Ok, addressing this: your cat: so if you take both the before and after diagnostics into the hospital and ask a non-religious medical professional, he will happily sign a paper that says “it is 100% sure that the cat was healed through a m…iracle by god, there is no other humanly possible explanation”? i highly doubt that. not having an explanation for something is not the same as having ready-made miracles. see, it is not enough to say “aha! you don’t know! it must be a miracle!”, but YOU are the one who should be able to prove it, because you’re making the claims. it’s called burden of proof.

You say that miracles have to be “proven”….why? You see, you have your very, very limited perspective on life. Everything has to fit into your small-minded boxed thinking. The very definition of a miracle is that it cannot be explained using scientific measures. That is a reality you refuse to accept because that’s outside your box. Whether you accept it or not, you have built a limited box that you can control and feel comfortable in, and anything that challenges that and doesn’t fit into YOUR definitions and YOUR parameters is wrong, stupid, foolish and those who live outside of your boxed-in way of thinking are too. You ask how you have judged…nearly everything you said in the most recent exchanges about others is a rash judgement. You, bottom line, call me stupid. That is making a judgement. You say I am foolish to believe in anything I cannot see. That is a judgement. A judgement says that this is right and this is wrong. You say belief in god is wrong, foolish and stupid. So, you have entered into the judgement room based on your reality which is anything that is not scientifically measurable is wrong and stupid. Your standard of truth is science, period. I know you will say that I have judged the muslim faith, now. You are right, I have. Does this mean I hate the people who adhere to this faith? Absolutely not. Do I believe they are stupid or foolish? Absolutely not. Do I believe you are stupid or foolish? Absolutely not. My deepest heart’s desire is to see them, you, and everyone through the eyes of the faith that my God put in my heart by His grace, and that is the eyes of love and mercy, seeing them as He sees them and loving them with the love of Jesus. I don’t judge you, Bence. I am looking at you objectively…this is what you think and believe and it is the man-centered, atheistic, naturalistic mind-set of so many who have shut-down the spiritual part of their beings. Personally, I love science and am completely fascinated by findings and discoveries…sometimes I wish I would have pursued medicine…and I’m excited when there are new discoveries because of MY starting point. I see it as the beautiful unfolding of God’s creation and creativity. You, on the other hand, are confronted with someone like me, who thinks a bit differently than you, and you judge me, calling me foolish and stupid for believing something that you don’t. I think it is fabulous that you have such a keen, astute mind; do I wish your spirit-man was more alive and awake and open to that which may never be scientifically explained? Sure, but I don’t call you foolish or stupid because you are not there.

The mere existence of religion in our modern world baffles me so much that i cannot even begin to describe.

anyone who doesn’t think the way i do is wrong? where do i say that? i say anyone who believes in anything… which is not supported by proof, and accepts it as fact is wrong, and that is not a stretch.

read this back: “you are clearly a very angry young man, which is evidenced by your discussion here of late, and you have been deeply hurt in life to have had to narrow your mind to the point of making rash judgements.”

me not being religious, or not having a relationship with god, and expressing that i strongly disagree with everything requiring faith is evidence that i’m deeply hurt? nope. my mind as i’ve said is totally open, but only for sensible arguments, devoid of any subjectivity. also, no rash judgements have been made on my part, but feel free to give an example of any judgements that i did not support with facts.

your cat: so if you take both the before and after diagnostics into the hospital and ask a non-religious medical professional, he will happily sign a paper that says “it is 100% sure that the cat was healed through a miracle by god, there is no other humanly possible explanation”? i highly doubt that. not having an explanation for something is not the same as having ready-made miracles. see, it is not enough to say “aha! you don’t know! it must be a miracle!”, but YOU are the one who should be able to prove it, because you’re making the claims. it’s called burden of proof.

example: (a widely-used example i might add) i believe that a teapot is orbiting the sun. will my belief become automatically validated if people cannot disprove it? of course not. it is me who should be able to prove it, because i’m the one making the claim. (needless to say, if i got many people to believe that the teapot was orbiting the sun, it would be called not delusion, but religion.)

bottom line: even if the doctors can’t tell why the cat’s kidney healed, it doesn’t automatically mean that it was a miracle. it should be proved that it was a miracle beyond the shadow of a doubt, because it is you who is saying that it is so.

