Human Programming

Anastasia, there i no such thing as A)And as for C).Nobody "just" believe they need a reason.
And i think the reason only comes from conditionning...I just dont see anything else

Well I know quite a lot of people that think they know. They act like they know, and preach like they know.As for the word of God. That means the bible is divinly inspired and cannot be wrong (there is also people believing that you know.)

Well, ok, but you are the one who said there were two options.And you asked for another.Once again, no one can condition you to believe. All they can do is condition how you believe.In the OP it seemed like you were questioning if people tend to stick to the religion of their ancestors.Now you are questioning if ALL belief is a trick or a 'conditioning'.Once again, I ask you to apply the question to yourself. You DO NOT KNOW if there is a God. If you are wondering how we crazy theists feel, it is probably exactly like you feel. We have a belief, and we find 'evidence'.

Yes they do.However, exactly how can someone "Know" there is an afterlife until they have died?I have no problem with folk believing in an afterlife, in fact I do, but I cannot "Know". It cannot be verified and if I am going to be honest, at least with myself, I must admit I might well be wrong. Yes, there are also folk that hold that position. Yet even you have pointed out places where the Bible is verifiably wrong. Actually there are many, many, many such places.If I am going to be honest, at least with myself, I must admit those errors that are verifiably wrong.The Bible can still be divinely inspired even with errors. If the purpose of the Bible is to teach folk how to best live their lives, to provide a view of how a peoples saw their heritage, to provide explanations that worked within the framework of the era, culture and peoples who wrote it, then it can be inspired even if not factually true.A good example is the multiple creation myths included in Genesis. While they are factually wrong, they do illustrate two aspects of GOD, the transcendent overarching God of Genesis 1 and the personal, hands on, companion God of Genesis 2. It also explained other facets of their culture, why we work six days and take a day off for rest, why we fear snakes, why childbirth seems harder for humans than other animals, why we must work and farm instead of simply grazing like other critters.These and others could well be inspired messages.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, well sorta.I struck the part that makes it too absolute of a claim. So where are you going with this?Actually, let me just rewrite it.I believe in God because of evidence for my mind.
These evidences are not scientifically valid.
I conclude with the non-scientific evidence that I've gathered that God does exist.I pretty much typed that a long time ago in this thread. I just used the word "subjective" to replace "non-scientitic" when describing the evidence.Now what?

---

From Message 170Receiving my scientific education is what led me to loose my belief in god. But, more understanding of the world around me after that education is what led me back to believing in god. My claim is that I wiped the slate clean with the acquisition of scientific knowledge and then found God within myself. Now, I was aware of the concept of god before I found him, and I can see your point that the concept must be there to find him, but if that were true then humans would have never found him in the first place, before the first god was ”invented’. Unless it’s all a big conspiracy or a scam, which I can see how modern religion can be viewed that way. But primitive man found god with no conditioning.

---

From Message 174Faith. You’re not supposed to have proof of god’s existence, as that would undermine faith.I agree with you that scientific evidence is the best evidence we have, but you seemto assume that if science can’t discover something then it cannot exist. Science is limited in what it can discover. If you only believe in what science says then aren’t you kinda turning science into your religion? And if so, and by your own argument, aren’t you only believing in science because you were conditioned to do so?

---

From Message 176
Maybe there are other options that you have failed to see or are refusing to see, no?Another option is the example of myself that I am trying to show you. That one can believe in god from non-scientific evidence that they have for themselves that doesn’t have to come from conditioning.I think one of the problems, for you, is your misunderstanding of people’s actual Christian beliefs. You’ve put us all in this tiny box and say that we have all been conditioned to think that way. But we don’t all fit in that little box and we don’t all think that way. There is variety of beliefs even in the same parish, or in the same family. I can understand why you think the way you do, the problem is that your wrong about the Christians. We’re not all robots that are blindly believing what we’ve been conditioned to believe.

