Jesus Freaks...why do you believe?

[OnlyAmbrose]

SOOOooo... if we could either admit that Ambrose is right in that passages in the Bible must be taken in context to determine if something is a miracle or metaphor and that a simple black-and-white literal-or-figurative interpretation is useless, or make a post to the contrary with a reasoned argument attached, I'd appreciate it.

Only if you will admit that it is entirely possible that it is ALL metaphor and none of it actually happened.

I certainly don't admit that, because based on the context of many of the books (most notably, the Gospels) it would be ridiculous to come to that conclusion.

[unriggable]

SOOOooo... if we could either admit that Ambrose is right in that passages in the Bible must be taken in context to determine if something is a miracle or metaphor and that a simple black-and-white literal-or-figurative interpretation is useless, or make a post to the contrary with a reasoned argument attached, I'd appreciate it.

Only if you will admit that it is entirely possible that it is ALL metaphor and none of it actually happened.

I certainly don't admit that, because based on the context of many of the books (most notably, the Gospels) it would be ridiculous to come to that conclusion.

Yeah! The sun did stop in the middle of the sky!

[Mr_Adams]

Given the lack of response on the part of the atheists in response to their protestations about the distinction between "miracle" and "metaphor", am I to assume that you're content on that specific subject now?

You know what they say about assuming.

It makes an ass out of back glASS

Ouch! Such a witty one! You really got me!

Your fairy tale leader doesn't go for such outbursts though. Your tongue has been seized BY THE SATAN! You should probably apologize for being a bad christian like Nate did and run NOW to pray for forgiveness. Better make it an extra hour...throw in some wailing & crying while your at it to show you really mean it. Can you speak in meaningless jibberish? Thrash around on the floor while you do it...it real gets those nearby riled up!

And throw in an extra $20 on Sunday for good measure...it shows you care.

WOW we have a steryotypist here... I hate steryotypists... they tick me off. Praying forgivness and alms and offerings for forgivness are all very wrong Biblicly speaking in my opinion. oh well, I guess I should apologize for flaming in IK

Sorry BackglASS

[OnlyAmbrose]

SOOOooo... if we could either admit that Ambrose is right in that passages in the Bible must be taken in context to determine if something is a miracle or metaphor and that a simple black-and-white literal-or-figurative interpretation is useless, or make a post to the contrary with a reasoned argument attached, I'd appreciate it.

Only if you will admit that it is entirely possible that it is ALL metaphor and none of it actually happened.

I certainly don't admit that, because based on the context of many of the books (most notably, the Gospels) it would be ridiculous to come to that conclusion.

Yeah! The sun did stop in the middle of the sky!

I'm no biblical scholar, so I won't comment on the sun stopping in the middle of the sky thing (mostly because I'm not familiar with the particular passage you're talking about), but what I said was this:

In any given written work of reasonable size, there is going to be both figurative language and literal language. The trick is distinguishing between the two based on context and the author's intention. This can be difficult, given that the books of the Bible were written some time ago, but certainly possible.

[unriggable]

In any given written work of reasonable size, there is going to be both figurative language and literal language. The trick is distinguishing between the two based on context and the author's intention. This can be difficult, given that the books of the Bible were written some time ago, but certainly possible.

Here's the thing. Different authors means different intentions. I could understand if it was one author, but they all had different original writing styles that disintegrated during the process of word of mouth and translation. So how literal and how figurative the bible actually is won't be an easy task to know.

[OnlyAmbrose]

In any given written work of reasonable size, there is going to be both figurative language and literal language. The trick is distinguishing between the two based on context and the author's intention. This can be difficult, given that the books of the Bible were written some time ago, but certainly possible.

Here's the thing. Different authors means different intentions. I could understand if it was one author, but they all had different original writing styles that disintegrated during the process of word of mouth and translation. So how literal and how figurative the bible actually is won't be an easy task to know.

Precisely. DIFFERENT AUTHORS.

