Define Evidence

[minkymurph]

Different people require different kinds of evidence.

The scientist might be looking for evidence in nature.

The philosopher might be looking for evidence in himself.

The theologian might be looking for evidence from above.

All of these ways of looking for evidence might yield results.

But the notion that only one way is going to yield results (for example the scientific way) is to narrow the path to truth in such a way that many discoveries about God will be forbidden or fruitless.

This is true not just in relation to God, but many other things.

I recall a judge who was asked how he knew whether or not people were telling the truth. He said he knew by watching them. Judges watch people from the minute they enter their court. They observe their body language, facial expressions, demeanor and so on throughout the course of a hearing. I have seen people acquitted of crimes where the prosecution fails to make the burden of proof, yet it is clear the judge firmly believes they are in fact guilty.

Someone also told me that to be an effective advocate you need to believe in what you are saying. If you don’t believe what you are saying, it is highly unlikely you will persuade anyone else to accept what you say. This in itself is not of course sufficient, but the point is in terms of consideration of evidence it’s not just a matter of what is said, but who says it and why.

 

[Bradski]

These things are required in order to legitimately call oneself Catholic, although those who were baptized Catholic yet don’t believe them continue to be entitled to call themselves Catholic if they wish on the ground the decision was made for them, but they are not required to believe there is a God or that there is evidence there is a God.

You might as well sign your kid up to a politcial party and call her a Fine Gael supporter. Except she may grow up to believe in high taxes and state nationalised banks.

What sense does it make to call someone a member of a religious or political group if they have no concept of what that means?

 

[minkymurph]

You might as well sign your kid up to a politcial party and call her a Fine Gael supporter. Except she may grow up to believe in high taxes and state nationalised banks.

What sense does it make to call someone a member of a religious or political group if they have no concept of what that means?

As I’m sure you know you can’t join a political party until you are eligible to vote, whereas your parents choose how to raise you. You can join a political group, but only of your own volition. Interesting you mention Fine Gael. Political allegiances in the Republic of Ireland were formed on the basis of what side your predecessors fought on in the Irish Civil War. Switching political allegiance was tantamount to being a traitor. Thus, your political allegiances were determined when you were in the crib - though more recently there has been a shift away from the ‘Civil War’ political allegiances of the past. A similar phenomenon can be observed elsewhere. In England there are people who come from a ‘Labour’ or ‘Conservative’ background and are expected to follow suit.

We cannot control what our children grow up believe. As children they would not have an adult concept of what it is to be Catholic, any more than they have a concept of being a boy or girl in an adult sense, or Irish, American or Australian, but as adults they do.

If your baptized Catholic and raised Catholic you are entitled to call yourself Catholic if you wish. The reason is ‘Catholic’ is an identity - not just a religion. Irish comedian Daire O’Braine is an atheist yet describes himself as ‘ethnically Catholic.’ I have encountered atheists on CAF who come from a Jewish background and continue to call themselves Jewish even though they are atheists.

Perhaps that is something that is difficult for you to understand, and perhaps it is more essential for you to separate yourself from a religious identity perceived or otherwise. Coming from a different culture it’s not difficult for me to understand as I understand the intrinsic links between religion and perceived national and political identity - among aspects of identity.

In short - calling yourself ‘Catholic’ isn’t solely about your religious beliefs.

 

[Vonsalza]

They are the requirements for believing in God. One can hardly have a god that doesn’t know everything, can only do a limited amount and is surprised by what happens (although the Greeks managed it perfectly well).

As you provided your own rebuttal, I wont address the second part of the statement any further beyond informing you that the existence of “open theism” in broader Christianity is observable.

I was merely pointing out that those attributes have nothing to do with God’s role of mechanical creator - the very same context you were citing. Your “scope creep” here is confusing.

It’s hardly a straw man. He wants us to love Him. So we were created. We need somewhere to hang out, so he created the world. Oh, hang on, it was a bit more. The planets and the whole solar system. No, actually it was a galaxy. Except…darn it, it’s a lot of galaxies.

