If faith works how every religion says it works......

[tackattack]

---

Wow to that last post, I don't have huge amounts of time so I'll be brief and only address some points:
1-just because you don't accept subjective evidence, even when coorberated doesn't mean there is no evidence, it only means you see no evidence (which in all likely hood would only be materialistic in nature anyway)
2- You should only apply occam's razor when competing hypothesis are equal in other respects, it's not the case here.
3-agreed
4-atheism is simply a belief that there isn't evidence to support the existence of God/gods thusly it is the neutral position it has nothing to do with science other than the equirement for evidence (which is only by similarity)

Not quite:

1. There is no such thing as subjective evidence. Thats 'opinion' not evidence.
2. They are equal.
3. Agreed ?? You cant agree that one if you have no evidence I dont accept your agreement as I dont accept ypou have evidence. See 1.
4. The definition is closer to agnostic than atheist. An atheist has made up their minds usually based on the evidence. I admit some may not be interested in evidence as such they are quite willing to accept the most parsimonious subjective explanation.
That would be there is no God.

1-subjective evidence is supportive of subjective proof. It may not hold any weight for you, but by definition subjective evidence is evidence


2- They're only equal (booth without proof/ evidence) if you deny subjective evidence. Hence the reason I qualify "It's more indicative that God exists than not" with "It's more indicative that God exists than not from the evidence I've been presented and verified"
3-I'm aware that would be a logical contradiction without evidence, just like I'm aware you reject subjective evidence. You're entitled to your opinions, I don't particularly care just answering questions.
4- Agnosticism has nothing to do with belief in God, Agnosticism is simply the the concept of absolute truth is unknowable. You can be both agnostic theist and atheist because the theism/atheism is the subject and the agnostic is method.

1-just because you don't accept subjective evidence, even when coorberated doesn't mean there is no evidence, it only means you see no evidence (which in all likely hood would only be materialistic in nature anyway)

Subjective evidence could be evidence if corroborated. Until then, however, it is a very weak form of evidence, and usually outweighed by masses of observation from past experience (when it comes to things like miracles).

2- You should only apply occam's razor when competing hypothesis are equal in other respects, it's not the case here.

Surely suspension of judgement is the appropriate position, rather than invoking an explanation which raises more questions than it answers.

1- Agreed, but those who believe in a personal God typically also have subjective evidence that coincides. You may feel it's rationalization and biased, and indeed it sometimes is when not proceeded by an actual rational experience from observation.
2- Yes but denial of evidence delves into closed mindedness. An open allowance for all verifiable logical and rational evidence is tantamount to a less-biased approach.

1. Subjective evidence cant be collaborated its subjective than means its a product of your own mind and no one else's its subjective. Look in the dictionary.

No don't. I will relate:

Subjective: arising from ones own mind or feelings !not corresponding or caused by external reality.

In short its a made up idea. The only collaboration can come from those who 'feel' the same way.
Of course that's not collaboration at all. Its not even support, its just people who 'feel' the same.
Not a matter of evidence of any description. Saying god exists because more than one of us believes it isn't enough. Not by along way. You really are desperate.

2. If evidence doesn't exist denial of it is sensible . I do deny subjective evidence as it cant exist by definition of the term 'subjective'.

3. If you did answer the question truthfully would understand it. The truth is no matter what you believe you will try to say black is white if it suits your purpose.
Subjectivity is not evidence Its not based on any evidence, its personal opinion. Have the guts to say it.

4. The agnostics I am talking about are those that claim 'not to know'.

As we are posting on a forum that is focused on the existence or not of a God its reasonable to assume that the agnostics I am talking about don't know about the existence of God and don't claim to know if he or it exists or not.
Your attempt at ignoring that does your argument no good at all. Your just trying to play with semantics.

Face up to the issues. You know as well as I do that agnostics are not convinced in the existence of a God and atheists deny that existence.

Atheists (most of them at least the reasonable ones) don't do that lightly. We are all pressured by society. So most of us do it from a position of science and evidence. I deny the existence of a supernatural being in all its forms as there is no evidence none.

Not to mention one made like a man or vice versa.
Not to mention one who sit back and lets his creations suffer.
Not to mention one who used to demand sacrifice but now isn't so bothered.
Not to mention one who has a son but no wife.
Not to mention one who decided to let his son be crucified to save mankind and failed even though he is supposed to be omnipotent.

