Several points:
1. Speaking in tongues.
To start with, Mark 16:17 is not original to the Bible. It is a later addition. The oldest known copies of the NT do not contain any references to speaking in new tongues.
But as others have said, they are not speaking in a language. Linguists have examined samples of what is being uttered, and the same syllables will have different usages for different people.
Finally, atheist ex Pastor, Dan Barker can 'speak in tongues' on demand. He is doing the same thing as when he was a believer.
2. loosing 21 grams at death proves the soul exists.
This is ridiculous on many levels.
First, the claim itself is not supported by the 100 year old experiment. MacDougal only tested 6 people, 2 of which he tossed out the results himself. So, we're only talking about 4 people in the sample size.
Second, there are other explanations for the loss of weight. Many times, right at death, a human's body temp will go up as much as 10 degrees. Evaporation of sweat could easily explain the loss of weight.
1. Speaking in tongues.
To start with, Mark 16:17 is not original to the Bible. It is a later addition. The oldest known copies of the NT do not contain any references to speaking in new tongues.
But as others have said, they are not speaking in a language. Linguists have examined samples of what is being uttered, and the same syllables will have different usages for different people.
Finally, atheist ex Pastor, Dan Barker can 'speak in tongues' on demand. He is doing the same thing as when he was a believer.
2. loosing 21 grams at death proves the soul exists.
This is ridiculous on many levels.
First, the claim itself is not supported by the 100 year old experiment. MacDougal only tested 6 people, 2 of which he tossed out the results himself. So, we're only talking about 4 people in the sample size.
Second, there are other explanations for the loss of weight. Many times, right at death, a human's body temp will go up as much as 10 degrees. Evaporation of sweat could easily explain the loss of weight.
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.
