Trav, you're interested in being earnest about reflective thinking, you obviously understand the importance.

Words, being our only currency in the exchange of ideas, unfortunately never have the nuance of meaning we give them by the time they are received.
The eloquence in the (chat) room?

Fortunately, there are many ways to test our ideas whilst retaining all the nuance of the argument and with a perfectly captive audience – thought experiments, internal dialogues. At the least they help to better phrase an opinion – at their best they reveal another aspect of the numinous universe.

Perhaps these will help with your thinking about your thinking about your beliefs. Something simple yet serious to start with prompted by an earlier question about evidence?

A miracle is anything impossible done by god… How would/could you recognise a miracle?

You might try thinking backwards…

Begin with the last thing that you now hold as a belief. Remember how you thought/were when you didn't believe this. What changed, that changed your thoughts? Move onto the next part or aspect of your beliefs; then the next. A visual analogy for what I'm suggesting is that this is like arranging your beliefs as ornaments on the mantelpiece then taking them down one at a time to remember the circumstances – the when, what, where, why, who and how – of their acquisition.

Re-engineer the 'no true Scotsman' axiom…

Think of someone who identifies their basic belief the same as yourself (for example, Christian), now imagine this person belongs to a non-mainstream sect (anything far removed from your usual religious community). The question to contemplate is… What would they say is wrong or apostate with your beliefs? In other words, why would they think you're not right in your thinking?

Of course, all these type of exercises are derivative. Coming up with a test for critical or free thinking is a challenge for any system involving intangibles. A bit like debating what is the ideal of beauty? Though this is made more difficult when the example is music and the other person is deaf.

salty i agree..with near all you said
except this....""It is my task to keep my soul pure""

just like words are slippery
so too are tasks..we are ALL* sure to fail

this comes about by not recognising spirit..is one word
soul is another....[a soul is the essence..of our id/self/our life experiences]that we presently embody..

and made embodied
in our life term

spirit is the life force
allowing us to have certain qualities
[life/logic/the living essence sustaining the body..[and soul body]..to freewill/act/re-act..[life]..live*

spirit enables..the being
of whatever we are..*chosing to be
what we are/were..is reflected in our soul

everyone has stains *on our soul
but gods living life spirit..is pure
.."and without blemish"

thus god is god/creator
and we his creation/children
but as i said..this is only a minour point
but the difference is huge

we as gods creation...are required to love others
AND ourselves...

to make..*EVEN..*ourselves suffer..is to make god suffer
[just as to make others suffer..is to make good [god]..suffer

by striving to be perfect
in an un*..[in]-perfect world
is missing..what this world/time..is created to be

[a place where we can chose to do good
or chose to not do good

without the sure knowing of that we do
to the least we do to him]

what is important is..
whats in our hearts

not that we didnt chose to do a vile...for hope of some reward

[if our heart lusts to sin...[in our heart]..
it will eventually sin
[wether its here..or there]..

but then again
what is sin.....except judging others
[and that right..is held..by one alone..and he dont judge]

recall saul..sought to end the christ experience
then grew out of his need..to hurt
and then,..paul did his bit..

ie saul is gone
every essence..that summed up 'saul'
was subsumed along with his name..thus his new name

yet saul and paul are still embodied
into the soul...of saul
and of paul

continues

just as our words are all our accumulated fruits
reflective of the desires...we hold..or held within

these will be..*on our soul..
till the last stain is redeemed
by corrective works..of self sought redemption..

*[by our free chosing]

[even jesus took three earth/days
to clear his soul]

judas soul cleaning
took near two millenium..[+..1983 years]

win says as much asto how

""would/could you recognise a miracle?""

so let my add in my thoughts

life is so amasing...good/god
must have made it..[it is a miracle]

so too is love
so too is logic..

think [how we can imagine../think reason live learn]
its all miraculouse...