Dear me I have mentioned it.[/b]
It seems to be a belief in God is similar to the belief that you can kiss your own arse when clearly you cant?

If you can please present the evidence.
The contortions undertaken by Christians explaining blind belief make such a physical act look simple.

---

from dictionary

---

sub·jec·tive
–adjective
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2.pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3.placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4.Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5.relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
6.pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.

---

And from Webster

---

1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subject: as a obsolete : of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness b : being or relating to a grammatical subject; especially : nominative
2 : of or relating to the essential being of that which has substance, qualities, attributes, or relations
3 a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal — compare objective 1b b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4 a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations> c : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes <a subjective symptom of disease> — compare objective 1c
5 : lacking in reality or substance : illusory

---

1- Let's cherry pick our definitions so they suit our arguments.. This is tiresome. Taking a collective look at all of them it seems like subjective just means relative to an individual agents perceptions. It doesn't prevent individuals from having the same experience it's a frame of reference that's it. Allow me to illustrate, experience is subjective. You and 5 guys all experience a ball flying through the window.The guy in the bathroom doesn't. All material evidence (broken window, ball, etc.) is completely removed/repaired and the guy comes out of the bathroom. How do the 5 of you convince the one that a ball flew through the window? There is no physical objective evidence but all 5 of you saw the exact same thing. In the absence of physical material evidence subjective experience would be the only evidence, and likelihood should be judged based personal perception not pleading from either side. I think we can agree to that.I'm not desperate actually just tired, I've had all these arguments before.

2-With the first sentence I'll agree. However if you take the phrase "subjective evidence" it does exist as evidence because of the word "evidence". It's nature can be either subjective or objective, but you obviously can't see your denial on this. I think I'll have to readdress this after a few days because it seems we're going in circles.

3- I did answer it truthfully but you're sounding ridiculous. If you're the only person who sees a beautiful butterfly in the forest land on a tree and then fly off.. how in the hell could that be objective to anyone else without extras added to the mix. Wait let me beat you to it you can record it on film.. that's objective right? Then you have 2 evidences your objective evidence and the subjective experience of actually seeing it yourself.

4- I think it's obvious that I'm not attempting to ignore or deny anything, merely trying to reason to a common ground.
Bolding by me (I know this still won't get through)

Face up to the issues. You know as well as I do that agnostic atheists are not convinced in the existence of a God and atheists deny that existence.

That's a statement I can then agree to, meanwhile stop putting words in my mouth, and attempting to cherry pick definitions then regurgitate them to me like you're attempting to think for me too. The rest of the post seemed like someone in denial. As far as presenting evidence. I've done it several times on here and if you're that interested you can look it up. Every time I seem to post it the thread derail shortly after or all conversation seems to stop. I've done it 3 times I believe and really don't feel like going over it again. Especially from someone who's arguments seemed riddled with denial for stubbornness sake and appears devoid of any intellectual honesty.

[Thor]

[quote='Thor' pid='86820' dateline='1281712211']
Christian revivals "changed the world"? How? And what evidence do you have that supports this claim?

I guess you didn't even read Franklin's autobiography, let alone Stead on the Wales revival. Without looking it up, what did Franklin say about the effect of Whitefield's preaching?

And none of this answers my question.

Actually Fox, Wesley and Whitefield are substantially responsible for the American colonial democratic spirit, because they gave the lowly a voice no one else did (The evidence is in a recent book)

Let's say you're right... how did any of this "change the world"? At most, it changed one nation.

Ironic how Christianity was an impediment to scientific advancement for centuries, and you want to have Christianity take credit for the Enlghtenment....

Funny it didn't slow Newton down much, or Bacon or Locke when it came to "the physical and moral sciences" according to Jefferson.

Individuals are responsible for the Enlightenment. Religion had nothing to do with it.

Or were you speaking of the few cases where Catholics, totally ignorant of the Bible, slowed it down?

"FEW CASES?" The Catholic Church decreed that any teachings contrary to the Bible were to be considered heresy. This meant that anyone who promoted the idea of a sun centered solar system was risking their life. That's not "slowing down" scientific advancement, that's building a wall in front of it! And it seems you want to put all the blame for this on Catholics. And how were they "totally ignorant of the Bible"? They read the book and came to certain conclusions. The book hasn't changed. What makes their conclusions incorrect?

