There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[InChrist]

Talk to you when you return. I hope that you have a nice trip.

I did have a nice trip; meeting friends for lunch, going to a shop of local artists and craftspeople, and taking a short hike.

 

[rational experiences]

God s...behaviour groups human past memory current memory. Groups who come back together again.

Is stated as a known pattern of causes.

Humans who were together before re emerge come together again.

So we said groups demonstrate cult behaviour. Using non sane beliefs. Can be very dangerous in human life choice.

So if you lost your mind in the dark ages. DNA returns. Mind is still however missing is that cult advice.

As consciousness is heavenly balanced DNA is by physical sex.

As patterns involves DNA humans express...as does human belief behaviour from DNAs own historic memory.

How a holographic fake heavens memory can take over modern day rational thinking concepts.

Own the biology but not the mind was proven already by the medical healers organisation studier of heavenly mass phenomena.

 

[rational experiences]

So you used to be a Christian and you left the religion; that says it all.

I used to be a Catholic and I left that religion. Then I was a Mormon and I left that religion. Then I was saved by Jesus Christ; a Living Person. It’s one thing to leave a religion, but Jesus is not a religion. I feel the same as Peter must have when he said... Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
(John 6:68)
I can’t imagine leaving One as kind and loving as Christ who gave Himself that I may have eternal life, Who holds the universe together, and Who has the words of eternal life.

I don’t think you only have believers and their claims. You have Jesus Christ Whom you can go to anytime and ask Him directly about His claims or words of eternal life.

First of all a real father is human. Always was. Sexually blood owner for engorged penis for biological sex to be a real father. Any human's father is real first.

You were taught Jesus NOT our father.

 

[rational experiences]

So you used to be a Christian and you left the religion; that says it all.

I used to be a Catholic and I left that religion. Then I was a Mormon and I left that religion. Then I was saved by Jesus Christ; a Living Person. It’s one thing to leave a religion, but Jesus is not a religion. I feel the same as Peter must have when he said... Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
(John 6:68)
I can’t imagine leaving One as kind and loving as Christ who gave Himself that I may have eternal life, Who holds the universe together, and Who has the words of eternal life.

I don’t think you only have believers and their claims. You have Jesus Christ Whom you can go to anytime and ask Him directly about His claims or words of eternal life.

A human by cult group support as typical human behaviour just a word user. Says I know what holds everything together.

I am just a human. I was myself thinking about going shopping and having a nice day. I don't intend on having any hiking walks.

I however can say as an honest human not employed by an agency that a sun is held together. Isn't comparable to a rock planet held together and isn't comparable to any other planet type held together or stars gas and mass not held together.

And know I'm sane.

 

[InChrist]

That is just confirmation bias. Some people got lucky some did not. People often have a bad idea of what counts as evidence. One can never count only observations that supports one's beliefs. If one ignores the observations that go against their beliefs then the positive observations cannot be called evidence.

Well, you are certainly free to your perspective. But everyone has different experiences and may come to different conclusions that you do.

Several years ago I listened to someone talk who had completely rejected the Christian faith he was raised in to become an ardent atheist. He said he would not even open letters from his mom while at college because he knew she would talk about God. So he threw them right into the trash. He was so adamant in his view that there was no God that he pursued a Ph.d in evolutionary biology. But his mom never stopped praying for him...and God did not leave him alone. It took many years of God interrupting his life with experiences, incidents and observations which definitely went against his atheistic and evolutionist beliefs. He did not want to acknowledge God, nevertheless he finally could no longer refuse the evidence God continued to put before him and he came to realize the reality of God’s existence. He became a new creation in Christ and a believer in God at age 41. His mom had no doubt that God answered hers prayers, nor did he.

There’s your bedtime (true) story.
Have a good night.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, you are certainly free to your perspective. But everyone has different experiences and may come to different conclusions that you do.

Several years ago I listened to someone talk who had completely rejected the Christian faith he was raised in to become an ardent atheist. He said he would not even open letters from his mom while at college because he knew she would talk about God. So he threw them right into the trash. He was so adamant in his view that there was no God that he pursued a Ph.d in evolutionary biology. But his mom never stopped praying for him...and God did not leave him alone. It took many years of God interrupting his life with experiences, incidents and observations which definitely went against his atheistic and evolutionist beliefs. He did not want to acknowledge God, nevertheless he finally could no longer refuse the evidence God continued to put before him and he came to realize the reality of God’s existence. He became a new creation in Christ and a believer in God at age 41. His mom had no doubt that God answered hers prayers, nor did he.

There’s your bedtime (true) story.
Have a good night.

Please do not make false statements. It is not from "my perspective" it is from the perspective of those that understand the rules of evidence.

As to your story, if it is true, your friend became an atheist for a very foolish reason. He may not even have been an atheist. He was obviously angry at something and that is never a good reason to decide something one way or another. He may have been "mad at God" which would mean that he was never an atheist at all. One cannot be mad at something that does not exist, and your description is of a Christian that is mad at God.

