To AJ Philips.

Do you remember near our first conversations? There was a point in them where I had made that if you search for God and find Him then that justifies that God is there, and if you search for Him without finding Him that justifies conclusions that He might not be there (or at least that you didn't find Him furthering that He might not be there). Your reply had stunned me then and since then I've come to understand it was o be part of a larger bias that you hold. I can say you have a bias against prayer because I have seen your bias both against prayer and against God. I've seen this through our conversations with each other. I hope you do not take this as a ploy to weaken your arguments. Because even if it does weaken any of them it is still a valid observation none the less.

You're reply? Correct me on the wording if you like, but you still said it. That to search for God will indefinitely cause you to find Him. In the way you presented it you made it seem that to search for anything will cause a person to find it and believe it was found. Your concern for confirmation bias is it's own excuse to not look on your own; that seeking the truth to see if it is true or not will have no merit because of a bias going into it. I reject that paradigm completely. Since then the largest argument for countering my observations has been a statement of doubt. "How do you know?" The actual explanations for my observations have not all held their ground but if anything seemed unreliable in their on right.

(Continued)

Two people understand how positive influence and your brain can actually cause prayers to seem to be answered....Well Done!

To think that people pray to Jesus over and over again regarding their minute problems, yet not see how using their system, God totally ignored the prayers of the 6million Jews murdered in the death camps.

It really is unbelievable.

But what of all this praying by Christians.

Their prayers defy Jesus' teachings on prayer...

Matthew 6:7-8 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Be not ye therefore like unto them: for YOUR FATHER KNOWETH WHAT THINGS YE HAVE NEED OF, BEFORE YE ASK HIM.

Then the precise instruction

Matthew 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

Once again Christians defy Jesus even when praying.

No wonder they can't cure anybody....lmao

Religions, Churches and Christians just totally ignore Jesus' teachings on prayer and do what the hypocrites do....Most times in Church the preacher just tacks the Lord's Prayer onto the end of a prayer which the preacher himself made up. Jesus never said to do this!

Does the preacher think he is better at writing prayers than Jesus?

Why does the preacher defy AFTER THIS MANNER THEREFORE PRAY YE: by adding bits to it?

Christians who still attend Church...PLEASE TELL US...DOES YOUR PREACHER DEFY JESUS IN THIS WAY?

No-one will answer because it happens in every Church I ever attended.

It doesn't matter what instruction Jesus gave on prayer they all just ignore what Jesus stated precisely and defy him.

These same Christians who continually defy Jesus the have the audacity to criticise others when they fail Jesus continually!

What an arrogance they own.

In everything they defy Jesus in

Do not bear false witness.

Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone....Do not judge....Turn the other cheek...Pray the Lord's prayer as Jesus stated....Do unto others...etc.

And on and on the list goes.

But they still claim to follow Jesus...lmao

(Continued)

Case and point number two? When confronted by this criticism your reply is that any explanation no matter how unreasonable is more reasonable then God existing. Your bias is against anything relating to God, prayer included. The unfortunate part is that if God exists He has set a standard for most to find Him. 1) Seek and you will find; 2) "My message is not for the world because the world is not looking for me." If the standard is that God asks us to seek Him then what you are doing is setting up a stage for failure to not look and then blame God for not making Himself known to you.

There is one thing that I can say that has benefitted me from our conversations though. They have provoked my thoughts on preemptive doubt, and led me to a specific conclusion that I can carry within my understanding of the world as a whole. In order to find out if one thing is true or not, a person needs to be able to allow that thing to have a chance to show it's own merit. Suspend doubt on the opportunities that allow something to prove itself. If for no other reason to see for your self. After that point is the right time to scrutinize and consider old doubts and new ones. But if you can't do that much you can never say you search for any truths. Only that you cripple the chances of finding out truths where opportunities of them are ignored.

