Well, there’s no such thing as a perfect analogy, but I think your expectations are too high. Yes, there are some subtle differences in the two assertions, but the important point is that both are factual statements, and both are demonstrably false. Whatever else they may or may not have in common is irrelevant to the comparison. I notice you did not hold the person who originally compared “Muslims worship pigs” to “The sky is blue” to any level of scrutiny, while there are any number of differences you could point out between those two statements to invalidate the analogy.
In that case, the differences between the two are irrelevant to the point.
Here, let me try it a different way. Let’s compare the statement “Sarahfeena is married to her husband” with the statement “Sarahfeena loves her husband.” Are these statements equally verifiable? The former, you can verify by examining the relevant paperwork. The second you might believe or not believe, but there’s no tangible evidence either way. That is, it’s not provable. You may decide that if you can’t prove it, then it can’t be true, but that doesn’t necessarily reflect reality. Hence, the two statements are non-analogous in this regard.
Actually, being “in love” produces fairly distinctive elevations of several hormones which individually don’t demonstrate much but taken as a whole are strongly indicative that you are, indeed, in love…
Ha ha ha…
Dear God this board is annoying right now…I submitted that previous post accidentally, then when I hit edit, it timed out, and it actually logged me out so I had to sign back in. Grrrrr.
Anyway…my husband and I have been married a while now, and what with the kids and all, I’m not so sure I have those infatuation hormones still coursing through me (sorry, honey, if you’re lurking!) I assure you, that is not indicative of my love for him…
I see the sticking point, and I don’t think we’re going to get past it. I believe the statement "“When some guy says a few words over a cracker it magically changes into the body of Christ” can be proven, Catholic mumbo-jumbo about its “essence” notwithstanding. As such, it can also be disproven, as it has been, in a lab. Therefore, I see the two statements as equivalent. I understand why a Catholic would disagree, though.
Given these two statements:
- Group ‘A’ believes ‘X’ is true.
- ‘X’ is a story about some person.
Do you agree that #1 can be true, if #2 is true?
Do you agree that #1 can be true, even if #2 isn’t?
Do you agree that #1 can be false, even if #2 is true?
Do you agree that #1 can be true, even if #2 is unverifiable?
Honestly, I don’t think it takes a Catholic to disagree. It takes someone who is willing to accept that not everything can be analyzed in a lab.
But the bottom line is, there is a fundamental disconnect between getting someone to change their minds with regard to a simple factual statement that they have no emotional stake in, and getting someone to change their minds with regards to a deeply held spiritual belief and/or worldview. Your first statement (about Muslims & pork) is the former, your second statement is the latter. Claiming that a person who changes their mind regarding the first is more open-minded than a person who changes their mind regarding the second really is kind of backwards. If you can’t see that, or see the difference that I’m seeing between the two statements, then I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
I agree with this. I just don’t think it should be so. I guess that’s why I unfortunately have no deeply held spiritual beliefs.
ETA: I just realize that I’ve misspelled your username a number of times. I’m sorry about that, it was not intentional.
Well, maybe you don’t, but you do have a worldview. Which, I’m guessing, would be as equally hard to change as someone’s that includes deeply held spiritual beliefs.
I know it wasn’t…don’t worry, it happens all the time! 
Sigh yourself. You’re being intentionally obstinate. You’re insisting that Bricker’s GD post, which was not intended to convince you of anything, didn’t convince you of anything. Why is that?
I had a whole thing typed out, and then it hit me: you don’t read anything I write anyway. So I deleted it.
Just insert whatever you want here as my reply, and have a nice day.
…
Yes, but some of us aren’t willing to accept that. Or rather, cannot accept that not everything can EVENTUALLY be analyzed in a lab.
IMO, every sentence which begins with, “Scientists don’t know…” absolutely must end with the word, “yet.” 2,000 years ago no one could see cells. 200 years ago no one could see DNA. I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to infer that science will eventually be able to quantify pretty much everything we can - and do - experience, including love, committment and faith. Science just doesn’t know how YET.
That’s fine, but I don’t see how that excludes God, or the possibility that transubstantiation exists. All that means is that you could say, “there is no lab test that will test for a change to the wafer…yet.”
Nothing excludes God, and there are lab tests that test for change in wafers- even below the atomic level. The same with testing for blood in wine. Claiming there isn’t a lab test that detects change…yet, assumes there’s a change to detect. What sort of lab test do you think would be more conclusive than what we already have available?
How would I know? As Hamadryad said, 2,000 years ago, we couldn’t see cells.
Right. But we can now- including blood and skin cells. If there were any in wafers and wine we’d detect them.
Of course we would, but there aren’t supposed to be any.
You’re being coy. How are you defining transubstantiation?