HOW... How do you know your religion is true while all others are false? Outside of there holy books/ texts, there is nothing else that proves any religion to be true over any other. So I ask, why is the religion you choose to follow 'true' and all the others are false? I've been told at times that I wasn't a real Christian, that I didn't give it a chance. Well have you given the other religions a fair shake? Of course not, you most likely follow a religion that your parents did. Or are one of those rare people who switch to something completely different, so how and why did they decide to do that? How did they know that their old religion was false and that their new one was 'true'?
I've asked this question before but I've never gotten a satisfying answer. Now I'm going to turn something around on Steve. He's said that God (I'm assuming Jesus?) spoke to him. So what if that same story happened to say a Hindu? Said Hindu was sitting at a bar and he overheard a couple talking about religion. He then claims Vishnu spoke to him to talk to that couple. As someone who is not Hindu, what would you think? You know their religion isn't true, but how do you know this? Why is your religion real and theirs superstition? You have the same evidence, texts and stories. HOW?!?!?
Ever watch the show Ancient Aliens? These people believe, just as strongly as any religious person, that aliens came to earth, bred with humans, gave the Nazis technology, have caused humans to evolve ect.... They use religious texts, pictograms and the Nazca Lines to 'prove' this. They make grandios claims that can't be backed up with any evidence. They have simply replaced a god figure with aliens, it's the same as any religion.
The point of all this is to see if people can actually really examine their religion with reason. Everyone is an atheist when it comes to religions that aren't theirs, so why is yours so special? Remember that the majority of the people on the planet don't agree with you. Sure there are 2 billion Christians, but that leaves 5 billion who think that that religion is false (and to some, those 1 billion Catholics aren't really Christians so you do the math;P.)
I'm not 100% sure there is no creator, I'm like 99.99999%. But I see no evidence for any supernatural phenomenon, Godlike or Ancient Alien, so that give me enough to be pretty darn sure there is nothing supernatural. Now I will say aliens is slightly more believable to me, but thats only because they wouldn't be supernatural. BUT, as I said before the Ancient Alien people have no evidence to support anything they say. They are as bad as creationists as they call it a 'theory' when they don't actually know what theory means.
So why bring them into this? Well watch the show, keep in mind that ALL the science the 'Theorists' use is pretty much completely wrong. Now, do you buy what they are telling you? Of course not, it's fricken crazy. You can see they have no concept of how to apply reason to something that they WANT TO BELIEVE IN. Now, can you look at your own religion like you just did those Ancient Alien Theorists? Can you step outside of what you want to believe to see what it actually there... old books disproven long ago. Old myths and legends that might have been useful in the past but have since lost any real meaning. A shackle teaching you how to NOT think about things, that teaches you NOT to question, NOT to learn. If you can do that... Welcome to your freedom.
And don't get me started on Ghost Hunters, or Finding Bigfoot....
Got a little preachy there... I can feel the rush... no Holy Spirit needed:)
Best!
Brett
Oh, and Happy New Year!
51 comments:
The whole what makes Christianity so special and so right is finally what did it for me. I went through many phases on my journey to Atheism; I went through the pissed off,angry,fuck God but still believed phase,
the no longer angry,apathetic,agnostic,going to just live my life how I want to phase,the questioning trying to find answers phase,the I'm an Atheist but religion can do what it want's as long as it leaves me alone phase,to my final incarnation of almost anti-theism. It's truly been a long,hard,road out of hell for me, but a necessary and I believe inevitable one. Here's to a new year and the possibility of freeing more minds than ever before.
Cheers,
Chris
Finding Bigfoot is a very scientifically astute show. Bobo will catch him one of these days.
I just watch Eric Hovind-- thanks to your wife-- say that an Animal Planet documentary about dragon legends proved his father's theories about dinosaurs being the dragons in all those stories. This documentary exists, but it is very much like Destination Truth and Finding Bigfoot.
Hey Brett...I ask you, why must they be so black and white? Say I'm a christian, just because I am, does that mean that I can't think Hindu is right as well? Or what about Buddhism, which is a godless philosphy? Personally, I think they all (common social laws include) have it right to an extent.
Jesuits (a Catholic sect of Priests) have a saying "Faith through reason" if it doesn't make sense, don't do it.
Statistically, there are too many "religions" in the world with the same types of stories that sprung up at the same time. Whatever it is, reason would say that there is something there to drive those stories and laws.
I can't give more than that, each person has their own path, this is just the one that i'm on.
Statistically, there are too many "religions" in the world with the same types of stories that sprung up at the same time. Whatever it is, reason would say that there is something there to drive those stories and laws.
Your right, there are a lot of religions with similar stories. You could attribute that to either A)Everyone putting their own spin on an actual series of events that occurred and were witnessed by a lot of people. Or B)Non actual myths and legends adopted and adapted to suit the needs of the group or groups of people that perpetuated them. A) is VERY unlikely as there is currently zero evidence of Gods and Goddesses sticking their noses into mortal business beyond personal experience and testimony.
Which is extremely unreliable as it is a well studied and documented fact that the human brain is VERY susceptible to trickery,fantasy,misdirection,suggestion and just plain not knowing what the hell really happened. B) Well B) is still happening and wildly popular today with plenty of evidence to back it up.
Take for instance Brett's mention of ancient alien theorists. They're taking well established literature,myths and legends, and putting a completely different spin on it. Just take any mention of Gods or Goddesses,insert E.T and WHAMO! you have yourself a completely new religion with a questionably unique view on how it all came to be. If you can seriously doubt that this is how all the "similar" religions and Christianity with it's zillion different zany little sects,branches and splinter groups came to be, then I'll just be moving along...nothing to see here at all folks.
Brett you have a very inaccurate and narrow understanding of what Christianity actually is and what Christians believe, so to some extent it will always be a fruitless task to try to debunk it. Because you are unable to even consider the topic you believe you are debunking. Since your view and understanding is to debunk a non-existing misrepresentation of Christianity I can’t offer you evidence for it, because the Christianity you constantly attack is an erroneous view.
You would actually have to put the effort into finding out what genuine Christians believe and why. If you still only want reasons to prove you were right for walking away from your childhood religious experience with Catholicism you can keep going the way you are indefinitely. I’ll agree that was a smart move on your part, but because you rejected a hallow misapplication of Christian truth doesn’t mean you should not actually dig into what authentic historical Christianity is.
Distorting is not disproving, but if you want to win an argument with no effort I will grant you it is an easy way out.
Brett: How can people rationalize their own religion, while claiming all others are false? Where is the proof you're right and everyone else is wrong?
Steve: Because I can't truthfully, honestly answer that question, I'll just slip back into the ol' "That's not what real Christians believe" so I can't truly answer your question diversion tactic you've been using since I found Brett's blog however many years ago.
Furthermore until you start arguing that God is nonexistent,but doing it respectfully and treating him like he actually does exist,to my satisfaction, I will continue the "No true Christian" fallacy until time or I cease to exist.
Oh what the heck! Just for shits and giggles I'll even throw in an insulting assertion that your a lazy opportunist who only cherry picks facts that support his false claims.
Christianity is not like a college course. You don’t get to be a Christian by learning the correct information. As you gain more intellectual facts you do not become a better Christian.
Christianity at its core is not a set of beliefs; you don’t get in by believing the right things and not believing the wrong things. It is not a religion based off of faith in the inerrancy of certain facts.
Christianity is not just believing in the supernatural or a deity. If you tried to simplify it down to a single base statement it would not be “God Exists,” but a closer summary would be “God Saves.”
While there is plenty to study and know, there are many beliefs to put faith in, and it is necessary to believe in the supernatural, Christianity is a relationship, a covenant bond with the person Jesus.
Any attempt to primarily understand Christianity outside of relational terms will skate around the central issue.
