The Case for Christianity

[DBT]

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

I'm saying the very opposite, that we have different words for a reason. That in instances where we have evidence, as in trust, the context is different. That the context in which a word is used defines the word in that instance, where religious theologies are called 'faiths,' for the very reason of a lack of evidence, that they are founded on faith, defined as a belief held without the support of evidence.....just as defined in Hebrews.

 

[DLH]

How do you know what God demands, if there is a God?

1. We are talking about a specific God and we are talking in generalizations. Contextually, let's say I've examined the evidence and it is my opinion. You are right to question that. You should, God highly recommends that you do. This I know from the same method.

What makes you special?

See 1. above.

Isn't, by those standards, the opinion of everyone of equal validity?

Definitely not.

 

[DLH]

I'm saying the very opposite, that we have different words for a reason. That in instances where we have evidence, as in trust, the context is different. That the context in which a word is used defines the word in that instance, where religious theologies are called 'faiths,' for the very reason of a lack of evidence, that they are founded on faith, defined as a belief held without the support of evidence.....just as defined in Hebrews.

I think you should read this and then respond.

 

[DBT]

I'm saying the very opposite, that we have different words for a reason. That in instances where we have evidence, as in trust, the context is different. That the context in which a word is used defines the word in that instance, where religious theologies are called 'faiths,' for the very reason of a lack of evidence, that they are founded on faith, defined as a belief held without the support of evidence.....just as defined in Hebrews.

I think you should read this and then respond.

Faithfulness or fidelity are related to something, a belief, a person, etc. It is the nature of this attachment that determines the meaning of faith in that instance.

A belief may be held on the basis of evidence or no evidence.

In instances where a belief is held without the support of evidence, faith is defined as a belief held without the support of evidence.

''Hebrews 11:1 states: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (KJV). In other translations, it is often rendered as "Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see". This verse emphasizes the importance of faith in believing in things that are not visible.'' - King James Bible

 

[DLH]

Faithfulness or fidelity are related to something, a belief, a person, etc.

Of course. Trust, faith, belief are related to something; you trust in, believe, have faith in, someone or something,

It is the nature of this attachment that determines the meaning of faith in that instance.

Are you talking about the difference between having faith in anything or anyone and being of a specific faith, i.e. religious conviction?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Faith, which I've given the dictionary definition of, is "complete trust in something or someone." If you disagree with that we need to come to some understanding. The Latin word credit, which I've pointed our elsewhere repeatedly, means literally believer. The lender believes the borrower will pay it back. They (the lender, of course) bases this on evidence. They trust.

A belief may be held on the basis of evidence or no evidence.

I agree.

In instances where a belief is held without the support of evidence, faith is defined as a belief held without the support of evidence.

''Hebrews 11:1 states: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (KJV). In other translations, it is often rendered as "Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see". This verse emphasizes the importance of faith in believing in things that are not visible.'' - King James Bible

In the example of credit I give above the lender trusts, believes, has faith the borrower will repay based upon evidence but that repayment is unseen until it is paid in full. You've said yourself that a belief may be held on the basis of evidence or no evidence. You seem to be wrongly concluding that faith can't have evidence and that evidence assures without doubt.

ETA: I think that perhaps what you mean is that you don't base your worldview or opinions without evidence and you assume anyone who acts upon faith does?

 

[Elixir]

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.

That’s true of any faith. They all share the same utility, regardless of veracity or the existence of the object of faith. Whether it’s Jesus, Jesus’ mother, or lostone’s cat, the utility of faith remains a consistent value. If you can muster faith without the benefit of elaborate social systems (religions etc) forcing it down your throat, you’re ahead of the game.
I have faith that there does indeed exist an external reality that operates under principles that can be observed and learned about, and applied to accurately predict the behavior of matter and energy. This, despite the current effort by the US government’s executive branch to deny it.
If my faith is misplaced I expect I’ll remain ignorant of its disproof until I die. My faith is that strong!

 

[DBT]

Faithfulness or fidelity are related to something, a belief, a person, etc.

Of course. Trust, faith, belief are related to something; you trust in, believe, have faith in, someone or something,

It is the nature of this attachment that determines the meaning of faith in that instance.

Are you talking about the difference between having faith in anything or anyone and being of a specific faith, i.e. religious conviction?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Faith, which I've given the dictionary definition of, is "complete trust in something or someone." If you disagree with that we need to come to some understanding. The Latin word credit, which I've pointed our elsewhere repeatedly, means literally believer. The lender believes the borrower will pay it back. They (the lender, of course) bases this on evidence. They trust.

A belief may be held on the basis of evidence or no evidence.

I agree.

In instances where a belief is held without the support of evidence, faith is defined as a belief held without the support of evidence.

''Hebrews 11:1 states: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (KJV). In other translations, it is often rendered as "Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see". This verse emphasizes the importance of faith in believing in things that are not visible.'' - King James Bible

In the example of credit I give above the lender trusts, believes, has faith the borrower will repay based upon evidence but that repayment is unseen until it is paid in full. You've said yourself that a belief may be held on the basis of evidence or no evidence. You seem to be wrongly concluding that faith can't have evidence and that evidence assures without doubt.

ETA: I think that perhaps what you mean is that you don't base your worldview or opinions without evidence and you assume anyone who acts upon faith does?

You take each and every belief or assumption on its own merit, what it's based on, why you believe, etc.

And if your belief is held without the support of evidence, be it something written in a holy book, something desired (not evidence), it is held on the basis of faith....and you should know by now how faith is defined in that instance.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

The trouble is in that the Bible is used as a circular reference as evidence for itself. The Bible isn't evidence that there is a god... it is evidence that people believe there is a god.