[could you have invented them
by your own efforts]

the miracle isnt by what god done in 6 days
but that it continues...after billions of years

everyday i am amased by how great gods miracles are
from a baby growing from an unseen speck..to a tree crowing from a mustard seed...to chemistry/science...look at the minour miracles we EACH do everyday

the one doing EVERYTHING
is god..[good]..he saw what he made was good
and heck even in its most vile...there is those who love the vile

and thus get as they earned..the last time arround
thus loving after the nature of the beast
become that they love

how much more fair can good [god]..be?
aint it grand...by striving to become good
no vile can ever hurt you..death where is thy sting?

poor athiests..that think they can live
then simply die...lol

energy cant becreated NOR DESTROYED
a living sperm..enters a living ovum
and lives on within our soul body..till it earns a body of light

true suns of the light
you all shall become

the heavens
shall be filled with light

let there be light...?
yes in-deed

It's OK Trav,

>>Pericles, I haven’t forgotten about your post, btw<<

I'm not holding my breath or anything.

I assume that you will be taking issue with my "they are only stories" theory. I hope you have some better evidence than "because Paul said so, it must be true". Because his description of it all was pretty much at the same level as the prophecies of Nostradamus - all imagery, no fact.

Maybe you could start by explaining who exactly were the "twelve" that the resurrected Jesus was supposed to have appeared to, and what form that apparition took.

But don't worry about it too much. As I said, I'm not exactly on the edge of my seat.

from aj's post...[quoting..""my point was that people DOGMATICALLY stick to their BELIEF""

i agree with the sentiment
those not willing to do the work
not willing to egsamin the justification
[ie the lazy..
just go with the flow..wether its blindly
following parental opinion belief or creed..for better
or worse...if they cant explain it..

its a belief....
[a dogma for mine is an unshakable belief]..
that others try to refute by name calling/lable..
in lue of offering rebutting truths...or contradicting proof

""in naturalism"'

now there is a loaded word
im a naturalist..KNOWIng that all natural
science cant explain..thus belongs to god

""and refuse to consider opposing views.>>""

natural 'selection'
means it wernt science..
thus cant be 'claimed'..as explaining science method

[science by definition must be able to replicate
and nothing man does...can replicate..'nature doing it'

[god made life...each after their own nature..and kind
see the nurture even in nature]

""How do you know this?""

i watch a savage beast loving nurturing its young
i see a beast of a certain nature...being given..*by god
the means to fulfill its loves..

gopd is self evident by seing science
HAS NEVER MADE/created...'life'

cant staste definitivly what the first living cell was
cant replicate what its CLAIMED to have evolved into

it holds theories
[the theory of evolution]
that hasnt got any evidence of one genus of beast
mutating/evolving into another genus

genus is beyond proving
by micro evolution of species within their genus

darwin wrote evolution of species
but then the lie emerged..when they took
pigeons evoling into other pigeons..or finches evolving into other finches

as proof that cold/blood fish
'evolved'..into warm blood beast

or anima from non anima
we have in ALL OUR RECORDS
only like making like..

NOT one mutation..
out of*..parental genus..
has ever been witnessed..nor done

by science...
or science methodology

..*EVER*

Trav,

Before you post again, I want to revisit this for a moment...

<<[The fact that there is nothing “inherently” authoritative about naturalism] is irrelevant, because my point was that people DOGMATICALLY stick to their BELIEF in naturalism and refuse to consider opposing views.>>

The fact that there is no objective evidence for the supernatural (people may believe they have subjective evidence and while I don’t buy that, I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as I’m in no position to argue otherwise and whether or not they do makes no difference here anyway) means that naturalism is consistent with reality as we know it. So to claim that some “dogmatically” stick to this belief is ridiculous considering they have yet to be presented with anything that contradicts it.

The day someone presents some demonstrable, measurable and verifiable evidence for the supernatural, you can start making claims of dogmatism but until then, any such claims will remain unfounded and not to mention, incredibly stupid.

But it’s at this point I would remind you that even if someone could provide evidence for the supernatural, all the theist’s work is still ahead of them. You would be faced with an incredible uphill battle to go from a supernatural occurrence to an interventionist god who knows who you are, cares about you, answers your prayers minds what holy days you observe, minds what you do with your genitals and minds who you have sex with and in what way.

By the way, if you’re right and some naturalists refuse to consider opposing views, then what does that matter if they’ve been given no evidence to consider, regarding those views? Remember, views are not evidence of anything; evidence helps to form views.

And anyway, why did you capitalise “belief”? You say “belief in” as though it were taken on faith.