Zone1 Why is it so tough to believe in God?

[rightwinger]

Which you will ignore or say are lies. You're looking for science to prove God's existence, and it cannot. God is a sovereign being, not an ATM, who does not have to obey anything man sets up for Him to do.

Saying I am God, I don’t have to convince anyone is not a convincing argument

 

[JanetTheGreat]

Like I said.

You ignored what I just stated.

 

[DukeU]

A literal interpretation of the Bible doesn't match up with the empirical evidence of what has been observed through modern technology. One can still believe in God, and believe in the Scientific method.

Tell me, what has been observed that doesn't match up?

 

[JanetTheGreat]

Tell me, what has been observed that doesn't match up?

The Earth is 4.6 billion years old, there were once many different species of humans that shared this planet with Homo Sapiens hundreds of thousands of years ago. This doesn't add up with the "Adam and Eve" story.

 

[DukeU]

You ignored what I just stated.

No, I didn't.

You stated that you believe in intelligent designed evolution.

That is still evolution.

 

[DukeU]

The Earth is 4.6 billion years old, there were once many different species of humans that shared this planet with Homo Sapiens hundreds of thousands of years ago. This doesn't add up with the "Adam and Eve" story.

No one has observed 4.6 billion years.

 

[JanetTheGreat]

No one has observed 4.6 billion years.

That is just a laughable rejection of science and the scientific method. Dine in ignorance if you wish.

 

[DukeU]

That is just a laughable rejection of science and the scientific method. Dine in ignorance if you wish.

Who observed 4.6 billion years?

 

[Quantrill]

Evolution is a theory, and in science, that’s actually stronger than a “fact.” A fact just describes what we see. A theory explains why we see it, and makes predictions that can be tested against new evidence. That’s why theories are the highest form of scientific knowledge: they unify facts into a framework that keeps proving itself over and over.

As for your point about faith: you’re right that I don’t accept things on faith alone. But neither do you, at least not consistently. You don’t believe in unicorns, the Easter Bunny, or the tooth fairy, even though plenty of people (especially children) have believed in them. You’ve carved out a special exception for your particular religion, while rejecting thousands of other religions past and present that also claim faith as their only method of knowing.

The scientific method is different. It’s a process designed to figure out what’s likely true by testing explanations against reality. It has a track record of producing reliable results, medicine, technology, physics, biology, things that work regardless of belief. Faith, by contrast, doesn’t have that kind of predictive power. That doesn’t mean faith is automatically wrong, but it does mean it’s far less reliable (if reliable at all) as a way of knowing.

So, when you say I’m rejecting your religion by applying the scientific method, what you’re really saying is that I’m refusing to accept an inferior method of knowing as equal to one that consistently works. And yes, I apply that same standard to your religion as I do to every other claim. That’s not bias, that’s consistency.

I asked you questions which you ignored. Can you measure the speed that an angel can fly? Can you determine where God is? Can you determine how long it took God to create Adam and Eve? Please answer.

I have made clear that the 'faith' I speak of is the Christian faith. I have made clear that I don't believe in everything else that pretends to be of faith. The faith I speak of is faith in God, Christ, and the Bible, which I have said many times. In Christianity, faith is the key.

Oh gee...a theory is stronger than a scientific fact. If that is so, why do you need facts? That makes no sense. If facts support your 'theory' why is it still a 'theory' and not a fact, because you said 'facts don't change? Answer: because it is bullshit. No problem, I got my boots on.

Oh, the scientific method doesn't deal with what is true. It deals with what is 'likely to be true'. Which makes its facts questionable as well as its theories. And, we are not talking about medicine, and technology. We are talking about God, Christ, and the Bible. Which you and others come along claiming it is false because your science can't prove it. If you want to just address medicine and technology, then get the hell out of the religious section.

What I am saying is what I said, science cannot know or test anything in the supernatural world, as you pretend you can. You don't know that faith is an inferior method. You just don't believe faith is another method of knowing. Your science cannot know about God. Yet you and others like to pretend you do by applying your scientific method to prove God.

Yes, you are consistently full of shit. Trying to pass off your science as the superior mode of knowledge and trying to pass off your scientific method of knowing as reliable to speak against God, Christ, and the Bible.

Again, are you open to faith being the only way to know God, Christ, and the Bible? Because thus far, science and its methods cannot prove it.

Quantrill

 

[hobelim]

The affinity for believing nonsense is hardwired.

