Xtians: Reasons For Belief?

[bornagainathiest]

 

IH I'm genuinely puzzled as to how you could read The God Delusion, and still treat the issue like "complexity needs a creator". At least we have evidence, from science, that explains the complexity in the world. On the other hand, there is zero evidence for a creator. It shouldn't be about faith, it should be about evidence. Evidence points to natural causes for the universe and the life in it. I do appreciate your answering the question btw.

 

I understand that, like so many things in life, we don't always reach the same conclusions. I accept that.

 

And yes science does see and explains the complexities of the world. There is zero concrete evidence for a creator.

 

That is not faith. I agree.

 

I am just saying that when you get down to trying to explain how something came from nothing, we can't. Krauss makes

a brilliant attempt in his book, but he admits it cannot not be proved concretely.

 

What any of us thinks or believes is speculation. If we find an idea that clicks with us, we go with it, whatever the idea is in faith.

 

 

Then as a skeptic, you should be satisfied with not knowing the answer of our origins.

 

Taking a leap of faith, isn't something a skeptic does to get an answer when no concrete evidence is availible.  Therefore Ironhorse, you are NOT a skeptic.  Because you've made that leap of faith.

 

When I asked you what the antonym (opposite) of skepticism was, you replied, "Belief."

 

That is the correct answer.

You've shown the glaring contradiction in your position by answering, "Belief"

 

If you move from a position of skepticism WITHOUT concrete evidence, then you are no longer a skeptic.

 

Deal with it!

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

-When you start at square one and ask what is the origin of matter, It takes faith to answer it one way or another. 

Have you read "A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing" by physicist Lawrence Krauss?

 

No.  This is completely false.

You are falsely equating religious faith with the confidence scientists have in what they cannot measure, based upon what they can measure.  That is completely different.  Here's an example.

 

I don't live in an earthquake zone, but if I did, I'd pay very close attention to what the USGS has to say about the earthquake threat and the underlying geology of the region.  Yet, like all scientists, the USGS guys base their predictions on things they can measure and things they cannot directly measure.  They can measure the movement of tectonic plates relative to each other.  But they cannot directly measure the actual temperature and viscosity of the molten magma, twenty miles beneath our feet.

 

Nobody can.  It's impossible.  So what do they do?

They extrapolate from working models of the behavior of magma and base their predictions on that.  This is not an act of faith on their part.  It's not faith because they are fully ready to correct their models or even to discard them and work with new ones.  That's not something any religious person does.  In religion, faith pertains to things that will never be known in this life.  The religious person never expects to know the truth until they die or until Jesus returns, whichever happens first.  Their faith is untestable in this life.

 

Science is always testable, unlike religious faith.

Science will always change itself if the need arises, unlike religious faith, which cannot be verified this side of eternity.

Scientists do not have faith as religious people have faith and it's a dirty, scurrilous lie to suggest that they do.

 

What you saying here Ironhorse is totally false!

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

IH I'm genuinely puzzled as to how you could read The God Delusion, and still treat the issue like "complexity needs a creator". At least we have evidence, from science, that explains the complexity in the world. On the other hand, there is zero evidence for a creator. It shouldn't be about faith, it should be about evidence. Evidence points to natural causes for the universe and the life in it. I do appreciate your answering the question btw.

 

I understand that, like so many things in life, we don't always reach the same conclusions. I accept that.

 

And yes science does see and explains the complexities of the world. There is zero concrete evidence for a creator.

 

That is not faith. I agree.

 

I am just saying that when you get down to trying to explain how something came from nothing, we can't. Krauss makes

a brilliant attempt in his book, but he admits it cannot not be proved concretely.

 

What any of us thinks or believes is speculation. If we find an idea that clicks with us, we go with it, whatever the idea is in faith.

 

 

 

NO!  NO!  NO!

 

False!  Wrong!  Incorrect!

 

There is no religious faith involved in the quote below.

