

Comment by OJB on 2007-03-29 at 22:32:51: I think this discussion is now a waste of time. I am only prepared to believe in things which are supported by scientific evidence. You seem to be prepared to believe in things for other reasons, such as personal experience which we know is unreliable. What your rather undefined belief in spirit has to do with Biblical stories, such as Creation, I do not know, but unless you can tell me specifically what this spirit you believe in actually is and what evidence for it you have, there is little point in taking this any further.

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-04-01 at 21:35:27: As you wish. I would also suggest 'near death experience' titles as an interesting insight. For instance, Howard Storm's 'My decent into death' which can be had 2nd hand via Amazon from one of their partners. There are others also. I am aware of the medical theories which attempt of to explain these peoples experiences, but they don't do enough and often leave doctors stumped. If you are a free thinker, as you seem to imply, then perhaps you will take a look.

Comment by OJB on 2007-04-02 at 10:18:41: Again this gets back to what standards of proof we are prepared to accept. Scientific study of NDE and out of body experiences indicates there is nothing unusual there. Again you take personal experience seriously when we know that people are atrociously poor reporters of factual events. I don't totally discount personal experiences, such as Storm's, but unless I place the standard of proof higher I will be obliged to believe hundreds of contradictory things: ghosts, bigfoot, UFOs, Loch Ness monster, fairies, etc, the list goes on.

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-04-03 at 19:13:36: Not so, I have read the subject of NDE in depth - have you? There are many compelling reports current science cannot explain. At any rate, I feel Storm's book is a valuable read for everyone. No one is required to believe the contents, merely observe the wonderful message of love he is trying to impart. As for proof, I do not think you will find proof of God or the spirit within the narrow boundaries of proof you have set for yourself. Would you believe it if you saw it with your own eyes? ...

Comment by OJB on 2007-04-03 at 19:23:23: You may have studied NDE in depth (and I admit I haven't) but your standard of evidence is so poor that I can't take your beliefs seriously unless you show me some evidence. I've read excerpts form the book, and its practically worthless - just more personal experience. Story of love... whatever. Do you have *any* scientific evidence at all supporting your beliefs? If not, why not. We have found science to be an excellent tool to discover the truth. Why doesn't it work for these spiritual beliefs you have?

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-04-03 at 22:41:01: Science is an excellent tool for discovering truth, but like any tool its ability is limited by those who wield it. Humanity does not yet have the ability to wield science in a manner which which would uncover proof in a form acceptable to you. This shouldn't surprise you - natural science has progressed greatly over even the last one hundred years and would seem perhaps boundless in its potential. Try and understand, the science of today which you seem to pin all your requirements of proof to ...

Comment by OJB on 2007-04-04 at 10:37:14: I'm not interested in the book because I haven't got the time. The excerpt I read was nonsensical. Saying that you believe something because you think some future unspecified science will support it is not a logical argument. I could use that to support any superstitious belief. I would rather be too conservative and not accidentally believe untrue things, than take your approach. Ah yes, the famous red shoe story. That story has been debunked. I will find the reference for you when I can. Ex...

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-04-04 at 13:06:18: Yes, the red shoe story. Its well known event which is one reason I listed it. Perhaps it was a hoax as I mentioned, I don't know - the point is that it is one example of the kind of event you might begin to consider as evidence - provided it was not debunked (link please?). As for debunking that particular story, the only compelling way would be to show the people involved don't exist or obtain admissions that they lied or exaggerated. Yes, certain initial aspects of NDE could be attributed ...

Comment by OJB on 2007-04-04 at 19:09:28: Again we get back to the standard of evidence each of us is prepared to accept. I would rather take the conservative route and maybe miss out on early discoveries of certain phenomena if it will also prevent me from falsely accepting many untrue things. There's a link regarding explanations of NDEs here.

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-04-05 at 20:53:07: Fair enough. I'd be horrified if you simply believed what I had to say. If we assume I'm on the right track with several of my statements you still have no immediate way of telling me apart from a million other people and their opinions. Everyone must discover the key truths for themselves of course, and as they do, disagreement will wane and all opinion will converge to reflect the truth. I'm willing to entertain a 'lower standard' of proof regarding NDE and so on as I know from personal ex...

