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?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

Hello Rikuoamero,

Only one of our opposing views of the existence of God may be true. Knowledge (not personal opinion) reveals God to be true and puts opinions to rest. Don't you have standards to weigh people's claims?

By reading your post, I tend to wonder who mentored you in the gospel through the years you spent, and what kind of environment you were in.

Biblical doctrine properly expounded will never lead to adverse conclusions against God unless the hearer erroneously forces himself to them. I myself have too many times heard the gospel expounded in such a way that tend to distort it, rob it of its potency, rob people of their use of common sense and good judgment, rob them of the power of the cross, and thus drive people every which way including the way of atheism. I too have been adversely affected by such teachings.

If that happens to be your case, there's someone somewhere able to expound gospel truth in its proper context. I pray that you will find the right person or group. Please don't lose your trust. Not only should care be taken in expounding the gospel, but in presenting it in the right spirit (In peace and without grudges). The Bible warns us to turn away from false teachings that mislead.

Is the Biblical gospel similar to other religions? Is it any better? Unlike other religions laden only with insatiable demands, the Biblical gospel only demands trust and includes grace to empower the hearer to be at peace with God. He that's not familiar with the grace of God has never fully known the gospel.

You say, "It's not enough that (you) read the gospels?" You are correct! It needs your trust and must be properly understood and correctly acted upon. Proof of God's pure word follows your trust. Otherwise it shall come someday some way or the other. Only make sure it doesn't come too late to be acted upon.

The dictionary definition of religion is, "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience." Example: "to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

The above includes atheism. Even if not a deity, all religions have a god to serve. A god that's not a deity may be deified self, the deified state, or a "great, great" human leader that's deified.

Although the crucifixion was part of God's plan, it was to be carried out by sinful man that Jesus died for in His quest to conquer sin for us.

As for whatever you were waiting for from God and not having received after the years you spent as a believer, only you know. But what about things of value already given you that you may share with others in need? God graciously shows Himself in moments such as these. I have blessed others only to find God blessing me likewise even though I didn't realize my own need for it. God is not a person that threatens with hostility until appeased. That's not His nature. The cross appeased once and for all. Continue to look upon God as evil and rob yourself of rest only possible with Him and of appreciation of all that's good. Go ahead!

Aren't you aware of the power of the spoken word given you? That's power! You have the "say-so" to determine your or another's fate and are careful not to abuse it! That's why I rebuke you so strongly about your calling yourself a skeptic. Is skepticism the legacy you want to leave?

Be angry at my staying on your back. Although wise to filter what you hear, you're not over-wise to filter what you need to hear. Don't look upon me as a monkey on your back, but as a big ol ape instead!

If you want to refute everything I say, you must first show me a document that shows your official declaration that you are God. Then I well know that your refutations are correct because you know everything.

But go ahead and continue contradicting all I say and continue bragging about you claim of unbelief until you wear yourself out. Go ahead!


Oh! One more thing! Since you said that you don't know who Mr. Reality is, who shall I ask to introduce him to you? Maybe it's better to have a third party to do so before Mr. Reality introduces himself very, very rudely! Who shall I ask?

Take care,
Earl

I'll get to you later, Ken.

Everything you wrote here is clearly heartfelt. And yet it is nothing but an example of make believe in action. Mr. Reality has already introduced himself very clearly. Christians have been declaring for the last 2,000 years that Jesus is just about to return any moment now. And yet Mr. Reality shows us very clearly and unambiguously that everyone who lived 2,000 years ago is still most reliably and undeniably dead! An unbroken record of zero for 2,000 years is about as real as it gets.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 419 by Erexsaur]

Unlike other religions laden only with insatiable demands, the Biblical gospel only demands trust

I'd call a demand for trust to be insatiable, myself. Trust is earned, not demanded.

Knowledge (not personal opinion) reveals God to be true and puts opinions to rest.

Which is why after saying this, you don't bother at all saying what this knowledge is. You don't give any examples.
Wait...why did you do that?

Biblical doctrine properly expounded will never lead to adverse conclusions against God unless the hearer erroneously forces himself to them.

This is veering into no True Scotsman territory.

If that happens to be your case, there's someone somewhere able to expound gospel truth in its proper context.

As Divine Insight has pointed out on many an occasion, this claim reveals that you MUST believe that Jesus himself was an inept teacher, and that it takes some other fallible human to explain things to a person such as myself. If you don't believe Jesus was an inept teacher, then why this claim about there being a gospel preacher? Why would they be needed? Wouldn't my reading the Bible be enough?

The Bible warns us to turn away from false teachings that mislead.

