Getting 'evidence' would break the system.

philologos · 04-07-2012 10:41PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

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

Why do Christians have to show every other faith to be false?

If Christians say that they believe in the Bible, and its claims then we argue for those principles.

If other religions disagree with those principles, then it is by arguing for those principles, that we can determine that other faiths that proclaim contradictory messages are false.

Simply put, Christians believe in the Gospel, if the Gospel is true, then other faiths and atheism are mistaken. It is by defending the Gospel that we can do this.

Christians can do this simply by defending the Gospel, what they believe.

shizz · 04-07-2012 10:44PM

philologos wrote: »

Why do Christians have to show every other faith to be false?

If Christians say that they believe in the Bible, and its claims then we argue for those principles.

If other religions disagree with those principles, then it is by arguing for those principles, that we can determine that other faiths that proclaim contradictory messages are false.

Simply put, Christians believe in the Gospel, if the Gospel is true, then other faiths and atheism are mistaken. It is by defending the Gospel that we can do this.

Christians can do this simply by defending the Gospel, what they believe.

So you are happy defending something you don't know as true?

philologos · 04-07-2012 10:50PM

shizz wrote: »

So you are happy defending something you don't know as true?

More assumptions.

The position I have is quite simple:

Look to the claims that Christianity makes => Look to see how these claims are made evident in the world around us => Make a decision on that basis.

Simply put, I investigated Christianity, and I found that there were quite a number of reasons why one could believe in the Gospel. Ultimately it is God who will convince you of the truth, but there are reasons that would suggest that the Gospel is more likely to be true than not.

It is on the basis of what I've seen in Scripture and how that is seen in the world around me that I can be confident that Christianity is true, and that Jesus has remained faithful.

It isn't as if I woke up one morning and just believed on the basis of nothing as a lot of atheists would like to claim.

Monty Burnz · 04-07-2012 10:51PM

philologos wrote: »

Why do Christians have to show every other faith to be false?

Would this not be comparable to accepting the claim that the tallest man in Ireland is the tallest man in the world without actually checking the claims of anyone else?

philologos · 04-07-2012 10:55PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Would this not be comparable to accepting the claim that the tallest man in Ireland is the tallest man in the world without actually checking the claims of anyone else?

You're missing the point, again.

Christianity claims X, Y and Z to be true.

Surely if I can defend claims X, Y and Z and present reason as to why I can realistically believe in X, Y and Z, and why X, Y and Z are likely to be true. That is Christianity argued for.

If faiths A, B and C all argue things which are contradictory to X, Y and Z, then if X, Y and Z are true, and can be argued to be true, then that raises natural questions that A, B and C are suspect.

By defending the Gospel or by defending X, Y and Z it also serves indirectly to show that positions that argue against X, Y and Z are likely to be false.

Sarky wrote: »

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"?

Spreading the good news, means spreading the Gospel.

It doesn't mean systematically going through every other world religion. Rather it means defending what we believe as Christians. That is defending the good news.

It's a bizarre notion to expect Christians to argue against every major world faith simply to argue for their own position.

That's my point.

In short: I'm going to defend Christianity and it alone.

Monty Burnz · 04-07-2012 11:02PM

philologos wrote: »

You're missing the point, again.

Christianity claims X, Y and Z to be true.

Surely if I can defend claims X, Y and Z and present reason as to why I can realistically believe in X, Y and Z, and why X, Y and Z are likely to be true. That is Christianity argued for.

If faiths A, B and C all argue things which are contradictory to X, Y and Z, then if X, Y and Z are true, and can be argued to be true, then that raises natural questions that A, B and C are suspect.

By defending the Gospel or by defending X, Y and Z it also serves indirectly to show that positions that argue against X, Y and Z are likely to be false.

The problem here is that you are assuming that there is some sort of scientific standard of proof that you are arriving at for X, Y and Z - where in reality there's no end of woolly justifications you can find for believing them. How else can you explain the fervent beliefs of Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Zoroastrians etc. etc. who all have their own X, Y and Z? Are they all mad? Or evil?

And what a happy coincidence too that you were born into a society that has embraced the one true faith - oddly enough, much like the adherents of those other religions.

Zombrex · 04-07-2012 11:05PM

philologos wrote: »

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.

I'm more than happy to, but obviously I need your evidence first before I can argue specifics. Both myself and Monty have already done general (Islam, Scientology etc), explaining how these religions have even more historical support for their existence and the existence of believers, yet that is not evidence they are true.

