The Reasons to Believe in Yahweh

[John V]

A person's word (claim) alone is not evidence, and just because you can CALL it evidence (because you want to open the door for your Yahweh) doesn't make it so. Just because some people try to SAY that "saying" or "claiming" is evidence, doesn't make it evidence.

Do you believe the Gettysburg address occurred? If so, based on what evidence?

Do you believe every claim you hear?

No. This is a false bifurcation fallacy.

WOW. How inaccurate and reductionist of you. Could you be any more dishonest? Those terms are NOT exclusive. And YOUR claims are BOTH extraordinary AND unexplained.

So they’re extraordinary and unexplained, yet not miraculous. Can you define miraculous for us?

Wake up. You're in the competitive flea market of religions, magic sellers, sorcerers, alien seekers, and new agers. And you're all making supernatural claims that can't be consistently demonstrated. Should we just lower our standards of evidence because you say so?

I haven’t said you should lower your standards of evidence. You’re telling me that I should raise mine. Should I do so because you say so, and USE lots of CAPS?

Now you’re getting it a little bit. Different people have different standards of evidence. These can be influenced by, among other things, their philosophic stances. As a theist, I have a lower standard of evidence regarding certain things. As presumably a materialist, you probably have lower standards of evidence regarding other things, such as abiogenesis.

NO actually. This is 100% false. Unlike you, I do not practice hypocrisy with standards of evidence. When something is not known, it is accepted as "I don't know." But thanks for admitting that you are a hypocrite with your standards of evidence (willing to apply them unequally because of the assumptions you made from the outset).

I find that hard to believe. You don’t know that god doesn’t exist, yet you come across as a strong atheist, rather than an agnostic.

Everyone "does" what? Has "faith" in hear-say? NOPE! That is, yet again, another one of your blind assumptions (based upon your assumption of Christian theology which you accepted uncritically from the beginning). No, not all people staunchly hold to supernatural claims on hear-say. Some of us have actually decided not to practice credulity, deciding rather to hold things tentatively. But religious faith is NOT tentative. It is firm and unwavering. This is why YOU, and other apologists, are trying to "defend the faith".

What evidence do you have for that position?

If you are talking about "having faith" in demonstrable, ordinary, common occurrences the equivocation is yours - because that is NOT faith. Faith is believing when you don't have good reason or evidence, and there is a BIG difference between THAT and tentatively trusting in a previously established common or ordinary occurrence.

I’m talking about abiogenesis, as I noted.

HAHAHA! WOW. This is a perfect and classic example of Christian apologist SPIN and rationalizing. You're going to play the Pickin n Choosin game now? Have you even read your bible? Open it sometime (John 14, 1 Cor 2, Matt 10). Your bible clearly states that if you are a believer/follower of Jesus you WILL do these things. Nice try at throwing out passages that you don't like though.

If you want to quote the actual passages, we can discuss. You omit the bluster and actually post the passage, like this:

1 Tim 5
23 No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.

Why do you think Paul suggested a medicinal approach, rather than a trip to the faith healer?

Of course, since you have already demonstrated that you practice hypocrisy with your standards of evidence (lowering them only for YOUR interpretation of YOUR religion),

No, I’ve applied the same standard to Islam and Christianity.

[Minimalist]

Who wrote them? Why? What did they stand to gain or lose?

See, we have the same problem with your fucking bible. Pseudoepigraphic trash cobbled together to fool the dolts.

[median]

Do you believe the Gettysburg address occurred? If so, based on what evidence?

You are attempting a false analogy (attempting to compare supernatural claims to non-supernatural claims). Until you can establish there is any such thing as the supernatural (or what that even means), there are no grounds for comparing your extraordinary bible claims (like any other religious text claims) to ordinary claims.

Textual accounts of the supernatural are not sufficient to establish the supernatural. It doesn't work for any other religion, and it doesn't work for yours. Remember, the burden of proof is on you, not me. So stop trying to shift the burden.

Do you believe every claim you hear?

No. This is a false bifurcation fallacy.

