Quote:You can compare it to a romantic relationship...

You can compare it this way if you like there is a tradition of seeing it this way. There's no physical intimacy involved seeing as God isn't a physical being so the passion you get there is purely spiritual. That's the kind of hit people get from it, though I think it takes a while to reach this stage. If you read the Song of Songs it talks about preparation for the bridal chamber and all that business, in effect your relationship with God when read in this context is like a marriage.

Quote:The biblical god isn't a romantic.

Is this from your personal experience of the biblical God? Again it's worth a read of the Song of Songs to see what I'm referring to.Don't just look at the Bible though see the effect God has on peoples lives and how they appear to view the relationship. You will note the real intense passion there. They're clearly getting a hit of something that could be compared to romantic love.

Quote:He's a bully who pounds on his 'love' one day, and gives flowers the next as consolation. Stupid 'lovers' just keep hoping that every day is a flower day. With enough flinching, they may muddle through without too many beatdowns.

Romantic relationships have their rough and rocky patches as well if you want to see those parts of the OT/Torah that way.

Quote:You will find God in the other religions....

I suppose you think they're all 100% purely made up and fictional without a shred of truth anywhere within and you and 2% of the human race have access to the full pure and exclusive truth, that you alone somehow know. I think my view is a little more moderate/liberal than yours, less dogmatic.

(August 24, 2013 at 10:09 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: I suppose you think they're all 100% purely made up and fictional without a shred of truth anywhere within and you and 2% of the human race have access to the full pure and exclusive truth, that you alone somehow know. I think my view is a little more moderate/liberal than yours, less dogmatic.

Ever go to a Las Vegas magic show?

Your view isn't moderate nor liberal. It is entirely dogma.

How does that saying go? Even if 5,500,000,000 people believed 1+1=3, it still wouldn't make it true?

You're making an ad populum fallacy. See? Fallacies are starting to come up in your points...in fact, if I dug deeper, I could find more, I imagine.

Fallacies, you see, are called as such because they are failures of logic. In other words, your arguments are displaying characteristics of failures of logic.

This does not bode well for your claims that you are not dogmatic. At all.

Quote:Did you just pull that out of your ass? Buddhism and the big Chinese philosophers predate Christianity by hundreds of years. If there are similarities, Christianity stole from it.

Nah the similarities would be from the Enlightened Masters gaining insight to the nature of God independently and interpreting it through their respective culture. Buddhism/Taoism rejects the existence of a creator/personal God so that's a big flaw right there. Also in Buddhism the universe is seen as something evil to be escaped from while in Christianity the universe while harsh is a creation of God and something to be revered as good, though not worshiped of course. So the differences are there they're not exactly carbon copies.

Quote:Oh yes I can. They're equally ridiculous. Virgin birth, you kidding me?

I didn't say anything about the Virgin birth, I don't particularly have an opinion on it myself. Catholics have a big belief about it because they see the Virgin Mary as goddess like figure so that would give her something miraculous to do. I think the focus should be focused on what happened when/after Jesus died, that's the money shot right there. Muslims believe Jesus flew off the cross and was replaced by Judas but all Jews tend to look the same so no noticed or something. But ummm...yes.

Quote:Why do Christians always claim to know so much about the resurrection when there is no evidence for it? You can't even prove it happened so all you can say is, why else would people say it happened. That doesn't deserve an answer.

The evidence is the eyewitness reports these were collected and put into the Bible. You'll notice it was women who discovered the empty tomb, they wouldn't have been viewed as reliable eyewitnesses at the time so if this were a deliberate fictional account they would have had some proper men on the scene. But what you have is a genuine attempt at trying to piece together what actually happened. All I'm saying is that this is a lot better than Mohammeds magic horse or Joesph Smiths golden tablets, it's a good start.

Quote:No, you have the burden of proof.

You will still have to provide an alternative explanation to what actually happened seeing as something apparently did. It's some kind of historical event involving a couple of hundred people in a specific area.

Quote:And why not....sure, it 'of course' was based on something. Myth? Legend? Wishful thinking? Depraved imagination? Political agenda? Shall i continue, or are your fingers already in your ears?