Christianity says God is eternal, with no beginning and no end. He exists before the existence of the material realm. He has qualities which we will never be able to understand or comprehend. God is. All Christians are encouraged to learn as much as they can about God, but they also must accept we are limited. Because God is greater than our ability to fully study or understand we will be frustrated if we want to primarily know him in the same way we would want to know about the natural world. We are able to study the material world, many of the greatest scientists of all time have been Christians (Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Newton, etc.) There is no inherent rivalry between science and religion. You can, and many do, project a false conflict onto the two disciplines. Over zealous believers and scientists hoping to prove the superiority of their positions will try to tar and feather those who they view disagree with. The existence of many historical and contemporary scientists who believe in God, as well as the existence of many historical and contemporary believers who highly value science, shows the idea science and religion must always be at loggerheads is foolishness of the highest sort. At times they may rub up against each other, even overlap, but when viewed as complimentary rather than contracting each other the world makes better sense.
Maybe this will help. We all agree man’s current knowledge is limited, we have not learned all there is to know. There are many unknown truths. Discovery does not make something true; truth is true if it is known or unknown. Things I do not like may be true, my opinions or views do not effect truth claims; that is truth does not align itself with my beliefs, I must always align myself with truth or be in opposition of reality.
(cont)
Because we agree that all truth is not known and my opinions matter squat in verifying truth, we must conclude the possibility of there being many unwanted true facts out there. For me, that would be any or all of the following: that I am disillusioned, God does not exist, I am a product of my upbringing, we live in a closed material world, science fully explains all of the known world and excludes the supernatural, I have bought into fabricated myths, and there is a better logical explanation for the many religious events I’ve experienced. For you Brett, that would be that Christ is historically accurate (his life, death, and resurrection), God exists, the supernatural is possible be experienced but impossible to fully explained, there is an unchangeable moral truth unconnected to man’s cultural standards, man is sinful, sin separates us from God, we can earn salvation but we can receive it as a gift from God.
All of these possible truth claims must be tested and considered with truth as the goal, not simply confirmation.
To some degree I think Brett you might consider these various unwanted truths, but because you always try to study it as if it was one of the following a.) a set of facts similar to a college course, b.) a set of supernatural beliefs, or c.) evidence for God’s existence, you are always doomed to failure. None of those are at the heart of Christianity. Christianity is never less than these: true, supernatural, or dependent upon faith; but those are just characteristics of a larger uber truth: God saves. Christianity is a relationship with God, it must be explored starting with the foundational principles of what that means.
So when I say we must first consider Christ, and Brett you say you want to start at the beginning so you must first fully understand Adam, you can see how that prevents you from ever even getting off the starting block. The beginning is Christ, the end is Christ, and the center is Christ, all other truths radiate and are dependent upon Christ.
contradicting not contracting,
stupid spell check
Typo:we can’t earn salvation but we can receive it as a gift from God.
Please no one burn me as a heretic!
Fatboy, me a cherry picking opportunist? Seriously? That is a rather interesting condemnation. What cherries am I picking, and how am I furthering my own interests?
Remember my stated key interest is for Brett to consider Christianity as it really is, how am I advancing that goal by Brett refusing to take part? I will widen the invitation to you as well if you would like, now you can personally stop my cherry picking ways, would you be interested?
Oy!
Cryostar, I have 2 words for you Occams Razor.
Religions around the word are of different ages. Hebrews 4,000 years ago. Christians, 2,000 years ago. Muslims, 900 years ago. See a pattern? Plus you forget the pagans, and Hindus and Buddists. Isn't a simple progression from one religion to the other or one group borrowing parts of another religion from neighboring areas more realistic than God did it about 2,000 years ago?
Steve....
I think that's the longest answer that answers nothing yet! Way to try and turn the tables on it!
But Steve, HOW do you know that god is greater than our "ability to fully study or understand"? There is no evidence for this, at all. You have some words in a book. And again, Steve, you sidestep the answer by pulling out the Christ card. He's not really part of this. Why is your religion true and the other s false? If your god acts upon this reality then he is a part of this reality, and he can be studied. You are just arbitrarily popping him into another reality so you don't need to come up with any evidence. Can you not see how you are lying to yourselves about that? If a god exists then it must obey and use our laws to create in this universe. You love your irruducible complexity as scientific. Well we are designers. We create in this universe but we also live and obey it's laws. Because being outside of this univers would prevent us from interacting with it. If we found a way to interact we'd then be part of it bound by it's laws.
This is not a collage corse, this is real life and if you people want to keep dragging your god into things you bloddy well better have something to back that up. So I keep asking for you to tell me what it is and I get nothing of any actual value. Just gibber jabber of Christ and then that sin crap. The point of this was to try and get you to think and it did, but not about what actually asked.
Best,
Brett
LOL! Steve, you cherry pick all the time and don't even know it. If you quote the 'great' religious thinkers your cherry pick. Just like the eye thing, you cherry picked his paper to say it wasn't real by changing the meaning of a term. And while you yourself didn't do that, you repeated what others did.
No Steve, you want me to consider YOUR version of Christianity because you think it's the 'true' one. I'm asking you why it's true. I'm not going to have a religious awakening. My mind doesn't work the same way as your does. Mine require facts and information to make decisions. I can't just ignore that and embrace what someone tells me is true without evidence. You will never convince anyone like me to do that without removing part of my brain. You keep telling me to consider your version of CHristianity. I'm trying to , why do you think I asked you HOW? But I have to consider it my way because your way is not how I think.
Best,
Brett
Before I read through all the comments,let me clear up that I was not calling you a cherry picking opportunist Steve. I was pointing out that you always accuse Brett of that in a round about way. I apologize for not being clearer.
Or in other words, I was paraphrasing you and Brett.
Brett, remember on the eye computer model it was Jess who finally bridged the gap of what I was stating by pointing out most evolutionists were misunderstanding the computer model to be a computer simulation.
You had linked to an article misusing the information as the linchpin in the death of ID science, I hardly was cherry picking by showing the fallacy of something you linked to.
But lets not get off track. Since I do believe my basic understanding of Christianity to be correct, but you reject it. Perhaps you should instead tell me what you believe the chore of Christianity to be and if you see a lot of support from those who follow the faith. I always find it odd that someone who doesn't partake or engage in Christianity would have a better grip on it, but I' all ears.
"believe the core of Christianity to be."
though at this point it does seem probably more like a chore!
Also to point out, I never said their was no evidence. For clarity I try to differentiate between evidence and proof. Evidence supports, proof removes any doubt. There is very little proof for anything we believe, we come to conclusions mainly on evidence for or against.
Brett, the Razor has been argued for and against the sides of religion for angels, to the point where it really shouldn't be used to either end.
additionally, look outside a singular line of religion. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all fall from the same line (literally) and can all be traced through Assyrian and Babylonian ties. Look to the fact that Hindu and it's Jainist branches believe in similar ideals and mythos. There are tons of creations myths, many older than Hindo or Judeo/Christian. If anything, look at the morals they tell.
Lastly, I would encourage you to look into Buddhism. Outside of China, Buddhist believe that there is no god, and that man is responsible for his own salvation. I think it's a great philosophy to live your life by, it's certain something to value. If anything, just read the 8 fold path. There's some good stuff in there.
