What Truth Is

[Jagella]

The warrior Miyamoto Musashi said:

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.

Can Christians understand this principle? You can try to argue your God into existence, but by doing so you just end up living a lie.

[Realworldjack]

Oh really? Well, I have never heard it explained like that? Your argument is so, so good here, that I cannot even think of any sort of rebuttal? So much so, that I am just about ready to forget all the time, and effort I have put into coming to the conclusions I have, and joining the ranks of the Atheists, because I have never heard such a great argument? I cannot believe that I did not think of it myself? And here I was, thinking that I was a logical thinker.

Readers, I know that this was meant to be tongue and cheek, but I cannot overlook the fact that this poster IS an atheists when it comes to all the gods out there, except for one of course. A 'real' atheist just takes it one god further. Just look at all the commonality between atheists and Christians!

Every theist it seems can easily see why competing gods are false, but for whatever reason, these theists cannot seem to make the same determination about their own god concept.

Now we have billions of Muslims believing in their god concept while disbelieving in the claims made on behalf of Jesus, and billions of Christians believing in their god concepts while disbelieving the claims of Mohammed.

As far as the claim goes for being a logical thinker. That is one that I must question.
What is the logic in believing that animals talk, or that bodies that have been dead and liquefying for days come back to life, or that a man lived in the belly of a fish for days, and on and on?

Believe in your god, be proud of your god and worship your god if you must, but to call such a thing logical... well that seems to go too far IMO.
(I'm not saying you didn't just happen to find the correct god concept to believe in by the way, just that I don't see the 'logic' you referred to).

but I cannot overlook the fact that this poster IS an atheists when it comes to all the gods out there, except for one of course.

Oh really? Well, how in the world did you determine that I am an "atheist when it comes to all the gods out there?" Have I ever stated this is the case? I have not! Therefore, you are like many others on this site, who simply make assumptions.

I have not studied any other religion, therefore I would have no idea if there may be reasons to believe these other religions. I have stated on this site numerous times that, "there may in fact be reasons to believe the claims of other religions." However, I do not have to study any other religion at all, in order to determine if there may be good, and solid reasons to believe Christianity.

So, as we can clearly see, you jump out there, assuming things about someone, without actually being sure you are correct.

Every theist it seems can easily see why competing gods are false

Well, as you can now see, it is not "EVERY THEIST" because I understand that I cannot claim another religion is false, without actually knowing, and understanding it's claims. And again, I have made these same exact statements numerous times on this site. And again, we can clearly see the one who works on assumptions!

Now we have billions of Muslims believing in their god concept while disbelieving in the claims made on behalf of Jesus, and billions of Christians believing in their god concepts while disbelieving the claims of Mohammed.

You are more than likely correct. But what would this have to do with me? Because you claim I am guilty of this. So now, can you back up your claim?

As far as the claim goes for being a logical thinker. That is one that I must question.
What is the logic in believing that animals talk, or that bodies that have been dead and liquefying for days come back to life, or that a man lived in the belly of a fish for days, and on and on?

Well, let's talk about logic. Is it logical to dismiss a claim simply because it is unbelievable? As an example, if you were to tell me that someone had been dead for three days, and then came back to life, it is not as though I would simply refuse to believe it. I do not operate like this. However, I may choose to doubt it.

Why would I simply choose to doubt it? Well, it may be because I am not really interested, and do not feel like going into all it would take in order to disprove the claim. In other words, I just do not care, and if this is what you would like to believe then I have no problem, but I would rather not be bothered with it.

Now, if it really mattered to me, and I wanted to get to the bottom of the matter, then I will assure you that I would have more to offer than my doubt!

But again, if someone simple said, "a body came back to life", then there would certainly be plenty of room for doubt. However, we have far more than that, concerning the resurrection of Jesus!

Now, I have no problem with those who simply choose to doubt, and would rather not get involved, and, or could not care less. However, it is a problem when there are those who claim, "there is no reason to believe the Christian claims", and all they have to offer is their doubt!

The point is, it is very easy to simply throw things out there, and CLAIM, "there is no reason to believe." It is quite another to actually know what you are talking about, and can demonstrate, what you claim.

Believe in your god, be proud of your god and worship your god if you must, but to call such a thing logical... well that seems to go too far IMO.

Well, to dismiss a claim, when all one has to offer is their doubt, and that it is simply to difficult to believe, is to assume that one knows all there is to know, and is about as illogical, as I can think of!

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 14 by Realworldjack]

We only deal with what would be true.

Then you darned well be ready to prove every word you post as true. No opinions allowed!

Your argument is so, so good here, that I cannot even think of any sort of rebuttal?

You might attempt to explain how people are missing the truth of your religion. If Christianity is "true," then why are there so many skeptics?

...I have never once become upset. My most common response after reading posts, is to laugh.

OK, but it sure looks like you're upset to me. Why so many exclamation points if you're not upset?

So again, as we can see, you deal a whole lot in assumptions...

Sometimes we need to assume. In an online forum, it's a part of life. As long as assumptions are sensible, they can be very helpful.