Yes but it isn't as easy to dismiss as the other examples I gave. So if you had to decide on one to have faith in this would be the one to bet on. I'm not saying it's convincing enough to prove to any non-believer that God exists in general. You do have to believe in God to begin with for this to be viable. Of course the Jews/the more philosophical pagans of the time did believe in God so wasn't too much of a problem. For an atheist there would be the barrier of naturalism you have to make your way through before you can accept this. Though you may see it as a protective shield that repels bullshit than a barrier if you're a seriously committed to your atheism. Though once you're this committed it may as well be a religious faith in it's own right.

Quote:Stop bringing science into it unless you're willing to back up that claim.

Well if the universe was purposefully created and finely tuned for life this would all have to be a coincidental byproduct of some kind that just kind of all came together somehow by random chance. I'd say that in itself is stranger than any virgin birth. Virgins can easily give birth anyway you would just need to inject some sperm into them, it wouldn't count as sex if it's not a penis.

(August 24, 2013 at 11:02 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: You will still have to provide an alternative explanation to what actually happened seeing as something apparently did. It's some kind of historical event involving a couple of hundred people in a specific area.

It is all simply a fictional account of events that never occurred. There is nothing historical in regards to the bible, because the only thing verifying its authenticity is itself. Pointing to the bible and making the erroneous statement that everything contained within is true because the book itself states as such is akin to me pointing to a Spider-man comic and stating that the events contained within actually happened because I read it.

Quote:Abraham didn't ask..and yet wad asked to kill his own son.

The point of the story as far I know was that God isn't like the other pagan gods who occasionally demanded human sacrifice. He didn't kill him after all. Prophets are individuals chosen by God to bring his message to his chosen people.

Quote:Moses didn't ask, and yet got a few stone tablets with writing on them.

Again he was a prophet. He may have had to carve the tablets himself, they would have been given to him in vision or something.

Quote:If we accept god does such things, then why settle for crapy confirmation bias and self delusions?

He won't have done it in quite the dramatic way the Bible describes. But the Torah/Bible is a revelation to humanity from God overall, it's "God breathed" and all that business.

Quote:If the evidence is there, then god is doing a bang up job hiding it from us.
Did it lose its ability to write on stone tablets?

When it says God used his finger to carve the tablets it was (according to my annotated Bible here) referring to the Holy Spirit of God. I'm sure there were some tablets those were kept in the Ark of the Covenant they carried around with them.


Yes people have direct contact with God through the Holy Spirit. I'd argue that atheists have the exact same contact, certainly as they seem to place great importance on morality and they share the same awe at the universe.

Quote:There he goes with the morality thing again...
People had morals before JC came into the picture.

There's your evidence for God/the Holy Spirit then. What more do you want?

Quote: Christianity is the one that adopted pre-existing morals.

Are you sure it didn't just reveal the Moral Law that had always been present? Seems like you're recognizing something as beyond human culture and opinion to me.

Quote: Awe at the universe... research: China, 6th century BC.

I didn't say it was exclusive to Christianity/the West it's a universal trait for all humanity in all eras of history. It all comes from God of course.

Quote: That's the thing...you don't grow indoctrinated into atheism. You grow immersed in the culture of the country where you live... in the western world, this culture had been greatly influenced by Christianity and, more recently, by science, technology and economics.
So, the most common path is one where you learn about the god of the bible or the Qur'an, the adults tell you it's true and tout live happy with that information... Until you grow, think a bit, and go either the atheist way, or become like you.

Yes but the religion of the culture you live in can still be the best one and the religion of your own culture can still be the one that contains the most truth. So you're lucky to have had a head start in it. Bear in mind of course that atheism is only something that is popular as a philosophy/worldview in the Western nations, it's not popular in Africa or South America. So your atheism can just as easily be an accident of where you were born. But you think it's true anyway and you think you have good reasons for believing it. So it's very much the same thing really.

Quote:Typically(from what I have observed in this forum - not a good source for stats, I know), the people who become atheist have a more analytical mind, while the ones who become theists tend to be more emotional.
[quote]

You can use both parts of your mind equally. you can deduce the existence of God on a purely rational/scientific basis, it's called deism. To believe in say the Bible or Christ you need to add some faith but it can be a "Reasonable Faith".



