Choosing a faith

OK then. Implausible. That assumes, however, that human evidence eventually defines reality.

And yet they don't know Jesus. They claim to be awaiting objective evidence before they would take a leap of Faith, but it appears to me that this is a convenient excuse. Human nature does not want what ringo describes as an alien overlord. Granted, many of us became believers based only on an encounter and many more were falsely deluded that they had received such an encounter. Once I knew that my "born again" experience of meeting Jesus (much as Saul/Paul was reported to have experienced on the Road to Damascus) My critically thinking brain
was checkmated. I was forever changed. (ringo scoffs at this, claiming that he too *was* every bit as much of a believer as I am, and thanks to critical thinking he unshackled himself from the delusion of belief) If you are bound and determined to follow the evidence, you likely will not ever become a believer, barring some miracle.

In contrast, it was the supernatural itself (or my perception of "it" ) that cemented my belief. It seems that you are somewhere in the middle of ringo and my argument.You believe in the message, as he claims to do. He rejects Jesus as a historical figure, seeing him as an Elmer Gantry type of amalgamation. He argues scripture with me because he knows it well, but his only defense as to why he even brings Jesus(as a character in a book) up is because I claim to believe in Him. Most of the EvC peanut gallery is either publically atheist (due to lack of evidence) or secular humanist (since it is the *right* thing to do... )Being a social Christian, you (who have/has a good loving heart, by the way) believe in an overall message of love and sacrifice. And to be honest, my grumpy and selfish arguments are NOT a good advertisement for Jesus being real.
I'm honest, though. If I ever get smitten, I will have deserved it.

This is why I am not nor ever have been a "Biblical Creationist." Frankly, I have no problem with people such as dwise1 who have debated (and debunked) creationists for years. Biblical Creationism is unimportant to me. We are here. How we got here is being uncovered more and more every day. But it is an honest one. You say that you *know* that God does not exist. Coming from you, I respect that conclusion as honestly saying that you don't have enough information. And I have always respected your position. It IS a hard decision to make. My conclusion is that *If* God exists, He surely would understand and never penalize you for it. And you were thinking of your family and the responsibility that you have in being a role model. You saw organized religion as first of all being hijacked by a conservative (some say spiteful) agenda and wanted your family nowhere near such a circus even if you may have hoped for God to be real. That was a tough decision to be sure. And as I have said before, I believe that God (if God exists) respects our honesty more than He does our allegiance. Hence agnosticism.

In my opinion, all who share the belief (in a real way) basically share the same Spirit.I totally agree with GDR's logic and do not believe that the book itself is entirely of human non-believing origin. Carrier writes (and logically "proves" that Jesus is a myth, but Carrier was never a believer. The evidence that he uncovered persuaded him. The authors of the OT and the Torah were believers but were primitive believers. They were warring people and survivalists. They would feel quite uncomfortable with turning the other cheek, selling all that they had, or giving everything necessary up to their government, even if they did have a Theocracy.I still feel that way at times. Even if the US became a Theocracy, and God was officially proclaimed head of the country, I would resist giving all that I had. I can totally relate to the depiction of God given back then, and it's not God's evolving character that is on trial..it is Mankind's descriptions of how they perceived that He spoke to them. I don't look at Christianity as a religion, nor do I equate other religions as knowing God except as they understand God. It may well be arrogant to assume that Christianity is the only way *to* God, but I do in fact assume that.Tangle will argue that I of course feel that way, having been born in the right place and time, but keep in mind that the right place was mid-eastern earth 2000 years ago and the right time was and is different for everybody. There are arguments about who among humans past and humans present knows God versus making God up. I am said to not know Jesus because I do not do what He says nor write in humble altruistic and empathetic terms about the relationship I have and perceive with other fellow humans. ringo even says that I am conservative precisely because I am mean and spiteful. I in turn say that the only hope for Liberal thought and ideology will have to come from empathetic and benevolent Christians--people who know God by knowing God's character.If the ideology is upheld by humanists who imagine a future based on atheistic consensus, they will end up following (and creating) a path for the Antichrist, if in fact, such a character exists. And scripture tells us plainly that it does. Of course, Carrier would challenge and debunk the scripture. It is his job and he does it well. Perhaps he too is part of the overall plot. The Christian pulpit (preaching largely to conservatives) is as bad or worse than atheistic imagination. Many Conservatives do in fact create their own religion.Many liberals also authoritatively create a script....though not a religion, it is a clever counterfeit to the message...chiefly because the envelope that it comes in is human.I know that many of you will argue that human origins are all that we have (and/or all that we can *prove* through evidence) but I would agree with other believers who stand on the idea that God (the Creator) stepped out of eternity into time at the place He chose and to and through the people He chose. The rest of us can accept or reject the story as we choose. The important evidence is in the human heart.