(Continued)

(Continued)

My prayer experience is more then compelling. It is justifying. I'm sorry your prayer experiences were not that way. But either way your doubting stance is not more reasonable then my observations. In fact they are far less reasonable. I've given reasons why, and I stand by them. As for the bible holding merit. You can say that it's not proof of being divine, but if it holds merit then it is at least that much justified, and the element of being divine can be explored further without the false assumption that because it is old that it is also obsolete. Both options I gave you for prayer or following bible teachings from Jesus are methods to test if they are true. If prayer is answered regarding finding God then that is confirmation of God which should elicit further investigation. If following a bible teaching turns out to be unwise, then that is a confirmation against God being spoken through the Bible. That should also elicit further investigation. If however you give a teaching a chance to prove itself (at least a month's time to see results) and it turns out well, that should definitely justify that teaching regardless how you feel about it being divine or not. Consider these options to be able to search without being traded by a bias against or a bias to confirm.

To Bush Bunny.

I challenged you on cave men verses modern men because when looked at closely I can't see any reason for them to be more primitive then us. Nor that we have become more advanced then them. This is a common view nowadays that even a few generations ago were so different and that people have changed. I don't see any evidance for this. Instead I see evidence of structures that survive through history to baffle our modern understandings. Pottery, housing structures, even grand architecture like different pyramids in different regions of the world built in amazingly ancient estimates. With this in mind if the past eras and past people's are not more primitive then the modern man, then like Shakespeare, who held the ability to connect with the drama of life in the 1500s and still holds merit to modern life; so too would ancient scripture be applicable to modern life and not obsolete. It is because though societies change, and technology is invented and lost, mankind has not really changed. We are just as advanced and as primitive as we always were.

A second point. Though I'm sure you've put forth much study on religions that are not Christianity, they are not the merit you should use to judge Christianity. Neither Scientology, nor paganism fertility worship address anything Christian. But if you judge Christianity, base it on the scriptures it is based on. Then you have something to go on. Use any of the books within the bible. If you wish to judge all Christian Faith's consider books that are shared by all of them. (Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Mormon all share the majority of the bible). Conversely, to judge any of them separately then also consider the books not included by the other groups. But either way make it based on the subject matter that you are focused on. Fertility god worship and prostitute shrines do not speak about Christianity where adultery, fornication, and incest are taught against. Nor does Scientology teach what Jesus taught. Focus on the subject matter to just the subject matter by.

That’s precisely how I take it, Not_Now.Soon.

<<I hope you do not take this as a ploy to weaken your arguments.>>

Why else would you do it?

What you are doing here is known as the ‘Poisoning the Well’ fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

<<Because even if it does [not] weaken any of [your arguments] ...>>

It doesn’t weaken them. That’s the reason why it’s so fallacious.

<<Correct me on the wording if you like, but you still said it.>>

Then why not quote me? Here, I’ll do it:

“If one wants to believe strongly enough, then naturally one is going be convinced that they found evidence or witnessed a sign, eventually - whether or not a god exists.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19198#341902)

<<[You said t]hat to search for God will indefinitely cause you to find Him.>>

Not quite. See above. But at least your following interpretation is close enough…

<<… you made it seem that to search for anything will cause a person to find it and believe it was found.>>

If they want it badly enough, yes.

<<Your concern for confirmation bias is it's own excuse to not look on your own …>>

Wrong. At no point have I presented confirmation bias as a reason to not look for something. I was merely pointing out that if people want to believe something enough, then they will eventually convince themselves of it. It does not then follow that you should never look for anything.

<<Since then the largest argument for countering my observations has been a statement of doubt. "How do you know?">>

No, it’s been the combination of co-incidence, confirmation bias, and flawed memories.

So, your first point failed to demonstrate that I make excuses. Let’s see if your second attempt is any better.

<<When confronted by this criticism your reply is that any explanation no matter how unreasonable is more reasonable then God existing.>>

Incorrect.

Firstly, I have never said that. All I have said is that we should always preference rational explanations over supernatural explanations (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8181#256502). Rational explanations, by definition, are not “unreasonable”. That is a word you have inserted yourself.

Continued…