To Atheists - a question

[hamashiachagape]

And why believe it when so many aspects of Jesus' life appear in stories about other mythic figures, especially when those figures appeared BEFORE Jesus?

As the Bible says, there's nothing new under the sun. Not even the stories about Jesus, it would seem.

Your information = DNE. Better known as Does Not Exist.

 

[dewaddict84]

And why believe it when so many aspects of Jesus' life appear in stories about other mythic figures, especially when those figures appeared BEFORE Jesus?

Your information = DNE. Better known as Does Not Exist.

Wow, for a philosophy guy, you sure missed your history lesson:
Osiris had that resurrection thing down way before 33 A.D.
Greek myth has people walking on water, but I'm not sure of the time-frame.
So does some Buddhist stories.
The virgin birth is it's own motif in the old world.
The three wise men were Zoroastrian magi. Taking credibility of the religions before your is an old trick. But come on, Jesus was jewish, and HALF of the bible is borrowed.

This stuff really isn't that hard to find. It appears your knowledge DNE.

 

[razeontherock]

I find it absolutely silly that you would reject evidence from cultures who did not have a significant amount of contact with one another all talking about a global flood as being not evidentialist. Thats completely absurd. You would instead go to a false cause and effect and go with a double standard than utilize the Scientific Method and apply it to this information just like you would in any other science related field.

I'm thinking Jane should be chiming in here ... should be good. Who has the popcorn?

 

[razeontherock]

But come on, Jesus was jewish, and HALF of the bible is borrowed.

*Ahem* Widely known, across humanity, in one form or another. Let's see, how many ways could that happen? Because it's TRUE??

 

[BrianOnEarth]

What would it take for you to believe in God?

I don't consider myself an atheist by the dictionary definition but I am an empiricist and sceptic. The same principles apply, though.


If Keira Knightley knocked on my door tonight and begged me to ravage her that would be sufficient proof for me that a benevolent God exists.


Aside from that [and by offering alternatives I do not wish to indicate to God in any way that my KK test is not by far my most preferred test] I can suggest an evidential approach and also an emotional approach.


The evidential or scientific approach:
Define what is God.
Define what is not God.
Define the experimental conditions under which these definitions apply.
Design a measurement system to apply to the God candidate that tests the candidate against the definitions in the specified conditions. Include a control candidate(s) to verify that the test system is working properly.
Get a God candidate.
Test the God candidate.
If the definition criteria are met I will believe that the defined God exists.

Indirect evidence testing is possible but it is much harder to define a robust test. One would have to prove that the indirect evidence could only exist if the specified God exists and could not have been caused in any other way, including by differently defined gods. This is almost impossible to do. Eg: submitting the Bible as indirect evidence of God would fail because it could have been devised by humans alone. The indirect evidence would have to be so unusual that I would consider it implausible for it to be caused by any other means. And this indirect evidence would have to exist - not just be hearsay.


the emotional approach
Implant in me an emotionally compelling reason to believe that God exists.
This can be either a highly positive emotional reaction to God and/or a highly negative emotional reaction to the absence of God. These implants must be stronger in reaction than any net positive reaction that I currently associate with non-belief. Emotion will override cognition and render scientific proof unnecessary.



Some caveats.
In my opinion, the evidential approach will never prove the Christian God. This is for a number of reasons not least that Christians would never agree upon a definition of God and would never be able to persuade God to turn up for testing. There is no existing indirect evidence that would qualify or God would already have been proven. Therefore, I suggest all attempts to persuade atheists based on scientific evidence will fail. And fruitless debates in this forum and others attest to this.

This leaves emotional persuasion. We already know that people are capable of believing things that have no evidential basis and sometimes people are capable of believing things that contradict evidence. People's beliefs can be emotionally manipulated. The difficulty is that the optimum approach and the effectiveness will vary from one atheist to the next depending on their individual emotional/cognitive predispositions and their age group. Drugs or other forms of manipulation like hypnosis may also be a useful tools. Highly emotional experiences coincident with unexpected coincidence can also coerce belief. I do not offer a specific method but I think that this should work in principle and has the added benefit that the exact definition of God is not important; in the minimal case it is only necessary to associate emotional value with the word itself. Emotionally coercive ideas will make it more compelling of course.


As I say, if KK shows up tonight I shall be persuaded. Now that is not because this event, although incredibly unlikely, is absolute proof but I think my emotional reaction of both shock and awe would so disarm me that I would be happy (emotion) and grateful (emotion) to believe.

 

[IzzyPop]

Resurection myths are a dime a dozen. To claim that Jesus is the true one simply because his story is different than Odin, Dumuzi, or Osiris is nothing more than special pleading.

 

[Tiberius]

Your information = DNE. Better known as Does Not Exist.

Oh come on. You're being nit picky. You're just claiming that it doesn't count because they aren't exactly the same story. But look at it. You got a god being who was killed, stayed dead for a bit, then got up and started moving around again. Sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it?

