[video] Sagan brilliance

[PiqueABoo]

All the positive parts of religion, such as leading a moral life, can be gained outside of religion

 

Trouble is that "can be" isn't "will be" i.e. I really don't think secular morality is doing much to fill the "vacuum" created by the decline in Christian morality. I have no faith whatsoever, but I'd rather keep the genuine Christians than have one of those "consistent" worlds, where in practice I suspect the only consistent thing would be the high levels of what you might call moral entropy.

[PeterH]

Right I have just glanced through all this and I do have a few questions I hope will be taken in a nice light. I have no beef with religion but I do question a few things logically.

If men are fallible and the bible was written by men is it not possible it contains mistakes?

 

I think the most important thing is that the Bible itself claims to be infallible. Or to put it another way, the Biblical writers claimed it to be infallible based on their knowledge of God's character.

 

For example, the Bible says that "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" and "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"

 

Those two quotes are really saying the same thing - that the Bible was inspired by God, and although it was written down by fallible men, they were working under the inspiration of God, who in his perfect nature simply cannot lie or make mistakes. "God-breathed" is simply a way of saying that God spoke through his Spirit into the hearts of biblical authors - inspiring them to write down the essence of what he intended to make known.

 

This opens up the whole question of Biblical authority. If the claims of the Bible are true and it was written under the influence of a perfect, infallible God, then it means that the Bible must be the ultimate source of authority and the only source of absolute truth.

 

Of course there are other things that are true, but how can we absolutely, I mean absolutely guarantee the truth of anything? If we believe the Bible's claims about itself, and about the character of God, then it isn't a problem for us to say that as God alone is perfect, so therefore must his word be.

 

How literal do you see the bible in regards to answering our beginnings against the age old evolution question?

 

When we're talking about the Bible being "literal", it's important to clarify exactly what we mean. Within the Bible, there are many different styles of writing - for example historical narrative, prophecy, allegory, poetry etc, and can't all be read literally.

 

Instead, a "plain reading" of the Bible considers the style of writing in the book or passage you're reading. The Book of Genesis, for example, is literal historical narrative, written down thousands of years after the events it describes, the intention of the author being that his audience would read and understand it as a literal historical account of events. How else could this account of creation have been written apart from by God's inspiration, since nobody was around to see it happen.

 

How accurate do you see the bible yourself?

 

The message of the Bible is as relevant today as it was 2000 or more years ago. It's a message that everyone needs to hear. It tells us about God, about ourselves and how God sees us, about what God has done for us and about what He wants us to do. Accurate? Absolutely.

 

"Here is a trustworty saying that deserves full acceptance - Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners". That's a well known Bible passage. Can we consider it trustworthy? If we believe that the Bible is the perfect, inerrant word of God then it's a certainty. If we don't consider the Bible to be accurate then how do we decide which parts of it are true and which aren't and how can we be sure of even a saying such as this?

[jamesb]

Around in circles?

 

If it's existence can not be tested, demonstrated, or evidence put forwards for it then it most likely does not exist. See, simple. Flippancy won't really help you there.

 

I know I'm making an assumption based on faith.

 

If faith does not fit within a scientific model, why are you trying to argue that it sometimes deserves to be exempt? It is evidence you believe that faith is somehow special and beyond questioning or doubt, so why the argument? Obviously myself and us other hell-bound atheists are foolish for actually wondering about the world and asking for evidence of things rather than blindly accepting with faith whatever any one particular religion may tell us.

 

It would appear an education in this instance stopped you thinking.

 

It would appear a religion in this instance stopped you questioning. See, I can make vaguely insulting statements too.

 

And what science either proves or disproves is not religion.

 

So if science proves it, then the giant space teapot is not accounted for within the theory that science has just proven?

 

They are equally valid subjectively.

 

They are equally invalid objectively.

 

So evidence of the metaphysical would convince you of it's reality. How absurd.

 

Yep. Pretty much. And?

 

Logical fallacies that you insist on tying yourself to. I don't agree that a scientifically philosophical world view is intellectually defensible, but I understand your reasoning for it. You refuse to accept the logical points against your world view, but fail to challenge them.

 

If you understood my reasoning for it, then you would accept the view in the same way as myself. You do not understand the reasoning, nor the logical points in favour, nor do you understand how to present a logical argument against it, you simply refute anything which does not agree with your world view by saying that your particular view does not need to be supported by evidence.

