you need to suggest some evidence or facts to elucidate your hypothesis

babaearly:

What If Christianity Was A Sham?

It isn't?

many will weep.

Christianity is NOT a sham. For anyone to suppose it is, simply shows they really do not know Christ in the reality and power of the Holy Ghost.

I would never have found Jesus Christ in living reality in my life without the power of the Holy Spirit. I have experienced His healing power in my body; as well as prayed for people and seen them healed in Jesus' Name.

I have seen lives changed, people delivered from demonic oppressions (even oyibo sef dey kolo - for real!); and the testimony of criminals who have been saved and now serving the Lord Jesus by reaching out to other dangerous criminals - would you still suggest the living power of Christ was a sham?

When someone experiences the power of Christ through the ministry of the Holy Ghost, they'll know the difference.

Rom. 8:16 - 'The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.'

shahan:

Christianity is NOT a sham. For anyone to suppose it is, simply shows they really do not know Christ in the reality and power of the Holy Ghost.

Obviously not, but anecdote and assertions are no substitute for proper argument

shahan:

I would never have found Jesus Christ in living reality in my life without the power of the Holy Spirit.

What exactly is this ephemeral "holy spirit" and what sets the experience of this holy spirit apart from the spiritual experiences of other religious traditions, except for the mapping of these experiences to their specific religious memeplexes? Is there any real fundamental difference between the spiritual experiences of Buddhist monks, Hindu Brahmin priests, Christian mystics or Muslim Sufi's?

shahan:

I have experienced His healing power in my body; as well as prayed for people and seen them healed in Jesus' Name.

Anecdote and placebo effect. Never have faith healing and prayer been shown to work in a controlled test environment.

shahan:

I have seen lives changed, people delivered from demonic oppressions (even oyibo sef dey kolo - for real!); and the testimony of criminals who have been saved and now serving the Lord Jesus by reaching out to other dangerous criminals - would you still suggest the living power of Christ was a sham?

Funny then that the relative proportion of self-professed Christians in prisons is way higher than that of atheists. Either Christians are less moral or atheists are smarter not to get caught.

shahan:

When someone experiences the power of Christ through the ministry of the Holy Ghost, they'll know the difference.

The power of (self)delusion

shahan:

Rom. 8:16 - 'The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.'

Meaning?

@ topic
I don't think that Christianity is a sham in that it would be a deliberate attempt by it's practioners at deception. Most Christians are genuine in their beliefs, regardless of how ill informed those beliefs are.

@nferyn,

nferyn:

Obviously not, but anecdote and assertions are no substitute for proper argument

I didn't employ anecdotes and assertions in my post, unless you're deliberately reading them into it. I'm not in the least interested in protracted arguements; and if you care, could you do me the favour of leaving your own small corner of the earth and go into the field of experience to see things for yourself?

nferyn:

What exactly is this ephemeral "holy spirit" and what sets the experience of this holy spirit apart from the spiritual experiences of other religious traditions, except for the mapping of these experiences to their specific religious memeplexes?

When you are ready to be open to the meaning of 'spirit', then we can have a discussion. I did not deny the spiritual experiences of other religions; and your allusion to "mapping" is rather naive. Not all religions speak of the Holy Spirit for the simple fact that they do not believe in His power: they do not have to "map" anything to a specific memes.

nferyn:

Is there any real fundamental difference between the spiritual experiences of Buddhist monks, Hindu Brahmin priests, Christian mystics or Muslim Sufi's?

If you actually were seeking an honestly intelligent debate, then I would oblige you. Tell me honestly, nferyn, that in all your perusals, you really don't find any real fundamental difference between all those religions??

nferyn:

Anecdote and placebo effect. Never have faith healing and prayer been shown to work in a controlled test environment.

Let me challenge you to go out and use the very same "Anecdote and placebo effect" and heal the sick. I am not demanding anything more from you than that you simply provide me one case of healing in which YOU have healed someone by the same rule. What you have not experienced cannot be dismissed with small carpings.

