I no longer believe

Post Reply New Topic

Well Simon_says, If you'd like I could tell you my reasons for choosing Christianity and why I rejected the other religions I've studied and see If I sound any different, But you may be tired of such lectures and if you are I won't waste text. Maybe that is true for most people, but it isn't true for all people.

Just like AngelRho, you are not getting it. I'm not going to waste time making long replies just to answer the questions you stated. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

Don't worry. You are free to continue to stick to your delusions. I'm not going to send you to hell for it.

Well done! Exposing flawed logic in an unbeliever's claims can be difficult at times, but it CAN be done. Notice the immature hint that he is God when he says "I'm not going to send you to hell for it."

Be careful, though! He might resort to personal attacks and bullying tactics next.

The rejection of the foundation of all knowledge to defend magic. A classic theist argument on the internet.

That's not what he was doing. He was saying that nobody has witnessed the big bang or dinosaurs first hand, yet they are still believed, thus first hand documentation is not required.

also, do not confuse magic and thamaturgy.

Tensu:

"Be careful, though! Laughing He might resort to personal attacks and bullying tactics next."

I lived all my life in academia. I been despised by fancier types nor what he is. I just keep praying I meself can avoid the temptation to rise up and smite.

Actually, that's exactly what he did. You may feel a compulsion to disagree but I stand by my statement. It's an old argument Ive seen a hundred times. Also, the post he replied too didnt say, "first hand documentation", it simply said evidence. There is strong evidence for the dinosaurs and decent evidence for a big bang.

I think you should believe whatever you like but keep it in the realm of faith. It just looks silly to try to put all knowledge on the same level as religious faith. If the gods wanted more than faith, they could reveal themselves right now.

But you could always stop looking both ways when you cross the street and claim that knowledge is imperfect. Perhaps the laws of physics have changed since the last time you visited that street? Let it ride.

I'm not saying that MCalavera asked for first hand evidence or that we have no evidence for the big bang or for the dinosaurs. All I'm saying is that MCalavera said second hand evidence is not reliable, and Philologos said first hand evidence is not nessicary. That is what happened. If you think otherwise, go over it again.

But why accept evidence of one thing and reject evidence of another? Why make unreasonable demands if you can't hold up to the same demands yourself?

So you accept the account that Joe Smith took the golden tablets from Moroni? He even had the witnesses sign a statement. You accept that L Ron Hubbard had a series of amazing adventures as a race car driver on an alien world? The tales of Jim Jones?

That's simple testimony. We know that it's very unreliable, especially given the subject matter. There have been thousands of people claiming contradictory revealed knowledge without one scrap of evidence beyond the word of themselves or the faithful. If you arent skeptical of testimony you must believe them all simultaneously. That must be interesting.

Science is something else. That's often teams of people publishing results in a format that allows others to double check their work and then either expand upon it or invalidate it. If you can't see a qualitative difference then there is nothing I can do for you. I wouldnt even try.

Oh! I thought it was the Angel Baloney. My mistake.

ruveyn

No one is rejecting science, though. There is nothing wrong with scientific inquiry. There's nothing wrong with exploring the origins of the universe. We don't have a problem with science, and we aren't even trying to offer arguments against science. You're missing the point.

All we are saying is that it is unreasonable to demand someone go back to the supposed time of the big bang, actually watch it happen, and record observations in order to assert that the theory is valid. Our present cosmology has enough observable phenomena to suggest that the big bang is a POSSIBILITY. It does not suggest that the big bang is the ONLY explanation or even the best one.

We don't have time machines to take us back to the time of Christ so we can witness those things for ourselves. All we have is the written record of His life and ministry. If that isn't enough to convince you, then fine. But expecting MORE than that is holding the Bible up to a higher standard than, say, astronomical observations that suggest the big bang. Why would you do that? Shouldn't all evidence be treated equally? If you're going to hold the Bible up to such a standard, why wouldn't you do the same for scientific research?

You brought up other points I found interesting: The Bible teaches that Christians are not to believe anyone (to include even the apostles themselves) or any THING (spirits, angels) IF they teach something contrary to scripture, or "another gospel." We are to "test the spirits" to discern whether they are truthful. Let's give Smith the benefit of the doubt. Let's say the golden tablets and Moroni were all real. EVEN IF they are real, they constitute something that is contrary to scripture and are thus not to be believed. L. Ron Hubbard doesn't really have anything to do with my faith. There are plenty of reasons NOT to buy into Scientology, particularly with how destructive it is known to be. Tell me, what happened to Jim Jones and his followers?

So yes, I do tend to be skeptical. The church I attended from childhood through high school never was a "bad church," but there were a lot of traditions that were passed on that I learned and, for a time, actually believed. It wasn't until I really started reading the Bible and thinking about some of these claims that I realized they couldn't possibly be true and consistent with scriptural teaching. I also came to learn that doctrinally those things weren't really what most people in my particular denomination actually believe, and you'll find it hard to find a lot of younger people who believe those things. But just because I found a few quirky, contradictory beliefs doesn't mean that the whole thing is wrong. You can take ANYTHING on faith, but I personally think it's foolish not to have reasons for believing the things you believe. If you can establish, for example, that X is always true, what's the point of continuing to question it if it is always true? Do you have to test gravity before you get out of bed every day? Or do you have faith that your feet will eventually hit the floor?

Bologna, you need to get to the deli more often.

No, no, wrong angel. The Angel Baloney was the one who consecrated pork and lard to be acceptable food for, as you call us, "the Heathen."

I'm not the one who tried to equate scientific evidence (that can be falsified) with unverifiable testimony that will be taken as absolute truth, regardless of external evidence, by the faithful.



The satellite and telescopic measurements that lend evidence to the big bang theory are not the same as the recorded testimony of a handful of people in the first century AD. One can be modified and improved by further evidence, and the evidence can be examined in significant detail. The testimony of long dead men cannot. One is falsifiable before we die, making it science, the other is not.



Sure, that's faith. Don't confuse it with scientific evidence and you'll be better off. You shouldnt be ashamed of faith or try to demean the value of observations and measurements just to reinforce faith. It's just not going to work and it makes faith look weak.



The NT is a revision of the OT. It substantially changes the message. I guess you've hit on why the jews don't accept the NT. Go figure.

Your comments remind me of the Grand Inquisitor from The Brothers Karamazov. Faced with the return of Christ the Church refuses to accept any comment from him and imprisons him. They know it's Christ but they insist that everything is already contained in the bible and no further input is required.



These are also testimonies, that's the point. And do we really need to go over the various christian groups who came to bad ends through their christian faith? You'll simply claim they werent "real" christians but that doesnt make it so.



I believe, and it was good, sayeth you. Ok.

i agree. the fact that they're rebelling isn't, necessarily, what makes them impressionable. the part that makes them impressionable is that they're "in the rebel stage," as you said.



maybe to you, this seems true. it's not, but that doesn't seem to deter you.





the relevance comes from the part where you, apparently, think mormons, baptists, and catholics are all part of the same religion.

surely, then, you do not object to me asking why you believe that magic underwear can protect you from bullets? how about asking why you believe that catholic priests can -literally- transform communion wafers into the -literal- body of a 2000 year old rabbi? would you feel it appropriate for me to ask why you believe that the earth is only 6000 years old?

maybe "christianity" is composed of many cults? no, i'm a fool. "sect is irrelevant" when you're touting the success of "christian missionaries." it's only relevant when you want to separate yourself as a "true christian."

angelrho:

always good to see you fighting the good fight! enlighten a forgetful nonbeliever, why is it that pork is kosher for christians but not for jews?