The tendency to pretend to believe nonsense is hardwired in the survival instinct. The intelligent never believe the BS. They did it as an act of survival, a belief in Moses who said choose life and live, and to protect a bloodline.



Crypto-Judaism is the secret adherence to Judaism while publicly professing to be of another faith; practitioners are referred to as "crypto-Jews" (origin from Greek kryptos – κρυπτός, 'hidden').

The term is especially applied historically to Spanish and Portuguese Jews who outwardly professed Catholicism, also known as Conversos, Marranos, or the Anusim.
'
The phenomenon is especially associated with medieval Spain, following the Massacre of 1391 and the expulsion of the Jews in 1492. After 1492 in Spain and 1497 in Portugal, officially, crypto Jews no longer existed. The Spanish Inquisition and the Portuguese Inquisition were established to monitor converted Jews and Muslims and their descendants for their continued adherence to Christian faith and practice, with severe penalties for those convicted of secretly continuing to practice their original beliefs. Information about secretly observant Jews largely survives in Inquisition cases against individuals.

Crypto-Judaism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Hafar1014]

A literal interpretation of the Bible doesn't match up with the empirical evidence of what has been observed through modern technology. One can still believe in God, and believe in the Scientific method.

Genesis is an allegory its not literal. The only part thats literal is Leviticus because thats civil law.

 

[Hafar1014]

Bold of you to assume that.

I am inclined to believe that evolution itself is intelligent design from the creator. I don't believe in a Universe devoid of a higher power.

Thats a perfectly acceptable belief.

 

[Hafar1014]

We execute people on the firsthand testimony of one or two individuals. It's rather specious to, on the one hand, say that is justified while simultaneously claiming it's so unreliable you can't trust it at all, even though untold millions (not just one or two) throughout history have testified to the same thing. IOW, if testimony is that unreliable, no one should be sent to prison from one person saying they saw him kill the rival gang member, but there's no camera recording, no fingerprints or DNA left behind, and no murder weapon to be found.

We have juries its not one or two people. Justice is more complex than that.

 

[Hafar1014]

And it is non-credible to insist that a much higher being that can exist in as many dimensions as it wishes has to be replicated in a lab in order to exist.

I can see the ants now, toiling away in their lab trying to prove the existence of humans but being frustrated because no matter what they do, they can't predict when the next shoe is going to hit the hill. One faction of ants claims that humans obviously are just gigantic flat things that randomly drop out of the sky, while another claims they don't exist at all, since their hill has never been flattened, and seeing is believing. Yet another faction claims that they have ascended above the flat thing and found amazing vistas as they are carried along in the sky at great speeds, but no one believes them because they are obviously crackpots.

Beliefs can exist without evidence, sure, but once a belief makes a claim about reality, evidence becomes necessary. Religions don’t just say “believe”; they make specific claims about how the world was created, how life began, what events happened in history. Those claims can be tested against objective evidence, and when they fail, that’s evidence against that particular god or doctrine.

Take the Catholic God as an example. He’s one of thousands of gods humans have believed in. The chance that this one is true is at best 1 in however many religions you want to name, and even less when you factor in denominations that contradict each other. That’s not proof of non-existence, but it’s strong evidence that the god you probably mean is wrong.

Creation stories are another case. Many religions claim the earth is a few thousand years old, or that humans were created fully formed. Science shows otherwise, geology, genetics, and evolution all contradict those claims. The usual response is special pleading or rationalization, but that doesn’t erase the evidence.

So no, beliefs don’t require evidence to exist. But if you want them to be true, evidence is exactly what’s required. And when tested, most religious claims fail.

The measure of truth in belief is honesty not evidence. Youre confusing truth with facts. Juries are sworn to tell the truth not the facts. If 10 people see a car accident youll get 10 different versions all true.

So when an atheist claims there is no God then he must show the evidence right. Make my day

Religions that are different dont contradict each other. They simply reflect different beliefs. Different doesnt mean contradict.

Genesis is an allegory and quite advanced for its time. It does describe evolution.

True is not fact

Does the 10 Commandments fail. Test them and tell me which ones fail.

A belief cant fail, doesnt require evidence and does not need to be proven.

Youre lack of understanding is because you define words incorrectly to rationalize your own beliefs

 

[hobelim]

The Earth is 4.6 billion years old, there were once many different species of humans that shared this planet with Homo Sapiens hundreds of thousands of years ago. This doesn't add up with the "Adam and Eve" story.

