bornagainathiest Posted August 21, 2014 Author Share Posted August 21, 2014 Why do you keep insisting that people examining a subject must always reach the same conclusion? I don't assume that. I gave you plenty of opportunity to make your case for alternatives. If you had evidence or could make a logical argument then why didn't you step up? Each person has a lot of inner explosions going on. Some may reach a different conclusion. That is not how logic works. Your claim that you reached the conclusion that Christianity is true by applying skepticism is like claiming that one can drive from New York City to Paris. Then when pressed admitting: "Well you drive to the airport, leap onto a plane and then land in Paris. That is how you drive to Paris." Using skepticism does not involve bringing skepticism to a screeching halt and them making a leap of faith. You are not being truthful and it is your religion that is driving you to not be truthful. What does that say about Christianity? "You are not being truthful and it is your religion that is driving you to not be truthful. What does that say about Christianity?" For me, it says attack it, compare it to other religions, read the atheists views, read the evolutionists. Attack it again..check the contradictions...the difficult...horrifying passages. Keep going with it. I did. Fyi Ironhorse, To be skeptical (as you claim you have been and you are) you aren't required to attack Christianity. To be skeptical, your are required to suspend your belief and begin from a position on non-belief. If you haven't done this, then you haven't been and aren't being skeptical. . . . To be skeptical you must FIRST suspend your belief in Christ and THEN begin to examine the evidence for Him. Have you done this? Y / N...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 21, 2014 Author Share Posted August 21, 2014 For me, it says attack it, compare it to other religions, read the atheists views, read the evolutionists. Attack it again..check the contradictions...the difficult...horrifying passages. Keep going with it. I did. Skepticism does not mean "keep questioning it but when it doesn't make sense believe it anyway". That is your approach to Christianity but don't call it skepticism. You insists on concrete evidence. I believe there is a point where the concrete ends. This is the point of decision. A skeptic insists on concrete evidence... just as Thomas did. That is the whole point of this thread, Ironhorse. You've skipped and danced around the question, so I'll repeat it. Did you skeptically examine the concrete evidence (Jesus' wounds) BEFORE you made the decision to believe that he rose from the dead? Y /N...? Please answer truthfully and don't keep dodging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 21, 2014 Author Share Posted August 21, 2014 For me, it says attack it, compare it to other religions, read the atheists views, read the evolutionists. Attack it again..check the contradictions...the difficult...horrifying passages. Keep going with it. I did. Skepticism does not mean "keep questioning it but when it doesn't make sense believe it anyway". That is your approach to Christianity but don't call it skepticism. You insists on concrete evidence. I believe there is a point where the concrete ends. This is the point of decision. Christianity fails long before that point. Christianity fails at almost every point it can be tested. That is your conclusion. Not mine. I'm not trashing you. I don't really know you, We just disagree at this point. But do you know (from examining the concrete evidence of Jesus' wounds) that he rose from the dead? Or do you believe by faith (the opposite of skepticism) that he did this? Please answer truthfully. I will continue to ask and if you don't answer truthfully or don't answer at all, others will see and take note. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted August 21, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted August 21, 2014 For me, it says attack it, compare it to other religions, read the atheists views, read the evolutionists. Attack it again..check the contradictions...the difficult...horrifying passages. Keep going with it. I did. Skepticism does not mean "keep questioning it but when it doesn't make sense believe it anyway". That is your approach to Christianity but don't call it skepticism. You insists on concrete evidence. I believe there is a point where the concrete ends. This is the point of decision. Could you point to where the concrete begins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 For me, it says attack it, compare it to other religions, read the atheists views, read the evolutionists. Attack it again..check the contradictions...the difficult...horrifying passages. Keep going with it. I did. Skepticism does not mean "keep questioning it but when it doesn't make sense believe it anyway". That is your approach to Christianity but don't call it skepticism. You insists on concrete evidence. I believe there is a point where the concrete ends. This is the point of decision. Could you point to where the concrete begins? There is no concrete in the first place to which he can point. Ironhorse quote, Post #178 in the thread entitled "The Big Question": "I admit, I don't [have] any physical evidence I can place before you on a table." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted August 21, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted August 21, 2014 For me, it says attack it, compare it to other religions, read the atheists views, read the evolutionists. Attack it again..check the contradictions...the difficult...horrifying passages. Keep going with it. I did. Skepticism does not mean "keep questioning it but when it doesn't make sense believe it anyway". That is your approach to Christianity but don't call it skepticism. You insists on concrete evidence. I believe there is a point where the concrete ends. This is the point of decision. Could you point to where the concrete begins? There is no concrete in the first place to which he can point. Ironhorse quote, Post #178 in the thread entitled "The Big Question": "I admit, I don't [have] any physical evidence I can place before you on a table." Damn it. I wanted him to be the one to admit that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 …read the evolutionists. … Funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 21, 2014 Share Posted August 21, 2014 For me, it says attack it, compare it to other religions, read the atheists views, read the evolutionists. Attack it again..check the contradictions...the difficult...horrifying passages. Keep going with it. I did. Skepticism does not mean "keep questioning it but when it doesn't make sense believe it anyway". That is your approach to Christianity but don't call it skepticism. You insists on concrete evidence. I believe there is a point where the concrete ends. This is the point of decision. Could you point to where the concrete begins? There is no concrete in the first place to which he can point. Ironhorse quote, Post #178 in the thread entitled "The Big Question": "I admit, I don't [have] any physical evidence I can place before you on a table." Damn it. I wanted him to be the one to admit that. You are setting yourself up for disappointment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted August 21, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted August 21, 2014 For me, it says attack it, compare it to other religions, read the atheists views, read the evolutionists. Attack it again..check the contradictions...the difficult...horrifying passages. Keep going with it. I did. Skepticism does not mean "keep questioning it but when it doesn't make sense believe it anyway". That is your approach to Christianity but don't call it skepticism. You insists on concrete evidence. I believe there is a point where the concrete ends. This is the point of decision. Could you point to where the concrete begins? There is no concrete in the first place to which he can point. Ironhorse quote, Post #178 in the thread entitled "The Big Question": "I admit, I don't [have] any physical evidence I can place before you on a table." Damn it. I wanted him to be the one to admit that. You are setting yourself up for disappointment. Likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverlandrut Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 For me, it says attack it, compare it to other religions, read the atheists views, read the evolutionists. Attack it again..check the contradictions...the difficult...horrifying passages. Keep going with it. I did. Skepticism does not mean "keep questioning it but when it doesn't make sense believe it anyway". That is your approach to Christianity but don't call it skepticism. You insists on concrete evidence. I believe there is a point where the concrete ends. This is the point of decision. Christianity fails long before that point. Christianity fails at almost every point it can be tested. That is your conclusion. Not mine. I'm not trashing you. I don't really know you, We just disagree at this point. Then your conclusion is wrong. This is not a matter of opinion. It is objective and verifiable fact that Christianity is full of contradictions, errors, and false information. Your skepticism did not lead you to your faith. That is a logical contradiction because those two positions are mutually exclusive (cannot be true at the same time). You made a jump all right. When your "skepticism" did not lead to the conclusion you though it should, you abandoned skepticism and picked up faith. BTW, skepticism is not an all or nothing position. It is a matter of degree. The degree of skepticism is inversely proportional to the evidence. Some of my beliefs are more tentative than others because they have some evidence, but not as much as others. The day I find new evidence that contradicts those beliefs, I will happily abandon them. I will do this because I want to believe as many true things as possible and stop believing as many false things as possible. This is what is most important to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 