How Religious People Think

[Guest afireinside]

Don't use the M word Wololo noooooooooo!!!!!

[Guest afireinside]

Seriously though, hell is the hook that Christianity hangs it's coat on. Without hell and eternal damnation the necessity of salvation is neither here nor there. I wished I could seperate the two(Christianity and Hell) but I couldn't.

[Wololo]

It's not necessary. It's a choice. It's either death, or life. That's it. Guilt and fear are cheapy ways of winning followers. I think a massive God can do better than that.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

Jesus saves from eternal death. The wages of sin is death...so he's saving you from death. The whole hellfire thing is just one big problem and is one reason (among many others) that people leave.

 

Define "eternal death".

 

I am curious, if you don't believe in hell, why are you a xian?  Is it because you want to have a positive afterlife?

 

 

Eternal meaning until there is nothing left in the universe. Time is only measured where there is mass.

 

Christianity isn't about fear. Seems the fundies have gotten to some of you when you're defining what it means to be a Christian. I'm a Christian because I support the ethics and morality, and recognize the places where I screw up. Jesus has meaning to me. I'm also profoundly curious, so I've explored, and while I've had to adjust my beliefs as I've grown up, God has stood up to my barrage of uncertainty. There are various reasons, but fear and guilt or a desire for a reward have nothing to do with it.

 

What are Christian ethics? If it's not loving, it's not ethical. That's it. Use love as the measuring stick. If people say being homosexual is evil, ask yourself the same question. Is it loving? It can be...just like any other relationship, therefore I will not judge people for it. Is murder evil? It is not loving, therefore it is evil.

 

Oh I was a liberal xian.  I used to think god is lurve.  Then I read the bible.

[rach]

This is how I would have thought in those awful days when I was a "believer".....Let's say I've been taught to believe all cars are red, according to the holy scriptures, but one day I see a blue car.  But I know that my heart is deceitful above all things (Jeremiah 17:9) and I know that satan is a deceiver as well.  Therefore I cannot trust my eyes because they are attached to my brain which is attached to my heart/soul which is deceitful and desperately wicked.  So I conclude that the blue car I saw was actually red.  I was deceived by my wicked and deceiving heart into perceiving a blue car.  The enemy of my soul, the devil, is perhaps using trickery and miracles to deceive us into seeing blue cars which are actually red cars under some kind of magic spell.  Or maybe God is sending a strong delusion in the form of blue cars as a punishment for my sins (2 Thesselonians 2:11).  I can't admit to anyone that I saw a blue car because God said all cars are red and God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18) even though he is omnipotent and can do anything.  He still can't lie.  Except sometimes (2 Chronicles 18:22).  If I tell my fellow believers I saw a blue car, they'll get mad at me and say that I am calling God a liar.  So now I have to live the rest of my life in anxiety and doubting my salvation because I happened to see a blue car.

[Wololo]

 

 

 

Jesus saves from eternal death. The wages of sin is death...so he's saving you from death. The whole hellfire thing is just one big problem and is one reason (among many others) that people leave.

 

Define "eternal death".

 

I am curious, if you don't believe in hell, why are you a xian?  Is it because you want to have a positive afterlife?

 

 

Eternal meaning until there is nothing left in the universe. Time is only measured where there is mass.

 

Christianity isn't about fear. Seems the fundies have gotten to some of you when you're defining what it means to be a Christian. I'm a Christian because I support the ethics and morality, and recognize the places where I screw up. Jesus has meaning to me. I'm also profoundly curious, so I've explored, and while I've had to adjust my beliefs as I've grown up, God has stood up to my barrage of uncertainty. There are various reasons, but fear and guilt or a desire for a reward have nothing to do with it.

 

What are Christian ethics? If it's not loving, it's not ethical. That's it. Use love as the measuring stick. If people say being homosexual is evil, ask yourself the same question. Is it loving? It can be...just like any other relationship, therefore I will not judge people for it. Is murder evil? It is not loving, therefore it is evil.

