Little Evidence =Evidence?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
But the biggest point is this: Until about 100 years ago or so, it did not take any leap of faith to be a believer. The mere goings on of the universe, the earth, and living things, seemed like a constant miracle. No one realized, to take a simple example, that the majestic beauty of mountains could be easily predicted by a tivial Mandelbrot equation. Or that the laws of physics, the motions of the planets, the workings of the heart, could similarly logically be derived from a few simple assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you are making an erroneous assumption here. Namely that the only reason people 100+ years ago believed in God was that they ascribed all such then scientifically unexplained phenomena to a direct divine cause, and that such was the basis of their faith. You are discounting their belief in scripture (which admittedly cannot be conclusively proved to be true), and most of all to the experience of that faith in their lives. You have in a previous thread admitted that the question of religion is not a scientific one, but a probability one, and that the faith of religious believers constitutes additional evidence to them, though evidence that would not be credible to non-believers. Therefore, your use of anyone's beliefs on matters of science is not relevant unless such beliefs can be scientifically disproved.



[ QUOTE ]
The almost certain truth is that God's vague miracles of today are not miracles. And that the reason Jews misbehaved after the ten plagues is that the plagues did not happen the way the bible they said they did. And that anyone who believes otherwise is either uninformed about science and probability, is flat out stupid, or has a disease where the brain fights desperately to believe something because the alternative is too painful.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are making two assumptions which cannot be proved to be anywhere near "certain". The first is regarding how God chooses to act in most cases, and that he does not choose "vague" miracles as a usual way of acting (you know that I believe this is precisely how He chooses to act). Any conclusions on how God chooses to act can only be made from a relgion's relevant scriptures and beliefs and experiences, and not from your own a priori assumptions which include the falsity of those things.

Secondly, your beliefs about whether certain biblical miracles happened is due to your assumption that any God who might exist, as you posited in Sklanskyanity, does not interfere in supernatural ways contraty to the physical laws of our universe. But that is precisely what a miracle is. If you don't believe there is evidence for such miracles thousands of years after the fact, certainly believers cannot prove otherwise, only that the evidence that religion is true overall makes such beliefs in those miracles more credible than mere scientific evaluation could.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

you accept the stories as true (which I wouldn't even if I believed in God


[/ QUOTE ]

I simply fail to understand why you think God would show you a miracle and I also fail to understand why you deny taking this position then in almost the very next post make the same assertion.

[ QUOTE ]

Because it shows that God need not restrict his miracles to unclear ones if he wants to test faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think God's miracles are unlcear? Why do you think He uses miracles to test faith?

[ QUOTE ]

The almost certain truth is that God's vague miracles of today are not miracles.


[/ QUOTE ]

In the Bible miracles always accompanied God's Word. They were used to attest to either God Himself or His messengers. That was their purpose. He left no doubt about Who was doing the miracle. I don't believe that kind of miracle occurs today because His Canon is closed. I think the next Biblical-type miracle will occur when the Lord returns. So your point about "miracles" of today is irrelevant.

[ QUOTE ]

And that anyone who believes otherwise is either uninformed about science and probability, is flat out stupid, or has a disease where the brain fights desperately to believe something because the alternative is too painful.


[/ QUOTE ]

I will accept this description of myself the day you prove miracles can't happen and the day you demonstrate how something accidentally creates itself out of nothing.

Mr. Sklansky, I personally agree with most of your post, but I do not think "that anyone who believes otherwise is either uninformed about science and probability, is flat out stupid, or has a disease where the brain fights desperately to believe something because the alternative is too painful." People that grow up in a religious household, (I will just use a Christian one as an example), that go to church, sunday school, et cet., are taught certain things that can be difficult and almost impossible to reverse. Threre is not enough questioning or education about the religion, not enough history taught about the atrocities that have been committed due to religion, but to claim that people that want to believe a different system than you have a brain disease is "flat out stupid." I understand all of the points that you are trying to make, but people are willing to kill themselves over their religions, so it is pointless to try to persuade them to stop believing in their religions and simply follow the logic and believe in what you do. I think that the discussion you create is a good one, but the condescending way in which you say, how are others so stupid to not agree, does not help your argument AGAINST close-minded religous folk that differ from your opinion. I do not see how it is any different from an atheist perspective. You are so strong in your beliefs, yet you still say "the almost certain truth" is that the miracles yada yada, which is a fine opinion, but you were not there, have no possible way of ever knowing what actually occurred, and for you to call other people stupid for having a different opinion is just as close minded as there opinions. I just do not see what you hope to accomplish here, besides belittling others and making people feel bad that wouldn't have before reading this if they disagree with you. This is why people do not listen to arguments over religious beliefs, because people always act like they are right, and other opinions are flat out stupid. You can agree, but do it like the enlightened, smart, and understanding person without a brain disease that you claim to be.

