If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[gfm7175]

Religion really does not require faith.

Faith is at the very core of any religion.

Actually, all religion (or atheism) has to do is to call "belief" what it actually is on this issue...a blind guess about the unknown.

Belief is the proper terminology, and with regard to any religion, belief is based upon faith.

Then it all clears up. The atheists blindly guess one way...the theists blindly guess the other way.

That's all it takes.

What you mean by your (mis)use of the word "atheist" is the 'Church of No God' (the belief that gods do not exist).

Some people believe that gods do not exist. Other people believe that gods DO exist. Both of those beliefs are faith-based (neither of those beliefs can be proven true or false).

 

[ZenMode]

The presence of belief in no gods is based on faith (no different than the presence of belief in a god).

That is still wrong. Not believing in the existence of gods is based on that fact that there's no evidence for the existence of gods. There's no more evidence for the existence of the Christian God than there is the existence of Zeus. The only evidence is that fact that those who already believe in the Christian God attribute random worldly events to it.

Maybe the Christian God created life?

Maybe Zeus created life. Maybe Athena created life. Maybe Ra, Anibus, Hathor, or the Hindu god Hanuman created life. Like I said, most every religion has a creation story and there is no reason to believe your god's story over any of the others.

... but it IS evidence that supports the veracity of Christianity.

The veracity of Christianity comes from the fact that people are superstitious and brainwashed from a very early age.

... but it IS evidence that supports the veracity of Christianity.

The veracity of Christianity comes from the fact that people are superstitious and brainwashed from a very early age.

Did all of those people die for something that they knew to be false?

That they knew to be false? No. Every religious person, to some degree, believes in their religion.

... but it IS evidence that supports the veracity of Christianity.

The veracity of Christianity comes from the fact that people are superstitious and brainwashed from a very early age.

... but NDE testimony IS evidence that supports the veracity of Christianity.

No it doesn't. There is no reason to believe that the events in the mind of humans has anything to do with any deity and, even if it did, there's no reason to believe your deity is the one behind it. Even if there is a god floating around out there, based on a simply probability calculation, every single religious person should assume they've guess the wrong one.

Maybe the Christian God purposely created a specific home for humanity (Earth)?

Maybe Sobek, the Egyptian god of the Nile, water and fertility created earth.

FTFY. Yes.

No. Man is just one of many primate species.

Homosexuality is a significant concern of the Christian God.

Yes.

No.

 

[ZenMode]

No, I don't.

Jesus himself claimed to be "I AM", claimed that he and the Father "are one", and claimed/displayed power and authority that only God possesses (such as power over death). Many of his apostles were so strong in their conviction that they were willing to be (and WERE!) martyred for their testimony and belief in what they saw. People typically aren't willing to be martyred for what they know to be a lie.

You can't use the Bible to prove itself to be true.

 

[gmark77]

I'm not asking anyone to believe what I believe! I say walk the path you chose!

And they do. They don't need "permission" from you and the phrasing almost always carries a hint of snark and opprobrium

I'm sure you'll complain that no such feeling is intended. People always do when they've been seen.

 

[gmark77]

Like I said I don't play the evidence game

Bet you do play the "evidence game". I bet you have about a billion reasons why you believe. You have just learned from experience that those reasons don't carry the weight for others that they do for you. And that's disturbing in the extreme.

So you "denigrate" evidence.

It's a story as old as time. Nothing new here.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Faith is at the very core of any religion.

Belief is the proper terminology, and with regard to any religion, belief is based upon faith.

What you mean by your (mis)use of the word "atheist" is the 'Church of No God' (the belief that gods do not exist).

Some people believe that gods do not exist. Other people believe that gods DO exist. Both of those beliefs are faith-based (neither of those beliefs can be proven true or false).

I disagree with most of your comments here. But the one I want to comment on is the bolded part.

EVERY person I have ever met or spoken with on the Internet who uses "atheist" as a self-descriptor or uses "atheist" as part of a self-descriptor...does so because of a blind guess either that 1) there are NO gods...or 2) it is more likely that there are NO gods than that there is at least one.

No matter what you suppose, it is almost certain that EVERY person using "atheist" as a self-descriptor or part of a self-descriptor (agnostic atheist)...does so because of a belief...a blind guess about the true nature of the REALITY of existende. It is a blind guess about what DOES exist...or what DOES NOT exist.

