MY favorite arguments for the existence of the Christian God:

[AV1611VET]

Hey, AV, what do you call someone who keeps making the same wrong claim after he's shown to be wrong?

A scientist.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've seen them, many times. They're rubbish.

Just don't say this then:

So you decide that something is wrong because you don't like it,

... or I'll correct you with that rubbish.

 

[AV1611VET]

Apparently the Oxford English Dictionary traces it back to the 1500's and it appears to be, as the other poster noted, more related to the Greek "chi", the first letter of Christ's name than your suggestion.

And as I have stated before, I'm familiar with higher academia using the Greek language to propagate their philosophy.

Ever heard of Strong's Concordance?

 

[HitchSlap]

Ever heard of Strong's Concordance?

Why, is that what lower academia uses?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why, is that what lower academia uses?

Lower, higher, and everyone in between.

It gives academians an air of authority they don't have.

 

[HitchSlap]

Lower, higher, and everyone in between.

It gives academians an air of authority they don't have.

I wouldn’t bet on it.

 

[Kylie]

A scientist.

Except scientists have been shown consistently to change their views when they are shown to be wrong, haven't they, AV?

So now YOU are the one who is wrong!

 

[Kylie]

Just don't say this then:
... or I'll correct you with that rubbish.

And you'll fail every time. You can't correct me with a rubbish argument, AV. If you want to, try a decent argument.

 

[Dave RP]

And you'll fail every time. You can't correct me with a rubbish argument, AV. If you want to, try a decent argument.

Regrettably AV's mind is closed, he has only one argument, "god did it and science is fake" - that false premise dominates his life. It is impossible to have an open discussion with a closed book.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So you decide that something is wrong because you don't like it, despite the huge amount of evidence against you?

Reality can take a hike, huh?

When people have a particular set of beliefs, presenting factual evidence that contradicts those beliefs will often have the contrary effect of cementing them more strongly:

 

[Dave RP]

When people have a particular set of beliefs, presenting factual evidence that contradicts those beliefs will often have the contrary effect of cementing them more strongly:

I think that's a fair point, if you've held religious beliefs for years, since you were a child it must be potentially very upsetting to have them challenged in a way that might make them question something they'd relied upon for so long. Faith sometimes requires a closed mind.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think that's a fair point, if you've held religious beliefs for years, since you were a child it must be potentially very upsetting to have them challenged in a way that might make them question something they'd relied upon for so long. Faith sometimes requires a closed mind.

I'm sure I come across as "closed minded" to those who argue that Moses never existed, the Jews were never in captivity in Egypt, Jesus was just a prophet, angels don't exist, the spiritual realm is a figment of imagination, the Bible is on a par with the Koran, etc. and so on.

In that context, I'll be glad to plead GUILTY to being closed-minded.

 

[Dave RP]

I'm sure I come across as "closed minded" to those who argue that Moses never existed, the Jews were never in captivity in Egypt, Jesus was just a prophet, angels don't exist, the spiritual realm is a figment of imagination, the Bible is on a par with the Koran, etc. and so on.

In that context, I'll be glad to plead GUILTY to being closed-minded.

You come across as closed minded when a conversation starts about anything scientific. There is never sufficient evidence for you, you usually close off the discussion with a bible quotation.

As for your list, I am sure that if a scholar were to argue about the historical accuracy of the Old Testament, he would do so from a scholarly viewpoint, not just accepting that because it's in the bible it must be true. The second part of your list - was Jesus just a prophet, angels, the spiritual realm etc. I think it is impossible to prove or disprove any of them, although sceptics will say there is zero empirical proof of any of them. As for the bible/ koran, well to be fair they are both books written by men who say they are speaking gods word and therefore in that respect they are on a par.

Non believers are open minded to belief, I think we just want to see some evidence, until now there has been no measurable evidence for any of the gods believed in by humanity, whereas independently audited and verified science has put forward theories for the universe which match what we see around us.

If a host of angels appeared and sung the praises of jesus, if god made himself plainly visible, if jesus returned, if the "spiritual realm" was discovered to be somewhere then I feel pretty certain that most non believers would start to believe pretty quickly.

Perhaps you could examine science with an open mid and accept that you can still have a spiritual side, still believe in god but accept that science can explain a lot of what we see, and is not just a hoax.

 

[bhsmte]

I think that's a fair point, if you've held religious beliefs for years, since you were a child it must be potentially very upsetting to have them challenged in a way that might make them question something they'd relied upon for so long. Faith sometimes requires a closed mind.

Indeed. It is emotionally painful to acknowledge certain personal beliefs are wrong, when so much evidence mounts against the same. Hence, we see the crude defense mechanisms form to ward off the threat and the cognitive dissonance. Only, when it becomes to painful for a person to keep dsnying well evidenced reality, will a person than adjust their beliefs.

