3 reasons for Christians to start questionng their faith

[KichigaiNeko]

According to the Scientific Method, all valid scientific claims such as proofs or theories are universally limited to being based on data that is observable & repeatable in a controlled environment.

All to true .............. So where is your data?

How then can we subject God, miracles, and heaven to the scientific method?

The same way we subject Climate change, the growth of a foetus, the changing of the seasons and the Sunspot cycles of our star Sol

We can not observe God in a repeatable and controlled environment, neither can science deny the possibility of miracles, as it does not fall under the criteria of the scientific method.

Yeah ...funny about that, yet we can observe dark matter, and sub-atomic particles. Science can deny your "miracles" easily .... have you just learnt to read?

So there is no way for me to provide you with a scientific methodology for something that science cannot methodize.

Suffice to say your god is non-existent? Even Quarks leave a trace of where they were.

The scientific method automatically discards anything that is not repeatable, observable, and recordable.

No. Incorrect thinking here. The scientific method takes into account that things are not repeatable and therefore are bunkum/bullshit. The scientific method will strive to observe the "unobservable" aka Large Hadron Collider. The scientific method records EVERYTHING and leaves nothing out in it's deliberations of a conclusion. You really were asleep in science class weren't you?

All statements to the effect that there is no evidence for your deity just like there is no evidence for Zeus/ Odin/ Dagda/ Shiva/ or any other of the 3,000 odd deities and lesser mythical creatures that mankind has dreamt up from the bowels of fear over the past 6,000 years since the last glaciation period

[smax]

Where will you go when you die?

To my final resting, which is a far better outcome than eternal sevitude and constant ass kissing.

Great.. sounds... great.

I don't know that it sounds great, but it certainly doesn't sound bad. The idea of a supreme being enslaving me for an eternity sounds every bit as bad as hell.

In fact, the concept of hell being merely an asbence from this overbearing, egotistical, slave driver who's idea of bliss is having everyone and everything kiss his ass every second of the day, doesn't sound nearly as bad.

Both places, however, are the product of human imagination and invention. There's absolutely zero evidence of either place. None.

But from your response, I can see that you don't base your view on evidence, but rather what makes you feel good.

I'm just still a little surprised that the heaven being proposed makes people feel good. Perhaps some of you hard core Christians should conduct an experiment:

Pretend one of the congregants is god, and then a few of you should make up a room that has his name and praises of him plastered everywhere in that room. Then have one of your fellow congregants lock the few of you, and your god, in that room for just 2 days. During that 2 days, the few of you are to sing and praise this god all day and all night, non stop.

If, after you are all released from this room, you find yourself wanting back in, then I'd say you are onto something with this hope of yours.

If, however, you find yourselfs, and this god, all terribly sick and tired of the entire experiment, you might want to reconsider your position.

Just saying.

[FallentoReason]

I didn't say it was grim. I believe it is wrong, I never said grim. And what evidence can you show that proves without a doubt that there is no God? I don't have proof for you, all I have is faith. Which seems to be a big taboo here. Why is faith such a scary thing?

My apologies for jumping the gun. I just get tired of theists assuming that atheism is somehow evil because people "desire no afterlife". That's the most ignorant take on atheism.

As for disproving God... have a look at my "religious views"...

[Darkstar]

According to the Scientific Method, all valid scientific claims such as proofs or theories are universally limited to being based on data that is observable & repeatable in a controlled environment.How then can we subject God, miracles, and heaven to the scientific method?

Well if god wants to play hide and seek...

We can not observe God in a repeatable and controlled environment,

Because he doesn't want to be...apparently.

neither can science deny the possibility of miracles,

Neither can science deny the possibility of magical unicorns in space.

as it does not fall under the criteria of the scientific method.

This is the closest we can get: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health...d=all&_r=0

So there is no way for me to provide you with a scientific methodology for something that science cannot methodize. The scientific method automatically discards anything that is not repeatable, observable, and recordable.

If god is intent on hiding, he will be able to do so. Being omniscient, though, he must also realize that his refusal to show himself to anyone who might prove his existence conclusively (as opposed to ancient people who had little understanding of science), then some people won't believe in him.

