PDN wrote: » I wholeheartedly agree. Popularity is not a reliable indication of whether something is true or not. Then again, for Christians it is not just a matter of proving something to be true. My happiness at seeing Christianity growing is not because I think it proves me right, but because I'm glad increasing numbers of people are receiving salvation.
Cato Maior wrote: » Whatever gets you through the night, my friend.
old hippy wrote: » Let's discuss people with their heads up their butts, how about that?
What do your friends get from packing into these alleged buildings?
old hippy wrote: » Which reminds me, I'm off to get salvation in the local. Have a pleasant evening all.
Ciaran0 wrote: » Of course he's going to say that the burden of proof is on you because you're in his forum.
Cato Maior wrote: » I tend to find that one is better advised not to allow the low standards of others to determine the standards by which one operates.
Never argue with a fool, they'll just bring you down to their level and beat you there with experience
PDN wrote: » You don't think it's reasonable that Atheists who post in the Atheism/Existence of God thread should bring something to discuss? It does seem a bit disappointing that after promising us all kinds of contradictions etc, they get frustrated when things don't go to plan and the best they can come up with is, "Well go on, then, prove that there's a God!" I watch theists go into A&A with nothing better to say than, "Yah! Can you prove that God doesn't exist?" and I think to myself, "What a tool." That kind of approach invites derision.
PDN wrote: » Not at all. I look at demographics and see the following: Christianity (as a generic whole) is increasing numerically but remaining static as a percentage of world population. The brand of Christianity to which I belong (Pentecostal/Charismatic) has increased from a handful of people 110 years ago to where it now embraces approximately 10% of the world's population. Over the Twentieth Century, Atheism increased dramatically but has considerably declined numerically since 1980. So, no, I don't think the tide is moving out for me at all. In fact, I think we have much more in common than you think. Atheist numbers overall have declined, but the variety of atheism that you presumably espouse (voluntary rather than coerced) has probably increased. Christian numbers overall are increasing (if remaining flat as a percentage of world population) but the variety of Christianity that I espouse is increasing dramatically. The numbers of Catholics in Ireland are declining, and the numbers of atheists in Ireland are increasing - which you presumably think is a good thing. The numbers of Catholics in Ireland are declining, and the numbers of Pentecostals in Ireland are increasing - which I think is a good thing. So the direction of the tide is looking pretty good from where I'm standing.
marienbad wrote: » Yes I said already I think we are in agreement, and I would'nt dis-agree to much with the above. But the problem for you is the area of growth for believers is in the devoloping countries. And if they follow the example of the west then with prosperity comes secularism.
Just a couple of separate issues- I don't think the loss of faith in Ireland is a particularly good thing. We have no history of citizenship,civic spirit , secularism and a with the overnight collapse of authoritarian religion we have been left with the worst of both worlds.
I know that the Pentacostal/Charismatic belief is increasing rapidily but is not a huge part of that increase at the expense of other Christian beliefs ?
PDN wrote: » And atheists never indoctrinate children, do they? :pac:
Ciaran0 wrote: » I know that you can't prove if there's a god or not and I can easily see how one could arrive at a deist belief, that there was a creator. It's not something that's disputable. But how does one logically get from a deist idea, which is logically a perfectly acceptable one, to the theist idea that there is a loving God that cares for all, the one which the theists are arguing the existence of here? This question is surely an addition to the discussion, is it not? Except there doesn't seem to be an answer to it.
Ciaran0 wrote: » But how does one logically get from a deist idea, which is logically a perfectly acceptable one, to the theist idea that there is a loving God that cares for all, the one which the theists are arguing the existence of here? This question is surely an addition to the discussion, is it not? Except there doesn't seem to be an answer to it.
