Do you believe in God?

[Sach]

Faith: The belief in something regardless of evidence or lack thereof.

Look, I only have two options here. I can accept things based on whether they are supported by evidence, or I can accept anything I want to just by having faith. I can't pick and choose depending on the topic.

There is plenty of evidence, as I have already discussed.

Here's an example.
I believe in unicorns. You may not, but I have had personal experiences which convinced me that they must be real. There may not be obvious evidence of their existence, but they wouldn't be such beautiful, mythical creatures if they were obvious to everyone. I have faith that they exist. There is no proof that they don't exist either. You should look deep inside yourself and ask to accept unicorns into your life, because they will add so much meaning and value to your life.

Now, try to convince me that my faith is misplaced. It can't be done. An argument on faith is completely immune to all logic because it's completely illogical. And yet surely you agree any thinking person would dismiss the belief in unicorns as unfounded. Why? Well, think about that for a bit.

You just made that up as an example. I'm talking about a living faith, that is against man's nature to even keep, but one which a believer does inevitably keep through continuous revelation and communication with a living God, and wrestling with tough questions and answers.

What is the actual observable difference between having faith in God, having faith that unicorns exist, or having faith that there's an invisible pink teapot orbiting the Earth?

Jesus walked this earth, and there is historical evidence of this. There is no historical evidence of any of those other things.


Jesus claimed to be the son of God, those things didn't. He also happened to be telling the truth.

 

[TankAss95]

Jesus claimed to be the son of God, those things didn't. He also happened to be telling the truth.

Amen brother. 👍

 

[huskeR32]

There is plenty of evidence, as I have already discussed.

What we've been trying to say though, is that the "evidence" isn't really evidence at all. In no other area of life would the amount of "evidence" the bible provides be considered satisfactory, but with religion, it suddenly is.

You just made that up as an example. I'm talking about a living faith, that is against man's nature to even keep, but one which a believer does inevitably keep through continuous revelation and communication with a living God, and wrestling with tough questions and answers.

Jesus walked this earth, and there is historical evidence of this. There is no historical evidence of any of those other things.

While it isn't completely proven that he existed, I'll give you that it's probable he did. Even so, what does that prove? Billions of people have walked this earth, doesn't make them any more than human.

Jesus claimed to be the son of God, those things didn't.

Maybe that just makes him a nutjob. Anybody making the same claim today would certainly be viewed as such.

He also happened to be telling the truth.

Any proof other than his word? You can't say him saying so is the proof that it's true. Cyclical veracity doesn't work in any situation. Kinda like how you can't use a word to define itself.

 

[dylansan]

There is plenty of evidence, as I have already discussed.

You haven't provided any scientifically agreed upon facts, or sources to back them up. You made claims of facts but didn't provide any way of examining the evidence and drawing any conclusions other than the ones you drew.

You just made that up as an example. I'm talking about a living faith, that is against man's nature to even keep, but one which a believer does inevitably keep through continuous revelation and communication with a living God, and wrestling with tough questions and answers.

I didn't make it up. I communicate with unicorns all the time, and they teach me all sorts of things about myself and the nature of the universe. My faith in unicorns is just as real as your in God.

Jesus walked this earth, and there is historical evidence of this. There is no historical evidence of any of those other things.

Again, scientists haven't come to any agreed upon conclusions about this yet, only you have. There is evidence that unicorns exist as well. There's plenty of historical accounts of unicorns existing, form many different cultures. Even the Bible mentions them.

Jesus claimed to be the son of God, those things didn't.

So, people are only credible if they claim to be the son of God? Or somehow that adds credibility. Well, I'm the son of God. I forgot to mention that earlier.

He also happened to be telling the truth.

Unicorns exist. I'm telling the truth. Q.E.D

Surely you have a better argument than that.