[Tex]

Weak. Witness testimony > hearsay any day, especially when one is going through the trouble of setting up a new religion.

There are a multitude of reasons. Your assertion of "Witness testimony > hearsay" is probably easier for us to see that 2000 years in the future, but I strongly doubt that was on the mind of the author.

Such as the prophecy that Jesus would be called a Nazarene, which is nowhere to be found in the OT?

This is a red herring (not on topic about authors), but I'll answer you anyway.

Zechariah 3:8
"Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, you and your friends who sit before you, for they are men who are a sign: behold, I will bring my servant the Branch."

Isaiah 11:1
"There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit."

Nazarene means, "of the branch" or "off shoot".

Excellent. You've set out your work to prove Tradition is correct in asserting authorship like it has.

Umm... You seem to be placing your own values on authors of another time and place. If all history books include a biography of the author, don't you think? Truly, these guys are not trying to convince people that Jesus existed or that they were there. They want conversion. They know their place in this matter is not important and omitted it intentionally.

Funny you mention "conspiracy". There's some Christian friends I know in real life who fervently believe NASA never went to the moon and that 9/11 was an inside job by the US government. I'm not surprised in the least to see that they believe conspiracy theories, because the backwards thinking required to justify those views are the very same that are required to believe in religion.

You use 2 fallacies here: hasty generalization and red herring. You claim that some people in a group mess up so therefore the whole group is a mess up. You say that Christianity could be a conspiracy to distract away from the texts. My father works for NASA and I know no one in real life that thinks 9/11 is a conspiracy. Although, the South Park episode on that is great.

1 John 4:1-3
1Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God.

Don't you find it incredible that within this generation, we have a full spectrum of Christians that can't decide what the truth is? I mean, if you think I'm stretching the truth, then how about your early comrades in the 1st century preaching a spiritual Christ? CLEARLY it wasn't so easy as simply asking someone "who was there", because otherwise we wouldn't have (what you might call a conspiracy nut) preaching a spiritual Christ when Jesus was apparently just on earth. The conviction in those Christians' hearts as well as their belief in a spiritual Christ should logically seem like a mutually exclusive thing, yet we had people saying they believed in God and this spiritual messiah.

First, I find it very easy to believe that Christians can't decide what truth is. They couldn't then, why should we be able to now? The passage quoted isn't talking about whether or not Jesus existed or anything actually happened, it was a matter of doctrine. There were people injecting their own thoughts into the teachings. My early comrades were dealing with Jews on one end and Platonist on the other. They were trying to deal with radically different groups and not have them distort teachings. You could ask the Jew "did Jesus exist" and they'll say yes, but they wouldn't say that he was the Messiah. You'll ask if he was a prophet, and they'll say yes, but not Lord. All sorts of crap flew at these guys early on, and the purpose of the letters were to keep those outside teachings out of the teachings of God.

And seriously, the largest group of Christian misinterpreters are the Muslims. They were taught, but melded their own thoughts in. They were called "Nestorians" because they believed the word of Nestorius over the Christian main body in Rome and Byzantium. Then they merged the teachings of a new guy, Mohammed, into their thoughts, and now you have today.

[Mr_Dew7]

According to the Scientific Method, all valid scientific claims such as proofs or theories are universally limited to being based on data that is observable & repeatable in a controlled environment.

All to true .............. So where is your data?

There is the Bible and numerous extra biblical sources out there, go ahead, Google it. It's just that you do not wish to here the evidence provided for the miraculous. What of those who see Jesus today? Should we just discount them and their stories because we don't wish to believe what they say? What of the healing miracles that take place even in our own country today?

How then can we subject God, miracles, and heaven to the scientific method?

The same way we subject Climate change, the growth of a foetus, the changing of the seasons and the Sunspot cycles of our star Sol
Aren't each of those things observable and repeatable though? Yes!

We can not observe God in a repeatable and controlled environment, neither can science deny the possibility of miracles, as it does not fall under the criteria of the scientific method.

Yeah ...funny about that, yet we can observe dark matter, and sub-atomic particles. Science can deny your "miracles" easily .... have you just learnt to read?

