Atheists and Skeptics Have the Truth. Christians Do NOT. (quotes, pastor, beliefs)
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.
I appreciate all the time you spent on research and your commitment to logic and facts.
The inherent problem here is for many people historical facts don’t really matter when their
relationship to God/Jesus/Spirit is EXPERIENCIAL, not based on man’s accounting of it or evidentiary facts.
The closest I can come to a similarity is a biology professor in college I had spent weeks proving to us that LOVE was actually only a biological human evolution in protein synthesis that evolved for enhancement of survival. When we feel love, it’s just protein synthesizing.
Okay, for someone who has never EXPERIENCED the love of their child, their husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, their parents, their dog — then that FACT seems relevant. But for those of us who have EXPERIENCED profound love — well, the protein synthesis FACT doesn’t matter because we know that LOVE is EXPERIENCED on a different plane than the mind and the factual analytical level.
Sorry, That is as close to the God and spiritual experience as I can explain — it transcends religions, history, or facts.
But unless you’ve EXPERIENCED it, it doesn’t hold up to logic and facts.
Ironically (for you forget that most atheists were once theists), myself and many others HAVE had the EXPERIENCE and it did not compensate in the end for the lack of supporting logic, facts or evidence because lived experience did not remotely bear out this "experienced" god of love and benevolence. Of course, others for whom it sufficed thus far will just claim we didn't REALLY experience it, and so it goes. Random people can claim experiences, and random people can claim it to be a sham. In the end none of it means anything at all. It is just people making claims. What DOES matter is facts, evidence, and logic.
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
See, this is what I mean about Christians? They simply don't read or study. In fact, I think most secular people outside Christianity would question their ability to even reason and discern. By and large, Christians are lower on the IQ scale than secular non-religious people, that's a fact. They have absolutely no desire to get beyond the propaganda they regularly consume either from the Bible or their pastors and televangelists. Here is TRUTH NO 1 from my OP NO 1 below. And I've stated it more than a dozen times here and elsewhere:
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
I may be an atheist, but for you to make that claim...now I want some evidence from you.
For once, I agree with you, phet.
Also, wasn't the OP once Christian? And once he converted from Christianity to atheism, did his IQ suddenly take a leap forward?
I'd also like to see some evidence that Christians don't "read or study."
And that most secular people outside of Christianity would question their ability to even reason and discern.
Since you were once a Christian phet, apparently the OP (having once been a Christian himself) believes that *your* ability to 'read or study', 'reason and discern' would be questioned by most secular people.
Sorry, but I think this thread has devolved close to the point of ridiculous.
I appreciate all the time you spent on research and your commitment to logic and facts.
The inherent problem here is for many people historical facts don’t really matter when their
relationship to God/Jesus/Spirit is EXPERIENCIAL, not based on man’s accounting of it or evidentiary facts.
Sadly, you are right. I once joked that God himself could come down and tell hardcore Christians, "Jesus never existed. Check the history books" and they would say to God's face, "I don't care what you say. Jesus is real. I know because he lives in my heart."
And this is the core problem with hardcore Christians. Belief goes right past the proof-and-evidence level and goes right in past their marrow into their DNA. They basically inhabit the Jesus myth. They eat, sleep and breathe the Bible and televangelist TV programming and the Jesus myth becomes a very part of their own being. They cannot imagine an existence without belief in Jesus, so integral a part of their substance has he become. At this kind of microscopic level simple biological psychology is king. Evidence is nothing.
Ironically (for you forget that most atheists were once theists), myself and many others HAVE had the EXPERIENCE and it did not compensate in the end for the lack of supporting logic, facts or evidence because lived experience did not remotely bear out this "experienced" god of love and benevolence. Of course, others for whom it sufficed thus far will just claim we didn't REALLY experience it, and so it goes. Random people can claim experiences, and random people can claim it to be a sham. In the end none of it means anything at all. It is just people making claims. What DOES matter is facts, evidence, and logic.
Good Points. Just because someone "Claims: to "Experience" God is not in any way Proof of the existence of something Divine or Supernatural. Claiming that "traditionally" people have believed in God does NOT in any way make God real or true....What we are talking here is a social myth or a "relative truth" meaning it is true ONLY from the viewpoint of someone who accepts it.
For many of us, we do not believe that a god exists because there is, at the end of the day, no evidence, no measurability, no provability for it. That makes it a popular myth, and saying that something is true does not make it true.
I remember when a theist friend gave me this Josh McDowell book to read. He claimed it would prove to me that God exists. I read it, and all I found were a hundred or so pages of saying "God is real" over and over....as though the author was trying to convince himself that something was real just by repeating it over and over again. I think that Joseph Goebbels was the one who pointed out that if the government could repeat something enough, then people would start to believe it.
Saying something over and over does not make it real or true. It may influence perception and belief. Saying that "Well other people believe it" still does not make it true. People have been wrong before, will be again, and I think the weakest argument is to do something or believe something just because others do.