 

[Sach]

You're not looking for an answer, and frankly you are now just being disrespectful and trying to wind me up. You are choosing to ignore basic facts and history in all of your answers, for example. I don't really care to pretend like you are attempting to contribute anything at all to this discussion, so I'm moving on.

cheers

 

[Exorcet]

You just made that up as an example. I'm talking about a living faith, that is against man's nature to even keep, but one which a believer does inevitably keep through continuous revelation and communication with a living God, and wrestling with tough questions and answers.

And if some guy 1000's of years ago made God up?

You're not looking for an answer, and frankly you are now just being disrespectful and trying to wind me up.


cheers

Obviously not. The lack of response either shows unwillingness to admit that faith in unicorns = faith in God, or that you're simply biased toward God over other similar ideas.

Going back a few pages, I'm also not buying the monotheism thing. I already made a post on it by replying to TankAss that went unanswered. But you could have two Gods, or more, that came before everything, made everything, etc. It's no different from one God.

 

[huskeR32]

And if some guy 1000's of years ago made God up?



Obviously not. The lack of response either shows unwillingness to admit that faith in unicorns = faith in God, or that you're simply biased toward God over other similar ideas.

Going back a few pages, I'm also not buying the monotheism thing. I already made a post on it by replying to TankAss that went unanswered. But you could have two Gods, or more, that came before everything, made everything, etc. It's no different from one God.

Thank you! I 'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the monotheism thing.

It seems rather clear to me that the reasons for rejecting polytheism also rule out monotheism.

You're not looking for an answer, and frankly you are now just being disrespectful and trying to wind me up. You are choosing to ignore basic facts and history in all of your answers, for example. I don't really care to pretend like you are attempting to contribute anything at all to this discussion, so I'm moving on.

cheers

And we're back to this again, great.

How exactly is it disrespectful to ask people to back up their assertions with evidence? Legitimate challenges to the veracity of theist statements on this thread are invariably answered in one of two ways:
-silence
-louder and louder yelling about how "faith" can't be disproven

Don't project your frustrations about your inability to answer any of our legitimate questions with a straight, logical, verifiable answer onto us as "disrespectful" behavior. It's petty.

 

[dylansan]

@Sach
I'm not trying to insult you, or wind you up. I'm just using a common debate technique, comparing your beliefs to a similar belief that requires the same logical pathway, so you can why I don't feel compelled to believe in God. If you'd like to show me why my comparison is invalid, it would do you a lot more good than playing the "offended" card and walking away.

If I'm not looking for an answer, then neither are you. What you don't seem to realize is that I am not convinced there is no god, I'm just not convinced there is, and it would only take a small amount of evidence (current evidence, something I can witness) to convince me. I'm waiting, but I haven't gotten any. Is it my fault if that's what I require for belief? Why did God make me that way, if he knows I'm going to hell for it?

 

[Exorcet]

Thank you! I 'm glad I'm not the only one who sees the monotheism thing.

It seems rather clear to me that the reasons for rejecting polytheism also rule out monotheism.

I think what they're saying is, if God had an equal how could he be all powerful?

But what if the two partners were both perfect. They would not disagree most likely. And if they did, couldn't they just find a perfect compromise? Supposedly, the three parts of God in the trinity are equal. They're just not counted as being polytheistic because Christianity says they're all the same God. What if you had a trinity of three distinct beings? Wouldn't it work the same?

And going back to the post I made in reply to TankAss, the Christian God sounds weaker than a polytheistic group of gods I can make up off the top of my head. God did not will his creations to become corrupted, but he was powerless to stop this from happening. He does not sound all powerful at all.

 

[TankAss95]

I found this from the British yachtsman Chay Blyth's book 'The Impossible Voyage', who made the fastest single-handed sailing journey around the world.
"Ten months of solitude in some of the loneliest seas of the world strengthened every part of me, deepened every perception and gave me new awareness of that power outside of man which we called God. I am quite certain that without God's help many and many a time I could not have survived to complete my circumnavigation."
Later in the same book he added:
"No one will ever say to me that there is no God without my remembering all these situations. To atheists I say, go sailing single-handed for a few weeks."