Well please allow me to assume for a moment about you. I would assume that you were a Christian at one time. I would also assume that you will say, you came to faith without the use of the mind. I will also assume that you now want us to believe, that someone such as yourself, who made such a major life decision, without the mind, now has the mind engaged, and it was this thinking process that has lead you to the truth of Atheism. However, when you were a Christian, (you know when you were not using your mind) one of your main motivations was, "the ticket to heaven", therefore all Christians must operate in the same way as you, which means, "the ticket to heaven" must and has to be why they are a Christian............. Well, how'd I do?

You're very close. You only erred when you assumed that I think "all Christians must operate in the same way (I did)." There are other ways for Christians to "operate." TV evangelists, for example, are known to be hucksters who know that Christianity is baloney. They "operate" by selling that baloney for a very handsome profit. So their motivation isn't pie in the sky but money.

Now before you get too upset, let me explain that I do think that Christians may have other reasons to believe or say they believe what they do.

You simply believe things because you want to, right?

Wrong. I believe the world is full of religious dopes, but I don't want to believe it.

Could you please describe some of the tactics that were used?

They taught that heaven was for believers and unbelievers went to hell--just like Jesus taught.

Well, yes I have read it, but I must have missed where we are told to use "psychological manipulation." Could you please share these passages with me? Can't wait for this!

There's way too many to post here. Just read the beatitudes in Matthew 5 for the dangling of the carrot, and Revelation 21:8 for the threatened punishment.

I know you're well aware of this kind of psychological manipulation in your religion. I'm just posting these example for any member who may not be aware of it.

Then you darned well be ready to prove every word you post as true. No opinions allowed!

Opinions are allowed, as long as they are stated, as such. However, you should not state an opinion as a fact, and this is what you seemed to have done. At least that is what you are claiming. In other words, you made a statement, as if it were factual, and when I call you out, you claim it was an opinion. But other than that, I am more than willing to back up any factual statements I make.

You might attempt to explain how people are missing the truth of your religion. If Christianity is "true," then why are there so many skeptics?

Am I misunderstanding? Surely you are not suggesting that we can determine truth, according to how many skeptics there are, as opposed to how many believe? Would this mean that when there were less skeptics, that Christianity must have been true? GOOD GRIEF.

OK, but it sure looks like you're upset to me. Why so many exclamation points if you're not upset?

You are right, I do over use them, but it has nothing to do with my being upset. I simply use them in order to stress a point, which is probably incorrect. My bad.

Sometimes we need to assume. In an online forum, it's a part of life. As long as assumptions are sensible, they can be very helpful.

We all have assumptions, just like I had, and continue to have assumptions about you. However, it is not very smart, nor is it helpful to work upon those assumptions, until, or unless, those assumptions are verified, but then of course, they would no longer be assumptions.

The reason is because, you could be incorrect, so it is better to keep those assumptions to oneself, and rather continue to analyze what one is actually saying. Other than that, if you have an assumption about someone, and you really want to verify, then it would be better to simply ask, rather than throw the assumptions out there, as if you know them to be a fact.

You're very close.

And you see, I have had these assumptions about you from the start. However, I did not work upon these assumptions. Rather, I simply continued to analyze what you say, keeping these assumptions to myself, until you begin to throw your assumptions out there, as if they were known facts.

There are other ways for Christians to "operate." TV evangelists, for example, are known to be hucksters who know that Christianity is baloney.

Allow me demonstrate, how you continue here, to work upon assumptions. You say these TV evangelists, "know that Christianity is baloney." They cannot know Christianity is baloney, because it has not been demonstrated to be baloney.

In other words, Christianity has not been proven false, and yet, you continue to work upon this assumption.

Now, I would agree with you that many of these evangelist, may be convinced Christianity is false, and or believe it to be false, but they cannot know Christianity to be false, because this has not been determined.

Now before you get too upset, let me explain that I do think that Christians may have other reasons to believe or say they believe what they do.

I will assure you, that you are correct on this point.

Wrong. I believe the world is full of religious dopes, but I don't want to believe it.

Right, which is no different than, I would rather not believe Christianity was true.

They taught that heaven was for believers and unbelievers went to hell--just like Jesus taught.

And you call this, "psychological manipulation?" From the web,

Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the behavior or perception of others through abusive, deceptive, or underhanded tactics. By advancing the interests of the manipulator, often at another's expense, such methods could be considered exploitative, abusive, devious, and deceptive.

I really do not believe that teaching that. "heaven was for believers and unbelievers went to hell" would fall into the category of, psychological manipulation. At least it was not for me.

You either believe it, or you do not. As I said, I was exposed to these same things in Church, but simply left at the age of 19. No pressure. No one burning crosses in my yard. I either believed it, or I did not. If I did not, then why would they want me there? Maybe you had a different experience?

There's way too many to post here.

That is not a bad thing, it is a good thing, because I am not asking you to share them all. Just one will be fine, and it seems as if you have a lot to choose from, so it shouldn't take long.

I know you're well aware of this kind of psychological manipulation in your religion.

