Getting 'evidence' would break the system.

antiskeptic · 04-07-2012 05:32PM

Zombrex wrote: »

If he is rotten and deserving of hell, and God is just, then why would he be saved?

The deserving of Hell can only occur once the fat lady sings. Until then there is an opportunity for redemption, to restore that which has been sullied.

God is love as well as just. Love wants to restore before justice get's a firm hold and hands over to wrath.

Monty Burnz · 04-07-2012 05:40PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

And your fault for clinging to a standard (of your own making) which concludes you a "good person". If you quit suppressing you'd admit you're rotten and get the hell on with being saved

I'm not speaking of my standard, I'm speaking of God's standard. Why did he make so many of us who would not reach it due to how he made us?

JohnMc1 · 04-07-2012 07:08PM

Sarky wrote: »

Well if anyone could perform a miracle on live tv with plenty of qualified experts to ensure it wasn't faked, that'd be a start. Or God could show up in person like he did in the old days and sort out once and for all which of the however-many-there-are-now Christian denominations has it right. The stars rearranging themselves into a message in the night sky. He could just drop the requisite knowledge into everyone's brain at the same time, too. Anything verifiable. Anything at all beyond a feeling someone has. Anything that is consistently different from sheer random chance.

It's hardly asking much of an entity that allegedly managed to create a universe, is it?

Let's be honest. God's face can appear in the clouds, say "Hi there. Yes I am real." and people still wouldn't believe. You would have them going all conspiracy theory saying our GOVT used some huge projector and such.

There will always be a segment of the population that will not believe because they don't want to.

Monty Burnz · 04-07-2012 07:15PM

JohnMc1 wrote: »

There will always be a segment of the population that will not believe because they don't want to.

I'd love to believe in a system that provides me with all the answers and a code of behaviour. Why am I not convinced?

Conversely, which god do you believe in, and why?

JohnMc1 · 04-07-2012 07:30PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'd love to believe in a system that provides me with all the answers and a code of behaviour. Why am I not convinced?

Only you can answer that question. You can lead a horse to water and all that.

Monty Burnz · 04-07-2012 07:40PM

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Only you can answer that question. You can lead a horse to water and all that.

Yes, I can answer it. I don't find the evidence for any god to be sufficient for me to believe it. Quite simple.

It's not that I don't want to believe in a god. I don't believe in a god for the exact same reason that you don't believe in leprechauns.

philologos · 04-07-2012 08:36PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

JohnMc1 wrote: »

There will always be a segment of the population that will not believe because they don't want to.

I'd love to believe in a system that provides me with all the answers and a code of behaviour. Why am I not convinced?

Conversely, which god do you believe in, and why?

There's plenty of evidence for Jesus and for events in the Bible, there is good reason to believe what the Bible says about sin and our need for a Saviour, there's far better reason to believe in a Creator than not, there's far better reason to believe in objective rather than subjective morality. From looking at the circumstances of Jesus death and its aftermath there is good reason to believe in a resurrection. From seeing how Jesus fulfills Old Testament prophesy to a tee we see Him as the Messiah and Lord. Textually from looking at the New Testament it is the most reliable text in the ancient world. We have oodles of archaeology in Israel and Jordan to back it up. Heck even in the British Museum in London you'll find artefacts that show the Bible to be true.

What hasn't God done? No evidence doesn't cut it with me. There's plenty.

Monty Burnz · 04-07-2012 08:53PM

philologos wrote: »

There's plenty of evidence for Jesus and for events in the Bible, there is good reason to believe what the Bible says about sin and our need for a Saviour, there's far better reason to believe in a Creator than not, there's far better reason to believe in objective rather than subjective morality. From looking at the circumstances of Jesus death and its aftermath there is good reason to believe in a resurrection. From seeing how Jesus fulfills Old Testament prophesy to a tee we see Him as the Messiah and Lord. Textually from looking at the New Testament it is the most reliable text in the ancient world. We have oodles of archaeology in Israel and Jordan to back it up. Heck even in the British Museum in London you'll find artefacts that show the Bible to be true.