I thought it was a good example of 'faith'. I feel like this daily and I'm not sure what life would be like without it.

 

[dylansan]

I thought it was a good example of 'faith'. I feel like this daily and I'm not sure what life would be like without it.

At least you admit it may be better without it.

 

[Exorcet]

I found this from the British yachtsman Chay Blyth's book 'The Impossible Voyage', who made the fastest single-handed sailing journey around the world.
"Ten months of solitude in some of the loneliest seas of the world strengthened every part of me, deepened every perception and gave me new awareness of that power outside of man which we called God. I am quite certain that without God's help many and many a time I could not have survived to complete my circumnavigation."
Later in the same book he added:
"No one will ever say to me that there is no God without my remembering all these situations. To atheists I say, go sailing single-handed for a few weeks."

I thought it was a good example of 'faith'. I feel like this daily and I'm not sure what life would be like without it.

There's a bit of a problem with quotes like this. I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said before, but they contain no information. Some guy sailed around the world and was convinced that he found God. My only response to that is a question mark. With no evidence, and not even logic or reasoning, his deduction could be as much delusion as it is truth. Delusion might actually be more realistic. If it was this simple why didn't religions pick up on this? I should have been sent out sailing instead of receiving communion if it was going to convince me that God is real.

This world has no shortage of awe and brilliance. I can't tell you how awesome it was it see the world from the cockpit of a plane for the first time. But God wasn't there. Or at least I could not see him.

 

[TankAss95]

The whole fact that human beings are concerned about meaning, have spiritual awareness, think about their morality and engage in rational thinking points towards something 'more'.

I also found these quotes worth mentioning from C. S. Lewis:
"It is merely, that when the atoms inside my skull happen for physical or chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain way this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? And if I can't trust my own thinking, I can't trust the argument leading to atheism, and therefore I have no reason to be an atheist. Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought, so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."
Elsewhere he wrote:
"If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds would have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees."

How can an atheist make an intelligent assertion that God does not exist, and at the same time admit that his thoughts are determined by chemical reactions and not by rational analysis?

 

[dylansan]

The whole fact that human beings are concerned about meaning, have spiritual awareness, think about their morality and engage in rational thinking points towards something 'more'.

I also found these quotes worth mentioning from C. S. Lewis:
"It is merely, that when the atoms inside my skull happen for physical or chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain way this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? And if I can't trust my own thinking, I can't trust the argument leading to atheism, and therefore I have no reason to be an atheist. Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought, so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."
Elsewhere he wrote:
"If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds would have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees."

How can an atheist make an intelligent assertion that God does not exist, and at the same time admit that his thoughts are determined by chemical reactions and not by rational analysis?

Okay, I just started typing up a response to this, but I'm going to wait until you start to address some of the other points made by a few people recently, as it's becoming clear we're getting tired or responding to you only for you to change to a different subject. Please let the discussion come to a conclusion about one subject before moving to another one. I will keep this post in mind until you do so.

 

[TankAss95]

I believe in a monotheistic God, rather than multiple Gods (like dualism or polytheism). I believe both Ideas are man made.
I would provide my own explanation to why dualism is wrong, but C. S. Lewis hits the nail on the head:
"Neither of them chose this tête-à-tête. Each of them is therefore conditioned - finds himself willy-nilly in a situation, and either that situation itself, or some other unknown force which produced that situation, is the real Ultimate."
Basically you have to ask if there is some kind of unity between these two competing forces, and if so, does this not destroy their godlike status and reduce them to secondary players operating within a greater reality?

As for polytheism, it states that different 'God's' are hierarchically structured. This is like the idea of a God of war, God of the Sun, etc. I would imagine polytheism as an interesting way to view the world, but it makes no sense to me.

And then there is animism, which is clearly man made.

I think I have already answered the polytheism question above.

