The Problem with Religious Moderates

[HuskersNow]

 

Let me re-write your paragraph for you.

What makes your paragraph more right than mine other than your belief system?

I don't assume. I haven't seen any evidence that can stand up to any scrutiny.

 

Have you personally verified those scientific claims? No, you're relying on faith that the observations and testimony of others is factual. Scientific studies and theories are disproven all of the time; many of the things that people of previous generations held true have been disproven by our generations. What of this generation that has been accepted as truth will be disproven by future generations? Science is only a collection of flawed human observation, logic and reasoning. Does that mean I reject all scientific theory? No, it's pretty obvious that they have several general ideas. But carbon dating and other scientific methods rely completely on faith that the scientists are right. How can you claim truth in dating an object as thousands of years old by a technique that is only 60-65 years old?

What claims? I was writing about how some philosophers and scientists insist that there is no evidence for the existence of God. You're putting words in my mouth.

 

Science is not a collection of flawed reasoning. Some theories around today will stand the test of time and some won't. That's the nature of the beast. I don't rely on faith that science is right, I look at evidence. Science does not rely on faith as you claim, but evidence. New evidence can come to light that puts current theories to doubt, unlike religion where ideas can never be doubted otherwise you could get ostracized. The fact that carbon dating methods are only decades old has nothing to do with their validity. The amount of Carbon-14 in a material is a large factor in determining the age of said material.

 

 

Why are people who observed and documented the life of Christ less reliable than philosophers other than the fact you don't agree with them? What exactly has science proven beyond theories? While it's neat that we can study things like gravity, how has it improved human existence? Human's still die and scientists still can't prove what happens after people die. Sure, you may live a few years longer, and you may have a little more knowledge, but people want to know what happens to them when they die. Science and religion are on equal footing here, as neither can prove what happens to our existence when we die. Anything that claims to is just a theory that cannot be proven or disproven in this world.

Because their accounts are contradictory. Matthew and Luke give two different genealogies of Jesus in their books. You're exactly right, religion can't prove what happens after we die.

 

 

 

 

 

You are making the assumption that bad and good are mutually exclusive. I find no fault with your statement; men can be both good and bad. But where does the concept of good and bad come from? It’s from our beliefs systems, or religion, or whatever label you prefer.

Where did the concept of good and bad originate from? I don't know, but I'm guessing that it is thousands of years old. I think people decide for themselves what is good and bad, but that there is no objective good and bad in the universe.

 

 

Yes, I believe that God had to have had a beginning to exist, but that doesn't mean I have to understand the beginning to believe in him.

So you don't understand why God exists but you believe blindly that he does?

 

 

 

If Atheism is making a claim that God does not exist, and basing it on evidence, that what is it other than a belief in that evidence? We convict people in courts based on evidence and testimony of a handful of people, and you are okay with that. Yet you reject the testimony of the people who witnessed Christ's life as blind faith. The same applies to all other religion, they are based on individual’s testimonies and evidence, and you just choose not to believe them. Yet you claim your evidence is the correct evidence, and everyone else is wrong. Explain to me again how that makes you any different than any other religious group?

Once again you are putting words in my mouth. When did I say that I am okay with convicting people based on evidence and testimony? Regardless if I do or do not believe that, you assume a great deal about what I haven't even written about on this board. Maybe I should just start making assumptions about you and then attacking your beliefs that I have no idea if you do believe or not. I don't believe in God because there is no reason to. If there is a good reason to, then I will.

 

Regarding the testimony of the people who supposedly witnessed Christ's life, how do you know that any of that is true? Do you believe the testimony from Mohamed's followers that he did all sorts of fantastical things through Allah?

 

What evidence am I claiming? I am saying that there is no evidence for God, thus I don't believe in him. It's really that simple. I'm assuming that you don't believe in intangible, invisible unicorns that live in our houses because there is no evidence for them.

 

 

And atheism is in the same boat; your "lack of belief" has never affected how you greet people or vote?

It does effect how I greet people and vote. It makes me less likely to harm others.

 

It's up to you what you believe, if you find comfort in ignoring the established systems than that's what you do. Pascal's theory does apply to all religion, and many people practice multiple belief systems to "cover their bases". Life is a game, and you pick something to follow, or pretend that you have a lack of belief in anything, that's your right. But the fact is you have to make a choice, you chose to reject everything, and that is your belief, which is my definition of religion (a system of beliefs).

