Only two different types of belief

[atheist buddy]

In my opinion there are only two types of beliefs.

Examples of type 1 beliefs
Planet earth is approximately globe shaped, 2+2=4, my mother loves me, Los Angeles is west of Chicago, I have a million dollars in my bank account, humans have 23 chromosome pairs, Napoleon was born on August 15th 1769, Bradd Pitt is married to Angelina Jolie


Examples of type 2 beliefs
Jesus was born of a virgin, Mohammed flew into heaven on the back of a winged white horse, there is an alien space ship hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet which you can teleport to by committing suicide, Apollo causes the sun to rise eveyr morning by carrying it up into the sky on a charriot, the Lock Ness monster exists, Frosty the Snow man occasionally comes to life, Santa delivers gifts from his invisible North Pole factory to millions of homes every Christmas night.

What do all type 1 beliefs have in common? They are all supported by empirical evidence.

What do all type 2 beliefs have in common? They are all NOT supported by empirical evidence, and in many cases contradicted by empirical evidence


If you are religious, which type do your religious beliefs fall into?

If type 1, can you please spell out what your beliefs are, and what the empirical evidence for them is?

If type 2, can you please outline what justification there is for believing your specific type 2 belief and not any other type 2 belief?

If you agree that they are not type 1, but assert that they don't belong in type 2 either, could you please outline what attributes your beliefs have that differentiate them from type 2 beliefs?

[RaiderGonzo]

Translations of the text may be indeed replete with errors of translation, whether by ignorance, or with a purpose, nevertheless, one cannot take scripture out of context with the rest of scripture. It is when man wants to pin down GOD to a certain dogma that one becomes entangled in a web of self deceit., the pharisees of old thought they had it all down, but the LORD corrected them time after time again., and every time HE corrected them, HE exemplified the teaching with HIS actions., it wasn't as if HE only paid lip service to what had been written wise from old!

In order to understand scripture, one has to live it; live by it ~> that is what CHRIST fulfilled

There is not a question from any true Jesus scholar, whether for or against GOD that can say otherwise of CHRIST., HE lived according to scripture and scripture was HIS life., HE was indeed the LIVING WORD of GOD!

[1213]

Are you saying that you were presented with heliocentric solar system and rotating Earth " but rejected, dismissed or doubted those ideas?

Yes, and actually in my experience geocentric model is ridiculed generally in every place. It is interesting, if we consider how little real evidence for heliocentric model we have.

At the moment I reject heliocentric model, because it is not well supported. However it may still be correct, I just dont accept it with current evidence.

I think it would be good that all those who accept it, would discover Munchhausen trilemma and start to see what real facts are and what circular, regressive or axiomatic arguments are. Maybe they could pull themselves out of the mire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

If a mistake or five or a hundred contained in the bible would you conclude that God did not influence it? Many of these threads are replete with biblical errors. Do you accept that information or dismiss / ignore / deny it (or make excuses)?

The probability for Gods influence would decrease. I think none of these threads prove that Bible has errors. The errors depend on how person wants to understand the text and they are really subjective. I have not seen any objective error.

Thomas Jefferson (one of those identified as Founding Fathers of the US) agrees with that position. He produced the "Jefferson Bible" (correct title "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth ") by cut and paste (literally) of the 1804 printing of the King James New Testament to remove extraneous material (including references to miracles and supernaturalism) and highlighted the life and teachings of Jesus.

I think that is quite good thing. In my opinion it is sad when people often seem to reject all good teachings at the same time when they reject the super natural part.

[atheist buddy]

Are you saying that you were presented with heliocentric solar system and rotating Earth " but rejected, dismissed or doubted those ideas?

Yes, and actually in my experience geocentric model is ridiculed generally in every place. It is interesting, if we consider how little real evidence for heliocentric model we have.

At the moment I reject heliocentric model, because it is not well supported. However it may still be correct, I just dont accept it with current evidence.

I realize in advance that this will be pointless, but let me ask you something.

Scientists are able to predict EXACTLY all the solar eclypses that will happen in the next 10 years.

All of the predictions that were made in th elast 10 years were absolutely accurate to the second, and we'll be able to see that the predictions for the next 10 years will be 100% accurate as well. All these predictions are based on the heliocentric model.

How do you account for these predictions which are heliocentric-based being accurate, if the heliocentric model isn't accurate?

[1213]

Scientists are able to predict EXACTLY all the solar eclypses that will happen in the next 10 years.

All of the predictions that were made in th elast 10 years were absolutely accurate to the second, and we'll be able to see that the predictions for the next 10 years will be 100% accurate as well. All these predictions are based on the heliocentric model.

