Message of the Bible

Do you believe that this is a quality of a moral being? Answering only to themselves?I don't. Of course I don't even believe in God so it's not my problem. But if you want to believe in an immoral God, go right ahead.

Sure there's a common ground. We can both think. Of course, if you're unwilling to do so, then there is no common ground. That can't be true, as I became an atheist because there's no God. Prior to that, I was a very devout Christian. Well of course the Bible makes that convoluted claim. The Bible is written in such a way as to make everything, even the existence of unbelievers, as evidence for God.The much more reasonable explanation is that atheists reject the existence of God because there's no evidence that God exists. It's a very reasonable position unless you start from the assumption that God exists no matter what. Oh, sure. I mean, it couldn't possibly be because there's no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, right?Frankly I find your post arrogant and insulting, so let me return the favor. If you believe in God for these reasons it can only be because you refuse to think.

Do you believe that constitutes an appropriate and moral definition of "righteousness"?

Have you considered the possibility that when he leaves, it's to go eat?

Yup, that's the god most of our government worships, all right - money.

Bzzt! Argument from authority. What makes you think they know any more about God than you or I?Just because somebody important believes something doesn't make it true. You've provided evidence that people believe in something not that there's something to believe in.

No, she's saying that there's no way for you to tell the difference. They may be liars. They may not be. How can you tell?

Like I said, it's not evidence of God, it's evidence that there exist people who believe in God. Why is that significant? We already knew that some people believe in God. You haven't shown any evidence that they're right in doing so.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-10-2004]

To the contrary. Testimony is dismissied if uncorraborated by physical evidence. Where's the physical evidence of God to corraborate the personal testimony?And what about my testimony? I say there is no God. Could be they're just liars. How do you know?

I haven't claimed it's not evidence. Simply that it's not evidence for what you think it is. As yet you have no rebuttal to this point. When are you going to stop pretending that evidence that people believe in God has anything to do with evidence for God?I can present evidence that people believe in Santa Claus. That doesn't make Santa Claus exist. Statistically most people don't believe in your God, so by your standards of evidence, your God does not exist.See how stupid this is?

Well, so far, in several different threads you've accepted:Arguments from authority
Absence of evidence
Personal Testimonyas evidence. Ned, is there anything you won't accept as evidence?

Yes, of course it isn't. Just as testimony for Santa Claus isn't evidence of Santa Claus. Sorry, "Yes it is!" doesn't count as a rebuttal. You need to explain why you're credulous enough to take people's testimony at face-value, when no other reasonable person seems content to do so. No, it doesn't. Merely that some people think that Santa Claus exists.What a world of credulity you must live in! Apparently you're willing to take all testimony at face-value. Let's get rid of the criminal justice system! All we have to do is ask them if they committed a crime or not. It's self-evident that the majority of people are not Christians, but:

quote:

---

Christianity 1.9 billion 33.0%
Islam 1.1 billion 20.0
Hinduism 781 million 13.0
Buddhism 324 million 6.0
Sikhism 19 million 0.4
Judaism 14 million 0.2
Baha'ism 6.1 million 0.1
Confucianism 5.3 million 0.1
Jainism 4.9 million 0.1
Shintoism 2.8 million 0.0

---

from Top Ten Organized Religions of the World, 2005As you can see, Christians are only 33% of the world's believers. The majority of humans are non-Christian. Surely this is not a surprise to you? Then maybe you can explain what you meant when you said: Then please make an effort to communicate better. I can hardly be blamed if you're unwilling/unable to effectively communicate eactly what it is you're trying to say.

That may be. On the other hand, a reasonable person can deduce that, if God exists, then God is either all-powerful or moral, but not both.A powerless God is pointless. An amoral God is not worth worshipping. But since even humans can cause things to be made without specific acts of creation, we can conclude that not everything need have a creator.

Ned? Bump? I'm genuinely curious.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-11-2004]

And I'd have to say that your distinction between "evidence" and "proof" is disingenuous at best. By your definition of evidence I can provide evidence for literally any statement whatsoever. How useful is evidence if it can support anything, even things that are not true? What does age have to do with it? Someone who has never lied can still be mistaken or poorly-informed. How? What if you asked 100 atheists? Wouldn't then the evidence statsitically favor that there was no God? What does asking 100 people who you already know are going to say the same thing prove anything?Do the words "response bias" mean anything to you? If not then it's clear you don't have the training to make statistical judgements.