The real religion?

[Faith No More]

How is it that requiring consistent standards is dragging science down into the gutter? Please explain...

But you're not requiring consistent standards.   You're equating hearsay written down 2,000 years ago with the collection and peer-reviewed study of observed data.

As to the OP, I see a lot of changes in who I am, and how I think.   I have also seen it in others.   I didn't answer in the beginning, because I didn't think that you would like the answer.   I think that it is difficult to explain, unless you have experienced it.   It is not a reformation, but something that comes from the inside.   I also don't think it Is exactly the same for each person.  Some things where immediate, others came in time, and I know that some things I still struggle with and need to work on.  But it was the things that I didn't struggle with (other than accepting the change), that I notice.


It seemed to me, that what you where looking for was a measurable outward gain.   In Christianity, that is not promised.   And at times we may suffer because of our Faith.  I do believe that God answers prayer, not as a proof or a formula, like rubbing a genie bottle.   This has never been within the Christian tradition.  We get sick, and suffer loss, the same as everyone else as a consequence of sin.  I have back issues, that cause a number of problems.

The other issue is, that not everyone who calls themselves a Christian has their heart in the right place.   It's not all about you, and what you can gain, which is why I think that your question is starting from the wrong point of view.

But how is this any different than the benefits that the followers of every other religion claim to have?  Why is it unreasonable for people to expect there to be a distinguishable difference between those people that have found the supposedly one true religion and the other people that are supposedly fooling themselves?

[RoadRunner79]

How is it that requiring consistent standards is dragging science down into the gutter? Please explain...

But you're not requiring consistent standards.   You're equating hearsay written down 2,000 years ago with the collection and peer-reviewed study of observed data.

So by not changing the standards, and the arguments, I'm changing the standards? I don't follow.
Why do you say it is hearsay? Also, I don't think that you understand how peer-review works.

As to the OP, I see a lot of changes in who I am, and how I think.   I have also seen it in others.   I didn't answer in the beginning, because I didn't think that you would like the answer.   I think that it is difficult to explain, unless you have experienced it.   It is not a reformation, but something that comes from the inside.   I also don't think it Is exactly the same for each person.  Some things where immediate, others came in time, and I know that some things I still struggle with and need to work on.  But it was the things that I didn't struggle with (other than accepting the change), that I notice.


It seemed to me, that what you where looking for was a measurable outward gain.   In Christianity, that is not promised.   And at times we may suffer because of our Faith.  I do believe that God answers prayer, not as a proof or a formula, like rubbing a genie bottle.   This has never been within the Christian tradition.  We get sick, and suffer loss, the same as everyone else as a consequence of sin.  I have back issues, that cause a number of problems.

The other issue is, that not everyone who calls themselves a Christian has their heart in the right place.   It's not all about you, and what you can gain, which is why I think that your question is starting from the wrong point of view.

But how is this any different than the benefits that the followers of every other religion claim to have?  Why is it unreasonable for people to expect there to be a distinguishable difference between those people that have found the supposedly one true religion and the other people that are supposedly fooling themselves?

As I stated, I do see a difference in myself, and I did see a difference in others, before I was a Christian. Perhaps you are not looking in the right place.

[Crossless2.0]

Try reading something besides the bible for once.

And what's with this fear of evolution anyway?  My parents are Christians, and they accept evolution no problem.  Then again, my dad is also an organic chemist, so he's one of those rare Christians that actually understands science.

I am told that is not sufficient.

And I don't have a fear of evolution.  I use to be an evolutionist and then I started researching the issue.

I have bolded the word where I think you and many others begin to go off the rails when it comes to evolution. You wouldn't describe yourself as a gravityist, would you? You're not choosing a political party, here. Too many Christians and Muslims see aspects of the world they perceive to be threats to their faith as "isms". Leaving aside those befuddled people who confuse biological evolution with Herbert Spencer-style social Darwinism, evolution isn't an ideology. That so many people think it is says more about their own world views than it does about the theory.

[RoadRunner79]

I am told that is not sufficient.

And I don't have a fear of evolution.  I use to be an evolutionist and then I started researching the issue.

I have bolded the word where I think you and many others begin to go off the rails when it comes to evolution. You wouldn't describe yourself as a gravityist, would you? You're not choosing a political party, here. Too many Christians and Muslims see aspects of the world they perceive to be threats to their faith as "isms". Leaving aside those befuddled people who confuse biological evolution with Herbert Spencer-style social Darwinism, evolution isn't an ideology. That so many people think it is says more about their own world views than it does about the theory.

If you prefer I could say that I used to believe in evolution. Also, I don't see evolution as a threat to my religious beliefs.

[SteveII]

Begging the question.... LMAO.  Guys, you need to establish that the NT and other documents were written by credible witnesses, and that such testimony regarding Jesus' magic was accurate.  The questions raised about them is, and has always been, about corroboration.  Is there anything credible that can back these stories up?  Things provided by unbiased sources that don't have a vested interest in it being true?

Instead, we keep getting deflections.

