I believe there is God, I believe Christ was God, persuade me of the benefits of renouncing this belief

[minkymurph]

I believe there is a God, I believe Christ was God.

Persuade me to renounce this belief.

 

[tonyrey]

Wouldn’t it be far better to have no obligations whatsoever and be absolutely free to do what we like?

 

[PRmerger]

You should renounce these beliefs because you should** think for yourself**.

Except…

Do you want to step into an elevator that was designed by an engineer who didn’t follow the rules and decided to think for herself? * “I’ve decided that the good old tried and true quadratic formula is just nonsense. I’m going to make up my own math facts when I design this elevator! #thinkingformyself”*

Do you want your son to flunk spelling because he decides to** think for himself** and spell atheist: ATHIEST. And spell cocoa butter like this: EQREWI K;IJ883^%

The atheist parent can march up to the teacher and demand that her son be given an A+ on his spelling because, well, he** thinks for himself **and that’s how he’s decided he’s going to spell things.

 

[PRmerger]

You should renounce your beliefs because of this: don’t believe anything because you trust in their authority. You should believe in things ONLY after you’ve seen it for yourself.

Except…

that means that you can never name all the capitals of the world because…the ONLY way you know, that, say, Manila is the capital of the Philippines is because you trust your 4th grade teacher, Mrs. Caltigarone, when she taught you this. And you ONLY know Nairobi is the capital of Kenya because you trust in the authority of the map you saw. You’ve never seen it for yourself.

And that means that you can’t vaccinate your children because the ONLY way you know that immunizations are effective is because you trust the reports from the ACIP. You’ve never actually seen the studies, first hand…

And that means you can’t get on a plane because you’re just staking your trust in the airlines that they’ve actually vetted the pilot. You should really investigate the pilot to make sure she actually has her license, and didn’t cheat on it, and didn’t cheat on any of her undergraduate physics courses…

 

[minkymurph]

Wouldn’t it be far better to have no obligations whatsoever and be absolutely free to do what we like?

Wow - this is such a brilliant response.

 

[minkymurph]

You should renounce your beliefs because of this: don’t believe anything because you trust in their authority. You should believe in things ONLY after you’ve seen it for yourself.

Except…

that means that you can never name all the capitals of the world because…the ONLY way you know, that, say, Manila is the capital of the Philippines is because you trust your 4th grade teacher, Mrs. Caltigarone, when she taught you this. And you ONLY know Nairobi is the capital of Kenya because you trust in the authority of the map you saw. You’ve never seen it for yourself.

And that means that you can’t vaccinate your children because the ONLY way you know that immunizations are effective is because you trust the reports from the ACIP. You’ve never actually seen the studies, first hand…

And that means you can’t get on a plane because you’re just staking your trust in the airlines that they’ve actually vetted the pilot. You should really investigate the pilot to make sure she actually has her license, and didn’t cheat on it, and didn’t cheat on any of her undergraduate physics courses…

Don’t you buy the argument we should not believe in God because science tells us there is proof?

Do you not buy the argument if there is no ‘evidence’ - whatever evidence is - don’t believe?

Do you no think we should forsake intuition, experience of life, and that unreliable gut feeling in preference of proof?

 

[PRmerger]

Don’t you buy the argument we should not believe in God because science tells us there is proof?

No, I don’t buy that argument.

Science isn’t equipped to make any conclusions about the supernatural.

Its domain remains within the natural world.

Imagine if you’re searching on a beach for diamonds. Instead of using your eyes, you use a metal detector. Your metal detector can’t detect diamonds, so you’re using the wrong implement. And saying, “I searched this entire beach with my metal detector and found not a single diamond! Therefore, there are no diamonds on this beach!” is a woefully misapplied conclusion.

Do you not buy the argument if there is no ‘evidence’ - whatever evidence is - don’t believe?

No, I don’t buy that.

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

There is no evidence for the existence of aliens in the universe. However, I would never say, “Therefore, aliens don’t exist”.

I simply remain agnostic about their existence.

Do you no think we should forsake intuition, experience of life, and that unreliable gut feeling in preference of proof?

I think the ubiquitous Catholic BOTH/AND should be at play here.

No need to make things either/or when both/and works just fine.

 

[Bradski]

I believe there is a God, I believe Christ was God.

Persuade me to renounce this belief.

Why would anyone want to do that? I could certainly give you reasons why I don’t believe there is a God and I might suggest that those reasons are not specific to me - that they would apply to you as well.

But as long as we maintain a separation between the religious and the secular (or church and government to put it another way), then freedom of religion is extremely important.

I may not agree with what you believe, but I will fight etc etc.

