Jesus Freaks...why do you believe?

[Neoteny]

Faith, Neoteny. The only answer you'll ever get.

I know, but I always hope not. Why can faith-heads say "give us evidence" and we can't ask for it in return? It just adds to the ridiculosity of their stance.

[unriggable]

Faith, Neoteny. The only answer you'll ever get.

I know, but I always hope not. Why can faith-heads say "give us evidence" and we can't ask for it in return? It just adds to the ridiculosity of their stance.

Plato's Allegory of the Cave: If you are raised to believe something no amount of evidence will sway your opinion.

[Neoteny]

Faith, Neoteny. The only answer you'll ever get.

I know, but I always hope not. Why can faith-heads say "give us evidence" and we can't ask for it in return? It just adds to the ridiculosity of their stance.

Plato's Allegory of the Cave: If you are raised to believe something no amount of evidence will sway your opinion.

You are contributing to my already incredibly substantial cynicism toward the state of affairs in our world. Please stop.

[Snorri1234]

Faith, Neoteny. The only answer you'll ever get.

I know, but I always hope not. Why can faith-heads say "give us evidence" and we can't ask for it in return? It just adds to the ridiculosity of their stance.

Plato's Allegory of the Cave: If you are raised to believe something no amount of evidence will sway your opinion.

Yeah, they're the people who, after being taken out of the cave and shown the real world, go back inside and stare at the pictures again because they have "faith" in them.

[CrazyAnglican]

Faith, Neoteny. The only answer you'll ever get.

I know, but I always hope not. Why can faith-heads say "give us evidence" and we can't ask for it in return? It just adds to the ridiculosity of their stance.

Plato's Allegory of the Cave: If you are raised to believe something no amount of evidence will sway your opinion.

Yeah, they're the people who, after being taken out of the cave and shown the real world, go back inside and stare at the pictures again because they have "faith" in them.

So, let me get this straight, the only reason that anyone could possibly disagree with you on this issue is because they lack the intellect to "see" things as you do. Priceless.

C'mon guys - Rhetoric 101 - Don't insult your opponent; it makes you look bad. You might sway a couple of people insecure enough to seek your approval, or at least want to avoid your scorn, but for the most part it isn't a good technique.

[Snorri1234]

Faith, Neoteny. The only answer you'll ever get.

I know, but I always hope not. Why can faith-heads say "give us evidence" and we can't ask for it in return? It just adds to the ridiculosity of their stance.

Plato's Allegory of the Cave: If you are raised to believe something no amount of evidence will sway your opinion.

Yeah, they're the people who, after being taken out of the cave and shown the real world, go back inside and stare at the pictures again because they have "faith" in them.

So, let me get this straight, the only reason that anyone could possibly disagree with you on this issue is because they lack the intellect to "see" things as you do. Priceless.

C'mon guys - Rhetoric 101 - Don't insult your opponent; it makes you look bad. You might sway a couple of people insecure enough to seek your approval, or at least want to avoid your scorn, but for the most part it isn't a good technique.

No the disagreeing bit is fine. The hypocrisy isn't.

[CrazyAnglican]

Faith, Neoteny. The only answer you'll ever get.

I know, but I always hope not. Why can faith-heads say "give us evidence" and we can't ask for it in return? It just adds to the ridiculosity of their stance.

Plato's Allegory of the Cave: If you are raised to believe something no amount of evidence will sway your opinion.

Yeah, they're the people who, after being taken out of the cave and shown the real world, go back inside and stare at the pictures again because they have "faith" in them.

So, let me get this straight, the only reason that anyone could possibly disagree with you on this issue is because they lack the intellect to "see" things as you do. Priceless.

C'mon guys - Rhetoric 101 - Don't insult your opponent; it makes you look bad. You might sway a couple of people insecure enough to seek your approval, or at least want to avoid your scorn, but for the most part it isn't a good technique.

No the disagreeing bit is fine. The hypocrisy isn't.

There is generally a lot hypocrisy on both sides of this issue. Which particular bit are you referring too?

[Snorri1234]

There is generally a lot hypocrisy on both sides of this issue. Which particular bit are you referring too?

That we somehow need to give evidence for the non-existence of God. (Which cannot be done by definition.)

[CrazyAnglican]

There is generally a lot hypocrisy on both sides of this issue. Which particular bit are you referring too?

