Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some religious sects are all about certitude; it is the main product that they have to sell. Fundamentalists believe that they must "stand for something" or there is no point. They must be judged "right"eous by god or there's no afterlife you'd want to experience. Being wrong is basically the end of the world for them, at least about the key tenets of their faith.
It's also hard for them to imagine being a part of something that doesn't just tell them what to believe. Science for example can tell us how life evolved, but not (yet) how it started / came from non-life. It can tell us about the Big Bang but then it's all about multiverses and branes and strings and complicated math that most mere mortals don't grasp. There's a placeholder called "dark matter" to account for how some of the equations of the Standard Model of physics don't quite work out in all contexts ... and some theists here fasten on that and confidently pronounce what dark matter is and what it means when in fact ... we simply don't know for sure, at least not yet. Or put another way, if there's a gap in our knowledge, they shoehorn their god in there, hence, "god of the gaps".
Personally I have no discomfort with not being sure about some things (those mentioned above, for example). And saying so. The corrolary to "I don't know" is "I will wait", as in, I will wait -- possibly indefinitely, for more data before drawing a conclusion.
Analyze any holy book and people will discover that everything written in it is for the survival of its faith. Without exception. Why did the clergy write in the gospels Jesus telling his disciples to go out and convert the world to Christianity? Answer: because the clergy realized that without a command from their avatar to actively bring everyone to their new faith it would die out. Any religion to be successful has to have an army of useful idiots--"dupes" to blindly carry out their message to non-participants in order to survive.
Last edited by thrillobyte; 09-14-2023 at 09:50 AM..
Analyze any holy book and people will discover that everything written in it is for the survival of its faith. Without exception. Why did the clergy write in the gospels Jesus telling his disciples to go out and convert the world to Christianity? Answer: because the clergy realized that without a command from their avatar to actively bring everyone to their new faith it would die out. Any religion to be successful has to have an army of useful idiots--"dupes" to blindly carry out their message to non-participants in order to survive.
I actually understand and agree with your perspective, Thrillo. But perhaps you are viewing it from the wrong perspective. Though if I were to be honest, there really is no such a thing as a right or wrong perspective since all of this is really unknown and uncertain.
It's easy to say "religious leaders are bringing people to their faith for the sole purpose of keeping their faith alive". And it's true. I actually agree with that concept. I've seen religious leaders say "if your friend decides to leave or go somewhere else, stop them and tell them to stay". The mission is to keep the church alive and to keep their followers to believe in what they preach.
Atheists use this argument all the time and it is understandable. I see Christians blindly following their faith all the time. People in the Catholic Church as well as Protestant churches assert their beliefs all the time. Their beliefs come directly from what their religious leaders say.
Now, is this a reason to say "God does not exist" or "Christianity is fantasy" or "Christianity is false". No. Yes, religion is flawed. I will agree to that. But does that refute the idea that Christianity is a lie? No. But there are many questions within Christianity in which my answer would be "I don't know" or "I'm not sure". I think there is a truth in Christianity but there's so much noise, religious tradition, and garble that has been added to it throughout the years, that it has become very hard to stick to the core values of Christianity.
It's been several months since I last visited this forum. Been going through tough times in my personal life. Lost one of my biggest clients and had to resign from my day job (there's so much office politics in a corporate business). But things are slowly returning back to the way I want things to be. Finally got offered a job that I like (after dozens and dozens of job applications and rejections).
But anyhow, it has always been on my mind.....the concept of religion.
YouTube's algorithms have decided that it thinks I am interested in watching videos on religion so I've been watching a lot of videos on Christianity. Lots of videos on Christians answering questions from atheists and videos from archeologists showing evidence of things from the bible.
I know there are many strong atheists on this forum as well as very strong Christians. I consider myself a Christians. Specifically an agnostic Christian. If you were to ask me "honestly, do you believe you will go to heaven or hell when you die?" My answer: "I don't know". I believe most Christians go to church, pray and sing. But I think out of all of those Christians who go to church, a vast majority do so out of obligation. The mindset is "we have to go to Church". Ask them why do they have to go to church and many (not all) will give you the same answer that they would give you if you asked them "why do you need a college degree?" the answer: "because I have to" or "because it will make me more successful". But nothing really specific.