What hasn't God done? No evidence doesn't cut it with me. There's plenty.

There is plenty of evidence for the life of Mohammed too. Why does your argument work for Christianity and not Islam?

endacl · 04-07-2012 09:05PM

He wasn't the messiah. He was a very naughty boy.

philologos · 04-07-2012 09:39PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There is plenty of evidence for the life of Mohammed too. Why does your argument work for Christianity and not Islam?

If you've managed to ignore what's in that post and claim that there is nothing specific about Christianity in there, you might want to read it again.

Case in point. I can't accept that there is no evidence for Christianity, because it's not really true.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Let's be honest. God's face can appear in the clouds, say "Hi there. Yes I am real." and people still wouldn't believe. You would have them going all conspiracy theory saying our GOVT used some huge projector and such.

There will always be a segment of the population that will not believe because they don't want to.

Absolutely.

Jesus lived and walked amongst others in the world. Yet they still did not believe Him, miracles or no miracles.

Monty Burnz · 04-07-2012 09:42PM

philologos wrote: »

If you've managed to ignore what's in that post and claim that there is nothing specific about Christianity in there, you might want to read it again.

Case in point. I can't accept that there is no evidence for Christianity, because it's not really true.

But there is also specific evidence for Islam. This is my point.

Zombrex · 04-07-2012 09:43PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hi Zombrex

I wouldn't say God forgives us by believing and accepting Jesus (although that is how it is commonly put). The principle transaction is one whereby we surrender our rebellion and God extends mercy to the defeated (if considering it through the warfare viewpoint).

God, being unable to wink at sin means the sin must be punished. And so to Christ he goes.

Do you not personally find that utterly ridiculous though? The whole point of justice is that the consequences for a immoral action are faced by the person who committed the action.

The idea that God remains just (ie doesn't "wink at sin") by instead punishing someone who had nothing to do with the sin committed by us rotten humans is about as far away from justice as I can imagine. It is like beating to death your dog because your bank lost all your money.

Now of course this being the Christianity forum the response is probably "Ah Zombrex, but that is your notion of justice. God's notion of justice, ie the correct notion of justice, is perfectly happy with the idea of beating to death your dog because your bank lost all your money"

But these "Who are you to say what is good, just, fair, sensible, reasonable, not completely illogical" just end up making these concepts meaningless. You can no more say God is just than I can, you can simply say God does what he does and that is what it is, lets for no particular reason call that "justice"

antiskeptic wrote: »

Relatively speaking, the "best" sinner stands beside the "worst" sinner like two grains of sand on a beach arguing which is closer to the moon.

When the relative distance between the two grains and the moon is so infinitely small there isn't much point in talking of one better than the other.

But again doesn't that highlight the issue. If relatively speaking I'm pretty much as bad as someone who skins babies alive why would I be forgiven? Why would the person who skins babies alive be forgiven? How is that adhering to "justice".

antiskeptic wrote: »

The forgiver pays the price / suffers the consequence of the wrongdoing against him, himself. That's what forgiveness is - true and complete foregiveness in any case.

But that isn't justice though is it? If I deserve punishment then does justice not demand that I face it? You can forgive me, but that is forgetting about the justice part.

To say that God is both just and compelled to punish sin while also say he forgive sin is to me contradictory. But then I'm an atheist

antiskeptic wrote: »

You can't say "I forgive you - now pay the penalty due the crime"

Yes, that is the point.

philologos · 04-07-2012 09:45PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But there is also specific evidence for Islam. This is my point.

Is there specific evidence? - You might want to raise that on the Islam forum. You might want to go through the details there too.

As for here if people ask me as to why they should believe in Jesus, I'm quite happy to point them to it. I'd recommend people simply read Mark's gospel, and probe into it for themselves. I'm sure we'd be more than happy to probe into it with you.

Zombrex · 04-07-2012 09:47PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The deserving of Hell can only occur once the fat lady sings. Until then there is an opportunity for redemption, to restore that which has been sullied.