I'm not pretending that I don't believe in God. I don't believe in him. I choose to reject unfalsifiable ideas. My rejection of unfalsifiable ideas is not a belief in something.

[HuskersNow]

I'm of the opinion that this conversation can't continue in any meaningful sense unless we agree on how to define harm in a quantifiable way, so any suggestions?

[knapplc]

I'm of the opinion that this conversation can't continue in any meaningful sense unless we agree on how to define harm in a quantifiable way, so any suggestions?

 

Harm has already been defined. It's up to you to show that the definition provided is untrue if you don't like it.

[HuskerNMO]

I don't assume. I haven't seen any evidence that can stand up to any scrutiny.

If you aren't assuming, why were your first two words "I assume"?

 

What claims? I was writing about how some philosophers and scientists insist that there is no evidence for the existence of God. You're putting words in my mouth.

 

Take any scientific claim, or the claims (or insistence of those philosophers). The same people who scream that there's no proof he does exist, cannot prove that he doesn't exist. If you believe God doesn't exist you are relying upon a faith that he doesn't exist unless you can find evidence that he doesn't.

 

Science is not a collection of flawed reasoning. Some theories around today will stand the test of time and some won't. That's the nature of the beast. I don't rely on faith that science is right, I look at evidence. Science does not rely on faith as you claim, but evidence. New evidence can come to light that puts current theories to doubt, unlike religion where ideas can never be doubted otherwise you could get ostracized. The fact that carbon dating methods are only decades old has nothing to do with their validity. The amount of Carbon-14 in a material is a large factor in determining the age of said material.

 

So if new evidence can "come to light" to disprove current theories, how are those theories not flawed? Obviously nobody in the scientific community has ever been ostracized.

 

What evidence are you relying upon in determining the existence or non-existence of God? Please show me, I'd love to see it. If you can't provide it (which you can't), then you are relying upon faith that he doesn't exist. Much like I can't prove that Jesus and the accounts in the bible aren't true because I wasn't there, carbon dating methods weren't there when the object was, so it's an assumption, belief or faith that it is correct.

 

Because their accounts are contradictory. Matthew and Luke give two different genealogies of Jesus in their books. You're exactly right, religion can't prove what happens after we die.

 

And science has never contradicted itself? You conveniently ignore the fact that science cannot prove what happens either.

 

Where did the concept of good and bad originate from? I don't know, but I'm guessing that it is thousands of years old. I think people decide for themselves what is good and bad, but that there is no objective good and bad in the universe.

 

At least you are admitting you're guessing. Good and evil find basis in religious and sociological theories; they are an attempt to explain things that are viewed as positive or negative with the human experience. I would think you would reject the notion of good and bad (or evil) since people can just decide for themselves.

 

So you don't understand why God exists but you believe blindly that he does?

 

I have no problem admitting that I rely upon the testimony of others and rely upon faith and have made my best guess as to which religion is right. You seem to have the issue with admitting that you rely upon faith as much as religious people do.

 

 

Once again you are putting words in my mouth. When did I say that I am okay with convicting people based on evidence and testimony? Regardless if I do or do not believe that, you assume a great deal about what I haven't even written about on this board. Maybe I should just start making assumptions about you and then attacking your beliefs that I have no idea if you do believe or not. I don't believe in God because there is no reason to. If there is a good reason to, then I will.

 

Regarding the testimony of the people who supposedly witnessed Christ's life, how do you know that any of that is true? Do you believe the testimony from Mohamed's followers that he did all sorts of fantastical things through Allah?

 

What evidence am I claiming? I am saying that there is no evidence for God, thus I don't believe in him. It's really that simple. I'm assuming that you don't believe in intangible, invisible unicorns that live in our houses because there is no evidence for them.

 

Switch the court system for your belief in science, or whatever it is you believe in. It was just an example, was I wrong? Since you are trying to out religion that is based on the evidence and testimony of others, I assume you are also out trying to change our justice system since it relies on the same principles?

 

You're claiming a lack of evidence for the existence of God, but ignoring the non-existence of evidence that shows that God doesn't exist. Because nobody can prove it to you, you don't believe, you take it on faith that he doesn't exist (no matter how you want to spin it).

 

It does effect how I greet people and vote. It makes me less likely to harm others.

 

Your belief and atheists in general vote for people that I don't agree with; which causes me emotional (mental) harm. It makes you no less likely to harm others, since you love evidence, show me evidence that you don't harm others with your beliefs. I'll be waiting.

