George S

It makes me quite different from quite a few instances of someone else.

I do take only what I sense and can deduce from what I sense as real.

You, on the other hand, in consort with others who believe by faith, do something else quite distinct from what I do.

I do not believe by faith. I do not claim X is true because I believe X.

I have faith in the truth of what I can see, feel, hear, taste, smell and think about. To have faith in senses and logic is not the same as the act of faith.

Your solipsist view that all is subjective is really odd to me. How do you get beyond "I exist subjectively" to "there is something else besides me"?

George S

Your first assertion is without merit. There well could be an undiscovered natural law that allows for something from nothing. It could be, for example, that absolute nothingness is unstable and that something must happen in such a state. The evidence that particle/anti-particle pairs appear spontaneously (something from nothing) in vacuum surely suggests that there may be a natural law to the effect that when there is nothing that something must happen.

Your second assertion also falls when it is Natural Law that Change Must Happen. Events happening around us continuously suggests that there may be just such a law.

The Bible provides no better explanation than any other creation myth.

How, again, do you know that your creation myth should take precedence over any other creation story?

Johnny Skeptic

Because fundamentalist Christians are a threat to society. For instance, about ten years ago, two gay men who lived in Texas were arrested for having sex in the privacy of their own homes. The men sued the state of Texas. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the gay men. Do you object to that ruling? The dissenting justices were predictably Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. Scalia and Thomas are conservative Christians. Rehnquist, who died, was a conservative Christian. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned anti-sodomy laws in Texas and twelve other states, all of which predictably have large percentages of conservative Christians. Such an atrocity could never have happened in a state that did not have a high percentage of conservative Christians.

Many conservative Christains tell lies and misinterpret statistics about health issues that deal with homosexuality. You once embarrassed yourself in a debate with me about homosexuality. If you wish, I will be happy to start a new thread at the General Religious Discussions Forum and prove that I embarrassed you. With Google it is easy to find what I want to find because I remember lots of key words in most of my debates. There is currently a thread at the Moral Foundations and Priniciples Forum about homosexuality that I recently started. I have embarrassed by Christian opponent. If you do not believe me, visit the thread and see for yourself.

When creationism used to enjoy excluvisity in public schools, very few conservative Christians would have favored a balanced approach where creationism and evolution would have both been taught. Today, conservative Christians would be quite pleased with a balanced approach, but only because they know that they cannot get away with being bullies anymore.

When the U.S. Supreme Court ordered busing in the 1900's, the state of Virginia, which had a high percentage of conservative Christians, and still does, closed down the public school system so that white children would not have to go to school with black children.

Considering the detestible character of the God of the Bible, I strongly oppose the claim that God is good, and everyone else is evil. No being is good merely because he says that he is good. Who appointed you to judge whether or not the Bible writer's judgement that God is good is true? What firsthand, empirical evidence did they base their claims on? What firsthand, empirical evidence is there today that God is good?

If Christianity is false, you will have to admit that Christianity has greatly harmed society. For instance, if Christianity is false, you are wasting your time debating at this forum. In addition, Christianity prevents Christians from becoming close friends with lots of wonderful, kind, loving skeptics.

I request that a moderator split this post and start a new thread at the General Religious Discussions Forum.

George S

If, by chance, you didn't get Johnny's point, a brief summary:

For the same reason that I fight tooth and nail against faith-based initiatives of fanatics like 9-11. Using faith as a source of action is downright dangerous.

Johnny Skeptic

Exactly, which reasonably proves that it is parents' choice, not God's choice which parents he will use. It is an absurd claim that God prefers to use Christian parents to teach their children about him than using Muslim parents to teach their children about him. If the God of the Bible does not exist, the Gospel message would be spread exactly like it has been spread, by human effort.

That will not do. First of all, the story of Noah is probably false. The vast majority of geologists do not believe that a global flood occured. Even some evangelical Christian geologists do not believe that a global flood occured, and have said that conservative Christians who claim that a global flood occured undermine Christianity.

Some conservative Christians claim that flood advocates have misinterpreted what the Bible says about the flood, and that the Bible does not mean that a global flood occured.

Are you a YEC (Young Earth Creationist)?

If Noah's group repopulated the earth, a claim that cannot be historically verified, and if the flood occured in 2344 B.C., which would have been the case if the earth is 6,000 years old, and if the Old Testament genealogies of Adam through Noah are accurate, how do you account for the fact that there is not any mention of the God of the Bible in ancient Chinese historical records, nor in that ancient historical records of any other culture. Even if the ancient Chinese rejected the God of the Bible, they would have known about him because Noah's group repopulated China.