How do you account for these predictions which are heliocentric-based being accurate, if the heliocentric model isn't accurate?

Allegedly Mayans predicted 1991 solar eclipse. Does that mean that they were even more advanced than modern scientists? Did they have heliocentric model? If yes, why modern scientists predict only ten years?

http://www.space.com/19178-maya-predict ... lipse.html

I think it is possible to predict those even with wrong idea of what is the center point. Person doesnt have to know what rotates, if he can see how objects move on sky.

[Realworldjack]

In my opinion there are only two types of beliefs.

Examples of type 1 beliefs
Planet earth is approximately globe shaped, 2+2=4, my mother loves me, Los Angeles is west of Chicago, I have a million dollars in my bank account, humans have 23 chromosome pairs, Napoleon was born on August 15th 1769, Bradd Pitt is married to Angelina Jolie


Examples of type 2 beliefs
Jesus was born of a virgin, Mohammed flew into heaven on the back of a winged white horse, there is an alien space ship hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet which you can teleport to by committing suicide, Apollo causes the sun to rise eveyr morning by carrying it up into the sky on a charriot, the Lock Ness monster exists, Frosty the Snow man occasionally comes to life, Santa delivers gifts from his invisible North Pole factory to millions of homes every Christmas night.

What do all type 1 beliefs have in common? They are all supported by empirical evidence.

What do all type 2 beliefs have in common? They are all NOT supported by empirical evidence, and in many cases contradicted by empirical evidence


If you are religious, which type do your religious beliefs fall into?

If type 1, can you please spell out what your beliefs are, and what the empirical evidence for them is?

If type 2, can you please outline what justification there is for believing your specific type 2 belief and not any other type 2 belief?

If you agree that they are not type 1, but assert that they don't belong in type 2 either, could you please outline what attributes your beliefs have that differentiate them from type 2 beliefs?

Sorry, I am so late to this discussion. I am a Christian and believe I fit into the type one catergory above, and I abhor Christians who attempt to cling to the type two catergory. Well, I do not abhor the Christians themselves, but rather the tactic of clinging to this type of reasoning.

Of course now you have ask me to spell out my beliefs, but don't you believe this is a little unfair? Don't you think that it would be impossible for someone who has given a lot of time and effort into what they claim to believe, to simply be able to place it all down in this type of format? I could give you small bits, and pieces, but this would simply lead to further debate. So then the only way for me to accomplish what it is you ask, I would have to be exhaustive, and this is just not possible here in this format, and I believe it is unfair, to believe someone could do this.

Allow me to give you an example. Surely, you have reasons for your unbelief, and hopefully these reasons are in depth, but thus far the only reasons I have seen you state is simply, "there is no reason to believe such things!" Certainly your unbelief goes deeper than this, but I would not expect you to be able to expound it all here in this format. You do not believe the miraculous claims of Christianity because, they go against your logic, and reason, and you believe they contradict empirical evidence. I look at this differently. The way I see it is, if there is a God who created the universe, and all that is in it, then certainly he has the ability to step in and reverse the Laws of nature as we know them!

Now as I said, I will not be able to give all the reasons for my belief, I can only give a small, small, portion, so lets go back to the begining to Genesis.

The Bible tells us, Adam, and Eve, sinned. When this occured, it is said, they saw they were naked and wanted to cover themselves. Now here, we could get into the discussion about how, and why, Adam, and Eve, came to understand their nakedness, and I am perpared for this discussion, but again it becomes in depth, which again goes to demonstrate how exhaustive this type of discussion would be. At any rate, surfice it to say, Adam, and Eve, had a problem they needed a remedy for. Now the Bible tells us that Adam, and Eve, attempted to remedy this situation by sewing fig leaves together to cover themselves. The problem with this solution is that fig leaves would not endure very long. This means, Adam, and Eve, would be continuely working to cover themselves. When they went out to perform their everyday tasks, these leaves would easily wear, and tear, causing them to continuely have to work at covering themselves! But God steps in and supplies animal skin. Now think about this. This would have been the first shedding of blood. It would have also been the first sacrifice for sin! So then, as we can see, the first animal sacrafice was not to appease God in any way! It was not a sacrafice given, or performed by Adam, and Eve, rather it was a sacrafice given and performed by God Himself, and it was given for the benefit of Adam, and Eve, it did not benefit God in any way! The point here is, Adam, and Eve, could now rest from their works, and trust in what God had supplied! But as we know even animal skin would not endure forever. Although it would last far longer than fig leaves, it would still not endure forever! This means sacrafices would continuely have to be made. If you know anything at all about Christianity, you can see where this is heading. There must be a final and complete sacrafice, that endures forever.

