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

[orgaelin]

Quote by: phoenix_fire No, the hypothesis is the one that is made by the skeptics: the idea that God should be measured by physical means. If He cannot be, then there is no God. This view is entirely narrow. Being a chemistry major, I know that there are certain kinds of spectroscopy that can identify certain kinds of atoms and groups in a molecule. Some will tell you how many distinct hydrogen groups there are, but they will tell you nothing about other functional groups. Has it occured to you at all that this might be a similar situation? You're looking for an elephant with a microscope.

Excellently put, and I fully agree. Faith is not to be measured with science, with or without a microscope. If faith could be proved, it wouldn't BE faith, it would be science. Same the other way around. Science and faith are seperate, and meant to be that way. Faith doesn't work with proof - proof belongs to science.

~ Org.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: phoenix_fire No, the hypothesis is the one that is made by the skeptics: the idea that God should be measured by physical means. If He cannot be, then there is no God. This view is entirely narrow.

It's probably so narrow because it's a big straw man.

We aren't demanding physical evidence for god. We're demanding evidence for god.

Claims require proof.

The proof must directly correspond to the claim.

So I just chuckle a little whenever I hear theists make this argument. We all understand that there are different ways to prove different claims. Historical proof for historical claims. Physical proof for physical claims.

Extra-ordinary proof for extra-ordinary claims.

So, the issue isn't at all what skeptics are willing to accept. The issue is that you're making absurd claims without so much as a shred of evidence.

Being a chemistry major, I know that there are certain kinds of spectroscopy that can identify certain kinds of atoms and groups in a molecule. Some will tell you how many distinct hydrogen groups there are, but they will tell you nothing about other functional groups. Has it occured to you at all that this might be a similar situation? You're looking for an elephant with a microscope.

See? You clarified my point for me quite well. Microscopic evidence isn't the best way to go about proving an elephant. Using a mass spectrometer that looks at the composition of matter isn't going to help you prove / find a human fingerprint.

What does this mean?

It means, as I stated, the proof must directly correspond to the claim. You're smart. You see this. Correct yourself, please. At the moment, you've presented an intellectually bankrupt and contradictory set of assertions.

I'm the arrogant one? I don't quote myself as an authority.

I'll just tuck this little gem away for later...

[phoenix_fire]

Well, what other kind of evidence would you accept? Think about it.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: phoenix_fire Well, what other kind of evidence would you accept? Think about it.

This isn't that hard, luv. Physical evidence for physical claims. Historical evidence for historical claims. Super-natural evidence for super-natural claims.

Consider the burning bush that Moses spoke to. If it were still there on a hill somewhere, that would be pretty solid evidence. It would burn, but not be consumed and it would back up the story in the bible.

There are no such evidences though.

Frankly, I find it sad when theists resort to the "what sort of evidence would you accept" argument. What it really says is "We don't have any".

[phoenix_fire]

If you would, please, present me with some supernatural evidence. And before you retort with "precisely because there's not any such thing", I will go ahead and say that supernatural evidence cannot be proven in a manner that would satisfy you personally (go look up the meaning of the word), but I accept the supernatural evidences I have seen.

Your argument about the burning bush is ridiculous. The Bible does not say that it just kept burning.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Isherwood 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. May I suggest a college level biology class.

#3
Biology was one of the subjects through my primmary and high-school education. It is good enough to understand and comprehend the idea on Homo Sapiens, still.
No need to go for a college level biology class, though.
(Do you mean a college with a primmary faculty as Biology ? )

#2, #1
Following your concept, the BigBang has just occurred on its own :-)
Am I correct ?

I understand you reject a religous concept for Mankind's creation, appearence, ect. along with all the related factors, findings, consequences, ect.
However, you can Not reject the fact, that there is No data for :
- the first 2 (at least !) matters to appear, emerge, manifest their presence, ect.
- the BigBang's initialization
The Physics gives all of us the answer :
- no matter can manifest its presence without interacting with another matter (not to mention following outcomes)
Yet, you want to debate Homo Sapiens, as one of the (BigBang's) following events ??? :-)
(I believe that the BigBang occurred. However, I have no answer on on fundamental factors for the initialization process that started with.)

Even anthropology can Not bring the hard-core evidence for Homo Sapiens.
All we know that Homo Sapiens emerged one day. No specific data, though. The "Neanderthal" not necessarily must be our "ancestor", as a result of evolution, at all (!). We just "assert" (following Darwin's theory) that it must be a logical consequence.
How do you know Homo Sapiens is the result of evolution ?

An example :
- cheetah vs. panthera
Both belong to cats family. It does not mean they are the same, despite they look quite similar (!).