That we somehow need to give evidence for the non-existence of God. (Which cannot be done by definition.)

What's hypocritical about engaging in an argument over an inarguable statement. Both sides are based on belief and cannot be proven. That isn't hypocrisy; it's just a badly chosen topic.

[got tonkaed]

i tend to agree with CA here. I dont think any non-believer has much right to basically claim intellectual superiority because we do not share a particular set of beliefs (via the evidence argument). It should go without saying, that as a matter of faith, especially pertaining to religious beliefs, there are far more elements that experiential evidence on its own (though for many it does play a part). Much in a similar fashion, i dont think most non-believers really live their lives strictly dependent on proof.

For instance, im still watching the lions, even though all evidence suggest they will lose this game by 4 touchdowns. Clearly the evidence at hand doesnt always constitute and end all be all, especially when it can be argued.

[Snorri1234]

There is generally a lot hypocrisy on both sides of this issue. Which particular bit are you referring too?

That we somehow need to give evidence for the non-existence of God. (Which cannot be done by definition.)

What's hypocritical about engaging in an argument over an inarguable statement. Both sides are based on belief and cannot be proven. That isn't hypocrisy; it's just a badly chosen topic.

The problem is that proving a negative like this is logically impossible. Proving that God exist isn't impossible however. The burden of proof is on her side and she tries to act like it's not.

[Neoteny]

i tend to agree with CA here. I dont think any non-believer has much right to basically claim intellectual superiority because we do not share a particular set of beliefs (via the evidence argument). It should go without saying, that as a matter of faith, especially pertaining to religious beliefs, there are far more elements that experiential evidence on its own (though for many it does play a part). Much in a similar fashion, i dont think most non-believers really live their lives strictly dependent on proof.

For instance, im still watching the lions, even though all evidence suggest they will lose this game by 4 touchdowns. Clearly the evidence at hand doesnt always constitute and end all be all, especially when it can be argued.

As a Lions fan, I have to say that past evidence leads me to the conclusion that we will probably lose, but every once in a while I get a pleasant surprise. That is a bad example though. Evidence can only go so far as a predictive factor, especially in something with as many unpredictable factors as a football game. I don't claim any intellectual superiority based on my faithlessness, but I do require more hard evidence for my beliefs. A feeling, or a thought, or a testimony are notoriously bad examples of evidence. Any biologist that used a "gut feeling" in a peer-reviewed publication as an example of anything other than personal opinion would get laughed out of the publication. And yet this is what believers expect us to take their word on. I don't buy it.

[got tonkaed]

As a Lions fan, I have to say that past evidence leads me to the conclusion that we will probably lose, but every once in a while I get a pleasant surprise. That is a bad example though. Evidence can only go so far as a predictive factor, especially in something with as many unpredictable factors as a football game. I don't claim any intellectual superiority based on my faithlessness, but I do require more hard evidence for my beliefs. A feeling, or a thought, or a testimony are notoriously bad examples of evidence. Any biologist that used a "gut feeling" in a peer-reviewed publication as an example of anything other than personal opinion would get laughed out of the publication. And yet this is what believers expect us to take their word on. I don't buy it.

well i was talking about once they already scored so there....it wasnt predictive evidence . I dont disagree with you, though that shouldnt be much of a surprise. However i think its fair to note that if your going to get into discussion/debate threads that deal with the subjective, you are going to encounter subjective evidence. Its seemingly a case of one following the other. Dont get me wrong, im all for talking about my views and hearing other peoples, but i think in some cases, especially considering who your source is, your only going to get a certain kind of currency in terms of evidence. I just dont think its something that as non-believers we need to necessary belittle openly, even if you disagree with it privately.

[Backglass]

However, I will freely admit that what he said is true - I'm a jerk. I tend to not consider the feelings of others when I write, and it is certainly an un-Christlike display.

Ooooooh...you'll never get in now.