I've been a fan of your amazing art since Anita Blake, I really love your art. Now while i find them very funny I have never commented on any of your posts about religion, but with this one I feel I should really do it, simply because for years i have truly believed the exact same thing you are explaining here... How can I decide which one is the real one? so I ihave no religion. Now my question is: Why do you spend so much efforts on trying to convert all those really stupid blind people to your beliefs ("Atheism")? you are just being as stupid as them.... I mean, it's their stupidity and fear of a god which stops most of them from becoming serial killers, or child molesters, etc. Why would you want to destroy what brings the very little "peace" that exist in this world? (putting aside all blood shed because of the church and in the name of god) I don't really get what you want to accomplish with all this... What do YOU win if you win? I personally just preffer to let live in their ignorance. This is my point of view... Now keep up the good work.. I look forward to seeing more art and maybe an answer. Regards from México, Hector
Steve,
That might have been a poorish example but I was in a rush. Dembenski and his ilk cherry picked the original paper to basically say its wrong over something as simple as a term. You might not have known better, but they did. But like your original sin you are propagating there lie, you might not have had any part in it but you claimed it was false simple because they said it was.
See Steve, here's the thing. We can both agree that every religion besides Christianity is false. Using the same criteria that I've used for all the other religions I also come to the conclusion that Christianity is also false. So what I'm asking is why YOU think it's true because when other like me actually examine it it comes out just as false as any other religion. I care nothing for what I believe the core of Christianity to be, that has nothing to do with the question. What I want to know is why you think it's true when all the evidence for it points the other way? I want to know why YOU think it's true, what one thing puts this one religion over the top to YOU.
Cryostar,
Occams Razor has nothing to do with religion. It means the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. What's simpler, that as people and culture spread their religion also spreads or god specially created all the types of religions but didn't tell anyone which parts were true and which parts were false?
Yes, I know they can al be traced to other myths in the area. Just like the Native american myths can show similarities to each other. This is most easily explained by cultural exchanges. We still see it happening now. Buddhists believe that they are god when you boil it down. You seem to be looking into other religions which I encourage greatly. But you can't answer my question because you can't pick one over the other. This isn't a question about a specific religion, it wa question about if you have a specific religion why do you think it's true. You don't think Zeus is real, so why are you using one set of reasoning for Zeus but then another for Jesus?
ekutoru,
I'm not convincing anyone. I'm simply trying to get them to look at there religion objectively. And Atheism is NOT a belief system. It's the lack of one. COMPLETELY different. It isn't their fear of God, it's the laws that we humans have created.
I'm sorry, do you not remember the crusades? The Salem witch trials. The Inquisition? THose were all religious based. So tell me again, about religion and peace cause the middle east seems to have missed that memo.
My reasons are:
1. SHow others that not everyone thinks like they do.
2. Maybe get a few people to actually think.
3. Make fun of the bullshit they pedal as the 'truth'.
The Christians have had it their way for far to long, it's time for them to wake the fuck up and understand that maybe not everyone should bow down before them.
Best,
Brett
Brett,
I was wondering what you mean by the "Jesus card" Steve pulled out. Isn't Christ the reason for Christianity? Thats what it means "to be Christ-like". And wasn't Jesus a Jewish teacher? It was only afterwards it became Christianity.
My reason for believing is the other religions don't have a God that would sacrifice his own Son to re-establish communication with Himself and the People. And that the Son would rise from the dead and live on. But thats written down and witnessed by a lot of people, so it must not be true. Cause theres no evidence.
It takes more faith to not believe in something then it is to believe.
Also, All those morons who did the crusades, The Salem witch trials. The Inquisition where dumbasses and missed the point. They were so hell bent on there own motives and stupidity, they were not christians. We dont want people to bow down to use, there are no rules to follow. You either do or you don't.
There's nothing that says we cant question God, nothing that says we can't think. Nothing that says we can't learn.
bizr007,
Yeah, but Jesus isn't God, he's the son of God. You are supposed to worship God. So when I asked a question, Steve just started rambling off stuff about Christ that had no baring on the question. For some reason Christians seem to think that's an answer. It isn't. It's almost as bad as just posting bible quotes.
Yeah, Jesus isn't the only one to do that. Here are a bunch of others with similar stories:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology
"It takes more faith to not believe in something then it is to believe. "
This makes no sense. It takes nothing to not believe. See I'm doing it right now while eating donuts;)
All those dumbasses, were indeed Christians. Your own god commanded the Hebrews to kill both men women and children.ow are these people any different? Now if your god was peaceful and loving from the beginning then I;d agree with you. It's only recently that Christianity has mellowed and that's do to a culture shift from the ignorance of religion to science and it's disproving of things once thought to be supernatural.
No there is nothing that says you cant question god, they just program you not to and to take hi word for everything... wich so far hasn't turned out so well as thing like Adam and Eve, and the Flood are completely false. So what can we learn from this?
Best,
Brett
Here is my point in explaining the core of Christianity. If God is real and he is bigger than our ability to understand we are at a disadvantage. He by nature does not fit any of our categories. So we will be frustrated by trying to reach up to Him. He is beyond our reach, and Christianity also says he is Holy and we are sinful, so for our own good he does not come into our presence as God. Holiness is deadly to the unholy-even vampires get that with the holy water thing. So we have a bit of a problem. We can’t reach up to God, but he can reach down to us-but we are unfit to be in his presence. So God does the unthinkable and becomes a man in Jesus. God knew we were lost and too blind to ever find Him on our own so He came after us.
I have stressed the central relationship nature because while Christianity is a religion in the traditional sense, it is different from all other world religions in what it believes, how we received its writings, and the nature of God.
If I want to get to know President Barack H. Obama, I could Google his name, read some books, and even visit the White House. I would end up knowing about Obama, but not actually knowing him. This is an important distinction. Christianity doesn’t claim we know about God, it says we actually know Him personally. With the President if we are to have a friendship I can not insist Barack gets to know me. I can not expect him to operate around my time table or my demands. Obama would have to extend the invitation to me because he is in a worldy sense, more important than me. He is a larger person than I in terms of influence and power. Any relationship will be by his invitation on his terms. This is similar to how we must relate to God, He is larger than us and he therefore gets to determine the nature of our relationship. We can’t demand anything of Him. In Christianity, and Judaism to a degree, we get to see the terms of how God reaching down to us chooses to relate to us. God has no interest in proving His existence, He has nothing to prove. In fact it is because of our hard hearts and sin that we do not sense his presence. There is arrogance in making demands of God which prevents the possibility of real relationship. For instance Brett you put nothing on the line, you aren’t willing to humble yourself and ask God for yourself to reveal Himself to you so you might know him and serve him. You have stated you want to know if God exists but even if He did you would never worship or serve Him, if God’s goal is to have a relationship with you, and your goal is to reject Him no matter what-there is little reason for God to make himself known to you.
You say there is no evidence, yet billions of folks say otherwise. History is full of people who died rather than deny Christ. Are they all stupid? Brainwashed? Cultural conformists? Your denials are more implausible than the truth.
If God wants a relationship with folks and it is dependent on him revealing himself in what ever way and to what degree He wants then we would have to look through history to see if just such an event took place. Many men have claimed to be God, only one ever got men to follow him for over 2000 years. Only one man based a religion not off of reaching up to God, not off of following a bunch of rules, but in stating he was God come to us in the flesh. Mohammad did not claim to be divine, Siddhartha Gautama rejected any claims of divinity, only Jesus said he was not only the way to God, but God himself.
No one who is intellectually honest doubts Jesus existed. There is just too much proof. You continually act like it is a silly claim to believe Jesus existed as a historical figure. This is a major problem with you, not the claim. It shows either ignorance or biased which prevents consideration of facts freely available to anyone who actually looks into it. If you say Jesus did not exist, you then need to explain where did the Christian faith come from? Why is it recorded in history? Why did it turn the Roman empire upside down if it did not exist? Once you try to distort history the burden of proof is transferred to you, why do you disagree with thousands of historically reliable artifacts, scrolls, and artworks? You just seem to always brush it off like it is a minor thing to ignore one of the most prominent historical figures in the world.
