Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Descan]

So did Hercules. Your basis for believing in Jesus is equally applicable to belief in Hercules. But Hercules, if he existed, you would acknowledge to be just a man. Why is the same not applied to Jesus? Is he exempt from such logic simply because it is a personal belief?

You may well agree and say yes, you do agree because it is a personal belief... but when one chooses to apply logic to everyone/thing but then ignore the hard and fast rule because of faith, it seems to me a tad intellectually dishonest.

Again, I don't mean to insult. Just raising a question.

I think what Dwarfy is trying to say is that you know of the mythological feats of Hercules, written about and told in stories, correct? That's the same as Jesus, we know of him through stories and by the written account. What makes the Jesus story more believable than the Hercules story, when they're both the same generalized idea, Son of (a) God, feats beyond mortal man, told to us through story and by the written word, no real archaeological evidence for their existence? (The Bible doesn't count as archaeological evidence, any more than the Qur'an or Bhagavad Gita do.) (I acknowledge that one of the main answers is "The Bible is the word of God." However, I do not agree with that, and that's an article of faith (which I also don't put much stock in) so if you have an alternative answer, I'd prefer that, personally.)

As for the existence of the supernatural, I'd say I'd need as much proof as I need for anything else to believe in, like believing in the evolution and differentiation of species, or in the fact and theoretical framework of gravity. For the WORSHIP of a god, I'd need to personally agree with the sentiments espoused by that god or goddess, plural if needed. Even then, I'd likely be more "Hey, you're a pretty chill dude, bro/sis," as opposed to getting on my knees to praise him/her/them. I don't personally believe that a being worthy of worship wants to be worshipped, and worship just feels too vulgar for me to engage in. I'd much prefer to have a discussion with them as (probably not actually, it is a divine being we're talking about here, who may or may not have created us/the universe) intellectual equals/curious beings.

[origamiscienceguy]

I have a question for everybody - what would it take to change your mind? What evidence would suffice? What argument would satisfy?

For myself, I'd want a detailed and consistent theory of God that can be tested against reality, along with significant enough evidence to justify conducting such tests, and for the tests to come out positive. It's a lot to ask, but if there was a god, it could be managed.

I don't think that any evidence will suffice. Creationism and Atheism have the same evidence: The earth, the universe, the bible, etc. The only difference is interpretation.

[TD1]

I have a question for everybody - what would it take to change your mind? What evidence would suffice? What argument would satisfy?

For myself, I'd want a detailed and consistent theory of God that can be tested against reality, along with significant enough evidence to justify conducting such tests, and for the tests to come out positive. It's a lot to ask, but if there was a god, it could be managed.

I don't think that any evidence will suffice. Creationism and Atheism have the same evidence: The earth, the universe, the bible, etc. The only difference is interpretation.

What about the fact that atheists use what is true, or what is on its way to being true, whereas Christianity is just one of many religions, each with different interpretations, deities, stories, characters, motives, laws, customs, rituals, etc.

Atheism is one unified front of what is seen as correct scientifically.

Religious truth says a hundred contradictory things from religion to religion. And no, Christianity in anybody but a Christian's eyes is no more believable than, giving the current example, Greek mythology.

[Descan]

Dwarfy, you're mixing terms. Atheist just means "without theism," without god/s. You know, like Buddhism? Or Confucianism if I understand anything about it. Hell, even animism could count depending on if the animist in question thinks there are any "higher spirits" than the spirits within everything. What you're talking would be better described as rationalism, or empiricism, or skepticism, or humanism... Or, you know, science (ism).

[origamiscienceguy]

That is not accurate. There are several theories about the earth and universe that completely fit with what the bible describes. We have no way of knowing for sure if the earth was made in 6 days or 6 billion. All we have is evidence on the earth to put theories together. Some people claim that the old rocks means the earth is old, while some claim that God made the rocks old, and some claim that Noah's flood caused the dating measurements to be inaccurate. I'm saying that evidence will never be enough. And unless we invent a time machine, we will never have proof.

[Descan]

Then you get into things like "Why would he do that?" and "Would a being worthy of worship do something so deceptive?" Which, I'll admit, fall under your "interpretation" category.

[TD1]

Dwarfy, you're mixing terms. Atheist just means "without theism," without god/s. You know, like Buddhism? Or Confucianism if I understand anything about it. Hell, even animism could count depending on if the animist in question thinks there are any "higher spirits" than the spirits within everything. What you're talking would be better described as rationalism, or empiricism, or skepticism, or humanism... Or, you know, science (ism).

Technicalities!
Most people see atheism as a lack of belief in religion(s), so that's the way in which I use the word. Unless people here tell me I've been getting the wrong end of the stick?

That is not accurate. There are several theories about the earth and universe that completely fit with what the bible describes. We have no way of knowing for sure if the earth was made in 6 days or 6 billion. All we have is evidence on the earth to put theories together. Some people claim that the old rocks means the earth is old, while some claim that God made the rocks old, and some claim that Noah's flood caused the dating measurements to be inaccurate. I'm saying that evidence will never be enough. And unless we invent a time machine, we will never have proof.

