Why aren't Christians able to debate their own religion?

[Sonart]

.

Clive... before I respond, I'd like to compliment you on your intelligent defense of Faith. One gets so weary of Bible thumpers who debate folks who don't take the Bible seriously by quoting the Bible to them. I've always contended that befief in God comes down to simple faith, and that such faith can and does benefit those who have it. I sort of have to, since I personally believe that evolution has hardwired the brains Homo Sapiens for spirituality as a survival mechanism. Alas, this same hardwiring lends itself towards spiritual tribalism and intolerance, at least in the hands of those who seek power by manipulating the religious experience of the well-meaning flock to suit their ambitions.

Of course, the Bible doesn't help much by declaring it God's will, as defined by it's authors, that those who think otherwise deserve whatever punishment they get. Friendly discussion accomplishes a bit more, methinks...

Conan: "What gods do you pray to?"
Subotai: "I pray to the four winds... and you?"
Conan: "To Crom... but I seldom pray to him, he doesn't listen."
Subotai: "[chuckles] What good is he then? Ah, it's just as I've always said."
Conan: "He is strong! If I die, I have to go before him, and he will ask me, "What is the riddle of steel?" If I don't know it, he will cast me out of Valhalla and laugh at me. That's Crom, strong on his mountain!"
Subotai: "Ah, my god is greater."
Conan: "[chuckles] Crom laughs at your four winds. He laughs from his mountain."
Subotai: "My god is stronger. He is the everlasting sky! Your god lives underneath him."

.

[CliveStaples]

Quote by: Zhavric Looks like the honeymoon is over...

I couldn't marry you...Christians aren't supposed to be unequally yoked (yolked?). I wouldn't want you to keep feeling inferior to my obviously greater intellect and powers of comprehension. And my 1337zor D&D skillz. Jealousy doesn't make for a good marriage.

Quote by: Zhavric Now, you know I'm not going to let you get away with stating something like that, right?

...not unless you've corrected your thinking, no.

I'll give you time to get some ice for that burn.

Quote by: Zhavric What exactly about atheism is unproven? We know that all past gods are supernatural claims without evidence or unproven at best.

"Past gods" meaning non-Christian deities?

That doesn't prove the truth of atheism; if I claim that all elements E of set S have some particular characteristic C (e.g., odd, even, muliples of 2, etc.), my claim remains unproven so long as there is some element E of S that has not been demonstrated to have characteristic C.

Quote by: Zhavric We know that humans have been fabricating gods for thousands of years.

People have been fabricating lots of things for a very long time. This isn't conclusive proof.

Quote by: Zhavric We know that we have a psychological mechanism that causes us to believe such things.

...my belief is caused by something other than my decision to believe? I don't have control over what sources I trust? That's a bit odd.

Quote by: Zhavric God is false until evidence is presented to the contrary.

I disagree. You may choose to take such a position because you think the odds are with you (which they are), but logic alone does not demand that your position is the only tenable one. To take the mathematical description of your argument: you may presume that, because elements [n] through [n+999] are C, that element [n+1000] is C, but such a presumption is speculation on your part. As long as element [n+1000] is distinct from elements [n] through [n+999], you cannot find it guilty by association in S.

Quote by: Zhavric (This is not to be confused to agnosticism which is "unknown" until proven true. It's intellectually bankrupt to ignore proven claims and make statements like "Invisible Flying Monkeys MAY be real..." )

I do not ignore proven claims, because unlike much of what you it to, ignoring evidence actually is intellectually bankrupt.

Can Invisible Flying Monkeys be real? I don't know. I don't know how such an animal could fly, let alone possess invisibility. There is a distinction between IFMs and Christianity, I believe: what does it matter whether IFMs are real or not? If the answer is superfluous either way, then who cares? If the existence of IFMs is fatuous, then we may safely presume that they don't exist (even if they do) and be entirely unaffected. But unlike IFMs, God matters.

[CliveStaples]

Quote by: Chris the Chees That logic doesn't hold up I'm afraid. You cannot prove that nothing does not exist, it is a complete logical farse.

