Better reasons to quit Christianity

[MountOlympus]

Coincidences are coincidences for a reason.

If I said, "someone is going to die today", that would be a factual statement based around knowledge that a large amount of people die every day. If I then went further to say, "someone will die today, but it will be because of war", it could turn out to be true or false, because war is fought all around the world, but in that one day not a single death could be caused because of it.

Spacecraft used to be incredibly high-risk flying containers. If I said, "someone is going to die in that particular spacecraft", there would be a high chance of that actually happening. But just because it might happen or does happen, doesn't mean anything metaphysical interfered to make it happen.

[spockrates]

How have I not sincerely considered any of your answers?

Still no sign whatsoever that you get that they contain the reasons I don't believe Christianity is true or God is real. You don't have to agree, but some indication that you read them for anything but defensive purposes would be nice.

How have I not worked through what you are saying and figured out how to weed out the truth from the lies of your opinions?

Here's a question for you: why don't I believe in God? You haven't addressed that at all, focusing only on my most minor points about the way you are conducting your investigation.

You were a devout Pentecostal who read the King James Version of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, but you could not understand it. So you tried reading a more modern version. You then became what you call an agnostic theist, but (for reasons not explained) could no longer believe the Bible was inspired. You were gullible and interested in all things fantastic--UFOs, Nessie, hauntings, Yettie and the like. Then you became more skeptical and open minded. A teacher of your made a fool of himself trying to defend his liberal, Orthodox Christian beliefs. So you decided a closed mind was more rational. The proper application of the burden of proof that you learned in a class on logic was also helpful. The class taught you that you should believe nothing until it meets that burden of proof. You then made up your mind to not even provisionally consider God as a possibility. The whole trip took you 20 years without the aid of the Internet.

Does that pretty much sum it up?

---

And the number one reason is....


To bring about the true "New Covenent™".
According to the Bible, we're not under the new covenent yet...

How does the new differ from the old?

---

Ah, see that is where it makes sense! Socrates has always annoyed me with his "do nothing but think" attitude. You are very much the same, minus the annoyance.

I'm glad that you are not just a troll, Spock.

Glad to be here, MO!

[LastPoet]

And how do we handle the eyewitness accounts of those who have had near-death experiences, or those who claim to have seen, heard, or spoken to ghosts? Do we scoff at the idea simply because our experiences are not similar?

Do we take into account of diagnosed shizophrenics about voices speaking to their heads telling them to hurt themselves and sometimes others? If no, why should we take into account a person that due to trauma, the brain is not working properly? Its not scoffing, its knowing the human mind, the little we know.

As to ghosts, when I was a kid, I was walking through an old abandoned house, reputed as being haunted, a flash of light from a window scared the shit out of me. I truly believed at that time it was a ghost of somekind, yet, I wasn't satisfied. The next day I repeated my path, and saw the phenomena repeated itself. Hmmm. I gained entrance to the house and discovered a mirror that was in such an angle that reflected a street light at the distance (those times they were white) when I was passing by.

I used science, and it works bitches!

[catfish]

It doesn't have to be "of god". Check out what spockates just conveyed.

Still, if it happened, it could be a lucky guess, or something of the ilk - no evidence of any supernatural force or psychic powers. People who believe in psychics, or supernatural beings would readily attribute it to psychic powers etc, but they have no reason to - unless they actually detected their use.

But that's the problem with the term "supernatural". By definition it should be undetectable.

Observable is another case, in which, each person decides for themselves what it was they observed and whether it was "supernatural".

[Jackalope]

The reason for becoming an athiest is that no proof of any gods exists. Also, you don't have to worry about god watching you while you masturbate.

Private pastimes aside, it seems to me the no proof debate is a wash. Christians say atheists have no proof there is no God; atheists say Christians have no proof there is a God. I think there might be reasonable reasons to believe there is a God, just as there are reasonable reasons to believer there is not. But it's possible neither side meets the other side's burden of proof, I think. What do you think?

I think you do not understand burden of proof, despite it being explained to you numerous times in several threads (including this one).