Then that's about the only thing the Bible got right. It warned us against itself.

It needs your trust and must be properly understood and correctly acted upon.

This can be said about any book. It's not enough to read the Quran, it needs one's trust and must be properly understood and correctly acted upon.

Proof of God's pure word follows your trust.

Yes, believe the claim and only afterward will the evidence that in any other situation one would use to verify and believe, follow.

The dictionary definition of religion is, "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience." Example: "to make a religion of fighting prejudice."
The above includes atheism.

Why did you not include the other definitions? Here, I'll use the other definitions from the very dictionary that you used. What about definition 3?
"the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:"
I as an atheist do not adhere to a particular set of beliefs and practices. My not believing in a god or gods has nothing to do with Jimmy down the road who also happens to not believe in a god or gods. If he and I share similar beliefs and practices, it is entirely coincidental. Just because we both don't believe there are gods, doesn't mean we share the same practices, do the same things.
What about definition 5?
"the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith."
That doesn't describe atheism, doesn't describe an atheist. I don't do rituals.

A god that's not a deity may be deified self, the deified state, or a "great, great" human leader that's deified.

Agreed. I can tell that you're going to try and equate me with the atheists of Communist Russia, where the state and its leaders was indeed deified. If so, no. I don't worship a state, I don't follow the state blindly, like what Communist Russia taught.

God graciously shows Himself in moments such as these.

No he didn't. As far as I'm aware, no god has ever revealed himself to me. Think about how strange it is, that you tell me that something happened in my life (God revealed himself) despite the little problem of you having literally no information about me to go on. How is it you can tell that a god revealed himself to me, when I have, to my knowledge, not ever described my harsh moments in life with you?
You've made a literal blind assertion, with literally nothing to back it up. Therefore, I shall dismiss it.

God is not a person that threatens with hostility until appeased.

Then you're dismissing the Bible wholesale here. Whenever I leaf through it, I find page after page after page of God threatening and committing hostility.

That's not His nature.

I find absurd the thought that a fallible imperfect human could ever say of a so called supernatural perfect infallible being what that being's nature is.

Aren't you aware of the power of the spoken word given you? That's power! You have the "say-so" to determine your or another's fate and are careful not to abuse it! That's why I rebuke you so strongly about your calling yourself a skeptic. Is skepticism the legacy you want to leave?

Yes, because by being a skeptic, it shows that I don't blindly believe claims made by others, but take the time to evaluate them. Your continued attack upon the nature of skepticism itself only shows your claims about God to be without merit - the only way you see to believe in them, is to not even question them at all, rather than have them withstand questioning from skeptics.

If you want to refute everything I say, you must first show me a document that shows your official declaration that you are God. Then I well know that your refutations are correct because you know everything.

Wow. You really are that arrogant? The only way, the ONLY THING that would change your mind, that would refute your argument is God himself, if one somehow shows themselves to you as being the actual God?
Are you Sye Ten Bruggencate, by any chance?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 417 by Masamune]

I don't wish to ignore tons of pages of debate, but I want to answer the original post. I can give you a straight answer. The idea of religion argues that there are two ways to come to "truth". One is primarily through empiricism. This is science. The other is through emotion. This is religion. My view is that a person must possess a faith in both of these to be a balanced individual and that both have value in this world.

I CANNOT prove this, nor do I have any desire to. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove any aspect of religion. That is the straight answer you seek. The part where we differ is that I think the very fact that religion is unproven and yet people still have faith in it, is valuable, enriching and desirable. I can't prove this because my faith in Christianity is based on personal experience that you would find no value in, but that is quite significant to me. Religion is individual, just as our ultimate fates are.

None of us has the time to debate every word that is found here. We all must pick and choose.

It is impossible to prove every aspect of religion you say. Then start by proving even ONE aspect of your religion. Proving even one aspect of your religious beliefs to be grounded on undeniable fact and therefore testably true would give you a foundation, at least, for establishing the rest. I am suggesting that you will discover, if you haven't already, that you cannot provide even one undeniable "fact." But please proceed. Many are watching with interest.

Your faith is grounded on personal subjective experience which you have no ability to share with anyone else, other than through professing your faith that it is valid. That's rather convenient though, isn't it! Unless you can provide some demonstrable evidence, your personal feelings and beliefs are no more obviously true then the personal feelings and beliefs of any other completely different religious belief currently held, or long since dead and forgotten.

Empiricism on the other hand is entirely the opposite of unsupported faith though, is it not? Computer and smart phones do not operate on unsupported faith at all. They require certain and undeniable facts to operate. Emotion is of no value either. Empiricism and religious faith really are not directly comparable at all.