Of course there are similarities, human nature is such that we have some needs which are easy enough to present in scripture, and to write on recurring themes of disaster/things that are entertaining is common enough in religion. Floods happen everywhere- seas rise. Flood stories rise with them. Also, it helps that religions poach from one another, e.g. Greek religion being subsumed by Roman religion. Christianity as it is now is hardly comparable to...Ancient Mayan, or more animistic religions.

That is not accurate. There are several theories about the earth and universe that completely fit with what the bible describes

Conversely, this also means your theory fits with theirs. Yet you seem to assume yours is the superior- back to the question I asked to Arx, why? There is nothing particularly unique or special about Christianity.

[Bohandas]

I have a question for everybody - what would it take to change your mind? What evidence would suffice? What argument would satisfy?

For myself, I'd want a detailed and consistent theory of God that can be tested against reality, along with significant enough evidence to justify conducting such tests, and for the tests to come out positive. It's a lot to ask, but if there was a god, it could be managed.

I don't think that any evidence will suffice. Creationism and Atheism have the same evidence: The earth, the universe, the bible, etc. The only difference is interpretation.

Where do the earth or the universe provide evidence in favor of creationism?

[origamiscienceguy]

M

That is not accurate. There are several theories about the earth and universe that completely fit with what the bible describes

Conversely, this also means your theory fits with theirs. Yet you seem to assume yours is the superior- back to the question I asked to Arx, why? There is nothing particularly unique or special about Christianity.

The theory that one person chooses varies from person to person. Each person usually has a reason why they pick one theory over another. I'll take origins of the Earth as an example. I choose to believe that the earth was made in 6 days because that is what the Bible says, while the big bang theory does not fit that description.

The unique thing about Christianity as supposed to every other religion I've heard of (please tell me if there are any others) is that God does not require any goodwill to get to heaven, and God is extremely loving.

[Angle]

Mmm, Atheism. That words a pretty difficult. On one hand, it does technically mean merely a disbelief in gods. On the other hand, it's generally used to represent a much broader belief system, which includes a heavy does of science and the values that support it.

[Bohandas]

That is not accurate. There are several theories about the earth and universe that completely fit with what the bible describe.

...But contradict what can be observed about the earth.

[Bohandas]

So did Hercules. Your basis for believing in Jesus is equally applicable to belief in Hercules. But Hercules, if he existed, you would acknowledge to be just a man. Why is the same not applied to Jesus? Is he exempt from such logic simply because it is a personal belief?

No, he's exempt from such logic because you're unlikely to find Zeus on top of Mount Olympus. You won't ever find the Garden of the Hesperides (or at least, p < 0.05), and there is no Atlas holding up the world. There's nothing nearly as hard against Jesus.

That doesn't preclude the possibility of a historical Hercules much more than the absence of an alien spaceship following the Hale-Bopp comet precludes the existence of a historical Marshall Applewhite.

[TD1]

M

That is not accurate. There are several theories about the earth and universe that completely fit with what the bible describes

Conversely, this also means your theory fits with theirs. Yet you seem to assume yours is the superior- back to the question I asked to Arx, why? There is nothing particularly unique or special about Christianity.

The theory that one person chooses varies from person to person. Each person usually has a reason why they pick one theory over another. I'll take origins of the Earth as an example. I choose to believe that the earth was made in 6 days because that is what the Bible says, while the big bang theory does not fit that description.

The unique thing about Christianity as supposed to every other religion I've heard of (please tell me if there are any others) is that God does not require any goodwill to get to heaven, and God is extremely loving.

According to a quick wikipedia search:

Bahá'u'lláh, founder of the Bahá'í Faith, taught that God created humans due to his love for them, and thus humans should in turn love God. `Abdu'l-Bahá, Bahá'u'lláh's son, wrote that love is the greatest power in the world of existence and the true source of eternal happiness. The Bahá'í teachings state that all genuine love is divine, and that love proceeds from God and from humans. God's love is taught to be part of his own essence, and his love for his creatures gives them their material existence, divine grace and eternal life.[2]

The Bahá'í teachings state that human love is directed towards both God and other humans; that the love of God attracts the individual toward God, by purifying the human heart and preparing it for the revelation of divine grace. Thus through the love of God, humans become transformed and become self-sacrificing. It is also stated that true love for other humans occurs when people see the beauty of God in other people's souls. The Bahá'í teachings state that Bahá'ís should love all humans regardless of religion, race or community, and also should love their enemies.[2]

[origamiscienceguy]

That is not accurate. There are several theories about the earth and universe that completely fit with what the bible describe.

...But contradict what can be observed about the earth.

In what way?

I know this will be annoying for you, but "Because God made it that way." Will probably be the answer to most of these.

[Helgoland]

Well, for example the sun couldn't have stood still over Gideon because it's the earth that's moving