“Kathy, all of your evidence, reasoning, and arguments have been defended over and over with much success. You are the only one here who thinks you’re doing a bang up job of defending Christianity. The evidence you have provided is all very circumstantial and it all hinges on a presupposition of a deity. The credibility of the Bible hinges on divine inspiration. An a priori belief in God is required to believe in divine inspiration.”
You are getting even more confused in trying to defend your failed beliefs Ruth.. first, all we have to work with is circumstantial evidence for our origins. And that evidence is FOR determining which it is.. there is no “presupposition” of God.. that’s what the evidence is for.. to
make that determination.
Yes NeuroVictoria. I’ve been following him for some time now. One of my favourite blogs. When he went to Patheos I was a little sad because they don’t have a *like* button. I read that post yes, and really liked it. I was big into apologetics. Always ready to give an answer. Studying apologetics, Christian diversity, cults and other religions helped to escort me right on out of the faith. Odd when as Neil said they are really written for the faithful.
Just wanted to add Nan that for me it’s simply conversation. If pressed I might say that sure there might be a God but I don’t think it’s the Bible God or for that matter any God in any form of religion that has existed or will exist on the earth.
Which I’ve asked you all over and over.. got a better explanation?
No, you don’t. It’s the most obvious, reasonable explanation we have.
When you don’t have proof, you have to apply reason.
Why is this the most obvious, reasonable explanation? Why was there ever nothing? Maybe there was never nothing but always something. Something material. If your God doesn’t need an explanation why does material need an explanation? It seems to me reasonable to think that something material has always existed.
Zoe, from Neil’s post, this stood out the most — really resonated:
“I used to be into apologetics when I was a Christian. I also used to study cults and foreign religions in order to sharpen my own grasp of what I believed compared with what anybody else believed. I wanted to believe that the Christian faith was eminently rational. I wanted to believe that a person could hold his head high for accepting the Christian message despite the apparent irrationality of believing a virgin had a baby who then later became a miracle worker and died, then came back from the dead and floated into the sky to become invisible. I bought the books and read them, studying their arguments in order to be better prepared to defend my faith against attack from the outside.
But I don’t think outside threats are really what motivated me to study cults, foreign religions, and apologetics. In fact, I hardly remember anyone bothering to challenge my beliefs at all…]. The real threat to my faith wasn’t some nefarious outside horde of skeptical assailants roaming the earth, seeking to devour me. ➡ No, the greatest threat to my faith was my own mind, my own need to understand why I believed what I believed.
You are getting even more confused in trying to defend your failed beliefs Ruth.. first, all we have to work with is circumstantial evidence for our origins. And that evidence is FOR determining which it is.. there is no “presupposition” of God.. that’s what the evidence is for.. to
make that determination.
There is nothing confusing about it. But in order to determine that the Bible has divine origins it is necessary first to have a belief about a deity. Not just any deity, but the God of the Bible. Which is an a priori belief in the existence of a God. If you already believe there’s a God because…existence, then and only then can you make a determination about any written text.
And I’m sorry but if you haven’t applied any more effort into studying any other religions than you have the one you currently espouse I call bullshit on your ability to distinguish whether they have compelling evidence or not. I have a feeling you only looked into these other religions insofar as apologetics could dispel them.
“But in order to determine that the Bible has divine origins it is necessary first to have a belief about a deity. Not just any deity, but the God of the Bible. Which is an a priori belief in the existence of a God. If you already believe there’s a God because…existence, then and only then can you make a determination about any written text. ”
Where did I claim that I believe in God because of existence? I believe in God because of ALL the evidence, existence being one of them. But you are wrong in claiming I have to believe in God “before” I assess the evidence.. that’s not the way it works… for me anyway.
“And I’m sorry but if you haven’t applied any more effort into studying any other religions than you have the one you currently espouse I call bullshit on your ability to distinguish whether they have compelling evidence or not. I have a feeling you only looked into these other religions insofar as apologetics could dispel them.”
