Convert Me!!!

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Tornado_Creator

The human mind tends towards logic in my experience. People who act on their instincts, intuition etc. are using a form of primitive logic. They subconsciously assess the situation and choose the most beneficial actions. Even if that means they often act when it is unnecessary however they're doing so because of self preservation actions which improve the chance of survival. Acting scared or jumpy in dark places, even when you know it's safe. Choosing a different route to walk on the fly for no apparent reason because your "gut" told you to. There are many logical reasons for doing these things. Religion is not logical, on any level, it is the odd one out.

What makes you think people who follow religion have not subconsciously assessed the situation and chosen (what said subconscious considers to be) the most beneficial action?

[Tornado_Creator]

Lucky~9~Lives

Tornado_Creator

The human mind tends towards logic in my experience. People who act on their instincts, intuition etc. are using a form of primitive logic. They subconsciously assess the situation and choose the most beneficial actions. Even if that means they often act when it is unnecessary however they're doing so because of self preservation actions which improve the chance of survival. Acting scared or jumpy in dark places, even when you know it's safe. Choosing a different route to walk on the fly for no apparent reason because your "gut" told you to. There are many logical reasons for doing these things. Religion is not logical, on any level, it is the odd one out.

What makes you think people who follow religion have not subconsciously assessed the situation and chosen (what said subconscious considers to be) the most beneficial action?

They probably have come to that conclusion based on subconscious logic, but subconscious logic as I said is flawed. Just because there is a reasonable explanation why people have turned to religion for their reasoning doesn't mean they're correct.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Tornado_Creator

Lucky~9~Lives

Tornado_Creator

The human mind tends towards logic in my experience. People who act on their instincts, intuition etc. are using a form of primitive logic. They subconsciously assess the situation and choose the most beneficial actions. Even if that means they often act when it is unnecessary however they're doing so because of self preservation actions which improve the chance of survival. Acting scared or jumpy in dark places, even when you know it's safe. Choosing a different route to walk on the fly for no apparent reason because your "gut" told you to. There are many logical reasons for doing these things. Religion is not logical, on any level, it is the odd one out.

What makes you think people who follow religion have not subconsciously assessed the situation and chosen (what said subconscious considers to be) the most beneficial action?

They probably have come to that conclusion based on subconscious logic, but subconscious logic as I said is flawed. Just because there is a reasonable explanation why people have turned to religion for their reasoning doesn't mean they're correct.

So you're actually saying the human mind tends towards flawed logic, which is what Boxy said.

[Tornado_Creator]

Lucky~9~Lives

Tornado_Creator

Lucky~9~Lives

Tornado_Creator

The human mind tends towards logic in my experience. People who act on their instincts, intuition etc. are using a form of primitive logic. They subconsciously assess the situation and choose the most beneficial actions. Even if that means they often act when it is unnecessary however they're doing so because of self preservation actions which improve the chance of survival. Acting scared or jumpy in dark places, even when you know it's safe. Choosing a different route to walk on the fly for no apparent reason because your "gut" told you to. There are many logical reasons for doing these things. Religion is not logical, on any level, it is the odd one out.

What makes you think people who follow religion have not subconsciously assessed the situation and chosen (what said subconscious considers to be) the most beneficial action?

They probably have come to that conclusion based on subconscious logic, but subconscious logic as I said is flawed. Just because there is a reasonable explanation why people have turned to religion for their reasoning doesn't mean they're correct.

So you're actually saying the human mind tends towards flawed logic, which is what Boxy said.

Yes I am saying that, however Boxy said the human mind tends toward the illogical, not flawed logic, there is a difference and I was simply highlighting that difference.

