Davidus,

Your analogy is not a very good one (in my opinion), though it does seem fairly typical of the crowd that cries out, "Can't we all just get along?"

Let's expand your analogy a little. Instead of two people on either side of the bi-colored sheep, let's add a few people to either side. On the black side of the sheep are three people. One says the sheep is black. Another says the black side is actually pink. The third is blind and cannot see the sheep at all. All the third person can do is rely on what he is told.

The one that states the sheep is black says that the sheep is black because he can see that the sheep is black. He can take wool from the sheep and test it to see if it is black and all tests confirm that it is black. The second man insists that the sheep is pink and comes up with his own arguments no matter how much evidence the first man presents. The blind man will have to evaluate the arguments to see which side, if any, he chooses to fall on.

Then there is the white side of the sheep. There are a few people there. One happens to be curious and crosses over to the other side and sees that the other side is black! Like the first man on the black side of the sheep, he conducts his tests and determines that the sheep is both black and white, depending on which side you are observing. He presents his evidence to the three on the black side. The second man refutes the evidence and continues to insist the sheep is pink (no matter which side it is viewed from). The first man on the black side refuses to believe the additional evidence, pointing to his own tests that "prove" the sheep is black. The blind man listens.

You could create any scenario you wanted to for this sheep. The point is this: with the sheep illustration, the sheep can be tested and observed. If the tests done show that someone's belief concerning the sheep is wrong, then it is wrong. The second man, for example, can say the sheep is pink all he wants. Just because he has "faith" that it is so does not change the reality of it.

When it comes to religion, there are, indeed, some things that can be tested for truth. While no one may be able to prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods, the things said in supposed holy writings can indeed be tested. For example, someone can take the Bible, the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon or any other holy book and test it for its accuracy when it touches on things of science, archaeology, biology and more. If a holy book states that there are four legged birds (as the Bible does) then we can look to see if there are four legged birds. If a holy book says that babies come from a blood clot or originates from a place between the groin and the sternum (possibly the kidneys) as is indicated in the Qur'an, then we can test that as well. If a holy book speaks of an extensive Jewish civilization existing here in the Americas thousands of years ago (as the book of Mormon teaches) then we can look for traces of that ancient civilization. If such things (and many, many others) prove to be false, then does that not bring the holy book itself into question? And if the holy book is then in question, what about the things it says about its God?



The problem with this is that people are not just creating something about the afterlife here. They are creating a way of life that dictates what they do in the here and now. The result has been war and death for thousands of years. Look at the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Muslim wars to conquer the world, the current Jihads and on and on it goes.

Oh, and just because you "like" something, does not make it real or true. Just because someone envisions a life after death in a heavenly place with 72 virgins does not mean that it is real or that his thinking of it creates it as a reality. So while you may "like" it, it does not mean it is true and that does not mean it is good, either.