When You Think About It In Layman's Terms

Why would a father(god) allow his son to be tortured and killed? If he was supposedly brought back to life is Jesus still alive? If he is dead why is the grave unknown surely the most important man that had ever lived would have a well documented grave site. Would anyone care about and spread religion if there wasn't money to be made out of the teachings? I guess if this scam stopped people wouldn't know how to deal with their problems or have no where to turn or a reason to live which may cause more problems and all out anarchy

reply to post by Flyingclaydisk


I loved your contribution. Yes, I did know all of this. What I simply don't understand is why some people that responded on this thread get on here and think that I am making fun of them or that I am ignorant. I'm not trying to make fun or insult anyone, I'm simply asking how and why they believe and why they choose to ignore certain passages. Another post that I read said that I was picking and choosing passages, too, when posting this thread. That was done purposely because they are the ones that tend to be ignored. I know the "good" passages as well, but those are not what this thread is about. It's about discounting the bad.

And I have also said on this very same thread that I do believe in "a" God, just not "the" God, per say. I have searched for the God in the Bible for many years. I studied, I went to church 3 times a week, I said my prayers, I followed the rules. But eventually I began to realize that, my heart didn't feel it, my soul wasn't in it. I couldn't just blindly follow.

reply to post by Nevertheless


I am not the one saying "no matter what". It says that plainly in the Bible, God's law is ETERNAL. "Eternal - Adjective, 1)Lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning. 2) (of truths, values, or questions) Valid for all time; essentially unchanging." In other words, no matter what.

reply to post by preludefanguy


I am truly sorry if I came off sounding as such, it was not my intention and I am in no way arrogant, I assure you. I really enjoyed your input, it made a lot of sense to me. About the extraterrestrials, the way I think about it could be applied to any belief in God, I suppose, but I put it towards my extraterrestrial theory. A Religulous quote that has always stuck with me is, "It would be like explaining to an ant how a television works." That's the way I would look at that situation. No, I don't believe that said ETs made the universe, just us and our biological earthly companions. Searching for who or what started the entire universe will always be out of our grasp, I think. "Explaining to an ant how a television works."

reply to post by CuriousAchilles


Couldn't have said it better! I agree with you completely. That is why, even if I don't believe Jesus was the son of God, I have endless respect for him because of his teachings of love and peace. That's what religion is supposed to bring to the world, isn't it? Not hypocrisy and hate.

quite surprised there hasnt been more posts from religious types,they normally become very defensive when a topic is posted reguarding religion.

thing that gets me ......

everyday i see posts from religious followers,and i dont think i have ever once bothered reading past the title.
There alway's such nonsense,yet people respect their beleifs and ''try to have a debate'' on the matter and they just get really defensive and confuse their beleifs for facts.

i saw one the other day called something like: you dont beleive in god?heres proof.
the op then went on to say something like,''for all you skeptics that want proof of god,ask him to test you.then post back here within 30 days and tell us of your experiences.

it was ridiculous

Originally posted by flana23
quite surprised there hasnt been more posts from religious types,they normally become very defensive when a topic is posted reguarding religion.

thing that gets me ......

everyday i see posts from religious followers,and i dont think i have ever once bothered reading past the title.
There alway's such nonsense,yet people respect their beleifs and ''try to have a debate'' on the matter and they just get really defensive and confuse their beleifs for facts.

i saw one the other day called something like: you dont beleive in god?heres proof.
the op then went on to say something like,''for all you skeptics that want proof of god,ask him to test you.then post back here within 30 days and tell us of your experiences.

it was ridiculous

I am a "religious type" that took part in this thread as well as many others on similar topics. I rarely get offended or defensive. I enjoy open debate.

One thing you said rings absolutely true- "They confuse their beliefs for facts." I agree with this. Why would anyone who believes that a God that demands Faith and Belief in the unseen, would allow sufficient evidence to exist that would totally remove the need for that faith and belief?

What really bothers me are the biases that are constantly present in the tired, worn-out straw-man arguments presented by the other side."Most scholars agree", "valid documentation", etc. etc. ad nauseum.. Then when you give a reference, it's never acceptable because the particular person believes in God so they must be biased or some other weak response.