[Lucky~9~Lives]

Tornado_Creator

Lucky~9~Lives

Tornado_Creator

Lucky~9~Lives

Tornado_Creator

The human mind tends towards logic in my experience. People who act on their instincts, intuition etc. are using a form of primitive logic. They subconsciously assess the situation and choose the most beneficial actions. Even if that means they often act when it is unnecessary however they're doing so because of self preservation actions which improve the chance of survival. Acting scared or jumpy in dark places, even when you know it's safe. Choosing a different route to walk on the fly for no apparent reason because your "gut" told you to. There are many logical reasons for doing these things. Religion is not logical, on any level, it is the odd one out.

What makes you think people who follow religion have not subconsciously assessed the situation and chosen (what said subconscious considers to be) the most beneficial action?

They probably have come to that conclusion based on subconscious logic, but subconscious logic as I said is flawed. Just because there is a reasonable explanation why people have turned to religion for their reasoning doesn't mean they're correct.

So you're actually saying the human mind tends towards flawed logic, which is what Boxy said.

Yes I am saying that, however Boxy said the human mind tends toward the illogical, not flawed logic, there is a difference and I was simply highlighting that difference.

What Boxy meant by 'illogical' is what you meant by 'flawed logic' i.e. fuzzy generalizations, vague hunches, etc, so you saying humans tend towards said flawed logic is not actually a rebuttal to Boxy's claim that humans tend towards the illogical.

[Tornado_Creator]

Lucky~9~Lives

Tornado_Creator

Lucky~9~Lives

Tornado_Creator

Lucky~9~Lives

Tornado_Creator

The human mind tends towards logic in my experience. People who act on their instincts, intuition etc. are using a form of primitive logic. They subconsciously assess the situation and choose the most beneficial actions. Even if that means they often act when it is unnecessary however they're doing so because of self preservation actions which improve the chance of survival. Acting scared or jumpy in dark places, even when you know it's safe. Choosing a different route to walk on the fly for no apparent reason because your "gut" told you to. There are many logical reasons for doing these things. Religion is not logical, on any level, it is the odd one out.

What makes you think people who follow religion have not subconsciously assessed the situation and chosen (what said subconscious considers to be) the most beneficial action?

They probably have come to that conclusion based on subconscious logic, but subconscious logic as I said is flawed. Just because there is a reasonable explanation why people have turned to religion for their reasoning doesn't mean they're correct.

So you're actually saying the human mind tends towards flawed logic, which is what Boxy said.

Yes I am saying that, however Boxy said the human mind tends toward the illogical, not flawed logic, there is a difference and I was simply highlighting that difference.

What Boxy meant by 'illogical' is what you meant by 'flawed logic' i.e. fuzzy generalizations, vague hunches, etc, so you saying humans tend towards said flawed logic is not actually a rebuttal to Boxy's claim that humans tend towards the illogical.

In that case no, it's simply a misunderstanding and clashing of terms. We in fact agree. However it doesn't really address the main issue of debate which is if any religion at all, has any supporting evidence and if people are able, to please provide it.

[Bortelex]

Tornado_Creator

Boxy

Tornado_Creator

Point well made. However as I said above, it doesn't really matter if religion did start wars or not, it has no supporting evidence, thus I won't believe it. I'm simply asking for evidence in this topic.

*shrug* I was responding mostly to the argument that religion causes wars. One might be able to argue that religion is loosely correlated with centralized groups, and that centralized groups are much easier to mobilize than scattered groups. But oh well.

I made the argument earlier about why people believe in Christianity:

Boxy

Assume that all theists take for granted a priori that God exists, and that they have no individual experiences which might indicate that this might be the truth. To whit: they have no gnosis, no "proof" or "evidence" even in their own minds that what they say and do is true. Conversely, all atheists ("without religion"; with this term in this argument, I will consider primarily the so-called "neutrals" of soft agnosticism) do not take a priori that God exists; or, in other words, it must be proven to them a posteriori that God exists.

