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?

[Zzyzx]

.

Why fear me? My teeth are only an inch longer than T-rex's--Only an inch!

Fear you? Surely you jest. Finding someone uninteresting does not indicate fear.

If someone was to say, “You (generic term) are boring and incompetent� is that an indication of fear?

Thanks for your very helpful admission that we are all fallible.

Has anyone maintained that “we� are NOT fallible?

With that the case, why shouldn't we seek and trust a superior infallible being?

Where does one find infallible beings and how are they known to be infallible?

Does one read ancient texts by fallible humans expressing their opinions and telling stories about the supposed infallible beings?

Please? Don't we live by someone's final word?

I do not.

Is it final or debatable that one should never commit murder?

Notice that the Bible states “thou shall not kill� (murder is only one variety of killing – one that relates the secular law). Killing that is approved by one's society is not legally regarded as murder.

Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.

Deuteronomy 5:17 Thou shalt not kill.

Matthew 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

Romans 13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


By my standards there are instances in which killing / murder is the best course of action. If, for instance, someone declared intention to set off a bomb in a crowded place I would not hesitate to kill / murder that person if that was the only available option to prevent the act. The same goes for a person shooting others.

Who or what else should we trust for resolving ever present conflicts among us?

The supposed “infallible beings� have had thousands of years to resolve conflicts among us – but the conflicts remain. That sounds like fallible or non-existent or non-involved “infallible beings�.

As fallible beings, how do we know that what we know as truth is indeed the truth

As fallible beings, how do we know that an entity presented as infallible is actually so? Is “Take my word for it� sufficient?

unless we know that it originated from a higher infallible Source?

HOW can we know “that it originated from a higher infallible source�? “Take my word for it� again?

Even if unknown, wouldn't there be a collective cry for such?

A “collective cry� for WHAT? Infallibility?

Did the laws of physics originate with any of us that are fallible?

The laws of physics are nothing more than our best present understanding of the universe we inhabit. We do not know how the universe originated – though some pretend to know (based on ancient texts of questionable authenticity and accuracy).

Why shouldn't we acknowledge and trust Him that's revealed to us?

Revealed? Revealed by WHAT means? By ancient opinions and stories? By modern religion promoters?

Thousands of “gods� have supposedly “revealed� vastly different things to people. Which are to be taken as TRUTH and WHY?

How do children know right from wrong except from their parents that know everything compared with their developing level of knowledge?

Children often can and do learn very warped versions of “right and wrong� from parents who are not dependable / reliable / accurate sources of information.

How do the parents guide their children, employers their workers, and rulers the land but by the higher standard of Him that's infallible?

A wise teacher / parent / leader helps others discover how to learn – NOT what to learn. Once a person masters how to learn they will decide for themselves what to learn.

Despite superior accuracy of today's electronic test equipment because of digitizing and laser trimming of resistors, companies better have them traceable to the National Bureau of Standards if they want to prevail in court cases! The NBS better not be left out! How are we better off without indispensable standards without which a merchant may “legally� cheat? Is there any suspicion why there's so much effort to leave God out of everything--especially in court cases?

Aren't those measurements and standards constructed by humans? No “gods� are required.

Why depend on fallible man instead of Him that's supernaturally infallible?

Why would any reasoning person depend upon a proposed supernatural entity that cannot be shown to be anything more than imagination – let alone infallible?

Who is able to rival the Infallible having no weakness that may be ingenuously and subtly exploited?

Any fallible REAL being has ability superior to an IMAGINARY being.

Should we collectively pretend Him out of existence to open up an easy path for a deceiver?

What assures that promoters of “Him� are not deceivers?

On what bases may we the infallible rebuke the deceiver?

The best means yet discovered to identify error or deceit is to consult multiple disconnected sources to verify or cast doubt upon claims.

That is why many of us ask promoters of religion to provide verifiable evidence that they speak truth.

How do we convict criminals without a trustworthy standard? What do you think of a seller of gasoline that hates auditors?

What the heck does this have to do with the topic?

Although true that the laws of nature such as that of physics are infallibly reliable in the natural, what have we to depend on morally?

Humans tend to adopt a personal moral / ethical code that reflects that of the society they inhabit.

Should toddlers with high IQ do away with their wise parents?