Wait...you cannot prove...that nothing...does not exist. Can you prove that something does not exist?

Quote by: CtC The onus is upon the religious to substanciate their claims of a higher power.

You're missing my point. Substantiation is great; it allows certainty of the truth. What I'm interested in is the nature of unsubstantiated claims.

Quote by: CtC I do not have to 'prove' Santa does not exist, nor will I believe in Santa until evidence is provided.

I have never claimed otherwise. As I said before, "Claims offered without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Quote by: CtC The same goes for a deity, unless there is a evidence that it exists, it does not.

This is a departure from what you have previously claimed, which was that a claim must be substantiated before it is taken to be true. Unless and until a deity is proven NOT to exist, how can you believe that it doesn't? Did penguins not exist before people could prove that they did?

Quote by: CtC I know gravity exists because I am directly subject to its influence, it can be measured, 'proved'.

And before it was proved--when it was unsubstantiated--was gravity false?

Quote by: CtC God, on the other hand, is a human invention, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that god exists, thus the hypothesis is incorrect.

That strikes me as illogical. A hypothesis does not default to "false" for lack of being proven "true".

Let's say that I hypothesize that phenomenon [x] will occur after stimulus [y]. I have not run an experiment yet; thus, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that phenomenon [x] occurs after stimulus [y]. Does my hypothesis default to "false"? That is, we can (safely) assume that phenomenon [x] does NOT occur after stimulus [y]? Doesn't it seem much more reasonable to assume nothing, and wait to see what actually happens after stimulus [y]?

To prove that there is no god is easy if we address the matter objectively: -

Quote by: CtC Hypothesis: - God does exist. Method: - I will investigate the evidence related to 'gods' and see if it supports the hypothesis. Results: - There is no evidence to support the existance of a god. Indeed much of the information science has generated goes to disprove many of the claims made in religious texts. Conclusion: - The hypothesis has no evidence to support it, thus the hypothesis is incorrect. What new hypothesis can we we draw? God does not exist.

Let me see...there exists no evidence of [x], therefor [x] does not occur. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Is that really your argument?

The hypothesis is incorrect only if it is false. Are undemonstrated claims false? If I lived in 40 B.C. and claimed that the Earth rotates around the sun--without proof--is my claim false?

Quote by: CtC Hypothesis: - God does not exist Method: - Collect evidence of gods existance, in order to disprove the hypothesis. Results: - Nill Conclusion: - No evidence can be found to prove the hypothesis to be incorrect, thus the hypothesis is correct. God does not exist.

Here you follow the exact opposite reasoning used in the previous example. Here, an absence of contradiction proves truth. There, absence of affirmation proves falsity. Here, you look for contradicting evidence and, finding none, conclude truth. There, you look for substantiating evidence and, finding none, conclude error. What substantiation is there for your second hypothesis? What contradicting evidence is there for your first hypothesis? At least use the same method to evaluate both claims!

[CliveStaples]

Quote by: Sonart Clive... before I respond, I'd like to compliment you on your intelligent defense of Faith.

Well, thank you.

Quote by: Sonart One gets so weary of Bible thumpers who debate folks who don't take the Bible seriously by quoting the Bible to them. I've always contended that befief in God comes down to simple faith, and that such faith can and does benefit those who have it.

In my estimation, even people who believe that God doesn't exist hold that belief by faith.

Quote by: Sonart I sort of have to, since I personally believe that evolution has hardwired the brains Homo Sapiens for spirituality as a survival mechanism. Alas, this same hardwiring lends itself towards spiritual tribalism and intolerance, at least in the hands of those who seek power by manipulating the religious experience of the well-meaning flock to suit their ambitions.

This, of course, is true of any belief structure, whether religious, political, philosophical, or anything else. The fault lies not in religiousity (which has its own peculiar strenghts and weaknesses), but in the willingness of people to wrongfully use others.

Quote by: Sonart Of course, the Bible doesn't help much by declaring it God's will, as defined by it's authors, that those who think otherwise deserve whatever punishment they get. Friendly discussion accomplishes a bit more, methinks...

