Merged (edited) General thoughts about Christianity and the bible

[Gulliver Foyle]

Doubting Thomas was a skeptic.
Jesus applauded those who believed having not "seen". (scripture below)

The Bible says that creation makes plain the evidence of a creator God. (so men are without excuse)
Skeptics renounce the Bible. How many other ancient texts do they discount?

Is it fair to reject God on the basis of evidence?

John 20:29 NIV
Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed;
blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Hebrews 11:6 NIV
And without faith it is impossible to please God,
because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists
and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

Belief is thinking something is true when you have insufficient evidence to say it's true. Faith is belief applied when you know the evidence is against you.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The closest I’ve ever come to a religious experience was 20 years ago in Puerto Rico when a man named Jesus made me a sensationally good mojito on a hot Caribbean evening.

"Take. Drink"
"Is...is this your body?!"
"Um, no. It's a mojito, weirdo."

 

[8enotto]

What's unreasonable about a scientific group researching the possibility of Noah's Ark found on Mt. Ararat?

The Turkish government has restricted access to that site in recent years and will not permit digging by just anyone now.
The non religious people that looked at that site have determined it to be a natural geologic formation while biblical scholars with ground penetrating radar tech have declared it to be the structure of a wooden vessel.

One of the christian "investigators" of that has a lifetime ban from Egypt for his many "discoveries" around the sphinx. Hidden libraries and all that.
They got sick of his games a while back too.

Charlatans Rusty. They have bridges to sell you in New York .

 

[Rusty Tyler]

@Rusty Tyler Do you really think posting sensational YouTube videos is your best argument?

They say it better than I could.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Correct. Do you understand why?

It's not a peer-edited research paper?

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Because it's been done unsuccessfully so many other times.

Good thing that Edison didn't give up on the light bulb.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

The Turkish government has restricted access to that site in recent years and will not permit digging by just anyone now.
The non religious people that looked at that site have determined it to be a natural geologic formation while biblical scholars with ground penetrating radar tech have declared it to be the structure of a wooden vessel.

So... the non religious people only looked at that site, but the biblical scholars actually did sophisticated research.
What does that tell you?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

They say it better than I could.

Considering how they say it, that's a pretty sad admission.

 

[JayUtah]

They say it better than I could.

No they don't; just faster. You choose videos of clearly questionable value. But you can toss out a whole bunch of links in a short time and say nothing more than, "Have you seen this?" Then you can hope that your critics get bogged down in trying to debunk each and every one. It takes little effort from you and offers little value to the critics who want answers from you.

It's called a Gish gallop. It's dishonest and intellectually bankrupt.

 

[JayUtah]

[deleted; duplicate]

 

[Steve]

They say it better than I could.

Well I suppose conceding that you are not quite as good at lying as the video makers is a small bonus in your favor.

 

[JayUtah]

Good thing that Edison didn't give up on the light bulb.

The prospect of the light bulb wasn't stupid on its face. The ark story is.

 

[Steve]

So... the non religious people only looked at that site, but the biblical scholars actually did sophisticated research.
What does that tell you?

"Biblical scholars" tend to find what they are looking for regardless of whether it actually exists.

 

[JayUtah]

So... the non religious people only looked at that site, but the biblical scholars actually did sophisticated research.
What does that tell you?

...that assuming one's conclusion is as unscientific as you can get. You have no idea whether the secular researchers were derelict or careless.

 

[Resume]

So... the non religious people only looked at that site, but the biblical scholars actually did sophisticated research.
What does that tell you?

Which bible scholars? Ron Wyatt?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

Yeah, he's got the Ark of the Covenant too!

He's full of ◊◊◊◊.

 

[bruto]

Wait...
Do those other gods require faith?

Obviously, any gods must require faith in order to believe in them since there is no evidence for any. Even if, against the advice of many, you find something you consider evidence of a creator, it is evidence of nothing else. A creator need not, without further definition, be anything we can identify or put a name to, need not be in a position to do anything else, and need not exist at all after the creation.

And there is no evidence that a god must, by some definition or other, require knowledge of its existence, much less belief, faith or worship, or be in any way an entity with which such a relationship either can or must exist. Our cultural history makes it likely that when the subject of "god" is broached, we have a general idea of what is likely to be talked about, but even that is infinitely arguable.

The thing about faith is that it's always faith, and that's all it is even if your guess is perfect and happens to be right. If you could prove it then it wouldn't be faith, and as long as it is, "I beg to differ" is as complete a rebuttal as is required.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Which bible scholars? Ron Wyatt?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

Yeah, he's got the Ark of the Covenent too!

He's full of ◊◊◊◊.

Ooooh, can we play the Melting Nazis Game?

 

[JayUtah]

Do those other gods require faith?

Why on Earth would you think other religions don't (or didn't) teach faith in their gods? A big issue in your inability to grasp atheism is your quite evident Christian exceptionalism.

In Ancient Greece, the morality plays put so much emphasis on trust in the gods that it gave us the term for an unsatisfying plot element: deus ex machina. When your main character is in dire straits, he just prays for a solution and a god appears "out of the machine" (i.e., stagecraft) and magically fixes everything.

The Egyptian afterlife presented a final judgment in which the deceased heart was weighed to see if it was light (i.e., unburdened by sin). The heart recorded all its owner's thoughts and deeds in mortality. The person needed to have faith that all his good deeds in life would be counted in his favor in the afterlife. It had to be true faith, as faking piety would give you away.

I don't even know where to start with the Six Pillars of faith in Islam.

 

[JayUtah]

The POV.

The scientific method specifically looks for bias and works to eliminate it.

The assumptions.

Science is explicit about its assumptions.

"There is no God, therefore..."

No.

Science does not start with a rejection of God and then look for whatever else there might be.

 

[JayUtah]

Things unbelievable are presented that require faith to benefit from.

That doesn't answer the question. It merely restates the proposition you're being asked about.

Those who believe receive the benefits, those who do not believe do not receive the benefits.

You've been asked several times about "the benefits." All you can come up with is the placebo effect.

Ultimately, everyone will believe. IMHO

By force? Or will there be evidence?