I’ve ASKED you to tell me which religion has more evidence. Instead of giving me the correct answer, which is that there ISN’T one, you accuse me of not doing my homework. I’ve challenged you Ruth, and you’ve failed.. and THAT proves my point.. I know enough about those other religions. Stop judging me and work on your own issues.. like your complete LACK of objectivity.
Kathy, is there anything upon which you can agree with anybody here? Seriously, is there any common ground? Why so contentious? Do you pray to Jesus to be granted patience to deal with us atheists? Why bother with us?
Is this what you think Jesus wants you to do? It is so ineffective for actually converting anybody to Christianity.
“I’ve got better things to do. I can’t help people who aren’t willing to be honest. It’s a waste of time.”
Please feel free to go do them, far be it from any of us to keep you – oh, before you go, could you ask your magic man to please give us back all of the time we’ve wasted on your nonsense?
“you can’t even acknowledge simple factual evidence Ruth.”
Yeah, Ruth!
1. A broken window is compelling evidence of a burglary!
2. A man walking from a house is compelling evidence that he’s a murderer!
3. A table in a temple HAS to mean that the diners were scarfing meat offered to idols, rather than enjoying a leisurely bowl of Lucky Charms for breakfast!
“Right! Those religions lack the compelling evidence that Christianity has.. their martyrdom evidence isn’t enough on it’s own.”
Christianity is one of the least substantiated religious cults of which I’m aware – I would place it in a close contest between Mormonism and the Church of Scientology.
Finding Truth 
“Those religions lack the compelling evidence that Christianity has.. their martyrdom evidence isn’t enough on it’s own.
Have you studied these other religions objectively to know what evidence they have?”
Yep.. as I’ve also asked over and over and no one has been able to give an answer to…
Name the religion or religions that have more compelling evidence..
LikeLike
How can we answer that question, Kathy, when you have not been able to provide any compelling evidence about your religion?
LikeLike
Ruth,
“Kathy, all of your evidence, reasoning, and arguments have been defended over and over with much success. You are the only one here who thinks you’re doing a bang up job of defending Christianity. The evidence you have provided is all very circumstantial and it all hinges on a presupposition of a deity. The credibility of the Bible hinges on divine inspiration. An a priori belief in God is required to believe in divine inspiration.”
You are getting even more confused in trying to defend your failed beliefs Ruth.. first, all we have to work with is circumstantial evidence for our origins. And that evidence is FOR determining which it is.. there is no “presupposition” of God.. that’s what the evidence is for.. to
make that determination.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Neuro … you’re pretty good at coming up with those relevant images!
LikeLike
Nan, sometimes I am rendered speechless.
LikeLike
Yes the BS level does seem to flow freely at times.
LikeLike
Yes NeuroVictoria. I’ve been following him for some time now. One of my favourite blogs. When he went to Patheos I was a little sad because they don’t have a *like* button. I read that post yes, and really liked it. I was big into apologetics. Always ready to give an answer. Studying apologetics, Christian diversity, cults and other religions helped to escort me right on out of the faith. Odd when as Neil said they are really written for the faithful.
LikeLike
Just wanted to add Nan that for me it’s simply conversation. If pressed I might say that sure there might be a God but I don’t think it’s the Bible God or for that matter any God in any form of religion that has existed or will exist on the earth.
LikeLike
“Nan, sometimes I am rendered speechless.”
Yes, those come in handy when you can’t argue the
points. It’s a very popular liberal tactic.
LikeLike
You’re just jealous Kathy that you’re not as imaginative as Neuro. The images speak volumes. Too bad you miss the point.
LikeLike
Which I’ve asked you all over and over.. got a better explanation?
No, you don’t. It’s the most obvious, reasonable explanation we have.
When you don’t have proof, you have to apply reason.
Why is this the most obvious, reasonable explanation? Why was there ever nothing? Maybe there was never nothing but always something. Something material. If your God doesn’t need an explanation why does material need an explanation? It seems to me reasonable to think that something material has always existed.
LikeLike
“I was big into apologetics.”
