What Evidence Would Make You Believe Again?

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

 

 

Any evidence would be a place to start.

 

 

The evidence usually given is the books of the Bible.  And for Catholics and some others also the writings of the early church fathers.

 

But as we all know contradictions, errors and absurdities abound in these texts.

 

Apart from that, the arguments given by Christians usually fall into the category of "I have some warm fuzzy feelings" or "the universe exists therefore God exists".

 

Which as we know on this forum, does not prove a great deal, if anything.

 

On the contrary, the Bible is a category of evidence called special revelation. There is far more evidence than that.

 

Do your research on natural theology. Here are some starters...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=natural+theology

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=natural%20theology

 

 

You have to look at the evidence or data 100 percent impartially.  Of course the Exxon scientist will prove global warming is a joke and the hippy prof will prove the exact opposite.

 

What makes you think you are looking at the evidence 100% impartially?

[OrdinaryClay]

"If there is no evidence that would convince you otherwise this means your disbelief is not based on

logic." Clay

 

I think he means that if you want include absolutely impossible alternatives in the category of those

things you would not believe if evidence were somehow presented, then you are violating logic. It's a

word trick. It's like, if god can do anything, how could he lift something that is too heavy for him to

lift?

 

As to clay's illogical statement, he over looks that fact that if there is no evidence at all to support belief, then it would be illogical to believe. The reason the is no evidence to CONVINCE a person

otherwise is that no evidence exists. So he's not rejecting evidence; the evidence is not there.

If there is evidence that supports belief, that's a different question. But, what IS that evidence?

You're turn Clay. bill

There is no word trick involved. My sentence was simple .

 

If a person admits there is no evidence that would convince them otherwise they are clearly saying that it was not the lack of evidence that convinced them to disbelieve. They are saying evidence has nothing to do with it one way or the other. All the huff and puff about the Bible not being evidential is all just a distraction for why they really disbelieve.

[slave2six]

If god showed up not just to me but to every person, set everyone straight so that we could end all the bullshit fighting over personal opinions, if he ended human suffering and showed that he gave a crap about humanity as a whole, if he intervened and ended all war, then I'd believe. Not before.

[slave2six]

I'm a committed apatheist, so even if god showed up to me personally, miraculously resurrected my favorite childhood pet, turned my tap water into whiskey, and placed a hundred million dollars in my bank account, I still wouldn't give a damn.

 

You could give the money to me then.

[antix]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any evidence would be a place to start.

 

 

The evidence usually given is the books of the Bible.  And for Catholics and some others also the writings of the early church fathers.

 

But as we all know contradictions, errors and absurdities abound in these texts.

 

Apart from that, the arguments given by Christians usually fall into the category of "I have some warm fuzzy feelings" or "the universe exists therefore God exists".

 

Which as we know on this forum, does not prove a great deal, if anything.

 

On the contrary, the Bible is a category of evidence called special revelation. There is far more evidence than that.

 

Do your research on natural theology. Here are some starters...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=natural+theology

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=natural%20theology

 

 

You have to look at the evidence or data 100 percent impartially.  Of course the Exxon scientist will prove global warming is a joke and the hippy prof will prove the exact opposite.

 

What makes you think you are looking at the evidence 100% impartially?

 

 

I probably am not, but I admit it

[pawn]

The bible is "good evidence" for christianity being true, just like the Quran is "good evidence" that Islam is true. Or the Book of Mormon is "good evidence" that Mormonism is true....so on and so forth, all religions are similar in that they are all lacking any real evidence.

[slave2six]

Personally, I do believe the Bible is a valid evidence source and not simply because I'm a Christian.

 

I think it's evidence too. It is evidence that people invented god and gave him all the worst attributes known to the human race. It is evidence that bronze-age people were bloodthirsty savages. It's evidence that people needed a super-human excuse to commit genocide, murder etc.

 

It is decidedly not evidence that there is a god.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Any evidence would be a place to start.

 

 

The evidence usually given is the books of the Bible.  And for Catholics and some others also the writings of the early church fathers.

 

But as we all know contradictions, errors and absurdities abound in these texts.

 

Apart from that, the arguments given by Christians usually fall into the category of "I have some warm fuzzy feelings" or "the universe exists therefore God exists".

 

Which as we know on this forum, does not prove a great deal, if anything.

 

On the contrary, the Bible is a category of evidence called special revelation. There is far more evidence than that.

 

Do your research on natural theology. Here are some starters...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=natural+theology

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=natural%20theology

 

 

You have to look at the evidence or data 100 percent impartially.  Of course the Exxon scientist will prove global warming is a joke and the hippy prof will prove the exact opposite.

 

What makes you think you are looking at the evidence 100% impartially?

 

 

I probably am not, but I admit it

 

And yet, you still have made a choice in what to believe.

[OrdinaryClay]

The bible is "good evidence" for christianity being true, just like the Quran is "good evidence" that Islam is true. Or the Book of Mormon is "good evidence" that Mormonism is true....so on and so forth, all religions are similar in that they are all lacking any real evidence.

