Jesus Freaks...why do you believe?

[Spockers]

So you chose to avoid answering by being technical about it. Believe could mean anything. I don't "believe" anything anyone tells me without questioning it first.

I answered his question in the spirit in which it was asked.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I'm not trying to point out a technicality, I'm trying to get to the base of your beliefs. Let's leave Christianity out of this for now, because any discussion about Christianity must first presume that there is a God. We have to arrive at that presumption first.

So Christianity aside (or any religion for that matter), why don't you believe in a god?

[Frigidus]

I'm not trying to point out a technicality, I'm trying to get to the base of your beliefs. Let's leave Christianity out of this for now, because any discussion about Christianity must first presume that there is a God. We have to arrive at that presumption first.

So Christianity aside (or any religion for that matter), why don't you believe in a god?

Casting religion aside removes all argument for a god in the first place. Without context the existence of a god is impossible to argue since the world would, in theory, be exactly the same either way. As many people on this site have pointed out it would be equivalent to debating the existence of a mythical creature. I suppose that what that all comes down to is the general difference between athiests and theists. One feels that god created religion while the other feels that religion created god.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Casting religion aside does NOT remove all argument for God, because the basic argument for God that I put forth involves the origin of the universe. Please see my new thread about the fundamental forces of physics.

[Spockers]

If you want to take religion from one side of the argument, then you would have to take away science from the ther side, and are left with this choice

a)God exists
b)God does not exist.

Well, lets hope it's "a" because it would be nice to think we continue on after death.

However, this is not an ideal world. Religion and science do exist, so taking them away from the argument is pointless.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Why are you forced to take religion and science separately? If I hold that God created the universe, would it not follow that science is the means by which we learn about the universe he created?

[Spockers]

If you like. Still, you have:

a) God exists and science etc etc
b) God does not exist.

Flip a coin, what is the point?

[OnlyAmbrose]

There it is. A leap of faith one way or the other.

So can we cease with the flying spaghetti monster arguments?

[Spockers]

I have no idea what you mean about flying spaghetti monster.

You ask to make a leap of faith for what reason?

If i can beieve sciene can exist, and exist without God, then I am content with that? Why make a pointless leap of faith and decide that a God has created it?

[Frigidus]

There it is. A leap of faith one way or the other.

So can we cease with the flying spaghetti monster arguments?

While the FSM thing is a bit of a ridiculous extreme, the point made is that the existence of god can't be backed up with proof. I wouldn't really say it takes faith to not believe in god, as all people before being introduced to the concept don't believe in one. The natural state is to not believe.

[comic boy]

There it is. A leap of faith one way or the other.

So can we cease with the flying spaghetti monster arguments?

The belief in a particular type of God is a result of evolutionary thought amongst organised religious groups, an individual worshiping clouds,trees or indeed pasta monsters has an equally valid case.

[MR. Nate]

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?)

I think its pretty clear from manuscript evidence that we have what was originally written. I've presented evidence both here and in other threads to demonstrate that, and I'll do it again if you'd like.

As for the contradictions, I've stated before I don't believe that there are any contradictions in the text. I don't see any, and I'm willing to answer any questions about something if they are specific.

After the flood, God didn't say He made a mistake, He said He wouldn't do it again. Theres a difference, ESPECIALLY if He knows the future.

While the FSM thing is a bit of a ridiculous extreme, the point made is that the existence of god can't be backed up with proof. I wouldn't really say it takes faith to not believe in god, as all people before being introduced to the concept don't believe in one. The natural state is to not believe.

Interestingly, that has been the subject of some debate over the last 40 or so years. Alvin Platinga posits, among other things, that the natural state is to believe. If non-belief were truly the default position, shouldn't there be more atheistic societies in the world than religious ones? But in fact, societies have a stronger belief in God the more isolated and instinctual they are.

comic boy - don't say things that you're not prepared to back up. I've already stated that I'll do my best to answer any questions in defense of my belief system. If there are logical fallacies or contradictions, I have no issue with scraping a belief, or anything it relies on. I would be surprised if any believer in the FSM is willing to answer to the same level of questioning about their weltanschauung. If you really believe that the FSM has the answers, lets go toe to toe. I'll challenge your system and you'll challenge mine, and we'll see which philosophy is more logical, practical and consistent, and we can go from there.

