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

[Minimalist]

Well no, we believe in a God who came down here in human form, quite visibly.

And went back up in the sky just like mohammed and the horse he rode in on.

Don't go thinking you are superior to the muslims.....it's the same silly shit.

[RAD]

I think one of the most remarkable things about religion, and Christianity in particular, is how much it has changed over the years. Looking at all of your research it is obvious that there are mountains of "evidence" or philosophies for numerous different religious sects. Even within Christianity blood has been shed for dogmatic differences. Saying that medieval Christians didn't know the word of Jesus or how to handle heretics seems awkward

But it is critical to any logical argument that the enlightenment was led by Christians who were Bible worms, like the Quakers and Methodists. it was said of William Garrison that he "really only read one book, the Bible." Lincoln credited him by name "and the abolitionist people" for ending slavery.

awkward when trying to reconcile with the purpose of Jesus' coming to Earth and the bible being written. Also curious is the constant back and forth between natural discovery and the church's position, with the church mostly rejecting initial claims, only to backtrack them as a gift from God later when their benefits have been proven. Why does God's position flip-flop so much and why are his right hand men so reluctant to accept the way the world works, if God created this universe wouldn't his primary vassals be more open to the truth than not?

Well no, I am simply making what Jesus said the standard, and claiming those who followed his mission statement would be greatly concerned about liberty and oppression.

I make this point because there has been much back and forth on this topic and it has been very intelligent and quite obviously well thought out. It was very interesting to read. However one can make the argument that the amount of change and information available to point to religious progress invalidates your argument of the bible's worth as any kind of divine guide.

No, that's why i pointed to specifics, while you seem to be merely generalizing. In fact I suggested relatively few have ever done what Jesus said, but those who did led the enlightenment, and then I proved it with facts, time frames and quotes rather than mere generalizations. (eg Jesus' own mission statement, how he said to treat heretics, his standard of behavior, etc)

And the church knew very well how to deal with heretics, and were quite capable of knowledge of Jesus' word; I highly recommend you read the Malleus Maleficarum to see what happened to people who questioned the church's authority.

Huh? Jesus said only the angels could separate the wheat from the tares, and to leave the tares alone. So you just proved my point yourself, no? Which makes me want to ask, respectfully, why don't you read it yourself instead of recommending I read periferal books? My educated guess is nobody really read the thing for about 1200 years. There were millions more Christians than Bibles soon after Constantine made Chrsitianity the latest fad religion. The Bible was a decoration for lecturns, basically, and of course people couldn't go up and actually read it. Then they started knocking off anybody who tried to publish it. Right? Medieval Chrsitians were lucky to touch a relic which was probably fake. Luther had to go find a Bible himself, as he never saw one during his training. And even he ignored some portions of it.

The only way to know you've made the right choice is to put your answer through the toughest tests of logic and evidence you can find, if your answer stands up then you can reasonably assume you're at least on the right track, and then you keep testing it, forever and ever without a bias as to keeping it or leaving it if it turns out wrong.

Which is what I did as well as anyone so far it appears.

[ABierman1986]

Not exactly, my point is that Jesus entire reason for coming was to preach God's will to humanity and save them from sin. Then, for thousands of years and up to today people have misinterpreted, misread, and misimplemented the word of Christ so badly that very few have ever followed the word of God? The reason I don't go after your specifics is because they are all the same argument, that the people before them didn't know what the hell Jesus was talking about, but if you would like, each and every one of your specifics is easily picked apart. This is a serious problem with following any sect as true, and urges intensely critical thinking then of any following of Christ that is chosen.

[RAD]

Actually now that you mention it, the only rational way to test Christianity is to diligently test what Jesus actually said and promised, and see if it does what he says it will. E.g he promised "rivers of living water flowing out of his innermost being" to believers. Also, rationally speaking, you would have to dump both your "I was raised Christian" and any simple minded anti-Christian philosophies at least temporarily.

And then, to claim a fully rational investigation, you would have to live by his standard in the sermon on the Mount to know if your life and those around you changed for the better. Correct?

