My Evolutionary Theory of Religion

[Jagella]

As we all should know, religion goes back for at least tens of thousands of years. Neanderthals may have practiced a kind of religion. Since religion is so old, it is likely a product of our evolution.

Thanks to Darwin, we know that evolution occurs largely by means of natural selection. Natural selection is nature selecting those individuals who by chance have genes that confer to those individuals traits that allow them to reproduce. When they reproduce, those individuals pass down those genes that confer the survival advantages to their offspring. This is the basis for biological evolution.

Natural selection probably "chose" our remote ancestors who were able to think of things that may not have existed. For example, if a hominid heard a rustle in the bushes, that hominid might think of a lion there and flee even though the rustle may have been only the wind. If it was a lion, then if that hominid didn't flee she would be supper and never reproduce. So those hominids who could imagine lions who may not exist would be more likely to reproduce than hominids who were unable to think of imaginary lions. The gene that caused hominids to imagine lions that may not exist would then be passed down to future generations.

The ability to imagine that which does not exist had other advantages as well. In addition to our ability to flee possible threats, we could imagine useful things we might create. We could imagine tools, weapons, and shelters we did not yet have but that we could fashion and build. In other words, we could plan. When we evolved the ability to plan by imagining those things that didn't exist but that we could make, we acquired a very important survival advantage.

Unfortunately, no survival advantage is perfect, and with our ability to imagine what doesn't exist, we evolved the ability to imagine gods, angels, devils, ghosts, fairies, heavens, and hells. In this way superstition was born, and when some individuals had the ability to shape superstition in others, religion was born.

So my evolutionary theory of evolution is that religion evolved when a trait in some individuals enabled them to shape superstition in others. This trait confers tremendous survival advantages to those individuals who influence superstition, and they are more likely to reproduce. My theory explains why religion just won't go away. It won't go away because those who benefit most from religion, the clergy and other religious leaders, won't go away. They are very likely to reproduce because their ability to influence superstition in others grants them many survival advantages. That's why the clergy and apologists defend their religion with such great tenacity.

What strengths and weaknesses do you see in my evolutionary theory of religion?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 107 by marco]

If we don't require the words of Jesus but can make do with a paraphrase, where do we stand on the question of whether he was God or not.

Okay, let's go through this one more time. If there is evidence to suggest that Jesus may very well have been resurrected, (and it does not matter simply what you believe, but rather, if there is legitimate evidence that would suggest that this very well may be the case) then would it really matter if Jesus claimed to be God, or not?

As an example, there are those Christians who are trinitarians , which means they believe that Jesus was God. Then there would be those who are not trinitarians, and they would contest, that Jesus was not God. So then, if Jesus was indeed resurrected, what would it matter, if there were those who believed Jesus was God, as opposed to those who would believe, He was not God?

I really do not get the argument here? You act as if, Christians do not get it exactly right, they somehow will miss the train. How does this follow?

His exact words "I am God" would be invaluable.

I do not recall Jesus ever saying this?

Instead we have to reply on Paul's guesswork

How can we be certain it is, "Paul's guess work?" On top of the fact that, if there is evidence to suggest that Jesus was indeed resurrected, then why would it matter if He was God, or even claimed to be God?

And Paul craftily avoids speaking at any length about his Damascus event.

Was it really, "craftily?" How would one determine such a thing? Could it have been humility as he suggests? Or, does it have to be, he was crafty? So then, Paul used craftiness, to conceal something he is attempting to hide, but goes on to live the rest of his life in such a way, as to demonstrate that what he believed was in fact true, on top of the fact that he was violently opposed to the movement to begin with, to the point that he was willing to see those put to death who adhered to the movement, which could very well explain why he may have been so reluctant to talk about his experience, since it would demonstrate, how much of the wrong he was in.

But you have to be right, so let's go with, "crafty." Which would mean he was indeed crafty, since he went on to conceal this part of his life, but exposed the rest of his life, that was clearly a testament to what he claimed to believe to be true, to the point it landed him under arrest for some 2 years, and there is some pretty powerful evidence to suggest this was indeed the case, and this evidence would be extremely difficult to, fabricate.

Is it wise to rely on hearsay and call it certainty?

No, it would not, and I have never suggested there was certainty, but rather there is strong evidence. In other words, if all we had were Paul's words, directed toward us, then there would certainly be reason to doubt. But as a matter of fact, we have far more than that.

We do not have, letters that were addressed to us, but letters that were addressed to audiences at the time, because Paul would have had no idea whatsoever, about us, nor would he have had any idea about a book we now call the Bible, which means he would have had no idea that any of his letters would be contained in such a book.

This seems to mean, that the audiences these letters were addressed to, certainly must have had a high opinion of Paul, for them to go on to actually save these letters. It also means these audiences would have had every opportunity to investigate the things he wrote about.

The thing is, there would be far more involved, than to simply refer to these writings as, hearsay. Of course, if one wants to simply believe that these letters contained nothing but hearsay, then I have no problem with that. However, for one to go on to claim, "there is no reasons to believe the content contained" would be to completely ignore all that would have to be involved for these things not to be true. It is really not that simple.

The words you rely on, some guy writing his suppositions and rumours to another, do not prove the major claims: resurrection and ascension.

First, you cannot prove that these reports were, "suppositions and rumors." Next, I have never once come close to claiming that these letters, "prove" the "resurrection and ascension." So where did you get this from? What I have said is, the content contained in the Bible, is certain evidence, and when combined with other evidence, provide a reason to believe the content contained could very well be true, because much of what is contained, would be next to impossible to fabricate.

An empty tomb requires faith to make it into a resurrection.

Well, as I look at your next post, that I am eager to respond to, I see that you may be wavering on your definition of, "faith." With this being the case, it is difficult for me to know exactly what you mean by faith?

However, if by faith you mean, "there is no reason to believe there was a resurrection, and the only way one could actually believe one took place, is simply believing", then you would be greatly mistaken.

You see, even you admit to not having a problem with the report of an empty tomb, and I am here to tell you that, there is abundant evidence to suggest there was indeed an, empty tomb.

Since there is ample evidence to suggest there was an empty tomb, then one is obligated to give an answer as to how the tomb became empty, with the evidence in support of the theory.

Of course one may not care, and simply choose to not believe that a resurrection was the cause, but that would seem to be no different than what you seem to be accusing others of, which would be, simply having faith that a resurrection could not have happened.

Because you see, there is evidence to suggest a resurrection was the reason for the empty tomb, and it involves far more than simply the reports, but the reports would be evidence that would have to be combined with the other evidence involved.

So then, we have evidence that the reason for the empty tomb, was indeed a resurrection, and one could certainly say, "there could be other possibilities" and one would be correct to claim such a thing, but if there is no evidence to support such claims, then believing that a resurrection was not the reason for the empty tomb, would be solely based upon faith, while believing the reason for the empty tomb may in fact be a resurrection, would be based on the evidence involved.

[marco]

. If there is evidence to suggest that Jesus may very well have been resurrected

There isn't. Full stop. There is FAITH that he did.

I really do not get the argument here? You act as if, Christians do not get it exactly right, they somehow will miss the train. How does this follow?

I see you don't understand and I am doing what I can to assist. There is no train to miss, as you put it. If the words of Christ were misreported, making them ambiguous or hard to interpret, then divisions arise, some following one line of interpretation, others going another way. You may think fighting between different Christian groups is okay but many would see it as undesirable.

How can we be certain it is, "Paul's guess work?"

Yes, I agree that since many of the texts attributed to Paul may not be his at all then it may be the guesswork of others.

On top of the fact that, if there is evidence to suggest that Jesus was indeed resurrected, then why would it matter if He was God, or even claimed to be God?

If we knew he was resurrected, little else would matter. We don't know. Maybe it was a metaphorical resurrection.

Could it have been humility as he suggests?

Ha, ha. Humility doesn't announce herself. Paul could have lied or been deceived. How would we know. The followers of Muhammad are as earnest as Paul and as devout, but you take earnestness and devotion to indicate truth.

This seems to mean, that the audiences these letters were addressed to, certainly must have had a high opinion of Paul, for them to go on to actually save these letters. It also means these audiences would have had every opportunity to investigate the things he wrote about.

Ah, since Jimmy and Joe believe in Paul, we should. And that, for you, is evidence? They had no opportunity when Christ had vanished to investigate where he might be.

