How does one come to believe something?

[Archaeopteryx]

Sure.
It would account for your response to me, as if you had no idea what I was saying, and also because you have to have had experiences in life to know that things like this statement by you, "I had not considered that option. I explore reality, and on this site I learn about religious people." extremely arrogant or ignorant or both.

And then you insist that my statements arent what I say they are, when only a child would do such things.
I'm genuinely not trying to confuse you and you make it sound as if that's exactly what Im doing, and on top of that you keep backing my statement up about your personality by doing things, this last statement you made, "I had not considered that option. I explore reality, and on this site I learn about religious people." totally sounds as if you put yourself above Christians, which is why I said its arrogant and or ignorant.
And that statement all by itself even makes the scripture I quoted more accurate.

Psalm 81:12
"So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices."

So it really does make a difference because as a mature adult it has more significance in that it's more genuine because you have a better chance of understanding what you said, and how arrogant it is to say such a thing.
But as a child, you'd just look uneducated and inexperienced.

Are you a child?

 

[Mattao]

Are you a child?

No. Why do you ask?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No. Why do you ask?

Juvenile antics led me to suspect that you might be.

 

[Mattao]

Juvenile antics led me to suspect that you might be.

You mean by repeating what I said?
Yes, they are getting juvenile then, aren't they.
Pretty soon, I'll grab a few other Christians and we'll dance in circles around you and then later, when Im alone you can do the same with some fellow secularist to me.
Then I'll cry and you'll laugh and say Im to cute to exist and break out your ugly ray... wait. Thats something totally different.

 

[Mattao]

And, to a mature, experienced person, you may appear to be evasive, and creating all of this as an attempt to divert attention from the topic of this thread, and the question at hand.

If you like, go back to post #223, and address the question, instead of attacking my character.

O.K.
Last time.
I keep saying that it's in your nature to question someone else' experience and you keep telling me I'm trying to tell you what you're thinking after you explain that its in your nature to question someone else' experience.
We're starting to explore the many facets of Monty Python.

This piece of scripture, doesn't say anything except that, "I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices." it isnt explicit in anything other then, "I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices." and doesn't say what you are thinking or even implying what you're thinking it only says that you have been given over to your own devices.

So if we recap, this will be the highlights.
I have quoted a scripture that states you have been left to your own devices and then said that I "believe" your personality doesn't allow you to accept Jesus had you been given any proof of him.
And then I asked you if not wanting to be a Christian had anything to do with it.

No where in there did I tell you what you were thinking, but what I believed.
And the question is still good, could it be that you dont want to be a Christian?
Which isnt a statement suggesting that you dont want to be a Christian but a question asking if you dont want to be.

And instead of answering said question, "which Im still not sure is because you didnt understand it or you never examined it" you said you never asked it before.
Which suggest that youre partially ignorant of why you believe the way you do or that you're simply to satisfied with your current beliefs to answer it. Which again makes the scripture I quoted even more accurate.

 

[Davian]

O.K.
Last time.

I didn't think you would take on that question.

I keep saying that it's in your nature to question someone else' experience and you keep telling me I'm trying to tell you what you're thinking after you explain that its in your nature to question someone else' experience.

No, was I not questioning his experience. I was asking for him to demonstrate that his experience comports with reality. Maybe it does. He said he could do it.

Pretend we are in a philosophy forum. Did you read the statement of purpose?

We're starting to explore the many facets of Monty Python.

We are following your lead.

This piece of scripture, doesn't say anything except that, "I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices." it isnt explicit in anything other then, "I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices." and doesn't say what you are thinking or even implying what you're thinking it only says that you have been given over to your own devices.

So if we recap, this will be the highlights.
I have quoted a scripture that states you have been left to your own devices and then said that I "believe" your personality doesn't allow you to accept Jesus had you been given any proof of him.

That is a useless belief. You cannot know how my brain works and you don't have proof of Jesus' divinity (or we would not be having this exchange). Your book is as useful as that funny hat I showed you earlier. It may be that this belief gives you comfort, and I credit the authors of the Bible with crafting such lines into their work.

And then I asked you if not wanting to be a Christian had anything to do with it.

No where in there did I tell you what you were thinking, but what I believed.

You belief is wrong. I have no issues with becoming a religionist in itself; what I want to avoid is believing things that do not actually comport with reality. If Christianity goes out with the religious bathwater, don't aim the blame at me.

And the question is still good, could it be that you dont want to be a Christian?
Which isnt a statement suggesting that you dont want to be a Christian but a question asking if you dont want to be.

I do not want to have false beliefs.

And instead of answering said question, "which Im still not sure is because you didnt understand it or you never examined it" you said you never asked it before.

