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

[Thor]

Well actually the illegitimate birth rate went down too.

Source?

And even if true, what does this prove? Did the people pray for the illegitimate birth rate to go down? Because if not, this is evidence of NOTHING.

Anecdotally the revival also saw judges wearing white gloves because they had nothing to do, troubled boys wanting to go to church, (which is why the illegitimate birth rate went down probably), miners taxing themselves to build libraries and confusing the pit ponies with their curse-free speech

Your problem with this entire paragraph begins with the first word. "Anecdotally" basically means, "I have no real evidence, but here are unconfirmed reports from unknown people..." Try writing a college paper using "anecdotal evidence" as your sources.

I guess you never read what W.T. Stead said about the revival and how it changed the whole country of Wales and much of England.

"Changed the whole country?" How? Did poverty suddenly disappear? Did crime suddenly vanish? Did child prostitution suddenly cease to exist? Did blind people suddenly have sight? Did hunger come to an end?

I read everything, but perhaps your faith in Lord Self isn't strong enough yet to go read about Christian revivals and how they changed the world,

Christian revivals "changed the world"? How? And what evidence do you have that supports this claim?

how Christians led the Enlightenment,

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

You know, so you can make a fair, balanced and rational appraisal?

My conclusions are always fair, balanced and rational. Because they are based on evidence, reason and logic. Not on the scribblings of ancient goat herders.

Anything, including revivals larger than Jesus ever saw. So the "greater works" have clearly been done, and Jesus was right. You are simply demanding the works be what you personally define as a greater work,

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

and there is obviously baiting involved.

HONK! HONK! HONK!

There goes my rationalization meter again...

One reason I would never ask for him to heal all the blind people of the world

So you would never ask "Jesus" to give sight to all the blind people in the world? I guess you'd also never ask him to feed all the hungry people. Or restore the ability to walk to all the paralyzed people. Or restore sanity to all the mentally ill people. That's pretty callous of you.

(besides my lack of faith)

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

is that I don't believe it's his will.

How can YOU possibly know what is or isn't the will of Jesus? How would you feel if you meet Jesus in heaven and he says, "You know, I would have given sight to all the blind people on Earth if only you had asked."?

What would that gain him?

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.

People whining he didn't grow out all the missing limbs in the world. Right?

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!

I give the Koran the same credence I give the New Testament,

Then you believe that Allah is the one true god and Mohammed was his prophet?

No you didn't. You said you would believe but you hedged on serving him.

I asked what "serving him" would entail.

That means doing anything he told his disciples to do.

Now that I have an answer...

Will you or not?

If "Jesus" came to me and convinced me that he was truly the man described in the Bible then yes, I probably would do as he requested.

Now, good luck getting "Jesus" to make an appearance at my front door.

It isn't circular reasoning at all.

Using the Bible to prove the Bible is as circular as it gets.

It's a slander/libel case. The rule is you must prove the people you are denigrating, or accusing of making up stories, did what you claim they did.

So you accept anecdotal bullshit when it supports what you want to believe, but when the Bible is questioned you want to impose courtroom standards?

The burden is on the Jesus myther, not the Christian.

BZZZZZZZTTTTT!!!!

The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim. You want to claim the crap in the Bible is true. It is therefore YOUR responsibility to provide supporting evidence for this. If you have none (and you don't) it is entirely reasonable to dismiss your claims as unfounded horseshit. Otherwise, I can claim that the "Wizard of Oz" is a true story.

---

I know exactly what it is, and of course atheists use the Bible itself all the time to disprove it,

Do you mean that we look at the crap that's in the Bible, examine the real world around us, and conclude that there is no evidence that supports the story of Noah's Ark (for example)? Do you mean that we examine all the contradictions in the Bible and conclude that it's far from a "perfect" book? Do you mean that we look at the horrors contained in the Bible and conclude that it is completely inconsistent with the notion of a "loving" deity? Do you mean that we take things into account (like the fact that the gospels were written DECADES after "Jesus" supposedly died) when deciding if there is any truth to it?

Because that would be true.

[Edwardo Piet]

I know exactly what it is, and of course atheists use the Bible itself all the time to disprove it, making your arguments doubly silly and hypocritical.

If you mean disproof by, say, contradictions in the Bible then the logically contradicted part is indeed logically disproved by means of logical contradiction. If you don't mean that then I don't know what you're referring to.