Since there is ample evidence to suggest there was an empty tomb, then one is obligated to give an answer as to how the tomb became empty, with the evidence in support of the theory.

When a grave is empty we do not assume its occupant got up and walked away. That would be silly. We would assume trickery or collusion of some sort; we'd ask whether the sepulchre was specially made to accommodate a hidden passage. Of course this would mean it was a very rich man who owned it, and Jesus wasn't rich, was he? We could ask if there are suspicious details in the accounts of the claimants, such as seeing angels or strangers sitting in the tomb. We would want to know how they came to be there. If they could enter, the corpse could leave. O dear, there are umpteen explanations but let us, please, assume a corpse rose up. It sounds better, if less plausible.

[Clownboat]

I would like to point out that faith is a requirement in order to believe in things that are false.

That would depend upon what your definition of faith would be, which is what myself, "marco" are discussing, and I will refer you to post # 108.

No need.
Again, if you want to believe in Allah, it takes faith.
Same as believing in the Christian god, Big Foot or Nessie.

To think that faith in a religion is any different is just special pleading.

Again, if your definition of faith is, belief in something where there may be certain evidence to support such faith, then we have no argument. But I would then like to know what in the world would be the point of pointing out that, I was simply appealing to faith, when faith can be based upon certain evidence? What would be the point?

Once there is evidence, there is no requirement for faith.
If anyone doesn't believe you, they only need to examine the evidence for themselves. If the evidence isn't convincing, then it cannot indicate whether a belief or proposition is true and shouldn't be called evidence.

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/Submit
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Again, does the faith you are referring to, include certain evidence to support the faith? Or, are you suggesting like me, that faith is a belief, that has no evidence?

I have not made any suggestions here. I have just pointed out that faith is a requirement in order to believe in false things. Therefore, using faith to arrive at a conclusion would be a bad way about going about arriving at the truth.

In other words, I am a Christian, but I am not a Christian simply because I want to believe. In fact, I would rather not believe. I am a Christian because I have been convinced by the evidence.

Great, please present your body of facts or information that shows that your religious beliefs are true so we can all join the flock with you.

Now, is that faith?

This will depend on the evidence you claim to have. I must wonder though, if you have evidence for your belief, then why are there competing religions?

Or, is it a belief based upon certain evidence?

I would guess you believe as to avoid going to a hell and to have a heaven to go to for eternity. Common among religions after all. I don't assume you have any evidence though, because if you did, how would other religions compete? What I see is that all religions have faith, but nothing that indicates whether the beliefs are true or not.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 110 by marco]

And that is exactly what you have. Paul himself did not witness the resurrection; he took reports on trust. You are in a weaker position and you most certainly don't have proof.

GOOD GRIEF! The first thing I would point out here is, you scolded me for my definition of, "faith" which was, "belief in something for which there would be no evidence", by telling me that faith could indeed be based upon evidence, which then makes you accusation that "I simply appeal to faith" make no sense, and then when I give you a definition straight from the dictionary, and specify that, "it is a stronger definition than I would prefer" you then ignore the scolding you gave me, and go with the definition that faith is "belief that is not based on proof?" Again, GOOD GRIEF!

So then, if faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence, then your accusation that, "I simply appeal to faith" would not be accurate, but it would at least make sense. But, if faith can be based upon evidence, then your accusation would not make sense, seeing as how we can all be accused of appealing to faith, since there can be evidence to base the faith upon.

If however, you are holding me to the dictionary definition, of which I specified would be "stronger than I would prefer", then we all again, can be accused of "appealing to faith" for a good many things we claim to believe, and even be certain of, which again would make your accusation against me, make no sense, since we all use faith.

As an example, I cannot prove, and I have no proof, that a man traveled into space, landed on the moon, and walked upon it. However, I can supply some very strong evidence that this indeed happened.

I cannot prove, and I have no proof, that George Washington was the first president of the U.S. However, I can supply some very strong evidence that would strongly suggest this is the case.

The point is, there would be all sorts of things that we do not have proof of, but we believe certain things, based upon the evidence to support them.

So please explain to us, how your accusation against me, that "I simply appeal to faith" makes sense, if there has to be "proof" involved, when this same accusation could be made against you, on a number of things, and I would point out this would indeed involve your belief that, there was no resurrection, because you certainly do not have proof.

In fact, thus far, you have failed to even supply any evidence at all, that there was no resurrection, while I have at least supplied evidence to support the event? The point is, if there must be proof, in order for a belief not to be an appeal to faith, then you and I both are appealing to faith, when we explain what we believe concerning the empty tomb, because neither of us, have proof. Which means your accusation against me, would make no sense, seeing as how you are in the same boat?

Evidence is not proof.

We agree here, which is exactly why I said, the dictionary definition, "was stronger than I prefer."

It has to be accepted as proof by objective means, not by someone saying I have a feeing these men were not deluded or lying.

Again, we absolutely agree. But I have never said that the evidence I have supplied would be proof. Since I am supplying evidence, how would this have anything at all to do with, "being hooked on a feeling?"

I can tell you this. I am on record as arguing against many Christians, about their "feelings" and making decisions according to their "feelings."

But the question in my mind that arises here is, why can this not be reversed? In other words, why can't we say, "It has to be accepted as proof by objective means, not by someone saying I have a feeling these men WERE deluded or lying?"

In other words, I understand exactly what you are saying, and I have never claimed to have proof, and have argued against other Christians who tend to go on how the feel. But, how do you think you escape from this same accusation? Where is your proof? Where is even your evidence that would suggest these men were, deluded, or lying? You are not, "hooked on a feeling and high on believing" are you?

Perhaps, given her Christian name, she was predestined to embrace Christianity.

This is really funny, and revealing as well! In other words, you bring up yourself, and how you once had faith, but you "put away childish things" as if this made any sort of point.

I scoffed at this, and simply demonstrate that we can all can give examples of conversions either way, and go on to acknowledge that it "means nothing", and here you go running off with your assumptions, as you usually do.

The fact of the matter is, this woman was not at all exposed to Christianity in some sort of comforting way, which she may have simply slide back into at a later date.

Rather, this woman was a lesbian, who had been in a lesbian relationship for years, who not only abhorred, Christianity, and Christians, she was also afraid of Christians, and especially the ideas of Christians. By the way, I would suggest that she should still be afraid of many of the ideas of Christians, and she claims that she is.

At any rate, she abhorred Christianity so much, that she intended to write a book which I believe was entitled "The rise of the Christian Right in America."

At any rate, these are just a few things that lead to her conversion, and it was not an easy conversion in any way, since she had to abandoned, her whole life, and lost her job. Let's also keep in mind that, I have acknowledged that it, "means nothing" while you seem to believe that your conversion does, otherwise there would have been no reason to bring it up.

The point is, her conversion would have nothing to do with her name, I will assure you. It may be wise to actually look into these things before one begins to run with all sorts of assumptions, only appealing to faith.

I don't think teaching women's studies or English would have pushed her, but one never knows.

Well, I have read her book, and this is what she had to say, and once you read it, it will make sense.

But hey, she could be lying, deceived, delusional, appealing to faith, etc., the same way everyone else must be doing that may not see things the way you do?

I wouldn't deduce that what you've been proclaiming is impervious to refutation

Not saying that in the least. What I am saying is, I have been proclaiming that there are good, and solid reasons to believe Christianity, along with evidence to support such a claim, and all I have gotten is responses such as your's, who claim things such as, "I am appealing to faith", all the while ignoring the fact that they themselves do the same thing.

it might simply be that your defence systems are commendably strong against being persuaded.

Right, and the same could be said of you, as well. This is not an argument.

Faith does that

It certainly may? Just like perhaps your faith in your decision to, "put away childish things" may have your, "defence systems commendably strong against being persuaded." Again, this is not an argument, but this is the sort of thing I have to endure, that you now claim that I could have my defense system up against. The question is, against what? You are not even making an argument?

people in the past have happily accepted burning and torture for their faith.

Which again, would have nothing whatsoever to do with, Christianity being true, or false?

I struggle to understand this. The writers were probably convinced that Christ rose and then went up into the sky. What's there to fabricate in saying what they think? What would constitute evidence, 2000 years after? A rumour that 500 folk saw Jesus walking after death or that holy people tossed aside the earth from their graves and rose up? Is that convincing evidence? Or lies?

