Christians - Aware you worship a virgin?

[tackattack]

No, I am interested in what you have to say. What standardised methods that the bible uses on it's people. But if you are going to go around like a chicken with it's head cut off fine, that is your choice!

Since you're interested and I'm feeling talkative, I'll give one of my test of faith that I use. The bible teaches of victorius faith. Faith won to phrase it differently. It can't be won unless there is a battle or a counter to the faith. Coming to this site is testing my faith quite a bit if I can be a little candid. I don't seek truth timidly though. The bible calls trials and tribulations tests of faith. Coming away from trials and unfortunate events and having them be used to strengthen me and better someone else's life is one test I use for my experiences.

Belief in belief would be 3rd person and not personal to yourself. By this you assume non direct contact with a deity. Biblical reference is 3rd person without taking anything directly upon yourself. Again if you find a direct communication via the text isn't that 1st person? Christianity is always 1st person.

From first person anyone is capable of believing whatever he likes. And so believing in belief is possible from first person. You may not really believe all the crap in the bible, while still attributing positive value to the phenomenon of belief. Nowhere does 3rd person enter the room.

If biblical reference is a 3rd person account, the claim (pretty central in most versions of christianity) that it is the word of god is false.

Christianity is a religion, not an account that can be characterized as 1st or 3rd person. If you ever get that hotline with god himself how do you authenticate him?

I don't define the Bible as the word of God (although my mother and I argue over this constantly). I define the Bible as the word of God as best captured by man's perception.

Belief in belief would be 3rd person and not personal to yourself. By this you assume non direct contact with a deity. Biblical reference is 3rd person without taking anything directly upon yourself. Again if you find a direct communication via the text isn't that 1st person? Christianity is always 1st person.

Agreed, Christianity is always best if first person.

I feel I have an "experience" that is unconveyable. The sum of which is as follows: I have some books, some tests I've ran against God, some peronal logical conclusions about my perception of the world I live in, unexplainable phenomenon, etc all adding up to my "experience". I don't think that's belief in belief, I think that's Belief in my perception of the world as it affects me. It studiable, peer reviewable and follows logical progression in my mind.

Nothing of what you mention on the "input side" is alien to me (including unexplainable phenomena). But there is no straight argument to the "output side" (i.e. god) of the equation you make. The will to arrive at that conclusion is what shines through as belief in belief. Before you can ever hope to begin to make a distinction between hope and truth, you must be willing to question the evidential basis for such hope and differentiate between little evidence for big claims and ample evidence for little claims. It will be your truth that you have to act upon for the rest of your life and with your background it is to be expected that long held convictions will be shaken when assessed with unbiased questioning. A forum like this is a good place to do it.

So the will to arrive at the truth is belief in belief? If that's your definition I'll agree to that. My background? I've doubted my parents, doubted god, searched other God, been content with no God, my only "longheld convictions" are the convictions I hold at this moment. The only way to really seek truth is to have a solid anchor in the now with a keen eye on the past in my opinion.

If all I can hand you is some "blurry photos" of God and tell you the story of how I saw him "running through the woods humping an elk" (I really liked using the bigfoot metaphor ) you're still not going to believe it because you can't justify my credibility because of our differences in perception or "cut open the carcass yourself". I'm content to just agree that you see things you way do and I mine. I'm not really here to prove God to anyone or sway anyone aware from atheism (not that I have that anywhere close to that amount of brain power) . I'm just trying to understand atheism as a perspective and some aspects of science I don't fully comprehend from some really intellegent and thoughtfull people (nice to but that's not a requirement).

I see you are not the proselytizing kind. You come here with questions. And we (speaking for the atheists here that have reacted) attack them, fiercely I might add. Indeed science is not the only answer on life, there's moral, there's art and there's reverence to life and the universe. Just don't think atheists are without this.

Of course I would assume no such thing. Fiercly is very welcome as long as it's kept above a certain board of civility.