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

What kinf of scientifical knowledge did you get exactly ? Nop I never assumed so, but I do not know. That makes me very different from you, who from evidence you gathered, seem to know that there is a God. (or that at least the Bible's msg is true and should/must be followed)I on the other hand refuse to believe in the bible for scientifical reasons. If there are parts of the bible that are totally wrong, then how can we still believe in the other parts that have not been falsified yet ? (the same apply for other religions)If God didn't actually created the man as said in the bible and we descent from the apes, well to me, the whole msg of the bible (literal) cannot be taken into account. Since it has been proved wrong (literrally). Now we could try and interpret the bible millions of different ways. My choice is isimply to stick to facts. Scientifical facts.And facts demonstrate something that doesn't concorde with what religions have been saying for the past 2000 yrs. That to me, is a big hint of "we might be wrong".I would like to remind everyone here that there are christian that hold there belief as the truth. Most of christian or musulman or... hold there belief as truth. And that is simply conditionning. You claim not to be conditionned. Yet, thoses evidence are ridicoulous to conclude that you should be christian.Evidence like,
there is a soul.MUST disreguards scientifical evidence that proves the bible to be wrong in MANY different places. It has been scientifically proven.All that is left is what science could't disprove (from either lack of evidence or simply because it's impossible to disprove..like the soul..) So you are telling me that now you are free of programing yet you refuse to say that the soul doesn't exist from "personal" evidence.Well personal evidence are worth nothing against scientifical evidence. Contionning comes at many levels.
YEC conditionning is much more blatant
Fundies conditionning is MUCH more blatant.
Your belief might not be as blatant, but yet it is still conditionning.The simple belief in soul is conditionning. Sorryas for your claim Well so are the YEC and so are the fundamentals and so do the extrem right.All thoses people believe in something from logical evidence in there minds (and it is only logical to them).There is nothing you said that even make me doubt that you were not conditionned. You simply stated that you were not because you "lost" your faith.Well once you lose faith there are good reasons usuallyTo lose a faith you must of stumpled on something that shook your believes and you coudn't find any valid explanation other then the bible must of been wrong. And this realisation might of made you lose your faith.And when I asked you what made you take your faith back your telling me in Message 148

quote:

---

1) The seemingness of the existance of my soul suggests that a God does exist.
2) The teachings of Jesus in the New Testament of the Bible are true for what they are claimed to be for (personal opinion/subjective evidence)
3) Everything that Jesus said that is capable of being tested is true
4) I've found nothing in the Bible, that is capable of being tested, that Jesus said that was dishonest or false
5) Some of the things that Jesus claimed cannot be tested and seem to be scientifically impossible/miraculous (turning water into wine for example)
6) If Jesus did have magic powers then a scientific impossibility becomes meaningless as miracles would be possible
7) The truth of the non-miraculous teachings of Jesus and lack of falsehoods in his non-miraculous teachings allowes me to have faith that the miraculous parts are true too

---

And you even resumed it in 1 nice little sentence

quote:

---

So basically, everything that Jesus said that doesn't require faith was true in my opinion so its not hard to have faith in the miracles et al too.

---

So that was what make you believe again ?
And you claim having started to believe with no prior condityionment left. HA well simply put, try and tell anyone that doesn't believe in christianity that part, and see if they will find the miracle and all "easy" toi believe.Just as a curiosity could you answer to my question at the beginning of the post and alsoWhat did make you lose your faith. What piece of information made you go "Uhhh, it can't be true because if it is..."

A Bachelor of Science degree (in an engineering discipline from a prestigious university) Well, when you say things like:

quote:

---

My choice is isimply to stick to facts. Scientifical facts.