GOOD GRIEF? What is it? Were they "probably convinced that Christ rose and then went up into the sky?" Or, was it "lies?" Because it would make a great deal of difference. And also, what would be the evidence that these things were, "simply being convinced, or lies?" You see, if one is going to make such claims, they need to back up those claims with, some sort of evidence to support the claims.

As an example, you acknowledge above that there has to be a reason for such claims, and there is certainly evidence to suggest these men were certainly telling the truth. So then, what would be the evidence to support your claim that they would be either lying, or simply convinced what they were saying was the truth, but in reality it was not? What would be the evidence to suggest such things?

However, even if you were to supply such evidence, (and as of yet you have failed) you would then need to go on to explain how these men successfully continued this nonsense, in the face of all that was against them?

You see, it is not as simple as claiming, "they could have been lying, or deceived" because then you have the task of explaining, with evidence, how they were able to pull this whole thing off, the way in which they did.

You acknowledge that there was an empty tomb. How did we get an empty tomb? Could these men have stole the body? They could have, but do you know all that would have had to be involved for this sort of thing to happen? Remembering we are dealing with, ordinary, uneducated, fishermen, who had just witnessed their leader being crucified, and yet they are unscaved, and spring right into action, come up with a plan, execute it, in the face of all those who were against them?

They then, come up with all sorts of stories, concerning the life of this leader, that they have to tell, day, after day, going through all sorts of persecution, which the life of Paul would demonstrate, that would keep the movement going? Thus far, I am only touching the tip of the iceberg, because there would be a whole lot more to consider.

This story I have just told, is unreal. And you would like us to believe that it is easier to believe that they may have been lying? And this is just if they were lying, because now we would have to examine what it would take for these men all to somehow be deceived, and all the above occur.

You see, this story is nothing like, someone went into a cave, and came out proclaiming God had spoke to him, and was able to convince others that this was indeed the case. In fact, it does not even compare in the least, because these men were not basing what they were proclaiming upon what someone else said. Rather, they were basing what they were claiming, on historical events, and they were doing so, in the face of those who would have had every reason to put a stop to it.

So then, you can believe whatever you like, but please do not insist, that there would be no reason to believe they may have been telling the truth, and every reason to believe they may have been lying, when you have failed to supply any sort of evidence, at all.

I think Paul suffered a fit

Okay, what is the evidence to support this belief?

you think Paul was struck by God.

Well no! This would be the difference between us. I know there was a man named Paul. I know he was violently opposed to this movement to begin with. I know there was a man named Luke, who spent quite some time with Paul, and I know that this man traveled with Paul, and I know that this man begins to use the words "we" and "us" to describe certain events concerning the life of Paul, and I know that some of these events would be miraculous in nature. I know that Paul was arrested, and that Luke was with him during his arrest. I know all these things because of the overwhelming evidence that support them, because I know these things would be next to impossible to fabricate, on top of the fact that I am attempting to figure out what anyone would gain by, fabrication?

I also know, the explanation that both of these men give, concerning the Damascus experience. So then, I do not have to think. Rather, I know what explanation they give.

The point is, I tend to concentrate on the facts, and leave the assuming to others. In other words, I know, that I cannot know what exactly happened to Paul. However, I do know what he, and another claim, and I do know that Paul went on to live the rest of his life as if, what he claimed to have happened, did in fact happen.

There is no evidence for my theory but there is evidence for yours?

I did not put forth a theory. Rather, it was the Biblical writers who claimed this to be an event. However, I did put forth some evidence that would support their claim. What would your evidence be?

I would tnink that if such a momentous event did happen we would have its minutest details from the victim. Paul. We don't. Whther it was self-deception, fit or trickery I don't know. I don't believe he met Jupiter or Yahweh or a divine relative.

Is all the above, and appeal to faith? Or, is there some sort of evidence?

I can understand you admire Paul as do many.

Nope! There is no admiration here. What would I have to admire him about? I have no confidence in Paul in the least. Rather, I read, and examine his letters, compare them to each other, and also to letters written by others, and attempt to determine how, why, and if these letters could have been trickery of some sort, or whether some sort of trickery, would even make any sort of sense.

So then, there is nothing to admire here. Which means, this would have to be another one of your many assumptions.

I find him rather tedious

Which is why there would be nothing to admire.

but that doesn't make him a liar.

Right. What would make him a liar, is if you could find some sort of inconsistencies, between what he may say in one letter, as opposed to another letter, on top of comparing them to what another author may have said.

He genuinely believed he had met heaven in some way.

That is not exactly the way in which it is worded, but at any rate, you do realize here, that you are conceding the fact that something did in fact happen, and whatever if was, it changed the course of his life, for as long as we know about him, even causing him to be placed under arrest for some 2 years, and this would have certainly been toward the end of his life.

Others have done the same and founded rival Christian groups.

Exactly which ones would these be, so we can compare exactly how they have, "done the same?"

It comes down to accepting something on trust or faith.

Which with some it becomes difficult to determine what they mean by these words, since they waffle between one definition, to another, making it difficult to even respond?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 112 by marco]

There isn't. Full stop. There is FAITH that he did.

Okay? Let's see where the "FUll stop" really is?

You have acknowledged the fact that, there was an empty tomb. At least you have no problem with the report, which would make sense, since there would have to be some sort of reason for Christianity, and without the empty tomb, I cannot see Christianity surviving very long?

So then, we have an empty tomb, and there is certainly evidence that would suggest that the man who occupied the tomb, was resurrected, because we have written reports, by not just one, but four different authors, that this man did indeed resurrect. On top of this we would have other evidence, but at this point we are just considering these reports.

This would be considered, "testimonial evidence" in any U.S. court of law. Of course, all of these witnesses could be lying, but this sort of thing would not be considered evidence in the least. Why? Well because we all know they could be lying, but this would not be considered evidence.

What we would need in order to consider that these reports, may in fact be false, is evidence to suggest that they may indeed be false.

As an example, if we were in a courtroom, and the prosecution had a witness on the stand, who identifies the defendant as being the guilty party, along with certain evidence, do you think that if the defendant's lawyer stood up and simply said, "well this witness could be lying", that this would be considered evidence in any way at all?

It would not, because everyone knows they could be lying, which is what we are attempting to discover. Therefore, in order for the defendant to make the case that the witness is lying, he would have to present evidence that would suggest that the witness was lying.

In the same way, we have testimonial evidence from the Biblical letters that there was an empty tomb, and that it was a resurrection that caused the tomb to be empty. So then, simply pointing out that, these authors could be lying, is not any sort of evidence at all. What we would need is, evidence which would at least suggest that they were lying, and thus far, you have supplied absolutely none.

So then, this is where the "Full stop" is!

Next, you complain that, "there is only FAITH that he did." Well, which sort of "faith" are you speaking of here? Is it the "faith" that would be based on evidence? If that is the case, then what would be the problem with it being based upon faith?

Or, is it the "faith" that must be based upon "proof?" If this is the "faith" you are speaking of, then in my case at least, it would be based upon "faith" because I have no proof, only evidence. However, if this is indeed the case, then what you believe concerning the empty tomb, would have to be based upon "faith" as well, because you have no proof. In fact, thus far, you have not supplied anything that would be considered evidence, because simply pointing out that, "it can all be lies" is not any sort of evidence.

The point is your accusation that I am appealing to "faith" makes no sense at all, when it can be demonstrated that you, yourself do the same thing. Ever heard of the, "pot and the kettle?"

If the words of Christ were misreported, making them ambiguous or hard to interpret, then divisions arise, some following one line of interpretation, others going another way.

Right, and we have this, but what is the problem?

You may think fighting between different Christian groups is okay but many would see it as undesirable.

That's it? That's all you have? C'mon man!

First, if you are actually talking about one Christian group, taking up arms, against another Christian group, then it would first seem as if we would need to determine where the fault lies, right?

In other words, I think we would first need to determine if Christians are ever commanded to take up arms, simply over a disagreement in doctrine? If not, then the fault would not lie with what is contained in the Bible, but rather upon those who do such things.

However, if you are only speaking of, the different disagreements among different Christian groups, I see no problem there?

In fact, I have a very dear Christian brother, and he, and I were in sharp disagreement over a particular doctrine. However, it is not as though we were ever ready to take up arms. Rather, we continually, and always seem to be discussing, and debating the subject.

This went on for a number of years, until finally we came to an agreement, and there was no compromise. So you see, it is not as though we ever thought each other condemned, or any such thing. Rather, we recognized our disagreement, and were willing to continue to work with each other.

