Our theists of all labels please answer....

[Harry Nevis]

Atheism doesn't answer any questions. It's lack of belief in answers. That is all, right?

No.

[Cyberman]

Correct. It's the withholding of belief in theistic cliams until the burden of proof is met. Or more usually, even acknowledged.

[Harry Nevis]

Oh, sure...'Cause the gobbleygook MK sucks up is the Really, Really, Real Deal.
Ha, ha....So, say ALL you motherfuckers.

Got anything BESIDES your stupid feelings/dumb-ass poetry, that justifies your claiming ultimate supremacy and "truthiness" over CL's brand of Catholic Voodoo?

I have a lot of evidence. A lot that I have not shown. But let me know when you are interested. Every thread that I begin to talk about a bit of these proofs, people, spiral out of control to demanding proof for God in the first place.

No, you don't. You have nothing but assertions and babbling posts.

---

You said to discuss with other faiths. I am saying we all agree in the need of such figures...so then I reasoned to them, one of many reasons I believe the Quran is accurate and true.

---

YEP, BINGO and that is my point. So again, if that is the case that all religions believe in the need, then what neutral filter do humans have that everyone can use to determine what is subjective opinion vs universal fact?

Reason. Reason with genuine honest reflection always leads to the truth, if it slips, it will know it slipped eventually because it is humble enough to recognize it's faults.

---

YEP, BINGO and that is my point. So again, if that is the case that all religions believe in the need, then what neutral filter do humans have that everyone can use to determine what is subjective opinion vs universal fact?

Reason. Reason with genuine honest reflection always leads to the truth, if it slips, it will know it slipped eventually because it is humble enough to recognize it's faults.

It's not working for you.

---

Why ask for reasons if you are going to simply dismiss them and not discuss them?

Seems like he did discuss them.  You just think they're worth more attention then they actually are.

---

From this thread and repeated posts found elsewhere, Brian37 has shown no interest in why theists hold the beliefs they do. Instead he foolishly thinks the plurality of religions, sects and denominations is a incontrovertible defeater, which of course it is not. It's like him saying that a birthday party never happened just because the guests don't completely agree on who attended, whether the cake was chocolate, or if there was a pinata.

Except, of course, that the birthday person is known to exist, we can find out with certainty what flavor of cake it was, and there are first hand eye witnesses to the party.

Other than that, fine analogy.

Sigh.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It's like him saying that a birthday party never happened just because the guests don't completely agree on who attended, whether the cake was chocolate, or if there was a pinata.

Except, of course, that the birthday person is known to exist, we can find out with certainty what flavor of cake it was, and there are first hand eye witnesses to the party.

Well, let's strain the analogy a little, in an obviously leading way...

Suppose the birthday party was supposedly held in the early 1820's in Sri Lanka. Now let's say that the only reason people know about it is because:

a) 3 or 4 people wrote about it in unsigned diaries passed down by some descendants of the participants.
b) The details of the diaries vary but they all mention that it happened on a boat.
c) Several old birthday cards to the celebrant have been found.
d) A well-know explorer made fleeting reference to the party..
e) The diaries all tell the story of a rich guest lost a priceless diamond necklace into the water.
f) It is well known that treasure hunters have been trying to find the necklace since the supposed party happened.

So did that party actually happen and is it reasonable to believe there is lost a priceless necklace?

[Brian37]

Except, of course, that the birthday person is known to exist, we can find out with certainty what flavor of cake it was, and there are first hand eye witnesses to the party.

Well, let's strain the analogy a little, in an obviously leading way...

Suppose the birthday party was supposedly held in the early 1820's in Sri Lanka. Now let's say that the only reason people know about it is because:

a) 3 or 4 people wrote about it in unsigned diaries passed down by some descendants of the participants.
b) The details of the diaries vary but they all mention that it happened on a boat.
c) Several old birthday cards to the celebrant have been found.
d) A well-know explorer made fleeting reference to the party..
e) The diaries all tell the story of a rich guest lost a priceless diamond necklace into the water.
f) It is well known that treasure hunters have been trying to find the necklace since the supposed party happened.

So did that party actually happen and is it reasonable to believe there is lost a priceless necklace?

1. A history of making claims does not make the claim true. Other religions have their own histories of making claims.
2. Real people and real places do not make magic claims true. Other religions also can quote their real people and real places.

You are not making anything but an apology, and is hardly neutral nor nothing we don't see from people with other religions.

