Why do religious people beleive the author of the scripts but ?

[Valjean]

re: Your final point, you may be right, would it help you (and also me, to escape my delusion) to post here say, 60 prophecies fulfilled in Israel since 1948 CE, and several hundred of more prophecies of the Christ?

And a dozen other religions could do the same.
It helps when the prophecies are non-specific, or very broad, or prophecy common political events or common occurrences.
People are apophenic. We're born pattern seekers. We see patterns and connections in all sorts of things where their reality is only in our own imaginations.

 

[Sheldon]

re: Your final point, you may be right, would it help you (and also me, to escape my delusion) to post here say, 60 prophecies fulfilled in Israel since 1948 CE, and several hundred of more prophecies of the Christ?

I don't believe I have claimed you are deluded. I have already explained that prophecies involve 3 distinct claims:

1. That someone has made a divinely inspired prediction.
2. That a divinely inspired prediction has come true at a later date in a manner that cannot in any way have occurred naturally.
3. That this could only have happened therefore by the intervention or inspirational revelation of a divine agent.

Pointing to a claim, then pointing to a claim that says it came true, then calling it prophecy, even were the first two claims sufficiently well evidenced, would remain an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. As now knowing a natural cause for something does not rationally justify the assumption the cause was supernatural or divine.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't believe I have claimed you are deluded. I have already explained that prophecies involve 3 distinct claims:

1. That someone has made a divinely inspired prediction.
2. That a divinely inspired prediction has come true at a later date in a manner that cannot in any way have occurred naturally.
3. That this could only have happened therefore by the intervention or inspirational revelation of a divine agent.

Pointing to a claim, then pointing to a claim that says it came true, then calling it prophecy, even were the first two claims sufficiently well evidenced, would remain an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. As now knowing a natural cause for something does not rationally justify the assumption the cause was supernatural or divine.

Unfortunately, I claim that you claim we are both deluded:

1) Gods do not exist

2) 100% of persons' lives are tangibly affected by nonexistent beings

3) People are therefore wholly irrational, ergo, our line of argumentation here is fruitless

 

[BilliardsBall]

And a dozen other religions could do the same.
It helps when the prophecies are non-specific, or very broad, or prophecy common political events or common occurrences.
People are apophenic. We're born pattern seekers. We see patterns and connections in all sorts of things where their reality is only in our own imaginations.

A dozen other religions have 60 prophecies fulfilled in Israel since 1948 CE (to be confirmed in news footage/print)?

Please help me, I'll settle for your choice of three:

Religion 1:

Religion 2:

Religion 3:

 

[Sheldon]

Unfortunately, I claim that you claim we are both deluded:

1) Gods do not exist

2) 100% of persons' lives are tangibly affected by nonexistent beings

3) People are therefore wholly irrational, ergo, our line of argumentation here is fruitless

Well I'm sure you want to believe that as it is the straw man you seem to want to peddle here, however I'd be keen to know how you think you know better than someone else what they think? Don't get me wrong, it's a rare gift.
Your 3 claims are straw men, I haven't and do not make any of those claims, certainly not in the absolute sense you have made them.

Why is it so important to you that I conform to your distorted view of an atheist?

1. I do not believe in any deity or deities, since no one has been able to demonstrate any objective evidence to support the claim.

2. I don't believe that ludicrously made up stat to be true, as I have spoken to many atheists who abandoned their beliefs precisely because that was not true.

"The Clergy Project (TCP) is a non-profit organization based in the United States that provides peer support to current and former religious leaders who no longer have faith."

3. I don't share your conclusion as it is again worded in the form of an absolute.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well I'm sure you want to believe that as it is the straw man you seem to want to peddle here, however I'd be keen to know how you think you know better than someone else what they think? Don't get me wrong, it's a rare gift.
Your 3 claims are straw men, I haven't and do not make any of those claims, certainly not in the absolute sense you have made them.

Why is it so important to you that I conform to your distorted view of an atheist?

1. I do not believe in any deity or deities, since no one has been able to demonstrate any objective evidence to support the claim.

2. I don't believe that ludicrously made up stat to be true, as I have spoken to many atheists who abandoned their beliefs precisely because that was not true.

"The Clergy Project (TCP) is a non-profit organization based in the United States that provides peer support to current and former religious leaders who no longer have faith."

3. I don't share your conclusion as it is again worded in the form of an absolute.

Of course #2 is also true. For example, if you live in the USA, our money, government, invocations, weddings, etc. ad infinitum revolve around nonexistent beings. I wrote that even all atheists are affected by we irrationals.

Occam's tells me which to pick:

1) 98% of people are mainly rational, except for ordering much of their personal, professional, relational, sexual, etc. lives around nonexistent sky gods--otherwise, if they lack evidence for anything, they disbelieve in it

2) 2% of people have either not seen evidence for a god yet or have ignored/glossed over such evidence

Which do YOU pick?

My #3 is an absolute, so is "I've FINISHED, concluding no god exists in the universe, based on my omniscience"