Why Don't Christians ever present any evidence?

stlstrike3 wrote:

itismesaj wrote:
The only part of the Bible I believe are its morals and that Jesus was the embodiment of God.

Why stop there?

I stop there because I, like you, have found evolution to be the most logical approach to how we were created. I am representing an often-bashed approach

Quote:

Quote:
What makes the Bible untrue?

It's lack of evidence to back its claims. It's inability to demonstrate a degree of authenticity above and beyond other holy books on this planet.

The three main religions on this Earth share the almost identical Creation story. So there is no need.

Quote:

Quote:
What makes Charles Darwin's book any more believable than more than 50 people's accounts?

Who are these 50 people? I assume that's the number you came up with for the number of authors of the bible? That is another discussion entirely. But what makes those 50 peoples' accounts any less valid than the 5th gospel that I could sit down and produce right now?

But do you not hold up the ideas in his book? And I admit, you could write down the 5th account of Jesus Christ, but like someone said before, "No theory has proof... it has support." The proof is what you choose to believe, and inevitably choose to support the idea.

Quote:

No book should be considered holy.

That's why they're considered holy: because they answer impossible (yes, I said it: impossible) questions.

Quote:

Evolutionists would helplessly abandon Darwin's theory, because we found something that has more evidence to back it up.

Would they? Would they really? I seriously doubt it. Even the most radical of people don't like having their entire world being uprooted around them.

Quote:

I could probably take most Christians back in time and show them that Jesus (if he existed), was just a man and never rose from the dead.

Would you want to? If that is the case, then would you really want to destroy millions (I forget, but maybe billions) of people's lives? I wouldn't, for the shear ability to maintain peace and order in our multi-lateral Earth.

Quote:

Quote:
It is this that first sparked interest in Darwin's works: you could have sex with multiple partners, you could do all the drugs you wanted, you could even murder a man, and there would be no God to "smite" you. Is this not true?

Quote:
No. What first sparked interest was having a workable model to explain how we came into existence. It's an incredible scientific notion. And a far more harmonious, wonderous and jaw-dropping explanation than Genesis.

Oh I wouldn't say that. Having this all-powerful being creating all that we know in 7 days is a hell of a better story than having this created over 16 or so billion years (universe) through consequence.

Quote:
Quote:
Atheists always try to push the burden of "truth" on theists.

That's because the burden of proof is inherently on the person making extravagant claims.

Well, Darwin's theory is an extravagant claim. Anything that challenges thousands of years of truth I would say is extravagant.

Quote:
Quote:
But truth is relative, and for those that believe that the Bible is correct, so be it.

Truth is not relative.

Oh? I'll bring up one of my favorite sayings of all time, "Ignorance is bliss."
I don't know which argument is correct. To me, evolution is true, but to a vast majority, Creationism is true. We are all ignorant, so we all can believe what we want to be believe. Bliss.

Quote:
Can you say the same?

Of course I can. I've studied many religions and science(s) and I choose to side with the philosophy of Albert Einstein:
"Science without religion is unjust. Religion without science is beligerent."
And so I've made a hybrid of the two (it's actually of many, but for simplicty's sake). So yes, I can say that I will change my beliefs if I believe a new philosophy or scientific study is more logical than the last.
What I can't say is whether the vast majority would say the same thing, so you have me there.

0 Replies

I just got the distinct sensation of beating my head against a wall.

Enjoy living in the universe you have created for yourself. Just don't ask me to.

Smile

0 Replies

itismesaj wrote:

The three main religions on this Earth share the almost identical Creation story. So there is no need.

That reference is to the Abrahamic religions. It shouldn't surprise anyone with an ounce of perception that they share the same cosmogony.

However, it is horseshit to refer to them as the "three main religions" on earth--in many cases, the alleged adherents are only nominally practioners of the specified religions. For example, in many nations dominated by Islam, apostasy is punishable by death. You're unlikely to get an honest answer to a question about religious affiliation by someone who actually does not subscribe to Islam while living in such a nation. In many examples of so-called Christianity, this is predicated upon missionary activity, wherein the missions or the dominant European religion makes claims about adherence which go unexamined.

However, even leaving aside the dubious claims about Islam and Christianity, this the breakdown for religious affiliation from "Adherents-dot-com":

http://www.adherents.com/images/rel_pie.gif

Source

That puts non-believers as third after Christianity and Islam. Leaving aside non-believers, who certainly are not going to share the cosmogony of the Christians and Muslims, the third group would be Hindus--who, once again, are not going to share the cosmogony of the Christians and Muslims.