You really show how naive you can take issues sometimes. How has it ever been that faith healing and prayer are issues of life that must be subjected to controlled test environment? That is a tattered excuse injected through the back door. How many issues of life are actually known to have been subjected to your idea of a controlled test environment?

Let me even ask you, nferyn, what experiements have you ever conducted in the real face of demon oppression? Please don't come back with an excuse - I'd be greatly obliged if you have actually conducted any such and come back reporting your own experiences as I did mine: for my post was not based on what anyone told me, but rather on MY OWN experience.

nferyn:

Funny then that the relative proportion of self-professed Christians in prisons is way higher than that of atheists. Either Christians are less moral or atheists are smarter not to get caught.
The power of (self)delusion
Meaning?

If that is how you test the reality of the power of Christ, then you're in a small world. I wonder how it is then that I haven't opted to go to prison for becoming a Christian. And many thanks for contrasting and qualifying your adjectives - "self-professed Christians", and yet not "self-professed atheists"! Does the power of your adjective apply in your own case?

nferyn:

@ topic
I don't think that Christianity is a sham in that it would be a deliberate attempt by it's practioners at deception.

Precisely my point, nferyn. . . precisely my point. If I never experienced firsthand in my own life, the very same promises of healing in the Bible in Jesus' Name, then I would indeed have been given to a deliberate attempt at deception - this time, "self-deception"!

nferyn:

Most Christians are genuine in their beliefs, regardless of how ill informed those beliefs are.

Thanks for the compliments, and you're spot on in that regard.

babaearly:

[font=Lucida Sans Unicode]Guys what will you be? what will the world be? if we later found out that Christianity was a sham!

@babaearly, KAG, Nferyn et al,
So, what if christianity was a sham? hmmmm!!!, then that will be the best sham in existence; making it better and more sensible than the "real shams" i.e a life of unbridled and idolatrous hedonism (a.k.a Islam), confounded logic (a.k.a atheism/secular humanity), unrestrained delusion (a.k.a buddhism, sikhism, shintoism, ogun worship, etc)

Acts 4 vs 12: Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (other than the name of Jesus the Christ)

So, if "you" think it is or could be a sham, then I'll rather be foolish to "you"; but be wise in the sight of God. Blessing.

What if christianity is a sham?A whole lot of people in the know already know it is a sham since it's early days of inception,so nothing spoil for those ones.
As for christians,well,it is weepy and hanky time.But afterwards,life goes on as usual as they search for another form of religion to cling on to.

shahan:

@nferyn,

Obviously not, but anecdote and assertions are no substitute for proper argument

I didn't employ anecdotes and assertions in my post, unless you're deliberately reading them into it. I'm not in the least interested in protracted arguements; and if you care, could you do me the favour of leaving your own small corner of the earth and go into the field of experience to see things for yourself?

Your reply actually strengthens the point I intended to make.
When you talk about your personal [/u]experience of healing as a manifestation and evidence of the holy spirit, you actually use anecdote and assertion (e.g. that experience is a manifestation of the holy spirit) to make your point. It does absolutely nothing to substantiate the validity of your worldview. Only normalised data, either coming from controlled experiments or from rigorous statistical analysis can do such a thing.

shahan:

What exactly is this ephemeral "holy spirit" and what sets the experience of this holy spirit apart from the spiritual experiences of other religious traditions, except for the mapping of these experiences to their specific religious memeplexes?

When you are ready to be open to the meaning of 'spirit', then we can have a discussion.

In other words, I first need to accept the validity of your holy spirit before we can discuss it's validity or what it actually means? Isn't that a wee bit circular?

shahan:

I did not deny the spiritual experiences of other religions; and your allusion to "mapping" is rather naive. Not all religions speak of the Holy Spirit for the simple fact that they do not believe in His power: they do not have to "map" anything to a specific memes.

They map the spiritual experiences they have to the interpretative framework they know: a Christian may call it holy spirit, a Buddhist will call it something else. To validate your interpretation over others, the very validity of your conceptual framework needs to be established first. If not the whole discussion is only semantics

shahan:

I

s there any real fundamental difference between the spiritual experiences of Buddhist monks, Hindu Brahmin priests, Christian mystics or Muslim Sufi's?

