Christians don&#39;t read their Bible

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,255

06.15.2020 06:00AM

-->

@ethang5

@RoderickSpode

And theism is not biased?

And there is no sound argument for theism either....Both arguments are rendered equally unsound by the nature of the argument...Though the theist does need to provide unequivocal evidence, whereas the atheist just needs to rest on their laurels until such times, when the theist can provide unequivocal evidence....As the atheist hasn't developed a mythological and supernatural hypothesis that requires substantiation....Hence a bit of scepticism is justifiably pertinent.

Because at the core etc.

Sounds like your describing a theist there Mr Ethan.

#32

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

06.15.2020 06:12AM

-->

@zedvictor4

And theism is not biased?

I said nothing about bias. I said atheists make emotional arguments, not a logical ones.

Sounds like your describing a theist there Mr Ethan.

Sure. "Sounds" like that to you.

And there is no sound argument for theism either....Both arguments are rendered equally unsound by the nature of the argument...

Untrue. You just think "truth" and "middle" are synonymous. They aren't.

Though the theist does need to provide unequivocal evidence, whereas the atheist just needs to rest on their laurels until such times, when the theist can provide unequivocal evidence....

Again untrue. Atheists make truth claims. There are no laurels to sit on if you have not supported your truth claim. Theists do need to provide unequivocal evidence, but so do atheists. The difference is that Atheism has no possible evidence, for a negative cannot be proven.

#33

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,255

06.15.2020 06:48AM

-->

@ethang5

Exactly.....You said nothing about bias, though Mr Spode did.

Sure, sounds like that to you.

Just as it sounds like that to you.

Truth and middle.

Who and what are you quoting, you've lost me there.

Atheists understand the truth of day to day reality and are dismissive or sceptical about the likelihood of fantasy worlds contained within mythological and supernatural hypotheses. So no truth claims necessary as far as the atheist is concerned....The onus rests wholly upon theists to prove their truth claims, with fact rather than with fiction.

Me personally, would be just as happy with either an existent god or no god. It wouldn't make much difference if any at all, to day to day reality. Other than we would have to find something else to disagree about.

#34

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

06.15.2020 02:17PM

-->

@zedvictor4

And there is no sound argument for theism either.

The universe exists through a succession of processes that bring about intended results, processes are associated with intelligence as it requires a mind and intelligence to formulate a process to understand how the process should work and what is needed for that production. Inanimate materials have no ability to think, formulate a process or understand a desired outcome which requires a mind and awareness. Thought and intelligence are required to know how a process should unfold, a mind is required to understand how to make that work and what materials are required for it to be developed and what the desired outcome should be. Therefore an intelligent Agent (AKA God) is necessary for the evolution, construction, arrangement and formation of our universe.

How's that?

Though the theist does need to provide unequivocal evidence, whereas the atheist just needs to rest on their laurels until such times, when the theist can provide unequivocal evidence.

Lol what a joke, the Theist already figured out the truth using their brains, commonsense and evaluating the evidence and so the atheist sits back and waits for what precisely? should we give you brains and spoon feed you commonsense? the evidence has already been laid out, all the indicators are there. An Atheist can conclude the same premise the same way a Theist can given that they understand correlation, how evidence is defined, inference and have access to commonsense. You're making us do all the work because why, you're lazy-minded?

sceptical about the likelihood of fantasy worlds

You like to use such words to make your inferior worldview seem more plausible, but it doesn't.

mythological and supernatural hypotheses.

No mythological means necessary for such a hypothesis. You do need a brain though.

The onus rests wholly upon theists to prove their truth claims, with fact rather than with fiction.

Once again you have no way of determining what is fact or fiction about God, and because of your impenetrable pile of conditioned internal data no truth or facts could ever pass through even if they were presented. Basically you're screwed lol.

Me personally, would be just as happy with either an existent god or no god. It wouldn't make much difference if any at all, to day to day reality. Other than we would have to find something else to disagree about.

Then you haven't weighed and considered the implications for each worldview. They are night and day with enormous differences, this only shows me your limited capacity to think and elaborate on concepts.

#35

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

06.15.2020 02:54PM

-->

@EtrnlVw

The universe exists through a succession of processes that bring about intended results

Start by demonstrating this to be the case, then we can look at what follows as it relates to the demonstration.

processes are associated with intelligence

While you're at it, do the same with this one. I think it's the arrogant surety with which you (and others) make these unfounded claims that serves as the impetus to post here. A little humility and I probably wouldn't be bothered!

