Positive Atheism

[tackattack]

E...my statement was not intended to be some logical proof of what I believe so while I understand your point, I think it is misplaced here. And while I agree with you that just because it makes sense to me doesn't necessarily make it true, likewise I also think that just because scientists can carry out an experiment that convinces you that something like abiogenesis is possible doesn't mean that abiogenesis is necessarily true (i.e., that that is what actually happened in the past).

I understand you were not trying to say "This is why you should believe" but you are sharing your reasons and this is a public forum. If you're not prepared for criticism then don't say it.

Your analogy to abiogenesis fails because this isn't the result of what "makes sense" but honest scientific inquiry with rigorous skepticism. And I have never stated Scientists affirm that it is definitely how the first organism came to be and holds all those answers. There's still a lot to study there.

You seemed to have made a leap here. I said something made sense to me. You seem to have taken this as saying that I came to my conclusion because I "like" the explanation. There is quite a difference.

Going back to what I actually said, does that baffle you? Don't you draw your conclusion based on what makes sense to you?

We can't accept everything as true based on our ability to understand it. There are things I cannot comprehend. Physics (beyond the basics) doesn't make sense to me, but I accept it because it's demonstrably true in the results it produces.

In layman's terms, yes, we do attempt to "make sense" of things, but we need to be careful that we're not ignoring good scientific explanations just because we cannot grasp the nitty gritty details.

What "makes sense" to us, is not demonstrably true. It "makes sense" that .9r repeating is less than 1, but as Adrian has tirelessly explained in other threads, it's equal to 1.

I like your wording with "We can't accept everything as true based on our ability to understand it. There are things I cannot comprehend. Physics (beyond the basics) doesn't make sense to me, but I accept it because it's demonstrably true in the results it produces. " To be able to demonstrate something spiritual to you, you'd have to allow the possibility that it exists. I think scientifically religion is approached with skepticism which defeats the possibility of demonstratability. To clarify I define skepticism as disbelief. Therefore if belief is required to acknowledge the spirit and allow it to demonstrate "God's truth" (I just made that phrase up) I don't think it's possible to identify it scientifically.

Yes I have...but you would have to take my word on that as I doubt I could demonstrate it to you .

Indeed.

Sounds quite similar to the True Scotsman Fallacy. If you read the Bible you can see.... I have read the Bible and I don't see.... Clearly you have not "honestly" read the Bible....

Maybe it is just that I have a different perspective on things than you and that perspective affects what I get out of the Bible compared to what you get out of it.

I was not making that fallacy, however, I was not clear in my use of the word honestly. I did not mean with some specific perspective, I meant that you truthfully have read the bible. Many Christians will feel that reading a Bible passage along with a pastor at Sunday Mass followed by his homily is a sufficient reading of the Bible. I grew up Catholic, we did not stress reading the Bible. The Bible was only read when a passage was chosen at church or school followed by prepared interpretations. That's not honestly reading the Bible.

Reading the Bible in it's entirety is what I meant. Which I am in the process of doing. It doesn't even have to be in order, in fact it's better not to because then you can miss some stuff if you just read cover to cover, but reading cover to cover is better than just reading selected passages.

I've almost read it twice except I skipped numbers both times. I agree better not in order.

I did. And I concluded that you have chosen to believe what some scholars conclude about the Bible and I have chosen to believe what other scholars conclude about the Bible. There is so much out there written on both sides of things and I think some good points made on both sides. One could research forever and still end up at that same point...a lot written and supported on both sides. I continue to believe in God and the Bible because after reading much of the for and against and having lived as both a non-Christian and a Christian, the for (Christianity) makes more sense to me even if I do not understand everything about God and the Bible and cannot answer all good questions about it.

Okay, so you think I just go with some scholars where you go with others. That's the best answer you have?

This book is the supposed infallible word of God, if that were the case couldn't you easily refute me? Should I not even be able to show these blatant contradictions that put the existence of Jesus, the claim son of God in serious doubt?

The same halfhearted response could be used to claim Islam is true when criticized, yet you don't believe in Islam, do you?

You claim you have done honest questioning of the Bible and Christianity, which rightly stated I can't refute, yet everything you state suggests otherwise.

I put that post up looking for an honest debate on this issue, which never came, and this is the only response I've been given from you, when I had even posted it in response to a question you had asked in the first place. I'm a little disappointed, to say the least. If you don't care to refute the argument put forth, I can only speculate that you can't.

Well the Quran is supposed to be unchanged from it's inception and infallible but there's fallicies in that. The bible is supposed to be the word of God, but we all know it's been rewritten so many times. It's probably the hardest of the doctrines that I've read to get to the truth of. That's what they are though is doctrines not historical documents. Sure a good story to teach someone about your religion should include some facts of history they're farmiliar with. It should include lots of imagery and your basic beliefs. But the best fiction ever sold has some truth in it. I know that means I think the Bible is fiction, but if I can't trust man not to run this world into destruction, why would I trust him to not alter doctrines to suit selfish needs. I have tried to gather my beliefs from what seems rational to me from every source I can find.