The point is, if we have those who are taking up arms, simply over some sort of doctrinal division, then we certainly cannot blame this sort of thing on, the Bible being unclear, because it clearly does not command us to take up arms, over such things.

I will add one more point here. If this is an attempt to somehow demonstrate that Christianity cannot possibly be true, then it is an extremely weak argument.

Yes, I agree that since many of the texts attributed to Paul may not be his at all then it may be the guesswork of others.

Okay, since you are not able to give us any evidence whatsoever concerning Paul using "guesswork", can you supply any evidence that may suggest that any of the content that has been attributed to Paul, may not be his? Or, is this simply, "an appeal to faith?"

If we knew he was resurrected, little else would matter.

Exactly my point! I am glad to see we agree here, because it is an important agreement.

I understand that we do not know. But, if we did, you have just agreed that, "little else would matter." Continuing to complain, "but we don't know" is completely beside the point, because if we did know, you have agreed that "knowing the exact words, and meaning of Jesus would not matter, at that point."

If we could know that Jesus was NOT resurrected, then this surely would mean that we do not need to know the exact words, or meanings of, Jesus. So, how would acknowledging that, "we do not know" add any importance to us being able to know the exact meanings, and words of Jesus? I can't see a point here?

Ha, ha. Humility doesn't announce herself.

Do you know anything at all about the Bible? When I say, "Could it have been humility as he suggests?" I am not saying that he announced his humility. Rather, I am speaking of the humble way in which he announced, the event which was,

and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

So please excuse me if I did not word it correctly, but as you can see, Paul did not "announce his, humility." However, I would have thought, that one who is so opposed to what is contained in the Bible, would have certainly known what I was referring to?

Paul could have lied or been deceived.

My friend, as already demonstrated, this is nowhere close to any sort of evidence in the least.

How would we know.

We don't. But there is some pretty powerful evidence to suggest he was telling the truth, on top of the fact, one would have to go into all that would have to be involved for Paul to have been lying, or deceived, because it is certainly not as simple as suggesting that he could have been. Unless of course, one were to simply, "appeal to faith." But I am not really sure what that is at this point?

The followers of Muhammad are as earnest as Paul and as devout, but you take earnestness and devotion to indicate truth.

Oh really? Well, where have I done such a thing? I have never once mentioned how, "earnest" nor how "devout" Paul was, because I understand that it makes no difference.

Ah, since Jimmy and Joe believe in Paul, we should. And that, for you, is evidence?

The point is, these audiences could have simply disposed of these letters, like many of us do today. If these folks would have thought Paul had suffered some sort of fit, was out of his mind, lying, deceived, or whatever else, I highly doubt that we would be discussing Paul.

However, since we have his letters some 2000 years later, is a testament of what these folks thought of him, and they certainly must not have seen the things you happen to suggest, and they would have been right there with him. So yes, this would at least be, evidence against your accusations which thus far, are unfounded.

They had no opportunity when Christ had vanished to investigate where he might be.

Oh really? Well, where did he vanish too?

When a grave is empty we do not assume its occupant got up and walked away. That would be silly.

Fully agree!

We would assume trickery or collusion of some sort

UMMM.......? I do not think that would be very wise. Allow me to explain.

Let's take the "loch ness monster." As I have said, "I really couldn't care less about the thing." With this being the case, I may choose to doubt the claims, because I am simply not interested, and do not believe it is important enough to go into any sort of investigation in order to either, verify, or falsify the claims.

However, choosing to doubt a certain claim, would not be the same as, "assuming some sort of trickery or collusion." Rather, it is that I am simply not interested enough to investigate in order to make a stand, one way, or another. I am not claiming the claims are false, I am just saying I am not interested, and since this is the case, I simply have doubts.

But here is the thing. If I were interested enough, and I believed these claims mattered, and had some sort of effect upon me, then I will assure you that, I would not assume anything at all. Rather, I would go on to investigate, as fully as I could, to determine if anything could be known about it, or not.

After such an investigation, if all I had was still, and only my doubts, I would not insist that my doubts were in any way, evidence.

What I am attempting to say here is, if I were interested enough in the claims concerning, "the loch ness monster" to spend hours, upon hours, on a web site, debating such issues, I will assure you that, I would have a lot more to offer than simply my doubt, and assumptions.

we'd ask whether the sepulchre was specially made to accommodate a hidden passage. Of course this would mean it was a very rich man who owned it, and Jesus wasn't rich, was he? We could ask if there are suspicious details in the accounts of the claimants, such as seeing angels or strangers sitting in the tomb. We would want to know how they came to be there. If they could enter, the corpse could leave. O dear, there are umpteen explanations but let us, please, assume a corpse rose up. It sounds better, if less plausible.

I agree with everything you are saying here. Now, do you suppose those back then, who had every reason in the world to stomp this thing out, were to stupid to think of these things themselves?

Next, as you examine the other possible explanations you give above, do any of them sound, "plausible?"

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 113 by Clownboat]

Once there is evidence, there is no requirement for faith.

Okay, if you don't mind, I am gonna need your help here. Because you see, I do not mind which definition we choose to use, but I need to know what we mean by faith. "Marco" certainly seems to be suggesting that faith, can be based upon evidence, but you seem to be saying, that if there is evidence to be had, then there is no requirement for faith?

Now, if faith is not required at this point, is it still okay to have faith in the things you have evidence for? Or, would it be improper to refer to it as faith, when you have evidence?

If anyone doesn't believe you, they only need to examine the evidence for themselves. If the evidence isn't convincing, then it cannot indicate whether a belief or proposition is true and shouldn't be called evidence.

Wait a minute? If I have been convinced by certain facts, can these facts be called evidence, at that point, since they are convincing to me? If not, then how in the world can they, "examine the evidence" when it cannot be considered evidence, until it is said to be, "convincing?"

The obvious question here is, how many folks need to be convinced, in order for something to be considered evidence?

Next, if I were to offer a friend certain facts, and these things are not convincing to him, would these facts at that point, not be evidence, and I should not attempt to share them with anyone else?

I have just pointed out that faith is a requirement in order to believe in false things.

Okay, but you have also said,

Again, if you want to believe in Allah, it takes faith.
Same as believing in the Christian god, Big Foot or Nessie.

The first thing I would point out is, I do not "want to believe in the Christian God", and I cannot understand anyone who would, want to.

However, and more importantly, is this some sort of claim that, Christianity is false? If so, do you have any evidence for such a claim? Or, would this be an "appeal to faith?"

Therefore, using faith to arrive at a conclusion would be a bad way about going about arriving at the truth.

Okay, allow me to give you some conclusions that I have arrived to, and I have not used an ounce of faith the arrive to these conclusions.

I know, I do not just have faith, that there was a story written thousands of years ago, concerning a man named Abraham. I know, I do not just have faith, that in this story, it claims this man was promised that his descendants would be the chosen people of God. I know, I do not just have faith, this tribe was the Israelite tribe.

I know, I do not just have faith, that there were other tribes at this same time, and I know, I do not just have faith, that these other tribes, along with the Israelite tribe, have been verified by secular historians. I know, I do not just have faith, that most of these other tribes have vanished from the face of the Earth. I know, I do not just have faith, that the Israelite tribe, the one the Bible claimed thousands of years ago, were the chosen people, are still alive, and with us to this day.

I know, I do not just have faith, that this race of people, have been one of the most, if not the most persecuted people upon the face of the Earth. I know, I do not just have faith, that these people were without a homeland for years. I know, I do not just have faith, that there have been those who have attempted to wipe this race of people from the face of the Earth. I know, I do not just have faith, that there are those right now today, who are working toward eliminating this race of people.

I know, I do not just have faith, that there was a man named Jesus who has been written about, who is said to come form this very tribe. I know, I do not just have faith, that this man was said to have been crucified. I know, I do not just have faith, that this man was said to have been dead, and buried. I know, I do not just have faith, that this man was said to have been risen from his grave, and reported to have been seen alive, after his death.

You see, I could continue on, and on, demonstrating things that I know to be facts, and I do not need an ounce of faith, to know these things.

So then, I do not need faith in order to know the things above are truth. However, I have never demanded that Christianity was, truth. I have simply stated, there are good, and solid reasons to believe that it very well, may be true.

Great, please present your body of facts or information that shows that your religious beliefs are true so we can all join the flock with you.

