My religious philosophy, based completely on logic:
- Thread starter YoungWriter
- Start date
"Let me try to make this clear for everybody- I do not think there is a god. If evidence were to be presented (such as direct contact) I would change my mind. This doesn't mean I am unsure in my belief...it is just being open-minded."
--------------------------------------------------------
Not 'thinking' that God doesn't exist don't make it true. Christians have an abundance of evidence, however, you simply choose not to accept the evidence. As far as direct contact, if you had any knowledge of His Word (the Bible), you would be content with the evidence that already abounds in this world and you could experience Him through prayer. Open-minded? Hardly. This would suggest that you are objectively examining the evidence supporting God's existence, which of course, you are not, based on your need for 'direct contact'.
><>
--------------------------------------------------------
Not 'thinking' that God doesn't exist don't make it true. Christians have an abundance of evidence, however, you simply choose not to accept the evidence. As far as direct contact, if you had any knowledge of His Word (the Bible), you would be content with the evidence that already abounds in this world and you could experience Him through prayer. Open-minded? Hardly. This would suggest that you are objectively examining the evidence supporting God's existence, which of course, you are not, based on your need for 'direct contact'.
><>
Which I'm sure you will be so good as to cite.
Anyways, athiesm is like good poetry. It means different things to different people. And what's wrong with that? Is Catholicism necessarily invalid because there are varying interpretations of the Trinity?
Of course, this is irrelevent. Christians will continue to use poor and invalid definitions of athiesm in order to continue the fiction that it is in any way rational to believe in God. If they had to actually examine what athiesm is, they might find their faith in their God somewhat challenged.
Since faith is such a precarious thing, they will necessarily respond by burying their heads up their collective arses and attacking anyone who threatens this state.
Inspector,
You are assuming that I know nothing about religion or the bible. Is that how you handle someone that doesn't agree with you? Assume that they are ignorant of the issue? Makes it easier for you to avoid thinking about it, huh?
I was raised in a devout catholic family. I know the bible well. I was an alter boy throughout my teenage years. I have seen all the 'evidence'.
-fc
You are assuming that I know nothing about religion or the bible. Is that how you handle someone that doesn't agree with you? Assume that they are ignorant of the issue? Makes it easier for you to avoid thinking about it, huh?
I was raised in a devout catholic family. I know the bible well. I was an alter boy throughout my teenage years. I have seen all the 'evidence'.
Yes, I think the evidence is lacking.
I have objectively examined the evidence, why would you think I haven't? I said 'such as' direct contact. All I need is evidence that would lead me to believe. This is because I am a rational thinker. Religion asks that you believe without evidence. It is irrational. Funny how people stooped in religious dogma can say a free-thinker is not open minded. Hah what a joke.
-fc
"Christians will continue to use poor and invalid definitions of athiesm in order to continue the fiction that it is in any way rational to believe in God."
---------------------------------------------------------------
What is YOUR definition of atheism, in your own words? Do you know God does not exist? Or, do you 'lack belief' in God?
"If they had to actually examine what athiesm is, they might find their faith in their God somewhat challenged."
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Christian's faith is challenged every day on our fallen planet, but yet, this has nothing to do with the fallacy of atheism.
"Religion asks that you believe without evidence. It is irrational."
------------------------------------------------------------------
By your definition, atheism would likewise be irrational. Atheism, like Christianity, requires faith. To believe is an action. To disbelieve is also an action.
"All I need is evidence that would lead me to believe."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence is abundant. However, your presuppositions will not allow you to OBJECTIVELY and accurately examine the evidence. Think about it.
"Funny how people stooped in religious dogma can say a free-thinker is not open minded."
----------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing wrong with free-thinking or open-mindedness. I have doubts every day regarding my faith. However, I continue having faith because I long for the resolution of the plot, among thousands of other reasons. BTW, I forever cannot remember who said this, but I think it describes most honest Christians: "I both believe and disbelieve a hundred times an hour, which keeps believing nimble."
"I was raised in a devout catholic family. I know the bible well. I was an alter boy throughout my teenage years."
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the arrogance of my youth I, too, was a non-believer. Sorry to hear about your apostization. I hope you come back to your faith in Christ someday, soon.
><>
---------------------------------------------------------------
What is YOUR definition of atheism, in your own words? Do you know God does not exist? Or, do you 'lack belief' in God?