 

There is no way to challenge such an assertion, as you do not put forwards anything which either can be challenged, or is worth challenging. Space teapot.

 

Unfortunately for you that is the conditional of the religion. I'm impressed that you think you can sweep away a long held fact where no one else has succeeded. I look forward to one logical proposition from yourself. So far we've had nothing but arm waving.

 

Again we have your argument that my worldview violates the rules of your religion by demanding evidence, which you cannot provide. Condemning me as asking for evidence, where many have asked before and been refused, is not a particularly good argument.

 

We should strive to be without personalities?

 

We should strive not to let personal opinion affect judgment - that's not the same thing as being without a personality.

 

Then please provide a response.

 

Simply done. There are many explanations other than the particular interpretation of god which is put forwards by the Christian faith. None of these is any more compelling than any other, assuming that aspects of faith are taken as a fact. Thus the probability of the Christian faith being more correct than any other faith is lower than that of any other faith (or lack of faith) being more correct than the Christian faith.

 

I'm using the standard Mainstream Christian definition of God. It's a logically coherent model if you wish to test it. you might want to do some background research. May I suggest the Summa as a starting point.

 

Only if you test it without stepping outside the bounds of the system, so not the best example. It is, however, no less coherent than any other religious model. As to research, I have plenty of research material which I have worked through.

 

Precisely. You dismiss the dimension with some spurious logic.

 

You accept the dimension with no evidence, and a refutation of any evidence which is put forwards.

 

This sort of discussion belongs in the pub on a Friday night, and you all know where it will lead to

 

Given my pub visits, usually a duel (blunted swords with shields, great fun and a good way to settle a disagreement).

 

The problem with your argument there is that it's not religion causing those problems, it's the human species. You can direct the same issues towards many governments, tribes and individuals whether atheist or religious.

For instance, your comment about 'the prevention of disease and unwanted pregnancy' I presume is about the Catholic stance on the use of condoms and Africa? Well, the main problem is not the contraception, it's the way women are mistreated and abused, quite often with tacit support of government and tribal leaders. In many areas, it is mission charities which are providing the education and support to help prevent this, often facing great hostility.

 

'IMO, the sooner we can unshackle ourselves from this old ideas, the sooner we will overcome the inconsistencies in our world'

Unless you believe in creationism, atheism came before religion, so atheism is the old idea ;-)

 

You can direct the issues to any requirement for authority - a hangover of the bicameral mind and thus religion/the desire for authority to justify or rationalise any decision.

 

Cheers guys

 

Cheers. I'll buy you a pint if you're ever down this way, and can stand to drink with a filthy skeptic.

 

Trouble is that "can be" isn't "will be" i.e. I really don't think secular morality is doing much to fill the "vacuum" created by the decline in Christian morality. I have no faith whatsoever, but I'd rather keep the genuine Christians than have one of those "consistent" worlds, where in practice I suspect the only consistent thing would be the high levels of what you might call moral entropy.

 

I really don't think religious morality is doing much to fill the vacuum of being a 'good person' which was previously required.

 

Religion really doesn't have that much to do with morality whatsoever. There are evil fanatics, and there are good athiests, and there are evil athiests, and good fanatics.

[MkII]

If it's existence can not be tested, demonstrated, or evidence put forwards for it then it most likely does not exist. See, simple. Flippancy won't really help you there.

Until you disprove the fallacy accusation, your words are wasted here, and your point lost.

 

If faith does not fit within a scientific model, why are you trying to argue that it sometimes deserves to be exempt? It is evidence you believe that faith is somehow special and beyond questioning or doubt, so why the argument? Obviously myself and us other hell-bound atheists are foolish for actually wondering about the world and asking for evidence of things rather than blindly accepting with faith whatever any one particular religion may tell us.

You deny logic. Very simple.

 

So if science proves it, then the giant space teapot is not accounted for within the theory that science has just proven?

Irrelevant

 

Yep. Pretty much. And?

That would be completely illogical? Not a problem to you I guess.

 

If you understood my reasoning for it, then you would accept the view in the same way as myself. You do not understand the reasoning, nor the logical points in favour, nor do you understand how to present a logical argument against it, you simply refute anything which does not agree with your world view by saying that your particular view does not need to be supported by evidence.

Haha!

 

If I understood your reasoning I would also hold your world view? So you're saying I have to change my mind and believe what you believe? How odd.