If you actually were seeking an honestly intelligent debate, then I would oblige you. Tell me honestly, nferyn, that in all your perusals, you really don't find any real fundamental difference between all those religions??

I do find a lot of doctrinary differences between these religions. I don't see any fundamental difference in the spiritual experiences of their practitioners, though.

shahan:

Anecdote and placebo effect. Never have faith healing and prayer been shown to work in a controlled test environment.

Let me challenge you to go out and use the very same "Anecdote and placebo effect" and heal the sick. I am not demanding anything more from you than that you simply provide me one case of healing in which YOU have healed someone by the same rule. What you have not experienced cannot be dismissed with small carpings.

I do not make those kind of claims, so why would I have to show you that I have any healing powers when I explicitely claim not to have these powers

shahan:

You really show how naive you can take issues sometimes. How has it ever been that faith healing and prayer are issues of life that must be subjected to controlled test environment?

Me, naive? You clearly ascribe positive events to something that cannot, in principle, be investigated and then you call me naive. The irony

shahan:

That is a tattered excuse injected through the back door. How many issues of life are actually known to have been subjected to your idea of a controlled test environment?

Actual knowledge is obtained through the application of the scientific method. Either explicitely or implicitely. There is no other knowledge that can stand any test of intersubjectivity. Claims that cannot be tested are hollow.

shahan:

Let me even ask you, nferyn, what experiements have you ever conducted in the real face of demon oppression?

To do such a thing I would first need to accept the premisse that demons actually exist, something I don't.

shahan:

Please don't come back with an excuse - I'd be greatly obliged if you have actually conducted any such and come back reporting your own experiences as I did mine: for my post was not based on what anyone told me, but rather on MY OWN experience.

Yes and your experience isn't influenced by your perceptive an interpretative neurological framework? I know mine is, that's why controlled tests and/or statistical analysis are necessary to interprete these kind of experiences.

shahan:

Funny then that the relative proportion of self-professed Christians in prisons is way higher than that of atheists. Either Christians are less moral or atheists are smarter not to get caught.
The power of (self)delusion
Meaning?

If that is how you test the reality of the power of Christ, then you're in a small world.

No I don't, but you use those reformed criminals as evidence for the power of Christ. I use the equally irrelevant fact that there are proportionally far less atheists in prison to show that [u]your test of that power isn't a test at all

shahan:

I wonder how it is then that I haven't opted to go to prison for becoming a Christian.

Now that wouyld really be a sad thing. I still hold on to the belief that most Christians are actually moral people, but contrary to what they think, their morality does not originate in their belief. If that were the case, all those non-christians should be on a constant rampage.

shahan:

And many thanks for contrasting and qualifying your adjectives - "self-professed Christians", and yet not "self-professed atheists"! Does the power of your adjective apply in your own case?

Atheism is actually very simple: it's only and merely a lack of belief in (a) god(s). Only when theists try to frame the debate are they turning it into something else.
For Christians on the other hand, the matter is not that simple, as the bitter doctrinal disputes among the various nominations and sects only amplify. Some here would even go as far as saying that Catholics aren't really Christians, hence the "self-professed" adjective.

shahan:

@ topic
I don't think that Christianity is a sham in that it would be a deliberate attempt by it's practioners at deception.

Precisely my point, nferyn. . . precisely my point. If I never experienced firsthand in my own life, the very same promises of healing in the Bible in Jesus' Name, then I would indeed have been given to a deliberate attempt at deception - this time, "self-deception"!

The plural of anecdote does not equal data and definitely does not equal evidence. Your point of view cannot objectively be shown to be more valid than that of Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, Jews, etc. Only a methodologically naturalistic point of view can cross that divide

shahan:

Most Christians are genuine in their beliefs, regardless of how ill informed those beliefs are.

Thanks for the compliments, and you're spot on in that regard.

My pleasure indeed

@nferyn,

As earlier, I'm actually not given to recycled and protracted arguments for the sake of it; but for the present would oblige you this once.

nferyn:

Your reply actually strengthens the point I intended to make.