Rather than a blind faith. So what you have here is the best of both worlds.

[quote]I wasn't any more indoctrinated into anything than you were. Unless you had the chained in a basement treatment. But you seem to be able to speak English so I assume you weren't.

Then you're not in this group of people.

Quote:You're from a western culture hence you find Christianity as the "truth". Had you been born in the middle east, you'd probably claim Islam to be the truth...same for India, Indonesia, south America, and anywhere on this planet...you tend to embrace the local mythology.

You're from a Western secularized culture so you think atheism/naturalism is true. What works for me works for you. We both have same the secular background anyway it seems I'm the one being more independent of my upbringing.

Quote:Christianity has no evidence.

Not scientific evidence no. God is a good foundation for what we understand through science we have a rationally understandable, intricate and perfectly balanced universe right here. There is kind of a God involved in Christianity if you think about it. It's the kind of thing you may see occasionally mentioned.

Quote:Here's a bit of it: in the years or decades after this alleged resurrection, Jerusalem remained a Jew city.most of the people there remained Jews, or Romans. It was only elsewhere that people came to believe such tales about JC, as three resurrection, turning water to wine, walking on water, etc.

The Jews didn't really accept Jesus as their Messiah but that does actually fulfill the Biblical prophecy where the Messiah would be rejected by his own people and bring God to the Gentiles. Interesting.

Quote:Then Muslims walked into the city and turned it into a Muslim center.
Christianity has always been a minority in the place where the man actually came back to life!! How's that possible, unless there's no evidence for such occurrence and, even at the time when it supposedly happened, there was no evidence for it?

What matters is the first followers of Christ can be traced to the historical time and place and the resurrection account wasn't a later addition to the story but was there from the very start. But like yourself the Jews who hadn't experienced these events would have been skeptical as it didn't fit with the traditional Jewish faith, it was much too strange. Also the first Christians believed in what had happened so strongly they were prepared to suffer persecution and die for it. Saint Paul was originally a bounty hunter of Christians called Saul but certainly something happened to him to make him very radically change his mind.

(August 24, 2013 at 11:59 am)Sword of Christ Wrote:

---

Quote:Abraham didn't ask..and yet wad asked to kill his own son.

The point of the story as far I know was that God isn't like the other pagan gods who occasionally demanded human sacrifice. He didn't kill him after all. Prophets are individuals chosen by God to bring his message to his chosen people.

Quote:Moses didn't ask, and yet got a few stone tablets with writing on them.

Again he was a prophet. He may have had to carve the tablets himself, they would have been given to him in vision or something.

Quote:If we accept god does such things, then why settle for crapy confirmation bias and self delusions?

He won't have done it in quite the dramatic way the Bible describes. But the Torah/Bible is a revelation to humanity from God overall, it's "God breathed" and all that business.

Quote:If the evidence is there, then god is doing a bang up job hiding it from us.
Did it lose its ability to write on stone tablets?

When it says God used his finger to carve the tablets it was (according to my annotated Bible here) referring to the Holy Spirit of God. I'm sure there were some tablets those were kept in the Ark of the Covenant they carried around with them.


Yes people have direct contact with God through the Holy Spirit. I'd argue that atheists have the exact same contact, certainly as they seem to place great importance on morality and they share the same awe at the universe.

Quote:There he goes with the morality thing again...
People had morals before JC came into the picture.

There's your evidence for God/the Holy Spirit then. What more do you want?

Quote: Christianity is the one that adopted pre-existing morals.

Are you sure it didn't just reveal the Moral Law that had always been present? Seems like you're recognizing something as beyond human culture and opinion to me.

Quote: Awe at the universe... research: China, 6th century BC.

I didn't say it was exclusive to Christianity/the West it's a universal trait for all humanity in all eras of history. It all comes from God of course.

Quote: That's the thing...you don't grow indoctrinated into atheism. You grow immersed in the culture of the country where you live... in the western world, this culture had been greatly influenced by Christianity and, more recently, by science, technology and economics.
So, the most common path is one where you learn about the god of the bible or the Qur'an, the adults tell you it's true and tout live happy with that information... Until you grow, think a bit, and go either the atheist way, or become like you.