Yes we can observe all created things, even miracles, but how do you expect to put God, the creator who was not created, into any environment that He does not wish to be put? How do you propose that we do.that?

So there is no way for me to provide you with a scientific methodology for something that science cannot methodize.

Suffice to say your god is non-existent? Even Quarks leave a trace of where they were.

There are traces! Remember what I said before? Don't seek, don't find. How will you find evidence of God when you don't believe that you will find anything? How can I expect to recieve something that I know I'm not going to get? I knew I would find evidence of God, and I did. If you don't want it, then how will you find it?

The scientific method automatically discards anything that is not repeatable, observable, and recordable.

No. Incorrect thinking here. The scientific method takes into account that things are not repeatable and therefore are bunkum/bullshit. The scientific method will strive to observe the "unobservable" aka Large Hadron Collider. The scientific method records EVERYTHING and leaves nothing out in it's deliberations of a conclusion. You really were asleep in science class weren't you?

All statements to the effect that there is no evidence for your deity just like there is no evidence for Zeus/ Odin/ Dagda/ Shiva/ or any other of the 3,000 odd deities and lesser mythical creatures that mankind has dreamt up from the bowels of fear over the past 6,000 years since the last glaciation period

So if you can't control it, then its not real? That makes sense.. <-------sarcasm

---

According to the Scientific Method, all valid scientific claims such as proofs or theories are universally limited to being based on data that is observable & repeatable in a controlled environment.How then can we subject God, miracles, and heaven to the scientific method?

Well if god wants to play hide and seek...

We can not observe God in a repeatable and controlled environment,

Because he doesn't want to be...apparently.

neither can science deny the possibility of miracles,

Neither can science deny the possibility of magical unicorns in space.

So its fallible in more than one area?

as it does not fall under the criteria of the scientific method.

This is the closest we can get: [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.

I went to that url but it said the page was lost, is there another source?

html?pagewanted=all&_r=0[/url]

So there is no way for me to provide you with a scientific methodology for something that science cannot methodize. The scientific method automatically discards anything that is not repeatable, observable, and recordable.

If god is intent on hiding, he will be able to do so. Being omniscient, though, he must also realize that his refusal to show himself to anyone who might prove his existence conclusively (as opposed to ancient people who had little understanding of science), then some people won't believe in him.

That's the problem here I suppose. Do all atheists refuse to hear proof from anyone who isn't a scientist? Not intending to be rude I am just very curious about this.

---

Where will you go when you die?

To my final resting, which is a far better outcome than eternal sevitude and constant ass kissing.

Ass kissing? Great choice of words... Let me ask you, have you personally read the descriptions of heaven in the Bible?

Great.. sounds... great.

I don't know that it sounds great, but it certainly doesn't sound bad. The idea of a supreme being enslaving me for an eternity sounds every bit as bad as hell.

Heaven, a place with zero pain, and everything we could ever dream of sounds better than spending eternity in a lake. Of. Fire. ? Eternal torment and horrible pain?

In fact, the concept of hell being merely an asbence from this overbearing, egotistical, slave driver who's idea of bliss is having everyone and everything kiss his ass every second of the day, doesn't sound nearly as bad.

Both places, however, are the product of human imagination and invention. There's absolutely zero evidence of either place. None.

None that you have sought out or seen for yourself. I am willing to look at your evidence but anything that comes from anywhere else but science is automatically discarded in your mind.


But from your response, I can see that you don't base your view on evidence, but rather what makes you feel good.

I'm just still a little surprised that the heaven being proposed makes people feel good. Perhaps some of you hard core Christians should conduct an experiment:

Pretend one of the congregants is god, and then a few of you should make up a room that has his name and praises of him plastered everywhere in that room. Then have one of your fellow congregants lock the few of you, and your god, in that room for just 2 days. During that 2 days, the few of you are to sing and praise this god all day and all night, non stop.

If, after you are all released from this room, you find yourself wanting back in, then I'd say you are onto something with this hope of yours.

If, however, you find yourselfs, and this god, all terribly sick and tired of the entire experiment, you might want to reconsider your position.

Just saying.

Why would I do that? That is nothing like heaven, and why would I sing praise to anyone pretending to be God?