Not one bit.

nferyn:

When you talk about your personal [/u]experience of healing as a manifestation and evidence of the holy spirit, you actually use anecdote and assertion (e.g. that experience is a manifestation of the holy spirit) to make your point. It does absolutely nothing to substantiate the validity of your worldview. Only normalised data, either coming from controlled experiments or from rigorous statistical analysis can do such a thing.

This gentleman does not even know the rubrics of a good argument. Why should experience be ruled out of the question of this debate? Whether controlled or otherwise, I have offered you the same challenge to go out and apply the same rule you devise and obtain the same results. Then, and only then, can you have a genuine basis for a good argument; in which case, it no longer becomes my personal experience - but yours as well.

Your attempt to contrain issues of this sort to only normalised data is naive. How many experiences in life have you applied such data to predict 'rigorous statistical analysis' with the same results every single time??

nferyn:

In other words, I first need to accept the validity of your holy spirit before we can discuss it's validity or what it actually means? Isn't that a wee bit circular?

No; if at all it may be, then it weighs heavily against your arguments. You are trying to subject terms associated with spirituality to the constrained vocabulary of naturalism. If you cannot accept the definitions used in issues outside naturalism, then you have no justification for rejecting outright what you neither have experienced nor can explicate.

nferyn:

They map the spiritual experiences they have to the interpretative framework they know: a Christian may call it holy spirit, a Buddhist will call it something else. To validate your interpretation over others, the very validity of your conceptual framework needs to be established first. If not the whole discussion is only semantics

Your semantics is rather circular. Do naturalists not do the very same thing that you fail to appreciate in other worldviews - 'map their experiences to the very interpretative framework they know'? Buddists do not speak of the Holy Spirit by another nomenclature, because it is not in their theology in the frst place. To interject this allusion is not providing an open, honest basis for discussion.

nferyn:

I do find a lot of doctrinary differences between these religions. I don't see any fundamental difference in the spiritual experiences of their practitioners, though.

There are indeed differences in spiritual experiences, as well as doctrinal, philosophical and cultural leanings in all religions. One cannot equate them with a broad stroke of the brush the way many people often do.

nferyn:

I do not make those kind of claims, so why would I have to show you that I have any healing powers when I explicitely claim not to have these powers

That is why you cannot interpret these expriences with any degree of certainty as merely "anecdotes and assertions". In this regard, I offered you to take the same "anecotes and assertions" to the field, test them out and report back to the Forum that people got healed in exactly the same way that I calimed in my experience. What you do not have cannot be interpreted merely to interjections.

nferyn:

Me, naive? You clearly ascribe positive events to something that cannot, in principle, be investigated and then you call me naive. The irony

Right, I guess that 'naive' was rather too strong a word - and in good sense I take it back. However, how are you sure that religious experiences cannot, in principle, be investigated? Is it rather not ironic that you can draw this inference already without having first taken the challenges offered to go out and face the reality of the claims?

nferyn:

Actual knowledge is obtained through the application of the scientific method. Either explicitely or implicitely. There is no other knowledge that can stand any test of intersubjectivity. Claims that cannot be tested are hollow.

You therefore make the rascally claim that science answers every single question of reality in the universe, not so? I'll humbly request your answers to this: how has science implicitly or explicitly provided knowledge on paranormal phenomena, the bizaar, and the philosophical?

nferyn:

To do such a thing I would first need to accept the premisse that demons actually exist, something I don't.

You may not believe that they do exist; but your own disavowal does not negate their existence.

nferyn:

Yes and your experience isn't influenced by your perceptive an interpretative neurological framework? I know mine is, that's why controlled tests and/or statistical analysis are necessary to interprete these kind of experiences.

