Religious Background

[SteveII]

Billions of people adduce the truth of Islam and Hinduism Many do the same for alien abductions, moan landing and 9/11 hoax, homeopathy....You get my drift.

It's how we assess the credibility of these claims.

Jesus was taken up by the devil and saw all the kingdoms on Earth. I don't for one minute believe you are a flat-earther.

If your truth claim about the absolute reality of existence is so good, why do so may people, atheist or other theist, not accept it? It should be trivial.

I do not doubt your sincerity, but your appeals to the apparent growth of your belief are entirely unconvincing.

BTW you accused me in a previous thread of being vacuous and condescending. If that is so I apologise, that was not my intent. It's just I don't believe and sometimes use poor language when expressing my consternation.

The difference is that compared to other religions, Christianity has a much large body of evidence (to a significant degree) in which to draw conclusions.  

Islam makes no significant claims about anything that rises to the level of a body of evidence.  The entire religion is based on what went on in the head of one person.  If you know of other evidence that Muslims claim, let me know. 

Regarding Hinduism, there were centuries or millennium between when the events were supposed to have happened and when they were cataloged. That really can't be called a body of evidence either. 

Listen, if a person is set in their minds there is no God, very little will move them off that position. However, the vast majority of the population of the earth believes in the supernatural. So if most people have no trouble in believing the supernatural, then Christianity is the most evidenced and philosophically sound choice. This claim is supported by the fact it is the most freely chosen religion to convert to. 

No worries about the last post. Sorry if I over-reacted.

[TheBeardedDude]

Billions of people adduce the truth of Islam and Hinduism Many do the same for alien abductions, moan landing and 9/11 hoax, homeopathy....You get my drift.

It's how we assess the credibility of these claims.

Jesus was taken up by the devil and saw all the kingdoms on Earth. I don't for one minute believe you are a flat-earther.

If your truth claim about the absolute reality of existence is so good, why do so may people, atheist or other theist, not accept it? It should be trivial.

I do not doubt your sincerity, but your appeals to the apparent growth of your belief are entirely unconvincing.

BTW you accused me in a previous thread of being vacuous and condescending. If that is so I apologise, that was not my intent. It's just I don't believe and sometimes use poor language when expressing my consternation.

The difference is that compared to other religions, Christianity has a much large body of evidence (to a significant degree) in which to draw conclusions.  

Islam makes no significant claims about anything that rises to the level of a body of evidence.  The entire religion is based on what went on in the head of one person.  If you know of other evidence that Muslims claim, let me know. 

Regarding Hinduism, there were centuries or millennium between when the events were supposed to have happened and when they were cataloged. That really can't be called a body of evidence either. 

Listen, if a person is set in their minds there is no God, very little will move them off that position. However, the vast majority of the population of the earth believes in the supernatural. So if most people have no trouble in believing the supernatural, then Christianity is the most evidenced and philosophically sound choice. This claim is supported by the fact it is the most freely chosen religion to convert to. 

No worries about the last post. Sorry if I over-reacted.

Now that is a post full of special pleading.

Different religion, same type and level of evidence (except Islam actually has more concrete evidence for the existence and teachings of its messiah), but it's viewed as being significantly weaker.

You couldn't have constructed a better example of special pleading if you tried.


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

[Foxaèr]

The difference is that compared to other religions, Christianity has a much large body of evidence (to a significant degree) in which to draw conclusions.  

Islam makes no significant claims about anything that rises to the level of a body of evidence.  The entire religion is based on what went on in the head of one person.  If you know of other evidence that Muslims claim, let me know. 

Regarding Hinduism, there were centuries or millennium between when the events were supposed to have happened and when they were cataloged. That really can't be called a body of evidence either. 

Listen, if a person is set in their minds there is no God, very little will move them off that position. However, the vast majority of the population of the earth believes in the supernatural. So if most people have no trouble in believing the supernatural, then Christianity is the most evidenced and philosophically sound choice. This claim is supported by the fact it is the most freely chosen religion to convert to. 

No worries about the last post. Sorry if I over-reacted.

Bolded: It has to do with the fact that there is zero evidence to support the existence of God.
Italics: That just means there are many delusional people in this world.
Underlined: Argumentum ad populum

[vorlon13]

Christianity is also ludicrously tolerant of apostasy, schism, and heresy.

Ideal choice for those with a slacker mind set.

[SteveII]

The difference is that compared to other religions, Christianity has a much large body of evidence (to a significant degree) in which to draw conclusions.  

Islam makes no significant claims about anything that rises to the level of a body of evidence.  The entire religion is based on what went on in the head of one person.  If you know of other evidence that Muslims claim, let me know. 

Regarding Hinduism, there were centuries or millennium between when the events were supposed to have happened and when they were cataloged. That really can't be called a body of evidence either. 

Listen, if a person is set in their minds there is no God, very little will move them off that position. However, the vast majority of the population of the earth believes in the supernatural. So if most people have no trouble in believing the supernatural, then Christianity is the most evidenced and philosophically sound choice. This claim is supported by the fact it is the most freely chosen religion to convert to. 