Presumably there is something special about the evidence for Christianity beyond simply that some people believed these claims. Based on our previous conversations I could take a stab at what I think you will claim, but it seems easier if simply present what you think is the special evidence supporting Christianity. You mentioned Mark so I assume that is where it is contained.

philologos wrote: »

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

And again I'm more than happy to discuss in detail why that statement if false, why there is no serious evidence or argument for the supernatural claims of Christianity.

Andrewf20 · 04-07-2012 11:09PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Look at it this way: my will was a player in my being saved, which resulted in God demonstrating his existence to me. As a result of his doing that I'm personally convinced.

liveya wrote: »

God is present for those who seek him

The one problem I see here though is that I know of others who like yourselves perhaps, have tried to search for answers that would lead them to God but as the search continues are left empty with no demonstration or sense of his existence despite attempting to be fully receptive to him. Ive heard of people praying, reading the bible, attending mass, anything that may help their self doubt but never sense God is really there and thus come away with more doubt than ever. Disillusionment can then set in leading to agosticism or athiesm.

I get the impression that for alot of believers, a personal experience that they sensed as divinely influenced, can do more to anchor their faith than perhaps anything else. (A loved one recovering from a terminal illness for example). Unfortunetly, this very important stepping stone in some believers lives may be missing for the person mentioned above. This could be the missing piece in the life of the person hoping to sense God. Its just strange that for these people trying their best, they are left with no sense of God.

Mother Theresa suffered with this, but I am not only refering to her of course.

"Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear."

Zombrex · 04-07-2012 11:14PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Would this not be comparable to accepting the claim that the tallest man in Ireland is the tallest man in the world without actually checking the claims of anyone else?

In fairness I don't think Christians have to demonstrate that every other religion is false, any more than an atheist has to demonstrate that every religion is false to justify being an atheist.

They do though have to demonstrate that behavior used to support the claims of Christianity, such as believers being prepared to die, is something unique to Christianity.

And this is where the "evidence" for Christianity over any other religion runs into a brick wall. This evidence is that people would not act the way they did act unless what they were experiencing was really happening. For example, a very common one, is that the followers of Jesus would not be prepared to die for their faith unless they had genuinely witnessed the resurrected Jesus.

This argument relies on assert humans act a particular way and only a particular way and thus drawing conclusions from the way some are documented to act. The focus tends to be directed to the evidence that they acted this way (eg We have documented evidence that Saint Someone or other did die in Rome) rather than on the original assumption, that a human would not die for a belief unless they had really witnessed such a supernatural event.

Of course the problem is counter examples, which in my experience Christians making such assertions are very reluctant to even discuss let alone critically analyze (the most common response? "We are discussing Christianity, I don't want to talk about any other religion" or If you think Cult Leader X was equivalent to the wonderful Jesus said then I have no time for you!)

philologos · 04-07-2012 11:15PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The problem here is that you are assuming that there is some sort of scientific standard of proof that you are arriving at for X, Y and Z - where in reality there's no end of woolly justifications you can find for believing them. How else can you explain the fervent beliefs of Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Zoroastrians etc. etc. who all have their own X, Y and Z? Are they all mad? Or evil?

You're missing the point.

If X, Y and Z are true. Then anything else that argues against X, Y and Z although possibly well intentioned is false.

It's not complicated to understand that much.

If A is that Jesus is Lord, and that He is the living Son of God, was crucified in our place on the cross so that we can be forgiven.

and NOT A is Jesus is not Lord, that He wasn't the Son of God, and that he wasn't crucified.

Then simply put, one of them has to be true. Either A or NOT A. They can't both be true.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And what a happy coincidence too that you were born into a society that has embraced the one true faith - oddly enough, much like the adherents of those other religions.

I've argued against this claim when you made it before on here. Simply put, that argument is becoming irrelevant in the 21st century. There are more Christians today outside of the Western world than in it.

Your argument doesn't square up with converts, and your argument is fallacious because of the genetic fallacy.

It's not a good argument. Simply put, it was by looking to the claims of Christianity that I was convinced of it, by simply looking to the world around me and seeing that it was abundantly true.

Prior to that point I was an agnostic actually.

Zombrex · 04-07-2012 11:18PM

philologos wrote: »

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.

Do you have any evidence for Christianity that is not based on logic than when applied to any other religion would also require that we accept that religion is also true?

An example being People who knew Jesus believed that Jesus had been resurrected, it is therefore reasonable to believe he had.

Such a statement can be applied to any thing that people believe, you simply replace "Jesus had been resurrected" with what ever claim of the religion you are assessing that people believe.