If its not a straw-man, it’s certainly a combo of “false-cause” and/or “slippery slope”. I think I would say that God covets our voluntary worship. And while He might have granted mankind dominion over the Earth, it would be incorrect to conflate that dominion to “ownership”. We are stewards, and poor ones at that.

[The small, extra-galactic rock is] not there because of us. It doesn’t fills us with awe and wonder. It serves no purpose. Yet it was set up by God to be exactly this way. Let me know when you find out what it’s for.

As I didn’t call it into existence and assign it purpose, why would I be the one would could authoritatively identify it?

It shouldn’t be. There’s even a section of the forum dedicated to it.

Yes, I’m aware. Does any rational person guarantee results of these prayers? Of course not. Nonetheless, prayer is something so prevalent in humanity that it transcends culture and religion.

Actually, I lied about one. No-one really asked for the famine to end.

Odd that people would be more aware of the problems they personally experience, right?

Or yours. Or of anyone who has ever existed.

While you certainly can’t speak for “anyone who has ever existed” (like Jesus of Nazareth), at least we agree that God’s sense of justice, if He exists, is not dependent on anyone’s approval.

It’s not the box labelled ‘Belief in God’ you have to tick. It’s the one labelled ‘All of the Above’.

Categorically incorrect, sir. The categorical mate, the natural juxtaposition of “atheist” is “theist”. Not “Catholic”.
Generic deism or theism have very few boxes to check. I might even argue that they have fewer than atheism.

Catholicism is a form of Christianity, which is a form of Abrahamic monotheism, which is a form of theism. In comparing atheism with Catholicism, you’re arguing about the design of the 4th floor of a house before you’ve even settled on what the first-through-third will look like.

 

[Bradski]

If your baptized Catholic and raised Catholic you are entitled to call yourself Catholic if you wish. The reason is ‘Catholic’ is an identity - not just a religion. Irish comedian Daire O’Braine is an atheist yet describes himself as ‘ethnically Catholic.’

I’ve seen the routine where Obriain relates that story. If I can find it, I’ll put in a link to it (actually just got some tickets to a show he’s doing down here). But it’s tongue in cheek as he tells it. It told for humorous effect. As in: ‘I know this sounds stupid but…’. And it is.

My wife classed herself as a Christian for years – she’d always tick that box when filling in a form. Whenever I questioned her about the fact that she didn’t believe in God, she always used to say that she was brought up a Christian.

In short - calling yourself ‘Catholic’ isn’t solely about your religious beliefs.

It should be. I always accept that if someone says they are Catholic then they believe in God, attend mass and pray etc. If they don’t then they ain’t.

 

[Bradski]

As you provided your own rebuttal, I wont address the second part of the statement any further beyond informing you that the existence of “open theism” in broader Christianity is observable.

Which is not what we are talking about. It’s Christianity we are talking about, not some feel-good tree-hugging version of Mother Nature as Goddess of Creation.

I was merely pointing out that those attributes have nothing to do with God’s role of mechanical creator - the very same context you were citing.

Exactly my point. Good luck on finding anyone on this forum who agrees with it.

As I didn’t call it into existence and assign it purpose, why would I be the one would could authoritatively identify it?

‘It wasn’t me. A big boy did it and ran away’. Well, OK. But I wasn’t really looking for the chemical composition and raison d’etre for a piece of rock. It’s an example. Of limitless amounts of everything that we never could, never can or will be able to access. If you don’t know why it was there (and I use the past tense because to all intents and purposes it doesn’t now exist for us), and you don’t, then simply say “I don’t know’ aka Who Can Know The Mind Of God.

Yes, I’m aware. Does any rational person guarantee results of these prayers? Of course not. Nonetheless, prayer is something so prevalent in humanity that it transcends culture and religion.

That doesn’t tell me if you believe they work. I assume you do, which is my point. Unless you tell me that you don’t believe they work.

Odd that people would be more aware of the problems they personally experience, right?