In the past you have started throwing out silly nonsense like the Church changed the Bible, or it was not written by the eyewitnesses. This creates many more questions rather than answer your objections; it just keeps growing that you need to make excuses for all of the historical facts.
The sheer weight of Jesus’ claims demand that they get an honest investigation. There is just too much to lose if they are ignored.
Argument from number again Steve? You could all the Christians when it's convenient and then toss them when they don't agree with you. typical.
Yes Steve, after trying to read all that you are indeed delusional. No you can't really know Obama, but he IS part of this world and you can see his effect. There is no evidence for that with your god.
Why should I humble myself, for something I find appalling?
As for Jesus existing. There is no absolute proof. And if he did there is even less proof (as in none) that he was really the son of god. It's intellectually dishonest to claim you have evidence and proof when you have nothing but stories. Jesus can simply be the name some people used to say that the messiah had already come and you should now follow them. It's an easy thing to do in that time as there was no way to disprove it.
You are the one who now claims that just because there are Christians that makes god real? Well I tell you what Steve, there are also Hindu's so I guess Kali is real. That's Dishonesty, not just with history with yourself. That you can't see they are the same is just... sad.
Maybe when you actually learn how to study history you'll see that your are doing more lying to yourself.
The sheer wait... ugh. Man that's laughable. There is definite evidence for Muhammid, so why not follow him?
I can see this is a lesson in futility. Wow... just WOW.
Best,
Brett
Hindus, Muslims, Bhudists, etc. fill in your major world religion of choice. They are all radically different from one another. You would have to take each at its specific claims and test them. You would have to study their historical accounts, their founders’ lives, etc.
We aren’t comparing Chevys and Fords. It isn’t like if Jesus’ claims are true and he is a historical figure then any religion with writings and followers is also legit.
Each major world faith has unique characteristics which have to individually be evaluated. They all make different truth claims. Think of it like a court case, good cases are won on the strength of their evidence, but all cases have evidence of some sort. You are saying if Christianity can win its case then all other religions also do; nothing is further from the truth.
Christianity isn’t like any other world religion. Most secular college courses on comparative religion teach this. Christianity makes different claims and has different evidence, and unique properties. The bar is set much higher for Christianity because only its founder said I am God. It makes it a lot trickier to fool people into believing you are God rather than a mere representative. Also the sheer massive amount of historical records make it difficult for Christianity to pull off a fraud. If you want to tell a lie it is easier to create faked evidence for a small lie than to have dozens of people with no interaction from different countries in different generations write the central text for the religion, but that is what the Bible is.
This is why your arguments that the Muslim faith has just as much evidence is kind of ridiculous. Seriously? Brett, are you saying you are a bit foggy on the fundamental differences in the major world religions? Come on, I refuse to believe that, you are too smart to fall for such a fallacy. You have to understand why Christianity is unique, even if it wasn’t true, you would have to be able to grasp that.
You’ve got to admit that it is harder to claim you are God than you found a magic gold plate which only you saw and an angel took from you. The Mormons have a very minor gestation time for their “holy” book and it is easy to see even with just one key writer they created a flimsy error filled manuscript.
Look, you are right to be skeptical. I’m a major skeptic, I love evidence. You are right to be cynical and demand some evidence, some sort. I would hate for you to take my word for it or base it off of the fact billions of other accepted it. What you are missing is most of us, not all of us, but most of us Christians have asked all the same hard questions you ask. We ask for signs, beg for evidence, and ask God to reveal Himself. When I say billions have found it to be true, I don’t mean they blindly accepted it. Christianity is a hands on test it out and see if it is real religion. If you aren’t sincere in your pursuit, it probably will be a failure. If you honestly are seeking God you will find Him.
For me, God proved Himself more in the questions he asked of me, than what I asked of Him. He totally ignored some of my questions or how I was pursuing Him. Instead he moved in such away that He organized my coming to faith along his plans so I would never doubt it was Him rather than me seeing what I was looking for. I don’t know if that makes sense, but all I can say is God in inconvenienced me. He humbled me, he showed himself to be real by turning the tables on me. He caught me off guard and surprised me.
Brett you said "Jesus can simply be the name some people used to say that the messiah had already come and you should now follow them. It's an easy thing to do in that time as there was no way to disprove it."
Brett, seriously man, what?
Why don't you let me send you a world religions book. It has got to be better than reading my posts over and over saying you don't understand the cultural period of early Judaism.
Think of it this way, your arguments would be so much stronger against Christianity if you understood it a bit better. If Christianity is so weak and with such little proof, why not really investigate it? You could really stick it to me if you had some better ammunition. Isn't it worth a try?
Brett,
I'm quite aware of what the Razor argument is, and was stating that it's usage has been levied for and against God. I think it's been done to the point where it's truly not valid. Once could argue the same for science in regards to the Dark Matter (or energy for that matter).
I wouldn't say that I haven't chosen, I would say that I'm looking at a bigger picture, which is think is an issue that most Christians you encounter have. If you look far enough out, there are broad similarities in stories. Sure, you can call it cultural exchange or some similar type of phenomena, however, I would think you'd be hard pressed to prove that enough culture interacted between India and Palestine to give birth to two very similar mythological structures. What I'm seeking is something that is not yet adulterated by the interpretation of man, which is close to ever religion that's out there.
As to buddhism, I think you should take a closer look. There's far less of a diety involved than you may think. It's greatly centered around personal choices and right living, in relation to how you affect the universe.
Is this truly any different than how you get up and live the life you do? Why do you obey the laws that are set down? While I agree that a certain "wake up" call to blind faith needs to be made (and heeded) why do you stereotype all those that have religion into the same categories? Wouldn't this prove that you've fallen pray to the same pattern that you're striving to break people out of? Again, not meaning this to be hostile, just looking for some honest debate and thought about the subjects at hand.
Sorry, hit the botton to fast!
No thanks Steve, after your comments it would be pointless.
So you can't make up a fictitious religious figure to try to prove a point and get followers? It's a god thing Heracles was true then. The only evidence for Jesus is a mention in some Roman reports. Now if, as YOU Christians said when Jesus's tomb was found, that Jesus was a common name, then we can't be sure if it's the same guy. I have said over an over again I don't know if he's real or not. The actual evidence isn't clear.
You entire argument comes down to "because there are more Christians (even though you think most of those aren't really christians so you can't really use them when it's convenient for you) Christianity it true". Well the other 5 billion people on the planet disagree with you.
I don't need to 'understand it better' as you simply refuse to actually question it. There is no point in arguing it with you if you are not willing to even see how people of others religion might look at yours. They know about it, but they aren't flocking to it. That's what this was supposed to be about. Instead you simply try the argument from numbers so you don't have to question. Which is ridiculous and shows how well their 'teachings' work.
Cryostar,
Then you'll realize that is says usually and not always. But automatically assuming god did it is never a good thing as we'd still be stuck in the middle ages. And while you might think god did it is the simplest it isn't. It calls for outside forces, outside of this universe WAAAY more complicated than people move around.
Yeah, it was called the Silk Road... PLEASE look into it. It's why there are afghan hounds in India. Plus Palestine and India really are right next door. Now if it had been Palestine and say the the Yucatan, then you might have something there.
I don't need to take a further look. The simple fact that women can't achieve the same as men makes it false, that's far too human thinking for it to be supernatural. Why this need for me to pick a religion? Why is any religion better than none?
I obey the laws because I don't want to go to jail. Simple. That's what the laws are there for. Human laws for human problems. No need for a higher being.
I stereotype them because they all believe something without any actual evidence. You might find that people with religion are better because they are willing to accept 'outside' thinking. I think that makes people open for exploitation and leads to a general dumbing down. It teaches you to ignore reason and go with your feelings to the point that reason is considered evil. It leads to some of the most ignorant thinking I've ever seen (Case and point, Steve's argument!) but it doesn't lead to peace, just to subjugation.
