God is so quiet

[possibletarian]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wuFFX3M0oY
Christian sees Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) in Dream & Converts! Amazing Description of RasulAllah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVMWlzpZ1tE
Whole Family Convert To Islam | World's Fastest Growing Religion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYSQnjemIhE
Christian Girl Convert to ISLAM!!, YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHY!!

What possible reason could we have to doubt this man and this family, and this Christian girl?

We would need a counter explanation like perhaps.. it's all in their minds, which we cannot of course prove.. so it must be true.. right ?
Took me about 30 seconds and unlike scripture these are people you could probably go speak to and prove exist.
many religions, same old shyte.

[Rhondazvous]

Some theists will claim that they do hear god's voice. My father was a mental health counselor. He took a professional interest in people who hear voices.

[possibletarian]

Some theists will claim that they do hear god's voice. My father was a mental health counselor. He took a professional interest in people who hear voices.

I don't think many claim they actually hear a audible voice, but something even more sinister, their thoughts that pop into their heads are actually god's thoughts.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a variation on liar, lunatic, or lord.  Some people can't imagine how a person could hear about some brush in with the divine and settle on none of those three options.

[pocaracas]

"Aside from the people who wrote dozens of individual documents (spanning decades) about it, we don't have any corroborating evidence". Good argument!! The fact is if there were 30 or 32 books/letters, you would say the same thing. There would never be enough because you exclude anyone who believed what they saw and then related it. You are begging the question because you assume that if a person believed it, they have little or no credibility. 

You are aware that there were many more gospels than the ones that made it into the bible you have today, right?
What disqualified some?

Could the ones we do have nowadays have been cooked up from a similar social environment as the others, but they have the merit of conveying a similar enough message that they could be bound in one tome?

Not at all. Eyewitness testimony is ALL the evidence you can ever have of ANY historical event. To claim that it is not enough is special pleading. The typical response is to deny eyewitness testimony is evidence--and that is a crock of shit to go along with your bowl of special pleading. 

The problems begin when the texts we have look more like tales, than eyewitness accounts... even if the author claims that he got those tales from real witnesses.
Combine this with the knack they had to make up whole gospels and the credibility factor lowers quite substantially.

I don't doubt that such messianic stories were floating around in the population.
I do doubt if they represented any actual witnessing of events, or if they were just fantastic tales mangled with bits and pieces from regular life.

Not so. I listened to a person that came to my church last month from Iran that said he and members of his family (at a massive cost to them) became Christians because Jesus appeared to them (at different times) in a dream and they separately sought out underground Christian groups. Cultural influence? I think not. Go ahead--why should I assume he is lying about his experiences?

You know that Islam also has the figure of Jesus, right?

---

And what are my beliefs?

The typical atheist believes that God did not create the world ex nihilo and all that there is is a result of time and chance.

I'd say that the typical atheist does not believe that a god created the world ex nihilo. If one did do that, the typical atheist would love to find out how that got done, if it got done more than once and how can we replicate it!

[Cyberman]

And what are my beliefs?

The typical atheist believes that God did not create the world ex nihilo and all that there is is a result of time and chance.

First let's get the nots in the right order. The typical atheist does not believe that a god did create the world ex nihilo; not, as you mischaracterised it, the typical atheist does believe that a god did not create the world ex nihilo. Like mathematical operations, word order is important. Where you place qualifiers both positive and negative will vastly alter the meaning of the sentence. The -ism part of atheism is attached to the -theism part, so any attendant beliefs which the a- prefix nehate are purely on your side of the equation.

Now let's look at the second half - all that there is is a result of time and chance. Well, we can all agree to the "time" factor, I hope. Chance? Chemical, biological and physical matter behaving in chemical, biological and physical ways is exactly the opposite of chance. There is an element of randomness, sure; however, given the immense scale of the 'laboratory' and the relatively limited combinations of ways these things can interact, that the Universe is as we see it shouldn't surprise anybody.

Based on all this, what part of the beliefs attributed to me as a typical atheist fails to line up with the natural world quite as well as the typical belief that an undetectable supernatural agency is responsible?