[FallentoReason]

Weak. Witness testimony > hearsay any day, especially when one is going through the trouble of setting up a new religion.

There are a multitude of reasons. Your assertion of "Witness testimony > hearsay" is probably easier for us to see that 2000 years in the future, but I strongly doubt that was on the mind of the author.

If you were going to sit down to write an account of something, wouldn't it seem natural to simply write down your own experiences instead of having to grab someone else's book and copy that? I find it very suss that "Matthew" writes as if he wasn't even there, when all he has to naturally do is tell us about his experiences with the man himself.

This is a red herring (not on topic about authors), but I'll answer you anyway.

Zechariah 3:8
"Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, you and your friends who sit before you, for they are men who are a sign: behold, I will bring my servant the Branch."

Isaiah 11:1
"There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit."

Nazarene means, "of the branch" or "off shoot".

It's not a red herring, because you said "Matthew" writes about prophecies fulfilled. That's an assertion that I disagree with.

Right, so "nazarene" means those two things. Sounds like you're shoehorning an explanation for him being from Nazareth.

Umm... You seem to be placing your own values on authors of another time and place. If all history books include a biography of the author, don't you think? Truly, these guys are not trying to convince people that Jesus existed or that they were there. They want conversion. They know their place in this matter is not important and omitted it intentionally.

So I'm not allowed to put forth my opinion, but you're allowed to pretend what they were actually thinking? Look, it's pretty straight forward; if they were actually witnesses, they would have written like they were there. They don't, therefore why should we believe they were witnesses let alone believe the stories to be accurate? The problem with hearsay compared to a first hand account is this:

W = witness
A = audience
P[1,2,3...100] = person 1, person 2 etc...
B = book

A witness account:

W -> B -> A

Hearsay accounts:

W -> P[1] -> B -> A
OR
W -> P[1] -> P[2] -> B -> A
OR
W -> P[1] -> ... -> P[15] -> B -> A

The degrees of separation between the supposed witnesses and when the account is written down for us is not known, therefore dubious and unreliable.

Funny you mention "conspiracy". There's some Christian friends I know in real life who fervently believe NASA never went to the moon and that 9/11 was an inside job by the US government. I'm not surprised in the least to see that they believe conspiracy theories, because the backwards thinking required to justify those views are the very same that are required to believe in religion.

You use 2 fallacies here: hasty generalization and red herring. You claim that some people in a group mess up so therefore the whole group is a mess up. You say that Christianity could be a conspiracy to distract away from the texts. My father works for NASA and I know no one in real life that thinks 9/11 is a conspiracy. Although, the South Park episode on that is great.

Fail. I didn't generalise because I specifically referred to some cases. I never said all Christians think NASA never went to the moon and 9/11 was an inside job.

1 John 4:1-3
1Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God.

Don't you find it incredible that within this generation, we have a full spectrum of Christians that can't decide what the truth is? I mean, if you think I'm stretching the truth, then how about your early comrades in the 1st century preaching a spiritual Christ? CLEARLY it wasn't so easy as simply asking someone "who was there", because otherwise we wouldn't have (what you might call a conspiracy nut) preaching a spiritual Christ when Jesus was apparently just on earth. The conviction in those Christians' hearts as well as their belief in a spiritual Christ should logically seem like a mutually exclusive thing, yet we had people saying they believed in God and this spiritual messiah.

First, I find it very easy to believe that Christians can't decide what truth is. They couldn't then, why should we be able to now? The passage quoted isn't talking about whether or not Jesus existed or anything actually happened, it was a matter of doctrine. There were people injecting their own thoughts into the teachings. My early comrades were dealing with Jews on one end and Platonist on the other. They were trying to deal with radically different groups and not have them distort teachings. You could ask the Jew "did Jesus exist" and they'll say yes, but they wouldn't say that he was the Messiah. You'll ask if he was a prophet, and they'll say yes, but not Lord. All sorts of crap flew at these guys early on, and the purpose of the letters were to keep those outside teachings out of the teachings of God.

Aw C'MON now! The passage explicitly says there were Christians preaching a spiritual messiah. You're avoiding the issue here, which is that it should be impossible to spew such nonsense about a spiritual messiah when Jesus was allegedly just on earth.