I am aware of many who do this sort of thing, just like I am aware of the TV evangelists you speak of. What I am not aware of is where, "psychological manipulation" is taught, or used in the Bible? If you believe that simply teaching about heaven, and hell fits into this category, then we have a completely different idea of what, " psychological manipulation" actually is.

[Clownboat]

but I cannot overlook the fact that this poster IS an atheists when it comes to all the gods out there, except for one of course.

Oh really? Well, how in the world did you determine that I am an "atheist when it comes to all the gods out there?" Have I ever stated this is the case? I have not! Therefore, you are like many others on this site, who simply make assumptions.

Let's test this response of yours shall we?
What other god concepts do you believe are real besides the Christian god concepts?

I have not studied any other religion, therefore I would have no idea if there may be reasons to believe these other religions.

Very honest of you. Kinda hard to respect your decision to stick with Christianity though don't you think?
If you only ever ate broccoli, how would you have any idea if pizza is any good?

I have stated on this site numerous times that, "there may in fact be reasons to believe the claims of other religions." However, I do not have to study any other religion at all, in order to determine if there may be good, and solid reasons to believe Christianity.

Again, this 'good enough' attitude you display is not a sound way to arrive at truth. It's just being complacent.

So, as we can clearly see, you jump out there, assuming things about someone, without actually being sure you are correct.

Your response above will tell us all whether the assumption was correct or not.

Every theist it seems can easily see why competing gods are false

Well, as you can now see, it is not "EVERY THEIST" because I understand that I cannot claim another religion is false, without actually knowing, and understanding it's claims.

Correct, but who cares what you have to say about religion, you admit that you are ignorant when it comes to competing religious ideas.
Perhaps you would like me to amend may statement to read, "Every theist that is not ignorant about competing god concepts".

And again, I have made these same exact statements numerous times on this site. And again, we can clearly see the one who works on assumptions!

With my slight amendment to include ignorant believers like yourself, are you now satisfied? Why we should care about what ignorant people say is still lost on me though. So the amendment seems unnecessary.

Now we have billions of Muslims believing in their god concept while disbelieving in the claims made on behalf of Jesus, and billions of Christians believing in their god concepts while disbelieving the claims of Mohammed.

You are more than likely correct. But what would this have to do with me? Because you claim I am guilty of this. So now, can you back up your claim?

Nothing to do with you. Why should I care what ignorant believers have to say? I might as well debate religion with my children.

As far as the claim goes for being a logical thinker. That is one that I must question.
What is the logic in believing that animals talk, or that bodies that have been dead and liquefying for days come back to life, or that a man lived in the belly of a fish for days, and on and on?

Well, let's talk about logic. Is it logical to dismiss a claim simply because it is unbelievable?

I would think so. Can you point to an unbelievable claim that I should accept?

As an example, if you were to tell me that someone had been dead for three days, and then came back to life, it is not as though I would simply refuse to believe it. I do not operate like this.

Really? In that case, I have some ocean front property in Arizona I'm willing to sell you for real cheap. Good luck not being duped in life with such an attitude.

Now, if it really mattered to me, and I wanted to get to the bottom of the matter, then I will assure you that I would have more to offer than my doubt!

You are irrelevant to this discuss though IMO. You admit to being ignorant about the competing god concepts. You seem to have found one you like and are just sticking with it. Therefore, your doubt or lack of doubt should not be considered for being admittedly ill-formed. Why should we take ill-formed decisions seriously?

But again, if someone simple said, "a body came back to life", then there would certainly be plenty of room for doubt. However, we have far more than that, concerning the resurrection of Jesus!

Correct. We have the natural explanation that the disciples took the body that to Galilee to be buried. You are admittedly ignorant about other gods, yet you buy the resurrection story when a natural explanation is available. Feel free, but I would not expect others to respect such an approach.

Now, I have no problem with those who simply choose to doubt, and would rather not get involved, and, or could not care less. However, it is a problem when there are those who claim, "there is no reason to believe the Christian claims", and all they have to offer is their doubt!

You're mistaken. There is more to offer than just doubt. There is faith at play, and faith is a requirement to believe in false things.
Want to believe in Big Foot? That takes faith.
Want to believe in alien abductions? That takes faith.
Want to believe in Zeus or Allah....? That takes faith.
Faith is also a reason to doubt.

The point is, it is very easy to simply throw things out there, and CLAIM, "there is no reason to believe." It is quite another to actually know what you are talking about, and can demonstrate, what you claim.

Please demonstrate that you know what you are talking about. I would ask you to demonstrate why you believe, but you admit to being ignorant about competing gods, so I will have a hard time taking what you say as being credible. Do try though please.

Well, to dismiss a claim, when all one has to offer is their doubt, and that it is simply to difficult to believe, is to assume that one knows all there is to know, and is about as illogical, as I can think of!

Please show that you speak the truth. Show that I doubt your religious claims for no other reason than doubt.
I have already touched on faith and we haven't even discussed contradictions yet. So you have a lot of work in front of you.