I have not fallen prey to any such pattern, I have rejected it. Continuing to try and say it's a belief system is a fools errand. There is no system, only a lack of belief. I'm beginning to agree with the studies that show that some people are simply hard wired to believe. Sad but try.
Best,
Brett
Late to the party but I'm here.
Brett, the actual evidence for a historical Jesus is pretty clear actually and not seriously debated among legitimate scientists. The 4 gospels themselves have been dated to have been written shortly after the purported lifetime of Jesus. Contemporary Roman sources cite Jesus (Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Seutonis. Jewish historian Josephus who is also a contemporary historian to Jesus writes about him. All relevant parties had historical references to the man so there's very little mainstream doubt that a man by the name of Jesus existed and was crucified by the Romans.
On to the meat and potatoes of these posts. I am a Christian, I am also a scientist. There is no rational answer to your question Brett because believing in religion and having faith in something is not a rational choice. It is just something I irrationally choose to do and I genuinely believe to be correct. I am OK with not always making rational choices. I do it all the time (and you likely do too when it comes to your fellow man). You will never ever find a satisfactory answer to your questions (short of Jesus himself showing up) because there isn't one and there likely won't be one in our lifetimes.
TheORKINMan,
Actually that's only theologans, there have been several books from other historieans that call his existence into question. I'm hoping to get a chance to read them when I have some free time. As I said I'm not 100% either way. He can be real or myth, it doesn't matter. Muhammad was real but I don't think he was a prophet of Allah, or that Allah was real.
As for the Gospels, they were written after he died, And not by the actual people who witnessed it. Eyewitness testimony is not to be trusted. And I believe Josephus was locked away cause he was crazy right? Or was that the Revelations guy? If Jesus was SOOO much of a problem why only the one mention from the Jews?
Yes, so a man who was named Jesus was Crucified. Now if 10-25% of a population (religious peoples numbers) were also named Jesus, you don't know if it's the same guy. Now if it said, Jesus, son of Mary and Joseph, brother to James ect. then I'd be far more convinced.
I wasn't looking for a rational answer, or any answer, this was an exercise to get the religious to examine there faith honestly. Nice to see that this is just something they refuse to do. So they can't call it the 'truth' anymore if they aren't going to even try and test it. If you can't be honest with yourselves then how can what you tell me be trusted?
I do make irrational choices, I eat too much food sometimes before bed, I goof off when I know I should be working. But I don't make life altering choices like this. It's folly to do so.
Best,
Brett
How do you propose we test it? There is no verifiable way to test the existence of a being outside of our universe. Nor is there a way to test for miracles or mana or any of that stuff because they are unrepeatable acts by anyone alive today. We do not know the conditions upon which these feats were allegedly performed. If you have some way of testing this I'd be very interested.
I am not one who subscribes to the idea that just because we can't do it today, that means it couldn't have been done back then or some other being isn't capable of it. That's a ridiculously arrogant and narrow viewpoint that fails to account for historical artifacts such as the Shroud of Turin. We have just now discovered a method which would recreate the patterns on the shroud ( essentially a straight laser across the whole cloth, this eliminates the possibility of it being sunlight as radial light does not create the patterns ). So EVEN if the Shroud is a medieval forgery (there is much debate as to the time of it's creation) howtf did they create something we can only mimic with lasers at our current level of technology? My overarching point here is simply that we don't know what we don't know. We DONT KNOW what these people witnessed when it came to divine beings and miracles and we are not in a position to make a statement of fact in regards to what actually occurred. Thus, at current, these beliefs are unverifiable and believing in them is simply a matter of one irrational choice or another.
Reference Link for my above claims btw: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/scientists-turin-shroud-image-created-ultraviolet-lasers-182107870.html
Okay, maybe I’m missing something. As you know I was raised in a religiously Christian home, did the whole go to church thing, then went off to the army and college and ran into the real world. At that point because my girlfriend dumped me because Jesus told her to stop sleeping with me, I got mad at God and I walked away from the church for a time. I was seeing other countries and talking to people of radically different faiths. So I took 6-8 months to study other world religions and compare them to my Christian upbringing. I studied Judaism, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses beliefs and also started looking at philosophers like Freud and Nietzsche. I was determined to figure out what was true. The fact I was raised Lutheran didn’t mean it was true, just that I had a cultural reason to accept it. Of course that isn’t really a common trend anymore, kids raised in one faith aren’t retaining their parent’s beliefs; I imagine Baby boomers did it first, but us GenXers weren’t too far behind at rejecting our faith’s of origin. So I read a lot and explored a lot. There are a lot of world religions, and none of them are boring, so seldom is it wasted time to explore other faiths. It is fascinating to see what and why folks believe as they do. You quickly discover all faiths share only slight overlap in supernatural beliefs, to a greater extent they share common moral ground. They can’t all be true, they differ too much. The only possibility is they are all wrong or a single faith is correct. That isn’t to say every part of every faith is inaccurate. Buddhism has some fascinating beliefs and shares some common values with Christianity. There is some truth in the Quran. You have to actually dig and study each faith independently, not by what you were raised, or even what you like, but evaluate each on its own terms and see if it is at least cohesive.
Brett routinely rejects all faiths which contain anything supernatural, because Brett assumes the supernatural to be impossible. When asked “Why?” He answers “Because there is no (natural) evidence for the supernatural. This is a self-conflicting statement. There will be no evidence for the supernatural which is by its nature unnatural. That is to say, if God miraculously healed a broken bone you couldn’t look at an MRI and determine it must have been a supernatural event, you would look and see only a healthy bone. If God is real, the supernatural is not only possible, but a certainty, but in studying to figure out if God is real or which faith is legitimate I would suggest putting the supernatural on the shelf-don’t count it as disqualifying a faith, but also don’t take it as fact. So when you read of Jesus’ resurrection, that is a supernatural event, don’t accept it, don’t disqualify it; just view it as neutral and explore the ramifications. Do the historical events which follow better support He rose or that he is still in the tomb? Were ancient people stupid and easily deceived as Brett implies? Were there multiple Jesus’s crucified and buried in a tomb with a known location on the same day so when the people went to the tomb and found the stone rolled away that they were mistake? When the Christian faith started to turn Rome upside down and all they had to do was show that the corpse was still in the tomb, why couldn’t they? Why did the tales of Christ’s resurrection follow standard dissemination patterns starting from the town of Jerusalem? Why does the Christian faith accurately relate the time and culture it was supposed to happen in? Why if the manuscripts were changed why do all the oldest copies mirror the younger copies? In other words if you are going to imply the Bible was tampered with, why don’t the scriptures show any signs of being significantly tampered with?
So you invited people of faith to explore other beliefs. I whole heartedly agree and would like to help anyone interested. I have done the research and found it quite rewarding, because of doing this (not for being ignorant and not doing it) I have concluded Christianity to be feasible and have legitimate evidence (not absolute proof). I invite you to do the same thing. I have been a Christian now for 20 years, my faith looks radically different from what I grew up in. So please do take Brett's challenge to explore and investigate, I will again suggest that Brett might also want to take his own advice.
TheORKINMan,
You did NOT just use the shroud!!!! The cloth was from 14th century so unless it went back in time.... And yes a UV light can do that, that's why they put it under UV protective glass. You need to reread that study or look at some non religious sites/blogs about it cause that's not what it said.
No we don't know, but due to current studies, eyewitness are unreliable and can easily get pretty much everything wrong. They had a special on NatGeo about this it was a real eye opener.