"The apostles were there!" - Okay
"They witnessed Jesus' death..." - Okay, since death by crucifixion was a known means of punishment
"...and resurrection!" - Given that such a resurrection violates everything we know about the universe, we're going to need more evidence before we accept that it happened [1]
"Why would they lie?" - Why are you assuming they're telling the truth?  These people had a motive for lying, namely a burgeoning religious/political revolution.  And, again, it doesn't conform to what we know about the universe [2]
"Why would they risk torture and death?" - Because that's what zealous revolutionaries/cultists do? [3]
"How could the church gain such popularity so quickly?" - Popularity has nothing to do with veracity.  See: anti-vaxxers [4]
"You cannot provide any evidence that this is false!" - I don't need to.  I'm not the one claiming the documents and testimony are true.  I'm raising objections that must be sufficiently addressed before I believe it's true, while giving plausible alternatives [5]
"Evolution!" - Oh, fuck off [6]

So, with the bullshit out of the way, please provide actual corroborating evidence that supports the magical aspects of the NT.  Or accept that you've simply made a leap of faith without such evidence because the thought of a magic zombie savior gives you warm fuzzies.  Either way works for me. [7]

1. All you have pointed out is that you need more evidence. Billions of others have found what evidence we do have sufficient. Fine. 
2. Most people assume people are not lying until presented with a reason to think otherwise. Your 'motive' for lying is nonsense. You obviously are unfamiliar with the message of the NT: namely changing peoples hearts and providing a way to have a relationship with God and specifically NOT a political revolution. So, keeping the obvious message of the NT writers in mind, what smidgen of evidence to you have to support your theory? None. 
3. You are referring to something not proposed here, but the simple fact is that these people had nothing to gain by lying about what they saw. 
4. You confuse the point. We can infer from the existence of multiple churches across the Roman Empire that the source of the belief in the events surrounding the life and death of Jesus was NOT the documents that later became the NT. 
5. No one has asked you to produce evidence to disprove the NT. Just asking you to provide a basis for your objections or get off the "no evidence" train.
6. RR mention of Evolution was in the context of questioning what is evidence.
7. No matter how you characterize it, we do have evidence for Christianity. The fact you don't find it compelling does not equal no evidence.  EDITED TO ADD: You seem to view the evidence presupposing there is no God therefore finding it unconvincing. A majority of people do not approach it that way. They are open to the idea there is a God, consider the evidence, consider the message, and consider their internal needs and come to a decision.

[Crossless2.0]

I have bolded the word where I think you and many others begin to go off the rails when it comes to evolution. You wouldn't describe yourself as a gravityist, would you? You're not choosing a political party, here. Too many Christians and Muslims see aspects of the world they perceive to be threats to their faith as "isms". Leaving aside those befuddled people who confuse biological evolution with Herbert Spencer-style social Darwinism, evolution isn't an ideology. That so many people think it is says more about their own world views than it does about the theory.

If you prefer I could say that I used to believe in evolution.   Also, I don't see evolution as a threat to my religious beliefs.

Yes, I do prefer that wording, though I doubt you believed in the sense that you were persuaded. It's hard to go from actually understanding the theory and knowing about the multiple converging lines of well established evidence to saying something like, "I don't see any evidence to support evolution." I suspect, in your case, your belief was more in line with the sort of belief people bring to the table with their religions: trust based on 'authoritative' pronouncements rather than on a solid sense of the evidence.

As for you not seeing evolution as a threat to your religious beliefs, yay I guess. Not really sure what that's supposed to mean. GC doesn't see evolution as a threat to his beliefs because he is willfully ignorant on the subject and will cling to his YEC views at all costs. If that's something like what you mean, that's contemptible. On the other hand, if you are saying that, even if true, evolution doesn't really pose a threat to your beliefs -- i.e., you are not a YEC -- well, good on you. At least you have one foot planted in reality.

[bennyboy]

It would indeed put it to rest. However remember when he was here last, he left with us the possibility of a personal relationship with him.

I have no personal memory of that. I think I might have. . . read it somewhere?

So, in effect he is here today working in the lives of Christians and non-Christians every day. So is Thor. I mean. . . come on, he has a DAY named after him. As far as I know, there's now Jesusday.

I am not trying to convince you of anything other than to point out that Christian evidence of the existence of God is multi-layered and cumulative and therefore warranted. Anyway, this subject seems to be wrapping up.  Hope you have a nice day and weekend.

I don't think evidence means to you what it means to people who are actually looking for evidence. But yeah, have a nice weekend.

[Faith No More]

So by not changing the standards, and the arguments, I'm changing the standards?   I don't follow.  
Why do you say it is hearsay?   Also, I don't think that you understand how peer-review works.

Lol, please tell me what exactly about my statement makes you think I don't understand how peer-review works.

I'm not saying you're changing the standards. I'm saying that you're insisting that apples and oranges are the same thing.

As I stated, I do see a difference in myself, and I did see a difference in others, before I was a Christian.   Perhaps you are not looking in the right place.

