Talk about irrational Yutzi or whomever. No I agree with one thing, we don't have to leave Earth in 100 years, I think that was just an exaggeration or he meant more probes etc., to Mars. If he said it at all. He also said 'There is no God' However, there is a part of some of us, that believes love and a creative motivated person who is interested in learning about the world and our relationships within it, a spiritual tie to our natural environment, lives a wiser life, and an easier one.

Than a person who is repressed and obsessed by someways perverted belief in the unlikely, bigoted, and buries their head in the sand of ignorance and ancient beliefs. There is no reason why one can't be a good and useful member of society, and believes in a Christian loving ethics and even if what you believe is written in the bible is a load of tosh. It's outdated, meant for people who were struggling to survive in a hostile world, and could not read.

You can't believe or agree with, the struggles between various Christian religions and how the Jews have been since say 250 AD castigated in their role or presumed role in the death of Jesus Christ. The clashes between Roman Catholicism, Anglican, puritan, and protestant. Let alone Muslims and Jews. If you have been told your religious beliefs or lack of them, are dangerous if not adhered too. It seems to me, if you don't believe in God, one must believe in the Devil. If you believe that if you don't follow any part of your religious belief as is dictated by a religious leader will be your undoing and you will end up in hell. Then Father Christmas or Santa Claus legend has more basis in truth and myth.

To AJ Philips. We've discussed this topic of my experiences at length. The problem is that each of your potential explainations was a reaching explaination that was closer to an excuse then an explaination. There would be no way for you to know that of course, because these are things that you'd have to be there to be able to confirm your conclusions or to see how they are wrong. So what it hangs on entirely is on doubt not on more rational explainations. The instance of waking up during a car ride is exceedingly reaching for an excuse to explain it away. It would be better to just call me a lier as O2 does. At one point one could just ask when how much coincidence is too much coincidence to be coincidence. That is where inn I go with my figurings. Either I'm madly deranged by a sociological brainwashing religion that I can't see straight the world in front of me and my confirmation bias is more real then the real experiences I seem to think I have; OR I have a bit more trust in my own examination of the world around me and my ability to grasp it. If the second option is true then the question remains the hard pressed point. How much coincidence is too much to be coincidence?

As a side point though, you said earlier that you are not biased against prayer. If that is true then you would not go to lengths to explain it away with far stretched explanations and still think those explanations are more rational then the observations of prayers being answered or at least responded to. Take that criticism how you want it, but I don't see your finding belief in prayer by an explanation of it with a bias to look for excuses to rationalize it away. Instead of an explanation, I offer 2 other potential thoughts if you're ever interested. Trial by experiment.

(Continued)

(Continued)

1: some day pray, even without believing anything will result from it, but pray for a simple question asking God if He is there. Word it however you like but I'm sure you get my gist. Expect nothing, pray, but still keep your senses open to any observations you find. If you find a coincidence then try it again.

2: one day try to observe one teaching that is told to do by Jesus. Keep that one teaching in your actions for an extended amount of time, at lest a month. See if there's merit to the teaching. Do this on something that you don't already do or that is difficult to do. Some hard ones to suggest as examples. Forgive often to anyone who asks(even if you think they will just do it again); give to anyone who asks; do not make promises, just say yes or no and let your word be all that's needed; or even a simple removal of removing negative labels that are commonly given to people (don't call someone something disrespectful or call them an idiot. Those are just examples you can try whatever you see fit as long as it meets the heart of the challenge. That you choose something that Jesus said to do, and that you don't normally already do on your own. See if it's as irrational as you think it would be by giving it a month's time to see a different effect.

To Bush Bunny. You say your just positioning an alternate belief and not trying to do anything against my own beliefs? Look at the last few post you gave as a response to me earlier. From a lesson spoken as if your a teacher, to dismissing the bible as an ancient text with ancient morals, to dismissing religion in general as a ritual for social evolution.

Don't be angry this is just an observation. Your positions are not where you say they are. But they are positions arranged in a way to dismiss religion before going into detail of what Christianity teaches. Therefore I'll give my challenge one more time.

