[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by dr2005

I count at least four statements in there which are incorrect - that religion doesn't present any argument (see philosophy of religion to illustrate how bogus that is), that religion doesn't provide any answers and inhibits finding answers (see Copernicus, Sir Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel etc.), that science have proved religion wrong and that science and religion are in a battle where science is always the victor (see the existence of religious scientists). They are no doubt your opinions on the topic, but dressing up your opinions as fact is with respect the same behaviour as some religious believers which you quite rightly debunk. Live by the sword, die by the sword as they say.

We've had this argument at least three times now, so I hope you'll forgive me for just laying out the abridged version. Consider my responses stock; god of the gaps (which is what I was specifically responding to), religious scientists are successful because of science not religion, and a huge grab-bag of creation myths. I think Exodus is my favourite no-way-in-hell-did-that-actually-happen religion tale though, at least for now.

And forgive me, but the "that's only your opinion, you can't prove it" is possibly the most infuriatingly obnoxious tactic I know of. Perhaps it's just my personal pet peeve, but the limitations of English mean it's impossible to accurately notate which of the things you are saying are opinions and which you claim as fact without making everything you say messy and unreadable. If you want clarification on what my claims are, ask, dammit. Every time you assume one way or the other, god kills a kitten.

Relatedly, even the things I do claim as fact I don't claim to know with 100% certainty, as should any honest person. I'm pretty damn cetain that science contributes vastly more to the pool of human knowledge than religion does, but if someone were able to show sufficient evidence to the contrary, I'd willingly change my tune. I am, of course, not holding my breath.

Originally Posted by dr2005

It's not so much a question of being "convinced" of something so much as being open to the possibility of it - no religion demands total, unquestioning adherence without any deviation whatsoever and even those who are priests etc. will most likely have had crises of faith in their lives. I have met a number of them. Your "demand evidence first" approach also does not seem to fit current scientific practice with regard to the Higgs boson search, as it is the most widely accepted theory despite no actual evidence of its existence and mathematical problems in its construction.

Without wishing to be rude; if you want to debate the particulars of the Higgs Boson, find a physicist. I don't pretend to be anywhere near informed enough to have a meaningful opinion one way or the other on the subject. As a general response though: science isn't omniscient. Often you need a hypothesis to test for, and sometimes those hypotheses are wrong. Pholgiston comes to mind as an example. This doesn't detract from the value of science, it simply means that sometimes patience is requied to find an explanation that will stand the test of time.

If you call yourself Christian, I think it's fair to say that you're more than just "open to the possibility" of it being correct. Heck, I'm open to that possibility, I just view it as a vanishingly small probability. It occurs to me that for all the time you spend on this forum, I know very few of the particulars of what you actually do believe. I'd be interested to see you lay them out for similar scrutiny sometime.

Originally Posted by Michael

Evidence can never prove anything to anyone. Someone can present a case, but evidence is never 100% infallible, nor 100% guaranteed to prove anything. I believe one day I will die. But this is not a guarantee. That is, the people I've observed, the people I have witnessed, are all mortals, I believe I am a mortal, and I believe all mortals die because this is what I've witnessed. However, until that day comes, there is a chance, if even .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00001% chance, that I will not die. Science itself cannot PROVE anything to anyone, nor can anything be true or not true, just supportable.

Technically correct, but I'm not sure what your point is. That limitation isn't unique to science; nothing can be above any and all possible doubt. The pertinent point is that while evidence doesn't constitute strict proof, it does constitute the only good reason to accept something as probably true.

Originally Posted by Michael

There is evidence that Christ existed, and there is evidence of the things He has done, and many of them are supernatural. Some believe this evidence is enough to believe He was/is God, others believe that it was just magic, others believe He was just another religious figure, despite the evidence of what He has done.

I disagree with the notion that there is no support for Christ at least being able to do supernatural things, even if you don't believe He is God. The difference is, many people will not accept the evidence as provable to them that He is God, or they deny the evidence of it all together. The reality is that we have many historical documents (needless to present here as there are countless books written on the subject) which prove Christ was either A) A Magician B) Supernatural D) God. There's no denying this. I mean, really, I'm fairly certain every person here believes one of those 3 options, or they simply deny the evidence and recordings of what Christ has done, and dismiss them as rubish, concluding that Jesus was only a man with nothing special. Yet even Christ's genealogy is somewhat of a mystery -- that is -- it would be nearly impossible to fake Christ's birth, of which was prophesied exactly as it happened 3,000 years before He was even birthed.