[Neoteny]

As a Lions fan, I have to say that past evidence leads me to the conclusion that we will probably lose, but every once in a while I get a pleasant surprise. That is a bad example though. Evidence can only go so far as a predictive factor, especially in something with as many unpredictable factors as a football game. I don't claim any intellectual superiority based on my faithlessness, but I do require more hard evidence for my beliefs. A feeling, or a thought, or a testimony are notoriously bad examples of evidence. Any biologist that used a "gut feeling" in a peer-reviewed publication as an example of anything other than personal opinion would get laughed out of the publication. And yet this is what believers expect us to take their word on. I don't buy it.

well i was talking about once they already scored so there....it wasnt predictive evidence . I dont disagree with you, though that shouldnt be much of a surprise. However i think its fair to note that if your going to get into discussion/debate threads that deal with the subjective, you are going to encounter subjective evidence. Its seemingly a case of one following the other. Dont get me wrong, im all for talking about my views and hearing other peoples, but i think in some cases, especially considering who your source is, your only going to get a certain kind of currency in terms of evidence. I just dont think its something that as non-believers we need to necessary belittle openly, even if you disagree with it privately.

Bah. I'm of the camp that a being of the nature of a god, especially one that interacts with humans, is anything but subjective. If something interacts with the universe, then it can be measured. Religionists can hide behind arguments of omnipotence all they want, but it is nonsensical to me.

Note: at least I give religious people a chance to insult my intelligence as well (see previous sentence), and we (myself and any religionist) both think that the other's non-understanding of our position is an indication of blindness. It's rather frustrating, honestly.

[CrazyAnglican]

There is generally a lot hypocrisy on both sides of this issue. Which particular bit are you referring too?

That we somehow need to give evidence for the non-existence of God. (Which cannot be done by definition.)

What's hypocritical about engaging in an argument over an inarguable statement. Both sides are based on belief and cannot be proven. That isn't hypocrisy; it's just a badly chosen topic.

The problem is that proving a negative like this is logically impossible. Proving that God exist isn't impossible however. The burden of proof is on her side and she tries to act like it's not.

When looking at the available evidence both stances are equally beyond proof. You could ask me to prove the existence of a Giant Squid and I would be equally at a loss for any proof. Not much of a diver, really

Let's be real here though. If you are engaging in an argument about the existence of God then the burden of proof is shared as both sides are making claims. Hence, it's inarguable. I believe in God, Yes. I know it's faith and not a proven fact, Yes. I've examined my own faith and spoken with people of many differeing viewpoints. Frankly, nobody has ever said anything that would make me change my mind. Many have tried.

Generally, you'll hear me defend my choice to be a Christian, and I'll speak (at great length sometimes) about the benefits of having faith. These are things that are arguable and empirical evidence can be brought in to back them up. To make a long story just a little bit longer There are many, many reasons to be Christian that have nothing to do with whether God can make a make a rock so big that he can't lift it himself .

[WidowMakers]

....However, I don't have to study the Bible, because the basic premise it is based on goes against everything I stand for. Additionally, much of it's historicity has been "proven wrong" and all religious people do is assert that those parts are metaphorical, so it's a waste of time to try to do that anymore. Plus, the Bible doesn't give any evidence for god, it just asserts that god is there.....

What has historically been proven wrong about the Bible?

[got tonkaed]

....However, I don't have to study the Bible, because the basic premise it is based on goes against everything I stand for. Additionally, much of it's historicity has been "proven wrong" and all religious people do is assert that those parts are metaphorical, so it's a waste of time to try to do that anymore. Plus, the Bible doesn't give any evidence for god, it just asserts that god is there.....

What has historically been proven wrong about the Bible?

I have a question concerning Biblical historicity...first, there are clear historical inaccuracies in the New Testament. One such example is that of Acts 5, where Luke writes of the Pharisee Gamaliel's speech (vv. 34-39). This speech would have taken place around AD 35-40, yet it refers to Theudas' revolt of AD 46-47 as a past event. Furthermore, Gamaliel is made to say that "Judas the Galilean" raised a revolt which followed that of Theudas - but Judas' revolt was in AD 6 or 7! We know these dates from Josephus, most notably, as well as from other records.

In addition, what are we to do with the wide variation of chronologies in the Gospels, different placements of pericopes in the timeline of Jesus' ministry (i.e the healing of the paralytic in Mk. 2), and the substantial disagreement of John with the other three, in terms of historical outline

Some examples of biblical statements contradicting known history:

Daniel 5:1-2 says Belshazzar was king of the Chaldean Empire (Babylon), and son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. In reality, Nebuchadnezzar's son and successor was Amel-Marduk. He was assassinated by his Brother-in-law Nergal-Ashur-Usur, who took the throne. His reign was followed by his son Labashi-Marduk, who was opposed by a faction that overthrew him and placed Nabu-naido on the throne. Belshazzar (who's name was actually Bel-shar-utsur) was the son of Nabu-naido. He was NEVER king, but crown prince, and was no relation at all to Nebuchadnezzar.