Incidentally, you may get an argument that you don’t actually need your beliefs, that you are a good person and a Christian not a good person because you are a Christian. But if belief gives you comfort in a cold world and hope in what seems often to be a hopeless one, then stick with it.

 

[PRmerger]

Incidentally, you may get an argument that you don’t actually need your beliefs, that you are a good person and a Christian not a good person because you are a Christian. But if belief gives you comfort in a cold world and hope in what seems often to be a hopeless one, then stick with it.

Nope. You don’t believe this.

You wouldn’t want your adult daughter to believe in Santa Claus* even if this belief made her happy and a very good person.

Why?

Because there is no such thing as Santa.

You want her beliefs to be grounded in truth.

Not believe what she wants as long as it makes her happy and “gives her comfort in a cold world”.

*A jolly fat elf who lives in the North Pole and delivers presents to all good little boys and girls on December 24…

NOT: St. Nicholas.
NOT: “He lives in the hearts and spirits of all the good parents around the globe!”

 

[MaryT777]

PRMerger,

I like your posting style on this thread. Great examples.

God Bless,

Mary.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

Incorrect. Absence of PROOF is not a PROOF of absence.
Absence of EVIDENCE is a very strong EVIDENCE of absence.
No one has ever seen any evidence for talking elephants with blue-white polka dot pattern on their hide. That is NOT a proof that such animals do not exist. However, it is a very strong evidence that they do not exist. You confused the difference between “proof” and “evidence”. Maybe due to ignorance…

Science isn’t equipped to make any conclusions about the supernatural.

That would only be correct if there would be absolutely no connection between the two realms. But all the Christians believe that there is. That is why they keep on praying for some very specific outcomes (intercessory prayers, not meditative prayers). Of course they try to hedge their bets, and add the “disclaimer”: “if it be try will”. When their wishes go unfulfilled, they use the cop-out: It was not God’s will. If their wish happens to be fulfilled, they consider it a positive outcome which confirms their hypothesis.

If they would be honest, they would try to ask for the same result, and do it twice. Once pray to God, and then also say the same prayer to their empty beer bottle. And repeat it a million times - or collect a million believers and form a prayer circle. I am willing to bet that there will be no significant difference between the results of the two attempts. God is just as likely to fulfill your petitions as the beer bottle.

It is easy to find supportive evidence for your hypothesis, if you chalk up the positive outcome under the column: “yes, prayer works”, and simply disregard the negative outcomes.

I believe there is a God, I believe Christ was God.
Persuade me to renounce this belief.

I will join Bradski. If your belief gives you comfort, why should anyone wish to persuade you to renounce your belief? As long as your belief does not hurt others, and it serves as a security blanket, it is not something to mess with.

If, however, you are actually interested in examining your beliefs based upon ACTUAL evidence, that is a whole different ballgame. But in this (hypothetical) case you must be willing to consider both outcomes, the ones which support your beliefs and the ones which contradict them. Sound like an interesting experiment. I am willing to participate in the reverse experiment. Any and all actual evidence will be contemplated, examined, and if I find them convincing they will be accepted. Cross my heart and hope to die… (but not soon )

 

[venite_adoremus]

Christ WAS God? But no longer is? Sorry. You’re wrong. That’s the extent of my argument.

Jesus Christ, yesterday, today, and forever. [SIGN][/SIGN]

 

[PRmerger]

Christ WAS God? But no longer is? Sorry. You’re wrong. That’s the extent of my argument.

Jesus Christ, yesterday, today, and forever. [SIGN][/SIGN]

Don’t read too much into the tense.

Try to see the bigger point being presented.

 

[Bradski]

Nope. You don’t believe this. You wouldn’t want your adult daughter to believe in Santa Claus* even if this belief made her happy and a very good person.

As I have said, I do believe that people do not need religion, with the exceptions that I mentioned. And yes, I do think that believing in something one knows to be wrong is not in one’s best advantage, although that is not the situation here.

However, my mother’s life, for example, would have been a lot poorer if she had lost her belief. The sense of community her church gave her, the comfort she got from her faith, it was all good.

And I think that you are doing a disservice to people’s beliefs, not least your own, by comparing them to children’s stories. Yes, I would class a belief in fairy stories with a fundamentalist’s view of Christianity – talking snakes and arks (although there seems to be a general reluctance for people on this forum to accept that there are indeed Catholics to whom this is applicable).

And if my daughter, or anyone else close to me, was deluded enough to think that someone did actually built a boat with umpteen animals on board, then I would at that point be seriously concerned.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I believe there is a God, I believe Christ was God.

Persuade me to renounce this belief.