Nope! It's not a false dilemma because there was no absolute exclusion in my rebuttal. Get real dude.

So they’re extraordinary and unexplained, yet not miraculous. Can you define miraculous for us?

LMAO. This is awesome! You want me to define your terms for you?? Wow. If you think the miraculous is nothing more than extraordinary rare occurrences then you DON'T have miracles (by any classic definition). For that, you need a deity. Demonstrate your deity.

I haven’t said you should lower your standards of evidence. You’re telling me that I should raise mine. Should I do so because you say so, and USE lots of CAPS?

When your standards of evidence stand in hypocrisy, I would say absolutely yes. You should raise your standards of evidence (as you JUST admitted that you have lowered your standards of evidence for your religion).

I can use whatever method of communication I choose.

I find that hard to believe. You don’t know that god doesn’t exist, yet you come across as a strong atheist, rather than an agnostic.

I know you find it hard to believe, and that's because you've lowered your standards of evidence (based upon an assumption you are trying to defend). You put the cart before the horse and can't understand why many critical thinkers won't follow in lock step. Duh!

Second, you (like many apologists) are quite confused as to what an Agnostic is (let alone an atheist). Agnosticism goes to what you "know". Theism or Atheism goes to what you "believe" about a deity. Thus, those terms are not mutually exclusive. If one says they do not have knowledge of a deity they are Agnostic, and if they also say they do not hold a belief in a deity they are Atheist as well (i.e. - Agnostic Atheist). There are at least 4 possibilities:

-Gnostic Theist (knows and has belief)
-Agnostic Theist (does not know and has belief)
-Gnostic Atheist (knows and has no belief)
-Agnostic Atheist (does not know and has no belief)

What evidence do you have for that position? [that religious faith is not tentative]

The burden of proof is on you, not me. Remember? If you think religious faith IS tentative, then demonstrate it. Because what you have shown, thus far, is quite the opposite. You've lowered your standards of evidence (admittedly so) and are trying to defend your religious position with attempts to shift the burden of proof. You've made claims that "miracles" have occurred. Now demonstrate how you know they are miraculous from a deity.

Arguments from Ignorance do not count as evidence.

I’m talking about abiogenesis, as I noted.

You can talk about abiogensis, or any other phenomena you want to, the default position is still "We don't know", not "Yahweh did it".

If you want to quote the actual passages, we can discuss. You omit the bluster and actually post the passage, like this:
1 Tim 5
23 No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.

Why do you think Paul suggested a medicinal approach, rather than a trip to the faith healer?

WOW. You seem to really have a hard time with this. YOU have made the positive claim that miracles have occurred, and when confronted with passages in your own book you demonstrate classic skirting, dodging, spin, and equivocation (all while readily ADMITTING that you have lowered your standards of evidence).

It is not my job to say why something in YOUR alleged holy book states X. You can choose to spin the bible in whatever direction you choose (as is so typical of all versions of Christendom - who disagree with each other ad infinitum) but you do so in demonstration that you have ASSUMED it from the outset (i.e. - you put the cart before the horse), which is hypocrisy because you do NOT do this with other religions.

Do you assume the Book of Mormon is true when they tell you? How about the Koran? The Bhaghavad Gita? Your hidden premise is what you need to start being honest about (i.e. - the real reason you came to believe).

No, I’ve applied the same standard to Islam and Christianity.

LOL. I'd like to see you demonstrate that one - and I'm sure the Muslims would strongly disagree. In any case, you've lowered your standard of evidence and admitted it. Credulity. WOW.

[Voltron]

Do you believe the Gettysburg address occurred? If so, based on what evidence?

This is a really fucking stupid way to argue your point. You have to know that right?

[Angrboda]

Still waiting on those reasons why you consider the evidences for Christianity categorically superior to the evidences from other religions.


And you side-stepped the question as to whether the evidence of the prophets was compelling because of them being specific men, or because what they did was miraculous.