So saying, "Well walking on water must be figurative, because you believe that Genesis is figurative" is ridiculous.

(note- I am NOT trying to bring the creationism evolution debate here, this is just an example that pertains to me).

Well the Gospels and the book of Genesis were written by different authors with different intentions.

We know for a fact that the authors of the Gospels were endeavoring to create a biography of sorts of Jesus. Some even state this intention straight up, such as Luke. This leads us to the conclusion that the author is meant to be taken literally. There is nothing to suggest the contrary.

I'm no expert on Genesis, and I have no idea who wrote it, but my assumption is that it's meant to be taken metaphorically, because I have scientific knowledge and reason which rules out the idea that it should be taken literally. Certainly, i do not deny that God could have created the universe in 6 days as described in Genesis. He is all-powerful after all. But if that were the case, there would be no explanation for the fact that there are fossils which can be dated back millions of years. Reason, therefore, dictates that Genesis is figurative.

[unriggable]

Well put.

[CrazyAnglican]

Nice, but the burden of proof is always on the side that tries to prove a positive. You can't argue with that. It's simple logic.

Here's a professor of philosophy that seems to disagree with you on this.

Associate Professor Department of Philosophy California State University Sacramento, CA 95816

"The implication of all of this is that for the modern American atheist, there is an enormous burden of proof. The vast majority of people around you believe that there is a God. They think that God is active and present in every facet of their lives. They think there are lots of very good reasons for thinking that there is a God.

So you can't just ignore all of that background. You can't just opt to believe otherwise at will and be epistemically inculpable. Even if everyone around you believes something completely mistaken like "The sun orbits the earth," their believing it, and so many of them believing it, puts an tremendous burden of proof on you if you are going to break ranks and form a contrary opinion.

Some atheists consider Antony Flewa's famous "presumption of atheism” think that since it's the theists that are asserting the positive claim, and since the default position is not to believe, then they burden of proof is on them, not on the disbelieving atheist. I think the above considerations show that it's the prevailing set of beliefs in one's epistemic environment that establish the default beliefs, and the burden of proof is shifted to anyone who wants to deviate from that."

http://atheismblog.blogspot.com/2007/09 ... heist.html

Well I accept that you're basing your view purely on faith. I can relate to that, but that's not the problem. The people who act like it isn't solely based on faith are the problem.

You seem to be making two assumptions here. First that my position is purely based on faith. Certainly you can't know this without reading my mind; I didn't say it.

Second you seem to imply that your position isn't based on anything but facts. In which case it most certainly is not hypocrisy to ask what those facts are.

I still maintain that this is an inarguable debate. As proof, I submit that both sides would like have their own version of a fallacy which tries to shift the burden of proof onto the other. It's only necessary to do this when you know you can't prove your position. Essentially both sides would like to say "You can't prove me wrong, so I'm right". I don't need a PhD. to back me up to see what's wrong with both of these statements.

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 .

No argument here. I will never understand why you believe what you believe, but I respect it as anything.

Thanks, I'm not trying to convert you, just show that there's more to it that your position would assert.

[Mr_Adams]

So no Athiest is going to answer my question?

"Why DON'T you believe?"

[Frigidus]

So no Athiest is going to answer my question?

"Why DON'T you believe?"

Because religion is what people in ancient times used to explain the (until now) unexplainable.

[OnlyAmbrose]

So no Athiest is going to answer my question?

"Why DON'T you believe?"

Because religion is what people in ancient times used to explain the (until now) unexplainable.

THAT is why you don't believe?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a good example of ignoratio elenchi?

[Frigidus]

So no Athiest is going to answer my question?

"Why DON'T you believe?"

Because religion is what people in ancient times used to explain the (until now) unexplainable.

THAT is why you don't believe?

It's one of many reasons, and it's the easiest position to defend. This is, after all a debate.

[OnlyAmbrose]

So no Athiest is going to answer my question?

"Why DON'T you believe?"

