Pardon me, buckhorn. I should have specified the atheists on this board, and not atheists in general. My apologies. Personally, I agree with rickysrun. Both of the groups should just shut the f**k up and leave each other alone. I cannot imagine a more deeply personal thought/experience process than that which leads to the decision to believe in God or believe in No God.
sangre Sorry if I sounded a heckle. Coel What a gas of a passage. I recall that from days gone by, but I didn't consider it then (Jesus could get testy) as I do now (You follow the devil! No, you are possessed? No I am the truth and speak the truth and you are liars born of lies! No, you are possessed of demons! I have always been and observed Abraham! No, you are possessed of demons! I knew abraham and you are no Abrahams). I wish John Cleese would pop up and say 'Gentleman, gentleman, you don't have any cheese at all, do you.'
Yes, well, Dionysus has said that he has no problem at all with this Jesus guy, and I'm interested to know if that includes John 8 and Jesus' explicit testimony that he's the son of God.
The irony is that there is no proof that he even said that which John ascribed to him. His tome may have been accurately translated over the years, but there isn't really any way to verify that anyone actually uttered those words. Going to the stfu sentiment, I would say that I am personally very happy for anyone to say "I just believe" and not try to justify it. There is no proving or disproving which, as I have said on one of these threads, is the very essence of faith. Keeps yours. Just don't try to sell it as fact or even subject to proof. And for sure don't try to cram it down my throat by way of legislation or textbook screening or justification for violence, etc. THAT is the very reason why this country exists. Going back to the keep your faith issue, I have a fat friend (wait before you get riled) who drinks to excess, smokes (or did) weed, frequents tittie bars, leaves for his fishing cabin in one of his two boats, etc., and absolutley dotes on his wife and his four children. He once got so drunk before a ski trip that he mistook his wife's suitcase for the toilet and peed all over her packed clothes. His wife has explained her tolerance to me on several occassions that a happy Craig is a lot easier to be around than an unhappy one. It's a bad analogy, I know, but a peaceful, happy deist is a lot easier to be around than an unhappy one. If a person's faith in a deity gives them comfort and peace, etc., I am ALL FOR IT! I don't want to share the faith or anything other than the peace. When people with silly, knees, bent, running about, advancing behavior start thinking they have a handle on morality or legislation or imperialism or even missionary work (to a small extent), I get a little perturbed. So, when I take issue, it is because this whole religion thing has consistently gotten out of hand and people and ideas die because of it. Like I said, keep your faith, just don't try to impose it or I will disabuse you of your logic and entitlement. Those are my words, but they generally comport with the ideas of atheist-type people who I have spoken with and who share my sentiments. I doubt any of the "comical atheists" on Hornfans have any desire to or any disillusions that they can or will change any minds about anything other than the end game and no one has particlarly advocated any Christian imperialism or hate on any of the several threads going on right now. The reason for the pushback you may receive from most atheists that I know do it out of vigilance to remind the "faithful" that they do NOT speak for everyone and they WILL be resisted with logic and reason when necessary. These threads are nothing more than sparring matches. If you want to be good in football, you scrimmage before you have to play a game. You get a fencing partner. You get the idea. Christianity, for one example, has a stated goal of conversion and many adherents talk about "taking back our country" to our Christian roots while conveniently disregarding that Christian oppression is one of the main reasons this country exists and why separation of church and state is so vital to the origins of this country. The most ardent "take back our country" advocates spout about how many of the founding fathers were devout Christians, but cannot seem to acknowledge that these very people were the ones who wanted, no demanded, separation of church and state and were willing to die for it.
This is quite possibly the most ridiculous question I've heard posed on this board. Of COURSE it contradicts science. It was a miracle - which is by definition a defiance of scientific law, despite numerous uses of the word as applied to the birth of a child, etc... A miracle is, by definition, miraculous. My question is why is it so unbelievable that a God who created the heavens and the earth would be somehow bound and helpless to bring someone back to life. So he can create life from scratch, but once that person dies, well that's it. You continue to try and frame Christian beliefs in your own world view and perspective, in which case you will always find contradictions. I reject your premise because in order to accept it I have to start off by ceding your point. It's circular logic at its best.
While I think that you (Prodigal) have been making some great points recently (and I have failed to acknowledge same as I don't want to wallow in the vitriol of the excessive number of vindictive threads)(and, yes, I am an atheist, and, yes, I am referring to both sides of the debate), the question of the reliability of accounts of Caesar are not apropos for the simple reason that no one really gives a ****. We aren't being asked to run our governments or change our textbooks or kill people in the middle east or Jasper, Texas or choose or not choose to carry a child, etc., etc., based upon the accounts of Caesar's life and death. We can't even sort out TODAY what REALLY happened in the OJ murder mystery. There is NO CHANCE of sorting out TODAY what may or may not have happened 2,000 years ago. Even if we could go back in time and get fresh accounts. That is not to say that the accounts aren't totally accurate renditions of things that people saw, and even perhaps accurately perceived, it still doesn't prove the truth of the interpretation. I have said and I maintain that I have no problem with someone saying that they "just believe". It is far more intellectually honest than saying "the proof is there", but I'm puzzled and intrigued by the fairly recent insertion in this particular thread (only mentioned because I had never heard the argument before) that goes along the lines that the scientist/pragmatist (whatever) just can't or won't get their mind around a different concept of truth. That is not a bait. It's a real question. If it's just another invitation to suspend logic and reason, I'm not likely to be converted, but the question has relevance to personal issues that will affect whether or not I remain married. I have a lot of love and time invested in a marriage and we are at a crossroads over things that I will perhaps never understand. Fwiw, it isn't about Christianity, it's more about psychic stuff and "channeling" (whatever that is) and communicating with dead people and tapping into the incredible ability of spiritual people to help others achieve wealth and happiness for a nominal fee (sarcasm intended). BUT, I am open to the idea that people just think diiferently and I am aware that MY way of thinking is FAR from perfect. I can't imagine that the concept could be explained in a post. Is there a recommended book?
