|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why is your religon true and not the religion of others? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4661 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Hi frako,
why do you think allah is not real? Why do you believe that perun, zeus, odin, Thor, Vishna, Shiva, Ramma, Jupiter, Mars, Mithra, the grate đuđu up on the mountin and all the others are fakes while your god is the true one. Because I think I have evidence for the existence of the christian God, but not the others.
and on a noter note why do you believe that you version of the bible is the true word of god, and all the other versions interpret the word of god wrongly? I believe the original texts are the inspired word of God. Since I have no formal knowledge of hebrew or greek, I have to trust that others do and that they translated it correctly. I do not believe my 'interpretations' are inspired, however I do think that there are less areas of genuine disagreement then we are left to believe sometimes in the interpretation of the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4661 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I believe you when you say that you think you have evidence; or rather, if you're like most Christians you believe that there is evidence, perhaps you've been assured that there is, but since you believe on the basis of faith and not evidence, you don't really know the evidence. I say 'I think I have evidence for ...' for the simple reason that it is more effective in getting a constructive discussion. Notice when someone, christian or atheist, comes in a discussion with more authoritative claims, like 'This is what the evidence says' it tends to just polarize the discussion and stiffens the dialogue. This is why I use more tentative expression. Also, I have once ellaborated my understanding of 'faith'. I'll do it again here so that we don't misunderstand each other. The greek word for faith is ''pistis''. It is related to pisteuo, meaning believe, and pietho, which means 'to convince by argument'. By this we can see that faith is in fact related to arguments and evidence, logic and reason. In other words, i believe that when a bible author uses the word 'faith', he is referring to a confidence that is not deprived from evidence. Now I know that many christians are guilty of not using the word in this way, they will often say things like ''I don't need evidence because I have faith'' or ''don't about such and such problem, you just need to have faith'' and so on etc. and I recognize that this lead to the overall useage of the word faith to actually be ''blind-faith''. If you reread your sentence, you will notice that this is effectively the definition you are using. SO just to make it clear, for me, the christian faith should be evidence based. If I want to refer to a faith in something without evidence, then I will say blind faith. This is more true to the original meaning of the word in the New Testaments texts.
Right? I suspect this because that's invariably how it works in these discussions - Christians will assert that there's an evidence-based, intellectually-compelling case for the existence of God, and then when they're asked to make that case, they beg off because they don't know the case. They just "know" it exists, but they believe on faith so they don't need it. But they're sure that somebody somewhere is making it, and maybe you should ask the next Christian, maybe he knows it. But then you ask him about it and it's the same exact deal - not me, try the Christian to the left. Vast over generalisation and over simplification, not only to mention it is borderline strawman-like, since I've been here for over a year now and I have never seen a christian act like this. They usually always try to give an answer to the objections, even though sometimes it doesn't satisfy you the least, or even though it is sometimes totally uncomprehensible. But of course, if you already come to the table with such preconceived notions, maybe that's why you get no worthwhile discussion but instead get referred to the person to the right
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4661 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
you would not mind sharing this evidence whit us? I do in the appropriate forums in the appropriate threads, when we are discussing a particular subject. But this is the faith and belief section, and although it would be a bit off to start an expose of making a case why the christian God exists, I can stay in the more general and say that I believe that the collective body of evidence of the earth's past fits best the biblical account of origins, more then the current evolutionnary paradigm. I believe that a case can be made for the ressurection of Jesus begin a historical fact. And I believe that messianic prophecises have been fullfilled by Jesus coming, and that this is compelling evidence for the truth of christianity. The first point (creaion/evolution) I am much more knowledgeable then the other two 'lines of evidence' mentioned. I plan however to catch up on the second one, as I ordered the book ''the impossible faith'' by Holding, as well as planning to order ''Not the impossible faith'' by Richard Carrier (a refutation of the first book). Both are available online I think, but I like to have a real book in my hands. I will also read Holdings answers to Carrier's objections. (They seem to have a thing going on hehe).
well there is the problem of Constantin doing the editing of the bible and selecting wich scripts are holy and not, some scriptures that where suposedly writen by jesusus family the lost scroll of judas..... it is difficult to say how distorted his teachings got trough the past 2 millenia. This is one area where I can say I have a blind faith, as I have never really studied on the subject more then here and there articles. But I can already spot a little Red Herring here: the past 2 millenia is irrelevant, since the texts we translate our Bibles with date from at most 100 years after the events. So the real question is how much of it could have been changed in that timespan, we being in 2010 makes no difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4661 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
This is the same kind of thing we're used to hearing from Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, only with the Quran in the place of the Bible. Of course, these claims about the Quran are not true, but then neither would they be true about the Bible. I don't know if this was voluntary, but that last phrase was some crudely bad logic. If they are false about the Quran, then they are false about the bible also ???