Yes but the religion of the culture you live in can still be the best one and the religion of your own culture can still be the one that contains the most truth. So you're lucky to have had a head start in it. Bear in mind of course that atheism is only something that is popular as a philosophy/worldview in the Western nations, it's not popular in Africa or South America. So your atheism can just as easily be an accident of where you were born. But you think it's true anyway and you think you have good reasons for believing it. So it's very much the same thing really.

Quote:Typically(from what I have observed in this forum - not a good source for stats, I know), the people who become atheist have a more analytical mind, while the ones who become theists tend to be more emotional.
[quote]

You can use both parts of your mind equally. you can deduce the existence of God on a purely rational/scientific basis, it's called deism. To believe in say the Bible or Christ you need to add some faith but it can be a "Reasonable Faith".



Rather than a blind faith. So what you have here is the best of both worlds.

[quote]I wasn't any more indoctrinated into anything than you were. Unless you had the chained in a basement treatment. But you seem to be able to speak English so I assume you weren't.

Then you're not in this group of people.

Quote:You're from a western culture hence you find Christianity as the "truth". Had you been born in the middle east, you'd probably claim Islam to be the truth...same for India, Indonesia, south America, and anywhere on this planet...you tend to embrace the local mythology.

You're from a Western secularized culture so you think atheism/naturalism is true. What works for me works for you. We both have same the secular background anyway it seems I'm the one being more independent of my upbringing.

Quote:Christianity has no evidence.

Not scientific evidence no. God is a good foundation for what we understand through science we have a rationally understandable, intricate and perfectly balanced universe right here. There is kind of a God involved in Christianity if you think about it. It's the kind of thing you may see occasionally mentioned.

Quote:Here's a bit of it: in the years or decades after this alleged resurrection, Jerusalem remained a Jew city.most of the people there remained Jews, or Romans. It was only elsewhere that people came to believe such tales about JC, as three resurrection, turning water to wine, walking on water, etc.

The Jews didn't really accept Jesus as their Messiah but that does actually fulfill the Biblical prophecy where the Messiah would be rejected by his own people and bring God to the Gentiles. Interesting.

Quote:Then Muslims walked into the city and turned it into a Muslim center.
Christianity has always been a minority in the place where the man actually came back to life!! How's that possible, unless there's no evidence for such occurrence and, even at the time when it supposedly happened, there was no evidence for it?

What matters is the first followers of Christ can be traced to the historical time and place and the resurrection account wasn't a later addition to the story but was there from the very start. But like yourself the Jews who hadn't experienced these events would have been skeptical as it didn't fit with the traditional Jewish faith, it was much too strange. Also the first Christians believed in what had happened so strongly they were prepared to suffer persecution and die for it. Saint Paul was originally a bounty hunter of Christians called Saul but certainly something happened to him to make him very radically change his mind.

---

This came to mind for some reason.

(August 24, 2013 at 11:02 am)Sword of Christ Wrote:

Quote:Did you just pull that out of your ass? Buddhism and the big Chinese philosophers predate Christianity by hundreds of years. If there are similarities, Christianity stole from it.

Nah the similarities would be from the Enlightened Masters gaining insight to the nature of God independently and interpreting it through their respective culture. Buddhism/Taoism rejects the existence of a creator/personal God so that's a big flaw right there. Also in Buddhism the universe is seen as something evil to be escaped from while in Christianity the universe while harsh is a creation of God and something to be revered as good, though not worshiped of course. So the differences are there they're not exactly carbon copies.

Let me remind you what happened:
you: all morality and good things came from Christ.
me: what about countries that have other religions?
you: all those religions are similar to Christianity that's why.
me: if they are Christianity stole from them because they predate Christianity.
you: The parts where they're similar they got from the holy spirit, others they just got it wrong.

Like really? So every religion in this world that preached anything you agree with came from the holy spirit, and if they preached anything that you disagree with they got that part wrong. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT. You're just saying that because you cannot explain why morality is so similar in different cultures and you're twisting reality to attribute all the "good things" to your god.

Quote:

Quote:Oh yes I can. They're equally ridiculous. Virgin birth, you kidding me?

