Why the religious will never admit you won the argument (and why they don't care)

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps. But I'll go with the more obvious answer: people find the message of Christianity more compelling than x religion or none at all. See, your premise seems to be that people are stupid so lets find the real reason.

I doubt they would find it very compelling had it never been presented to them.  I mean really.....? The one depends upon the other.  What kind of objection is this..and to what...my premise that people are stupid that you've just informed -me- of.....

Which asian culture mentioned would have been a branch of the abrahamic faith? You like to cherry pick don't you?

I only asked for clarity.  We can go with the asian angle if you like...because it has no bearing on what I have to say in the matter.  In the interest of that same clarity.... now it's a minority demographic of a minority demographic...of a minority demographic.  Right?  The level of scrutiny is high enough to establish, without any bickering afterwards......that the religion of ones parents is a prime indicator of the religion one will convert to, if one converts, in adulthood.  

Right?

[Veritas_Vincit]

You certainly are painting with a broad brush. 
1. What is obviously untrue about the NT?
2. I have an excellent understanding of critical thinking and a very good understanding of the scientific method, logic and reasoning. Are this things supposed to prevent my belief in God? What is a "very narrow view of science"? 
3. Are you a well-informed atheist? There really aren't logical fallacies in those arguments you are talking about. The only one's who think there are logical fallacies are atheists that keep telling each other that. Most of these arguments are centuries old and philosophers would have dismissed them long ago if that were the case. 
4. Do you know how life on earth came about? I wasn't aware that anyone knew.
5. You mistake "nones" for those without a belief. Those are people who do not identify with an organized religion but very much believe in something. You should be looking for population stats on atheists. They are are still struggling.
6. Opinion that is only even remotely true if you through in muslim terrorism. Painting with a broad brush again. 
It would be nice if you could give concrete examples why you don't think I am correct instead of remaining vague and generalizing almost everything.

Thank you for your message, I will answer you point by point:

1. I assume NT means New Testament? The numerous contradictions between the gospel accounts for a start. Then there's the lack of ANY historical evidence outside of the Bible for the life of Jesus (the one single passage in Josephus is considered by scholars to have been a fake.)
2. Yes, this is a generalization - for example many Christians and Muslims disbelieve evolution, but anyone who has studied evolution knows that it is a fact, the term 'theory' in science has a different meaning and does not mean 'hypothesis'. Logically it is unreasonable to believe that a God exists until it has been demonstrated to exist, and since no demonstration has been made, it's an unreasonable position. However, most people don't think about it that seriously. 
3. I wish they had been dismissed long ago, since they have all been repeatedly debunked. They aren't the real reasons most people hold on to their beliefs anyway, which is why most religious people don't really care that they are debunked. But they are false - name any one and I will show you. 
4. I have an understanding of what science currently holds as the best explanation for the origins of life and the evolution of life to its present form - and enough to know that, for example, Creationism is utter garbage. 
5. I put this down to the fact that we are still in the dark ages of civilization, still racked with superstition and only half a chromosome away from a chimpanzee... but for people who actually care about whether what they believe is true regardless of whether it is what they want to believe or what would be nice to believe, then we have some hope. 
6. Concrete examples of harm caused by religion I assume you mean? Excluding Islamic Jihad? Ok:
 - The Catholic Church - sheltering pedophile priests from legal justice; allying with the Nazi party and fascism in the 20th Century - the Konkordat; their stance on abortion and contraception in AIDs riddled Africa saying condoms are worse than AIDs or that they help spread it. 
- The Archbishop of Cantebury, the Pope and other religious leaders world wide who, when people were murdered on the streets of Paris, said the problem was with Blasphemy - for SHAME. 
- Christians in the USA trying to teach Intelligent Design psydoscientific creationist garbage to children in schools
- The forced genital mutilation of children in Jewish and Muslim communities
- Homophobia of the kind that inspires a repressed homosexual to shoot up a gay club, of which religion is the main source...

Need I go on?