"If they had to actually examine what athiesm is, they might find their faith in their God somewhat challenged."
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Christian's faith is challenged every day on our fallen planet, but yet, this has nothing to do with the fallacy of atheism.
"Religion asks that you believe without evidence. It is irrational."
------------------------------------------------------------------
By your definition, atheism would likewise be irrational. Atheism, like Christianity, requires faith. To believe is an action. To disbelieve is also an action.
"All I need is evidence that would lead me to believe."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evidence is abundant. However, your presuppositions will not allow you to OBJECTIVELY and accurately examine the evidence. Think about it.
"Funny how people stooped in religious dogma can say a free-thinker is not open minded."
----------------------------------------------------------------
There is nothing wrong with free-thinking or open-mindedness. I have doubts every day regarding my faith. However, I continue having faith because I long for the resolution of the plot, among thousands of other reasons. BTW, I forever cannot remember who said this, but I think it describes most honest Christians: "I both believe and disbelieve a hundred times an hour, which keeps believing nimble."
"I was raised in a devout catholic family. I know the bible well. I was an alter boy throughout my teenage years."
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the arrogance of my youth I, too, was a non-believer. Sorry to hear about your apostization. I hope you come back to your faith in Christ someday, soon.
><>
inspector:
My personal athiesm is this: I don't believe in God.
There is no reason to believe in God, and no evidence He exists. There's no benefit to believing, and I have a soul that has never known how to be servile in the face of power. Thus I cannot worship a God unworthy of me.
Now, you've promised "evidence". I was good enough to explain my athiesm to you, be good enough to show this evidence to me.
My personal athiesm is this: I don't believe in God.
There is no reason to believe in God, and no evidence He exists. There's no benefit to believing, and I have a soul that has never known how to be servile in the face of power. Thus I cannot worship a God unworthy of me.
Now, you've promised "evidence". I was good enough to explain my athiesm to you, be good enough to show this evidence to me.
inspector,
I hope you see the light someday and free yourself...
-fc
So both are irrational? Perhaps you are agnostic after all. I believe rationality to be reason and logical thinking based on evidence and facts. In this respect I consider theism irrational and atheism rational.
Who do you think is more likely to have presuppositions, you or me? Who do you think is more likely to be subjective vs. objective? I have cast away all fear and pressure society imposes on us. I have come to my own conclusions, how have you come to yours?
This is fine, however realize this is the ultimate in subjectivity. I say this in light of your 'OBJECTIVELY' comment above...
Classic. You assume I am "young and dumb". Not that age has anything to do with this conversation, but I am not exactly in my youth hah! However, in the arrogance of my youth I was a believer. I was easily filled with fantasy and stories and wishfull thinking. But, I grew up and learned how to think rationally. And that has made all the difference!
I hope you see the light someday and free yourself...
-fc
Nope. There is no proof at all that jesus lived.
"So both are irrational?"
----------------------------------
By your definition, yes.
"I have come to my own conclusions, how have you come to yours?"
-----------------------------------
Obviously, or I wouldn't be wasting my time with you.
"But, I grew up and learned how to think rationally."
-------------------------------------
I'll buy the 'grew up' part.
"I hope you see the light someday and free yourself..."
--------------------------------------
I have, and He is wonderful. Good luck in your journey, my friend.
"There is no reason to believe in God, and no evidence He exists."
----------------------------------------
You cannot say that there is NO evidence of God since it would require that you know and have had seen ALL evidences supporting His existence from past, present and future. Since this is impossible for you, your statement that there is NO evidence supporting God is illogical, opinionated and, therefore, invalid. Try again.
><>
----------------------------------
By your definition, yes.
"I have come to my own conclusions, how have you come to yours?"
-----------------------------------
Obviously, or I wouldn't be wasting my time with you.
"But, I grew up and learned how to think rationally."
-------------------------------------
I'll buy the 'grew up' part.
"I hope you see the light someday and free yourself..."
--------------------------------------
I have, and He is wonderful. Good luck in your journey, my friend.
"There is no reason to believe in God, and no evidence He exists."
----------------------------------------
You cannot say that there is NO evidence of God since it would require that you know and have had seen ALL evidences supporting His existence from past, present and future. Since this is impossible for you, your statement that there is NO evidence supporting God is illogical, opinionated and, therefore, invalid. Try again.