I would also like to add why I think pantheism is wrong. If God is everything, and everything is God, then God is nothing in particular, and therefore not God.

 

[niky]

You've just rejected the Christian God. One who is omnipresent and thus everywhere and everything.

And one who is not just one God, but a Divine Trinity, thus pantheistic. (Let's not go into the widespread Marian Worship, though... or how Catholics pray to the "One" God through divine intermediaries, a virtual host of saints who, though supposedly human, are now divine, with divine powers. (Miraculous intervention, mind you, is one prerequisite for sainthood).

Jesus claimed to be the son of God, those things didn't. He also happened to be telling the truth.

Again, written word isn't testimony.

And if faith of followers is the only measure of truth, then Islam has a far greater claim than Christianity. Mohammed was also a real man who also walked the Earth. He happened to claim that Allah was the only God and that he alone was his prophet.

There are miracles also attributed to Mohammed. Millions have claimed that Islam has changed their life, and have converted after being unbelievers.

Tell me... how is their claim any less than yours?

And no, the "morality" of a religion is not proof of anything. And if it were, then we could point to Confucianism and Buddhism as two others that are as "moral" as Christianity.

I'm not even going to get into any of the "modern" religions or Hinduism (pantheism), which likewise has its tradition of miracles, signs and millions of believers.

You're still ignoring the fact that others have their own personal connection with their God or Gods, their own tradition of signs and miracles and their own faith and writings.

You can't all be right, so what, qualitatively, does your faith have over theirs that can be proven in concrete, physical terms?

How can an atheist make an intelligent assertion that God does not exist, and at the same time admit that his thoughts are determined by chemical reactions and not by rational analysis?

I don't see the discrepancy.

Or more precisely: How can you claim that a calculator can accurately give the answer to 2+2 if its operation depends on electrical impulses rather than rational arguments?

Yes. It's the same thing. You're making a non-argument. Rational analysis can be done whatever the underlying medium. As long as it's tested and confirmed by physical proof (in other words, adding two stones to two stones and counting the total), then we can be sure that the operation is rational and correct.

It's the same with God. Can you verify his existence as something outside of your subjective, chemical experience or the subjective, chemical experiences of others? If you can't, the most you can say is that you have no proof of God, but still believe because of personal conviction.

I respect personal conviction and believe in some of the ethical principles put forth by my (former) Church as reflections of absolute morality (see Danoff's thread about ethics). But I must constantly test assumptions and hidden biases and reject those that do not stand up to testing or rational thought.

Why must priests be only male? And why must they be celibate? Why cannot virtuous actions count towards salvation? If only virtuous thought and belief in Christ and not virtuous deeds counted towards salvation, then is Torquemada in in Heaven and Gandhi in Hell?

I know that these merely reflect the biases and unconscious assumptions of the writers and church leaders and not always the core teachings of the religion, but since religion is filtered through other men, whether it be divine or not, then you must treat all religious doctrine as suspect for having gone through an imperfect filter.

 

[dylansan]

If God is everything (meaning God is defined as the existence of everything), and everything is God, then God is nothing in particular (meaning God doesn't have specific qualities other than existence), and therefore not God (Why? We defined God as the existence of everything for the purposes of the argument, so how is this inconsistent? The only way it's inconsistent is if you define God as some divine omniscient power, which doesn't have to be true in pantheism).

You're arguments often suffer from problems of definition. In this case, you defined God one way, made some conclusions from that, and then compared those conclusions to a different definition of God, which means the inconsistencies between them are only because of inconsistent definitions.

 

[TankAss95]

There's a bit of a problem with quotes like this. I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said before, but they contain no information. Some guy sailed around the world and was convinced that he found God. My only response to that is a question mark. With no evidence, and not even logic or reasoning, his deduction could be as much delusion as it is truth. Delusion might actually be more realistic. If it was this simple why didn't religions pick up on this? I should have been sent out sailing instead of receiving communion if it was going to convince me that God is real.