No, that is not what I wrote.

Which suggest that youre partially ignorant of why you believe the way you do or that you're simply to satisfied with your current beliefs to answer it.

Niether.

Which again makes the scripture I quoted even more accurate.

Which makes the scripture you quoted wrong. Now, you could keep digging and find another "accurate" quote from your bible, but you should know that it has been my experience here that there is no position, however contrary to another, that someone cannot find support for in the Bible.

As continued guesses at the nature of my character are off-topic to this thread and against the site rules, I will leave you with the wrong that you have accumulated to date, unless you are up to going back to that earlier post.

 

[quatona]

Why do you assume that those who are seeking answers to questions science can not answer haven't examined other religious view points?

I know I have and found those that I have looked at to be either ridiculous or just flatly fantasy.

The following is but a partial list of great scientists who had a firm, deep belief in G-d the creator

Max Plank Noble Prize Physic
Wernier Heisenberg Noble Prize Physic
ERWIN SCHRÖDINGER, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ROBERT MILLIKAN, Nobel Laureate in Physics
CHARLES TOWNES, Nobel Laureate in Physics.
ARTHUR SCHAWLOW, Nobel Laureate in Physics
WILLIAM PHILLIPS, Nobel Laureate in Physics
SIR WILLIAM H. BRAGG, Nobel Laureate in Physics
GUGLIELMO MARCONI, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ARTHUR COMPTON, Nobel Laureate in Physics

There are many, many more.... The idea that one must abandon reason to believe in G-d and specifically Christ is a poorly conceived lie.

There are 30 Nobel Laureates just in the field of Physics that profess a strong belief in G-d

I´m not necessarily claiming that you need to abandon reason to believe in -o-, but I don´t find your argument convincing. The fact that they are accomplished, acknowledged and highly decorated scientists doesn´t mean they can´t have completely irrational private beliefs.

I would venture to say that no one posting on this message board posses either the intellect and certainly not the accomplishment in science that these men have

So?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why do you assume that those who are seeking answers to questions science can not answer haven't examined other religious view points?

I know I have and found those that I have looked at to be either ridiculous or just flatly fantasy.

The following is but a partial list of great scientists who had a firm, deep belief in G-d the creator

Max Plank Noble Prize Physic
Wernier Heisenberg Noble Prize Physic
ERWIN SCHRÖDINGER, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ROBERT MILLIKAN, Nobel Laureate in Physics
CHARLES TOWNES, Nobel Laureate in Physics.
ARTHUR SCHAWLOW, Nobel Laureate in Physics
WILLIAM PHILLIPS, Nobel Laureate in Physics
SIR WILLIAM H. BRAGG, Nobel Laureate in Physics
GUGLIELMO MARCONI, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ARTHUR COMPTON, Nobel Laureate in Physics

There are many, many more.... The idea that one must abandon reason to believe in G-d and specifically Christ is a poorly conceived lie.

There are 30 Nobel Laureates just in the field of Physics that profess a strong belief in G-d

I don't think anyone denies that highly accomplished scientists are capable of believing in supernatural beings. A 1998 study by Larson and Whitham suggests that a large proportion of "greater" scientists either doubt or disbelieve the existence of a personal God. More recent work shows a similar trend.

I would venture to say that no one posting on this message board posses either the intellect and certainly not the accomplishment in science that these men have

Isaac Newton was a highly accomplished scientist. He also pursued alchemy and biblical numerology. Being a brilliant scientist does not make one invulnerable to intellectual blunders.

 

[KCfromNC]

There is proof the atheist will never see, a reality they are starved of and therefore have no "evidence" of. The atheist never will. Not that it's not available, but no one can possibly remain an atheist when exposed to it. I know exactly what you're talking about, it's been 34 years for me.

Hate to break it to you, but atheists have the same feelings and emotions you do. Atheists obviously don't confuse them for a god, of course, and instead realize that they are just how the human brain works.

 

[KCfromNC]

There's a great deal of lack in understanding of scripture among atheists

The research disagrees with you, unless you think there's an even greater lack of understanding among Christians - http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/.

 

[lumberjohn]

You must have a PhD in Bovine Scatology to attempt to pull that one off. Jews missed it for the same reason you did, they didn't pay attention, that is, excluding the Messianic Jews who know you're wrong. The very day of His appearing was prophesied. No way were they not about Jesus.

We could spend pages and pages going through each of the Old Testament prophecies relied upon by Christians, but that would take this discussion way off topic and be an enormous time drain. Instead, I'll just provide one example, which I think is representative of the problem. Let's begin at the beginning of the first gospel appearing in the New Testament, Matthew.