"Totality of evidence" appears to me to be a catch phrase for "a bunch of fudge factors that I'm unwilling to name"; how is "the totality of evidence" regarding the prophets any more persuasive than the totality of evidence in the Vedas, or the argument from the five skhandas which support the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta, which itself is incompatible with your Christian doctrine.

Let's hear you cite the specific problems of credibility with regard to Buddhism that make its evidences (the totality of it) categorically inferior to the evidences for Christianity.

(And while I'm at it, feel free to point to specific evidences for the beliefs of a Shakta Hindu which you find less reliably attested than those of Christianity.)

[Brian37]

Do you believe the Gettysburg address occurred? If so, based on what evidence?

This is a really fucking stupid way to argue your point. You have to know that right?

No they don't know how stupid it is, that is why they used it. But it does kinda make one feel like Kiff under Zap Brannigan.

[John V]

Do you believe the Gettysburg address occurred? If so, based on what evidence?

This is a really fucking stupid way to argue your point. You have to know that right?

What do you think my point was? I'm curious as I'm getting the feeling that no one is really listening.

[ThomM]

Better evidence, or stronger claims? I once heard (read) someone claiming that Muhammad's excuse for not performing miracles was weak, therefore Christianity has more evidence. When, in fact, neither can be proven to have done what they did, miracle or not. Does it really boil down to which one has more miracle claims, and which has more made up stories about it? Also, this is argued from a perspective that assumes one religion must be right, and that atheism is not a viable option. If it weren't, then the arguement wouldn't be made at all.


THe problem is that NO ancient god based religion - NONE OF THEM - when you add up their varied and voluminous claims - can be true. IT is easy to dismiss ALL of them using their own statements that conflict with reality.
It is far easier to justify Confucianism and Buddhism - who do not accept the existence of gods - and being the best candidates - because they espouse morality simply because it is the correct thing to do.

The problem with the christianity, judaism, and islam - is that they make basic claims that cannot be true. IT is simply not possible for any being to be "almighty" as defined by their scripture ("Nothing is impossible with god"). On a good day you can bring up thousands of things where a god could only do or be one or the other - not both.

All three also miss the basic problem with their gods - that apparently the gods do not have to be moral or ethical and can murder for no reason without concern. THat the murders are normally against innocent babies and children makes it worse.

However - there is one even that makes Yahweh (Who is the Jewish god - not the christian one) - is the Holocaust. In every population of people - there are those of all ages - from Newborn to aged. We recognize that very young children cannot "sin" because they do not have developed power of reason and responsibility. So - that several hundred thousand INNOCENTS were killed is obvious and known.

IN law - you have the subject of "depraved indifference" in which a person who KNOWS that a major abuse will happen and does not report it or try to prevent it - is considered as responsible for the crime as the person who performed it. IF an all knowing god - therefore would have known about the event - failed to do something to prevent - it is just as culpable as the depraved germans who pulled it off.

Today - more than 1600 children under the age of 5 - will be physically and sexually abused by a family member (And the same every day of the year).
IF a god fails to do something to protect the kids - that god is a depraved indifferent. THink about it - it all the god does is sit up there - look down - and watch - sexual acts being done on underage children - that fits the description of a pervert. People who pray to perverts and expect something in return are called christians

[John V]

Deja vu all over again. Did you C&P that from another thread? Seems familiar.

[Minimalist]

Do you believe the Gettysburg address occurred? If so, based on what evidence?

What an asshole.

http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/gettysbur...s_more.htm

On the day following the Gettysburg dedication, many of the nation’s newspapers reprinted the speech, along with the one given by Edward Everett. Reaction to Lincoln’s address was frequently divided along political lines. Newspapers critical of the President had snide things to say about the speech’s brevity and inappropriateness to the occasion. Lincoln supporters, on the other hand, published glowing reviews and noted the classical elegance and heartfelt emotion of the address.

Multiple reprints and commentary by people living at the time. Contemporaneous evidence. This is what you are lacking for your fucking godboy.

All we ask of you is one early first century reference to some guy - any guy who was even rumored to have come back from the fucking dead - from a historical source. But you can't supply that.