The real religion?

[Foxaèr]

I'd say good evidence of practicing the "real religion" is the presence of joy in your soul.

That is evidence, son. Grow the fuck up.

[Foxaèr]

What is the purpose of religion if not internal harmony with God and creation?

Perhaps if you actually studied religion and its history.

Clearly, you have not.

[Foxaèr]

What is the purpose of religion if not internal harmony with God and creation?

Perhaps if you actually studied religion and its history.

Clearly, you have not.

[account_inactive]

I'd say good evidence of practicing the "real religion" is the presence of joy in your soul.

That is evidence, son.  Grow the fuck up.

Savage.

[bennyboy]

Then I'd say that you have no idea what "good evidence" actually is.

What is the purpose of religion if not internal harmony with God and creation?

The presence of joy is at least a good indicator of the absence of cognitive dissonance and existential angst.

Since many of our world views are about the self, then the surrender of the self to a supposed greater power can allow dropping a lot of weight.  If you no longer need to take personal responsibility, if you really believe everything is taken care of for you, then this certainly can allow for a sense of peace.

But this says more about human psychology than about the existence of this or that god or spiritual idea.  Allow me if I may:

"I know I cannot succeed alone, for I did not create myself.  I therefore surrender my entire being to the Sun, the source of all life on Earth.  I surrender my self to the dirt, from whence I came and to which I will soon enough return.  The energy and body through which I live are borrowed, and I surrender myself to the Great Lender."

See, even an atheist could do something like this, and achieve harmony as just a child of the Universe.  No Sky Daddy required.

[SteveII]

Actually coming to earth and spending 33 years is one obvious answer to your question.

Yeah, just like the claim that Muhammad was visited by the Archangel Gabriel in the cave and received the Koran is evidence for the truth of Islam.

Sorry, but your claim that the stories in the Bible are evidence, is laughable. I'm sure this has been said to you many times, but the Bible is not evidence for your god, it IS the claim.

How do you continue to make the same fallacious arguments over and over?

Is it lack of intelligence or lack of intellectual honesty?

If you think Muhammad's personal revelation is the same as having real churches across the Roman empire, containing real people believing the events were real just a few years following Jesus death, then the 22 letters from 4 authors to those churches confirming their beliefs about Jesus, and finally 4 editors that obviously used eyewitness and source documents to write 5 thorough accounts of the events within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, then you are approaching this analysis without any intellectual integrity. 

Why isn't the life of Jesus and the NT evidence of God revealing himself? The "IS the claim" game is old and tired and is just nonsense. Of course historical events are written down and that's how we know today what happened 200, 2000, 4000 years ago. The first century thought they were accurate accounts of real events. Why don't you think they were accurate, or in your words, 'laughable' (forget your word games)?

[LadyForCamus]

Yeah, just like the claim that Muhammad was visited by the Archangel Gabriel in the cave and received the Koran is evidence for the truth of Islam.

Sorry, but your claim that the stories in the Bible are evidence, is laughable. I'm sure this has been said to you many times, but the Bible is not evidence for your god, it IS the claim.

How do you continue to make the same fallacious arguments over and over?

Is it lack of intelligence or lack of intellectual honesty?

If you think Muhammad's personal revelation is the same as having real churches across the Roman empire, containing real people believing the events were real just a few years following Jesus death, then the 22 letters from 4 authors to those churches confirming their beliefs about Jesus, and finally 4 editors that obviously used eyewitness and source documents to write 5 thorough accounts of the events within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, then you are approaching this analysis without any intellectual integrity. 

Why isn't the life of Jesus and the NT evidence of God revealing himself? The "IS the claim" game is old and tired and is just nonsense. Of course historical events are written down and that's how we know today what happened 200, 2000, 4000 years ago. The first century thought they were accurate accounts of real events. Why don't you think they were accurate, or in your words, 'laughable' (forget your word games)?

Anybody else's head hurt?

[Crossless2.0]

If you think Muhammad's personal revelation is the same as having real churches across the Roman empire, containing real people believing the events were real just a few years following Jesus death, then the 22 letters from 4 authors to those churches confirming their beliefs about Jesus, and finally 4 editors that obviously used eyewitness and source documents to write 5 thorough accounts of the events within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, then you are approaching this analysis without any intellectual integrity. 

Why isn't the life of Jesus and the NT evidence of God revealing himself? The "IS the claim" game is old and tired and is just nonsense. Of course historical events are written down and that's how we know today what happened 200, 2000, 4000 years ago. The first century thought they were accurate accounts of real events. Why don't you think they were accurate, or in your words, 'laughable' (forget your word games)?

Anybody else's head hurt?

[bennyboy]

If you think Muhammad's personal revelation is the same as having real churches across the Roman empire, containing real people believing the events were real just a few years following Jesus death, then the 22 letters from 4 authors to those churches confirming their beliefs about Jesus, and finally 4 editors that obviously used eyewitness and source documents to write 5 thorough accounts of the events within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses, then you are approaching this analysis without any intellectual integrity. 

Why isn't the life of Jesus and the NT evidence of God revealing himself? The "IS the claim" game is old and tired and is just nonsense. Of course historical events are written down and that's how we know today what happened 200, 2000, 4000 years ago. The first century thought they were accurate accounts of real events. Why don't you think they were accurate, or in your words, 'laughable' (forget your word games)?

And what year, exactly, are those letters dated? What's "just a few years" and how do you know, exactly?

You'd think if a dude was walking on freaking water, healing crowds of sick people, and doing water-to-wine party tricks, the Roman literature would be FULL FULL FULL of mention of him. Instead, he's pretty much completely absent except by those who formed his church decades after his supposed death.

Are you sure the document evidence is as solid as you think it is? Cuz I'm pretty sure it's not.

[SteveII]

I didn't assert anything and your assertion is just a theory. In what possible way could you prove any of that? Even if there is no God, there may very well be another reason why we are predisposed to the supernatural.

You didn't assert anything?  Do you want to link the many, many, many unsupportable assertions you've made in this thread?

The difference between my speculation about superstitious behavior is that it's a connection of very basic principles: animals want to live, they have instincts, and the instincts cause behaviors.  I'm not bothered by the possibility that it may be wrong, so long as in the meantime I'm making sensible inferences.

The same is easily observed in humans.  Humans have ALL KINDS of superstitious beliefs, only some of which are Christian religious.  But their beliefs are a response to how they feel, i.e. their instincts.  You yourself have said that among the many benefits of the Christian religion are how it makes you feel: deep peace, etc. and that Christianity is therefore a special snowflake, since no other religion makes people feel the way the Christian religion does.  This is an ASSERTION, by the way.

At any rate, fine, you have feelings.  How do you go from "I have feelings" to "the feelings are about God," if you cannot establish that God exists except BY your feelings?  Where's that point of convergence that lets you bridge from one to the other?

You might want to look up a picture of a circle, and then ask yourself if your circular path is likely to lead to forward progress in your thinking.

You responded to a comment where I mentioned that psychologist believe there is a god-shaped hole in our psyche. Not my assertion. I did assert other things. You didn't respond to those however. 

The point of the conversation about 'is belief in God properly basic' (as opposed to just basic) centers around the fact that it is an intuition (not inferred--based on evidence) that God exists and therefore is warranted (as opposed to justified) to believe so. They only way to defeat this position is to show this belief to be false. Simply proposing another way this intuition may have developed is not a defeater. 

The conclusion of this line of reasoning is that you (the atheist) are not justified in complaining that a Christian's belief in God is irrational. While there is other evidence, none is required if belief in God is 'properly basic'.