I have never claimed to be able to demonstrate that Christianity is true. Rather, my claim has been, there are very good, and solid reasons to believe that it very well may be true.

This will depend on the evidence you claim to have. I must wonder though, if you have evidence for your belief, then why are there competing religions?

Well because I have never had the understanding that, "evidence" would be as strong as you suggest. In other words, my understanding of evidence, until you came along was, facts that may support a conclusion without outright proving the conclusion.

So then, maybe I should just say, there are certain facts, that would support the claims of Christianity, and not refer to these facts as evidence.

With this being the case, these, "competing religions" you refer to, may have certain facts to support their claims, but I would not know, because I couldn't care less, and I do not need to know, or care, in order to determine if there may be certain facts to support the Christian claims.

I would guess you believe as to avoid going to a hell and to have a heaven to go to for eternity.

Yes, that would certainly have to be a guess. You know, an "appeal to faith."

I don't assume you have any evidence though, because if you did, how would other religions compete?

Answered above.

What I see is that all religions have faith, but nothing that indicates whether the beliefs are true or not.

Well that would depend on how one defines, "indicate." Does one mean to, "demonstrate, or show?" Or does one simply mean, "point to?" At any rate, it doesn't matter, because with your help, I have come up with a way in which to avoid claiming to have evidence.

Therefore, from now on, I will attempt to remember to say, "there are certain facts that support the truth of the Christian claims."

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 113 by Clownboat]

Once there is evidence, there is no requirement for faith.

Okay, if you don't mind, I am gonna need your help here. Because you see, I do not mind which definition we choose to use, but I need to know what we mean by faith.

Since faith is a religious thing, should we not go by the definition supplied in your holy book?
Hebrews 11:1 King James Version (KJV)
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

"Marco" certainly seems to be suggesting that faith, can be based upon evidence, but you seem to be saying, that if there is evidence to be had, then there is no requirement for faith?

Correct, assuming that the evidence is solid enough. I fear that far to many people just read their holy book and decide that it includes facts. Then they justify said facts by assuming claims on behalf of their god concept or some other obscure reasoning.

Now, if faith is not required at this point, is it still okay to have faith in the things you have evidence for?

Since you are asking me, I'll give you my opinion.
Don't believe anything due to faith. Once there is sufficient evidence, belief comes and no faith is required. Again, faith is needed in order to believe in false things. Therefore it should not be the mechanism for belief.

Or, would it be improper to refer to it as faith, when you have evidence?

Depends on the amount and quality of evidence.
I can provide you with 'evidence' for example that there is a fish out there large enough to swallow a man whole. That however is not evidence for a Nineveh event. This is the type of evidence that religious people seem to have for their beliefs unfortunately.

Wait a minute? If I have been convinced by certain facts, can these facts be called evidence, at that point, since they are convincing to me?

A fact that such and such is the case is better than evidence. Anyone that denies any fact that you have is delusional IMO.

If not, then how in the world can they, "examine the evidence" when it cannot be considered evidence, until it is said to be, "convincing?"

See the evidence for Nineveh. More than a large fish would need to be supplied.

The obvious question here is, how many folks need to be convinced, in order for something to be considered evidence?

The amount is irrelevant.
See the billions of Muslims or the billions of Christians we have on this planet. One or both sets of billions must be mistaken. Therefore, the amount of people fooled is not a factor.

Next, if I were to offer a friend certain facts, and these things are not convincing to him, would these facts at that point, not be evidence, and I should not attempt to share them with anyone else?

I don't see why you would not share facts with others just because you have one friend who sticks their head in the sand to avoid facts.

Again, if you want to believe in Allah, it takes faith.
Same as believing in the Christian god, Big Foot or Nessie.

However, and more importantly, is this some sort of claim that, Christianity is false?

Nope, but surely you agree with me that both Christianity and Islam cannot both be true. Billions of people are wrong because of the faith they applied to a religion.

Okay, allow me to give you some conclusions that I have arrived to, and I have not used an ounce of faith the arrive to these conclusions.

I know, I do not just have faith, that there was a story written thousands of years ago, concerning a man named Abraham. I know, I do not just have faith, that in this story, it claims this man was promised that his descendants would be the chosen people of God. I know, I do not just have faith, this tribe was the Israelite tribe.

Your faith is showing!
Please evidence Abraham, but more importantly that he had an actual encounter with a god. You see, you're doing no better than pointing at a large fish and claiming you have facts or evidence of a Nineveh event.

Look, a story written about an Abraham!
Look, Israelite's!
Therefore, my faith that one out of thousands of god concepts is justified. Only faith could allow someone to arrive at such a conclusion.

I know, I do not just have faith, that there were other tribes at this same time, and I know, I do not just have faith, that these other tribes, along with the Israelite tribe, have been verified by secular historians.

A big fish!

I know, I do not just have faith, that most of these other tribes have vanished from the face of the Earth. I know, I do not just have faith, that the Israelite tribe, the one the Bible claimed thousands of years ago, were the chosen people, are still alive, and with us to this day.

Look, Israelites! My faith that they are the chosen people of one out of thousands of god concepts is justified!
See this fish?

I know, I do not just have faith, that this race of people,

There is only one race of humans.

have been one of the most, if not the most persecuted people upon the face of the Earth.

How sure of this are you and what does it matter? For example, if you were shown more persecuted people, would you change religions?

I know, I do not just have faith, that these people were without a homeland for years.

American Indians come to mind.

I know, I do not just have faith, that there have been those who have attempted to wipe this race of people from the face of the Earth.

See the Mayans.

I know, I do not just have faith, that there are those right now today, who are working toward eliminating this race of people.

Mayans were eliminated. Therefore their religion is true?
Odd thinking. Personally, if there was a population of people worshiping a true god, I would think they would be better off then the rest of us.

I know, I do not just have faith, that there was a man named Jesus who has been written about, who is said to come form this very tribe.

Spiderman has been written about and New York is a real city.
Convinced?
Can you even show me evidence of this Jesus outside of religious promotional material?

I know, I do not just have faith, that this man was said to have been crucified. I know, I do not just have faith, that this man was said to have been dead, and buried. I know, I do not just have faith, that this man was said to have been risen from his grave, and reported to have been seen alive, after his death.

Do you know why what you claim to know is so non-convincing?
If not, see a big fish.
Mohammed has been said to have ridden to heaven on a winged horse. Would you really respect a Muslim that then said they know it happened?
I would think not and perhaps you should reflect on your own thinking?

You see, I could continue on, and on, demonstrating things that I know to be facts, and I do not need an ounce of faith, to know these things.

Spiderman is a factual character and New York is a factual city.
Is belief then justified due to THESE kind of facts?

If you had evidence, I think you would present it. Rather than having evidence for a claim, you point to a fact about something unrelated.

So then, I do not need faith in order to know the things above are truth.

You are still faith driven in the end. No faith required to know that there are big fish, but a heck of a lot of faith to believe in the Nineveh event.

However, I have never demanded that Christianity was, truth. I have simply stated, there are good, and solid reasons to believe that it very well, may be true.

What you call good and solid fail miserably IMO. What is good and solid for you is what leads billions of people to be Muslim.

I have never claimed to be able to demonstrate that Christianity is true.

Of course not. If you could, you would have evidence or fact to show that it is true. What you do have is faith.

Rather, my claim has been, there are very good, and solid reasons to believe that it very well may be true.

Your claims are no different then what Muslim would claim about their religion. Such reasoning can be applied to Spiderman as well. Therefore they are not good nor solid.

Well because I have never had the understanding that, "evidence" would be as strong as you suggest. In other words, my understanding of evidence, until you came along was, facts that may support a conclusion without outright proving the conclusion.

Let's test your facts that support a conclusion.
Please show that Abraham was a real person, factually.

So then, maybe I should just say, there are certain facts, that would support the claims of Christianity, and not refer to these facts as evidence.

Or understand that what you are calling facts is nothing more than claiming the Nineveh event is factual because of a big fish. Yes, big fish are facts, but that is where that fact stops. Just like pointing a story about an Abraham guy or Isrealites.

Well that would depend on how one defines, "indicate." Does one mean to, "demonstrate, or show?" Or does one simply mean, "point to?" At any rate, it doesn't matter, because with your help, I have come up with a way in which to avoid claiming to have evidence.

Look! A big fish! Therefore Nineveh.
You have not done what you wish you had I'm afraid.

Therefore, from now on, I will attempt to remember to say, "there are certain facts that support the truth of the Christian claims."