 

 

"All theories in physics predict some things which are directly amenable to experiment and some which aren't. For example, our theories of the stars predict things one could measure, like how brightly they will shine, and when they're going to go supernova. But they also predict things like the temperature at the center of the star, which we cannot measure directly. We accept these ideas, including their unobservable predictions, because they are the simplest way of explaining the things we can see within a consistent physical theory."

David Deutsch, 'The Ghost in the Atom' p.84. 

By P.C.W. Davies & J.R. Brown, Cambridge University Press.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Given that no amount of evidence sways you, I have to ask--why are you hanging out here with us heathens? It can't be to hear the evidence and have Bible contradictions pointed out...

 

Thanks for noticing that Orbit.  Your'e right. I'm not going to persuaded by other religions or belief systems.

 

But if scientists go with religious faith as you claim, then you consider science to be one of those other belief systems you're not going to be persuaded by?

 

So your mind is totally closed to science as well as all other religions.

 

Thanks for letting us know, Ironhorse.

 

 

I get more upset visiting some Christian forums where they keep babbling about junk that has nothing to do with the message of Jesus and the Christian faith. I watched a few hours of Jimmy Swaggart the other night going on and on about nothing. The man said nothing. He had all the cliches down, he tinkled the piano keys a few times, he had the crowds holding their hands up pleading for God to come down and do something.

 

I'm thinking you poor people, God's already done something! Why are you calling on him to come down? He's everywhere.

 

Why not try to actually go out of your little praise chapel and try doing what Jesus said to do. It ain't complicated.

 

I'm here in this forum because I really do like reading other people's views. I really do. It actually me learn things and understand why some have left the Christian faith.

 

When I found this site. I spent some time reading some threads and looking around. I could not believe that, as a Christian, I would be allowed to post in this forum. I'm thankful for that.

 

I'm here to stay. 

 

I'm not going to constantly intrude or start dozens of threads. I'm just here to respond when I can.

 

 

You're here to stay and respond when you can?

 

That includes answering all the questions you promised to respond to?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Christians:

Besides "faith", why exactly do you believe in Christianity? Do you have reasons for belief? What are they?

 

 

This earth and all the life it contains gives me concrete evidence that it has been designed. I can’t accept that all this brilliantly functioning life just randomly occurred.

If I filled a bucket with the twenty-five natural elements essential for life and stood by a sea shore tossing them into warm surf over and over from here to eternity; I don’t believe any life would ever develop.

That is my concrete reason I believe in God.

 

You are intentionally choosing ignorance over truth... And you are intentionally misrepresenting evolution in order to do so.

[Ravenstar]

"I'm here in this forum because I really do like reading other people's views. I really do. It actually me learn things and understand why some have left the Christian faith."

 

 

Nope, not seeing it… I have yet to witness any understanding on the part of IH. Or even, true open-mindedness. The cognitive dissonance is strong and the lack of basic science understanding is glaring.

 

Toss 25 elements together? Seriously.. go back to chemistry class.. elements REACT with one another in very predictable ways.. that's the basis of the elemental table.. and well, all of chemistry (including life  BIOchemistry). If Hydrogen did not act the way it does under the influence of gravity we would not have stars… or any other elements. If it didn't bond easily with oxygen we would not have water.. If oxygen didn't have the properties it does   ...rust would not exist. Etc… etc.. etc… It's BASIC physics and chemistry here.. not even the more complex stuff. Elementary GRADE level science.

 

I am disappointed with the education system.  

[Neverlandrut]

 

Orbit: I have read the "God Delusion"

 

 

mymistake: "We have learned from science exactly how fertilized eggs develop into lifeforms and no God was ever observed. And furthermore science has learned that if you tossed elements into the sea for eternity something else would happen. You choose ignorance but that isn't a reason."

 

-Yes, observational science shows much of how life works. I'm talking about what set up to wotk.

 

-I disagree that science has proved that putting elements together creates life. The last time I did a search for recent news, I did not find it.