You can test it. If the Bible is the word of god it can be used to test if the word it true. It's been proven wrong. End of story, genesis, wrong, flood, wrong ect. The same way you test every other religion. Stop only thinking of yours, there are others that you reject. Why? Are you truly subjecting your religion to those same tests or simply giving it a pass because you want it to be true? The latter seems to be the consensus.
Steve,
I'll leave most of that be. BUT by your own admission not all the Christians faiths are true, so please don't add them all together if they aren't all true you can't use them to argue from numbers.
I don't accept the supernatural because there is no evidence for it, period. What you consider evidence is not what science considers evidence. I am still flabbergasted that special creation seems to be the default setting for religions having some aspects of other religions.... just wow.
Best,
Brett
Okay. Again, I’m not arguing from numbers, that is not to say he with the most followers wins. I’m saying if 2 billion people called the fire department and reported a fire, I would investigate the possibility of a fire. If 2 billion people reported seeing an angel outside I would run outside to see what people were looking at. If 2 billion people saw an alien, I too would take a look, even though I don't believe in alien life. I would come to my own conclusion; the sheer number means it deserves investigation-not that it is true.
Your refusal to investigate, that points to a different reason than lack of evidence; you simply don’t want to. It is a bit odd to claim Christianity shuts down logical thought and investigation and then yourself refuse to look any further.
Science is the study of the natural physical world; it can make no claims for or against the supernatural. By definition it does not prove or disprove supernatural events. If there is a spiritual dimension unless it effects the physical world it would be deemed non provable, not non existent. Science can (and routinely does) record and point to currently unanswerable phenomenon. To refuse to investigate because it could lead to a supernatural cause is not an adequate response.
You may claim that you do not believe in the supernatural, but that is a statement of faith, a philosophical statement.
The statement I do not believe in the supernatural because there is not natural evidence is true of all of us. I do not believe in the supernatural because there is not natural evidence, but it is also not a sufficient reason to completely discount it. I have seen evidence which as a whole is consistent with a world view which allows for the supernatural more closely than one that excludes it. If there are no supernatural events then there is a heck of a lot of statistically impossible coincidences surrounding the name Jesus which when taken as a whole point to an as yet unexplained, unidentified natural phenomenon which is more unbelievable than a single theistic cause.
I know Fatboy at least listens to online sermons when directed that way. One of the cool things about being a Christian is you can ask God for help in explaining something. It is also cool when you make a statement then later find other believers have come to the same conclusion. Tim Keller has been taking up a lot of my listening time. Check this out:
http://sermons2.redeemer.com/sermons/search-god
It is a really interesting take on searching for God and repeats and better explains many of my points. You can listen to it streaming online.
You are arguing from numbers. You are basically saying 2 billion people just can't be wrong! Of course the other 5 billion disagree with you...
I never said it shouldn't be investigated by science. Bring science some actual evidence that shows something besides cultural exchange and a technique for, lack of a better term right now, brain washing, and we'll see what happens. But science has investigated it, you seem to forget that the first scientists were very religious and were attempting to prove the bible correct. Turns out the bible is not correct so the answers for things need to be found elsewhere. And science has shown some people are possibly hard wired for religion, see they are looking into it, you just disagree with it because they don't agree with you.
Yes there are things that can't be explained, but if they interact with the natural word they should look for a natural explanation first. This leads to natural answers. Only when things can't be explained by natural means should the supernatural be brought in, and even then it might only be our limited understanding or technology that is the problem. We've explained a hell of a lot so far... far more than any Bible, koran or Torah could ever hope to show.
I have looked into it in the past and what I have seen hasn't convinced me. Remember I was religious, I believed in your god and upon inspection found your religion to lack credibility (you assume this mean I just didn't Jesus a chance, which is a ridiculous argument.) Why should I continue to waste my time looking into it if no new evidence has come to light? There is a better way, it's called science you get actual answers that you can test and retest. It leads to spaceflight and medecine and the modern world. Jesus didn't give us that, humans doing science did, and yes I know that sounded stupid but it made me laugh;)
If you're spiritual world was there there should be evidence of it's interacting with ours. There are people studying to see if there is another universe abutting ours that would explain a few strange readings. But there is some small evidence to cause them to look. If it doesn't interfere with ours and there is no evidence outside your scriptures then why bother with it? Why are we not looking for the Hindu gods then? How is this even proof of a god maybe it's just after images of a parallel world. You assume it has something to do with your religion when it might have something to do with another religion altogether or none at all. How many TV shows are currently looking for ghosts? Have they convinced you of anything yet? Lots of people believe in fairies and elves, should we look into that as well? Your religion has been looked into and it lead to science, so thanks for that! But still no god.
I do not believe in the supernatural because there is no evidence to support it. That is not faith, why this need that I have to believe in SOMETHING that's not natural. Strange... is it projection?
But you DO believe in it Steve. You believe in an unprovable god. As you have said before, that's OUTSIDE our universe (I guess we weren't created in his image after all.) And what are all these instances, are they in the bible, on toast, in some potatoes?
Could this simply just be people reading into things, cause, you know, that NEVER happens... If you look for a conspiracy some people will find it.
Best,
Brett
Brett,
The radiocarbon dating of the shroud is from the early 80s and old news. New experiments have cast serious doubt on the reliability of said dating. The news article I linked to was Yahoo news based on work done by ENEA the scientific research arm of the Italian government. Not a religious source at all. They are not even claiming a divine source of the shroud. Simply that it was created by a UV laser ( not just a UV light ). I'd be very interested as to how you would explain even an image on cloth even from the 14th century created by a man made UV laser.
You seem to misunderstand me. I do not scrutinize any religion and discard others based on evidence. I simply believe mine and disbelieve others because I choose to. There is not a current way to prove the correctness of a belief in or lack of belief in God so I just believe what I believe just as you do. Pure atheism is just as logically indefensible as theism. The only logically defensible position is agnosticism. Your 99.9999% disbelief in the existence of a god is entirely as irrational as my choice to believe in one.
ORKINMan,
I did a post about this long ago. Even before the 'laser' which is what they USED to show a possible way of doing it.
Here are few very simple fact. The image is not of an anatomically correct human. The left arm I believe is far to long. The size is too large for a person living in that area at that time. I don't recall Jesus being referred to as a giant do you? And of course the person seems to look European... Jesus are an arabic Jew.
And it wasn't a laser, to quote the author:
"some form of electromagnetic energy" such as a flash of light at short wavelength."
Heat from a fire? Heat is electromagnetic energy. Exposure to UV rays over years? This is a perfect example of people wanting something to be true and trying to find any possible explanation outside of reality.
My disbelief is not irrational. There is no evidence therefor it's not true. You show some evidence that's convincing and I'll change my mind. You have no evidence to support your claim yet you choose to believe it anyways and over others that also have no evidence... that is the definition of irrational.
If the Bible is just stories, which science has shown, then the word of god is just words on paper. Therefore the god as described in the Bible is myth. So I can reject that religion as false, just like Zeus and Osiris. We know they aren't real. So how is saying I don't know more rational?
Best,
Brett
"some form of electromagnetic energy" such as a flash of light at short wavelength."
light at short wavelength = blue to ultraviolet(or higher, x-rays, gamma rays etc... They also noted that the light that hit the shroud was universally directional which you conveniently left out. This rules out the sun as a possible source of the UV light as it is radial, not directional, and does not exclusively emit short wavelengths.
Heat is not electromagnetic energy. Heat can be generated by electromagnetic energy but typically only the long wavelength end of the spectrum does this (aka radio/microwave/infrared) which rules out it being the potential source which is short wavelength.
So as I said, feel free to explain to me how even in the 14th century this cloth would be exposed to short wavelength directional electromagnetic energy coming from man (the only known source of directional short wavelength electromagnetic energy unless you want to count objects in deep space).