?????

“If we should talk about reasoning and seeking evidence, what about the use of what is already given us? Should we ignore it?�

What, exactly, has been “already given us�? By whom / what was it given? How can that be verified as truthful and accurate?

As for your first statement, may I ask what if what's already given is from an authority universally known to be imfallible?

NO “authority� is universally known to be infallible.

That is only an empty claim made by some god worshipers.

We appear to be at war with each other simply because we express our determined stand on worldviews at war with each other. One is that God is and the other is that God is only a figment of imagination.

Many variations of theistic position characterize members who debate here. I, for one, take the position that “ANY of the thousands of proposed “gods� MAY exist, awaiting verifiable evidence upon which to make a reasoned decision regarding which, if any, are more than products of human imagination.� Notice that is not “god denial�.

Differences in life decisions according to these worldviews are as night and day.

I disagree – based upon observing that in real life many Believers and Non-Believers make decisions on real world matters that are very similar. Some opine that Theists are superior but are unable to demonstrate that is true.

That makes it impossible for us to bend to support the others contrary view. But why should we as as fellow citizens be at war with each other? How do we know which view should be kept and which to be discorded?

I, for one, do NOT debate (which is not war) with intention of reaching a compromise or bending opposition viewpoints. Instead, I present ideas for READERS to consider and compare to what is presented by religion promoters.

We must examine the fruit.

Readers will examine the “fruit� of what we present.

Our walking away from each other would only allow us to build ourselves up in each other's absence for a more brutal battle later.

An alternative that evidently appeals to many Apologists is to simply disappear when they discover that the arguments that work so well in church do not hold water in debate where their views are not given preferential treatment.

In reference to your statement, "That isn't arguing. That isn't debate. That's just preaching," is it more desirable to continue with a debate or controversy ad-infinitum by rejecting any view that may possibly solve the conflict?

How does preaching solve conflicts?

What possible consequences may occur if that's the case?

Those who insist on preaching in debate sub-forums become ex-members unless they learn to abide by Forum Rules and Guidelines.

Should my defense be rejected only because of it viewed as preaching?

Preaching is specifically disallowed by Forum Rules and C&A Guidelines. There are sub-forums set aside for those who wish to preach to one another.

If preaching happens to be my only defense, what's so terribly wrong with it?

1) Preaching is NOT a defense – it is avoidance
2) Preaching violates Forum Rules and Guidelines

Should my effort to glorify God of my good conscience be counted abominable?

Glorifying gods does not constitute debate (which is what we do here – debate). Those who wish to glorify gods are welcome to do so elsewhere.

I treat you well and respect your dignity with that same conscience and you respect me with the same!

In debate (what we do here) civility is required. Respect is earned (or not as the case may be).

There's a piece of God in all of us.

So say God Believers. Others disagree.

You heard me right. Isn't that what the first amendment is about?

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

It does NOT, require anyone to listen to or show reverence toward religious propaganda.

You don't despises preaching, do you? Is it good to do so?

Many of us do not tolerate preaching. It is nothing more than a monologue about someone's opinions regarding one or more of the thousands of proposed gods. It has no place in reasoned debate.

Why shouldn't my saying that “God said so� be counted as evidence for support?

“God said so� may be used as evidence in Holy Huddle or Theology, Doctrine and Dogma sub-forums (or in church) – where participants agree to accept the Bible as authoritative. That is NOT the case in this sub-forum.

Attempting to use “God said so� in discussion or debate with Non-Theists is not likely to be accepted as evidence. One might try instead to use verifiable evidence and reasoning.

A child may present his case by saying that “mom and dad said so� from memory that past disobedience brought undesirable consequences. Shouldn't that be counted as evidence? Is there any reason to be angry at the child for acting in support of his wise parents? Training of a child to obey his parents amounts to training to obey authority past his parents up to the highest including God.

Parents, politicians, preachers, and teachers often HIGHLY value obedience. Unfortunately for them, some people develop discernment and judgment as they mature – and learn to question “authorities� – including proposed gods.

Some, however, prefer to bow to “authorities� (including invisible, undetectable, proposed entities).

Our world is full of horrible consequences of failure to obey God. Don't we see much proof of such.