It’s the amount of people who pray for others is more to the point. A child with a serious brain injury gets thirty odd prayers. How many was it for the dodgy PC? Ten times that?

While you certainly can’t speak for “anyone who has ever existed” (like Jesus of Nazareth), at least we agree that God’s sense of justice, if He exists, is not dependent on anyone’s approval.

I’m pretty certain I do speak for everyone in this case. Unless you can find me someone who thinks an eternity of torment is just punishment for playing with your genitals or bedding the neighbour’s wife.

Categorically incorrect, sir. The categorical mate, the natural juxtaposition of “atheist” is “theist”. Not “Catholic”.
Generic deism or theism have very few boxes to check. I might even argue that they have fewer than atheism.

Catholicism is a form of Christianity, which is a form of Abrahamic monotheism, which is a form of theism. In comparing atheism with Catholicism, you’re arguing about the design of the 4th floor of a house before you’ve even settled on what the first-through-third will look like.

I’m not comparing anything. I’m explaining everything in which you need to believe in order for you to class yourself as a Christian, specifically a Catholic. None of which anyone has come close to rebutting.

 

[minkymurph]

I’ve seen the routine where Obriain relates that story. If I can find it, I’ll put in a link to it (actually just got some tickets to a show he’s doing down here). But it’s tongue in cheek as he tells it. It told for humorous effect. As in: ‘I know this sounds stupid but…’. And it is.

In a comedy performance he would relate it tongue in cheek. The reality on the ground is no matter what he calls himself he will always be perceived by others as an ‘Irish Catholic.’

Do send me the link - I love Daire OBraine, though I’m sure I can find it on YouTube.

To the outsider looking in I can see why they would perceive this as ‘stupid.’

To the outsider looking in I can see it appears stupid - bizarre, but people are extremely sensitive to what they perceive as an ‘attack’ for want of a better phrase on what they perceive as their identity. Our identity is our very self, everything about us. If someone attempts to strip elements of that away subtly or otherwise, we tend to become defensive.

My wife classed herself as a Christian for years – she’d always tick that box when filling in a form. Whenever I questioned her about the fact that she didn’t believe in God, she always used to say that she was brought up a Christian.

We have equal opportunities monitoring forms here. They used to have Catholic, Protestant, Other boxes - everything not Catholic or Protestant essentially gets lumped together. Now they have phrases like, ‘I am a member of the Catholic/Protestant community.’ I also discovered that even if you tick, ‘other,’ the powers that be categorize you as Protestant or Catholic based on what school you went to and where you were brought up.

My husband always ticks other. He doesn’t drink tea or coffee - simply because he doesn’t like tea or coffee. In his workplace they had a tea trolley and he made an off the cuff remark that served as a catalyst to a whole chain of events. He said he didn’t drink tea or coffee because he was Mormon and was being discriminated against, and subsequently was visited by the HR manager who apologized if he was offended, the fact they hadn’t considered this, was there any particular soft drink he would like on the trolley and if he wished to discuss the matter further or if he experienced any difficulties at work his door was always open. On the up side they put orange juice on the trolley.

 

[minkymurph]

It should be. I always accept that if someone says they are Catholic then they believe in God, attend mass and pray etc. If they don’t then they ain’t.

What should be and what is are often two very different things. We have to deal with the world the way it is and not how we would like it to be. We can of course try to change things, but changing perceptions of identity proves next to impossible. I belong to a French group in Belfast. I can learn French, I can move to France embrace French culture and integrate, and could even in time become a French citizen - but I would always be perceived by the ‘real’ French as Irish. That said, much as love all things French I wouldn’t have it any other way because of how I see myself.

That said, things do change but it’s gradual. My children’s sense of identity is significantly different to mine. They would concur with you in that if you don’t do anything ‘Catholic’ (mass, pray) you’re not Catholic. Their friends are mostly ‘areligious’ a mix of nationalities, they prefer soccer to GAA, and feel the need to learn Irish. Being honest I feel disappointed in that the sense of identity I would have chosen for them has been eroded - but times change, and it’s time for change.