In such a worldview, it would be impossible for people to "convert" to theism. Atheistic investigators such as Lewis Carroll come to mind as people who take a priori that God does not exist (null hypothesis), and through experimentation, argumentation, and general experience with Christianity was impressed by its ideals, accounts, testimonies, and so on and so forth. Similarly the story is recounted over and over of a person who lives a "life of sin" and bottoms out, so to speak, in a sleazy motel room. Upon opening the dresser drawer they find a (Gideon) Bible, read it, and therefore "find Jesus." These people had not taken a priori that God existed; rather, curiously they open up a Bible or investigate Christianity, find something they like and that reverberates with them, and cling to it with their new-found gnosis.

I cannot honestly deny that such events happen, that people unlikely to pursue Christianity have some life-changing experience or interaction with God (on whatever level, we cannot decide), and therefore change religions. It happens with virtually every religion, and even happens when converting from one religion to another. The fact of the matter is that there is some personal experience (gnosis) which proves to the individual that God exists, and that that proof cannot be easily transfered or replicated in any other human being.

As far as I can tell, and from all the Christians with which I have spoken, all have had some kind of personal experience with finding God, whether it be in the pews at church, whether it be whilst reading the Bible, or whether it be on their knees praying to God. None of these people would continue to follow their religion were they not motivated by their own personal experiences; countless stories of teenagers who do not feel this same experience and subsequently leave their respective churches proves to me, at the very least, that a priori reasoning is not the reason most Christians stay in their churches. The experiential evidence they have may very well be in assuming some proposition, but that very assumption and the consequences thereof form a basis for a self-sustaining belief system.

The philosopher and psychologist William James once stated that we believe new things we come across simply because they mesh with what we have known before. If there is something so radically different that is being introduced into our minds, we are very likely to reject it simply because it does not mesh with what we already know. Sadly, many evolutionary biologists have used the results of evolutionary science to sneer at Christians for their "fairy-tales," when the stories themselves were not mean to be taken literally in the first place. Despite this, I can still respect some atheist's concessions to the general public; even Dawkins said it would be all right to call "God" the laws of science themselves.

Now, both theists and atheists (a priori positions) put their hypotheses through the experiential process (a posteriori reasoning); some atheists become theists, some theists become atheists, and some atheists and theists stay the same way. However, we should expect some uniformity in human experience, no? It's very apparent that there might be a sampling bias, but I cannot honestly say which side has the sampling bias.

My argument was essentially that in order to say whether Christianity was true or not, one would have to go through some experiential process, namely reading the Bible, going to church, praying to God, hearing sermons, et cetera ad nauseam. To attempt to wrangle and shame someone into believing in Christianity without feeling some of the reverberation inherent in faith is a gross misuse of religion and rhetoric.

Not really. If something is real people should be able to present evidence to me that would support it to beyond a reasonable doubt. It took me only two hours to convince my room-mate that the moon landing actually did happen. He was one of those who thought it was faked. Why? Because I presented evidence, then after I presented evidence I asked "do you have any other point you would like me to address". The only one I couldn't address was the lack of a blast crater under the lander, and that's simply because I don't know enough information. I intend to explain that last point to him in time. Anything that is fact should have evidence that can be presented and explained on the spot. If it requires me to go to church, pray to God and experience sermons first, its not objective, it's subjective and the person is requiring me to subject myself to certain levels of cult activity specifically designed for brainwashing.

Those actions are not designed for brainwashing. Going to church and listening to sermons is more like getting information from the source and hearing the group's particular point of view. Praying to God is at worst, if he isn't there, talking to yourself when you are alone. None of that will have any effect if you aren't willing to hear an answer and be open to the prompting of the Holy Spirit. And last but not least you must exercise even a tiny bit of faith in wanting to know what the answer is.

Tornado_Creator

Boxy

Religion incorporates a whole mess of fuzzy logic. We should be good to all people, but it's not quite clear what "good" means. We have a rough approximation, but it is not a solid, all-purpose, utilitarian definition. As such, religion is largely illogical. However, one should also note that people at large are illogical, and that religion is not a special case of human relations. Rather, science and logical reasoning are the exceptions. This is not to say that irreligious or atheists are "unnatural," simply that the human mind tends to favor illogical things simply because they are illogical.