Zoe, from Neil’s post, this stood out the most — really resonated:
You are getting even more confused in trying to defend your failed beliefs Ruth.. first, all we have to work with is circumstantial evidence for our origins. And that evidence is FOR determining which it is.. there is no “presupposition” of God.. that’s what the evidence is for.. to
make that determination.
There is nothing confusing about it. But in order to determine that the Bible has divine origins it is necessary first to have a belief about a deity. Not just any deity, but the God of the Bible. Which is an a priori belief in the existence of a God. If you already believe there’s a God because…existence, then and only then can you make a determination about any written text.
And I’m sorry but if you haven’t applied any more effort into studying any other religions than you have the one you currently espouse I call bullshit on your ability to distinguish whether they have compelling evidence or not. I have a feeling you only looked into these other religions insofar as apologetics could dispel them.
LikeLike
Fail again Ruth…
“But in order to determine that the Bible has divine origins it is necessary first to have a belief about a deity. Not just any deity, but the God of the Bible. Which is an a priori belief in the existence of a God. If you already believe there’s a God because…existence, then and only then can you make a determination about any written text. ”
Where did I claim that I believe in God because of existence? I believe in God because of ALL the evidence, existence being one of them. But you are wrong in claiming I have to believe in God “before” I assess the evidence.. that’s not the way it works… for me anyway.
“And I’m sorry but if you haven’t applied any more effort into studying any other religions than you have the one you currently espouse I call bullshit on your ability to distinguish whether they have compelling evidence or not. I have a feeling you only looked into these other religions insofar as apologetics could dispel them.”
I’ve ASKED you to tell me which religion has more evidence. Instead of giving me the correct answer, which is that there ISN’T one, you accuse me of not doing my homework. I’ve challenged you Ruth, and you’ve failed.. and THAT proves my point.. I know enough about those other religions. Stop judging me and work on your own issues.. like your complete LACK of objectivity.
LikeLike
Fail again Ruth…
Kathy,
How about showing some respect.
LikeLike
Kathy, is there anything upon which you can agree with anybody here? Seriously, is there any common ground? Why so contentious? Do you pray to Jesus to be granted patience to deal with us atheists? Why bother with us?
Is this what you think Jesus wants you to do? It is so ineffective for actually converting anybody to Christianity.
LikeLike
Kathy, I think you are an intelligent person, with strong convictions 🙂
As we all do, you have the potential to take your skills and apply them in many different ways.
I’m asking this sincerely, I’m not having a go at you:
Why do you feel that applying your yourself to debate here is beneficial, considering how many posts have now been done,
what are you getting out of it?
If you feel that this is important, or you have some important things to share with people here, then by all means go ahead.
But I would still be interested to learn what your getting out of these debates with different people.
LikeLike
“I’ve got better things to do. I can’t help people who aren’t willing to be honest. It’s a waste of time.”
Please feel free to go do them, far be it from any of us to keep you – oh, before you go, could you ask your magic man to please give us back all of the time we’ve wasted on your nonsense?
LikeLike
“how much of this tv do you really watch?” – as much as living on food stamps will allow —
LikeLike
“Or it could mean that God chose not to intervene in these testimonies.”
That HAS to be the flimsiest explanation for ANYthing I’ve ever heard. What happened? I thought she was leaving —
LikeLike
“you can’t even acknowledge simple factual evidence Ruth.”
Yeah, Ruth!
1. A broken window is compelling evidence of a burglary!
2. A man walking from a house is compelling evidence that he’s a murderer!
3. A table in a temple HAS to mean that the diners were scarfing meat offered to idols, rather than enjoying a leisurely bowl of Lucky Charms for breakfast!
LikeLike
Portal, I would feel like it was all worth it if just one person here could learn to be objective and honest.
Do you think objectivity is important?
LikeLike
Also, Portal.. to be respectful, honesty is required.. it’s a two way street, you know. I’ve shown Ruth much more respect than she’s shown me.
LikeLike
“Right! Those religions lack the compelling evidence that Christianity has.. their martyrdom evidence isn’t enough on it’s own.”
Christianity is one of the least substantiated religious cults of which I’m aware – I would place it in a close contest between Mormonism and the Church of Scientology.
LikeLike