No worries about the last post. Sorry if I over-reacted.

Bolded:  It has to do with the fact that there is zero evidence to support the existence of God. [1]
Italics:  That just means there are many delusional people in this world.  [2]
Underlined:  Argumentum ad populum [3]

1. I disagree. If that were that were true, then many more people would be convinced of atheism and it would be growing instead of stagnant. The atheist never had or has overcome the built in sense that the supernatural exists.
2. Delusional? If it is built in sense that most people have, it isn't delusional because nothing external deluded them. The belief would be 'properly basic' and therefore rational to hold. This does not mean the belief is correct, but it does mean it is not delusional.
3. You should revisit the definition of Argumentum ad populum or reread that sentence. I stated a fact "most people have no trouble in believing the supernatural" and then another fact "Christianity is the most evidenced and philosophically sound choice"--all within the context of a post that was explaining why we are seeing another fact: "it is the most freely chosen religion to convert to".

---

The difference is that compared to other religions, Christianity has a much large body of evidence (to a significant degree) in which to draw conclusions.  

Islam makes no significant claims about anything that rises to the level of a body of evidence.  The entire religion is based on what went on in the head of one person.  If you know of other evidence that Muslims claim, let me know. 

Regarding Hinduism, there were centuries or millennium between when the events were supposed to have happened and when they were cataloged. That really can't be called a body of evidence either. 

Listen, if a person is set in their minds there is no God, very little will move them off that position. However, the vast majority of the population of the earth believes in the supernatural. So if most people have no trouble in believing the supernatural, then Christianity is the most evidenced and philosophically sound choice. This claim is supported by the fact it is the most freely chosen religion to convert to. 

No worries about the last post. Sorry if I over-reacted.

Now that is a post full of special pleading.

Different religion, same type and level of evidence (except Islam actually has more concrete evidence for the existence and teachings of its messiah), but it's viewed as being significantly weaker.

You couldn't have constructed a better example of special pleading if you tried.


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

You really need to read up on "special pleading". I am clearly discussing/comparing bodies of evidence and don't come close to the definition. 

Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

[TheBeardedDude]

Bolded:  It has to do with the fact that there is zero evidence to support the existence of God. [1]
Italics:  That just means there are many delusional people in this world.  [2]
Underlined:  Argumentum ad populum [3]

1. I disagree. If that were that were true, then many more people would be convinced of atheism and it would be growing instead of stagnant. The atheist never had or has overcome the built in sense that the supernatural exists.
2. Delusional? If it is built in sense that most people have, it isn't delusional because nothing external deluded them. The belief would be 'properly basic' and therefore rational to hold. This does not mean the belief is correct, but it does mean it is not delusional.
3. You should revisit the definition of Argumentum ad populum or reread that sentence. I stated a fact "most people have no trouble in believing the supernatural" and then another fact "Christianity is the most evidenced and philosophically sound choice"--all within the context of a post that was explaining why we are seeing another fact: "it is the most freely chosen religion to convert to".

---

Now that is a post full of special pleading.

Different religion, same type and level of evidence (except Islam actually has more concrete evidence for the existence and teachings of its messiah), but it's viewed as being significantly weaker.

You couldn't have constructed a better example of special pleading if you tried.


Cheers
TheBeardedDude

You really need to read up on "special pleading". I am clearly discussing/comparing bodies of evidence and don't come close to the definition. 

Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

1. I disagree. If that were that were true, then many more people would be convinced of atheism and it would be growing instead of stagnant. The atheist never had or has overcome the built in sense that the supernatural exists.

I've never had a theist actually deliver on the claims of evidence being real. And the paucity of evidence for a claim, clearly does not correspond to a sudden loss of a belief in the claim. See: astrology, magic, crystal healing, homeopathy, etc, etc, 

You really need to read up on "special pleading". I am clearly discussing/comparing bodies of evidence and don't come close to the definition. 

Special pleading: argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.

So when you reject one religion (like Islam) for not having convincing evidence, but don't reject your own for the exact same reason, it is special pleading. 

What you have accused me of is...well I don't know exactly. You claim that I have engaged in special pleading for pointing out basic facts about the NT and the paucity of contemporary records/accounts of the Jesus character from the NT. It isn't special pleading to point out the flaws of a position, its inherent weaknesses, and its dearth of evidence.

[SteveII]

1. I disagree. If that were that were true, then many more people would be convinced of atheism and it would be growing instead of stagnant. The atheist never had or has overcome the built in sense that the supernatural exists.
2. Delusional? If it is built in sense that most people have, it isn't delusional because nothing external deluded them. The belief would be 'properly basic' and therefore rational to hold. This does not mean the belief is correct, but it does mean it is not delusional.
3. You should revisit the definition of Argumentum ad populum or reread that sentence. I stated a fact "most people have no trouble in believing the supernatural" and then another fact "Christianity is the most evidenced and philosophically sound choice"--all within the context of a post that was explaining why we are seeing another fact: "it is the most freely chosen religion to convert to".

---

You really need to read up on "special pleading". I am clearly discussing/comparing bodies of evidence and don't come close to the definition. 