It's a myth based on a very cursory evaluation of the evidence that all religions stand on the same footing with regard to evidence.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

Personally, I do believe the Bible is a valid evidence source and not simply because I'm a Christian.

 

I think it's evidence too. It is evidence that people invented god and gave him all the worst attributes known to the human race. It is evidence that bronze-age people were bloodthirsty savages. It's evidence that people needed a super-human excuse to commit genocide, murder etc.

 

It is decidedly not evidence that there is a god.

 

I agree bronze age people were bloodthirsty savages. Of course, a casual review of history shows us that humanity has been and still is bloodthirsty savages so I'm not sure what your observation tells us.

 

Again, history tells us people do not need a deity to commit genocide. The worst cases of genocide in history are ostensibly not related to any deity.

 

Even if the Bible is 100% true it is not evidence that people invented God. That is a non-sequitur.

 

So far you have been 100% demonstrably wrong.

 

So your final claim is that it is not evidence there is a God. Given your track record in this regard I'm inclined not to believe you. That aside, the truth is that the Bible does provide evidence in the existence of God. It is not scientific evidence, but it is a form of evidence non the less. It is an historical document which , though not universally accepted, provides evidence in the form of prophecy and miracles. It is a form of testimonial evidence.

[pawn]

You should read the Quran, it has evidence for a God too, but it says christianity is wrong! Evidence.

[slave2six]

 

 

Personally, I do believe the Bible is a valid evidence source and not simply because I'm a Christian.

 

I think it's evidence too. It is evidence that people invented god and gave him all the worst attributes known to the human race. It is evidence that bronze-age people were bloodthirsty savages. It's evidence that people needed a super-human excuse to commit genocide, murder etc.

 

It is decidedly not evidence that there is a god.

 

I agree bronze age people were bloodthirsty savages. Of course, a casual review of history shows us that humanity has been and still is bloodthirsty savages so I'm not sure what your observation tells us.

 

Again, history tells us people do not need a deity to commit genocide. The worst cases of genocide in history are ostensibly not related to any deity.

 

Even if the Bible is 100% true it is not evidence that people invented God. That is a non-sequitur.

 

So far you have been 100% demonstrably wrong.

 

So your final claim is that it is not evidence there is a God. Given your track record in this regard I'm inclined not to believe you. That aside, the truth is that the Bible does provide evidence in the existence of God. It is not scientific evidence, but it is a form of evidence non the less. It is an historical document which , though not universally accepted, provides evidence in the form of prophecy and miracles. It is a form of testimonial evidence.

 

 

What track record would that be?

 

I reject Christianity on its own merits.

 

When you boil Christianity down to its essentials there are only two things in the Bible that are absolutely required:

 

1. The Fall of Man (Adam and Eve committed "original sin" in the Garden of Eden and doomed all future humans)

 

2. The Cross (the incarnation, death and resurrection; the remedy for all sin and the basis to reconcile to god)

 

Everything else is superfluous. Take out any of the Epistles or any of the Old Testament books or accounts and Christianity will stand - provided that you retain The Fall and The Cross. If you remove The Fall of Man story from the Bible, The Cross doesn't make any sense. If you remove The Cross, there is no Christianity.

 

Protestants believe that there was a literal Adam and Eve and that the Fall of Man story is a factual account that occurred around 6,000 years ago just after everything was created in 7 days.

 

The downside to this is that everything that we know about the age of the Earth, how long humans (homo-sapiens) have been around (over 100,000 years), our biological connection to other primates, and in particular the biological aspects of morality make a literal Fall of Man a complete impossibility. There is simply no way around it.

 

The Orthodox view the Fall of Man as an allegory. 

 

The downside to this is that with no literal "Fall" there is no literal "original sin" and therefore no need for a literal redemption. Why would there be a need for a literal cross to amend a fictional account? 

 

I also reject it because both forgiveness and reconciliation require no blood sacrifice. 

 

I also reject it because the god of the bible is immoral even using god's own measuring rod. 

 

Insulting me and my "track record" will not win you points. It only makes you look impotent.

[OrdinaryClay]

You should read the Quran, it has evidence for a God too, but it says christianity is wrong! Evidence.

I don't believe you understand what evidence is.

[pawn]

Well your saying the bible is evidence. So "right back at you". I was being sarcastic.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

Personally, I do believe the Bible is a valid evidence source and not simply because I'm a Christian.

 

I think it's evidence too. It is evidence that people invented god and gave him all the worst attributes known to the human race. It is evidence that bronze-age people were bloodthirsty savages. It's evidence that people needed a super-human excuse to commit genocide, murder etc.

 

It is decidedly not evidence that there is a god.

 

I agree bronze age people were bloodthirsty savages. Of course, a casual review of history shows us that humanity has been and still is bloodthirsty savages so I'm not sure what your observation tells us.

 

Again, history tells us people do not need a deity to commit genocide. The worst cases of genocide in history are ostensibly not related to any deity.

 

Even if the Bible is 100% true it is not evidence that people invented God. That is a non-sequitur.

 

So far you have been 100% demonstrably wrong.

