Jump to content

What is your justification for believing in a God?


Recommended Posts

How so?

 

You can believe it to different extents.

 

Different extents? Care to test that definition with a religious person?

 

-Excuse me sir, I notice you are a christian... how much do you believe in christianity?

 

-Pardon me?.. How much? What do you mean?

 

-I mean do you believe a little?... or a lot?.. To what extent do you believe?

 

-I don't really know what you mean... I simply believe.

 

-No, no... humour me here... on a scale from 1 to 10... rate your belief level.

-I would have to say 10... if it was any less, it wouldn't be belief now would it?

 

 

For example... I asked 'A Tripolation' (earlier in this thread) what he thought the word 'belief' meant...

 

Something that you hold to be true, regardless of the evidence for, or against, said belief.

 

It might mean you think it's the rock solid truth, but really believing something does not equal knowledge. You might object to the word merely in reference to belief but that is not inaccurate.

 

I agree.

 

Well I think they should at least ask questions and see if the dogma their beliefs are rooted in have any connection with reality....

 

I agree. However, this should be done before stating that they 'believe'. Questioning their beliefs after the fact is akin to not believing. If you are investigating the truth of your religion... well then it can't really be a 'belief' can it? Your obviously not sure about it. A 'possibility' maybe. It could be true, but maybe not.

Edited by losfomot
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 646
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I find this rather ironic. I would expect that if God really is in Physics, then water WOULD flow uphill every now and then, as proof of miracles. Or maybe that water will flow down to the starving de

Perhaps a more relevant/appropriate example.   "Excuse me, sir. I notice you are a christian. Christianity is rooted in the bible. How much do you believe in the bible?"   "Pardon me? How much

Opinion is expressed along the lines of "It's been my experience that neo-Darwinian theory has no actual scientific evidence", or "I haven't been able to find any actual scientific evidence". "Neo-dar

Different extents? Care to test that definition with a religious person?

 

-Excuse me sir, I notice you are a christian... how much do you believe in christianity?

 

-Pardon me?.. How much? What do you mean?

 

-I mean do you believe a little?... or a lot?.. To what extent do you believe?

 

-I don't really know what you mean... I simply believe.

 

-No, no... humour me here... on a scale from 1 to 10... rate your belief level.

-I would have to say 10... if it was any less, it wouldn't be belief now would it?

Perhaps a more relevant/appropriate example.

 

"Excuse me, sir. I notice you are a christian. Christianity is rooted in the bible. How much do you believe in the bible?"

 

"Pardon me? How much? What do you mean?"

 

"Well, do you really believe that women were created from a rib? That a dude lived inside a whale? That two of every animal on the entire planet was herded on to a boat and survived at sea for 40 days? That children should be killed for talking back to their parents? That a woman should be killed if she's not a virgin on her wedding night? Or that eating shellfish and wearing clothes made of different fibers is a sin?"

 

"Well, no, but those stories aren't meant to be taken literally. They are allegory."

 

"Then why do you believe the other stories are true, like the idea that Jesus died and came back to life contrary to all scientific evidence against that point? Or why do you believe that prayer helps to heal the sick when evidence shows that is not true? Or the idea that homosexuality is a sin? You seem to believe in all of those things and don't treat them as mere stories or allegory."

 

"Well, I just do, that's why. It's called faith, so there. Nanner nanner boo boo."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a more relevant/appropriate example.

 

"Excuse me, sir. I notice you are a christian. Christianity is rooted in the bible. How much do you believe in the bible?"

 

"Pardon me? How much? What do you mean?"

 

"Well, do you really believe that women were created from a rib? That a dude lived inside a whale? That two of every animal on the entire planet was herded on to a boat and survived at sea for 40 days? That children should be killed for talking back to their parents? That a woman should be killed if she's not a virgin on her wedding night? Or that eating shellfish and wearing clothes made of different fibers is a sin?"

 

"Well, no, but those stories aren't meant to be taken literally. They are allegory."

 

"Then why do you believe the other stories are true, like the idea that Jesus died and came back to life contrary to all scientific evidence against that point? Or why do you believe that prayer helps to heal the sick when evidence shows that is not true? Or the idea that homosexuality is a sin? You seem to believe in all of those things and don't treat them as mere stories or allegory."

 

"Well, I just do, that's why. It's called faith, so there. Nanner nanner boo boo."

