Because the thread title is: Believers: Why are you so sure of your beliefs?
I am sure of my beliefs through my experience, not by quantum mechanics. I just discovered that quantum mechanics agreed with many spiritual principles. So I read all I could about it.
This is a direct violation of the instructions you have received to refrain from pointing to your blog, particularly when claiming to be addressing scientific issues, when your blog page provides neither science nor links to scientific papers on the topic.
You are again Warned that your behavior is inappropriate.
[ /Moderating ]
I wil continue to monitor this thread for a while to answer questions.
Why don’t you answer questions you were already asked instead of waiting for new ones? See posts 123, 138, 144, 145, 150, 154, 158, and 173.
I have answered all questions. If you didn’t like the answers, I can’t help it, they are my answers.
No, you didn’t. Some I even asked you to answer repeatedly and I was ignored every time. This isn’t a matter of you answering in a way that I didn’t like; you didn’t answer at all. Go back and look at the posts I have pointed out. If you still believe after that that you answered the questions, let me know and I’ll point out to you which questions you never touched.
Please don’t waste time. Show me.
Been there, done that, tried to give the tee shirt to Goodwill but they wouldn’t take it.
Moving on-when it comes to religious beliefs, is there a double standard when it comes to evidence? I see religionists constantly claim science is defective because it has yet to disprove every single aspect of the supernatural, and yet they accept anonymously written stories about mystical events, sometimes centuries old, as evidence when it comes to their own beliefs.
I did show you. Instead of just asking you to answer the questions, I went through the trouble of telling you exactly which posts the questions were in. What more am I supposed to do for you? Do I need to copy and paste the questions and requests for you?
As far as I know science doesn’t have any proof against the existence of any single aspect of spiritual events. Do you have some proof?
Never claimed proof-only extensive and overwhelming evidence.
Do you know the difference between “proof” and “evidence”? If not, refer back to the thirty or forty times you’ve had it explained to you over the years on this message board, and by ghod write it down this time so we won’t have to do it again thirty or forty more times.
As I suspected a no-answer, because of no proof.
If you want to roll-play the Mad Hatter, please take it to The Game Room.
Does anyone else who actually understands the difference between “proof” and “evidence” want to comment on the seeming hypocrisy involving the amount of evidence demanded of science vs. the amount of evidence demanded of the paranormal?
The answer appears to be none, since none exists.
I would prefer to hear from those who do not have their own personal definitions of “evidence”, “proof”, “science” and “paranormal” that do not correspond to the common definitions used by most people.
Based on my own experience, it’s because science was strictly a rational enterprise, whereas my religion was not. My religion consisted of, at it’s core, a ‘faith’. I put faith into what I believed and that was more of an emotional connection, I would say. “Emotion” isn’t quite a perfect word for it, but it’s sufficient, I’d say.
Of course when the blocks of faith started tumbling there wasn’t anything there to actually keep them up.
Experience is another thing that hampers rationality. Someone has an experience - and even though it can be rationally explained - that doesn’t necessarily matter to them, because it felt so real.
I’ve been thinking about this recently - if I had an experience where I was approached by an angel and I remembered that angel telling me all these rational and empirical reasons to believe (yet, when I ‘came out’ of the experience I couldn’t articulate them) in God, how would I rationally respond?
Certainly part of me would be skeptical. I’m sure a part of me would believe. Ultimately I think my skepticism would win out as I had various tests done which show that I had a temporal lobe seizure (or whatever). I don’t think everyone would go that extra step though. I think for some people the experience itself is enough and they build a wall of defense in front of it.
Religion offers hope, skepticism only offers the truth.
But doesn’t truth bring forth a stronger and more reliable hope?
Maybe in some cases, but in the case of what lay after death, not so much (at least, not that I’m familiar with). 
I prefer to think that such appeals of an afterlife actually denigrate life’s value, per the Neitzchean (sp?) view, but YMMV.