 

So your final claim is that it is not evidence there is a God. Given your track record in this regard I'm inclined not to believe you. That aside, the truth is that the Bible does provide evidence in the existence of God. It is not scientific evidence, but it is a form of evidence non the less. It is an historical document which , though not universally accepted, provides evidence in the form of prophecy and miracles. It is a form of testimonial evidence.

 

 

What track record would that be?

 

I reject Christianity on its own merits.

 

When you boil Christianity down to its essentials there are only two things in the Bible that are absolutely required:

 

1. The Fall of Man (Adam and Eve committed "original sin" in the Garden of Eden and doomed all future humans)

 

2. The Cross (the incarnation, death and resurrection; the remedy for all sin and the basis to reconcile to god)

 

Everything else is superfluous. Take out any of the Epistles or any of the Old Testament books or accounts and Christianity will stand - provided that you retain The Fall and The Cross. If you remove The Fall of Man story from the Bible, The Cross doesn't make any sense. If you remove The Cross, there is no Christianity.

 

Protestants believe that there was a literal Adam and Eve and that the Fall of Man story is a factual account that occurred around 6,000 years ago just after everything was created in 7 days.

 

The downside to this is that everything that we know about the age of the Earth, how long humans (homo-sapiens) have been around (over 100,000 years), our biological connection to other primates, and in particular the biological aspects of morality make a literal Fall of Man a complete impossibility. There is simply no way around it.

 

The Orthodox view the Fall of Man as an allegory. 

 

The downside to this is that with no literal "Fall" there is no literal "original sin" and therefore no need for a literal redemption. Why would there be a need for a literal cross to amend a fictional account? 

 

I also reject it because both forgiveness and reconciliation require no blood sacrifice. 

 

I also reject it because the god of the bible is immoral even using god's own measuring rod. 

 

Insulting me and my "track record" will not win you points. It only makes you look impotent.

 

Please explain what you believe the "literal fall" to be?

[OrdinaryClay]

Well your saying the bible is evidence. So "right back at you". I was being sarcastic.

This does not change the fact that the vast majority of people who claim to demand evidence don't understand what it is. They always erroneously think evidence means exclusively "empirical evidence".

[OrdinaryClay]

I also reject it because both forgiveness and reconciliation require no blood sacrifice. 

Jesus forgave without blood sacrifice so I don't understand your objection. You need to think beyond anti-Christian cliches when reading the Bible. Judge with an honest heart when you read it.

 

And Jesus seeing their faith *said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

(Mar 2:5)

 

[OrdinaryClay]

I also reject it because the god of the bible is immoral even using god's own measuring rod. 

It is impossible for you to judge the morality of God because you have imperfect knowledge about the circumstances in which God made judgements. He has perfect knowledge. God has complete knowledge when He passes judgement. So in essence when you judge God you are simply claiming to be god, which is irrational.

 

[pawn]

Your assuming God exists clay. It's easy to judge the god of the bible, he's a fictional character that orders the murder of innocent babies, that makes him on equal par with Herod.

[pawn]

 

 

1 Samuel 15:2,3

 

2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

 

 

 

Hosea 13:16

 

16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,

because they have rebelled against their God.

They will fall by the sword;

their little ones will be dashed to the ground,

their pregnant women ripped open."

[OrdinaryClay]

1 Samuel 15:2,3

 

2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

 

 

 

Hosea 13:16

 

16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,

because they have rebelled against their God.

They will fall by the sword;

their little ones will be dashed to the ground,

their pregnant women ripped open."

You should broaden your understanding of history. You stand back thousands of years with out a clue what the world was like or the circumstances of God's judgment.The surrounding pagan societies were with out a doubt evil. This is stated in the Bible multiple times. They engaged in infant and child sacrifice. Plainly you pass judgement with little knowledge in your possession. My point still stands. You are ill-informed and incapable of passing judgment.

 

Archaeological Human Sacrifice Evidence

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/turkeycayonu.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1157784/Do-mysterious-stones-mark-site-Garden-Eden.html

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/b/baal.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moabite_stone

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice

[pawn]

So why kill the infants? So child sacrifice is evil, therefore it is ok to kill the babies and infants??? Moronic.

[pawn]

God is a hypocrite, child sacrifice is evil, so he is right to kill children... ??? That's just fucking stupid.

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

God is a hypocrite, child sacrifice is evil, so he is right to kill children... ??? That's just fucking stupid.

 

I think Bible god was just pissed that the children were being sacrificed to a different god. "If you're gonna sacrifice the children, humans, do it right! Sacrifice to me or I'll make my human army kill you and all of your kids that you haven't sacrificed yet!"

[pawn]

 

 

God is a hypocrite, child sacrifice is evil, so he is right to kill children... ??? That's just fucking stupid.

I think Bible god was just pissed that the children were being sacrificed to a different god. "If you're gonna sacrifice the children, humans, do it right! Sacrifice to me or I'll make my human army kill you and all of your kids that you haven't sacrificed yet!"

What an asshole! YHWH deserves to be stoned to death for his sins, according to HIS OWN LAW! Suck it YHWH, your a hypocrite.