I would challenge that reasoning. The human mind tends towards logic in my experience. People who act on their instincts, intuition etc. are using a form of primitive logic. They subconsciously assess the situation and choose the most beneficial actions. Even if that means they often act when it is unnecessary however they're doing so because of self preservation actions which improve the chance of survival. Acting scared or jumpy in dark places, even when you know it's safe. Choosing a different route to walk on the fly for no apparent reason because your "gut" told you to. There are many logical reasons for doing these things. Religion is not logical, on any level, it is the odd one out.

Boxy

So, my questions: have you experimented with Christianity? Did you find it to your liking? If not, why are you still challenging Christians to do something outside of their power? If you supposedly rejected the Holy Spirit, what do you think compels them to think that they can overcome your skepticism?

I don't think they can overcome my scepticism, I don't think they can convince me of their religion, and I have not experimented which Christianity, because there's nothing to experiment with. I am a logical, rational person. I wouldn't "experiment" with a religion, there's no scientific basis in doing so. I want evidence.

The reason for starting this topic in the first place was simply to ask anyone, of any religion, to give me EVIDENCE that their religion is correct. Not to argue or try to convince me with emotional pleading, trying to change the goalposts, moaning about me not allowing them to quote scripture (because that's really going to convince me), or telling me to "have faith". All I want is evidence. Either some people have evidence I haven't seen or more than 80% of the world are insane or delusional. It's that simple. If you have evidence present it, if not and still a theist, you're delusional.

The problem is that the evidence is personal. Experiences I have had won't convince you of anything. So if you want evidence you will have to make the effort to find it yourself. Eventually you will get definitive proof but when it comes, if you haven't been open to looking for it personally, it won't be pleasant. Miracles, the most viable spiritual experience, don't convert and hardly convince, especially in this age when science tries to explain everything. A being can only understand things that are on a level lower then it is on.

Odd question. Do you have faith in anything?

[Tornado_Creator]

Bortelex

Tornado_Creator

Boxy

Tornado_Creator

Point well made. However as I said above, it doesn't really matter if religion did start wars or not, it has no supporting evidence, thus I won't believe it. I'm simply asking for evidence in this topic.

*shrug* I was responding mostly to the argument that religion causes wars. One might be able to argue that religion is loosely correlated with centralized groups, and that centralized groups are much easier to mobilize than scattered groups. But oh well.

I made the argument earlier about why people believe in Christianity:

Boxy

Assume that all theists take for granted a priori that God exists, and that they have no individual experiences which might indicate that this might be the truth. To whit: they have no gnosis, no "proof" or "evidence" even in their own minds that what they say and do is true. Conversely, all atheists ("without religion"; with this term in this argument, I will consider primarily the so-called "neutrals" of soft agnosticism) do not take a priori that God exists; or, in other words, it must be proven to them a posteriori that God exists.

In such a worldview, it would be impossible for people to "convert" to theism. Atheistic investigators such as Lewis Carroll come to mind as people who take a priori that God does not exist (null hypothesis), and through experimentation, argumentation, and general experience with Christianity was impressed by its ideals, accounts, testimonies, and so on and so forth. Similarly the story is recounted over and over of a person who lives a "life of sin" and bottoms out, so to speak, in a sleazy motel room. Upon opening the dresser drawer they find a (Gideon) Bible, read it, and therefore "find Jesus." These people had not taken a priori that God existed; rather, curiously they open up a Bible or investigate Christianity, find something they like and that reverberates with them, and cling to it with their new-found gnosis.

I cannot honestly deny that such events happen, that people unlikely to pursue Christianity have some life-changing experience or interaction with God (on whatever level, we cannot decide), and therefore change religions. It happens with virtually every religion, and even happens when converting from one religion to another. The fact of the matter is that there is some personal experience (gnosis) which proves to the individual that God exists, and that that proof cannot be easily transfered or replicated in any other human being.