I don’t think you should renounce your “belief”, but rather you should renounce any conclusions about it being certain or ‘knowledge’ unless you have evidence/logic to back it up. A lot of Christianity is based on “faith” and subjectivity. In my experience, those who proclaim to know God’s will are usually swayed by their own will because what counts as an “answered prayer” to them is no more than a feeling or an event that just happened to go their way. Unless God gives an objective sign, then you don’t know for sure that it was God. The same stands for the biblical writers!

Btw, I should also mention that coming to the positive atheist side is not necessarily any better, because then you’re just trading in one set of dogma for another.

 

[PRmerger]

As I have said, I do believe that people do not need religion, with the exceptions that I mentioned. And yes, I do think that believing in something one knows to be wrong is not in one’s best advantage, although that is not the situation here.

However, my mother’s life, for example, would have been a lot poorer if she had lost her belief. The sense of community her church gave her, the comfort she got from her faith, it was all good.

Again, you want your loved one’s beliefs to be founded upon truth.

If your adult daughter received comfort and a sense of community from folks who encouraged her to believe in Santa Claus, I’m 100% certain you would NOT say, “That’s fine, honey. You keep going to your Santa Service, if that’s what makes you happy”.

And I think that you are doing a disservice to people’s beliefs, not least your own, by comparing them to children’s stories.

How so? If it makes the point that refutes yours–you really DON’T want your loved ones to believe something “even if it gives her comfort”–then making an allusion to a fairy tale is quite effective.

Yes, I would class a belief in fairy stories with a fundamentalist’s view of Christianity – talking snakes and arks (although there seems to be a general reluctance for people on this forum to accept that there are indeed Catholics to whom this is applicable).

And that’s why you atheists keep getting accused of creating straw men.

Why don’t you offer your objections to Catholicism, rather than what some Catholics believe?

You could just as well present the case that there are Catholics who believe abortion should be a sacrament, but we’d all be “So what? The Church doesn’t teach that abortion is a sacrament so it’s an inutile appeal”.

And if my daughter, or anyone else close to me, was deluded enough to think that someone did actually built a boat with umpteen animals on board, then I would at that point be seriously concerned.

So thank you for making my point.

Truth matters.

And even if your daughter’s belief in Santa Claus, or a talking snake, gave her comfort…if it ain’t true, you don’t want her going down that route.

So, QED.

Best to retract your earlier statement. Or at least amend it.

. But if belief gives you comfort in a cold world and hope in what seems often to be a hopeless one, then stick with it.

Actually, nevermind. This statement here is already a retraction, so …:tiphat:

And if my daughter, or anyone else close to me, was deluded enough to think that someone did actually built a boat with umpteen animals on board, then I would at that point be seriously concerned.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think you should renounce your “belief”, but rather you should renounce any conclusions about it being certain or ‘knowledge’ unless you have evidence/logic to back it up.

No Christian should believe without evidence/logic to back it up.

A lot of Christianity is based on “faith” and subjectivity.

So are all of your beliefs, AB…unless you check out the engineer of every elevator you step into? And look at the building specs before you cross a bridge?

And unless you’ve actually been to Astana, you accept that it’s the capital of Kazakstan based on Google, or on the plastic globe you own. (And even if you’ve been there, have you actually been to the government offices and observed the government officials at work? No? Then you accept on faith that Astana is the capital)

In my experience, those who proclaim to know God’s will are usually swayed by their own will because what counts as an “answered prayer” to them is no more than a feeling or an event that just happened to go their way. Unless God gives an objective sign, then you don’t know for sure that it was God. The same stands for the biblical writers!

Can you give an example of this in the Bible?

And how would this prove that there is no God or that Christ wasn’t God?

 

[PRmerger]

And if my daughter, or anyone else close to me, was deluded enough to think that someone did actually built a boat with umpteen animals on board, then I would at that point be seriously concerned.

And just so we’re clear–you were just using the above as shorthand for a 600 year old man building a boat that saved all of the planet’s wildlife, right?

For surely you don’t think it’s impossible for a man in the ancient near east to have simply built “a boat with umpteen animals on board”, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

A lot of Christianity is based on “faith” and subjectivity.

Also, I am curious as to how you intend to pursue a long term romance, AB?

Will you use empirical data to determine whether the woman you’re attracted to is a suitable match? (See Don Tillman in The Rosie Project who has no room for “faith and subjectivity”)

Or will you have some faith in her, and in your future together, and make a subjective decision about your relationship?

Of course, I recommend you use some data and objectivity as well when it comes to making this very, very important decision.

Both/And, AB. Both/And is almost always the way to go. Faith AND Reason. Objectivity AND Subjectivity.

 

[Faithdancer]

Just want to point out, and sorry if someone else already has, but Christ is God. Present tense. Eternal tense, as it were.
I’m sure minkymurph knows this. Just don’t want anyone else getting the wrong idea.