For me, it says attack it, compare it to other religions, read the atheists views, read the evolutionists. Attack it again..check the contradictions...the difficult...horrifying passages. Keep going with it. I did. Skepticism does not mean "keep questioning it but when it doesn't make sense believe it anyway". That is your approach to Christianity but don't call it skepticism. You insists on concrete evidence. I believe there is a point where the concrete ends. This is the point of decision. A skeptic insists on concrete evidence... just as Thomas did. That is the whole point of this thread, Ironhorse. You've skipped and danced around the question, so I'll repeat it. Did you skeptically examine the concrete evidence (Jesus' wounds) BEFORE you made the decision to believe that he rose from the dead? Y /N...? Please answer truthfully and don't keep dodging. Again, I will attempt to explain. Not at the age of twelve, no. I have stated before that during my late teens and twenties I searched world's religions and belief systems. I read books by and on atheism. Why? Because I was doubting Christianity, The Bible and Jesus. I seriously questioned if Jesus had actually existed and if the Bible was revealing the truth. I went through periods of doubting if a God existed at all. When I reached a conclusion, I fully accepted the Christian faith. Its my belief. I can't prove it is true by concrete scientific evidence. It's a matter of faith. It is true to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mydisplayname Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 It's a matter of faith. It is true to me. My three year old believes in Santa Clause. It's true to him as well. The two of you are obviously on the same level of critical thinking 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 I have stated before that during my late teens and twenties I searched world's religions and belief systems. I read books by and on atheism. Why? Because I was doubting Christianity, The Bible and Jesus. I seriously questioned if Jesus had actually existed and if the Bible was revealing the truth. I went through periods of doubting if a God existed at all. When I reached a conclusion, I fully accepted the Christian faith. Its my belief. I can't prove it is true by concrete scientific evidence. It's a matter of faith. It is true to me. Thus you did not apply skepticism to Christianity. You took a leap of faith. You read some atheists books that used logic and evidence but the appeal to your emotion is what convinced you that Christianity is real. Look, there is nothing wrong with you being religious, on faith, as long as you don't hurt other people. But don't try to pass off faith as skepticism because that is dishonest. People around here smell the dishonesty and it annoys us. We are all past the point where we are going to take your religion on faith. So you don't have anything to offer us. If faith alone was enough for us then we wouldn't be here. You wish to make us Christians, yes? You think it will please God, yes? It isn't going to happen. There is no road for us to get from needing evidence through logic to a destination of magical thinking. But let me put it in language that you might understand: Hebrews 4:4-6 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For God this is impossible. You are only asking for Christ to be put to open shame. And here Christ will be openly shamed a lot. But we will never repent. Understand? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 22, 2014 Author Share Posted August 22, 2014 For me, it says attack it, compare it to other religions, read the atheists views, read the evolutionists. Attack it again..check the contradictions...the difficult...horrifying passages. Keep going with it. I did. Skepticism does not mean "keep questioning it but when it doesn't make sense believe it anyway". That is your approach to Christianity but don't call it skepticism. You insists on concrete evidence. I believe there is a point where the concrete ends. This is the point of decision. A skeptic insists on concrete evidence... just as Thomas did. That is the whole point of this thread, Ironhorse. You've skipped and danced around the question, so I'll repeat it. Did you skeptically examine the concrete evidence (Jesus' wounds) BEFORE you made the decision to believe that he rose from the dead? Y /N...? Please answer truthfully and don't keep dodging. Again, I will attempt to explain. Not at the age of twelve, no. I have stated before that during my late teens and twenties I searched world's religions and belief systems. I read books by and on atheism. Why? Because I was doubting Christianity, The Bible and Jesus. I seriously questioned if Jesus had actually existed and if the Bible was revealing the truth. I went through periods of doubting if a God existed at all. Since skepticism begins from an initial position of non-belief, when you were in your teens/twenties whatever searching you did was not from a position of non-belief. If you had totally rejected Jesus Christ and returned to a position