Well actually some people would say that is the definition of being mad, believing things you know have no evidence or reason behind them as truth.
Let's start with this one. I use this analogy a lot. I know that it is simplistic, but it is a direct response to your comment here.
There is a common belief, held by over 2
billion people worldwide, that every Sunday, they enter into a building that they believe to be the house of what they call "God", supposedly the creator of all things (who is, oddly enough, a
man). In this building, every sunday, they eat a wafer and drink some diluted wine, which they sincerely believe to be eating and drinking the body and blood of a man who may or may not have lived and died about
two thousand years ago. They base this cannabalistic belief on a few short chapters of a book that has been translated back and forth between a number of ancient languages and dialects, and of which the first record was made about 40 years
after the death of this quite possibly ficticiious character. They claim that this book is the actual words of this 'God' of theirs, however they offer no tangible evidence of
any kind as to the existence of this God, or how these words are 'His'. Certainly this 'God' of whom just about
everybody speaks at one time or another has never actually made an appearance (other than a few short chapters of this very old book, in which it is claimed that a man (the main course of this ritual Sunday cannibalism) was in fact this 'God's
son (although the supposed 'Son' of "God' never actually said that he was either 'God'
or that he was the Son of 'God'). So the people spreading the rumours were in Fact
men. Men siad that there is this thing called 'God'. Men said that the two thousand year old Sunday Roast was this 'God's son. This 'God' fellow didn't say
anything unless you believe the Men who said that the Roast was his son - even if the roast disagreed.
Man said it all. And where did Man get if from - why the 'book' of course - and the book was written by... let's hear it folks...
Men
Well actually some people would say that is the definition of being mad, believing things you know have no evidence or reason behind them as truth.
And they let these people become Kings and Queens and Presidents.
And
Scientists!!!
TMP
P.S. It all comes down to semantics. You are trying to trip me up on semantics. But you're tripping youself up on the same device. I will attempt to respond to your other points without being so obvious. And I would normally never be so petty as this. But you are trying to force me to state scientific truths as faith. Semantics boil down to opinion and our respective abilities to articulate those opinions.
You want me to articulate, using words, some of thing things that I have - for want of a much less cheesy saying - 'brought back from the other side' as one example. But you want me to do it here - now - you want me to prove to you scientifically, things that have never been proven before - yet you've openly declared me to be a schiphrenic (in your opinion) suffereing from delusions, rather than having been privvy to enlightenment. You've already judged me.
SUrely you understand that proof - especially proof of this magnitude cannot be expressed in a few words or paragraph, If this is to be really taken as as a serious subject, and if I am claiming to be coming it it from a scientific perspective, then why would you not grant me the space that I would need to be professionally coherent - and why try to
goad me into immediate responses .
So let's take a good long look at what you said to me - and more than that - let6's take a look at the
way that you said it...