 

[razeontherock]

Man Izzy, that's LAME! If you're gonna build a strawman, will you please at least make it more interesting than that? Take this guy for example:

If Keira Knightley knocked on my door tonight and begged me to ravage her that would be sufficient proof for me that a benevolent God exists.

That would not be the only true and living G-d, that would be the god(dess) of this world.

The evidential or scientific approach:
Define what is God.
Define what is not God.
Define the experimental conditions under which these definitions apply.
Design a measurement system

This is not ours to define, but we know the Almighty is not a puppet who will dance at our command.

But see Izzy, at least he was creative with his lunacy!

Implant in me an emotionally compelling reason to believe that God exists.
This can be either a highly positive emotional reaction to God and/or a highly negative emotional reaction to the absence of God.

Those first 3 words in conjunction w/ your KK reference make me uncomfortable.

Other than that, you need to experience the Presence of G-d for yourself to "measure" the difference. I have no precise way of calculating it, but the difference is quite profound! Not concrete by any means though. It's not difficult at all to "get G-d to show up" for this. Those who express difficulty with this part of it have exhibited some things in common; mainly, not being willing to approach the designated Way. In contrast, pursuing understanding of the expiatory power of the cross of Christ is a dead ringer - even if that starts out w/ mere intellectual understanding.

 

[razeontherock]

.

 

[The4thrider]

why the bj contest

might want to rephrase that..

 

[BrianOnEarth]

I am feeling very down this morning. KK never showed. My heart is broken. I should never have got my hopes up. I am such a fool. There is nothing good in the world, it is all so pointless, etc. etc.

But see Izzy, at least he was creative with his lunacy!

Oh your are sweet.

Other than that, you need to experience the Presence of G-d for yourself to "measure" the difference. I have no precise way of calculating it, but the difference is quite profound! Not concrete by any means though. It's not difficult at all to "get G-d to show up" for this. Those who express difficulty with this part of it have exhibited some things in common; mainly, not being willing to approach the designated Way. In contrast, pursuing understanding of the expiatory power of the cross of Christ is a dead ringer - even if that starts out w/ mere intellectual understanding.

I understand. I don't doubt your personal "measurement" of G-d (why do you write G-d rather than God?). But I am no more confident that scientific methods can be applied to testing the G-d hypothesis. It comes down to human perception and judgement.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Man Izzy, that's LAME! If you're gonna build a strawman, will you please at least make it more interesting than that? Take this guy for example:

This is not ours to define, but we know the Almighty is not a puppet who will dance at our command.

You are correct that this is not yours - and yours alone - to define. But similarly, it is not yours to decide what is, and what is not a strawman. (A strawman of what anyway?)

 

[theomegajuice]

I'm not sure if there could be any single event that would make me believe in anything that I would consider 'God' to be an applicable title. Even if he came down and spoke to me I would be more likely to believe that I was day-dreaming or halucinating.

It would have to be a consistent, repeatable group of things that was objectively verifiable by other people for me to believe in any god.

 

[razeontherock]

I'm not sure if there could be any single event that would make me believe in anything that I would consider 'God' to be an applicable title. Even if he came down and spoke to me I would be more likely to believe that I was day-dreaming or halucinating.

It would have to be a consistent, repeatable group of things that was objectively verifiable by other people for me to believe in any god.

Very good! This is exactly why Jesus said even if someone were to come back from hell, people wouldn't believe if they were unwilling to believe the Scriptures.

That's what we get.

 

[razeontherock]

might want to rephrase that..

Pleased to be noticing senor touchedbyhim is ... no more. Poof!

Zees ees magic? Ouija board??

 

[français]

What would it take for you to believe in God?

As a Social Worker who works in child welfare services, I see some of the most inhumane, disgusting ways people treat children. How can God(s) do this to a child? Someone so innocent, yet many of these children grow up their whole lives being abused.

How can I believe in a God that is leaving so many children hopeless? And even if there was a God, why on earth would I worship a creator that lets such injustices happen? I understand that this world is supposed to be "a test," but I also have heard that God is never supposed to over-burden someone. Yet these children have definitely been overburdened, so why would I worship such a creator? I've always been told that respect is earned, so I'm not about to worship something that, in my opinion, is unworthy of respect.

Also, it would take a religion that actually makes sense, that is scientifically correct, and that is very pacifist/tolerant. Also, a religion that takes "sociological imagination" in consideration, instead of just blaming individuals and punishing them because of it. We are all the way we are today because of the way we were raised. No one is raised the same way. So it's unfair to hold people to the same standard always.

Find me a religion that is on-par with science, and that is comforting, unhostile, tolerant, and loving, and maybe I will consider. Also, the attributes of God need to make sense and don't need to seem far-fetched.

 

[razeontherock]

Find me a religion that is on-par with science, and that is comforting, unhostile, tolerant, and loving, and maybe I will consider.

Christianity is all that, however

Also, the attributes of God need to make sense and don't need to seem far-fetched.