If you want to buy the debating atheists nonsense that they are not expressing a "belief" just like the theists do...fine with me. But you are buying snake oil if you do.

 

[Hume]

I disagree with most of your comments here. But the one I want to comment on is the bolded part.

EVERY person I have ever met or spoken with on the Internet who uses "atheist" as a self-descriptor or uses "atheist" as part of a self-descriptor...does so because of a blind guess either that 1) there are NO gods...or 2) it is more likely that there are NO gods than that there is at least one.

No matter what you suppose, it is almost certain that EVERY person using "atheist" as a self-descriptor or part of a self-descriptor (agnostic atheist)...does so because of a belief...a blind guess about the true nature of the REALITY of existende. It is a blind guess about what DOES exist...or what DOES NOT exist.

If you want to buy the debating atheists nonsense that they are not expressing a "belief" just like the theists do...fine with me. But you are buying snake oil if you do.

blind guess blind guess

 

[gfm7175]

That is still wrong.

That's still YOUR issue. See below.

Not believing in the existence [Believing in the non-existence] of gods is based on that fact that there's no evidence for the existence of gods [faith].

FTFY.

There's no more evidence [proof] for the existence of the Christian God than there is the existence of Zeus.

FTFY.

The only evidence is that fact that those who already believe in the Christian God attribute random worldly events to it.

... except for all the people who DIDN'T "already believe" in the Christian God who now DO believe in the Christian God, of course.

You continue to purposely leave those people out.

Maybe Zeus created life. Maybe Athena created life. Maybe Ra, Anibus, Hathor, or the Hindu god Hanuman created life.

Maybe... but I don't find those theories to be as convincing.

Like I said, most every religion has a creation story and there is no reason to believe your god's story over any of the others.

Sure there is. You just aren't convinced.

The veracity of Christianity comes from the fact that people are superstitious and brainwashed from a very early age.

The veracity of Christianity comes from the fact that people are superstitious and brainwashed from a very early age.

You asked for evidence. I gave you evidence. You don't like (or otherwise aren't convinced by) the evidence.

That they knew to be false? No. Every religious person, to some degree, believes in their religion.

... but not every religious person is willing to die for it. The fact that so many Christians have been willing to suffer martyrdom for their religion (instead of denouncing it to save their lives) is evidence of its veracity. People typically aren't willing to die for what they know to be lies, or for what they don't consider to be vital.

The veracity of Christianity comes from the fact that people are superstitious and brainwashed from a very early age.

No it doesn't. There is no reason to believe that the events in the mind of humans has anything to do with any deity and, even if it did, there's no reason to believe your deity is the one behind it. Even if there is a god floating around out there, based on a simply probability calculation, every single religious person should assume they've guess the wrong one.

I get it. It truly burns your grits that there is a plethora of evidence out there for Christianity and you NEED to "make it all go away" by closing your eyes and ears and shouting "NANANANANANANANANA NEENER NEENER BOO BOO!!!!!!".

Maybe Sobek, the Egyptian god of the Nile, water and fertility created earth.

Maybe... but I don't find that theory to be as convincing.

No. Man is just one of many primate species.

Okay. You have your belief; I have mine.

Homosexuality is a significant concern of the Christian God.

The Christian God considers homosexuality to be an abomination, yes.

No.

Yes.

 

[gfm7175]

You can't use the Bible to prove itself to be true.

I'm not trying to prove anything to you. You asked for some evidence of Christianity and I provided it.

 

[ZenMode]

Thank you for that response, Zen. I agree with part of what you said here and elsewhere. As for the Bible, my take (which I have posted before), is:

My guess about the Bible, for what it is worth, is that it is a very self-serving history (of sorts) of the early Hebrew people...a relatively unsophisticated, unknowledgeable, superstitious people who had many enemies in the areas where they lived. Their enemies worshiped barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty gods. And to protect themselves from those gods, they invented an especially barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty god...and worshiped it. The story seems to be a necessary mythology. The mythology served a needed purpose at that time and I can easily understand why the ancient Hebrews felt about it the way they did. The fact that modern theists feel the way they do about it...is disappointing and disheartening.