><>
Inspector,
The person who could present evidence that convincingly showed the existence of a god beyond any reasonable doubt would of course be the most famous person in the history of mankind. No such person appears to have come forward. An alternative is that such a person exists and is keeping it secret, in which case we wouldn’t know about it. But if evidence is not placed on the table for examination then the table remains bare – i.e. there is no evidence available for consideration.
Here I make the distinction between potentially existing evidence and evidence that has been presented or made available. Essentially potential evidence is clearly not evidence and can’t be considered, or rather must be considered non-existent for the purposes here.
You may feel that evidence exists and many have made claims of evidence, but claims of evidence are not the same as actual evidence. You have stated here that there is plenty of evidence but atheists do not accept it. Your conclusion seems to be that atheists are NOT PREPARED or DON”T WANT to accept such evidence. But why wouldn’t they? If your god is as good as you say then surely everyone would love to have such a benefactor, that would certainly be true for me. But clearly that isn’t happening because the claimed evidence has not convinced them.
In a court of law, for say a case of murder, there are two sides both usually fiercely skeptical of their opponent’s claims. The one thing that breaks the argument is evidence that is convincing beyond any reasonable doubt. Surely the evidence for the alleged most powerful being and creator of the universe must also be beyond any reasonable doubt. Even the fiercest of opponents concede defeat in the face of such evidence.
So your argument that atheists won’t accept any evidence no matter what you present is more to do with your inability to present any real convincing evidence than the perceived stubbornness of highly skeptical atheists.
It must be reasonable to assume that if any theist actually had real convincing evidence then he or she would be extremely eager to present their case and be able to stupefy all atheists in a single stroke. This clearly hasn’t happened. And we all know that theists would dearly love to thwart all their objectors. So with such eagerness we can only conclude that such evidence has not been presented because there is no such evidence.
There is no onus on the atheist to check all potential theist claims. It is the theist who wants to convince others of their claims. If theists have not presented or made aware any devastatingly convincing evidence then it is clearly reasonable to conclude that in such absence there is no evidence available.
In this light it is perfectly logical for the atheist to state with significant certainty that there is NO evidence of God.
Note that it does not take numerous occurrences of evidence to show the existence of a god, just one will do fine. If you believe the atheist assertion is incorrect then you can very easily prove him or her wrong by presenting your convincing evidence.
I doubt many, if any of us will hold our breath since theists have been trying this for thousands of years and no one has come close.
Cris
You have said this a number of times now, and while you may be technically correct I think you miss the wider issue and that makes your accusation absurd.
The person who could present evidence that convincingly showed the existence of a god beyond any reasonable doubt would of course be the most famous person in the history of mankind. No such person appears to have come forward. An alternative is that such a person exists and is keeping it secret, in which case we wouldn’t know about it. But if evidence is not placed on the table for examination then the table remains bare – i.e. there is no evidence available for consideration.
Here I make the distinction between potentially existing evidence and evidence that has been presented or made available. Essentially potential evidence is clearly not evidence and can’t be considered, or rather must be considered non-existent for the purposes here.
You may feel that evidence exists and many have made claims of evidence, but claims of evidence are not the same as actual evidence. You have stated here that there is plenty of evidence but atheists do not accept it. Your conclusion seems to be that atheists are NOT PREPARED or DON”T WANT to accept such evidence. But why wouldn’t they? If your god is as good as you say then surely everyone would love to have such a benefactor, that would certainly be true for me. But clearly that isn’t happening because the claimed evidence has not convinced them.
In a court of law, for say a case of murder, there are two sides both usually fiercely skeptical of their opponent’s claims. The one thing that breaks the argument is evidence that is convincing beyond any reasonable doubt. Surely the evidence for the alleged most powerful being and creator of the universe must also be beyond any reasonable doubt. Even the fiercest of opponents concede defeat in the face of such evidence.
So your argument that atheists won’t accept any evidence no matter what you present is more to do with your inability to present any real convincing evidence than the perceived stubbornness of highly skeptical atheists.
It must be reasonable to assume that if any theist actually had real convincing evidence then he or she would be extremely eager to present their case and be able to stupefy all atheists in a single stroke. This clearly hasn’t happened. And we all know that theists would dearly love to thwart all their objectors. So with such eagerness we can only conclude that such evidence has not been presented because there is no such evidence.