I didn't say anything about the Virgin birth, I don't particularly have an opinion on it myself. Catholics have a big belief about it because they see the Virgin Mary as goddess like figure so that would give her something miraculous to do. I think the focus should be focused on what happened when/after Jesus died, that's the money shot right there. Muslims believe Jesus flew off the cross and was replaced by Judas but all Jews tend to look the same so no noticed or something. But ummm...yes.

Virgin birth is in the bible. If you want to treat something as true because it is in the bible, then everything in the bible has to be true. Actually you're so dishonest you'll probably try to sneak this in again and again. But ummm ... no. If virgin birth can be written but did not happen, then the same goes for the resurrection. Did not happen.

Quote:

Quote:Why do Christians always claim to know so much about the resurrection when there is no evidence for it? You can't even prove it happened so all you can say is, why else would people say it happened. That doesn't deserve an answer.

The evidence is the eyewitness reports these were collected and put into the Bible. You'll notice it was women who discovered the empty tomb, they wouldn't have been viewed as reliable eyewitnesses at the time so if this were a deliberate fictional account they would have had some proper men on the scene. But what you have is a genuine attempt at trying to piece together what actually happened. All I'm saying is that this is a lot better than Mohammeds magic horse or Joesph Smiths golden tablets, it's a good start.

Until you prove the bible to be a true account of history, there were no eyewitness reports. I've already said they're equally ridiculous, you don't believe that because you grew up in a culture where so many people believe in it, but it is equally ridiculous.

Quote:

Quote:No, you have the burden of proof.

You will still have to provide an alternative explanation to what actually happened seeing as something apparently did. It's some kind of historical event involving a couple of hundred people in a specific area.

No I don't. No it wasn't, you haven't showed that it was.

Quote:

Quote:And why not....sure, it 'of course' was based on something. Myth? Legend? Wishful thinking? Depraved imagination? Political agenda? Shall i continue, or are your fingers already in your ears?

Yes but it isn't as easy to dismiss as the other examples I gave. So if you had to decide on one to have faith in this would be the one to bet on. I'm not saying it's convincing enough to prove to any non-believer that God exists in general. You do have to believe in God to begin with for this to be viable. Of course the Jews/the more philosophical pagans of the time did believe in God so wasn't too much of a problem. For an atheist there would be the barrier of naturalism you have to make your way through before you can accept this. Though you may see it as a protective shield that repels bullshit than a barrier if you're a seriously committed to your atheism. Though once you're this committed it may as well be a religious faith in it's own right.

[/quote]
I'll say this one more time: they're all equally ridiculous.

What the fuck is naturalism? If someone can properly explain what supernatural is and show that it exists, it'd be natural. Supernatural is just another word used to make people like you feel better, because otherwise you'd have to say, I believe in imaginary things.

Atheism is the lack of belief. Get that through your head. Your bullshit isn't that hard to refute, it really is so ridiculous that's why we don't believe in it.

Quote:

Quote:Stop bringing science into it unless you're willing to back up that claim.

Well if the universe was purposefully created and finely tuned for life this would all have to be a coincidental byproduct of some kind that just kind of all came together somehow by random chance. I'd say that in itself is stranger than any virgin birth. Virgins can easily give birth anyway you would just need to inject some sperm into them, it wouldn't count as sex if it's not a penis.

[/quote]
It's not random chance. Is that what joseph did? So where did he collect the sperm of the holy ghost?

Quote:You're right! And in that spirit, since you are the one making the positive claim, and therefore have the burden of proof, why don't you present some evidence?

I could but you would have to state what kind of evidence you personally would require. You have to bear in mind of course there is no level of certainty here either way, it's not that you are automatically right until proven wrong. If you were some kind of agnostic or unsure then of course you wouldn't be attempting to argue against Gods very existence (extreme stuff) as you are doing right now.

Quote:Okay, you need to can that. Do you own slaves? Do you advocate selling raped women to their rapists? Are you a murderer of gays and witches and anyone who worships a different god? No? Then you don't have biblical morality, any more than the rest of us do. You're just picking and choosing the things you like and scrapping the rest. This snaffling up of every positive thing in the world is really disgustingly arrogant.