 

Is there an adult version of the above?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a more relevant/appropriate example.

 

"Excuse me, sir. I notice you are a christian. Christianity is rooted in the bible. How much do you believe in the bible?"

 

"Pardon me? How much? What do you mean?"

 

"Well, do you really believe that women were created from a rib? That a dude lived inside a whale? That two of every animal on the entire planet was herded on to a boat and survived at sea for 40 days? That children should be killed for talking back to their parents? That a woman should be killed if she's not a virgin on her wedding night? Or that eating shellfish and wearing clothes made of different fibers is a sin?"

 

"Well, no, but those stories aren't meant to be taken literally. They are allegory."

 

"Then why do you believe the other stories are true, like the idea that Jesus died and came back to life contrary to all scientific evidence against that point? Or why do you believe that prayer helps to heal the sick when evidence shows that is not true? Or the idea that homosexuality is a sin? You seem to believe in all of those things and don't treat them as mere stories or allegory."

 

"Well, I just do, that's why. It's called faith, so there. Nanner nanner boo boo."

The allegorical, poetic, historical and legalistic books of the Bible are distinguished, in the original languages, by clear linguistic and lexical styles. Laypersons are rarely aware of these distinctions. I think your imaginary conversation accurately portrays the result of questioning such an individual. Now would you expect a layperson who 'believes in evolution' to be able to provide a convincing explanation to a creationist of the theory? A general layperson, not a keen amateur such as ourselves.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Now would you expect a layperson who 'believes in evolution' to be able to provide a convincing explanation to a creationist of the theory?

Depends on how they learned about evolution and potentially who taught them, IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A deeper question inherent in Ophiolite's comment is whether or not even the best educator with the most relevant background in biology would be capable of providing a convincing explanation of the validity of evolution to a creationist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on how they learned about evolution and potentially who taught them, IMO.

And exactly the same argument applies to your hypothetical questioning of a lay Christian. Speaking as a devout agnostic I think it does atheism a disservice to construct a (to me) obviously loaded hypothetical scenario that does not reflect the reality of Christianity and depth of scholarship that exists in relation to the Bible.

 

I respect your knowledge and many of your posts inow, but this particular play is the equivalent of the simplistic mantra of the creationists, mud to man. (Or whatever their silly wording is.) By oversimplifying the reality and seeking to make the idea look foolish you cheapen yourself. There are far more certain weaknesses you can attack without resorting to such tactics.

 

Which raises the question what's so important about a creationist's agenda?
The possibility that they can and are harming scientific progress and general freedom.
Link to post
Share on other sites
To go with the flow?

To congregate with a "responsible" group of people?

Because of a spiritual or God experience you had?

To find a "good" girl?

Because you were just raised that way?

Because it just makes sense, in a philosophical sort of way?

Just to be on the safe side?

Because it was written?

 

None of the above.

 

The historical basis is also pretty convincing.

 

And what people believe is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what assertions people can support with evidence and logic. Until then, your fairy tales and myths can be disregarded in the same way we disregard unicorns and the tooth fairy.

 

If you really are such a champion for reason you should then and try and educate yourself to what Christianity claims. How does the eye witness testimony in the Bible factor into your lack of evidence.

Edited by afungusamongus
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really are such a champion for reason you should then and try and educate yourself to what Christianity claims. How does the eye witness testimony in the Bible factor into your lack of evidence.

There is no eye witness testimony in the Bible. You have third party reports committed to writing decades after the event.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no eye witness testimony in the Bible. You have third party reports committed to writing decades after the event.

 

You say decades after event like we should not trust it then. Decades after the event is still very early in a historical context. If you cannot believe the first and second well attested accounts in the ancient world then their is a host of less well attested events that you would have to retroactively deny as well.

 

Here is a good link for you

 

http://debate.org.uk...qur/bibmanu.htm

Edited by afungusamongus
Link to post
Share on other sites

You say decades after event like we should not trust it then. Decades after the event is still very early in a historical context. If you cannot believe the first and second well attested accounts in the ancient world then their is a host of less well attested events that you would have to retroactively deny as well.

 

Here is a good link for you

 

http://debate.org.uk...qur/bibmanu.htm

 

 

The bible makes extraordinary claims, asserts impossible things, and could not be used in a court of law as evidence, comparing it to yet another ancient manuscript that is also doubtful is meaningless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
this particular play is the equivalent of the simplistic mantra of the creationists, mud to man. (Or whatever their silly wording is.) By oversimplifying the reality and seeking to make the idea look foolish you cheapen yourself. There are far more certain weaknesses you can attack without resorting to such tactics.

