The Case for Christianity

[GenesisNemesis]

Looks like Brunswick has moved on. Last seen here June 30.

Did we ever see the Case for Christianity? I may have missed it.

Their case was they thought it made sense, and even if you didn't believe in it, if you behaved well you were embodying Christianity. Not a particularly compelling argument.

Just that. She was well-spoken (unless the AI accusations are correct, and I don't have AI radar skills), but what she had to say was so wishy-washy that it could apply to any religion in any society today. All the wretched stuff and nonsense in the Bible? Forget it, it was man-made, let's just look at the motivational material. Dogma, Nicene Creed, denominational craziness? Inessential. Her promotional plugs for Jesus were pallid. In essence, a low-pressure, liberal faith statement, which has no more validity than the full-on lock-step rigidity of the born agains. Faith requires a rules change in logical debate, no matter the level of piety.

It always amuses me when the skeptical don't see the irony.

It always amuses me when the religious never address any point being made.

 

[DLH]

Looks like Brunswick has moved on. Last seen here June 30.

Did we ever see the Case for Christianity? I may have missed it.

Their case was they thought it made sense, and even if you didn't believe in it, if you behaved well you were embodying Christianity. Not a particularly compelling argument.

Just that. She was well-spoken (unless the AI accusations are correct, and I don't have AI radar skills), but what she had to say was so wishy-washy that it could apply to any religion in any society today. All the wretched stuff and nonsense in the Bible? Forget it, it was man-made, let's just look at the motivational material. Dogma, Nicene Creed, denominational craziness? Inessential. Her promotional plugs for Jesus were pallid. In essence, a low-pressure, liberal faith statement, which has no more validity than the full-on lock-step rigidity of the born agains. Faith requires a rules change in logical debate, no matter the level of piety.

It always amuses me when the skeptical don't see the irony.

It always amuses me when the religious never address any point being made.

I did. The point is they are always the same as those they criticize. Same thing, different side of the coin. They only see it differently because they can't see past the ideology.

 

[DLH]

After all, faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. Which makes it kind of hard to defend.

Nonsense. What is evidence?

That is how the word faith is defined in relation to religion, faiths, or any form of belief held without evidence.

You don't have evidence, you have faith.

That's how faith is defined in Hebrews, that faith is its own justification.

Evidence is a form of information that anyone can access and examine. What is written in a holy book is not evidence for the truth its claims.....as you know.

Everything has evidence. Your dismissal or disbelief in the evidence doesn't suggest there isn't any. To say so just means you don't require evidence which means you're only a hypocritical, probably ignorant ideologue. Don't be offended, though, in this you are only like everyone else.

 

[steve_bank]

Great news !! The forum carousel has been fixed.

Now we can go back to to going around in circles riding up and down on wooden hearses ....

 

[DBT]

After all, faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. Which makes it kind of hard to defend.

Nonsense. What is evidence?

That is how the word faith is defined in relation to religion, faiths, or any form of belief held without evidence.

You don't have evidence, you have faith.

That's how faith is defined in Hebrews, that faith is its own justification.

Evidence is a form of information that anyone can access and examine. What is written in a holy book is not evidence for the truth its claims.....as you know.

Everything has evidence. Your dismissal or disbelief in the evidence doesn't suggest there isn't any. To say so just means you don't require evidence which means you're only a hypocritical, probably ignorant ideologue. Don't be offended, though, in this you are only like everyone else.

Not everything has evidence. Or there may be evidence that shows that something believed to be true is in fact false.

There are many examples of beliefs that have proven to be false.

Simply that faith based beliefs can and do contradict each other, Hindu theology as opposed to Islam, etc, shows that there is a problem with faith as a means of sorting fact from fiction.

 

[unapologetic]

Everything has evidence.

Not all evidence is equal.
Not all evidence is reliable.
Not all evidence is true.
Not everyone has the wisedom to assess it.

 

[ideologyhunter]

So possibly 'doubting Thomas' is the smartest character in the whole damn Bible?

 

[DLH]

So possibly 'doubting Thomas' is the smartest character in the whole damn Bible?