But I'm not here to mock Christians. I have questions for both Christianity and atheists. I haven't had time to budget my funds and invest in the religious books that I have in my existing cart on Amazon. There's a lot of books that peak my interest that I want to indulge myself in.
But my point is.... it's hard for many people to say those 3 words: "I don't know".
What do you guys think? Is it easy for you to say "I don't know" or "I'm not sure"?
I might start another thread because there's another topic idea I had.
If I don't know something to the level of what I deem to be objective certainty, it's very easy for me to say I don't know. The existence or nonexistence of God (for example) cannot be known to a level of objective certainty by anyone. All that each of us can do, if we're interested in the question, is accumulate as much information as possible and reach some level of conviction, yes or no.
I have reached a high level of conviction that God exists. If I say I don't know, it would not mean I have no idea. It would mean my high level of conviction is not objective certainty and I'm rational enough to acknowledge this. It's certainly possible that atheism, Buddhism or Hinduism is closer to the truth, or that all are far from the truth.
You are correct that across the entire spectrum of belief and nonbelief people are prone to claim knowledge they simply can't have, at least if we define knowledge as objective certainty. Even if a convincing apparition of Jesus appeared in my living room while I was sober and wide awake and said "It's all true!", there would be too many alternative explanations of the phenomenon for me to claim objective certainty.
When Christians claim to know God or Jesus, I believe this simply means that God seems a real presence in their lives. Partly it's because Christians are supposed to have a relationship with the living God, so it's natural (or expected) to speak in these terms. If pressed, however, most would admit this isn't objective certainty.
I actually understand and agree with your perspective, Thrillo. But perhaps you are viewing it from the wrong perspective. Though if I were to be honest, there really is no such a thing as a right or wrong perspective since all of this is really unknown and uncertain.
It's easy to say "religious leaders are bringing people to their faith for the sole purpose of keeping their faith alive". And it's true. I actually agree with that concept. I've seen religious leaders say "if your friend decides to leave or go somewhere else, stop them and tell them to stay". The mission is to keep the church alive and to keep their followers to believe in what they preach.
Atheists use this argument all the time and it is understandable. I see Christians blindly following their faith all the time. People in the Catholic Church as well as Protestant churches assert their beliefs all the time. Their beliefs come directly from what their religious leaders say.
Now, is this a reason to say "God does not exist" or "Christianity is fantasy" or "Christianity is false". No. Yes, religion is flawed. I will agree to that. But does that refute the idea that Christianity is a lie? No. But there are many questions within Christianity in which my answer would be "I don't know" or "I'm not sure". I think there is a truth in Christianity but there's so much noise, religious tradition, and garble that has been added to it throughout the years, that it has become very hard to stick to the core values of Christianity.
Ah! You engage me in an intellectual exchange of views and without rancour which in all honesty I am deserving of for some of the horrible things I have said about Christianity. I appreciate that straightfowardness, comp. I'll be happy to have an extensive exchange of my views.
I agree: ultimately there is no right or wrong about all this because in the end we are dealing with individual humans who each think in a particular way because of the personality/psychological makeup they were born with which influences their beliefs based on what they perceive as evidence. So two people hear the story of Jesus. One is moved to tears based upon the presentation--no questions, no curiosity as to the way in which the story was presented i.e. was it an attempt to convert or was it an honest attempt to present a non-biased account of a man who may or may not have existed. The other's psychological makeup is entirely different. He's not apt to accept fantastical tales of a god-man who died for his sin and caused great earthquakes and the dead saints to rise etc. He asks questions, "Why can't I find any secular historical accounts of all these incredible events ? Why didn't the Christian god leave gigantic amounts of physical evidence for this god-man who the Christian churh claims is their' god's son?"