 

I'm not pretending that I don't believe in God. I don't believe in him. I choose to reject unfalsifiable ideas. My rejection of unfalsifiable ideas is not a belief in something.

 

You believe that those ideas aren't true by the simple action of rejecting them. Faith and belief are behind every decision you make whether you like it or not.

[Husker_x]

jliehr,

 

Accusing an atheist of faith is a poor tactic for one simple reason––and it happens to be a reason that has to be clarified with everyone and their grandmother. Most atheists do not claim there is no god. HuskersNow is even more bold than I am when that he says there is no evidence for one so he does not believe in one. I myself qualify even that by saying I have never seen any evidence or heard any reason that would make believing in a deity reasonable. Show me the reason and if it holds I will accept your god hypothesis. Both myself and nearly every atheist I've ever come across (but not all of them) are simply at the position that you are with regard to Allah, or Santa, or fifth-dimensional reptilian aliens. You (and we) cannot claim to a certainty that they do not exist, but we do not believe in them either. Fundamentally I am in a position of not knowing.

 

Atheism comes with no set of beliefs, no church, no creed, and no statement of purpose. It is not a religion, and it does not require faith. It makes no statements about the origins of the universe, and it requires no adherence to any philosophical position, including but not limited to: skepticism, 'darwinism, rationalism', nihilism, etc, etc. You may see signs for atheist groups, or atheist picnics, or atheist ho-downs, but if you have any regard for intellectual honesty, you'll have to avoid the impulse to have an "Aha!" moment. They do not speak for me, and simply identifying their party and myself as atheist does not allow you to make a single statement about what we might as a group hold to (any more than you being an a-Santaist allows me to say anything about your opinions).

 

That being said, I do understand that in the course of conversation sometimes atheism gets tied in with materialism or empiricism and that religion can sometimes get tied in with theism. As long as everyone is comfortable with basic definitions this is just a way to shorten conversations and get to the point, but you seem to fundamentally not understand my position, or the position of the majority of soft atheists.

 

Hope that clarifies things.

[HuskerNMO]

jliehr,

 

Accusing an atheist of faith is a poor tactic for one simple reason––and it happens to be a reason that has to be clarified with everyone and their grandmother. Most atheists do not claim there is no god. HuskersNow is even more bold than I am when that he says there is no evidence for one so he does not believe in one. I myself qualify even that by saying I have never seen any evidence or heard any reason that would make believing in a deity reasonable. Show me the reason and if it holds I will accept your god hypothesis. Both myself and nearly every atheist I've ever come across (but not all of them) are simply at the position that you are with regard to Allah, or Santa, or fifth-dimensional reptilian aliens. You (and we) cannot claim to a certainty that they do not exist, but we do not believe in them either. Fundamentally I am in a position of not knowing.

 

Atheism comes with no set of beliefs, no church, no creed, and no statement of purpose. It is not a religion, and it does not require faith. It makes no statements about the origins of the universe, and it requires no adherence to any philosophical position, including but not limited to: skepticism, 'darwinism, rationalism', nihilism, etc, etc. You may see signs for atheist groups, or atheist picnics, or atheist ho-downs, but if you have any regard for intellectual honesty, you'll have to avoid the impulse to have an "Aha!" moment. They do not speak for me, and simply identifying their party and myself as atheist does not allow you to make a single statement about what we might as a group hold to (any more than you being an a-Santaist allows me to say anything about your opinions).

 

That being said, I do understand that in the course of conversation sometimes atheism gets tied in with materialism or empiricism and that religion can sometimes get tied in with theism. As long as everyone is comfortable with basic definitions this is just a way to shorten conversations and get to the point, but you seem to fundamentally not understand my position, or the position of the majority of soft atheists.

 

Hope that clarifies things.

 

I understand your position, I just don't agree with what your saying.

 

Here's my basis to say that your position requires faith.

 

Definition of the word faith is as follows; belief that is not based on proof. You believe that God and\or religion has not been proven to exist, or not exist is what you are saying? You have not experienced the complete knowledge of every person that has ever lived, you ignore the opinions of people who both do, and don't believe in God or religion, you don't accept the evidence (personal testimony) of the basis of their belief. That in and of itself means that you rely on faith that someone else hasn't experienced, proven or disproven said religion or God (not being specific). So either you have faith that their experiences are false, or you are ignorant of their experiences. Yet by the very mention of their experiences by myself, and the fact that you obviously don't live in a vacuum, you may not know the specifics of their experience, but you realize they exist, even if only in their false reality. Furthermore since you cannot prove, or disprove their experiences you chose not to believe them based on, you guessed it, faith.