Identity is a complicated matter. We love watching the Six Nations and my eldest son decided to support England as no one likes them and he feels sorry for them. We tease him but it’s not a problem. He describes himself as ‘Northern Irish,’ Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
But OK - time for change and he’s entitled to, but if when he starts work he refuses to join a trade union, votes unionist or even worse - Conservative

That’s it - he’s a traitor.

 

[Bradski]

What should be and what is are often two very different things. We have to deal with the world the way it is and not how we would like it to be. We can of course try to change things, but changing perceptions of identity proves next to impossible. I belong to a French group in Belfast. I can learn French, I can move to France embrace French culture and integrate, and could even in time become a French citizen - but I would always be perceived by the ‘real’ French as Irish. That said, much as love all things French I wouldn’t have it any other way because of how I see myself.

That said, things do change but it’s gradual. My children’s sense of identity is significantly different to mine. They would concur with you in that if you don’t do anything ‘Catholic’ (mass, pray) you’re not Catholic. Their friends are mostly ‘areligious’ a mix of nationalities, they prefer soccer to GAA, and feel the need to learn Irish. Being honest I feel disappointed in that the sense of identity I would have chosen for them has been eroded - but times change, and it’s time for change.

Identity is a complicated matter. We love watching the Six Nations and my eldest son decided to support England as no one likes them and he feels sorry for them. We tease him but it’s not a problem. He describes himself as ‘Northern Irish,’ Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
But OK - time for change and he’s entitled to, but if when he starts work he refuses to join a trade union, votes unionist or even worse - Conservative

That’s it - he’s a traitor.

Hell, if my kids even joked about supporting England then…well, being Welsh heritage and Aussie by birth, it’s not likely to happen. And when Wales plays Australia, people think I’m bound to win. But I see it as a guaranteed loss. And thanks to the Irish for preventing England getting that reord.

But my kids are areligious as well. You couldn’t call them atheist any more than you’d call them aphilatelists. It’s all changing.

And a Dara link: patheos.com/blogs/laughingindisbelief/2015/07/dara-o-briain-talks-science-and-being-a-catholic-atheist/

 

[Vonsalza]

Which is not what we are talking about. It’s Christianity we are talking about, not some feel-good tree-hugging version of Mother Nature as Goddess of Creation.

If you’re simply arguing against Christianity, good luck. “Thanks” to the protestant reformation, there are more flavors of the faith than there are of ice-cream - of which Catholicism is just one. Bigger than all the rest combined, sure. But just one.

But I’d argue that we were also talking about atheism. I would imagine that the rationalist in you would agree that “atheism and Christianity” is a false dichotomy. No reason your personal understanding of Catholicism gets to be the only one up for critique.

Exactly my point. Good luck on finding anyone on this forum who agrees with it.

I don’t count? And do you have the faith to believe I’m truly unique in this regard?

…If you don’t know why it was there…, then simply say “I don’t know’ aka Who Can Know The Mind Of God.

I believe I did just that, just using different words. It would be pedantic to insist I use exactly your phrasing, I’d hope you agree.

That doesn’t tell me if you believe they work.

Sometimes prayer does, often times it doesn’t. I’m not so concerned with whether prayer “works”, I think it’s a beneficial practice independent of the outcome - as do all the other praying religious that aren’t Christian.

It’s the amount of people who pray for others is more to the point. A child with a serious brain injury gets thirty odd prayers. How many was it for the dodgy PC? Ten times that?

Respectfully, what conclusion regarding “greater prayer” do you think you can possibly glean from that observation, even if it were true? I can imagine a few, “complete” with rebuttals.

I’m pretty certain I do speak for everyone in this case.

Zeig Heil!
Of course you don’t. I generally respect your obvious intellect, but then you say something like that…

I’m not comparing anything. I’m explaining everything in which you need to believe in order for you to class yourself as a Christian, specifically a Catholic. None of which anyone has come close to rebutting.

