I think there's a fairly good chance the Dogman is real.
http://www.youtube.com/user/DogmanEncounters

ALTRAV,

<<Yuyutsu, OzSpen, if I read your comments correctly, you are completely off track. Now which part/s don't you want to understand/accept.

Is it the part that some mentally and emotionally deficient snowflakes might commit suicide because of some words?

Or is it the part where I remind people that religion is the creation of another breed of 'sick' people, because there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF OF GOD and these cults are the making of men, 'not' some spiritual being.>>

Those are your presuppositions you impose on us in this post. 'Absolutely no proof for God'? God disagrees.

'When people refuse God’s answer, they are living against the revelation of the universe and against the revelation of themselves' (Francis A Schaeffer).

You can know of God's existence from evidence in the universe and in your conscience. This 'no proof of God' is a furphy.

<<C'mon, stop and think, a man walking on water, turning an item of food into a banquet, water into wine, but the best one of all, is dying and coming back to life, days later, without any external or medical intervention, which would only be available in about 2000 years time.>>

One minute after your last breath you will know the truth about miracles from the Almighty God Himself. Your presuppositional opposition won't stand a chance against Him.

OzSpen,
You are welcome to your beliefs.
I merely ask that you give me something to work with here.
I'm not one to take people 'at their word'.
I have always been open minded about life and all it's quirks and ironies, but religion is at the forefront of my 'need proof' list.
If there is a God and all that goes with it, if the teachings of the gospel are true, then even if I don't believe in God I will be treated or judged fairly and on my merits.
Until I receive absolute proof of all this religious posturing, I must go with what I know and not with what I am told.
In fact QzSpen, I feel disappointed and conned that I am expected to believe in something without any proof.
Well, I don't scare easily and if God exists and he wants me to believe in him, he knows where 'I' am, I have no idea where 'he' is, and If I have to die to meet him, well that will happen soon enough, and then I will know.
In the meantime OzSpen, I cannot in good conscience believe in something as completely far fetched as Gods and miracles.
At least Christianity preaches love and inclusion which is a good thing.
Islam preaches hate and exclusion, which is a bad thing, yet the morons who follow Islam refuse to see it.
Maybe because they live under constant threat of death if they even think about rejecting Islam.
OzSpen, religions are man-made, they are NOT the word of God.
They are a fabrication, a cause, a way of life, just like any other group or club or cult.
You know sadly the Koran makes more sense, not the part that 'God told Gabriel' and all that rot, but the part that a warmongering moron Muhammad, preached all that bull to scare the bejesus out of his troops to get them gee'd up to fight, even to the point of death, all in the name of Allah and martyrdom.

Dear Altrav,

This particular discussion is about [public] free speech and whether or not it ought to be allowed when others are hurt.

The LGBT lobby claims that denunciation of their sexual tendencies and practices is likely to lead their members to depression and the brink of suicide - and that this is why they would like to curb the speech of people like Folau.

I do not have the expertise to tell whether the lobby's claims are correct or otherwise, but if they are, then claims as if "religion does not exist" are likely to cause by far more damage, both because religion is a more core issue to life than sexuality; and because numerically, more people would be affected. Therefore any honest person who opposes Folau's free speech, must even more so oppose your freedom to publicly state that "religion does not exist".

I mentioned in passing that your claims as if "religion does not exist" is false: this is because some people opine that the right to [public] free speech should depend, at least to some extent, on the veracity of the contents. I do not share this opinion, but perhaps you do? I personally consider the risk of people falling into depression/suicide (if indeed they would) far more important than whether or not the contents of the speech which causes it are correct.

«Is it the part that some mentally and emotionally deficient snowflakes might commit suicide because of some words?»

Had I believed such words to be true, that indeed religion did not exist, then perhaps I would have committed suicide. Fortunately I do not believe any of this, yet some snowflakes could believe your words, I cannot discard that possibility.

That said, the existence of religion does not depend on God's existence nor on the veracity of the bible. While we could discuss these issues, even enjoy so, for the purpose of this discussion, these are red herrings.

Dear Altrav,

«it does not mean a man can achieve it by simply thinking 'real hard' and it will happen.»

We do digress a bit here, because had I *discovered* that religion did not exist, then I would become very depressed, possibly suicidal, but had I only *discovered* that nobody ever walked on water, oh well, the effect on me would not be that big.

Nevertheless, the difficulty here is not just to think one thought "real hard", but to also at the same time avoid any other thoughts: how can you appreciate that potential when you just never encounter such concentration in our shallow society, where we are so busy with external objects that we take no time for training to control our minds? Can you even for one minute consciously avoid thinking of monkeys?

You see, if you told someone 300 years ago that man will land on the moon, they too would consider you to be nuts! It so happens that the moderns developed certain new material technologies that allow us to do so many things which previously would be considered "miracles". The ancient Yogis, similarly developed and documented different technologies to achieve more or less the same. The main difference is that we use material tools while they used the mind alone. It is probable and not unsound that Jesus and some other biblical prophets were privy to this technology.

«Look all through the ages we have had con-men, and they are still amongst us today.»

Yes, there are - so what does it prove?

«It's a con, why do so many govt ministers want to be seen going to church?»

Does going to church for the sake of being seen make them more religious? I think not, they must be deluding themselves, but this does not imply that religion does not exist, only that the above ministers are not truly religious.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«If someone can give me ANY tangible, objective, evidence of these spiritual beings even existing, anything, I just might come around.»

You seem to be asking for a logical contradiction: "Spiritual" is the opposite of "tangible"/"objective", had there been objective evidence, then "that" would refer to an object and no longer be spiritual!

The way to arrive at the spiritual is by subtraction, rather than by addition: to discover the spiritual, you should remove your involvement and attachment to objective sense-objects. Once you do, the spiritual will reveal itself.

«In the meantime religion is a fabrication created, not by the creator, but by evil men with a selfish and sometimes dangerous agenda.»

Evil men created fabrications, we know that, and some even claimed their fabrications to be a "religion": it is no different to money-counterfeiters, but you cannot claim that because there are counterfeit coins, money does not exist.

«Christianity, at least promoted an inclusive doctrine, maybe a little too extreme in some cases, but the Muslims promote an intrusive and evil doctrine.
What kind of 'religion' advocates killing and aggression?»

No religion does. If you wish to claim that Christianity/Islam are not religions, then a valid discussion may ensue and fair arguments made, but this would not mean that religion itself does not exist, only that Christianity/Islam fall short.