I thought I addressed it above.

Using Tolle as an example:

Quote:

Influences

According to a 2009 article in the New York Times, Tolle is "not identified with any religion, but uses teachings from Zen Buddhism, Sufism, Hinduism and the Bible". Tolle has said "I feel actually that the work I do is a coming together of the teaching 'stream', if you want to call it that, of [Jiddu] Krishnamurti and Ramana Maharshi".[9] Tolle himself has mentioned texts such as the Tao Te Ching, the Bhagavad Gita and other Hindu scriptures, the Buddhist scriptures, the Old Testament, the New Testament, and A Course in Miracles; he has mentioned various individuals such as Zoroaster, Lao Tzu, Mahavira, Siddhārtha Gautama, Heraclitus, Parmenides, Jesus, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Rumi, Meister Eckhart, Hafiz, Rinzai Gigen, Ralph Waldo Emerson; and he has emphasised the mystical schools within religions such as Gnosticism in Christianity, Sufism in Islam, Hasidism and Kabbala in Judaism, Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism, and Zen and Dzogchen in Buddhism. He has met and spoken with Barry Long and Don Miguel Ruiz, and he wrote a foreword for The Diamond in Your Pocket by Gangaji.

At the age of fifteen Tolle read several books written by the German mystic Joseph Anton Schneiderfranken, also known as Bô Yin Râ. Tolle has said he responded "very deeply" to those books.

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

Wow.

A little bit of the fine tuning argument followed up with the entropy disproves evolution fallacy. It's pretty hard to get so much wrong is a single paragraph, but bravo, you did it.

I think differently about all three of these. Psychics I doubt profoundly but just short of absolutely. Aliens I think possibly quite likely although given the robust nature of Lorentz invariance I profoundly doubt that they have visited earth, just short of absolutely.

Thank you for recognizing my point. I actually think that at a minimum every religion contains some misinterpretation of God's inspiration.

They have no impact. There is no downside to disregarding their potential existence, so the assumption that they do not exist is logical.


I can give one example. If this life is a test for us, possibly the test requires that we not know for certain that we are being tested. For example, it is common in psychology tests to mislead the participants if you have every studied that subject.

It is certainly not incorrect to consider its existence and possibly design the possibility into your actions.

Concerning the bold comment, the following is a scientific opinion given from the position of a PhD professional scientist independent and outside of the issues of theology.

A mathematical model is not evidence. Mathematical models exist that predict just about anything. For example, there is a mathematical model that describes the earth moving through a luminiferous ether that provides a frame of reference for the velocity of light. The existence of the model proves nothing. It is only when one collects physical evidence as a result of experiment that one can conclude that that particular mathematical model does not describe our physical reality.

This is a good question. I would make two points.

1. I do not believe that the fate of my immortal soul depends on my belief on this point. That simply does not make sense to me.

2. As a basic principle, I assume that it did happen. Practically there is nothing that I do differently depending on my assumption so as an exercise in personal faith, I simply accept it. It is so far back in antiquity that it really does not matter. Even if you were able to prove that it did not happen, I would still remain a Christian because the things that make me a Christian at their core have nothing to do with the answer to the question.

this is also an unsatisfactory answer for me.
a simple yes or no will suffice.

This is just totally false from my own perspective. I will admit that when I first discovered I no longer believed in God, I regarded believers as foolish, and thought the prospect of God was just nonsense. I let my sense of superiority overwhelm me. But over the past several months I have been making it my obligation to hear believers out and understand why they believe what they do.

I am open to the possibility that God exists, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't heavily skeptical of the prospect.

As for your direct accusations: The evidence I would accept is exactly the kind I am discussing with RLK. If Jesus came back and performed a miracle as a proof ( as he did in scripture) that would very much convince me.

If I was proven wrong? Yea it would hurt my ego, and I'm pretty stubborn so it may take a while, but it does seem to me that in relatively short order I would swallow my pride, because I really do think that what is most probably true is what should be believed.

interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Resurrection regarded as the ultimate proof of the divinity of Jesus? Are you open to the possibility that Jesus was not divine? If he was shown not to be, would this affect your faith?

I find it strange that, so far as I can tell, almost everything about Christianity could turn out to be wrong, and you would still consider yourself a Christian. You seem to be a Christian only philosophically, and could just as easily be Buddhist/Hindu. Is this an incorrect assessment?

Certainly for some the Resurrection is the ultimate proof of the divinity of Jesus. But is anything proof from our perspective two millenia later?

And what is divinity? Jesus was killed on a cross by all accounts. Clearly His divinity was not unlimited. So what was it? How would you know if He was or was not, even at the time? These are questions that can never be answered. Since I cannot imagine a meaningful answer how can I speculate as to the effect of the answer on my faith?

But on a different note, what did He tell us to do? He told us to love God and love our neighbor. When I pray and consider these things I know in my heart that this is the answer. So that is what I try to do to the best of my ability. In poker terms, that is my read on the hand and I am all in on it. If I am wrong when I die the lights will go out and it will be as if I had never existed. If I am right then I did everything that I could and will hope that it will be well received in whatever comes next. Thus, I am a theist and by my best logic that is the only way to live.

Your assertion isn't true for me either. I grew up a Christian, one of my older brothers spent his entire working life as a missionary and I am extremely familiar with the Bible to the extent that I have favourite versions (King James for the literary pleasure of reading and usually ESV or NIV when quoting, for clarity) and favourite books (Proverbs for it's heavy emphasis on the joys of knowledge and Revelation cos, well, I'm a horror fan).

So I'm not an atheist because I "hate God" or because I'm stubborn, or because of trauma, or any of that. I just no longer believe because their is no evidence that any of it is true. None. All it would take to change my mind is evidence.

I'd add to that. I'm agnostic-atheist about the existence of a deity, but having researched all the archaeological evidence, read dozens of apologetics, I am now more certain than ever that Christianity is definitely false.

One qualifier: I am not fully conversant in all of the implications of Buddhism or Hinduism so I have some reservations in saying that your assessment is exactly correct. The whole "untouchable" concept is fundamentally repugnant to me, so that would be a problem, for example. But your assessment is on the target if not exactly on the mark, as they say.

Or you picked the wrong one and end up in Tartarus.

Picked the wrong one "what"? What did I pick?

The 'wrong' religion. Referring to religions (like Christianity typically does) which claim exclusive rights to a pleasant afterlife, no matter how well you lived. For instance, Southern Baptists believe Gandhi and the Dalai Lama are both hell bound, despite living exemplary lives.

So the Lord of the Rings books are proof that Sauron exists, because it says so in the Lord of the Rings books? C'mon, son.

And LOL at comparing the evidence for George Washington existing and the evidence for Jesus' divinity.