 

 

Neverlandrut: We also have never witnessed a universe being designed and created, and have never interviewed a universe designer to learn how it's done."

 

Exactly no one saw it happened. That is why there is a point where observational science does not work. Why cant we agree on that fact. Whatever you want to believe is fine. I respect other points of view.

 

mymistake: "Instead why not answer like an educated person? We live in the 21st century. Biology is not a mystery."

 

-I am trying to answer as an educated person.

 

- I know year it is. Can you give me that much credibility?

 

-I never said biology is a mystery.

 

 

Neverlandrut: "Wrong!!! A leap of faith is NEVER required. Scientific theories are known with varying degrees of certainty, but faith is never used to fill the gaps, never."

 

-When you start at square one and ask what is the origin of matter, It takes faith to answer it one way or another.

Have you read "A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing" by physicist Lawrence Krauss?

 

 

sdelsoray: "Science does not do faith, and it doesn't believe. It asks questions, employs curiosity, forms hypotenuses, etc. It is perfectly comfortable saying, "I do not know"."

 

-I never said science does faith. It indeed inquires and asks questions. That's great. I'm fine with saying

I don't know. I'm saying that we you start ti theorize about the origin of matter....we don't know.

 

-I have decided that there is a God behind it all. That is my faith. Can I prove it? No.

No it absolutely does not take faith to answer that question! That is absolutely wrong, WRONG, WRONG! We either have a good idea or we do not! We don't take the hypothesis we like the best and run with it as truth based on little to no evidence. Science just simply does not do that. The universe from nothing idea is not well established. It is hypothetical at this point. Some scientists are fans of the idea, but they do not "have faith" it is true. They think (are of the amendable opinion that it may turn out to be true), but that is NOT faith. I get really burned up when dishonest people like you try to equate science with religious faith, saying that just like it takes faith to believe in god it takes faith to believe science. Nothing could be farther from the truth! That is equivocation fallacy, and a misrepresentation of science. It is absolutely incorrect! Apologists like yourself know this yet use that tactic anyway. I fight against what you are doing with the word faith because it is corrosive to the advancement of science. It leads people to believe that as long as an idea has a degree of plausibility, it is just as acceptable an explanation as anything else in science. That is wrong Iron Horse, and I think you damn well know it! I will call you out on this non-sense equivocation you make between science and faith every time I see it, because it is completely false equivocation. Nothing but an apologetic attempt to make science as uncertain as faith. It is no where near as uncertain as faith. In many, if not most cases, they are on polar opposite ends of the spectrum of certainty.

 

 

Faith is the wrong word IH. Not a matter of opinion. It is objectively the wrong word. Science never accepts an idea as true based on faith, never never never. That is the opposite of science. It does not take faith to answer the question of where the universe came from. We may have a pretty good idea that we cannot be completely sure of, but that is not the same thing as faith. Faith says, "I know this is absolutely true despite the fact there is no evidence." Faith and opinion are two different things IH. A scientist may favor a hypothetical explanation. He maybe hopeful it will turn out to be true. But it is not accepted as fact in the scientific community until it is supported by evidence that is tested, retested, and tested again to ensure that the same results and conclusions are reached. Then the result are put through peer review to ensure that the conclusion follows from the results. And then, maybe, maybe, maybe it will be accepted as a viable scientific explanation. Science uses evidence to arrive at the highest degree of certainty possible. Whatever it cannot be certain of. It simply says, "we don't know." It does not use faith to assert a more complete explanation.

 

Also your point that we have never witnessed a universe coming into being does not support your god conclusion in the least. It proves that your conclusion is completely unfounded! I'm glad you recognize this. What you have said shows very clearly that you understand that your faith is nothing more than wishful thinking. That's perfectly fine if you choose to hold on to your wishful thinking. But you delude yourself if you think you have good reason to accept it as positively true. You describe your faith like it is just your opinion (which it is, and you seem to recognize this), yet you assert your beliefs as if they are fact. This is contradiction.