You either haven’t made any valid and sound arguments to rebut, or you don’t acknowledge the critiques of the validity or soundness of your arguments.
“I think God is unfair!” is not an argument. “I don’t like how the religious distribute their prayer!” is not an argument. “You don’t know the purpose of the extra-galactic rock!” is not an argument.

 

[Bradski]

If you’re simply arguing against Christianity, good luck. “Thanks” to the protestant reformation, there are more flavors of the faith than there are of ice-cream - of which Catholicism is just one. Bigger than all the rest combined, sure. But just one.

I’m not arguing against Christianity. I am pointing out what is required to be a Christian. And yes, there are slightly different flavours, but ALL of them require more than a simple belief in a creator. There are many more boxes to be ticked. The clue is actually in the name. It’s not Creatian. There may be some things specific to Catholicism but that doesn’t change the point I am making in any way.

I am using what is required by Catholics to be a good Catholic Christian because I am on a Catholic forum. My point would be exactly the same, with some variation in the requirements, if I was on a Mormon or a Jewish forum.

No reason your personal understanding of Catholicism gets to be the only one up for critique.

See above.

I don’t count? And do you have the faith to believe I’m truly unique in this regard?

If you don’t believe that you need to accept that God is omniscient and omnipotent to be a Christian, then you are the first one I have come across in very many years on a number of forums. And it will be necessary for me to start another thread to discuss it. Please confirm one way or the other.

Sometimes prayer does, often times it doesn’t. I’m not so concerned with whether prayer “works”, I think it’s a beneficial practice independent of the outcome - as do all the other praying religious that aren’t Christian.

Again, we can include that in the prospective thread. Because you will be the only Christian I have known who doesn’t expect a personal hearing from God via prayer. There is a reason that God is described as a ‘personal God’. If he wasn’t, then we are back to deism. And please note that I am not suggesting that all prayers are answered.

Respectfully, what conclusion regarding “greater prayer” do you think you can possibly glean from that observation, even if it were true? I can imagine a few, “complete” with rebuttals.

It certainly is true. You can simply check the prayer section of this forum. I have no argument that follows from that that is applicable to this discussion. Treat it as an interesting detour.

Of course you don’t. I generally respect your obvious intellect, but then you say something like that…

It is guaranteed. Although perhaps I should have added a rider (which I thought would have been assumed in the first instance): No SANE person has a sense of justice that would demand an eternity of punishment for masturbation or adultery.

You either haven’t made any valid and sound arguments to rebut, or you don’t acknowledge the critiques of the validity or soundness of your arguments. “I think God is unfair!” is not an argument. “I don’t like how the religious distribute their prayer!” is not an argument. “You don’t know the purpose of the extra-galactic rock!” is not an argument.

Deflection. The argument is simply that a belief in a creator is not enough in itself to make one a Christian. To refute that, you have to deny almost everything that defines what a Christian is.

 

[minkymurph]

Hell, if my kids even joked about supporting England then…well, being Welsh heritage and Aussie by birth, it’s not likely to happen. And when Wales plays Australia, people think I’m bound to win. But I see it as a guaranteed loss. And thanks to the Irish for preventing England getting that reord.

It was our pleasure.

But my kids are areligious as well. You couldn’t call them atheist any more than you’d call them aphilatelists. It’s all changing.

There has been a big change in identities and concepts of ‘self’ in many regards. I recently listened to a radio broadcast in which it was stated young women today tend not to describe themselves as ‘feminist.’ The reason is they don’t feel they need to. Young men today have a more positive attitude towards women. This goes to my ‘threat’ theory in that we become more radical when we feel ‘threatened.’ Of course it’s not actually my theory as such. I describe myself as a ‘borrower.’ I would further argue we are all essentially ‘borrowers’ in that everything we think and believe does not in fact originate with us. It has all been said before by someone else somewhere, and we are merely agreeing.

Bringing it back to ‘evidence,’ I am not persuaded ‘no evidence’ is in fact the real reason in rejecting the existence of gods or God and religion, any more than I am persuaded concrete evidence is real reason for believing in gods, God and affiliating with a religion.