That said, however, I still am not sure of your position re the possibilities of a GOD or of gods existing...and some of the things you have said indicates to me that you MAY be saying that no gods exist or can exist.

That is what I am asking you to address. If your position is that you do not want to offer your position for consideration, I will accept that. If, however, you are willing to put your position up for consideration as these other people have done...

...what is your position about whether at least one god exists or not...and what is your position about the possibility of at least one god existing?

"what is your position about whether at least one god exists or not...and what is your position about the possibility of at least one god existing?"

From more recent post:

"Your "beliefs" are not based on evidence...which is why you refer to them as "beliefs."

Maybe I should word is as a lack of evidence.

Unless you are already a believer in some religion's god, and attribute random worldly events and the existence of anything/everything to that God because of your pre-existing faith, there is no evidence that would compel you to start believing in any god today. God isn't making an appearance in our lives today like he supposedly did in the Bible. The heavens aren't parting today, allowing angels to float down to earth. Nobody is performing true miracles today.

It's kind of like the people who believe the NFL is rigged. If you have faith that the NFL is rigged, then you can find all kinds of events and evidence that supports your pre-existing belief that it's rigged. If you don't already believe it's rigged, then things are just happening. Some good plays happen. Some bad plays happen. Some good calls happen. Some bad calls happen. Some people get hurt. Some people don't get hurt.

Humans tend to be superstitious, like to find explanations for things they can't easily explain and the gap between what man can and can't explain tends to be filled by gods or other supernatural entities. Mental illness used to be demonic possession... so man drilled holes in other peoples' heads to let the demon out. Man didn't understand what the sun was, so it became a god. Man didn't understand weather patterns, so he began praying for rain. Those things are all ridiculous by today's standards of knowledge, but were perfectly legit 2000+ years ago.

Man can't fully explain how the universe and humans came into existence, so we pretend a god created it.

Religion is an "ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance".

 

[ZenMode]

^^^^Also @gfm7175 ^^^^

 

[Margot]

Bet you do play the "evidence game". I bet you have about a billion reasons why you believe. You have just learned from experience that those reasons don't carry the weight for others that they do for you. And that's disturbing in the extreme.

So you "denigrate" evidence.

It's a story as old as time. Nothing new here.

Why would I get involved with Atheists obsessed with Jesus!

 

[gfm7175]

I disagree with most of your comments here. But the one I want to comment on is the bolded part.

EVERY person I have ever met or spoken with on the Internet who uses "atheist" as a self-descriptor or uses "atheist" as part of a self-descriptor...does so because of a blind guess either that 1) there are NO gods...or 2) it is more likely that there are NO gods than that there is at least one.

Pretty much everyone uses the term "atheist" incorrectly these days. That's why I use the words 'Church of No God' so that there is clarity as to what is being discussed.

Your 1) and 2) above are just varying levels of confidence regarding the same belief (that gods do not exist).

No matter what you suppose, it is almost certain that EVERY person using "atheist" as a self-descriptor or part of a self-descriptor (agnostic atheist)...does so because of a belief...a blind guess about the true nature of the REALITY of existende. It is a blind guess about what DOES exist...or what DOES NOT exist.

Such people are expressing a belief that is faith-based.

If you want to buy the debating atheists nonsense that they are not expressing a "belief" just like the theists do...fine with me. But you are buying snake oil if you do.

I'm not "buying anything".

The belief that gods do not exist is a faith-based belief.
The belief that gods DO exist is a faith-based belief.
The position "I don't hold either of those beliefs" is a lack of belief re: theism. Ergo, the CORRECT usage of the term "atheism". IOW, a "lack of theism".

 

[Hume]

Pretty much everyone uses the term "atheist" incorrectly these days.

Atheism is a term invented by Christians to mean, "not a Christian."

 

[gfm7175]

"what is your position about whether at least one god exists or not...and what is your position about the possibility of at least one god existing?"

From more recent post:

"Your "beliefs" are not based on evidence...which is why you refer to them as "beliefs."

Maybe I should word is as a lack of evidence.

Unless you are already a believer in some religion's god, and attribute random worldly events and the existence of anything/everything to that God because of your pre-existing faith, there is no evidence that would compel you to start believing in any god today. God isn't making an appearance in our lives today like he supposedly did in the Bible. The heavens aren't parting today, allowing angels to float down to earth. Nobody is performing true miracles today.