---

you seem to reject everything non-scientific. Now, I realize the claim that it cannot be true is a little too absolute to be true, but you certainly seem to think that if science can’t discover it then it does not exist. I would say that a simple belief in God is lesser than the Bible's msg is true and should/must be followed. And I don’t claim to know that there is a God, I just believe that he exists. I don’t think I’ve ever claimed that the Bible’s message is true and should/must be followed. If science was wrong about something would you still believe in the other parts?I don’t think that every part of the Bible is literally true. Some of it is obviously not true. Some of it, though, is just history. There’s a part that list a genealogy. That part could very well be the actual genealogy, and be true, while the other parts are false. I don’t see why one, or more, false parts of the Bible invalidates the whole thing. Especially when the Bible is a collection of multiple independent books. Now that is ridiculous. Obviously, man was not formed out of clay. Ever heard of parables? They aren’t literally true, they just exemplify a lesson. Its ridiculous because that Bible is not a science textbook. It is collection of books from, like, 2000 years ago. How could you expect it to stand up to the scrutiny of science? And just because it can’t, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t contain some truths.I still can’t get over that word scientifical, I’ve never seen it before you wrote it and it looks and sounds really funny to me. Why not just scientific? Sure, the Bible is wrong about some things (especially when read literally). There’s no reason to be insulting. So you assert my belief is ridiculous, and your reason is that science cannot prove it. Do you even realize that science is limited to that which exists physically, and that if the soul exists on a metaphysical level then science would be unable to prove it? To call the belief in the soul ridiculous for scientific reasons is ridiculous in itself. Are you saying that I’m not a part of the real world?Do you realize that the majority of the people on this planet believe in some kind of god and that they believe it without evidence and without testing it? I’m pretty sure that they are all in the real world. The real world doesn't really operate like you think it does.Now, you can certainly say that they are condition to believe, and I can agree that a lot of them probably are. But what you cannot say is that they are ALL conditioned, that the only way to believe in god is conditioning, or that I cannot possibly be not-conditioned. No, you are wrong. I don’t disregard any scientific evidence to maintain my beliefs. Yes, and further, if I came to my on conclusion that the soul exists from my own personal experiences and then rejected those experiences because science failed to support them, then I would call that being programmed. Of course. So you assert again that I am conditioned without explaining how, or showing proof that I am. Apology accepted. But I am different from them. I don’t reject blatant facts to maintain my beliefs. There is nothing you said that makes me think that I WAS conditioned. You simply stated that I was and that I couldn’t not be. No, I lost my faith that god even existed. Well, there’s other reasons on top of those. Not exactly, there was more to it. That is the simplified version though. I wouldn’t say that there was NO conditioning, just that the conditioning was NOT the reason I found faith. Are you going to insult my beliefs again if I share them with you?You’re kinda hard to communicate with. You misrepresent my position, just a little, are insulting, and have horrible spelling. Its not that big of a deal but you could be a little nicer about it. And use a spell checker.And when I say that I believe in God, don’t change that to me believing in a literal interpretation of the whole bible.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : grammerEdited by Catholic Scientist, : missed one