Because an argument you cannot prove factually is really not an argument at all. It's more of a personal gut feeling.

[Looncall]

[Replying to post 417 by Masamune]

I note that you would say just the same if you had been taken in by a sophisticated con game.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

If you want to refute everything I say, you must first show me a document that shows your official declaration that you are God. Then I well know that your refutations are correct because you know everything.

Tired of the Nonsense is God -- Signed God. Now that this has been settled, God does not now nor ever did exist.

This statement carries with it exactly the same level of authenticity as does the Bible. A human opinion, signed, sealed and delivered from one human to another.

[JoeyKnothead]

If you want to refute everything I say, you must first show me a document that shows your official declaration that you are God. Then I well know that your refutations are correct because you know everything.

Tired of the Nonsense is God -- Signed God. Now that this has been settled, God does not now nor ever did exist.

This statement carries with it exactly the same level of authenticity as does the Bible. A human opinion, signed, sealed and delivered from one human to another.

Well now that's a bit troublesome, where it is, some of us think you have the wisdom of the gods, even if it is, you ain't one of 'em yourself.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

Hi guys,

This post contains answers to several of you.

To you, Rikuoamero,

(Post 421)
Dictionary definition #3 that you gave also applies to atheists that set up their own set of beliefs and practices. Unbelief of the existence of God is belief that He doesnt exists. Brag on.

As for the meanness of God, have you forgotten Jonahs anger at God because God spared the people of Nineveh because of their repentance during Jonahs preaching? But you have your right to your opinion about God. In case if it happens to be in error, you may be sure that Mr. Reality will catch up and stomp on it.

I never thought I had to be arrogant to share knowledge.

As for all of you that think you want to flee from all that represents God, what is the expected bottom line in your life because of your flight? How do you expect to prosper? How do you expect to be better off than us believers in God?


To you, KenRU

(Post 416)
You admitted that you never knew God personally. Have you considered the possibility of that being the problem? Have you forgotten what Jesus told Nicodemus? You are correct that the god that you think you know doesnt exist. But the God of reality is still knowable and I do not know Him according to your description. Its dangerous to speak evil of one thats not fully known and understood. You probably know by now what I ask Rick about Jonah and what I said about his right to his opinion. I only know that the Bible tells us that God is greatly to be praised and Mr. Reality proved it.

Knowledge and fellowship with God extends far beyond influences of traditions of sectarian churches that supposedly represent Him. Jesus rebuked those of the strictest of mainstream religions of His day and pointed out how far they strayed from Moses. As for me, I came up to all kinds of requirements of a church I attended only to still fail Jesus on an occasion. Jesus drew followers from the Pharisees and warned against following their ways. He offered the woman at the well living water instead of stagnant water of dead religion.


To you, Tired of the Nonsense,

(Answer to post #420)
Everyone that lived 2,000 years ago died and only Jesus rose from the dead to bring us hope for resurrection. That brings the record to a very significant One instead of zero. But what is the expected bottom line of a life based on the idea that theres no resurrection and that Jesus never rose? Paul says, If in this life only we have hope in Christ (no resurrection after), we are of all men most miserable (1 Corinthians 15:19).

How may anyone expect to prosper with the thought of the resurrection as untrue? I hate hopelessness! How may a non-believer expect to do better than us that believe the resurrection? The fact that Jesus has not yet returned and that you have not yet died only means that the opportunity is still open for you. Does that mean anything?



To you, Masamune,

May I take a try at explaining religion? (post 417)

Is religious truth derived from emotions? Ball games also elicit emotion. Why? The truth that I shouldnt steal from you came from authority, not emotions. Is the fact that I shouldnt steal unproven? As with science, true religion is based on truth.

In a general sense, what we call religion is awareness and appropriate responses to conscience of a being beyond the natural thats in control of everything including that which is beyond our control such as weather and the success of a harvest. That being is of course a deity that we of the Judeo-Christian mind call God. The worship of Cain and Abel are the first examples of worship revealed to us. Cain went astray and Abel was true in worship.

The tower of Babel is the first mention of idolatry apart from God after the flood. Many religions sprang up with the cultures that emerged after Babel. Yet some such as Job and Abraham remained true to their God-centered conscience in worship. Jesus at His death fulfilled Judaism that originated with Abraham and revealed in its fullness by Moses. Christianity is based on trust in Jesus that died for all for redemption back to fellowship with God. As I had to be told the precepts of science, so was I the precepts of Biblical faith.