That doesn't make any sense, surely I deserve hell for the sin I have done. I cannot undo what I have done. You wouldn't say to a bank robber we aren't going to throw you in prison for robbing all those banks because who knows you might do something nice tomorrow. He has robbed the banks, that has happened, he therefore deserves jail time as justice for the actions he has done.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God is love as well as just. Love wants to restore before justice get's a firm hold and hands over to wrath.

But again that doesn't make any sense. Justice is for actions you have done. If sinning is a lie and I lie then I have committed a sin. I cannot uncommit that sin by rescuing a puppy tomorrow.

Zombrex · 04-07-2012 09:57PM

philologos wrote: »

If you've managed to ignore what's in that post and claim that there is nothing specific about Christianity in there, you might want to read it again.

Case in point. I can't accept that there is no evidence for Christianity, because it's not really true.

He didn't say there is no evidence, he said there is equal evidence for a whole host of other religions and religious leaders.

For example you say there is plenty of evidence that the resurrection happened. When pressed on that the "evidence" present is always that there were Christians who believed the resurrection happened, to the point where they were prepared to die for that belief. Well great but there were also Muslims who believed Mohammad talked to an angel and who were prepared to die for that belief.

There is in fact far far far more evidence for the existence and works of L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology. We know far far far more about what they believed in the first few years of their religion, exactly what Hubbard preached and stated, exactly how quickly the religion grew, exactly how it was dealt with by wider society, things we are very hazy on with Christianity.

No one would ever suggest though that this is some how a reason to believe Scientology is in fact real.

The fact is that there is no historical evidence at all for the supernatural claims of Christianity (any more than there is for Islam or Scientology). The only evidence we have is that people believed the supernatural claims of Christianity from early in its religion, though again we know far more about the exact nature of these claims and their evolution in a religion such as Scientology than Christianity. We only get a clear idea of what exactly Christians believed a few decades after the foundation of the religion. And again all we know what these claims are and that people believed these claims.

I'm really surprised this myth that the claims of the New Testament are historical supported is still be pushed given how many times it has been dealt with. Even yourself Phil have admitted many times that all we have in terms of evidence is that people believed these claims, not that they actually happened.

Monty Burnz · 04-07-2012 10:03PM

philologos wrote: »

Is there specific evidence? - You might want to raise that on the Islam forum. You might want to go through the details there too.

Yes, there is specific evidence. There is sufficient evidence that hundreds of millions of people devote their lives to Islam, and plenty of them are happy to die for their beliefs.

How do you explain this? Are they insane, that they believe something without evidence?

philologos · 04-07-2012 10:04PM

If you're going to claim that there's equal evidence go for it.

Other atheists on this thread have claimed that there is no evidence for Christianity. Therefore I'm going to engage with that claim.

If you want to talk about arguments for Islam, this isn't the place.

I'd rather that many atheists gave up their confirmation bias, and were actually willing to walk through the Gospel of Mark with us here for example. Let's look at the source text together. If not, no worries, but that's what we should be doing here instead of moaning about "no evidence".

philologos · 04-07-2012 10:08PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Yes, there is specific evidence. There is sufficient evidence that hundreds of millions of people devote their lives to Islam, and plenty of them are happy to die for their beliefs.

How do you explain this? Are they insane, that they believe something without evidence?

I'd welcome you to post that on the Islam forum.

If it is true that Jesus was crucified, then the claim that Islam presents that Jesus was not crucified is false.
If it is true that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the living Son of God, then it can't be the case that Christianity is true.

Both options can't be true.

Monty Burnz · 04-07-2012 10:11PM

philologos wrote: »

If you're going to claim that there's equal evidence go for it.

Other atheists on this thread have claimed that there is no evidence for Christianity. Therefore I'm going to engage with that claim.

Well that's convenient. I don't see people saying there is no evidence, I see people saying there is insufficient evidence to convince them.

philologos wrote: »

If you want to talk about arguments for Islam, this isn't the place.