If you believe something is true, you don’t need to prove it to yourself and have no need of evidence. The same can be said where one believes something is false. It is frequently the case evidence is examined subsequent to the decision has been taken to believe or not believe. It is rare to find someone who has considered the existence of God from a completely neutral objective original position.

The circumstance in which we are likely to be completely neutral and objective is where what is true is irrelevant to us, or the outcome of the endeavour doesn’t really matter. We all like to think we can critically evaluate evidence objectively and from a neutral position, but in reality we can’t, because the formation of our identity began prior to our even being born, and is subsequently reinforced throughout our lives by our families the community in which we live, and society as a whole. Thus, consideration of evidence is immediately subject to bias.

cont. in next post

 

[minkymurph]

An objective evaluation of evidence cannot be produced from an original entrenched position. I regularly keep up with world affairs listening to the radio when driving. Yesterday the spectre of Brexit was under discussion in terms of special status for Northern Ireland and a fluid border with the Republic. It was said Northern Ireland could re-enter the European Union if there was a reunification of Ireland. One man said he would sleep on Black Mountain with a duvet over him before he would go into a united Ireland. For unionists, if there was any amount of irrevocable evidence a united Ireland would be the best thing that ever happened they would still be against it. The same can be said in regard to Nationalists concerning union with Britain. Thus, it’s not about evidence. It’s essentially about identity, in that constitutional arrangements significantly impact on identity and sense of self.

Returning to my statement in the previous post, I am not persuaded ‘no evidence’ is in fact the real reason in rejecting the existence of gods or God and religion, any more than I am persuaded concrete evidence is real reason for believing in gods, God and affiliating with a religion. For the believer to reject God and the religion would in effect overturn their identity. The same principle can be applied to the non-believer. Their respective positions are also entrenched in that it is frequently the case they have made up their mind prior to consideration of any evidence, and subsequently seek to establish evidence that validates what we already think.

If our position is entrenched it’s entrenched, but where we hold an entrenched position it cannot legitimately be argued this is a result of ‘evidence.’ Many other significant factors are at work. Nor can it legitimately be argued alternatives to the entrenched position that could be drawn from the same evidence are automatically less valid. We cannot completely overcome our respective bias, but the first step to achieving greater objectivity in critically evaluating evidence is to recognize it’s existence, as recognizing it enables us to compensate for it to an extent.

For those who have read the lengthy reply I express my appreciation.

In conclusion, I am not persuaded ‘lack of evidence’ is the actual reason for non belief in gods, God and religion. People by and large don’t ‘become something’ for want of a better phrase and adopt a term that in effect expresses their identity and who they are on the ground there is insufficient evidence they should be anything else. Something more major serves as a catalyst. The reason I say this is I have always found it to frequently be the case rejection of organized religion is the precursor to examining the evidence, and that precursor is the real reason.

Preparing for the onslaught :slapfight:

 

[Bradski]

But why would one reject religion unless one didn’t think that it represented something that wasn’t true?

Certainly we often start with a position that was chosen for us. Either by choice, such as nominating your kid as a Catholic child or by accident, such as being born south of a border rather than north.

But like scientists who spend an inordinate amount of time looking for reasons why their theory is wrong, we should be questioning our own beliefs on a constant basis. Well, no - not constantly, but with sufficient vigour any time we are presented with new evidence (it’s hardly worth rejecting the same evidence time and time again).

Unquestionably accepting the staus quo drives me up the wall. I’m actually having a frustrating time in work at the moment because the attitude of some people who are in a position to call some of the shots is: ‘we’ve always done it this way, so we’re not going to change’.

And the concept of being a traitor escapes me completely. You always have to support your country even if you think it’s in the wrong just because you happened to be born that side of an arbitrarily drawn line on a map?

If I had one fortune cookie aphorism to pass on to me kids, it would be: Question Everything.

 

[minkymurph]

But why would one reject religion unless one didn’t think that it represented something that wasn’t true?