As far as I can tell, and from all the Christians with which I have spoken, all have had some kind of personal experience with finding God, whether it be in the pews at church, whether it be whilst reading the Bible, or whether it be on their knees praying to God. None of these people would continue to follow their religion were they not motivated by their own personal experiences; countless stories of teenagers who do not feel this same experience and subsequently leave their respective churches proves to me, at the very least, that a priori reasoning is not the reason most Christians stay in their churches. The experiential evidence they have may very well be in assuming some proposition, but that very assumption and the consequences thereof form a basis for a self-sustaining belief system.

The philosopher and psychologist William James once stated that we believe new things we come across simply because they mesh with what we have known before. If there is something so radically different that is being introduced into our minds, we are very likely to reject it simply because it does not mesh with what we already know. Sadly, many evolutionary biologists have used the results of evolutionary science to sneer at Christians for their "fairy-tales," when the stories themselves were not mean to be taken literally in the first place. Despite this, I can still respect some atheist's concessions to the general public; even Dawkins said it would be all right to call "God" the laws of science themselves.

Now, both theists and atheists (a priori positions) put their hypotheses through the experiential process (a posteriori reasoning); some atheists become theists, some theists become atheists, and some atheists and theists stay the same way. However, we should expect some uniformity in human experience, no? It's very apparent that there might be a sampling bias, but I cannot honestly say which side has the sampling bias.

My argument was essentially that in order to say whether Christianity was true or not, one would have to go through some experiential process, namely reading the Bible, going to church, praying to God, hearing sermons, et cetera ad nauseam. To attempt to wrangle and shame someone into believing in Christianity without feeling some of the reverberation inherent in faith is a gross misuse of religion and rhetoric.

Not really. If something is real people should be able to present evidence to me that would support it to beyond a reasonable doubt. It took me only two hours to convince my room-mate that the moon landing actually did happen. He was one of those who thought it was faked. Why? Because I presented evidence, then after I presented evidence I asked "do you have any other point you would like me to address". The only one I couldn't address was the lack of a blast crater under the lander, and that's simply because I don't know enough information. I intend to explain that last point to him in time. Anything that is fact should have evidence that can be presented and explained on the spot. If it requires me to go to church, pray to God and experience sermons first, its not objective, it's subjective and the person is requiring me to subject myself to certain levels of cult activity specifically designed for brainwashing.

Those actions are not designed for brainwashing. Going to church and listening to sermons is more like getting information from the source and hearing the group's particular point of view. Praying to God is at worst, if he isn't there, talking to yourself when you are alone. None of that will have any effect if you aren't willing to hear an answer and be open to the prompting of the Holy Spirit. And last but not least you must exercise even a tiny bit of faith in wanting to know what the answer is.

As soon as you're prepared to have a "tiny bit of faith" you are prepared to bypass the scientific method to assert fact, which is something that is only ever done in the case of religion. It should not have this special treatment. I disagree with your stance here, I feel doing these acts are exactly what would constitute brainwashing. For those of weak will, the more hoops you can make them jump though, the more control you have over them, the more likely you are to control their thoughts. It's basic social control.

Bortelex

Tornado_Creator

Boxy

Religion incorporates a whole mess of fuzzy logic. We should be good to all people, but it's not quite clear what "good" means. We have a rough approximation, but it is not a solid, all-purpose, utilitarian definition. As such, religion is largely illogical. However, one should also note that people at large are illogical, and that religion is not a special case of human relations. Rather, science and logical reasoning are the exceptions. This is not to say that irreligious or atheists are "unnatural," simply that the human mind tends to favor illogical things simply because they are illogical.