To lump all Christians together is pretty stupid, given that they have in the past been willing to slaughter one another over issues of doctrine. The same is true of the Muslims--Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims are so far apart on theological doctrine that it would be idiotic to suggest that these two major division of Islam, each of them representing dozens of sects, and hundreds of fringe groups (just like Christianity) can ever reconcile.

All of that taken aside, to claim that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are the "three main religions" is horseshit--Judaism doesn't even tip the scale at one quarter of one percent. Christianity and Islam combine to represent just more than half of adherents world wide by ignoring the profound differences which can divide sects of both religions. (Shi'ites of just about any description are willing to kill Sunnis, and Sunnis of just about any description are happy to return the favor. Within our own life times, Serbs have been willing to kill Slovenes and Croats because they are Catholics and the Serbs are Orthodox; Irish Catholics and Protestants have only recently left off slaughtering one another.)

The three main religions on this Earth share the almost identical Creation story.--besides being essentially false, this was an incredibly naive and stupid remark.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Your thesis assumes that humans cannot be anything which they were not programmed to be at the outset. Just because you have a dim view about human nature doesn't mean that everyone else should suffer the same limitation.
. . .

Very difficult to wrap my brain around your objection. Certainly I believe the Genesis story to be true. But my post was about whether the Genesis story is consistent with itself.

If the story, as you infer, describes humans as having been programmed, and if, as is often postulated, they were programmed to fail by some sadistic 'god', how could they have developed the fine traits we admire in humans today?

0 Replies

Rex has a clone

0 Replies

Neo, i wish to hell you'd stop ascribing the limitations of your thought to what i've written. I don't claim the story says humans have been programmed. You introduced the idea that people could not possess any quality which the deity who creates them does not him- or herself possess. I simply commented that there is no reason to assume that people have been programmed and cannot develop other characteristic on their own. Essentially, that is what you are saying when you argue that people could not be compassionate, for example, unless the deity who created them were compassionate. So don't put words in my mouth.

Since i have not claimed that "god" is sadistic, i have no reason to defend any such claim. However, if one were to assume that there were a god, and that the bible were a true record of that god's actions, it would be completely reasonable to assume that said god were a sadistic and murderous f*ck. Given that not all humans are sadistic, although some are, it is reasonable to assume that (by your thesis) god must have some sadistic attributes, or none would ever be apparent in people. If you argue that people exercise free will to become sadistic, then it is equally probable that people could exercise free will to become compassionate, even though their theistic creator were not.

It is precisely this kind of fuzzy reasoning which leads people to throw up their hands in despair and simply say: "You're goofy, leave me alone."

0 Replies

Quote:

besides being essentially false, this was an incredibly naive and stupid remark.

Calling it stupid implies unwillingness to learn, which in itself is a naive remark, as you don't even know me.

And for the record, here is a statement from that same source:
"Judaism is far more important in areas such as history, literature, science, politics, and religion, than its relatively small numbers might suggest."
So I admit, I should have phrased it as most influential, but oh well.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Neo, i wish to hell you'd stop ascribing the limitations of your thought to what i've written. I don't claim the story says humans have been programmed. You introduced the idea that people could not possess any quality which the deity who creates them does not him- or herself possess. I simply commented that there is no reason to assume that people have been programmed and cannot develop other characteristic on their own. Essentially, that is what you are saying when you argue that people could not be compassionate, for example, unless the deity who created them were compassionate. So don't put words in my mouth.

Since i have not claimed that "god" is sadistic, i have no reason to defend any such claim. However, if one were to assume that there were a god, and that the bible were a true record of that god's actions, it would be completely reasonable to assume that said god were a sadistic and murderous f*ck. Given that not all humans are sadistic, although some are, it is reasonable to assume that (by your thesis) god must have some sadistic attributes, or none would ever be apparent in people. If you argue that people exercise free will to become sadistic, then it is equally probable that people could exercise free will to become compassionate, even though their theistic creator were not.

It is precisely this kind of fuzzy reasoning which leads people to throw up their hands in despair and simply say: "You're goofy, leave me alone."

It's obvious we are not on the same page and are not talking about the same thing. I'm bookmarking to come back to this.

0 Replies

itismesaj wrote:

Calling it stupid implies unwillingness to learn, which in itself is a naive remark, as you don't even know me.