Regardless, today, most Syrian parents who are Muslims do not teach their children the Gospel message. That is obviously because it is their choice not to do so, as it is obvious that it is the choice of Christian parents to teach their children the Gospel message. In both cases, God has nothing to do with it.

Do you consider the spread of the Gospel message to be more important than the spread of a cure for cancer?

Or, if the God of the Bible does not exist, we find exactly what we would expect to find regarding how the Gospel message was spread. We would also find exactly what we would expect to find regarding the distribution of tangible benefits. If the God of the Bible does not exist, all tangible benefits would be indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, worldview, or requests. I challenge you to reasonably establish a cause/correlation basis between asking God for a tangible benefit, and receiving it. If the God of the Bible does not exist, the only benefit that anyone could ask God for an expect to received would be subjective spiritual/emotional benefits.

You are correct that if the God of the Bible does not exist, Jesus would not have performed many miracles, and would not have risen from the dead. However, if the God of the Bible does not exist, the Gospel message could still have been made up, and Jesus could still have been crucified. Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes miracle healing. Why do you believe that is was any different back then?

Even if Jesus rose from the dead, why did he rise from the dead? What historical evidence do you have that Jesus said what he said about himself? It is well-known that Matthew and Luke did a good deal of borrowing from Mark. It is also apparent that the anonymous Gospel writers seldom claimed that they saw Jesus perform miracles, and seldom revealed who their sources were.

Because it is well-documented in Kosmin and Lachman's "One Nation Under God." Billy Graham endorses the book. If I could prove to your satisfaction that such is the case, how would you account for the difference?

[quote=rhutchin] What makes you think that God discriminates against men?

Because he convinces a much smaller percentage of men to become Christians.

Why do you think that a younger skeptic would even want to become a Christian, or a Buddhist? Why would an older skeptic want to become a Christian, or Buddhist?

Because he convinces a much smaller percentage of elderly skeptics to become Christians. Since elderly people are much less likely to change their worldview no matter what their worldview is, the best explanation is that the God of the Bible does not exist. If he does exist, you need to explain why elderly people are much less likely to change their worldview no matter what their worldview is.

For the same reason that all religions exist, which is because people made them up.

Johnny Skeptic

But my argument is exactly the opposite of what you said. What you said assumes that I WOULD believe it to be true. What I said was that you WOULD NOT believe it to be true. Not only would I not believe it was true, but I would not accept the Bible even if it said that God will send everyone to heaven, although I would hope that he would. I would oppose the Bible for the same reasons that I oppose it now. Some of my reasons are as follows:

1 - The Gospel writers were anonymous.

2 - The Gospel writers almost never revealed who their sources were.

3 - The Gospel writers almost never claimed that they witnessed miracles.

4 - The Gospel writers almost never revealed who their sources were.

5 - Matthew and Luke borrowed a good deal from John.

6 - It impossible to be reasonably certain how many people saw Jesus after he supposedly rose from the dead.

7 - Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. There are not any good reasons for anyone to assume that it was any different back then.

8 - I would still question why God injures and kills people and innocent animals with hurricanes. Unlike you, it is not my position that doing some good things justifies injuring and killing people and innocent animals, or setting up circumstances that cause people and innocent animals to be killed.

9 - I would still question God's desire to send skeptics to hell for eternity without parole.

10 - As much as I would like to rubber stamp everything that God does in order to go to heaven, my morals are not up for negotiation, and I am not able to do anything about that. The only possible solution for me would be if God explained to my satisfaction why he does what he does. It is my position that a loving God, a God who I would admire and accept, would provide me with explanations for his behavior before I made up my mind whether to accept him or reject him, especially if spending eternity in heaven and hell were at stake.

So there you have it. While my beliefs would be consistent no matter what the Bible promised, you will only accept promises that you believe will ultimately benefit you. You have replaced logic and reason with emotional perceived self-interests.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Why did God cause animals to kill other animals? How did he accomplish that? Did he make robots out of them? In your opinion, do animals have free will? If not, why do you believe that humans and God have free will?

Dogfish

They're all false, cause there is no evidence for a god! You talk like one of them would HAVE to be true!

And since you claim that you "know" G's claim is meaningless, and is not worth responding to, YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. But you still claim you did.
I, too, only consider revelations that would impact me adversly if I didn't follow them. But show us how the bible has been shown to be, not only more valid than G's claim, but valid in the least respect.

And "because I believe it" don't count.

Dogfish

So, your justification is nothing more than that you accept it?

Dogfish

It makes him different from YOU, because he has an actual argument backed up with evidence. You just "decide" what is true.