 

Oh I was a liberal xian.  I used to think god is lurve.  Then I read the bible.

 

 

Ah, we need context. The Old Testament certainly gives a dark picture of God. Good thing there's the New Testament. They both require each other to make proper sense.

 

This is how I would have thought in those awful days when I was a "believer".....Let's say I've been taught to believe all cars are red, according to the holy scriptures, but one day I see a blue car.  But I know that my heart is deceitful above all things (Jeremiah 17:9) and I know that satan is a deceiver as well.  Therefore I cannot trust my eyes because they are attached to my brain which is attached to my heart/soul which is deceitful and desperately wicked.  So I conclude that the blue car I saw was actually red.  I was deceived by my wicked and deceiving heart into perceiving a blue car.  The enemy of my soul, the devil, is perhaps using trickery and miracles to deceive us into seeing blue cars which are actually red cars under some kind of magic spell.  Or maybe God is sending a strong delusion in the form of blue cars as a punishment for my sins (2 Thesselonians 2:11).  I can't admit to anyone that I saw a blue car because God said all cars are red and God cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18) even though he is omnipotent and can do anything.  He still can't lie.  Except sometimes (2 Chronicles 18:22).  If I tell my fellow believers I saw a blue car, they'll get mad at me and say that I am calling God a liar.  So now I have to live the rest of my life in anxiety and doubting my salvation because I happened to see a blue car.

 

Are you talking about the distortions of people who are interpreting it? I'm not following what you're getting at.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

Ah, we need context. The Old Testament certainly gives a dark picture of God. Good thing there's the New Testament. They both require each other to make proper sense.

So you haven't read the bible then.  Really reading it, the whole thing, dark picture and all.

[Roz]

Tell me this, and depending on your answer I will either treat you with civility or just throw you in with the other christians here.

 

Do you advocate the teaching of creationism in public education?

Do you think homosexuality is a sin and LGBT folks can't get married?

Are you here to evangelize?

 

If you said yes to any of these, then this 4th question is also for you:

If you were living in the time of Moses, would you follow the orders god gave him?

[Wololo]

 

 

 

Ah, we need context. The Old Testament certainly gives a dark picture of God. Good thing there's the New Testament. They both require each other to make proper sense.

So you haven't read the bible then.  Really reading it, the whole thing, dark picture and all.

 

 

I know it inside and out. Interpretation is where people run into problems.

 

Tell me this, and depending on your answer I will either treat you with civility or just throw you in with the other christians here.

 

Do you advocate the teaching of creationism in public education?

Do you think homosexuality is a sin and LGBT folks can't get married?

Are you here to evangelize?

 

If you said yes to any of these, then this 4th question is also for you:

If you were living in the time of Moses, would you follow the orders god gave him?

 

Heck no.

No, sin is not an action, it is an attitude. I have nothing against their marriage.

Nope. I'm here to discuss and debate. If you're aggressive, I will be aggressive. If you're respectful, I will be respectful. I came here because I want to keep the idea alive that some of us who are still Christians are reasonable people, and I wanted to discuss things with people who are no longer Christians. I'm a curious person too, you know.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

 

Ah, we need context. The Old Testament certainly gives a dark picture of God. Good thing there's the New Testament. They both require each other to make proper sense.

So you haven't read the bible then.  Really reading it, the whole thing, dark picture and all.

 

 

I know it inside and out. Interpretation is where people run into problems.

 

So does that mean you think the bible provides a moral framework for living?

 

Tell me this, and depending on your answer I will either treat you with civility or just throw you in with the other christians here.

 

Do you advocate the teaching of creationism in public education?

Do you think homosexuality is a sin and LGBT folks can't get married?

Are you here to evangelize?

 

If you said yes to any of these, then this 4th question is also for you:

If you were living in the time of Moses, would you follow the orders god gave him?

 

Heck no.

No, sin is not an action, it is an attitude. I have nothing against their marriage.

