The Reasons why "Just Following Jesus" Doesn't work

[Redbeard The Pink]

Rationalizations.

I need to write a big ponsy post about it. These half-baked arguments such as Kalam and all its dirty relatives aren't the reason people believe, in my opinion. This is evidenced by the fact that logically ripping them apart has absolutely no impact on the person with the belief.

Such arguments rarely convince anyone with critical thinking skills. They're actually there for two purposes.

First, they galvanize the weak-minded by convincing them that their religion has some backing other than scripture; in other words, it helps the confidence of the faithful.

Second, it gives them something to say during discussions so they will sound (at least to themselves) like they know what they're talking about.

Basically, apologetic arguments aren't for non-believers, but the believers themselves.

[robvalue]

Nail head, meet hammer

[robvalue]

I came up with a rather neat way of describing this recently:

They are strawmanning themselves! By putting forward a phoney version that they don't really care about, it can be safely chopped up without affecting their actual position. It would be too dangerous (and possibly embarrassing) to come clean about the real reasons, if they are even aware of the real reasons. But surely they must be aware that these bogus arguments are not the real reason. Right!?

[Redbeard The Pink]

I came up with a rather neat way of describing this recently:

They are strawmanning themselves! By putting forward a phoney version that they don't really care about, it can be safely chopped up without affecting their actual position. It would be too dangerous (and possibly embarrassing) to come clean about the real reasons, if they are even aware of the real reasons. But surely they must be aware that these bogus arguments are not the real reason. Right!?

Yes, and the real reason is "they have faith in it because they are afraid to let go of it." All the arguments are just defenses for themselves. They're not trying to change your mind, they're trying to keep you from changing theirs (whether they realize that's the strategy or not). If they can convince themselves they argued better than you did, then they don't have to consider your actual arguments or the evidence.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

I came up with a rather neat way of describing this recently:

They are strawmanning themselves! By putting forward a phoney version that they don't really care about, it can be safely chopped up without affecting their actual position. It would be too dangerous (and possibly embarrassing) to come clean about the real reasons, if they are even aware of the real reasons. But surely they must be aware that these bogus arguments are not the real reason. Right!?

Yes, and the real reason is "they have faith in it because they are afraid to let go of it." All the arguments are just defenses for themselves. They're not trying to change your mind, they're trying to keep you from changing theirs (whether they realize that's the strategy or not). If they can convince themselves they argued better than you did, then they don't have to consider your actual arguments or the evidence.

Exactly. In general, the open-minded people fall out of religion and the close-minded ones argue against all reason and logic to defend their unjustified beliefs, and seem to be incapable of looking at their religion objectively. If only they could look at their own religion as if they were looking at another’s religion, religion would practically not exist in the civilized world.

[Rekeisha]

We don't know of any point in time when the universe had nothing in it, and the laws of physics we use to determine things were not available before the big bang. That doesn't mean you can stick a god in there, and that certainly doesn't mean it has to be your particular god. Saying we don't know, therefore god, solves nothing.

Yes, the basic rules of survival and morals have a lot of overlap, when a species needs a group to survive. A gazelle needs to be with its group, or it will die. Doing things like attacking everything aroudn it will leave it abandoned. therefore the basic need for survival necessitates some moral behavior.

There is no solid evidence for any specific god. If there was, people wouldn't be fighting over the issue for thousands of years. We would have reached a concensus by now. The best evidence you've given is as much evidence for Vishnu as it is for Yahweh, or any other god. Creation, morals, ect are too vague to get you any closer than deism, but you're not a deist.

He doesn't love anyone but himself. He created people to serve him, sentences them to be tortured by default, and the only way to convince him to not do it is swear undying servitude. That is not a healthy relationship by any stretch of the term. I will take responsibility for my own actions. I'm not afraid of doing that. It's what grown-ups do. They do not scapegoat innocent people.

I know a bit about the history of the bible. I know Yahweh was originally the canaanite version of Ares. A volcanic war god. I know about the council of Nicaea, where people got together to decide which books were canon, and which weren't. I know that originally Paul was talking about a spirit being when he talked about Jesus. Not some guy born of a virgin, who died on a cross ten years prior. I know that there's an archetype about people being born of virgins, dying on a hill, coming back from the dead, and performing miracles. Jesus wasn't the first, and there are even stories today of people performing miracles. I know that the bibles we have are copies of copies of copies, and even the originals would still be written by men who weren't names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I know that some of those gospels were based on others, and they couldn't get the story of Jesus' birth, death, or resurrection right.

he does not own everyone and everything. I don't know why anyone thinks that. So he created the world a long time ago. Round of applause for that. If he wanted servants to worship him, and never disobey, he did a shitty job. Even his repeated attempts to fix that have failed, but apparently he can't get that through his head.

So all you have said is man is not an authority on how it all started. Also you are right there was never just nothing there was God.

So How does DNA and mutation give us morals and survival instincts?

There is solid evidence for God you just refuse to recognize it.

Since you have set your mind to dislike Him you have choosen to see everything he does as hateful.

There may not be an original document but there are so many copies of the text that we have a good understanding of what the originals have said. The bible as an ancient text has more copies than any other ancient text. Also from the full documents they do have there are no doctrinal changes.

Your assertion that He doesn't own everything doesn't stop Him for owning everything. If you made something for yourself you would own it right so why is it suddenly wrong for God to own the thing He created? He wants us to obeyHhim freely that is why you are given an option. If you choose to worship yourself instead of God then you will become just like what you worship. Also, He isn't done fixing things He is  being patient waiting for people to repent.

[Longhorn]

There is solid evidence for God you just refuse to recognize it.

Orly. I assume you'll want to get around presenting it then. Go ahead.

[robvalue]

When anyone talks about "evidence" for God, it needs to be something I could verify if I was standing right next to you. Personal testimony, philosophical arguments and ancient texts are not credible evidence.

I find it amusing that an atheist's power of denial is greater than god's ability to provide evidence for his very existence. It wasn't like that in the old days.

If God wanted us to know he exists, presumably he'd be able to do that. So that leaves the scenario that he's deliberately providing evidence so weak that it's possible to easily dismiss it. I can only conclude this is a test of critical thinking.

[Longhorn]

'There is evidence for the existence of god, but I don't feel like telling you what it is right now'

[Mr.wizard]

My favorite response is when a theist says, " I have evidence for god but you wouldn't believe it anyway"