You negate religous concept for Homo Sapiens ? That is your bunsiness, after all.
The Bible provides us with a symbolic version of events. We do not know the true detailed data, though. (Bear in mind, that the Bible was written quite some time ago, for people with much lower level of education, though. No Science and Technology included.)
Putting religous concept aside, the Science and Technology has "zero data" on that subject, respectively. We all just struggle to find out Homo Sapiens's Genesis.
Yet, you claim you have the answer ? Can you provide that data, please ? :-)

There is nothing "Supernatural" that may be taken as an excuse and/or a factor to deny or confirm God's existence. I believe that expression is the result of your own personal view, on Creation vs. Evolution issue.
It makes me think that you take God as a "Supernatural" Being, Matter, ect.
How do you know God is a "Supernatural" ?
Maybe God is just "Natural Being" with Mind, Consciousness, Power ect. , that is well beyond Homo Sapiens's one. Is there something wrong with it ?
Do you believe that Homo Sapiens is the most powerful Being in the whole Universe ??? :-)
What do you know about the Universe ?
What do you know about gallaxies we have no clue about, today ?
How can anybody prove and/or disaprove something, having no data on a particular subject ???

We all just speculate on both issues, respectively.

P.S.
Your stance on Creation vs. Evolution indicates yet additional element, that is beyond this thread's topic.

[Jack]

How do you know God is a "Supernatural" ? Maybe God is just "Natural Being" with Mind, Consciousness, Power ect. , that is well beyond Homo Sapiens's one. Is there something wrong with it ?

Note, I did say "your (christian) god". I was being specific as to the god presented in the bible. The bible paints the christian god as quite clearly supernatural, and not at all a "natural being".

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Isherwood Note, I did say "your (christian) god". I was being specific as to the god presented in the bible. The bible paints the christian god as quite clearly supernatural, and not at all a "natural being".

There is no Christian God.
There is no Islamic God.
There is no, ect.
There is One God for all of us, regardless of religious and non-religious approach we may apply. There must be the God, Power, Being, Mind, Consciouss State, ect. out there.

The Bible provides people with symbolic concepts. (Not all the data, though.) However, taking the Bible literally seems to indicate a little inappropriate form of decrypting that whole text.

[Zhavric]

There is no Superman.
There is no Spiderman.
There is no, ect.
There is One Superhero for all of us, regardless of what approach we may apply. There must be the Superhero, Power, Being, Man, Homo Sapien Novus, ect. out there.

Comic books provides people with symbolic concepts. (Not all the data, though.) However, taking Comic books literally seems to indicate a little inappropriate form of decrypting that whole truth.

[Rainbow]

Zhavric

Off Topic
Why have you re-printed my originally submitted text ?
Do you have IE and/or keyboard related issues ?
If your browser catches pages, adjust the settings.
If your keyboard malfunctions, repair it or get a new one.

Other than that, am I to understand you were about to express something ?

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: Zhavric Props to the apologists who have actually taken the time to somewhat examine their faith.* For the rest of you, like twoanickel, why are you unable to debate your own religion? Do you not understand how you appear to the rest of us? Do you really think ignorantly proclaiming your devotion when we're discussing specific instances is a badge of honor? It's not. It reinforces the stereotype that theists are brainwashed sheep blindly following what others say. Is that really how you seek to represent your own religion? I thought you had more respect for it than that... * For most apologists, examining their own faith is like a smoker examining the hazards of smoking by diligently reading ONLY what the tobacco corporations publish... or reading other sources and then immediately reading Big Tobacco's answer to them.

Friend, this is the only message I have read so far in this thread, but if you would like to directly address a particular question to me I shall be happy to respond.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Rainbow Zhavric Off Topic Why have you re-printed my originally submitted text ? Do you have IE and/or keyboard related issues ? If your browser catches pages, adjust the settings. If your keyboard malfunctions, repair it or get a new one. Other than that, am I to understand you were about to express something ?

I forgot all about this thread...

It's not the least bit off-topic. Every argument has a logic to it. That logic is a set of variables with equalities, inequalities and other parameters set into it. A strong argument can have any variable inserted and still make sense. A weak argument is one that falls apart when other variables are inserted.

Thus, "X = X. X =/= Y" is a strong argument because we can put in just about anything for X and Y and have it be true.

Your argument fails because when we substitute one fictional set of characters for another it breaks down.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Saint Vern Friend, this is the only message I have read so far in this thread, but if you would like to directly address a particular question to me I shall be happy to respond.

Sure. Two questions for you.

First, this is the second time this morning I've seen you state that you haven't read all of what people have stated. Why aren't you reading?

Second, do you know who Philo of Alexandria is? He lived in the same area as Jesus allegedly lived, was interested in Jewish religion, and would have leapt at the chance to hang out with or write about an incarnate god. Can you explain why Philo never mentions Jesus? If you argue that Jesus wasn't that relevant / popular / well known during his alleged life, can you please explain why he would be relevant later? Clearly, Christ is a myth.