Hosea 5:13 tells us the Assyrian King at that time was named Jareb. There was never an Assyrian king by that name, and the name of the king who did rule at that time was Tiglath-Pileser the third.

Daniel 5:30-31 says that Darius the Median took over the Babylon empire, but it was Cyrus of Persia who overthrew the Babylonian Empire. While there is a Darius the first in history, there is no mention of a Darius of Median anywhere.

Esther 1:9 tells us Vashti was queen of Persia at the time the story occures, but the queen at this time was actually Amestris, and there never was a queen of Persia named Vashti. Vashti was the name of an Elamite goddess. Most probably that is the origin of the name in this story.

Jeremiah 29:10 Tells us the Babylonian Exile will last 70 years. 2nd Chronicles 36:21 tells us that this came about. However, the elapsed time from the destruction of the temple (beginning of the exile) in

586 B.C., to the return of the Israelites to their promised land after Cyrus overthrew the Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C. was 48 years, and not 70.

Took about 2 seconds to google a seminary student asking a professor about some of these contradictions an inaccuracies of the bible

[got tonkaed]

i suppose i should clairfy some things about that last post.

I personally dont feel the need to tout the bible as a book of historical accuracy for someone to believe its teachings, or to believe it a foundational part of their faith. I also dont think any of those quick search findings are foundational arguments against the christian faith in any way. I was simply proving a point.

However i do think there are a couple more interesting issues dealing with historical accuracy. I have heard arguments that there is not as much archelogical evidence as one would expect for their to be a slave group of hebrews or even a nomadic group of hebrews on the size that they are depicted at in the bible. That was long ago and i dont remember much of it, but found it rather interesting.

also, if i remember another one, i believe as far as i remember from a book titled From Jesus to Christianity, that the timeperiod of herods reign starting was off. Hence the question, if there is no historical reason (the census), is there really any real motivation or reason for the birth to occur in Jerusalem? Im not arguing it definently did not, but it would seem to matter more to those who believe Jesus must have fufilled every prophecy for him to be their object of worship.

[MR. Nate]

I have a question concerning Biblical historicity...first, there are clear historical inaccuracies in the New Testament. One such example is that of Acts 5, where Luke writes of the Pharisee Gamaliel's speech (vv. 34-39). This speech would have taken place around AD 35-40, yet it refers to Theudas' revolt of AD 46-47 as a past event. Furthermore, Gamaliel is made to say that "Judas the Galilean" raised a revolt which followed that of Theudas - but Judas' revolt was in AD 6 or 7! We know these dates from Josephus, most notably, as well as from other records.

In addition, what are we to do with the wide variation of chronologies in the Gospels, different placements of pericopes in the timeline of Jesus' ministry (i.e the healing of the paralytic in Mk. 2), and the substantial disagreement of John with the other three, in terms of historical outline

You're locking Gamaliel's speech into that date why? Also, you're locked into a single person as the possible Theudas, but there were multiple revolts. As far as the pericopes in the gospels, they are generally arranged according to themes, not timeframes.

Some examples of biblical statements contradicting known history:

Daniel 5:1-2 says Belshazzar was king of the Chaldean Empire (Babylon), and son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. In reality, Nebuchadnezzar's son and successor was Amel-Marduk. He was assassinated by his Brother-in-law Nergal-Ashur-Usur, who took the throne. His reign was followed by his son Labashi-Marduk, who was opposed by a faction that overthrew him and placed Nabu-naido on the throne. Belshazzar (who's name was actually Bel-shar-utsur) was the son of Nabu-naido. He was NEVER king, but crown prince, and was no relation at all to Nebuchadnezzar.