1. I disagree. If that were that were true, then many more people would be convinced of atheism and it would be growing instead of stagnant. The atheist never had or has overcome the built in sense that the supernatural exists.

I've never had a theist actually deliver on the claims of evidence being real. And the paucity of evidence for a claim, clearly does not correspond to a sudden loss of a belief in the claim. See: astrology, magic, crystal healing, homeopathy, etc, etc, 

You really need to read up on "special pleading". I am clearly discussing/comparing bodies of evidence and don't come close to the definition. 

Special pleading: argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.

So when you reject one religion (like Islam) for not having convincing evidence, but don't reject your own for the exact same reason, it is special pleading. 

What you have accused me of is...well I don't know exactly. You claim that I have engaged in special pleading for pointing out basic facts about the NT and the paucity of contemporary records/accounts of the Jesus character from the NT. It isn't special pleading to point out the flaws of a position, its inherent weaknesses, and its dearth of evidence.

Sorry. I thought we were having a discussion. Like what often happens, this discussion does not seem to be able to move from vague generalities to a detailed discussion. In my experience here, that usually means I got through the inch in the mile wide, inch deep knowledge of the other person. I certainly may be wrong, but that is my experience here.

[TheBeardedDude]

1. I disagree. If that were that were true, then many more people would be convinced of atheism and it would be growing instead of stagnant. The atheist never had or has overcome the built in sense that the supernatural exists.

I've never had a theist actually deliver on the claims of evidence being real. And the paucity of evidence for a claim, clearly does not correspond to a sudden loss of a belief in the claim. See: astrology, magic, crystal healing, homeopathy, etc, etc, 

You really need to read up on "special pleading". I am clearly discussing/comparing bodies of evidence and don't come close to the definition. 

Special pleading: argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.

So when you reject one religion (like Islam) for not having convincing evidence, but don't reject your own for the exact same reason, it is special pleading. 

What you have accused me of is...well I don't know exactly. You claim that I have engaged in special pleading for pointing out basic facts about the NT and the paucity of contemporary records/accounts of the Jesus character from the NT. It isn't special pleading to point out the flaws of a position, its inherent weaknesses, and its dearth of evidence.

Sorry. I thought we were having a discussion. Like what often happens, this discussion does not seem to be able to move from vague generalities to a detailed discussion. In my experience here, that usually means I got through the inch in the mile wide, inch deep knowledge of the other person. I certainly may be wrong, but that is my experience here.

In my experience here, that usually means I got through the inch in the mile wide, inch deep knowledge of the other person.

My knowledge of the issues surrounding the Bible and the paucity of evidence for its claims isn't "an inch deep." It isn't a discussion when you're trying throw about insults.

The point of this thread is for people to give a glimpse into their religious background. I did so and you took issue with my experience and either don't understand the points I have made, or don't care because you want to try and score some sort of points or victory via semantics. The problem is that when you've tried to do so, you've mischaracterized my argument into a straw man while simultaneously accusing me of special pleading (a term you use incorrectly). 

You should spend less time trying to insult and incorrectly define logical fallacies.

What exactly is your goal in questioning my background and religious experience? Do you think that I would suddenly go back to Christianity if you could find that one theological argument that's just right?

[Foxaèr]

If everything you read requires interpretation and therefore can't be trusted, your reasoning would be an infinite regress, and nothing could ever be known.

It is safe and factual, insofar as the knowledge we currently possess in regard to the supernatural, that the bible is as much a fairy tale as a Brothers Grimm tale.

I can imagine the human race practically dying out except for an isolated individual who was raised with no knowledge of the world outside of his family's small country cabin. I can imagine this individual going out into the world one day, happening across a spider-man comic, and assuming that it is a reflection of reality.

[SteveII]

Sorry. I thought we were having a discussion. Like what often happens, this discussion does not seem to be able to move from vague generalities to a detailed discussion. In my experience here, that usually means I got through the inch in the mile wide, inch deep knowledge of the other person. I certainly may be wrong, but that is my experience here.

In my experience here, that usually means I got through the inch in the mile wide, inch deep knowledge of the other person.

My knowledge of the issues surrounding the Bible and the paucity of evidence for its claims isn't "an inch deep." It isn't a discussion when you're trying throw about insults.

The point of this thread is for people to give a glimpse into their religious background. I did so and you took issue with my experience and either don't understand the points I have made, or don't care because you want to try and score some sort of points or victory via semantics. The problem is that when you've tried to do so, you've mischaracterized my argument into a straw man while simultaneously accusing me of special pleading (a term you use incorrectly). 

You should spend less time trying to insult and incorrectly define logical fallacies.

What exactly is your goal in questioning my background and religious experience? Do you think that I would suddenly go back to Christianity if you could find that one theological argument that's just right?

Your original post made claims that didn't make a lot of sense (have to either take everything in the Bible literal or otherwise it was up to individual interpretation). As I explained several posts ago, that is too simplistic. 

You threw in there somewhere along the way that there was no evidence. Since there is, I was correcting you.