If a supernatural “god� wished to prevent horrible events it could demand that there be no warfare (for example) or there would be consequences in the real world, not in some proposed “afterlife�.

In fact, however, some of the thousands of proposed gods encourage or condone warfare – including the Bible God.

Why should one be proud to be an unbeliever?

Some of us value real world actions and relationships rather than believing in supernatural gods. That need not involve pride – just preference.

I just described some of its devastating consequences above.

You have NOT shown that “devastating consequences� result from non-belief.

Quit driving because of the person that ran the red light and banged you. Isolate yourself in a room from that DANGEROUS (!!!) highway! Stay away from God and the Gospel likewise in this fallwn world because of your failed experience. Haven't you lived long enough to see truth behind my statements in daily life?

My seventy-six years of real life experiences have demonstrated to me that worshiping gods is not advantageous in any way.

For all of you guys: Get ready for the weight of another thousand apes on you backs in place of the monkey! Regardless the number of years in medical school, flunking scores in the courses will only prevent graduation and knock out the possibility of opening any practice unless clandestine. Despite the years you said you spent in the Bible, your speech shows me a grade point score in Biblical knowledge so low that even a zero is too high! How about minus four out of four points (-4.0 out of 4.0)?

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.� ― Socrates

Now go your way, Riku until the truth catches up with you!

Being silly is not debate.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 436 by Erexsaur]

Might as well bite the bullet and reply.

OK. But may I state my defense before you go?

Why fear me? My teeth are only an inch longer than T-rex's--Only an inch!

Saying someone is uninteresting is NOT saying that I fear that person.

With that the case, why shouldn't we seek and trust a superior infallible being?

The problem comes that as fallible beings, we LACK the ability to accurately judge whether or not another being is infallible. I suppose at best we can say that this being or that being is fallible, but how exactly are we supposed to know what infallibility even looks like, when we lack it ourselves?
Here's a challenge. Take some field or discipline that you yourself know very little about. Let's say its medicine. Now, I want you to go and find me someone or something that is infallible when it comes to the field of medicine, of treating ailments and injuries.
Now, I don't mean someone with an arbitrary number of years in med school. I don't mean someone who is a surgeon but who lacks the qualifications to diagnose.
I mean someone who actually is INFALLIBLE.
How do you do it? How do you identify whether this person or that person is infallible?
I'd like to know. How do you verify whether what that person teaches about medicine is infallible...when you yourself know very little about medicine.

Don't we live by someone's final word? Is it final or debatable that one should never commit murder?

*Reads Old Testament, reads about commands from this god to kill everybody in towns and cities*
Sorry, what were you saying? I was too engrossed reading these stories about how once God commanded the Israelites to kill everybody in this or that city, it became good and holy and righteous, and all those other buzzwords.

Why shouldn't we acknowledge and trust Him that's revealed to us?

Because the writings that supposedly reveal Him were penned by fallible human authors, authors that BOTH you and I acknowledge to be imperfect, fallible and thus capable of being in error.
It does you no good to point to these writings and say they reveal an infallible god, when the writings themselves come from error-prone people.

How do we convict criminals without a trustworthy standard?

Is this you trying to say that court systems ought to rely on someone saying "God revealed it that the defendant is guilty", and not requiring anything more than that?

What do you think of a seller of gasoline that hates auditors?

Does this seller of gasoline act like you do and proclaim his system of measurement infallible?

If preaching happens to be my only defense, what's so terribly wrong with it?

First off, as Z said in his latest reply to you, that violates subforum guidelines.
Second, are you listening to yourself? The ONLY 'defense' you have is to constantly reassert (that's what preaching is) without ONCE providing evidence that passes muster.

Should my effort to glorify God of my good conscience be counted abominable?

I don't say abominable, I say pointless and meritless. It does no good at all to say that God is infallible, when you admit you lack any qualifications to judge whether or not he actually IS infallible, other than to assert it.

There's a piece of God in all of us. You heard me right. Isn't that what the first amendment is about?

I don't agree with you, and why should I care about the First Amendment? I'm not in the US, never have been and more than likely never will be. The 1st is a US law.
I'd also like to know just how talking about the 1st is even pertinent here. I'm not silencing anyone's speech but my own when I say "I don't want to talk with you". You can continue to reply to me if you want, I'm not prohibiting you or preventing you from doing so. I'm saying that I honestly do not want to talk with you.
If you're going to bring up the 1st, it might do you some good to actually study it and find out when and where it applies. I've studied the 1st in some detail and I know for a fact that it does not apply to privately-owned and privately operated websites.