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I really do appreciate you taking the time and I think I understand what you are saying. My deal goes beyond that particlular issue and my inquiry goes towards your advice about looking for solutions other than just saying "f**k it!" At some point, though...
I appreciate that - I definitely don't envy your position! Unfortunately at that point I have a feeling there are "bad options" and "worse options" - I kind of think the only thing that can really "fix" situations like that is a time machine!
Lee Stroebel has several books I think you would be interested in reading. He is a former atheist and he might be able to answer questions that are dogging you.
Lee Stroebel has several books I think you would be interested in reading. His journalistic approach and weak straw-man arguments are not convincing to some.
Just a little different angle to the original Q. One of my philosophy professors in grad school put it this way: Science is about testing repeatable phenomena. If Jesus was the God/man, then you have a singularity whose actions do not contradict science but are outside the scope, in that they are not testable. What you would need for scientific investigation is many God/men/women performing actions frequently enough for science to test and for hypotheses and theories about the nature of God/men/women to be developed.
Yeah, Stroebel uses circular reasoning to prove his point. For example, he uses references within the Bible to prove that the Bible is 100% true. For the first 50 years of my life, I lived as a Christian. Grew up in a Christian-based home. Went to church 3 times a week. Spent 17 years acting as a youth leader for high school kids. Served as an elder in my church. I have become increasingly drawn to the idea that I no longer believe in the church's teachings. I find the idea of the Bible being infallible almost illogical. I detest the things that are being done in the name of someone who supposedly taught everyone to love one another. The idea that I can great things for the poor and needy all my life, be a good husband and father and citizen, but say that I don't believe in God would result in my spending an eternity in hell, while a mass murderer can "sincerely repent" on his deathbed and spend an eternity in heaven. I find the idea laughable that the earth was created millions upon millions years ago, and man comes along a million years afterward and suddenly knows exactly what happened because "God" told him so. It seems strange that there were so many miracles going on back in Biblical days, yet we never see them anymore (at least not the Biblical kind). Maybe I'm going to hell for believing all that. I don't know if I want to spend an eternity with a god who would punish for thinking that anyway. As Groucho Marx once said, "I wouldn't want to belong to any club who would have me as a member."
HornHawk, our stories are similar. I grew up in the Baptist Church, Sunday School every week, Vacation Bible School in the summer, went to church camp several years running, my mom worked as a secretary at the church for years, etc. I was well into my adult years before the idea even occurred to me that it could all be wrong. Getting out of my hometown and the prevailing mentality there made the biggest difference for me. I mentioned this on another post around here somewhere, but if you look at a map of the distribution of the world's religions it will tell you all you need to know about why people believe what they do: it's a cultural thing. Almost without exception, around the world, people believe what they've been told to believe. It's powerful, I know from experience. But you either break out of the prison or you decorate your cell. I think many believers are afraid to even give themselves permission to doubt, to question what they've been taught, to truly think for themselves and be ready to go as far as to reject everything that doesn't stand up to what their deepest instincts tell them about life and the world. Talk of sin and redemption is folly.
HornHawk, Have you subjected the skeptical argument to the same level of scrutiny that you subjected Christianity to? And if so, have you found any weaknesses, any inconsistencies at all?
I have become increasingly drawn to the idea that I no longer believe in the church's teachings. I find the idea of the Bible being infallible almost illogical. I detest the things that are being done in the name of someone who supposedly taught everyone to love one another. The idea that I can great things for the poor and needy all my life, be a good husband and father and citizen, but say that I don't believe in God would result in my spending an eternity in hell, while a mass murderer can "sincerely repent" on his deathbed and spend an eternity in heaven. Good post. The insistence on Jesus being both divine and the only way to salvation is something that, I think, most people find a bit weak as they spend time on this mortal coil. Rob Bell (think I got his name right) the evangelical preacher who has been making headlines because he dares question whether hell is real pretty much said the same thing. Per an article (think it was in Time) someone in his church had put a post-it note on a picture of Ghandi stating "reality check: Ghandi's in hell".
Admiral's point sort of echoes what I was saying earlier. In both cases I've read on this thread about being raised in the church and later leaving the faith, the central issue seems to be an inability to square what the Bible teaches with what that person believes ought to be true. It just doesn't sound "right" that this one religion out of all of them just "happens" to be the one, and all the others are wrong. The preacher who argues there is no hell does so for no other reason than that it just doesn't compute to him. My point is this. Both of these are positions of faith. If you choose to reject scripture because you just don't buy it, then that's the choice you make and while I wishbthat weren't the case, it's your choice to make and no one els's. But turning around and then criticizing people who remain in the faith for being blind and just believing what they are taught is a little hypocritical IMO. You can't "prove" a religious view is wrong because it just doesn't make sense to you. You instead place faith in your own experience and wisdom and choose to believe in a philosophy that fits those things. That is no different than a Christian who accepts the scriptural account and understands that regardless of how I would do things if I were god, that has no bearing on what God would or has done.
I have no issues whatsoever with anyone who practices their faith or what they believe in. If that's what works for them, then more power to them. I just no longer feel like it works for me.