of non-belief, then as MyMistake has pointed out, you cannot be re-admitted to the Christian faith. Therefore, your period of searching was not a truly skeptical one, because a skeptical examination of the evidence MUST begin from a position of non-belief. Hebrews 4 : 4 -6 is not negotiable. Nor is the requirement for non-belief in skepticism. Therefore, either you did not reject Christ and so could not have skeptically examined the evidence. Or, if you did reject Christ, you are not and were not a Christian from the moment you chose to reject him. Something needs to give here! Skepticism requires non-belief and Christ cannot be crucified again for your sins. So which is it? Have you ever skeptically examined the evidence from a position of non-belief or have you rejected Christ and become an Ex-Christian, like us? There's no middle ground here, buddy. When I reached a conclusion, I fully accepted the Christian faith. Its my belief. I can't prove it is true by concrete scientific evidence. It's a matter of faith. It is true to me. Ironhorse, your belief contradicts scripture. The words of the Bible itself are the concrete evidence in this case. Nobody can return to Jesus after rejecting him. It's there in black and white. What you believe and what's true for you are just dodges to get you out of this jam. You know that and we all know that. So, either you've never skeptically examine the evidence for Jesus or you've turned your back on him. Which is it? . . . (Hint. We'll respect you a whole lot more if you fess up to never having been skeptical, than if you try to hang tough on this one.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 For me, it says attack it, compare it to other religions, read the atheists views, read the evolutionists. Attack it again..check the contradictions...the difficult...horrifying passages. Keep going with it. I did. Skepticism does not mean "keep questioning it but when it doesn't make sense believe it anyway". That is your approach to Christianity but don't call it skepticism. You insists on concrete evidence. I believe there is a point where the concrete ends. This is the point of decision. A skeptic insists on concrete evidence... just as Thomas did. That is the whole point of this thread, Ironhorse. You've skipped and danced around the question, so I'll repeat it. Did you skeptically examine the concrete evidence (Jesus' wounds) BEFORE you made the decision to believe that he rose from the dead? Y /N...? Please answer truthfully and don't keep dodging. Again, I will attempt to explain. Not at the age of twelve, no. I have stated before that during my late teens and twenties I searched world's religions and belief systems. I read books by and on atheism. Why? Because I was doubting Christianity, The Bible and Jesus. I seriously questioned if Jesus had actually existed and if the Bible was revealing the truth. I went through periods of doubting if a God existed at all. Since skepticism begins from an initial position of non-belief, when you were in your teens/twenties whatever searching you did was not from a position of non-belief. If you had totally rejected Jesus Christ and returned to a position of non-belief, then as MyMistake has pointed out, you cannot be re-admitted to the Christian faith. Therefore, your period of searching was not a truly skeptical one, because a skeptical examination of the evidence MUST begin from a position of non-belief. Hebrews 4 : 4 -6 is not negotiable. Nor is the requirement for non-belief in skepticism. Therefore, either you did not reject Christ and so could not have skeptically examined the evidence. Or, if you did reject Christ, you are not and were not a Christian from the moment you chose to reject him. Something needs to give here! Skepticism requires non-belief and Christ cannot be crucified again for your sins. So which is it? Have you ever skeptically examined the evidence from a position of non-belief or have you rejected Christ and become an Ex-Christian, like us? There's no middle ground here, buddy. When I reached a conclusion, I fully accepted the Christian faith. Its my belief. I can't prove it is true by concrete scientific evidence. It's a matter of faith. It is true to me. Ironhorse, your belief contradicts scripture. The words of the Bible itself are the concrete evidence in this case. Nobody can return to Jesus after rejecting him. It's there in black and white. What you believe and what's true for you are just dodges to get you out of this jam. You know that and we all know that. So, either you've never skeptically examine the evidence for Jesus or you've turned your back on him. Which is it? . . . (Hint. We'll respect you a whole lot more if you fess up to never having been skeptical, than if you try to hang tough on this one.) -I disagree that skepticism must begin with an initial position of non-belief. A person may believe global warming is true based on what he was taught in school. He may begin to have doubts and start reading and researching the issues. He may reach the conclusion that is false. -I never stated