Two things, first "Son" in Aramaic has a broad definition, including descendent, successor, and heir. Heard the saying Jesus, Son of David? As for not being the king, you are technically right, but his father lived about 30 miles south of Babylon, didn't rule in the city, and only visited occasionally. Belshazzar was the de facto king. In addition, he is introduced into the narrative the night the city fell, and the battle around the city, which his father had fought in, had been lost a few days before. Whether or not Nebu was still alive is very much in question, but Belshazzar's practical ruling power is not. For all intents and purposes, he was king. Also, he seems to be aware of his state. He doesn't offer Daniel the 2nd spot in the kingdom, but the 3rd.

Hosea 5:13 tells us the Assyrian King at that time was named Jareb. There was never an Assyrian king by that name, and the name of the king who did rule at that time was Tiglath-Pileser the third.

Jareb is a mistranslation in the KJV. The literal translation of the word is "the king that should plead" A newer version will say "great king" or "great defender"

Daniel 5:30-31 says that Darius the Median took over the Babylon empire, but it was Cyrus of Persia who overthrew the Babylonian Empire. While there is a Darius the first in history, there is no mention of a Darius of Median anywhere.

Stephen Miller, in his commentary on Daniel (which I don't have with me at the moment) points out some evidence that Cyrus and Darius were two names for the same man. It was a joint empire, the Medes and the Persians, and it is quite likely (and attributed historically) that each faction in the empire would have a different name for the Emperor.

Esther 1:9 tells us Vashti was queen of Persia at the time the story occures, but the queen at this time was actually Amestris, and there never was a queen of Persia named Vashti. Vashti was the name of an Elamite goddess. Most probably that is the origin of the name in this story.

Your telling me that a notoriously polygamous king has one queen, what her name was and the fact that none of the other, more minor queens had a specific name. I am impressed. By the way, did you know that Vashti" may be derived from the Avestan Vashishta which is perhaps "the best" more likely "sweetheart"

Jeremiah 29:10 Tells us the Babylonian Exile will last 70 years. 2nd Chronicles 36:21 tells us that this came about. However, the elapsed time from the destruction of the temple (beginning of the exile) in 586 B.C., to the return of the Israelites to their promised land after Cyrus overthrew the Babylonian Empire in 538 B.C. was 48 years, and not 70.

Your beloved Josephus points out that following his victory over Egypt in 605, Nebuchadnezzer took captives from a number of western nations, 605 to 537 (not 538) is a little over 68 years, with the captivity beginning at the beginning of the calendar year, and ending at the end of the callendar year, so effectivly, 70 years.

[suggs]

None of the dates in the Bible are accurate.

[Neoteny]

....However, I don't have to study the Bible, because the basic premise it is based on goes against everything I stand for. Additionally, much of it's historicity has been "proven wrong" and all religious people do is assert that those parts are metaphorical, so it's a waste of time to try to do that anymore. Plus, the Bible doesn't give any evidence for god, it just asserts that god is there.....

What has historically been proven wrong about the Bible?

Meh, the only thing I'd change about that statement is "much" to "some," because "much" implies a large amount, which was not intended. However, as listed above, discrepancies in the historical accuracy of the text have been found (as close to proven as you can get). Additionally, the story of a worldwide flood has not been backed up by any geological evidence. These errors are indicative of a human origin (ie unscientific/made up/altered), and if you can't trust parts of it, like any insufficient scientific theory that is subjected to critisicm, it must be thrown out.

[comic boy]

It occurs to me that the important thing is not so much the literal truth of the bible but if adherence to Christianity ( or any other religion ) is a positive thing for mankind. A simple example would be the Ten Commandments, really the importance is that they provided a sound moral framework not that they might or might not have been the direct word of God. Essentially I am saying that faith is good if one uses it positively but less good,if not worse, if simply employed as an end in itself.

[Napoleon Ier]

However Neoteny, large amouns of evidence exist asserting that the Black Sea flooded and created a huge flood that destroyed many Biblical areas. This crept from pagan religions that recounted it in their rites and liturgies into the Bible, which uses it as a metaphorical story to illustrate a spiritual point.

[Neoteny]

However Neoteny, large amouns of evidence exist asserting that the Black Sea flooded and created a huge flood that destroyed many Biblical areas. This crept from pagan religions that recounted it in their rites and liturgies into the Bible, which uses it as a metaphorical story to illustrate a spiritual point.

I said no worldwide flood, and metaphors are no excuse, especially if they are taught as history. And I'm sure that the people who included it in the bible knew it didn't happen, but included the story for metaphorical reasons...

Roman census, anyone?