A booth like that would answer no questions for me, but it would lead to many more questions. I would grill them with questions. They would be easier than the JW's, however, because they have fewer preconceived answers backed by "scripture". They only have answers based on logic and reason. They tend to be legends in their own minds.If Tangle had a booth like that he would have a banner that says
*Ditch the bells and smells.
*Enjoy Life. Let's go fishing."xongsmith would have a sign that said "Stay away from the other booths. They are all conservatives!"He may even have a few editions of Xong to peddle.ringo would likely not sit at the atheist booth since he has never publicly declared he is an atheist. He likely would just set up a spare change booth a couple of blocks away with the poor people. His banner might read:"Conservatives welcome IF they bring more food."
"Sit awhile and eat. Enjoy the message, but don't overthink it."

I call myself moderate. I agree with the liberals about social security and unionism. I agree with the conservatives on private property rights and on freedom before equality. I do NOT advocate a secular "church": of a government even if the evangelicals have dropped the ball in regard to social welfare. Let God judge us rather than harpy liberals.

Hmmmm.I googled this. Why Freedom Implies EqualityFrom the free part which I was able to read, I saw the argument come to life. Perhaps I am selfish. I want no consensus on this one.

This looks like a good comment to dissect. How are you Stile? (BTW) We always get along even if we usually disagree. Iron sharpens iron, as they say. GDR and I differ in some ways as believers, but I think we all agree that the supernatural cannot ever leave evidence except perhaps anecdotally, and there are always alternate explanations and interpretations, given that there is never objective evidence. Critics will cite "appeal to popularity" and dismiss personal testimonies as worthless, which I suppose is fair game in an evidence-based discussion, although within a family, for example, brothers and sisters are not simply dismissed as incredulous simply because their individual and personal "experience" never happened to you personally. And I suppose, as my critics have suggested before, that I myself should never accept a given experience without questioning it and doubting it if no evidence exists for its validity. But I never did that.
Let's go to the Dictionary: If we assume that human definition (using our minds and rationality) is the source of belief, the argument is basically one and done.GDR and (as he himself would argue) other theists would likely say that God by definition existed eternally, long before humans even evolved to the language and thought capability of making Him/Her/It up. Your side would again point to that E word and say that without evidence all that we have is speculation.ringo would crow on about the relativity of all "God" definitions and accuse Christian Theists of bias. We might reply that we couldn't really help it as our belief was at one point in time more of an instantaneous and ever-expanding epiphany rather than group (and cultural) indoctrination, though Tangle likely would argue that it is all nearly cultural.To be continued....

And were it you and I talking, I would care little about any "evidence" that any scholar has provided due to the fact that

There are numerous counterarguments though critics will claim they are biased due to being believers themselves

The circumstantial evidence is debatable, but the belief is a fact...many many people of both political persuasions are believers, and I think that if we ever have another major depression, the belief will affect people's reactions, trust in solutions, and a magnification of the political ideology that we have now

It is a minor issue for me. I am a believer and will likely remain one. My challenge is to keep in mind that non-believers think differently than I do and get along with them without attempting to convert them so much.

---

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894).

​

When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy

​

Nor are Democrats the best party or the only one we should have. -Phat,2022 addressing The Peanut Gallery.

I actually agree with the statement. Is my answer a case for the prosecution or the defense?I would say that the statement is evidence of preconceived bias but nothing more. One would expect a believer to have a preconceived bias. This brings to mind the book I read in High School, Inherit The Wind.
Brady was biased, pompous, and self-assured. Whether he was in fact a believer, he was mos def a "patriot". (Conservative) Drummond was a critical-thinking skeptic/atheist.I forget the details of the book without googling...it has been nearly fifty years since I read it. But the fictionalized Brady represented William Jennings Bryan and Henry Drummond represented Clarance Darrow. Add by edit:
AtheistsIn our own little Echo Chamber, Theodoric of the peanut gallery will likely charge Robinson with being no true scholar. The jury is still out on *that* one!

That's quite a proclamation. Do you extend that premise so as to say that humanity's changes going forward will also be unrelated to any divine reality? (should One exist )

Actually no. I will have to look it up. I got it from you, however. You once referred to Faith (our member) as a harpy.

There goes that Left authoritarianism again! Not only have you used the word evidence as your holy mantra, you have the audacity to proclaim what is and is not nonsense. Which is itself nonsense. Theo prefers the term word salad which jar used to use often. Also...not all miracles leave evidence. You guys likely throw the reports out of any purported miracles that don't however...even if 1000 people saw it. As I said, the world is divided between populist appeals to authority and liberal socialists becoming authoritarians because "they have to do it!" Did China have to lock down its population? If there ever were an antichrist, he/she/it wouldn't be a character like Trump. It would likely come from the East....in China.

We differ in our beliefs, and we differ on one basic fact.
You guys say that facts have shown enough evidence that God does not exist...or is a "force" much like George Luca's depiction of the Star Wars "Energy field that permeates the universe". The argument that God is entirely a human-invented concept has a strong argument, but the fact is we don't know.We DO know that there are as many churches as there are pot dispensaries.Candle and I attend two different churches with two different sets of beliefs. Yet as Hank Haanagraf says, we converge within the "pail of orthodoxy".Look at jar and I. jar insists that he is a Christian due to the fact that he was raised in a Christian home, attended a Christian school, and is a charter member of the Episcopalian church.