Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That may be a partial truth, but whether or not the person who isn't thirsty does or doesn't care about water, the person who IS thirsty can show that water really, really exists. In fact, the thirsty one can pour some excess water on the one who is not, and that person will get wet, will feel the water, will see the water and will get dry.
The person who believes in a god can not present that god to a non-believer in any fashion.
Atheists want the type of "proof" that would damn them by stripping
themselves of the ability to disbelieve.
For any given person who has decent evidentiary standards, it is not possible to voluntarily afford belief to something that isn't adequately substantiated. Given this, you are right, the corollary is that you can't DISbelieve something that IS adequately substantiated.
How is this a problem for you? Or for anyone? Even if I had grave moral concerns about your deity (and I do), I would have no choice but to believe in him if he were substantiated (which would require him to be substantiatABLE, of course ... but I digress). It seems to me that it would just be one more aspect of reality I don't like but have to accept ... you would gain another believer ... and all would be right in your world, no?
Honestly ... explain to me how this is a problem. Is it that you believe without evidence, and can't stand the idea that someone else's belief would be just as accepted as yours if they require evidence? Hm ... well actually your savior modeled this by saying that while "doubting" Thomas was blessed to have seen and believed ... he was not AS blessed as those who believe without seeing. So I see the problem here, now that I think of it: if god suddenly decided to evidence himself to people who need evidence, it would dilute the value and virtue and admirability of your evidence-less belief!
They have to 'believe' to get salvation. If there was solid proof then they would no longer believe - they would know. And we would know too but we would not believe either - we would know.
By the way, it is quite possible to "DISbelieve something that IS adequately substantiated." One only has to deny it.
Snowball, do you know of anyone who has been to the other side who can substantiate your claim? All the gospel writers were living and had therefore no knowledge of lies beyond death. No one has that knowledge.
Miracles like raising the dead are not miracles. People become 'clinically dead' often and then 'come alive again'.
A graveyard needed to me moved to make way for a highway or something and when the graves were exhumed they found many of the skeletons lying face down/on their sides(?). The were buried face up! They were not dead when buried. They were thought to be dead.
Quote:
established medical criteria for brain death
1.) EEG has to be isolelectric, or flat, in two recordings of one hour 24 hours apart.
2.) Patient can have no reflexes
3.) Pupils have to be fixed and dilated.
4.) Hypothermia has to be ruled out as a cause of this criteria although the patient will be somewhat hypothermic as a result of this criteria.
5.) No spontaneous respirations, patient cannot be triggering the respirator.
6.) Patient cannot have had any sedating drugs in their blood for 96 hours.
When this criteria has been met, documented in a clinical setting, Zero patients have ever come back. It was my own experience for 40 years and as far as I know there is no reports of survival in any of the medical literature.
However, when these criteria are not met, perhaps in a rural setting or in another country, the diagnosis of "clinically dead" is sketchy. I've heard of drowning, cardiac arrest and many other "fatalities" pronounced "dead" on the spot and some of these have come back. There are many documented accounts of people coming back to life in their caskets! I would doubt the veracity and skills of whoever pronounced them dead. Doctors are just like the rest of us, they are not perfect. There are also a few medically documented accounts of patients who were found frozen to death for a few hours with no vital signs, and these came back to life when thawed.
They have to 'believe' to get salvation. If there was solid proof then they would no longer believe - they would know. And we would know too but we would not believe either - we would know.
It is entirely possible to believe without making a knowledge claim. The two influence each other, but vary independently.
That is why I said adequately substantiated. By that I mean there is enough evidence that the preponderance of evidence suggests that a thing is quite likely to be true. This is not enough for a knowledge claim -- there is a nonzero chance that the thing is not true -- but it is enough for a belief position to be taken up.
So I'm setting the bar low here for theists. I don't have to KNOW there is a god, I just need a good reason to BELIEVE there is likely to be a god. If I get to shake his hand and talk to him and I'm with other credible, skeptical people who confirm the experience so I know that I'm not delusional, such that I can also make a knowledge claim ... so much the better. But I'm not insisting on it.
That is effectively it - and theists know this, deep down inside and are constantly trying to argue for a god on the evidence. When this fails to stand up or (as if often the case) it actually argues against a god), then they revert to faith and fish around for "evidence" (which is usually scriptural in nature) to try to validate Faith. There is no value or merit in believing something on a Faith that is not supported by valid evidence and is even is spite of the evidence.
And I for one refuse to believe that any god worthy o respect, let alone worship, would not be aware of that. That is why I am not bothered a scrap by threats of angry deities and eternal fires.
Atheists want the type of "proof" that would damn them by stripping
themselves of the ability to disbelieve.
God in His Mercy does not give them that, so they might still be saved.
That is, until He returns, then they won't have a choice anymore.
no. what we do is use what we do know to make up our stories. You know guys like you make god really small. Lucky for you he don't care, well, I mean he cares as much as I did when my four year old acts stupidily.
no. what we do is use what we do know to make up our stories. You know guys like you make god really small. Lucky for you he don't care, well, I mean he cares as much as I did when my four year old acts stupidily.
Your god sounds a really loving god, rather than the Biblical jealous one.
There is no value or merit in believing something on a Faith that is not supported by valid evidence and is even is spite of the evidence.
Quite old beast! That is why I ask, over and over of theists...'why do you think 'Faith' has merit and should be applauded'. I have been asking this for years and, as y'all probably noticed, I have asked several 'Christians' here, several times. As yet, not one of them have offered an answer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