[William]

[Replying to post 18 by Jagella]

But I wasn't talking about how popular an idea is; I'm arguing that as we learn we see there's nothing that any god has really revealed to us. Those who adopt religion are not adopting knowledge but belief. No matter how many people believe a lie, it's still a lie. I prefer to be in the minority, if it is a minority, who know the truth about the world we live in.

Well we at least hold theories on what is 'truth' about the world we live in.

But I don't see how it matters either way as to what waxes or wains re popularity. Truth is a thing hard to pin down.

But if you are happy with your preferred position - and that happiness spills into the world, that can only contribute to good changes right? Would that be truth?

Considering theism's track record, I understand your objecting to be associated with all of it. Religion has a very sordid history, as you have just implied.

Sure. It does not stop me from being a theist though. There are all sorts of theism and I prefer not to make blanket judgement. I don't think for a moment that removing theism from the equation will make the world any better a place.
Perhaps you do, and that is why you are writing your book?

I think you're equivocating here. You are trading the word "theists" in the second sentence for "theism" in the first sentence. The two terms are different, of course. While I realize that many theists have made many great discoveries and have advocated education, that has little to do with their being theists. Theism doesn't deserve the credit for what some theists have accomplished. The reality probably is that theists who have contributed to our knowledge probably did so not because they were theists but despite being theists.

How can we tell though? We are not those people and while it may help you to be stable in your position, it may not be the truth.

As a theist (and re my theology) I would argue that their contribution was inspired at least in part by their idea of GOD and love for that GOD. That is a reasonable assumption to make as well, because many theists live their lives in that light.

In any case, can you name one verified fact that religion has ever blessed humanity with?

We to be fair, without religions influence none of us might not be enjoying the relative freedoms that we have today. It is hard to argue one way or the other on that.

But if you are simply shifting argument from theism to organised religions, I wasn't arguing in favor of organised religions.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 22 by Realworldjack]

Opinions are allowed, as long as they are stated, as such.

Is this you opinion? If yes, then you violated your own rule to state it as such. If no, then it is a statement of fact, and you violated your own rule to back it up.

Am I misunderstanding? Surely you are not suggesting that we can determine truth, according to how many skeptics there are, as opposed to how many believe? Would this mean that when there were less skeptics, that Christianity must have been true?

You are either misunderstanding or dodging my question. If Christianity is "true," then why are there so many skeptics?

The reason is because, you could be incorrect, so it is better to keep those assumptions to oneself, and rather continue to analyze what one is actually saying.

Then keep your assumptions to yourself. You continue to violate your own rule.

...Christianity has not been proven false, and yet, you continue to work upon this assumption.

How could it not be false? It's full of nonsensical and wild claims that no Christian would believe if those claims came from anywhere beside the Bible.

And you call this, "psychological manipulation?" From the web,

Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the behavior or perception of others through abusive, deceptive, or underhanded tactics. By advancing the interests of the manipulator, often at another's expense, such methods could be considered exploitative, abusive, devious, and deceptive.

You've got it right there. Those who push Christianity use abusive, deceptive, and underhanded tactics to change people's behavior and belief. The clergy advance their own interests this way by collecting the money from suckers every Sunday morning. What are you not understanding here?

Do you give your money in church?

[liamconnor]

The warrior Miyamoto Musashi said:

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.

Can Christians understand this principle? You can try to argue your God into existence, but by doing so you just end up living a lie.

Why not prefix a negative to Christian and existence? Are non-Christians living a lie? Can they accept the above principle?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 24 by William]

Truth is a thing hard to pin down.

That's the truth. Since the truth can be difficult to discern, then we need to knock the crap out of any claim to see if it can survive tough scrutiny. Otherwise, we leave our selves open to deception which can be very harmful if not deadly.

But if you are happy with your preferred position - and that happiness spills into the world, that can only contribute to good changes right? Would that be truth?

While I'm not sure what you're asking here, allow me to say for now that I don't see happiness as a criterion for truth. Happiness can be bad because it can blind us to the needs of others. Frankly, if anybody's happy, then they're probably not seeing the world for what it really is.

There are all sorts of theism and I prefer not to make blanket judgement.

Believing in gods of any kind may have proved useful to our ancestors as they struggled to understand their mysterious world, but we've moved beyond that stage and no longer need such superstitions. It is better to believe what's real rather than waste one's time and thoughts with fantasies.

The reality probably is that theists who have contributed to our knowledge probably did so not because they were theists but despite being theists.

How can we tell though?

Just read some good biographies about those Christians who were great thinkers. Look for any contribution that their Christian beliefs may have made to their discoveries. When you see that there were none, then you can conclude that they made contributions to our knowledge that had nothing to do with their Christianity.

As a theist (and re my theology) I would argue that their contribution was inspired at least in part by their idea of GOD and love for that GOD. That is a reasonable assumption to make as well, because many theists live their lives in that light.

It's possible they were inspired by their religious beliefs to make discoveries, but they could have been inspired for many other reasons.

We to be fair, without religions influence none of us might not be enjoying the relative freedoms that we have today. It is hard to argue one way or the other on that.