You don't have to demonstrate any other religion is false. But you do have to present evidence for Christianity that actually supports Christianity specifically. So far to the best of my memory from all our discussions this has never been done. All arguments for Christianity rest of extrapolating conclusions from behavior that is not unique to Christianity. Thus it could be used to support any multiple number of religions, and thus it cannot be said to be evidence for Christianity

Monty Burnz · 04-07-2012 11:31PM

philologos wrote: »

You're missing the point.

If X, Y and Z are true. Then anything else that argues against X, Y and Z although possibly well intentioned is false.

It's not complicated to understand that much.

If A is that Jesus is Lord, and that He is the living Son of God, was crucified in our place on the cross so that we can be forgiven.

and NOT A is Jesus is not Lord, that He wasn't the Son of God, and that he wasn't crucified.

Then simply put, one of them has to be true. Either A or NOT A. They can't both be true.

If it's as simple as this, how come we aren't all Christians? Why do Muslims persist with their false prophet and religion?

philologos wrote: »

I've argued against this claim when you made it before on here. Simply put, that argument is becoming irrelevant in the 21st century. There are more Christians today outside of the Western world than in it.

Your argument doesn't square up with converts, and your argument is fallacious because of the genetic fallacy.

It's not a good argument. Simply put, it was by looking to the claims of Christianity that I was convinced of it, by simply looking to the world around me and seeing that it was abundantly true.

Prior to that point I was an agnostic actually.

I would accept the genetic fallacy applies here if you can convince me there is a good explanation as to why most religious people of all faiths are of the same faith as their peers.

Andrewf20 · 04-07-2012 11:53PM

Great thread, im enjoying this one. I have to say that Occams razor comes to mind while reading the posts. It baffles me why it has to be so complicated hence the dissonance among us folks on both sides of the argument. Anyway....

liveya wrote: »

It would be like someone standing their watching you all day everyday, intruding on your life, it would be awful. Even for beleivers it would be intrusive and uncomfortable.

It would only serve to trap the person in a world of fear and forceful fake love, making life dreadful, ironically, a living hell.

Bare in mind that some people think heaven would be like this.

antiskeptic · 05-07-2012 12:24AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well of course they 'can' be saved seeing as you have postulated an omnipotent god - he can do anything.

That's not how I'm suggesting they would be saved. They would be saved according to the same core principle by which I was saved - me, who lives in a 'Christian' country.

But you are rejecting the 'Anonymous Christian' theory for some reason, even though it seems to tally with your story of how you are saved.

I'm rejecting the notion that a person who has never heard the gospel can be saved by virtue of their being good - your representation of what the ACT is , which I'm assuming is accurate

I've never heard of AC myself before now in order to know what is being argued. But if being good is the means held to then it doesn't tally with what I say. All me and AC would have in common is that we both say that you don't have to believe in God to be saved. That commonality doesn't make us bedfellows.

edit: I had a quick Google and see that the ACT might be sourced within Catholicism. If so, the "need to be good" having something to do with salvation in ACT is to be expected since it's core to salvation for a Catholic. It's not at all my view however finding salvation sourced in God's grace alone.

There seems to be a strange contradiction here, as you've already said that belief is not required to be saved.

Belief in God's existence isn't required, I've been saying.

I've also said the core mechanism of salvation involves believing God and have given an example of how someone who doesn't believe in God and perhaps has never even heard of God-of-the-Bible / Jesus / The Gospel ... can believe God (even if the simple example given itself doesn't produce salvation).

philologos · 05-07-2012 07:20AM

Andrewf20 wrote: »

Great thread, im enjoying this one. I have to say that Occams razor comes to mind while reading the posts. It baffles me why it has to be so complicated hence the dissonance among us folks on both sides of the argument. Anyway....

Bare in mind that some people think heaven would be like this.

How does Occam's Razor have any impact on this, when many atheists are arguing that we need a multiverse to explain this one? (multiplying entities beyond necessity).

As far as I can tell, the idea of a Creator God doesn't violate this principle, because it isn't multiplying entities beyond necessity. It is reasonable, and fair to suggest that there is a Creator, and that this Creator is necessary in order to bring all things into existence.

Isn't that not a touch ironic?

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I would accept the genetic fallacy applies here if you can convince me there is a good explanation as to why most religious people of all faiths are of the same faith as their peers.

I'm not of the same faith as my peers. I'd say most of my peers aren't evangelical Christians. The genetic fallacy is still a fallacy. It's not a good argument.