[madog]

•  
  

http://www1.cbn.com/spirituallife/why-ar...g-to-islam

Not the point at all, but as relevant as your arguments 

[SteveII]

Thank you for your message, I will answer you point by point:

1. I assume NT means New Testament? The numerous contradictions between the gospel accounts for a start. Then there's the lack of ANY historical evidence outside of the Bible for the life of Jesus (the one single passage in Josephus is considered by scholars to have been a fake.)
2. Yes, this is a generalization - for example many Christians and Muslims disbelieve evolution, but anyone who has studied evolution knows that it is a fact, the term 'theory' in science has a different meaning and does not mean 'hypothesis'. Logically it is unreasonable to believe that a God exists until it has been demonstrated to exist, and since no demonstration has been made, it's an unreasonable position. However, most people don't think about it that seriously. 
3. I wish they had been dismissed long ago, since they have all been repeatedly debunked. They aren't the real reasons most people hold on to their beliefs anyway, which is why most religious people don't really care that they are debunked. But they are false - name any one and I will show you. 
4. I have an understanding of what science currently holds as the best explanation for the origins of life and the evolution of life to its present form - and enough to know that, for example, Creationism is utter garbage. 
5. I put this down to the fact that we are still in the dark ages of civilization, still racked with superstition and only half a chromosome away from a chimpanzee... but for people who actually care about whether what they believe is true regardless of whether it is what they want to believe or what would be nice to believe, then we have some hope. 
6. Concrete examples of harm caused by religion I assume you mean? Excluding Islamic Jihad? Ok:
 - The Catholic Church - sheltering pedophile priests from legal justice; allying with the Nazi party and fascism in the 20th Century - the Konkordat; their stance on abortion and contraception in AIDs riddled Africa saying condoms are worse than AIDs or that they help spread it. 
- The Archbishop of Cantebury, the Pope and other religious leaders world wide who, when people were murdered on the streets of Paris, said the problem was with Blasphemy - for SHAME. 
- Christians in the USA trying to teach Intelligent Design psydoscientific creationist garbage to children in schools
- The forced genital mutilation of children in Jewish and Muslim communities
- Homophobia of the kind that inspires a repressed homosexual to shoot up a gay club, of which religion is the main source...

Need I go on?

1. The contradiction of the gospels are minor and expected. If there were no contradictions that would be evidence against them being true. Most scholars (including non-Christian) believe that Jesus existed, was baptized, and was crucified. The biggest piece of evidence that atheist constantly ignore is the fact there was a thriving church all across the Roman Empire within 20 years of Jesus who understood the claims of Jesus to be true--before the NT was even written. But that really doesn't matter because you said "obviously untrue". There could have been any other historical event with NO written evidence and you would have not used the phrase "obviously untrue". What did you mean? 
2. Why isn't the NT evidence that God exists? If you believe the facts of the NT, it is more than reasonable to conclude God exists. 
3. I've been wanting to discuss the ontological argument. Start another thread if you like. Use Plantinga or WLC's formulation since they are the more modern. Debunk away.
4. You seem to be hedging. Nothing in Christianity hangs on a literal interpretation of Gen 1. 
5. You seem to think that your generation has some new information that was not previously available and your hope is since this message is true it will make headway against the "dark ages of civilization". There is nothing new and contrary to your hope, atheism is not sweeping the globe.
6. Your problems are with people. The NT is the basis for Christianity (which is the only religion I will defend). Anything not in there was added by men. And regarding those teachings, they might very well bring conflict  of opinion (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) but they don't, in themselves, bring suffering. If suffering results, it is because of men's actions and/or a failure to apply the other teachings of the NT properly.On the other hand, the good Christianity has done in the last two millennium is incalculable.

[Jehanne]

Religious people don't actually believe for the reasons they give in defence of their faith. 

There are some really good surveys online which you should just "google".  For instance, when a poster uses the words "absolutely certain" or "nearly so", the belief in the literalness Genesis drops below 10%.  Fundamentalist Christians are full of doubt about their religion.  I know this to be so, because I was, 30 years ago, a fundamentalist Baptist Christian.

[madog]

Steve11 wrote: quote .....  "If there were no contradictions that would be evidence against them being true."