[comic boy]

Mr Nate
I believe in no Gods,challenge away

[heavycola]

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?)

I think its pretty clear from manuscript evidence that we have what was originally written. I've presented evidence both here and in other threads to demonstrate that, and I'll do it again if you'd like.

As for the contradictions, I've stated before I don't believe that there are any contradictions in the text. I don't see any, and I'm willing to answer any questions about something if they are specific.

After the flood, God didn't say He made a mistake, He said He wouldn't do it again. Theres a difference, ESPECIALLY if He knows the future.

While the FSM thing is a bit of a ridiculous extreme, the point made is that the existence of god can't be backed up with proof. I wouldn't really say it takes faith to not believe in god, as all people before being introduced to the concept don't believe in one. The natural state is to not believe.

Interestingly, that has been the subject of some debate over the last 40 or so years. Alvin Platinga posits, among other things, that the natural state is to believe. If non-belief were truly the default position, shouldn't there be more atheistic societies in the world than religious ones? But in fact, societies have a stronger belief in God the more isolated and instinctual they are.

Maybe ignorance is the natural state, not belief. Certainly belief in Yahweh is not innate (if you'll pardon the pun), any more than is belief in osiris, odin etc etc.
I have read, and it seems quite plausible to me, that atheism only really became mainstream after Darwin's theories were accepted. For many people, the explanation of how complexity arose without recourse to a designer (how complex would that have to be?) was the clincher.
Less ignorance = less for a god to do. Hence the wonderful dawn of secualr humanism

[MR. Nate]

comic boy, my point was that the belief in all gods is not equally valid. No one can defend the theology of the FSM. On the other hand, there are more than a few who can rationally, logically and cohesively explain a huge variety of facets of Christianity. And yes, other religions have this as well, and we can look at each of them and examine their validity.

Nate, even if no one else, certainly contains faith in Yahweh. The original quote was "I wouldn't really say it takes faith to not believe in god, as all people before being introduced to the concept don't believe in one. The natural state is to not believe." I was responding solely to the charge against the existence of God. Belief in Yahweh comes from examination of the evidence, but belief in the existence of God is inherent.

[Spockers]

Mr Nate, if you could, show me please the proof that the text is original. sorry for not going through 80-odd pages.

I find it hard to believe, with it being common knowledge that King James re-wrote great chunks of it to suit his own needs. Why is this now taken as the word of God?

I have other questions, but i'd like to see what you have as proof yet.

Also, not convinced on your flood argument. Doesn't explain why he did it in the first place.

[MR. Nate]

Mr Nate, if you could, show me please the proof that the text is original. sorry for not going through 80-odd pages.

I find it hard to believe, with it being common knowledge that King James re-wrote great chunks of it to suit his own needs. Why is this now taken as the word of God?

I have other questions, but i'd like to see what you have as proof yet.

Also, not convinced on your flood argument. Doesn't explain why he did it in the first place.

King James is not even close to being relevant. We have manuscripts of the NT written from the 1st century AD, and the complete NT as we know it is in manuscripts from 300. King James didn't re-write chunks, but even if he did, we have the manuscripts he worked from, so we can see it. There are very few scholars who even suggest that there were changes after 300. Most of the manuscripts that would offer proof of this are at Duke University in papyrus. Once you get inside the the 1st century, the changes to the original text are extremely unlikely because everyone would know about the re-write. It would be like someone re-writing Harry Potter in 50 years. All the kids that grew up reading it would kill the new author. What "everyone knows" notwithstanding, we have what was written. The question is whether or not we choose to believe it.

As for the flood, I'm not sure of the question. If your asking God's motive for the flood, He states that He was grieved over men's sin. It was punishment for people rejecting Him. That is not always his practice, but it certainly is on occasion. That was one of them, and it was broader and more widespread than others.

[Snorri1234]

Belief in Yahweh comes from examination of the evidence, but belief in the existence of God is inherent.

I would suggest replacing God with god(s).

