Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

4. People coming back from the dead
5. Seas parting
6. Serpents talking
7. Bushes speaking
8. Banishng demons


[/ QUOTE ]

Prove they didn't happen. Go ahead. I dare ya.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science can NEVER prove that something didn't happen. The atheists who say otherwise are morons. Only MATH can prove something never happenned. For example no one ever discovered two cubes that added up to a third one.

However, Probability and Statistics, can be used to show that the information we have about ressurections and speaking bushes is such that when someoneone claims to have witnessed such an event, the odds are overwhelming that he is mistaken. The odds shrink if he supplies us with evidence. But the original statistical evidence is so overwhemingly against him that his own evidence is unlikely to make a big dent in the statistical odds. Certainly the existence of the Bible is not strong enough evidence to accomplish that task.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Why are you ignoring the rest of the body of my posts?


[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to engage Ben and multitable. What is you want to know? As to burden of proof, I can just claim you have the burden - the Bible has been around a long time, is something of a miraculous item in itself, and has been attested to by hundreds of millions, many of them very "smart" people. So who gets to set the burden?

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Science can NEVER prove


[/ QUOTE ]

You're right about science (man I love trolling these atheists), but you're wrong about probability - for much the same reason.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
As to burden of proof, I can just claim you have the burden - the Bible has been around a long time, is something of a miraculous item in itself, and has been attested to by hundreds of millions, many of them very "smart" people. So who gets to set the burden?

[/ QUOTE ]

But if you're trying to prove non-believers that these supernatural events actually occurred, you have to give them a reason to believe that the laws of physics did not apply in the past.

I'm not really asking you why you believe what you do (although I am curious). I'm more concerned with understanding how you can convince someone who doesn't already believe in the Bible. It seems as though this document is the only primary source that provides evidence to these claims. Most Christians have already conceded that much of the Bible is metaphorical/allegorical, so it seems that the best reason for believing in a literal miracle is that it is what Christians have traditionally believed.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

But if you're trying to prove non-believers that these supernatural events actually occurred, you have to give them a reason to believe that the laws of physics did not apply in the past.


[/ QUOTE ]

What I was trying to extract from you and Ben in my trollish ways is whether or not you admit the possibility of miracles. If you are a naturalist, as the Bible says, someone could return from the dead and you would not believe. If science is the only valid form of knowledge, and science only studies natural phenomenon, then science will never prove or disprove miracles.

[ QUOTE ]

Most Christians have already conceded that much of the Bible is metaphorical/allegorical


[/ QUOTE ]

You may be right concerning professing Christians. Some of them don't even believe God exists or that there's an afterlife, so the word Christian is mostly meaningless.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Science can NEVER prove


[/ QUOTE ]

You're right about science (man I love trolling these atheists), but you're wrong about probability - for much the same reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, what would HE know about probability?

Seriously... It seems you are incorporating probability in the same vein as someone who jokes that flopping a set is 50/50. Either you will, or you won't. So too, it seems you relate probabilities to biblical miracles. Either they happened, or they didn't. And you choose to believe they did.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. The probability of a miracle having occured is NOT zero. It never will be. Not as long as you are using math. But if you ARE using math, then you have to acknowledge that the more spectacular the miracle, the less likely it actually ocurred. It doesn't mean it didn't, but if you think it's more likely than not to have occured, YOU are the one who is wrong about probability.

As I've always said, what it comes down to is faith. Just admit it. You believe these things based on faith. Not because they are likely to have occured, but because you choose to believe (have faith), that they did. Say that, and there's nothing left for argument.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

It seems you are incorporating probability


[/ QUOTE ]

I am?

[ QUOTE ]

The probability of a miracle having ocurred is NOT zero.


[/ QUOTE ]

Miracles don't occur. They are performed.

[ QUOTE ]

As I've always said, what it comes down to is faith. Just admit it


[/ QUOTE ]

Faith is involved on both sides, but evidence is also involved. Can you admit that?