There is no onus on the atheist to check all potential theist claims. It is the theist who wants to convince others of their claims. If theists have not presented or made aware any devastatingly convincing evidence then it is clearly reasonable to conclude that in such absence there is no evidence available.
In this light it is perfectly logical for the atheist to state with significant certainty that there is NO evidence of God.
Note that it does not take numerous occurrences of evidence to show the existence of a god, just one will do fine. If you believe the atheist assertion is incorrect then you can very easily prove him or her wrong by presenting your convincing evidence.
I doubt many, if any of us will hold our breath since theists have been trying this for thousands of years and no one has come close.
Cris
Inspecter:
One last time, what evidence do you have that God exists?
I note that if you are a Christian, you are ethically and religiously obligated to share it with us sinners, so that we would be able to realize our error and come back to Jesus.
Apparently, you want our souls to burn forever in the firey pits of hell.
One last time, what evidence do you have that God exists?
I note that if you are a Christian, you are ethically and religiously obligated to share it with us sinners, so that we would be able to realize our error and come back to Jesus.
Apparently, you want our souls to burn forever in the firey pits of hell.
Inspector: Would you please stop it? You're getting annoying.
FYI, I'm Catholic. It isn't the best religion, but its values are good, and there isn't another one out there that comes closer for my beliefs.
The Bible is not an extremely accurate source, as far as history goes. The reason is because these stories were passed down from word of mouth.
Ever played the game "telephone?" Where one person starts a message, and it goes on till the last person. Notice how much it changes?
Then you have the Bible. It has many historically accurate statements, but many are shrouded in mystery, or just aren't true.
Never take the Bible, or any religious literature, word for word.
That is one of the worst thing any person of any religion can do.
Eyewitness accounts goes into what is known as word of mouth.
YoukilledJesus: Then by your logic, there is no proof that Julius Caesar existed either.
fadingCaptain: You are describing an agnostic, which, in my opinion, ranges. It can be someone who doesn't believe in a god, but would change if s/he was convinced. Or it could be a person struggling with their religion.
FYI, I'm Catholic. It isn't the best religion, but its values are good, and there isn't another one out there that comes closer for my beliefs.
The Bible is not an extremely accurate source, as far as history goes. The reason is because these stories were passed down from word of mouth.
Ever played the game "telephone?" Where one person starts a message, and it goes on till the last person. Notice how much it changes?
Then you have the Bible. It has many historically accurate statements, but many are shrouded in mystery, or just aren't true.
Never take the Bible, or any religious literature, word for word.
That is one of the worst thing any person of any religion can do.
Eyewitness accounts goes into what is known as word of mouth.
YoukilledJesus: Then by your logic, there is no proof that Julius Caesar existed either.
fadingCaptain: You are describing an agnostic, which, in my opinion, ranges. It can be someone who doesn't believe in a god, but would change if s/he was convinced. Or it could be a person struggling with their religion.
Lemme help. The Christian church teaches (as well as Jesus, Jews) that we are all sinners.
Maybe a slight use of the phrase.
There is no scientific (physical) evidence of the existence of any god.
There is certainly evidence, but not nearly enough for it to become a fact.
And of course, all evidence is up to debate. Just like with UFOs, for every outcome, there is one that may contradict it.
Youngwriter,
The temptation to claim a “god did it” when something cannot be explained is the mark of an undisciplined mind. It is nothing more than idle imaginative speculation.
No that is still incorrect. There are certainly many claims of evidence but none have successfully linked their claims to a god. At best there is evidence of phenomena that cannot be explained, that doesn’t point to a god but simply that we have no explanation.
The temptation to claim a “god did it” when something cannot be explained is the mark of an undisciplined mind. It is nothing more than idle imaginative speculation.
Ya know, I like your phrasing better.
Jenyar,
Very good post!
Very good post!
Christianity is not based on evidence
I guess that depends on what you would consider "contradictory evidence" - does completely missing evidence count as "contradictory evidence"? The only secular evidence of Jesus' existence was from sources that were not contemporary with Jesus - in other words, hearsay. Not to mention that some of the "evidence" was obviously manufactured (e.g., the Josephus writings).