You mistake the Bible. It isn't about people deserving whatever punishment they get. It's about people escaping that punishment by repenting of their sin and coming to Christ. If we all got what we deserved, we'd all go to Hell.

Quote by: Sonart Conan: "What gods do you pray to?" Subotai: "I pray to the four winds... and you?" Conan: "To Crom... but I seldom pray to him, he doesn't listen." Subotai: "[chuckles] What good is he then? Ah, it's just as I've always said." Conan: "He is strong! If I die, I have to go before him, and he will ask me, "What is the riddle of steel?" If I don't know it, he will cast me out of Valhalla and laugh at me. That's Crom, strong on his mountain!" Subotai: "Ah, my god is greater." Conan: "[chuckles] Crom laughs at your four winds. He laughs from his mountain." Subotai: "My god is stronger. He is the everlasting sky! Your god lives underneath him."

Yeah, well, who was in the sequel, huh?! HUH?!? Yeah, that's what I thought.

[orgaelin]

I'm a little too late to make any contribution to this thread, but reading the last few posts I must echo the words of Sonart in congratulating CliveStaples for his excellent arguments in defence of his faith. Absolutely refreshing!

~ Org.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Clive Staples You cannot separate God from His agency in this world. I am not a deist who believes that God is just a clockmaker.

I, however, am.... sort of...

"I believe in God, only I spell it Nature." -- Frank Lloyd Wright

God's agency in the world strikes me as well meaning but too flawed by the limitations of the cultures that bred them to be dictating what I should believe.

Quote by: Clive Staples ...is that really your standard? Disagreement about [x] means that [x] is flawed? Hell, people can't even agree what "person" means.

One would think that the inspired Word of an omnipotent, omniscient God would come with a clearer instruction manual. Otherwise, one might get the impression that divine revelation is merely the result of a variety of wise, philosophical A-types gifted with an elevated consciousness who have explored and recorded the depths of their own consciences and, lacking the means to define their own inspiration, and seeking to give it an unimpeachable authoritative weight, believe their revelations are inspired from without, rather than from a potentially suspect within.

Quote by: Clive Staples The Bible isn't "more riddle than divine guidance", because it isn't read in a vacuum. It is read in the presence of God, and it is read by people who bear His image. We are not without guidance in this world.

Nor should we be, but I believe such guidance comes from within ourselves, our own better instincts which can be accessed through a process of ritual, rythmic music or chanting and meditation... prayer, if you will. Just as Buddhism, like all religions, can bring comfort, strength and hope to its practioners, but without requiring a Deity.

Quote by: Clive Staples The principle reason that slavery is bad is because it is forced labor without compensation. But consider that following orders is compulsory in the military, but soldiers aren't slaves

Yet forced labor without compensation was once deemed perfectly acceptable, since it was the only means the ruling elite of advanced civilizations had to labor saving devices and cheap labor. We've long since evolved ways to respect the dignity of our fellow humans by abolishing slavery. We have yet to find a way to compell young men to charge headlong into the horrors of battle without unquestionable, unflinching discipline.

Quote by: Clive Staples ...which has disproved what, exactly, from the Bible?

I'm going to assume your perfectly familiar with the entire Creationism/Evolution debate and are just being coy with me.

Quote by: Clive Staples If you choose to reject God, He can do nothing to save you. To quote C.S. Lewis, "The gates of Hell are locked from the inside."

Shouldn't that be from the outside? Anyway, I have my own response to Pascal's Wager.

"Since history has shown that we've found rational explanations for the unknowns that plagued man in the past, unknowns that man used to attribute to gods, then the best bet is that there are rational explanations for those things we still don't know, rather than continuing to attribute them to gods." -- Daniel's Wager

Quote by: Clive Staples Also, I don't really care what religious leaders in this country say. People are idiots quite a lot of the time. I have no control over what some crazy Baptist in Alabama says about Jesus and 9/11, or what some crazy atheist in California says about Christian assassination conspiracies.