[Symmetry]

Mr Nate,

A couple of inaccuracies. I was of the understanding that there are no confirmed manuscripts from the 1st century. I did a quick google (much as I hate to argue a point with that as a backup), and it seems that most scholars date the earliest fragment (and it is a tiny fragment- just a few verses) to the late 2nd century.
If that's the case, your argument that changes could not have occurred because the original manuscript was within living memory is pretty strained. You'd have to add at least two or three generations.

The complete NT dates from 330-350 according to wiki (sorry to choose such weak sources, but the page seems to have a decent bibliography), and not the year 300 as you stated. Another generation there.

Finally, you state that there are very few scholars who even suggest that there have been changes. Again, unfortunately, it seems that two full books from the 4th century manuscript have since been excised as non-canon, and that there is considerable debate as to the ending of Mark, even suggesting that the account of the resurrection was added several centuries later.

Unfortunately, we don't have what was written.

I'm interested to hear your opinions.

[Snorri1234]

There it is. A leap of faith one way or the other.

So can we cease with the flying spaghetti monster arguments?

While the FSM thing is a bit of a ridiculous extreme, the point made is that the existence of god can't be backed up with proof. I wouldn't really say it takes faith to not believe in god, as all people before being introduced to the concept don't believe in one. The natural state is to not believe.

I wouldn't really call it the natural state, but whatever.


The point of the FSM is that he is just as valid as any other God(s). The problem with the "agnosticism is the only reasonable stance and all others require a leap of faith" is that the leap of faith towards believing doesn't get you anywhere. With that argument anyone you come across who believes in fairies and mystical creatures living in his garden is exactly as reasonable as a Christian.
However, do you feel it takes a leap of faith to not believe in the toothfairy? Because that is what you're saying, Ambrose.

The difference between the Theistic and Atheist viewpoint is that atheists have absolutely no problem with the notion that there might be a god, but the theists have a huge problem most of the time with the fact that there might not be one.
Atheism (as used by most atheists) is actually agnostic atheism. There could be a god, but we just don't think there is. If God (or a leprechaun) suddenly appeared before us we'd see a reason to believe, but at the moment we don't.

[Symmetry]

Just to add something:

I have no interest in taking a side in favour of the original post in this article. "Jesus Freaks" would not even come close to the way I view Christians and Christianity.

[Neoteny]

So no Athiest is going to answer my question?

"Why DON'T you believe?"

I do not believe in a god, because there is no reason to believe in one. Period.

People from ancient societies probably used religion to fill in gaps in their knowledge, though I don't think that religion sprang from the lack of knowledge. I don't know enough sociology to say either way which is the "natural state" of things, but from an evolutionary point of view, I can say that there are plenty of reasons why a religious thought process might evolve.

It's a bit absurd to go with the bandwagon theory of god's existence. Belief in geocentrism was a fairly universal thought system in many societies. Just because a lot of people think it's right, definitely does not mean it is. Just substitute "geocentrism" for "god" and you'll see my reasoning.

[Neoteny]

Just to add something:

I have no interest in taking a side in favour of the original post in this article. "Jesus Freaks" would not even come close to the way I view Christians and Christianity.

Jesus Freaks is actually the name of a group. It wasn't intended in a derogatory manner.

[comic boy]

comic boy, my point was that the belief in all gods is not equally valid. No one can defend the theology of the FSM. On the other hand, there are more than a few who can rationally, logically and cohesively explain a huge variety of facets of Christianity. And yes, other religions have this as well, and we can look at each of them and examine their validity.

Nate, even if no one else, certainly contains faith in Yahweh. The original quote was "I wouldn't really say it takes faith to not believe in god, as all people before being introduced to the concept don't believe in one. The natural state is to not believe." I was responding solely to the charge against the existence of God. Belief in Yahweh comes from examination of the evidence, but belief in the existence of God is inherent.

Yes but you equating FSM with Christianity and I was equating it with God, neither can be explained rationally. You may have faith in your God,another may choose to have faith in FSM and it would be an arrogant person indeed who insists his faith is more valid.

[Snorri1234]

How exactly can nobody defend the theology of the FSM?