What exactly is it about the arguments in favour of the Bible/Christianity that you feel distinguishes them from similar arguments made by those of other faiths? I distinguish it as you and I do with anything else. Each belief system makes claims, which can be either true or false. Through logic and when it is possible, you determine if it is one or the other. How did you distinguish that none of them is right ? (assuming you are not religious). With the answer of this question, now simply tell yourself that instead of doing: wrong-wrong-wrong-wrong I did wron-wrong-right-wrong. That right being christianity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4661 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
May I ask how old you were when you decided to become a Christian, and whether the initial decision was based on evidence? I was raised in a christian family. I was 14-15 when I decided to take a step back and figure out if any of this made any sense. You know, ''age of reason'' where you get off cruise control and actually take the steering wheel. I have an analytical mind and it all added up back then with the evidence, and it still all adds for now. But of course, your very question is totally irrelevant. How old were you when you believed that lions lived in africa ? Or how old were you when you believed that red-blue-yellow were the three primary colors ? Or belief that man walked on the moon ? Or that time is relative ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4661 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Yet the overwhelming majority of people in the world who are not "raised in a christian family" do not come to the same conclusion when they are 14 - 15, or later in life, do they? Why would I expect ''the overwhelming majority of people in the world'' to have the same path I do ... ?? Guess what, the overwhelming majority of people in the world also do not come to the same conclusion you do on this. What a surprise. The truth of the matter is, there is in the end only one right answer to this, and all the others are wrong. Just like a math problem, you can arrive at the correct answer through different paths though. And right now, I believe that christianity is the correct worldview.
Really? Try studying Mathematics and physics at University without an analytical mind, then come back to me
Not if you analyse it. If you have a point to make, do it. Because As of right now I am not moved by pseudo-logical rhetoric questions. If you want to say I was influenced-brainwashed by my parents, say it. Because I got a feeling this is what you are really implying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4661 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
well i kinda did not find evidence for any religion, so that made it wrong, wrong, wrong. though from what i know and if i had to chose a religion it would be Buddhism i can swallow almost anything they throw at me except wheel of life reincarnation thing even if it seems more plausible then a god watching over us. But that not exactly true is it ? I'm pretty sure you do have evidence against christianity (claiming historical inaccuracies, biblical contradictions, etc.). Or else you must have a pretty lonely time here on EvC.
4. their morals make xian, and other religions morals look like they came from a sociopath Oh really ? There is no 'love your neighbor' in Budhism. I'm pretty sure a homeless is better our western world and it's christian heritage rather then in a Budhist country, where he will simply be told that he must endure the result of Bad Karma in past lives. It either values the life of an insect as highly as the life of a human, or the life of a human as lowly as the one of an insect. Either extremes make for a bad social morality. But this is off topic I guess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4661 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I compared it with Catholic christianity, Islam and Budhism for the most part. Can't say any of this was in-depth, but sufficient I think for me to tentatively accept christianity over any of these at the time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4661 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I'll be honest Theodoric, I don't care if my argument has no value to you without the evidence because guess what, it is not a freakin' argument. If I was trying to convince anyone of course I would expose evidence which I think supports what I think.
Because the question is ''Why do you think your religion is true ?'' and not ''why is your religion true ?'', you fail to make the difference between the two and realize that because it is the former. Not only that, but I already mentioned the general lines of evidence why I think christianity is true, each of which can be discussed in a relevant thread. But in any case, I probably won't be discussing it with you because your approach to it is to win an argument and not discuss. (As is clearly evident in this present post of yours)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4661 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Are you actually suggesting that child upbringing influences how a person will view the world when older ???
Wow, and in other news: Water still wet Don't worry, no worldview is exempt from obvious psychological factors like this one. It does not only apply to religions, but most if not all aspects of human psychology such as political allegiance, line of work, favorite colour and yes, other worldviews such as atheism, agnosticism, Hedonism etc. etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4661 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Why would it become a ''far better explanation'' just because I agree it is a factor ?? Amongst many other factors ? This is pretty flawed logic.
Why is it ok for an atheist to claim his worldview is principally based on the evidence he sees but somehow it appears unacceptable that a christian would do the same. Despite both having all the same other factors as influences (family, national identity, geography, education etc.) The only reason why you want this ''upbringing'' to be applied as ''the far better explanation'' to me, but not to an atheist, is really only an attempted rationalisation. You can't accept the fact that my belief would settle on how I perceive evidence, so you just find some secondary factor and claim it to be the main factor.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024