BUT we as humans are naturally social creatures. We evolved into a tribal community, where tribes banded together for protection, safety, food and to invent myths to explain the world which they cannot understand. Humans like to be part of a group, even if it means adapting unusual beliefs or sharing common misconceptions.
Human nature is always reinforced by rewards/failures. IF a tribe was going hungry, and having trouble gathering food, then someone might point out hat the last time they did a certain dance, the rain fell, so maybe a rain dance would bring back rain and with it, nourishment. (They had not idea of weather patterns, only that something they did appeared to influence the world around them) And at night, these tribesman dreamed sometimes of deceased relatives, or deceased tribal members, and not understanding neurology, they thought they were being contacted by the spirits of dead ancestors. Even Paul fell for that in the Bible when he had a seizure and hallucinated a vision of Jesus talking to him.
Tribesmen may have discovered hallucinogenic substances, like at the Oracle of Delphi, and accepted the altered state and proof or communication with the Supernatural world.
What we have evidence for, and explanation for, is ordinary human behavior trying to control and influence things that humans cannot influence or change, like the weather. Somewhere, God-Worship comes in as it is convenient for humans to create these gods to control these things...Sometimes, as a result of a human sacrifice or petition. It became necessary for tribes to adopt sacrifices, rituals, dogma in an attempt to understand and control these deities, in order to influence natural events in the favor of the particular tribe. Or Family. Or nation. Or church. Or religion.
And we have archeological evidence going back 100,000 years that this existed. And we have no evidence however that the actual god or Deity existed. Lots of evidence that people say "Oh yeah God exists because I say/think/believe/know He does," but they lack any hard evidence of the proof of this. And more often, their behavior has turned people like us away from wanting anything to do with them, and not always because of what they claim to believe, but because of the actions of their group, which often violates human rights and freedoms. Personal experience and personal belief, is not proof of a god, it is proof that the human mind can create and think of ways to describe experiences thoughts and feelings which otherwise cannot be fully understood or articulated.
And this cat likes being free from religion, as I can then go out and explore and learn anything I want, whereas many religious people I know are forbidden by their religion from doing so.
Also, wasn't the OP once Christian? And once he converted from Christianity to atheism, did his IQ suddenly take a leap forward?
I'd also like to see some evidence that Christians don't "read or study."
And that most secular people outside of Christianity would question their ability to even reason and discern.
Since you were once a Christian phet, apparently the OP (having once been a Christian himself) believes that *your* ability to 'read or study', 'reason and discern' would be questioned by most secular people.
Sorry, but I think this thread has devolved close to the point of ridiculous.
The part I bolded -- I have 2 observational experiences regarding that. By no means conclusive of anything.
But when I was living in Colorado Springs I was part of a group that played Mex Train Dominoes/Hand Foot Canasta every Wednesday evening for 3 years. Immediately adjacent to where our group sat was a table of 4 men who were doing bible study. It appeared that they pored over bible verses over and over and over. You could actually see them following along with (only) their bibles, and then talking. The only book ever at their table was bibles. If that's what they want to do, that's fine. But would you call that a broad-based bible study? It didn't appear to be to me. It appeared to be repetitively repeating only things from just one source.
I also had a close friend who did bible study, often at her house. I asked her how they studied the bible. She said they would read a section and talk about it. Okay, if that's what they want, that's fine. I asked, "How to hear and consider other viewpoints?" "Why would we want to do that?"
Now, compare those two bible study groups with what I had to do in college in my geology major. We had to read various journals that discussed different viewpoints about things like evolution. It wasn't just accept what Chuck Darwin said. And exams often included sections where we had to present different viewpoints on topics, and then discuss them. And if you could only present one side of a topic, you tended to get a D or F.
The question isn't that you study. The question is what and how you study?
Well with respect to your "truth 1 & 2" I do not see the whole historicist / mythicist debate as productive. I happen to be a mythicist but if the historicists turn out to be correct, it presents zero problem for me as an atheist. This question is just an interesting side show because the real issue for devout Christians is whether "Bible Jesus, the Miracle-Working God-Man" existed, not just whether there was an actual itinerant Jewish preacher named Jesus bar Joseph who is the basis for the mythos. Historicists do not address that. They are arguing only that the canonical gospels are "based on" a real historical individual. The fabulist accounts are not addressed by the historicist / mythicist debate.
Here's the crux of your question, mordant: how on earth could it possibly happen that the Christians were right all along and the historians were wrong? Christians have had 2000 years to uncover something--ANYTHING that would prove Jesus was real and they haven't been able to do it. If it was going to happen it would have happened already, so we can say with 99.9999999% assurance the Jesus as portrayed in the gospels never existed. The closest historians can get is to say, "A man upon which the Jesus of the gospels was based likely lived but we have no historical record for him so we can only rely on church traditions for affirmation."
