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.

I want you to know that I am writing this first response here WITHOUT having read your last three entries. I am purposely not reading them before writing what I am about to write because I don’t want to write in “response” to yo…ur latest three responses, but rather some thoughts I believe the Lord brought to my mind and heart. First, I believe you said in an earlier message that you are finding the Bible to be more difficult to read and understand than you thought it would be. This does not surprise me at all. Spiritual truths can only be understood by the spirit within us. You are reading it simply as a book, without the revelation of the Holy Spirit because your spirit-man within you, at this point, is still not alive. Therefore, the spirit behind the book is nonsense to you because you cannot comprehend what God is revealing through His written word only with your intellect. Which brings me to a second, I hope related point. I remember in one of your responses that you want everything in life to be objective and tangible and measurable and anything that is not that is stupid and foolish and should not be trusted or believed in. You mentioned that subjectivity is wrong. This surprises me a bit because of the major you chose in university. You were an English studies major. My understanding of that is that you had to read many authors and their imaginative writings and thoughts which are not based on science but on subjective experience. Do you simply think they too are insane, foolish and stupid because they don’t look at the world from a naturalistic, “objective” perspective? And really, you are a living contradiction of yourself. You say everything must be objectifiable….i.e. must be scientifically measurable to be true…yet you yourself do not live that way. How do I know? Because you love. You hate. You feel. You have a personaliity. I know, I know, you will try to explain that scientists can measure the brain and see that when you love there is a chemical reaction…of course. However, why did you choose to love your girlfriend? There had to have been some subjectivity in that decision. So, to say that you live by and believe only those things which are objective is not being true or honest about your own life and the way you live. Plus,  subjectivity is ALL around us. There is both objectivity and subjectivity and one is not “better” than another, they are simply different and all a part of the great human existence.

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 stand by …my claim: there has never been scientifically proven miraculous healings, let alone examples of spontaneous regrowth of severed limbs, LET ALONE resurrections. the keywords here are “scientifically proven”, so there is no faith, nor “you don’t believe it only because…” involved. if i don’t believe something, it is because it’s not supported by fact(s). there isn’t anything i don’t believe which is factual.

your cat: you first say that his kidney didn’t function, then that it was dead. i think it was the former. probably something blocked it from functioning, and something, anything, such as falling from a chair, even medication if he had any, pushed or dissolved that “plug” that kept it from functioning. if it was dead for real, then, well, first of all, we will never know (enter subjectivity), second, then it was a miracle, but you can understand me being sceptical, because of the FACT that there has never been a scientifically proven miraculous healing in recorded history.

your friend: if she never found the pellet, it probably left through the same hole as remnants of food usually does, or is still sitting in her system, waiting for an x-ray scan so that it can be revealed. matter does not simply disappear, we have yet to see any verifiable example of that.

Africa: in other words, you’re saying that there has been instances of scientifically proven resurrection, but today’s medicine just ignores them? also, limbs have grown back? not like half a finger, but like whole arms? medicine ignores these too? these are, wow, ridiculous claims. sorry but i need to ask for a couple of sources here, which you won’t be able to provide (surprise), because ALL of this is just hearsay, none of them are well-documented medical cases.

of course i have a bias against miraculous healing! i am biased because a mountain of empirical evidence shows that these things do not happen at all; while its supporters also have a mountain of… hearsay. um, stories. um, personal testimonies. i’m not giving credit to those, because they are subjective. facts > subjectivity. if a medical professional (even better: with no religious affiliation) declared that he has devised an experiment during which miracles can be observed, then you could be sure it would be a worldwide sensation, and that the plausibility of miracles would be accepted by medicine. we have yet to devise such an experiment. again, facts by definition can be verified using experiments. “facts” that cannot are not facts, just assumptions. and i can’t give credit to those, nor to stories of primitive african tribesmen who believe that monkey dung is good for curing headaches.

yes, i am a bit upset about the idea of religion, and that there are people today (hell, half the world) who still believe in it, but let me tell you why. it. holds. back. humanity’s. progress. let’s take evolution for example. it is supported by overwhelming quantity of tangible, measurable, verifiable evidence, yet, christians instead believe in an idea which doesn’t have a single shred of empirical evidence to it. (now, let me elaborate a bit here on evoluion. is often called “only a theory”, and that is true, but let me clarify the word “theory” for you: in scientific terms, this word means that an idea is a well-supported explanation for our observations. “but if a theory turns out to be correct, it’s supposed to become a law!” no.

Laws are used to describe facts, observations, and theories are used to explain them. example: law of gravity: if you drop something, it falls. theory of gravity: Einstein’s theory of relativity, which is an attempt to explain why the law is the way it is. just because it is called “theory of gravity” it doesn’t mean it is just a guess of some sort. now, evolution is totally the same: we have the *fact* of evolution (the genetic change in living beings over generations), and the *theory* of evolution (the theory of evolution by natural selection) is the best way to explain the *fact* of evolution.) they go so far as to teach this ludicrous idea of creationism in public schools. children learn IN SCHOOL that a magical granddaddy created them, and they “haven’t evolved from monkeys, because that’s an outrageous idea”. give me a break. THIS is as outrageous as it gets. people believing in some magical man, thus holding back others’ and humanity’s advancement is outrageous. people drawing morals from thousand-year old scriptures is outrageous. people stoning women to death because of adultery, simply because a book tells them to do so is outrageous. it is astounding how people haven’t realized yet that religion is nothing, but a primitive construct originally devised to explain the world around us. but humanity just can’t let it go, because of the comfort it gives; people will never, ever let it go, because they are insecure.