 

There is no way to challenge such an assertion, as you do not put forwards anything which either can be challenged, or is worth challenging. Space teapot.

That's because you refuse to accept logic.

 

Again we have your argument that my worldview violates the rules of your religion by demanding evidence, which you cannot provide. Condemning me as asking for evidence, where many have asked before and been refused, is not a particularly good argument.

I can provide evidence. Non empirical evidence. You demand empirical evidence of something which by definition cannot have empirical evidence.

 

You're continually banging your head on this question, ignoring the clear illogicality of your statements. Please just think for one moment.

 

We should strive not to let personal opinion affect judgment - that's not the same thing as being without a personality.

In a question that only allows for a personal judgement, one has to rely upon personal opinion. People are free and able to make personal judgements. The opinion of others is incidental.

 

Simply done. There are many explanations other than the particular interpretation of god which is put forwards by the Christian faith. None of these is any more compelling than any other, assuming that aspects of faith are taken as a fact. Thus the probability of the Christian faith being more correct than any other faith is lower than that of any other faith (or lack of faith) being more correct than the Christian faith.

You failed to address the point. That is no logical reason to dismiss it.

 

Only if you test it without stepping outside the bounds of the system, so not the best example. It is, however, no less coherent than any other religious model. As to research, I have plenty of research material which I have worked through.

So how do you test scientific theory outside science? Oh, that ok. How strange. Double standards - yes I think so.

 

You are obviously very ignorant of this subject you're trying to argue against.

 

You accept the dimension with no evidence, and a refutation of any evidence which is put forwards.

Yet again with the fallacial evidence thing. Please refute the logic that would make your statements on evidence absurd.

[Butters]

This thread is bordering on absurd.

 

James - You'd be more productive headbutting a wall

[siuko]

Hehe

 

What was the original reason for the post?

[teejay]

This thread is bordering on absurd.

 

James - You'd be more productive headbutting a wall

 

Haha, they're only just warming up! The thread is only 8 pages long, think there has been one 70+ pages on here before about this topic.

Come on Mark & James, I'm sure you can break the 100 pages barrier and still get nowhere, you're really not trying hard enough yet ;-)

[MkII]

Let me make the point of logic once again :

 

The demand for evidence must be appropriate for the claim in question; i.e., empirical evidence for empirical claims, non-empirical evidence for non-empirical claims

[siuko]

I think it could do with being a bit more basic for my nerdy geeky wowaddled brain...

 

Wasnt the initial video that started it all to do with the size of the universe and how small and insignificant our blue planet is?

[jamesb]

Until you disprove the fallacy accusation, your words are wasted here, and your point lost.

 

My words are definitely wasted on you, yes, and you really do seem unable to grasp the simple point that nothing is above requirements of evidence.

 

You deny logic. Very simple.

 

No. The supposed logic you accuse me of deny is that you are saying 'you cannot test god, because god says so'. That is recursive, not a valid argument in the slightest. It is no better than me talking about the space teapot, which you have still been unable to form any reply to - other than your repeated assertion that your beliefs are above the requirements of evidence and of suspicion.

 

Irrelevant

 

Not at all - just obviously a question you are unable to answer. Disprove the space teapot - the assertion is just as strong as yours for your religion.

 

If I understood your reasoning I would also hold your world view? So you're saying I have to change my mind and believe what you believe? How odd.

 

I'm not trying to make you believe anything. I'm trying to get you to put forward some evidence for your beliefs, which is not founded upon the beliefs themselves. You are unable to do so and so keep on leaping on the recursive argument of 'thou shalt not demonstrate thine faith, because thine faith art above the suspicion of evil scientifically minded people who do not believe, thus sayeth your god'.

 

That's because you refuse to accept logic.

 

If you put forwards some well-founded, valid logic at some point I'll be more than happy to accept it. Still waiting at the moment.

 

I can provide evidence. Non empirical evidence. You demand empirical evidence of something which by definition cannot have empirical evidence.

 

Then where is this non-empirical evidence? You've yet to bring any forwards, but you keep on talking about it. Let's have a look.

 

You're continually banging your head on this question, ignoring the clear illogicality of your statements. Please just think for one moment.

 

Bring forward your evidence. Simple request.

 

In a question that only allows for a personal judgement, one has to rely upon personal opinion. People are free and able to make personal judgements. The opinion of others is incidental.

