• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why is is so difficult to convince devout Christians the value of evidence?[W:68]

Agnostic speaks to what you claim to know, atheism is what you say you believe.

The only middle ground between theism and atheism looks like this:

Question: "Do you believe in god?"
Answer: I never thought about it and I don't care."

If I asked you, do aliens exist and you said "I don't know" that wouldn't answer the question because I didn't ask what you know or don't know, but what you believe.

You could answer I don't know, but I think it's possible, you are agnostic alienist. In the same respect most atheists are indeed agnostic.




Sounds like Deism or Pantheism.



Amen to that!

Reading your reply about agnostics reminds me that in at least some circles a true agnostic is someone who has never considered the alternatives so probably not a possible circumstance in what we term civilized society.

Re-acquainting myself with pantheism brought me to 17th Century philosopher Spinoza who was the "natures god" guy I was referring to. I recall enjoying some of his writings.

A subtle point that I was trying to make that may have been lost is that all of these beliefs are no more than that, and that the belief in God or the lack of such a belief are religions in that and to the extent that those who hold those beliefs feel it necessary to convince others to share those beliefs. We seem to be obsessed with convincing others to our positions. For instance in politics that's important to our self interest so I understand the need. But I have never understood the need in faith matters except that it makes for interesting discussion sometimes. And I wonder.
 
If no one can disprove the existence of God, why would anyone come to the conclusion that Christianity is not grounded on fact? That doesn't make any sense.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence, true enough. The burden of proof however, is not on the disbeliever. As Russell said:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."

IMHO, those asserting that belief in gods is based on fact are obliged to prove those facts, whether or not the existence of those facts impinges upon their faith that such gods do indeed exist.
 
So now your story changes. I just proved your first premise and argument incorrect. The Fact is that science said the earth was flat. Science also said that the sun revolved around the sun. Both were proven wrong. accepting science as infallible truth is ignorance at it's best.

Who said science was infallible? Not anyone that understand science.

yet when there is evidence against it people like you plug your ears and go uh huh. so you are kind of doing the same thing that you accuse others of doing.

Not all evidence is the same. You don't understand that, or you refuse to acknowledge it.

no there is no problem what it shows is that attempting to act as if science is an infallible truth is ignorant. while science can explain many things it cannot explain everything. there is a limit in what science can explain. even the stuff it does try to explain changes.

Of course it does, but science has always brought us closer to the truth, if that weren't so medical technology would get better and then worse, CPU's would stop getting faster, planes would just fall out of the sky's for unknown reasons. You don't understand and I accept that no matter what I tell you, you will continue to create these strawman assertions.

you have a doctrine of belief whether you realize it or not.

Whatever you want to call it. My beliefs can change based on new information. Religion on the other hand has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age. Remember that the Church proposed the sun was at the center of the universe? People that opposed that position weren't embraced but vilified, called heretics.

yet it is quoted as fact of statement and anyone that criticizes it is supposedly ignorant. now that they have determined that the big bang was really not possible,
the people that have said this for years are not so ignorant.

The ignorance lies, not with you're position, but the fact that you can't just admit that it's faith and you need to vilify science because it conflicts with ideas that cannot be demonstrated to be true. Eye witness accounts are dubious at best, and would never count as "scientific" proof.

In history we use eyewitness accounts to corroborate events, but with any of those events, no one calls events from several thousand years ago "fact". Would you agree that the the dozens of eyewitness testimonies of alien abductions, Sai-Baba miracles, Bigfoot sightings, and encounters with Elvis are true?

Never mind the historical fact that the Gospels we read today were written centuries later, and are copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of originals that were written between 40 and 100 years after Jesus had died. Never mind that. That's the low hanging fruit of arguments against the notion of eyewitness testimony. That's too obvious. We don't even need to go there.

Then you just invalidated about 90% of the history books we have because well they were all considered stories at one point. in fact that is how we piece together history is by those stories.

No I didn't, no one forms their ideology based on history. We take it in stride. Looking back on claims in history is not how we form our morality, but a useful guide to making future decisions. However, no one is deciding what to do today based on events for 2000 years ago.


wrong we have a historically accurate event written by a person who is known as one of the most accurate historians in that day. this person was an associate of the people that knew Christ. so he had first hand account information of what happened and or occurred during that time frame.

so please provide evidence or backing that any of the people that he recorded was lieing or deluded. the burden of proof is on you since you are the one making the claim.

You have to prove that the people writing it are lieing. this you cannot do.