The Old Testament continues on from here, progressing to this final, complete sacrafice, with this same recurring theme, that we should not trust in our own efforts, but rather trust in the Work of God alone!

As we continue in Genesis, we see Cain kills Abel, but God had promised Eve a deliverer, so it tells us God gave Eve Seth, in place of Abel. So as we see again, God is the one who supplies!

Continuing on in Genesis, we are given the line of Cain, but we are not just given his descendants, we are also told what they were, BUSY, doing. They were busy, they were working, and if you read carefully, you can see they were busy, attempting to reverse the curses placed upon them. They were busy building the City of Man. Ultimately, they were attempting to remedy their situation. Next we are given the line of Seth, however we are not told what this line was busy doing, rather it simply says, "at this time men began to call on the name of The Lord!" So as you can see, there is a definte contrast between these two lines! One is busy working, while the other is resting in the Works of God! One line is building a City, while the other is calling on the Name of The Only One Who could build this City. One is working, while the other is resting from their works!

As you can see this is the same theme we had with Adam, and Eve. Should they continue to work, sewing fig leaves, trusting in their own efforts, or should they rest from their works, and trust in the Works of God? The same is true for the lines of Seth, and Cain. Should they work in order to attempt to remedy their situation, or should they rather call on The Only One is is able correct the problem? As I said, this theme continues on throughout the Bible. We could go on and talk about Abraham, and how God made a unilateral covenant with Abrham, (meaning this covenant depended on God alone apart from Abraham), and how the Bible tells us, "Abraham, believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness! In other words, Abraham had no righteousness of his own because of his works, rather he was counted as righteous, because of Who, and what he believed. He did not trust in his ability to keep his promise, rather he believed, and trusted in The One and Only True Promise Keeper!

From here we could go on to talk about the two different covenants in the Bible. The first one which is the one just talked about made to Abraham, which is the covenant of grace, as opposed to the covenant made a Siani, which is the covenant of works! The contrast is, do you grab a hold of the covenant of works, and promise with the Israelites, "all this we will do," trusting in your own promise? Or rather do you grab a hold of the covenant of grace, made to Abraham, which depends on God alone? This is the theme that continues throughout the Old Testament, until we reach the New Testament where we find The Final Complete Sacrafice, supplied by God.

As I said, we have just scratched the surface! We have not even made it past the second book of the Bible, so how on earth could you expect me to give all the reasons for my belief?! I could continue on, and on! My point here is, if this was simply a fabricated story, made up by one particular person, at one point in time in history, it would still be a remarkable story! What I mean is, whoever invented this story would certainly have an unbelievable imagination! Now this is not unheard of, there are many people with great imaginations who can tell great, and amazing stories! But we are talking about a volume the size of the Bible, and for someone to hold this theme together throughout a volume such as this would be incredible! But this is not what we are talking about here! We are not talking about one person, in a certain point in time of history, rather we are talking about numerous people, throughout thousands of years writing an unfolding drama, that is happening in real life and history, according to them, and the message remains the same, all the way to the New Teatament, where God supplies the final, and complete sacrafice, in the Cross of Christ! The overwwhelming theme is. Do you trust in your own self, abilities, efforts, works, etc., or do you rather trust in the Works of God?

Please allow me to make this point! I have heard many, Athiest, and unbelievers, talk about how much they abhor the animal sacrafices in the Old Testament. They claim this makes God out to be a blood thirsty monster, who requires, and commands, the killing of animals to appease Him, or to atone for sin. I believe this is a complete misunderstanding, of the sacrafices perscribed in the Bible! I would like you to notice how I chose the word, "Perscribe" as opposed to, "commanded, or required!" In fact, God tells us in the Bible that, "He never commanded, or required sacrafices!" How would an animal sacrafice benefit God in any way? It does not, and cannot! As we saw with the first sacrafice, it did not benefit God, but rather benefited Adam, and Eve! In the same way the later sacrafices did not appease, or benefit, God in any way, and it did not atone for sin! The Bible even tells us that, "the blood of bulls, and goats could not atone for sin!" So then, the sacrafices perscribed in the Bible was not in any way to benefit God, but rather it was to the benefit of the people who brought them! Lets look at it this way. Unless you are a complete vegaterian, and use no animal products whatsoever, then you benefit from the sacrafice of animals, and there is no way around this fact! Now there have been many who have made the argument that this is not a scrafice in the religious sense, but my point is, the first sacrafice was not made in the religious sense. The religious sense is that the sacrafice somehow apeases, benefits God in some way, or actually atones for sin. This is the religious,(man made), sense of the sacrafices, and is not in any way the Bible sense. The sacrafices were never intended to benefit God in any way, but were rather intended to benefit those who brought them! Put another way, God is not in need of our sacrafices, or service in any way! Rather, we are in need of a God who sacrafices Himself, and serves us! The word sacrafice is used in a religious sense, but it is not only a religious word, it is also a common word, in fact we use this word in baseball! One man sacrafices himself for the advancement of another. Therefore if you use animal products in any way at all, then YOU, are benefiting from the sacrafice of animals, which is no different than the sacrafices persribed in the Bible! Think about that next time you enjoy that ribeye!

