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?

[Faithful One]

[Replying to post 58 by Zzyzx]

Since there is none, why not openly and honestly say so rather than injecting fancy footwork and diversionary tactics? Is refusal to acknowledge truth (lack of verifiable evidence to support Bible tales) required to defend religious beliefs?

What you are basically asking is if Christians have to kid themselves , to defend their faith .

The answer is no , they understand why things are the way they are ,others can not reach this same enlightenment , if they do not believe as a Christian does. The concern of the miracles of Jesus , or the "tales " of the bible , are concerned more with teaching and sending a message of salvation , more than concentrating on proving them. The message is what you should get .


The focus is on the moral of the story , to,grow from it , not kid yourself about what may seem illogical , just accept the message and grow from it , denial is not necessary.

So no , Christians do not have to kid themselves , to defend their faith. The important aspect is to learn from it, which is usually teaching basic morals of humility , self sacrifice , sharing , loving your neighbor, as you do yourself , learning these morals , more than concentrating on whether you are kidding yourself or not , is what is important here .

[Zzyzx]

.

Do you acknowledge that no verifiable evidence exists for any of the above Bible tales?

Even God would agree there is no verifiable evidence of him,

Notice that the OP does NOT ask for evidence of God. It asks if verifiable evidence exists for any of the Bible tales listed. Is it difficult to deal with that topic?

that is the whole point of faith.

Many seem to pride themselves and congratulate themselves for believing what they are told without concern for whether it is true and accurate or not.

If that is the "point of faith" I'll pass in favor of making decisions based upon information that can be verified. For those who oppose verification there is some ocean-front land for sale cheap in New Mexico (the Arizona ocean-front has been sold).

Since there is none, why not openly and honestly say so rather than injecting fancy footwork and diversionary tactics? Is refusal to acknowledge truth (lack of verifiable evidence to support Bible tales) required to defend religious beliefs?

You are confused

Perhaps it is not me in this conversation who is confused. Let's let readers decide for themselves.

verification is not necessary .

Of course no verification is necessary for those inclined / indoctrinated / trained / convinced to accept what they are told by preachers (ancient or modern) and/or Bible writers.

There is also not a need to defend any religious belief, nor any requirements to defend them.

Thus, Apologists are misguided. Right? And, none here attempt to defend religious beliefs. Right?

If anyone is still unaware (or in denial) of #5 above, genetic development of antibiotic resistance (evolution – genetic change through generations) they might consult:

What exactly is your point here ?

My point is that evolution occurs as demonstrated beyond any rational doubt – as confirmed by medical personnel.

Those who doubt that evolution of disease organisms are invited to restrict any medical treatment for themselves of infections to use of antibiotics that were effective fifty years ago.

See Hebrews 11:3 . Figure it out from there , the bible does not deny , what I think your point is .

It may come as a surprise, but I put no confidence in what Paul/Saul (or whoever wrote in his name) may have said.

You have no direct links to prove your theory. Period.

Are you asking for proof that evolution occurs? Still?

Your snarkiness is truly not appreciated , as others here , you seem jaded , by the way you phrase your statements, but that is par for the course to me .

Member votes last year seem to contradict your opinion. See the new thread in General Chat http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=28503

[Zzyzx]

.

Since there is none, why not openly and honestly say so rather than injecting fancy footwork and diversionary tactics? Is refusal to acknowledge truth (lack of verifiable evidence to support Bible tales) required to defend religious beliefs?

What you are basically asking is if Christians have to kid themselves , to defend their faith .

No. What I ask is why not openly and honestly acknowledge there is no verifiable evidence to support Bible tales? Is that too difficult a question?

The answer is no , they understand why things are the way they are

Many people claim to understand "why things are they way they are." Some base their understanding on what can be learned about the real world. Others may prefer approaches that contradict what is known of the real world.

others can not reach this same enlightenment if they do not believe as a Christian does.

Many do not regard it is "enlightenment" to base life decisions on the word of preachers and religion promoters (ancient or modern).