That's certainly fair and I don't disagree, but I also suggest I don't always have to wield my most powerful and precise rhetorical weapons when merely swatting at a minor (and rather ignorant) annoyance like the above.

 


You say decades after event like we should not trust it then. Decades after the event is still very early in a historical context.

No. He said, "Decades after the event" like your claim that there was eyewitness testimony in the bible was self-evidently bullshit.

 

Here... Let me remind you what you said, and what prompted the reply of, "There is no eye witness testimony in the bible. At best, there are third party reports written decades after the event." You said:

 

If you really are such a champion for reason you should then and try and educate yourself to what Christianity claims. How does the eye witness testimony in the Bible factor into your lack of evidence.

 

So, in short, there is no eye witness testimony in the bible and hence it does not factor into my comments at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You say decades after event like we should not trust it then.

 

No, he's saying:

 

1) They are in fact NOT eyewitness testimony.

2) They are written by third party people generations after the fact. An important bit here is that they were not at all uninterested accounts.

 

What he should have added:

 

1) They are incompatible with what we know of history and science.

2) Despite being largely plagiarized, they are wildly contradictory.

 

 

If the Bible is so historically reliable, give me the year Jesus was born. You have all of the historical anchors you need in the text.

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of the above.

 

The historical basis is also pretty convincing.

 

The so called historical basis is meaningless. I could write a novel about alien invasion set in New York City, use the names of real persons, places, and events but just because it is historically accurate would have no bearing on the aliens being real...

 

If you really are such a champion for reason you should then and try and educate yourself to what Christianity claims. How does the eye witness testimony in the Bible factor into your lack of evidence.

 

afungusamongus... Why would you think we have not educated ourselves about Christianity? Is it because we disagree with you? How arrogant of you... :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you have read the Bible you might have come across quotes like...

 

2 Peter 1;16

 

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

You could have read the first three words in the Bible. In the beginning.. funny how this Religion that has no basis in fact predates a finite universe by what three thousand years. Some people received the Nobel prize for such a discovery. They should have just read their Bibles.

He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;<br style="font-family: 'Charis SIL', charis, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; "> he suspends the earth over nothing.

 

Rather a radical claim for the time. (1000 odd years BC) Really not in tune with the views of the time.

 

How would you explain these claims?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you have read the Bible you might have come across quotes like...

 

2 Peter 1;16

 

Fun fact: not only is 2 Peter not written by Peter or any other eyewitness, but it wasn't even written by the same author as 1 Peter.

 

 

You could have read the first three words in the Bible. In the beginning.. funny how this Religion that has no basis in fact predates a finite universe by what three thousand years. Some people received the Nobel prize for such a discovery. They should have just read their Bibles.

 

I have no idea what that incoherent rambling is about.

 

Rather a radical claim for the time. (1000 odd years BC) Really not in tune with the views of the time.

 

It's actually consistent with the flat Earth beliefs of the time. For a New Testament example, Satan takes Jesus up to the top of "an exceedingly high mountain" where they can see the whole Earth. Another challenge for you: get a globe and some string and figure out how high a mountain would have to be on a round earth for there to be a line of sight to the other side.

 

Speaking of challenges, have you figured out when Jesus was born yet?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you have read the Bible you might have come across quotes like...

 

2 Peter 1;16

 

You could have read the first three words in the Bible. In the beginning.. funny how this Religion that has no basis in fact predates a finite universe by what three thousand years. Some people received the Nobel prize for such a discovery. They should have just read their Bibles.

 

Rather a radical claim for the time. (1000 odd years BC) Really not in tune with the views of the time.

 

How would you explain these claims?

 

I suggest you watch this video the relevant part to your assertion is at 15:50 to around 17:00 but to really understand how badly the Bible got this stuff wrong I suggest you watch the 4 part series, a half an hour of your life listening to reality, are you brave enough to do it or is your ignorance more comforting than reality?

 

 

For what ever it is worth the bible clearly states the Earth is a flat disc covered by a crystal dome on which the moon and the sun travel across every day, this dome is covered by the waters above and below.

 

3983e34ec23b7c1d62ac4fc038591575.jpg?v=235350

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.