Science wasn't able to explain a lot of things 500 years ago. Science is slowly expanding the border of our knowledge. And it always has done so. What can’t be explainable today is most likely common knowledge tomorrow . So quite the contrary. I think that most our belief will be explained through science. And up to know with my limited knowledge I can't (it's not a choice) believe in God through the Bible or the Qu'ran.And that's why I’m not a Muslim, or a Christian(or catholic).But I never dismissed the existence of God. Well simply put it invalidates the whole thing because nobody can tell if the other parts are true, we can only speculate. If they are true too many illogical questions arise and the parts that aren't true become hard to explain. Of course I heard of lessons and parables.But sometime ago it was believed man WAS formed out of clay...wait...even today, there is some that believes that man are formed out of clay. Why do they continue to believe so ? Even though, the facts against such assertion are overwhelming.Well I say it's programming, conditioning.Now, you claim that it is ridiculous to believe such a thing (so you are claiming that the belief of MANY creationists is ridiculous) So you are insulting some people here (hehe couldn't resist)Just so you understand I'm not insulting you, at all. I'm simply showing you that to me, it is ridiculous to believe in some things just because you think they are right. Just like, to you, it is ridiculous to think that God made us out of clay. Of course it could contains some truth, but when you have to take a decision what do you do, speculate on what you think is right, or base yourself on scientific facts ? No I agree with you the existance of a soul is not provable by today's means.The belief of a soul is not supported by any evidence. I mean, even me I had a hard time when someone told me a soul didn't exist. I was taken aback, when in reality there was nothing I could think of to make a logical point to even conclude that there might be a soul.So it is ridiculous to believe in a soul because a 2000yrs old book says it exists. That is what's ridiculous. Oh bah theses are but a few errors that plague my posts. I still struggle in English. Sorry The majority of people are indeed conditioned at some level. And more and more people stop believing altogether. This has some consequences. Now the religious belief are more aggressive, and they want kids to be though (programming ?) from a very young age that creation is a viable alternative to evolution. Yes, a lot A belief usually comes from conditioning We both agree
I say all belief (there might be very few exceptions) is from conditioning. We disagree.I know why we disagree, simply because you can easily see that all those people believing in crazy things must be conditioned, yet when you come to analyze your own belief it seems all so... logic.Well I’m telling you that simply believing in Jesus (the son of God) isn't logical.If you tell me that the bible is indeed wrong, how can you support that the part where Jesus is stated to be the son of God isn't just metaphorical. Like we are ALL sons of gods etc and all the miracles he was doing was possible for all of us etc etc.. There are millions of ways to interpret, once you open the door for interpretation, you cannot eliminate all the possibilities. (I know that’s not what you doing).So your belief in a Divine Jesus is based on what ? if Not conditioning. Subjective evidence ?Thats answer is true for everyone that believes in anything. To them there is evidence for such and such claims. Always subjective though.So why do you think your any different from any believer ? What makes you think that your evidences aren’t just accepted easily because you were conditioned ? The how is easy.Family, environment etc as stated in previous posts..Your family is catholic I must presume. Or you went to catholic school etc etc. The how isn't the problem. The proof is the hard part.It has already been proved beyond doubt that evolution has occurred. There is a lot of believer that denies it. Some need reasons some are so completely shut to any other possibilities that they don't even consider it.Can you believe that my friend told me the "scientists" are lying to us. His conditioning have come against a wall, and the only possible answer to "keep" his faith is denial. To lose a faith someone must have some kind of shock. Usually it is simply reality. The cold, hard reality. No I won’t insult your belief. I might find them crazy, but remember that the person you are has nothing to do with it. My friend's beliefs are crazy, but I would never insult him, because I like the damn guy. My spelling is indeed horrible even after a spell checker.And I am a nice guy, I promise!ps : My claim for conditioning might sounds crazy to you, and you could say so, because bashing my claims isn't the same as bashing me eek ..... long post :/Edited by Kader, : No reason given.Edited by Kader, : No reason given.

And the God of the Gaps keeps getting pushed back farther and farther. I understand your position, I just don’t take it. That’s contradictory to a statement you make later: Some of the truths can be based on scientific facts, but this doesn’t mean that it makes the whole thing true, just like some of the (claimed) truths being scientific falsehoods doesn’t make the whole thing false. You shouldn’t let your incredulity dictate what you believe. Maybe they want to believe it and have found ways to remove the overwhelming-ness out of the facts. Oh, for sure I am. Young Earth Creationism is retarded. How’s that for insulting? But its not just because I think I am right. I’m saying that I can tell that I have a soul, or at least I think that I can tell. Whatever, but again I don’t believe because a book says to. What’s your first language? Oh, I don’t really think I’m being very logical about it. Weak Atheism or Agnosticism are probably the most logical conclusion. But I feel like I have a soul, so ”m not going to let logic get in the way of truth Because some of Jesus’ teachings contradict that interpretation so we can rule it out. (and I don’t feel like digging through the bible to find a references, so either take my word for it or don’t.) But we can eliminate many possibilities. Also, sometimes, I turn to the Argument from Authority (which I realize is a logical fallacy) for comfort. I mean, there been a lot of very intelligent people in the past who have considered many possible interpretations. If they have concluded that certain interpretations don’t fit, then I can trust their judgement if I deem them worthy. Of course it doesn’t prove it impossible, but that is not really that important in my opinion. I don’t really have subjective evidence that Jesus was divine. It probably has a lot to do with conditioning, I’ll admit. I believe the subjective evidence allows me to conclude that God does exist. Now, as far as which religion is the most accurate, that comes down to studying them and finding it out for yourself. I like Jesus’ teachings and after reading them am convinced that he was God. Muhammad doesn’t convince me. Could that be strictly from conditioning? Yes. But I feel that I’ve reviewed the documents critically enough to come to my own conclusion so I don’t think that it is only conditioning. There are other factors. Yes, even you and your faith in science. All evidence is, ultimately, subjective as we can only receive it for ourselves. Perhaps you have been conditioned to only trust science, no? Because I was educated and do not just accept everything I was told. When I challenged the condition, through my education, I realized that, as Bill Hicks said:

