Why do people consider the Biblical God above criticism? (miracles, Jesus, religion)

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Rotagivan

Religion hasn't 'spoiled' the notion of G()D for me. Not even the physical universe has been able to do that.

I don't know if that is because i am just weird or sensible, wishful thinking or a realist.

Lol. Who is to say. I feel that I am a realist and I tend to think you are a wishful thinker, but I am also self aware enough to know that I am protecting myself, from dysfunctional notions of god that I would rather forget that I ever gave credence to. I actually devoted a couple year's time to seeking alternative notions but they failed the evidential sniff test, too. Finally in departing from theism, I have been delivered from painful cognitive dissonance that I don't wish to risk returning to.

So I am personally averse to theism now, and I know it. Despite this, I think my requirement of an evidential basis as a precondition of giving it further consideration, is both reasonable and prudent for me. Also, I've had many years now to experience a more evidence-based approach to life generally, and this has been very positive and has reinforced my confidence in logic, reason, and the scientific method. Are they perfect? No. Do they answer everything? No. I just don't see better alternatives.

[DewDropInn]

Originally Posted by NoCapo

Freak's point is that there sure is a lack of agreement about who or what God is, and it is a bit odd, to say the least, that a benevolent, omnipotent God can't or won't make himself better understood, particularly if there is eternal torment involved...

Freak's point is to poke the believers.

As is evidenced by the that fact he ignores posts if he can't reply by taking more pokes and jabs.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by DewDropInn

Freak's point is to poke the believers.
As is evidenced by the that fact he ignores posts if he can't reply by taking more pokes and jabs.

He does seem to have some significant issues with his fundamentalist past. The tenacity and degree of emotion seem to indicate some extreme trauma or oppression. He has legitimate gripes about fundie beliefs and practices . . . so it is hard to oppose him. I just try to correct his misapplication of those absurd beliefs to a generic belief in the existence of God.

[Freak80]

I have significant issues with unsubstantiated claims. Naturally, believers (of all types) don't like it when non-believers point out the lack of evidence for their cherished beliefs. Since believers usually have trouble giving evidence for their beliefs, they often resort to ad hominem arguments against non-believers.

For example, conservative Christians often say that non-believers are somehow possessed by evil forces or demons, or that they have a deep desire to engage in perverse sex acts, drug abuse, etc. Liberal Theists, New Agers, and mystical types tend to use the "non-believers are fundamentalists" false-equivalence argument, as if a healthy skepticism is somehow equivalent to the unshakable irrational belief present in actual fundamentalism.

Skepticism is NOT "refusal to believe under any circumstances" but rather "the withholding of belief until substantial evidence is presented."

[Hawkins]

Originally Posted by Freak80

I have significant issues with unsubstantiated claims. Naturally, believers (of all types) don't like it when non-believers point out the lack of evidence for their cherished beliefs. Since believers usually have trouble giving evidence for their beliefs, they often resort to ad hominem arguments against non-believers.

For example, conservative Christians often say that non-believers are somehow possessed by evil forces or demons, or that they have a deep desire to engage in perverse sex acts, drug abuse, etc. Liberal Theists, New Agers, and mystical types tend to use the "non-believers are fundamentalists" false-equivalence argument, as if a healthy skepticism is somehow equivalent to the unshakable irrational belief present in actual fundamentalism.

Skepticism is NOT "refusal to believe under any circumstances" but rather "the withholding of belief until substantial evidence is presented."

Not all kinds of truth can be evidenced. An example is history, such as what a historical figure had said and one. Humans basically have no access to history as a whole till one is famous enough for other to write about him. On the other hand, if history can be evidenced, we don't need any history book but go directly to the evidence. If the grandpa of your own grandpa was a no body, you may never prove his existence with evidence.

More often humans rely on witnessing to reach a truth. The difference between history and religion is that history written is deemed more believable because it's all about events we can speculate on a daily basis even nowadays. Religion is more or less with supernatural encounters normal folks may never experience.