Nope. I'm here to discuss and debate. If you're aggressive, I will be aggressive. If you're respectful, I will be respectful. I came here because I want to keep the idea alive that some of us who are still Christians are reasonable people, and I wanted to discuss things with people who are no longer Christians. I'm a curious person too, you know.

 

You might wanna read the ToS, they're at the bottom of the page.  If you ever think you're justified in acting aggressive here, note this part especially:

 These forums exist for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave religion behind. It is not an open challenge to Christians to avenge what they perceive as an offense against their beliefs.

 

My family are xians and I would say they are reasonable people.  So I don't need your "witness".

 

I don't think xians are unreasonable, although individuals may be at times.  I just think that believing the god of the bible exists is a mistake.  It can't be supported by good reason or good evidence.  Not in a way that could convince me anyway.

[Roz]

I have no problems with this christian.  The red car analogy seems to fit judging by what he's saying so far, but as long as he doesn't try to impose his christian beliefs onto the public at large (IE: political action) then I really don't care what he believes.

 

I'll be reading the ensuing back and forth dialog, to see if the red car analogy is an accurate one.

 

Those biblical passages that are sadistic and just plain fucked up:  taken out of context / misquoted / are really allegorical

Those biblical passages that are nice, fluffy, and 2 steps shy of being sickeningly sweet:  they're ok

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o

[Roz]

PS:  I'm different from FTNZ in that I view all christians as unreasonable.  It's only a difference in the degree.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

PS:  I'm different from FTNZ in that I view all christians as unreasonable.  It's only a difference in the degree.

Yes, perhaps I should have defined the term... they are unreasonable in that having faith in a god flies in the face of reason.  Many (eg my family) are reasonably humane in an interpersonal sense.  Oh, except when it comes to abortion rights.  Almost all xians are not at all reasonable on that issue IMO.

[Roz]

Point taken.  I think we see eye to eye then. 

 

I think Wolo here is a reasonable guy, I'm curious what he thinks about the story of jesus aborting David and Bathsheba's kid, after it's been born.  I'll say no more than that.

[buffettphan]

Heck no.

No, sin is not an action, it is an attitude. I have nothing against their marriage.

Nope. I'm here to discuss and debate. If you're aggressive, I will be aggressive. If you're respectful, I will be respectful. I came here because I want to keep the idea alive that some of us who are still Christians are reasonable people, and I wanted to discuss things with people who are no longer Christians. I'm a curious person too, you know.

 

 

 

 

You might wanna read the ToS, they're at the bottom of the page.  If you ever think you're justified in acting aggressive here, note this part especially:

 

These forums exist for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave religion behind. It is not an open challenge to Christians to avenge what they perceive as an offense against their beliefs.[/size]

 

 

Now that we have a christian participating in this thread, I've moved it to Lion's Den to accommodate potential aggressiveness.  Rants Forum is for ranting against christianity, not for the Christians who happen in and try to explain it to us -- again.

[Wololo]

 

 

 

 

 

Ah, we need context. The Old Testament certainly gives a dark picture of God. Good thing there's the New Testament. They both require each other to make proper sense.

So you haven't read the bible then.  Really reading it, the whole thing, dark picture and all.

 

 

I know it inside and out. Interpretation is where people run into problems.

 

So does that mean you think the bible provides a moral framework for living?

 

Tell me this, and depending on your answer I will either treat you with civility or just throw you in with the other christians here.

 

Do you advocate the teaching of creationism in public education?

Do you think homosexuality is a sin and LGBT folks can't get married?

Are you here to evangelize?

 

If you said yes to any of these, then this 4th question is also for you:

If you were living in the time of Moses, would you follow the orders god gave him?

 

Heck no.

No, sin is not an action, it is an attitude. I have nothing against their marriage.

Nope. I'm here to discuss and debate. If you're aggressive, I will be aggressive. If you're respectful, I will be respectful. I came here because I want to keep the idea alive that some of us who are still Christians are reasonable people, and I wanted to discuss things with people who are no longer Christians. I'm a curious person too, you know.