How many have you actually tested out in the same construct being discussed?

nferyn:

No I don't, but you use those reformed criminals as evidence for the power of Christ. I use the equally irrelevant fact that there are proportionally far less atheists in prison to show that [u]your test of that power isn't a test at all

Then you would have to explain the phenomenon of people whose lives have been transformed by coming to a living faith in Jesus Christ. If you are pitting atheism against Christianity on the same pedestal, then you assume that everyone who is not a Christian must be atheist, no? You're making broad references that you cannot sustain in its logical ends.

nferyn:

Now that wouyld really be a sad thing. I still hold on to the belief that most Christians are actually moral people, but contrary to what they think, their morality does not originate in their belief. If that were the case, all those non-christians should be on a constant rampage.

Let me assure you, a true Christian derives his morality from the Bible. As for non-christians constantly being on the rampage, it would not take away from the affirmation that Christians values, as far as morality goes, are established in belief. Nonetheless, that is not to suggest that non-Christians do not have values and morals; but it is wrong to suppose that the morality of Christians do not originate in their belief.

nferyn:

Atheism is actually very simple: it's only and merely a lack of belief in (a) god(s). Only when theists try to frame the debate are they turning it into something else.

Please, let's just be real here. You're recycling this weathered excuse that you left as an unfinished business in your debate to 4get_me's well articulated discourse in this thread: Refuting Monotheism: God Does Not Exist. Atheism proper is NOT a lack of belief in (a) god(s) - it is the active claim that there is NO god(s), usually configured by atheists themselves in the terse quip: "God does NOT exist." Even in that thread, you nferyn, had admitted the same atheistic definition; and your inference here is untennable.

nferyn:

For Christians on the other hand, the matter is not that simple, as the bitter doctrinal disputes among the various nominations and sects only amplify. Some here would even go as far as saying that Catholics aren't really Christians, hence the "self-professed" adjective.

Doctrinal or philosophical disputes do not negate any particular worldview - rather, that is what accentuates them; though one never has to celebrate or applauds disputes. Many people who see themselves as atheists have not always shared the same views on atheistic issues or positions, and you only have to read again how this was pointed out in the link above to 4get_me's discourse.

nferyn:

The plural of anecdote does not equal data and definitely does not equal evidence. Your point of view cannot objectively be shown to be more valid than that of Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, Jews, etc.

When you test experience against your supposed "data", then you find that your proposal of a naturalistic perspective is not any more valid than the objectivity you decry in others.

nferyn:

Only a methodologically naturalistic point of view can cross that divide

I knew you could not resist the urge to preach your own worldview - naturalism. The only problem is that your worldview is still limp in the face of the many questions it has yet to answer.

what if? u would av erred on d side of caution.
since it is not; believe and be saved!

By hypothecizing that christianity is a sham by extension contends that the existence of christ, his death, resurrection and holy spirt are all 'shams' as well.

If this is the case, then perhaps we should talk to the billions of true born again believers who testify of the l[b]iving[/b] Christ in their lives today, and ask them if He is real or not.

My Answer: He is Real, therefore Christianity is real.

The Defence of the Cross! Oh i love the Spirit.

abdkabir:

The Defence of the Cross! Oh i love the Spirit.

. . . Ehm, since when have Muslims started loving the Cross? Thank God for you O!

shahan:

@nferyn,

As earlier, I'm actually not given to recycled and protracted arguments for the sake of it; but for the present would oblige you this once.

Your reply actually strengthens the point I intended to make.

Not one bit.

When you talk about your personal experience of healing as a manifestation and evidence of the holy spirit, you actually use anecdote and assertion (e.g. that experience is a manifestation of the holy spirit) to make your point. It does absolutely nothing to substantiate the validity of your worldview. Only normalised data, either coming from controlled experiments or from rigorous statistical analysis can do such a thing.

This gentleman does not even know the rubrics of a good argument. Why should experience be ruled out of the question of this debate? Whether controlled or otherwise, I have offered you the same challenge to go out and apply the same rule you devise and obtain the same results. Then, and only then, can you have a genuine basis for a good argument; in which case, it no longer becomes my personal experience - but yours as well.

Do you deny that personal experiences are nothing more than anecdotal evidence for your position? If not, your point is mute. It doesn't matter a bit whether or not I experience it as well, the same rule applies to my experiences and they are equally anecdotal and thus carry insufficient weight.

shahan:

Your attempt to contrain issues of this sort to only normalised data is naive. How many experiences in life have you applied such data to predict 'rigorous statistical analysis' with the same results every single time??