The difference lies in the nature of the truths, it's never about evidence. You are educated to treat everything as a science and thus demand the so called evidence which even when available is not the efficient way to reach a truth. Humans rely more on believing other humans to get to a truth instead of acquiring evidence by themselves. No one even bother to acquire the evidence of earth revolving around the sun. We don't rely on a good telescope to get to the evidence ourselves, instead we rely on believing a small group of humans called scientists to get to the truth.

[DewDropInn]

Originally Posted by Freak80

Liberal Theists, New Agers, and mystical types tend to use the "non-believers are fundamentalists" false-equivalence argument, as if a healthy skepticism is somehow equivalent to the unshakable irrational belief present in actual fundamentalism.

Skepticism is NOT "refusal to believe under any circumstances" but rather "the withholding of belief until substantial evidence is presented."

I don't think you're a fundamentalist, Freak. I believe you THINK like a fundamentalist. Big difference. You think like a fundamentalist (I'm right.... everyone else is wrong) because you were immersed in fundamentalism. I've seen little "healthy skepticism" in your posts. I have seen a lot of pokes and jabs at believers. Which is why so many are now ignoring your posts. Have you noticed you're now being ignored by several of the liberal theists as well as the fundamentalists? No one appreciates being on the receiving end of a stick over and over and over and.... you get the picture. Especially when they're trying to explain something to you.

/end of lecture. Which I doubt will be read and absorbed as the helpful advice it is meant to be.

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by Hawkins

Not all kinds of truth can be evidenced. An example is history, such as what a historical figure had said and one. Humans basically have no access to history as a whole till one is famous enough for other to write about him. On the other hand, if history can be evidenced, we don't need any history book but go directly to the evidence. If the grandpa of your own grandpa was a no body, you may never prove his existence with evidence.

As a trained historian, that's simply factually incorrect. To actually explain why would mean you would get a free course in historicity and I would get a free trip to the doctor for carpal tunnel.

There are all kinds of ways to verify historical events whether you're digging up archaeological evidence or meticulously pouring over correspondence written by the historical figures in question (primary sources). Perhaps the most important method in determining historical accuracy is through corroboration.

What's occurring here is forcing history to meet impossibly high standards of proof and evidence especially when compared to the rest of your thinking.

If you read in the paper that there was a concert last night, then you read about it in a magazine, and again in a brochure (each published independently), then you find some concert ticket stubs on the ground, then you hear some people talking about the concert -- and even though they themselves did not go, they knew people who did and they bemoan the fact that they missed it ... well after all of that, you wouldn't even doubt for a second that the concert took place. You weren't there to see it or hear it or be affected by it in any way, but you would still believe it happened.

But if we produce the same evidence for an historical event, suddenly the doubt alarms start ringing, and that's unfair.

Then there is the nature of the claim. For a historian to say the Battle of Agincourt took place in this location on that year, reads some descriptions of the battle written by actual survivors, and then shows a multitude of archaeological evidence pulled from the ground in the correct location, then there's just nothing outstanding, bizarre, weird, or exceptional going on.

But when religious believers begin talking about how there's an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent god hiding somewhere who created the entire universe, who used magic to create life on earth, and will subsequently judge you and punish you for all of those sexual adventures you had in college, well ... I'm not seeing much in the way of evidence there. Plus the claim is almost stupidly absurd if not for the fact that so many people believe it blindly and without question.

For a claim as bizarre, weird, outstanding, and exceptional, as the existence of prudish deities, we should be clamoring for MORE evidence, not accepting it as truth with NO evidence. It all comes down to the old adage, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The Battle of Agincourt is not an extraordinary claim -- but magical deities IS an extraordinary claim. And there is NO evidence much less extraordinary evidence.

Originally Posted by Hawkins

More often humans rely on witnessing to reach a truth. The difference between history and religion is that history written is deemed more believable because it's all about events we can speculate on a daily basis even nowadays. Religion is more or less with supernatural encounters normal folks may never experience.

