Getting 'evidence' would break the system.

mrac

liveya wrote: »

No, I don't agree. A majority of new testament historians conclude Jesus existed, and ressurected from the dead. The jews weren't even expecting him to die, no mind ressurect. Theologically it's perfect and has stood the test of time. There is no good reason to believe in Thor.

In your second part you've commited the genetic fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

Being born into a Christian family does not mean Christinaity is false, it means one has been chosen to follow Christ in his vocation, to be his disciple.

In your third part, you ask if he was loving, why didn't he make an indesputable appearance: He did. Through Jesus Christ whose historic evidence is credited. Jesus gave us every reason to beleive he is the truth, the light and the way. He is the only person to have never bored anyone with his sermons, and whose theology and logic holds to this day. The lives of the saints and their miracles which are witnessed by the faithful continue.

Like I said before, only those who say but what religon? Don't understand how Christ stands out from other people like Muhammed, or Buddha, They claimed to speak the truth: "Here is my mind", Jesus claimed to be truth.

Regarding your first point, many historians would claim that muhammad etc. existed so why do you dismiss these claim but hold onto the ones which reinforce your view point?

Regarding the genetic fallacy, the commandments clearly state that worshiping other gods gets you a ticket to hell, hindus worship other gods therefore the only logical conclusion you can take if you truly believe the commandments is that they are going to hell. So do you believe they go to hell? In which case is that fair and loving? OR Do you believe that they can still go to heaven? In which case are the commandments wrong? can they be ignored in some cases? how do you resolve the commandment issue?

Almost all religions have some form of "divinely inspired" text, if there is no proof than how are we supposed to distinguish which is true and which is false? You must agree that devout followers of all religions will swear that their text is true and that they have every reason to believe its true etc. in the same way you have exerted that your holy text is true.

doctoremma

liveya wrote: »

You can't be serious. Have you ever thought to yourself, that if any of these things happened, it might not be according to the divine plan.

Well, if it easn't according to a divine plan, it wouldn't happen, would it? And if it doesn't happen, I have no reason to believe in a divine plan (or a being that creates one).

liveya wrote: »

or that actually it's not proof at all, people could and would foff it off as a co-incedence, or a hallucination.

I agree. I'd be looking for naturalistic explanantions first. I'm just highlighting a few examples of where earthly naturalistic explanations would fail me and I'd need to think bigger (maybe aliens, maybe god, whatever).

liveya wrote: »

Even if those things did happen, what then? You still don't know God, you just know he exists and therefore are trapped, what if you didn't want to know him, is that fair that he imposed himself on you?

Things that exist do not impose themselves on anyone. Do I want to be "ruled"? Not especially. Am I "ruled" by various entities imposing themselves on my life? Yes. My mother, my boss, my government, my monarch. All have been imposed on my life; some I welcome, some I do not. All exist though.

liveya wrote: »

God doesn't have to prove himself to you, or do anything at your command. If you wanted to know him, you'd seek him, simple as. Many others have. But it seems your ulterior motives prevent you from taking that leap of faith.

Well then, god needs to understand that he made me as I am, a skeptic, a non-believer, and not consign me to hell for my normal and innate thoguht processes.

Blowfish

liveya wrote: »

Nobody could refuse to bow and love God and simultaneously admit his existence,

I don't respond well to threats. If the god you describe popped up tomorrow and said 'serve me or you'll go to hell', I'd tell him to F off. Any god that sends people to a place of torture for eternity for not serving is not worth 'loving', they'd essentially be the ultimate dictator.

liveya wrote: »

It's easy enough to see who is seeking God, and who refuses out of wanting to be their own God.

That is an incredibly bizarre leap of logic. Do you believe in vampires? If not, it clearly means it's because you want to be one...

Monty Burnz

liveya wrote: »

You don't seem to understand my point. One could not live their life in peace, if they refused to bow and knew he existed;

You think that this would bother a god who presides over appalling human misery and always has?

liveya

Getting back on topic, it seems to be perfect, that so called scientific evidence is not provided for those who don't will to know God. This allows for real love to flourish, out of a genuine desire to know him, not because they had no choice, since there was definite evidence. That wouldn't be right.

I'm starting to think these debates are a waste of time, because clearly there are those who absolutely have no interest in knowing God, they just find any excuse and a million reasons (which is why it continues endlessly), and to be frank, I wouldn't say Jesus himself is actually pleased with the time Christians waste here, talking about him, instead of using the time to talk to him.