 

You might wanna read the ToS, they're at the bottom of the page.  If you ever think you're justified in acting aggressive here, note this part especially:

 These forums exist for the express purpose of encouraging those who have decided to leave religion behind. It is not an open challenge to Christians to avenge what they perceive as an offense against their beliefs.

 

My family are xians and I would say they are reasonable people.  So I don't need your "witness".

 

I don't think xians are unreasonable, although individuals may be at times.  I just think that believing the god of the bible exists is a mistake.  It can't be supported by good reason or good evidence.  Not in a way that could convince me anyway.

 

Clearly you misunderstand what I mean by aggressive. I just made it clear I'm not here to evangelize. I'm not here to "save the lost". When I talk about aggressive, it means I'm not really the 'apologetics' type where I sit and just answer questions as though I have a weak position that constantly needs defending. It means that I'm comfortable asking questions of my own, some of which don't have easy answers. If you're going to be aggressive with me, I can return in kind. That's what I'm saying.

 

I also like to visit different forums in order to dispel some of the myths about Christians, and it does seem a lot of you have had a rough time with conservatives and evangelicals...as do those of us that are still believers. Just by reading through the posts here I can see that they have caused a lot of problems.

 

I'm here because of curiosity, and because I like to encourage people to think. My questions are going to differ from the fundamentalist questions.

[Wololo]

Unreasonable? Hahaha. Only if you require empirical evidence ONLY for the existence of something. There are a lot of unreasonable beliefs, and a lot of Christians don't think logically (which really is quite tragic). To paint us all with the unreasonable brush is not a reasonable conclusion. Why does the existence of something have to be based wholly on empirical evidence?

 

I do like the premise of the thread though. Fundies = no thinking. That would answer your question about them. They don't think, they just listen and lap it all up. I was raised to be a critical thinker, as everyone should be.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

I also want to add as a note that there should be a difference between informed faith and blind faith. Don't believe something that has absolutely no basis (or worse, has contradictions.)

I see what you attempting to distinguish, and I agree it should be done.  The word "faith" is a loaded word that has more than one definition.  Accordingly, it's use can easily cause confusion and miscommunication.  So, before adding adjectives to the word "faith", how about providing a working definition of the word "faith"?  There's the Biblical passage that is more or less a definition.  There's a few secular definitions.

 

 

Faith is something that should be better discussed. I like to use adjectives because it's a concept that has evolved over time and is based on context. Faith is simply confidence in things unseen. Blind faith is confidence in things that have no basis at all. It's believing in something where you can't 'see' anything but still believe.

 

Good.  Before we get to modifying the noun "faith" with the use of adjectives, a working definition of the word faith would be useful.  You claim the word "faith" simply means "confidence in things unseen" (your words).  That's fine.  However, that is not how the Bible defines "faith".  According to the Bible, faith is evidence of things unseen, not confidence of things unseen.  Faith itself, according to the Bible, is the substance of things hoped for, in short, wishful thinking.  It is the wishful thinking, once held as a thought by a believer, that acts as evidence (to whom is unclear) of unseen things.

 

I do agree that the amount of actual evidence which may support the believer's wishful thinking can vary from none, to very little to very much.  Once there is "much" or "very much" supporting evidence, the word "faith" is usually replaced with other words such as "trust" or "knowledge".  Here are two examples.

 

1)  My son has always done well in school.  He is taking a new class in history.  Instead of saying, "I have faith he will do well in the class", I would probably say, "I trust he will do well in the class" or "I think he will do well in the class" or "I would be surprised if he did not do well in the class".

 

2)  My wife is making a tofu stir fry for dinner.  It's almost ready.  Instead of saying, "I have faith that I will have a tofu stir fry for dinner tonight", I would say, "I'm having a tofu stir fry for dinner tonight."

 

My point is that the more evidence available makes the use of the word faith less and less likely in discourse and conversation.