[ QUOTE ]
They say that the fact that there is little or no evidence for their God derives from the fact that strong evidence would make it easy to believe in him. And since they say God demands "faith", it is incumbent on God to avoid giving out strong evidence since, if he did, little "faith" would then be required to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Paraphrasing Bill Hicks:

Hicks: What about dinosaurs and dinosaur bones?
Creationist: God put those there to test our faith.
Hicks: I think God put you here to test my faith.

[scarr]

I liked this quote:

[ QUOTE ]
"Sallie McFague, in Models of God, argues that religious thinking requires a rethinking of the ways in which religious language employs metaphor. Religious language is for the most part neither propositional nor assertoric. Rather, it functions not to render strict definitions, but to give accounts. To say, for example, "God is mother," is neither to define God as a mother nor to assert an identity between them, but rather to suggest that we consider what we do not know how to talk about--relating to God - through the metaphor of a mother. Moreover, no single metaphor can function as the sole way of expressing any aspect of a religious belief."

[/ QUOTE ]

This reminded me of Julian Jaynes. He claimed the bicameral mind did not have the ability to understand metaphors. Most of the religious documents of today, originated when people lacked this ability to clearly associate words/stories with reality.

I think the miracles written about in the Bible were either poorly translated prophecies or misunderstood metaphors.

For what it's worth, Julian Jaynes theorized about this in his book "The Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind".

[txag007]

While faith is a fundamental part of Christianity, I don't think it should be used as a crutch in intellectual arguments. I fear I may have leaned too heavily in that direction in my previous posts.

Therefore, let me say here that while faith is important I firmly believe that Christianity can stand up to anyone in an intellectual argument.

I'm quite grateful for Sklansky's religion posts because his questions (regardless of his motivation) have renewed my interest in the apologetics of Christianity. I'm still doing research, but I remain convinced that both God exists and Jesus was who He said He was.

Specifically regarding the post to which I'm replying, I would like to make a point:

"But the biggest point is this: Until about 100 years ago or so, it did not take any leap of faith to be a believer. The mere goings on of the universe, the earth, and living things, seemed like a constant miracle. No one realized, to take a simple example, that the majestic beauty of mountains could be easily predicted by a tivial Mandelbrot equation. Or that the laws of physics, the motions of the planets, the workings of the heart, could similarly logically be derived from a few simple assumptions."

I don't think this disproves God's existence at all (or to preserve the accuracy of Sklanksy's post, makes belief in God require a stronger faith). As scientists discover and uncover more and more about the inner workings of the universe, shouldn't belief in God require LESS faith? What I mean by that is this: What are the odds that such complex systems could be created by chance?

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think this disproves God's existence at all (or to preserve the accuracy of Sklanksy's post, makes belief in God require a stronger faith). As scientists discover and uncover more and more about the inner workings of the universe, shouldn't belief in God require LESS faith? What I mean by that is this: What are the odds that such complex systems could be created by chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Logical fallacy.

[txag007]

Care to ellaborate?

[prana]

The Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw once said, "There is only one religion, though there are a hundred versions of it."


something I have been reading a bit about lately:
from a web page about theosophy

" Particular religions differ from one another because they are expressions of that effort adapted to particular times, places, cultures, and needs."

I think arguing all these points about religions, is further misunderstanding the issue by listening to what all the mainstream speakers of these religions say. Hell the Catholics have been corrupt for a long time, even taking books out of the bible that we don't have in the bible yet today. Lutherans preach peace, but Luther was an anti-semite. I surely don't believe in Christianity the way these people do. I do believe Christ was born and lived to show us the abilities inherently available to any man, similar to an enlightened buddhist, etc. It takes someone to dig through all this b.s. and learn from it instead of continually arguing the same crap. Arguing about evidence and such does nothing to further develop a connection to a "higher power". It takes not blind faith imo but quieting of the mind's meaningless thoughts and connecting to the oneness of all which is god. I also think like a previous poster that much of the bible is meant to be read metaphorically which completely destroys all of this debate over blind faith, evidence, etc. The funny thing is that that is how the major religious sects look at it. I was raised Lutheran and listened to my confirmation teacher talk about how the Lutheran religion was the only right religion, and stuff like that. I knew then he was full of it. What it did do is make me explore other religions and I do find similarities in many of them. One being the connection to the "higher power",god, chi, prana, light, energy, nature.

You ever try yoga, tai chi, where after very few sessions, you can feel the energy involved in your body????? There are documented cases of levitation by hatha yogi masters who focus this energy, chi, prana masterfully.

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
Care to ellaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Stating that X is so complex that a creator must have made X is a logical fallacy.