#36

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

06.15.2020 03:06PM

-->

@ludofl3x

Start by demonstrating this to be the case

Demonstrate it for yourself, it is commonsense. It doesn't need to be demonstrated for you, that's how logic works.

A little humility and I probably wouldn't be bothered!

I'm only reacting to the arraogance of the poster, I have no problem with humility. Of course, I've been dealing with Zed for awhile so all this has already been gone over. So yeah, I get annoyed when I spend the time with someone in all aspects of their inquiries just to be ignored and the same nonsense repeated. This was not intended for you in other words.

#37

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

06.15.2020 03:09PM

-->

@RoderickSpode

f Christians don't realize what's in the Bible, then they couldn't have read it. So you're stuck with the same problem in trying to suggest Christians don't read the Bible. And that somehow atheists are the only people who actually read the Bible, and are being gracious by enlightening all of us Christians about verses they don't think we've ever read.

So you think anyone who's read any part of the bible definitely understands it, and they all agree on it after having read it? Didn't you tell me that I don't have a background in ancient Hebrew as translated to Greek, so I can't possible understand what the bible really says or meant?

Who's the source of your quote, by the way? Is it you? Is there a verse in the bible that says "Slaves obey your masters," is there instructions in the bible on how to buy slaves from foreign lands, and is there a quote from anyone in the bible that says "All previous laws about slavery are void, definitely don't ever do that" or something clearly to that effect? Does god send Hebrews to murder Amalekites?

My point is this stuff is IN THE BIBLE, but Christians seem to ignore them because they're so ridiculous or uncomfortable. I don't really bother much with engaging on these any more because the arguments are basically "No it isn't in the bible / that's not what it means," but the fact remains the words are in the bible. Christians like yourself just say they're not there, so what's the point of arguing over it?

#38

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

06.15.2020 03:09PM

-->

@ludofl3x

I think it's the arrogant surety

It's not arrogant to be confident in the premise put forward. My surety is expressed through years of experience, observation and logic. At this point in my life there's no real room for any doubts, it would be silly for me to be unsure about something so well grounded. That does not mean I'm not a skeptic, don't make any mistake about that.

#39

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

06.15.2020 03:14PM

-->

@EtrnlVw

Demonstrate it for yourself, it is commonsense. It doesn't need to be demonstrated for you, that's how logic works.

Common sense is wrong literally all the time, and this is not in any way how logic works. It's a simple assertion with nothing behind it. It's not an argument, it's a story you tell yourself and want everyone else to believe. All I'm asking is why I should believe it, and you say "it's common sense, believe it." Well at one time it was common sense the earth was the center of the universe.

#40

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,255

06.15.2020 05:08PM

-->

@EtrnlVw

Nope.....Theists figured out a hypothesis which cannot be unequivocally substantiated....Atheists also hypothesise, (god principle included) but without the necessity of religion.... The difference is that theists will not admit that their hypothesis cannot be unequivocally substantiated, whereas the atheist tends to remain sceptical about all hypotheses, including their own....Prove to the atheist that your hypothesis is in fact wholly correct and the atheist will be happy to agree.

#41

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

06.15.2020 05:23PM

-->

@zedvictor4

Exactly.....You said nothing about bias, though Mr Spode did.

As I told you, I said nothing about bias.

Sure, sounds like that to you.

Just as it sounds like that to you.

It couldn't slick. I said nothing about bias. Your "that" above is unspecified and thus, it's fakery.

Truth and middle.

Who and what are you quoting, you've lost me there.

Don't worry about it.

Atheists understand the truth of day to day reality and are dismissive or sceptical about the likelihood of fantasy worlds contained within mythological and supernatural hypotheses.

Yes, as they have pre-decided that the narrative is a fantasy world contained within mythological and supernatural hypotheses. Anything is easy to dismiss if you pre-decide that it is fantasy. The thing is, that isn't logical reasoning, it's confirmation bias.

So no truth claims necessary as far as the atheist is concerned....The onus rests wholly upon theists to prove their truth claims, with fact rather than with fiction.

I get that but of illogic often. It's not just wrong, its a ploy to avoid the BoP. Whoever makes s truth claim has the onus to support his claim. Everyone is responsible for their claims.

Me personally, would be just as happy with either an existent god or no god. It wouldn't make much difference if any at all, to day to day reality. Other than we would have to find something else to disagree about.

All this tells me is that you are willfully ignorant of the depth of the topic. But I'm sure you're a nice guy.

#42

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

06.15.2020 11:29PM

-->

@ludofl3x

Common sense is wrong literally all the time

Lol oh is it? why is it when a Theist uses common sense it's then always wrong, but in other matters common sense is useful?? is that how common sense is understood? well let's check the term then and see how the term is defined....

Common sense-

"Common sense is sound practical judgement concerning everyday matters, or a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge"

"good sense and sound judgment in practical matters"

"The first type of common sense, good sense, can be described as "the knack for seeing things as they are, and doing things as they ought to be done"

"sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts"

"plain ordinary good judgment; sound practical sense"

"Your common sense is your natural ability to make good judgments and to behave in a practical and sensible way"

"sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence"

Hmm, funny how the term is defined to lean towards being RIGHT rather than wrong. That's the whole point in using common sense in the first place, in this case when I see something as blatantly obvious I define it as common sense, sorry I know...it doesn't fit in your worldview but I'm still going with good ol common sense.

Now, I'm not being stupid either I get what you're saying coming from your point of view of course. Let me put it this way, if there's a slight chance I'm right that God exists then what I've said is absolutely true. Everything I said about the processes of the universe appearing as if there was an intelligent factor and inanimate forces acting as if they have awareness is by all means accurate. If we take the two main opposing worldviews (Theism vs Atheism, meaning either God exists or God doesn't) and say there's a 50/50 chance of me being right then my common sense judgement has a 1 in 2 chance of accuracy. I'm willing to say it's more likely than not, out of the two worldviews all the indicators are pointing towards intelligence being associated with such processes so why would I forfeit my good judgement?

it's a story you tell yourself and want everyone else to believe.

Did I? or is it an observation I presented to have you consider there's an argument in favor of creation? A story I tell myself? who's being arrogant now? how about a common sense judgment used to establish something worth considering rather than just handing you a Holy book? I don't need to make up little stories to tell myself when reality exists as a means to conclude the obvious.

All I'm asking is why I should believe it

Why should you believe inanimate materials have the ability to produce intelligent processes as if they had minds? do you also believe that a tube of paint can paint a picture all on its own? how about a stack of bricks putting together a blue print and building itself into existence? what else do you know of that manufactures itself into existence without agency? the fact that production is associated with a producer, construction is associated with a constructor and processes are associated with agency is unavoidable that's why I label it common sense. But of course you don't have to go that route because I'm assuming you have a much better scenario and reason why things exist.

I can't force you to use my own common sense, it's up to you to use that yourself.

Well at one time it was common sense the earth was the center of the universe.

Was it? or was it just accepted because people believed it and had no other options? I had no one tell me this and I'm aware of all the options, this is my own observations about our universe and no good reason to forfeit the idea. If you presented an option that was superior to mine I would gladly listen as was presented the concept of a spherical earth. I don't find materialism or atheism to be convincing at all, and I explained why.

I actually have reasons for my conclusions I don't "make up stories".

It's a simple assertion with nothing behind it.

No, it's an observation formed through common sense and weighing all things put forward. I'm not demanding that you believe it, I'm just presenting the idea so you have something to think about other than dogma.

#43

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

06.15.2020 11:48PM

-->

@zedvictor4

Nope.....Theists figured out a hypothesis which cannot be unequivocally substantiated...

Maybe in your mind.

.Atheists also hypothesise, (god principle included) but without the necessity of religion....

That's fine, so you admit that there's good reason to consider creation as a worldview? was my argument good or not? that was the question at hand.

The difference is that theists will not admit that their hypothesis cannot be unequivocally substantiated

Because that's your opinion, if I thought it wasn't substantiated why would I support it? it's a matter of your own opinion. To me it is obvious, fully substantiated through a myriad of good evidence and reason.

whereas the atheist tends to remain sceptical about all hypotheses, including their own....

That's not the impression I get at all. And on top of that there's really only two options lol, either God exists (Theism) or God does not exist (Atheism). What are ALL these supposed hypotheses?

Prove to the atheist that your hypothesis is in fact wholly correct and the atheist will be happy to agree.

I can't force you to use common sense and good judgement that's on you. Out of the two worldviews only one is superior and I presented that premise above.

#44

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,255

06.16.2020 07:02AM

-->

@EtrnlVw

I would also suggest two options....Chance or purpose.

Chance and purpose are both reliant upon the same basic principle....Something from nothing....Therefore both are just as likely or unlikely.

Theists pluck a god out of thin air without proper explanation and then proceed to surround it with a fantasy tale based upon the lives of a particular group of people that may or may not have existed at a certain time in a certain place, all relatively recently in terms of human history ....This is the problem with theism....An assumed purpose based upon one of many god principles, embellished with meaningless ritual and mythology, but with no real evidence to support it.

The term god principle merely utilises the commonly used and widely known word "god" as a suggestion of purpose, but does not assuredly implicate an imaginary uncreated entity as the reason for a purpose.

Nonetheless all hypotheses are on the table, but firstly any hypothesis that seeks to be a complete hypothesis must therefore overcome the something from nothing conundrum.....And an imaginary uncreated entity that for some other unexplained reason just doesn't need to be created, quite frankly isn't good enough.

Furthermore any hypothesis that is also based upon the theist principle of unnecessary creation is also valid. Therefore chance is just as likely as purpose, if not more so and if you think about it logically the theist principle of unnecessary creation is actually more suggestive of chance than it is of purpose.

And by chance a god just appeared out of nothing and proceeded to create everything......Reminds me of the children's story "Mr Benn" where things appeared "as if by magic"....Maybe that's because they are both imaginary fantasy tales.

#45

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

06.16.2020 12:15PM

-->

@EtrnlVw

why is it when a Theist uses common sense it's then always wrong

I didn't say that at all, did I? I said common sense is wrong all the time regardless of who's applying it. It's a way to FORM a hypothesis, not a way to test it. In other words, it's a way to say "Well, common sense would dictate that the sun goes around the earth, as it always comes on on this side of the house and goes down on the other side of the house." What you're doing is stopping right here and saying "Because that's how it seems, and it makes sense to me, it must be right!" The right thing to do is to try to figure out if you're wrong or not (NOT IF YOU'RE CORRECT, this invites confirmation bias), then look at your results, again and again, and make a conclusion that is no longer "common sense," but supported by facts, is testable, reproducible, with instructions for others on how to demonstrate this for themselves if they're curious. You do literally none of this work, you just fold your arms, think you're super smart (way smarter than people who don't share your view, because their common sense isn't as good as yours) and pretend you solved it.

if there's a slight chance I'm right that God exists then what I've said is absolutely true. Everything I said about the processes of the universe appearing as if there was an intelligent factor and inanimate forces acting as if they have awareness is by all means accurate

So if there's ANY chance something is true, it is? Or does this only apply to your current proposition? How does this work? Let me give you an example. If I tell you that aliens seeded life here and it's only common sense that leads me to this conclusion, am I now correct?

or was it just accepted because people believed it and had no other options?

This is how all gods are created, you know. Like the Pantheon. People used common sense (a super race of invisible beings with powers over various parts of nature, that's why natural phenomena with no apparent explanation happen) and had no available way to test the hypothesis. In other words, it's six of one, half dozen of the other.

Topic's author

#46

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

06.18.2020 10:06PM

-->

@ethang5

There are many reasons atheism is still a fringe belief, and one of those reasons is due to how atheist activists behave in public.

Even agnostics apparently don't trust them. And the atheists can't blame Christians for that one.....lol.

Topic's author

#47

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

06.18.2020 10:21PM

-->

@zedvictor4

And theism is not biased?

Theism is not a personality, so no, it cannot be biased. Are there theists that are biased? Sure! Everyone has a bias, right?

And there is no sound argument for theism either....Both arguments are rendered equally unsound by the nature of the argument...Though the theist does need to provide unequivocal evidence, whereas the atheist just needs to rest on their laurels until such times, when the theist can provide unequivocal evidence....As the atheist hasn't developed a mythological and supernatural hypothesis that requires substantiation....Hence a bit of scepticism is justifiably pertinent.

Whenever evidence is provided, unless it's door to door delivery, there's almost always a required action needed by the receiver. It can be something as simple as clicking on to a link. If you offer evidence to something (anything) to me and provide a link, it won't do any good unless I click on to that link. And as long as I refuse the link, I can hold onto

whatever claim I make.

Even if proof knocks on your door, you still have to get off the couch and answer the door.

It's the same issue with demanding proof specifically concerning the God of the Bible. If one doesn't follow what the bible says to do in order to obtain unequivocal proof, they're not much different than the one refusing a website link.

Topic's author

#48

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

06.18.2020 10:47PM

-->

@ludofl3x

So you think anyone who's read any part of the bible definitely understands it, and they all agree on it after having read it?

No. What gave you that idea?

Didn't you tell me that I don't have a background in ancient Hebrew as translated to Greek, so I can't possible understand what the bible really says or meant?

No.

I did mention that I didn't think you were a biblical scholar, but I think I pretty much pointed out that I'm not either. It's not about credentials or who's more intelligent. If you're drawing definite conclusions based on mere first hand observation without considering the complexity of historical context and ancient language, then how can you claim any knowledge authority on the text's actually meaning?

Who's the source of your quote, by the way? Is it you? Is there a verse in the bible that says "Slaves obey your masters," is there instructions in the bible on how to buy slaves from foreign lands, and is there a quote from anyone in the bible that says "All previous laws about slavery are void, definitely don't ever do that" or something clearly to that effect? Does god send Hebrews to murder Amalekites?

What quote are you talking about?

My point is this stuff is IN THE BIBLE, but Christians seem to ignore them because they're so ridiculous or uncomfortable. I don't really bother much with engaging on these any more because the arguments are basically "No it isn't in the bible / that's not what it means," but the fact remains the words are in the bible. Christians like yourself just say they're not there, so what's the point of arguing over it?

Am I the exception to your rule about engaging on these anymore?

When/where did I claim they weren't there? I've conversed with you on many occasions about specific verses, quoting them verbatim.

I fully acknowledge any reference in a British publication using the word "solicitor". What I won't acknowledge is that they're referring to a sales person. Yes, it flat out says "solicitor" in the publication. No denial of that. But....I would suggest that they're referring to an attorney.

If you think scripture is stupid, why talk about it at all? Some people think silent and black and white movies are stupid. Therefore, all they'll watch is newer movies to satisfy their need to see high tech special effect explosions, modern innuendo humor, and to feel contemporary. Maybe you should stick to reading what feeds your interest?

16 days later

#49

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

07.05.2020 05:43AM

-->

@RoderickSpode

There are many reasons atheism is still a fringe belief, and one of those reasons is due to how atheist activists behave in public.

Even agnostics apparently don't trust them. And the atheists can't blame Christians for that one.....lol.

But they will try to.

#50

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,255

07.05.2020 06:17AM

-->

@ethang5

Atheists don't believe.....That's the whole point of atheism.

An Atheist would be as happy as the next person to be able to know the real truth.

Multifarious theists believe that they already know the truth, but unfortunately none has ever been able to prove it.

So make an atheists day and prove that your particular GOD hypothesis or any GOD hypothesis for that matter, is wholly accurate.

#51

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

07.06.2020 07:47AM

-->

@zedvictor4

Multifarious theists believe that they already know the truth, but unfortunately none has ever been able to prove it.

What you mean of course, is that it has not been "proven" TO YOU. To that I say, "So what?" The moon landings have not been "proven" to some yokels either. I don't go and infect their board demanding "proof". That would be silly.

So make an atheists day and prove that your particular GOD hypothesis or any GOD hypothesis for that matter, is wholly accurate.

Its done everyday all around the world. That's why the total number of theists is increasing. It's not difficult to do with people who don't suffer intellectually stifling bias.

But alas, my job is not to make atheists happy, as I know from experience that the truth doesn't make them happy, it makes them angry and mockingly abusive. A skim of the religion board series this.

Why you guys think we crave your belief is beyond me.

#52

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,255

07.07.2020 06:57AM

-->

@ethang5

Conditioning people to believe something, does not constitute proof of something and neither does it validate something...It just makes people formulate data sequences and responses in a particular way.....A bit like North Korean behaviour for example.

It would make no difference if humanity was 99% theist...This would still not prove the currently unprovable....All that this would prove, would be that 99% of humanity had been conditioned to accept theism as a creation hypothesis.

Nonetheless, all creation hypotheses are valid until they are either unequivocally proved or unequivocally rejected.....So no bias, only scepticism and open mindedness.....I would suggest that ardent theists are the ones that tend to become entrenched and biased.

#53

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

07.07.2020 08:12PM

-->

@zedvictor4

I said, "What you mean of course, is that it has not been "proven" TO YOU. To that I say, "So what?" Is any of that untrue?

All that this would prove, would be that 99% of humanity had been conditioned to accept theism as a creation hypothesis.

I think there is a relationship between the truth of a hypothesis, and how many people over time can be convinced to believe it.