 

Returning to the definition of faith, according to the Bible, it is the substance of things hoped for.  What is this "substance"?  Well, that would depend on what is believed.  In my two examples above, each is a mundane set of events that commonly occur in reality (i.e., son taking a class, having dinner).  In the case of many religious beliefs, it usually involves supernatural claims, such as creation of the universe by a particular agent, performance of miracles which violate the laws of physics, etc.  The actual evidence which supports this "substance" is invariably weak to non-existent.  This is where theists professing faith in such things and rational thinkers diverge.  The theist will expound his faith in the extraordinary claim.  The rational thinker will say, "I don't know", or "Please provide evidence supporting your claim".

 

As to attempting to equate the adherence to faith between a theist and a rational thinker, that is a cute parlor trick that does not take into account the different situations for use of the word.  For example, a rational thinker might say to a theist, "Your belief in God is based merely on faith", to which the theist might say, "Your belief in the Biological Theory of Evolution is based merely on faith."  Well, that attempt to equate the two is not quite right.  A rational thinker will more accurately state, "To me, the Biological Theory of Evolution is the best explanation of all of the relevant evidence."  It is not wishful thinking.  It is a conclusion based on the inferences from examination of the evidence.  Indeed, the rational thinker would likely go on to say, "If I can surmise a better explanation from the same evidence, I will discard the earlier explanation." 

 

In trying to answer the question of why a person would maintain (religious) faith when the substance of that (religious) faith is tenuous, unlikely, improbable, or even impossible, the best I have come up with is the psychological and emotional needs of the believer require him to maintain the (religious) faith.  My layperson research into this area reveals that the underlying causes of the psychological and emotional needs include (i) childhood indoctrination by trusted adults, (ii) peer pressure from family, friends and people with similar psychological and emotional needs, (iii) fear and/or (iv) underdevelopment of critical thinking skills.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I want to specifically address miracles. I don't think there's anything supernatural about them. I just think that since Jesus is God, you'd think he would have a perfect understanding of natural mechanics. His edge over us is that he can manipulate the world because he knew how it worked. Water into wine? I'm sure he had a way of manipulating its chemical structure. Knowledge is power.

But he didn't know that boiling willow bark produces aspirin?  He didn't know that hand-washing and basic sanitation prevents many common diseases?  He didn't know that leprosy was caused by bacteria or that demon-possession was actually schizophrenia?  He didn't realize that most medicines are derivatives of chemical compounds commonly found in berries, roots, flowers, and herbs?  If he knew how things work, why did he not mention any of it.

 

Incidentally, does the name stevebennett mean anything to you?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Without the divinity of Jesus or the power of God, the easiest thing to say is magic, or perhaps coincidence causes such things. That's the typical response. The difficulty is that both of those things sound absurd, whether because of statistical improbability, or because magic is silly. What you end up with are two separate conclusions. 

If you are going to claim that the divinity of jesus is more statistically probable than magic or coincidence, then I'm going to need you to demonstrate the formula you are using to arrive at your probability, and show your work.  In essence, even if we assume that a god does exist, there is still no compelling reason, outside the bible (which is not evidence) to believe that jesus is that god.  So, please, at least support the claim that jesus' divinity is more statistically probable than magic.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

Generally when I'm studying any historical text, religious or otherwise, I use the historical-critical method. The Bible looks really silly and irrelevant in modern terms. You have to read it and think about it in its context. That means understanding the effects of language, culture, etc. Here's a small overview of how I look at the gospels. It would need to be fleshed out a lot more, but it's a general summary.

 

The gospels are the written testimonies of 4 people. They need to be considered as such. You have to get an understanding for who these people were, and what the experience was. Someone else posted a link to an article of some sort in another thread, and I felt it approached the gospels the wrong way. I don't look at them as the fulfillment of prophecy. Sure, you can look at it that way, but it does start to run into issues, because none of the writers were really focused on it (though Matthew comes the closest). It makes far more sense to view them as testimonies. They are the experiences of 4 different men. Their strength is in how well you can relate to them. They are also internally consistent (and saying that usually stirs up a hornet's nest.) To me there are very powerful and effective if approached the right way, but that's another topic for another thread.