Not on the scribblings of ancient goat herders.

Who somehow wrote similies like Shakespeare (better ones IMO)

What does poetry have to do with fanciful tales contained in an ancient book of unknown origin?

No, I'm merely taking what the Bible says and running with it.

I noticed you do that only until it doesn't fit your agenda.

Examples?

As when I said "the demons believe and tremble" and had your argument beat, you said it was all made up anyway.

You had my argument beat with some nonsense about "demons believe and tremble"?

So you would never ask "Jesus" to give sight to all the blind people in the world?

No,

So if you were at a prayer gathering and the leader said, "Dear Lord, we ask for your mercy that all the blind people may be given sight", you wouldn't join in?

and come to think of it, what did God get for doing all those miracles for the Israelites?

Nothing. Because this never happened.

A bunch of whining.

So I guess you wouldn't pray for a sick child to have his cancer cured. Because if this happened, the kid would just whine about something later.

So no, just working miracles without demanding anything in return is foolish.

Then "Jesus" is a fool.

"Therefore, I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them." Mark 11:24

So you don't have faith in "Jesus"?

Not much, no. Just enough to believe 95% of the New Testament,

Why not 100%? And if you believe it's 5% in error, how do you know which 5% is wrong? Seems to me that the Bible is an all or nothing proposition.

and that Jesus is the only way, primarily because he hands out righteousness to those who can't meet God's righteous and just standard.

And you know this for a fact.... how?

How can YOU possibly know what is or isn't the will of Jesus?

I do my best,

Which doesn't answer the question.

unlike yourself and about 95% of a world lost in sin, religion or other useless self-help philosophies.

You think I'm "lost"? How do you arrive at that conclusion?

Gee, I don't know.... millions upon millions of converts. The thanks of all the people who were previously blind. Happiness from seeing the joy he has created. It would sure show us atheists a thing or two.

You mean atheists would all serve him and do everything he told his disciples? I think not.

How can you know what atheists would or wouldn't do if they were confronted with absolute proof that a deity does indeed exist? And even if it would have no effect on atheists at all, it would have a HUGE impact on believers.

So.... Jesus shouldn't restore sight to the blind because then people with missing limbs will "whine"? By this logic, doctors who travel to remote areas shouldn't treat anybody because the people they can't treat will whine. Yeah, if EVERYBODY can't be cured, then NOBODY should be cured!

Bad ananlogy.

Actually, it's a very good analogy.

In fact it proves my point.

How do you figure that?

The doctors are working very hard. All I have to do is pray once.

Then why don't you?

So obviously people would be demanding I pray for everything else and calling me cruel if I didn't Right? Just like you are doing. It's a riot.

You're the one who refuses to pray for blind people to be given sight.

So you accept anecdotal bullshit when it supports what you want to believe.

Like virtually all atheists reading Skeptics.org history lessons- where you read total nonsense about who led the Enlightenment, lap it up and say "we make fair and rational judgements.

Believers were instrumental in leading the Enlightenment. Christianity had nothing to do with it.

It's frightening to think you are the "rational" and "fair" members of society. It means we are more lost than even I thought. You know its amazing how many people you have to accuse of lying to make your case. I don't have to do that at all.

Where have I accused anyone of lying? I have asked for evidence to back up absurd claims.....

but when the Bible is questioned you want to impose courtroom standards?

Why not? Wouldn't that produce a far more more objective evaluation of the truth?

Okay, let's try it. You think the story of Jesus as contained in the Bible is true. He really was born of a virgin, walked on water, healed the sick with a touch of his hand, fed thousands with a basket of fish and rose up from the dead. We are now in a courtroom.

Prove it.

You would "probably" do whatever Jesus asked? Still hedging I see.

Absolutely! I don't know what crazy thing I might be asked to do. What if Jesus told me to kill somebody? Should I do it? Would you kill someone if Jesus told you to?

[RAD]

And none of this answers my question.

No it means you can't be bothered to read the history of revival and how it changed the world. It would take you a month non-stop anyway

Let's say you're right... how did any of this "change the world"? At most, it changed one nation.

