Satan Disproves Christianity

[Mister Agenda]

Not true. God's law has been established.

Um, if you know you're being deceived...you're not being deceived. Do you think Satan can't deceive?

[Zone]

Satan only deceives people who aren't Christians/don't have a belief in a God of course.

[John V]

It's unjustified faith if the thing you're putting faith in is unverifiable;

You're using "faith" here in the sense of trust, while I specifically used it in the sense of belief.

In the sense of belief, the thing believed is not verified. If it were, belief in it would no longer require faith. It may or may not be verifiable. However, note that, until verified, claiming that something is verifiable is also a belief on faith.

[Mister Agenda]

Right, that's interesting. The first lie in the Bible was told by God: "the day you eat thereof you shall surely die." Oh no they didn't

But they did die.

Before they ate they were immortal beings who were slated to live forever. Their immortal life ended that day, and Adam's outside of the garden life began that day. He died to God and was reborn unto sin. The moment he ate his immortality died, and the clock on his mortal life began.

It's very handy that the verses of the Bible can mean whatever you want them to. Not only does the verse sound like a lie, so does the explanation for why it isn't.

[John V]

I suppose the real question would be why faith is necessary or good to have and if there are any unwanted side effects, psychological problems or delusions you could end up with. Would it lend you towards a greater tendency to gullibility or control by others? By deciding you already know what is true are restricting yourself or the knowledge we could potentially discover?

Most of our biggest life decisions involve faith. We don't know that we'll be happier if we marry a certain person, or take a certain job, or have children, etc.

[Zone]

In the sense of belief, the thing believed is not verified. If it were, belief in it would no longer require faith. It may or may not be verifiable. However, note that, until verified, claiming that something is verifiable is also a belief on faith.

So why do you have faith in that particular religion and not in Hinduism? Does what is true reflect the geographical location you happened to be born in?

Most of our biggest life decisions involve faith. We don't know that we'll be happier if we marry a certain person, or take a certain job, or have children, etc.

You could be happier wiped fully clean and purified from all traces of religious faith and dogma for all you know. I suppose you have to chose to do in most instances but it is very easily done. Unless there is some hard evidence to demonstrate the specific truth claims as Christopher Hitchen's once said what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[John V]

So why do you have faith in that particular religion and not in Hinduism?

I can't find enough info on the founders of Hinduism to evaluate it, for one thing.

Does what is true reflect the geographical location you happened to be born in?

No, what one believes reflects the culture they were born into.

You could be happier wiped fully clean and purified from all traces of religious faith and dogma for all you know.

Maybe, but doubtful. Most studies show that, absent poverty, believers and non-believers are pretty close in happiness, with believers slightly ahead in majority believing countries and vice-versa.

I suppose you have to chose to do in most instances but it is very easily done. Unless there is some hard evidence to demonstrate the specific truth claims as Christopher Hitchen's once said what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

What constitutes evidence is different in different people.

[Zone]

I can't find enough info on the founders of Hinduism to evaluate it, for one thing.

It doesn't have any founders. Came direct from the Brahma or whatever it is to human consciousness. You can see how this is clearly the true religion, or I'd be saying something like this if I were a Hindu.

No, what one believes reflects the culture they were born into.[quote]

So it's really very lucky that you were born in the culture that believes in the right God then? If you were born in India you would believe in all this business.



Not you though because you were born in the right country, reminds me of this.






[quote]
Maybe, but doubtful. Most studies show that, absent poverty, believers and non-believers are pretty close in happiness, with believers slightly ahead in majority believing countries and vice-versa.

Perhaps some of the religious teachings are useful for human happiness when extracted from their supernatural context. There is some good stuff within religion without a doubt but there is a lot of bad stuff as well. Without a religion you can just cherry pick whatever spiritual or moral teaching you like.

What constitutes evidence is different in different people.

If supernatural miracles, powers or beings exist then there ought to be scientific evidence for them we can all share. As soon as anything operates in the physical universe and it interacts with or does anything we can see it becomes part of the nature that can be observed.

[John V]

It doesn't have any founders. Came direct from the Brahma or whatever it is to human consciousness.

It didn't come directly to my consciousness, so there's your answer.

So it's really very lucky that you were born in the culture that believes in the right God then?

From my POV, yes, both spiritually and practically.

Perhaps some of the religious teachings are useful for human happiness when extracted from their supernatural context. There is some good stuff within religion without a doubt but there is a lot of bad stuff as well. Without a religion you can just cherry pick whatever spiritual or moral teaching you like.

There's good stuff in science, and bad. There's good stuff in philosophy, and bad.

If supernatural miracles, powers or beings exist then there ought to be scientific evidence for them we can all share.

If we all shared it, it wouldn't be considered supernatural. And what definitions of supernatural and scientific don't create an oxymoron here?

As soon as anything operates in the physical universe and it interacts with or does anything we can see it becomes part of the nature that can be observed.

My point exactly, except I would add "regularly" after operates. If god does something regularly observable, then as you note it becomes part of nature, and is not considered supernatural.

[Zone]

It didn't come directly to my consciousness, so there's your answer.

Perhaps it did but the false teachings of Christianity supplanted it or something because you were born in the wrong country. Or certainly some people must have been born in the wrong country if there is one true religion, so how do you know you're not one of those people?

From my POV, yes, both spiritually and practically.

And you know you were born in the right country because?

There's good stuff in science, and bad. There's good stuff in philosophy, and bad.

Science isn't a belief system it's methodology. Philosophy presents a different ways of thinking about life you can apply if you choose and religion gives you a list of things you have to believe and do. You can live happily enough with a list of anything you have to believe or do. Some people may enjoy being told what to believe and do but it would then seem more like a hobby rather than something that is true or relevant to life.

If we all shared it, it wouldn't be considered supernatural.

So if we both witnessed the Christ rise from his tomb 2000 years ago it wouldn't be a supernatural event because we would both be sharing the same experience?

And what definitions of supernatural and scientific don't create an oxymoron here?

If the supernatural exists and if it does anything then will be potentially scientifically obtainable evidence for it. These will be things we can observe, detect and measure like anything else. James Randhi has an offer of 1 million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate any kind of supernatural ability under laboratory test conditions. In over 30 years no-one has claimed it. If there is no demonstrable evidence for the supernatural then chances are it doesn't exist and supernatural events never occur. If supernatural events never occur then you can't have virgin births and resurrections from the dead.

My point exactly, except I would add "regularly" after operates. If god does something regularly observable, then as you note it becomes part of nature, and is not considered supernatural.

It would still be supernatural in that it would originate beyond the natural world but detectable within the natural world because it operates within it. So we can have rock solid evidence for the supernatural if it exists and that's what we need.