Freedoms? From religion? As I see it religion enslaves people.

[Realworldjack]

but I cannot overlook the fact that this poster IS an atheists when it comes to all the gods out there, except for one of course.

Oh really? Well, how in the world did you determine that I am an "atheist when it comes to all the gods out there?" Have I ever stated this is the case? I have not! Therefore, you are like many others on this site, who simply make assumptions.

Let's test this response of yours shall we?
What other god concepts do you believe are real besides the Christian god concepts?

I have not studied any other religion, therefore I would have no idea if there may be reasons to believe these other religions.

Very honest of you. Kinda hard to respect your decision to stick with Christianity though don't you think?
If you only ever ate broccoli, how would you have any idea if pizza is any good?

I have stated on this site numerous times that, "there may in fact be reasons to believe the claims of other religions." However, I do not have to study any other religion at all, in order to determine if there may be good, and solid reasons to believe Christianity.

Again, this 'good enough' attitude you display is not a sound way to arrive at truth. It's just being complacent.

So, as we can clearly see, you jump out there, assuming things about someone, without actually being sure you are correct.

Your response above will tell us all whether the assumption was correct or not.

Every theist it seems can easily see why competing gods are false

Well, as you can now see, it is not "EVERY THEIST" because I understand that I cannot claim another religion is false, without actually knowing, and understanding it's claims.

Correct, but who cares what you have to say about religion, you admit that you are ignorant when it comes to competing religious ideas.
Perhaps you would like me to amend may statement to read, "Every theist that is not ignorant about competing god concepts".

And again, I have made these same exact statements numerous times on this site. And again, we can clearly see the one who works on assumptions!

With my slight amendment to include ignorant believers like yourself, are you now satisfied? Why we should care about what ignorant people say is still lost on me though. So the amendment seems unnecessary.

Now we have billions of Muslims believing in their god concept while disbelieving in the claims made on behalf of Jesus, and billions of Christians believing in their god concepts while disbelieving the claims of Mohammed.

You are more than likely correct. But what would this have to do with me? Because you claim I am guilty of this. So now, can you back up your claim?

Nothing to do with you. Why should I care what ignorant believers have to say? I might as well debate religion with my children.

As far as the claim goes for being a logical thinker. That is one that I must question.
What is the logic in believing that animals talk, or that bodies that have been dead and liquefying for days come back to life, or that a man lived in the belly of a fish for days, and on and on?

Well, let's talk about logic. Is it logical to dismiss a claim simply because it is unbelievable?

I would think so. Can you point to an unbelievable claim that I should accept?

As an example, if you were to tell me that someone had been dead for three days, and then came back to life, it is not as though I would simply refuse to believe it. I do not operate like this.

Really? In that case, I have some ocean front property in Arizona I'm willing to sell you for real cheap. Good luck not being duped in life with such an attitude.

Now, if it really mattered to me, and I wanted to get to the bottom of the matter, then I will assure you that I would have more to offer than my doubt!

You are irrelevant to this discuss though IMO. You admit to being ignorant about the competing god concepts. You seem to have found one you like and are just sticking with it. Therefore, your doubt or lack of doubt should not be considered for being admittedly ill-formed. Why should we take ill-formed decisions seriously?

But again, if someone simple said, "a body came back to life", then there would certainly be plenty of room for doubt. However, we have far more than that, concerning the resurrection of Jesus!

Correct. We have the natural explanation that the disciples took the body that to Galilee to be buried. You are admittedly ignorant about other gods, yet you buy the resurrection story when a natural explanation is available. Feel free, but I would not expect others to respect such an approach.

Now, I have no problem with those who simply choose to doubt, and would rather not get involved, and, or could not care less. However, it is a problem when there are those who claim, "there is no reason to believe the Christian claims", and all they have to offer is their doubt!

You're mistaken. There is more to offer than just doubt. There is faith at play, and faith is a requirement to believe in false things.
Want to believe in Big Foot? That takes faith.
Want to believe in alien abductions? That takes faith.
Want to believe in Zeus or Allah....? That takes faith.
Faith is also a reason to doubt.

The point is, it is very easy to simply throw things out there, and CLAIM, "there is no reason to believe." It is quite another to actually know what you are talking about, and can demonstrate, what you claim.

Please demonstrate that you know what you are talking about. I would ask you to demonstrate why you believe, but you admit to being ignorant about competing gods, so I will have a hard time taking what you say as being credible. Do try though please.

Well, to dismiss a claim, when all one has to offer is their doubt, and that it is simply to difficult to believe, is to assume that one knows all there is to know, and is about as illogical, as I can think of!

Please show that you speak the truth. Show that I doubt your religious claims for no other reason than doubt.
I have already touched on faith and we haven't even discussed contradictions yet. So you have a lot of work in front of you.

Let's test this response of yours shall we?
What other god concepts do you believe are real besides the Christian god concepts?

Well first, I really do not understand what you mean by, "real?" I have been on this site for some 4 years now, and I have never referred to Christianity, nor the "Christian god concepts" as "real." In fact, I have never claimed they were true.