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

What I was trying to extract from you and Ben in my trollish ways is whether or not you admit the possibility of miracles. If you are a naturalist, as the Bible says, someone could return from the dead and you would not believe. If science is the only valid form of knowledge, and science only studies natural phenomenon, then science will never prove or disprove miracles.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am most certainly open to the possibility although I have to admit I'm not exactly sure what would qualify as evidence to me. I would most certainly need more than a document though. A first hand account with sufficient testing would probably do it, but I realize that this is not possible for the notion of past miracles.

I was just trying to ask you how you prove to someone that miracles have occurred when they don't already believe in the supernatural. It is a very bold claim.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Most Christians have already conceded that much of the Bible is metaphorical/allegorical


[/ QUOTE ]

You may be right concerning professing Christians. Some of them don't even believe God exists or that there's an afterlife, so the word Christian is mostly meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I meant by that bit was that if your only evidence is the Bible, you come to a problem. There is no authority that delineates what is literally true in the Bible and what is not. So it is hard to point to a passage and say that it happened because there is so much disagreement within the Christian community.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I was just trying to ask you how you prove to someone that miracles have occurred when they don't already believe in the supernatural. It is a very bold claim.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't claim to be able to prove something to someone who denies the possibility.

[ QUOTE ]

What I meant by that bit was that if your only evidence is the Bible, you come to a problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

My evidence is everything because back of everything is the miracle of existence, human reason and life. The Bible gets more specific. And yes faith is required. But faith is also required to believe it all happened by accident.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I was just trying to ask you how you prove to someone that miracles have occurred when they don't already believe in the supernatural. It is a very bold claim.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't claim to be able to prove something to someone who denies the possibility.


[/ QUOTE ]

But what about someone who says it's possible but very unlikely given what he knows? What can you do to convince him that it's more likely than he thinks? You seem to be saying that you can only convince believers.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

What I meant by that bit was that if your only evidence is the Bible, you come to a problem.


[/ QUOTE ]

My evidence is everything because back of everything is the miracle of existence, human reason and life. The Bible gets more specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand this. Could you rephrase it maybe? I was saying that if you only have one source you have to work extra hard to show that this source is extremely accurate. And my whole point was that not even 'believers' seem to agree on what it says.

[ QUOTE ]
And yes faith is required. But faith is also required to believe it all happened by accident.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about those of us who claim that we genuinely don't know how it all happened? What evidence would you give them to sway their opinion.

Trust me, I get what you're saying. Many people don't want to know and don't want to hear you out. But what about people who are on the fence? What do you say to them?

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

But what about someone who says it's possible but very unlikely given what he knows? What can you do to convince him that it's more likely than he thinks?


[/ QUOTE ]

All I can do is what I've been doing on this forum - provide arguments, point to evidence, answer questions. The Bible says that God makes Himself known to all, that the heavens are telling of the glory of God, and many other passages. All I can do is remind someone of what they already know deep down. I can't overcome unbelief.

[ QUOTE ]

I was saying that if you only have one source


[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible isn't really just one source, it's a collection of many books written over a long period of time by many different authors. There are many reasons to trust it which are too numerous to go into here. Other sources are what I mentioned above - arguments, etc. I've never seen the relevance of the argument that there is disagreement over the Bible. If you read it you would expect disagreement as the Bible itself talks about that subject. If it's God's Word it will be true, and it promises that you can come to know the truth.

[ QUOTE ]

Many people don't want to know and don't want to hear you out. But what about people who are on the fence? What do you say to them?


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, what I've been doing on this forum. And there are many, many resources that will help with specific problems. You think the Bible has errors? There are whole libraries that deal with that issue. You think the Bible contradicts science? Again, I don't think it does but to show that can require much serious investigation.

Up til now in this thread I've been trying to show that the naturalist explanation is inadequate and irrational. If you can see that you've already taken the first step to admitting the possibility of miracles (defined as God's special intervention in nature), if you admit that you've admitted to God, and so on. In the end it's a question of faith - I can't give that to anyone, but God can.