My morality is that of Christ, or at least that would be the ideal I fall a bit short. I'd just like to point out that the Torah was Jesus's holy text and this very much the God he believed in (well was I suppose) and preached. There is an interesting book on it here. It's about Jesus from the perspective of Satan, it goes into the detail of what Jesus derived from the Torah.



There is some stuff in the OT that by our standards is horrifying but that's because our standards are far more Christlike these days. We have advanced in some real sense. That's why we don't do the things you stated there. So I think you're helping the case for God if anything.

Quote:Especially the part about giving your slaves wives so they stay with you forever, right?

These were rules of conduct in ancient Jewish society yes. We understand them to be less morally advanced than ourselves. But id morality as you think of it is dependent on culture then why can't we just decide to start keeping slaves again and therefore make it "become moral" by doing that? We're just applying your own standards here.

Quote:Why did they have to be based on something? Because they were written down in a book you like? Fiction writers can pull this shit too, you know.

They don't have to be. But do you think the Bible compares directly to the myths and gods of ancient Egypt or Greece? Are there any magic swords, gorgons, flying horses? You see when humans in ancient times set out to write a bit of creative imaginative fiction that's the kind of thing they invariably came up with. The Bible you will have to admit is a very different kettle of fish. Not that to say that what you have there is a word for word literal historical account mind you and yes there some folktales in there though they often told in the style of parables. Take for instance the Genesis creation myth.

Quote:You mean you want it to be true more, right? Because I'd expect if your reasoning actually had any content to it, you wouldn't have stopped at "better."

It doesn't matter what I want but I am heavily invested in believing what is true. I don't believe atheism/naturalism is true that's the problem I have with it. God makes a lot of sense, the monotheistic Law giving God of Abraham makes even more sense, Jesus Christ and his teachings of brotherly love makes even more sense still, at least to me it does. That right there in a nutshell is actually what this is all about it isn't what the atheists like to think it is.

Quote:Please present them so I can dissect them, if you would be so kind.

It's a bit of a broad subject so you'll have to say what specifically you would be interested in.

(August 24, 2013 at 11:02 am)Sword of Christ Wrote:

Quote:Did you just pull that out of your ass? Buddhism and the big Chinese philosophers predate Christianity by hundreds of years. If there are similarities, Christianity stole from it.

Nah the similarities would be from the Enlightened Masters gaining insight to the nature of God independently and interpreting it through their respective culture. Buddhism/Taoism rejects the existence of a creator/personal God so that's a big flaw right there. Also in Buddhism the universe is seen as something evil to be escaped from while in Christianity the universe while harsh is a creation of God and something to be revered as good, though not worshiped of course. So the differences are there they're not exactly carbon copies.

What a nonsense tautology. Buddha and Confucius enumerating the Golden Rule approx. 500 years before Jesus lived was just their culturally-molded insight into God's nature.... right. Bare assertions that demonstrate poor historical knowledge and have no backing are fun to make but are likewise fun to sneer at.

I think it would be much more accurate to say that Buddhism sees the results of human desires as what makes there exist suffering and dissatisfaction in the cosmos, not a clear-cut "it's evil and should be escaped from" claim.

(August 24, 2013 at 2:31 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote:

(August 24, 2013 at 5:41 am)Esquilax Wrote: Please present them so I can dissect them, if you would be so kind.

It's a bit of a broad subject so you'll have to say what specifically you would be interested in.

It is sometimes advised not to create unnecessarily duplicate threads, but if the evidence is as broad a topic as you suggest, and it probably is, then I suggest you pick one or a handful of your best evidences and create a separate thread devoted to each evidential case you want to make.

The case for fine-tuning and design was recently discussed, so you may want to avail yourself of the material contained in those threads.

The case had its most thorough presentation recently by "philosophical theist" Drew_2013:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-17075-po...#pid402174
http://atheistforums.org/thread-17548.html
(And to a lesser extent, http://atheistforums.org/thread-20088.html)

Or the following, less lengthy threads:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-20088.html
http://atheistforums.org/thread-19921.html

The other lines of evidence you refer to have likely been discussed (the empty tomb was a subject of a recent thread referring to a series of youtube videos), but I don't have links to good examples of such.