The closest thing I can think of, that would come close to what you say here is, I have claimed to believe Christianity to be true. However, this is a far cry from proclaiming that it must, and has to be true. And it certainly has nothing to do with it being, "real."

Next, as far as the, "other god concepts", (which I would assume would be other religions) I do not know how to better explain it? I have not studied any other religion. With this being the case, I would have no idea, if there may be reasons to believe these other religions, or not, since I know very little, if anything about them.

But again, and however, I would not have to know anything at all about these other religions, in order to understand, and believe if there may be good, and solid reasons to believe Christianity. I really do not know what would be difficult to understand here.

Very honest of you. Kinda hard to respect your decision to stick with Christianity though don't you think?
If you only ever ate broccoli, how would you have any idea if pizza is any good?

Thank you so much, because you are helping me make my point!

I may never eat pizza, which would mean that I would have no idea if it may taste good or not. In the same way, I may never study any other religion, which would mean, I would have no idea if there may be any reason to believe them or not.

I may only eat broccoli, but I would not have to taste pizza, in order to determine if broccoli tastes good. I may only study Christianity, but I would not have to study any other religion in the world, in order to determine, if there may be good, and solid reasons to believe Christianity.

This was exactly my point. I do not have to know anything at all, about any other religion at all, in order to understand if there may be good reasons to believe Christianity.

Simply because there may be good reasons to believe Christianity is true, does not necessitate that it is true. This simply means, there are good reasons to believe.

Because there may be good reasons to believe Christianity to be true, would not necessitate that there could not be good reasons to believe any other religions.

To acknowledge that there could be good reasons to believe other religions, does not necessitate, that there are good reasons, if one has not studied these other religions.

Again, this 'good enough' attitude you display is not a sound way to arrive at truth. It's just being complacent.

Is it? Do I have to eat pizza, to understand if broccoli is good? Do I have to study every other religion in the world, to understand if there may be good reasons to believe Christianity?

Correct, but who cares what you have to say about religion, you admit that you are ignorant when it comes to competing religious ideas.

Is this to say that you are an expert on every religion, and can tell us exactly what each, and everyone of them teach, and exactly why it is we should not believe each, and everyone of them?

Or is it, that you have very little idea of what any of them teach, and simply have some sort of six sense, and just know deep down inside that they must be false, in the same way many Christians claim to know Christianity must be true?

Or, is it that, you were once a Christian, who truly embraced the faith at one time, and you admit that you made this major life decision without the use of the mind, and you now want us to believe that your mind is now engaged, and it was this thinking process that has lead you to the truth of unbelief concerning Christianity, and since Christianity for you now must, and has to be false, then this naturally means that all such religions, must, and has to be false, so there is no need in you studying each, and every religion?

It would be my guess, that it is the latter that is the case. If I am correct, then you would be admitting yourself, that you did not use the mind when you were a Christian, which would more than likely mean, you know very little concerning what Christianity actually teaches, since you admit that you were not using your mind, which would seem to mean that you simply sucked up anything, and everything you were taught, without thinking about it.

Why we should care about what ignorant people say is still lost on me though.

I think we just determined whom. that may be. Because I will assure you that I would never make such a decision without the use of the mind. If you admit that your mind was not engaged, and that you would make such a major life decision without the mind, what in the world would cause us to believe, that the mind is now engaged? Because in my experience, those who make such major life decisions without the mind, tend to continue to do just that.

Why should I care what ignorant believers have to say? I might as well debate religion with my children.

The way things are going right now, you might want to go find your children, because you are not faring so well.

I would think so. Can you point to an unbelievable claim that I should accept?

Allow me to answer this by giving an example. Many years ago, the overwhelming majority of folks believed that the Sun, must and had to revolve around the Earth. They could not believe it possible that the Sun was actually stationary. The evidence seemed overwhelming because it certainly appears that the Sun is moving across the sky.

More than likely, if you and I were alive at the time, we would have been in the same boat, as the majority, thinking it impossible for the Sun to be stationary.

The reason they would not believe such a thing, is because they were blinded to what was actually occurring, and therefore were only looking at the surface, because they could not see, the things occurring behind the scenes, which is exactly my point.

This is why I do not simply dismiss a claim that sounds outrageous to me. Now, again, I my choose to doubt certain claims, if I do not wish to get involved, to actually discover what the truth may be. However, I am not arrogant enough to believe that I know everything, and can simply determine on my own, without the use of the mind, what may, or may not be impossible.

You, on the other hand, seem to believe you posses such ability. You seem to believe that you can determine the truth of a claim, not by attempting to examine the evidence for, or against it, but rather by determining if the claim seems to be possible.

But the thing is, those who claimed that Jesus was resurrected, were not in any way attempting to claim that it was possible, but rather, they understood just as well, as you, and I, that it was not possible. If it was possible, then there would be nothing extraordinary about it, at all. Rather, it would then be, an ordinary claim.

Really? In that case, I have some ocean front property in Arizona I'm willing to sell you for real cheap. Good luck not being duped in life with such an attitude.

