For the atheists

[geeser]

the logic of Jan "God must exist, because if he didn't, then there wouldn't be a God to disbelieve in, in the first place."

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

Of which you are one. Suffice it to say it is more apt to answer to why you believe as opposed to thinking you can answer for believers in general.

Have you asked other believers why the scriptures are believable?

Your indication is that you believe it because it contains truth - which is fine but does beg the question "what truth?"

But that is an entirely different question, would you agree?
It would be better for you to read a scripture, and decide for yourself if it contains "truth", or is it a pack of "lies".

Now, to "verify" that truth, (you did say verify), you pose that one should talk to a believer, but that is not verification - that is merely a believer asserting his belief that something is true - which is why I mentioned historians etc.

It may not be the only verification, but it is definately a verification, as in, it goes some way (at least) to answering the question.
Were you expecting a different answer?

The way you've worded it, (perhaps unintentionally), basically leaves us with the statement that people believe scripture is true because they believe it is true - which, while quite pertinent, doesn't really offer all that much.

That you percieve it as such, is of your own volition.
The statement "it contains truth", does not imply 'belief that it contains truth'.
Do you think they contain truth?
Out of interest, why do you think the scriptures are believable?

If it contains truth, then that is a reason why people believe.

Correction: If someone believes it contains truth then one believes it's true. That's basically what you've said.

That doesn't follow.
"Believing" that it contains truth, is not a necessary requirement, if something is true, ie. you do not need to believe that you are reading these words.
Also, you don't have to know a whole system, to understand a small part.
ie. you don't have to know how an engine works to drive a car responsibly.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

the logic of Jan "God must exist, because if he didn't, then there wouldn't be a God to disbelieve in, in the first place."

As a theist I will speak from the point of view of existence, it doesn't mean I think that God "must" exist. Just as you would speak from the point of view that God does not exist.

Jan.

 

[SnakeLord]

Have you asked other believers why the scriptures are believable?

Certainly. They usually pull the same circular nonsense that is witnessed by theists on this very forum.

"Why are scriptures believable?"

"Because it's god's word"

"Why do you believe a god exists?"

"Because it says so in this book"

But that is an entirely different question, would you agree?

To what? If someone says "it contains truth", the typical follow up question would be "what truth". So, what truth?

It would be better for you to read a scripture, and decide for yourself if it contains "truth", or is it a pack of "lies"

Been there, done that. I'm asking you.

Out of interest, why do you think the scriptures are believable?

Eh?

 

[grover]

The statement "it contains truth", does not imply 'belief that it contains truth'.

That is literally one of the dumbest comments I've ever heard anyone make.

 

[Enterprise-D]

The statement "it contains truth", does not imply 'belief that it contains truth'.

That is literally one of the dumbest comments I've ever heard anyone make.

insert Just. Wow. insert

Correct Grover.

Jan. If you assert a property of an object, it indeed implies that you think that said property is true.

Eg. "The car contains seats"...implies that I also believe that the car contains seats! "People post on Sciforums" implies that I also believe that humans are responsible for the text that appears on this website!

 

[geeser]

"People post on Sciforums" implies that I also believe that humans are responsible for the text that appears on this website!

yeh, but what about the animals and robots, they post too.

 

[Enterprise-D]

yeh, but what about the animals and robots, they post too.

PS that smiley wasn't my post, it was my dog's. She hijacked my account...

 

[geeser]

yeh my cat does the same.
is this your dog.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

Certainly. They usually pull the same circular nonsense that is witnessed by theists on this very forum.

"Why are scriptures believable?"

"Because it's god's word"

"Why do you believe a god exists?"

"Because it says so in this book"

There's another reason why they're believable.

To what? If someone says "it contains truth", the typical follow up question would be "what truth". So, what truth?

To the original question.
Find out for yourself what truth, then you'll know for sure.

Been there, done that. I'm asking you.

Then you know the answer.

Eh?

The scriptures are believable (maybe not by you), so why do you think this is so?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Correct Grover.

Jan. If you assert a property of an object, it indeed implies that you think that said property is true.

Eg. "The car contains seats"...implies that I also believe that the car contains seats! "People post on Sciforums" implies that I also believe that humans are responsible for the text that appears on this website!