Be prepared to be asked for these facts then. Hopefully you will do better than since New York is a real place, I have a fact that justifies me believing in Spiderman.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 117 by Clownboat]

Since faith is a religious thing, should we not go by the definition supplied in your holy book?
Hebrews 11:1 King James Version (KJV)
11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

First, faith is not simply a religious thing. In other words, there are many things we all would believe, that we cannot absolutely prove. However, although we may not be able to prove these things, we have overwhelming evidence to support such things, and we have faith in the evidence. Ergo, "the evidence of things not seen."

So then, although I did not witness, (see) George Washington being the first president of the U.S., there is abundant evidence to support these things, I have not seen, (witnessed).

Correct, assuming that the evidence is solid enough.

I agree!

I fear that far to many people just read their holy book and decide that it includes facts.

Again agree! There should be far more evidence than, "the Bible says so."

Then they justify said facts by assuming claims on behalf of their god concept or some other obscure reasoning.

Yes, again I would agree, but we are about to see, that this is not what I have done. I have only claimed those things that I can demonstrate to be facts.

Since you are asking me, I'll give you my opinion. Don't believe anything due to faith.

So then, we should base our beliefs upon the facts, right? If so, we are still in agreement.

Once there is sufficient evidence, belief comes and no faith is required.

If this is the case, then we cannot believe anything at all, that we cannot absolutely prove. As I have said, "I am claiming there is evidence enough to believe that Christianity very well may be true." I am not claiming there is evidence enough to prove that it is true.

In the same way, I believe there is evidence enough to doubt, and also disbelieve the claims, but there is not enough evidence to prove the claims are false. Do you have another opinion? In other words, are you under the impression that there is enough evidence to would demonstrate Christianity to be, false?

I would also ask, "is belief, stronger than, faith? In other words, you seem to be suggesting that, beliefs cannot be wrong, because they are based upon evidence, but faith can be wrong?"

Again, faith is needed in order to believe in false things.

Could one have evidence, that may well suggest false things may be true? In other words, if I have a gun, standing over my friend who is now dead, and there are those who saw me and this friend in an intense argument earlier in the evening, but I am not guilty of the murder, could there very well be enough evidence to suggest that I may very well have murdered my friend? Or would this be simply based upon, faith?

Therefore it should not be the mechanism for belief.

So again, is belief stronger than faith? Can there be evidence to support a belief that may be false? Oh Wait.............. if something is false, then it could not be a belief, because if you believe something that is false, then faith is the requirement. With this sort of thinking, you seem to be saying, beliefs cannot be wrong?

Depends on the amount and quality of evidence.

That would be subjective to each individual, don't you think?

I can provide you with 'evidence' for example that there is a fish out there large enough to swallow a man whole. That however is not evidence for a Nineveh event.

I absolutely agree!

This is the type of evidence that religious people seem to have for their beliefs unfortunately.

Again, I would agree that there are many, many religious folk who seem to think in this way. But, what would this evidence demonstrate? In other words, simply because this is the case, how does this demonstrate that what they believe, must, and has to be false?

A fact that such and such is the case is better than evidence. Anyone that denies any fact that you have is delusional IMO.

Which is why I tend to deal in facts, and the reason I listed all the facts in my last post, that I do not need an ounce of faith to know.

See the evidence for Nineveh. More than a large fish would need to be supplied.

I agree, but I do not see your point? I have not brought up the, "Nineveh event" and suggested that anyone should believe it.

The amount is irrelevant.
See the billions of Muslims or the billions of Christians we have on this planet. One or both sets of billions must be mistaken. Therefore, the amount of people fooled is not a factor.

The question here is, could there be evidence to support both Christianity, and Islam? I cannot see how the numbers on each side would be relevant? Now, I would certainly agree that more than likely the majority on both sides, have not seriously considered the evidence, but this would be irrelevant to whether there may be any evidence to support both sides.

Pointing to other religions, as an argument against a religion, is a very weak minded argument.

Nope, but surely you agree with me that both Christianity and Islam cannot both be true.

So then, you are not claiming Christianity is false? If not, I wonder why? Why would you not claim it to be false?

Billions of people are wrong because of the faith they applied to a religion.

I would agree that there are many, many folks who have not thought through what it is they claim to believe, and what they claim to believe would be totally faith based. However, on both sides, there could and would be those who have examined the evidence, and have been convinced by the evidence.

The point is, you could have many folks who simply believe upon faith, but there beliefs could indeed be true. While there are others whose faith beliefs would be false. On the other hand, you could have those who have based their beliefs upon the evidence, and their beliefs may be found to be false, but this would not mean there was no evidence to support the claims.

Your faith is showing!
Please evidence Abraham, but more importantly that he had an actual encounter with a god.

Okay, I believe you are sort of confused. I did not use an ounce of faith, I only stated what would be a fact, that as you say, "no one could deny." Here is what I said,

I know, I do not just have faith, that there was a story written thousands of years ago, concerning a man named Abraham. I know, I do not just have faith, that in this story, it claims this man was promised that his descendants would be the chosen people of God.

So then, as you can clearly see, the things I report would be fact, because I have not suggested in any way, that there was a man named Abraham, nor that he had any sort of encounter with God.

This was the whole point, I simply listed a good number of facts, that no one can deny, and never implied anything at all, but simply allowed the facts to speak for themselves.

Look, a story written about an Abraham!
Look, Israelite's!
Therefore, my faith that one out of thousands of god concepts is justified. Only faith could allow someone to arrive at such a conclusion.

You would have a point if these were the only things that I listed, but there was much more, on top of the fact that, you, and I both know that I simply scratched the surface, because I could have continued, on, and on supplying facts that could support a conclusion.

Look, Israelites! My faith that they are the chosen people of one out of thousands of god concepts is justified!
See this fish?

No need to get so upset? I am simply stating facts here. Next, you continue to point to other religions, as if there is some sort of point to be made, when there is no point?

Again, I am not proclaiming Christianity must, and has to be true. Nor, am I claiming that all other religions do not have evidence to support them, and that they must, and have to be false. With this being the case, then what would be your point, in referring to these other religions?

How sure of this are you and what does it matter?

I am positive, and it matters because, if this group of people were not with us at this point, then it would sort of make a point, don't you think?

For example, if you were shown more persecuted people, would you change religions?

Allow me to spell it out. In the Bible, the claim was made, thousands of years ago, that the Israelites were God's chosen people. Therefore, it would not matter if there may be other tribes that were persecuted more. However, the fact of the matter is, this tribe can be demonstrated to be, one of the most, if not the most hated, despised, persecuted, people on the planet, along with the fact that this continues, and there are those right now who want them gone.

And despite all of these obstacles, this group of people, who the Bible claimed thousands of years ago to be the chosen people, continue on.

American Indians come to mind.

Are you seriously attempting to compare the American Indians to the Jewish people? The first thing I would point out is, we are talking about a people who were proclaimed to be the chosen people of God, thousands of years ago, and are still with us today, in spite of the many, many obstacles they have faced.

See the Mayans.

No, I do not. Why? Because they have been eliminated.

Mayans were eliminated.

Exactly my point!

Mayans were eliminated. Therefore their religion is true?

I have no idea where you got that from? I believe my point was, the Bible proclaimed thousands of years ago, that the Israelites were the chosen people. These people have been persecuted, and it can be demonstrated that there have been those who have attempted to wipe them out, and continue today. If there were to be eliminated, I would have no point.

So then, I am not suggesting that these things demonstrate the truth of anything at all. However, it would be evidence to support the case.

Odd thinking. Personally, if there was a population of people worshiping a true god, I would think they would be better off then the rest of us.

That certainly seems like "odd thinking" to me? Why would you think, (believe) such a thing? Would it simply be, "faith?"

Spiderman has been written about and New York is a real city.
Convinced?
Can you even show me evidence of this Jesus outside of religious promotional material?

It does not shed a very good light on one who would make such comparisons. Yes, there is evidence of Jesus outside the Biblical content, and plenty of it.

It would be intellectual suicide for one to suggest, that the man named Jesus may have never existed. There, must and has to be a reason for the things we have contained in the Bible, and it is certainly not enough to suggest that the writers, may have been lying, deceived, delusional, or writing fiction.

Although there seem to be many who think that it is just that easy, it is not that easy at all, because at that point one would have to go on to think through all that would have to be involved, in order for any of the above, to actually be the case, and when one honestly thinks through these things, they will easily, and I MEAN EASILY, come to see, it is not that simple.