We cannot escape from the dichotomy between people who choose to believe without evidence and people who refuse to believe without evidence. And either view is not provable. The Christian cannot prove God is real anymore than the atheist can prove that God is a figment of man's imagination. The answer is undiscoverable.
I don't insist that all pastors are unprincipled con men. I'm sure many are sincerely trying to bring heretics to faith in Jesus for the salvation of their soul. The question is what are they offering the skeptic to convince them that Jesus was real? The biggest problem I had with believing the Jesus of the gospels was real is the total lack of evidence for him--no 1st century historical references in the secular record, no eyewitness testimony, no correspondences mentioning Jesus, no artifacts, no tomb, no apostles relics or artifacts. And we're to believe that the Christian god wanted to convince people his son was sent to earth to die for our sins and then he leaves absolutely nothing behind to support such a claim???? I have no idea what these sincere pastors offer to convince skeptics of Jesus' existence other than the Bible and their personal testimony of a warm fuzzy feeling they experienced when they accepted him as their savior.
The idea that Christianity is a lie is debatable. What tangible evidence is it based on? What tangible evidence to the clergy offer to bolster their claims that Christianity is the real deal? Again, I see a huge dichotomy between the two. So it boils down to what are you willing to accept, comp as tangible evidence the gospels' Jesus was real vs what is mordant willing to accept is tangible evidence? We're all built differently and what makes the Christian religion real to you is wholly unconvincing to atheists. And there's a twain that shall never meet.
Ah! You engage me in an intellectual exchange of views and without rancour which in all honesty I am deserving of for some of the horrible things I have said about Christianity. I appreciate that straightfowardness, comp. I'll be happy to have an extensive exchange of my views.
I agree: ultimately there is no right or wrong about all this because in the end we are dealing with individual humans who each think in a particular way because of the personality/psychological makeup they were born with which influences their beliefs based on what they perceive as evidence. So two people hear the story of Jesus. One is moved to tears based upon the presentation--no questions, no curiosity as to the way in which the story was presented i.e. was it an attempt to convert or was it an honest attempt to present a non-biased account of a man who may or may not have existed. The other's psychological makeup is entirely different. He's not apt to accept fantastical tales of a god-man who died for his sin and caused great earthquakes and the dead saints to rise etc. He asks questions, "Why can't I find any secular historical accounts of all these incredible events ? Why didn't the Christian god leave gigantic amounts of physical evidence for this god-man who the Christian churh claims is their' god's son?"
We cannot escape from the dichotomy between people who choose to believe without evidence and people who refuse to believe without evidence. And either view is not provable. The Christian cannot prove God is real anymore than the atheist can prove that God is a figment of man's imagination. The answer is undiscoverable.
I don't insist that all pastors are unprincipled con men. I'm sure many are sincerely trying to bring heretics to faith in Jesus for the salvation of their soul. The question is what are they offering the skeptic to convince them that Jesus was real? The biggest problem I had with believing the Jesus of the gospels was real is the total lack of evidence for him--no 1st century historical references in the secular record, no eyewitness testimony, no correspondences mentioning Jesus, no artifacts, no tomb, no apostles relics or artifacts. And we're to believe that the Christian god wanted to convince people his son was sent to earth to die for our sins and then he leaves absolutely nothing behind to support such a claim???? I have no idea what these sincere pastors offer to convince skeptics of Jesus' existence other than the Bible and their personal testimony of a warm fuzzy feeling they experienced when they accepted him as their savior.
The idea that Christianity is a lie is debatable. What tangible evidence is it based on? What tangible evidence to the clergy offer to bolster their claims that Christianity is the real deal? Again, I see a huge dichotomy between the two. So it boils down to what are you willing to accept, comp as tangible evidence the gospels' Jesus was real vs what is mordant willing to accept is tangible evidence? We're all built differently and what makes the Christian religion real to you is wholly unconvincing to atheists. And there's a twain that shall never meet.