---

And not since the beginning of this thread has anyone who has tried to point to a club/writing has been able to answer "Why do you feel the need to believe" without pointing to the direction they want to point.

Neutrality is when you don't try to insert your own personal bias into a neutral method.

[RoadRunner79]

I never get a good response from anyone of any label. I really want to see anyone, answer the following without quoting their club or book or holy person. This I am inviting anyone any Muslim or Christian or Buddhist or Hindu, anyone. 

Consider the following and THINK hard before you respond.

The question is not "Why" 

But

"Why do you feel the need to buy your position over any other" And I don't want to hear "My club" I want your answer coming from you, don't regurgitate what your club/writings say.

Every follower of every religion, be it Christianity or Islam or Jewish or Buddhist or Hindu and all the sects of the world's religions, everyone who follows a holy writing or holy person or buys into a sect, has a reason "why". That means nothing.

The real challenge is self introspection which most don't want to face. The real question the follower of any religion should ask themselves isn't "why" but "Why do I feel the need to buy this?" 

If you are simply making an apology, you are not being objective, you are looking for a reason, that is not objective, that is simply looking for an excuse. 

If you ask yourself "Why do I feel the need to buy this" is a much harder question to ask yourself. 

Does the follower think if they leave their position for another club that they will suddenly burst in flames? If not then why do you feel the need to buy your position? If you can see others who hold other positions as also being good and doing good, then again, why do you feel the need to hold your position and not the position of others? I am not aiming that challenge at only Christians, but all followers of all religions, Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists ect ect ect....

Maybe humans need to consider those ideas are merely things they find comfort in. Maybe it is simply something you like and allowed your emotions to draw you in?

I think I answered this before.  You seem to be attempting to make a distinction between the why and force it into a feelings thing.  Cannot I feel a need for, and the why be the same thing?

In the beginning for me, however; it was the history behind Christianity, that convinced me, that it was true.   The Bible is primarily a historical book, which contains theological teachings, rather than a Theology book or instruction manual. Also when comparing to other religious beliefs, it is going to be the historical aspect, that I look to.  Since then, I would also point to scientific or philosophical evidence and arguments, which point to something like God. This doesn't get to specifics, but every argument doesn't need to.

When I was a non-believer, I didn't feel a need to search for God, and I wasn't looking to change my life.  I was fairly content.  It wasn't that I felt a need to do anything.  Also, I'm not a Christian, because it particularly suites me or because that system sounded the best to me.  In that regard, Buddhism actually seems to be fairly appealing, or why not just make up my own for that matter.  We could go new age, and have a subjective god, made in your own image.
With that being said, I do understand some believers talking about the completeness and wholeness, that comes with belief.   It's not entirely intellectual; but, for me, this came after (and I wouldn't have understood it before).

Now, if this doesn't answer your question, then I think that the questions can be applied to your own beliefs as well.  Why should I buy what you are selling?

[Little Rik]

And not since the beginning of this thread has anyone who has tried to point to a club/writing has been able to answer "Why do you feel the need to believe" without pointing to the direction they want to point.

Neutrality is when you don't try to insert your own personal bias into a neutral method.

I have heard silly statements before but your beat them all.

How the hell you expect an answer that doesn't lead somewhere?  
You can not possibly be neutral in an universe in which everything move and change all the time.
Neutral is the point in between the positive and the negative but to get in the middle of that point
in a moving and changing universe is almost impossible and even more impossible is to put an anchor in that point and try to stay still.


I guess you never thought about that Brian, did you?  

[Harry Nevis]

Except, of course, that the birthday person is known to exist, we can find out with certainty what flavor of cake it was, and there are first hand eye witnesses to the party.

Well, let's strain the analogy a little, in an obviously leading way...

Suppose the birthday party was supposedly held in the early 1820's in Sri Lanka. Now let's say that the only reason people know about it is because:

a) 3 or 4 people wrote about it in unsigned diaries passed down by some descendants of the participants.
b) The details of the diaries vary but they all mention that it happened on a boat.
c) Several old birthday cards to the celebrant have been found.
d) A well-know explorer made fleeting reference to the party..
e) The diaries all tell the story of a rich guest lost a priceless diamond necklace into the water.
f) It is well known that treasure hunters have been trying to find the necklace since the supposed party happened.

So did that party actually happen and is it reasonable to believe there is lost a priceless necklace?

Again, fine analogy.  You can believe both the party and the necklace being lost.  It has no effect on yourself or your existance.  We know both birthday parties and diamond necklaces exist.  If you're trying to show how different the belief in god and belief in old birthday parties are the same, you're doing a poor job.