 

Case in point, I can tell you that I have personally experienced God in a way that tells me he is real. Now you are faced with two choices, you can either believe it or not. You can pretend to make a third choice and say that I chose not to make a decision without proof, but either way you rely on faith to dismiss my experience as false. And I know you disagree, and that's fine, that's what makes discussions like these frustrating, but enjoyable.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

 

Final question, what would it take to make you believe in God? What evidence do you need? Let me know and I will pray that even though you may not seek it, that the evidence one day will find you.

 

[Husker_x]

Here's my basis to say that your position requires faith.

 

Definition of the word faith is as follows; belief that is not based on proof. You believe that God and\or religion has not been proven to exist, or not exist is what you are saying?

 

First, I’d change proof to evidence. Nothing short of pure mathematics deals with proof in anything resembling the absolute sense, not even science. Religion has been ‘proven’ to exist. I have attended church services confirming this. God has not to my knowledge––and that’s the important part––been proven. Offering your evidence is a quick and simple way to end a debate with has raged since time immemorial.

 

You have not experienced the complete knowledge of every person that has ever lived, you ignore the opinions of people who both do, and don't believe in God or religion, you don't accept the evidence (personal testimony) of the basis of their belief.

 

You’re right, I have not experienced the complete knowledge of every person because such a thing would be impossible. I do not ignore the opinions or personal testimony of religious people. I accept it for what it is––anecdotal, a muck-filled stew of contradictory statements concerning magic, gods, angels and demons, none of which can be verified, none of which is extraordinary enough to match the extraordinary specifics of the claims.

 

That in and of itself means that you rely on faith that someone else hasn't experienced, proven or disproven said religion or God (not being specific). So either you have faith that their experiences are false, or you are ignorant of their experiences. Yet by the very mention of their experiences by myself, and the fact that you obviously don't live in a vacuum, you may not know the specifics of their experience, but you realize they exist, even if only in their false reality. Furthermore since you cannot prove, or disprove their experiences you chose not to believe them based on, you guessed it, faith.

 

No it doesn’t. First, you’ve equivocated the word faith into uselessness, where every thought or opinion on every second hand testimony is faith. In no other area of your life would you apply this kind of special pleading, and if you disagree with that, then I have an invisible unicorn I’m willing to sell you for a thousand dollars. Second, your experiences may be enough to justify your belief in a god, but as with all divine interventions, they are evidence to the witnesses only and hearsay to everyone else. A simple application of Occam’s Razor (assumptions shouldn’t be multiplied beyond necessity) leads me to conclude that the least likely of many dozens of explanations is that a miracle occurred, since a miracle by definition is the least likely event that could occur, and I am not justified in accepting your claim as evidence for a deity. I don’t have to say that the experience is real, fake, a lie, proof for, proof against, or a misunderstanding; only that it is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the claim of a deity. No faith required.

 

Case in point, I can tell you that I have personally experienced God in a way that tells me he is real. Now you are faced with two choices, you can either believe it or not. You can pretend to make a third choice and say that I chose not to make a decision without proof, but either way you rely on faith to dismiss my experience as false. And I know you disagree, and that's fine, that's what makes discussions like these frustrating, but enjoyable.

 

Regardless of what the story is, at best it is evidence for you, not for me. If you cannot verify the experience in any objective way, cannot provide any evidence that it in fact occurred, or cannot repeat the miracle in my presence, then I am not justified in concluding what you want me to conclude. Anecdotal evidence corroborated by nothing is useless in establishing claims of the supernatural. Before you’ve finished speaking a Muslim is already chattering something about his deity and how real he is, and the kicker is he’s different from yours, but both of you claim yours is the only one. See the problem?

 

Final question, what would it take to make you believe in God? What evidence do you need? Let me know and I will pray that even though you may not seek it, that the evidence one day will find you.

 

How about showing up? Let me answer by reversing the question: If your God exists, why are we having this conversation? Where’s he been all this time? The hide and seek game is beneath a deity of the magnitude you’re describing.