No, the only "evidence" of Jesus' existence is in the bible, but even that can be used to prove that Jesus wasn't the long-awaited Jewish Messiah (either that, or that the bible is not inerrant). It is my firm belief (based on my experience with Christian Fundamentalists) that Christians are deluding themselves, and that they actually want to be deluded. I cannot fathom why, but there it is.
I guess that depends on what you would consider "contradictory evidence" - does completely missing evidence count as "contradictory evidence"? The only secular evidence of Jesus' existence was from sources that were not contemporary with Jesus - in other words, hearsay. Not to mention that some of the "evidence" was obviously manufactured (e.g., the Josephus writings).
No, the only "evidence" of Jesus' existence is in the bible, but even that can be used to prove that Jesus wasn't the long-awaited Jewish Messiah (either that, or that the bible is not inerrant). It is my firm belief (based on my experience with Christian Fundamentalists) that Christians are deluding themselves, and that they actually want to be deluded. I cannot fathom why, but there it is.
Thank you Truthseeker
Xev:
Mark 15:32
"Let this Christ,[ 15:32 Or Messiah] this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe."
Belief cannot come from people. Therefore neither can the evidence. You are not alone in your disbelief:
Mark 16:11
When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.
Luke 24:11
But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense.
The only people who did believe were the ones He chose for belief - His disciples - and even they didn't believe until they could touch Him. Even then, Jesus had to rebuke them because they did not believe what the people had told them. This is when Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." He knew that miracles could not replace the message - in those times people had miracles and proof of life, and still didn't believe.
That doesn't mean that it is harder to believe today; we are fortunate that God has chosen everybody for his kingdom. The obstacle for those who cannot believe isn't God, but Jesus (the "stumbling block" as he himself put it). Just as Jesus was visible then, and is invisible now because He is with God - the obstacle is the visible, not the invisible. The law, not the spirit of truth.
John 4:22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
John 6:36
But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
The Jews believe they are saved by upholding Biblical laws, and that the Messiah will create a kingdom on earth. They didn't recognise their messiah because they couldn't accept His message. Paul used to persecute 'the followers of the Way'.
John 6:40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
41At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?" 43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
You won't be drawn in by any proof if that proof is not God, neither by miracles or a convincing argument. You can be drawn in by recognising Jesus and the message of the Bible as a reality with a history and a future, that He died for us and has prepared a place for us in heaven. No, you won't burn in hell, that is the good news (gospel) of the Bible, after all. Won't it be a miracle if you believed even that?
Xev:
Mark 15:32
"Let this Christ,[ 15:32 Or Messiah] this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe."
Belief cannot come from people. Therefore neither can the evidence. You are not alone in your disbelief:
Mark 16:11
When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.
Luke 24:11
But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense.
The only people who did believe were the ones He chose for belief - His disciples - and even they didn't believe until they could touch Him. Even then, Jesus had to rebuke them because they did not believe what the people had told them. This is when Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." He knew that miracles could not replace the message - in those times people had miracles and proof of life, and still didn't believe.
That doesn't mean that it is harder to believe today; we are fortunate that God has chosen everybody for his kingdom. The obstacle for those who cannot believe isn't God, but Jesus (the "stumbling block" as he himself put it). Just as Jesus was visible then, and is invisible now because He is with God - the obstacle is the visible, not the invisible. The law, not the spirit of truth.
John 4:22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
John 6:36
But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.
The Jews believe they are saved by upholding Biblical laws, and that the Messiah will create a kingdom on earth. They didn't recognise their messiah because they couldn't accept His message. Paul used to persecute 'the followers of the Way'.
John 6:40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
41At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?" 43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
You won't be drawn in by any proof if that proof is not God, neither by miracles or a convincing argument. You can be drawn in by recognising Jesus and the message of the Bible as a reality with a history and a future, that He died for us and has prepared a place for us in heaven. No, you won't burn in hell, that is the good news (gospel) of the Bible, after all. Won't it be a miracle if you believed even that?
The only evidence? The Bible is a collection of manuscripts with a common message. And there are many manuscripts. If the same amount of manuscripts were available about any other event in history nobody would have reason to doubt it, and they would have been able to see where manuscripts deviated from the mainstream account. What reasons do you have to doubt the Bilical texts? How does the Bible prove that Jesus wasn't the Jews' messiah? That is probably also the reason why you cannot understand why Christians follow Jesus.