 

So now it's only personal judgment? In that case you have neither empirical nor non-empirical evidence, just your own beliefs. If opinions matter so little, why are you so desperate to convince me that your religion is better than any other out there?

 

You failed to address the point. That is no logical reason to dismiss it.

 

There was no point to address. You believe that your religion is better. Others believe that their religion is better. Your judgment holds no more weight than theirs, and none of you can bring forth any evidence to support your bias.

 

So how do you test scientific theory outside science? Oh, that ok. How strange. Double standards - yes I think so.

 

By observing the world, and comparing observations within the world to the theories that science puts forward. If they do not match then the science is wrong and a new theory must be developed to address this.

 

You are obviously very ignorant of this subject you're trying to argue against.

 

You, quite clearly, do not understand scientific theory. Trying to accuse me of a lack of understanding is a bit pointless when you subscribe to a religion with no evidence.

 

Yet again with the fallacial evidence thing. Please refute the logic that would make your statements on evidence absurd.

 

You are claiming that whichever deity you choose is being the requirement for evidence, as is the rest of the religion. You then talk about how there is evidence (but refuse to bring it forward) and continually throw vague diversions at arguments rather than addressing the questions.

 

Or to put it another way - why should you believe in your deity rather than the great space teapot? I'm still waiting for an answer on this.

 

James - You'd be more productive headbutting a wall

 

The idea is to help me relieve stress at work, rather than causing structural damage to my forehead and keyboard.

 

The demand for evidence must be appropriate for the claim in question; i.e., empirical evidence for empirical claims, non-empirical evidence for non-empirical claims

 

Then present your non-empirical evidence. You've not even managed that so far.

 

Just one thing, if you can come up with non-empirical evidence, I'm allowed to come up with it for my own theories of religion as well. Seems fair to me.

[jamesb]

Wasnt the initial video that started it all to do with the size of the universe and how small and insignificant our blue planet is?

 

I have no idea...never looked at it.

[localzuk]

Let me make the point of logic once again :

 

The demand for evidence must be appropriate for the claim in question; i.e., empirical evidence for empirical claims, non-empirical evidence for non-empirical claims

 

Only according to the rules within YOUR belief system. Take my NDA signing example from earlier as point.

[MkII]

No localzuk : in logic.

 

@ you & jamesb :

Logical proofs are non-empirical, and all of the arguments we use in science are based on logic, even the ones we use to evaluate empirical evidence. You cannot ascertain truth without some evidence to support it.

 

One of the earliest proofs of our existence is non-empirical. "I think, therefore I am"

[jamesb]

One of the earliest proofs of our existence is non-empirical. "I think, therefore I am"

 

Don't get me started on consciousness, that's a whole other debate. After all the best definition of consciousness we've managed to come up with is that consciousness is that which is introspectable.

 

This debate, however, is about an external entity, at least according to your assertion.

 

However suffice it to say that 'I think, therefore I am' is not a proof. It is an assertion. Very different things.

 

Logical assertions are non-empirical, I agree, but are mostly drawn from empirical evidence. This applies particularly in science where the chain of reasoning begins with an observation. Observations are empirical.

[localzuk]

One of the earliest proofs of our existence is non-empirical. "I think, therefore I am"

 

That is by no means a proof. It is an assertion, based on observation. I might go even further and say it is a very basic hypothesis, to be proven via experiment and repeatable actions.

 

But then, you also have the term 'I', which is one of those terms that starts entering into metaphysics again. A metaphysician might have a lot to say about it, but to me that term means only one thing - that 'I' is the same as 'the body and all its components, combined with electrochemical reactions which occur when fueled with oxygen, food and nutrients'.

Edited August 5, 2010 by localzuk

[jamesb]

One of the earliest proofs of our existence is non-empirical. "I think, therefore I am"

 

Incidentally you're misusing the word proof.

 

Science gathers evidence in support of a theory, and while a theory can be disproven it can never be definitively proven.

 

A 'proof' of a theory is a mathematical proof - not an endorsement that the theory is true, but that it is an accurate and consistent model.

 

Neither are logical proofs, proof in the way that you seem to be taking it. The same applies. A 'proof' is simply a demonstration that there are no internal flaws in a theory, and speaks nothing about the accuracy of that theory in relation to the real world.

[Butters]

This thread is brilliant.