Then you and I have no reason for enmity. My problem with Christianity stems specficially from those religious leaders who wield so much political power and would convince my fellow citizens that I am the source of all that is wrong with the world and should be treated accordingly.

Quote by: Clive Staples ...my belief is caused by something other than my decision to believe?

I believe so, yes. The God Spot. Evolution's governor on the excesses of our own worst instincts.

Quote by: Clive Staples In my estimation, even people who believe that God doesn't exist hold that belief by faith.

I don't disagree. Having explored the depths of my own conscience, I have faith that what it tells me is true.

Quote by: Clive Staples You mistake the Bible. It isn't about people deserving whatever punishment they get. It's about people escaping that punishment by repenting of their sin and coming to Christ. If we all got what we deserved, we'd all go to Hell.

So anyone who doesn't come to Christ deserves what they get, right?

"He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
And this is the judgment: Because the light is come into the world and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil.
For every one that doth evil hateth the light and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved." -- John 3:18-20

And I disagree that we'd all go to Hell (not that I believe in Hell). I honestly believe that people as a whole are basically good, that they mean well and care about one another. Simply because the constant struggle to reconcile our better instincts with our worst makes us flawed shouldn't comdemn us... unless, of course, such implied punishment is necessary to keep us motivated to do right. I just think we can find that motivation within ourselves, without being labeled 'Evil' because we don't adhere to the politically correct mythology.

.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Zhavric God is false until evidence is presented to the contrary.

Are you about to publish new laws for physics (at least) ?
I think that the Royal Stockholm Academy is going for bankruptcy, soon :-)

[Chris the Chees]

Wait...you cannot prove...that nothing...does not exist. Can you prove that something does not exist?

In this case the 'nothing' is the same as the something. You are asking for us to prove that a flase entity does not exist. The reason you can't is because it is impossible, there is evidence to reflect upon or measure. Why? Because god does not exist.

You're missing my point.

I doubt it...

What I'm interested in is the nature of unsubstantiated claims.

An unsubstanciated claim is a which lacks evidence or even a basis in fact, the existance of God being a prime example.

Unless and until a deity is proven NOT to exist, how can you believe that it doesn't?

Because there is no evidence, the reason there is no evidence is because it does not exist. That proves that it does not exist. you search for evidence to prove or disprove your hypothesis. if the evidence does not support the hypothesis then the hypothesis is incorrect. The hypothesis theat god does not exist is supported by the fact taht there is no evidence to measure. You cannot approach the issue looking to find evidence to disprove the existance of god. You look for evidence that god does exist and examine it to see if it is relevant and indeed accurate evidence. If the evidence supports the hypothesis, in this case by not existing, then the hypothesis is an accurate one.

Did penguins not exist before people could prove that they did?

Yes, because human have always had the capacity to prove that penguins exist because the evidence exists and always has since the evolution of the penguin. The same cannot be said of God and it never will.

And before it was proved--when it was unsubstantiated--was gravity false?

Gravity has always existed and proved, even before it was studied. It is proved by existance and subsiquently has been measured. God cannot be measured or proved to exist because god does not exist.

That strikes me as illogical. A hypothesis does not default to "false" for lack of being proven "true".

Yes, it does. If the evidence does not support the hypothesis when duely investigated, the hypothesis is wrong. If no evidence supports the hypothesis then the hypothesis is wrong.

Let's say that I hypothesize that phenomenon [x] will occur after stimulus [y]. I have not run an experiment yet; thus, there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that phenomenon [x] occurs after stimulus [y]. Does my hypothesis default to "false"?

No, because the experiment has not been conducted, only after experimentation and investigation can a conclusion be made. If however you were to investigate the matter and find no evidence to support your hypothesis then the hypothesis would default to false.

Let me see...there exists no evidence of [x], therefor [x] does not occur.

Exactly.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Is that really your argument?

Yes, if we apply it to a more everyday matter, lets run it on another queston.

Hypothesis: - the battle of Waterloo occured in 1815 and the Duke of Wellington attended.