Because religion is what people in ancient times used to explain the (until now) unexplainable.

THAT is why you don't believe?

It's one of many reasons, and it's the easiest position to defend. This is, after all a debate.

It's not defensible at all, it's an irrelevant conclusion.

Because religion has historically been used to explain phenomena people didn't understand, that means there is no God?

I'm fairly certain that's ignoratio elenchi.

[Frigidus]

So no Athiest is going to answer my question?

"Why DON'T you believe?"

Because religion is what people in ancient times used to explain the (until now) unexplainable.

THAT is why you don't believe?

It's one of many reasons, and it's the easiest position to defend. This is, after all a debate.

It's not defensible at all, it's an irrelevant conclusion.

Because religion has historically been used to explain phenomena people didn't understand, that means there is no God?

I'm fairly certain that's ignoratio elenchi.

Well, my point was that the original idea of the existence of god came from the sun, moon, and various other aspects of nature. Because the first religions were complete nonsense the ones that followed, in my opinion, are hardly more likely. In the same way that I don't worship weather I don't worship any other god.

[OnlyAmbrose]

So no Athiest is going to answer my question?

"Why DON'T you believe?"

Because religion is what people in ancient times used to explain the (until now) unexplainable.

THAT is why you don't believe?

It's one of many reasons, and it's the easiest position to defend. This is, after all a debate.

It's not defensible at all, it's an irrelevant conclusion.

Because religion has historically been used to explain phenomena people didn't understand, that means there is no God?

I'm fairly certain that's ignoratio elenchi.

Well, my point was that the original idea of the existence of god came from the sun, moon, and various other aspects of nature. Because the first religions were complete nonsense the ones that followed, in my opinion, are hardly more likely. In the same way that I don't worship weather I don't worship any other god.

I'm fairly certain that the first signs of religion were ceremonial burial. In any event, I don't see it as a convincing argument. So Neanderthals were wow-ed by the sun and the moon. Spiffy, but that doesn't prove by any means that there is no God.

[Frigidus]

So no Athiest is going to answer my question?

"Why DON'T you believe?"

Because religion is what people in ancient times used to explain the (until now) unexplainable.

THAT is why you don't believe?

It's one of many reasons, and it's the easiest position to defend. This is, after all a debate.

It's not defensible at all, it's an irrelevant conclusion.

Because religion has historically been used to explain phenomena people didn't understand, that means there is no God?

I'm fairly certain that's ignoratio elenchi.

Well, my point was that the original idea of the existence of god came from the sun, moon, and various other aspects of nature. Because the first religions were complete nonsense the ones that followed, in my opinion, are hardly more likely. In the same way that I don't worship weather I don't worship any other god.

I'm fairly certain that the first signs of religion were ceremonial burial. In any event, I don't see it as a convincing argument. So Neanderthals were wow-ed by the sun and the moon. Spiffy, but that doesn't prove by any means that there is no God.

It certainly doesn't, but it does show the origins of the belief in god(s). Because those are flawed, the extension of those ideas into modern religion is flawed. I am not, by any means, trying to disprove god. Rather I'm stating why I am not satisfied with the current argument for god is, in my opinion, lacking. If other evidence should arise I might reconsider. I, of course, am aware of the likelihood of that, but until I am satisfactorily convinced god exists I am an athiest.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I don't think we can pinpoint with any degree of accuracy exactly where or how the idea of God began. There are plenty of conjectures, certainly, but I don't think there is any sound evidence. I think the most we can do is tell the time at which it started by carbon dating corpses ceremonially buried.

[Mr_Adams]

So wat su-group of Athiest are you? Evolutionist? Just don't care, when I die I'll find out (or not)? Budhist(yes technicly Athiest)? I consider this open for discussion and debate! Give us a discusion prom.

[Mr_Adams]

I don't think we can pinpoint with any degree of accuracy exactly where or how the idea of God began. There are plenty of conjectures, certainly, but I don't think there is any sound evidence. I think the most we can do is tell the time at which it started by carbon dating corpses ceremonially buried.