[GrandizerII]

We read/hear all this talk from theists about how God clearly exists and how he is this and that and did this and that, and when someone objects to his existence and/or attacks him, theists jump quickly to his defense.

Yet, in all this arguing back and forth, not once does God utter a word. He just stands there in the corner watching us having an argument about him, with nothing to say to support his buddies and prove us wrong. No voice, no physical manifestations, no declaration of divine presence.

Except Jesus did exactly all that you are asking for and then some. So your real complaint is that he does not come to each generation and do it again. I guess he thought that sending the Holy Spirit to prompt people into seeking out God and when they do, provide personal access to the God of the universe was a better solution for all time. The fact is that people like yourself are convinced that God does not exists (not simply agnostic--which is all you have justification for) and that belief get's in the way, well, that's on you now isn't it.

Well, I guess this is the best you can do as a logical Christian. But let's be honest, you know this was a bullshit response to my OP.

---

The typical atheist believes that God did not create the world ex nihilo and all that there is is a result of time and chance.

In my case, I wouldn't say "chance". Rather, "necessity".

I also wouldn't say "result of time".

[SteveII]

Except Jesus did exactly all that you are asking for and then some. So your real complaint is that he does not come to each generation and do it again. I guess he thought that sending the Holy Spirit to prompt people into seeking out God and when they do, provide personal access to the God of the universe was a better solution for all time. The fact is that people like yourself are convinced that God does not exists (not simply agnostic--which is all you have justification for) and that belief get's in the way, well, that's on you now isn't it.

Well, I guess this is the best you can do as a logical Christian. But let's be honest, you know this was a bullshit response to my OP.

So, you were just making statements you thought others needed to hear (perhaps even sound...insightful) and not interested in a discussion and/or understanding the people you are criticizing. Good to know.

[GrandizerII]

Well, I guess this is the best you can do as a logical Christian. But let's be honest, you know this was a bullshit response to my OP.

So, you were just making statements you thought others needed to hear (perhaps even sound...insightful) and not interested in a discussion and/or understanding the people you are criticizing. Good to know.

I didn't mean it to be insightful (or come off as such). It was funny to me at the time I posted it. And it's still funny when I think about it.

And there's really nothing deep or complex to understand about your response. Of course you have to say that as a Christian, or you wouldn't be a Christian. But your response was nothing more than just a convenient thing to say ... a cop out ...

Just like JWs, Mormons, Muslims, and so on, you have scripted answers for every question. There's nothing remarkable about that. What's impressive is the quality of the answers, how conclusive and compelling they are. Your response wasn't that ... at all.

[SteveII]

The typical atheist believes that God did not create the world ex nihilo and all that there is is a result of time and chance.

First let's get the nots in the right order. The typical atheist does not believe that a god did create the world ex nihilo; not, as you mischaracterised it, the typical atheist does believe that a god did not create the world ex nihilo. Like mathematical operations, word order is important. Where you place qualifiers both positive and negative will vastly alter the meaning of the sentence. The -ism part of atheism is attached to the -theism part, so any attendant beliefs which the a- prefix nehate are purely on your side of the equation.

Now let's look at the second half - all that there is is a result of time and chance. Well, we can all agree to the "time" factor, I hope. Chance? Chemical, biological and physical matter behaving in chemical, biological and physical ways is exactly the opposite of chance. There is an element of randomness, sure; however, given the immense scale of the 'laboratory' and the relatively limited combinations of ways these things can interact, that the Universe is as we see it shouldn't surprise anybody.

Based on all this, what part of the beliefs attributed to me as a typical atheist fails to line up with the natural world quite as well as the typical belief that an undetectable supernatural agency is responsible?

I stand corrected. Thank you for the tone in which it was delivered. 

As to why I think my belief better matches with reality...

a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
(for those in the peanut gallery, these are only titles of full arguments and not arguments or assertions themselves. It's stupid I have to note this, but I do.)

I know, I know. We don't know everything...yet. There could be perfectly good naturalistic explanations for all these things. My point was, that as part of a cumulative case, these lines of rational inductive inquiry serve to strengthen the historical and experiential (mine and others) components of Christianity. 

(another note for the gallery, an inductive argument is a probabilistic argument where the premises suggest the conclusion--not prove the conclusion).