Q: do you, Christian, claim that God exists, rather than you believe that he exists?

[Bad Writer]

I condemn no one. If I am to condemn anyone, I must condemn myself. But as I stated, I condemn no one.

The one thinking thoughts of condemnation upon us is you, not your god. Your argument would never hold water in a court of law. For example:

"Your honor, I implore you to understand my plight. See, I did not kill this man; it was my inner demons! They took control of my body, of my thoughts, and the rage spilled forth upon him. His blood was spilled, yet I remain innocent!"

You sound like a loon to us. I'm beginning to believe this is the case.

[discipulus]

The only thing being sacrificed to conclude that Jesus is real is intellectual integrity.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it and I respect that.

And your question is merely trying to shy away from the burden of proof by insinuating that anyone else somehow shares the responsibility of accepting the evidence that you have.

Evidence has no power in and of itself. Evidence does not force or coerce you to accept it. Accepting or rejecting evidence is something that you as a person decide to do. It is an act of the will. So yes you have a responsibility to accept it. If you reject it then that is an act of the will.

To prove my point, lets assume that there exits evidence for the divinity of Christ. We will label this evidence (E1). This evidence is empirical proof for the existence of God and the scientific community has just released a press conference about the discovery of this evidence. You have just watched the press conference.

What follows?

Does the fact that this evidence exists force you to accept it? Does it Coerce you to accept it? Or do you decide/choose to accept it?

Clearly the latter is the case, not the former. Just because the evidence exists it does not therefore follow that you will accept it. To reason so would be to commit a logical fallacy of the non-sequitur type. If one were unwilling to accept the findings of the scientific community all they would have to do was say that they were wrong or that it was a conspiracy orchestrated by Christians or whatever.

You may object and say well if scientists said God existed then I would believe it. You very well may. Many might. Many might not. Those who did not want to believe it would simply find a reason not to. It is just that simple.

The point remains. If a person does not want to believe God exists then nothing will force them to believe God exists. It has often times been said that the human will is the strongest force in the universe. I do not quite agree with this, but I agree with what it hints at.

People walk around in denial all the time, denying things that they know very well are true. It has been recorded, how some who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness, never accept the diagnosis because they are so horrified at the prospect of an immanent death, that they literally convince themselves that the diagnosis was incorrect and they live in denial until their death. There have been instances when people have been convicted in clear cut cases of murder or rape or some other heinous crime and the parents or loved ones of the convicted adamantly swear that their child or loved one could not have committed the crime. This denial is so strong that the parent or loved one refuses to accept that their child or loved one could be guilty even when the evidence is indisputable.

In these instances it is clear that a person can be so opposed to the clear cut truth that they deny this truth in the face of indisputable evidence.

But some atheists would have me believe that things like this never happen at all. This is simply incorrect.

How many times have we heard of women who continue to stay in abusive relationships despite their being beaten daily. What do they usually say? Oh....he loves me! I know he really loves me!

Is this not denial in the face of indisputable evidence? The evidence is indisputable because it is in the form of busted lips, blackened eyes, and other physical, visible, undeniable injuries. Yet the woman lives in denial of what so many around her see so clearly.

To recap, evidence itself does not force or coerce a person to believe. You as a person are responsible for accepting evidence or rejecting it.

It's a smokescreen to try to cover up that your evidence is shoddy and you don't want to speak for itself. You have to first give your argument a little psychological primer to sugarcoat its legitimacy.

I think I do have to speak of a person's psychology when speaking of these matters. Why is it recorded that some people refused to believe Christ was who He said He was even after they saw Him raise people bodily from the dead with but a Word?

Why did some deny He was the Christ even after they saw Him feed thousands with a basket full of food?

People denying the undeniable is recorded several times in scripture. They denied the undeniable because they were UNWILLING to believe.

---

I condemn no one. If I am to condemn anyone, I must condemn myself. But as I stated, I condemn no one.

The one thinking thoughts of condemnation upon us is you, not your god. Your argument would never hold water in a court of law. For example:

"Your honor, I implore you to understand my plight. See, I did not kill this man; it was my inner demons! They took control of my body, of my thoughts, and the rage spilled forth upon him. His blood was spilled, yet I remain innocent!"

You sound like a loon to us. I'm beginning to believe this is the case.

I condemn no one. Where have I condemned anyone? Point me to the post.

If you cannot, why do you bear false witness against me?

---

You're arguing that "x is true because it is true to me" or "x is true because I say it is" should be held in equal regard to testable, verifiable empirical evidence.

Who here has argued: "God exists because I say God exists?" Or... "Christianity is true because it is true to me."?

If you cannot point to a post where someone has said this, then why are you saying it has been said?

[Angrboda]

[Rampant.A.I.]

The only thing being sacrificed to conclude that Jesus is real is intellectual integrity.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it and I respect that.

