Whats even attractive about Christianity anyway that people want to stay in ignorance

[chi pan]

First of all let me say that I am an atheist who is not 100% convinced of evolution because I have not studied it. However I suspect that it is most likely true partially because I seem to trust science on many other things etc. However I can be okay with it not being true without accepting the God theory.

The reason for this is having an alternate explanation for how things came about does not automatically make it valid even if all other "current" explanations disappeared. For example if you said the world was a cube and I said it was a triangle I am clearly wrong. However just because I am wrong does not make you right either, in fact we are both wrong. The Christian apologetic arguments such as Design, Morality, and Cause are POSSIBLE explanations for the phenomenon known as life in that they can't be proven false. The problem is all these arguments are is simple speculation/opinion. Something looks designed therefore it is? Not necessarily you still have to prove that it was in fact designed. Saying look how pretty the stars are! Does not provide anything other than your opinion/feelings on the matter.

Again I would like to ask how the Christian arguments do anymore than to suggest a possible explanation? As far as I can see they can't prove anything. So far all I have seen is people saying "Well it looks this way therefore it is, therefore God". As far as arguing from scripture itself one of the primary issues is the lack of contemporary historical sources. Now you may counter by saying we have other historical issues we accept on the same or less volumes of evidence. I will give you that but consider the difference here.

Those other historical accounts about various things in history may in fact be wrong. However Christianity is supposed to be backed up by the very creator of the universe. It also talks about things that we have NEVER witnessed to be a part of existence such as demons, miracles, supernatural appearances etc. Many Christian's today don't believe things work the same way as they used to and those that do often are led along by manipulative people such as Benny Hen who use slight of hand.

So we have a book that makes claims about things that don't appear to exist in reality. It also mentions supposedly historical events such as herod's great slaughter which is in NO other source. In addition it mentions 12 men going around doing miracles like Jesus did and doing it over a larger geographical area with again, no other source. So far I have seen very little evidence and a whole lot of speculation.

It doesn't matter whether or not someone has an alternate worldview, what matters is can you prove your own? Even if other people are being inconsistent in your eyes you saying "see you are as inconsistent as me by having faith" does not give you more credibility.

Now granted being religious supposedly gives you the right to faith while an atheist obviously does not. But faith in what? Is it simply blind faith based on nothing other than hope? If it is so baseless though do you simply just base it out of fear or is it something else? I have yet to see this solid evidence that proves the miraculous/unsupported historical claims of scripture as well.

Thank you for Being honest about your faith. Though you have a point about scientific evidence, it is not so if it is based on conjecture, not facts.

[Voltair]

No, I am going to wake up in Valhalla and I am going to have a damn good time. I have not lost loyalty to my deity even if everyone else has.

[The Grand Nudger]

If only you could bring yourself to be honest about your own Chip.

Evidence?

[chi pan]

If only you could bring yourself to be honest about your own Chip.

Evidence?

I am honest about my faith. I say that I don't have evidence for all my beliefs. You on the other hand have claimed to have no beliefs simultaneously switching to believing in evolution and the big bang. You are not honest.

[Voltair]

How you define faith is important to this discussion. If you define it as simply trust then yes I do have faith in things such as gravity. If you define faith as a bridge between what cannot be known and knowledge then I disagree that I have faith. It is not a matter of faith that I am not convinced of God's existence but rather the fact that I have not seen reliable evidence to substantiate it.

When I was referring to those other accounts of history faith may have been the wrong term. I can accept that some of the ancient historical accounts we have from different places may very well be wrong. After all the phrase "the winners write history" comes to mind. Does every bit of history we have guarantee the events that it talks about? No, someone could have embellished it which is why we would prefer to have more than one source.

I can acknowledge the possibility of its falsehood and move on. However when dealing with documents that claim something that has never been seen in reality in our day and age, I.E. supernatural phenomenon I am going to question it a lot more. There are writings which talk about mythical beasts, do I believe those beasts exist? No although the beast they saw may be based on something and there very well may have been a type of dragon at some point.

I see people trying to say "atheists have just as much faith as me" that almost sounds like people are saying "I don't have a legitimate logical argument but neither do the atheists!". If that is what you are saying then you are saying you cannot reason God into existence and are at best then probably going to become agnostic. Any atheist that claims PERFECT knowledge that there is no supernatural entities out there has to meet an impossible burden of proof claim.