That seems strange since 'Doubting Thomas' was tricked by Jesus into believing.

 

[DLH]

Everything has evidence.

Not all evidence is equal.
Not all evidence is reliable.
Not all evidence is true.
Not everyone has the wisedom to assess it.

So then how would you amend the statement that there is no evidence?

 

[unapologetic]

Everything has evidence.

Not all evidence is equal.
Not all evidence is reliable.
Not all evidence is true.
Not everyone has the wisedom to assess it.

So then how would you amend the statement that there is no evidence?

I wasn't intending to. But...
There is no good evidence for a god.
There is no sane evidence for a god.
There is no honest evidence for a god.
There is no supernatural evidence for a god.

Or were you talking about evidence for something else?

( It is Monday AM. I'll be back Saturday)

 

[No Robots]

Great news !! The forum carousel has been fixed.

Now we can go back to to going around in circles riding up and down on wooden hearses ....

Wooden hearses. Love it. Gonna use it.

 

[lostone]

After all, faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. Which makes it kind of hard to defend.

Nonsense. What is evidence?

That is how the word faith is defined in relation to religion, faiths, or any form of belief held without evidence.

You don't have evidence, you have faith.

That's how faith is defined in Hebrews, that faith is its own justification.

Evidence is a form of information that anyone can access and examine. What is written in a holy book is not evidence for the truth its claims.....as you know.

Everything has evidence. Your dismissal or disbelief in the evidence doesn't suggest there isn't any. To say so just means you don't require evidence which means you're only a hypocritical, probably ignorant ideologue. Don't be offended, though, in this you are only like everyone else.

That's not an answer. Faith cannot be its own justification to anyone except the faithful, nor can a holy book. Evidence has to be some source that all sides can agree on as being evidence.

 

[ideologyhunter]

supernatural evidence

...Praying to find your $20, then finding it in your back pocket...doesn't that count?
I mean, what does that show you?

 

[DLH]

That's not an answer.

For what question?

Faith cannot be its own justification to anyone except the faithful, nor can a holy book.

1. Yes it can. 2. Yes it can.

Evidence has to be some source that all sides can agree on as being evidence.

No. Because that would mean that all I have to do to rob you of evidence is disagree with it. Any of you evidence hounds ever actually think your dumb fake ideology through?

 

[DBT]

That's not an answer.

For what question?

Faith cannot be its own justification to anyone except the faithful, nor can a holy book.

1. Yes it can. 2. Yes it can.

Evidence has to be some source that all sides can agree on as being evidence.

No. Because that would mean that all I have to do to rob you of evidence is disagree with it. Any of you evidence hounds ever actually think your dumb fake ideology through?

Without evidence, the truth of a belief is held on faith. Faith in this instance is defined as a belief held without the support of evidence.....which is not to be confused with trust, hope or confidence,

 

[DLH]

Without evidence, the truth of a belief is held on faith. Faith in this instance is defined as a belief held without the support of evidence.....which is not to be confused with trust, hope or confidence,

1. If you have to create the desperately imaginative prospect of there EVER being anything without evidence then you are A) intentionally stupid, B) desperately delusional, C) astonishingly arrogant or D) what I happen to think is the case here, all of the above.

This means that if you have the smartest person in the world saying something is true and it isn't, their testimony is still evidence and conversely if you have the dumbest person in the world saying something isn't true and it is, their testimony is still evidence. Having evidence doesn't mean something is true or accurate. Not having evidence doesn't mean it isn't. You get that? Evidence or lack thereof doesn't substantiate or negate a proposition since every case for or against can either be true or false in the conclusion. Which is why saying "we have evidence and you don't" is a dead giveaway for delusional cognitive bias or a desperately stupid lie that only an idiot would believe.

2. Evidence is defined, rightfully, as the available body of facts or information indicating whether or not a belief or proposition is true or valid.

See 1. A lie is evidence as well as a fact.

3. Truth is defined rightfully as a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

See 2. This means that if you believe it to be true then it is. If the world thinks the earth is flat then that is truth. If the world thinks it has evidence and it doesn't that is true. Truth is an illusion. Knowledge temporal.

