The Case for Christianity

[DBT]

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.

Where is the evidence for the existence of the bible God? Or any version of a God or gods? Are we able to examine the evidence?

Where is the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? Or any of the supernatural stories that the ancients believed in?

Is there something we can examine?

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.

You are getting emotional. If evidence is available, just show it.

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.

A lie is not evidence for the truth of whatever is being lied about. A lie is falsified by evidence to the contrary.

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

Through evidence, not faith, not through assumption or general consensus. Nor because something is written in what some consider to be a holy book inspired by God.

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.

Resolved through research and testing, evidence, not appearance or faith based belief.

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.

Faith is not the same as trust. Which is why we have two words rather than one.

Trust may be built or destroyed through direct experience with someone or something, which is objective evidence.

While you may 'trust' your faith is right, what you believe in may have insufficient, or no evidence, to support it, yet you believe anyway.

That is essentially what separates trust from faith.

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.

There are in fact beliefs that were and are held without the support of evidence, Islamic theology, Hindu theology, Judaism, Christianity, the countless gods the ancients believed in, etc, etc.

If you think that you have evidence, just present it.

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

Think about it for fuck sake.

Unlike you, I have thought about it. Whether a believer has doubts or not does not alter the foundational status of their belief, which may not be sufficiently supported by evidence, or perhaps not at all, yet the believer persists regardless of their doubts..

 

[lostone]

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,

If faith is its own evidence, or a holy book, and we have have multiple faiths and holy books, which we do, how can they all be true at once? They can, OTOH, all be wrong. There is no logical problem with that. Albeit that does not rule out other options.

 

[DLH]

If faith is its own evidence, or a holy book, and we have have multiple faiths and holy books, which we do, how can they all be true at once?

If they are believed they are, by definition, true, but that means only truth is what people think it is. That would mean if you think God exists then that is true and if you think that God doesn't exist that is true. Since truth is a fact or belief that is accepted. People en masse believe God does and doesn't exist. Since, much to the amazement of "skeptics" God is only an English word first used by the pagans and simply means "to pour, libate" and is used simply meaning "worshipped" then both aforementioned positions regarding the existence and nonexistence of God or gods are true anyway, regardless of how you measure it. I.e. if such a being exists literally he/she/it would only be God or a god if he/she/it were worshipped by anyone. If the being in question didn't exist literally and were believed/worshipped it would still exist in that sense, of being God or a god. Faith means you trust, not that you can't have evidence and having evidence doesn't mean it's true.

Anyway, if you actually look at all alleged "holy books," Dhammapada, Gospel of Buddha, Four Noble Truths, Analects, Mencius, the Bible, Bhagavad Gita, Vedas, Quran, Pirqe Aboth, Nihongi, Kojiki, Tao Te Ching, Zhuang Tzu, Lie Er, for example, they aren't all saying different versions of the same thing. They aren't conflicting one another, they are telling different truths.

They can, OTOH, all be wrong. There is no logical problem with that. Albeit that does not rule out other options.

True, but it is more likely that they are all right and wrong.

 

[lostone]

If faith is its own evidence, or a holy book, and we have have multiple faiths and holy books, which we do, how can they all be true at once?

If they are believed they are, by definition, true, but that means only truth is what people think it is. That would mean if you think God exists then that is true and if you think that God doesn't exist that is true. Since truth is a fact or belief that is accepted. People en masse believe God does and doesn't exist. Since, much to the amazement of "skeptics" God is only an English word first used by the pagans and simply means "to pour, libate" and is used simply meaning "worshipped" then both aforementioned positions regarding the existence and nonexistence of God or gods are true anyway, regardless of how you measure it. I.e. if such a being exists literally he/she/it would only be God or a god if he/she/it were worshipped by anyone. If the being in question didn't exist literally and were believed/worshipped it would still exist in that sense, of being God or a god. Faith means you trust, not that you can't have evidence and having evidence doesn't mean it's true.

Anyway, if you actually look at all alleged "holy books," Dhammapada, Gospel of Buddha, Four Noble Truths, Analects, Mencius, the Bible, Bhagavad Gita, Vedas, Quran, Pirqe Aboth, Nihongi, Kojiki, Tao Te Ching, Zhuang Tzu, Lie Er, for example, they aren't all saying different versions of the same thing. They aren't conflicting one another, they are telling different truths.