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: Zhavric do you know who Philo of Alexandria is? He lived in the same area as Jesus allegedly lived, was interested in Jewish religion, and would have leapt at the chance to hang out with or write about an incarnate god. Can you explain why Philo never mentions Jesus? If you argue that Jesus wasn't that relevant/popular/well-known during his alleged life, can you please explain why he would be relevant later? Clearly Christ is a myth.

If you truly believed He is "a myth" I doubt that you would have to work so hard to find someone to agree with you. The fact of the matter is though Messiah Jesus is proven historically and beyond any serious doubt in that regard, wherever He went He used the same approach. Namely telling folks whom He healed: "Go your way and tell no one about me; go to the priest and have your healing confirmed" (in the cases of lepers, who needed to be confirmed "clean"). Thus the notion that God the Son did not hang out with the character you mention is nothing at all.

[Jack]

The fact of the matter is though Messiah Jesus is proven historically and beyond any serious doubt in that regard

And you can support this claim with what non-theistic evidence?

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: Isherwood And you can support this claim with what non-theistic evidence?

"Non-theistic"? Now that is a laugh. You are very much a theist, in that your Religion of Humanism and Valuelessness is completely theistic. Here is a clue: You are not God.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Saint Vern If you truly believed He is "a myth" I doubt that you would have to work so hard to find someone to agree with you.

You let me worry about what I believe or don't believe. You worry about trying to argue without using logical fallacies.

The fact of the matter is though Messiah Jesus is proven historically and beyond any serious doubt in that regard,

This is no different from stating "Superman is proven historically and beyond any serious doubt in that regard."

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about when I first started this thread. You've assumed that what has been written about Jesus is accurate without ever really examining it. "Jesus is real. It's proven. Next question." Sorry, but you're not getting off that easy. You haven't given us a compelling reason to take the bible seriously. The historical claims of the bible do not prove the supernatural ones... if they did, the following sentence would be accurate: "The Earth is real so therefor Superman is also real because he saved the Earth".


Furthermore, you're using circular reasoning (another fallacy).

[Jack]

"Non-theistic"? Now that is a laugh. You are very much a theist, in that your Religion of Humanism and Valuelessness is completely theistic. Here is a clue: You are not God.

Here's a clue for you; there is no god. I am not a theist, a racist or a sexist. I do not accept the reality of god(s), the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot or the Easter Bunny.

If you wish to claim that the christ is undisputed historically, you should be able to provide academic, non-theistic sources for that claim. Otherwise you're just expressing your opinion, which you are certainly free to do. But to claim that historians have no doubts as to the divinity of christ and that his godhood is supported historically requires evidence.

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: Isherwood Here's a clue for you; there is no god. I am not a theist, a racist or a sexist. I do not accept the reality of god(s), the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot or the Easter Bunny.

Actually you do, as you are a materialist/humanist who worships fallen humanity.

If you wish to claim that the christ is undisputed historically, you should be able to provide academic, non-theistic sources for that claim. Otherwise you're just expressing your opinion, which you are certainly free to do. But to claim that historians have no doubts as to the divinity of christ and that his godhood is supported historically requires evidence.

I already did that. Where were you yesterday? Oh...and to be specific, what I pointed out is that the existence of Messiah Jesus living on earth in a human body is proven by non-believer accounts of the history of that time. At no point did I even mention His "divinity", but I salute you for being a with-it far-leftie, hip to the need to distort and just plain lie about what folks say...all for the sake of surviving in a debate you have lost. Now if you choose to argue that down, I invite you to quote a message in which I supposedly said anything at all about historians affirming the "divinity" of the Messiah. Cannot do it? Grand! The cowardice you guys demonstrate in your Religion of Humanism is such a pleasant sight!

[Saint Vern]

Quote by: Zhavric You let me worry about what I believe or don't believe. You worry about trying to argue without using logical fallacies. This is no different from stating "Superman is proven historically and beyond any serious doubt in that regard." This is EXACTLY what I was talking about when I first started this thread. You've assumed that what has been written about Jesus is accurate without ever really examining it. "Jesus is real. It's proven. Next question." Sorry, but you're not getting off that easy. You haven't given us a compelling reason to take the bible seriously. The historical claims of the bible do not prove the supernatural ones... if they did, the following sentence would be accurate: "The Earth is real so therefor Superman is also real because he saved the Earth". Furthermore, you're using circular reasoning (another fallacy).

Not true, Sparky. What I do say, however, is that the many scientific truths in the Bible--present far in advance of their availability to mere "science"--does confirm and prove that the Word of God is just that: inspired by the Creator.

As for "examining what has been written about Jesus", what writing do you mean? There is plenty of garbage out there, fabricated for the cause of slandering and belittling Him and His truth. Dan Brown's book and the "jesus seminar", for example. But what I have thoroughly examined and found unarguably true is the Word of God. That you have trouble with this is your issue, and I do not dispute your right to be a God-hater. But I remind you yet again that you do not set the standard of truth.