We are giving you a nobel prize because of the contradictions ... Had you included no contradictions we would have used that to prove your theory to be false .... 

[Veritas_Vincit]

1. The contradiction of the gospels are minor and expected. If there were no contradictions that would be evidence against them being true. Most scholars (including non-Christian) believe that Jesus existed, was baptized, and was crucified. The biggest piece of evidence that atheist constantly ignore is the fact there was a thriving church all across the Roman Empire within 20 years of Jesus who understood the claims of Jesus to be true--before the NT was even written. But that really doesn't matter because you said "obviously untrue". There could have been any other historical event with NO written evidence and you would have not used the phrase "obviously untrue". What did you mean? 

I would agree there is a good chance that at least one Jesus character existed, actually there are accounts of many very similar legendary preachers and saviours around at the time. But does that mean what he said was true? No. Does it mean he was the son of a God? No - and first you'd have to demonstrate that there is a God. Mormonism and Scientology spread like wildfire, does that make them true? No, they are both crazy cults. 

2. Why isn't the NT evidence that God exists? If you believe the facts of the NT, it is more than reasonable to conclude God exists. 

OK, technically you can call it 'evidence' but it is bad evidence, hopelessly bad. All we have in the Bible is supposed eye-witness testimony, from accounts that don't match up, which are copies of copies of translations of copies with no originals, relating to events taking place 2000 years ago - from a time and culture with a world view so narrow that you'll struggle to find a person alive today who is as ignorant as the most educated person then. You can get eye-witnesses alive today who will tell you about their UFO abductions, you can have multiple witnesses with stories that match up. It doesn't mean there are aliens visiting the planet! It doesn't prove a thing. 

3. I've been wanting to discuss the ontological argument. Start another thread if you like. Use Plantinga or WLC's formulation since they are the more modern. Debunk away.

Game on ;-)

4. You seem to be hedging. Nothing in Christianity hangs on a literal interpretation of Gen 1. 

Not hedging, it's just that there are many variations of Christianity, and for many people it does - the question would be, what do you believe about it?

5. You seem to think that your generation has some new information that was not previously available and your hope is since this message is true it will make headway against the "dark ages of civilization". There is nothing new and contrary to your hope, atheism is not sweeping the globe.

Standing upright is a difficult evolutionary shift. You think Hitchens and Dawkins could have come out at said what they said 100 years ago? We're making progress, it will take generations but a humanity that is free from superstition and magical thinking is a cause worth working for. 

6. Your problems are with people. The NT is the basis for Christianity (which is the only religion I will defend). Anything not in there was added by men. And regarding those teachings, they might very well bring conflict  of opinion (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) but they don't, in themselves, bring suffering. If suffering results, it is because of men's actions and/or a failure to apply the other teachings of the NT properly.On the other hand, the good Christianity has done in the last two millennium is incalculable.

I completely disagree. This is what I've recently learned is the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. You can't tell me that those thing had nothing to do with Christianity, because who are you to say that they aren't 'real Christians'? They would disagree with you. The Bible instructs all of those things that I listed, it is the literal word of God. Are you saying you know better than your God? They aren't doing this in the name of  religion, they are doing it as a doctrinal teaching mandated by the holy scriptures of the religion.

The God in your Bible explicitly instructs human beings to commit genocide, to commit murder, that they can enslave other people and own them as property [Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6 & 20-21] that they should kill gay men [Leviticus 20:13], witches, wizards, adulterers [Leviticus 20:10], unbelievers [2 Chronicles 15:12-13. The same God wipes out most of the world's population [Noah's flood]. This is EVIL.

---

[Veritas_Vincit]

In response to your challenge I have put a new threat in the Religion Forum on the Ontological Argument with a video of William Lane Craig delivering it, the argument written as a syllogism and a premise by premise critique. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

[Mister Agenda]

In your opinion. You seem to reflect the same flaws you are trying to point out in Veritas.

Which would be?

Density comes to mind.

[RoadRunner79]

Which would be?

Density comes to mind.

Thanks... But that was entirely in helpful