They can, OTOH, all be wrong. There is no logical problem with that. Albeit that does not rule out other options.

True, but it is more likely that they are all right and wrong.

I prefer the other options, unknown albeit they may be to all of us. My personal Ideology, as you might say? Perhaps.

My own faith w/o evidence? OTOH, I am not exactly an atheist, nor an agnostic, and have no fixed beliefs. Which means that you could call me an atheist or an agnostic and not be wrong, or that maybe no labels at all would be a better option.

 

[lostone]

Sometimes I think it is all a cosmic joke, or that god is insane, or dead; the possibilities are limitless, even in a purely materialistic universe.

 

[DLH]

I prefer the other options, unknown albeit they may be to all of us. My personal Ideology, as you might say? Perhaps.

Sure, nothing wrong with that. Ideology, the science (knowledge) of ideas. I'm aware of atheist and theist ideas. Most people are. My ideas may fit within either. Ideology is often used (especially by me personally) as a derogatory, but that's only because people can abuse it like they do anything else.

My own faith w/o evidence? OTOH, I am not exactly an atheist, nor an agnostic, and have no fixed beliefs. Which means that you could call me an atheist or an agnostic and not be wrong, or that maybe no labels at all would be a better option.

I think that's exactly true of everyone, whether they are aware of or agree with it. No one, atheist or theist knows for certain. As Dawkins says, everyone is atheistic some just take it one step further. And theism being having or being concerned with gods, the antithesis of that is not very probable. Like Penn and Teller said; "Everyone's got a grisgris" aka god. Besides which, you can be an atheist and believe in God(s) as well as a theist and not believe in God(s).

 

[lostone]

I used to read a lot of the classics and still retain a lot of interest in ancient Norse and Greek mythology. Beautiful stories, to be sure. Other mythologies from other cultures, albeit they interest me, don't grip me in quite the same way. True or not? What does it matter? They are beautiful stories.

Maybe our lives are just a story as well, on some level. Maybe we should not take it all so seriously. It could, after all, just be a cosmic joke.

 

[lostone]

I do know that some Gods exist. I have a cat. He definitely knows that he is a god and he demands to be worshipped.

He accepts food offerings. Most of the time, at least.

 

[Swammerdami]

In my high school there were debating clubs which matched up with the debaters of other high schools on weekends. It was good to attack the opponents' mistakes or weakest points: the goal was to get the judges to declare our team the winner.

But scientists or adults more generally should have a higher standard. When debating the reasonableness of Christianity, one should address the most reasonable version(s) of that religion! Of course there are contradictions and "obvious errors" in the Bible. Almost anyone arguing here would concede such mistakes. Surely the utility of Jesus' teachings or even the utility of faith in His Resurrection is unaffected by inconsistencies between nativity myths, or the mismatch between Jesus' benevolent God and the "immoral" Old Testament God generally equated with the Christian God.

The intellectual challenge is to debate the STRONGEST parts of a religious ideology, not the weakest parts.

 

[DLH]

In my high school there were debating clubs which matched up with the debaters of other high schools on weekends. It was good to attack the opponents' mistakes or weakest points: the goal was to get the judges to declare our team the winner.

But scientists or adults more generally should have a higher standard. When debating the reasonableness of Christianity, one should address the most reasonable version(s) of that religion! Of course there are contradictions and "obvious errors" in the Bible. Almost anyone arguing here would concede such mistakes. Surely the utility of Jesus' teachings or even the utility of faith in His Resurrection is unaffected by inconsistencies between nativity myths, or the mismatch between Jesus' benevolent God and the "immoral" Old Testament God generally equated with the Christian God.

The intellectual challenge is to debate the STRONGEST parts of a religious ideology, not the weakest parts.

Subjective. A "Christian" might think the trinity, immortal soul, hell, rapture, Cross, Christmas, Easter are the strongest but since they were adopted by pagan influenced Christianity 400 years after Christ anyone knowing better would say those were the weakest. You used the term Old Testament. That term, along with New Testament, is based upon a translation error. There is no New or Old Testament.

But even then you are talking about religion in such a case. Not existence of God, not the Bible. Not truth.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

The intellectual challenge is to debate the STRONGEST parts of a religious ideology, not the weakest parts.

You are right!