Didn't he say to the apostles, to those who refuse the gospel, to shake the dust from their sandals, and the blessing will return to them? Seems asbout right.

Monty Burnz

liveya wrote: »

Being born into a Christian family does not mean Christinaity is false, it means one has been chosen to follow Christ in his vocation, to be his disciple.

Can you please quote who made this argument? Because I think you will find that this is a stawman that you just invented.

Monty Burnz

liveya wrote: »

Getting back on topic, it seems to be perfect, that so called scientific evidence is not provided for those who don't will to know God.

We don't even need scientific evidence - he could just tweak our personalities to make us less sceptical in general, and more inclined to believe things without proof. But for some reason he made some people in every society with a higher standard of proof before they believed in God/Allah/Thor/Ahura Mazda/the local Kami etc. etc.

Why make people with different levels of credulity but provide the same evidence of existence to all? It seems unfair.

mrac

liveya wrote: »

Getting back on topic, it seems to be perfect, that so called scientific evidence is not provided for those who don't will to know God. This allows for real love to flourish, out of a genuine desire to know him, not because they had no choice, since there was definite evidence. That wouldn't be right.

I'm starting to think these debates are a waste of time, because clearly there are those who absolutely have no interest in knowing God, they just find any excuse and a million reasons (which is why it continues endlessly), and to be frank, I wouldn't say Jesus himself is actually pleased with the time Christians waste here, talking about him, instead of using the time to talk to him.

Didn't he say to the apostles, to those who refuse the gospel, to shake the dust from their sandals, and the blessing will return to them? Seems asbout right.

So essentially you have no way of refuting the points raised by people in this thread so you revert to just assuming your position is right, ours is wrong and its our own fault for not thinking as you do. I said it before and it is perfectly true of your above post, you can replace the word "God" in your post with Thor, Odin, Zeus, lepricons, fairies, unicorns, vampires etc. and it would hold exactly the same weight to me as your post does.

totus tuus

doctoremma wrote: »

You actually think that photo is real?

I was merely posting a claim by another source - I don't need photos to back up my own beliefs.

I do believe in the Fatima Miracle as it was witnessed by thousands and well documented!

doctoremma

totus tuus wrote: »

I was merely posting a claim by another source - I don't need photos to back up my own beliefs.

Do you think the photo is real?

totus tuus wrote: »

I do believe in the Fatima Miracle as it was witnessed by thousands and well documented!

As someone who has dedicated a large proportion of her research career to retinal physiology, I can assure you that there are far more mundane methods to explain what people "saw".

getz

i am sure religion will come up with some excuse when they find life on other planets,after all they still insist god only made life on earth.

Sin City

liveya wrote: »

Getting back on topic, it seems to be perfect, that so called scientific evidence is not provided for those who don't will to know God. This allows for real love to flourish, out of a genuine desire to know him, not because they had no choice, since there was definite evidence. That wouldn't be right.

I'm starting to think these debates are a waste of time, because clearly there are those who absolutely have no interest in knowing God, they just find any excuse and a million reasons (which is why it continues endlessly), and to be frank, I wouldn't say Jesus himself is actually pleased with the time Christians waste here, talking about him, instead of using the time to talk to him.

Didn't he say to the apostles, to those who refuse the gospel, to shake the dust from their sandals, and the blessing will return to them? Seems asbout right.

You see that is the point though, there are millions of reasons to dispute Gods existence and very little to support him, The bible says that its the world of God is not proof of Gods existence either

pauldla

liveya wrote: »

Getting back on topic, it seems to be perfect, that so called scientific evidence is not provided for those who don't will to know God. This allows for real love to flourish, out of a genuine desire to know him, not because they had no choice, since there was definite evidence. That wouldn't be right.

I'm starting to think these debates are a waste of time, because clearly there are those who absolutely have no interest in knowing God, they just find any excuse and a million reasons (which is why it continues endlessly), and to be frank, I wouldn't say Jesus himself is actually pleased with the time Christians waste here, talking about him, instead of using the time to talk to him.

Didn't he say to the apostles, to those who refuse the gospel, to shake the dust from their sandals, and the blessing will return to them? Seems asbout right.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I really can't understand your first paragraph.

so called scientific evidence is not provided for those who don't will to know God.

What does that mean? Are you suggesting that, because I do not believe in a god, I cannot be supplied with scientific evidence of his existence? Conversely, if I did believe in god, I would be provided with scientific evidence? If that is what you are trying to say (and I'm sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick), then this is complete nonsense.

This allows for real love to flourish, out of a genuine desire to know him, not because they had no choice, since there was definite evidence.