I would challenge that reasoning. The human mind tends towards logic in my experience. People who act on their instincts, intuition etc. are using a form of primitive logic. They subconsciously assess the situation and choose the most beneficial actions. Even if that means they often act when it is unnecessary however they're doing so because of self preservation actions which improve the chance of survival. Acting scared or jumpy in dark places, even when you know it's safe. Choosing a different route to walk on the fly for no apparent reason because your "gut" told you to. There are many logical reasons for doing these things. Religion is not logical, on any level, it is the odd one out.

Boxy

So, my questions: have you experimented with Christianity? Did you find it to your liking? If not, why are you still challenging Christians to do something outside of their power? If you supposedly rejected the Holy Spirit, what do you think compels them to think that they can overcome your skepticism?

I don't think they can overcome my scepticism, I don't think they can convince me of their religion, and I have not experimented which Christianity, because there's nothing to experiment with. I am a logical, rational person. I wouldn't "experiment" with a religion, there's no scientific basis in doing so. I want evidence.

The reason for starting this topic in the first place was simply to ask anyone, of any religion, to give me EVIDENCE that their religion is correct. Not to argue or try to convince me with emotional pleading, trying to change the goalposts, moaning about me not allowing them to quote scripture (because that's really going to convince me), or telling me to "have faith". All I want is evidence. Either some people have evidence I haven't seen or more than 80% of the world are insane or delusional. It's that simple. If you have evidence present it, if not and still a theist, you're delusional.

The problem is that the evidence is personal. Experiences I have had won't convince you of anything. So if you want evidence you will have to make the effort to find it yourself. Eventually you will get definitive proof but when it comes, if you haven't been open to looking for it personally, it won't be pleasant. Miracles, the most viable spiritual experience, don't convert and hardly convince, especially in this age when science tries to explain everything. A being can only understand things that are on a level lower then it is on.

"Personal evidence" isn't evidence, it's hearsay. It's no good because it's entirely subjective. This is why it won't convince me. as for science trying to explain everything, well that is it's purpose. Would you rather it didn't? The last 600 years we've have a life expectancy increase of over 200%, modern technology able to make a person travel the entire distance of the planet in less than a day, allow people thousands of miles away to communicate almost instantly, harness the power of radioactivity and even map our own genetic structure. With a track record like this, science is on my side I think.

Bortelex

Odd question. Do you have faith in anything?

No. Nothing. No, not even the scientific method before people attempt to argue that.

[Tornado_Creator]

Dharmony

Tornado_Creator

I am giving people a challenge here. I want you to convert me. No insults, no stupidity, no crap. I want people to give me a REASON to believe in your religion. If someone can give me a proper reason, based on logic and evidence then I will believe and convert right here online.

Your problem is not the stupidity of those you challenge, but your prejudices. You place yourself in such a position that it is impossible to be converted; you are demanding empirical evidence that you might be convinced of a metaphysical and therefore inherently non-empirical concept.

I do not mean to insult your intelligence and to suggest that you do not understand religion in suggesting this--I'll suspend disbelief in your favor for a moment, anyway--but perhaps your opinion of religion would not be so low if you practiced just that: suspension of disbelief. For the character of belief is only the first of many things that becomes more clear to one as a result of such.

I would suggest reading the works of religious philosophers, as well as those of Nietzsche--but first those of religious philosophers. You will find Nietzsche, in all his irreligious appeal, makes much more sense as a result, not just in his thoughts pertaining to religion, but in almost all of his thought.

My suggestion, in short, is to seek deeper understanding. Religion is heavily politicized today. Rediscover its apolitical true nature. Rediscover its relation to philosophy. I challenge you to read Aquinas and Kierkegaard, not to be converted to Christianity--if you are to be converted, it will be by your choice alone--but to slowly realize how much can be gained from studying and seeking to understand the thoughts of such brilliant men as those. I think that a nonreligious person has just as much to learn from studying religion as any religious person has.