The reason your disbelief in God is irrational is because you simply assume that your belief in the origin of the universe is the default position when there is a lack of evidence. The belief the "God-particle" simply always existed without a creator has no more proof behind it then the flying spaghetti monster. This is where scientists and atheists run into a logical trap that creationists hid behind for many years. "We are here, and there is no God, therefore the particles and processes that compose us MUST have always been." This is what in discrete mathematics is called vacuously true. (Before mainstream science Creationists used to use the same argument of "We are here therefore God must have made us.") Agnosticism is the only logically defensible position because we have absolutely no effing idea when it comes to the original state of the universe, whether causality even existed at or prior to the point of creation, the existence of a universal superlative etc... Thus there is NO default position other then "I don't know" because we known nothing of the conditions and are unable to make ANY assumptions regarding the creation of the universe INCLUDING that it all happened by random chance.
Material science is a narrow field not used for verifying historical facts. Can’t redo the Palaeozoic era. Can’t watch abiogenesis. Can’t weigh the number 5. Can’t verify Shakespeare existed. Etc. Insisting on using material science outside its self-imposed limits has always struck me as odd, but sometimes I forget how central it is to your worldview and the faith you have in science. So there are other recognized standards for testing historical events, that is why Christianity will never be blind faith, but it will also never be proved by material data. As you begin to understand God and see how a relationship is necessary for actual Love rather than simple intellectual agreement. You also see why a proud person has such trouble with coming to God and how a Love based relationship keeps selfish people away. If you want to understand why your approach will always fail, you could go back and reread my initial long post which you said “is the longest post which says nothing.” It actually is quite insightful into the whole nature of our discussion if you can receive it.
I have to thank you Brett. As a Christian I always tend to wonder, “How do I know it is true, how do I know I haven’t been taken in?” I wondered about that, having doubts, but still maintaining faith. I think it was Paul Little in his book “Know Why You Believe” when for the first time I saw another Christian confirm having doubts and also it was a sign of a healthy faith (I’m sure Lewis mentions it too, but I can’t readily remember where). Little explains God doesn’t want lazy faith, but a faith which constantly tests and questions so it is like a muscle which gets exercise. I love how God has brought Brett into my life to keep me intellectually in shape.
The Bible says that lost people don’t not believe for lack of evidence, but because their hearts’ refuse to believe. There is a hatred of God and love of self which infects the heart. Logic isn’t the cure, but sometimes it is the path. A humble heart will seek God on His terms, not its own. It seems arrogant to say God can’t exist because He doesn’t play by my rules, live up to my expectations, or interact in the way I want Him too; therefore I refuse to believe in Him because he isn’t who I want Him to be. For me that was one of the strongest arguments for faith, Christianity is centered around an uncompromising God who is not the sort men would make up. God doesn’t help people like a genie; he interacts both in love and moral purity-not an easy thing to make up.
Some people believe because they’ve got to or they wouldn’t have hope, or they were trained to believe by their folks, but once you see real Christianity in action you see how shallow religion is compared to actual interaction with Jesus. He is so frustrating, so annoying, so invasive, and yet He reveals my weaknesses and at the same time builds me up. I should not be so cocky in dismissing anyone who misses the deep truths of Christ, it must seem pretty odd from the outside looking in.
Christianity is centered around an uncompromising God who is not the sort men would make up.
That statement right there pretty much say's it all doesn't it Steve. It completely confirms the depths of your delusion and that you, are in fact the one that discusses, not to find any kernel of truth. But simply for the sake of discussion and to spit out bible quotes and dogma.
I'm honestly not trying to be mean, but am sincerely flabbergasted at the blatant ignorance of that statement.
To be able to completely ignore the fact that the Christian God is COMPLETELY a god that mankind would make up. That the Christian God is so obviously the definition of a god man would create, with all the downfalls and petty emotions of mankind but with infinite power and restricted by nothing leaves me quite stunned. The fact that "God" is defined as male and in human terms also gives credence to the fact that "HE" is man made and is the epitome of male thinking of the time.
I've mentioned this before Steve. A higher being of that magnitude and power would not exist as defined by Christianity. We would be almost if not completely under it's radar. If a Higher being did in fact create our existence it was most likely the equivalent of a cosmic loogie that gave it pause only long enough to notice that it had indeed expelled something.
You sit and lecture how far "God" is beyond our comprehension and then turn right around and slap "him" with human emotions. You can't have it both ways Steve.
You are right when you say that People cannot be 100% sure that there are no higher being or "gods". But we can be 100% sure that they have nothing to do with ANYTHING mankind has or will ever conceive.
TheORKINMan,
Infra red heat is electromagnetic. Heat is just light we can't see. Humans have a VERY limited range. Look it up! I use infra red to heat my house, also known as ceramics. I do think they had pottery in the 14th century. Put some fire in there and there you go, MAGIC!
I'm sorry but science has shown it's worth time and time again. We know a big bang happened, we don't know if it's the start of the universe. Science is a tool that has proven it's worth in examining things over and over again.
"We are here, and there is no God, therefore the particles and processes that compose us MUST have always been."
And this is where you knowledge of science breaks down. This is simply NOT true. From the big bang the first galaxies and stars formed. But the larger the star the shorter (and more unstable) the lifespan. These stars burned out quickly and when a star dies, as the core is consumed, it makes new elements and spews them into space. It will continue to do this until it finally makes iron and that will cause it to explode to implode. New stars will eventually form using the left overs from the last stars and the planets that form around these new stars use the elements that are left over. This is why gold will be rare on every planet. These are star facts, you can look up if you like. The elements are therefor on the planet when it forms. But they were created in stars long dead.
We do know a big explosion happened. We do know it would only take a single atom that is of a different size to it's neighbors to accomplish this. These are simple truths. There is no need to plug God into anything that happens after this single atom causes the chain reaction that produces the big bang. Right now we can't study anything before the big bang because of the after effects of it.
Agnostics is the idea that they simply don't know. I get it. BUT what they refuse to do is examine the religions. I can say all faiths on earth are wrong because that's what the evidence shows, so I have no faith based on Earth's religions as they are shown to be false. Now is there a more amorphous god like being (similar to what most people actually believe now) a being of love or a being who simply put things in motion and watches? I can say I don't know. But I'm inclined to think no, as there is no evidence for this being either but I'm not 100%.
And here's where the arrogance of humans comes in. Just because we can't explain something yet doesn't mean god did it. Even going by your laser idea for the shroud, that was eventually explained by science. MEANING it's not supernatural. SO god didn't do it. Man did. How (for you at least) has yet to be explained.
So what's more irrational. Assuming god did it, and arrogantly assuming it was YOUR particular form of god/ Or actually using the tools at hand to look into it via science. Tools that have worked time and again. Tools that allow you to actually communicate with me… if you don't like them how 'bout trying to send me a prayer? that seems foolish doesn't it? But that's what your trying to sell me on. Ignore what actually works for what you want to work. Tell me again, what's more irrational?
Brett
No Steve,
We can't 'redo the paleozoic' we don't live in that period and we don't have all the facts about it. BUT through science we've learned a great deal about it. Knowledge your book simply doesn't provide. It also doesn't provide anything about DNA, Dinosaurs, pre-humans, ect. The only thing it does give is a bit of history as the Hebrews and earth Christians saw it.
We can't watch the original abiogenesis, just like you can't prove we are made of mud in your gods image. But we can study how it may have happened and we are getting close. And you can test History, that's what archeologists do. WHich is why King David was considered a Myth until some other evidence, OUTSIDE your religion has shown this may not be the case. See its science when new credible evidence is provided, they can change there minds. Unlike you who does everything in his power to ignore it or 'disprove' it buy either saying it's disproved or cherry picking.
And you can weigh the number 5, or at least it's representation. Which is all the number is in the first place. Logic, it works!