What does that mean? If I believe in God I will be provided with evidence he exists, and then I will love him? I'm trying really hard not to write the letters wtf in huge burning caps right now.

This is nonsense: it makes about as much sense as my nephew's talk about his imaginary friend. I'll admit that I may well be reading it wrong, so please, can you explain further?

totus tuus

doctoremma wrote: »

Do you think the photo is real?

Can't say without evidence.


As someone who has dedicated a large proportion of her research career to retinal physiology, I can assure you that there are far more mundane methods to explain what people "saw".

I suppose you can explain how those who were writhing in the mud with fear and in the lashings of rain had their clothes instantly dried and cleaned. :rolleyes:

http://www.fatimaforbeginners.org/index.php/fatima/the-miracle-of-the-sun

fatmammycat

totus tuus wrote: »

I suppose you can explain how those who were writhing in the mud with fear and in the lashings of rain had their clothes instantly dried and cleaned. :rolleyes:

http://www.fatimaforbeginners.org/index.php/fatima/the-miracle-of-the-sun

Who knows, perhaps a number of moving statues helped in the dry-cleaning process?
Seriously, large groups of people claim to see all sorts of things on a regular basis, take a quick gander at those people who gathered in Knock for the Coleman/Mary side show. Heck, think of the VAST mumber of people who claim they've been abducted by aliens. They believe what they say so it must be true, right?

Cossax

totus tuus wrote: »

I suppose you can explain how those who were writhing in the mud with fear and in the lashings of rain had their clothes instantly dried and cleaned. :rolleyes:

http://www.fatimaforbeginners.org/index.php/fatima/the-miracle-of-the-sun

Well there you have it everyone, God is an awesome dry-cleaner!

We know for a fact that the sun didn't dance around in the sky or exhibit any other miraculous behaviour on that day so make of the rest of it what you will.

pauldla

totus tuus wrote: »

I suppose you can explain how those who were writhing in the mud with fear and in the lashings of rain had their clothes instantly dried and cleaned. :rolleyes:

http://www.fatimaforbeginners.org/index.php/fatima/the-miracle-of-the-sun

If you visit the hometown of Mao Ze Dong in Hunan, China, you can go to the very large museum dedicated to his life.

One of the exhibits there tells of the extraordinary events that took place when his body was carried in state after his passing, and of more extraordinary events that happened when a large memorial statue to him was erected.

Two examples that I can remember from the top of my head: the sun and the moon appeared together in the sky (they have photos of same), and, even though it was mid-winter, flowers bloomed as the cortege passed.

Can you accept these as true, or would you require proof from an independent source?

When Kim Il Sung of North Korea died, similar events were reported. Can you accept them as true, or would you like corroborating evidence from a independent source?

doctoremma

totus tuus wrote: »

I suppose you can explain how those who were writhing in the mud with fear and in the lashings of rain had their clothes instantly dried and cleaned. :rolleyes:

http://www.fatimaforbeginners.org/index.php/fatima/the-miracle-of-the-sun

Given the masses of press and scientific photographers there, I asssume you can produce evidence of this claim?

STOP PRESS: People in the midday sun dry out. God is real.

shanered

People love to believe what reinforces their beliefs.
Its almost like that loving God is loving themselves, which they can think of in a third person type belief.
Of course their are going to many (of the many) stories that they hear about God that they choose to believe, but that is all, unless the experianced many of these events first hand, whereby similar people would claim to have been abducted by aliens could be similar to religious experiance attributted to God.
Its whatever these people want to believe......
It doesn't matter about the evidence....
But then again it always get me this whole believers are damned as it just starts this crap of being harassed by believers being tried to converted by these concerned christians.

shizz

totus tuus wrote: »

I suppose you can explain how those who were writhing in the mud with fear and in the lashings of rain had their clothes instantly dried and cleaned. :rolleyes:

http://www.fatimaforbeginners.org/index.php/fatima/the-miracle-of-the-sun

The events of that day are not a matter of hearsay, but of actual reported fact. As just one example, we can point to the observations of Avelino de Almeida, Editor in Chief of O Seculo, the great “liberal,” anticlerical and Masonic daily of Lisbon:

HA. It claims this and then the only evidence it has of course is quotes from people there. Not hearsay at all.

antiskeptic

Sarky wrote: »

Well if anyone could perform a miracle on live tv with plenty of qualified experts to ensure it wasn't faked, that'd be a start. Or God could show up in person like he did in the old days and sort out once and for all which of the however-many-there-are-now Christian denominations has it right. The stars rearranging themselves into a message in the night sky. He could just drop the requisite knowledge into everyone's brain at the same time, too. Anything verifiable. Anything at all beyond a feeling someone has. Anything that is consistently different from sheer random chance.

