Ditching the fetters of religion was one of the best decision I've made to date. I feel better about myself, life, and the people around me.
Upvote
0
What would qualify as enough evidence? How much evidence would be required? Not baiting, really asking out of curiosity.
Christian morality is "subjective and emotionally based?" It's actually based upon some well-studied and understood documents and traditions. And killing people because "God told them to" is horrid, & in no way has basis in Christian objective morality. Such actions are due purely to sin. Surely you know this. I fear we're talking past each other.
Well technically, morality in the form of altruism is an evolved trait because it is advantageous to passing on genes. If one individual of a genetically similar group dies protecting its kin, it's protecting its genes and helping to insure they continue. The alternative is that no individual sacrifices themselves to save the group, and a big portion of the group gets killed....Not good for furthering the gene pool.
But anyway, you cannot say something is objective when it is based off faith. Faith is not objective, its subject to interpretation. "God said so" is the entire basis of Christian morality. You just choose to believe what the authors of the Bible say God said rather than the mass murderer. You put your faith in what the Bible says, rather than what the murderer said. Thats subjective.
What would qualify as enough evidence? How much evidence would be required? Not baiting, really asking out of curiosity.
I'd argue that love of God and love of neighbor is the basis of Christian morality. And I can indeed say that our morality is objective, because it precedes faith. It doesn't spring from it, though it might appear (to a non-Christian) to do so. It originates in one who is unchanging and who reveals holiness to us. I do see what you're saying, and I appreciate the discussion! But if one understands that the Christian's faith is a gift from God to the believers, than we're not choosing to believe anything. For a non-Christian, it might very well appear subjective (and perhaps could even be described as such). But for us, we are "guided in all Truth." Where we mess up, we are at fault. But the Truth remains. God grants us knowledge of things like morality; any subjectivity is due to human imperfection. And I also think that we're using the word "faith" very differently. These are fascinating topics, but I'll let it go at that.
FWIW, science has never been, and can never be, anti-theistic. It is a process and a discipline that pertains to analyzing the natural world/creation. Philosophy, on the other hand, can certainly be anti-theistic. Atheists don't have science on their side. What they have is a philosophical position. To be fair, the same can be said for the Intelligent Design camp. That's all well and good, but it's not their job to play theologian. These people should spend more time in the lab and less time masquerading their personal beliefs as science.
No amputees healed though, right?
EDIT: I checked out the site for a little bit and the fact that they have this on their Healings page...
... leads me to question the effectiveness of such healings (not to mention all the results are simply testimonials and thus highly subjective).
What about when theists make testable claims? An ever more metaphorical reading of the Bible and other "infallible texts" has been the pattern as scientific understanding becomes more and more established.
Are you talking about something like the creation story as told in Genesis? If so, the metaphorical interpretation is older than Christianity. In the New Testament, Jesus is also shown to make extensive use of metaphors in his teaching. Biblical metaphors aren't a recent development.
If a theist or an atheist makes a testable claim, and that claim is conclusively proven to be inaccurate, then it's an inaccurate claim. However, I don't see how that would contradict the philosophical position that there is a creator.
Yes, the story of creation can be tested as can the incredibly long life-spans mentioned throughout the OT, the Flood, the story of Babel, instances of magic practiced by Jews and non-Jews in the OT, attribution of disease to spirits, faulty scientific claims, not to mention faulty predictions.
In other words, your interpretation of the the Bible is similar to YEC and highly literal, especially the parts that are written in a poetic form, and you reject your own interpretation. In the process, you not only dismiss Judaism and Christianity, but you also conclude that there is no Creator. That last step is a rather large leap in my opinion.
The same could be said of any pass-time.Speaking of which, wouldn't it be great if people took the energy that we put into this kind of back-and-forth, and instead used it to contribute to the betterment of humankind... or even just the improvement of our own personal lives?
Go for it. I would be genuinely amused to see you play arm-chair psychologist based on observations which only exist in your imagination.As far as your assertions are concerned, I suspect that they're a smoke screen for something else that I'd rather not get into here.