IH, you ignored the above post!! I want your response. I want you stop asserting that uncertainty in science is the same as faith because that is absolutely, positively DEAD WRONG!! that is not my opinion. It is fact, dead wrong. I'm glad BAA is here calling you out on it as well. Because you and every other Christian who tries to equate scientific uncertainty with faith is completely incorrect. This tactic of yours is corrosive to science and is precisely the reason we have creatards trying to push creationism into science text books as an alternative to evolution. You know you are wrong about scientific uncertainty being the same as faith IH. I want you to admit it stop making that bullshit claim.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

 

IH I'm genuinely puzzled as to how you could read The God Delusion, and still treat the issue like "complexity needs a creator". At least we have evidence, from science, that explains the complexity in the world. On the other hand, there is zero evidence for a creator. It shouldn't be about faith, it should be about evidence. Evidence points to natural causes for the universe and the life in it. I do appreciate your answering the question btw.

I understand that, like so many things in life, we don't always reach the same conclusions. I accept that.

 

And yes science does see and explains the complexities of the world. There is zero concrete evidence for a creator.

 

That is not faith. I agree.

 

I am just saying that when you get down to trying to explain how something came from nothing, we can't. Krauss makes

a brilliant attempt in his book, but he admits it cannot not be proved concretely.

 

What any of us thinks or believes is speculation. If we find an idea that clicks with us, we go with it, whatever the idea is in faith.

 

NO! NO! NO!

 

False! Wrong! Incorrect!

 

There is no religious faith involved in the quote below.

 

 

"All theories in physics predict some things which are directly amenable to experiment and some which aren't. For example, our theories of the stars predict things one could measure, like how brightly they will shine, and when they're going to go supernova. But they also predict things like the temperature at the center of the star, which we cannot measure directly. We accept these ideas, including their unobservable predictions, because they are the simplest way of explaining the things we can see within a consistent physical theory."

David Deutsch, 'The Ghost in the Atom' p.84.

By P.C.W. Davies & J.R. Brown, Cambridge University Press.

Absolutely! Iron Horse. The above quote has nothing to do with faith. He admits that there are certain predictions we cannot know for sure are correct because we cannot make the measurements. We accept them because they fit with all of the other data we can measure and we can make the assumption it is true (tentatively) by deductive reasoning. But scientists still know that that prediction could be wrong. It's not "gospel truth" to them. They are saying, based on all the observable, verifiable data, the unseen X should be true. The day they measure something that proves it cannot be true, they will change their minds. Unseen X will no longer the the best explanation. This is NOT faith IH. You know it isn't. So stop saying it is.

[Vigile]

We used to have a poster around here with the tag line: "I believe because I want to."

 

I think that pretty much sums up every single possible xian argument/reason for their belief. 

 

After years of reading and watching debates, this is all any of them really have. 

[Geezer]

People believe because they've been brainwashed. Rational people would never take the bible seriously if they weren't.

[bornagainathiest]

All you resident fucks, bring the science. Until then, you are all like Roz, a blowhard that says absolutely nada.

 

We have.

 

You won't accept it.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So, I've finally gotten around to going back and reading this entire thread and I have to say:  If End3 is demonstrating his idea of grace, then I'm pretty sure we're all better off without it. 

 

End3 has expressed a great deal of anger and used some fairly unchristian language; Ironhorse has also admitted that he has the same anger End3 has (yet we are all "angry atheists").

 

These two people worship a god who told them in his book that they would be known by their fruit. 

 

Lurkers, especially those of you who still adhere to christianity, pay special attention to the fruit these guys are displaying here and ask yourself, "Is this really the best my religion has to offer?"

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

This is what happens in the mind of a christian when he's got no defense of his beliefs whatsoever. 

 

Mental breakdowns in an internet forum.

 

 

That my friend, is your opinion and not a fact.

 

end3 is doing alright in my opinion. 

 

End is being completely unnecessarily aggressive.

 

 

 

He's expressing himself. I can understand the anger. I have it also.