The concern of the miracles of Jesus , or the "tales " of the bible , are concerned more with teaching and sending a message of salvation , more than concentrating on proving them.

Let's apply that to the tale about Jesus being "resurrected." If that tale is NOT true, what is the basis for Christianity?

The message is what you should get .

The message I get is that it appears as though ancient writers recorded folklore, myth, legend, fable as though it was meaningful and contained valuable information. Those writings became the basis for a religion popular in the Roman empire and was spread outward. Millions still believe the tales are significant and/or form the basis for modern decisions. I disagree.

The focus is on the moral of the story , to,grow from it ,

Stories about Snow White and Little Red Riding Hood contain moral "lessons". Shall we revere them too – and delve into them for "meaning"? Base life decision on what we learn from those tales?

not kid yourself about what may seem illogical ,

Is this to say that it is not important whether Bible tales are true or not – that it is the "moral of the story" that counts? Thus, it matters not if the story is illogical as long as one believes it has meaning in the modern world. Right?

just accept the message and grow from it , denial is not necessary.

Yes, just believe what we are told and don't bother about whether it is true or not.

Thanks, but no thanks.

So no , Christians do not have to kid themselves , to defend their faith. The important aspect is to learn from it, which is usually teaching basic morals of humility , self sacrifice , sharing , loving your neighbor, as you do yourself , learning these morals , more than concentrating on whether you are kidding yourself or not , is what is important here .

From my dealings with Christians here in debate for eight years and in real life for seventy-five years and as resident of the Bible Belt, I observe that any teachings of humility, self-sacrifice, sharing, loving your neighbor as yourself seem to have been lost on many or most.

If the teachings produce improvement of morals, why do Christians have rates of incarceration, divorce and abortion as great or greater than other groups?

If teachings DO NOT improve morals, what is the point of the teachings?

If teachings DO improve morals and the group is still only average, they must have been in bad shape before the teaching.

It appears to me as though many Christians "believe" that they have superior morals because they take the word of their teachers – without bothering to check whether it is true and accurate or not (like so many other things involving "faith").

[arian]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Perhaps these things are not subject to empirical verification.

That would be religion, there a nice big idol and a good story will suffice. But you must have some evidence with substance to worship our real God, right?

They do not, however mean they are not "real" ...most are transcendant and have to be taken on faith.

Some things, like the existance of God Himself, the existance of a soul, or the existance of an afterlife are unverifable by the Scientific Method. And so far cannot be proven or disproven one way or another.

Is that Scriptural? Do you have a book and verse in mind? Or are you referring to all gods in general, not necessarily the God of the Bible?

Other things, such as stories of particular miracles, are pretty much unrepeated and unrepeatable, at least in modern times, and fall into the mythic category of "Once Upon a Time"

You mean like: "Once upon a time 4 billion years ago a fish walked out onto land, climbed a tree, .. "

Does not mean they have no value, myths can and do point to deeper, "poetic" (to avoid the disputed term Spiritual") truths and can and do inspire.

Yes, ISIS (named after the goddess) would never have succeeded and gone this far without that 'inspiration', that's true, myths do inspire.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 37 by Paprika]

So you concede that by the criteria provided, you can't prove that the assassination of Julius Caesar - accepted by most historian - actually happened. And why is this so? The extremely unreasonable criteria proposed in the first post make such history impossible.

What evidence do you have that Socrates existed? Or Plato? Or Aristotle? What verifiable evidence can you present besides Greek hearsay, stories, opinions, and the lot?