I rejected Jesus. I said I had doubts during period of time. -Skeptics do not always reach the same conclusions. You and I have reached different conclusions concerning the Christian faith. You have stated your reasons many times. I have not questioned your motivation or your sincerity. I posted part of this once. This is good point to post a little more Selected from: http://skeptoid.com/skeptic.php What Is Skepticism? To quote Dr. Shermer: Skepticism is not a position; it's a process. The popular misconception is that skeptics, or critical thinkers, are people who disbelieve things. And indeed, the common usage of the word skeptical supports this: "He was skeptical of the numbers in the spreadsheet", meaning he doubted their validity. To be skeptical, therefore, is to be negative about things and doubt or disbelieve them. The true meaning of the word skepticism has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion. It's thus inaccurate to say "Skeptics don't believe in ghosts." Some do. Many skeptics are deeply religious, and are satisfied with the reasoning process that led them there. Skeptics apply critical thinking to different aspects of their lives in their own individual way. Everyone is a skeptic to some degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 22, 2014 Author Share Posted August 22, 2014 Ah yes... the usual escape clause. "I disagree..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverlandrut Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 For me, it says attack it, compare it to other religions, read the atheists views, read the evolutionists. Attack it again..check the contradictions...the difficult...horrifying passages. Keep going with it. I did. Skepticism does not mean "keep questioning it but when it doesn't make sense believe it anyway". That is your approach to Christianity but don't call it skepticism. You insists on concrete evidence. I believe there is a point where the concrete ends. This is the point of decision. A skeptic insists on concrete evidence... just as Thomas did. That is the whole point of this thread, Ironhorse. You've skipped and danced around the question, so I'll repeat it. Did you skeptically examine the concrete evidence (Jesus' wounds) BEFORE you made the decision to believe that he rose from the dead? Y /N...? Please answer truthfully and don't keep dodging. Again, I will attempt to explain. Not at the age of twelve, no. I have stated before that during my late teens and twenties I searched world's religions and belief systems. I read books by and on atheism. Why? Because I was doubting Christianity, The Bible and Jesus. I seriously questioned if Jesus had actually existed and if the Bible was revealing the truth. I went through periods of doubting if a God existed at all. When I reached a conclusion, I fully accepted the Christian faith. Its my belief. I can't prove it is true by concrete scientific evidence. It's a matter of faith. It is true to me. So... No. Your answer is no. That's all you had to say. Everything else you said is fluff and irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 22, 2014 Share Posted August 22, 2014 -I disagree that skepticism must begin with an initial position of non-belief. And we don't care how you twist the meaning of words. Skeptics do not always reach the same conclusions. You were asked many times to explain how skepticism reached the conclusion that Christianity is true. Each time you pointed to your leap of faith which is not skepticism. Therefore you did not use skepticism to get to your conclusion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 22, 2014 Author Share Posted August 22, 2014 I can see what Ironhorse is doing here! Shermer's definition of skepticism is a secular one. It wasn't formulated by him to be used by Christians in the context of Biblical Christianity. So this a case of apples and oranges. Or oil and water. Shermer's gradualistic process doesn't apply to Christianity and can't be used to describe a Christian's position on belief in God. In Biblical Christianity you are either a believer or an unbeliever. There are no halfway houses. You are either saved or damned. Either a sheep or a goat. Either heaven-bound or hell-bound. Hebrews 4 : 4 - 6 tells it like it is! The example of Thomas serves to confirm this. He was skeptical about Jesus' resurrection. His position on that issue was one on non-belief. Then, when Jesus gave him the concrete evidence he required, he changed from non-belief to belief. Nothing gradual about it. No process of interim stages involved. Elijah on Mount Carmel is an OT example. The Israelites were skeptical about Yahweh's preeminence over Baal. Elijah gave them the concrete evidence they needed and as one they switched from non-belief in Yahweh's supremacy to belief. . . . So what Ironhorse has been doing (unwittingly perhaps) is claiming that he's a skeptic and also a believer... using Shermer to justify his impossible position. Sorry! But it don't work like that in Christianity, friend! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts