Right! They're Smartter Than atheists.

[Plu]

Is that something like everyone believing in the same thing, science, but their being competing theories about how to explain and account for all of the things we see in the world?

Not at all. Competing theories aren't contradictionary, and if they are, we start scrapping the ones that are wrong until only non-contradicting ones remain.

Since that's not possible with religion because it's very meticuously defined to not allow any kind of testing which of two contradicting sides is actually correct, it leaves a new follower with nothing to go on except contradicting opinions and his own desires.

And reading the sacred doesn't really help because a literal reading gives you a genocidal mad-man as a god, and you can't cherry-pick because there's no way to determine if you are right, because there is no empirical way to verify anything in the book.

You say some other people have an inappropriate understanding of christianity. Other people say you have an inappropriate understanding of christianity, and theirs is better. The book says you are both wrong. So do all non-christians, but they use the exact same arguments to try and explain that their god is correct. I have no way to figure out who or what is correct.

Usually when something is untestable, unfalsifiable, and everyone gives you a different "answer", the only reasonable response is to hold no opinion on the matter. Usually when claims are made by something that cannot affect your life at any rate, people simply respond by treating the thing as if it does not exist, until it is shown to make an impact on their life.

[gomtuu77]

Or you just don't look for them is it? But wouldn't you look if you thought they existed?

No, I'm convinced.  Between the ages of 19 and about 23, I spent several years reading hundreds of books and looking into the veracity of what I'd grown up believing.  As a result of that and the many years of experience and research since then, I'm thoroughly convinced.  I don't need to see a miracle for me to trust the reality of what Christ has done for me and the existence of God.  For me, it's entirely obvious, and it's the only thing that both corresponds to reality and coheres sufficiently to make sense of the reality I experience on a daily basis.

[gomtuu77]

Is that something like everyone believing in the same thing, science, but their being competing theories about how to explain and account for all of the things we see in the world?

Not at all. Competing theories aren't contradictionary, and if they are, we start scrapping the ones that are wrong until only non-contradicting ones remain.

Well, it depends on the particular theories in question of course, but yes, they can be and often are quite contradictory.  One theory says it happened one way, and another theory says that it happened another.  Did life originate on Mars or on Earth?  If it originated on Mars, then it didn't originate on Earth.  It's an either or proposition in some instances.

Since that's not possible with religion because it's very meticuously defined to not allow any kind of testing which of two contradicting sides is actually correct, it leaves a new follower with nothing to go on except contradicting opinions and his own desires.

I'm pretty sure I can't hang with you on that one.  It depends upon what you mean of course, but there shouldn't be any reason why an exploration of that kind is impossible.  It may be different or even more difficult due to its nature, but it's not as though any religion isn't open to criticism and even falsification.  Of course, not every question is answerable or knowable, but that shouldn't necessarily disallow the scrutiny.

And reading the sacred doesn't really help because a literal reading gives you a genocidal mad-man as a god, and you can't cherry-pick because there's no way to determine if you are right, because there is no empirical way to verify anything in the book.

This is likely untrue and probably at least partially a result of multiple misconceptions and false ascriptions you've made.

You say some other people have an inappropriate understanding of Christianity. Other people say you have an inappropriate understanding of Christianity, and theirs is better. The book says you are both wrong. So do all non-Christians, but they use the exact same arguments to try and explain that their God is correct. I have no way to figure out who or what is correct.

Again, this appears loaded with all kinds of assumptions.  You'll have to give me an example to work with, but at first blush, this would appear to be more misunderstanding on your part than a genuine reality.  Also, it should be noted that there are instances where a definitive on who is right or wrong about a topic just isn't possible, and you're left with likelihoods based upon what the text says and appears to be teach.  This has more to do with the perfection in reasoning ability or lack thereof, that any particular person or group brings to their interpretation/understanding of the text.

Usually when something is untestable, unfalsifiable, and everyone gives you a different "answer", the only reasonable response is to hold no opinion on the matter. Usually when claims are made by something that cannot affect your life at any rate, people simply respond by treating the thing as if it does not exist, until it is shown to make an impact on their life.

Well, that's the problem with asking individuals who are all over the place in terms of their devotion & knowledge levels.  You're better off dealing with a very few people you feel exhibit a depth of knowledge, and focusing on the sacred text itself, the example of the religion's founder(s), and the mainstream developed historic doctrine of the religion in question.  The mixed behavior, devotion, and knowledge levels of the various adherents will only bring confusion to the process.  I think it's possible to examine truth claims though, and so that should make investigation and legitimate conclusions at least possible. That assumes that you aren't stipulating answers out of the discussion from the outset, which is usually where people run into problems.

[Plu]

Well, it depends on the particular theories in question of course, but yes, they can be and often are quite contradictory. One theory says it happened one way, and another theory says that it happened another. Did life originate on Mars or on Earth? If it originated on Mars, then it didn't originate on Earth. It's an either or proposition in some instances.

Those aren't theories, they are hypothesises. A theory requires far more evidence. Hypothesises can contradict each other, because we do not yet know which one is correct, and they are elimated by falsification. They are also not assumed to be true.

It may be different or even more difficult due to its nature, but it's not as though any religion isn't open to criticism and even falsification.

Name one way in which I can empirically falsify your religion then, and we'll see if we can't make it happen.

This is likely untrue and probably at least partially a result of multiple misconceptions and false ascriptions you've made.

They made a whole website about all the people god killed in the bible, for all manner of silly reasons. Here, have a look:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_o ... ing_people

I don't know about you, but I cannot consider a person who is responsible for that much death anything less than a mad-man, especially if he expects you to love him while he's doing it. You cannot justify that kind of behaviour, especially given the power god is supposed to have.

Again, this appears loaded with all kinds of assumptions. You'll have to give me an example to work with, but at first blush, this would appear to be more misunderstanding on your part than a genuine reality. Also, it should be noted that there are instances where a definitive on who is right or wrong about a topic just isn't possible, and you're left with likelihoods based upon what the text says and appears to be teach. This has more to do with the perfection in reasoning ability or lack thereof, that any particular person or group brings to their interpretation/understanding of the text.

I'm quite sure all muslims consider you to be wrong about a lot of things god believes, and themselves to be right. I'm quite sure the feeling is mutual. I'm certain there are plenty of christian sects, like the Mormons, who disagree with you and you with them. Each even has their own version of the sacred book to prove they are correct. It's kinda hard to figure out which copy is correct, when all of them claim to be the word of god and are mostly the same except for a bunch of rather crucial but unverifiable details.

I mean; how would I even know with which holy book to start "reading the sacred text"? There's dozens of versions of the bible alone, and then there's dozens of other religions out there with very similar stories that also claim to be sacred. How can I objectively judge that yours is better than theirs? How do you even know yours is the best? Have you read the holy books of muslims, jews, buddhists, toaists, and all other religions under the sun?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I don't recall the specifics, but I wasn't intending to deny that it was an assertion of sorts.  What I was denying was that it was meant to be taken as an argument in any sense.  It was a statement of what I believed on that topic, not the reasons for which I believe it.  My apologies if it upset you so much that you're still seething about it days later.

Nothing you do 'upsets' me, but props on over inflating your ego.

People dying for no good reason upsets me. People bleating nonsense assertions on a forum just bemuses me.

[the_antithesis]

Actually, yes it is.

See, this is why people hate christians. You could have gone on to bible gateway and found the passage and verse and quoted it here or just gave the reference, but you didn't. You just expect us to take us at your word for no other reason than you had said it. This show that faith is actually pride.

Huh?  You hate Christians because they fail to cite verses?

People also hate christians because they are stupid with poor reading comprehension skills.

[Hydra009]

People also hate christians because they are stupid with poor reading comprehension skills.

=D>  Though that goes for people in general, too.

[Colanth]

Typically, what happens is that someone ascribes their own meaning to some passage or text while pretending to take it at face value, in context, and in the sense intended.

You mean in the sense that YOU interpret it to have been intended.  And that if THEY interpret it to have been intended differently, they're "ascrib[ing] their own meaning to" the passage.

Right?

[Colanth]

I don't recall the specifics, but I wasn't intending to deny that it was an assertion of sorts.  What I was denying was that it was meant to be taken as an argument in any sense.

Making an assertion but not allowing for argument is the fallacy of Ispe Dixit.  I know you're going to claim it's not, but that's exactly what it is.

Stating what you believe and making an assertion are totally different things.  An assertion is "this is what it is".  Stating what you believe is "I believe that".  They're not even close, logically, even if what follows in each case is identical.

And that's a typical Christian failing - stating a belief as fact.  You believe that God exists.  You believe that Jesus existed.  They're not facts, they're merely the beliefs of a few billion people.  (And I say "merely" because anything more is argumentum ad numeram.  Even if every person in the world believes a falsity, it's still false.)

[Colanth]

The most obvious answer is that God is not a material being in the sense you seem to be indicating.  I think it's a dreadful display of belief, but it happens all the time.

How would a non-material being directly affect material things?  (Assuming that we include energy as being material, since energy and matter have equivalency.)

[Colanth]

Is that something like everyone believing in the same thing, science

Nothing at all alike, since anyone can test anything in science.  In Christianity we're directly told that God is not to be tested, so you have to believe based solely on the words of other people.  Science is pretty much "don't rely on anyone else's word". ("Nullius in verba")

Science and religion are as alike as water and sunshine.

but their being competing theories about how to explain and account for all of the things we see in the world?

Some of the things, not all of them.  (In fact, most things in science have come down to a single theory.  It's only things on the cutting edge that still have competing theories.)

The difficulty you're identifying has to do with the continuum of understanding on which all human beings, including Christians, exist.  Some people have appropriate understandings of Christianity, and some people have inappropriate understandings of Christianity.

There's not too much to "understand" about, say, Matt 17:20.  Yet no one has ever seen anyone moving any mountain solely by faith.  So evidently not a single person in the last 2,000 years has had the least bit of faith, huh?

Other people merely have limited or incomplete understandings of Christianity, while others have more complete or more comprehensive understandings. And then of course, you have the regenerate and the unregenerate Church, which is to say that you have a lot of people that call themselves Christians, for any number of reasons (e.g. social reasons, superstitious reasons, reasons of tradition, etc...), and then you have genuine Christians who have genuinely given their life to Christ and are attempting to follow Him as best they can.  All of these factors combine to present you with the confused picture that you're delineating.

They all combine to present the picture of a person who believes that his way is right, and anyone deviating from that way is wrong.

Who is to say which "Christian" is the real Christian?  Certainly not you?

I would say to you, what I've said to others.  If you want to come to appropriate judgments about Christianity or any other religion, focus on what their sacred scripture actually teaches

That's why many ex-Christians are atheists.  They did exactly that.  It's also why many never-been-Christian atheists see absolutely no reason to "seek God".

taking into account the historic developed doctrines over time

Oh, you mean that God got it wrong at first, and mere men had to correct the doctrines so plainly spelled out in the book that's God's own word?

and the example of its founder(s).

Have YOU studied the history of Christianity?  If you had, you'd know that the founder of the religion we CURRENTLY call Christianity was Constantine.  Originally it was just a Jewish mystery sect that, around the beginning of the second century, expanded to include gentiles.  It wasn't until late in the second century that the "Jesus the man" character was invented.  That's history.  What you're talking about is apologism, and everyone has his own.

[Colanth]

At least it sounds like you're in the same camp as us atheists on one point then. That god has never cured a cancer or saved anyone from any illness whatsoever, as this would be considered a sign eh? And you don't believe in signs?

How could you possibly have gotten that from what I said?  I believe the Bible teaches the superiority of believing God without signs and wonders, but I also believe it is clear the Christ attested to His divinity and authority.  In short, he provided evidence for the people of His day, and record of that evidence has been preserved for us, a long with a vast array of information we've been able to establish with our own educational advancement.

You're claiming that we have actual proven instances of God curing cancer?  Directly, not by creating doctors and medicine as intermediaries?  (And not including idiopathic cures or spontaneous remissions.)  But, of course, you won't post links to any actual cases, for some reason or another, right?

[Colanth]

Or you just don't look for them is it? But wouldn't you look if you thought they existed?

No, I'm convinced.  Between the ages of 19 and about 23, I spent several years reading hundreds of books and looking into the veracity of what I'd grown up believing.

You do realize that that's exactly the opposite of the way actual research is carried out, right?  Doing it your way is merely applied confirmation bias.

[Colanth]

Is that something like everyone believing in the same thing, science, but their being competing theories about how to explain and account for all of the things we see in the world?

Not at all. Competing theories aren't contradictionary, and if they are, we start scrapping the ones that are wrong until only non-contradicting ones remain.

Well, it depends on the particular theories in question of course, but yes, they can be and often are quite contradictory.  One theory says it happened one way, and another theory says that it happened another.  Did life originate on Mars or on Earth?

There are no theories about that either way.  There aren't really even any hypotheses.  (Unless you redefine "theory" to mean "statement".)

Since that's not possible with religion because it's very meticuously defined to not allow any kind of testing which of two contradicting sides is actually correct, it leaves a new follower with nothing to go on except contradicting opinions and his own desires.

I'm pretty sure I can't hang with you on that one.  It depends upon what you mean of course, but there shouldn't be any reason why an exploration of that kind is impossible.

Last time I looked, Deuteronomy 6:16 was still part of Christian belief.

It may be different or even more difficult due to its nature, but it's not as though any religion isn't open to criticism and even falsification.

Christianity is falsifiable (and has been falsified) by atheists.  Christians don't accept ANYTHING as falsification, though.

Of course, not every question is answerable or knowable, but that shouldn't necessarily disallow the scrutiny.

Except where the Bible plainly says it does, as above.  (You don't actually understand the Bible very well, do you?)

And reading the sacred doesn't really help because a literal reading gives you a genocidal mad-man as a god, and you can't cherry-pick because there's no way to determine if you are right, because there is no empirical way to verify anything in the book.

This is likely untrue

Even though it's completely true?

God doesn't allow Adam and Eve to understand the difference between good and evil.
He punishes them for disobedience, because disobedience is evil.

Which they could not have known at the time, since God created them without such knowledge, and didn't allow them to gain it.  (Otherwise the whole "fruit of the tree of ..." would be total nonsense.)

and probably at least partially a result of multiple misconceptions and false ascriptions you've made.

How is reading the words in Gen 3 "misconceptions" or "false ascriptions"?  Unless you maintain that the words in Gen 3 don't actually mean what they say they mean.

and you're left with likelihoods based upon what the text says and appears to be teach.

So enlighten us and tell us what Colossians 3:22 really means, if it doesn't mean that owning slaves is permissible according to God.

This has more to do with the perfection in reasoning ability or lack thereof, that any particular person or group brings to their interpretation/understanding of the text.

No, it actually has to do with "the Word of God" having been written by men who, in today's world, would be beneath contempt, so men today have to make things up in order to be able to cling to ancient beliefs and not appear to be moronic monsters.  There are MANY plainly-written passages in the Bible that Christians currently refuse to take literally, because to do so would be unthinkable.  But so would "God got it wrong".  So would "the Bible is just some books that some men wrote".  So to keep all that horror being the word of the super-benevolent creator, Christians have to make things up.  And every sect makes up different things.

Well, that's the problem with asking individuals who are all over the place in terms of their devotion & knowledge levels.  You're better off dealing with a very few people you feel exhibit a depth of knowledge

That's what atheists do, and that's why we remain atheists.  (Believing what the Bible says isn't exhibiting a depth of knowledge of anything other than knowing what the Bible claims.  One who exhibits a depth of knowledge actually knows things like what actually happened back when the books that were going to be included in the Bible were being selected - and WHY those, but not others, were selected.  Not the belief that the others were wrong, but the knowledge that the others contradicted the needs of the State at the time.  Knowledge like that.)

I think it's possible to examine truth claims though

You're right, it is.  And most of them that are significant fail.  Like the Flood. Like the Exodus.  Etc., etc.

That assumes that you aren't stipulating answers out of the discussion from the outset, which is usually where people run into problems.

That's Christian apologism, not scholarly research, which accepts whatever answers the research leads to.  You look for affirmation of your beliefs.  We look at each claim and see if there's any evidence to show that it's true.  We find almost none, and much evidence that much of the Biblical assertions are false.

That's the difference between you and research.

[GalacticBusDriver]

We already have enough light (i.e. evidence) of His obvious reality

Would you care to present some of that evidence?