I believe the Bible as a system, a worldview, fits the facts of experience and history far more closely than any other worldview. I think only on the concepts in the Bible can reason, morality and science be justified - that any nontheistic worldview destroys the possibility of knowledge. No atheistic system can justify reason, etc.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

"My evidence is everything because back of everything is the miracle of existence, human reason and life. The Bible gets more specific. And yes faith is required. But faith is also required to believe it all happened by accident."

The evidence you cite makes deism reasonable. It is also evidence that would make the beliefs of monotheists plausible. If it wasn't for the fact that those monotheists are specifying very specific miracles that there is no good reason to believe actually happened.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

there is no good reason to believe actually happened.


[/ QUOTE ]

What about my syllogism?

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

NotReady: prove that every miracle is not the illusion of a miracle.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

NotReady: prove that every miracle is not the illusion of a miracle.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't. I can't even prove I'm typing this. Once again, faith is required.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

First I want to thank you for your contributions to this forum. I realize that it's tough for a theist to come in here and express his views, but I think it's necessary for any of us to actually learn anything. I still might reply to your longer post, but I don't have time to really think about it right now.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

NotReady: prove that every miracle is not the illusion of a miracle.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't. I can't even prove I'm typing this. Once again, faith is required.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a HUGE concession. You're basically saying that one shouldn't reasonably believe in miracles until after they have acquired faith in God and the Bible.

I realize that you may retort that believing anything else requires faith as well. I would agree to a certain extent, but that doesn't change the fact that you must be convinced of Jesus's divinity before you can really believe in miracles.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I realize that you may retort that believing anything else requires faith as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't mean it as a retort, exactly. I believe all humans act and think in a religious mode, that we are continually presented with the claims of God and continually are making decisions in the religious area. I believe that atheism is a form of faith, that humans can't exclude faith so long as their brain is operational. If you deny God there are some monstrous whoppers you must believe instead, and that requires much faith.

[ QUOTE ]

but that doesn't change the fact that you must be convinced of Jesus's divinity before you can really believe in miracles.


[/ QUOTE ]

At a minimum you must believe in the possibility of a personal God to believe in miracles as they are traditionally defined. I suppose it's possible for a miracle to be one link in a conversion process, but I think you won't believe something is a miracle unless you believe in God. I think the divinity of Jesus is an important doctrine and that all genuine Christians, who are the least bit diligent, will eventually acknowledge it, but I don't think it is initially necessary. I just don't think you can proceed very far in Christianity without accepting it.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:

It seems you are incorporating probability




I am?


[/ QUOTE ]


If I misunderstood, and you admit your beliefs have nothing to do with probabilities, then never mind.


[ QUOTE ]
Miracles don't occur. They are performed.

[/ QUOTE ]


Was this quip just a filler to make your response look fuller? Once a miracle has been performed, it can be said to have , ocurred right? This type of stuff is going to make a liar out of me for saying you don't troll.


[ QUOTE ]
Faith is involved on both sides, but evidence is also involved. Can you admit that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, I'll admit that. Absolutely. Without question. Our only problem is that we are worlds away for just how much weight such evidence should be given.

I make the odds of a sea actually ever spontaneously parting at 5 quintillion to 1. And... I'll concede that the bible is in fact evidence of this, and am willing to reduce those odds to about 4.9 quintillion to 1.

The thing is, starting at 5 quintillion to 1, I'm going to need something a little more weighty than a 2000 year old book written by mortal men, in order to persuade me this actually happened. But I'm telling right now that I don't think it's impossible. I definitely don't put the odds at zero.

[edit:] I define faith as something you believe "despite" insufficient evidence or evidence to the contrary. For instance, if I choose to believe my wife will be faithful in the future, despite her being unfaithful in the past, then I am placing my "faith" in her that she will be faithful from here on out. This is different than believing the light will go on when I flick the 'on' switch. That's not faith. That's a rational belief based on prior results and evidence.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

If I misunderstood


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to respond to your post in one piece so no more quotes.