I would suggest that ardent theists are the ones that tend to become entrenched and biased

You said....

And of course everyone always blames everyone else and everyone is righteous.

Look down, ....is there anything below your knees? Lol!

Topic's author

#54

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

07.08.2020 01:57AM

-->

@ethang5

I think there is a relationship between the truth of a hypothesis, and how many people over time can be convinced to believe it.

Absolutely Ethan. This might be one of the most disputed truths out there. To claim it's of no significance, at least to take into consideration is dubious.

An unfortunate thing I think has happened though. Some atheists have used the idea of numerically significant theism to assume greater intelligence amongst a few. The "un-chosen few" are basking in the bolstered view that the more theists there are simply implies a greater intellectual minority elitism for atheists.

#55

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

07.08.2020 03:17AM

-->

@RoderickSpode

All true Rod.

And though it is difficult to get atheists to see the difference, I never use this argument about numbers and truth. I'm talking about "convincibility." It is not an argument about the truth of Christianity, but it's effectiveness at convincing people.

And I use this argument only when an atheist says or implies that Christianity is irrational/unconvincing.

I have encountered the minority elitism argument before. It may sometimes be viable when it comes to truth, but it fails if the atheist claims that more convinced people means that an idea is less convincing. That is self contradictory.

But it's almost impossible to get them to see that the subject is "effectiveness at convincing", and not "truth".

#56

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,255

07.08.2020 06:34AM

-->

@ethang5

Convinced

Exactly my point.

Anyone can be convinced of anything.... Education, conditioning, brainwashing.... call it what you will.....Still doesn't prove anything though.

People are convinced that strapping a bomb to their chest and blowing themselves up is a good idea.....Because they were "convinced" does that therefore make suicide bombing a righteous act?

"Convinced" really is a shallow basis for a religious belief.

Topic's author

#57

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

07.09.2020 01:21AM

-->

@zedvictor4

Exactly my point.

Anyone can be convinced of anything.... Education, conditioning, brainwashing.... call it what you will.....Still doesn't prove anything though.

People are convinced that strapping a bomb to their chest and blowing themselves up is a good idea.....Because they were "convinced" does that therefore make suicide bombing a righteous act?

"Convinced" really is a shallow basis for a religious belief.

It's one thing to talk about being convinced about the authenticity of a religion, and another about the existence of God as a personality. If you find that God exists, then that sheds a new light on the religion associated with said God. In other words, if you became convinced that Jesus Christ is real, that should have an inevitable impact on your view of the Christian religion.

A major problem I've seen in a number of your posts is the suggestion that Christians claim to know something we can't possibly know. But to make that claim, you're doing the same thing by suggesting God has never proven himself to people individually. I can probably convince you that I exist (am not a bot), but a creator couldn't convince an individual of his existence?

#58

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

07.09.2020 04:54AM

-->

@zedvictor4

Anyone can be convinced of anything.... Education, conditioning, brainwashing.... call it what you will.....Still doesn't prove anything though.

It proves the method used to convince is.....convincing. Why that truth is difficult for atheists escapes me.

Some education, conditioning, and brainwashing don't work. They aren't convincing. You are terrified that if you concede that Christianity is convincing, you will be conceding that it's true. But fear is never a good basis for an argument.

"Convinced" really is a shallow basis for a religious belief.

Conviction is not the basis for my belief, and I don't know why you would think it was. All I did was state an obvious, objective truth, "Christianity is convincing. It's relative success at convincing people is proof that it is eminently convincing."

Do you think this is incorrect?

#59

Debates: 22

Posts: 11,255

07.09.2020 06:17AM

-->

@ethang5

@RoderickSpode

I was not conditioned as you were, therefore Christianity is not convincing....If Christianity could be proven to be an accurate hypothesis that would be an enlightening experience, rather than terrifying.

Perhaps underneath you're conditioned facade it is you who are are terrified, because you are patently aware that the fundamental truth, is that belief is not actually proof.

And people convince people of Christianity....Christianity doesn't convince people of Christianity.

And "finding a god" is just sequencing data, as is the formulation of all concepts....

And once again I stress, that a GOD principle relative to a universal purpose is a valid proposition....Just not the naive mythological stuff of the bible...Nailing people to crosses and all that baloney.

But of course everything could just be pure chance.

Purpose or chance?....We haven't even worked that out yet....So all the human-centric embellishments are a tad irrelevant.

Topic's author

#60

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044