If the Christian God is just

[SomePunk]

Then that means the Christian God forgives people for not believing in him or her or it.

So no one has to believe in god or follow any one religion to be saved and that means no one needs a savior. Which means religion isnt needed because it doesnt serve a purpose.

Am I right?

[Goat]

Then that means the Christian God forgives people for not believing in him or her or it.

So no one has to believe in god or follow any one religion to be saved and that means no one needs a savior. Which means religion isnt needed because it doesnt serve a purpose.

Am I right?

There is one stipulation. You have to ask him to forgive you. Isn't that how you get people to forgive you? We have not because we ask not. Seems like I heard that somewhere before.

Can you ask Santa Claus for forgiveness?? How can you ask forgiveness from an entity that you don't believe exists, and for which there is no evidence for?

Correction: not "for which there is no evidence", but "for which you yourself see no evidence." Just because you don't see the evidence doesn't mean other people don't. I myself see evidence of God everywhere. And I think most Christians feel the same.

Is it evidence or is it 'confirmation bias'. There is a member on this forum that shows up rarely these days called 'Once convinced'. He was a 'spirit filled' believer that saw evidence for God in everything, but when he started having doubts, he realized he was fooling himself. Can you bring forth some specifics so we can mutually examine that evidence to see if it is truly evidence for God, or merely confirmation bias?

[spayne]

Then that means the Christian God forgives people for not believing in him or her or it.

So no one has to believe in god or follow any one religion to be saved and that means no one needs a savior. Which means religion isnt needed because it doesnt serve a purpose.

Am I right?

There is one stipulation. You have to ask him to forgive you. Isn't that how you get people to forgive you? We have not because we ask not. Seems like I heard that somewhere before.

Can you ask Santa Claus for forgiveness?? How can you ask forgiveness from an entity that you don't believe exists, and for which there is no evidence for?

Correction: not "for which there is no evidence", but "for which you yourself see no evidence." Just because you don't see the evidence doesn't mean other people don't. I myself see evidence of God everywhere. And I think most Christians feel the same.

Is it evidence or is it 'confirmation bias'. There is a member on this forum that shows up rarely these days called 'Once convinced'. He was a 'spirit filled' believer that saw evidence for God in everything, but when he started having doubts, he realized he was fooling himself. Can you bring forth some specifics so we can mutually examine that evidence to see if it is truly evidence for God, or merely confirmation bias?

So we that can mutually examine the evidence? LOL. I think a better way of saying that, based on your earlier posts, would be: "so that I can interrogate all of the evidence you give me for the existence of God and then tell you that it's just a placebo effect." No thanks.

But what I will tell you is what I said before - that's it's not an emotional experience. Perhaps Once Convinced just had an emotional experience that eventually wore off. The Bible talks about people like this, who get excited initially about the Word of God but then fail to develop roots and so they eventually fall away.

In my case, my faith has increased as I have studied and seen evidence for God in not just the Bible, but also history, archaeology, science, philosophy, nature...in pretty much everything, as I stated.

[Goat]

So we that can mutually examine the evidence? LOL. I think a better way of saying that, based on your earlier posts, would be: "so that I can interrogate all of the evidence you give me for the existence of God and then tell you that it's just a placebo effect." No thanks.

I will point out that this is a debate forum, and in this subforum, there is a rule
5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

The way you mutually examine the evidence is you provide what you specifically see as evidence of God, and then we look at 'why is that evidence for God', and 'Why is that not evidence for God'. In my experience, the claimed evidence for God does not hold up under rational scrutiny.

But what I will tell you is what I said before - that's it's not an emotional experience. Perhaps Once Convinced just had an emotional experience that eventually wore off. The Bible talks about people like this, who get excited initially about the Word of God but then fail to develop roots and so they eventually fall away.

It isn't?? Can you show that it isn't, and that it isn't the logical fallacy of 'Argument from incredulity' also known as 'argument from personal belief'? I think considering Once Convinced stories, he has strong roots.. and it sounds to me that it is rationalizing away by people of faith about why someone who had faith lost it.

In my case, my faith has increased as I have studied and seen evidence for God in not just the Bible, but also history, archaeology, science, philosophy, nature...in pretty much everything, as I stated.