Matthew begins his tale with Mary and Joseph. Immediately after their marriage, but somehow before they can consummate their vows, Mary becomes pregnant. Joseph is understandably troubled, but is assured by an angel that Mary remains a virgin; her child was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Matthew claims this is the fulfillment of a “prophecy” found in Isaiah 7:14 (“Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a young woman / virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”)

There are several reasons to dismiss Matthew’s claim that Jesus’ birth fulfilled and Old Testament prophecy. First, no Hebrew scholar or critical scholar considers Isaiah 7:14 a messianic prophecy. It occurs in a story about King Ahaz of Judah, who is concerned that Jerusalem will soon be conquered. The prophet Isaiah promises Ahaz that God will destroy his enemies before a child named Immanuel (“God-with-us”), not yet conceived, reaches the age of reason. The point of mentioning the child is to establish the immediacy by which the destruction will commence. It is a secondary prophecy supporting a primary prophecy. Both prophecies come to pass, as Ahaz’s enemies are destroyed and disaster is averted. The Immanuel prophecy is made and fulfilled within the same story, leaving nothing for Jesus or anyone else to fulfill.

The second point is that while the original Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14, “almah,” simply meant “young woman,” this word was subsequently translated into the Greek word “parthenos” in compiling the Septuagint. While “almah” does not imply virginity, “parthenos” does. The translator of the Septuagint therefore changed the meaning of the word, resulting in a natural occurrence being transformed into a miraculous one. It is clear that Matthew used the Septuagint as a source, and thus read Isaiah 7:14 as referencing a virgin birth when no such virgin birth was originally intended. Matthew surely would have recognized that virgin births were seen by many pagan religions as signs of divinity, noting that this would provide a great selling point for Christian missionaries.

Assume the original text of a document identified the birth of a three-legged goat as a portentous sign. Assume further that in translating that text into another language, “three-legged goat” somehow became “talking cow.” Finally, assume that a later writer supported his claims by representing that the sign was fulfilled, through the birth of a talking cow. You would no doubt dismiss his claim because (1) talking cows don’t exist in nature; and (2) the original text said nothing about a talking cow.

Matthew mis-identified scriptural authority for a virgin birth and shoehorned it into a prophecy that was never intended as messianic by its author. He then worked such a virgin birth into his nativity narrative specifically to demonstrate that such a prophecy had been fulfilled and that Jesus was indeed divine. For people willing to accept Matthew’s claims regarding the OT prophecy and buy into his narrative, this must have seemed like powerful confirmation. Once one recognizes how Matthew misrepresented the original prophecy, however, his story of an actual virgin birth is easily dismissed.

 

[lumberjohn]

There's a great deal of lack in understanding of scripture among atheists, both in content and context (not that there isn't among many theists as well), which is why they have no real idea what we believe or why. Most prefer to tell us what we believe.

Okay. I suspect we can all agree that there is much misunderstanding of scripture across the board. Now, since presumably this doesn't apply to you, would you care to enlighten us on the scriptural support for opposing abortion?

 

[KCfromNC]

<STAFF EDIT>

Seems to me like a pretty insignificant thing to use to make sweeping judgements about huge populations of people, which is why I never wrote what you're trying to pin on me.

I'm going to explain exactly what this means and it has nothing to do with you but with an earlier incident where someone failed to see what I meant. (Better meaning, that they are some how more equipped to understanding emotions.) Which would by definition make them better.

I have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean.

And when you say, "Hate to break it to you" are you suggesting that the person you originally replied to was under the assumption that atheist didnt understand emotions?

No. I was suggesting that the poster's claim that he had some sort of special insight that atheists lacked was mistaken.

 

[lumberjohn]

<STAFF EDIT>

Independent evidence supports that atheists are statistically

smarter (Burnham Beckwith, “The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith,” Free Inquiry 6(2) (1986): 46-52; Helmut Nyborg, “the Intelligence-Religiosity Nexus,” Intelligence 37(1) (2009): 81-93.),

more scientifically literate (Richard Lynn et al, “Average Intelligence Predicts Atheism Rates Across 137 Nations,” Intelligence 37(1) (2009): 11-15; E.L. Larson and L. Witham, “Leading Scientists Still Reject God,” Nature 394 (1998): 313); https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/religion-reduces-science-literacy-in-america/),

and better versed in the Bible
(http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/).

But I would never say “better.” That is such a subjective term.

 

[bhsmte]

O.K.
Last time.
I keep saying that it's in your nature to question someone else' experience and you keep telling me I'm trying to tell you what you're thinking after you explain that its in your nature to question someone else' experience.
We're starting to explore the many facets of Monty Python.