Here, you continue to ignore the existence of all sorts of people who "came to faith" at some point later-in-life, despite how they were raised. The famous Christian apologist William Lane Craig is one of numerous examples of such people who used to argue AGAINST the existence of God before later-in-life "coming to faith". The historical account of the apostle Paul (originally Saul) notes someone who was quite literally a persecutor of Christians before his own conversion to Christianity and eventual martyrdom.

It's kind of like the people who believe the NFL is rigged. If you have faith that the NFL is rigged, then you can find all kinds of events and evidence that supports your pre-existing belief that it's rigged. If you don't already believe it's rigged, then things are just happening. Some good plays happen. Some bad plays happen. Some good calls happen. Some bad calls happen. Some people get hurt. Some people don't get hurt.

Except.... I never USED to believe that the NFL was rigged. I grew up watching the NFL all throughout the 90s and 00s believing that it was a wholly legitimate sport. It wasn't until after the 2009 season that I "changed my mind" and started believing that the NFL was rigged.

Man can't fully explain [prove] how the universe and humans came into existence, so we pretend a god created it [come up with all sorts of theories as to how it could have occurred, including the theory that a god created it, including the theory that the Christian God created it].

FTFY.

Religion is an "ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance".

Religion addresses what science cannot.

 

[ZenMode]

Here, you continue to ignore the existence of all sorts of people who "came to faith" at some point later-in-life, despite how they were raised. The famous Christian apologist William Lane Craig is one of numerous examples of such people who used to argue AGAINST the existence of God before later-in-life "coming to faith". The historical account of the apostle Paul (originally Saul) notes someone who was quite literally a persecutor of Christians before his own conversion to Christianity and eventual martyrdom.

I'm not ignoring anything. People can, and are, convinced of all kinds of improbable things, often based on poor evidence. There's a flat-earth society TODAY. There's people who believe the Greek gods exist TODAY. There are people who take astrology very seriously TODAY.

Except.... I never USED to believe that the NFL was rigged. I grew up watching the NFL all throughout the 90s and 00s believing that it was a wholly legitimate sport. It wasn't until after the 2009 season that I "changed my mind" and started believing that the NFL was rigged.

Yes, you are one of the people I described above as as being "convinced of all kinds of improbable things". You have clearly been taken down a path that has lead you to all kinds of crazy beliefs about the world.

FTFY.

You didn't.

Religion addresses what science cannot.

Religion addresses what science has yet to address. What science has yet to address has decreased, and will only continue to decrease, over time. Like I said, superstitious beliefs, like religion, have resulted in people drilling holes in other peoples' heads. Science has taught us that is craziness.

Superstition /religion was the basis for burning innocent women to death who were accused of being witches. Science has done away with that.

It's why innocent people were sacrificed or buried under buildings for good luck. Native Americans believe in all kinds of superstitions today.

All such beliefs are because of faith, not real evidence. As I said, you are atheist for all the same gods I am....except one, so you know exactly what it means to not be convinced by the poor evidence of every other religion and god.

 

[gmark77]

Why would I get involved with Atheists obsessed with Jesus!

Why do atheists scare believer so much?

Is it really because we don't find your evidence compelling and you can't imagine why?

 

[Into the Night]

gfm7175 said:
Yet, you follow this up with discussing certain occurrences (as you did before).

I wasn't asked a question. That is a statement.

The fact that you are now making up grammar rules, in addition to word definitions, is noted.

Inversion fallacy. Evasion. Answer the question put to you.

 

[Into the Night]

There's no point in wasting time on that. You do not ask questions in good faith.

Evasion. Termination fallacy. Answer the question put to you.

You stalked me demanding I prove the canonical Buddhist text Dhammapada acknowledges the existence of deities, and when I proved it you ran away from the thread never acknowledging I had been correct.

Go learn what 'stalk' means. Buzzword fallacy. Paranoia.
Strawman fallacy. Answer the question put to you.

 

[ZenMode]

Inversion fallacy. Evasion. Answer the question put to you.

What's next... Jeffrey Dahmer telling guys not to kill men and have sex with their corpse?