How does religion compare with science? Both are knowledge based. True religion is based on knowledge and fellowship with the Creator.

The dictionary defines science as:

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Science is thus described is knowledge. Newton tells us it is the attainment of deeper knowledge of Gods creation. Religion may also be based on empiricism. Our knowledge of sin for example is based on the consequent fall in addition to knowledge of Gods warning Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit.

Take care,
Earl

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 426 by Erexsaur]

Unbelief of the existence of God is belief that He doesnt exists. Brag on.

You're mixing up hard and soft atheism.

I never thought I had to be arrogant to share knowledge.

This is like you don't even read what it is you yourself write. My calling you arrogant isn't because you 'shared knowledge'. My calling you arrogant was you declaring that the only way you would accept refutations of your claim is if I signed a document declaring myself to be God (and for you to accept and believe this declaration).
In other words, you will accept no correction or accept being proven wrong by any human. The only way you can accept being proven wrong is if the other person is the infallible God.

How do you expect to prosper? How do you expect to be better off than us believers in God?

When it comes to questions about God, reality etc, these are questions that I deem pointless. I don't ask them. I don't ask "Am I better off if I believe in a God versus if I don't believe in a god?"
No, I ask "Which is more likely to be true? Which has better evidence, logic, data and reasoning to support it: there is a god, versus there isn't a god?"

From our rather long exchange, it looks like not once have you ever attempted to adopt the mindset of an atheist. You don't take onboard what it is I and other non-believers write. This is evident from your earlier claim that you will only accept refutation from an infallible god.

[KenRU]

To you, KenRU

(Post 416)
You admitted that you never knew God personally. Have you considered the possibility of that being the problem?

No, because I tried to know god and Christ. I believed, and I did what I was told to do and what was taught in the bible.

You can't know someone personally if they don't exist - which is the conclusion I eventually came to.

Have you forgotten what Jesus told Nicodemus? You are correct that the god that you think you know doesnt exist. But the God of reality is still knowable

How?

and I do not know Him according to your description.

My description of him is quite accurate and derived from his actions in the bible. What part do you disagree with?

Its dangerous to speak evil of one thats not fully known and understood.

Then that failure is on god, isn't it? Not very compassionate of a parent to punish a child when the child doesn't fully understand the rules.

You probably know by now what I ask Rick about Jonah and what I said about his right to his opinion. I only know that the Bible tells us that God is greatly to be praised and Mr. Reality proved it.

Please present an example of this proof.

Knowledge and fellowship with God extends far beyond influences of traditions of sectarian churches that supposedly represent Him. Jesus rebuked those of the strictest of mainstream religions of His day and pointed out how far they strayed from Moses. As for me, I came up to all kinds of requirements of a church I attended only to still fail Jesus on an occasion. Jesus drew followers from the Pharisees and warned against following their ways. He offered the woman at the well living water instead of stagnant water of dead religion.

Seems to me you are describing circular thinking. Only the believers know of his truth, but only those who know the truth can be believers.

More proof of why I am not a believer today.

-all the best

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

Hello Rikuoamero,

(Answer to post #427)

You said,

You're mixing up hard and soft atheism.

Whats the difference between hard and soft atheism? If there is such, have you considered the possibility of a severe crisis that would force you to choose whether to abandon or harden yourself toward atheism? Which would be your most likely choice if such would happen? Isnt it compromise that causes unintended further drifts into depravity?

You said,

My calling you arrogant isn't because you 'shared knowledge'. My calling you arrogant was you declaring that the only way you would accept refutations of your claim is if I signed a document declaring myself to be God (and for you to accept and believe this declaration).

In other words, you will accept no correction or accept being proven wrong by any human. The only way you can accept being proven wrong is if the other person is the infallible God.

I would accept myself proven wrong as long as the given proof is based on God-given knowledge that should never be forsaken and that I realized that I unintentionally deviated. It is written, let God be true, but every man a liar (Romans 3:4)? You dont think that I should be corrected away from knowledge, do you?

From your statement, This is evident from your earlier claim that you will only accept refutation from an infallible god, may I ask whats wrong with my taking seriously only that which comes from infallible God? Shouldnt we all? Isnt God (of the Bible) the source of our rights and all knowledge? Why shouldnt I allow Him to be my standard? Why should I or anyone accept the mindset that the God that gave us our rights is non-existent? Remove Him from conscience so that our rights would no longer be unalienable.

Why should it be considered pointless to consider the question of God, reality, etc? Isnt that where real evidence point? If we should talk about reasoning and seeking evidence, what about the use of what is already given us? Should we ignore it?

Take care,
Earl