 

It's this puzzling thing here that no one here, or not many, accept our answers.

 

We keep getting hammered with PROVE IT! PROVE IT!

 

How many times do Christians have to say, WE CAN'T! Its our faith.

 

Can we not accept that? There's a ton of people now and all though history who have thrown this

bubblegum back and forth. There's no middle ground.

 

 

How many times do we Ex-Christians have to say, "We are skeptical Ex-Christians, so you can't present evidence for it - then we're not interested?"

[bornagainathiest]

 

Oh IH, there is nothing you can teach us about "the gospel" that we don't already know.  It is abundantly clear to me that we are more educated about xianity than you are.  You're not helping xianity, you're harming it.  But keep going, it makes no difference to me, nor I suspect to anyone else here.

 

And end, your behaviour is an example of what's wrong with xianity.  It doesn't make people more moral, it makes them less moral.

 

 

There's a lot about the good news of Jesus I don't know.

 

The mystery of it all is what is so exciting. I'm not hammering here, I'm dancing 

 

end3 is an example of a believer trying to point out deafness.

 

 

We are deaf to faith, not evidence!

 

Two different things.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Oh IH, there is nothing you can teach us about "the gospel" that we don't already know.  It is abundantly clear to me that we are more educated about xianity than you are.  You're not helping xianity, you're harming it.  But keep going, it makes no difference to me, nor I suspect to anyone else here.

 

And end, your behaviour is an example of what's wrong with xianity.  It doesn't make people more moral, it makes them less moral.

 

 

There's a lot about the good news of Jesus I don't know.

 

The mystery of it all is what is so exciting. I'm not hammering here, I'm dancing 

 

end3 is an example of a believer trying to point out deafness.

 

So, verbally abusing people and swearing at them is the new method of prosyletising?  You might wanna review that approach, it's unlikely to be effective.

 

 

You know that goes both ways here, like it does in the world.

 

Would you say verbally abusing Christians and swearing at them is a good method to discuss opposing views?

I know it's a good tactic used here often to drive Christians away.

 

end3 was taking a stand. 

 

He wasn't asking anyone to agree with him, He was just giving a shout out about waking up and to actually read what members

are saying. Not just keep firing back the same accusations all the time.

 

Can i say it again?

 

No, I can't prove anything about Jesus in a scientific way. So, what? If I'm a fool, then I'm a fool.

 

Can't we get beyond this PROVE IT thing?

 

 

Can't we get beyond this FAITH thing?

 

Where's your evidence, Ironhorse?

[bornagainathiest]

 

No, we can't get beyond proof, ever. Therefore you're wasting your time here "witnessing" to us.

 

No, I don't think I'm wasting my time.

 

I posted a few time here in other forums where Christians can post. I quit doing that months ago.

 

I'm here in the Lion's Den. I expect aggressive resistance from some.

 

I choose to be here. No one forces me here.

 

 

But you do freely and willingly choose to break your promises, dodge questions and deliberately misrepresent science.

 

Nobody forces you to do these things, either.

[Guest end3]

 

 

Oh IH, there is nothing you can teach us about "the gospel" that we don't already know.  It is abundantly clear to me that we are more educated about xianity than you are.  You're not helping xianity, you're harming it.  But keep going, it makes no difference to me, nor I suspect to anyone else here.

 

And end, your behaviour is an example of what's wrong with xianity.  It doesn't make people more moral, it makes them less moral.

 

 

There's a lot about the good news of Jesus I don't know.

 

The mystery of it all is what is so exciting. I'm not hammering here, I'm dancing 

 

end3 is an example of a believer trying to point out deafness.

 

 

We are deaf to faith, not evidence!

 

Two different things.

 

You think you are deaf to faith...you just won't admit to using it because it doesn't provide you comfort.

[Guest end3]

 

All you resident fucks, bring the science. Until then, you are all like Roz, a blowhard that says absolutely nada.

 

We have.