It is all really simple. One can never prove God without reaching into the realm of the supernatural. God cannot be proven merely by logic and scientific evaluation. But I say isn't it possible that if a God does exist, that He is superior to us and actually set it up that way- that he could never be truly discovered by mere logic? Again, if as his word tells us, he requires faith and belief in the unseen, why would he remove the obstacles that require that very faith and belief?

This type of post is put about three times weekly on ATS


1. You are awesome and know everything
2 You are above religion
3. You are trendy
4. You are more enlightened than everyone

Is this what you want to hear?


You can be OK with yourself without denegrating others, which is what you are doing, and saying you know you will offend people prior to the post is assinine. Everyone atheist on ATS puts up this same post.

Originally posted by LastStarfighter
This type of post is put about three times weekly on ATS


1. You are awesome and know everything
2 You are above religion
3. You are trendy
4. You are more enlightened than everyone

Is this what you want to hear?


You can be OK with yourself without denegrating others, which is what you are doing, and saying you know you will offend people prior to the post is assinine. Everyone atheist on ATS puts up this same post.

1) I never claimed to know everything, that's the point. I DON'T know, but no one else does, either.
2) I certainly never claimed to be above religion, I was only asking why and how they believe (as I've stated multiple times in this thread.)
3) Trendy? I didn't know it was "trendy" to seek answers, haha.
4) I also don't claim to be more enlightened than anyone else. I have my beliefs, others have their beliefs, and I enjoy discussing the differences because asking questions IS enlightening.
5) I wasn't degrading others at all, I was just pointing out some scriptures that get ignored and asking why they do get ignored. And generally asking ANY questions about religion DOES offend people (obviously).
6) I am not an atheist at all, haha. Which I have also stated many times in this very thread.

Any other insults you would like to throw my way?

reply to post by micmerci

reply to post by windword


If he really is all-powerful then it only makes sense that he would be able to create an equal, right? I read a book once by Whitley Streiber (and I realize he's kind of a crock but the book was actually very good) that said that God wanted companions but that we had to pass certain tests to reach enlightenment to become his "equal", which is why we were given a physical body instead of just made as souls. Something interesting to think about.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by micmerci

 

But I say isn't it possible that if a God does exist, that He is superior to us and actually set it up that way................

Do you think God is able to create an equal? Can God duplicate itself? Or, is the truth of the matter, that all that God is capable of creating are things that are lesser than itself?

That is a great question. I think that God has actually already created something equal, in fact, greater than Himself. His Word. Of course this line of reasoning comes from scripture and pushes into the realm of supernatural. So many will not accept it at face value.

Originally posted by qualm91
reply to post by intrptr

 

That was a very interesting way to put it. The best explanation I've ever heard for it, actually, haha. But if God doesn't have a place that he has designated to torture the "lost souls" that don't follow him for all of eternity...then what is Hell exactly?

The grave... oblivion... nirvana... ceasing to exist.

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

I don't completely understand why you are writing to me in such a manner. You seem....disgruntled to say the least.

For being straightforward? Don't take it personally, I usually find Christians (individually) as nice and intelligent as anyone else. I have even known rare people who seemed genuinely to try to practice what they preached. I respect them for that though the organised belief itself, is something I have mild antipathy towards, at best.

However, you say that they are forced to contend that Jesus was indeed a historical figure, but you also say it is a very contestable belief. How can so many historians be forced to a belief that is so easily contestable? I cannot make any logical sense of that statement.....

For many centuries the bulk of these "historians" usually doubled as the "clergy". It still seems popular to have "Religious Scholars" who learn in religious schools/universities and are otherwise, clergymen (or at least, devout). I get the impression of a man who don's his little frock to preach to the faithful on weekends, then spends his time (ahem) "objectively" looking for the historical accuracy of his belief. For much of this time there was no real scepticism for obvious reasons.

I don't see a null hypothesis (for want of a better term) has ever been entertained and I find it difficult to take such "Scholars" seriously. Perhaps if they were looking into something that couldn't conflict with their belief. It would be no different to expecting a fully audited Scientologist, educated at the "Hubbard University", to give objective appraisal regarding Scientology. Unlikely. Obviously, to even contemplate a find in the negative would require a personal crisis in faith to begin with.