If we had a YouTube recording of Christ performing His miracles, people would go out of their way to discredit the videos. They'd claim it was Hollywood, a hoax, a performance, that He was just a great magician. Why? The same reason the Jews and others refused to believe that Christ was God back then. 1) Because they inclined to obey Him if He is God. And people want to live their life the way they want to. 2) Because His testimony of man was that they are evil, and only continually so -- who wants to believe that? and 3) Because His teachings were difficult. Not difficult to understand, but difficult to accept. It's not every day you hear someone telling others that if you wish to enter the kingdom of God that you must cut off your hand if it causes you to sin. I mean, let's face it. People wanted to crucify Christ because of how harsh His teachings were. I don't doubt we'd want something similar to day, if He were here. Even in the Christian church. I'm sure the self-righteous in our churches would still want Him re-crucified, even after professing the name of Christ.

I mean really, I don't understand what "evidence" people want. Christ was performing many miracles in front of people while He was here, and people didn't believe Him then. And I don't expect people to believe Him now, without even witnessing His miracles. The reality is, as I said, even if we could watch Him do the things He did, we still wouldn't believe it, and we still wouldn't think He was God. In regards to the "evidence" of who Christ is, really, instead of debating it back and forth, and quoting source after source, if you REALLY want to know, it doesn't take much to google. I can literally think of 7 books on the top of my head. Not philosophical books, simply books providing evidence of Christs being God. But again, it cannot ever be 100% provable to anyone. Everyone must decide what is sufficient. And I'm certain that there is nothing sufficient for any of us because none of us want to believe He is God. Not that there isn't enough, simply that we will continually refuse it.

If a bowl of fruit lands in my lap within the next minute, I will convert to Christianity and never look back.

...

Whoops, look at that. No fruit.

It god really wanted to convince us that he exists, it wouldn't be hard. The evidence you claim is by no means agreed upon; historians don't even universally agree that Jesus existed, let alone anything that comes after that.

Now let me address the meat of your point: you seem to have a love of telling other people what they believe and why, and that's downright insulting. I doubt disbelieve Christianity because I'm afraid or cowardly or vain, no matter how much you might assert that I secretly do. The same is true of every atheist I've ever spoken to on the subject. No, I disbelieve Christianity for the same reason that I disbelieve every other religion; it's an ancient myth that I cannot see to have any grounding in reality. Believe me; if I thought for even a second that the bloodthirsty biblical Yahweh actually exists, I wouldn't be turning a blind eye to it; quite the opposite, I'd be the first to pick up the fight against him.

Originally Posted by Topher

But if there was/ is only ONE God, wouldn't he bestow into our brains what he wants us to know, who he wants us to be, without having us do it the long way? But i understand what you mean as well.

Interstingly, there's quite good evidence that the Abrahamic religions weren't always monotheistic.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I know I'm getting off topic here, but I'm curious, how do you think Adam and Eve can be disproven?

Evolution handily disproves the Genesis myth.

Originally Posted by Megan1

You honestly think that God who is powerful enough to create and do all of the things that He has done wouldn't be powerful enough to go beyond science

If you think this, then you misunderstand what science is. If god did exist and actually was "beyond the reach of science", that would mean that it is impossible for any of us to have any experience or knowledge of him. I'm sure that's not what you're actually claiming.

Originally Posted by Megan1

I know that Jesus is God, but just for the sake of answering your question I am going to say this......If I was wrong about God, what would I loose? The only things that I would have missed out on are drunkeness, aimless dating, sex before marriage, getting to be mean to people when I want to, supporting gay marriage......

You don't support gay marriage!? Gay people just want to love one another, why are you so mean to them?

Originally Posted by Megan1

um.........even if there wasn't a God, I'd trade all of that just for the church activities that I've gotten to participate in and the friends that I've made through church! So even if I was wrong (though I'm not), it would have been worth it.

But if everyone else is wrong and I'm right, what do they loose? After their life on Earth is over, they loose everything.

Ding! Pascal's wager. What would happen to you if after you die, the Muslims were right? Or the Jews? Or the Greeks, the Norse, the Pastfarians, etc etc. Or heck, what if you are right? What if you die and get to heaven and realize you get to spend an eternity with the same being who thought that - for Pharaoh's arrogance - the firstborn child of every family in Egypt should die. Are you willing to take the chance that the bible is right, and that the god you worship caused or called for the deaths of over 2,000,000 people?

--

I think I'm going to go and let my blood pressure settle down. ;>> I hope I haven't too gravely hurt anyone's feelings; I recognize that this was more strongly worded than most of my posts. I tend to get worked up very easily about this topic in particular; see my signature to understand why.