They wouldn’t - but something initiates the process of thinking it isn’t true.

Perhaps I am over complicating things. Perhaps it is the case for some they reach a certain age and simply think, ‘I don’t buy this anymore,’ but then to actually start looking for evidence it is not true and articulating those arguments to others takes it to another level.

Certainly we often start with a position that was chosen for us. Either by choice, such as nominating your kid as a Catholic child or by accident, such as being born south of a border rather than north.

But like scientists who spend an inordinate amount of time looking for reasons why their theory is wrong, we should be questioning our own beliefs on a constant basis. Well, no - not constantly, but with sufficient vigour any time we are presented with new evidence (it’s hardly worth rejecting the same evidence time and time again).

I think that’s natural - that at some point in our lives we start to question many things, and when faced with new evidence question what we previously thought.

No it’s not worth rejecting the same evidence time and time again, unless evidence emerges that sheds new light on it.

Unquestionably accepting the staus quo drives me up the wall. I’m actually having a frustrating time in work at the moment because the attitude of some people who are in a position to call some of the shots is: ‘we’ve always done it this way, so we’re not going to change’.

What did I say about the entrenched position? Are you sure you live in Australia and not Northern Ireland?

And the concept of being a traitor escapes me completely. You always have to support your country even if you think it’s in the wrong just because you happened to be born that side of an arbitrarily drawn line on a map?

That’s kind of what happened when they partitioned Ireland. Here is line - you are now this, you are now that, and because of this line and you are now this and you are now that, must think and do this and that.

If I had one fortune cookie aphorism to pass on to me kids, it would be: Question Everything.

Yes, but sooner or later you’ve got to make up your mind.

My fortune cookie would be - Be happy.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m not arguing against Christianity. I am pointing out what is required to be a Christian.

Then there’s only one box to check: Do you affirm the deity of Jesus of Nazareth?

I’m quite confident there’s a flavor of Christianity that doesn’t require virtually any other box you’d like to demand as requisite…

If you don’t believe that you need to accept that God is omniscient and omnipotent to be a Christian…

Scope creep and I simply won’t allow that. You were discussing specifically God’s role as mechanical creator. Open Theist Christians believe in it while denying perfect omniscience. Christians of many stripes question God’s omnipotence on the basis of the existence of evil yet still think he made the physical universe.
So as to those beliefs being requisite to being included in the broader continuum of “Christian”, you’re rebutted on both counts.

Because you will be the only Christian I have known who doesn’t expect a personal hearing from God via prayer.

You should probably go out and meet more Christians then.

Treat it as an interesting detour.

“Red herring” it is, then.

No SANE person has a sense of justice that would demand an eternity of punishment for masturbation or adultery.

And then there’s your “No True Scotsman” as well as a “Reductionist” fallacy.
I’m sure that you’re aware Catholics adhere to an idea of purgatory where one completes their glorification (sorry to all for the protestant term, I don’t know better) so that they may enter heaven without the stain of sin.

Deflection. The argument is simply that a belief in a creator is not enough in itself to make one a Christian. To refute that, you have to deny almost everything that defines what a Christian is.

No deflection. You’ve just failed to make an argument free from invalidity (obviously) or questionably sound premises. You don’t get to be right by default, sir. No one does except for those that advocate null hypotheses (like the classically agnostic).

As to defying “everything that defines what a Christian is”, there’s really one thing. The belief in the supernatural Christ. Conflating “Catholic” and “Christian” is yet another fallacy of false equivalency. One you commit repeatedly.

 

[Bradski]

Then there’s only one box to check: Do you affirm the deity of Jesus of Nazareth?

Is that all? So if someone thinks that this universe was created by a toaster malfunction in a parallel dimension and that Jesus is the son of a god who spends his time watching reruns of Friends in a bedsit in Poughkeepsie and that when we die we get reincarnated as frogs, then…that’s it. He has ticked that one box.