Quite so.

Originally Posted by Hawkins

The difference lies in the nature of the truths, it's never about evidence.

Yet it should be ... and it's sad that so many billions are willing to discard evidence (and logic) just for the sake of believing in something that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. It's like feasting on a diet of pure candy ... no nutritional value to speak of, but boy does it taste good!

Originally Posted by Hawkins

You are educated to treat everything as a science and thus demand the so called evidence which even when available is not the efficient way to reach a truth.

Now ... see, this is what I was referring to when I said that billions are willing to discard evidence (and logic) for the sake of believing in something warm and fuzzy. Religion and romantic love are the only two common human conditions that not only throw logic and evidence out the window, but ENCOURAGES people to do so. Why? In every other endeavor, in every other aspect of life, we are considered wise, perceptive, and intelligent if we weigh the evidence and decide through logic. That's how we protect ourselves from being scammed.

But when it comes to religion, oh boy, it's time to empty oneself of logic, forget the evidence, and just believe for the sake of believing. And guess what happens. Yeah, you get scammed. Religions and their clergy have been scamming people for countless thousands of years by inventing a plethora of mythical gods to believe in and then slamming society with a truckload of rules -- which were enforced brutally throughout most of human history.

Originally Posted by Hawkins

Humans rely more on believing other humans to get to a truth instead of acquiring evidence by themselves.

Actually, that's rarely the case. In fact, the only time we really rely on other humans for our evidence is when it's impossible financially or intellectually to find out for ourselves -- or if the event already happened and it's too late to witness it.

But by and large, human beings are more prone NOT to listen to other human beings. That's why life can be so hard for us ... we often ignore and dismiss the warnings of those who have "been there" before us. If someone tells you that a flying saucer is hovering over your house, you're going to step outside and see for yourself -- not just sit in your easy chair and mumble, "Er, thanks for telling me."

Humans are MUCH too curious of creatures to experience things second hand. We want to see for ourselves. This is the reason why people can go to a restaurant and one person will say, "This tastes like crap. Here, try some." And the sucker will try some anyway, even knowing it's probably going to taste like crap. Or on a larger scale, it's why tourism is a trillion dollar industry worldwide. Yet, why travel to a semi-dangerous place like Egypt, enduring a 13 hour flight and jet lag, to see the Great Pyramid for yourself when you can just watch a documentary or hang a picture of it in your living room?

Let's say you dated a girl and she turned out to be a liar and unfaithful. Then your best friend starts dating her. I can almost guarantee you that your best friend will NOT listen to you and will keep on keeping on dating her until he finds out for himself what kind of girl she is. Even if he saw the entire catastrophe happen to you, he will STILL refuse to believe it will happen to him. Hasn't this been your experience throughout your life? You can give advice until you choke on your own saliva and the other person will ALWAYS still do what he wanted to do in the first place. They just gotta see for themselves.

But yeah, for some things, you're right. I can't go out and procure myself a 50 megaton thermo-nuclear weapon just to see one explode for myself. I have to trust the scientists who work on those monstrosities and watch the many videos showing exploding nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by Hawkins

No one even bother to acquire the evidence of earth revolving around the sun. We don't rely on a good telescope to get to the evidence ourselves, instead we rely on believing a small group of humans called scientists to get to the truth.

Uh oh ... we've accidentally crossed the border into La-La Land and me without my passport! Seriously, the old "taking science on faith" argument is not a "gotchya" argument given that believing in science with understandable evidence is a far cry from believing in something ridiculous like chariots pulling the sun across the sky, dragons eating the sun during an eclipse ... or gods creating humans from a pile of dirt and a rib.

There's two things here:

First, do you have any idea how much a good telescope costs? I do because throughout my entire childhood, it was my dream to own a big telescope with all the accoutrements: right ascension and declination dials, motorized carriage to follow with earth's rotation, all kinds of wide and narrow lenses, barlow lenses, equatorial mounts, etc. etc. The good ones are several thousand dollars, so yeah, an 8th grader is lucky to have enough to buy the latest music and I'm no trust fund baby.

