RE: Catholics VS Protestants Debate Thread
November 8, 2016 at 8:24 pm
(This post was last modified: November 8, 2016 at 8:48 pm by Simon Moon.)
(November 8, 2016 at 4:32 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:(November 8, 2016 at 4:27 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: . . . or -- I don't know -- maybe dying and being resurrected. You know, the little stuff.
Oh, but if we had that, there wouldn't be any need for faith!
Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. It's called evidence.
I dunno... I think even if it was caught on tape, skeptics would still say it was a trick or w/e. I don't think anything would be evidence enough.
Well...
Considering there was a Hindu holy man that died pretty recently (in the age of modern technology) and supposedly doing miracles in front of his millions of followers (many of them from advanced Western countries), with video and film of him, and you would not believe he is actually doing miracles, I detect a bit of special pleading on your part.
Yes, I admit, photos or video alone would not convince me of Jesus' divinity (or even his supernatural abilities).
It is not that we are too skeptical, it is you are too gullible. You do not apply your skepticism equally. I am sure you apply skepticism very well when it comes to Sathya Sai Baba (the 'holy man' I mentioned above), yet for similar claims for your 'holy man', you do not.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