And, let's examine some science that you say give you evidence for God, and see if your understanding is accurate? Or, how about Archeology. I know a few sites that make spurious claims to increase faith.

[spayne]

So we that can mutually examine the evidence? LOL. I think a better way of saying that, based on your earlier posts, would be: "so that I can interrogate all of the evidence you give me for the existence of God and then tell you that it's just a placebo effect." No thanks.

I will point out that this is a debate forum, and in this subforum, there is a rule
5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

The way you mutually examine the evidence is you provide what you specifically see as evidence of God, and then we look at 'why is that evidence for God', and 'Why is that not evidence for God'. In my experience, the claimed evidence for God does not hold up under rational scrutiny.

But what I will tell you is what I said before - that's it's not an emotional experience. Perhaps Once Convinced just had an emotional experience that eventually wore off. The Bible talks about people like this, who get excited initially about the Word of God but then fail to develop roots and so they eventually fall away.

It isn't?? Can you show that it isn't, and that it isn't the logical fallacy of 'Argument from incredulity' also known as 'argument from personal belief'? I think considering Once Convinced stories, he has strong roots.. and it sounds to me that it is rationalizing away by people of faith about why someone who had faith lost it.

In my case, my faith has increased as I have studied and seen evidence for God in not just the Bible, but also history, archaeology, science, philosophy, nature...in pretty much everything, as I stated.

And, let's examine some science that you say give you evidence for God, and see if your understanding is accurate? Or, how about Archeology. I know a few sites that make spurious claims to increase faith.

I would readily engage in debate if I actually had someone to debate with. I haven't been a member on this site for very long, but what I see happening over and over again is Christians putting forth some very compelling and specific evidence for the existence of God, and the atheists answering them with red herring arguments, generalizations, by flat out refusing to recognize the validity of the evidence, or by just simply saying things like "you are wrong", or "most scholars agree with me." That is not debating.

The problem with examining the science is that we have two different worldviews. And so we will see things through those different lenses. So, for example, a secular Geologist will look at the Grand Canyon and see evolution at work, and a Christian geologist will look at the Grand Canyon and see the evidence for God everywhere. Same Grand Canyon, different interpretation. That's what I mean when I say I see the evidence of God everywhere.

Also, I don't believe I am obligated to debate every post on this forum, especially if I am engaged in debates on other posts, which I am.

[spayne]

So we that can mutually examine the evidence? LOL. I think a better way of saying that, based on your earlier posts, would be: "so that I can interrogate all of the evidence you give me for the existence of God and then tell you that it's just a placebo effect." No thanks.

I will point out that this is a debate forum, and in this subforum, there is a rule
5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

The way you mutually examine the evidence is you provide what you specifically see as evidence of God, and then we look at 'why is that evidence for God', and 'Why is that not evidence for God'. In my experience, the claimed evidence for God does not hold up under rational scrutiny.

But what I will tell you is what I said before - that's it's not an emotional experience. Perhaps Once Convinced just had an emotional experience that eventually wore off. The Bible talks about people like this, who get excited initially about the Word of God but then fail to develop roots and so they eventually fall away.

It isn't?? Can you show that it isn't, and that it isn't the logical fallacy of 'Argument from incredulity' also known as 'argument from personal belief'? I think considering Once Convinced stories, he has strong roots.. and it sounds to me that it is rationalizing away by people of faith about why someone who had faith lost it.

In my case, my faith has increased as I have studied and seen evidence for God in not just the Bible, but also history, archaeology, science, philosophy, nature...in pretty much everything, as I stated.

And, let's examine some science that you say give you evidence for God, and see if your understanding is accurate? Or, how about Archeology. I know a few sites that make spurious claims to increase faith.

Also, I have already tried to make an attempt at explaining to you, in an earlier post, why my faith in God is not an emotional experience. You flat out disagreed with me and told me what I was feeling was a placebo effect. Why would I try and explain that again?

[Goat]

So we that can mutually examine the evidence? LOL. I think a better way of saying that, based on your earlier posts, would be: "so that I can interrogate all of the evidence you give me for the existence of God and then tell you that it's just a placebo effect." No thanks.

I will point out that this is a debate forum, and in this subforum, there is a rule
5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

The way you mutually examine the evidence is you provide what you specifically see as evidence of God, and then we look at 'why is that evidence for God', and 'Why is that not evidence for God'. In my experience, the claimed evidence for God does not hold up under rational scrutiny.