I ask you to look at what it would mean to follow Jesus. To be faithful in worship, in action, in success, and in failure. In individuals instead of organizations it's easier to see when a person is striving to seek God or serve Him, as opposed to those who are caught up in their own lives and neither seek Him nor seek to serve Him. Judge Christianity by those who successfully follow the parts you can understand to be taught by Jesus or taught in the New Testament.

As to your multiple posts, there is one aspect that I'd like to challenge. That mankind has evolved. I don't mean evolution from a different species. I mean that we are any different outside of our tools and our government styles then any ancient man. If we are mostly the same then my challenge rests that the bible is just as useful and current as it was when it was written with the ancient morals trying to curb ancient cruelty, greed, and corruption. Just a thought provoking challenge for ya. Are we any more advanced in our nature then a cave man. Or are we just as primitive with just newer tools at our disposal? (Which in reverse also means cave men were just as advanced and awesome as we are today, not primitive or lesser).

Indeed we have, Not_Now.Soon.

<<We've discussed this topic of my experiences at length.>>

The only reason we’re discussing them again is because you appear to have forgotten (or did not understand to begin with) that your experiences are not good evidence for a god because they have rational and objective explanations for them.

<<The problem is that each of your potential explainations was a reaching explaination that was closer to an excuse then an explaination.>>

Incorrect.

My explanations are by definition explanations, not excuses.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/explanation
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/excuse

Flippantly brushing off my explanations as excuses is emotive, not to mention grammatically incorrect.

<<There would be no way for you to know that of course, because these are things that you'd have to be there to be able to confirm your conclusions or to see how they are wrong.>>

Not necessarily. I take your word for it that they happened as you described. Most of my explanations still stand despite that, though.

<<[Your explanation for] waking up during a car ride is exceedingly reaching for an excuse to explain it away.>>

No, it’s not, and for the reasons I noted the last time we discussed it. At no point did you bring into question the rational explanations I proffered.

<<It would be better to just call me a lier as O2 does.>>

No, it wouldn’t. Is is better to be delusional than a liar. A delusional person is at least sincere and honest.

<<… one could just ask when how much coincidence is too much coincidence to be coincidence.>>

Yes, and if we could determine that, it would be at this point that we would need to start measuring confirmation bias, if at all possible.

However, no amount of co-incidence, nor lack of confirmation bias, makes it rational to conclude that a god is responsible. Until you can objectively demonstrate the existence of a god, you're still just left with an unknown.

Continued…

…Continued

<<Either I'm madly deranged by a sociological brainwashing religion ...>>

No, these are not the only two possibilities.

A third possibility is that you have simply been taken in by a belief system that appeals to you and that you are unwilling to let go of. People don’t need to be crazy or liars to be sucked into these things. Especially not if they were indoctrinated from early childhood.

You grossly exaggerate our ability to perceive the world around us accurately, and downplay the importance of objectivity.

<<… you said earlier that you are not biased against prayer.>>

No, I said:

“Until you provide me with some sort of reliable evidence for the efficacy of prayer, you are not in a position to gauge the extent of my biases. I have provided rational reasons to reject what little evidence you have provided me with, and you have not yet countered any of my responses.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8181#256022)

<<If that is true then you would not go to lengths to explain it away with far stretched explanations and still think those explanations are more rational then the observations of prayers being answered or at least responded to.>>

There is nothing far-fetched about rational explanations. Suggesting that a god is answering your prayers, when we have no rational reason to believe that anything supernatural exists, is the only far-fetched claim thus far. I have sufficiently justified why rational explanations must always win out. You have not yet countered this with anything that does not ultimately rely on a fallacious appeal to ignorance.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance

<<Instead of an explanation, I offer 2 other potential thoughts if you're ever interested.>>

1. Done and done. I prayed for many years, and the results were just as uncompelling as yours.

2. All this would mean is that the writers of the Gospels had some good advice. It wouldn’t prove that Jesus existed or that he was divine. Furthermore, your suggestion could be terrible advice given that morality is necessarily situational. Following, to the letter, the simplistic morality taught by Jesus could turn out to be a complete disaster.