We are discussing the evidence that exists/was provided for Christianity. You cannot discuss the strength of this evidence without reference to standards of evidence and the evidence that exists for other phenomena - including rival religions.

philologos wrote: »

I'd rather that many atheists gave up their confirmation bias, and were actually willing to walk through the Gospel of Mark with us here for example. Let's look at the source text together. If not, no worries, but that's what we should be doing here instead of moaning about "no evidence".

What makes you think that the Gospel of Mark contains compelling evidence that would convince me or another agnostic/atheistic person or person of another faith?

Monty Burnz · 04-07-2012 10:12PM

philologos wrote: »

I'd welcome you to post that on the Islam forum.

Thanks.

philologos wrote: »

If it is true that Jesus was crucified, then the claim that Islam presents that Jesus was not crucified is false.
If it is true that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the living Son of God, then it can't be the case that Christianity is true.

Both options can't be true.

Can you address how hundreds of millions of Muslims are so convinced of their 'false' religion if there is no evidence for it being true?

philologos · 04-07-2012 10:14PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What makes you think that the Gospel of Mark contains compelling evidence that would convince me or another agnostic/atheistic person or person of another faith?

It's a good place to start.

We can look through it, and then examine the truth of Jesus' claims. It's certainly better than people coming in with preconceived notions about Christianity.

This forum should be a place where people get to explore Jesus, and Christianity. At the moment we've a long way to go on that front. But banging on about there being "no evidence" for God when most of the regulars believe there is and are more than happy to show you isn't really going to work as a discussion point.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Thanks.

Can you address how hundreds of millions of Muslims are so convinced of their 'false' religion if there is no evidence for it being true?

I've never made that argument. I've never said that because millions believe, it must be true. I'm saying, that Christianity claims what it does, and here's some reasons why people can believe in it. To claim that there is no reason isn't true whatsoever.

If you want to discuss why Muslims believe in Islam, that's for another forum. If Christianity is true, Islam can't be true. The claims are mutually exclusive. We've got plenty of evidence historically to suggest that Jesus was crucified, we have the New Testament backing this up. We have nothing to suggest that He wasn't crucified. Make of that what you will.

Numbers have nothing to do with truth.

Zombrex · 04-07-2012 10:16PM

philologos wrote: »

If you're going to claim that there's equal evidence go for it.

Other atheists on this thread have claimed that there is no evidence for Christianity. Therefore I'm going to engage with that claim.

If you want to talk about arguments for Islam, this isn't the place.

Islam specifically isn't the issue. Other religions are. Your arguments in support of Christianity relies on certain historical evidence and human behavior being unique to early Christianity. Pointing out that it isn't is certain very relevant since it either means the evidence for Christianity is in actuality no big whoop, or means that all these other religions are also true which naturally is some what mutually exclusive to Christianity being true.

philologos wrote: »

I'd rather that many atheists gave up their confirmation bias, and were actually willing to walk through the Gospel of Mark with us here for example. Let's look at the source text together. If not, no worries, but that's what we should be doing here instead of moaning about "no evidence".

More than happy to walk through the entire Gospel of Mark if you are happy to point out the bits of it which support the resurrection and explain why they support the resurrection but equally historical evidence for other religions, or similar behavior in other believers doesn't equally support the truth of other religious groups.

philologos · 04-07-2012 10:20PM

Zombrex wrote: »

More than happy to walk through the entire Gospel of Mark if you are happy to point out the bits of it which support the resurrection and explain why they support the resurrection but equally historical evidence for other religions, or similar behavior in other believers doesn't equally support the truth of other religious groups.

If you're going to claim that there is "equal evidence" you can't assume that all of us will hold that assumption, and you'll need to make some effort to argue that.

My point is that contrary to what atheists claim here, the idea that there is no serious argument for Christianity is simply untrue.