I forgot to warn you about Mink, North. She is our premiere God-whitewasher in here. Search the Bible in vain to find God saying anywhere, "BELIEVE; THEN I'll show you."
This is a typical example of how the Church takes a handicap that would ordinarily cripple a religion and deviously and dishonestly turns it into a virtue:
"You ask for proof of Jesus? That's a sin, my child. Good Christians NEVER ask for proof. God hates the word, "proof". He wants you to believe without seeing proof. When you ask for proof you commit a grievous sin against Jesus and God. You slap God and spit in his face when you ask to see something upon which to base your faith. BELIEVE; THEN I'll show you"
First of all, I never said it was "in the Bible." It's a saying that's been around for several decades, at least. It's not a saying that *I* made up, and I never said I did. Plus, I'm not Sola Scriptura.
Second, even though those exact words are not in the Bible, the principle certainly is, in a number of places.
Consider how often someone approached Jesus and asked them to do something for them. And Jesus would ask (paraphrasing), "Do you believe I can do this for you?" And once the person said, "Yes", Jesus gave them what they asked for.
Third, I never said that asking for 'proof' was a 'sin'. I understand that other (Christian) folks do that, but *I* don't.
God doesn't want us to believe without seeing proof; He wants us to believe before seeing proof. There's a difference.
Good Points. Just because someone "Claims: to "Experience" God is not in any way Proof of the existence of something Divine or Supernatural. Claiming that "traditionally" people have believed in God does NOT in any way make God real or true....What we are talking here is a social myth or a "relative truth" meaning it is true ONLY from the viewpoint of someone who accepts it.
For many of us, we do not believe that a god exists because there is, at the end of the day, no evidence, no measurability, no provability for it. That makes it a popular myth, and saying that something is true does not make it true.
I remember when a theist friend gave me this Josh McDowell book to read. He claimed it would prove to me that God exists. I read it, and all I found were a hundred or so pages of saying "God is real" over and over....as though the author was trying to convince himself that something was real just by repeating it over and over again. I think that Joseph Goebbels was the one who pointed out that if the government could repeat something enough, then people would start to believe it.
Saying something over and over does not make it real or true. It may influence perception and belief. Saying that "Well other people believe it" still does not make it true. People have been wrong before, will be again, and I think the weakest argument is to do something or believe something just because others do.
BUT we as humans are naturally social creatures. We evolved into a tribal community, where tribes banded together for protection, safety, food and to invent myths to explain the world which they cannot understand. Humans like to be part of a group, even if it means adapting unusual beliefs or sharing common misconceptions.
Human nature is always reinforced by rewards/failures. IF a tribe was going hungry, and having trouble gathering food, then someone might point out hat the last time they did a certain dance, the rain fell, so maybe a rain dance would bring back rain and with it, nourishment. (They had not idea of weather patterns, only that something they did appeared to influence the world around them) And at night, these tribesman dreamed sometimes of deceased relatives, or deceased tribal members, and not understanding neurology, they thought they were being contacted by the spirits of dead ancestors. Even Paul fell for that in the Bible when he had a seizure and hallucinated a vision of Jesus talking to him.
Tribesmen may have discovered hallucinogenic substances, like at the Oracle of Delphi, and accepted the altered state and proof or communication with the Supernatural world.
What we have evidence for, and explanation for, is ordinary human behavior trying to control and influence things that humans cannot influence or change, like the weather. Somewhere, God-Worship comes in as it is convenient for humans to create these gods to control these things...Sometimes, as a result of a human sacrifice or petition. It became necessary for tribes to adopt sacrifices, rituals, dogma in an attempt to understand and control these deities, in order to influence natural events in the favor of the particular tribe. Or Family. Or nation. Or church. Or religion.
And we have archeological evidence going back 100,000 years that this existed. And we have no evidence however that the actual god or Deity existed. Lots of evidence that people say "Oh yeah God exists because I say/think/believe/know He does," but they lack any hard evidence of the proof of this. And more often, their behavior has turned people like us away from wanting anything to do with them, and not always because of what they claim to believe, but because of the actions of their group, which often violates human rights and freedoms. Personal experience and personal belief, is not proof of a god, it is proof that the human mind can create and think of ways to describe experiences thoughts and feelings which otherwise cannot be fully understood or articulated.
And this cat likes being free from religion, as I can then go out and explore and learn anything I want, whereas many religious people I know are forbidden by their religion from doing so.
Can I get an AMEN from the peanut gallery?
There is a fair amount of brain priming that goes into these experiences as well. If you have a certain type of experience it means "God" or "Jesus". Yet people of all faiths have these experiences including atheists.
If we use recovery from addiction as a model, it's the people that look for the commonality of experience instead of dismissing connection that are successful. When a person can't do that it's called "terminal uniqueness".
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.