 

You won't accept it.

 

Per our previous conversations, I'm not sure you know when you are practicing science.

[mymistake]

 

Per our previous conversations, I'm not sure you know when you are practicing science.

 

 

You get confused a lot.

[Guest end3]

So, I've finally gotten around to going back and reading this entire thread and I have to say:  If End3 is demonstrating his idea of grace, then I'm pretty sure we're all better off without it. 

 

End3 has expressed a great deal of anger and used some fairly unchristian language; Ironhorse has also admitted that he has the same anger End3 has (yet we are all "angry atheists").

 

These two people worship a god who told them in his book that they would be known by their fruit. 

 

Lurkers, especially those of you who still adhere to christianity, pay special attention to the fruit these guys are displaying here and ask yourself, "Is this really the best my religion has to offer?"

Perhaps I won't make it through the gate. The OP asked the question. Regardless of the answer, it wouldn't be ok. No one here actually wants to discuss. It's just rather ugly. And when someone discusses a scientific approach, many are so ignorant of the method, it's useless to have a decent conversation. At least a few very educated men have left Ex C because of this very lack of respect. You don't fall into their class, so I expect you will fall into the group of angry residents.....which I have already alluded that you were doing and you continue to fall further into this stupidity. But if it makes you feel good as a person, carry on. I personally think you are different.

[Guest end3]

 

Per our previous conversations, I'm not sure you know when you are practicing science.

 

You get confused a lot.

 

No, when we broke it down into tiny steps at BAA's pace, it was rather evident the result.

[Orbit]

 

So, I've finally gotten around to going back and reading this entire thread and I have to say:  If End3 is demonstrating his idea of grace, then I'm pretty sure we're all better off without it. 

 

End3 has expressed a great deal of anger and used some fairly unchristian language; Ironhorse has also admitted that he has the same anger End3 has (yet we are all "angry atheists").

 

These two people worship a god who told them in his book that they would be known by their fruit. 

 

Lurkers, especially those of you who still adhere to christianity, pay special attention to the fruit these guys are displaying here and ask yourself, "Is this really the best my religion has to offer?"

Perhaps I won't make it through the gate. The OP asked the question. Regardless of the answer, it wouldn't be ok. No one here actually wants to discuss. It's just rather ugly. And when someone discusses a scientific approach, many are so ignorant of the method, it's useless to have a decent conversation. At least a few very educated men have left Ex C because of this very lack of respect. You don't fall into their class, so I expect you will fall into the group of angry residents.....which I have already alluded that you were doing and you continue to fall further into this stupidity. But if it makes you feel good as a person, carry on. I personally think you are different.

 

The OP specifically asked for REASONS you believe, BESIDES faith. None have been offered.

[mymistake]

 

 

Per our previous conversations, I'm not sure you know when you are practicing science.

 

You get confused a lot.

 

No, when we broke it down into tiny steps at BAA's pace, it was rather evident the result.

 

 

 

              

 

Pics or it didn't happen.

[Guest end3]

And Prof,

 

As I said before, Grace would be the culmination, the end of the race. As it is, I am adequately lost. So having Grace for people sometimes is more than I can muster.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

Perhaps I won't make it through the gate. The OP asked the question. Regardless of the answer, it wouldn't be ok. No one here actually wants to discuss. It's just rather ugly. And when someone discusses a scientific approach, many are so ignorant of the method, it's useless to have a decent conversation. At least a few very educated men have left Ex C because of this very lack of respect. You don't fall into their class, so I expect you will fall into the group of angry residents.....which I have already alluded that you were doing and you continue to fall further into this stupidity. But if it makes you feel good as a person, carry on. I personally think you are different.

 

Read the Lion's Den Rules that I helpfully posted for you here yesterday.  This is an Ex-Christian forum.  We don't have to "respect" beliefs based on faith not evidence.  And, when it comes to ugliness and anger, you are in no position to judge anyone.  If we are so hopelessly angry and disrespectful, why do you stay?