The Bible explains many ways to experience God. Basically praying and reading his word is the overall foundation, but I feel him everyday.

QUOTE="Exorcet"]This world has no shortage of awe and brilliance. I can't tell you how awesome it was it see the world from the cockpit of a plane for the first time. But God wasn't there. Or at least I could not see him.[/QUOTE]

"In one sense, man does not ask the question about God, man's very existence raises the question of God." - Wolfhart Pannemnerg, 'Basic Questions in Theology'

Man is a spiritual and religious being.
"The one essential condition of human existence is that man should always be able to bow down before something infinitely great. The Infinite and the Eternal are as essential for man as the little planet on which he dwells." - Fyodor Dostoevsky
Most people have some sort of feeling about 'meaning' and such. I hate to bring up the subject but think about death. A man on his deathbed or reaching the end of his life will often feel like there is 'more'. Often non-religious people suddenly feel fear and want a priest or as such on their bedside as they are at their last.

 

[dylansan]

Often non-religious people suddenly feel fear and want a priest or as such on their bedside as they are at their last.

That's because they're cowards who are afraid they'll go to hell unless they turn to religion before they die. I can't blame them, since the concept is so ingrained in society, but that will not be me.

And if you think I'll change my mind on my deathbed, I can give an example of someone who knew they would never turn to religion on their deathbed, and then didn't. Christopher Hitchens. Far from a coward, he's one of my biggest inspirations, and one of the few famous people for whom I actually cried when he died.

So the fact that people sometimes turn to religion at death is not evidence that there is some spiritual thing going on, merely that people are expectedly afraid of death and try to make it less scary before they finally go.

 

[TankAss95]

You've just rejected the Christian God. One who is omnipresent and thus everywhere and everything.

Nope, Christianity isn't pantheistic. God is separate from his creation while pantheism says God and creation share the same nature and essence. Also the Bible days that God has no beginning, and that nature has a beginning. This does not fit into pantheism, because if nature had a beginning, according to pantheism, God must have a beginning also.

And one who is not just one God, but a Divine Trinity, thus pantheistic. (Let's not go into the widespread Marian Worship, though... or how Catholics pray to the "One" God through divine intermediaries, a virtual host of saints who, though supposedly human, are now divine, with divine powers. (Miraculous intervention, mind you, is one prerequisite for sainthood).

The Christian God is One made up of three persons. The trinity is not pantheistic.

And if faith of followers is the only measure of truth, then Islam has a far greater claim than Christianity. Mohammed was also a real man who also walked the Earth. He happened to claim that Allah was the only God and that he alone was his prophet.

There are miracles also attributed to Mohammed. Millions have claimed that Islam has changed their life, and have converted after being unbelievers.

Tell me... how is their claim any less than yours?

Fulfilled prophecies found in the Bible. I found a useful website: http://carm.org/why-believe-christianity-over-all-other-religions

Or more precisely: How can you claim that a calculator can accurately give the answer to 2+2 if its operation depends on electrical impulses rather than rational arguments?

Yes. It's the same thing. You're making a non-argument. Rational analysis can be done whatever the underlying medium. As long as it's tested and confirmed by physical proof (in other words, adding two stones to two stones and counting the total), then we can be sure that the operation is rational and correct.

Your missing the point. You can't. If we observe the calculator through our own senses which we cannot trust then we cannot trust the calculator. You cant trust anything. If we are formed by accident then we can not trust ourselves to know what is true or not.

It's the same with God. Can you verify his existence as something outside of your subjective, chemical experience or the subjective, chemical experiences of others? If you can't, the most you can say is that you have no proof of God, but still believe because of personal conviction.

I respect personal conviction and believe in some of the ethical principles put forth by my (former) Church as reflections of absolute morality (see Danoff's thread about ethics). But I must constantly test assumptions and hidden biases and reject those that do not stand up to testing or rational thought.