And your question is merely trying to shy away from the burden of proof by insinuating that anyone else somehow shares the responsibility of accepting the evidence that you have.

Evidence has no power in and of itself. Evidence does not force or coerce you to accept it. Accepting or rejecting evidence is something that you as a person decide to do. It is an act of the will. So yes you have a responsibility to accept it. If you reject it then that is an act of the will.

To prove my point, lets assume that there exits evidence for the divinity of Christ. We will label this evidence (E1). This evidence is empirical proof for the existence of God and the scientific community has just released a press conference about the discovery of this evidence. You have just watched the press conference.

What follows?

Does the fact that this evidence exists force you to accept it? Does it Coerce you to accept it? Or do you decide/choose to accept it?

Clearly the latter is the case, not the former. Just because the evidence exists it does not therefore follow that you will accept it. To reason so would be to commit a logical fallacy of the non-sequitur type. If one were unwilling to accept the findings of the scientific community all they would have to do was say that they were wrong or that it was a conspiracy orchestrated by Christians or whatever.

You may object and say well if scientists said God existed then I would believe it. You very well may. Many might. Many might not. Those who did not want to believe it would simply find a reason not to. It is just that simple.

The point remains. If a person does not want to believe God exists then nothing will force them to believe God exists. It has often times been said that the human will is the strongest force in the universe. I do not quite agree with this, but I agree with what it hints at.

People walk around in denial all the time, denying things that they know very well are true. It has been recorded, how some who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness, never accept the diagnosis because they are so horrified at the prospect of an immanent death, that they literally convince themselves that the diagnosis was incorrect and they live in denial until their death. There have been instances when people have been convicted in clear cut cases of murder or rape or some other heinous crime and the parents or loved ones of the convicted adamantly swear that their child or loved one could not have committed the crime. This denial is so strong that the parent or loved one refuses to accept that their child or loved one could be guilty even when the evidence is indisputable.

In these instances it is clear that a person can be so opposed to the clear cut truth that they deny this truth in the face of indisputable evidence.

But some atheists would have me believe that things like this never happen at all. This is simply incorrect.

How many times have we heard of women who continue to stay in abusive relationships despite their being beaten daily. What do they usually say? Oh....he loves me! I know he really loves me!

Is this not denial in the face of indisputable evidence? The evidence is indisputable because it is in the form of busted lips, blackened eyes, and other physical, visible, undeniable injuries. Yet the woman lives in denial of what so many around her see so clearly.

To recap, evidence itself does not force or coerce a person to believe. You as a person are responsible for accepting evidence or rejecting it.

It's a smokescreen to try to cover up that your evidence is shoddy and you don't want to speak for itself. You have to first give your argument a little psychological primer to sugarcoat its legitimacy.

I think I do have to speak of a person's psychology when speaking of these matters. Why is it recorded that some people refused to believe Christ was who He said He was even after they saw Him raise people bodily from the dead with but a Word?

Why did some deny He was the Christ even after they saw Him feed thousands with a basket full of food?

People denying the undeniable is recorded several times in scripture. They denied the undeniable because they were UNWILLING to believe.

And yet the only people unwilling to believe undeniable evidence today are Christians.

They're unwilling to believe in anything science has to offer, unless it benefits them personally. E.g., spreading the gospel, yet rejecting any part of science that might be contradictory to their belief in scripture.

"Show me evidence!" Christians cry. And yet, when you show them evidence, they quote scripture, and demand MORE evidence!

Or in the case of the post above, one could paraphrase a bunch or scripture about evidence, completely ignore the request for evidence, make a bunch of unsubstantiated claims about evidence, and then proclaim:

"See? So evidence amounts to nothing!" Without actually having provided so much as a shred of evidence to support their claims.

[Ryantology]

How many times have we heard of women who continue to stay in abusive relationships despite their being beaten daily. What do they usually say? Oh....he loves me! I know he really loves me!

Is this not denial in the face of indisputable evidence? The evidence is indisputable because it is in the form of busted lips, blackened eyes, and other physical, visible, undeniable injuries. Yet the woman lives in denial of what so many around her see so clearly.

I read this and then I had to go an order a new irony meter, only to find out that there were no more working models left in the world.

[discipulus]

And yet the only people unwilling to believe undeniable evidence today are Christians.

I am surprised, and a little disappointed that you would make such a blanket statement about Christians.

But let us set that aside.

What undeniable evidence am I unwilling to believe. Do tell?

They're unwilling to believe in anything science has to offer, unless it benefits them personally. E.g., spreading the gospel, yet rejecting any part of science that might be contradictory to their belief in scripture.

Blanket statements once again. I have already stated here numerous times that I love science, I am enthralled by it. I dabble in the philosophy of science and will defend it against anyone who tries to discredit it. So please do not lump me in with these "Christians" you have in mind.