And seriously, the largest group of Christian misinterpreters are the Muslims. They were taught, but melded their own thoughts in. They were called "Nestorians" because they believed the word of Nestorius over the Christian main body in Rome and Byzantium. Then they merged the teachings of a new guy, Mohammed, into their thoughts, and now you have today.

Yes, I'm well aware. Muslims are a different story altogether.

[Mr_Dew7]

Aw C'MON now! The passage explicitly says there were Christians preaching a spiritual messiah. You're avoiding the issue here, which is that it should be impossible to spew such nonsense about a spiritual messiah when Jesus was allegedly just on earth.

I don't mean to interrupt here, though I would like to ask a few questions. I haven't been keeping up with the conversation so far, so please forgive me for jumping into it in the middle. Are you talking of the Bible? And if so, where does it say that Jesus was just on earth? And would not the spiritual messiah that you are speaking of be the Messiah Jesus after He was ressurected from the dead? Wouldn't it make sense that the once a being of such power would be ressurected into the spirit and not back into flesh, especially since it was the will of God to bring Him (the Messiah) up into heaven to be at His right hand after a short period of time on earth in a spiritual form. I am just confused here, and if you could take the time, it would be helpful. Thanks!

[smax]

Ass kissing? Great choice of words...

This response of yours explains a lot about you. You are obviously very delicate and offended by harsh yet truthful language.

You want things to sound nice. This is a very common characteristic among Christians.

Let me ask you, have you personally read the descriptions of heaven in the Bible?

I've read the whole thing, and I've done expositional studies on all of the important books of the bible.

And, had you read my post, you would have seen that I reference several verses in the Bible describing heaven.

Heaven, a place with zero pain, and everything we could ever dream of sounds better than spending eternity in a lake. Of. Fire. ? Eternal torment and horrible pain?

We could debate what the Bible describes hell as being until the end of time (LOL), but I think the focus here is and should be on what heaven is described as being in the Bible.

The Bible describes a place of eternal and mindless praise and worship. Even worse, it's a place where racial prevences are observed, as well as a class system.

But none of that should concern you more than the fact that heaven is described as a place where you will no longer be you. I've read the Bible from cover to cover, thoroughly researching everything that seemed worthy of research, and I found nothing indicating any level of individual importance in heaven. Well, unless you consider the preferential treatment of race and gender to be some form of individual acknowledgement.

Why would I do that? That is nothing like heaven, and why would I sing praise to anyone pretending to be God?

You'd conduct the experiment to see if the proposed conditions heaven actually appeal to you.

But, since you refuse to accept the Bible's description of heaven, you may want to consider an alternative to the experiment. I suggest that, sense you are intent on simply making this shit up as you go along, you create your own religion equipped with greater flexibility and a much more appealing payoff for those who meet the standards of your reigion.

And, please, don't think this is beyond your station or anything like that. All of the gods were created by men, and those gods number in the thousands.

Who says you can't invent one better than the last guy(s)?

[FallentoReason]

Aw C'MON now! The passage explicitly says there were Christians preaching a spiritual messiah. You're avoiding the issue here, which is that it should be impossible to spew such nonsense about a spiritual messiah when Jesus was allegedly just on earth.

I don't mean to interrupt here, though I would like to ask a few questions. I haven't been keeping up with the conversation so far, so please forgive me for jumping into it in the middle. Are you talking of the Bible? And if so, where does it say that Jesus was just on earth?

Last time I checked, the orthodox view is that in the 1st century B.C.E, there was an apocalyptic preacher going from town to town performing miracles who was said to be the messiah i.e. Jesus.

And would not the spiritual messiah that you are speaking of be the Messiah Jesus after He was ressurected from the dead? Wouldn't it make sense that the once a being of such power would be ressurected into the spirit and not back into flesh, especially since it was the will of God to bring Him (the Messiah) up into heaven to be at His right hand after a short period of time on earth in a spiritual form. I am just confused here, and if you could take the time, it would be helpful. Thanks!

What I'm saying is that it seems some Christians in the 1st century were preaching a messiah that never came to earth in the first place. He always was (and presumably is) in the heavenly realms.