No, there is absolutely no reason to assume that because someone has made a stupid remark that constitutes proof that that individual is unwilling to learn. Furthermore, i did not say that you are stupid--i said the remark you made was stupid. That's not the same at all as saying that i believe that you are stupid. As you point out, i don't know you, so i have no reason to say that you are stupid and naive, and i have not said that.

Quote:

And for the record, here is a statement from that same source:
"Judaism is far more important in areas such as history, literature, science, politics, and religion, than its relatively small numbers might suggest."
So I admit, I should have phrased it as most influential, but oh well.

Nothing obliges me to take that source as definitive on the subject of which religions are most influential. This claim on the part of "Adherents-do-com" is part and parcel of a Judeo-Christian ascendancy point of view, and is not one with which i would agree. But you are absolutely correct, there is no reason to lump Judaism in with the others as a "major" religion. It is only justifiable to consider it an influential religion if one claims that Christianity is a particularly important religion. At about 2000 years of age, it is relatively young in comparison to Judaism, to Hinduism and to Buddhism. It's a little early in history to allege that it is more important than other religions, and to therefore assert that Judaism is "far more important . . . than its relatively small numbers might suggest." Prior to the rise of Islam, a great many of the people in Arabia and the areas of Central Asia in which Islam would one day become predominant were confessional Jews--it couldn't have been so damned influential if Islam so easily replaced it.

0 Replies

Bump.

Diest TKO wrote:

neologist wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Neo - What's your take on the tower of bable story? Am I to understand that you believe in the evolutionary development of different human traits instead?
Are you speaking of micro evolution? I think that has been well established. I am not on the same page as those who propose macro evolution, however. I don't think they are all in agreement, either.

As far as the development of language, when did humans first begin to record history? Wasn't it about the same time for all ethnic/national groups? As far as I can recall, and you may correct me on this, it is variously believed to be about 5000 years ago.

About the same time as the story of Babel.

I'm not sure how micro or macro is relavant to the question. I just want a clear understanding of what you believe.

We have collections of similar genetic traits: We choose to call them "races:" African, Caucasian, Asian... etc.

My direct question is: Do you credit the presence of different races to evolution or the explanation given by the story of th tower of babel?

Additionally, I am interested in your thoughts on the story of babel itself. I personally have a great deal of qualms with that story specifically.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Bump.

Diest TKO wrote:
neologist wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Neo - What's your take on the tower of bable story? Am I to understand that you believe in the evolutionary development of different human traits instead?
Are you speaking of micro evolution? I think that has been well established. I am not on the same page as those who propose macro evolution, however. I don't think they are all in agreement, either.

As far as the development of language, when did humans first begin to record history? Wasn't it about the same time for all ethnic/national groups? As far as I can recall, and you may correct me on this, it is variously believed to be about 5000 years ago.

About the same time as the story of Babel.

I'm not sure how micro or macro is relavant to the question. I just want a clear understanding of what you believe.

We have collections of similar genetic traits: We choose to call them "races:" African, Caucasian, Asian... etc.

My direct question is: Do you credit the presence of different races to evolution or the explanation given by the story of th tower of babel?

Additionally, I am interested in your thoughts on the story of babel itself. I personally have a great deal of qualms with that story specifically.

Thanks for the bump. I had forgotten this:

Whatever genetic traits or adaptations that produced racial differences probably had nothing to do with God's frustrating the builders of Babel. At least the bible is silent on that subject.

What are my thoughts on the story of Babel? I think it happened. Smile

OK. I think that the reason we have (almost) no written history before the 5th millennium B.C.E., and because we have much since is likely because what we call modern languages did not develop until then.

There are striking similarities between the world's languages and religions and that which existed on the plains of Shinar.

0 Replies

Thoughts on The story of Babel...

First some things for me to establish as I discuss thi particular story.
1) I am fine with it being metaphorical. I.e. - I won't make you prove it happened.
2) I won't make you defend how the story is often used to explain how the worlds different races and languages have arrived.

Having said that, here's my thoughts.

The messege of the story is void.
The messege most often echoed from this story is a warning that man can never achieve the greatness that god has. In Babel, man tried to physically reach the heavens. God having seen such an act of arogance, smited them.

And that's just the problem I have you see. As you and I know, Heaven is not a city sitting on a cloud. As a contruct it is often thought of as above us. However, you and I as rational people know that heaven is not on a cloud. We know this because we have been far above the clouds now. Given that the world has not changed since then, i.e. - heaven has always NOT been physically above us ever, we can come to some conclusions about the real moral that is told in this story.