You don't despises preaching, do you?

Yes in fact I do. As a rationalist skeptic who values evidence, I despise it when someone is talking to me, trying to convince me of something and all they do is assert that X is true and not once do they ever try to bring evidence into the equation.

Why shouldn't my saying that “God said so� be counted as evidence for support?

Because if I was to allow it from you, in the interest of consistency, I'd have to allow it for every single person who says "God said so", and once I do that, I run into the quagmire of mutually exclusive claims, that is claims that cannot all be true at the same time. I'd run into the problem of you saying "God said that Jesus is his only Begotten Son" (or a similar claim) and a Muslim saying "Jesus was NOT Allah's Son but merely a prophet".

Is there any reason to be angry at the child for acting in support of his wise parents?

There is when those 'wise' parents taught their child to hate and harm others. My 'wise' father was racist. I remember him quite clearly saying that 'all blacks are gangsters'. I suppose going by your logic, I should have obeyed him and followed this teaching?

Our world is full of horrible consequences of failure to obey God.

Oh yes, the how horrible the world would be if nobody obeyed God argument, how horrible it would be if people went around murdering and raping...just like how in the Old Testament, the Israelites went around murdering, raping and enslaving others and cried "God said so!" in their defense.
Wait. They said "God said so!". Shouldn't that count as evidence? I suppose you can't judge them to be at fault. After all, they said the three magic words. God said so.

Why should one be proud to be an unbeliever?

Are you proud to be an unbeliever in Islamic teachings, in Buddhist teachings, in Hindu teachings? You are evidently NOT a believer of Islam. Are you proud to not be?

Quit driving because of the person that ran the red light and banged you. Isolate yourself in a room from that DANGEROUS (!!!) highway!

I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

Despite the years you said you spent in the Bible, your speech shows me a grade point score in Biblical knowledge so low that even a zero is too high! How about minus four out of four points (-4.0 out of 4.0)?

Am I supposed to care how many points this random person on the Internet gives me for 'Bible knowledge'?

Now go your way, Riku until the truth catches up with you!

I'm still waiting for this 'truth' to bother showing itself. Many an adherent of this 'truth' say that Christ or God or whoever will appear and all I have to do is ask. Of course, I point out, I did ask, many a time.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 458 by JoeyKnothead]

Well said.

Who'd have ever thought "history" and "evidence" would be added to the list of words up for wild interpretation and abuse by apologists?

Is nothing "sacred"?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 459 by Inigo Montoya]

Who'd have ever thought "history" and "evidence" would be added to the list of words up for wild interpretation and abuse by apologists?

I've been paying attention to apologetics for about 5 years now. It seems to me that ALL words are up for grabs when it comes to defending the faith. As long as a term has more than one possible usage, the apologists are right there to mix those up in order to blur the lines. It's extremely important to apologists to blur the lines so that we can't nail them down.

Precise definitions would ruin their case. Semantic slight of hand is a wonderful tactic if one wants to deceive. That's why SO many of these apologetic debates revolve around semantic debates.

It's definition wars.

I'm NEVER surprised when people back their apologetic claims up by insisting on a bizarre definition of a word in order to appear that they have evidence for the claims.
It's all too obviously a rhetorical device that is transparent to the rest of us.

It seems to be quite convincing to theists, however. If apologists don't have facts, they can always baffle us with strange definitions, after all.

Unfortunately, baffling people isn't quite what I would call a good argument for anything.

[KenRU]

[Replying to KenRU]

Hi Guys,

I have a few questions for you that are convinced that God is nonexistent.

1. Is it impossible for the God of the Bible to exist?

I prefer to think of it as extremely unlikely.

2. Is it impossible for the Bible to be revelation from God that it claims ito be?

Same answer.

3. Could the God of the Bible reveal things to us in such a way that we could be absolutely certain of them?

Sure, which is why he must be viewed as either apathetic, cruel or non-existent.

4. Could you be wrong about everything you think you know?

Anyone could be, including you.