Let me tell you a little secret. Every story in scripture that defies what everyone knows to be true about reality is like a giant X on a treasure map marking the exact place where something of great value was buried and hidden.

If you look and look and keep on looking you'll find it. If you don't look and look and keep on looking you won't.

"The kingdom of heaven is like hidden treasure lying buried in a field. The man who found it, BURIED IT AGAIN."
(Mat 13:44)


Can you dig it?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It is difficult to wrap my head around that a supposed "loving" and "caring" creator put us in a reality where things such as childhood cancers, and other such diseases exist. If there is an all "loving" creator, where is the love for those who have their lives cut short due to horrible diseases? It seems there is none.

Taking all of my criticisms of organized religions aside, that would be number one.

It Is in the Interest of the RichKid Reich to Cripple People Before Hiring Them

High IQs could cure childhood cancer. They are the only literally supernatural beings.

Oncologists don't earn a living until they are thirty years old. Anyone who swallows his pride will choke his talent. These wimpy nerd Mamas' Boys, who escaped into this inhuman education because they were
afraid to grow up, are our greatest failures. But they're never held accountable for that. It's a waste of time funding college graduates, whose emasculation makes them pathetically unproductive.

I got this logically inevitable conclusion confirmed when an oncology firm's office manager told me what useless creeps these PhDs are. Every male one had dropped out of a brief failed marriage. Every female doctor had reached her 30s and never gotten married. Bunch of zombies, which is the only creature this intelligence-insulting educational system can produce.

 

[Hafar1014]

Let me tell you a little secret. Every story in scripture that defies what everyone knows to be true about reality is like a giant X on a treasure map marking the exact place where something of great value was buried and hidden.

If you look and look and keep on looking you'll find it. If you don't look and look and keep on looking you won't.

"The kingdom of heaven is like hidden treasure lying buried in a field. The man who found it, BURIED IT AGAIN."
Matthew 13:44

Can you dig it?

Genesis is an allegory Adam is a metaphor

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him. John 6:44.

Looking Up to the Loud Silences the Lowly

How can anyone believe in such a conceited blowhard?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

First, the argument that because YOU did genealogy, and discovered that YOUR ancestors where somehow more free then you are, invalidates my premise that religion has a historical track record of oppression of woman is ridiculous on it's face. It simply doesn't follow. What you are saying is that your personal (subjective) opinion trump's an objective historical evaluation based on not just historical evidence but current events. Guess what a woman in Iran still gets stoned to death because of adultery is also a woman today. I'm betting she will disagree. As for this being the more "oppressive society", laughable. Your woman ancestors, no matter where they lived couldn't vote. Most couldn't own property unless as a widow. Could be beaten by they're husband without legal recourse, could be raped by there husbands. Etc.,etc. Doesn't matter where they lived.

So forgive me when I take the historical awareness of someone who claimed I mistranslated the original Hebrew text from the sermon on the mount to fit my narrative. When Jesus spoke Aramaic and the early writings where in Greek with a bucket of salt. I had to look that up I will admit. But I wasn't the one claiming that I simply mistranslate stuff. ( Was also factually wrong as what the word was and how it actually translates. The Greek word is πραεῖς (praeis)
It literally means gentle, mild, tame — not “single-mindedly obedient to God”)

As for me moving the goalposts. You are making the claim. Feel free to point out when I didn't engage your exact premise using the quote function. I have when I laid it at your feet.

Mumble for the Master

In Greek, "son" and "pig" are similar. Yet blind-faith Theists accepted the totally weird text when their particular Bible translated it as "son."

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The measure of truth in belief is honesty not evidence. Youre confusing truth with facts. Juries are sworn to tell the truth not the facts. If 10 people see a car accident youll get 10 different versions all true.

So when an atheist claims there is no God then he must show the evidence right. Make my day

Religions that are different dont contradict each other. They simply reflect different beliefs. Different doesnt mean contradict.

Genesis is an allegory and quite advanced for its time. It does describe evolution.

True is not fact

Does the 10 Commandments fail. Test them and tell me which ones fail.

A belief cant fail, doesnt require evidence and does not need to be proven.

Youre lack of understanding is because you define words incorrectly to rationalize your own beliefs

"Begging the Question" Is the Main Fallacy of Faith

Theists' debates are as illogical as "Because God loves us, if He didn't exist, He wouldn't let us believe in Him."