[huskerjack23]

jliehr,

 

Accusing an atheist of faith is a poor tactic for one simple reason––and it happens to be a reason that has to be clarified with everyone and their grandmother. Most atheists do not claim there is no god. HuskersNow is even more bold than I am when that he says there is no evidence for one so he does not believe in one. I myself qualify even that by saying I have never seen any evidence or heard any reason that would make believing in a deity reasonable. Show me the reason and if it holds I will accept your god hypothesis. Both myself and nearly every atheist I've ever come across (but not all of them) are simply at the position that you are with regard to Allah, or Santa, or fifth-dimensional reptilian aliens. You (and we) cannot claim to a certainty that they do not exist, but we do not believe in them either. Fundamentally I am in a position of not knowing.

 

Atheism comes with no set of beliefs, no church, no creed, and no statement of purpose. It is not a religion, and it does not require faith. It makes no statements about the origins of the universe, and it requires no adherence to any philosophical position, including but not limited to: skepticism, 'darwinism, rationalism', nihilism, etc, etc. You may see signs for atheist groups, or atheist picnics, or atheist ho-downs, but if you have any regard for intellectual honesty, you'll have to avoid the impulse to have an "Aha!" moment. They do not speak for me, and simply identifying their party and myself as atheist does not allow you to make a single statement about what we might as a group hold to (any more than you being an a-Santaist allows me to say anything about your opinions).

 

That being said, I do understand that in the course of conversation sometimes atheism gets tied in with materialism or empiricism and that religion can sometimes get tied in with theism. As long as everyone is comfortable with basic definitions this is just a way to shorten conversations and get to the point, but you seem to fundamentally not understand my position, or the position of the majority of soft atheists.

 

Hope that clarifies things.

 

I understand your position, I just don't agree with what your saying.

 

Here's my basis to say that your position requires faith.

 

Definition of the word faith is as follows; belief that is not based on proof. You believe that God and\or religion has not been proven to exist, or not exist is what you are saying? You have not experienced the complete knowledge of every person that has ever lived, you ignore the opinions of people who both do, and don't believe in God or religion, you don't accept the evidence (personal testimony) of the basis of their belief. That in and of itself means that you rely on faith that someone else hasn't experienced, proven or disproven said religion or God (not being specific). So either you have faith that their experiences are false, or you are ignorant of their experiences. Yet by the very mention of their experiences by myself, and the fact that you obviously don't live in a vacuum, you may not know the specifics of their experience, but you realize they exist, even if only in their false reality. Furthermore since you cannot prove, or disprove their experiences you chose not to believe them based on, you guessed it, faith.

 

Case in point, I can tell you that I have personally experienced God in a way that tells me he is real. Now you are faced with two choices, you can either believe it or not. You can pretend to make a third choice and say that I chose not to make a decision without proof, but either way you rely on faith to dismiss my experience as false. And I know you disagree, and that's fine, that's what makes discussions like these frustrating, but enjoyable.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

 

Final question, what would it take to make you believe in God? What evidence do you need? Let me know and I will pray that even though you may not seek it, that the evidence one day will find you.

Personal experience has never been quantifiable or demonstrable and is not and will never ever be a valid form of evidence.

 

For one, the human brain is very easily fooled. Optical illusions for instance. Under the influence of drugs, made by the human body or externally.

 

Also, why should I unaccept something on faith? It doesn't exist in the first place. I don't need to unaccept it on faith. You need me to do that. Should I also unaccept the boogeyman on faith? Children believe in the boogeyman and they swear that they saw him but I have faith that it doesn't exist because I can't prove that he doesn't.

 

Do you realize how dumb that sounds?

[knapplc]

How about showing up? Let me answer by reversing the question: If your God exists, why are we having this conversation? Where’s he been all this time? The hide and seek game is beneath a deity of the magnitude you’re describing.

 

This, and becoming a father myself, are two of the major reasons I can no longer consider myself Christian. Were I to give my child all the instruction she needs until she is, say, five years old, then said, "I've given you all you need to know. I'll show up again when you're about 50 years old, and if you've followed through on everything I've told you without fail and without doubt and without any kind of variance from my instructions, I'll give you your inheritance which will allow you to live any kind of life you want from then on. However, if you doubt me in the very least, you're out. If you step a toe across the line, you're out. If you dispute anything I've told you, you're out. By the way - I love you very much."