Here's the problem with what you said there. Okay, for the sake of argument, I'm going to agree. We do not have sufficient evidence, as mandated by the dictates of the OP, that Caesar was assassinated as described by Seutonius.
Guess what the significance of such a thing is for me and people living today? Practically nothing. History books would have to be updated of course, but beyond that, we are not affected. If Socrates or Aristotle are shown not to have ever existed, then their teachings are unaffected as well, since their teachings do not rely on these specific individuals.
However, for the believer of Christianity, the same cannot be said. If Jesus is ever shown conclusively never to have existed, then the teachings said to have been given by Jesus fall apart. "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life" Jesus is reported to have said. Well, if Jesus is shown conclusively never to have existed...then he was not the Way, the Truth and the Life. The one and only pathway to God did not mean going through Jesus then.
So in short, the stakes are much much higher for Christianity. I honestly am not bothered if tomorrow, it's shown Julius Caesar never existed or he wasn't assassinated on the Ides of March. I however would be bothered if it were shown Jesus did exist, as described in the Bible. Remember, there are plenty of Bible verses that say we must believe, under penalty of some sort of horrible fate for those who do not believe.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 52 by Faithful One]

Faith is vitally important because it shows a belief in the word of God without being provided physical evidence of a God. This belief in the message of salvation creates devotion to God. Devotion to God is a necessity for salvation. Faith assures sincerity. Sincerity is another vital component for salvation.

If I take the Gospels as granted, then the apostles didn't have this faith. They would have been walking around with Jesus, and they saw him (supposedly) doing all these miracles.
This is one of the great contentions I have with those who trumpet faith. By trumpeting faith over evidence, this means that logically speaking, no-one at all should have experienced Jesus, including the people he would have talked to and walked around with 30-33AD (or thereabouts)!
However, since there is a Bible, since it contains accounts written by some people of how they (or others) supposedly saw Jesus walking around healing the sick, casting out demons and raising the dead, then this means that evidence was good enough for those people.

[Paprika]

Guess what the significance of such a thing is for me and people living today?

You're completely missing the point in your emphasis on 'significance'. 'Significance' is irrelevant; the point is that ridiculous criteria that Zzyzx tries to impose creates an epistemological trainwreck historically since it would rule out a great deal about what we know about ancient history, and this is highlighted by the fact that we could not know that Julius Caesar was assassinated or that Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle existed by those criteria - in short, epistemological trainwreck.

[Realworldjack]

.
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?

Before I begin to dig deeper into this OP, I would first like to have one of your points clarified, if I could? You say,

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, testimonials)

Now, I am not sure if it is proper, but allow me to admit up front, you had, "opinion," and "speculation" listed, which I intentionally omitted, because at this time I would rather focus on the ones I have listed, and we will save the others for later if we get to it.

At any rate, as I read your statement above, it certainly seems to suggest, you recognize, "Biblical tales," (which could be labeled as stories) Biblical "claims," and Biblical "testimonials," as "verifiable evidence."

Of course my question then is, am I correct? Do you understand these things to be, "verifiable evidence?"

[Danmark]

.
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?

Before I begin to dig deeper into this OP, I would first like to have one of your points clarified, if I could? You say,

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, testimonials)

Now, I am not sure if it is proper, but allow me to admit up front, you had, "opinion," and "speculation" listed, which I intentionally omitted, because at this time I would rather focus on the ones I have listed, and we will save the others for later if we get to it.

At any rate, as I read your statement above, it certainly seems to suggest, you recognize, "Biblical tales," (which could be labeled as stories) Biblical "claims," and Biblical "testimonials," as "verifiable evidence."

Of course my question then is, am I correct? Do you understand these things to be, "verifiable evidence?"

If he did, he'd have to turn in his Freethinker card.

I suppose, if a person tried very hard to ignore the context of the sentence, "What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate ...," he could take it ambiguously. It's clear that the very point of the OP is that "Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation" constitute unverified anecdotes, not verified evidence.

[1213]

except we do and you can. There is a large variety of simple experiments you can do yourself to verify this. You can also examine all of the research papers made in the last century and check their work if you have the time(it could take a while there are volumes but it is doable).

And nothing of it gives verifiable evidence for that all species developed as the theory of evolution claims. But yes, I really understand that you firmly believe it. If you disagree, tell me one example that is really verifiable evidence for the development of species as the theory of evolution claims.

In clarification I want to say, according to the theory, all species have developed from single species by the mechanisms of evolution.