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-04-05 at 21:45:51: Oh, and I read most of the (long) link you provided - have you? Its actually not bad, though I detect an underlying bias from the author. Also, I have ready answers to many of the authors objections which stem from misunderstanding mostly. To be fair though, NDE researchers and adherents can be just as stubborn as their materialist counterparts in which case neither part is thinking clearly and that hardly helps with the exchange of opinion. The article is still valuable as it makes many observations and documents much, irrespective of the conclusions drawn.

Comment by OJB on 2007-04-05 at 22:12:35: So it really gets back to a personal experience you have had. I don't know the details of your particular experience so I can't specifically comment, but I will say that we know in general that it isn't a reliable way to establish the truth. As I have already said, I will seriously consider anything if there is reasonable supporting evidence. I'm afraid that this discussion hasn't really made me any more likely to believe this sort of thing. OK, so you looked at the "red shoes" NDE site I ...

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-04-09 at 10:28:47: I agree that science can reasonably explain the initial observations of NDE, such as the tunnel and lights and some sounds. However, there are no sound scientific theories that explain the particular details of the NDE as it progresses further. Instead of proving a sound theory, the NDE link you provided tries to make the NDE look unlikely through making objections to observations made in NDE. Providing a working theory and attempting to disprove or illustrate perceived logical errors in someone else's observations are entirely different things.

Comment by OJB on 2007-04-09 at 11:55:00: There's no need for a theory because nothing happened. The allegedly supernatural aspects of that case can be explained without resorting to complex theories. She just knew about the details because she had seen them before. Psychological tests have shown this is a common phenomenon. Sometimes the subject doesn't even know she's seen the items. Then there is the biased reporting of the people who want to believe the paranormal explanation. Its not surprising that a perfectly mundane event is exaggerated out of all proportion.

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-04-09 at 13:48:25: You are talking about the single 'Red shoe' incidentI presume? I'm am referring to plethora of experiences reported by NDE subjects as a whole. There are no sound scientific theories which explain the NDE comfortably, without conjecture. Only initial observations of tunnels and lights and some sounds could plausibly be explained with science. The remainder of the experience is not comfortably explained - only conjecture and various musing are made. That should be the point, and not one partic...

Comment by OJB on 2007-04-09 at 14:58:40: You specifically mentioned that particular example. I showed there is good reason to believe there's nothing paranormal there. When controlled experiments are done we find nothing unusual. When we thoroughly investigate an event we find there are alternative explanations. Sometimes there isn't enough evidence to conclude anything. Overall, the evidence just isn't good enough. Do you have any other examples worth looking at?

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-04-10 at 10:53:20: You need more? ;) Ok, well try another common one, Pam Reynolds NDE. If you google 'Pam Reynolds near death' you will find many links such as her personal one below. Apparently Pam underwent a surgical procedure to repair an aneurysm. She was it a state of near brain death as required by the procedure apparently. http://www.geocities.com/pamreynoldsus/ I would also mention, when it comes to debunking something such as the Red Shoe NDE, more is required than one persons word against a...

Comment by OJB on 2007-04-10 at 21:44:35: The Pam Reynolds story is also rather weak, because there are reasonable alternative explanations. Skeptics have shown that the timing is very debatable, which would remove the need to accept an NDE. Again, Occam's Razor must be used. I totally agree that skeptics' opinions should be treated with caution, just like believers' opinions should be. Now maybe you can see why I can't accept the weak evidence the cases you have shown me are based on? There have been real experiments testing OBEs...

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-04-13 at 19:12:19: The link you provided shows overwhelming bias which renders the author incapable of objective observation. His mind is clearly polarized and as a result makes blanket statements which reflect as much; "After all, both the awareness and the out of body experience are conscious experiences, and can only occur in a conscious brain." "One thing is certain - she could have had no conscious experience during the period of hypothermic cardiac arrest." "Not only are they conscious during such ...

Comment by OJB on 2007-04-14 at 10:55:46: We all have our biases. The links you provide have overwhelming bias in favour of the paranormal. The key thing is to get some balance. There are plenty of conventional explanations which can't be proved but the fact that there is a conventional explanation makes it unnecessary to accept one which goes against all the established laws of science. Really the only way to test the phenomenon is to set up a controlled experiment. This has been done and people were not able to identify objects bey...

