Wow, that ending was truly beautiful. no sarcasm here.
let me respond to everything you said, afterwards, we can conclude the whole thing if you’d like, as i, too, kinda see that we’re going nowhere because of a couple of things, but writin…g here became such a pastime for me that i would miss it in a couple of days.
you’re right, i do need everything to be objectively explained, because i think that’s the only way to be sure that what i believe in is indeed the truth, i don’t want “faith” to be involved in anything. yes, i reject faith and belief in the supernatural, but not because i’m closed minded, but because i think i remain rational by believing only what i am sure of, and i am sure of only what i can sense with my senses. i am not about speculation, making up answers and having faith. i am about being as sure as i can of how everything is, by staying as objective (and yes, sometimes judgemental too) as i can.
i really regret that i can’t read the bible with this so-called spiritual mindset but only as a book. now, if god knows me, he sees my scepticism, and i hope he makes sure that he gets his “i exist” message across my wall of scepticism. we’ll just have to wait it out, but i unfortunately can’t change my mindset in a snap.
why i learn english. well, i like the language, and the english/american literature and history are fascinating. but did i ever say that subjectivity as an idea is wrong? no man can live ojectively of course, it’s impossible. still, i am no contradiction of myself when i love, hate, have emotions, what have you. my mind has choices which are not always based upon reason, and i am well aware of that. i didn’t say that subjectivity is somehow wrong, all i’m saying is that when arguing about matters that don’t concern human behavior or human choice, subjectivity really has no place there. in other areas of life, being subjective is totally acceptable of course. for example i don’t start yelling at someone who thinks that a poem means something different than what i think. but when matters like the creation of the universe are concerned, we should not be having any subjectivity there.
you say that i’m not supposed to need tangible, objective, hardcore evidence for everything. i think i am; i also think that’s the main cause of all disagreement here.
you simply sidestepped the question about why you think christianity is the true religion, saying that it shouldn’t matter to me. it does matter, but let me tell you your answer: faith. as simple as that. nothing else but faith. faith, which muslims, too, possess, just as you do, and there is no reason at all why someone outside both religions should believe one of you and not the other. end of story.
“mainstream media is completely against anything that would even hint there being a God” nope, and certainly not the US media. a huge number of people are christians there, and they would love to see anything that goes towards proving their belief. i’m sure fox news would jump instantly on anything which looks like a miracle.
you’re asking why miracles should be proven. um, wow. they should be because proving stuff is how we do things here on earth. if we want someone to believe something, we prove it. requiring proof for claims is not only my “small-minded boxed thinking”, it is everyone’s thinking, and it is the very way humanity has been doing pretty much everything throughout history.
a miracle’s definition is that it is something that cannot be explained using scientific measures? so if you can’t find an answer to something, it automatically becomes a miracle? nice. oh, and the miracle of YOUR god, not your neighbor’s. thoughts?
was the parting of the red sea a miracle? you bet. would it have been detectable (not explainable but detectable) by a time-travelling scientist back then? you bet. despite not being able to tell exactly how it happened, would science consider the possibility of it being a miracle, if it happened tomorrow? of course. rational thinking doesn’t need HARDCORE PROOF to consider a theory or idea plausible, it only needs a reasonable amount of supporting evidence. reasonable. here meaning some. meaning at least a very very little. if science considers an idea religious and not at all scientific, it is because there is not even a shred of evidence to support it. that is not being closed-minded, that is not having a “limited box” of cognition, that is being realistic, believing only what one can comprehend, because NOONE WILL EVER KNOW IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE BEYOND WHAT HUMANS CAN COMPREHEND, and noone does now either. i repeat, noone knows, and noone will. you don’t either, you just believe you do, but if believing equals knowing for you, then you being sure is based upon solely your own subjective fabrications, and nothing. else.
of course i judge you, i unfortunately can’t help it. but i judge you based upon mountains of evidence supporting my cause, and going against yours, and that’s NOT being rash.
“you have entered into the judgement room based on your reality” there is no such thing as MY reality! there is Reality, period. look around you, look out the window. what do you see? everything what you see can be explained in ways not involving fabricated beings. look into yourself. everything you feel can be explained the same way. look up to the sky. not everything being able to be explained there doesn’t imply that they automatically become handiworks of god. the “if you can’t disprove it, it exists” argument is FALSE.
again, i’m not calling you foolish because you believe in something i don’t, i am calling you that because you believe in something which has no objective evidence to it, and goes against mountains of evidence, the rational way of thinking, and even simple logic in every imaginable way. just to clarify, again, it is not the difference between my thinking and your thinking that bugs me, it is solely the truly unfounded nature of yours.
you use the word “spiritual” like a gazillion times. i’ll take a shot at defining its nature: it cannot be detected, nor explained scientifically, thus it can only be experienced subjectively, so it can never be proved nor disproved conclusively. was i somewhat close? if yes, then this definition was custom made to assure an everlasting existence of this idea by making sure that it is and will always remain “undisprovable”.
proof of existence of the spiritual world is as subjective as it gets, and there is no such thing as “[opening] the spirit man within [oneself]“, or “reality of a spiritual realm”, only people who simply give credit to the existence of something that has no proof. believing in something with no proof whatsoever is simply, what’s the word, preposterous.
humans being intelligent enough to reach other planets, but not being intelligent enough to see religion for what it really is is sad, frightening and pitiable. we will never let go of it though, because we are insecure, gullible, and terrified of the unknown and our own inevitable death.
so i conclude that discussing anything religion-related with a religious person is futile, because religion is built in a way so that science, reason and logic cannot conclusively disprove it, mainly because of its arbitrariness. anything a rational person might come up with, logic, evidence, what have you, will be countered by rationalizations, which will of course have no tangible evidence, only the religious person’s own personal beliefs, which are, well, just thoughts in one’s head. all in all, this whole idea of believing something despite mountains of evidence to the contrary is exhibit of a condition called delusion; or mass delusion in this case.