[Brian37]

I never get a good response from anyone of any label. I really want to see anyone, answer the following without quoting their club or book or holy person. This I am inviting anyone any Muslim or Christian or Buddhist or Hindu, anyone. 

Consider the following and THINK hard before you respond.

The question is not "Why" 

But

"Why do you feel the need to buy your position over any other" And I don't want to hear "My club" I want your answer coming from you, don't regurgitate what your club/writings say.

Every follower of every religion, be it Christianity or Islam or Jewish or Buddhist or Hindu and all the sects of the world's religions, everyone who follows a holy writing or holy person or buys into a sect, has a reason "why". That means nothing.

The real challenge is self introspection which most don't want to face. The real question the follower of any religion should ask themselves isn't "why" but "Why do I feel the need to buy this?" 

If you are simply making an apology, you are not being objective, you are looking for a reason, that is not objective, that is simply looking for an excuse. 

If you ask yourself "Why do I feel the need to buy this" is a much harder question to ask yourself. 

Does the follower think if they leave their position for another club that they will suddenly burst in flames? If not then why do you feel the need to buy your position? If you can see others who hold other positions as also being good and doing good, then again, why do you feel the need to hold your position and not the position of others? I am not aiming that challenge at only Christians, but all followers of all religions, Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists ect ect ect....

Maybe humans need to consider those ideas are merely things they find comfort in. Maybe it is simply something you like and allowed your emotions to draw you in?

I think I answered this before.  You seem to be attempting to make a distinction between the why and force it into a feelings thing.  Cannot I feel a need for, and the why be the same thing?

In the beginning for me, however; it was the history behind Christianity, that convinced me, that it was true.   The Bible is primarily a historical book, which contains theological teachings, rather than a Theology book or instruction manual. Also when comparing to other religious beliefs, it is going to be the historical aspect, that I look to.  Since then, I would also point to scientific or philosophical evidence and arguments, which point to something like God. This doesn't get to specifics, but every argument doesn't need to.

When I was a non-believer, I didn't feel a need to search for God, and I wasn't looking to change my life.  I was fairly content.  It wasn't that I felt a need to do anything.  Also, I'm not a Christian, because it particularly suites me or because that system sounded the best to me.  In that regard, Buddhism actually seems to be fairly appealing, or why not just make up my own for that matter.  We could go new age, and have a subjective god, made in your own image.
With that being said, I do understand some believers talking about the completeness and wholeness, that comes with belief.   It's not entirely intellectual; but, for me, this came after (and I wouldn't have understood it before).

Now, if this doesn't answer your question, then I think that the questions can be applied to your own beliefs as well.  Why should I buy what you are selling?

It is about mere feelings otherwise you could answer without trying to point to your particular club and writings.

It is about mere feelings otherwise you would not be afraid of a neutral lab where it isn't trying to point to anything. 

"When you were a non-believer" yep, you were still not armed with enough. I could not care less what you were prior, once you start trying to point to a particular club/writing your are back in the same position as if you were raised with a club. 

Humans move from one position to another, that is not an argument. 

You, "It's not entirely intellectual" ........I wouldn't put it quite like that. I have seen very elaborate apologies from followers of every label worldwide. Don't falsely equate the human ability to make up or swallow elaborate false claims as the claim being true itself. Shakespeare''s plays are also complex but that does not make the characters real.

Men popping out of dirt is not intellectual, Muslims pointing out claims of rivers of milk and wine, also not intellectual, spinning prayer wheels in front of a Buddhist temple, also not intellectual, on top of the fact that the first depictions of the Buddha mythology has him being born of royalty and also avoiding the birth canal.

You certainly can be intelligent AND WRONG. Bernie Madoff scammed rich people and college educated people out of lots of money. Every religion has followers who either fall for or create and sell elaborate apologies. 

Neutrality is the only thing in scientific method that works. If you want neutral intellect and not personal bias, that is the only thing that works. I am sure you might think you are being "intellectual" but complexity of a naked assertion and trying to call it philosophy and or trying to reach back in time after the fact to try to square it to modern science is not being intellectual, it is merely falling for someone's vivid imagination.

Christians have left to become Muslims, Muslims have left to become Christians, Christians have left to become Buddhist, and some leave all of them. The fact you fell back into one of them only means you fell back into one.

[vorlon13]

positing a birthday party isn't really an extraordinary claim like saying Jesus as the son of the creator of the entire universe is personally concerned that I am masturbating too frequently