Daggah

Most historians are smart enough to know that the historical veracity of a story is dependent on the evidence supporting the details of that story. So take your Durant/Wells/etc. rambling to someone who cares, please.

My assertion is fairly self-evident. Truth usually can be backed up by evidence.

The Bible usually cannot. (Examples: flood, exodus, etc.)

Yellum Notnef

No kidding. I wonder when Radorth will get around to telling us what M. Scott Peck thinks about the veracity of those stories.

Radorth

Most truthseekers have already read his books, and watched he himself convert as he walked down the road less traveled. I don't consider either of you to be interested in anything except spreading your own propaganda.

Of course I was reading him before he was a Christian because of his profound humanity, courage and love of truth. I seek knowledge wherever I can find it, as in history books written exclusively by skeptics.

Of course if you aren't really interested in hearing anybody but skeptics talk, you'd hang around II all day and "ride" the Christians out if possible, instead of reading why he converted.

Thanks for asking though.

Rad

Yellum Notnef

You and I obviously have very different ideas about what a "truthseeker" is.
I do not consider people who read wishy washy chicken soup for the soul type books as truthseekers any more than those who wear crystals,go on popular TV shows to talk to dead relatives or call Miss Cleo.

You (and apparently Peck) have stopped looking for the truth and have settled for the simplest,easiest and most popular answers.
I require better answers than ghosts,goblins and gods.


Of course you were. Judging from some of the nonsense you`ve spouted here I would guess that you have a shelf full of pseudo intellectual and wishy washy spiritual guides ala Oprah`s book list.

And these skeptical historians you brag about reading. Surely you must think they are all wrong since they don`t believe Jesus is a god.

Oh don`t worry. I intend on reading his conversion story,but it will have to wait until later tonight. I just ate.
It should be interesting to see a man of his superior intellect explain why he took an exit off the road less traveled.

Daggah

Oh, are we supposed to be convinced by him converting? McDowell tries the same argument. Big whoop.

I guess you would be similiarly convinced by Dan Barker, who was a preacher when he deconverted to atheism, right?

Right?

No...didn't think so.

It's all about the evidence.

Bumble Bee Tuna

Oh boy, another thread where Radorth ignores what I say. Of course, that's what I want as I'd rather he respond to our first argument. Don't bother, Radorth, I've realized it's not worth it. Are there any theists here who actually debate? they're welcome to the thread.

-B

Jamie_L

I don't think it misses the point at all. Nobody follows a god they don't believe is real. Think of all the willingly religious, devout people who are just worshipping the wrong God. Surely if they were shown that they have made an honest mistake, they would turn their lives over to the true god.

And if God made appearances to show that, not only was he real, but benevolent and just, I think most atheists would say, "sure. Sign me up for a church." We're not god-haters. We may dislike some versions of the god-myth, but if we were shown that it wasn't a myth, and that the truth was just as good and noble as most people say, then I don't think it would be a small number of people indeed who would turn their backs and say "Nope. You're real and you're good, but I don't like you."

Jamie

Ganymede

An omnimax god unable to bring about his own intentions?

Seraphim

by Cthulhu

God is on that tight of a schedule, eh? Got a dentist's appointment to get to, does he?

My reply : Well, If God appeared or lived on Earth (or somewhere near by) for every generation, then a few questions will arise :

1. Will you follow Him because He is a God (prove of His existences) or because you have Faith?

It is two different aspect since having faith means believing in God which you have not seen but felt while having proof alone may not be enough to have faith in God. It's like medicine ... the medicine (God) works better when you believe in its effect rather than accepting it blindly.

2. Accepting God because you can see Him is not an act of Free will, it is simply act of blind faith. What is the good of God giving free will for humans to choose IF He takes it away by presenting Himself and take away the opportunity to make the choice?

Well, I can think of only two reasons why God shouldn't appear for every generation.

PS : Sorry for the late reply, a bit busy.

Lobstrosity

Well, I never use emoticons, but I think in response to this last line of yours I need to make an exception:
Come on now, how does having evidence that something exists equate to "accepting it blindly." By the very definition of the act there is no blind acceptance at all. I think what you meant to write was:
"It's like medicine ... the medicine (God) works better when you blindly believe in its effect rather than actually having a reason to believe in its effect."

I guess I can understand this. Since there is no reason to believe and yet you still need to believe in order to get the desired psychological boost, you invent this requirement of "faith." That way you can still get the placebo effect from something that otherwise is the equivalent of a sugar pill.

Well that's silly. By those standards the Bible is depriving you of all your free will. You are now a mindless automaton who is simply acting out of blind faith (not that other good kind of Faith) in the Bible. I think if you're going to make these kinds of arguments it's essential for you to actually understand what the Christian concept of free will really is. Christian free will is the freedom to make our own choices based on what we observe around us. It is completely independent of what we take in as sensory input. Lack of free will is when God actually makes our decisions for us, not when God provides us with evidence for his existence. If he comes down to Earth, people still have the freedom to interpret for themselves what they're seeing and to then choose the course of action they want to follow. It is irrelevant as to whether the decision is an easy one to make--Christian free will still remains fully intact. The free will argument does not explain why faith is necessary. It actually fails miserably in this regard.