Finally, If I could prove to your satisfaction that God is really true, would you trust and worship Him?

If I were convinced of god's existence, sure. Good luck.


all the best

[OpenYourEyes]

.
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?

Why no straight answers? Perhaps a better question is what method are you using to obtain these answers? Is science the best tool for this job? Is there a tool for this job at all?

Given that from my experience, the likelihood that you will answer with NO to all my questions is very high, are you surprised?

[Zzyzx]

.

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?

Why no straight answers? Perhaps a better question is what method are you using to obtain these answers?

My method is to ask Theists for evidence -- and observe that they do not give straight answers to the OP question "What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that: "

Is science the best tool for this job? Is there a tool for this job at all?

I do not dictate the tools used to answer the questions. Theists are invited to use whatever tools they wish -- but notice the word "verifiable" that eliminates hearsay, legend, fable, ancient flights of fantasy, etc.

Given that from my experience, the likelihood that you will answer with NO to all my questions is very high, are you surprised?

Evidently your experience has not served you well in this case.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Saying verifiable is vague. Please explain what you mean and also explain how your way of verifying is possible for the subject matter?!

Can science prove that Jesus existed? ANY 1st century Jesus for that matter.. How so? Should you be surprised that you get no SCIENTIFIC evidence for it if SCIENCE is not the right TOOL for the job?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 465 by OpenYourEyes]

Why no straight answers? Perhaps a better question is what method are you using to obtain these answers? Is science the best tool for this job? Is there a tool for this job at all?

Is there a tool for the job at all, you ask...

No, apparently, there IS no tool at all. That's why atheists know religious beliefs are bogus. If there WAS a reliable tool, we would just go ahead and USE IT instead of asking over and over and over for a tool and never getting a straight answer.

No tools for the job is why there are no straight answers and that's also why you don't provide a straight answer yourself but want to TURN the question around instead.

I would IMAGINE that if any apologist COULD provide a straight answer, they WOULD provide one. Your comment is perfect proof that apologists do NOT offer, nor do they seem to have straight answers.

Given that from my experience, the likelihood that you will answer with NO to all my questions is very high, are you surprised?

It must be difficult for some to imagine that other people have DIFFERENT experiences.

Your experience seems to lead you to imagine that atheists are using confirmation bias and are closed minded. Did you know that putting your opponent down like that IS NOT providing a straight answer? Apologists really have to do better than trying to put people down when they mean to DEFEND THEIR FAITH.

Most atheists in this forum have changed their minds PROVING that they had an open mind and that they DIDN'T use confirmation bias.

And no, unfortunately, we are NOT very surprised as atheists have to endure this kind of put down all too often from our friends the apologists and our Christian brethren.

[Zzyzx]

.

Saying verifiable is vague.

Of course, “verifiable is vague� if one engages in word play. The term “verify� is defined in common-use dictionaries as: to check or to prove that something is true or correct http://www.macmillandictionary.com

Please explain what you mean

I mean exactly what the definition above indicates – check or prove something is true or correct.

and also explain how your way of verifying is possible for the subject matter?!

I do not pretend to know how claims made by others could be verified. That is THEIR problem, not mine. If I make a claim it is MY responsibility to know how it can be verified and to cite that if challenged.

If (since) the issues raised in the OP have not been or cannot be shown to be true and correct scientifically, what verifiable evidence of any kind CAN be offered to show they are true and correct? Ancient stories -- right?

Can science prove that Jesus existed? ANY 1st century Jesus for that matter.. How so? Should you be surprised that you get no SCIENTIFIC evidence for it if SCIENCE is not the right TOOL for the job?

Notice that the OP does not ask if Jesus existed – but does ask why there are no straight answers to:

1) Jesus was anything more than human?

2) Humans possess a soul?

3) An afterlife exists?

4) Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred?

5) Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described?

6) God intercedes in human affairs or life events?

7) Bible writers were actually inspired by God?

Can you address the OP question rather than dodging? Why are there no straight answers regarding verifiable evidence for those seven issues?

Perhaps it is difficult for Apologists to admit that the only "evidence" they have for any of them is nothing more than religious dogma and ancient tales.

I fully recognize that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to determine the truth and accuracy of ancient stories. Therefore, I do not claim to know they are true.