 

[AV1611VET]

You come across as closed minded when a conversation starts about anything scientific.

Good.

There is never sufficient evidence for you, you usually close off the discussion with a bible quotation.

That works both ways, doesn't it?

Churches, iconography, literature, songs, holidays, and martyrs are all handwaved away with those of closed minds, aren't they?

As for your list, I am sure that if a scholar were to argue about the historical accuracy of the Old Testament, he would do so from a scholarly viewpoint, not just accepting that because it's in the bible it must be true.

Scholars HAVE argued about the historical accuracy of the Old Testament from a scholarly viewpoint.

And we see the results of their research, don't we?

It can be summed up in one of two words: antisemitism and/or antizionism.

The second part of your list - was Jesus just a prophet, angels, the spiritual realm etc. I think it is impossible to prove or disprove any of them, although sceptics will say there is zero empirical proof of any of them.

Of course they will.

But don't just call them "skeptics."

Scientists do the same thing: handwave cause-and-effect, handwave consensus of opinion, handwave relativity, handwave ANYTHING that threatens their godless paradigms.

At least my Boolean standards includes science.

Is your science willing to include the Bible?

As for the bible/ koran, well to be fair they are both books written by men who say they are speaking gods word and therefore in that respect they are on a par.

Ya ... ya.

I'm familiar with the rhetoric.

That's why I'm proud to be "closed minded" from your perspective.

Non believers are open minded to belief,

And I'm Genghis Khan.

... I think we just want to see some evidence,

You probably go past it on the way to work every day.

Merry Christmas.

... until now there has been no measurable evidence for any of the gods believed in by humanity,

That's because you want the evidence out of school, off the courthouse lawn, off our coins, out of our pledge of allegiance, left at the front door at work, and God knows where all else.

Then you claim there's no evidence.

... whereas independently audited and verified science has put forward theories for the universe which match what we see around us.

Ya ... it's called myopia.

If a host of angels appeared and sung the praises of jesus, if god made himself plainly visible, if jesus returned, if the "spiritual realm" was discovered to be somewhere then I feel pretty certain that most non believers would start to believe pretty quickly.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

How about if the world started to fill up with water?

You guys deny even that would convert unbelievers.

Perhaps you could examine science with an open mid and accept that you can still have a spiritual side,

I do.

I call it my Boolean Standards.

But you guys are too quick to ridicule them to see my allegiance to science.

... still believe in god but accept that science can explain a lot of what we see,

Again, I call that my Boolean Standards.

... and is not just a hoax.

No comment.

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed. It is emotionally painful to acknowledge certain personal beliefs are wrong, when so much evidence mounts against the same. Hence, we see the crude defense mechanisms form to ward off the threat and the cognitive dissonance. Only, when it becomes to painful for a person to keep dsnying well evidenced reality, will a person than adjust their beliefs.

If you want to talk about emotions, how about those who went after Judge Moore and his display of the Ten Commandments? or were they emotionless robots (scientists)?

 

[Dave RP]

If you want to talk about emotions, how about those who went after Judge Moore and his display of the Ten Commandments? or were they emotionless robots (scientists)?

I have no idea who Judge Moore is, that news has not permeated this side of the Atlantic ocean.

People of science have plenty of emotion by the way, as do atheists. Atheists have compassion, empathy, love, as well as the negative emotions of jealousy and hate. Just like all people, religious or not we are as fallible as each other.

 

[Speedwell]

If you want to talk about emotions, how about those who went after Judge Moore and his display of the Ten Commandments? or were they emotionless robots (scientists)?

Judge Moore deserved to be gone after. He made it clear in his pronouncements about it
that his monument to the Ten Commandments was not just a monument to the idea that the Ten Commandments were good laws worthy of all men to be considered, but a monument to right-wing fundamentalist Protestantism, the only religion which should be tolerated by the legal system he represented.

 

[Speedwell]

I have no idea who Judge Moore is, that news has not permeated this side of the Atlantic ocean.

People of science have plenty of emotion by the way, as do atheists. Atheists have compassion, empathy, love, as well as the negative emotions of jealousy and hate. Just like all people, religious or not we are as fallible as each other.

You'll undoubtedly hear something of him. He's a creationist hero running for the US Senate from Alabama. It has come out that he likes diddling little girls, but the creationists of Alabama are still behind him because their political agenda is more important to them. The election is next Tuesday--watch for it.

 

[Dave RP]

You'll undoubtedly hear something of him. He's a creationist hero running for the US Senate from Alabama. It has come out that he likes diddling little girls, but the creationists of Alabama are still behind him because their political agenda is more important to them. The election is next Tuesday--watch for it.

Sorry, yes I've seen the story, politics has reached such a low that people would rather vote for a kiddy fiddler than someone from the other party, very sad.