limbs growing out: you couldn’t find medical evidence, because if it existed, medicine would be investigating those cases, and would finally come to some conclusion, which, yes, could be “miracle!”, but i have yet to see any of that, so the logical conclusion is that none of those cases you might find are sure to have been miracles, because they lack the needed objectivity for science to conclude that they were indeed that.

sorry for confusing religion with you relationship with god. still, it is you who makes arbitrary claims here. “[these deeds] were done by men under the influence of not God, even though they called it God…it was NOT of God” how. do. you. know? who told you? where is the evidence? anything of god bears good fruit? who told you that? it was either the bible, or you can feel it in yourself. neither of those are objective enough. it was the christian church, *the very representation of god on earth*, that did those things. you’re saying that the christian church is not following the true god, that it acted on behalf of some false one? so the christian church was simply wrong? elaborate on that please.

islam is a false religion. wow. just wow. millions believe in it, just as millions believe in christianity, or other religions. muslims think the same things about you as you think about them. they’re saying that people are turning away from other religions, and are starting to find the true one in allah. mohammed appears to christians in their dreams and commands them to follow him, for it is islam which is the true religion.
now i suppose you believe in the ten commandments of christianity. one of them is: you’re not supposed to have any gods other than me. you know what christians are supposed to do with people who don’t believe in god, according to the bible? oh yes, kill them. not even just kill, but STONE them to death. so christianity also has the “infidels must die” slogan, it just doesn’t call them infidels, and christians are not as keen on practicing it, but it is there.

now please pay close attention to the following bit:
i asked you the following question before, but i’ll ask it again, and if you stand by what you claim, you should have one hell of an answer in order not to contradict yourself.
can you name one experiment devoid of any subjectivity that will conclusively and objectively show that your religion is the true one, and the other ones are just lies and fabrications? a criteria: make it so that the experiment can be used towards proving the christian god and Jesus, but cannot be used towards proving other gods or prophets.

you can’t see it, can you. there is no such experiment. if there was, there would be no multiple religions. the very existence of multiple religions is the evidence (that’s the word i’m looking for in your arguments as well) that you simply cannot argue with religious people even with simple logic. believers will always, always come up with rationalizations to assure themselves that what they believe in is true, because if they didn’t, their decision of believing their own religion and not another one would make. no. sense. read that last sentence again, the logic is infallible. and that is not a selfish claim, it is *objectively* infallible.

Now, the issue of abortion. okay. let’s get a wrong point out of the way first: you’re saying that scientists say that the “tissue in the womb” is not a living being. wrong. they say it is not a *human* being, but it is of course alive. because you can only commit murder against a human being, the differentiation is important.

how do you define human life? do you think that a human being is instantly formed when the sperm and egg touch? this is a matter of subjectivity. just as you can’t draw a sharp line between two colors fading together, you can’t define a point from which a fetus is considered a human being. i, for one, think that something that has no feelings, senses, consciousness, nor resemblance to a human is not an actual human being. however, it IS life, and scientists, too, say that it IS life, they just say it doesn’t count as a human being yet, for it has none of the characteristics of one; so you can extinguish its life without actually committing murder.
bottom line: it is subjective whether to look at a fetus as a human being, and there’s nothing upsetting about that.

I  have absolutely no problem with the idea of religion itself. people having their own little gods and worlds of delusion is okay with me. but. if religion, and its institution starts to interfere with science, going so far as to decla…re it outright wrong, then we have a problem.

imagine a world without religion, belief in the spiritual, transcendent, stuff like that: there would have been no hanging, burning, stoning, drowning, etc. of millions of innocent people throughout history in the name of religion; groundbreaking theories of the past would have been accepted and studied further instead of being declared as heresy, thus by now we would be hundreds of years more advanced; there would be no churches to influence matters WAAAY beyond their business in anti-science ways; all of humanity would THINK and ACT instead of trusting in an imaginary being, thus increasing productivity and the all-around standard of living. and. so. on. bottom line: if religion didn’t exist, humanity would benefit from it so greatly i cannot even begin to describe.

now let me ask you this: has science ever had any negative effects on all of humanity throughout history? has someone ever killed anyone because their scientific findings were different for example? i admit that science sometimes kills people too through experiments going bad for example – but for the greater good: the technological advancement of the human race; not out of stupid superstition and fear of losing influence, like the church did. deaths i think are acceptable for the greater good of our race, because without them, we could simply not advance or species. but these deaths are in no way comparable to the mass slaughter of heretics and people of other faiths, which all happened because of people having different delusions, and by no means because of a greater good.