Note To the Religion Advocates

[purnell]

If we start by allowing the obvious possibility of a creator, then take the not-so-obvious step of calling this creator "God", how do we decide that, of the dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of religious texts available, the Bible is the lone authoritative source?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but that says a whole lot of nothing. Might as well take the leap and believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster as your personal god using the exact same argument you laid out above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it is a whole lot of nothing. Well, not a whole lot of nothing, per so, but a whole lot of nothing if you are looking for proofs (which is what I assume you meant). My post is either unclear or again you are not understanding what I am saying. And of course, the FSM could have the same probability of being true. That is not my point nor should it be anyone’s. My post is merely an explanation of the decision making process.

The important point in my post is that it is not that we see “evidence” then say “ Oh, yeah right”. We don’t see evidence - it isn’t about evidence. It doesn’t work that way. The important point is that atheists are wrong if/when they think we see evidence and that we say “how can anyone not see this evidence”.

Let me try to say it this way. The basic difference I see is mostly a matter of life choice - almost lifestyles (of course, we believers think it is more than that).

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
If we start by allowing the obvious possibility of a creator, then take the not-so-obvious step of calling this creator "God", how do we decide that, of the dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of religious texts available, the Bible is the lone authoritative source?

[/ QUOTE ]

Some choose not decide at all or decide that we either cannot make the step to “God” or that step is incorrect. Asimov decided (as I understand his quote posted by kbfc) by relying on his emotion (kbfc disagrees with me on how he uses the word emotion, I should note.) He makes the choice/decision against “God” or more accurately, that he is not going to waste time on the question. (I should clarify that I don't even know if he makes a possibility of a creator or not. I thought the example appropriate is all.)

Regarding how to decide from the dozens of religions texts - I think that is David’s basic inquiry? Not that he is looking for an answer, rather that he is curious how we believers decide on various Religions or religious texts.

[ QUOTE ]
The important point is that atheists are wrong if/when they think we see evidence and that we say “how can anyone not see this evidence”.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should be preaching this to the majority of theists, not atheists.

[Lestat]

So it would seem from your post that without the bible you would still have some of the same questions an atheist has over what type of creator there might be (if one at all). You said yourself that without the bible you can get no farther than I can.., I.e. "Is a creator possible?; Yes. Now what?"

So your major beliefs stem almost exclusively on testimonial evidence from the bible. Nothing wrong with that. We all have beliefs which rely heavily on testimonial evidence.

My next question to you is: Are you a fundamentalist? In other words, do you take the bible literally? Do you believe the earth to be less than 10,000 years old? Do you believe we all speak different languages because of something having to do with the Tower of Babylon? Etc. etc.

If so, I have some more questions. If not, I still have more! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The important point is that atheists are wrong if/when they think we see evidence and that we say “how can anyone not see this evidence”.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should be preaching this to the majority of theists, not atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I would if I was in a discussion with said theists. The posts that I see of interest are from the atheists - and this OP particularly - especially given the fact that David basically started the series of discussions.

I, also, don’t see many theists who would disagree with me. But, then again I assume that they arrive at their Faith by similar methods.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think most religious people do realize what you say in your post. I think the main problem thus far has been with atheists who say no, one cannot start from this point. They say that one can’t get to this point until one proves God exists or not (which of course is true). But, one must start from this point or not start (have) the discussion at all.

Your posts start with the premise that a God is possible, possibly/probably not at creator God and probably not a creator God who is interested in us - and proceeds from that point.

It hadn’t occurred to me until recently that most atheists don’t understand that most believers realize this. If (since?) this is the case, I thought it might be helpful to explain how it works for us (for me at any rate.)

The starting point is God/no God, then creator God or not, then personal creator God or not. From there believers say something like “there is a chance” or “it seems to me there must be a creator God“ or “ I don‘t know for sure, but I choose that there is a creator God“. From here we try to see if we can know God and if so how do we do that? We answer by stating: The primary way is through the main text - the Bible.

So, we view the things as: Since we decide to go with creator God, then can this God been known? If God can be known then how? The only way so far that we can see is to look to the Bible. From here it becomes a matter of interpreting the Bible (whether relying on one‘s Religion for its interpretation or scholars or self, etc) .

If the Bible can hold true if there is a personal creator God, then one can take a Leap of Faith.

Basically, for me it can hold true and thus said leap of Faith.

The following is important, I think, since here-in lies a big misconception: it is not a matter of - there is evidence in the Bible and therefore Faith. Rather, that there is no exculpatory evidence in the Bible regarding a personal God. (That is, of course, depending on how one interprets the Bible.) Indeed, (perhaps, because believers see no exculpatory evidence) believers find that the Bible, once they read and iterpret it, to be the way to Faith in a personal creator God. They then take the leap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but that says a whole lot of nothing. Might as well take the leap and believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster as your personal god using the exact same argument you laid out above.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there is no testimonial evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Btw- I like how you capitalized that!

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
So it would seem from your post that without the bible you would still have some of the same questions an atheist has over what type of creator there might be (if one at all). You said yourself that without the bible you can get no farther than I can.., I.e. "Is a creator possible?; Yes. Now what?"

So your major beliefs stem almost exclusively on testimonial evidence from the bible. Nothing wrong with that. We all have beliefs which rely heavily on testimonial evidence.

My next question to you is: Are you a fundamentalist? In other words, do you take the bible literally? Do you believe the earth to be less than 10,000 years old? Do you believe we all speak different languages because of something having to do with the Tower of Babylon? Etc. etc.

If so, I have some more questions. If not, I still have more! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to hijack this thread. But, to quickly answer your question - no I am not a fundamentalist nor do I take the Bible literally in all parts. No offense, but not sure how you can ask me that after my post. Any other questions I am sure would be appreciated by the OP in the form of another thread.

[Lestat]

<font color="red"> Of course it is a whole lot of nothing. Well, not a whole lot of nothing, per so, but a whole lot of nothing if you are looking for proofs (which is what I assume you meant). </font>

I don't think we are looking for proofs (well, maybe some are). I'm just looking for reasonable evidence which leads to a "most likely" conclusion that I can consider true. So my standards are MUCH lower than proof positive. Just get me to most likely!

[Lestat]

Sorry, didn't mean to hijack. I assumed this was the discussion OP was ultimitately looking for. Perhaps another thread is best.