In most cases I've found where people have had Christian parents, there is still a point whereby they discover Christianity for themselves. From discussing with Christians from all sorts of backgrounds over the past 5 years I've never seen or heard of it just being something blindly accepted as you'd like to think.

doctoremma · 05-07-2012 09:53AM

philologos wrote: »

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Would this not be comparable to accepting the claim that the tallest man in Ireland is the tallest man in the world without actually checking the claims of anyone else?

You're missing the point, again....It's a bizarre notion to expect Christians to argue against every major world faith simply to argue for their own position.

I don't think it misses the point at all. For me, it encapsulates a problem with the logic surrounding religion and the lower standards set for this subject than would be used in any other part of life.

You see evidence for XYZ (Christianity is true, that man is the tallest in the world). It is only natural, where such claims can be contradicted, to seek out potential contradictions and argue against them. Simply reiterating that Christianity is true/that man is the tallest in the world does not suddenly make your claim more true.

When you make a claim, to which there is a counter claim, you are philosophically, logically and morally obliged to address the counter claim. That's how science works, that's how the law works, and I don't see why it shouldn't be how religion works.

Andrewf20 · 05-07-2012 11:59AM

philologos wrote: »

How does Occam's Razor have any impact on this, when many atheists are arguing that we need a multiverse to explain this one? (multiplying entities beyond necessity).

As far as I can tell, the idea of a Creator God doesn't violate this principle, because it isn't multiplying entities beyond necessity. It is reasonable, and fair to suggest that there is a Creator, and that this Creator is necessary in order to bring all things into existence.

Isn't that not a touch ironic?

Im not necessarily disagreeing with you. This is not a dig at believers. Claiming that there is no God could of course lead to more complicated questions and answers. All im saying is that its something thats always at the back of my mind as the discussion unfolds.

Monty Burnz · 05-07-2012 12:14PM

philologos wrote: »

I'm not of the same faith as my peers. I'd say most of my peers aren't evangelical Christians. The genetic fallacy is still a fallacy. It's not a good argument.

I think you are misunderstanding the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy merely states that the fact that you grew up a Christian in a Christian country does not argue against the truth of Christianity. But that is not what I am arguing.

I'm merely pointing out that it is an odd phenomenon that most people find that the one true faith is the one that is most common in their culture, and hoping to find out why you think that might be.

(By the way, evangelical Christians are a type of Christian, and Christianity is the most popular religion in Europe and has been for some time...:))

antiskeptic · 05-07-2012 12:33PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm merely pointing out that it is an odd phenomenon that most people find that the one true faith is the one that is most common in their culture, and hoping to find out why you think that might be.

You've heard the term cultural Christians used by Christians of those who they consider to be non-Christians?

If there are indieed such folk as God-converted-Christians and non-Christians-who-erroneously-consider-themselves-to-be-Christian then you'd have to determine how many belong to each category in order to suppose the above contention to be the case.

It could be that there are more saved people per capita in China than there are here - even though China isn't a 'Christian country'. The trouble is identifying which is which - if the above 'if' is true.

Christianity, like just about everything else on the planet, can be utilized as a false god. And false gods are very popular.

Monty Burnz · 05-07-2012 12:42PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

You've heard the term cultural Christians used by Christians of those who they consider to be non-Christians?

If there are indieed such folk as God-converted-Christians and non-Christians-who-erroneously-consider-themselves-to-be-Christian then you'd have to determine how many belong to each category in order to suppose the above contention to be the case.

It could be that there are more saved people per capita in China than there are here - even though China isn't a 'Christian country'. The trouble is identifying which is which - if the above 'if' is true.

Christianity, like just about everything else on the planet, can be utilized as a false god. And false gods are very popular.

Ok, but that doesn't address my point. How is it that people born in Muslim countries usually become Muslims and believe in their faith as strongly as you do? We've been dancing around this point for quite a while.

It seems odd that the Christian God has turned his back on these people.

Sin City · 05-07-2012 12:49PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ok, but that doesn't address my point. How is it that people born in Muslim countries usually become Muslims and believe in their faith as strongly as you do? We've been dancing around this point for quite a while.

It seems odd that the Christian God has turned his back on these people.

Because as you and everyone knows that a population generally tend to take on the traditons, religous practices and cultural norms of its cultual society, hence we have Christians in Europe / Muslims in middle east, and Easten religions in the East. No big mystery

So the Christian God only appears to Christians and saves these Christians etc and for some reason punishes anyone else who arent part of his ingroup even though he "supposidly made everyone) and even though Islam worship him , they dont seem to be saying the wight words or something as its only Gods good old boys who can be saved

Simple really

Dr Gradus · 05-07-2012 01:18PM

Just my own thoughts on the OP's question, which I have to say is quite a thought-provoking one, to consider a possible system where there would be definitive evidence for God and yet some people would actively refuse to be part that group, or worse, be flocking to churches in fear of it.