quote:

---

Everything I had learned was, in fact, learned and not necessarily true.

---

It was only after I went back, and reviewed what Jesus had taught us about god and himself that I concluded that I believed he was telling the truth and was convinced that he was god. Yeah, I can think of lots of ways to condition people too. I don’t really remember my point in that. Yeah, and then actually convincing someone with that proof might even be harder Yes and it is dishonest. Retarding even. Honestly, it wasn’t that shocking. Hardly even noticeable. Especially compared to getting it back, which was like a realization. You know when you think very strongly that your right about something and cannot admit that you are wrong, and the you find out one small thing that you were overlooking and you go “Ohhhhh!” and you have a big realization that you were totally wrong. It was kinda like that. It was pretty weird. Some people like to compare it to a re-birth or the Holy Spirit entering them or something like that. And, while I don’t deny those as possibilities, to me, it sorta just seemed like any other realization that I had. But when I lost my faith there was no realization, really. It kinda just slowly drifted away the more I learned about the truths in this reality. What I realized, was that even though everything I learned was true, I wasn’t necessarily learning everything that was true. When I started learning other (presumed) truths, that were previously untouchable, I really felt like I was learning a lot. I believe you. When we first started, your English skills made me think that you were young, not that English wasn’t your first language. Can you see how calling someone’s beliefs ridiculous could be taken as insulting? Its not really going to make me mad or anything, but it is unnecessary. And I think they are getting longer. I don't mind if you don't.

quote:

---

Well simply put it invalidates the whole thing because nobody can tell if the other parts are true, we can only speculate.

​

That’s contradictory to a statement you make later:

​

Of course it could contains some truth, but when you have to take a decision what do you do, speculate on what you think is right, or base yourself on scientific facts?

Some of the truths can be based on scientific facts, but this doesn’t mean that it makes the whole thing true, just like some of the (claimed) truths being scientific falsehoods doesn’t make the whole thing false.