Swing and a miss. Try answering the question this time. If your religion is the true one, how come the benefits you claim to get are practically indiscernible from the benefits that the followers of the other religions claim to get? Shouldn't the one true religion have a demonstrably different effect on people when compared to the false religions?

[LadyForCamus]

I think that your clairvoyance is broken today... but go ahead, and keep straw manning what you believe I am thinking. Even when I say directly, you still tell me I'm wrong... I give up.

Then let's clear this up right now, shall we?

1. Do you, or do you not claim the bible is the word of God? Yes or no?

2. Are you, or are you not interested in arguing in favor of the truth of your beliefs?

If the answer to these is no, that's perfectly fine, and our conversation is mostly over. If yes, then you are subject to the burden of proof.

A. What is factually wrong

Saying that there is no evidence for evolution is factually wrong. Because, evolution is a scientific fact.

B. Please explain..... What do you think the argument is, that the tu quoque fallacy applies and how?

Sure. Because saying, "you believe something for bad reasons too!" Or, more generally, "you do it too!" is the definition of a tu quoque fallacy. Which is what you're doing in regards to evolution.

That's not the what the argument from ignorance is. (But perhaps we should start another thread, and we can list the facts about evolution).

Except, yes it is, lol.

"X is false because you cannot prove that X true" is an example of the argument from ignorance in its logical form.

It's factually incorrect when applied to evolution, because...evolution IS a scientific fact. Not to mention it's irrelevant to any positive argument you can or can't put forth for the existence of your God.

And all of these are shot out at us from under the umbrella of a big, fat conflating of scripture writings and scientific evidence; giving yourself a way to say, "your science isn't anymore reliable than my bible, so if you aren't going to believe the bible, than you shouldn't believe in science/evolution either."

You can stamp your feet about it all you want, but conflating science and scripture IS a fallacious argument, and has nothing to do with demonstrating positive evidence for your beliefs.

Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from association football or other games, that means to change the criterion (goal) of a process or competition while still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an intentional advantage or disadvantage

Uh...thanks. And, that's exactly what you are doing when you throw your hat into the ring of a debate about the validity of scripture and then back peddle; insisting you aren't making any claims, so that you won't be held accountable for demonstrating any evidence.

[RoadRunner79]

I think that your clairvoyance is broken today... but go ahead, and keep straw manning what you believe I am thinking.   Even when I say directly, you still tell me I'm wrong... I give up.

Then let's clear this up right now, shall we?

1. Do you, or do you not claim the bible is the word of God?  Yes or no?  

2. Are you, or are you not interested in arguing in favor of the truth of your beliefs?

If the answer to these is no, that's perfectly fine, and our conversation is mostly over.  If yes, then you are subject to the burden of proof.

1. Yes
2. Not at the moment.

A.  What is factually wrong

Saying that there is no evidence for evolution is factually wrong.  Because, evolution is a scientific fact.

Again, I think this would be better in a new thread, but I would be interested in hearing these facts.... Keep in mind, that facts don't change.

B.  Please explain..... What do you think the argument is, that the tu quoque fallacy applies and how?

Sure.  Because saying, "you believe something for bad reasons too!" Or, more generally, "you do it too!" is the definition of a tu quoque fallacy.  Which is what you're doing in regards to evolution.

I'm not saying that it is invalid, because you do it too.... That is just inconsistent.  And I would still think that it is an invalid principle (concerning testimony), even if you where coherent in your application.
You would need to give me a reasonable basic principle for why it shouldn't be applied equally in regard to knowledge transferred from another, that wasn't experienced first hand.

That's not the what the argument from ignorance is.   (But perhaps we should start another thread, and we can list the facts about evolution).

Except, yes it is, lol.

"X is false because you cannot prove that X true" is an example of the argument from ignorance in its logical form.  

I'm not saying that evolution is false.... something's under the wide meaning of evolution I do believe as true, some I am skeptical about, and others I think are false (and for reasons more than that they haven't been shown to be true).  

You can stamp your feet about it all you want, but conflating science and scripture IS a fallacious argument, and has nothing to do with demonstrating positive evidence for your beliefs.  

I would agree that it doesn't demonstrate evidence for my belief, again this has to do with epistemology.  And again, all you have to do is give me a valid basic principle, for why it shouldn't be applied equally in regard to knowledge transferred from another, that wasn't experienced first hand.  I'm not saying that they are the same, it is about the method for gaining knowledge, that you are basing your reasoning on.

Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from association football or other games, that means to change the criterion (goal) of a process or competition while still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an intentional advantage or disadvantage

Uh...thanks.  And, that's exactly what you are doing when you throw your hat into the ring of a debate about the validity of scripture and then back peddle; insisting you aren't making any claims, so that you won't be held accountable for demonstrating any evidence.  

The conversation had strayed far from the op... which wasn't the validity of scripture.   and I didn't back peddle on anything.   I raised a concern about a portion of the discussion.  And then it morphed from there as threads often due, especially at this post count.  However I think it would be more profitable to focus on the discussion and less on me.