Evidence for god? Convince me! [CHALLENGE]

[fr0d0]

In the nicest possible way, you don't get to decide what "we" do when we believe in God. You get to speak for one person. Yourself. Just like me.

And I find it quite funny that as someone who believes a Jewish guy was born of a Virgin, died, came back to life, and flew up into the air is accusing me of "superstition" for believing something similar for different reasons.

Yes and both of us get to draw our own conclusions.

Your interpretation of the word 'superstition' is very different to mine.

But hey let's cuddle {{{hugs}}}

[Jacob(smooth)]

Nah, I have a cold I don't want to give you . We could talk though.

Superstition : excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.

So your position is that believing in God based on spirituality is excessively credulous, but believing it based on other people's reports of spirituality from 2000 years ago is not?

If that's the case, Unwrap it for me. I don't understand.

[Phatt Matt s]

soooooooo no matter what person i debate, the way i see it is, if you cant prove gods existence, then NOTHING you say about, attribute to your god will help you, unless you can prove his existence. in my experience NO ONE has ever convinced me that their god exists and the "evidence" is soooo vague and ignorantly claimed without further thought. Other than me being bored, i challenge any theist to try to convince me that god exists (or YOUR god for that matter...)

Boobs are proof of God's existence for me. Also, Vaginas are so beautiful something must have been thinking about them prior to their existence.

[fr0d0]

Nah, I have a cold I don't want to give you . We could talk though.

Superstition : excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.

So your position is that believing in God based on spirituality is excessively credulous, but believing it based on other people's reports of spirituality from 2000 years ago is not?

If that's the case, Unwrap it for me. I don't understand.

lol

Superstition: unfounded belief resulting in irrational behaviours

I don't trust feelings or coincidences to inform anything. I'm incredibly skeptical and need to understand reason behind everything. People fascinate me.

I had to be more than convinced in the biblical evidence to believe. Those ideas were cemented once belief was entered into. They apply directly to the present, and can be verified in the same way. But you knew that.

I have always been suspicious of a spiritual reality. I appear to have dreams of things that then happen in the future. 5 second snippets of scenes I'll later live through. Nothing I've ever been able to use. I've never linked that to my faith.

Explain "excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural"

[Jacob(smooth)]

Nah, I have a cold I don't want to give you . We could talk though.

Superstition : excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.

So your position is that believing in God based on spirituality is excessively credulous, but believing it based on other people's reports of spirituality from 2000 years ago is not?

If that's the case, Unwrap it for me. I don't understand.

lol

Superstition: unfounded belief resulting in irrational behaviours

Explain "excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural"

That was the google definition of superstition. Can't really explain it pe se.

I don't trust feelings or coincidences to inform anything. I'm incredibly skeptical and need to understand reason behind everything. People fascinate me.

I had to be more than convinced in the biblical evidence to believe. Those ideas were cemented once belief was entered into. They apply directly to the present, and can be verified in the same way. But you knew that.

I have always been suspicious of a spiritual reality. I appear to have dreams of things that then happen in the future. 5 second snippets of scenes I'll later live through. Nothing I've ever been able to use. I've never linked that to my faith.

Here's what I don't understand. If you read an article in "christianity today" or insert name of religious writing here journal, which told of a miracle, you'd be skeptical right? You'd quite rightly question whether it was legit, or merely propaganda to support the agenda of the author. Or even if the people writing it were merely mistaken, caught up in religious fervor. It happens.

In which case, what led you to believe that the bible is true, not merely in part, but in full (assuming that's what you believe).

It seems to me that you are applying laudibly stringent levels of skepticism to your own experience, whilst being much happier to accept the experience of those with less education, less credulity, about whom we have at best handed down reports, from 2000 years ago!!

For eg. Do you believe in the biblical account of pentecost? Of speaking in tongues etc? And do you believe that what goes on in pentacostal churches today is equally legit? And if not, why not?