4. Faith IS trust. Etymologically, logically, factually, reasonably, obviously, definitively. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Faith is exactly the same thing as evidence specifically in that if you do or do not have either you may be right or wrong.

5. The accusation that something is without evidence is only evidence of ignorance or stupidity because if there were no evidence of the thing in question you would be oblivious to it's possible existence or non-existence. If you are not aware of this the likelihood of your being either intentionally or unintentionally deceptive increases exponentially. Which means that the skeptical are as delusional as the faithful. If that were true its very principle would be what makes the fucking world go 'round you poor delusional oblivious overconfident morons.

At least a doubting believer has the sense to see this where a confident idiot does not.

Think about it for fuck sake.

 

[DLH]

So possibly 'doubting Thomas' is the smartest character in the whole damn Bible?

That seems strange since 'Doubting Thomas' was tricked by Jesus into believing.

They don't know what this means. They don't understand it.

 

[DLH]

So possibly 'doubting Thomas' is the smartest character in the whole damn Bible?

That seems strange since 'Doubting Thomas' was tricked by Jesus into believing.

They don't know what this means. They don't understand it.

I know.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Without evidence, the truth of a belief is held on faith. Faith in this instance is defined as a belief held without the support of evidence.....which is not to be confused with trust, hope or confidence,

1. If you have to create the desperately imaginative prospect of there EVER being anything without evidence then you are A) intentionally stupid, B) desperately delusional, C) astonishingly arrogant or D) what I happen to think is the case here, all of the above.

This means that if you have the smartest person in the world saying something is true and it isn't, their testimony is still evidence and conversely if you have the dumbest person in the world saying something isn't true and it is, their testimony is still evidence. Having evidence doesn't mean something is true or accurate. Not having evidence doesn't mean it isn't. You get that? Evidence or lack thereof doesn't substantiate or negate a proposition since every case for or against can either be true or false in the conclusion. Which is why saying "we have evidence and you don't" is a dead giveaway for delusional cognitive bias or a desperately stupid lie that only an idiot would believe.

2. Evidence is defined, rightfully, as the available body of facts or information indicating whether or not a belief or proposition is true or valid.

See 1. A lie is evidence as well as a fact.

3. Truth is defined rightfully as a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

See 2. This means that if you believe it to be true then it is. If the world thinks the earth is flat then that is truth. If the world thinks it has evidence and it doesn't that is true. Truth is an illusion. Knowledge temporal.

4. Faith IS trust. Etymologically, logically, factually, reasonably, obviously, definitively. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Faith is exactly the same thing as evidence specifically in that if you do or do not have either you may be right or wrong.

5. The accusation that something is without evidence is only evidence of ignorance or stupidity because if there were no evidence of the thing in question you would be oblivious to it's possible existence or non-existence. If you are not aware of this the likelihood of your being either intentionally or unintentionally deceptive increases exponentially. Which means that the skeptical are as delusional as the faithful. If that were true its very principle would be what makes the fucking world go 'round you poor delusional oblivious overconfident morons.

At least a doubting believer has the sense to see this where a confident idiot does not.

Think about it for fuck sake.

What is your evidence that Galactus actually exists?

So possibly 'doubting Thomas' is the smartest character in the whole damn Bible?

That seems strange since 'Doubting Thomas' was tricked by Jesus into believing.

They don't know what this means. They don't understand it.

I know.

So you agree with yourself. No one else does.

 

[DLH]

What is your evidence that Galactus actually exists?

Since this is the first time I've ever heard of Galactus and you didn't give any data I have none. I could look at it and gather data if I were interested. If You said it did exist that would be evidence. If you said it didn't that would also be evidence. Regardless of whether or not it actually exists.

So you agree with yourself. No one else does.

Yes. And by the way, this is more often than not the case. Although I don't usually provide such a display I did thoroughly enjoy this one and so may do more of it in the future given the opportunity.

And before you ask, I like turtles. What evidence do you have that I like turtles?