Well as I have said, we have only just begun, and have not made it past the second book in the Bible, and I have not even been exhautive here, so then I hope you can see how it would be impossible to give all the reasons for my belief! Now, do I beleive I have proven the case for God, and the truth of Christianity? I do not believe I have, nor do I believe I ever could! I understand that all I can do is to give the reasons for what I believe, and why I believe it! I cannot prove that God exist, and I cannot prove the truth of Christianity! This means there is an element of faith in what I believe. However, let me asssure you, I am concinced that you are in the same boat with me! You have not, and cannot prove what it is you believe to be true! You also have not, and cannot disprove the existence of God, nor have you in any way disproven Christianity! As with me, all you can do is give the reasons for what you believe, and why you believe it, along with the reasons why you do not believe in God, or Christianity! This means, there is also an element of faith involved in what you believe as well!

I hope you can see that I do not believe simply because I want to believe, in fact I would rather not believe! I believe because I am compelled to believe, and I am compelled by the evidence! Now, do I expect all to be compelled to believe? I do not! This is why I enjoy this site so much! It allows me to converse with those with different beliefs, in an attempt to understand what they believe, and why they believe what they believe! I am not here to convince any one to believe what I believe, rather I am here to understand what it is that others believe, and understanding this, helps me to understand better what it is that I believe! So for this I thank you!

I would also like to thank you for a great OP, and great questions. Let me end by saying my computer is not working at this time, so I have had to respond on my ipad which is not allowing me to check my work or spelling, so please overlook my errors! Hopefully, the intent of what I mean is clear dispite my errors! Thanks again.

[atheist buddy]

In my opinion there are only two types of beliefs.

Examples of type 1 beliefs
Planet earth is approximately globe shaped, 2+2=4, my mother loves me, Los Angeles is west of Chicago, I have a million dollars in my bank account, humans have 23 chromosome pairs, Napoleon was born on August 15th 1769, Bradd Pitt is married to Angelina Jolie


Examples of type 2 beliefs
Jesus was born of a virgin, Mohammed flew into heaven on the back of a winged white horse, there is an alien space ship hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet which you can teleport to by committing suicide, Apollo causes the sun to rise eveyr morning by carrying it up into the sky on a charriot, the Lock Ness monster exists, Frosty the Snow man occasionally comes to life, Santa delivers gifts from his invisible North Pole factory to millions of homes every Christmas night.

What do all type 1 beliefs have in common? They are all supported by empirical evidence.

What do all type 2 beliefs have in common? They are all NOT supported by empirical evidence, and in many cases contradicted by empirical evidence


If you are religious, which type do your religious beliefs fall into?

If type 1, can you please spell out what your beliefs are, and what the empirical evidence for them is?

If type 2, can you please outline what justification there is for believing your specific type 2 belief and not any other type 2 belief?

If you agree that they are not type 1, but assert that they don't belong in type 2 either, could you please outline what attributes your beliefs have that differentiate them from type 2 beliefs?

Sorry, I am so late to this discussion. I am a Christian and believe I fit into the type one catergory above.

Very good. Please present the empirical evidence then.

Of course now you have ask me to spell out my beliefs, but don't you believe this is a little unfair?

No. I'ts not unfair at all.

Don't you think that it would be impossible for someone who has given a lot of time and effort into what they claim to believe, to simply be able to place it all down in this type of format?

No. I don't think it would be impossible. It would be very easy if your belief truly belonged to Type 1. For example, I have put a lot of time and effort into coming to the belief that, say, the earth spins on its axis. And yet I can list the empirical evidence which supports my belief, very easily: Foucault Pendulum.

This wouldn't represent ALL the empirical evidence for my belief, but it would be an example. Nothing should prevent you from giving a similar example of empirical evidence for your belief.

I could give you small bits, and pieces, but this would simply lead to further debate. So then the only way for me to accomplish what it is you ask, I would have to be exhaustive, and this is just not possible here in this format, and I believe it is unfair, to believe someone could do this.Allow me to give you an example. Surely, you have reasons for your unbelief, and hopefully these reasons are in depth, but thus far the only reasons I have seen you state is simply, "there is no reason to believe such things!" Certainly your unbelief goes deeper than this, but I would not expect you to be able to expound it all here in this format.