However I could also say that you cannot disprove Zeus either. Does that mean we are all agnostic according to Zeus? I suspect that one day Christianity's portrayal of God will fall right along where Zeus has but it will take some more time for that to occur. However to say it is faith because I have come to the conclusion based on lack of evidence is to say that you take it on faith that there are not invisible gremlins all named tinklepinkle living behind your eyeballs helping you see.

This idea of you can't prove it not true so it is valid is so on its face absurd that we might as well say any abstract idea someone can imagine up has to be given legitimacy. Are we now all agnostic towards every single Hindu god etc? Again this has nothing to do with alternate explanations. This has to do with examining the God explanation by itself without worrying about alternate explanations. To deal with an idea's validity you don't jump around looking at everything else you focus on the idea itself.

[chi pan]

How you define faith is important to this discussion. If you define it as simply trust then yes I do have faith in things such as gravity. If you define faith as a bridge between what cannot be known and knowledge then I disagree that I have faith. It is not a matter of faith that I am not convinced of God's existence but rather the fact that I have not seen reliable evidence to substantiate it.

When I was referring to those other accounts of history faith may have been the wrong term. I can accept that some of the ancient historical accounts we have from different places may very well be wrong. After all the phrase "the winners write history" comes to mind. Does every bit of history we have guarantee the events that it talks about? No, someone could have embellished it which is why we would prefer to have more than one source.

I can acknowledge the possibility of its falsehood and move on. However when dealing with documents that claim something that has never been seen in reality in our day and age, I.E. supernatural phenomenon I am going to question it a lot more. There are writings which talk about mythical beasts, do I believe those beasts exist? No although the beast they saw may be based on something and there very well may have been a type of dragon at some point.

I see people trying to say "atheists have just as much faith as me" that almost sounds like people are saying "I don't have a legitimate logical argument but neither do the atheists!". If that is what you are saying then you are saying you cannot reason God into existence and are at best then probably going to become agnostic. Any atheist that claims PERFECT knowledge that there is no supernatural entities out there has to meet an impossible burden of proof claim.

However I could also say that you cannot disprove Zeus either. Does that mean we are all agnostic according to Zeus? I suspect that one day Christianity's portrayal of God will fall right along where Zeus has but it will take some more time for that to occur. However to say it is faith because I have come to the conclusion based on lack of evidence is to say that you take it on faith that there are not invisible gremlins all named tinklepinkle living behind your eyeballs helping you see.

This idea of you can't prove it not true so it is valid is so on its face absurd that we might as well say any abstract idea someone can imagine up has to be given legitimacy. Are we now all agnostic towards every single Hindu god etc? Again this has nothing to do with alternate explanations. This has to do with examining the God explanation by itself without worrying about alternate explanations. To deal with an idea's validity you don't jump around looking at everything else you focus on the idea itself.

Faith is unproven ideas you believe.

[Voltair]

Faith is unproven ideas you believe.

If that is how faith is defined then how does faith have any value? What makes the Christian faith in God any more valid than the Hindu's faith in their gods, the Greek's faith, the Indian's faith in spiritualism/animism, the druidic faiths, the Chinese faith in their ancestors, and any other religious group? If this is the case how does Christian faith lead anyone closer to the truth? That would simply make it personal taste or desire or what you really want to be true. That does not lead anyone to truth.

If Christianity is to be based on faith and faith is what you said it is then how can you really stand inside of Christianity? How is it more than simply a desire or a belief you have without substantiation? If you can't substantiate it then what still causes you to believe? Is it something you desire or something that you fear or both?

[chi pan]

Faith is unproven ideas you believe.

If that is how faith is defined then how does faith have any value? What makes the Christian faith in God any more valid than the Hindu's faith in their gods, the Greek's faith, the Indian's faith in spiritualism/animism, the druidic faiths, the Chinese faith in their ancestors, and any other religious group? If this is the case how does Christian faith lead anyone closer to the truth? That would simply make it personal taste or desire or what you really want to be true. That does not lead anyone to truth.

If Christianity is to be based on faith and faith is what you said it is then how can you really stand inside of Christianity? How is it more than simply a desire or a belief you have without substantiation? If you can't substantiate it then what still causes you to believe? Is it something you desire or something that you fear or both?

This is a very good point, but there are reasons that I believe in my faith. I have seen God work in my life. He has answered all my prayers. He has worked in my life giving me things I need before I even ask. He is a guide to my life and I will never abandon my guide to follow no one and see my life go into chaos. You may not accept this for yourself but it's enough for me to accept it.

[Minimalist]

Delusional.

[chi pan]

Delusional.

Like I said you may not accept it. By the way, did you read that page about Jephthah I provided for you?