The truth is that if God in all it's wisdom saw some great arrogance in man when man began to build this tower, smiteing them and confusing their tongues seems to be an odd choice of responces. Doesn't the most simple; natural choice seem to be to let them build all they want fuly knowing that they could never do it? Further, wouldn't a more humbling lesson no taming one's ego be to actully let them build a the tallest tower they could only to discover their own limitations? Hell, if you are god, you could even help them build it to speed up the lesson.

Make trees grow fast etc.

The point is, that the story should never have been about god smiting man to teach a lesson, the lesson should have been about you are limited by your ego and the more you get away from it, the better you life can be. The self promotion only serves to cheapen the quality of life you can have.

As stated before, I'm not going to make you defend that this is an explanation for different races and languages because it doesn't even make sense for man to have been smited in the first place. So I am for th most part uninterested in the choice of punishment because it should have never gone that far.

Of course having said that, I don't see why the choice of punishments is relavant to the offense.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

There are striking similarities between the world's languages and religions and that which existed on the plains of Shinar.

Only to those willing to indulge an incredible self-delusion.

0 Replies

I'd like to sprikle this deate with a selected Video

0 Replies

Diest; God did not smite the tower builders as you say and the confusion of the language was not to prevent them from reaching the heavens. It was to force them to spread over the earth as he commanded Noah and his sons. These words reported by Moses give additional information:
"They now said: "Come on! Let us build ourselves a city and also a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a celebrated name for ourselves, for fear we may be scattered over all the surface of the earth."

5 And Jehovah proceeded to go down to see the city and the tower that the sons of men had built. 6 After that Jehovah said: "Look! They are one people and there is one language for them all, and this is what they start to do. Why, now there is nothing that they may have in mind to do that will be unattainable for them." "(Genesis 11: 4-6)

(Emphasis mine. I don't think Moses had green ink.)

0 Replies

Coolwhip wrote:

I'd like to sprikle this deate with a selected Video

Thank you for your sparkling sprikle, and for delineating the dearth of our deate.

0 Replies

<sigh>

I think it's time for you guys to finally know the truth.

*I* wrote the story of the Tower of Babel. I travelled back in time, and gave copies of my manuscript to several roaming merchants. This, so I could demonstrate that you shouldn't base your lives on things that someone probably just made up.

Unfortunately, the story I originally wrote did not survive the trillions of rewrites, copies, reinterpretations.... I wrote about the Great Pit of Babel... but I guess someone along the way decided that god didn't live in the ground... oh well...

0 Replies

That the Babylonians cherished their ziggurats is well established; as is the outcome of Isaiah's prophecy for Babylon's total destruction recorded in Isaiah chapter 13.

No doubt, anyone reading Isaiah's words during the height of Babylon's power would have laughed at the idea that such a great city could become a permanent wasteland.

But hey, Strike3, I'm glad you got there before the city went down, 'cause now it's nothing but a great pit.

0 Replies

stlstrike3 wrote:

<sigh>

I think it's time for you guys to finally know the truth.

*I* wrote the story of the Tower of Babel. I travelled back in time, and gave copies of my manuscript to several roaming merchants. This, so I could demonstrate that you shouldn't base your lives on things that someone probably just made up.

Unfortunately, the story I originally wrote did not survive the trillions of rewrites, copies, reinterpretations.... I wrote about the Great Pit of Babel... but I guess someone along the way decided that god didn't live in the ground... oh well...

sorry about that... I travelled back in time to about 200 BC and was given the job of editing. I thought a pit sounded to feminine in Greek. I was looking for somehting macho, so I took liberty to make man's creation more phallic.

0 Replies

I Stereo wrote:

stlstrike3 wrote:
<sigh>

I think it's time for you guys to finally know the truth.

*I* wrote the story of the Tower of Babel. I travelled back in time, and gave copies of my manuscript to several roaming merchants. This, so I could demonstrate that you shouldn't base your lives on things that someone probably just made up.

Unfortunately, the story I originally wrote did not survive the trillions of rewrites, copies, reinterpretations.... I wrote about the Great Pit of Babel... but I guess someone along the way decided that god didn't live in the ground... oh well...

sorry about that... I travelled back in time to about 200 BC and was given the job of editing. I thought a pit sounded to feminine in Greek. I was looking for somehting macho, so I took liberty to make man's creation more phallic.

Dam* you! You must ALSO be the prankster who replaced my original story, about Jesus being the product of hot man love between two spice merchants, with that whole "virgin birth" thing.

0 Replies

Why Don't Christians ever present any evidence?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know