Which illustrates my point -- yes, I have to take the word of scientists because I can't afford all of the equipment necessary to find the evidence myself. Nor can I devote the time and commitment (much less do the mathematics) that comes along with vetting the scientific evidence. Even if I had 20 lifetimes to do all of this work making sure that scientists aren't lying to us (why would they?), I would still be lucky to finish 1% of it.

Ergo, we HAVE to take the word of other human beings when seeing for ourselves is unrealistic.

(The word "accoutrements" is an actual word yet it is flagged as being wrong. Might want to update the forum dictionary, mods and admins. )

Secondly, why would I trust the scientists? Well, it's because the supernatural, religion, and superstition has had to move aside for the scientific truth thousands of times over the centuries. Not once, not ONE single time in the last 200,000 years has humanity EVER been right about handing us some mythic, religious, or supernatural explanation for the mechanisms of our universe. I can't stress that enough: Not once has science been so flummoxed by a mystery that it had to throw up its hands and announce officially that "God did it."

And no, please spare the rest of us any allusion that the entire global scientific community is ignoring, suppressing, or lying about evidence involving supernatural or magical causes for the way our universe works. That's just cooky conspiracy nonsense. Because I'm reasonably certain that you, too, believe that the earth revolves around the sun.

Hopefully you're not one of those moronic YouTubers who have created videos trying to prove ridiculous things like how the earth doesn't actually move either on its axis or around the sun.

The evidence? If the earth was spinning at approximately 1,000 miles per hour and if jumping took a full second to land, why do we not end up 2.7 miles away from where we lifted off from? Wouldn't the earth rotate underneath us as we hung suspended in the air during our jump?



People like that take the "special" bus to school.

So I'm going to wager that you know more about science than the idiot I just described (yeah you can really find these people on YouTube). Which means you're willing to trust those scientists, too. Given that, why would ANYONE be dumb enough to bet on a horse that hasn't won a single race in 200,000 years? Betting on religion and gods and magic as the truth to any answer concerning how our universe works would be doing exactly that.

[Freak80]

Originally Posted by DewDropInn

I don't think you're a fundamentalist, Freak. I believe you THINK like a fundamentalist. Big difference. You think like a fundamentalist (I'm right.... everyone else is wrong) because you were immersed in fundamentalism. I've seen little "healthy skepticism" in your posts. I have seen a lot of pokes and jabs at believers. Which is why so many are now ignoring your posts. Have you noticed you're now being ignored by several of the liberal theists as well as the fundamentalists? No one appreciates being on the receiving end of a stick over and over and over and.... you get the picture. Especially when they're trying to explain something to you.

/end of lecture. Which I doubt will be read and absorbed as the helpful advice it is meant to be.

It simply isn't true that I think I'm always right and that everyone else is wrong. When I see people making claims without evidence, I will call them on it. That's not the same thing as thinking I'm always right. If I thought I was always right, I wouldn't constantly be asking for the evidence that would instantly prove me wrong.

It is common for religious believers to interpret skepticism as an attack on them personally. So I'm not surprised that some would choose to ignore my posts.

I haven't been given many explanations, just unsubstantiated claims. Saying "this is true because I'm telling you that it's true" is not an explanation. It's a claim.

[DewDropInn]

Originally Posted by Freak80

If I thought I was always right, I wouldn't constantly be asking for the evidence that would instantly prove me wrong.

Do you need evidence for everything.... or is it just religious beliefs? Do you need evidence that your delicious breakfast burrito came from a clean kitchen? Or do you trust the "A" in the window?

[Freak80]

Originally Posted by DewDropInn

Do you need evidence for everything.... or is it just religious beliefs? Do you need evidence that your delicious breakfast burrito came from a clean kitchen? Or do you trust the "A" in the window?

I have evidence that businesses who routinely sicken their customers don't stay in business very long.