And that philosophical charity can be an aspect of a still greater charity distinguishable as ethical charity. This means that the intellectual challenge can be approached as an ethical challenge wherein ethical charity is not restricted to the strongest parts of some(one's) expressed thinking but also seeks out - and seeks expression for - the strongest way in which to express and understand that thinking, often despite the contemporaneous limitations to that thinking and the manner in which it is expressed.

Such an undertaking can be done for the sake of - for the possible eventual benefit of - the other thinker(s), and that undertaking can be conducted without need of ever agreeing with the viewpoint being expressed by the other thinker(s).

 

[DBT]

Why believe? What reason is there to believe in the existence of a God?

 

[bilby]

Why believe? What reason is there to believe in the existence of a God?

Same reason that there is to believe in the existence of a Nigerian Prince who wants to share his US$1,000,00,00,00.00 with you:

Lots of people have said so, and it would be pretty great if it was true.

 

[DLH]

Why believe? What reason is there to believe in the existence of a God?

There's only one reason to believe in anything. It's true.

 

[DBT]

Why believe? What reason is there to believe in the existence of a God?

There's only one reason to believe in anything. It's true.

Is it true because you believe it's true, or is it true for some other reason?

 

[lostone]

Why believe? What reason is there to believe in the existence of a God?

There's only one reason to believe in anything. It's true.

That is a low standard of truth. What is true? If it is just our personal belief, it's just our opinion. If it has some sort of universal support, verifiable by all, independent of humans, and only then, can we speak of it being true. Even then it is only an assertion.

 

[DLH]

Why believe? What reason is there to believe in the existence of a God?

There's only one reason to believe in anything. It's true.

Is it true because you believe it's true, or is it true for some other reason?

My believing doesn't make it true. Your disbelief doesn't make it false. I don't want to believe it's true when it isn't any more than you don't want to believe it isn't true when it is.

Or do I? Why does God demand faith?

 

[DLH]

That is a low standard of truth.

What other standard is there?

What is true?

Very little.

If it is just our personal belief, it's just our opinion.

That is all we ever have. Most everything else is delusional. Ideological fixation. Something isn't true because it is in the Bible or a science book.

If it has some sort of universal support, verifiable by all, independent of humans, and only then, can we speak of it being true.

Verifiable by all, independent of humans? Verifiable by all what? Ants? Dolphins? Democrats?

Even then it is only an assertion.

Choose your assertions wisely.

 

[DLH]

Where is the evidence for the existence of the bible God? Or any version of a God or gods? Are we able to examine the evidence?

Of course we can. You don't get it. You can't get it. Cast away your ideological fixation and then maybe you can get it. I'm not talking about getting belief, I'm talking about the evidence. You can't get the evidence because of your ideological fixation. That is why it's a waste of time for us to discuss it. I'm not interested in ideological fixation. Of believers or unbelievers. You can't examine the evidence. It isn't given for you to do that.

Where is the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? Or any of the supernatural stories that the ancients believed in?

Earlier I mentioned that you (the skeptical reader) doesn't understand that Jesus tricked Thomas. Talk about that. You don't want to? Why? I've told you.

Is there something we can examine?

Nothing you can examine, no.

You are getting emotional. If evidence is available, just show it.

Why would anyone ask for evidence? You want me to show you evidence? Go and get it yourself. That is how evidence is actually obtained.

A lie is not evidence for the truth of whatever is being lied about. A lie is falsified by evidence to the contrary.

In the realm of science, the concept of falsification is often viewed as a myth. You don't really understand falsifiability. You only think you can use it against truth.

Through evidence, not faith, not through assumption or general consensus. Nor because something is written in what some consider to be a holy book inspired by God.

Or a text book inspired by Science.

Resolved through research and testing, evidence, not appearance or faith based belief.

So, you are here to give evidence to those things you demonstrably don't understand.

Faith is not the same as trust. Which is why we have two words rather than one.

Is that really going to be your argument? That there is only one word for anything?

 

[lostone]

Why believe? What reason is there to believe in the existence of a God?

There's only one reason to believe in anything. It's true.

Is it true because you believe it's true, or is it true for some other reason?

My believing doesn't make it true. Your disbelief doesn't make it false. I don't want to believe it's true when it isn't any more than you don't want to believe it isn't true when it is.

Or do I? Why does God demand faith?

How do you know what God demands, if there is a God? What makes you special? Isn't, by those standards, the opinion of everyone of equal validity?