Only normalised data can rise above the subjective status of personal experience

shahan:

In other words, I first need to accept the validity of your holy spirit before we can discuss it's validity or what it actually means? Isn't that a wee bit circular?

No; if at all it may be, then it weighs heavily against your arguments.

How so?

shahan:
You are trying to subject terms associated with spirituality to the constrained vocabulary of naturalism.

In what way is the vocabulary of naturalism constrained?

shahan:
If you cannot accept the definitions used in issues outside naturalism, then you have no justification for rejecting outright what you neither have experienced nor can explicate.

If only such definitions were clarifying the issues at all, but they rather blur them. How could you possibly know that the holy spirit you experience is the same phenomenon as what e.g. your neighbour claims to be the same holy spirit? Outside the confines of methodological naturalism, there is absolutely no way of knowing.
I'm not denying those spiritual experiences per se (in many cases, they can actually even be measured), but rather the explanations that are given to them

shahan:

They map the spiritual experiences they have to the interpretative framework they know: a Christian may call it holy spirit, a Buddhist will call it something else. To validate your interpretation over others, the very validity of your conceptual framework needs to be established first. If not the whole discussion is only semantics

Your semantics is rather circular. Do naturalists not do the very same thing that you fail to appreciate in other worldviews - 'map their experiences to the very interpretative framework they know'?

Methodological naturalism is a framework we all know and live by most of the time. It's that which is shared accross all cultures, continents and regions. The predicatability and lawfulness of most of our experiences attest to that. Formalised methodological naturalism, as expressed in the scientific method, has ellucidated so many phenomena that were in the past ascribed to supernatural agency and brought them firmly into the realm of natural law.
Implying supernatural agency actually shelters those phenomena from explanation. These implications are rather assertions that are not backed up by any evidence, statements of faith.

shahan:

Buddists do not speak of the Holy Spirit by another nomenclature, because it is not in their theology in the frst place. To interject this allusion is not providing an open, honest basis for discussion.

I wasn't referring to theology (a queer concept in the case of buddhism, as they do not believe in a god at all), but to the spiritual experiences, which are very similar in neurological terms and, given the current state of our knowledge of cognitive mechanisms, interact with specific, already existing memeplexes in the brain. You can even induce these experiences by giving specific direct neurological stimuli: e.g. you can make Christians feel [/i]the holy spirit in a strictly pavlovian way.

shahan:

I do find a lot of doctrinary differences between these religions. I don't see any fundamental difference in the spiritual experiences of their practitioners, though.

There are indeed differences in spiritual experiences, as well as doctrinal, philosophical and cultural leanings in all religions. One cannot equate them with a broad stroke of the brush the way many people often do.

I only equated the experiences (similar brain patterns) and ascribed the different interpretations given to them to the specific cultural/religious background of those people.

shahan:

I do not make those kind of claims, so why would I have to show you that I have any healing powers when I explicitely claim not to have these powers

That is why you cannot interpret these expriences with any degree of certainty as merely "anecdotes and assertions".

In the absence of objective evidence, that's all I can do. You are the one making huge leaps of faith here.

shahan:

In this regard, I offered you to take the same "anecotes and assertions" to the field, test them out and report back to the Forum that people got healed in exactly the same way that I calimed in my experience. What you do not have cannot be interpreted merely to interjections.

Once more, I do not deny the experience, but rather the validity of the explantions given to them

shahan:

Me, naive? You clearly ascribe positive events to something that cannot, in principle, be investigated and then you call me naive. The irony Wink

Right, I guess that 'naive' was rather too strong a word - and in good sense I take it back. However, how are you sure that religious experiences cannot, in principle, be investigated?

Not exactly the experiences but rather the interpretations if based on a subjective, self-referential framework.

shahan:

Is it rather not ironic that you can draw this inference already without having first taken the challenges offered to go out and face the reality of the claims?