Right, so they mrely got us the U.S. And the U.S. Constitution didn't change the world? Hmmm Since without the U.S. we'd all be Nazi's or Communists, or dead, I think the world is better in ways few appreciate. I know atheists flocked to Russia from the U.S. when the Communists said they would make a paradise, but they found out atheist leaders don't handle skepticism well, and came back. BTW, was it secular humanists who elected Washington and Jefferson and Madison, or Christians who believed in stuff like the resurrection??

Individuals are responsible for the Enlightenment. Religion had nothing to do with it.

I thought you said Christians were an impediment to it? I see, so if some Christian was an impediment, religion had something to do with it. If not, then it had nothing to do with it. Have I got your position right now?

And it seems you want to put all the blame for this on Catholics. And how were they "totally ignorant of the Bible"? They read the book and came to certain conclusions. The book hasn't changed. What makes their conclusions incorrect?

No they didn't read it. There were millions of Christians with no Bibles. When they read it the world changed. Virtually all Enlightenment social activists and political movers were either Chrsitians or lived by Jesus' teachings, including Jefferson. Luther never saw a Bible throughout his theological training schooling, and had to go find one, a Latin version, in a library. (And even he got some of it wrong)

He came to some conclusions alright.

Who somehow wrote similies like Shakespeare (better ones IMO)

What does poetry have to do with fanciful tales contained in an ancient book of unknown origin?

Similies are prose as well. You just made a straw man argument btw

Now check out a couple of statements of yours and tell me what reason I have to think you are sincere:

No, I'm merely taking what the Bible says and running with it.

Then when I asked you what good it did for God to work miracles for the Israelites, you said

It didn't happen

Like I said, if the Bible fits your agenda you use it, and if it doesn't fit, it didn't happen.

Is that how you wish to debate? If so, I would be wasting my time. Right?

[Thor]

[quote='Thor' pid='87412' dateline='1281984591']

And none of this answers my question.

No it means you can't be bothered to read the history of revival and how it changed the world. It would take you a month non-stop anyway

No, it means you didn't answer my question. If you asked me a question and I told you to read the complete works of Richard Dawkins, would you consider that to be an adequate response? How about giving a synopsis? Referencing certain passages? What would you think of a debating team that, instead of making an argument, tossed a book at their opponents and said, "Read this!"?

Let's say you're right... how did any of this "change the world"? At most, it changed one nation.

Right, so they mrely got us the U.S. And the U.S. Constitution didn't change the world?

Wow! Now THERE'S a stretch! The US Constitution was the result of "revivals"? Because the Constitution never mentions a deity.

Hmmm Since without the U.S. we'd all be Nazi's or Communists, or dead, I think the world is better in ways few appreciate.

The US certainly changed the world for the better. Trying to connect the achievements of the nation with "revivals" is a stretch of gargantuan proportions.

I know atheists flocked to Russia from the U.S. when the Communists said they would make a paradise, but they found out atheist leaders don't handle skepticism well, and came back.

And this has to do with a tyrannical form of government. It has nothing to do with "atheism". I must also point out that theocracies are probably the most repressive, cruel and intolerant societies on the planet.

BTW, was it secular humanists who elected Washington and Jefferson and Madison, or Christians who believed in stuff like the resurrection??

What is this supposed to prove? If you want to go down this road, then you have to blame Christians for the election of scoundrels, thieves, incompetents, racists and perverts. And I'll bet that would be a longer list than Washington, Jefferson and Madison.

Individuals are responsible for the Enlightenment. Religion had nothing to do with it.

I thought you said Christians were an impediment to it?

I said Christianity was an impediment to scientific advancement. You don't see the difference?

I see, so if some Christian was an impediment, religion had something to do with it.

I guess you just don't get it. Christianity was an impediment because the church had the power to dictate the law. And their laws put up roadblocks to scientific advancement. Also, if some Christian was an impediment because they acted as the church demanded then, yes, the religion must be held responsible.

If not, then it had nothing to do with it. Have I got your position right now?

Apparently not.

And it seems you want to put all the blame for this on Catholics. And how were they "totally ignorant of the Bible"? They read the book and came to certain conclusions. The book hasn't changed. What makes their conclusions incorrect?

No they didn't read it.

NOBODY read the Bible? Not even the priests, bishops, church leaders, etc.? They didn't read from the book during mass?

There were millions of Christians with no Bibles.

But surely there were Bibles in existence....

When they read it the world changed.

Really? Slavery still existed. "Witches" were still prosecuted. Governments were as tyrannical as ever.