The reason I said miracles are performed is to distinguish them from odd things happening through cause and effect, to underscore that it is God who does miracles rather than that they just happen. This matters because of the issue of probability - I constantly challenge DS on his use of probability concerning the existence of God and miracles because probability can only make sense in naturalistic terms, calculations performed on the basis of empiricism and natural law. It's absurd to try to apply that principle to God, the Creator, the Absolute, Supernatural Being who operates according to no man's probability estimates - it's ridiculous.

That I needed to do that is evident from your attempt to calculate the probability of a sea spontaneously separating - it didn't separate spontaneously, God separated it. Please give me the formula for calculating the probability that God will decide to part the Red Sea.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'm going to respond to your post


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I had another thought on this. Bear with me cause I'm doing three things at once.

I can see using probability to determine the odds of something happening naturally, then if it's very unlikely, you might incline toward miracle.

The way I understand DS' use is that he questions the event in the first place on the basis of probability. If you grant the event occurred, fine, use probability to try to estimate the odds. But you can't use probability to determine whether it happened.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

NotReady: prove that every miracle is not the illusion of a miracle.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't. I can't even prove I'm typing this. Once again, faith is required.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's dishonest to even hint at any equivalence between the "faith" required to believe in one's own existence and the faith necessary to believe that in XYZ B.C. Elijah called down fire from heaven to consume precisely 102 soldiers. However, I see theists attempt this sort of sleight of hand all the time.

Really, there's an enormous amount of sophistication required to say anything useful about this issue...but it's very interesting. Also, bringing it up is easily the fastest way to assess someone's intellectual honesty. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

It's dishonest to even hint at any equivalence between the "faith" required to believe in one's own existence and the faith necessary to believe that in XYZ B.C.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't make it equivalent. The greater includes the lesser. And I have posted on the greater ad infinitum. If you were honest you would mention that.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

I don't follow...how are you even suggesting that believing in one's own sentience requires "faith" at all? What do you mean, "The greater includes the lesser?"

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I don't follow...how are you even suggesting that believing in one's own sentience requires "faith" at all? What do you mean, "The greater includes the lesser?"


[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't referring to sentience but proving there is an external world. If I can't prove that how can I prove a miracle?

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

Meh...I'm not sure how useful it is to frame the problem as one of proving existence...the problems of language and consciousness alone provide too many hurdles for me to grasp anyways.

Or...maybe, too many hurdles for anybody...if Wittgenstein couldn't...

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how useful it is to frame the problem as one of proving existence


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it was a bad example. I was just trying to make the point I can't prove a miracle. The issue of epistemology could occupy several other threads.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

I do see what you're saying. That the odds of water molecules somehow all behaving in such a way as to naturally part, have nothing to do with whether God decided to perform this miracle. And of course, you believe that if God decided to do so, He is certainly capable of it. Heck, if God exists, I'll say the same thing. So it comes down to what you said above. What are the odds that God would decide to do so? I think you win on that one.

But I also think you and David are talking apples and oranges. The question is not whether the miracle "could" have occured, but whether or not it "did" occur. I believe David is talking about the latter. If he's not, then I actually agree with you. Of course, I'll believe the Red Sea "could" have parted, if there is a God and He wanted to part it.

I just think the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of it never having parted. And for this, I use probability based on evidence. Water molecules have never been observed to behave that way. Science tells us that the life of the universe is far too short to ever expect them to behave that way. There is no physical evidence that the water of the Red Sea behaved that way thousands of years ago. There are no eye witness accounts that it ever happened. All we have is an almost 2000 year old book written by mortal men who said it did. That's just not enough. So I say the probability that the Red Sea ever actually parted is extraordinarily low.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I realize that you may retort that believing anything else requires faith as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't mean it as a retort, exactly. I believe all humans act and think in a religious mode, that we are continually presented with the claims of God and continually are making decisions in the religious area. I believe that atheism is a form of faith, that humans can't exclude faith so long as their brain is operational. If you deny God there are some monstrous whoppers you must believe instead, and that requires much faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is where you misunderstand many atheists/agnostics. There aren't monstrous whoppers that I believe instead of God. I believe I don't know a lot of things. I don't know why the universe exists, I don't know how human consciousness arose, I don't know why there are physical laws to the universe. My position, and the position of many atheists and agnostics, is that we don't find God to be a compelling answer to these questions. It's not that there is a better answer, it's that there is no good answer in my mind.