The Quadratic Equation wrote: » That answer could be different for every indvidual, and depending on what you believe, you need to be prepared to bet eternal life on it. Most anti-theists like to pretend Christianity is a totally irrational and illogical belief. This is incorrect. For most Christians, it goes something like this : All reputable historians already agree on the historicity of Jesus Christ, so for many considering Christianity it boils down to whether you believe Jesus was, on the balance of probability, : probably mad, probably bad or probably telling the truth. Even those that met Jesus in person had to make this very same decision. It is also quite logical to suppose that The Apostles really did believe what they preached, as they gave up their families, possessions, and homes in return for certain persecution and death to preach the Gospel.
Zombrex wrote: » Cause you have just described pretty much every religion or cult from Heavens Gate to Jonestown.
PDN wrote: » For me this started by talking to Christians, and hearing their stories. My arguments against their faith was all theoretical, but I asked myself how their experiences could be best explained. Could I reasonably ascribe their answered prayers to coincidence? Were they lying?
Then I compared them with the atheists I knew. Which group of people had a philosophy that helped them to be better people? Which had a philosophy that made them bitter or angry. (Not steotyping here, just comparing the evidence in front of my eyes).
Then I tried reading the Bible with an open mind. Did it add up to a coherent and consistent message or not? The evidence was that it did.
So, as we do with many things in life, I tried an experiment. I prayed for some things and waited to see what happened. Then I weighed up the results. Was this more likely to be coincidence? Or something else? The Bible says we are to 'Taste and see that the Lord is good.' So I gave that a try. I decided to try asking Jesus into my life and see what happened. After all, if it didn't work I could always reject it again - I would hardly be the first to do so! The changes in my life, in my self esteem, in my relationships, were actually pretty astounding as I tried to live by the New Testament's teachings. That was over 30 years ago, and three decades of study, answered prayer, and experiences of being led by God have only served to increase my conviction that the evidence available to me indicates strongly that God is who the Bible says He is. This includes numerous answers of answered prayer which, to be honest, would constitute a string of coincidences so unlikely that it beggars belief.
And if after all I'm wrong? Then I'll have lived an absolutely incredible and fulfilling life and lost nothing at all by doing so. 30 years ago I was homeless, dishonest, unable to form lasting relationships, and going nowhere. Today I have a job that I love doing - I would do it even if I wasn't paid to do so! I have a loving family, and I get to travel all over the world getting the satisfaction of helping some of the planet's poorest and most oppressed people.
I followed the evidence.
It wasn't proof positive, but each step of the way I weighed it up and went with what, in my judgement, was the balance of probability. Which, when you think about it, is how people reach most of their conclusions in life
Ciaran0 wrote: » Which people had their prayers answered? Maybe you met a lot of people who did get what they prayed for, but it doesn't change the fact that most people never get what they pray for.
Millions of them. They're the people in the third world countries whose populations make up the majority of believers. You were convinced because some people had their prayers answered even though most didn't?
Whether theistic or atheistic philosophies help or hinder people has nothing to do with whether they are true or not. There is anger and bitterness on both sides of the line and believing in one thing or the other isn't the cause of it.
Getting a coherent and consistent message from a book doesn't equate to any sort of evidence though. The book is only a book. It was written by man and though you may believe it was the will of god, we have no way of knowing if it is. And aside from the knowledge that some of the characters in the book did in fact exist and were killed, there is zero evidence to suggest any of the events in the Bible actually happened. The Bible doesn't provide evidence of God's existence any more than the Lord of the Rings proves elves exist.
We still haven't got to any actual evidence though.
See, what you did there was come to a conclusion based on personal experiences and, as I explained above, you're personal experiences could easily have been complete coincidence.
You need to look at everything, and going on what you've told me, you haven't. Or is there more?
And as for this whole burden of truth issue. If I presented a new scientific hypothesis to my peers, it wouldn't be accepted as correct until someone could prove it wrong. The opposite is true. It would be regarded as just an idea until I could prove it correct. That should apply here. But for some strange reason. It doesn't.
