Why?

Whenever I am debating with a religious person, the arguement is always on why not to believe in certain elements of that persons religion. Such as the flood, the creatures in the bible, and etc.
How come the arguement is never why they believe in that religion? If there is any logic in that decision? If there is no proof, nothing close to even evidence, why believe it just because you were spoon feed it as a child?

I would say people believe in these religions for their own pleasure, to help put a human face on the universe. But I am not asking why you like to believe it, i am asking why you logically think these storys are the truth.

Isn't faith just believing in whatever you want for your own satisfaction? WHY believe in these storys with no proof, other than your own pleasure?

Because the track record for the Bible saying something is true and scoffers saying it isn't invariably ends (when proof is produced) in the Bible's favor.

The Garden of Eden is bordered by four rivers that do not come together as described...today. In ancient times, before the end of the last ice age, the rivers extended much further south into what is now the Persian Gulf. NASA side-scanning radar satellites have traced the ancient riverbeds now under sea level to come together exactly as described in Genesis.

Score one: Bible

The Red Sea crossing couldn't possibly have happened as depicted in movies like THE TEN COMMANDMENTS or PRINCE OF EGYPT...but those movies get it wrong. The account in Exodus describes very precisely what happened, a phenomenon that is still common on the Red Sea today when high on shore winds and extreme low tides can expose islands and sandbars normally covered by several feet of water.

Score two: Bible

The New Testament describes Pontius Pilate as having ruled elsewhere before being made governor of Judea. This is at odds with Roman historical documents which put another man as governor of that area...until an inscription was recently found listing Pilate as the lieutenant-governor, thus confirming that he had ruled in that area (just not in the number one slot).

Score three: Bible

There are many, many more example. Why do we defend these points?

Because the scoffers and the doubters and the "enlightened" rational people used these apparent discrepancies to discredit the Bible as a factual document.

And once the factual basis of the Bible can be discredited, the moral authority behind it can be dismissed as well.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "love your neighbor as you love yourself" are just plain common sense ways to live. If everybody -- regardless of theological or philosophical POV -- would follow those rules, 99% of all the trouble in the world today would vanish overnight.

But people are selfish, and they don't want to do the right thing, they want to do the things that pleases them (ignoring the fact that if everybody is looking out for their neighbor, there will be no genuine want or lack in this world).

So they need to discredit the Scriptures, because by casting aspertions (spl?) on them and dismissing them as "fairy tales" or "myths" they can say "Well, the moral codes and instructions are based on false concepts, so I don't have to follow them."

You'll note that a lot of the folk here who believe in the Bible and Faith and Jehovah and all that do have proof, at least in their own eyes. They'll see something you would call coincidence or luck and say, "Behold, it is the L-rd working his ways on us!". That may not be proof enough for you, but what the hell, they sure enough seem to believe it, who's to call it wrong.

Wrong in the philosophical sense not the scientific one which, I've noticed, tends to get confused.

Jesus smokes pot.

Vermeulen said:

Whenever I am debating with a religious person, the arguement is always on why not to believe in certain elements of that persons religion. Such as the flood, the creatures in the bible, and etc.
How come the arguement is never why they believe in that religion? If there is any logic in that decision? If there is no proof, nothing close to even evidence, why believe it just because you were spoon feed it as a child?

I would say people believe in these religions for their own pleasure, to help put a human face on the universe. But I am not asking why you like to believe it, i am asking why you logically think these storys are the truth.

Isn't faith just believing in whatever you want for your own satisfaction? WHY believe in these storys with no proof, other than your own pleasure?

Click to expand...

You've been arguing with the wrong people!

Fine, there is some evidence of some events in the bible, and I can see why people try to discredit the bible with the small facts like that. But that is not what I am asking, I am not trying to prove the bible wrong I am asking why you think beyond a reasonable doubt those events happened in the first place.

Don't you think, if your parents would have been told something differrent, then you would have been told something different, you would believe in that just as much? So why then?

I am not trying to get a response like the world would be better if everyone believed, or it makes me happier to believe, I am asking why logically believe this in the first place. Isn't it just that your parents spoon fed you this?

Check out the book More than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell. It's a short read and will explain a lot to you.