[Mudhammam]

I don't trust feelings or coincidences to inform anything. I'm incredibly skeptical and need to understand reason behind everything. People fascinate me.

I had to be more than convinced in the biblical evidence to believe.

That's an oxymoron. Unless you're privy to information nobody else possesses, you're not a Christian because of "evidence." (What's "biblical evidence"? Is it special somehow from empirical evidence? Like, uh, "revelation"?)

It's emotional attachment, plain and simple. There's no such thing as a Christian skeptIc.

[fr0d0]

lol

Superstition: unfounded belief resulting in irrational behaviours

Explain "excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural"

That was the google definition of superstition. Can't really explain it pe se.

For shame I quite liked it

---

Here's what I don't understand. If you read an article in "christianity today" or insert name of religious writing here journal, which told of a miracle, you'd be skeptical right? You'd quite rightly question whether it was legit, or merely propaganda to support the agenda of the author. Or even if the people writing it were merely mistaken, caught up in religious fervor. It happens.

In which case, what led you to believe that the bible is true, not merely in part, but in full (assuming that's what you believe).

It seems to me that you are applying laudibly stringent levels of skepticism to your own experience, whilst being much happier to accept the experience of those with less education, less credulity, about whom we have at best handed down reports, from 2000 years ago!!

For eg. Do you believe in the biblical account of pentecost? Of speaking in tongues etc? And do you believe that what goes on in pentacostal churches today is equally legit? And if not, why not?

I saw Roger Forster speak a few times. The guy is incredibly grounded, intelligent and sincere. Of anyone I think he'd be the one I'd be inclined to believe, and he does share seemingly supernatural experiences.

I have friends who tell me that they've seen flesh and bone move. I don't believe them.

I believe the bible is true because it isn't the supposed magic that's the point. The point is what is inferred from the action. I personally find it hard to take a perspective acknowledging God. It's foreign to us I think.

I believe the bible in full. I'm a literalist. Ancient people far more conversant in this subject sure are vastly more qualified than me. My reality is heavily skewed by blind materialism. You can't blame us... massive leaps in technological understanding have wowed us.

I used to go to an AOG church. I spoke in tongues. The glossolalia kind? It was kinda nice. The meetings felt freeform and natural. Speaking other languages and having them interpreted: bullshit.

---

I don't trust feelings or coincidences to inform anything. I'm incredibly skeptical and need to understand reason behind everything. People fascinate me.

I had to be more than convinced in the biblical evidence to believe.

That's an oxymoron. Unless you're privy to information nobody else possesses, you're not a Christian because of "evidence." (What's "biblical evidence"? Is it special somehow from empirical evidence? Like, uh, "revelation"?)

It's emotional attachment, plain and simple. There's no such thing as a Christian skeptIc.

No the information is as plain for you to see as it is me. It's only a question of understanding.

I have no emotional attachment at all. Why would I? How does that work? Please explain.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It's emotional attachment, plain and simple. There's no such thing as a Christian skeptIc.

Unless you're a Vulcan everyone has some emotional involvement with their beliefs. More than a few atheists get off on going against the grain and feeling smarter than others. YMMV. Your notions about what motivates believers is simplistic and insulting.

[Rampant.A.I.]

It's emotional attachment, plain and simple. There's no such thing as a Christian skeptIc.

Unless you're a Vulcan everyone has some emotional involvement with their beliefs. More than a few atheists get off on going against the grain and feeling smarter than others. YMMV. Your notions about what motivates believers is simplistic and insulting.

Not unlike your argumentation technique.

[Jacob(smooth)]

I believe the bible in full. I'm a literalist. Ancient people far more conversant in this subject sure are vastly more qualified than me. My reality is heavily skewed by blind materialism. You can't blame us... massive leaps in technological understanding have wowed us. 

Why we're the people reporting the events of the bible more qualified than you? The disciples were everyday guys.

How did the author of Genesis know what went on before the stars were made?