I don't get your point here. What challenges?

shahan:

Actual knowledge is obtained through the application of the scientific method. Either explicitely or implicitely. There is no other knowledge that can stand any test of intersubjectivity. Claims that cannot be tested are hollow.

You therefore make the rascally claim that science answers every single question of reality in the universe, not so?

I don't. Reality and knowledge are not exactly the same concepts. Objective knowledge is only obtained through the scienctific method (again, implicitely or explicitely)

shahan:

I'll humbly request your answers to this: how has science implicitly or explicitly provided knowledge on [i]paranormal phenomena, the bizaar, and the philosophical?

You need to ellaborate a little more on these points they're such broad statements that they are impossible to answer. Many paranormal phenomena have been investigated through the scientific method. Science has had an enormous impact on philosophy, but these are different areas of discourse. Some fields of philosophy (e.g. metaphysics) are outside the bound of sciences, others (e.g. epistemology) are strongly influenced by the scientific method and others still (e.g. cosmology) are basically taken over by science.

shahan:

To do such a thing I would first need to accept the premisse that demons actually exist, something I don't.

You may not believe that they do exist; but your own disavowal does not negate their existence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We're still waiting for any evidence for the existence of demons.

shahan:

Yes and your experience isn't influenced by your perceptive an interpretative neurological framework? I know mine is, that's why controlled tests and/or statistical analysis are necessary to interprete these kind of experiences.

How many have you actually tested out in the same construct being discussed?

Meaning?

shahan:

No I don't, but you use those reformed criminals as evidence for the power of Christ. I use the equally irrelevant fact that there are proportionally far less atheists in prison to show that your test of that power isn't a test at all

Then you would have to explain the phenomenon of people whose lives have been transformed by coming to a living faith in Jesus Christ. If you are pitting atheism against Christianity on the same pedestal, then you assume that everyone who is not a Christian must be atheist, no? You're making broad references that you cannot sustain in its logical ends.

I'm not pitting atheism against christianity. I'm merely using this statement of fact to show that your reasoning doesn't hold water. The (positive) consequences of a belief have no bearing on the validity of that belief.
If I believe I have a fabulous treasure of gold burried in my garden, that belief may very well make me happy, but that doesn't mean there's any treasure at all.

shahan:

Now that wouyld really be a sad thing. I still hold on to the belief that most Christians are actually moral people, but contrary to what they think, their morality does not originate in their belief. If that were the case, all those non-christians should be on a constant rampage.

Let me assure you, a true Christian derives his morality from the Bible.

But only those verses that still hold true in today's world. I guess few Christians would quote Deuteronomy as the source of their morality, wouldn't they? What exactly is the arbiter in that selection?

shahan:

As for non-christians constantly being on the rampage, it would not take away from the affirmation that Christians values, as far as morality goes, are established in belief.

Maybe solidified would be a better word. Established seems to be wishful thinking on behalf of those Christians.

shahan:

Nonetheless, that is not to suggest that non-Christians do not have values and morals; but it is wrong to suppose that the morality of Christians do not originate in their belief.

What then is the source of these morals if the Christians claim their morals to be based on the Bible?

shahan:

Atheism is actually very simple: it's only and merely a lack of belief in (a) god(s). Only when theists try to frame the debate are they turning it into something else.

Please, let's just be real here. You're recycling this weathered excuse that you left as an unfinished business in your debate to 4get_me's well articulated discourse in this thread: Refuting Monotheism: God Does Not Exist. Atheism proper is NOT a lack of belief in (a) god(s) - it is the active claim that there is NO god(s), usually configured by atheists themselves in the terse quip: "God does NOT exist." Even in that thread, you nferyn, had admitted the same atheistic definition; and your inference here is untennable.