The Quadratic Equation wrote: » All reputable historians already agree on the historicity of Jesus Christ, so for many considering Christianity it boils down to whether you believe Jesus was, on the balance of probability, : probably mad, probably bad or probably telling the truth.
Even those that met Jesus in person had to make this very same decision. It is also quite logical to suppose that The Apostles really did believe what they preached, as they gave up their families, possessions, and homes in return for certain persecution and death to preach the Gospel.
Ciaran0 wrote: » Reputable historian's acknowledge only the existence of Jesus. You'd be hard pressed to find a reputable historian who says Jesus performed miracles and rose from the dead.
Ciaran0 wrote: » And what the followers of Jesus believed adds nothing to the debate of whether Jesus actually was divine and performed miracles or not. We don't know how intellectual they were, how naive or gullible they were therefore cannot say if them believing in Jesus is any indication of his credibility.
PDN wrote: » I heard specific instances of answered prayer that, in my opinion, were unlikely to be explainable as coincidence. And the people sharing these accounts came across as trustworthy. And, I must say, that over the last 30 years that impression has been confirmed repeatedly.
Really? And you've spent a lot of time talking to people in the third World about their prayers, have you? I have, and I've heard some amazing testimonies from them. They seem to have a very different opinion of how their prayers worked. Oh, but hang on, they're ignorant Third World people aren't they?
And you're a white westerner. So you're more quallified than them to assess their own personal experiences.
You don't have a clue what my experiences have been. Yet, without any knowledge of them whatsoever, you claim they could easily have been coincidences. Blinkered or what?
When it comes to weighing my experiences and studies, it's fair to say that I've looked at more of them than you have.
The reason isn't strange at all. It's because no-one is presenting a scientific hypothesis to their peers. :rolleyes:
Let us know if you come up with any actual arguments or points rather than demanding that I prove to you that God exists - something I have no interest in doing.
The Quadratic Equation wrote: » No one did, history does not rule on such matters, it reports them. At least look up term Historicity before trying to build a strawman.
I can see why you would be keen to rule out all eyewitness accounts. Try that when verifying any event and see how you get on.
Ciaran0 wrote: » Eyewitness accounts from 2000 years ago from people we know nothing about and (this is the most important bit) are only written about in a hugely biased book can hardly be regarded as reliable.
The Quadratic Equation wrote: » I'm afraid the facts differ in reality. I am the most skeptical person I know
The Quadratic Equation wrote: » and most Christians would also descibe Heavens Gate to Jonestown as nutjobs.
The Quadratic Equation wrote: » Try as you might, nothing has or ever will come close to the perfection displayed in the words, actions and example set by Jesus Christ.
Ciaran0 wrote: » You haven't explained what those experiences actually are. But it doesn't matter because like I said earlier in a point you failed to address, You might think your experiences of God or those of are so improbable they must be real, but in a world with seven billion people, statistical improbabilities are likely to happen to some lucky individuals.
Admittedly no, I certainly haven't as much experience with third world people as you do, but are you telling me that most people who go to bed(if they have one) hungry at night, who lose loved ones to AIDS and suffer from it themselves, who walk miles to get water and get sick from drinking it, who are miserable, feel that their prayers are answered?
I don't want to sound condescending about the ignorance of these poor people but they are uneducated. And as I said in an earlier post(and left a link to a website), countries with better levels of education tend to have higher levels of atheism.
Am I? This is the internet. You don't know who or what I am so please don't assume.
You could tell us what some of these experiences are.
I don't claim to know a lot about you or your experiences. I do know however know that they are you're experiences and only yours. If we were to suppose the existence of God based on personal experiences we would have to take into account everyone's personal experience, which is something that simply can't be done. Can we therefore, for the sake of the argument, not use personal experience as evidence?
God existing is only a hypothesis. It shouldn't be accepted until sufficient evidence is provided.
Well until you or someone else does prove that a god exists, the idea of one should be left as a theory and only that.