Why must priests be only male? And why must they be celibate? Why cannot virtuous actions count towards salvation? If only virtuous thought and belief in Christ and not virtuous deeds counted towards salvation, then is Torquemada in in Heaven and Gandhi in Hell?

I know that these merely reflect the biases and unconscious assumptions of the writers and church leaders and not always the core teachings of the religion, but since religion is filtered through other men, whether it be divine or not, then you must treat all religious doctrine as suspect for having gone through an imperfect filter.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. But may I add that the dead-sea scrolls proved that the Bible remained accurate over the test of time.

 

[Sach]

Again, written word isn't testimony.

Is there an echo in here?



Let's just evaluate the possible ways of documenting history, shall we? Can you just name a few for me?


So if spoken word cannot be testimony, and if writings cannot be testimony... what would be up to your standard, exactly?

 

[niky]

Written word, corroborated by other sources.

Written histories written by a single source must always, always be taken with a grain of salt. If the next king didn't like the old one, he could have his name struck from history. (There are examples of this in Egypt). History will often be painted in very different lights by different sources.

Part of the work of Biblical scholars is looking for such corroboration elsewhere, as in the case of Moses, or Joseph, or any of the Biblical kings. (Though we are pretty sure there was a David, and a Solomon... we have a hard time pinning down Moses... Noah is thought to be a corruption of an ancient Mesopotamian tale). Do you know how many thousands of scholars make a living deciphering historical documents and attempting to uncover the truths behind the half-truths and whole lies within? I've already shown how single source historical documents can be unreliable. So yes, there is an echo in here.

Yet, written history is relatively reliable in telling us that such persons may or may not have existed, but a religious book is part history and part allegory. If you admit that one part of the Bible is allegorical, what part do we take as history?

And this still ignores other written documents pertaining to other gods. Again: what makes one ancient reilgious document more reliable than another? The number of followers? The length?

EDIT: Ah, yes... the Gospels are multiple sources that paint the same overall picture of Jesus despite minor differences. But still, these four gospels were selected because they agreed and others were excluded for not agreeing with them, thus a fuller picture of early Christianity and the different Christian sects is denied to us in a straight reading of the modern Bible. In other words, there's censored history in there, part of which is most likely fiction (such as much of the Gospel of Judas) but other parts which are probably fact.

Nope, Christianity isn't pantheistic. God is separate from his creation while pantheism says God and creation share the same nature and essence. Also the Bible days that God has no beginning, and that nature has a beginning. This does not fit into pantheism, because if nature had a beginning, according to pantheism, God must have a beginning also.

No, requiring a beginning to God isn't inherent in pantheism.

The Christian God is One made up of three persons. The trinity is not pantheistic.

Excuse me. Poly. Or whatever. It's much the same as Brahma, who is made up of separate facets that are merely a reflection of the whole.

Fulfilled prophecies found in the Bible. I found a useful website: http://carm.org/why-believe-christianity-over-all-other-religions

It is claimed that he fulfilled these prophecies, but there is no physical evidence that he did, and no accounts aside from those in the Gospels that claim he did.

Your missing the point. You can't. If we observe the calculator through our own senses which we cannot trust then we cannot trust the calculator. You cant trust anything. If we are formed by accident then we can not trust ourselves to know what is true or not.

Then how can you trust that you know that there is a God if you cannot trust your senses?

There is a hypnotic trick wherein you can get a person to forget a number. Say, the number three. So that whenever they count their fingers, they will get six on one hand and eleven on both. Obviously, six plus six will not equal eleven... thus that blind spot in that person's knowledge is something that they can map out and therefore deduce is there. Much like the blind spot in our eyes. What we can't sense of the natural world with one sense, we can sense with another... and thus discover the flaws in our perception and how much faith to put in our senses.

A blind spot is something we can get around. If it remains there no matter what test we put it to, then it is inherent in reality and that's all there is to it.