Yes, believing in God would explain these things, but I don't find the evidence for the God that you believe in to be very convincing. In my mind, there are better explanations for why most of humanity believes in God/Gods than that they actually exist.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

but that doesn't change the fact that you must be convinced of Jesus's divinity before you can really believe in miracles.


[/ QUOTE ]

At a minimum you must believe in the possibility of a personal God to believe in miracles as they are traditionally defined. I suppose it's possible for a miracle to be one link in a conversion process, but I think you won't believe something is a miracle unless you believe in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again this is a huge concession because you shouldn't be surprised at all that atheists deny miracles and don't see why they should accept them. If I need to have faith before I believe in miracles you shouldn't be arguing about the validity of miracles with me. It would seem much more fruitful of a discussion to try to convince me why I should have faith, since I would need that before I even consider miracles.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the divinity of Jesus is an important doctrine and that all genuine Christians, who are the least bit diligent, will eventually acknowledge it, but I don't think it is initially necessary. I just don't think you can proceed very far in Christianity without accepting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you mind explaining what it means to "get far" in Christianity?

Also, on a completely unrelated note, are you more upset by atheists or liberal Christians who believe Jesus was a great teacher and not God?

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

<font color="blue">I think this is where you misunderstand many atheists/agnostics. There aren't monstrous whoppers that I believe instead of God. I believe I don't know a lot of things. I don't know why the universe exists, I don't know how human consciousness arose, I don't know why there are physical laws to the universe. My position, and the position of many atheists and agnostics, is that we don't find God to be a compelling answer to these questions. It's not that there is a better answer, it's that there is no good answer in my mind. </font>

This pretty much nails it for me. To the point where I'd happily sign my name to it.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

The question is not whether the miracle "could" have occured, but whether or not it "did" occur.


[/ QUOTE ]

But this is the exact point at which you can't use probability to determine whether or not a miracle did occur. A miracle is supernatural, probability can only deal with the natural.

[ QUOTE ]

There are no eye witness accounts that it ever happened. All we have is an almost 2000 year old book written by mortal men who said it did.


[/ QUOTE ]

Heh, there were quite a few eye witnesses, millions, I think. Of course you won't accept them or any of the other testimonies in the Bible. So that raises the issue of the Bible as God's Word. A large topic.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">I think this is where you misunderstand many atheists/agnostics. There aren't monstrous whoppers that I believe instead of God. I believe I don't know a lot of things. I don't know why the universe exists, I don't know how human consciousness arose, I don't know why there are physical laws to the universe. My position, and the position of many atheists and agnostics, is that we don't find God to be a compelling answer to these questions. It's not that there is a better answer, it's that there is no good answer in my mind. </font>

This pretty much nails it for me. To the point where I'd happily sign my name to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is stronger if you use the words "Biblical God".

Also I was indeed talking about the probability that Biblical miracles "did" happen rather than "could" happen.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

NotReady: prove that every miracle is not the illusion of a miracle.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't. I can't even prove I'm typing this. Once again, faith is required.

[/ QUOTE ]

Follow up question,

Are you inerrant in determining which improbable scenarios are miracles and which are just pure chance, or is there some margin of error?

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I believe I don't know a lot of things.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, I can't wrangle with you about what's inside your head. I can say that your actions are probably not consistent with the statement you're making. Unless you admit to being irrational. Because you engage in logical discourse, you probably make moral judgments, you may even entertain future hopes, if you're a scientist you investigate the world as if it was there, and many more actions which can only be rational if:

If what?