"Show me evidence!" Christians cry. And yet, when you show them evidence, they quote scripture, and demand MORE evidence!

What has a Christian ever asked you evidence for?

Or in the case of the post above, one could paraphrase a bunch or scripture about evidence, completely ignore the request for evidence, make a bunch of unsubstantiated claims about evidence, and then proclaim:

"See? So evidence amounts to nothing!" Without actually having provided so much as a shred of evidence to support their claims.

Who said evidence amounts to nothing?

What is with all of these strawmen?

[Bad Writer]

The one thinking thoughts of condemnation upon us is you, not your god. Your argument would never hold water in a court of law. For example:

"Your honor, I implore you to understand my plight. See, I did not kill this man; it was my inner demons! They took control of my body, of my thoughts, and the rage spilled forth upon him. His blood was spilled, yet I remain innocent!"

You sound like a loon to us. I'm beginning to believe this is the case.

I condemn no one. Where have I condemned anyone? Point me to the post.

If you cannot, why do you bear false witness against me?

Stop it with the victim mentality; you're looking mighty childish right about now.

In post #121 you say "A person is condemned because they reject God's offer of salvation found only in the person of Christ." My response is this: this "God" fellow is either real, or he isn't, and if he's real, then he condemns us and you agree with him, and if he isn't, then there's nothing there condemning us excepting the dementia of your own, twisted mind.

Fuck you very much for playing this game, asswipe.

[discipulus]

I read this and then I had to go an order a new irony meter, only to find out that there were no more working models left in the world.

Do you have something you wish to say. If so, then do so plainly.

[Bad Writer]

I read this and then I had to go an order a new irony meter, only to find out that there were no more working models left in the world.

Do you have something you wish to say. If so, then do so plainly.

Why don't you practice a little plain speaking yourself, Mr. Word Salad?

[Faith No More]

---

Evidence has no power in and of itself. Evidence does not force or coerce you to accept it. Accepting or rejecting evidence is something that you as a person decide to do. It is an act of the will. So yes you have a responsibility to accept it. If you reject it then that is an act of the will.

To prove my point, lets assume that there exits evidence for the divinity of Christ. We will label this evidence (E1). This evidence is empirical proof for the existence of God and the scientific community has just released a press conference about the discovery of this evidence. You have just watched the press conference.

What follows?

Does the fact that this evidence exists force you to accept it? Does it Coerce you to accept it? Or do you decide/choose to accept it?

Clearly the latter is the case, not the former. Just because the evidence exists it does not therefore follow that you will accept it. To reason so would be to commit a logical fallacy of the non-sequitur type. If one were unwilling to accept the findings of the scientific community all they would have to do was say that they were wrong or that it was a conspiracy orchestrated by Christians or whatever.

You may object and say well if scientists said God existed then I would believe it. You very well may. Many might. Many might not. Those who did not want to believe it would simply find a reason not to. It is just that simple.

The point remains. If a person does not want to believe God exists then nothing will force them to believe God exists. It has often times been said that the human will is the strongest force in the universe. I do not quite agree with this, but I agree with what it hints at.

People walk around in denial all the time, denying things that they know very well are true. It has been recorded, how some who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness, never accept the diagnosis because they are so horrified at the prospect of an immanent death, that they literally convince themselves that the diagnosis was incorrect and they live in denial until their death. There have been instances when people have been convicted in clear cut cases of murder or rape or some other heinous crime and the parents or loved ones of the convicted adamantly swear that their child or loved one could not have committed the crime. This denial is so strong that the parent or loved one refuses to accept that their child or loved one could be guilty even when the evidence is indisputable.

In these instances it is clear that a person can be so opposed to the clear cut truth that they deny this truth in the face of indisputable evidence.

But some atheists would have me believe that things like this never happen at all. This is simply incorrect.

How many times have we heard of women who continue to stay in abusive relationships despite their being beaten daily. What do they usually say? Oh....he loves me! I know he really loves me!

Is this not denial in the face of indisputable evidence? The evidence is indisputable because it is in the form of busted lips, blackened eyes, and other physical, visible, undeniable injuries. Yet the woman lives in denial of what so many around her see so clearly.

To recap, evidence itself does not force or coerce a person to believe. You as a person are responsible for accepting evidence or rejecting it.

---

I'm not denying that people will deny the obvious in the face of overwhelming evidence. After all, some people think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

But the thing about evidence is that it speaks for itself, and if the evidence spoke as loudly as the strength of the conviction of Christian's beliefs would lead you to think it does, there wouldn't be a need to muddy the whole subject with talk of what people will and won't accept. To use your example, if you were to try to convince the abused woman that she needs to leave the relationship, would you first give her a spiel about what she is and isn't willing to accept?

It's the same diversionary tactic lawyers use. When the evidence isn't in your favor, obfuscate the argument, so the focus isn't on the quality and totality of the evidence.