The real religion?

[robvalue]

No, I'm dismissing the advantage because there isn't one. It's all in your head. That's the whole point of this thread.

There are easily explainable psychological and social effects that anything could produce. If that's all god does, mimic the effect of nothing at all, then I'm not too concerned.

I've asked for a demonstration of the advantage and I've been given squat.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's really nice how SteveII is following Jesus' example and not bearing any grudges on anyone

[SteveII]

No, I'm dismissing the advantage because there isn't one. It's all in your head. That's the whole point of this thread.

There are easily explainable psychological and social effects that anything could produce. If that's all god does, mimic the effect of nothing at all, then I'm not too concerned.

Still circular. The only way you can be certain that a Christian's experience is false would be presuppose that God does not exists.

[FatAndFaithless]

No, I'm dismissing the advantage because there isn't one. It's all in your head. That's the whole point of this thread.

There are easily explainable psychological and social effects that anything could produce. If that's all god does, mimic the effect of nothing at all, then I'm not too concerned.

Still circular. The only way you can be certain that a Christian's experience is false would be presuppose that God does not exists.

Or..they were simply mistaken.

[Crossless2.0]

No, I'm dismissing the advantage because there isn't one. It's all in your head. That's the whole point of this thread.

There are easily explainable psychological and social effects that anything could produce. If that's all god does, mimic the effect of nothing at all, then I'm not too concerned.

Still circular. The only way you can be certain that a Christian's experience is false would be presuppose that God does not exists.

What? Yahweh could exist, and Christians could still be misinterpreting their experiences. But it's all moot anyway, since all you have to convince anyone that you're not essentially talking to yourself is your own claim that you aren't. Instead of putting the cart before the horse, give us better reasons to think Yahweh exists than you've given so far.

[SteveII]

Still circular. The only way you can be certain that a Christian's experience is false would be presuppose that God does not exists.

What? Yahweh could exist, and Christians could still be misinterpreting their experiences. But it's all moot anyway, since all you have to convince anyone that you're not essentially talking to yourself is your own claim that you aren't. Instead of putting the cart before the horse, give us better reasons to think Yahweh exists than you've given so far.

Is that my cue to bring up the NT again? 

[FatAndFaithless]

And round and round the circle we go! Where it stops, everybody knows!

[Crossless2.0]

What? Yahweh could exist, and Christians could still be misinterpreting their experiences. But it's all moot anyway, since all you have to convince anyone that you're not essentially talking to yourself is your own claim that you aren't. Instead of putting the cart before the horse, give us better reasons to think Yahweh exists than you've given so far.

Is that my cue to bring up the NT again? 

Talk about something interesting, instead. Who do you like to make the various division playoffs (NFL)?

[RoadRunner79]

I agree, that science and religion are not the same.  I also agree with you,  that these are bad arguments.  That was my point from the beginning.  I don't believe that the differences in science and religion change the principles, of how we acquire knowledge, and justify our beliefs.  This would be special pleading, and unjustified.

Before you go; however, could you do me the courtesy, of explaining what you believe is fallacious, and why my reasoning is incorrect here, that calls for the above post.

I already explained to you in the post you just quoted why drawing false similarities between science and religion to make them appear they are on equal par is fallacious.  

So, now what YOU need to do is explain to me what this means:

"I agree, that science and religion are not the same.  I also agree with you, that these are bad arguments.  That was my point from the beginning.  I don't believe that the differences in science and religion change the principles, of how we acquire knowledge, and justify our beliefs."

Because to me that sounds like you saying one thing, and then saying the opposite out the side of your neck, if you catch my drift.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It means that I don't think you are justified in making these arguments against one thing, and then denying them when the same principles can be applied to science, that I rely on other's for knowledge of. Science may contain instances where repeatability is required for the claim, and I would agree, that this is good, and if anyone who questions can be shown or told how to see the same results for themselves that does increase the certainty one can have. However if you haven't seen for yourself, then you are relying on the same faith and reason, as in other categories for knowledge.

[SteveII]

Is that my cue to bring up the NT again? 

Talk about something interesting, instead. Who do you like to make the various division playoffs (NFL)?

Sorry, don't follow pro sports. I have 5 children and until last year, 2 jobs. Never found the time. 

I do enjoy sailing. Any boaters or sailors here?