Method: - I shall read a number of primary sources which chronical the event. Specifically I shall study H. T. Siborne (ed), The Waterloo Letters, (London, 1983). A collection of several hundred letters written by those in attendance of the battle.

Results: -

Of the evidence I viewed a large number of military figures who also attended the battle reference the attendance of the Duke of Wellington.

Conclusion, the evidence supports the hypothesis, thus the hypothesis is accurate.


Proved.


But if we change the hypothesis: -

Santa Clause attended the battle of Waterloo.

Method: - I shall read a number of primary sources which chronical the event. Specifically I shall study H. T. Siborne (ed), The Waterloo Letters, (London, 1983). A collection of several hundred letters written by those in attendance of the battle.


Results: -

Of the evidence I viewed not a single one references Santa's attendance.


Conclusion: - The hypothesis that Santa attended the battle of Waterloo is incorrect.



As you can see, I disproved Santa's attendance because I looked at the evidence, and it did not support the hypothesis. While I did not study every single source available, so my research was not exhaustive, but it is certainly very reasonable to accept the conclusion of the hypothesis. Unless you now bring into question the very nature of reality and an wish to disguss 'absolute truth', the exact same can be applied to this religious discussion.

If I lived in 40 B.C. and claimed that the Earth rotates around the sun--without proof--is my claim false?

No, because you can prove it. It is measurable, observable and always has been, simply because they didn't measure it back then, which incidentally they did, does not mean that they couldn't have done.

Here, you look for contradicting evidence and, finding none, conclude truth.

Wrong, you don't look for evidence proving or disproving your hypothesis, you look for evidence, period. Should the results substanciate the hypothesis then the results will reflect that, if they do not, then you are left with one logical conclusion.

Besides the only way it is possible to prove a negative is by converting it to a posertive.

At least use the same method to evaluate both claims!

It is exactly the same method. You collect evidence, you review the evidence and make your conclusion. If there is no evidence to suppor the hypothesis then that is evidence in its self; evidence of the hypothesis' being inaccurate.


You keep reverting to the same argument, assuming that one day we will be able to prove gods existance. Which is a sign that youn finger nails are scraping at the ledge in a desperate last minute attempt to purchase some grip before you fall. What is is also a sign of is that you accept that there is no evidence to support your hypothesis, but rather than accepting your results you are simply ignoring them and standing by your disproved hypothesis anyway. You offer no re-experiment or alteration of you hypothesis, you simply refuse to accept the results.

[Sonart]

.



Dang, poor Clive has his work cut out for him.




.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Sonart . I've always contended that befief in God comes down to simple faith, and that such faith can and does benefit those who have it. I sort of have to, since I personally believe that evolution has hardwired the brains Homo Sapiens for spirituality as a survival mechanism. Alas, this same hardwiring lends itself towards spiritual tribalism and intolerance, at least in the hands of those who seek power by manipulating the religious experience of the well-meaning flock to suit their ambitions. .

I have long contended that religion addresses a deep seated pschological need. It can not be defended rationally. It devolves to a matter of faith , which is a high-falutin' way of saying, "cause it feels good." Faith is way of addressing our own mortality as well as holdign back the dangers that lay in the darkness around us.

I am not sure I can agree that faith provides benefits, or more specifically that the benefits of faith are greater than the costs of faith. Given the bloodshead and tyranny justified by faith on a macro level, I am not sure I can concurr that the personal benefits are worth it.

I think the next great step in evolution may be the widespread acceptance of our own mortality and the willingness to leave faith, gods and demons behind us as we have left hunting and gathering behind as a primary means of survival.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Clive? From ODN?

Is it just you and Zhavric or are there others coming from ODN?

O.o

Quote by: Clives If someone rejects religion on the grounds that it is unproven, they should also reject atheism for exactly the same reason. To do otherwise is illogical, and employs a double standard. If someone rejects religion for any other reason, then that reason should be examined.

What kind of Atheist? Weak atheism doesn't fall very neatly in that argument. Niether does strong Atheism.