If we have no faith in the physical reality at all, then we can put no faith in anything. You're back to square one.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. But may I add that the dead-sea scrolls proved that the Bible remained accurate over the test of time.

In that there are writings in the scrolls that aren't in the modern-day Bible? The Bible has been edited, recopied and even censored over time... so, no... it hasn't remained completely true to its original form.

Not to mention the fact that Jesus isn't in the Dead Sea Scrolls. At least, not so far as we can tell.

 

[Sach]

Written word, corroborated by other sources.

This is so pointless.


The bible was written by nearly forty men, over a period of about 1600 years dating from 1500 BC to about 100 years after Christ. And somehow all of those authors are proclaiming the same god and prophesying the same things, which also came to pass...


You have already pointed out that there is evidence that biblical leaders and authors have lived. The bible also remarkably denotes the lineage of these men, across 1600 years. But it's all apparently hearsay...


You are absolutely right, people on both sides of the argument have scrutinized the validity of the biblical texts for hundreds of years, yet the bible remains vastly unchanged in our day. If these half, and whole-truths existed as you say they do, the bible would have been quickly written off. Yet sane men far more intelligent than ourselves have repeatedly scrutinized them and not done so.


And once again, you expect a god to play by the rules of a pathetically limited human understanding of the universe and reality. Why? Christians are supposedly so close-minded, yet you leave absolutely no room for the existence of a part of reality that operates without your permission or understanding, when that is in fact the very platform of the discussion.

 

[dylansan]

...you leave absolutely no room for the existence of a part of reality that operates without your permission or understanding, when that is in fact the very platform of the discussion.

I leave room for it, but I won't believe it until I find convincing evidence of it. If I believed in a god on faith, without being convinced, then I couldn't disbelieve any other supernatural things without being logically inconsistent. That's what I was trying to demonstrate with the unicorn thing.

 

[niky]

This is so pointless.


The bible was written by nearly forty men, over a period of about 1600 years dating from 1500 BC to about 100 years after Christ. And somehow all of those authors are proclaiming the same god and prophesying the same things, which also came to pass...

No mention of the prophesized things that didn't? And not all of those forty authors prophesized the same things. Which is what makes comparing the source texts and the finished product so interesting.

You have already pointed out that there is evidence that biblical leaders and authors have lived. The bible also remarkably denotes the lineage of these men, across 1600 years. But it's all apparently hearsay...

Evidence that some lived. And finding evidence outside of the Bible for those who did live and those who didn't is what separates historical Biblical fact (the reign of David) from fiction (the borrowed flood myth) and delineates those that lie between and which are being closely studied... Such as Moses, who we believe existed but whose existence as a member of the Egyptian court cannot so far be verified, nor can the ten plagues be verified to coincide with any known events in Egyptian history, though there are interesting theories about them... Such as those linking them to the eruption of Santorini.

You are absolutely right, people on both sides of the argument have scrutinized the validity of the biblical texts for hundreds of years, yet the bible remains vastly unchanged in our day. If these half, and whole-truths existed as you say they do, the bible would have been quickly written off. Yet sane men far more intelligent than ourselves have repeatedly scrutinized them and not done so.

the Bible remains the same (well, mostly) because it is a religious document, not a historical one. What changes is our understanding of its sources and the times in which it was written and edited.

And once again, you expect a god to play by the rules of a pathetically limited human understanding of the universe and reality. Why? Christians are supposedly so close-minded, yet you leave absolutely no room for the existence of a part of reality that operates without your permission or understanding, when that is in fact the very platform of the discussion.

Says who? I leave plenty of room for intelligence or intelligences far greater than ours living outside the observable realm and beyond our understanding. I'm not strictly an Atheist. Like many, I believe there might be something greater than myself and my existence out there. Shocking? Yes. I do believe there might be a God or something similar out there.