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 relies on what one doesn't know, on what they can't evidence and support rationally, in order to believe in some arbitrary belief. We've had plenty of posters at this web board that backstopped on the 'I know in my heart that God is real'... when their attempts to rationally defend their view are rebuked.

Faith isn't evidence of anything but someone's belief.

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.

Someone should give a name to this concept. Oh wait... already done.

One can't seriously defend a defenseless position by suggesting a viable defense could exist in some way. You either can or can't defend it. That doesn't default one to being wrong, but when one has no real defense to defend a position, that position is not being held rationally.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How do you know what God demands, if there is a God?

1. We are talking about a specific God and we are talking in generalizations. Contextually, let's say I've examined the evidence and it is my opinion.

But have you really? There have been many gods and many holy books. One would need to do a ton of research and reading before they could be said to have "examined the evidence".

 

[steve_bank]

Your honor

Given the lack of eye witters accounts of the alleged creation of the universe by a god called Yahweh and the lack of any objective proof of the alleged god Yahweh I request that the case for Christianity be impressed on the gounds of lack of evidence.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Your honor

Given the lack of eye witters accounts of the alleged creation of the universe by a god called Yahweh and the lack of any objective proof of the alleged god Yahweh I request that the case for Christianity be impressed on the gounds of lack of evidence.

R. Giuliani: Your honor, I move at this time that the case against my client, G. Hovah, be dismissed without prejudice.
Judge: Prosecutor?
Pros.: Your honor, the people insist that the case go forward. This defendant is responsible for an unprecedented chain of homicides, including the murder of the whole world, exception being eight collaborators. He is on record as stating, quote, 'I could stand in the middle of the Red Sea and kill everybody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? Well, except for everyone I killed,' unquote.
R. Giuliani: Your honor, this whole line of argumentation is bullshit. A deity is immune from prosecution for any of his actions that fall within the scope of his official duties.
Pros.: Killing is within the scope of his duties?
R. Giuliani: Jesus Christ, killing is just about the goddiest duty of all. Totally goddy. Extraordinarily goddy. Steeped in goddiness.
Judge: Counselor, would you approach the bench? (Pause, sotto voce) What the fuck is running down your face? Are you hemorrhaging?
R. Giuliani: What? Huh? Oh, oh no, that's Just for Men. It's their new espresso color. (returns to defense table, whispers to client)
Judge: Counselor, does your client wish to testify? He has that right.
R. Giuliani: No, your honor. He doesn't do appearances anymore. It has inconvenienced him to be here at all.
Judge: Prosecutor, anything more?
Pros.: Rape, your honor. Rape of a virginal young woman from the hill country.
R. Giuliani (with passion) Your honor, this is hearsay, and it involves date rape at best, if not consensual sex, and it was allegedly done by my client's brother, who is not visibly here today, as he is a ghost.
Judge: A ghost? Like Casper?
R. Giuliani: Yes, a ghost, but a very special ghost, you might say a holy ghost. Long story! He may be here, I couldn't say. (waves his hand suddenly about his head) I could be touching him right now. Who can tell?
Judge: Well, ghosts and such are beyond the jurisdiction of this court. I am ready to rule on the motion to dismiss.

Check the ID Network for the conclusion of this case!! Deadliest Deities airs on Sunday nights at 10 Central.

 

[steve_bank]

Judge:

Unless Yahweh can appear in court to testify subject to cross examination within 24 hours the case will be dismissed

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yahweh has underperformed so badly as a deity, it is a miracle anyone still worships it.

 

[Politesse]

Yahweh has underperformed so badly as a deity, it is a miracle anyone still worships it.

His people have conquered well over half the planet, and tightly control the better part of its wealth and most influential political offices. From a pragmatic perspective, it is not hard to comprehend how his worship would still hold appeal. Of the other scattered folk deities out there, only Chairman Mao presents a serious challenge to YHWH's allure.

 

[ideologyhunter]

^^^ All that, plus, from watching multiple episodes of Deconstruction Zone and Atheist Experience online, it is nearly unbelievable to me how many American Christians call in to do battle with the atheist moderators while possessing just about zero knowledge of their book. They profess amazement when it is pointed out to them that the Bible god calls for genocide, permits slavery, calls for the execution of brides who cannot demonstrate their virginity, puts different monetary values on men and women, sends plagues and poisonous snakes to discipline "his peope"...the list of course could go on.

 

[Politesse]

They are regularly encouraged to read the Bible, but it is tacitly discouraged to do so... unsupervised.

 

[steve_bank]

There was a time when translating the bible into common language could carry the death penalty. Prits interpreted scripture for the masses.

In the 60s it was a big deal when the RCC allowed local language instead of Latin at mass, and allowing local musical forms. Over here folk music with guitars.

Before that sermons were in English, the rituals were in Latin.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Some years back I was at the Flight 93 Memorial outside Shanksville, PA. There was a small group of visitors, looking at what there was to see (this was way before there was a visitor's center, so what you saw was an empty field where the plane came down, some historical plaques, and many messages left by previous visitors, attached to the fencing.) There was a respectful silence in the group until someone made a reference to the terrorists and a second person said, "Well, you know, it's in their holy book. They are told to kill unbelievers." A third person didn't let that pass. He said, "You think teachings like that aren't in the Bible?" That ended the group chat, thankfully. It could easily have degenerated into angry sniping, but didn't.
Malevolence in the holy books -- difficult to manage that legacy.

 

[bilby]

In the 60s it was a big deal when the RCC allowed local language instead of Latin at mass, and allowing local musical forms.