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-04-16 at 19:33:43: Are people like Howard Storm biased by their experience? Well perhaps, but I'm more likely to cut someone a little slack if their bias originates in what they perceive to have been a very real experience - particularly if they were a strong Atheist of the worst kind such as Howard. Bias derived from a *lack* of experience, a lack of having observed anything on the other hand, doesn't garner so much favor with me. Truly if you have no knowlege you must honestly consider yourself agnostic. Its pu...

Comment by OJB on 2007-04-18 at 10:43:22: I don't completely discount these personal accounts of NDEs. I'm sure NDEs happen, but there is just no compelling evidence to think there is anything unnatural happening. If I accepted this level of evidence (personal accounts where the person themselves is convinced the event happened) I would have to accept the reality of too many highly doubtful phenomena, many of which are mutually exclusive, for example: UFOs, astrology, ghosts, fairies, Nostradamus, many different religions. If I start be...

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-04-20 at 14:49:37: Yes, I agree. It would be absurd for you to adopt my view or anyone else's. You must decide for yourself which of those things you mention, among others, are true. I feel the problem lies in your approach to deciphering the truth. Your seemingly heavy dependence and deep trust in current science and scientific method are a mistake in my opinion and mark you as a product of our times. Perhaps your bias feeds your trust of current science which in turn reinforces your bias. I feel I know somethin...

Comment by OJB on 2007-04-20 at 19:25:18: It would only be absurd to accept your views because to me your views seem absurd. If you could support your views better it would be perfectly OK for me to consider accepting them. Can you answer my question regarding why its OK to use less rigorous methods to support NDEs but you would (presumably) reject using the same logic to support UFOs or astrology? There's more to it than me just accepting the methods of science. I use the methods which are likely to produce the most accurate results...

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-04-24 at 19:30:18: My views may seem odd, though they are not as uncommon as you seem to imply. Your views are entirely familiar to me. Its also how all of the west is currently educated after all. We should be clear on what the other person is saying. I'm saying NDE are a real phenomenon - but they are inherently difficult to study. I've stated that current logical methods are limited by limited minds and therefore NDE cannot currently be fully uncovered through abstract reasoning alone (though perhaps in pri...

Comment by OJB on 2007-04-24 at 22:49:22: So, astrology was "a spiritual inspired knowledge of the planets relationship to mankind." What total nonsense. Please don't make statements like that without any way to support them. What, exactly is the planets relationship to man? Is there any nonsensical pseudo-science you don't believe in? This is a classic example of why you need to be more skeptical! I'm not going to disagree that we should be looking for new ways to describe the Universe, whether that involves a replacement for quantu...

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-04-25 at 15:09:16: "What total nonsense"? How would you back that statement up? Have you studied the ancient history and material available to us which indicates modern (and faulty) astrology is based on a much earlier interest in the role the planets (this includes the sun and and our moon)? And yes, whether you think its drug induced or not, various civilizations long gone (Greek, Egyptian and Roman empires to name a few) considered the relationship of 'the spheres' to humanity to be of profound significance...

Comment by OJB on 2007-04-25 at 20:59:31: Again, I've got to say that this is a waste of time. You continually support your pseudo-scientific beliefs using "evidence" such as: ancient civilisations thought it was true, there was a spiritual component to this belief, many people have personal experiences of this. This just isn't good enough for me. You can say that by extending the type of evidence science accepts we could extend the type of things science could accept as real, but that would likely lead to belief in false phenomena. ...

Comment by Anonymous on 2007-04-26 at 09:42:20: A waste of time? Perhaps, but rarely is free exchange of ideas a waste. I think you continually misunderstand what I am saying. You continually state that I am willing to accept a lower standard of proof - this is not the case! The "evidence" I provide is not hard scientific evidence, its just another something in a near infinite list of examples meant to make you think. My thinking is as critical as yours, believe it or not. I don't run the risk of accepting any given NDE or other phenomena...

Comment by OJB on 2007-04-26 at 10:06:05: I think its a waste of time because we keep getting back to the same point which neither of us seems to be able to move past. I demand objective, physical evidence. You accept personal experience and belief. And I think that, because you accept a wider range of evidence than me, you are accepting a lower standard, but you obviously disagree. You look at the sky and see profound wisdom and wonder. What does that mean? We all feel wonder when we contemplate the Universe, but I don't know where ...

This discussion has been shortened. View the full discussion, or add your own comments here.


[Up] [Comment]

[Contact][Server Blog][AntiMS Apple][Served on Mac]

Comment on this page: ConvincingInterestingUnconvincing or: View Results