This piece of scripture, doesn't say anything except that, "I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices." it isnt explicit in anything other then, "I gave them over to their stubborn hearts to follow their own devices." and doesn't say what you are thinking or even implying what you're thinking it only says that you have been given over to your own devices.

So if we recap, this will be the highlights.
I have quoted a scripture that states you have been left to your own devices and then said that I "believe" your personality doesn't allow you to accept Jesus had you been given any proof of him.
And then I asked you if not wanting to be a Christian had anything to do with it.

No where in there did I tell you what you were thinking, but what I believed.
And the question is still good, could it be that you dont want to be a Christian?

Has it ever occurred to you, that some don't see scripture as an accurate description of reality? What some unknown authors wrote in stories 2000 years ago may be the end all for you, but not others and especially so when the scripture is loaded with contradictions, is interpreted in thousands of different ways by Christians themselves and doesn't do well with an objective historical credibility examination.

Now, if scripture works for you, then that is cool, it just doesn't mean the same to others.

And regarding your personal experiences, I as well don't doubt these experiences are real to you. There is a difference though, between them being real to you and you being able to demonstrate they are real to someone else. I am quite certain, you don't go along with the personal experiences people who believe in different religions and Gods as you claim, so why would you expect anyone else to accept your personal experiences as being accurate, outside of yourself?

 

[Mattao]

That is a useless belief. You cannot know how my brain works and you don't have proof of Jesus' divinity (or we would not be having this exchange).

Hence, you are questioning my belief, because if you werent we wouldnt... That's right, be having this exchange.

Has it ever occurred to you, that some don't see scripture as an accurate description of reality?

O.K.
First off, you're suggesting what I am saying before I had said anything to the contrary and according to the individual I quoted, that you then quoted me where as and here in... That is against the rules and you shall forever live with your pension for breaking them.

The only thing I said and the only thing I have suggested, is that the scripture in question does not suggest what he is thinking and that it does suggest he wouldn't want to be a Christian.
The fact that some people do not believe in the scripture only came up when I wanted to validate the scripture and has nothing to do with weather or not I think he or you or anyone else believes in what its saying.

Although, I am forced to point out that the secularist keep saying things that make the scripture relevant as well as accurate.
It is you who have been proving it right weather you believe what the bible says or not, not I.

I am telling you that I "BELIEVE" that you dont want to be Christians and I am using this scripture to show why I believe it. That is true.
But the fact that I am using the scripture and that I believe that you dont want to be a Christian is just part of my beliefs and has nothing to do with what I am thinking about what you are thinking of or if you believe in what I believe.
Just that so far, from my perspective and the perspective of rational thinking, you are proving my beliefs correct through your own statements.

 

[Mattao]

Independent evidence supports that atheists are statistically

smarter (Burnham Beckwith, “The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith,” Free Inquiry 6(2) (1986): 46-52; Helmut Nyborg, “the Intelligence-Religiosity Nexus,” Intelligence 37(1) (2009): 81-93.),

more scientifically literate (Richard Lynn et al, “Average Intelligence Predicts Atheism Rates Across 137 Nations,” Intelligence 37(1) (2009): 11-15; E.L. Larson and L. Witham, “Leading Scientists Still Reject God,” Nature 394 (1998): 313); https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/religion-reduces-science-literacy-in-america/),

and better versed in the Bible
(http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/).

But I would never say “better.” That is such a subjective term.

Actually, better is the best term because better represents that which is comparative of good and well and by the examples you have left above, that is exactly what you are doing.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually, better is the best term because better represents that which is comparative of good and well and by the examples you have left above, that is exactly what you are doing.

No, he is not stating someone is better, which is a term that could include a whole host of subjective interpretations.

He is pointing out correlations, between non believers and; knowledge of religions, education and the like, that are well established.

 

[Mattao]

Show me how my actions have proven scripture to be right and be specific.

You use the word right in a broad sense, I am using it to describe only what I said. That I believe you do not want to be a Christian and that God has left you to your own devises.
You claim that you do not believe in scripture or the bible as fact and that you would like me to demonstrate why I believe they are real.
Your own words make my statement correct, in what you yourself have said. Is it a universal truth? Could be because so far all secularist who have come into this thread to talk to me have told me what you have said.
Am I trying to prove that the statement is truth in and of itself? not exactly, just that it is possible for someone like yourself to agree with it if you see it from another perspective, and you have.

 

[Mattao]

No, he is not stating someone is better, which is a term that could include a whole host of subjective interpretations.

He is pointing out correlations, between non believers and; knowledge of religions, education and the like, that are well established.

I keep saying, O.K. like it helps and it honestly doesnt.

He is pointing out why atheist excel at somethings Christians dont, which in turn is pointing out the better one or superior.
Better being the best choice of words.