---

Not exactly, my point is that Jesus entire reason for coming was to preach God's will to humanity and save them from sin. Then, for thousands of years and up to today people have misinterpreted, misread, and misimplemented the word of Christ so badly that very few have ever followed the word of God?

According to me and that dummy G.K Chesterton, and then James Madison (who said "the world lays in darkness for the wont of it)" yes, exactly. OK now I see the problem you are having. Again, lets talk specific statements in the sermon on the Mount by Jesus and then you tell me how many Christians follow it. OK? Then we'll move on to what he said to do with heretics, and you tell me when most Chrsitians figured that out.

BTW I thought atheists were big on saying Christians don't practice what they preach. But you are saying they do now?

[ABierman1986]

Again, unfortunately not.

You assume that

A. A rational exploration of Christ's teachings is the only way to see if it does what is promised (ie a better life and this living water you speak of) and that this must be done with an open mind.

This makes sense, it would test whether Christ's teachings are as effective as a good self-help program, but not do a thing about divinity or the logical inconsistencies. Also the word "only" is not true 99.999% of the time.

B. Through this exploration and then using the standard of sermon on the mount you can deduce if your life or the lives of those around you have improved.

Ok sure, there may be a way to develop a comparison and statistically compare the lives of the people around you to the standards of this sermon.

C. If lives are improved, then following Christ's teachings are true and the actual way of Christianity.

Here is where your leap truly fails. The outcome of this type of exploration would only deduce if this lifestyle were a factor in quality of life, there is no reasoning to suggest this lifestyle would have been responsible for the improvement. Also, it doesn't negate alternative possibilities, including physiological changes as an explanation for why this lifestyle is effective as opposed to divinity.

You test does nothing to prove Christianity, or anything else for that matter.

[Minimalist]

Madison also said:

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.

He was right then and he is even more right now.

[RAD]

Again, unfortunately not.

You assume that

A. A rational exploration of Christ's teachings is the only way to see if it does what is promised (ie a better life and this living water you speak of) and that this must be done with an open mind.

This makes sense, it would test whether Christ's teachings are as effective as a good self-help program, but not do a thing about divinity or the logical inconsistencies. Also the word "only" is not true 99.999% of the time.

B. Through this exploration and then using the standard of sermon on the mount you can deduce if your life or the lives of those around you have improved.

Ok sure, there may be a way to develop a comparison and statistically compare the lives of the people around you to the standards of this sermon.

C. If lives are improved, then following Christ's teachings are true and the actual way of Christianity.

Here is where your leap truly fails. The outcome of this type of exploration would only deduce if this lifestyle were a factor in quality of life, there is no reasoning to suggest this lifestyle would have been responsible for the improvement. Also, it doesn't negate alternative possibilities, including physiological changes as an explanation for why this lifestyle is effective as opposed to divinity.

You test does nothing to prove Christianity, or anything else for that matter.

You aren't making much sense. First you admit a statistical comparison could be made, of say, more or less crimes committed, more or less divorces, more or less improved job performance, more or less child abuse, or however you want to do it.

Then you say it means nothing.

What do you mean then by "doesn't prove Christianity"? You need to explain that. The question wasn't about proving Jesus existed, if that's what yo umean. The question is whether it is possible to show to some atheists "rational" (rather subjective) satisfaction whether Christians following the Bible (in fact) improve the world around them. Right?

---

But then again, I trust only a few atheists would be unhappy about the fact that some converted L.A gang members are offering to wash our cars instead of stealing them.

Why don't you try to deconvert them and see how many cars they want to wash for 4 bucks they don't get.

---

Well no, we believe in a God who came down here in human form, quite visibly.

And went back up in the sky just like mohammed and the horse he rode in on.

Don't go thinking you are superior to the muslims.....it's the same silly shit.

Yada yada. Really? Mohammed advocated violence, had critics put to death, never worked a miracle and slept with 12 year olds he met on swings. Meanwhile he got revelations which materially contradicted Roman historical records.

I have more facts to share, but let me ask, do you have any facts to back up these rather pedantic, simplistic and gratuitous assertions of yours?

---

Madison also said:

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect.

He was right then and he is even more right now.