Virtually all Enlightenment social activists and political movers were either Chrsitians or lived by Jesus' teachings, including Jefferson.

So what? Did Christianity call for a representative form of government? And Jefferson did not believe that Jesus was divine. And, since Jefferson was a slaveholder, either Jesus condoned slavery or Jefferson did not live by Jesus's teachings. Which is it?

What does poetry have to do with fanciful tales contained in an ancient book of unknown origin?

Similies are prose as well. You just made a straw man argument btw

How is my question a straw man argument?

Now check out a couple of statements of yours and tell me what reason I have to think you are sincere:

No, I'm merely taking what the Bible says and running with it.

Then when I asked you what good it did for God to work miracles for the Israelites, you said

It didn't happen

Like I said, if the Bible fits your agenda you use it, and if it doesn't fit, it didn't happen.

Interesting how you think the Bible can "fit the agenda" of an atheist. You would think that if the Bible was the work of a perfect being that it couldn't possibly be used to support the position of someone who doesn't believe it to be true. You would think the Bible would be without flaws, perfectly understandable and that it would hold up to scrutiny. But it is none of these things. Gee, I wonder why...

[everythingafter]

Then how can anyone not in the same religion as others, deny an existance of any other God or Gods from other religions? I'm not saying that any of them are real, but religious people claim that faith (or a form of faith) is truly what tells them that there is a sort of a God or Gods regardless of evidence. It's probably the matter of simply choosing which one to follow, but then how would you know that you've got the right choice? I don't think it'll matter because they all probably have the same reasons.

Yeah, it's basically because the Bible and preachers tell them that the billions of people practicing Islam and Judaism and Hinduism are wrong and the other religions (to a lesser extent Hinduism, I believe) tell their believers the same thing. That applies to your run-of-the-mill-just-because-my-parents-are-believers-and-I-haven't-had-an-independent-thought-in-my-life sort of theists. The smarter believers (if there are degrees) tend to use a cumulative sort of reasoning (mostly fallacious) that says that <i>one</i> specific argument doesn't carry the day but the accumulation of these very badly reasoned arguments creates a stronger case. I don't believe many of them entertain the question of "How do you know you've made the right choice?" because of the utter certainty of <i>their</i> choice. Many terrible crusades, witch hunts, slave beatings and bloodlettings in the name of religion later ...

[Entropist]

Actually Fox, Wesley and Whitefield are substantially responsible for the American colonial democratic spirit, because they gave the lowly a voice no one else did (The evidence is in a recent book)

Well, perhaps the white lowly at any rate.

[Scarface]

Then how can anyone not in the same religion as others, deny an existance of any other God or Gods from other religions? I'm not saying that any of them are real, but religious people claim that faith (or a form of faith) is truly what tells them that there is a sort of a God or Gods regardless of evidence. It's probably the matter of simply choosing which one to follow, but then how would you know that you've got the right choice? I don't think it'll matter because they all probably have the same reasons.

If you ask people in different religions if their god is the same god as in other religions, you'll find that the proportion which would say yes as opposed to no is more or less the same as the proportion of atheists who say that they don't have a belief regarding god as opposed to those who say that they do. In other words most would say yes, it's the same god.

Religious people don't argue over which god is the true god, what they may argue about is god's attributes. But they are in agreement that it's the same god. Muslims and christians and jews all acknowledge the same god, but differently, and hindus have different "gods" which are, in fact, according to their belief, aspects of the same one god, which they themselves would tell you is the christian / muslim / jewish god. The names differ because the language differ. Allah means "the god".

It's the same with anything else. You and I might disagree on something to do with the earth, but we'd never dream of saying that we're talking about two different earths.

[Paul the Human]

Religious people don't argue over which god is the true god, what they may argue about is god's attributes. But they are in agreement that it's the same god.

fr0d0 (a Christian) might disagree with you on that one. Here is an entire thread dedicated the whether or not Allah and the Christian god are one and the same... between a Christian and an ex-Muslim.

Click Me

[Scarface]

I'm sure fr0d0 would agree with me and most religious people that ultimately we're talking about the same god, and I notice that you haven't disagreed.

[Paul the Human]

Me? I think all gods are the same: Make-believe. As for fr0d0 agreeing with you, that will be up to him, but he certainly doesn't seem to in that thread I linked you to. Maybe you should jump in there and ask him.