It's hardly asking much of an entity that allegedly managed to create a universe, is it?

I'm not sure what that would achieve tbh

Say any or all of the above occurs. And that you are now convinced that God exists. You would now also know that he created you and in knowing that, you would realise that he has made it such that you arrive in a state of being 'convinced of things' by means of 'the empirical method'. If he didn't wire you so that you would be convinced so then convinced you wouldn't be. Irrespective of the evidence.

Do you think a chair would be convinced by evidence?

Since you are ultimately reliant on his not only providing you evidence for his existence but also on his configuring you in such a way that the evidence can be considered by you as much, any way he evidences/configures you is as good as the next.

It all relies on him in the end - not on some method of evaluation you suppose is detached from him.

What this means is that God evidencing himself empirically and verifiably to you is a valid and reliable a means of God evidencing himself as is his evidencing himself to you non-empirically/verifiably.

Monty Burnz

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you think a chair would be convinced by evidence?

Are you suggesting that this poster has the mentality of a chair?

antiskeptic wrote: »

It all relies on him in the end - not on some method of evaluation you suppose is detached from him.

And here you seem to suggest that those of us who don't believe don't do so because of God's choices - which actually makes sense. So why did he create us to punish us?

pauldla

What this means is that God evidencing himself empirically and verifiably to you is a valid and reliable a means of God evidencing himself as is his evidencing himself to you non-empirically/verifiably.

I am but a poor benighted atheist, and not accustomed to such long words. What does this sentence mean?

And here you seem to suggest that those of us who don't believe don't do so because of God's choices - which actually makes sense. So why did he create us to punish us?

It seems the odds are stacked against me, so. I suspected as much.

liveya

mrac wrote: »

Regarding your first point, many historians would claim that muhammad etc. existed so why do you dismiss these claim but hold onto the ones which reinforce your view point?

Regarding the genetic fallacy, the commandments clearly state that worshiping other gods gets you a ticket to hell, hindus worship other gods therefore the only logical conclusion you can take if you truly believe the commandments is that they are going to hell. So do you believe they go to hell? In which case is that fair and loving? OR Do you believe that they can still go to heaven? In which case are the commandments wrong? can they be ignored in some cases? how do you resolve the commandment issue?

Almost all religions have some form of "divinely inspired" text, if there is no proof than how are we supposed to distinguish which is true and which is false? You must agree that devout followers of all religions will swear that their text is true and that they have every reason to believe its true etc. in the same way you have exerted that your holy text is true.

Ironically, athiests are the worst for beleiving myths, Take the myth about people born outside the faith going to hell, for example.

It's called the anonymous Christian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian

If say, a man born into the islamic faith loved truth, love, righteousness, and justice, and therefore is good, then he in fact, without knowing it, loves Christ. He is a Christian, an 'anonymous Christian'. If that man were to meet Christ, he would warm to him and recognize him. Because he loves all the things Christ is, but this means he isn't actually faithful to Muhammed at all, Muhammed told his followers to murder Christians, and those who are not muslims, so this man, in his heart, rejects Islam but is not aware of it.

This seems to make a case, it doesn't sell out Christianity as one of many options, which would make Christianity a sham, Also it talks of a just God who judges by what's in their hearts, which is fair.

God examines the heart of each man, and would never condemn a person outside the faith to hell, (unless they rejected him) when they actually loved him without realizing it. If their parents allowed the baptism as a child, he would be indeed, a disiciple of Christ, except this time, explicitly.

These debates go on forever because it's easier to conjure up excuses not to seek God, than to seek him. Contrary to popular belief that religious are weak and it's the 'opium of the people', Christians are actually strong, it takes strength to put faith in an invisible God and trust in him, it takes courage to take that leap of faith, everything the skeptical athiest doesn't have. Hence why they project their own weaknessess, which they despise, onto the believer - and sneer, as they so love to do.

Monty Burnz

liveya wrote: »

Ironically, athiests are the worst for beleiving myths, Take the myth about people born outside the faith going to hell, for example.

It's called the anonymous Christian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian

If say, a man born into the islamic faith loved truth, love, righteousness, and justice, and therefore is good, then he in fact, without knowing it, loves Christ. He is a Christian, an 'anonymous Christian'. If that man were to meet Christ, he would warm to him and recognize him. Because he loves all the things Christ is, but this means he isn't actually faithful to Muhammed at all, Muhammed told his followers to murder Christians, and those who are not muslims, so this man, in his heart, rejects Islam but is not aware of it.