There is one thing I would ask here. You call the Biblical content, "promotional?" Exactly who were the writers attempting to promote these things to?

At any rate, you have compared "Spiderman" who everyone knows is a fictional character, who is portrayed to have lived in New York City, which happens to be a real city, to Jesus. So then, where, how, and what is the comparison? There is none whatsoever. You were doing better, (but not much better) by comparing these things to Islam, since we do know that Islam is a religion, based upon a real person.

Because you see, it would be intellectual suicide for me to attempt to make the argument, that Muhammad, may have been a fictional character, who may have never lived. In other words, it would not shed a very good light upon me to compare, a character such as "Spiderman" to Muhammad. Why? Well because the evidence is overwhelming, that Muhammed was a real person, who lived in real time.

So then, you can go ahead and make such comparisons, and take yourself out of the conversation, because I do not have time for such nonsense. Even the, "Biblical scholars" who are opposed to Christianity being true, would never attempt to make such an argument, nor would they make such comparisons, because they understand such things to be, nonsense, seeing as how the evidence for the existence of Jesus, would be, overwhelming.

Mohammed has been said to have ridden to heaven on a winged horse.

As I said, "here you are doing better, but not much, as we will see.

Would you really respect a Muslim that then said they know it happened?

I believe, and hope you misspoke here, as I do many times, because I strive to give respect to anyone, no matter what they claim to know, as long as they mean no physical harm.

With this being the case, I would go on to ask them, exactly how they became so convinced of such a thing, and at this point, I would listen intently, attempting to understand if they may have some sort of point.

Of course we all have some sort of bias, but I would attempt to get all that out of my head, and attempt to see, if I could make sense out of what he, or she, may be saying. At this point, I would hope, we could exchange ideas.

I would think not and perhaps you should reflect on your own thinking?

Well, as demonstrated, you would be incorrect, because since I know there can be errors in my thinking, I would show respect to such a one, and attempt to understand where it is, they may be coming from.

Those I struggle to have respect for, are those that insist they must, and have to be right, with no possibility of error in their thinking, and would go on to make comparisons, that would take them out of the conversation, since there is no need in wasting time, on nonsense, that even the Biblical scholars who are opposed to Christianity would never suggest.

Spiderman is a factual character

NONSENSE! I think you have pretty much taken yourself out of a serious conversation at this point.

New York is a factual city.

This you have correct.

Rather than having evidence for a claim, you point to a fact about something unrelated.

Okay, so pointing out the fact that, thousands of years ago, it was claimed in a story concerning a man named Abraham, that his descendants would be the chosen people of God, and that these descendents were in fact the Israelites, and that the other tribes at the time have vanished, but this tribe, that the Bible proclaimed to be the chosen people are still with us, even though it is a fact that they have been one of the most, if not the most persecuted tribes on the planet, with those attempting to wipe them out, on top of the fact that we all know today, that there are those working toward that end, and would love to see this tribe gone, you say, is unrelated? GOOD GRIEF? WHAT WOULD BE RELATED, in your mind?

One thing I would be willing to wager, is the fact that it would indeed be related in your mind, if this tribe was indeed not with us today. In other words, if this tribe had been eliminated, then this would be a sure sign that the things recorded in the Bible would have to be false. But since this sort of thing kinda lends credence to what is recorded, then it is not related, right?

You are still faith driven in the end.

Oh really? Well let us see?

No faith required to know that there are big fish

Agreed!

but a heck of a lot of faith to believe in the Nineveh event.

Whoever said I believed the, "Nineveh event?" When I have I ever claimed that there was reason to believe it? Are we jumping to conclusions here?

What you call good and solid fail miserably IMO.

First, we are all entitled to our opinion, but opinion would not equal fact. Next, you have sort of demonstrated my points above. In other words, I am convinced there are "good, and solid reasons to believe the reports in the NT", which would mean that there would be good evidence. Of course as you have just demonstrated, you would not agree, but then the question would become, "who has the deciding factor?"

I would suggest this would have to be subjective, meaning it would be up to each individual to decide if the evidence was convincing to them. But let us keep in mind that, it is NOT my opinion that there is enough evidence to prove the claims of the NT, but rather there is more than enough to understand that they very well may be true. But we will speak more to that momentarily.

What is good and solid for you is what leads billions of people to be Muslim.

Ummmm......? That statement makes no sense? First, I think that we both agree that, there would be many, many folk who would be both Christian, and Muslim, who have not examined the evidence at all, and simply believe because of the way in which they were brought up. This would mean that, "what I call good and solid" would not have caused even many Christians, to be Christians. Moreover then, "what I call good, and solid" could not possibly be, "what leads billions of people to be Muslim", since they could not possibly look at the same evidence, in order to become Muslim.

But again, continuing to refer to other religions, as if there is some sort of point to be made, is a very weak argument, as we will see.

Your claims are no different then what Muslim would claim about their religion.

Okay, let us see if this is the case? Before we do so, let us recall again, that I am not insisting Christianity must, and has to be true. Rather, and again, I am insisting that there are good, and solid reasons to believe the reports by the NT writers, very well may be true.

With this being said, this would not necessarily mean, there would be no reason, or evidence that may support, Islam. In other words, there very well may, and could be reasons to believe both could be true, understanding that they both could not be true, at the same time.

Next, I do not know a whole lot about other religions, which would include Islam, but I would not have to know a thing about other religions at all, in order to understand if there may be good evidence to support Christianity.

So then, here is the little I know concerning Islam, and anyone may feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

As far as Islam is concerned, there is one man who went into a cave, and came out proclaiming that he had heard from God, and that he was God's messenger, and that he was to proclaim, what God desired of us as humans. With this being the case, the revelations he was said to have received, were then written down, in what is considered the Holy Book, of Islam. That's it!

If I am correct, then how in the world, would this even come close to comparing to Christianity?

Christianity is not simply one person, but numerous. Moreover, none of the NT writers claimed to have gone into a cave, got revelations, and now was writing these revelations down in order to go into a Holy Book.

In fact, the overwhelming majority of the writers in the NT, never claimed what they were writing was what God wanted, and commanded them to write (I can think of only one NT writer were this may not apply). On top of the fact that not one of them would have been writing in order for the content to have been included in the Bible, because they could not have possibly known about any such book.

The fact of the matter is, it can be easily demonstrated, that the writers of what has been contained in the NT, were only concerned with those they were addressing these letters to, with no concern, or even any idea, that these letters they were writing would have been read by anyone else, at all.

What this means is, these writers were not attempting to promote these things to the general population in these letters. Rather, these are simply letters that were written between, and among different audiences at the time, with no idea, and no concern as to whether anyone else would ever read them, or not, and again, they certainly could not have had any idea that these letters they were writing at the time, would ever be included in a book we now call the, Bible.

So then, as we read these letters, we are not reading what God would have everyone to know, rather we are simply reading what one audience was communicating to another audience at the time.

So you see, it would certainly be extremely difficult, if not impossible to fabricate such things, because when you think about it, the accusation that they may be lying, deceived, or delusional really no longer flies so well, and it certainly does not fly so well when compared to one person who claims to have gone into some sort of cave, and came out proclaiming to have heard from God, and wrote, and, or dictated some sort of book.

There is no comparison between the two religions, and for one to believe they have some sort of point by comparing the two, sort of demonstrates, that one has not really considered all that would need to be considered.

Such reasoning can be applied to Spiderman as well.

And here is where the train comes off the track, and clearly demonstrates that one is really not interested in having a serious conversation. Because, as I said, "you were doing better when you compared Christianity to Islam", but as we have seen it was not much better, which says at lot about one who would make the comparison above.

Let's test your facts that support a conclusion.
Please show that Abraham was a real person, factually.

Some folks do not read very carefully do they? I never once said that Abraham was a factual person, now did I? Rather, I mentioned a story concerning a man named Abraham, and went on from there to refer to other facts, written down long after Abraham would have been dead, and gone, that tie into this very same story. All these facts that are listed, lead to the conclusion that the story cannot be falsified, by what it claims, and there were claims that were made, that could indeed falsify the story, such as, if the people who were claimed to be the chosen people of God, were no longer with us. But they are, even in the face of all the obstacles against it.

Or understand that what you are calling facts is nothing more than claiming the Nineveh event is factual because of a big fish.