---

Okay, let me put it like this.Anything that the Bible or Qu'ran affirm should first be validated.
Why ?
Because everything that we accepted was eventually demolished by modern science. So logically, before continuing accepting affirmation from either religious book, we should validate it. If we can't validate it, we should at least be very wary.You understand this way of thinking.So even if there is some truth, if we cannot verify them, we should at best be wary.Bible say Jesus is the son of God ---> logical position : wary at best
Why ? Because the bible also say's god create us out of clay and the earth is flat and....(can continue for a long time) Btw, the belief of soul itself in no way implies the belief in christianity. So even if you can really believe you have a soul, your belief in christianity still (thats what i think) are conditionned Logic is the only tool we have to tell truth from delusions. Logic dictate what's true and what's not. If something is illogical, you will most likely believe it to be false. And logic expand with knowlegde. Thunder might seem illogical, but once we understand it, it becomes quite logical.So truth can only be logical
Nobody believe in a religious, if he believe there is nothing logical in it.There are way to make the illogical ---> logical with knowledge
And that's where we fail. We do not question the knowledge we have been thaught. If I grew up "knowing" that Jesus is the son of God, tehre is very little chance someone else can make me think otherwise.Now where science differ is it is in constant questionning. And Religions don't question anything.It is quite easy to understand how someone can believe what seems totally illogical to you, simply look "where" he got his information from. Every religious people get there "knowledge" from specific and restrained sources. While Science gets the knowledge from the largest angle of view possible. And that's what make a big difference. The most intelligent peoples in the world tend to be agnostic (or atheist). What conditioning does is change the weight you use in the "balance"
Let me explain.We have no scientific evidence for Jesus even existing.
**that should add weights on the left side of the balance.Jesus teaching is logical
**that should add weights on the right side of the balance.The bible (the only place where Jesus is ever mentionned) has tons of erronous informations
**that should add several weights on the left side of the balance.The bible has existed for 2 millena
**that should add weights on the right side of the balance.Etc etc etc...In your case, the weight you add is much heavier on the right side of the balance, that is conditioning. That is what I mean. You do not really have critical thinking. Because if you did (oh my god I will get flamed for that) you wouldn't be christian or muslim or....you would probably be agnostic. Because like you said that IS the logical position, and logic is the only tool we have to define "truths". I agree with you, it is conditionning. Now try and open your mind as wide as possible, and answer me truly, do you think you would find muhammed teaching more acceptable if you were born in a muslim family ? But yet, there is more intelligent people then both of us who are muslim, buddhist or scientologue... quite simply put, your beliefs are really just that, beliefs. And what drives them is human ignorance.Education tends to enter in conflict with faith.Today as we speak, the only reason anyone believes in a religion, is because they were told about it. Nobody ever witnessed a miracle.PS : first language is french

In order to be considered factual, sure, but people can believe whatever they want. Yes, and by being wary we can combat the conditioning that we have received. What’s your point? So you should be wary of you beliefs in your opinion. I agree. I don’t just believe everything I’m told. I know, I’ve said that. There is conditioning there, I have agreed. But what I won’t agree to is that it is only from conditioning. There are other factors involved, that lead to me belief in Christianity, that are not from condition as I have been trying to explain. I don’t agree.Assume God does exist. Now, let’s say that we logically conclude that he does not exist. Our logic would not dictate the existence of God. Would logically concluding god does not exist negate his existence? If he exists, he does so independent of our logic. Or do you think that if God exists then we would not be able to logically conclude that he doesn’t? In that case, truth would dictate logic, and in the previous case logic plainly does not dictate the truth. I don’t know yet if I agree with this.Certainly an argument can be sound(true) but not logical and logical but not sound, no? That’s an absolute assertion and I won’t agree to it. We only need ONE example of a person believing in a religion illogically to prove this wrong, and as it is it is unsubstantiated. There is? If logic dictates truth as you claim above, then how can knowledge have any affect on logic? Are you just making this stuff up? There are many religions that question a lot of things? What are talking about? Sure, science is much better at finding truth than religion. But it is limited in what it can detect and what it considers evidence. There could be truth that science is totally blind to and it would never know. You mean on average? Or the top ten most intelligent people? I agree with the former but not the latter. My claim is that I can critically add weight to the right side outside of my conditioning. I also contend that a person with critical thinking CAN believe in a religion. For you to assert that they cannot is ridiculous. If I was conditioned to believe in Muhammad, then I would find his teaching more acceptable. So what? That doesn’t really do anything for the argument that the only way I could believe in a religion is through conditioning. I’m not saying conditioning doesn’t help, I’m saying it isn’t the only way. Have I claimed otherwise? False. My beliefs are not driven though ignorance. I have made it a point that they are not driven by ignorance. More false unsubstantiated assertions (annoying).