THE CASE FOR FAITH, THE CASE FOR CHRIST, and THE CASE FOR A CREATOR (all by Lee Sobel, I think) are excellent books that prove the veracity of the Bible.

We believe because we have faith. We have faith because we have seen God working with our own eyes. What is recounted in the Bible is an accurate description of events as reported by the eyewitnesses.

More than a Carpenter, and Lee Strobel's books are excellent books for christians, but they make many errors and are very deceptive. If you have to lie to support your belief, is the belief worth having?

Do they make errors, or do they tell you things you don't want to hear?

No, there are several easily documented errors. I don't know if it is intentional or not because I don't know enough about their background.

It would make me happy if everything they said was true.

alright, I can see believing in something like a god because you feel his presence, but that doesn't explain the belief in the storys of the bible or the idea of jesus.

The biggest problem with the bible is that it is a mix of fact and fiction, which has been created by the contribution of many different authors who have all added their own slant to parts of the story.

The main result of this is that you get a book that can be accurate in some ways but can also contain a vast amount of bias in the favour of the athors views, opinions and desire to see his will forced upon others.

Another problem is that hearsay and verbal story telling all help to further distort from the original facts as they were first presented.

Let me ask something: if the bible is literally true and always correct then why are there so many different versions....?

Faith= Believing in it, when there is no physical evidence, but KNOWING it's true. If you were saved, you'd know (no offense intended). There's just something about it. You just know.

Also, even though the bible was written by different authors, they did NOT put their own veiws into it. God ordained it all and gave them the words to say. Without God telling them what to say, it would all be a buch of mindless jibberish.

Buzz Dixon said:

Because the track record for the Bible saying something is true and scoffers saying it isn't invariably ends (when proof is produced) in the Bible's favor.

Click to expand...

Except for things like a global flood and complete lack of archaeological evidence for the exodus story.

Jedi christian said:

Faith= Believing in it, when there is no physical evidence, but KNOWING it's true.

Click to expand...

If there is no evidence, you don't know, you wish/hope/feel/want it to be true, but you don't know.

I'm sorry, Michabo, but I don't think you understand my point. Faith is knowing without a doubt in your heart it is true, even if your brain is saying "But it can't be true..." or "But that's impossible!".

michabo said:

More than a Carpenter, and Lee Strobel's books are excellent books for christians, but they make many errors and are very deceptive. If you have to lie to support your belief, is the belief worth having?

Click to expand...

Such as.....

Mechanical Bliss said:

Except for things like a global flood and complete lack of archaeological evidence for the exodus story.

Click to expand...

The exodus story is supported by Egyptian records. They have a different slant on it, of course, but they record the event.

The global flood did occur, though not the way it is popularly understood. Rising sea levels from the end of the last ice age sugmerged several cities and nasceant civilizations that existed before Babylon, Egypt, etc. Submerged cities and structures have been located off the coast of India and Japan. The Black Sea was originally a fresh water lake until sea water from the Mediterrenean came pouring in (itself a large valley until about 80,000 years ago when rising sea water from an even earlier and more massive ice age melt off flooded it). Archeologists long thought that rivers were the cradle of civilization because they permitted farming and trade; now it seems that rivers were where fleeing inhabitants of flooding coastal cities went. It also explains why so many geographically diverse civilizations seemed to spring up within a few centuries of one abother along the great rivers of the world: Coastal civilizations would have been in contact with one another long before that and the rising sea level would have only isolated them by forcing them upriver.

The ark is often depicted in art as a boat, but a more accurate depiction would make it more like a barge. At the time Noah and his family were living in the Black Sea basin; to them it must have very much seemed like the whole world was flooded.

And we have to ask what exactly was meant by "the world" in the story of Noah. Was it literally the entirely planet covered in water? Or was "the world" used metaphorically, the same way Caesar taxed "the world" at the birth of Christ. Did the Meso-Americans and Chinese send tax dollars to Rome?

"The world" to Noah consisted of the Black Sea basin, and there would have been far fewer animals to catch and carry than if the entire planet was involved. Further, assuming Noah wasn't stupid, he probably carried the youngest animals he could find to save space and supplies aboard the ark: A pair of lion cubs would be far easier to handle than a full grown pair of lions, right?