No because I have said, the story of Abraham is a fact. This would be far different than claiming the story is true. I then went on to list other facts, that would support the story, which is far different than claiming the events are factual, because of these facts.

Look! A big fish! Therefore Nineveh.
You have not done what you wish you had I'm afraid.

Well let us see? You continue to refer to the "Nineveh event" as if I am somehow under the obligation to defend this event. I am not! In fact, I am not even under obligation to believe the event was factual.

You see, there are many Christians who believe the Bible is the very words of God, and that it must, and has to be infallible. This means, their minds are shackled, and confined, to this sort of thing, and they cannot allow their minds to think outside these lines.

However, if one were to believe that I am somehow obligated, to defend, and believe that everything in the Bible has to be factual, and that it must, and has to be the very words of God, then I am afraid such a one would demonstrate that their minds are just as confined, as the Christian, because it seems as though they cannot allow their minds to think outside these lines themselves.

So then, when we look at the NT writings, and read, study, analyze, and weigh all the facts involved, one can surely come to the conclusion that, there is enough evidence to suggest that these writers may very well have been telling the truth, based upon the facts.

Now, would one who came to such a conclusion be bound to defend, and believe, that everything contained in the Bible, must, and has to be factual? If one were to answer yes, then I am afraid, one has demonstrated that their mind is bound to the very Christian doctrines, they claim to be, vehemently opposed to.

The point is, your major argument in this post was, an appeal to Islam, and the "Nineveh event. As we have seen, it is not very good at all.

[Clownboat]

First, faith is not simply a religious thing.

The term is religious, but you are correct, it is not just a religious thing.
For example, if you want to believe in Big Foot or Loch Ness, faith can be employed.

In other words, there are many things we all would believe, that we cannot absolutely prove. However, although we may not be able to prove these things, we have overwhelming evidence to support such things, and we have faith in the evidence. Ergo, "the evidence of things not seen."

Not so fast.
If there is evidence for a claim, faith is not needed. You're trying pull a fast one by trying to claim that you can have faith in evidence.

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/Submit
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

So then, although I did not witness, (see) George Washington being the first president of the U.S., there is abundant evidence to support these things, I have not seen, (witnessed).

Correct, which is why evidence is so important.
If I could show you available body of facts or information about Big Foot, then belief might be justified. Absent available facts or information, faith is required.

Yes, again I would agree, but we are about to see, that this is not what I have done. I have only claimed those things that I can demonstrate to be facts.

Good on you!

Since you are asking me, I'll give you my opinion. Don't believe anything due to faith.

So then, we should base our beliefs upon the facts, right? If so, we are still in agreement.

Change 'facts' to 'evidence', but sure.

Once there is sufficient evidence, belief comes and no faith is required.

If this is the case, then we cannot believe anything at all, that we cannot absolutely prove.

And this is why it is important to use the correct wording, that being evidence and not facts alone. Sometimes facts are not available, but information is.
Phrasing it the way you did is what led you to believe that we cannot believe anything.

As I have said, "I am claiming there is evidence enough to believe that Christianity very well may be true."

Are you sure? Seriously, enough evidence (available facts or information) to believe that the earth is say 10,000 years old, or that all animals were created, or that donkeys and snakes can talk or that a man can live in the belly of a fish for days and on and on.

This is hard for me to swallow as I have NEVER seen facts or information about the above. However, I know billions believe such things on faith.

I am not claiming there is evidence enough to prove that it is true.

No worries. Proof is only used in math and liquor.

In the same way, I believe there is evidence enough to doubt, and also disbelieve the claims, but there is not enough evidence to prove the claims are false. Do you have another opinion? In other words, are you under the impression that there is enough evidence to would demonstrate Christianity to be, false?

Trying to prove Christianity wrong is to give it more credit then it deserves. Christianity should stand or fall on its own, not be allowed to stand because someone can't show it as false.
Either way, many claims, like the ones listed above should at least begin a person to question its claims of being true.

I would also ask, "is belief, stronger than, faith? In other words, you seem to be suggesting that, beliefs cannot be wrong, because they are based upon evidence, but faith can be wrong?"

Belief nor faith offer assurances that something is true.
Belief can be wrong. For example, I can believe in Allah via faith.

Could one have evidence, that may well suggest false things may be true?

Surely. Not all evidence is equal.

In other words, if I have a gun, standing over my friend who is now dead, and there are those who saw me and this friend in an intense argument earlier in the evening, but I am not guilty of the murder, could there very well be enough evidence to suggest that I may very well have murdered my friend? Or would this be simply based upon, faith?

No, there would need to be evidence that you did such a thing. For example, did the bullet come from your gun? Hersey as we know is not very reliable as far as evidence goes, but further, they are not saying they saw you murder, just that they saw you arguing.
The problem with faith in this instance is that I could apply it in order to believe that you are guilty and innocent.

So again, is belief stronger than faith?

No, neither are reliable paths to arrive at true conclusion.

Can there be evidence to support a belief that may be false?

Yes.

Oh Wait.............. if something is false, then it could not be a belief, because if you believe something that is false, then faith is the requirement.

Incorrect. Beliefs can be false.
Correct, faith is a requirement in order to believe in false things. There are other things that can lead to false belief, faith does not have a corner on that market, but it is a tool to arrive at false beliefs. Perhaps even true ones, but it's not a reliable way.

With this sort of thinking, you seem to be saying, beliefs cannot be wrong?

Beliefs can be wrong. Not all evidence is equal.
You must analyze the evidence for a claim and then decide if belief is warranted.

Depends on the amount and quality of evidence.

That would be subjective to each individual, don't you think?

Not really. For example, we know hearsay evidence is not very reliable.
A video of an event, much more so for example.

Again, I would agree that there are many, many religious folk who seem to think in this way. But, what would this evidence demonstrate? In other words, simply because this is the case, how does this demonstrate that what they believe, must, and has to be false?

It doesn't and that has never been my claim.
Faith is required to believe in false things, but could believe that the world is a sphere because I place faith in my Mommy and arrive at a correct belief.

I agree, but I do not see your point? I have not brought up the, "Nineveh event" and suggested that anyone should believe it.

Never said you did.
I'm pointing out that it would take faith in order to believe such a claim. My point is that faith is not a good way to arrive at truth claims. Do you disagree? Can you argue for why faith is a good way to arrive at truth claims?

Pointing to other religions, as an argument against a religion, is a very weak minded argument.

Good thing I'm not doing that. I'm pointing to the fact that faith is required for both beliefs and that they both cannot be true.

So then, you are not claiming Christianity is false? If not, I wonder why? Why would you not claim it to be false?

Why, because perhaps there is a jealous, vindictive god out there that stemmed some or all religions. Not likely IMO, but possible.

The point is, you could have many folks who simply believe upon faith, but there beliefs could indeed be true. While there are others whose faith beliefs would be false. On the other hand, you could have those who have based their beliefs upon the evidence, and their beliefs may be found to be false, but this would not mean there was no evidence to support the claims.

Either way, faith is not a reliable mechanism. If you disagree, please explain why.

I know, I do not just have faith, that there was a story written thousands of years ago, concerning a man named Abraham. I know, I do not just have faith, that in this story, it claims this man was promised that his descendants would be the chosen people of God.

So then, as you can clearly see, the things I report would be fact, because I have not suggested in any way, that there was a man named Abraham, nor that he had any sort of encounter with God.

Your words are meaningless then because all you are doing is pointing to the obvious that there was a story written about an Abraham character. Nobody would dispute such a thing.

This was the whole point, I simply listed a good number of facts, that no one can deny, and never implied anything at all, but simply allowed the facts to speak for themselves.

Your facts (that a story was written) no more show that Abraham is real then they would Spider Man.

Again, I am not proclaiming Christianity must, and has to be true. Nor, am I claiming that all other religions do not have evidence to support them, and that they must, and have to be false. With this being the case, then what would be your point, in referring to these other religions?

That believing in any of them requires faith.

This has gotten long and I must leave. If I missed anything that you would like me to address, please list it and I will get to it next week.

Be well.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 109 by Realworldjack]

In other words, I am a Christian, but I am not a Christian simply because I want to believe. In fact, I would rather not believe.

Why would you rather not believe? Even as an atheist I would prefer there to be a benevolent deity offering me some bliss in an afterlife. I just find that there is no compelling reason to believe that it's true. That's not by choice by the way. My brain has reached that conclusion based on all of the information it has received.