For one who claims to love logic, you should know this.

[Tobie]

Still, if it happened, it could be a lucky guess, or something of the ilk - no evidence of any supernatural force or psychic powers. People who believe in psychics, or supernatural beings would readily attribute it to psychic powers etc, but they have no reason to - unless they actually detected their use.

But that's the problem with the term "supernatural". By definition it should be undetectable.

Observable is another case, in which, each person decides for themselves what it was they observed and whether it was "supernatural".

If it's undetectable then it's completely irrelevant to everything. I really couldn't give a shit about something if it has no observable effect on anything.

[catfish]

And the number one reason is....


To bring about the true "New Covenent™".
According to the Bible, we're not under the new covenent yet...

How does the new differ from the old?

Noone will have to teach another about "God"...

---

If it's undetectable then it's completely irrelevant to everything. I really couldn't give a shit about something if it has no observable effect on anything.

Until you have your own experience...

[LastPoet]

But that's the problem with the term "supernatural". By definition it should be undetectable.

Observable is another case, in which, each person decides for themselves what it was they observed and whether it was "supernatural".

Ok, now I know you are a dumbass. If a phenomena is observable, it is detectable. Our eyes are nothing but detectors that detect a narrow set of light wavelenghts, hence natural. the same for other senses and their respective field. As the usual religionist your ignorance is showing.

[catfish]

But that's the problem with the term "supernatural". By definition it should be undetectable.

Observable is another case, in which, each person decides for themselves what it was they observed and whether it was "supernatural".

Ok, now I know you are a dumbass. If a phenomena is observable, it is detectable. Our eyes are nothing but detectors that detect a narrow set of light wavelenghts, hence natural. As the usual religionist your ignorance is showing.

Who's the dumbass?

Say that I sensed one day out of the blue to call my cousin. I dismissed it because it was 3am. Then say I found out the next day that his wife had died.

What was there to observe about my "sense"??? Are you suggesting you or I can view my thoughts?

[spockrates]

Private pastimes aside, it seems to me the no proof debate is a wash. Christians say atheists have no proof there is no God; atheists say Christians have no proof there is a God. I think there might be reasonable reasons to believe there is a God, just as there are reasonable reasons to believer there is not. But it's possible neither side meets the other side's burden of proof, I think. What do you think?

Is it? Do you have the same care regarding leprechauns, fairies, goblins and all other conceptual beings that the human imagination has come up with?

And what the hell is a reasonable reason? (redundancy much?)

And here is a re-post as you seemed to have not read it: The null hipothesis

Yes, thanks for the link. I'd say I'm not asking for proof, I'm asking for reasons to reject, or fail to reject the hypothesis. Hope that helps.

Here is a link from the same website for you to get a better understanding of what I'm trying to convey:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

From that site:


Arguments that appeal to ignorance rely merely on the fact that the veracity of the proposition is not disproven to arrive at a definite conclusion. These arguments fail to appreciate that the limits of one's understanding or certainty do not change what is true. They do not inform upon reality. That is, whatever the reality is, it does not “wait” upon human logic or analysis to be formulated. Reality exists at all times, and it exists independently of what is in the mind of anyone. And the true thrust of science and rational analysis is to separate preconceived notion(s) of what reality is, and to be open at all times to the observation of nature as it behaves, so as truly to discover reality. This fallacy can be very convincing and is considered by some to be a special case of a false dilemma or false dichotomy in that they both fail to consider alternatives. A false dilemma may take the form:

• If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
  
• If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.
  

Such arguments attempt to exploit the facts that (a) true things can never be disproven and (b) false things can never be proven. In other words, appeals to ignorance claim that the converse of these facts are also true (therein lies the fallacy).


What I'm thinking is that both Christians (who say God is not disproven, and so the idea of him cannot be considered false) and atheist (who say God is not proven, and so the idea of him cannot be considered true) commit the same fallacy. Both ways of thinking are illogical. I'm not saying all atheist think this way. I'm saying those who do are committing the same informal logical fallacy and just as guilty of fuzzy thinking as some Christians are.