Sarky · 04-07-2012 10:23PM

Would you care to explain why your evidence for Christianity is superior to all the similar evidence for any other religion at all? Or will you hide behind something like "Oh, you should probably take that to the Any Other Religion At All forum"?

philologos · 04-07-2012 10:31PM

Sarky wrote: »

Would you care to explain why your evidence for Christianity is superior to all the similar evidence for any other religion at all? Or will you hide behind something like "Oh, you should probably take that to the Any Other Religion At All forum"?

I don't see why Christians have to. If there are clear arguments as to why the Gospel is true. They need to be considered.

If those arguments lead to conclusions whereby the claims of other religions contradict those, then there is good ground for evaluating where one stands in respect to other religions.

The idea that in order to give reasons as to why I believe Christianity is true, that I need to demonstrate all other religions to be false is silly.

If you're intellectually honest, you should be more than willing to consider Christianity, and think about the reasons that we are presenting to you.

If not, it is going to be futile. You're more interested in confirming your bias than investigation.

Oh and none of this even if true would give me or anyone else reason to be an atheist. As atheism is simply one position amongst many. It in and of itself needs to be demonstrated to be reasonable.

Monty Burnz · 04-07-2012 10:32PM

philologos wrote: »

At the moment we've a long way to go on that front. But banging on about there being "no evidence" for God when most of the regulars believe there is and are more than happy to show you isn't really going to work as a discussion point.
I think I may have already mentioned that people are not saying there is 'no evidence'. :rolleyes: The OP was volunteering a reason why there was insufficient evidence to convince many good, rational, intelligent people.

philologos wrote: »

I've never made that argument. I've never said that because millions believe, it must be true. I'm saying, that Christianity claims what it does, and here's some reasons why people can believe in it. To claim that there is no reason isn't true whatsoever.

I'm not making that argument either, and I'm not suggesting you did.

philologos wrote: »

If you want to discuss why Muslims believe in Islam, that's for another forum. If Christianity is true, Islam can't be true. The claims are mutually exclusive. We've got plenty of evidence historically to suggest that Jesus was crucified, we have the New Testament backing this up. We have nothing to suggest that He wasn't crucified. Make of that what you will.

Numbers have nothing to do with truth.

Right, so after all that waffle, can you please try to address my points and questions rather than choosing points that you would prefer to address?

I am asking why you feel that a billion odd Muslims fervently believe in their god and their prophet? These people know about Jesus too, as you point out.

philologos · 04-07-2012 10:35PM

I'm happy to consider your objections to Christianity. I'm not going to second guess your "evidence" for Islam. If you're going to claim that there is evidence for Islam, do so on the Islam forum.

Otherwise, you have a very long way to go to show that all positions have "equal evidence".

Also, something can't be considered "evidence" if it doesn't point to a conclusion being more likely to be true than false.

If you're on the Christianity forum, we need to consider Christianity. If you're not interested in that, then I would consider this discussion futile.

Monty Burnz · 04-07-2012 10:36PM

philologos wrote: »

The idea that in order to give reasons as to why I believe Christianity is true, that I need to demonstrate all other religions to be false is silly.

If you are intellectually honest, you would admit that you actually would have to do this.

Sarky · 04-07-2012 10:37PM

philologos wrote: »

I don't see why Christians have to.

I was generally under the impression that it was called something like "spreading the Good News". Is there some biblical passage along the lines of "don't bother with tough crowds, go for the easy option"?

Monty Burnz · 04-07-2012 10:38PM

philologos wrote: »

I'm happy to consider your objections to Christianity. I'm not going to second guess your "evidence" for Islam. If you're going to claim that there is evidence for Islam, do so on the Islam forum.

Otherwise, you have a very long way to go to show that all positions have "equal evidence".

Also, something can't be considered "evidence" if it doesn't point to a conclusion being more likely to be true than false.

If you're on the Christianity forum, we need to consider Christianity. If you're not interested in that, then I would consider this discussion futile.

If you don't want to discuss the issues raised by the OP, perhaps you are posting on the wrong thread?

Running away from questions or points you don't like makes your position look rather ropey.

Getting 'evidence' would break the system.

Comments