This seems to be where the bulk of our biblical "truth" comes from. A situation where attitudes are changing, but change is never easy. I have little doubt that one day jesus will be found not at the right hand of god, as much as sitting between Apollo and Osiris.

The other type of scholars seem to be a bit meh... I can understand why they think the myths are probably (as opposed to the certainty you prescribe) based on an ordinary person. I did too for the most part.

Also, given the currently available evidence, what do YOU think best fits the data?

It seems that much like big-foot and aliens, there is plenty of evidence, just that none of it is any good. There is no genuine historical evidence, though this isn't my real interest in the subject.

(Also, I did not STATE there was archaelogical evidence available....(hint: ?)

A2D

Then why mention it at all? Especially by way of inference (question mark or not).

Originally posted by charles1952

I don't believe the Gospels are considered as wildly fictitious by mainstream historians

Serious? I could take that further and say all rational people see them as wildly fictitious. Perhaps we have a different idea on what would be a mainstream historian.

Let's put it this way, historians generally do not get historical exemption from the natural laws of the universe as we know them. Like the supernatural stories attached to many other (often genuinely historical) figures, they are not considered part of genuine history, for obvious reasons.

We have far more compelling and contemporary evidence that Sai Baba's miracles were real (and more miraculous). Though few outside of the faithful, give it much credence.

Historians reject miracles.

There are also other facets that seem obvious fiction.

Could you point me to where the majority of historians believe them to be "wildly fictitious?"

Not at the moment, it comes from reading historian views. Though I feel it every bit as accurate as "most historians believe jesus was a real person". I could point out many individual ones. I'll have a look to see if I can find a poll, or perhaps we could do our own? I would be fascinated to actually meet someone who proposes to be a scholar and argues that miracles are historically real?

I can understand the argument for historicity, but in this instance he would be neither a scholar or an historian. Without some exceptionally good evidence, he would be a believer pushing his supernatural belief. A preacher.

those categories do you place Pliny's letter to the Emperor asking for advice on how to deal with the Christians?

In this context, wishful thinking.

No, not actually, I just didn't think that people believed it. Proof of God? No. Evidence of God? Of course.

There are other areas of evidence, but four that come to mind are:

The existence of the Universe.
The existence of complexity, specifically life.
The existence of absolute moral values.
The existence of Jesus and the history of His life.

With respect,
Charles1952

You provide me with evidence (proof, for some of it), that.....

the universe exists
there is complexity within said universe
moral philosophy
an assumption your saviour lived.

Where's god?

Originally posted by qualm91

Originally posted by LastStarfighter
This type of post is put about three times weekly on ATS


1. You are awesome and know everything
2 You are above religion
3. You are trendy
4. You are more enlightened than everyone

Is this what you want to hear?


You can be OK with yourself without denegrating others, which is what you are doing, and saying you know you will offend people prior to the post is assinine. Everyone atheist on ATS puts up this same post.

1) I never claimed to know everything, that's the point. I DON'T know, but no one else does, either.
2) I certainly never claimed to be above religion, I was only asking why and how they believe (as I've stated multiple times in this thread.)
3) Trendy? I didn't know it was "trendy" to seek answers, haha.
4) I also don't claim to be more enlightened than anyone else. I have my beliefs, others have their beliefs, and I enjoy discussing the differences because asking questions IS enlightening.
5) I wasn't degrading others at all, I was just pointing out some scriptures that get ignored and asking why they do get ignored. And generally asking ANY questions about religion DOES offend people (obviously).
6) I am not an atheist at all, haha. Which I have also stated many times in this very thread.

Any other insults you would like to throw my way?

All of your answers contradict the tone of your post. You state you read the bible over and over and don't understand why people beleive in God. Because you haven't found him doesn't mean he isn't there. If you post stuff like this at least acknowledge that you are essentially declaring since you can't find God that its ridiculous for others to worship him. You make the statement by asking the last question in your thread. If you don't realize the messages you are conveying I would suggest retaking high school english

reply to post by LastStarfighter


You are incredibly condescending. My answers do not contradict each other in the slightest. I never once said in this post that God "wasn't there", I reiterated multiple times that I believe in a god of some sort just not The God. I wasn't declaring at all that it is ridiculous to believe in God, either.