The difference is, I do not pretend to know what that is nor do I accept that the knowing of such was granted to people I do not know in another time or place simply because those same people tell me so. I will not accept an explanation simply because it is aesthetically pleasing or comforting or because I agree with the morality of its agents. Again, despite its age, Christianity is not qualitatively different from other religions in this manner, so the level of probability I assign to it is exactly the same as I would assign any religion.

You must never, ever confuse critical analysis with closed-mindedness. If you accept no explanation for our existence without concrete non-subjective or non-falsifiable evidence, then that is not closed-mindedness. That is simply exercising critical thought. If you accept one explanation for existence above all others despite the lack of the same, or despite equal weights of evidence for all alternatives, then that is closed-mindedness.

 

[huskeR32]

Says who? I leave plenty of room for intelligence or intelligences far greater than ours living outside the observable realm and beyond our understanding. I'm not strictly an Atheist. Like many, I believe there might be something greater than myself and my existence out there. Shocking? Yes. I do believe there might be a God or something similar out there.

The difference is, I do not pretend to know what that is nor do I accept that the knowing of such was granted to people I do not know in another time or place simply because those same people tell me so. I will not accept an explanation simply because it is aesthetically pleasing or comforting or because I agree with the morality of its agents. Again, despite its age, Christianity is not qualitatively different from other religions in this manner, so the level of probability I assign to it is exactly the same as I would assign any religion.

You must never, ever confuse critical analysis with closed-mindedness. If you accept no explanation for our existence without concrete non-subjective or non-falsifiable evidence, then that is not closed-mindedness. That is simply exercising critical thought. If you accept one explanation for existence above all others despite the lack of the same, or despite equal weights of evidence for all alternatives, then that is closed-mindedness.

Well said! These are my thoughts exactly. I wish I could have said it so clearly 👍

 

[Exorcet]

And once again, you expect a god to play by the rules of a pathetically limited human understanding of the universe and reality. Why? Christians are supposedly so close-minded, yet you leave absolutely no room for the existence of a part of reality that operates without your permission or understanding, when that is in fact the very platform of the discussion.

If your argument is about leaving room, I don't know why you're here. There are a lot of people not convinced of God in this thread, but the list of people not leaving room for him is probably incredibly small.

 

[Sach]

I will not accept an explanation simply because it is aesthetically pleasing or comforting or because I agree with the morality of its agents.

And neither do I.

Again, despite its age, Christianity is not qualitatively different from other religions in this manner, so the level of probability I assign to it is exactly the same as I would assign any religion.

Except that other religions didn't center around one person who claimed to be god in the flesh. And those other religions didn't dramatically change the course of human history forever.

You must never, ever confuse critical analysis with closed-mindedness.

I don't.

If you accept no explanation for our existence without concrete non-subjective or non-falsifiable evidence, then that is not closed-mindedness. That is simply exercising critical thought.

No, it's exactly what you just said it is, shutting the door on certain possibilities that don't meet the criteria you would like them to.

If you accept one explanation for existence above all others despite the lack of the same, or despite equal weights of evidence for all alternatives, then that is closed-mindedness.

There is not equal evidence. No Hindu walked this earth and changed the world forever, nor did any Buddhist, shaman, Muslim, or any other besides the one person who's death actually did those things. As an example, the entire history of 'Western' music was forged on the foundation of Christianity, not any other religion. That is one small piece of many concrete historical evidences that suggest it should be looked at and weighed differently than Hinduism, as an example. And our system of dates?

 

[Strittan]

There is not equal evidence. No Hindu walked this earth and changed the world forever, nor did any Buddhist, shaman, Muslim, or any other besides the one person who's death actually did those things. As an example, the entire history of 'Western' music was forged on the foundation of Christianity, not any other religion. That is one small piece of many concrete historical evidences that suggest it should be looked at and weighed differently than Hinduism, as an example. And our system of dates?

And that proves... what exactly?

 

[TankAss95]

May I remind everyone that even through enforced censorship the story of Jesus spread rapidly. The story is definitely more than a myth.