So Polaris, you seem to be a pretty science-friendly sort of Christian. You also seem to have room in your universe for a god. Many scientists have done likewise. I just wonder what sort of basis you have for your belief in God. Is it doctrinal, revelatory or is it more of a hunch?

I have the least respect for theists who base their belief on the bible. That of course just begs the question .. why is the bible trustworthy? What follows is usually some quotes from the bible to support its being a reliable source.

If you tell me your basis is revelatory then I'll concede I wasn't there but I'll just conclude this isn't really anything you can defend inter-personally. I'll probably wonder if you'd considered the possibility of tumors and so forth but unless you choose to consider the nature of the experience objectively, there won't be anything for use to talk about.

However if you admit frankly that it is simply your hunch and that in the absence of conclusive evidence on either side you choose to believe God exists ... I'll buy you a drink. Good for you. I won't agree but at least you won't be tempted to persuade me to either. Agnostic theists are the rarest of birds and can hold their heads up high in any company.

So .. which are you?

I would also still like an answer to my polite inquiry.

(May 23, 2012 at 3:14 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: I would also still like an answer to my polite inquiry.

I'd like a biscuit but we don't always get what we want.

(May 23, 2012 at 3:18 pm)Napoleon Wrote:

(May 23, 2012 at 3:14 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: I would also still like an answer to my polite inquiry.

I'd like a biscuit but we don't always get what we want.

That may be but I am not letting this drop. He claims the civilizations and people who worshiped Christianity "most likely" had evidence for the existence of an all-powerful and omnipotent being.
I would like to see the careful research on which that statement rests, I think many people would.

(May 23, 2012 at 3:11 pm)whateverist Wrote: So Polaris, you seem to be a pretty science-friendly sort of Christian. You also seem to have room in your universe for a god. Many scientists have done likewise. I just wonder what sort of basis you have for your belief in God. Is it doctrinal, revelatory or is it more of a hunch?

I have the least respect for theists who base their belief on the bible. That of course just begs the question .. why is the bible trustworthy? What follows is usually some quotes from the bible to support its being a reliable source.

If you tell me your basis is revelatory then I'll concede I wasn't there but I'll just conclude this isn't really anything you can defend inter-personally. I'll probably wonder if you'd considered the possibility of tumors and so forth but unless you choose to consider the nature of the experience objectively, there won't be anything for use to talk about.

However if you admit frankly that it is simply your hunch and that in the absence of conclusive evidence on either side you choose to believe God exists ... I'll buy you a drink. Good for you. I won't agree but at least you won't be tempted to persuade me to either. Agnostic theists are the rarest of birds and can hold their heads up high in any company.

So .. which are you?

My belief is based on personal experience as an agnostic and this was based on natural observations that were verified by others (though they did not know I was testing God) rather than visions. Of the two events that come to my mind as an agnostic; one can be labeled as coincidence, the other not so much. It actually took years for me to even read the Bible outside of the academic setting and years to actually wrap my head around/accept some of which the Bible promoted in terms of theological points.

The only thing for certain based on my faith that I say is a hunch is a lack of belief in alien life....aka no life other than Terran life...now on alien life visiting this planet, I long ago dismissed that due to scientific understanding on the restrictions of space travel.

@Drake. Just a hunch that their Iron Age histories were based on actual events.

I think this theory of OP's buddy (or whoever he is) is total bullshit. If there had to be an intelligent creator, then something had to create the creator.

(May 23, 2012 at 4:00 pm)Annik Wrote: I think this theory of OP's buddy (or whoever he is) is total bullshit. If there had to be an intelligent creator, then something had to create the creator.

No no, silly, God is outside of all of that because of some far-fetched theologian riddle. We atheists don't know squat about creation.

@Polaris
A hunch...
Any particular part of their Iron Age histories you have in mind? You're really not being very specific.

(May 23, 2012 at 5:14 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: @Polaris
A hunch...
Any particular part of their Iron Age histories you have in mind? You're really not being very specific.

The Annals of the Kings of Judah.

(May 23, 2012 at 2:31 pm)Polaris Wrote: Yeah. Evidence. It's what we look for in the academic field.

Do you mean 'credible evidence' and 'proof' ?

'Evidence' is NOT a synonym for 'proof'. I guess religious studies have 'looser' standards of evidence.

Quote:The Annals of the Kings of Judah.

Book of Kings I think. Mate religious texts are not credible prime source historical documents,period.