Why no straight answers?

[Zzyzx]

.
After eight years debating here I have YET to encounter a defender of fundamentalism / literalism / traditionalism (or the Bible in general) who will openly, accurately, honestly answer fundamental questions about Christian beliefs " including the following (with truthful answers in bold font)

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that:

Jesus was anything more than human? None

Humans possess a soul? None

An afterlife exists? None

Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred? None

Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described? None

God intercedes in human affairs or life events? None

Bible writers were actually inspired by God? None



Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting the basic beliefs of Christianity must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it" and that doing so is not a rational basis for making decisions on matters of importance?

[1213]

You can prove you were born, can't you? Thousands of things about the past get proved every day, many of them beyond reasonable doubt.

Is the evidence of the Bible really so weak that one must resort to saying NOTHING can be proved?

I think God is proven beyond reasonable doubt. We have the Bible, testimony of many people. And we can see this world. What more should we have?

How could I prove that I was born? Someone could say that I have always existed and we have only evidence that depends on what person is willing to believe and see as "verifiable evidence".

I dont know any way to really prove things that have happened in past. Maybe you could show some proof for thing that has happened?

It would be nice to know, what can be counted as verifiable evidence, without being biased.

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 126 by PghPanther]

What does any of this have to do with the question posed on this thread

To show the repercussion on the earth if Zyxx got his wish of proof, to show that proof of God is not a necessity, to show that it is is unproductive to search for proof , as it would be a distraction form the main message .

Then because of another poster saying that because one says that we can not prove these miracles makes the faith weak.

That is what brought us to this point.

[1213]

Evolution is adaptation to environment. getting smaller and weaker and dumber can very well be evolution (not that that, as a general trend, is reflected in the fossil record).

Sorry, if this is off topic, but I just want to say, if all we can see is things getting simpler, it is hard to believe that once everything got more complex by evolution. And it actually is more likely evidence for creation than spontaneous development of species.

Also getting smaller is not really change to new species, or do you think small people are own species?

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 122 by Clownboat]

Charity smerity!
I can show you Muslims that are willing to die for their faith. Treating the sick in these 'hell holes' you allude to does not compare to willfully dying for your beliefs.

Your argument is week. If it's not, I assume you must be struggling with becoming a Muslim. Can I guess that you are not and that you don't find this type of evidence convincing unless it is in an attempt to further your preferred religion?

Going by your standard here:
- Some Christians are willing to treat sick and injured in bad areas of the world.
- Some Muslims are willing to blow themselves up for their god.

Which religion is true if we use your standard here?

The Muslims are indigenous , they are helping their own , not the same point.

You are comparing a Christians sacrifice , volunteer-ship to help others to suicide bombers blowing others up ? Innocent people at that ?

Let's be real here ,this is a ridiculous analogy , that goes from compassion to murder.

[Zzyzx]

.

should Zyxx have his way , there would be no need for faith

Agreed.

However, it is not Zzyzx's way but the way of many who apply reasoning, intelligence, experience, eduction, and science to conclude that there is no need for "faith" in invisible, undetectable supernatural entities or forces that cannot be shown to be anything more than products of human imagination.

That some find motivation for noble acts in believing they are "pleasing God" (or whatever), is NO indication that the beliefs are valid or that the entities worshiped are anything more than imagination.

Christians have a lock on volunteering to help others on the most dangerous parts of the world .

Correction: Many individuals, corporations, nations, and international organizations (such as UNICEF) sponsor on-site help in dangerous parts of the world.

I have also shown you a quote from one of them , that states faith is what keeps them strong ,

Does that single quote verify that strength comes from faith for people involved?


As discussed many times here, I regularly and consistently contribute time, resources and energy to helping people through organizations and by directly helping deserving individuals and families.

Is it my "faith" that accounts for such things? Or is it more rational to conclude that benevolent actions are not dependent upon religion?


As an aside, some faith-based organizations to which I contribute may take credit for that "good" contribution as though it was their faith that was the motivation. I don't care if they claim credit because acknowledgment is not significant to me (though if they do so I regard it as false or fraudulent).

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 112 by rikuoamero]

, but what you've done there is a category error, extending the beliefs of the founders onto all of the members of the organization.

Not at all . I stated that " I am willing to bet " , that most if not all of these doctors are Christian , Christian or not , their presence is due to Christians. That is the point.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 112 by rikuoamero]

, but what you've done there is a category error, extending the beliefs of the founders onto all of the members of the organization.

Not at all . I stated that " I am willing to bet " , that most if not all of these doctors are Christian , Christian or not , their presence is due to Christians. That is the point.

What about the atheist members of MSF? Does the fact that MSF was founded by (at least one) Christian(s) mean anything to those atheist MSF doctors? Those atheist doctors are still in warzones and disaster areas. The reason they are MSF is that MSF is an organized group; this makes co-ordinating relief far easier and more efficient, versus if each doctor was going in alone.
What about organisations started by Muslims that employ non-Muslims (or have non Muslim volunteers?) Does the belief system of a charity's founder(s) somehow mean that that belief is true?

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 94 by Zzyzx]

What, exactly, is the "message" in the Jonah tale? How is the message "lost" if one understands that living in the belly of a fish / whale for days is not in keeping with what is now know of the real world?

This is ...

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, Teacher, we want to see a sign from You. But He answered and said to them, An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:38-40).

Kind of fits the narrative of the OP.

There is another prophecy fulfilled , that could be looked into for understanding , but this is the one I am referring to .

This foretold part of Jesus' resurrection.

Once again proof is not required , the message of the Jonah the whale story , the prophecy used as an analogy is what is important. Denial of this is not necessary , nor is proving if one really resided in a whale.

This message of prophecy fulfilled would strengthen the Christians faith, this also warns against the search for "proof ".

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 138 by Faithful One]

this also warns against the search for "proof ".

The reason I will never accept this line of thinking is that with it, I have literally no way to separate claims like this from claims made by con-artists. Con-artists too discourage looking for proof.
I'm a careful guy. I want to make sure. Telling me "Don't bother checking for proof, looking for it is in and of itself 'wrong'" only raises alarm bells with me.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 138 by Faithful One]

There is another prophecy fulfilled , that could be looked into for understanding , but this is the one I am referring to .

How can you tell this was an actual prophecy and that it was fulfilled, if you discourage the concept of looking for evidence? What's your criteria for sorting 'true' prophecy from 'false' prophecy then, if you do not verify?
For all you know, Jonah was never in a whale. For all you know, Jesus never rose from the dead. But you don't check to see if they are true or not. You just believe, on command.
The 'prophecies' that you and I read in the Bible were written by humans. Humans who can and have made stuff up from time to time. Without verification, you have no way to sort the dross from the gold.