But many people's fundamental beliefs are not formulated in a self-conscious way, so again I can't address your situation personally, but I can talk about them by inference.

[ QUOTE ]

It's not that there is a better answer, it's that there is no good answer in my mind.


[/ QUOTE ]

If by good answer you mean omniscient, total understanding then I can't help you. But I can make a rational case for God, the Bible and Christianity. That's what I try to do on this forum. If you have understood my arguments and reject them then that forms a part of your belief system, because when you reject a proposition you are expressing unbelief. "I don't know" in certain situations is not a neutral position if you ought to know. I'm not saying you ought to know at this point, but God says all are responsible because He reveals Himself to all. "I don't know" eventually equals "I don't accept". Again, not being personal, just telling you what I think the Bible indicates. God will not leave us alone, He will not allow neutrality - we are being saved or we are being condemned all along the timeline of our lives. There are no spiritual Switzerlands.

[ QUOTE ]

In my mind, there are better explanations for why most of humanity believes in God/Gods than that they actually exist.


[/ QUOTE ]


There are many false religions and false gods. That man is a religious being should cause at least some curiosity beyond just chalking it up to evolution.

[ QUOTE ]

Would you mind explaining what it means to "get far" in Christianity?


[/ QUOTE ]

I meant that when someone becomes a Christian he enters into discipleship which involves progress in becoming like Christ. That involves learning and practicing. To deny the divinity of Christ is to deny a major doctrine of the Bible and I think it would hinder a Christian in his progress. I've never known a practicing Christian who does deny that Christ is God, though historically that heresy does exist, and is traditionally denounced as heresy. But I was just trying to emphasize the importance of the doctrine, I'm not trying to pronounce judgment on anyone.

[ QUOTE ]

are you more upset by atheists or liberal Christians who believe Jesus was a great teacher and not God?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not upset by either. I'm concerned to defend the Gospel and to impart whatever knowledge I have that may help anyone seeking the truth.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Also I was indeed talking about the probability that Biblical miracles "did" happen rather than "could" happen.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aha!

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Are you inerrant in determining which improbable scenarios are miracles and which are just pure chance, or is there some margin of error?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have much opinion about miracles that are not in the Bible. The Bible is inerrant in that respect.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">I think this is where you misunderstand many atheists/agnostics. There aren't monstrous whoppers that I believe instead of God. I believe I don't know a lot of things. I don't know why the universe exists, I don't know how human consciousness arose, I don't know why there are physical laws to the universe. My position, and the position of many atheists and agnostics, is that we don't find God to be a compelling answer to these questions. It's not that there is a better answer, it's that there is no good answer in my mind. </font>

This pretty much nails it for me. To the point where I'd happily sign my name to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is stronger if you use the words "Biblical God".


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I mean an omnipotent, benevolent, meddling God. A deistic God kind of makes sense to me, but I wouldn't say that there is compelling evidence.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Also I was indeed talking about the probability that Biblical miracles "did" happen rather than "could" happen.


[/ QUOTE ]

Aha!

[/ QUOTE ]

But it is important to keep in mind that if they "didn't" happen, your specific beliefs are incorrect.

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]

But it is important to keep in mind that if they "didn't" happen, your specific beliefs are incorrect.


[/ QUOTE ]

Paul beat you to it:

1 Corinthians 15:17

and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I believe I don't know a lot of things.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, I can't wrangle with you about what's inside your head. I can say that your actions are probably not consistent with the statement you're making. Unless you admit to being irrational. Because you engage in logical discourse, you probably make moral judgments, you may even entertain future hopes, if you're a scientist you investigate the world as if it was there, and many more actions which can only be rational if:

If what?

But many people's fundamental beliefs are not formulated in a self-conscious way, so again I can't address your situation personally, but I can talk about them by inference.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many questions that I believe I do know the answer to, so I don't see your point. I believe the world exists, I believe that some actions are better in certain situations than others (although I hesitate to call anything right or wrong), and I believe logical discourse can lead to understanding. I don't see how any of these things necessitates a belief in God.