 

I want to specifically address miracles. I don't think there's anything supernatural about them. I just think that since Jesus is God, you'd think he would have a perfect understanding of natural mechanics. His edge over us is that he can manipulate the world because he knew how it worked. Water into wine? I'm sure he had a way of manipulating its chemical structure. Knowledge is power.

 

How do I decide what to believe is literal? I ask myself...is this conceivable? Does it make sense? Are there problems? If so, I reevaluate. God himself said he wanted to reason with us, so I ask questions, and I criticize and discuss. My beliefs need to stand up to scrutiny or I won't hold them.

Yet you obviously don't hold the existence of your God to any evaluation or scrutiny, nor do you hold the claim that Jesus is God to any evaluation or scrutiny.  No doubt there are others.  To you, those are givens, axioms, assumed premises, etc.  You have, what I would call "religious faith" in those assertions.

 

Let's do a  simple experiment to test your rational thinking.  Presume, for the purposes of this short discussion that this God is purely imaginary, non-existent and emanates from ancient mythology.  Also assume this Jesus character is also an invented fiction.  Based on those presumptions, how would you evaluate, criticize and discuss the claimed miracles in the Bible?

 

 

I'm not sure that's a fair criticism. 

 

Sure it is.  A difference between us is the depth, width and content of our respective presuppositionalism.  Your's includes presuming existence of this God, this Jesus, among other things.  Mine does not.

 

My worldview probably does differ from yours, but that difference is not so much religious as it is philosophical. Most nonbelievers I have met won't even acknowledge anything but materialism. I am deeply neoplatonic, and that's where the difference lies. 

 

Please define "materialism".  Then define "reality".

 

I believe there is more than the physical (which quite easily lends itself to the concept of God), whereas you are likely materialist, which means you only go as far as things that are physical. We're arguing on different terms, which is where the issue lies. Religion is built on philosophy, so we should trace our differences to their roots.

 

Please study "emergent property".  Evidence reveals that certain combinations of matter and energy result in different, sometimes unique, properties that only that particular combination has.  For example, a certain combination of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen results in sugar, which has certain properties.  Another combination of the same elements results in alcohol, which has different properties.  A current scientific hypothesis is examining the question of whether consciousness is simply an emergent property of a sentient brain.

 

Without the divinity of Jesus or the power of God, the easiest thing to say is magic, or perhaps coincidence causes such things. That's the typical response. 

 

I have found that the easiest thing to say is "fiction" or "mythology".

 

The difficulty is that both of those things sound absurd, whether because of statistical improbability, or because magic is silly. 

 

Sure it is.  But "fiction" or "mythology"…not so much.

 

What you end up with are two separate conclusions. Either the people that witnessed it were deceived, or they are lying about something that did not happen. 

 

False dichotomy.  It could be fiction.  They could be mistaken.  It could be reported improperly, or reported with embellishment by others who were not witnesses in the first instance.

 

We can immediately rule out lying, because people don't go to gruesome deaths for something they know to be false. 

 

OK.

 

If they had fabricated it, they could have quite easily gotten away with just recanting and letting the whole thing slide. 

 

OK.

 

No, people went to the lions, and died horrible deaths in other places for their beliefs. Nobody that's lying does that. That would leave deception, except...where does it come from? Who's deceiving them? If we're disregarding the existence of Jesus, there is nobody to deceive them. So...unless you've got an answer for me, I'm not sure what would explain these things. I feel you won't agree with my premise about dying for things you made up, but that's how I would explain it. It doesn't work.

 

Your false dichotomy has sent you down a rabbit hole.  The underlying cause of your false dichotomy is your presuppositionalism.

 

The more important matter is that we have to agree on a philosophical basis if we're going to discuss.

 

Why do we have to agree before discussion?  I think we only need to understand each others' thoughts well enough to avoid miscommunication.