The bold is overstatement and overly pessimistic, IMO. I agree that all the irrational dogma and absurd claims (which are unnecessary to Christ's essential message) need to be seen for what they are (the ruminations of a primitive people). They did their best to interpret whatever inspirations they received but they were not ready for the spiritual truth that Jesus represented and the "Carnal milk" they have been drinking has soured! But it seems you are no more ready for the spiritual truth than they were, Thrill.
Ah! You engage me in an intellectual exchange of views and without rancour which in all honesty I am deserving of for some of the horrible things I have said about Christianity. I appreciate that straightfowardness, comp. I'll be happy to have an extensive exchange of my views.
I agree: ultimately there is no right or wrong about all this because in the end we are dealing with individual humans who each think in a particular way because of the personality/psychological makeup they were born with which influences their beliefs based on what they perceive as evidence. So two people hear the story of Jesus. One is moved to tears based upon the presentation--no questions, no curiosity as to the way in which the story was presented i.e. was it an attempt to convert or was it an honest attempt to present a non-biased account of a man who may or may not have existed. The other's psychological makeup is entirely different. He's not apt to accept fantastical tales of a god-man who died for his sin and caused great earthquakes and the dead saints to rise etc. He asks questions, "Why can't I find any secular historical accounts of all these incredible events ? Why didn't the Christian god leave gigantic amounts of physical evidence for this god-man who the Christian churh claims is their' god's son?"
We cannot escape from the dichotomy between people who choose to believe without evidence and people who refuse to believe without evidence. And either view is not provable. The Christian cannot prove God is real anymore than the atheist can prove that God is a figment of man's imagination. The answer is undiscoverable.
I don't insist that all pastors are unprincipled con men. I'm sure many are sincerely trying to bring heretics to faith in Jesus for the salvation of their soul. The question is what are they offering the skeptic to convince them that Jesus was real? The biggest problem I had with believing the Jesus of the gospels was real is the total lack of evidence for him--no 1st century historical references in the secular record, no eyewitness testimony, no correspondences mentioning Jesus, no artifacts, no tomb, no apostles relics or artifacts. And we're to believe that the Christian god wanted to convince people his son was sent to earth to die for our sins and then he leaves absolutely nothing behind to support such a claim???? I have no idea what these sincere pastors offer to convince skeptics of Jesus' existence other than the Bible and their personal testimony of a warm fuzzy feeling they experienced when they accepted him as their savior.
The idea that Christianity is a lie is debatable. What tangible evidence is it based on? What tangible evidence to the clergy offer to bolster their claims that Christianity is the real deal? Again, I see a huge dichotomy between the two. So it boils down to what are you willing to accept, comp as tangible evidence the gospels' Jesus was real vs what is mordant willing to accept is tangible evidence? We're all built differently and what makes the Christian religion real to you is wholly unconvincing to atheists. And there's a twain that shall never meet.
Fair post, Thrillo
For me, I see a world that is so full of bull**** and noise. I genuinely believe that the Christianity that we have now versus the Christianity that existed during the time of Jesus are two very different things. Religious leaders have added so much tradition and dogma to Christianity that it is now very hard to figure out what is true and what is a lie.
What convinces me that Jesus could be real and that there is a truth within Christianity is the fact that there are very strong math and science-driven scientists out there (eg: John Lennox) who will go face-to-face with any atheist and wholeheartedly say "I have studied science for decades, have a PhD, and can say God is real". There are also archaeologists out there whose discoveries are very fascinating.
I became non-denominational and I personally believe that going to church is optional because of the fact that as a society, we have completely tarnished the core values of Christianity.
Now when it comes to evidence. Again, I made a thread on this. Does the evidence have to be tangible?
Based on your post, it looks like you require tangible evidence. Personally, I think evidence can be both tangible and non-tangible. Have you ever asked yourself: perhaps you actually found evidence but your atheist mindset overlooked it and thought "no, this isn't real evidence"? maybe you are looking in the wrong places? or perhaps you are looking in the right places but you are looking at things using the wrong lense? a lot of times, we have to do a double take and go back to what we thought wasn't real and realize "oh wait, I totally misunderstood this....it is real".
What convinces me that Jesus could be real and that there is a truth within Christianity is the fact that there are very strong math and science-driven scientists out there (eg: John Lennox) who will go face-to-face with any atheist and wholeheartedly say "I have studied science for decades, have a PhD, and can say God is real". There are also archaeologists out there whose discoveries are very fascinating.
There are many Hindu scientists with PhDs who say their god is real, and therefore the Abrahamic god can not be real, as the two are mutually exclusive. One is independent of reality it created, the other is reality. There are also Daoist scientists with PhDs who say the ultimate reality, the Dao, created gods, which is also mutually exclusive from both the Abrahamic and Hindu position. There are also atheist scientists with PhDs who say they see no evidence for gods.
Also, there is a physics book by a professor Wheeler with one or two chapters at the end talking about his belief in the Abrahamic god. Yet the science section did not discuss any gods, nor did it need any, and the end chapters did not talk about the science. This is the problem with argument from authority, if their belief is not based on their intellect, their PhDs are irrelevant to the argument about the existence of gods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by compwiz02
Now when it comes to evidence. Again, I made a thread on this. Does the evidence have to be tangible?
Based on your post, it looks like you require tangible evidence. Personally, I think evidence can be both tangible and non-tangible. Have you ever asked yourself: perhaps you actually found evidence but your atheist mindset overlooked it and thought "no, this isn't real evidence"? maybe you are looking in the wrong places? or perhaps you are looking in the right places but you are looking at things using the wrong lense? a lot of times, we have to do a double take and go back to what we thought wasn't real and realize "oh wait, I totally misunderstood this....it is real".
If we are looking in the wrong places, then should the religious people not tell us where these places are? Yet when they try, we find they are just the same old refuted arguments. Amusingly, several of these arguments when taken to their logical conclusion arte actually arguments against a god.
The bold is overstatement and overly pessimistic, IMO. I agree that all the irrational dogma and absurd claims (which are unnecessary to Christ's essential message) need to be seen for what they are (the ruminations of a primitive people). They did their best to interpret whatever inspirations they received but they were not ready for the spiritual truth that Jesus represented and the "Carnal milk" they have been drinking has soured! But it seems you are no more ready for the spiritual truth than they were, Thrill.
There are many Hindu scientists with PhDs who say their god is real, and therefore the Abrahamic god can not be real, as the two are mutually exclusive. One is independent of reality it created, the other is reality. There are also Daoist scientists with PhDs who say the ultimate reality, the Dao, created gods, which is also mutually exclusive from both the Abrahamic and Hindu position. There are also atheist scientists with PhDs who say they see no evidence for gods.
Also, there is a physics book by a professor Wheeler with one or two chapters at the end talking about his belief in the Abrahamic god. Yet the science section did not discuss any gods, nor did it need any, and the end chapters did not talk about the science. This is the problem with argument from authority, if their belief is not based on their intellect, their PhDs are irrelevant to the argument about the existence of gods.
If we are looking in the wrong places, then should the religious people not tell us where these places are? Yet when they try, we find they are just the same old refuted arguments. Amusingly, several of these arguments when taken to their logical conclusion arte actually arguments against a god.
Good point. My point is that again, I don't know. But there is enough speculation to make me believe "something" exists out there. If there are people who were diehard atheists who thought Christianity was utter bull**** can make a complete 180 and suddenly become Christian (yes, many people exist that are atheist to Christian converts), it convinces me that there's some sort of "truth" out there.
Putting the academic credential aside, these scientists took consideration the argument from the opposing side and still were convinced from a scientific perspective that God is real.
Religious people tell atheists where the right places are all the time. It's interesting that you say "old refuted arguments". I'll reiterate the concept of a "double take". What if one of these "old refuted arguments", when looked at in a different angle, was actually....logical? Have you ever watched the TV show, House MD?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