Notice, I said, "I would not refuse to believe it." This does not in any way at all mean, that I would believe it, because as I have already said, "I may choose to doubt the claim." If I choose to doubt the claim, this does not mean that I am claiming the claim is false. Doubting something to be true, is nowhere close to claiming it to be false.

Now, as we look at your example of the "ocean front property in Arizona", I would know the claim to be false. Therefore, the analogy would not fit, because I am certainly not of the assumption that there is nothing we can know. Rather, the argument is, there are many things we cannot know, and I do not believe it wise, to simply believe that we know.

You are irrelevant to this discuss though IMO. You admit to being ignorant about the competing god concepts.

And you are an expert on them all, right? Or, is it that, I must understand all other religions, in order to determine if there may be good reasons to believe Christianity, while you do not have to know anything at all, about any religion, in order to determine that they are all false?

You seem to have found one you like and are just sticking with it.

Wrong again. I do not like Christianity. Who would like, or want to believe it, if they truly understand it?

Therefore, your doubt or lack of doubt should not be considered for being admittedly ill-formed.

First, can you please explain why I would need to know anything at all about any other religion, in order to understand if there may indeed be good reasons to believe Christianity?

Next, if you yourself are not an expert on all religions, then would this not mean that your rejection of them would be, "ill informed?" Or would this simply apply to those with religious beliefs, and those who have no religious beliefs, have some sort of six sense, and have no need to know about religion?

Correct. We have the natural explanation that the disciples took the body that to Galilee to be buried. You are admittedly ignorant about other gods, yet you buy the resurrection story when a natural explanation is available.

Allow me to explain the difference between you, and I. You would be correct to say that there COULD be natural explanations that MAY explain the empty tomb. However, the very fact that you, and others have come up with other possible explanations, is an admission that there was a man named Jesus, that he was indeed crucified, that he was indeed buried, and that there was indeed an empty tomb.

You must certainly understand this, which is why you understand that you have to come up with an alternative explanation.

The problem with your explanation is, you cannot demonstrate, nor prove, in any sort of way, that your explanation is correct. Rather, you seem to be arguing, it must be true, simply because it is a natural explanation, as opposed to an extraordinary explanation.

However, you seem to act as if your explanation would have been simple. In other words, you seem to act as if your explanation would not have been extraordinary at all?

Moreover, you seem to act as if, this would not have been something that I would not have thought of myself. Not only have I thought through these things, I have went on to actually think through, all that would have had to be involved for the natural explanation to be correct. If you were to actually do this, then you would realize, that either way, it would be, extraordinary.

The point is, either these men were telling the truth, and it is the most extraordinary event that has ever occurred. Or, these ordinary, fishermen, save one tax collector, instead of being devastated, by the humiliating public demise of their leader, pull off the biggest hoax in the history of the world, all within a short amount of time. Either way, it is extraordinary indeed!

Next, you seem to believe the natural explanation wins out, without having to think through any of these things. In other words, you seem to be insisting that you must, and have to be correct. I on the other hand, am not insisting that I must, and have to be correct.

Unlike you, I understand that I cannot demonstrate, nor prove what it is I believe concerning these things. Rather, all I can do, is to give the reasons why I believe as I do. While you seem to simply believe, what seems to be the most natural explanation proves some sort of point.

The point is, you can come up with all sorts of natural explanations. However, until, or unless there is evidence to back up these claims, then all you are doing is to throw out possibilities, with no facts to back them up.

You're mistaken. There is more to offer than just doubt. There is faith at play, and faith is a requirement to believe in false things.

I will again point out, that you seem to be working on the assumption that what I believe must, and has to be false, when you have failed to demonstrate your case.

Next, you and I have a completely different understanding of faith. You see, I do not need faith in order to believe that there was a man named Jesus that walked the face of the Earth. I do not need faith to believe that this man was crucified, dead, and buried. I do not even need faith, in order to believe he was resurrected. Rather, what I need to believe these things is evidence. Because you see, I can look, see, read, study, and analyze the evidence for these sort of things.

What I would need faith to believe is, I have been forgiven. Again, I can study, and analyze these other things, however, I cannot feel, touch, weigh, see, nor analyze, forgiveness. Rather, I have to trust that I have been forgiven.

Please demonstrate that you know what you are talking about.

Sure. I know, that you can in no way demonstrate what you believe concerning Christianity. I also know, that I can in no way demonstrate what it is I believe concerning Christianity. With this being the case, I know, that all either of us can do, is to explain what it is we believe concerning Christianity.

I would ask you to demonstrate why you believe, but you admit to being ignorant about competing gods, so I will have a hard time taking what you say as being credible.

I have already dealt with my, "being ignorant about competing gods", and am waiting on you to tells us if you are an expert on all the gods.

Next, I really do not know how in the world I could, "DEMONSTRATE why I believe." I have already admitted, and acknowledged many times here on this site, that I cannot demonstrate that what I believe is in fact true. Now, I could explain what it is I believe, and why I believe it. In fact, I have been asked this question many times on this site.

