May I ask are you a feeling person? Do you show emotions such as anger or happiness?
Like nearly everyone, I have feelings. Unlike some, I value reason more than emotion when it comes to matters of truth and falsity. It would make me really happy to believe that I have $50,000 in my bank account, for example, but that doesn’t make it true.
What is it you CHOOSE to believe in? Apparently you CHOOSE not to believe that a person can have a “religious” experience.
What I choose to believe in has no relevance. We’re talking about the rational validity for one set of beliefs. To analyze one belief you need not have another to replace it. I won’t muddle the issue here, but if you’d like we can start a seperate thread for my beliefs after this is resolved. Please don’t assume that I think one thing or another without my stating it. I haven’t denied that people can have religious experiences. People can experience love, for instance, even though it’s difficult to connect with some precise physical process. People can experience hallucinations on drugs as well. The subjective nature of experience does not prove objective truth.
Do you not have FAITH in your own statements just made?
I believe in my statements because of reason, not faith. Webster’s dictionary defines faith as
(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
I would not believe in my statements if there was no proof for them. The proof is in the examples I gave for each fallacy, so no faith is necessary.
Can you advise as to where both the need and abilility to love comes from? Where comes the source of evil in our world?
Irrelevant. We can talk about my beliefs in another thread. My purpose in starting this one was to scrutinize yours. Whether or not I have an answer to these things doesn’t matter; to suggest that your answer is better on the basis of faith is simply an argument from ignorance, which is one of the 3 foundational fallacies for religion.
For the Christian it never has been about religion, but rather a choice to believe in an historical Jesus.
To believe that He is who He says He is. Just as I believe that a light switch turns on the lights, or that a chair will hold me up when I sit in it, so do I have the experience of knowing Christ, the Son of the living God.
I haven’t heard much controversy over whether or not light switches work or chairs hold people up. Your analogy is false because objective proof of the “Son of the living God” is quite another matter that is presently unobservable in the material realm. If it was as simple as belief in the function of a chair we wouldn’t need to be debating it here.
I believe not only in the “event” of the cross, but in its power to forgive me of my sins. Similarly, I believe in the “event” of the empty tomb and that I am risen with Christ and will live eternally with Him. When you are taught about a historical and proven faith in a Person, then it is an easy step to believe.
It’s your free choice to believe such things. I could care less what you choose to believe because it doesn’t change the truth or falsity of a given belief. We’re looking at the belief in religion itself and could consider it whether 6 billion people hold it to be true or everyone considers it to be false.