Nope. It goes no deeper than that. No verifiable evidence for it, lots of evidence against it, therefore I don't believe it. That's all.

You do not believe the miraculous claims of Christianity because, they go against your logic, and reason, and you believe they contradict empirical evidence. I look at this differently.

Right. That's why your beliefs are type 2 not type 1. Because you don't base them on empirical evidence.

The way I see it is, if there is a God who created the universe, and all that is in it, then certainly he has the ability to step in and reverse the Laws of nature as we know them!

And if Santa has the power to deliver gifts to millions of people in one night, then surely he can cause reindeer to fly!

Don't you see how utterly illogical your position is? Sure, IF there is a God who created the universe and IF there is a Santa who delivers gifts to millions in one night, THEN, miracles and flying reindeer are possible. IF.

IIIIIIIIFFFFFFF

But you haven't demonstrated that God or Santa exist.

You can't use something for which there is no evidence, to demonstrate somehting else for which there is no evidence.

How is it even possible that you can't see this?

Now as I said, I will not be able to give all the reasons for my belief, I can only give a small, small, portion, so lets go back to the begining to Genesis.

The Bible tells us, Adam, and Eve, sinned.

Indian religious literature tells us that the earth is a flat disk sitting on the back of a giant turtle. Why would we take the origin myths of bronze age peasants seriously?

When this occured, it is said, they saw they were naked and wanted to cover themselves. Now here, we could get into the discussion about how, and why, Adam, and Eve, came to understand their nakedness

OR, we could get into the discussion of why on earth are you talking about this ancient myth/fairy tale as though it was a real event. Aren't you able to tell the difference between facts and fiction? Bilbo never found a magic ring in the caves below the Misty Mountains, and Eve was never persuaded to eat an apple by a talking snake. Fables. Make belief. Fairy tales. Fiction. Just because something is written down, it doesn't mean that it accurately reflects reality. Human beings have the ability to make things up. What part of that don't you understand?

At any rate, surfice it to say, Adam, and Eve, had a problem they needed a remedy for. Now the Bible tells us that Adam, and Eve, attempted to remedy this situation by sewing fig leaves together to cover themselves.

It does NOT suffice to say that. If you wish to claim that your beliefs are type 1 - that they are based on empirical evidence - you have to provide empirical evidence that there once were two people sawing fig leaves onto their crotch. Snow White was not poisoned by a magic apple created by a witch, and Eve wasn't made self-conscious of her crotch by a magic apple with the help of a talking snake.

You can't talk about fiction as though it was reality. If you wish to claim it was reality, you have to provide evidence it was real.

The problem with this solution is that fig leaves would not endure very long. This means, Adam, and Eve, would be continuely working to cover themselves. When they went out to perform their everyday tasks, these leaves would easily wear, and tear, causing them to continuely have to work at covering themselves! But God steps in and supplies animal skin. Now think about this. This would have been the first shedding of blood. It would have also been the first sacrifice for sin! So then, as we can see, the first animal sacrafice was not to appease God in any way! It was not a sacrafice given, or performed by Adam, and Eve, rather it was a sacrafice given and performed by God Himself, and it was given for the benefit of Adam, and Eve, it did not benefit God in any way! The point here is, Adam, and Eve, could now rest from their works, and trust in what God had supplied! But as we know even animal skin would not endure forever. Although it would last far longer than fig leaves, it would still not endure forever! This means sacrafices would continuely have to be made. If you know anything at all about Christianity, you can see where this is heading. There must be a final and complete sacrafice, that endures forever.

The Old Testament continues on from here, progressing to this final, complete sacrafice, with this same recurring theme, that we should not trust in our own efforts, but rather trust in the Work of God alone!

Right, and the recurring theme of all Santa mythology is that you should be a good child, otherwise he will only give you coal.

Why are we talking about fairy tales?

If you wish to hold the poistion that unlike the flying horse of Islam, the talking snake of Christianity isn't fictional, but actually real, you have to present EVIDENCE.

As we continue in Genesis, we see Cain kills Abel, but God had promised Eve a deliverer, so it tells us God gave Eve Seth, in place of Abel. So as we see again, God is the one who supplies!

Continuing on in Genesis, we are given the line of Cain, but we are not just given his descendants, we are also told what they were, BUSY, doing. They were busy, they were working, and if you read carefully, you can see they were busy, attempting to reverse the curses placed upon them. They were busy building the City of Man. Ultimately, they were attempting to remedy their situation. Next we are given the line of Seth, however we are not told what this line was busy doing, rather it simply says, "at this time men began to call on the name of The Lord!" So as you can see, there is a definte contrast between these two lines! One is busy working, while the other is resting in the Works of God! One line is building a City, while the other is calling on the Name of The Only One Who could build this City. One is working, while the other is resting from their works!