But what I will tell you is what I said before - that's it's not an emotional experience. Perhaps Once Convinced just had an emotional experience that eventually wore off. The Bible talks about people like this, who get excited initially about the Word of God but then fail to develop roots and so they eventually fall away.

It isn't?? Can you show that it isn't, and that it isn't the logical fallacy of 'Argument from incredulity' also known as 'argument from personal belief'? I think considering Once Convinced stories, he has strong roots.. and it sounds to me that it is rationalizing away by people of faith about why someone who had faith lost it.

In my case, my faith has increased as I have studied and seen evidence for God in not just the Bible, but also history, archaeology, science, philosophy, nature...in pretty much everything, as I stated.

And, let's examine some science that you say give you evidence for God, and see if your understanding is accurate? Or, how about Archeology. I know a few sites that make spurious claims to increase faith.

I would readily engage in debate if I actually had someone to debate with. I haven't been a member on this site for very long, but what I see happening over and over again is Christians putting forth some very compelling and specific evidence for the existence of God, and the atheists answering them with red herring arguments, generalizations, by flat out refusing to recognize the validity of the evidence, or by just simply saying things like "you are wrong", or "most scholars agree with me." That is not debating.

The problem with examining the science is that we have two different worldviews. And so we will see things through those different lenses. So, for example, a secular Geologist will look at the Grand Canyon and see evolution at work, and a Christian geologist will look at the Grand Canyon and see the evidence for God everywhere. Same Grand Canyon, different interpretation. That's what I mean when I say I see the evidence of God everywhere.

Also, I don't believe I am obligated to debate every post on this forum, especially if I am engaged in debates on other posts, which I am.

Well, what you are obligated to do is that if you make a claim, you back it up. per the rules. You made the claim that everything you see is evidence of God, and I am challenging that claim.

[spayne]

Well, what you are obligated to do is that if you make a claim, you back it up. per the rules. You made the claim that everything you see is evidence of God, and I am challenging that claim.

I wasn't actually making a claim of my own. I was simply correcting YOUR claim that there is no evidence of God, which you provided no backing information for. It seems like you need to follow your own instruction for how to debate on ths board.

[Goat]

Well, what you are obligated to do is that if you make a claim, you back it up. per the rules. You made the claim that everything you see is evidence of God, and I am challenging that claim.

I wasn't actually making a claim of my own. I was simply correcting YOUR claim that there is no evidence of God, which you provided no backing information for. It seems like you need to follow your own instruction for how to debate on ths board.

Well, when I asked for evidence for God, I get snippy reply's, and nothing that can be examined to see if it IS evidence for God.

Your response to my point , and the repeated pattern from ALL believers is my evidence there is no evidence for God.

[spayne]

Well, when I asked for evidence for God, I get snippy reply's, and nothing that can be examined to see if it IS evidence for God.

Your response to my point , and the repeated pattern from ALL believers is my evidence there is no evidence for God.

Christians are offering really compelling evidence for the existence of God all over this forum, so I don't think it is accurate to say that you are just getting snippy replys and nothing that can be examined.

You ignored my main point: that I was initially just correcting your earlier claim that there is no evidence for God, which you offered no supporting argument for. Since you had made such a generalization without providing anything to back it up, I was simply stating that it would be better if you said that you yourself don't see evidence for God. And so I will say again, that if you are going to make such a claim, then the responsibililty also falls on you (per #5 of the forum rules) to offer supporting evidence or an argument for why you believe there is no evidence for God.

[Goat]

Well, when I asked for evidence for God, I get snippy reply's, and nothing that can be examined to see if it IS evidence for God.

Your response to my point , and the repeated pattern from ALL believers is my evidence there is no evidence for God.

Christians are offering really compelling evidence for the existence of God all over this forum, so I don't think it is accurate to say that you are just getting snippy replys and nothing that can be examined.

Where is this? Can you point to a specific post. Please remember that 'ARGUMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE'.

Point to one of these posts that offer 'compelling evidence'.

Or, for that matter, anything that is evidence at all. I have seen plenty of logical fallacies.. but I have yet to see any evidence, much less 'compelling evidence'.