 

It just doesn't jive with me at all. There's no way I'd remotely consider doing this. I want to have constant interaction with my girl. I want to know her, to be there with her, to go through her life with her, side by side, helping her along the way when it gets rough. There is no way I'd make her go through some crazy rigmarole like this to "prove" she loved me, before I gave her her inheritance. Not a chance in hell.

 

If God wants us to be with Him in heaven, nothing is preventing Him from putting us there right now. He's Omnipotent, so no barrier is too great.

[Husker_x]

How about showing up? Let me answer by reversing the question: If your God exists, why are we having this conversation? Where’s he been all this time? The hide and seek game is beneath a deity of the magnitude you’re describing.

 

This, and becoming a father myself, are two of the major reasons I can no longer consider myself Christian. Were I to give my child all the instruction she needs until she is, say, five years old, then said, "I've given you all you need to know. I'll show up again when you're about 50 years old, and if you've followed through on everything I've told you without fail and without doubt and without any kind of variance from my instructions, I'll give you your inheritance which will allow you to live any kind of life you want from then on. However, if you doubt me in the very least, you're out. If you step a toe across the line, you're out. If you dispute anything I've told you, you're out. By the way - I love you very much."

 

It just doesn't jive with me at all. There's no way I'd remotely consider doing this. I want to have constant interaction with my girl. I want to know her, to be there with her, to go through her life with her, side by side, helping her along the way when it gets rough. There is no way I'd make her go through some crazy rigmarole like this to "prove" she loved me, before I gave her her inheritance. Not a chance in hell.

 

If God wants us to be with Him in heaven, nothing is preventing Him from putting us there right now. He's Omnipotent, so no barrier is too great.

 

If there was a video response option on Huskerboard, you would see me leaning back in my chair and clapping. For me, too, it was these painfully obvious and simple observations that made me go, "Whoa whoa whoa, wait a second," and reexamine the things I'd been believing. Why is it that God's will is completely indistinguishable from everyday events? Why is it that the only supposed records of this supposed incarnation have not been preserved? And for a long time I dipped and dodged, tried to explain it away, but eventually you begin to realize that a growing portion of your brain wants to wake up. Before long your own excuses can't convince you. I'm fond of answering jliehr's question another way: If your God exists, he knows what it's going to take to convince me. Even if I don't know, he does, and nothing is preventing him. So why hasn't he? Your answers are quickly narrowed to a few, and none of them are appealing for a believer.

 

EDIT:

 

I think I might have found a substitute for the video option. I know you were disappointed, but old X comes through again.

 

[HuskerNMO]

You're right, I have not experienced the complete knowledge of every person because such a thing would be impossible. I do not ignore the opinions or personal testimony of religious people. I accept it for what it is––anecdotal, a muck-filled stew of contradictory statements concerning magic, gods, angels and demons, none of which can be verified, none of which is extraordinary enough to match the extraordinary specifics of the claims.

 

And that's your judgement, that doesn't make you right or wrong. It's your personal judgement.

 

No it doesn't. First, you've equivocated the word faith into uselessness, where every thought or opinion on every second hand testimony is faith. In no other area of your life would you apply this kind of special pleading, and if you disagree with that, then I have an invisible unicorn I'm willing to sell you for a thousand dollars. Second, your experiences may be enough to justify your belief in a god, but as with all divine interventions, they are evidence to the witnesses only and hearsay to everyone else. A simple application of Occam's Razor (assumptions shouldn't be multiplied beyond necessity) leads me to conclude that the least likely of many dozens of explanations is that a miracle occurred, since a miracle by definition is the least likely event that could occur, and I am not justified in accepting your claim as evidence for a deity. I don't have to say that the experience is real, fake, a lie, proof for, proof against, or a misunderstanding; only that it is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the claim of a deity. No faith required.

 

Again, the very definition of the word of faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing or belief that is not based on proof. You chose to swing it into the religious rhelm, faith is a word that can be associated with religion, but it doesn't have to be. I am not trying to prove to you that God exists, I am just making the point that just as I cannot prove he exists, you cannot prove he doesn't exist. And obviously annoying you buy claiming that you, just as theists do, operate on faith.

 

Regardless of what the story is, at best it is evidence for you, not for me. If you cannot verify the experience in any objective way, cannot provide any evidence that it in fact occurred, or cannot repeat the miracle in my presence, then I am not justified in concluding what you want me to conclude. Anecdotal evidence corroborated by nothing is useless in establishing claims of the supernatural. Before you've finished speaking a Muslim is already chattering something about his deity and how real he is, and the kicker is he's different from yours, but both of you claim yours is the only one. See the problem?