As you can see this is the same theme we had with Adam, and Eve. Should they continue to work, sewing fig leaves, trusting in their own efforts, or should they rest from their works, and trust in the Works of God? The same is true for the lines of Seth, and Cain. Should they work in order to attempt to remedy their situation, or should they rather call on The Only One is is able correct the problem? As I said, this theme continues on throughout the Bible. We could go on and talk about Abraham, and how God made a unilateral covenant with Abrham, (meaning this covenant depended on God alone apart from Abraham), and how the Bible tells us, "Abraham, believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness! In other words, Abraham had no righteousness of his own because of his works, rather he was counted as righteous, because of Who, and what he believed. He did not trust in his ability to keep his promise, rather he believed, and trusted in The One and Only True Promise Keeper!

From here we could go on to talk about the two different covenants in the Bible. The first one which is the one just talked about made to Abraham, which is the covenant of grace, as opposed to the covenant made a Siani, which is the covenant of works! The contrast is, do you grab a hold of the covenant of works, and promise with the Israelites, "all this we will do," trusting in your own promise? Or rather do you grab a hold of the covenant of grace, made to Abraham, which depends on God alone? This is the theme that continues throughout the Old Testament, until we reach the New Testament where we find The Final Complete Sacrafice, supplied by God.

Wow, this was really boring. Why did you do this? Why did you tell me this magnificiently boring story? You're supposed to tell me why you believe it's TRUE. Not simply tell me the boring story!

As I said, we have just scratched the surface! We have not even made it past the second book of the Bible, so how on earth could you expect me to give all the reasons for my belief?!

Are you kidding me? I didn't ask you for ALL your reasons for belief. ONE reason would be sufficient, much like I gave you one reason for believing the earth rotates on its axis.

DESCRIBING the belief doesn't constitute PROVIDING EVIDENCE for the belief. So far you've only described the belief. Now provide the evidence.

I could continue on, and on!

Please don't

My point here is, if this was simply a fabricated story, made up by one particular person, at one point in time in history, it would still be a remarkable story!

No it wouldn't. It's a mediocre story.

What I mean is, whoever invented this story would certainly have an unbelievable imagination!

No. A mediocre imagination. The Odyssy and Illiad were much better, just as an example.

Now this is not unheard of, there are many people with great imaginations who can tell great, and amazing stories! But we are talking about a volume the size of the Bible, and for someone to hold this theme together throughout a volume such as this would be incredible!

Have you ever heard of the Wheel of Times series by Robert Jordan? It's a 14 book series. Each book longer than the Bible.

To say that the Bible is consistent is laughable. It isn't. It contradicts itself throughout, most definitely between the old and new testament.

To say that the Bible is so consistant that it's remarkable is a joke. There are MILLIONS of books that are longer and contradict themselves even less.

To say that the Bible's consistency is cause to suspect the stories in it are true is truly a despicable affront to the human spirit and to truth.

But this is not what we are talking about here! We are not talking about one person, in a certain point in time of history, rather we are talking about numerous people, throughout thousands of years writing an unfolding drama, that is happening in real life and history, according to them, and the message remains the same, all the way to the New Teatament, where God supplies the final, and complete sacrafice, in the Cross of Christ!

There are lots of books and series which were started by one author and then continued by others. The Conan the Barbarian stories, Batman, Spiderman, the Dune books, all of Azimov's empire/foundation work, all the Tolkien world. Actually for many of these, they didn't just have additional books written afterwards, they also had movies made, and videogames, etc. And they're all consistent with the central theme throughout all the literature. WOW! Magical! Must be the truth, since it's so consistent. NOT!

The overwwhelming theme is. Do you trust in your own self, abilities, efforts, works, etc., or do you rather trust in the Works of God?

That's the overwhelming theme of ALL religions. All of them. Not just Christianity.

The first thing a door-to-door encyclopedia salesman has to persuade you of, is that you need an encyclopedia. Similarly, the first thing a religion salesman has to persuade you of, is that you need religion. OF COURSE all religions are going to say that you can't just trust yourself, but that you also have to trust an invisible man, who is conveniently being represented by a very visible man wearing expensive robes, and who needs you to donate money to his church. OF COURSE.

What did you think the religious book was going to say, that you DON'T need God?

Please allow me to make this point! I have heard many, Athiest, and unbelievers, talk about how much they abhor the animal sacrafices in the Old Testament

Actually I couldn't care less.

