Which Religion is the One True Religion?

"What about people who have seen and experienced spirits? What about people who've had near death experiences?"

You keep believing in spirits and near death experience. You'll never be able to prove them with "observable evidence" that can be verified by others. I'm not a cynic for not trusting something you can't prove. Some people even claim they have regular two-way conversations with jesus. We call them "halucinations."

You'll never be able to prove them with "observable evidence" that can be verified by others. I'm not a cynic for not trusting something you can't prove.

timberlandko wrote:

Not lying, not crazy, just mistaken. BTW, the physiologic basis for "out-of-body"/"near-death" experiences is fairly well documented, and remarkably consistant. The experiences reported bear strong similarities, and there is strong similarity observed in blood oxygen and nutriant levels, stress-related hormones, neural activity, and motor function, among other things. Whatever those folks experience, when they experience it in a clinical setting, it appears fairly conclusively to do pretty much the same thing to their body chemistry across the board.

It may be physiological it may not be. You can't prove it either way. I'm not expecting to convert anybody here, it's just frustrating that some of you are not even open to the possibility of these type of things. You are just as close-minded as any religious fundamentalist.

cicerone imposter wrote:

You'll never be able to prove them with "observable evidence" that can be verified by others. I'm not a cynic for not trusting something you can't prove.

Can you prove that George Washington lived with "observable evidence" that can be verified by others today?

No.

Historical evidence, that is evidence relating to experiences of people in the past (whether 5 minutes past or 500 years), is not observable by others. It happened and now it's gone.

You don't use scientific evidence only to conclusively prove such matters. Empirical (observable) evidence may or may not be brought which tends to support or negate the question, but empirical evidence is generally not able to conclusively prove the past.

You had to have been there (or had a video camera rolling and even that can be faked ); or you have to rely on the testimony of people who were there.

What does a jury rely on to "prove" something happened , or didn't, in the past?

John Creasy wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

Not lying, not crazy, just mistaken. BTW, the physiologic basis for "out-of-body"/"near-death" experiences is fairly well documented, and remarkably consistant. The experiences reported bear strong similarities, and there is strong similarity observed in blood oxygen and nutriant levels, stress-related hormones, neural activity, and motor function, among other things. Whatever those folks experience, when they experience it in a clinical setting, it appears fairly conclusively to do pretty much the same thing to their body chemistry across the board.

It may be physiological it may not be. You can't prove it either way. I'm not expecting to convert anybody here, it's just frustrating that some of you are not even open to the possibility of these type of things. You are just as close-minded as any religious fundamentalist.

How the hell can you call people who say "I do not know" close-minded...yet consider yourself open-minded for insisting that one particular answer of the many possibilities is correct.

Are you nuts?

Saying "I do not know" indicates that we ARE open to other possibilities. You are the one who is close-minded for insisting only the one possibility is the right answer.

Truly...can you not see that?

CI, every cynical person I know always claims to be a realist. I don't think you would acknowledge God if he smacked you in the head.

Frank, do you belive it possible that you could know, or are you certain that you cannot know?

Well Frank, I have no problem with people who say "I don't know", I have a problem with people that say "there is no God or anything supernatural in this word." This is how you come across...

Quote:

If I come across that way to you...then you need remedial lessons in reading, John.

I have never said anything that should be misinterpreted to mean that I say there is no God...or anything supernatural in this world.

Quote:

... maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

No "maybe" about it. You ARE misunderstanding me.

All the people who wish to believe jesus lived, but question the life of George Washington is free to do so. I can't prove that Abe Lincoln nor Mahatma Gandhi lived either, but I trust they lived on this planet about a million percent more than I trust jesus ever walked this planet. Accordingly, I think all you people who question if George Washington ever lived also believe in Superman. Can't prove Superman never lived either. I know how to separate fiction from truth. Evidently, you people still believe the comic book called the bible about some character named jesus who performed miracles. If you ever bother to study anthropology and the different cultures that lived before 2000 years ago, you'll find their gods also performed miracles. But then, believing in fictional characters brings value to your life.

Insulting religious people must bring value to your life.