And if I fail to prove it wrong you think you are fully justified to accept it as fact.

Sorry, that's not how you accept facts and neither do I, if that were the case all religions would be true, but that would lead to obvious contradictions. No the burden is on you my friend.
 
Last edited:
I agree that religion will continue to loose it's grip, but that's only if the world stays reasonably stable.

Far as why religious people are religious, I don't think it has anything to do with lying, nor do I think the religious think out it that way. I was semi-religious at one point and I can say I was that way because I was genuinely worried about what would happen to me when I died. I worried that if I did bad things the negative things in my life were the result, but I also knew that if I genuinely repented that I would be forgiven. It was mostly a belief born in fear. Different people have different reasons and I would never generalize.

I am always shocked at the idea that the religious types actually believe in any of it. The way the debate seems to show that they don't. Generally. And generally not so true for Muslims.

Perhaps it is those such as you who did believe who are released by exposure to debates such as these. Those who don't actually consider the actual ideas in the religion important can ignore it all.
 
An imaginary being saying magic words does't explain it either.

A created Universe makes way more sense than a suppose randomly created one. it takes way more faith to believe in a randomly generated universe than a organized created one.
they are also finding out that the universe is not the chaotic random place but a well organized system that operates in a set of laws and guidelines.

not the random chaos that it that they think it is.
 
Finally, the truth comes out. You want to engage in deep philosophical discussion - and the OP was the bait!

Oh, for crying out loud csbrown....why don't you just post a philosophical subject as a topic, and let those who have something to say respond?

You do know that you are in a forum called "Philosophical Discussions", right? :doh
 
I can agree to disagree with you LM. You were actually the inspiration for the OP. You are a person that believes so deeply, no amount of evidence could prove you wrong.

Bust the resurrection and you win. So far you guys have failed badly.

People don't rise from the dead after 3 days. Period. If you have to evoke "supernatural" causes, that's cool, but just say it can't be explained, it can't be proven and you believe entirely on faith. That's cool, then I'm not talking to you because you are beyond my reach.

Miracles are documented. http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-Testament-Accounts-Volume/dp/0801039525

See, that's the evidence you won't accept.
 
A created Universe makes way more sense than a suppose randomly created one. it takes way more faith to believe in a randomly generated universe than a organized created one.
they are also finding out that the universe is not the chaotic random place but a well organized system that operates in a set of laws and guidelines.

not the random chaos that it that they think it is.

No. Not if you actually look around at the place and see how it works. There is no evidence of any sort of divine intervention.
 
Bust the resurrection and you win. So far you guys have failed badly.



Miracles are documented. Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts (2 Volume Set): Craig S. Keener: 9780801039522: Amazon.com: Books

See, that's the evidence you won't accept.

If I accepted that as evidence, I would believe in all religions. Tell me, where is the line between reliable and unreliable witness testimony? Where is the "eye-witness" playbook? How do you know which eye-witnesses are right and which ones are wrong either because they are lying or believe what they saw but were mistaken? There have been more eye-witnesses to UFO's then there were to Jesus and UFO eye-witnesses are very recent many on video. Some of the witnesses are police men, government officials, air force pilots. So tell me, how do you discern between good eye-witness testimony and bad? I mean beyond you believe what you want and reject what you don't want.

How do you reject the testimony of other faiths? Have you proved other faiths wrong, or do you assume they are wrong because you claim that you're evidence is stronger? Remember be specific, I want to know exactly how you tell the difference so I can apply it consistently to all eye-witness claims.
 
A created Universe makes way more sense than a suppose randomly created one .

Why would that be? And if it is true, who created your creator?
 
If I accepted that as evidence, I would believe in all religions.

Or, you could consider it the God of the Bible having mercy on people from many religions.

But since it's documented, what you should do is cast your anti-supernatural skepticism into the trash.

Tell me, where is the line between reliable and unreliable witness testimony? Where is the "eye-witness" playbook? How do you know which eye-witnesses are right and which ones are wrong either because they are lying or believe what they saw but were mistaken? There have been more eye-witnesses to UFO's then there were to Jesus and UFO eye-witnesses are very recent many on video. Some of the witnesses are police men, government officials, air force pilots. So tell me, how do you discern between good eye-witness testimony and bad? I mean beyond you believe what you want and reject what you don't want.

Why don't you get the Holy Spirit like hundreds of millions of believers have, and He will convince you.