Ah well okay we advanced quite a bit I find. So we agree that your belief is at least PART conditioning.
Tell me what are the other parts. For your specific belief.I'll also adress some things in your last post And so a Divine Jesus is NOT just accepting what conditionning you have receive ? (aka simply being christian) Well Jesus is the son of God, and the same God created us from clay. There is no questions, just affirmations.What religion pushes us to question its own affirmations ? Why would we logically conclude that God doesn't exist ?
We can logically conclude that Christianism or Islam are most probably wrong (both of them) yes we could do that, but we cannot logically conclude that God doesn't exist. Because I also said that our logic expands with knowledge.
Take Thunder. It would seem logical that someone control the thunder for people with very limited knowledge. But the truth is quite different, and it is very logical.So truth is always logical, but something logic in our eyes can be false. Well then mere observation of our world would easily prove you right, if you were.But what we see is quite different.All religion got ahold of a specific territory on the globe (before we could easily communicate around the globe)
Every believer tend to follow the belief of his familyIf you assertion was true, we would see scientist over the world converting to christianism. Since with critical thinking alone they could come to the conclusion that your belief is actually full of sense! But that's not whats happening.We see on the contrary people losing faith. And why do we see that ? Because our faith in all we held true was just a big fraud. That's why. No God didn't create us from clay THIS IS A HUGE PROBLEM, why do you think that people still hold evolution to be false ? Because there conditionning cannot allow them to even THINK that they could be wrong!And for you, it is the same, on a different level. You cannot understand why I would say that believing in Jesus being divine (christianity in other words) could be so illogical.Well it is, and not only to me, but to EVERYONE that is NOT christian.So anyways, I think you were about to tell me what would be other factor outside conditionning that could make you (or anyone for that matter, since it isnt conditionning) a christian.If you were to make me a christian what would you say ?
Oh and personal logic dosn't apply here. Im talking about what everyone (or at least a very big majority of people) would call that logical.IE : If I throw a coin in the air, it will ocme back down. It is logical, and everyone agree's with what I just said.Edited by Kader, : No reason given.

I think that part of it probably is, yes. I already have. Weighing the evidence that I have personally gathered subjectively. Critically examining conditioned beliefs. Comparing to other religions, etc. True.

Do you want to go through the (probably lenghty) process of defining thoses evidence.By evidence, I mean evidence outside of conditioning.
So any evidence that require ZERO biblical knowledge.Simply put theses evidence to be outside of conditionning could be explained to someone that is not conditioned to believe in the bible (or even never heard about it).

I think that part of it probably is, yes. I already have. Weighing the evidence that I have personally gathered subjectively. Critically examining conditioned beliefs. Comparing to other religions, etc. True. Didn't jar say that his religion does? If we could consider Skepticism a religion then that might be one. I don't know enough about every religion to come up with one off the top of my head but I don't think you can make the claim that not a single one does. Esecialy when someone could just make up their own religion. The point was that logic doesn't dictate truth. An argument can be logically sound and still be false. I think we are talking about different meanings for logic. You're talking about peoples own personal logic, I'm talking about the philosophy that deals with arguments. Again, an argument can be true but still be illogical. Oh I agree that it seems that people are conditioned and even that most of them are, in fact, conditioned. This hardly means that everyone (who believes a religion) is conditioned. I'm sure there are plenty of scientists who have converted to Christianity. Well, I disagree. I found that the faith was not a fraud. Well, if we take clay to mean earth, in general. We are made up of atoms and those atoms came from the earth so its not that hard to say that we are made of the earth. When this was explained in Biblical times, those people didn't know what atoms were so the term dirt, or clay, possibly meaning the earth was used. Its unnecessary to assume that it means that we are literally made of clay. No, I CAN understand why you would say that believing in Jesus being divine could be so illogical. How can God be god AND man. It hardly makes sense, especially if someone believes in a non-omnipotent god, or lacks a belief in god altogether. False again with yet another absolute unsubstantiated annoying assertion. If you threw the coin so hard that it exited the Earth's gravitational pull then, logically, it would not come back down.