 

I can't tell whether Mark is obscenely ignorant of the meanings of proof / logic or completely on a wind up to drive James and Localzuk insane.

[localzuk]

This thread is brilliant.

 

I can't tell whether Mark is obscenely ignorant of the meanings of proof / logic or completely on a wind up to drive James and Localzuk insane.

 

It'd take a lot to drive me insane. Or very little, depending on whether I'm already insane or not...

[MkII]

I'd agree that proof is impossible. I disagree that I've made an existence claim, or that that is implied. Mine is more an assertion. I can't know. Science requires empirical evidence, but other branches of thinking do not, philosophy, maths, etc.. If my religious or faith assertion was a claim of existence, then I'd agree with you that empirical evidence would be a requirement. As I claim no such thing, then my assertion falls squarely in philosophy as a subject.

 

Wanted to add - did either of you check out the George Coyne video linked above? It'd explain a lot to you I think.

Edited August 5, 2010 by MkII

[jamesb]

I can't tell whether Mark is obscenely ignorant of the meanings of proof / logic or completely on a wind up to drive James and Localzuk insane.

 

I'm hoping it's the second rather than the first. I quite enjoy being wound up in an argument - gives me a safe outlet for frustration between weapon practices.

 

I'd agree that proof is impossible. I disagree that I've made an existence claim, or that that is implied. Mine is more an assertion. I can't know. Science requires empirical evidence, but other branches of thinking do not, philosophy, maths, etc.. If my religious or faith assertion was a claim of existence, then I'd agree with you that empirical evidence would be a requirement. As I claim no such thing, then my assertion falls squarely in philosophy as a subject.

 

You believe in your religion. Your religion states that a deity exists, so you must believe in that existence to claim the religion. You are thus making a claim about existence of said deity.

 

Does your religion make a difference to the way you act in your life? I suspect, as you seem to be one of those who believe that religion is one of the major drives behind altruism, that it does. In that case you are living your life by a set of rules which are supposedly imposed by $deity. If you are living your life by a set of rules that you have not decided, would you not like some evidence that they are correct other than the assertion put forward by relgiion?

 

Wanted to add - did either of you check out the George Coyne video linked above? It'd explain a lot to you I think.

 

Nope. Can't check videos at work, and generally have other things to do when I'm at home. May take a look over the weekend, but having spoken with Jesuits before I doubt it's going to present anything new.

 

1. Religion is man made. Every single one of them. Which brings us to...

 

Lies! The faith of the giant space teapot was founded by the holy cup which came to earth and carried forth its message through it's agents and the practice of reading tea leaves. It is divinely inspired.

 

2. There are thousands of religions. They can't all be right. The Zeitgeist moves on, and gods come and go.

 

Yep. All religions (except the great space teapot) are equally invalid.

 

3. Older religions are superseded and invalidated by newer religions. Consider Rah the sun god; his portfolio must be looking pretty thin these days, as nobody believes in him any more.

 

Not quite - Rah, along with Apollo and many other sun deities have been adapted and absorbed into the Christian faith. Jesus is almost a direct analogue of Baldur for example.

 

Oh, and there are people who do worship Rah. Neo-paganism runs along quite steadily, though generally focuses on Norse traditions.

 

4. If God can influence matters, then there must have been a suspension of the laws of physics for someone's benefit. Where is the evidence of this?

 

Again, right, there is no evidence of this - in fact according to religious arguments there can be none. That's been one of the main problems in this thread so far - the denial of the need for evidence.

 

5. If God cannot influence matters, or chooses not to intervene, what's the point of prayer? Unless it's to feather the afterlife nest, in which case...

 

A psychological need still encoded into us which requires approval from and appeal to authority, possibly stemming from the time when we were not truly conscious and the 'gods' spoke to us directly (i.e. bicameral minds). Still, the repeating of a mantra and 'prayer' of a sort has been shown to be helpful, whether or not it is directed to a deity or just generally performed.

 

6. The afterlife is a man-made invention as a comfort to man, who is possibly the only species aware of his mortality.

 

It's a shame, but I have to agree with you on this as well. In my youth I thought Valhalla sounded like quite a nice way to relax after death.

 

There were too many facets of religion that I couldn't square. I examined the subject and concluded that there was no reason to believe in a god.

 

There's your mistake. You actually examined and looked at the subject. In many ways I'd quite like to be able to not try to examine and assess everything - it must be quite comforting to believe in a deity of some kind, and an afterlife. I've managed to adapt this by hoping that technology will develop to the point where I can upload myself before death.