But of course, that’s not what you meant. You meant that there are, obviously, a few minor and incidental details that need to be accepted as being true as well. You can’t just make this stuff up. They’re listed in the posts above. And the one box to be ticked actually says ‘All Of The Above’.

 

[Vonsalza]

Is that all? So if someone thinks that this universe was created by a toaster malfunction in a parallel dimension and that Jesus is the son of a god who spends his time watching reruns of Friends in a bedsit in Poughkeepsie and that when we die we get reincarnated as frogs, then…that’s it. He has ticked that one box.

But of course, that’s not what you meant. You meant that there are, obviously, a few minor and incidental details that need to be accepted as being true as well. You can’t just make this stuff up. They’re listed in the posts above. And the one box to be ticked actually says ‘All Of The Above’.

Apparently the enormity of the diversity found in the contemporary Christian “landscape” is something with which you have little exposure.

As one of several “for instances”, there’s a Christian Unitarian “church” in a city up the road from mine where the prime emphasis is on Christ’s Beatitudes applied to the wider world. They make no strict dogmatic claims, (as 100% of the members I have personally met are very progressive) especially on the origins of the Earth or humanity. I don’t think they even believe in hell. Very “kum-baya”, health & wealth gospel.

As “creation” is a non-issue, adherents are free to believe anything they want on the matter - including the cod-swallop you fantasized above.

This congregation is not unique. Not even close. Some would argue that this is a direction such popular Christian evangelists like Joel Osteen are headed. Low on doctrine, high on “feels”.

---

Just to drive the point home - What does or does not make a generic “Christian” is an incredibly short list and it can vary wildly based on who you get it from.

This is the fundamental reason your personal assertions on what is “required belief” in order to be a Christian are preposterous.

Your follow-up critiques of your self-provided “requirements” are, therefore quintessential straw-men.

I have to say, it appears you’ve run the table on logical fallacies in your last few posts. No doubt, however, you still consider yourself the more rational party.

 

[Bradski]

Just to drive the point home - What does or does not make a generic “Christian” is an incredibly short list and it can vary wildly based on who you get it from.

A list, you say.

And it’s at that point that we find that it’s not just a creator in which you would like me to believe.

No, it’s not just a belief in a vague amorphous creator that’s required. There is, as you say, a list of things. Some of which you find difficulty in agreeing with. Some of which are the most basic attributes of almost all Christians who are or who have ever lived. But for you to agree to any one of them would prove my point that simply accepting something (not necessarily the Abrahamic God) is not enough to be classed as a Christian. Hence the attempt to divert attention to the turtles-all-the-way-down, tin-foil-hat-wearing, von Daniken supporters up the road who call themselves progressive Christians. Way to go aligning yourself with those guys. Do they have a forum I can call into to discuss my toaster creation theory?

Although, you might have noticed that you have already added to the list the required fact the creator is a personal God (why else send Christ to suffer for our sins) and that He had a son (unless you want to suggest that he was just a prophet or maybe ‘a very naughty boy’ to quote Terry Jones). And I’d suggest that if you thought the resurrection was a figment of someone’s imagination, you’d better add that as well.

And to conclude, I’m not interested in what exactly any given self-described Christian believes or not. But I can state quite emphatically that it is more than a simple deistic belief in a creator. And the fact that you describe the list of beliefs (‘a number of connected items’) as wildly variable doesn’t refute the point I was making. In fact, it just makes the list a whole lot longer…

 

[tonyrey]

Is that all? So if someone thinks that this universe was created by a toaster malfunction in a parallel dimension and that Jesus is the son of a god who spends his time watching reruns of Friends in a bedsit in Poughkeepsie and that when we die we get reincarnated as frogs, then…that’s it. He has ticked that one box.

But of course, that’s not what you meant. You meant that there are, obviously, a few minor and incidental details that need to be accepted as being true as well. You can’t just make this stuff up. They’re listed in the posts above. And the one box to be ticked actually says ‘All Of The Above’.

Ironic comments about what Christians could possibly believe about Jesus violate the forum rule of respect…