So, do you deny that trying to prove with the Bible is circular reasoning or not? (Note: If you understand what circular reasoning is then you should understand that trying to prove the Bible with the Bible is indeed circular reasoning. Proving 'X', 'Y', 'Z' or whatever with itself whether that be the Bible or anything else, is circular reasoning. If you don't understand that then I don't personally see how you can understand what circular reasoning actually is).

Furthermore, in the above quote you say you know what circular reasoning is, and yet it seems to me that you are indeed committing that fallacy if you think you can prove the Bible with the Bible. You also accuse atheists of committing it, and as I said I don't know what you are referring to. This much you know is I my opinion. But, you also seem to be implying that two wrongs make a right. That any atheists may actually commit the circular reasoning fallacy, that doesn't make it okay if you do it now does it? That would be the fallacy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque.

Why don't you do something intelligent like read Durant's rationale for accepting the Gospels, and then refute his reasoning?

Why do you think that would be intelligent?

Why would I need to refute the Gospels when the Bible can't prove the existence of a supernatural being? When no book whatsoever can give evidence to claims on the matter of existence outside that book, they can only be used as reference at best? What makes you think I'm particularly interested in the Gospels in the first place?

[Peter44]

Incorrect Paul

Faith is the acceptance of information then acted upon. Belief in ignorance would be to believe despite the facts, which is what you seem to be proposing as your own belief.

There is contrary information but faith wins out if you place any merit on positivism. The atheist position exists in light of information to the contrary, and is neutral in outlook.

Your incorrect too.
Faith is the acceptance of 'indoctrination' acted upon.

Its not 'information' because' information' really has to be accurate otherwise its 'misinformation'.

The people who give out this 'misinformation' are not guilty as they received it from other (probably) well meaning theists. Family, church, state etc.

It cant be counted as information is any form as it has no evidence. The most it is is a 'suspicion' by those with a non scientific mind.

The facts are:

1. There is no evidence.
2. That believing in a God requires more answers to the sort of questions asked, creation , reason life after death etc. Not less. It answers nothing.

3. Belief without evidence is not positive in any form it is capitulation to a traditional view and a traditional answer without question or intelligent thought.

4. Atheism is not neutral its positive reliance on a scientific reality to explain issues that were left to primitive superstition. It demands a positive approach before belief takes place.

So in fact you couldnt be more wrong.

Try again.

[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)

[Peter44]

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 definitionis closer to agnostic than atheist. An athiest has made up their minds usually based on the evidence. I admit some may not be intrested in evidence as such they are quite willing to accept themost parsimonious subjective explantion.
That would be there is no God.

[The Omnissiunt One]

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.

[RAD]

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? 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)

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. Or were you speaking of the few cases where Catholics, totally ignorant of the Bible, slowed it down? But that's all you've read about. I understand.

My conclusions are always fair, balanced and rational.Because they are based on evidence, reason and logic.

If that were true, you could distinguish between the Baby and the bathwater, like all the founders did

Not on the scribblings of ancient goat herders.

Who somehow wrote similies like Shakespeare (better ones IMO)

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

There goes my rationalization meter again...

You guys broke mine already. Read my "contradictions" thread if you want to see rationalization gone wild.

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

No, and come to think of it, what did God get for doing all those miracles for the Israelites? A bunch of whining. So no, just working miracles without demanding anything in return is foolish.

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

Not much, no. Just enough to believe 95% of the New Testament, 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. As I said, we haven't really tried Christianity

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

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

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. "The demons believe and tremble." Well at least they tremble.

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. In fact it proves my point. The doctors are working very hard. All I have to do is pray once. 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.

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. 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.

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?

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

[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 definitionis closer to agnostic than atheist. An athiest has made up their minds usually based on the evidence. I admit some may not be intrested in evidence as such they are quite willing to accept themost parsimonious subjective explantion.
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.

[Peter44]

---

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.

[Watson]

Because I only read the OP and don't feel like reading this entire topic:

You are complicating faith in a way that it does not need to be complicated. It is a simple thing, a basic thing. It is not easy, nor is it hard. Faith is a part of you and is something you have, something you do. I don't even know what you mean by 'how every religion says it works' because that just doesn't make sense. Faith is something that most religions teach in their own way, but it is a personal thing and so a religion could not dictate how it works in the first place; only record how it works.