I would like to thank you for your contribution, though, because you proved a point that I was getting at. You are essentially attacking me and trying to insult me because you didn't like what I had to say, but from what I gather, you are someone who believes in God. And aren't people who believe in God simply supposed to provide us "nonbelievers" with answers and help us find the way instead of breaking us down and making us feel like trash?

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

Astounding. Did you know there was absolutely no evidence that reaching a temperature below absolute zero was possible....until we found out that it was....

Logical fallacies?

Is this your evidence for god?

Famous quote right...You've probably heard it...."That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens

^^That's basically what you're saying. You're saying since we have no evidence of God(that is acceptable under your specifications), that you completely dismiss His existence. But is this right? Can we really dismiss anything that doesn't have evidence?

No, not at all. I'll be more specific. I'm saying there is no evidence of the primitive anthropomorphic biblical god. So many claims have turned out to be nonsense that I I agree with deGrasse Tyson, he exists in an ever decreasing region of scientific ignorance.

With regards to the famous quote provided by Mr. Hitchens, let's examine....What does Hitchens mean when he says "evidence"? No one really addresses this...but generally speaking, what comes to mind is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE or also, SCIENTIFIC evidence.

That's your opinion. You will never really know exactly what he meant, obviously.

However, scientific/empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence available in almost all circumstances. Anecdotal, circumstantial, testimonial, and personal experience all come to mind as types of evidence. One could possibly even argue that logic and reason can be used as evidence.

Nessie, Reptilian Aliens.....

So, "There is no evidence of God"....according to whom? Is this empirical evidence that we're speaking of?

According to those who find no evidence for god. Why don't you change their mind and provide some? You lot have had long enough. I have never bought the fable that he can't be proven. If he exists as christianity generally claims, it should be far easier than detecting sub atomic particles.

If it is, which I'm relatively certain it HAS to be for you to say there is "none", then let me ask you this....What empirical evidence do we have for the composition of an atom?

You might not have to rely on the associated theories or get to verify them much. Though you do reap amazing benefits from it. They actually made it possible for you to type that message.

When you can directly measure or detect god the same way, I will congratulate you on your Nobel Prize. Is he a wave or a particle?

(Things to remember: 1)empirical - definition - Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
2)We study subatomic particles by relative inference.Implying that if there were 2 particles that behaved exactly the same under the same circumstances, one would go completely unnoticed...)

Okay, getting back to god though.............

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Dear Cogito, Ergo Sum,

If I understand correctly (and I often don't) you are taking two positions, that Jesus is not an historical figure and that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Let's start with Jesus.

A measured journalist like ABC Radio National's Michael Cathcart recently ventured unknowingly into the heavyweight ring and got caught out. In an otherwise excellent interview with Salman Rushdie, Cathcart remarked, "There's no doubt at all that Mohammed was a real person, whereas Jesus is a person who is at least ambiguous in the question of whether he existed or not." I say "caught out" because Cathcart promptly received a gentle correction from two of Australia's best known Roman historians, Professors Alanna Nobbs and Edwin Judge. "In our judgment," they wrote, "the second part of your statement is quite far from reality." They explained, "While historical and theological debates remain about the actions and significance of this figure, his fame as a teacher, and his crucifixion under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, may be described as historically certain."

I've put out the challenge before: if anyone can find a full professor of Classics, Ancient History or New Testament in any accredited university in the world who thinks Jesus never lived, I will eat a page of my Bible, probably Matthew chapter 1. It's been a year since I first tweeted the challenge and religious critic John Safran retweeted it to his 60,000 followers. My Bible remains safe.

But what is the evidence for Jesus? As Nobbs and Judge explained to Michael Cathcart, "Very early Christian sources and several non-Christian, and even hostile, sources attest to the existence of Jesus in first-century Palestine, putting his existence beyond reasonable doubt." (Emphasis added)

www.abc.net.au...
You will be hard pressed to find sufficient evidence to change these professor's minds, or mine.