They claim this makes God out to be a blood thirsty monster, who requires, and commands, the killing of animals to appease Him, or to atone for sin. I believe this is a complete misunderstanding, of the sacrafices perscribed in the Bible! I would like you to notice how I chose the word, "Perscribe" as opposed to, "commanded, or required!" In fact, God tells us in the Bible that, "He never commanded, or required sacrafices!" How would an animal sacrafice benefit God in any way? It does not, and cannot! As we saw with the first sacrafice, it did not benefit God, but rather benefited Adam, and Eve! In the same way the later sacrafices did not appease, or benefit, God in any way, and it did not atone for sin! The Bible even tells us that, "the blood of bulls, and goats could not atone for sin!" So then, the sacrafices perscribed in the Bible was not in any way to benefit God, but rather it was to the benefit of the people who brought them! Lets look at it this way. Unless you are a complete vegaterian, and use no animal products whatsoever, then you benefit from the sacrafice of animals, and there is no way around this fact! Now there have been many who have made the argument that this is not a scrafice in the religious sense, but my point is, the first sacrafice was not made in the religious sense. The religious sense is that the sacrafice somehow apeases, benefits God in some way, or actually atones for sin. This is the religious,(man made), sense of the sacrafices, and is not in any way the Bible sense. The sacrafices were never intended to benefit God in any way, but were rather intended to benefit those who brought them! Put another way, God is not in need of our sacrafices, or service in any way! Rather, we are in need of a God who sacrafices Himself, and serves us! The word sacrafice is used in a religious sense, but it is not only a religious word, it is also a common word, in fact we use this word in baseball! One man sacrafices himself for the advancement of another. Therefore if you use animal products in any way at all, then YOU, are benefiting from the sacrafice of animals, which is no different than the sacrafices persribed in the Bible! Think about that next time you enjoy that ribeye!

Are you saying that ribeye is delicious, therefore God is real?

You are making a comparison between sacrificing animals for food, and sacrificing animals as per the Bible, AS THOUGH BOTH THINGS WERE REAL. I am not interested in your comparison. Before you can compare the words of the Bible with something that is real, you have to first demonstrate that the words of the Bible are a description of reality.

Well as I have said, we have only just begun, and have not made it past the second book in the Bible, and I have not even been exhautive here, so then I hope you can see how it would be impossible to give all the reasons for my belief!

You haven't given me ANY reasons for your beliefs. You have just mused on some fairy tales, PRETENDING THEY WRE REALITY, FOR NO GOOD REASON.

Now, do I beleive I have proven the case for God, and the truth of Christianity? I do not believe I have, nor do I believe I ever could! I understand that all I can do is to give the reasons for what I believe, and why I believe it!

You haven't even done that.

I cannot prove that God exist, and I cannot prove the truth of Christianity! This means there is an element of faith in what I believe.

No. It's not because you can't PROVE that God exists that your beliefs are faith based. It's because you don't have any evidence for God, that your belief is faith based. Therefore, your beliefs are type 2.

However, let me asssure you, I am concinced that you are in the same boat with me!

False. I have empirical evidence in support of all my beliefs.

You have not, and cannot prove what it is you believe to be true!

It's not about proof. The OP clearly indicates that for a belief to be type 1 it is not necessary for the belief to be PROVED true. It simply mus tbe supported by evidence.

You also have not, and cannot disprove the existence of God, nor have you in any way disproven Christianity!

I'm not trying to disprove the existence of God, or the existence of Santa. All Im saying is that there is no empirical evidence for these beliefs, and lots of empirical evidence against, and therefore if you believe in them nonetheless, then you're holding a type 2 belief.

As with me, all you can do is give the reasons for what you believe, and why you believe it, along with the reasons why you do not believe in God, or Christianity This means, there is also an element of faith involved in what you believe as well!

False. It is true that all we can do is point to the reasons for our beliefs. The difference between us is that my reasons are the preponderance of empirical evidence. Your reasons are fairy tales.

I hope you can see that I do not believe simply because I want to believe, in fact I would rather not believe! I believe because I am compelled to believe, and I am compelled by the evidence!

What evidence? Please provide that evidence!

I would also like to thank you for a great OP, and great questions.

I wish I could extend the same gracious remarks to you and your post. But I can't. It was horrible.

Let me end by saying my computer is not working at this time, so I have had to respond on my ipad which is not allowing me to check my work or spelling, so please overlook my errors!

It's not spelling errors that I would worry about if I were you. Logic should be your primary concern.

Hopefully, the intent of what I mean is clear dispite my errors! Thanks again.

the intent is clear. Why you would think the intent is valid, though, is completely beyond me.