You're wanting to create your own god. Clearly, that is NOT Christianity, although I'm sure somewhere there's a church that would cater to your whims. I think it's pretty likely that the "far-fetched attributes" you object to are false ideas that you correctly reject. People have a way of twisting things around, and that seems to go double for religious leaders.

As a Social Worker who works in child welfare services, I see some of the most inhumane, disgusting ways people treat children. How can God(s) do this to a child?

You're confused btw who is mankind and who is G-d. Let me help you with that. Those abused kids you have compassion for? Yeah well, they have PARENTS. Those would be, you know, NOT G-d. You can tell because you can SEE them. You can subpoena them to court. And I thank you for your service in doing so, along with everything else that goes along with a mostly thankless job. I even posit that at some point in your career, than anti-burnout mechanisms of the Almighty might come in handy, making you more effective?

No one is raised the same way. So it's unfair to hold people to the same standard always.

Christianity takes all this into consideration; or rather, our Lord does. It's actually quite visible on these very forums, but it would take some time to read enough to witness it happening. It is quite beautiful, the way He deals with His children. None of us have had an earthly Father that compares with our Heavenly.

 

[français]

Razeontherock- You are perhaps right that I am trying to "create my own God." However, my version of God would be one based upon my perception of logic, which is definitely in disagreement with Christianity.

Also, I know that you say it is the parents fault, and not Gods. But a common example I use is this: When you see someone getting beat up, what do you do? You call the police. You try to stop it. Well, why does God witness this and let it happen? Sure, maybe one day these criminals will get their pay-back by God. But if it can be prevented, it should be, and God isn't letting it. Perhaps it is free-will, but I can't see the logic in an all-loving God allowing free-will so much to the extent that there is violence, distrust, and inhumane treatment of people going on. Or, the fact that people could even have these violent tendencies in the first place. It just goes against (my perception of) logic.

And you are right, Christianity certainly holds less people to the same standard compared with other religions. However, there are many things deemed sinful in Christianity that just don't seem right. Also, back before Jesus, the Torah was the divine book... It certainly holds people to the same standard without taking the "sociological imagination" into consideration.

I admire Christianity as a simple, loving religion. It surely is. The New Testament is almost nothing but inspiring, loving, caring verses. The Gospels are amazing. What Jesus (supposedly) said is astonishing. But, I still have major disagreements with it, and enough to where I could never see it as being divinely-inspired and certainly could never worship the God of the Bible.

 

[razeontherock]

my version of God would be one based upon my perception of logic, which is definitely in disagreement with Christianity.

I admire Christianity as a simple, loving religion. It surely is. The New Testament is almost nothing but inspiring, loving, caring verses. The Gospels are amazing. What Jesus (supposedly) said is astonishing. But, I still have major disagreements with it, and enough to where I could never see it as being divinely-inspired and certainly could never worship the God of the Bible.

I grouped together your opening and closing statements, because logically they go together and it's more efficient to respond to them this way. I'd be highly surprised if your "version of logic" differed from my own substantially. We might have some different value judgments here and there, as you'd expect from any 2 individuals, but as they apply to logic we should be able to keep those separate.

So I'd be curious to see what aspects of Christianity you feel can't stand up to the scrutiny of logic. You see, as a baby Christian, G-d personally took me through this process. And showed me WAY more than I had ever asked. And I asked a LOT! But maybe I missed something, and bought a bill of goods?

Also, I know that you say it is the parents fault, and not Gods. But a common example I use is this: When you see someone getting beat up, what do you do? You call the police. You try to stop it. Well, why does God witness this and let it happen?

What is the significance that G-d "placed the man in the garden to dress it, and to keep it?" And that G-d "gave man dominion?"

Or, the fact that people could even have these violent tendencies in the first place. It just goes against (my perception of) logic.

As it does to all of us. A very important concept to take note of, is that the Bible makes no attempt to tell us everything. So anything at all that is included, we have to ask: why is that there? What's so unique about this that it was worthy of mention, moreso than all the other things that've happened that we aren't told about?

And one of those is the introduction of evil, not only into our world, but into our very selves. Specifically, this is NOT how G-d made us! This is a consequence, and we do very well to recognize how dire it is. So, you've got that much down pat. And you also seem to be very willing to do what you can about it! Or maybe I should say, you at least recognize it in others, and in the world. Of course evil in ourselves that's not so obvious as abuse of your own children may go undetected, but logically evil is still evil, right?

there are many things deemed sinful in Christianity that just don't seem right.

While I don't like to try to make this any easier than it is, the more I learn, the more I realize how little is actually condemned as sin. We each have a "filter," and you aptly pointed out our upbringing conditions it. I wonder how it compares to what G-d actually has to say about you? One of those astonishing things:

"Come unto me, all [ye] that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Matthew 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke [is] easy, and my burden is light."

One more point: you said you could never worship. What does worship mean to you?

 

[BrianOnEarth]

@razeontherock
The elephant you won't be able to rationalize away is that God has the capability to stop children suffering but stands by and watches it happen.
God is either cruel, incompetent or is not.