Again, my 'faith' in science isn't faith. It's knowledge that in the past science has worked and worked well. SImply repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true. Well, maybe for you.
Get off your high horse. I have no love or hate for your deity anymore than I love or hate zeus. That's simply the simple minded projecting their irrational ideas on others. You simply cant understand how someone can not believe in in something. That's it. My heart is used to pup blood that's all it does. My mind is what runs the show emotions and all.
OK, I'm done. My head is about to explode with the stoopid.
Brett
Fatboy that was awesome, but I'm afraid they won't get it. I've argued that point many a time, not quite as well as you just did:) Logic is a bitch!
Best!
Brett
No infrared is not "heat". Heat has to do with the average kinetic energy of particles. Infrared can create heat as it does with ceramic because the long wavelength radiation bombarding the ceramic causes the ceramic particles to vibrate more rapidly which causes them to gain in average kinetic energy aka "heat". Moreover as I stated infrared is a long wavelength photonic particle which is not suitable to create the pattern as it requires short wavelength. For the record. I am not claiming that the Shroud of Turin definitely is the cloth that they buried Jesus in. My larger point is simply that we don't know what we don't know and there exist significant aberations and contradictions to our commonly believed narrative of human history as told by archaeologists etc... as to suggest that we may be missing some rather significant pieces. While the science of and investigating history IS legitimate science it is not exact science by a longshot.
You are correct in that we do know that 'a' big bang happened. We do NOT know if it was the only big bang. We do NOT know what caused it or even if causality is relevent to the discussion of it. We do not know anything in regards to a universal superlative. My reference to the "particles must have always existed" was in reference to the initial god particle that the big bang sprung from. Atheists are all too happy to embrace the idea that that particle either sprang up out of nothing or existed infinitely in it's state prior to the big bang. Nevermind that this is all just near complete guess work of which there is NO evidence of.
On the question of whether we would be below the notice of some sort of higher being. I do not believe either you or I or anyone currently is qualified to answer that question because we do not know the nature of existence. We don't know if we have "souls" or whatever they may be. We don't know humanity's future universal consequence or even the ultimate fate of the universe. So it is impossible to say whether a god being (even an alien civilization with a billion year head start on our own) would consider us beneath their notice.
Yes Brett, and Fatboy specifically, that line of reasoning will not work because going back to my "long post which says nothing" I said we have to accept God as He presents himself, not as we want Him to be.
He is not a highly evolved man, but He is intelligent, has emotions, and is loving. Because we know something of these qualities does not mean we humans are the apex of them. God's interaction with man is a perfect coherent expression of love, emotion, and wisdom.
Often people will without digging deeper than a flea's knee will say, "Look your God gets angry, so he is not good. He is just like man, so he is conceived by man." This works as an excuse until you start to read. If you actually put some effort into understanding you get to see a much bigger fuller coherent understanding of the over arching themes of humanity's rebellion and God's grace toward us.
Again when you are in a relationship with someone, anyone, they change you. You interact. It happens in marriage all the time, our spouses change us. Christianity is interacting with God. He changes you as you relate to Him. He is very inconvenient, but not inconsistent. That makes him a God we would not create-you can’t create a coherent loving being who consistently outsmarts you while at the same time out loving you. Then to be able to take the “god” I’ve created and retroactively write him into history into multiple cultures. Then to time archeological discoveries to uncover collaborating information for decades and generations all unified in meaning. Again, not easy for me to pull off, but I am flattered that you believe me to be that powerful or clever. It is either that, or again your understanding is more of a misunderstanding, the sort which leads to empty mockery.
Again it takes a willingness to pursue the truth and isn't quite as easy as linking to someone singing dirty limericks. But who knows maybe research isn't as good a tool for discerning truth as singing a little silly fiction based ditty.
Again Brett just as a final follow up, when archeological information supports one of your beliefs why is that fact, but when the same archeological disciplines, same archeologists, uncover something which is in the Bible do they not count?
It isn't that I discount science or knowledge, I tend to prefer an unbiased balanced approach.
Please again for those of us who are slow, what is the reason for your bias? And how is that logic?
Fatboy, sorry this section got cut off of my previous post, but I really am done after this for this entry.
Your cosmic loogie is based off of the notion God is only a supreme intelligence, so lower life forms are not worth his time. You are totally ignoring God is supreme love. So a being who is intelligence personified to the max may not notice anything beneath him, but love personified to the max would be incredibly outward seeking, undaunted by worth.
Charity is offering help to those who are in need, not because they deserve it, but because they are unable to help themselves. Grace is helping those who do not deserve help. Both are consistently shown to be central characteristics of God, he loves man not because he should, but in loving what is so far beneath Him he shows he is capable of great love. Does that make sense? Do you now see how weak and inaccurate your understanding of God is compared to how He shows himself in history?
Anyways thanks again Fatboy, I love your questions and your willingness to respond. I may be a bit tenacious but I think you are worthy of the effort.
TheOrkinMan,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_heater
Light IS also heat. That's why the sun is both bright and hot.
You claimed the Shroud was real. Why bring it up otherwise?
And you are correct. But you are assuming that there was nothing, when there was obviously something or nothing would be here. Once those something started to interact no god is needed. So why must there be a god to start them to interact? Your assuming because you want there to be one, not because there is evidence.
Steve,
Why? If your god is "a perfect coherent expression of love, emotion, and wisdom" I think I might just vomit right now.
He's this way because that's what YOU want him to be. That is not as he is described in your bible can you even admit this to yourself? Until you are able to take the god tinted glasses off, it's pointless to talk to you about it. You see your god because you want to, that might be fine for you but that does not provide me with the answers I'm looking for. You might be willing to ignore things for this mythical being, that you refuse to admit has many HUMAN flaws as your own book shows, but I am not.
Because Steve, there are no archeological facts that support the bible other than places and some names. There is no evidence for the flood, the parting of the red sea, the jews leaving Egypt as a large group. As I have said OVER and OVER again. Yes there were christians, that doesn't prove there was a guy named Jesus who was the son of a god. Just like there there is no evidence that there was a guy named Heracles that was the son of a god. These are simply stories and myths that people make up.
If one part of the bible is shown to be true. Say King David, but all the rest show's it's wrong what's the more likely reason? Stories that may have some real people in them that have ben inflated to make a good story, OR all the evidence that shows it's false is wrong? I know where you'll come down on that cause no one EVER embellishes anything if they are a Christian.
And now I'm done because this is just making me too depressed.
Brett
Infrared is not heat. Infrared is the method by which energy is transferred in that system to create heat. There is a very real distinction there. I'll give you another example with your microwave. If you put a glass plate in the microwave by itself and run it the plate will not get hot because glass does not absorb the energy of microwaves readily. The sun is also not hot because of the electromagnetic radiation it gives off. If the sun were to go out right now we would stop receiving it's light in about 8 minutes. However the Earth would NOT immediately freeze because it would take a significantly longer amount of time for the last amount of heat to make it to us. I'm only a computer scientist, but go ask any cosmologist or astrophysicist. He'll tell you the same thing :P
I am NOT saying there MUST be a God to start that interaction. What I'm saying is there is no evidence of any sort to make any kind of claim as to what started the interaction or created the god-particle. Saying it simply always was and had no creator is equally as baseless of a claim as saying it did have a creator. You are correct. I believe what I believe in regards to God simply because I choose to believe it, not because I believe there is any sort of empirical evidence. My point is that this belief is at this point in time logically equivalent to the belief that random chance from an eternally existing god particle caused the big bang. They are BOTH vacuously true. Allow me to give one more example. If you say all cell phones in the room are off, and I say all cell phones in the room are on in a room with no cell phones in it those are BOTH true statements in terms of logic.
Post a Comment