However, it always seems comical to me when I am asked this question. The reason is, are there those who are really under the impression that one could explain all the reasons they believe, in one simple post?

I mean, if there are those who do not simply accept what others say, but rather go on to analyze all the facts involved, over a number of years, are we really to believe that such a one, could explain all these things in a simple post? If one believed they could explain all the reasons they believe concerning such an in depth subject, would we not consider such a person, simple minded?

As an example, I certainly hope there are not those who do not believe, and are under the impression that they can explain all the reasons they do not believe, in a single post. In other words, I certainly hope there are not those, who are under the impression that, all one has to do is to point out the fact that, these things are scientifically impossible? Or, that they are simply to difficult to believe? If one were to do this sort of thing, would we not consider this person, simple minded? I certainly hope so, because there is a whole lot more involved, and if there are those that believe otherwise, then simple minded is all I can think of.

Moreover, and as I have said, I have been on this site for over four years now, and the last count I have seen, I have posted some 970 something post. Therefore, there is plenty out there for all to see. But, to think that I could explain all these things in one post, would be simple minded, in my opinion.

Please show that you speak the truth.

About what?

Show that I doubt your religious claims for no other reason than doubt.

That is for you to, "show."

I have already touched on faith and we haven't even discussed contradictions yet.

I have answered the faith question. I am ready for the contradictions!

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 22 by Realworldjack]

Opinions are allowed, as long as they are stated, as such.

Is this you opinion? If yes, then you violated your own rule to state it as such. If no, then it is a statement of fact, and you violated your own rule to back it up.

Am I misunderstanding? Surely you are not suggesting that we can determine truth, according to how many skeptics there are, as opposed to how many believe? Would this mean that when there were less skeptics, that Christianity must have been true?

You are either misunderstanding or dodging my question. If Christianity is "true," then why are there so many skeptics?

The reason is because, you could be incorrect, so it is better to keep those assumptions to oneself, and rather continue to analyze what one is actually saying.

Then keep your assumptions to yourself. You continue to violate your own rule.

...Christianity has not been proven false, and yet, you continue to work upon this assumption.

How could it not be false? It's full of nonsensical and wild claims that no Christian would believe if those claims came from anywhere beside the Bible.

And you call this, "psychological manipulation?" From the web,

Psychological manipulation is a type of social influence that aims to change the behavior or perception of others through abusive, deceptive, or underhanded tactics. By advancing the interests of the manipulator, often at another's expense, such methods could be considered exploitative, abusive, devious, and deceptive.

You've got it right there. Those who push Christianity use abusive, deceptive, and underhanded tactics to change people's behavior and belief. The clergy advance their own interests this way by collecting the money from suckers every Sunday morning. What are you not understanding here?

Do you give your money in church?

Is this you opinion? If yes, then you violated your own rule to state it as such. If no, then it is a statement of fact, and you violated your own rule to back it up.

From the rules of this very site

Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.

You are either misunderstanding or dodging my question. If Christianity is "true," then why are there so many skeptics?

How many people does it take to believe a claim, in order for it to be true? I am misunderstanding the question, because it is, nonsensical.

How could it not be false? It's full of nonsensical and wild claims that no Christian would believe if those claims came from anywhere beside the Bible.

I really believe I can rest my case here, and allow this sort of thinking to speak for itself.

You've got it right there. Those who push Christianity use abusive, deceptive, and underhanded tactics to change people's behavior and belief. The clergy advance their own interests this way by collecting the money from suckers every Sunday morning. What are you not understanding here?

It sounds as though you have been exposed to things that most of us were not exposed to. However, even if what you say were true, what would it have to do with if the claims made in the NT were true or not?

Do you give your money in church?

I have not been to a church in years!

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 29 by Realworldjack]

From the rules of this very site

Quote:
Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.

That's exactly right, and if I must abide by any such rules, then you must practice them as well.

And by the way, if you want all claims to be backed up, then why take anything you read in the Bible on faith?

You are either misunderstanding or dodging my question. If Christianity is "true," then why are there so many skeptics?

How many people does it take to believe a claim, in order for it to be true? I am misunderstanding the question, because it is, nonsensical.

The question makes perfect sense to me. My perfectly sensible answer is that so many people are skeptical of Christian claims because they know those claims are a lot of baloney.

How could it not be false? It's full of nonsensical and wild claims that no Christian would believe if those claims came from anywhere beside the Bible.

I really believe I can rest my case here, and allow this sort of thinking to speak for itself.

That's a great idea. Let my wisdom speak for itself.

It sounds as though you have been exposed to things that most of us were not exposed to.

Yes. I've been exposed to the truth.

However, even if what you say were true, what would it have to do with if the claims made in the NT were true or not?

The clergy makes good use of the Bible to further there own ends. Just consider the crooked TV evangelists and the Roman Catholic Church's pedophile priests. It seems unlikely to me that such con-artistry could come from the truth.

I have not been to a church in years!

That's good, but isn't it a sin not to go to church? I know of several Christians who no longer attend church. It looks like a hopeful trend.