[atheist buddy]

Scientists are able to predict EXACTLY all the solar eclypses that will happen in the next 10 years.

All of the predictions that were made in th elast 10 years were absolutely accurate to the second, and we'll be able to see that the predictions for the next 10 years will be 100% accurate as well. All these predictions are based on the heliocentric model.

How do you account for these predictions which are heliocentric-based being accurate, if the heliocentric model isn't accurate?

Allegedly Mayans predicted 1991 solar eclipse. Does that mean that they were even more advanced than modern scientists? Did they have heliocentric model? If yes, why modern scientists predict only ten years?

http://www.space.com/19178-maya-predict ... lipse.html

I think it is possible to predict those even with wrong idea of what is the center point. Person doesnt have to know what rotates, if he can see how objects move on sky.

Actually the Dresden Codex show that the Mayans got one or two eclipses right, but most of them wrong.

That's exactly what you'd expect of somebody with incomplete knowledge involving a major misunderstanding of one of the central facts.

As opposed to us who get all of them right 100% of the time, because we truly understand the mechanics of the solar system.

[McCulloch]

Yes, and actually in my experience geocentric model is ridiculed generally in every place. It is interesting, if we consider how little real evidence for heliocentric model we have.

At the moment I reject heliocentric model, because it is not well supported. However it may still be correct, I just dont accept it with current evidence.

Evidence for the heliocentric model:

• Mass of the earth. Isaac Newton's work on how gravity affects massive objects so unless you repudiate completely, Newtonian physics, we can reasonably estimate the mass of the earth. 610²⁴ kg
• Size and distance to the sun. For this, standard Euclidian geometry serves us well. The sun is between 152098232 km and 147098290 km from earth. Its radius is about 109 time the radius of Earth making it's volume about 1,300,000 times that of the earth.
• Density and mass of the sun. I am not entirely clear on how they have determined the density and therefore the mass of the sun. Perhaps this the point where you consider the evidence to be inadequate. However, the mass of the sun is said to be 333,000 times that of the earth.
• Now, back to Newton. When there are two massive objects in motion which affect one another through gravity (the effects of the other three forces would be negligible at this scale), where one of the massive objects is almost a third of a million times heavier than the other, would move in such a way as for it to appear that the lighter object is orbiting the heavy one.

So, unless there are some hidden assumptions or you have some refutation of Euclid or Newton, I will presume that your objection to the heliocentric model lies in the determination of the density and/or the mass of the sun.

[Divine Insight]

You also have not, and cannot disprove the existence of God, nor have you in any way disproven Christianity!

There is no need to disprove Christianity. Christianity has disproved itself via the endless contradictions that it demands. Christianity itself demands that people must believe it on "Faith". It is a self-confessed cult of faith that requires having faith in a God character who is an extreme contradiction to his very own character.

The God of the Bible necessarily has to be a bumbling idiot. Especially the God described by Christian mythology. There can be no question in that whatsoever.

According to doctrines that Christianity is founded on the Bible is the infallible inerrant word of God. Not one word of scripture is to be changed. That's a direct commandment of these very scriptures. Yet these very scriptures contradict themselves extremely.

The very fact that in Christian mythology this God had to send his only begotten son to straighten up his previous attempt at creating a religion that FAILED is proof positive by these myths themselves that this God character cannot keep an infallible Holy Text, or church, or temple, or priests in order.

Yet Christianity clings to the ideal that the Gospel rumors themselves must be accepted as the verbatim words of this God's Son. Words that, according to this religion were only necessary in the first place because this God had already FAILED to do things right the first time around.

The religion also had this God dealing with sin in the Old Testament by drowning humans. But then in the New Testament he so loves the word that he sacrifices his only begotten son unto himself to appease his own wrath.

This religion has not only proven itself to be clearly false because it's God is an oxymoron, but it has done so in such an absurd way that the only "miracle" associated with this religion at all is the miracle that any intelligent person actually still believes it could potentially somehow be true.

It has already proven itself to be false beyond any reasonable doubt.

There is no need for anyone to further disprove a mythology that has already shot itself in its own feet so many times that it has no feet left to stand on.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 66 by atheist buddy]

First, I believe you have mistaken me with someone who does not believe the earth rotates or spins. I am not that guy! At any rate you seem to be stuck on, "empirical," evidence, and you say there is a lot of, "empirical," evidence against the existence of God! Could you please share some of this, "empirical," evidence with me? Just so we are clear on the definition,

1.
derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2.
depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.
3.
provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

So could you now explain to me what experience you have had, or what experiment you have conducted that proves, or verifies there is no God?