Would you mind telling me which of my actions you are talking about that would mean that I have taken a position on God's existence? I don't need to have an answer for ultimate questions in order to function. I don't think that you can really have an answer for many of life's ultimate questions.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

It's not that there is a better answer, it's that there is no good answer in my mind.


[/ QUOTE ]

If by good answer you mean omniscient, total understanding then I can't help you. But I can make a rational case for God, the Bible and Christianity. That's what I try to do on this forum. If you have understood my arguments and reject them then that forms a part of your belief system, because when you reject a proposition you are expressing unbelief.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true, I don't believe in the God you are proposing. I don't think your arguments for the Bible and Christianity are compelling. This does not mean, however, that I believe I know the answer to questions that believing in God would take care of. This is important. They are two separate things. I don't believe in the God you believe in. I can't explain why many things that you attribute to him have happened, but I don't have an alternate theory. I just don't think your theory/claim is a satisfactory answer.

[ QUOTE ]
"I don't know" in certain situations is not a neutral position if you ought to know. I'm not saying you ought to know at this point, but God says all are responsible because He reveals Himself to all. "I don't know" eventually equals "I don't accept". Again, not being personal, just telling you what I think the Bible indicates. God will not leave us alone, He will not allow neutrality - we are being saved or we are being condemned all along the timeline of our lives. There are no spiritual Switzerlands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I'm not claiming a neutral position on whether your God exists. I'm claiming a neutral position on the question of who created the universe and why we are here. Completely different.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In my mind, there are better explanations for why most of humanity believes in God/Gods than that they actually exist.


[/ QUOTE ]


There are many false religions and false gods. That man is a religious being should cause at least some curiosity beyond just chalking it up to evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that their are and have been "false" religions and Gods is one of the reasons I tend to disbelieve in your conception of God.

And I am intensely fascinated by religious thinking. I think it's much, much more complex than simple biological evolution. I probably differ from some other non-believers on this question though. I assure you that I have studied, discussed, and read about many, many religions.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Would you mind explaining what it means to "get far" in Christianity?


[/ QUOTE ]

I meant that when someone becomes a Christian he enters into discipleship which involves progress in becoming like Christ. That involves learning and practicing. To deny the divinity of Christ is to deny a major doctrine of the Bible and I think it would hinder a Christian in his progress. I've never known a practicing Christian who does deny that Christ is God, though historically that heresy does exist, and is traditionally denounced as heresy. But I was just trying to emphasize the importance of the doctrine, I'm not trying to pronounce judgment on anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Understood. I wasn't quite sure what you meant.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

are you more upset by atheists or liberal Christians who believe Jesus was a great teacher and not God?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not upset by either. I'm concerned to defend the Gospel and to impart whatever knowledge I have that may help anyone seeking the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe upset was the wrong word choice. Perhaps 'frustrated' would be more appropriate. I was just curious as to who you think does more damage to Christianity, the believer who gets things wrong or the atheist who attacks the religion.

For me personally, I am much more frustrated/upset/disappointed by atheists who overstate their claims and needlessly rail against religion than most others. It irks me because I believe they are trying to make some of the same points I am, but they are doing a piss poor job of it. I thought you might feel similarly about liberal theists think Jesus was "just a man".

Re: Is religion harmful?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But it is important to keep in mind that if they "didn't" happen, your specific beliefs are incorrect.


[/ QUOTE ]

Paul beat you to it:

1 Corinthians 15:17

and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that from your point of view, the distinction between the probability that miracles could occur, compared to did occur, is pretty irrelevant.

Meanwhile if there is a God out there, who enjoys your eloquent arguments that he must be out there, but who is simultaneously of a tad different form than you think, you constantly exasperate him with quotes like the one above.

Also, does the Pope's silly statements about you, make you reflect on the wiseness of moving slightly toward a more generic Christianity rather than sounding like him?