I won't rehash that debate here. It's a common tactic of theists to turn atheism in a positive claim for the non existence of God to shift the burden of proof. Most atheists do not ascribe to that position. I don't remember exactly why I didn't follow up on that debate, but the main thing 4get_me elloquently and courteously did in his last reply was playing a very skillful semantic game. Fact is that all atheists lack a belief in god(s), some positively deny the existence of god(s), others don't. Limiting the atheist position to that of a minority among them is dishonest.

shahan:

For Christians on the other hand, the matter is not that simple, as the bitter doctrinal disputes among the various nominations and sects only amplify. Some here would even go as far as saying that Catholics aren't really Christians, hence the "self-professed" adjective.

Doctrinal or philosophical disputes do not negate any particular worldview - rather, that is what accentuates them; though one never has to celebrate or applauds disputes.

No they don't, but it's still far more difficult to define what a true Christian is than to define what an atheist is.

shahan:

Many people who see themselves as atheists have not always shared the same views on atheistic issues or positions,

That's mainly because atheism isn't a worldview, just as theism isn't a worldview. Christianity and Secular Humanism could be considered worldviews, but not theism or atheism.

shahan:

and you only have to read again how this was pointed out in the link above to 4get_me's discourse.

I am yet to hear the first intra-atheist debate on what true atheism is. It's really a non issue among atheists.

shahan:

The plural of anecdote does not equal data and definitely does not equal evidence. Your point of view cannot objectively be shown to be more valid than that of Muslims, Buddhist, Hindus, Jews, etc.

When you test experience against your supposed "data", then you find that your proposal of a naturalistic perspective is not any more valid than the objectivity you decry in others.

I don't really understand your statement here. Can you rephrase?

shahan:

Only a methodologically naturalistic point of view can cross that divide

I knew you could not resist the urge to preach your own worldview - naturalism.

You misunderstood my point: methodological naturalism (which is not a worldview, contrary to metaphycisal naturalism), is the only method that provides a common language to cross the subjective divides of the different religions.

shahan:

The only problem is that your worldview is still limp in the face of the many questions it has yet to answer.

Which worldview are you talking about?

"Anecdote and placebo effect. Never have faith healing and prayer been shown to work in a controlled test" environment

@nferyn
what did you expect? for God to come down in the labs because the scientists wanted him to?

spoilt:

"Anecdote and placebo effect. Never have faith healing and prayer been shown to work in a controlled test" environment

@nferyn
what did you expect? for God to come down in the labs because the scientists wanted him to?

What is you point?

Last i checked, God is present everywhere

Please Google SON Of SAM HIS NAME IS DAVID W.

this is the link Bellow there are 26 chapters

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/berkowitz/letter_1.html

Now read his Testimony on his website

www.forgivenforlife.com

Take your time to discover if this is a sham or not.

HE REFUSED PAROLE BUT LETTER WENT TO FULFILL RIGHTEOUSNESS HE IS OBEDIENT.

@4getme
I didnt tell u i love the Cross? I meant i love the Spirit of the Defence. Its nice to see the apparent conviction with which u defend your Faith.

Hey what makes u think i'm a Muslim BTW.

@ dblock

everything was ready in the lab. but was there faith? or just cynicsm? relax! i believe in miracles too.

nahh I've just being going atound trying to piss you off

@dblock
piss me off ke? wetin i do you? cool down oh!

I'z tryna piss u off cos of an earlier post you made, but I'm over it now Lol

@dblock
i remember vaguely. i just dont remember which particular post that is. dont mind me jare. i say it as it is. so you stalked me here to annoy me abi?

Yep, That's exactly what happened, but like I said I'm over it.
But I really think that you username sums up ur personality

@dblock
it does. i am spoilt. so do you believe in miracles too?

I'm 50% agnostic 50% christian so I guess I do believe in Miracles.
But I have to confess I haven't seen a miracle with my own two eyes

@dblock
hehehehehe. .
the fact that your 2 eyes snap open from sleep every morning is a miracle in itself. you dont have to see a corpse in the morgue resurrect in order to believe. its all around you in the little things.

spoilt:

@dblock
hehehehehe. .
the fact that your 2 eyes snap open from sleep every morning is a miracle in itself. you don't have to see a corpse in the morgue resurrect in order to believe. its all around you in the little things.

Perfect evidence for the power of Baal isn't it?
I guess your evidentiary standards are rather low