I would think it shouldn't really be the job or necessity for an atheist to seek out 'empirical' evidence for God. As Hitchens has put it, atheists are in the business of doubt, and with Christians being unswayingly confident in their beliefs, surely only evidence on a magnificent scale would validate such magnificent claims.

Now, I've read the thread throgh and some of the points about how God may have intentionally made some of us atheists so that we can eventually repress that and be 'saved' and shown evidence is a baffling to me to be honest.

Great thread nonetheless!

antiskeptic · 05-07-2012 01:36PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Ok, but that doesn't address my point. How is it that people born in Muslim countries usually become Muslims and believe in their faith as strongly as you do? We've been dancing around this point for quite a while.

Per my argument above (and with Sin City's comments about folk adopting the culture their born into).

Nestled within the cultural religion adopted by the majority of the populace there are the (let's call them) genuinely saved. In Ireland the genuinely saved will be hard to distinguish from cultural professors of the faith since the cultural religion is the same as the genuine one.

In a muslim country, the genuine saved might profess Christianity. Or the mightn't know what to profess if they've never encountered the gospel. Or might still suppose it's Allah who is God for want of having exposure to the gospel

I don't think God is concerned that folk get his name right in order that they be and remain saved

It seems odd that the Christian God has turned his back on these people.

As you are well aware by now, I'm not suggesting that he has.

Fanny Cradock · 05-07-2012 01:47PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm merely pointing out that it is an odd phenomenon that most people find that the one true faith is the one that is most common in their culture, and hoping to find out why you think that might be.

In a regime that actively enforced atheism do you think it unusual if the majority of the the populace were adhere to atheism?

Monty Burnz · 05-07-2012 02:13PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Per my argument above (and with Sin City's comments about folk adopting the culture their born into).

Nestled within the cultural religion adopted by the majority of the populace there are the (let's call them) genuinely saved. In Ireland the genuinely saved will be hard to distinguish from cultural professors of the faith since the cultural religion is the same as the genuine one.

In a muslim country, the genuine saved might profess Christianity. Or the mightn't know what to profess if they've never encountered the gospel. Or might still suppose it's Allah who is God for want of having exposure to the gospel

I don't think God is concerned that folk get his name right in order that they be and remain saved

Ok, so now we get back to the position whereby people can be saved without believing that Jesus Christ is the son of god.

Thanks for addressing those points.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As you are well aware by now, I'm not suggesting that he has.

Ok, I think you addressed that above in this post by allowing that some Muslims who do not believe in Jesus as son of God may be saved.

Monty Burnz · 05-07-2012 02:14PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In a regime that actively enforced atheism do you think it unusual if the majority of the the populace were adhere to atheism?

Not at all. I'd expect it entirely.

Fanny Cradock · 05-07-2012 05:42PM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Not at all. I'd expect it entirely.

OK, so why did you use the word "odd" when it happens to your religious counterparts?

Morbert · 05-07-2012 06:29PM

philologos wrote: »

How does Occam's Razor have any impact on this, when many atheists are arguing that we need a multiverse to explain this one? (multiplying entities beyond necessity).

Nobody is arguing this.

shizz · 05-07-2012 07:05PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, so why did you use the word "odd" when it happens to your religious counterparts?

Because they are all saying that their religion is right, and the only reason they are is because they were born into that culture which embraced that religion.

There aren't different groups of Atheist going around saying their view of atheism is better than an others. It doesn't work like that. Atheism isn't a religion. That's why it wouldn't be "odd".

Fanny Cradock · 05-07-2012 08:54PM

shizz wrote: »

Because they are all saying that their religion is right, and the only reason they are is because they were born into that culture which embraced that religion.

Since when did it become odd to believe that your own view on reality was correct? You appear to be arguing that you are correct, no? So where does that leave you?

We are right back at the genetic fallacy if you think that geography has any impact on the types of truths we are talking about. And you also miss my point if you somehow think that atheism - and all that atheism can entail - is a neutral position to hold. It isn't.

There aren't different groups of Atheist going around saying their view of atheism is better than an others. It doesn't work like that. Atheism isn't a religion. That's why it wouldn't be "odd".

Yes, I'm aware that atheism in and of itself is not a religion. Nor is theism. And I didn't suggest otherwise. So I'm not sure why we are having this particular discussion or why you think that atheism gets a free pass.

Getting 'evidence' would break the system.

Comments