Why? The question "why believe?" is as old as religion itself and remains insufficiently answered.If you're legitimately interested in how different Christians answer those questions, feel free use Google or start another thread in one of the debate forums.
By-the-by, the bolded comes from your imagination.I've spent most of my life around engineers and scientists, and it's safe to say that don't see "faulty scientific claims" or "faulty predictions" as inherent in Christianity, let alone endemic to theism as a philosophical position. If you want to argue that phrases like "the sun rises" means that Christians are flat-Earthers or something equally absurd,
Like creating strawmen apparently.I have better things to do with my time.
You seem to be making the rather large leap my friend, given that you are stating my position to me based on nothing. I believe that's called a strawman.
Go for it. I would be genuinely amused to see you play arm-chair psychologist based on observations which only exist in your imagination.
Why? The question "why believe?" is as old as religion itself and remains insufficiently answered.
By-the-by, the bolded comes from your imagination.
Like creating strawmen apparently.
Hey wanna know something awesome? When you post on a forum, you can go back and check what a person said. True story. That means people can actually go back and re-read what I or others have typed and see if the accusation of strawman fits. Amazing I know.Apparently a lot of people (if not all zealous Christians) seem to create strawmen, make up things about you and live in a fantasy world that stems from their imaginations.
These are the same things you've said about several other Christians that I've seen you debate with. Guess what? No matter how many times you use the words strawman, imagination, or accuse people of basing their conclusions about what you say on nothing, doesn't make it true.
I believe I already talked about the lack of demonstrable evidence.As for the questions you can't sufficiently answer for yourself, that doesn't mean it has not been sufficiently answered. Indeed, it is sufficiently answered for many, you just reject the answer.
Got something not based on circular reasoning?If you want proof, then put yourself to the test and become humble enough to accept whatever the truth is even if it means that you have to reject everything you think you know, even if it means that you have to lay your own ego down and your own pride in your intellect and they way you live your life. I was one who thought I knew, that felt the question was insufficiently answered, thought I was more than open to the truth and didn't believe in a Creator, much less a Savior, but until the truth became the most important thing to obtain in my life (and still is) I couldn't see that there were so many things I didn't understand, not just things about faith, but about literally everything.
Hey wanna know something awesome? When you post on a forum, you can go back and check what a person said. True story. That means people can actually go back and re-read what I or others have typed and see if the accusation of strawman fits. Amazing I know.
I believe I already talked about the lack of demonstrable evidence.
Got something not based on circular reasoning?
Weak Atheists reject the notion of a God/Goddess/whatever because so far there hasn't been any compelling evidence.
The only type of Atheists I can think of having to have faith is the ones who propose with 100% certainty there is no God, and I've personally never met one of them.
So until someone gives us some good evidence we'll stay right where we are.
O cool, so you do know about that feature. I guess you'll be kind enough to demonstrate my accusation of a strawman is false then with some quote, I mean you might look incredibly silly if you don't back your assertions....Do you honestly think I'm unaware of this? Indeed, I know people can go back and read exactly what has been said unless a thread or posts have been removed. You have done exactly what I said many times. Do you just totally lack self-awareness or do you think if you pretend the other person is stupid that others will believe the masquerade?
So, what demonstrable evidence do you offer for the validity of your God?Again, you feel that the evidence is in lack, there are many of us who do not. The evidence is there for us and for the most part isn't hard to find if you actually want it.
Humble towards who or what then?Again something you say at some point to everyone you debate with. You really don't know what circular reasoning is. I was not debating in my statements, nor did I offer you any conclusion that was stated implicitly or explicitly in my statement that the truth must be the most important thing even if it means you must put down all that you have previously believed. I did not say what conclusion you should come to, though I did use myself as an example of one who needed to legitimately seek the truth. I was not implying you should come to the same conclusions I did though I might hope that for you. I was simply stating that truth is what is important and you can only find truth if it becomes all important and you have a willingness to become absolutely humble.