You've been reading too much skeptics.org. The founders, being actual thinkers instead people merely posing as thinkers, always separated the Baby from the dirty bathwater. Hence, like me, Madison hates religion and says the Gospel is still hidden from a world dark "for the wont of it."

It's a deep thought to some I guess, but you see this all through the founders writings- praise for Jesus and disdain for "the Papists." (And disdain for Paine by the way)

Capish?

[Shinylight]

Yada yada. Really? Mohammed advocated violence, had critics put to death, never worked a miracle and slept with 12 year olds he met on swings. Meanwhile he got revelations which materially contradicted Roman historical records.

I'm sorry but when it comes to religious nut-cases it is in fact all the same shit.

They all make ridiculous claims that would leave them branded 'insane' nowadays.

[Edwardo Piet]

@EvF - And I repeat your definition of faith as nothing more than belief without evidence is incorrect. If that's all it was the dictionary would only have that definition, it doesn't. That's the only relevant definition if you're speaking solly scientifically, but theology and science are like oil and water, so why use that definition?

I said

[...] (whether that's evidence altogether or just verifiable evidence)

I have faith that God exists, which leads me to a belief in Christianity.

I'm well aware of that.

I have faith that gravity keeps me on the earth, which leads me to believe I won't float away.

There's not just any old evidence but also scientifically verifiable evidence for that so I don't see why you believe you "have faith" in that.

If you want to say faith is belief without scientific proof then that'd be at least a little more accurate. It's a degree based thing- Proof, belief, faith, nonbelief, hypothesis.

But what use does faith actually have? As I have already asked.

All different aspects have their uses and faith is very usefull.

How?

Calling it blind is an adjective for overly biased or unchecked and is tacked onto many words for the same affect.

I believe it to be blind because I don't see any use in it and it isn't based on anything as far as I know at least. You have failed to show me that it is based on anything (what is it based on?) or how it's useful (you say it's useful, but how?).

Blind ambition, blind rage and blind faith are all instances where unchecked and ignorant practices add connotative destructive power to a word.

I mean blind in the sense of being baseless and useless in itself. As far as I can tell "Faith" is like this by definition so unless you can provide me any reasons how it isn't useless, and how it is based on something then I'm, naturally, sticking to that belief of mine.

[tavarish]

Actually now that you mention it, the only rational way to test Christianity is to diligently test what Jesus actually said and promised, and see if it does what he says it will.

In that case the fastest way to find out would be to kill yourself.

Seriously, this is a horrible way to test this claim, as it is by its very nature unverifiable and subject to countless rationalizations and biases. If this method was valid, you would then have to test all other religious claims by the same merit, which would not only be a wild goose chase, but also a colossal waste of time and energy.

I propose a better solution:

In order to test the claims of Christianity, first define the claims, then produce evidence to support those claims that does not require one to already assume the claims are true. They have to be falsifiable to have any merit.

E.g he promised "rivers of living water flowing out of his innermost being" to believers. Also, rationally speaking, you would have to dump both your "I was raised Christian" and any simple minded anti-Christian philosophies at least temporarily.

Rationally speaking, you'd have to dump your preconceived notions of an afterlife or anything supernatural and revert to things that are demonstrable in order to make a reasonable conclusion that is consistent with reality. The "simple-minded anti-Christian philosophies" are simply observations, that you, with a rational mind, can take into account, if we are truly exploring the boundaries of reason.

And then, to claim a fully rational investigation, you would have to live by his standard in the sermon on the Mount to know if your life and those around you changed for the better. Correct?

No, because you haven't established what "better" is, not to mention your data would be invalidated with the claim that someone else's life got better by believing conflicting doctrines.

According to me and that dummy G.K Chesterton, and then James Madison (who said "the world lays in darkness for the wont of it)" yes, exactly. OK now I see the problem you are having. Again, lets talk specific statements in the sermon on the Mount by Jesus and then you tell me how many Christians follow it. OK? Then we'll move on to what he said to do with heretics, and you tell me when most Chrsitians figured that out.

This reeks of No true Scotsman. The word of Jesus is true, the problem is most Christians aren't real Christians anyway.

First define the term "Christian" in a way that it has general consensus, and go from there.