 

Show me where I claimed mine was the only one, you chose to believe that neither of our experiences are genuine. Yet you cannot prove they are not genuine, can you? So what is that belief is not faith since it is not based on evidence?

 

How about showing up? Let me answer by reversing the question: If your God exists, why are we having this conversation? Where's he been all this time? The hide and seek game is beneath a deity of the magnitude you're describing.

 

Again, your opinion that just as I cannot prove false, you cannot prove true. If God doesn't exist (and obviously, since we are discussing "God", at a minimum the concept of God exists). And yes, the concepts of the unicorn, boogeyman and everything else exists also. That doesn't mean that I am arguing they are real, I take it on faith that they aren't, just as you do, even if you won't admit it.

[HuskerNMO]

I'm fond of answering jliehr's question another way: If your God exists, he knows what it's going to take to convince me. Even if I don't know, he does, and nothing is preventing him. So why hasn't he? Your answers are quickly narrowed to a few, and none of them are appealing for a believer.

 

Let me answer as follows, imagine two families that have children, one family choses to tie their children up, and restrict them from leaving, they force the children to love them. Family two teaches the children as they know best, they allow their children the opportunity to make a decision whether they love them or not.

 

Which parents feel more rewarded if their children tell them they love them?

 

The answer is free will, and it lacks no appeal to me.

[HuskerNMO]

Personal experience has never been quantifiable or demonstrable and is not and will never ever be a valid form of evidence.

 

For one, the human brain is very easily fooled. Optical illusions for instance. Under the influence of drugs, made by the human body or externally.

 

Also, why should I unaccept something on faith? It doesn't exist in the first place. I don't need to unaccept it on faith. You need me to do that. Should I also unaccept the boogeyman on faith? Children believe in the boogeyman and they swear that they saw him but I have faith that it doesn't exist because I can't prove that he doesn't.

 

Do you realize how dumb that sounds?

 

Then a majority of science is out the window since it is defined and refined by human observation and the human brain. What other way to you have to interpret the world other than through your personal experiences? Other people's personal experiences?

 

Sounding dumb or not, by definition or the word faith, that's exactly what it is. You cannot prove the boogeyman, or unicorns or other concepts don't exist, but without proof that they don't exist, you are relying on faith that they don't. Again, if you want to get hung up on the religious association of the word faith, that's your business, that doesn't make it less true though.

[WCHusker]

Sheep are funny. I can't believe how many people fail to realize that they are being hustled by some nutjuggler who doesn't even have to pay taxes.

[HuskerNMO]

This, and becoming a father myself, are two of the major reasons I can no longer consider myself Christian. Were I to give my child all the instruction she needs until she is, say, five years old, then said, "I've given you all you need to know. I'll show up again when you're about 50 years old, and if you've followed through on everything I've told you without fail and without doubt and without any kind of variance from my instructions, I'll give you your inheritance which will allow you to live any kind of life you want from then on. However, if you doubt me in the very least, you're out. If you step a toe across the line, you're out. If you dispute anything I've told you, you're out. By the way - I love you very much."

 

It just doesn't jive with me at all. There's no way I'd remotely consider doing this. I want to have constant interaction with my girl. I want to know her, to be there with her, to go through her life with her, side by side, helping her along the way when it gets rough. There is no way I'd make her go through some crazy rigmarole like this to "prove" she loved me, before I gave her her inheritance. Not a chance in hell.

 

If God wants us to be with Him in heaven, nothing is preventing Him from putting us there right now. He's Omnipotent, so no barrier is too great.

 

Interesting concept of God, and significantly different from what the bible and most Christian groups believe. Most believe that God is always with you, and always willing to give you a road back to him. One of the main subjects of the followers of Jesus according to biblical history constantly doubted Jesus, going so far as to hunt and kill followers of his, yet according to Christian literature he was forgiven and became one of the greatest and most successful missionaries the world has ever seen. The bible also says that Peter denied Jesus 3 times, yet was forgiven. The bible is full of stories of those who denied, fought against God or "sinned", yet were still redeemed.

 

While religious groups may place burdens on members that are not needed, the bible says do 2 simple things, believe he is God in flesh that has the power to save you, and then follow his teachings (which have 3 basic tenants, Worship God, serve others, and go spread his word). He offers rewards in this life, but a greater inheritance in the next.