Is it foolish of me to not to believe in pink unicorns if my only reason is that there is no proof of them? Is it even foolish of me to deny the existence of pink unicorns if there is no proof of them? To many Atheists, the question of whether God exists is almost as nonsensicel as pink unicorns and the natural default position for them is that there is no such thing.

I personally can't prove that my feet won't fall through the ground if I step on it. Does it make me foolish to resort to the opposite position and state that the floor will keep me up? Or should I really just conclude that I don't know that the floor will keep me up? The latter seems somewhat odd, you know? And it's the same thing for a lot of Atheists. The existence of God is laughable to them and naturually they default to what position is most obvious to them (with evidence or not), which is Atheism.

I understand what your saying, but it isn't really practical for some.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Gravity has always existed and proved, even before it was studied. It is proved by existance and subsiquently has been measured. God cannot be measured or proved to exist because god does not exist.

An excellent parallel.
Provide the exhibt(s) on God's non-existence.
(You have no means to prove it.)

I speculate that your answer is going to be (quite around this phrase) :
- no prove, since no matter exists :-)

My question :
- how do you know That matter does not exist ?

The point is :
- you take God as an imagination, that occupies some people's brains, minds, ect.
- your arguments comes out from religious materials

Make a switch from Theology to Science and Technology, then.
How the first atom was created ?
How do you know there is no Being, Mind, Matter, ect. out there ?

The answer :
- we have no tools to neither deny nor confirm God's existence.

The difference is, your own imagination on God, is being materialized in form of a person taken from religious materials alive, and you stay with that picture whenever the subject God appears.

Thinking that God is a being, residing somewhere in Heaven, is pretty immature.
We have no clue on God.
Thinking Homo Sapiens has appeared somehow as a result of evolution, is pretty immature, as well.
We have no clue on Homo Sapiens.
We just guess on both subjects, respectively.
Hint :
Egg vs. Hen

I believe that Theological explanation (despite of symbolism) is much closer to the truth.
Why ?
- Nothing can be created on its own, without interacting with other(s)
- No Friction <---> No Life

[Jack]

we have no tools to neither deny nor confirm God's existence.

We cannot disprove the concept of god(s) in general due to their supernatural status. We have no natural means to examine the supernatural, or to even determine if it exists.

However, through examination and serious consideration we can disprove the concept of your (christian) god. The bible offers sufficient evidence of an internally inconsistant philosophy to allow those of us who are not believers to discount the possibility of this particular god existing.

Thinking Homo Sapiens has appeared somehow as a result of evolution, is pretty immature, as well. We have no clue on Homo Sapiens.

May I suggest a college level biology class.

[phoenix_fire]

People try to put God in a box. They set parameters by which they are arrogant enough to think they can measure Him and, finding nothing, assume He does not exist. The problem is not in the findings but in the hypothesis.

Humanity is well beyond its infancy. It is well beyond the point where it requires corporal punishment in order to instil principles of right and wrong. It has reached the point where it is expected to follow these principles based on more intrinsic reinforcement. Anyone who spends any amount of time reading the New Testament will realize that faith is paramount. This is the faith to keep on following what is right even though there is no longer a visible penalty for it. "Blessed are those who believe and have not seen" (Jesus). God wants us to believe in the absence of physical evidence because this belief is made of an entirely free will. If He were a big man up in the sky that you could point to, then people would have little choice but to believe. (I say "little" because some people even in the face of such overwhelming evidences as these will still remain in denial). But we want to be spoon fed. We raise our fists to the sky and demand answers. If such people approached me in the same manner that they approach God, I don't think I would answer either.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: CliveStaples I couldn't marry you...Christians aren't supposed to be unequally yoked (yolked?). I wouldn't want you to keep feeling inferior to my obviously greater intellect and powers of comprehension. And my 1337zor D&D skillz. Jealousy doesn't make for a good marriage.

Neither does dishonety. *coughs* Watchmen *coughs*

"Past gods" meaning non-Christian deities? That doesn't prove the truth of atheism; if I claim that all elements E of set S have some particular characteristic C (e.g., odd, even, muliples of 2, etc.), my claim remains unproven so long as there is some element E of S that has not been demonstrated to have characteristic C.