Switching to the existence of God, I find your views a little confusing, but I'm easily confused.

You lot have had long enough. I have never bought the fable that he can't be proven. If he exists as christianity generally claims, it should be far easier than detecting sub atomic particles.

God is nearly universally considered to be a supernatural being, outside, or above, natural laws. By definition, he can not be detected by natural means. It's not a fable, it's the definition of the word. Science can have no method to detect God's weight or height. You ask for something logically impossible then complain when you don't get it? That makes no sense to me.

You provide me with evidence (proof, for some of it), that.....

the universe exists
there is complexity within said universe
moral philosophy
an assumption your saviour lived.

What is your name? Cogito, Ergo Sum. With that alone you testify to the existence of the Universe and the complexity of life. You admit, therefore, that there is evidence (not proof) for the existence of God.

Moral philosophy? Do you seriously claim there is no objective good or evil?

On the question of whether my Savior lived, go back to the opening discussion on the historicity of Jesus. After you agree that He did exist we can talk about His significance.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
Dear Cogito, Ergo Sum,

If I understand correctly (and I often don't) you are taking two positions, that Jesus is not an historical figure and that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Let's start with Jesus.

It should also be noted that they both are christians (personally) and we might assume from this that they accept that christ was in realty, the son of god. Would this be wrong? While there is nothing wrong with that, surely no matter their accomplishments to the field, you can see the opportunity for bias (even if unintentional)?

I don't know that christ was not an historical figure. No one knows either way, despite what they say. I find it unlikely IMO.

This is not science where we can repeat experiments. It is opinion based on what we find, regardless of appeal to numbers fallacies. Probably why scepticism is frowned on.

That quote seems to indicate that this area of study continues to be in many ways, an arm of the church. Traditionally in many ways lacking in intellectual integrity due to bias (though not directly inferring such here, but in an historic and overall sense). It needs a shake up. I find critical analysis and scepticism seems rejected out of hand, rather than considered, for probably this very reason (IMO).

It is quite fair enough for people to have beliefs, though is it reasonable to expect people who are also devoutly christian, to be truly objective regarding their faith? Looking at the academics in places like the US in particular, who seem far more prominent, surely there is some doubt.

You will be hard pressed to find sufficient evidence to change these professor's minds, or mine.

No amount of evidence will do that (when it is also based on faith), yet the point is that many see this very thing lacking to begin with. The whole point is that people who are not christians have also looked at it and found it lacking.

God is nearly universally considered to be a supernatural being, outside, or above, natural laws. By definition, he can not be detected by natural means. It's not a fable, it's the definition of the word. Science can have no method to detect God's weight or height. You ask for something logically impossible then complain when you don't get it? That makes no sense to me.

You seem to be describing something that is completely indistinguishable and consistent in every way, with something that simply doesn't exist. Perhaps we are reaching agreement?

Yet your depiction of god is extremely inconsistent with what christianity preaches. It would be easy to detect your god if he affects our universe (not to mention completely rewriting physics). It is you who are trying to "have it both ways".

Moral philosophy? Do you seriously claim there is no objective good or evil?

On the question of whether my Savior lived, go back to the opening discussion on the historicity of Jesus. After you agree that He did exist we can talk about His significance.

I don't know, though perception of such things is quite obviously subjective. Yet it is known amongst sociologists that religion is directly related to dysfunction in societies in which it proliferates. This presents quite a dilemma. I agree christians are just like anyone else with only one belief being the difference, why is religion (christianity) synonymous with societal ill health?

Your demand for agreement regards your belief, I hope, was meant jokingly?

Okay..I'm sorry but I think I may need to back away from this thread. I came because there were originally some interesting questions being asked which I thought I may be able to help provide some insight. I have done what I thought was right. But now it seems that the discussion has departed from just skeptical inquiry...It has turned into something much more and I do not wish to see the outcome....

Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my posts.
Respectfully,
A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

Dear Agree2Disagree,

I'm sorry you've been led to that decision, but I can understand it. For any of the disappointment I caused, my apologies.

Good night, rest well.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Fair enough. Thanks for the discussion.