The way you've worded it, (perhaps unintentionally), basically leaves us with the statement that people believe scripture is true because they believe it is true - which, while quite pertinent, doesn't really offer all that much.

That statement should have been taken in the context of the question.
It does not imply belief in the same way people believe in the scripture.
My statement read "they contain truth", not "i believe/think they contain truth.

Jan.

 

[Cris]

Ahh religious belief: Captured so nicely by The Wizard's First Rule (by Terry Goodkind) -

"People will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true."

 

[grover]

That statement should have been taken in the context of the question.
It does not imply belief in the same way people believe in the scripture.
My statement read "they contain truth", not "i believe/think they contain truth.

Jan.

And with this we come full circle yet again.

 

[iceaura]

And with this we come full circle yet again.

and a very tiny circle it is.

I wonder if God thought he had it foolproofed when he took their tails away completely ?

 

[SnakeLord]

To the original question.
Find out for yourself what truth, then you'll know for sure.

Are you playing games with me? What truth? Is is too hard for you to answer?

The scriptures are believable (maybe not by you), so why do you think this is so?

Because people want to. It gives some meaning to their pathetic little lives.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

Are you playing games with me? What truth? Is is too hard for you to answer?

Do your own work, decide for yourself.

Because people want to. It gives some meaning to their pathetic little lives.

Do the scriptures contain truth, or are just going to take the word of others?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Enterprise-D,

I'm supposed to believe this based on the fact that you believe it?

You can believe what you like, but if you want to know whether or not they contain truth, then find out for yourself. Its that simple.

I never said moderate theists can stop fundamentalists from overreacting. I just said moderate theists are (and have already) allowed for some societal protection from criticism.

I am not aware of this situation, but let's for argument say this is true. If the moderates didn't have this protection, how would the situation change?

Allow me to relay an example story. Here in my country, for a while, a largely unheard of christian sect made newsworthy media (a few years ago). One of the congregation members had caught his daughter masturbating. Both parents had taken her to the minister in charge, and the minister had the child (of twelve), publicly whipped...as was the recommended remedy by his religion.

Us sane people called for them to be jailed and the child placed in the care of social services. The Government however, had no choice but to allow this travesty to go without a response, since by law, religion is "protected from persecution by the Government". Of course, it was the moderate theists that called for such provisions to be included in anti-discrimination sections.

Do you have any information on this?

This sect further came into the spotlight by denouncing the Hindu religion, causing the Hindu leadership here to threaten "holy war" against any Christian sect who denounced Hinduism as paganism. The Government had no comment on the whole brou-ha-ha. (I do applaud however the Archbishop of mainstream Roman Catholicism for speaking out against violent behaviour...the one level-headed representative in the whole religious chaos.)

Hey that's two examples

You know more about these situations than I do. For me to comment I would have read up on it myself, as you have the tendency to slip into code red religious intolerence and hatred every now and again.

And yes, we're literally bursting at the seams with religion here.

To you, the fact that religion exists = bursting at the seems.

So tell me again why religion should be on a pedestal?

On a pedastal?

Simple. You make the assertion that scripture is absolute truth and (therefore) god exists.

Where have I made such an assertion?

Jan, your argument is illogical, and I request that you provide further and more convincing evidence other than your personal assertion.

Enterprise, you are using preset arguments. When I do not respond to your preset idea of God and religion, in the way your preset answers could be effective, you go ahead and use those answers anyway.

You already pointed it out that the virgins as a prize thing is in islamic scripture. You already know it, so I need not repeat it.

Where have I pointed this out? As far as I'm aware it is not in the scripture.
Anyway, please continue with your challenge, it's ever so cute.

I consistently said religion is a motivating factor in violent reaction.

A claim you cannot back up.

And I also said that violence would be less probably if religion were not involved.

That's not what you said, but this is an interesting statement.
You are directly equating religion and violence (despite the "probably" insertion). Please kindly explain how this would be so?

You are putting words in my pipe Jan, and I refuse to smoke your conclusions.

As you wish my dear sir.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Ahh religious belief: Captured so nicely by The Wizard's First Rule (by Terry Goodkind) -

"People will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true."

I think that fits atheism more than theism.

Jan.