As far a C14 dating, nearly worthless. Most such corpses were treated with preservatives(or decorated) that can't be measured accuratly enough to judge thier effect on the C14 levels.
Besides that, almost nothing would go uncontaminated in the areas such things are found in.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Interesting thing you said that I'd like to bring up:

If other evidence should arise I might reconsider. I, of course, am aware of the likelihood of that, but until I am satisfactorily convinced god exists I am an athiest.

You are not satisfactorily convinced that God exists, but at the same time, are you satisfactorily convinced that he doesn't? Sounds more like an agnostic to me, and as far as beliefs go, agnosticism makes the most logical sense. The jump from agnosticism to either atheism or theism requires a leap of faith.

As for myself, I made the jump to theism. I have several philosophical reasons for this. The most recent I've been playing around with is that the laws of science, like everything else, must have originated from something, and since the laws of science are the basis of science, science cannot explain them. Therefore, something beyond science IS in fact necessary to explain why the universe is as it is.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I don't think we can pinpoint with any degree of accuracy exactly where or how the idea of God began. There are plenty of conjectures, certainly, but I don't think there is any sound evidence. I think the most we can do is tell the time at which it started by carbon dating corpses ceremonially buried.

As far a C14 dating, nearly worthless. Most such corpses were treated with preservatives(or decorated) that can't be measured accuratly enough to judge thier effect on the C14 levels.
Besides that, almost nothing would go uncontaminated in the areas such things are found in.

The earliest corpses could not have been treated with preservatives because in many cases knowledge of such things didn't exist when they were buried. Carbon dating is useful and I've yet to see any convincing evidence against it.

[Mr_Adams]

yopu haven't adressed the contamination issue!! Also, the C14 in Earth's atmosphere hasn't reached an Equilibrium yet, so initial C14 levels cannot be judged accuratly.

But You and I are on the same side of this argument, so why are we argueing?

Oh well,
good night everyone!

[Frigidus]

I don't think we can pinpoint with any degree of accuracy exactly where or how the idea of God began. There are plenty of conjectures, certainly, but I don't think there is any sound evidence. I think the most we can do is tell the time at which it started by carbon dating corpses ceremonially buried.

Perhaps, but aside from examining relics from (relatively) early pagan religions, it's difficult to distinguish tradition from religion. Either way, all evidence for religion (and hence god) are from dubious, and anything but unbiased sources. To take Christianity as an example, the New Testament is going on 2000 years of existence and has suffered through poor translation, incorrect copying, and probable insertion and removal of text. The original work likely has vast differences from the ones used now. Even if that weren't the case, the Bible was written and compiled by a very superstitious (even for the time) people, ones who could easily have been duped (one only needs to look at the beginnings of the Mormons to see how that might happen). This problem is in fact a problem with all major religions I know of. While this doesn't prove or disprove anything, it means (for me at least) that I can't rely upon the word of others to see that something is true. Unless there is evidence outside of religious writings that shows evidence for god's existence I will not believe in even the possibility.

[Spockers]

So no Athiest is going to answer my question?

"Why DON'T you believe?"

Because I see no reason to believe that "the word of God" is actually the word of God. The Bible has gone through revision after revision and passed though the generations through Chinese whispers.

How does one differentiate between what is from God and what is from man?

If i was to suppose that the modern day bible happens to be the exact word of God, then it seems awfully contradictory for a perfect and all knowing being to have written it. (why flood the world to punish man? why, if He knew it was going to happen? he knows everything doesnt he? oh right... he wanted to give man a choice... (why bother since he knows the future)? ... but then he admits flooding the place was a mistake....? perfect being makes mistake? how is this possible if he knows everything and everything that is to come?)

[OnlyAmbrose]

He didn't ask "atheists why aren't you Christian," he asked, "atheists why don't you believe."

It's difficult to argue a case for Christianity without first arguing a case for theism.