An interesting claim, but entirely pointless. I'm surprisingly well read, and I understand many of the intricacies of religion and philosophy. From what I have read all I have gleaned is most people will believe whatever crap their parents believe and never question it.

What you're basically saying is that I should "ponder religion", as though it's something deep and mysterious. NO! This is entirely stupid and completely ridiculous. I should examine and explore and when I have reached the conclusion, as I have so far, that all the religions in the world are nothing more than a big crock of s**t, I will ask others to point out evidence I may have missed, not the philosophical ramblings of some guy, that isn't good enough. I want empirical evidence because if something has an empirical effect on anything in this world it leaves empirical evidence. If it doesn't have an empirical effect, it may as well not ******** exist because it doesn't effect anything. If you're god/religion is non-empirical, well there's another word for that, it's IMAGINARY! If that's not what you're claiming, please say so and retract the statement. Otherwise, fine your imaginary god/religion exists... in your head, congratulations.

[LordRavioli]

Tornado_Creator

Dharmony

Tornado_Creator

I am giving people a challenge here. I want you to convert me. No insults, no stupidity, no crap. I want people to give me a REASON to believe in your religion. If someone can give me a proper reason, based on logic and evidence then I will believe and convert right here online.

Your problem is not the stupidity of those you challenge, but your prejudices. You place yourself in such a position that it is impossible to be converted; you are demanding empirical evidence that you might be convinced of a metaphysical and therefore inherently non-empirical concept.

I do not mean to insult your intelligence and to suggest that you do not understand religion in suggesting this--I'll suspend disbelief in your favor for a moment, anyway--but perhaps your opinion of religion would not be so low if you practiced just that: suspension of disbelief. For the character of belief is only the first of many things that becomes more clear to one as a result of such.

I would suggest reading the works of religious philosophers, as well as those of Nietzsche--but first those of religious philosophers. You will find Nietzsche, in all his irreligious appeal, makes much more sense as a result, not just in his thoughts pertaining to religion, but in almost all of his thought.

My suggestion, in short, is to seek deeper understanding. Religion is heavily politicized today. Rediscover its apolitical true nature. Rediscover its relation to philosophy. I challenge you to read Aquinas and Kierkegaard, not to be converted to Christianity--if you are to be converted, it will be by your choice alone--but to slowly realize how much can be gained from studying and seeking to understand the thoughts of such brilliant men as those. I think that a nonreligious person has just as much to learn from studying religion as any religious person has.

An interesting claim, but entirely pointless. I'm surprisingly well read, and I understand many of the intricacies of religion and philosophy. From what I have read all I have gleaned is most people will believe whatever crap their parents believe and never question it.

What you're basically saying is that I should "ponder religion", as though it's something deep and mysterious. NO! This is entirely stupid and completely ridiculous. I should examine and explore and when I have reached the conclusion, as I have so far, that all the religions in the world are nothing more than a big crock of s**t, I will ask others to point out evidence I may have missed, not the philosophical ramblings of some guy, that isn't good enough. I want empirical evidence because if something has an empirical effect on anything in this world it leaves empirical evidence. If it doesn't have an empirical effect, it may as well not ******** exist because it doesn't effect anything. If you're god/religion is non-empirical, well there's another word for that, it's IMAGINARY! If that's not what you're claiming, please say so and retract the statement. Otherwise, fine your imaginary god/religion exists... in your head, congratulations.

There is evidence of biblical events actully happening, like there are simmilar stories to the noah's flood stories in certain cultures. Keep in mind that it was not described as a flooding of the world, but as a huge flood of a region, to the people living there it would seem like the world is flooding. Thanks to Roman exacution records, I believe we have the actual record of Jesus' exacution. I think there are some egyptian writings depicting the Jewinsh slaves AND the 10 plagues(which can be explained.). There are others but that is all I care to type right now. Just thought that I would let you know that the bible is not compleatly without evidence. But you might of already known this.