 

By the way, you neglected to take my little rational thinking test.  Here it is again:

 

 

"Let's do a  simple experiment to test your rational thinking.  Presume, for the purposes of this short discussion that this God is purely imaginary, non-existent and emanates from ancient mythology.  Also assume this Jesus character is also an invented fiction.  Based on those presumptions, how would you evaluate, criticize and discuss the claimed miracles in the Bible?"

 

 

 

[sdelsolray]

 

Without the divinity of Jesus or the power of God, the easiest thing to say is magic, or perhaps coincidence causes such things. That's the typical response. The difficulty is that both of those things sound absurd, whether because of statistical improbability, or because magic is silly. What you end up with are two separate conclusions. 

If you are going to claim that the divinity of jesus is more statistically probable than magic or coincidence, then I'm going to need you to demonstrate the formula you are using to arrive at your probability, and show your work.  In essence, even if we assume that a god does exist, there is still no compelling reason, outside the bible (which is not evidence) to believe that jesus is that god.  So, please, at least support the claim that jesus' divinity is more statistically probable than magic.

 

Nitpick:  The Bible is evidence.  How reliable it is as evidence is another question.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

You have faith in your beliefs, because you don't know they are certainly true (something I hope to show some of you as we go on.)  Posted yesterday at 10:33PM by Wololo on the thread Ten Things Christians Should Keep In Mind While Debating Atheists.

 

 

I just made it clear I'm not here to evangelize. I'm not here to "save the lost". 

 

I'm here because of curiosity, and because I like to encourage people to think. 

You can disguise your true purposes behind all the clever verbiage you would like; however, the first quote, which you posted yesterday, reveals your true motivation.  You are here to evangelize; that quote demonstrates it.

 

Now you would invite us to believe that you are here out of curiosity and to make people think.  You are clearly speaking out of both sides of your mouth, and are at cross purposes with yourself.

[thereisnoperfect]

Unreasonable? Hahaha. Only if you require empirical evidence ONLY for the existence of something. There are a lot of unreasonable beliefs, and a lot of Christians don't think logically (which really is quite tragic). To paint us all with the unreasonable brush is not a reasonable conclusion. Why does the existence of something have to be based wholly on empirical evidence?

 

I do like the premise of the thread though. Fundies = no thinking. That would answer your question about them. They don't think, they just listen and lap it all up. I was raised to be a critical thinker, as everyone should be.

What are you going to base a claim of existence on OTHER than empirical evidence?

 

And whatever that other kind of evidence is, do you think it should outweigh empirical evidence?

 

And while I'm asking you questions, it seems (but I want to be sure) that you still believe some conventional christian things:

* Do you think there is such a thing as perfect? Were humans ever perfect? Will they ever be perfect?

* Do you think that people will continue to exist after their physical death? If so, in what form? By what mechanism?

* If so, do people experience different "afterlives"? If so, how is that difference determined? Beliefs? Works? Something else?

* Do you think that Jesus was literally "born of a virgin"?

* Do you think Jesus physically returned to life after being dead?

* Do you think christianity is a superior worldview to others? More accurate, more useful, yields better "fruit" of whatever sort?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

Without the divinity of Jesus or the power of God, the easiest thing to say is magic, or perhaps coincidence causes such things. That's the typical response. The difficulty is that both of those things sound absurd, whether because of statistical improbability, or because magic is silly. What you end up with are two separate conclusions. 

If you are going to claim that the divinity of jesus is more statistically probable than magic or coincidence, then I'm going to need you to demonstrate the formula you are using to arrive at your probability, and show your work.  In essence, even if we assume that a god does exist, there is still no compelling reason, outside the bible (which is not evidence) to believe that jesus is that god.  So, please, at least support the claim that jesus' divinity is more statistically probable than magic.

 

Nitpick:  The Bible is evidence.  How reliable it is as evidence is another question.

 

I don't accept it as evidence as no one can authenticate its validity or veracity.