Why I Lost My Christian Faith (Egyptian, ghosts, Commandment, atheist)
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 is the main problem with their demand that No God be the default until shown proof of God other than what exists. They do not recognize that default implicitly asserts their claim and their arguments are NOT proof of it.
True. I don't think I've ever fallen for that one, that the "default view" is the belief that there is no god. I think it's painfully obvious that the default is a lack of belief either way.
True. I don't think I've ever fallen for that one, that the "default view" is the belief that there is no god. I think it's painfully obvious that the default is a lack of belief either way.
The question involved (do you think there is a God) is binary. Yes or No. A or B. 0 or 1. If a question leaves room only for a Yes or No answer, how can it be possible for the default to be neither?
The question involved (do you think there is a God) is binary. Yes or No. A or B. 0 or 1. If a question leaves room only for a Yes or No answer, how can it be possible for the default to be neither?
The question/answer like a coin has three sides. It may not be obvious to all eyes, but yet the fact remains. "I don't know", is a separate side of the religious coin. Anyone can and will attempt to attach caveats to the agnosticism position, but it's simply "I don't know".
The question involved (do you think there is a God) is binary. Yes or No. A or B. 0 or 1. If a question leaves room only for a Yes or No answer, how can it be possible for the default to be neither?
I have no issue with answering that question with a simple Yes or No. I would answer "No". That is, I do not think there is a god. But that's different from "I think there's no god".
MysticPhD had said,
"That is the main problem with their demand that No God be the default"
I disagree that "No God" should be the default as well.
Good grief, Arq. You just don't get that Vic is trying to expose your unsupported and unsupportable PREMISES that are the fallacious underpinning of your otherwise useless arguments pretending that No God MUST be the default. I will reluctantly refrain from adjectives like obtuse, thick-headed, or oblivious to describe the failure to see the issue your unwarranted premises pose.
Yes, Vic does seem to avoid probability, just like you.
I have no issue with answering that question with a simple Yes or No. I would answer "No". That is, I do not think there is a god. But that's different from "I think there's no god".
MysticPhD had said,
"That is the main problem with their demand that No God be the default"
I disagree that "No God" should be the default as well.
You're a bit of an enigma, Vic. You don't think there is a god but you will defend the Jesus man/god to your dying breath. A bit schizophrenic, but....well, we're all a little strange in one way or another.
It's not so black and white in regards to ancient history, and you should know this. Many accounts that are considered largely reliable still contain legendary elements ("fiction" if you will), but that doesn't mean the historian just throws these documents out.
Except we are talking about the gospels, not other documents. All based on Mark (writing in a literary style), who uses allegories about the temple and Judaism (based on OT passages) from the start to the end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
What do you do with 1 Timothy 2:5. “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.”
1 Timothy, the later, non-Pauline letter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
And then with Philippians 2:5:
"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross"
Yes, a divine being took on the form of a man. Hardly historical is it, especially as it does not say where this angel in man's form was? Was it on earth, like Adam, or in heaven, like The heavenly copy of Adam? Paul does not say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Or with Romans 1:3? “Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh”
Romans 1:2, revealed in scripture. So Peshar, not historical. It also does not say born, it uses the same word Paul uses for Adam, made, manufactured, produced. Paul does use the word for born, but never for Jesus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
No more/less than any other historical document (or collection thereof). Why?
Definitely less, for the 7 reasons I gave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
So now you're having to resort to implying that Ehrman is a Christian spy? Nevermind that he argues against Christianity on a regular basis?
No, I am implying nothing. I am giving possible reasons why he does not argue Jesus did not exist. He is possibly following the money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Is that really your only defense against difficult arguments?
Ooh, poison well and straw man. When WILL you start making rational arguments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Where in the New Testament does it say that Jesus never walked the Earth?
If Jesus were to walk the earth, he would never be a priest. Epistle to the Hebrews.
True. I don't think I've ever fallen for that one, that the "default view" is the belief that there is no god. I think it's painfully obvious that the default is a lack of belief either way.
Fine, let's accept that "lack of belief either way" is a logical starting point. Does it not follow, however, that the extraordinary claims in the direction of a god (see: Bible) should require extraordinary evidence? And that, in the absence of such extraordinary evidence, the more likely (probable) conclusion is in the other direction, of there not being a god? In other words, that the scales are tipped toward the negative (no gods), if we leave that starting point in the middle?
At least that's how I think about it...
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.
)