[Bortelex]

Tornado_Creator

Bortelex

Tornado_Creator

I don't think they can overcome my scepticism, I don't think they can convince me of their religion, and I have not experimented which Christianity, because there's nothing to experiment with. I am a logical, rational person. I wouldn't "experiment" with a religion, there's no scientific basis in doing so. I want evidence.

The reason for starting this topic in the first place was simply to ask anyone, of any religion, to give me EVIDENCE that their religion is correct. Not to argue or try to convince me with emotional pleading, trying to change the goalposts, moaning about me not allowing them to quote scripture (because that's really going to convince me), or telling me to "have faith". All I want is evidence. Either some people have evidence I haven't seen or more than 80% of the world are insane or delusional. It's that simple. If you have evidence present it, if not and still a theist, you're delusional.

The problem is that the evidence is personal. Experiences I have had won't convince you of anything. So if you want evidence you will have to make the effort to find it yourself. Eventually you will get definitive proof but when it comes, if you haven't been open to looking for it personally, it won't be pleasant. Miracles, the most viable spiritual experience, don't convert and hardly convince, especially in this age when science tries to explain everything. A being can only understand things that are on a level lower then it is on.

"Personal evidence" isn't evidence, it's hearsay. It's no good because it's entirely subjective. This is why it won't convince me. as for science trying to explain everything, well that is it's purpose. Would you rather it didn't? The last 600 years we've have a life expectancy increase of over 200%, modern technology able to make a person travel the entire distance of the planet in less than a day, allow people thousands of miles away to communicate almost instantly, harness the power of radioactivity and even map our own genetic structure. With a track record like this, science is on my side I think.

As I said before, though in different words, science can not explain or understand anything on a level higher then the person who is applying it. One quick example is that humans cannot fully understand the human brain or create anything like it. It is far too advanced. Also humans cannot create life from dormant chemicals and therefore the workings of nature are also beyond their grasp.

Tornado_Creator

Bortelex

Odd question. Do you have faith in anything?

No. Nothing. No, not even the scientific method before people attempt to argue that.

I think I have discovered the root of your problems. You don't understand the concept of faith.

Example 1
You probably have faith that your car will start in the morning. And unless you built it entirely yourself and inspect it every morning you couldn't possibly know that it would always start.


Example 2
You probably have faith in humanity. Other wise you have know friends and don't associate with your parents and siblings. The reason I say this is that trust is presided by faith. You must put a little bit of faith in someone before you can truly trust them. Trust comes only after the trial of your faith.


Example 3
Lastly you probably have faith in science because if you didn't you would never try any experiment or believe any scientific claim until you saw the results for yourself. And by that messure you would not learn because you would never be open to new ideas.

[iKnighty]

LordRavioli

There is evidence of biblical events actully happening, like there are simmilar stories to the noah's flood stories in certain cultures. Keep in mind that it was not described as a flooding of the world, but as a huge flood of a region, to the people living there it would seem like the world is flooding. Thanks to Roman exacution records, I believe we have the actual record of Jesus' exacution. I think there are some egyptian writings depicting the Jewinsh slaves AND the 10 plagues(which can be explained.). There are others but that is all I care to type right now. Just thought that I would let you know that the bible is not compleatly without evidence. But you might of already known this.

Genesis 4 - 'For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I blot out from off the face of the earth.' Clearly it is described as the flooding of the world not of just a region.

The Bible says that, for example, the 10 plagues were caused by God. There is no evidence for that, and the fact that they could have happened naturally, as you said, renders the belief that God did them more absurd.

The Bible is without evidence in it's claiming that God has intervened.

There is no record of Jesus' execution, except one from the Talmud Sanhedrin 43a. Even know we aren't sure it is really referring to Jesus, as Yeshua was a pretty common name in those days. and also because the Talmud Sanhedrin began to be written from 70 CE.
We have no record of Jesus anytime near his last days, the ones that refer to him were written at least 20/30 years after, making them not necessarily valid.