I applaud your scientific detachment, but the fact is that in science if we have a thousand instances and 999 of them are false, we're not going to assume the last one is true. We're going to approach it as though it's false. Since there is no evidence for that last one, it remains false until proven true.

Since we know that Christ is just a myth, well... you know the rest.

People have been fabricating lots of things for a very long time. This isn't conclusive proof.

"People have been selling me crappy used cars for a long time. I still haven't gotten the hint..."

...my belief is caused by something other than my decision to believe? I don't have control over what sources I trust? That's a bit odd.

See the "memes" link in my sig.

I disagree. You may choose to take such a position because you think the odds are with you (which they are), but logic alone does not demand that your position is the only tenable one. To take the mathematical description of your argument: you may presume that, because elements [n] through [n+999] are C, that element [n+1000] is C, but such a presumption is speculation on your part. As long as element [n+1000] is distinct from elements [n] through [n+999], you cannot find it guilty by association in S.

lol Jinx

We both know that scientists use far less dramatic numbers to prove theorums. Most of the time, they're happy with a majority being true.

Nor can we approach the issue in such a vacuum. We know that Christianity is a fabrication. We know there's no evidence for it. So, you can wait around for something that's never going to show up / happen, but I prefer the path of intellectual honesty. Christianity has done nothing to distinguish itself from all the other fabricated religions.

I like Superman, too, but it's silly to hold out for him to be real.

I do not ignore proven claims, because unlike much of what you it to, ignoring evidence actually is intellectually bankrupt. Can Invisible Flying Monkeys be real? I don't know. I don't know how such an animal could fly, let alone possess invisibility. There is a distinction between IFMs and Christianity, I believe: what does it matter whether IFMs are real or not? If the answer is superfluous either way, then who cares? If the existence of IFMs is fatuous, then we may safely presume that they don't exist (even if they do) and be entirely unaffected. But unlike IFMs, God matters.

Speaking of intellectually bankrupt...

This is what I see you not grasping reg. IFM's. We aren't wondering. We aren't looking to flip a coin to decide if they're real or not. We can know things, Clive. We know things about aerodynamics, monkeys, and light. Our knowledge in this three areas is considerable and it dictates that IFM's cannot be real. To even suggest that they are is to suggest that all three studies are flawed: which is fine so long as you have evidence.

Which you don't.

The claims of god are no different.

[Chris the Chees]

The problem is not in the findings but in the hypothesis.

How so? The hypothesis is your belief; we are testing if your belief is fact. There is no evidence to support your hypothesis, thus your hypothesis is wrong.

Anyone who spends any amount of time reading the New Testament will realize that faith is paramount.

I used to go to Church every day at school (except, ironically, Sunday), and I had to attend numerous classes studding the New Testament. I have read the thing; it does not lead me to the same conclusion as the one you provide.

This is the faith to keep on following what is right even though there is no longer a visible penalty for it.

Are you suggesting that only the faithful are morally sound? Yet you claim that it is we, who attempt to investigate from a position of objective realism, are the arrogant ones? I think that you sorely misjudge the situation.

"Blessed are those who believe and have not seen" (Jesus).

"Blessed are those who choose to think for them selves, as opposed to following aged dogma." (CTC)

God wants us to believe in the absence of physical evidence because this belief is made of an entirely free will.

I rather suspect that such lines were added because the early founders of Christianity were met with similar difficult questions as the ones you have opposed and were forced to add a 'get out clause'.

Or then again, perhaps you simply take your own interpretation to this passage?

If He were a big man up in the sky that you could point to, then people would have little choice but to believe.

But "he's" not, indeed there is no evidence what so ever. All there is from a Christian perspective is a collection of ancient texts, written in an age of ignorance and suspicion. A text which has, over the years, been largely disproved by the advance of science as humanity advanced into the light of technology and understanding.

We raise our fists to the sky and demand answers.

Perhaps you do, which is why you require a belief system, so you can find answer for your own insecurities. I on the other hand do not; I do not ask questions of things that do not exist.