How do you reject the testimony of other faiths? Have you proved other faiths wrong, or do you assume they are wrong because you claim that you're evidence is stronger? Remember be specific, I want to know exactly how you tell the difference so I can apply it consistently to all eye-witness claims.

Only Jesus is Risen, and only the Bible has fulfilled Messianic prophesies concerning that and his life.

So back to square one for you: When you can bust the resurrection then you'll have something significant for me and others.
 
Twisting my words aren't going to help you make you're point. I said that no amount of belief that a plane that isn't air worthy will make it fly. Believing things on faith won't change reality.

No one has ever claimed otherwise. How else can we interpret your statement then? It clearly expects us to assume your view is correct and others are wrong and are trying to make things true by faith. If that's not the reason you made that argument, then explain how we can understand your claim without reaching those conclusions.

The only other possible thing you could have meant is "true things are true". But why would you feel it necessary to say such a thing?
 
Or, you could consider it the God of the Bible having mercy on people from many religions.

But since it's documented, what you should do is cast your anti-supernatural skepticism into the trash.



Why don't you get the Holy Spirit like hundreds of millions of believers have, and He will convince you.



Only Jesus is Risen, and only the Bible has fulfilled Messianic prophesies concerning that and his life.

So back to square one for you: When you can bust the resurrection then you'll have something significant for me and others.

Or you can ignore everything I wrote and regurgitate some religious propaganda. You ought to try to talk to people, rather than at them.
 
Or you can ignore everything I wrote and regurgitate some religious propaganda. You ought to try to talk to people, rather than at them.

Listen, why should I trade in the truth of Jesus Christ - a topic I have researched intensely for forty years - for your secular propaganda?

Only when you can bust the resurrection will you even win the day.
 
I don't think it's very difficult at all. Having lived in cities where the dominant employers were R&D companies (NASA, Thiokol, Lockheed Martin, etc.), I've worshipped alongside engineers, scientists, researchers, and others who place immense value on evidence plenty of times.

Then you should know that compartmentalized insanity is real
 
Or you can ignore everything I wrote and regurgitate some religious propaganda. You ought to try to talk to people, rather than at them.

He doesn't appear to have a mind of his own. A sad case.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Stop talking about each other, and discuss the topic.
 
Absence of proof is not proof of absence, true enough. The burden of proof however, is not on the disbeliever. As Russell said:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense."

IMHO, those asserting that belief in gods is based on fact are obliged to prove those facts, whether or not the existence of those facts impinges upon their faith that such gods do indeed exist.


We're not talking about burden of proofs.

We're talking about making conclusions without any proof at all!
 
You do know that you are in a forum called "Philosophical Discussions", right? :doh


I know. But you're taking the thread in another direction. Now you want to discuss reformed epistemology, the same way that you wanted to discuss "what is good" in the other topic which was about a dilemma.

Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong in wanting to discuss, and I can see that this is your interest.
I say, go for it! Why don't you create topics (example: reformed epistemology) and let them run. Posters will give their take, and you'll have your discussion.
 
An imaginary being saying magic words does't explain it either.

God, being the CREATOR of all things - therefore the most powerful being - doesn't have to explain His actions or His works to anyone unless He wants to. The concept of God is lost to a lot of atheists.

Anyway, what is there to explain if He'd declared He'd made it all! Everything was created the way they are.
That's explanation enough.

What, you want the recipe? :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
I know. But you're taking the thread in another direction. Now you want to discuss reformed epistemology, the same way that you wanted to discuss "what is good" in the other topic which was about a dilemma.

Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong in wanting to discuss, and I can see that this is your interest.
I say, go for it! Why don't you create topics (example: reformed epistemology) and let them run. Posters will give their take, and you'll have your discussion.

Why don't you just let people create the topics they want and respond to them the way they please?
 
Why don't you just let people create the topics they want and respond to them the way they please?

Isn't that what I was saying? That you should create your topic - ex, reformed epistemology, or What is Good? - and posters will respond to it the way they please?

I gave those two subjects for examples since you brought them up in your topics.
 
God, being the CREATOR of all things - therefore the most powerful being - doesn't have to explain His actions or His works to anyone unless He wants to. The concept of God is lost to a lot of atheists.

Anyway, what is there to explain if He'd declared He'd made it all! Everything was created the way they are.
That's explanation enough.

What, you want the recipe? :mrgreen:

Who created your creator?
 
Well put. I don't believe the OP is asking the right question. There is no need for evidence, because that is non-sequitur. It has no bearing on the will to religion.
Evidence is a static thing. The will to religion is action.
 
Back
Top Bottom