The Marketing Of Christianity

If you honestly knew that Christianity was false, i could see you having no choice but not to believe. My point is that there is no definite evidence and thus the conclusion is that you decided not to believe. Its not as if you had a solid 100% case for doing so. Remember that I reject Crashfrogs mantra: The Absence of Evidence is not the Evidence of Absence in my mind. Honestly.

Seems to me this discussion shows that the people who fall away from Christianity are ones who grew up in the church. They learned all the doctrine and as ringo says just went with the flow. So they had a merely superficial commitment even though they outwardly lived as part of the community.abe: What this means is that they were not born again. Christianity is a transformation, not just a belief system. Even those who grew up in the church have to become converted to be Christians. "Conversion" isn't just a matter of superficial belief either, it's to be understood as an actual change, a real conversion from one condition to another. /abeI was sent to church as a child, but I can't say it really stuck although I felt a pang of loss when I gave it up as a teenager, under the influence of "enlightened" sophisticated friends, and lived without it for the next thirty years. When I came back to it in my mid forties, completely through a blitz of reading up on religions, it was brand new to me. I found out then that I'd never understood what the gospel is all about, I had to learn it all from scratch. I remembered the Lord's Prayer and the 23rd Psalm and a few hymns and the Christmas Carols but that was about it. (And recognizing clearly for the first time what the carols are actually celebrating reduced me to tears of joy and thanks, and they often still do that to me). I had to give up quite a few things I had believed as an atheist and some of it was a hard struggle, but when I gave myself to Christ in my forties it was a done deal, I could not ever lose it, it was sealed by knowing that the Bible is really God's communication to us, and by many personal experiences of His providence in my life, answered prayer, even some supernatural events. I've lost a lot of my original passion and want to get it back if I can, but the basics I know will never leave me, God Himself, Jesus Christ, will never leave me, in reality or in my own mind.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You contradict yourself. If there is "no definite evidence" that IS a solid 100% case. If there was ANY definite evidence, it would be less than 100%.But I'm not even the one who says there's "no definite evidence". I'm just saying there isn't enough evidence to make the case for God, etc. plausible. Bigfoot is more plausible than God but I don't believe he exists. Even leprechauns are more plausible than God. Your mind is wrong. If the evidence should be there but isn't, that's evidence of absence. The only excuse you have for the lack of evidence is that God is hiding, which is ridiculously lame.

I was just the opposite. I felt a sense of relief much like the descriptions of "salvation" that I had heard all my life. I was definitely not influenced by peer pressure. To this day I've hardly ever met a professing atheist face to face. All of the peer pressure has been in the opposite direction.

I'd love to hear your rationale for this one!

Phat, is there evidence of finding new species of animals?Phat is there evidence of finding new species of primates?Phat, is there evidence of the existence of little people?Phat is there evidence of the existence of anything supernatural?Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

I'd like to hear your objections.

I suppose in the strict definition of what plausibility means, I have no argument. Bigfoot could end up being a new species of animal. A Leprechaun could be some evolved rat. It does frustrate me to some degree how you see no need for God, however.Besides, Aquinas took us on that route in reasoning for the existence of the universe.

quote:

---

1. The universe exists.

​

2. It could not be the cause of itself.

​

3. It could not come from nothing.

​

4. It could not be an effect in an infinite series of causes and effects

---

I would argue that it is more plausible to believe in an infinite God Creator rather than an infinite pilotless and self-creating universe. And I could care less about Hawkings take on it.

Why not? Why not? Why not?And, of course, what Aquinas misses is that all of those could-nots also apply to God. No, you would assert that. If you have an actual argument, present it.

Why do you put so much weight on opinions that are thousands of years old? These are just ideas, based on nothing but thoughts. Thoughts that can't have been informed by any real knowledge of how our universe actually works.On the other hand we have people like Prof Hawkings who tell us that the energy in the universe cancels out to zero, so if there is zero energy in total a God is not necessary to create it. Something can come from nothing.Now you've been informed that science, based on some mind destroying maths, thinks that it's possible that the universe can arrive from nothing many times before but you religiously ignore it and yet again fall back to this ancient and bad philosophy.I'm struggling to understand how you can simultaeously over-emphasise some old and poor thinking and seemigly totally ignore a modern evidence based view. I'm not saying Hawking is right - I mean how the hell would I know? - but surely you can't just ignore it? Or do you just forget?Curiously, RAZD would mention cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias at this point.

I'll admit to confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. The more I study this stuff, the more I am convinced that it is not possible to prove. Thus we are left with the choice to believe or not to believe.And a lot depends first on whether the individual wants or needs belief.A lot also depends on whether or not the belief is plausible.As for me, I need the belief. I need the hope. I need an eternal Father figure in my life. I cannot pretend that belief is an option for me...in my case.Perhaps it all is a part of my dysfunctional brain chemistry. Holding on to a probability...no matter how small of a number it is.Also, I enjoy defending the issues until someone pops the balloon and crows about there being no evidence and no chance.They wont take away my probability, however. I simply wont let go.And it angers me that they wont agree with my logic that there always will be a probability. (That God exists and that God relates to each of us individually)I have traditionally defended my belief as an internal certainty but can let go of that certainty as long as nobody attempts to snatch the probability.

That's ok then as no-one here will tell you that the probability of there being no god is zero. Because - and how many times have you heard this too? - no-one can prove a negative. So it will always and forever remain a possibility.So you can keep your (infinitely small) probability and being a gambler that should be good enough for you. But it does allow you to consider alternatives.

There's always a chance that you'll win the lottery - but is it a good investment?

There is evidence though that people actually do win lotteries so while it is a stupid investment the probability of someone winning approaches 100% while there is no evidence of anything supernatural.

Interesting that you two would bring gambling up. One of my own personal fallacies in that area is the fact that I take the truth statement: Somebody will win and switch its true implication into my own statement, namely I will win.This latest round of EvC conversation has sparked my inner cognitive dissonance and is making me rash and erratic. Thankfully I have my meds.