Very few atheists are made at God and it is an insult to accuse them of that.

I am betting the he never "realized the reality of God's existence" he just got over his "mad".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Logic would tell us that humans cannot walk on water. Right? Yet Jesus walked on water. I don't know what that means to you, but to me it means that God can overturn His own restrictions, sometimes called laws, when He wants to. (P.S. I do not believe that Jesus is God equal to God his Father but that he had God's holy spirit supporting him when he walked on water.)

Yeah, but you are talking about what we share as objective. I am talking about how we think/feel.

 

[samtonga43]

Define what it means to be a cause.
Then prove your claim.

Sorry, Polymath257, I don't take orders. Maybe try again?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I used to be a Catholic and I left that religion. Then I was a Mormon and I left that religion. Then I was saved by Jesus Christ

You must have had some need that only the right flavor of Christianity satisfied. Did you ask yourself why a deity that is said to love you and who wants you to know it if you'll just try didn't appear in the first two tries? Why didn't Jesus save you in those other churches?

You have Jesus Christ Whom you can go to anytime and ask Him directly about His claims or words of eternal life.

Anytime except if you're in a Catholic or Mormon church, right? And a Protestant one in my case.

I'm glad that you finally found what you are looking for, but so have I.

So you used to be a Christian and you left the religion; that says it all.

Yes. I tested its claim, the same one you just made - that its god would come to me if I sought it. I did, but the deity didn't. So, I moved on, and like you, are well satisfied with where I landed - secular humanism.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The argument that Paul and Jesus contradicted one another is based in comparing contradictory scriptures. I realize that the believer doesn't see these, but that isn't relevant to the unbeliever's assessment.

Motivated reasoning - " the phenomenon in cognitive science and social psychology in which emotional biases lead to justifications or decisions based on their desirability rather than an accurate reflection of the evidence." Also called rationalization.

unbelievers that see Paul and Jesus having a different message shows a lack of understanding of the Scriptures and the Gospel.

I see it the other way around. I am perfectly capable of understanding the words I read, and unlike the believer, who sees in those words what he wants to, I do so open-mindedly. The believer sees what his faith-based belief tells him is there, and uses motivated reasoning to explain why up is down and night is day, as he explains to the skeptic that he lacks the spiritual discernment necessary to see that.

But [the Bible]'s not evidence for a deity.

I agree with God on this in Romans: I agree with the Scriptures on the evidence:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭1:18-22‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

You probably know that I consider the scriptures the words of men, not those of a deity, and not authoritative. Isn't that what you would say about the Quranic scriptures? It's what I say about both. So, as with the rest of the Bible, those words are not evidence that they are correct, but only that they were written.

 

[Polymath257]

Sorry, Polymath257, I don't take orders. Maybe try again?

Not an order. I'm just asking you to define your terms and then prove your claim.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I see it the other way around. I am perfectly capable of understanding the words I read, and unlike the believer, who sees in those words what he wants to, I do so open-mindedly. The believer sees what his faith-based belief tells him is there, and uses motivated reasoning to explain why up is down and night is day, as he explains to the skeptic that he lacks the spiritual discernment necessary to see that.





You probably know that I consider the scriptures the words of men, not those of a deity, and not authoritative. Isn't that what you would say about the Quranic scriptures? It's what I say about both. So, as with the rest of the Bible, those words are not evidence that they are correct, but only that they were written.

Well, whether or not you see Scriptures as the words of men or God is important but irrelevant to the question of what was the writer communicating? Was Paul’s message different than Jesus Christ message, did Paul change the message or fulfill God’s plan to bring the Gentiles into the family of faith through the Gospel and make Jew and Gentile One Body in Christ?

 

[Polymath257]

Well, whether or not you see Scriptures as the words of men or God is important but irrelevant to the question of what was the writer communicating? Was Paul’s message different than Jesus Christ message, did Paul change the message or fulfill God’s plan to bring the Gentiles into the family of faith through the Gospel and make Jew and Gentile One Body in Christ?

It is relevant whether it is the words men, with their biases and motivations, or the words of God. And, given what we know, the evidence points to it being written by and for men.

The message depends on the biases and goals of those who wrote the text. Who wrote it? Was it who tradition attributes the writing to? or was it an anonymous person trying to promote their theology (which we know happened a lot in the first and second centuries)? What was their goal? Was it to win a political struggle in their church (many writings of Paul clearly fit this description)? Was it to communicate a coded message about the Roman authorities (like Revelation is known to be)?

Paul changed the message to be delivered to the Romans and changed the requirements (food, circumcision) to make it more palatable to them. He argued based on Greek and Roman philosophy, which is shown in the neo-Platonism of the gospel of John (which is absent in the other gospels).

