A question for people who believe what preachers/teachers of religion tell them.
Regardless of creed, why do you think they know any more about God and the supernatural than you do when you each have exactly the same information at your disposal – none of which can be authenticated?
Are your convictions open to re-adjustment?
Remember Tony Hancock's spoof by Galton and Simpson of the classic Henry Fonda part in Twelve Angry Men. He managed to get all his fellow jurymen to change their minds, and then HE changed his! He then had to re-convince them they were right in the first place. I really liked that. :-)
Well, that was a slightly surprising response... I was sort of expecting "no" or even "yes". "I don't see that you have any..." - Really? Wow. I've held a number of positions rather strongly in discussions we've had. I'd have thought that should qualify as a conviction.
jim; You once told of how, on matters of religion, you had to choose between the advice of your mother and that of an aunt (I think). I can't remember which way round it was, but you obviously made a bum decision. Time for a little re-adjustment here I suggest :-)
Naomi, you seem to be saying you haven't noticed jim had any strong convictions, which i think he was surprised about- as i was.
khandro, i think jim used his brain to work it out.
All I'm saying is that I'm surprised that you haven't noticed that I have any strong convictions. I'd have thought that they would have shone through by now. After all, such a dogged insistence in the Scientific method and the results it produces is certainly a conviction...
Khandro, I never had to choose between the advice of a mother and an aunt, although when I decided that I couldn't justify any belief in a God (in particular the Christian one) it was going against a lot of my family, which did sort of make it a tough decision. But I could never go back on that decision now.