This seems to make a case, it doesn't sell out Christianity as one of many options, which would make Christianity a sham, Also it talks of a just God who judges by what's in their hearts, which is fair.

God examines the heart of each man, and would never condemn a person outside the faith to hell, (unless they rejected him) when they actually loved him without realizing it. If their parents allowed the baptism as a child, he would be indeed, a disiciple of Christ, except this time, explicitly.

These debates go on forever because it's easier to conjure up excuses not to seek God, than to seek him. Contrary to popular belief that religious are weak and it's the 'opium of th epeople', Christians are actually strong, it takes strength to put faith in an invisible God and trust in him, it takes courage to tale that leap of faith, everything the skeptical athiest doesn't have. Hence why they project their own weakness, which they despise onto the believer - and sneer, as they so love to do.

You are stating this as a fact of Christianity. Does this mean that all the different branches of Christianity will accept it?

fatmammycat

liveya wrote: »

Ironically, athiests are the worst for beleiving myths, Take the myth about people born outside the faith going to hell, for example.

It's called the anonymous Christian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian

I'm sorry, what? Cite please.

Sonics2k

liveya wrote: »

God examines the heart of each man, and would never condemn a person outside the faith to hell, (unless they rejected him) when they actually loved him without realizing it. If their parents allowed the baptism as a child, he would be indeed, a disiciple of Christ, except this time, explicitly.

This completely contradicts the very first Commandment though, and it completely goes against the teachings of Christianity.

It really looks more like an addendum added on later by someone in the religion (any religion) when someone pointed out this flaw.

shizz

liveya wrote: »

These debates go on forever because it's easier to conjure up excuses not to seek God, than to seek him. Contrary to popular belief that religious are weak and it's the 'opium of the people', Christians are actually strong, it takes strength to put faith in an invisible God and trust in him, it takes courage to take that leap of faith, everything the skeptical athiest doesn't have. Hence why they project their own weaknessess, which they despise, onto the believer - and sneer, as they so love to do.

This statement baffles me. How choosing to believe something without any evidence is something to be proud of and commended as "strength" truly astounds me.

pauldla

liveya wrote: »

These debates go on forever because it's easier to conjure up excuses not to seek God, than to seek him. Contrary to popular belief that religious are weak and it's the 'opium of the people', Christians are actually strong, it takes strength to put faith in an invisible God and trust in him, it takes courage to take that leap of faith, everything the skeptical athiest doesn't have. Hence why they project their own weaknessess, which they despise, onto the believer - and sneer, as they so love to do.

I'm not sure if 'strength' is the word I'd use there; however...

I contend that it takes more strength to challenge and question the assumptions that have been bred into you; and it takes a huge amount of strength to take on an organized religion.

mrac

liveya wrote: »

Ironically, athiests are the worst for beleiving myths, Take the myth about people born outside the faith going to hell, for example.

It's called the anonymous Christian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_Christian

If say, a man born into the islamic faith loved truth, love, righteousness, and justice, and therefore is good, then he in fact, without knowing it, loves Christ. He is a Christian, an 'anonymous Christian'. If that man were to meet Christ, he would warm to him and recognize him. Because he loves all the things Christ is, but this means he isn't actually faithful to Muhammed at all, Muhammed told his followers to murder Christians, and those who are not muslims, so this man, in his heart, rejects Islam but is not aware of it.

So what it seems youre saying is that even though someone is born out of the faith and then accepts jesus (knowing or unknowing) they are saved. However there are problems notion. Firstly this is yet again an example where you can replace "christ" with any other mythical creature and is equally valid. A muslim scholar may assert the argument but in reverse.

Also the anonymous christian notion was put forth by the theologian Karl Rahner a human being. The commandments are (if you believe in the bible) put forth by god himself. The two ideas are contradictory and surly if you are a christian the word of god comes first no?

These debates go on forever because it's easier to conjure up excuses not to seek God, than to seek him. Contrary to popular belief that religious are weak and it's the 'opium of the people', Christians are actually strong, it takes strength to put faith in an invisible God and trust in him, it takes courage to take that leap of faith, everything the skeptical athiest doesn't have. Hence why they project their own weaknessess, which they despise, onto the believer - and sneer, as they so love to do.

It takes gullibility to believe in something you have no good reason to believe in. It takes strength to question and explore reality for yourself.