Jesus clearly saw himself as teaching the Jewish law, which was always insular and exclusionary. Your quotes about Abraham's descendants amazing all the nations is propaganda stating how wonderful those people are, NOT that the gentiles would have that message: they would be ruled, not taught.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Naturalisitc abiogenesis almost certainly occurred, whether on earth or elsewhere followed by panspermia, and likely occurs everywhere that it is possible

That's your religion, not mine. You have faith in something you have read in a book or on the internet. I don't.

I have a religion and faith in something from a book, but you don't?

I noticed that others have commented on your use of the word religion, and I would add faith. It always seems strange to see that from people that actually do have religion and faith. Do you respect those things or not? I'm pretty sure that you're being dismissive here.

There's a woman named Amanda Marcotte, from whom I've collected several quotes, such as this one:

"I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes."

Do you ever look at it like that? Others do. I do.

That's not a deal killer for a creationist. Divine creation has never happened that we know of, either.

It's more plausible than everything from nothing, which is all you have.

You had said that naturalistic abiogenesis has never happened that we know of, as if that were a reason to reject the hypothesis. I was pointing out the inconsistency in your argument, since the creationist's version has also never happened that we know of. I guess that you preferred not to address your double standard, and instead to deflect to a strawman (yes, something from nothing is one hypothesis; did you forget the multiverse hypothesis, or the eternal universe hypothesis).

Besides, we don't expect to see naturalisitic abiogenesis happen except in the laboratory. Why? Because abiogenesis occurs over eons, and probably requires a sterile environment, as other life would be consuming and disturbing the ingredients before they became cells.

Total speculation without a shred of evidence.

As I've said before, you don't rebut. You just dismiss with a wave of hand.

And no, you are incorrect about there being no evidence, but then how would you know? You've never looked. You just keep repeating that you are aware of no evidence as if that would be meaningful to those who have seen the evidence. I gave you a link to an excellent YouTube video from Jack Szostek discussing that evidence, and an offer to discuss it with you if you had any interest in looking it. But you weren't interested, as I predicted when I also commented that most creationists never look. Is that the kind of thinking you'd like to show those with whom you disagree, the kind of thinking that others presume is the foundation for your beliefs? Have you considered that it reinforces their belief that they made the right choice rejecting creationism?

I have come constructively to dozens of apologists to explain to them why their apologetics are counterproductive as I have just done here, but I haven't seen one yet who seems to care. Creationist apologetics are created for people that can't critically assess the claims and arguments. They are effective with people who either already believe and are looking for validation from outside of scripture that their beliefs are on equally firm footing as those of the skeptics and empiricists, or for people on the fence who can be persuaded with specious argument. These arguments are most assuredly not for a venue like this, where you'll encounter people who will find and name the errors of fact (such as there being no evidence for abiogenesis) and logical fallacies in these arguments. What you are seeing here is the inevitable result of that, every time.

So why do apologists do it? Why do you do it? What are you hoping to accomplish, and what do you think you HAVE accomplished?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, Polymath257, I don't take orders. Maybe try again?

Then you just admitted that your claim is worthless. And I see that @Polymath257 already responded.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Paul changed the message to be delivered to the Romans and changed the requirements (food, circumcision) to make it more palatable to them. He argued based on Greek and Roman philosophy, which is shown in the neo-Platonism of the gospel of John (which is absent in the other gospels).

Jesus clearly saw himself as teaching the Jewish law, which was always insular and exclusionary. Your quotes about Abraham's descendants amazing all the nations is propaganda stating how wonderful those people are, NOT that the gentiles would

Totally wrong and a great example of eisegesis and false teaching of the Bible. Unsupported and your interpretation contradicts what Jesus said and taught.
Are people justified by faith or by works of the law? Was Abraham justified by faith or by works of the law?

“And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.”
‭‭Genesis‬ ‭15:6‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
“In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And a voice came to him, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean.” And a voice spoke to him again the second time, “What God has cleansed you must not call common.” This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again. Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him. The word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ—He is Lord of all— that word you know, which was proclaimed throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee after the baptism which John preached: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. And we are witnesses of all things which He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they killed by hanging on a tree. Him God raised up on the third day, and showed Him openly, not to all the people, but to witnesses chosen before by God, even to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. And He commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is He who was ordained by God to be Judge of the living and the dead. To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭10:12-16, 34-48‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[Wildswanderer]

I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes."

So what you are basically saying is you refuse to admit you are following a belief, not an established fact. I have no problem declaring my faith. It's not something that I'm embarrassed about as you want to snidely imply.

 

[Wildswanderer]

As I've said before, you don't rebut. You just dismiss with a wave of hand.

There's nothing to rebut because you haven't provided any evidence that abiogenesis happened... only gone on about how we grow by eating. Totally irrelevant to the topic.

 

[Wildswanderer]

yes, something from nothing is one hypothesis; did you forget the multiverse hypothesis, or the eternal universe hypothesis).

More beliefs not supported by evidence, therefore they are not science.

 

[ppp]

Ok, demonstrate life coming from something that's not alive

I asked if you even know what life is. Do you? Define it.