[localzuk]

I brought this subject up with a guy at work, who is also a Christian, and his only response was to point at images of the galaxy, taken by the Hubble telescope and say 'how can you believe that such beautiful things are an accident?'.

 

Its as if, in order to feel like life is worth living, some people need to think that they were created specially by a deity. Kinda like low self-esteem or something.

[jamesb]

I brought this subject up with a guy at work, who is also a Christian, and his only response was to point at images of the galaxy, taken by the Hubble telescope and say 'how can you believe that such beautiful things are an accident?'.

 

Its as if, in order to feel like life is worth living, some people need to think that they were created specially by a deity. Kinda like low self-esteem or something.

 

Another one of those misunderstandings that arise. We think something is beautiful, because it meets our sense of aesthetics - which developed by seeing certain things as good and certain things as bad. We are adapted to see awe-inspiring sights in the world and in the universe as being beautiful. It's no accident that we find them to be beautiful at all, but that doesn't mean that the things themselves are deliberately created - it is because our vision of them has adapted to enjoy them.

 

I can sort of understand the need of people to find a purpose in life though. It can be somewhat hard to realise that there really doesn't have to be a divine purpose - simply being is enough. Who needs a deity when we are a product of everything that comes before us, and everything that comes after? Every single action we take has an effect on the destiny of the human species, no matter how small it may be.

 

Honestly all the immortality that we need is to be carried forward by the repercussions of our actions and the ongoing development of the human race.

[localzuk]

Another one of those misunderstandings that arise. We think something is beautiful, because it meets our sense of aesthetics - which developed by seeing certain things as good and certain things as bad. We are adapted to see awe-inspiring sights in the world and in the universe as being beautiful. It's no accident that we find them to be beautiful at all, but that doesn't mean that the things themselves are deliberately created - it is because our vision of them has adapted to enjoy them.

 

Precisely. The idea of beauty is another man-made construct, engrained into us by our upbringing and our peers. That old saying 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' covers it quite nicely.

Edited August 6, 2010 by localzuk
typo

[MkII]

You believe in your religion. Your religion states that a deity exists, so you must believe in that existence to claim the religion. You are thus making a claim about existence of said deity.

Do you not understand the difference between an assumption and a claim then, as you went into earlier? It seems you dance around the logical maypole with some finesse. Bravo!

 

Does your religion make a difference to the way you act in your life? I suspect, as you seem to be one of those who believe that religion is one of the major drives behind altruism, that it does. In that case you are living your life by a set of rules which are supposedly imposed by $deity. If you are living your life by a set of rules that you have not decided, would you not like some evidence that they are correct other than the assertion put forward by relgiion?

Christianity should make a difference to the way I act, my aim is Christ likeness (my achievement might be something completely different). Nothing is "imposed", and that is a deliberately loaded word designed to obfuscate. The choice is entirely mine, and I follow all of the rules of my faith having accepted all of it to be true, logically concluding it to be so. I have absolute evidence of that fact, taking in the widest considerations available to me.

 

Nope. Can't check videos at work, and generally have other things to do when I'm at home. May take a look over the weekend, but having spoken with Jesuits before I doubt it's going to present anything new.

Well try to keep an open mind

 

@ localzuk :

Yes I too find that kind of statement frustrating. But I understand that people speak assuming that you can separate empirical and non empirical evidence in your considerations, and was speaking not from your singular vision of wonder at the natural world, which they would be completely able, but from a philosophical position which was most likely the subject of the discussion.

[jamesb]

Do you not understand the difference between an assumption and a claim then, as you went into earlier? It seems you dance around the logical maypole with some finesse. Bravo!

 

You are making an assertion that god exists. If you are not asserting that god exists, your entire religious structure is invalid. Is this really so hard for you to comprehend?

 

Christianity should make a difference to the way I act, my aim is Christ likeness (my achievement might be something completely different). Nothing is "imposed", and that is a deliberately loaded word designed to obfuscate. The choice is entirely mine, and I follow all of the rules of my faith having accepted all of it to be true, logically concluding it to be so. I have absolute evidence of that fact, taking in the widest considerations available to me.

 

If you have absolute evidence - present it.

 

Well try to keep an open mind

 

I do, and the moment that you present some sort of evidence I will consider it.