How did you lose faith in religion? And why is there so many believers out there

[ringo747]

I'm say no evidence exists at all to suggest that either a god exists or doesn't exist. (not that it's possible to prove something doesn't exist which is meant to exist outside of our known universe)

No supporting evidence for a deity exists, no supporting evidence against a deity exists.

No evidence exists either way.

On specific biblical claims evidence can exist for the claim being factual or not - but still none will exist as to if it was set it motion by a god.

IE,

"The great flood"

Even if evidence existed that the whole world was flood (which I don't thinks possible due to the amount of water in the world) - but let's ignore that & pretend it was.

It would only be evidence that a great flood occurred, not that a god existed.

Science isn't compatible with the supernatural, which is what most people are presenting when they talk about a deity.

If you watch debates on these issues then you will realise that premises in arguments can be based on science, history, philosophy etc. The key is evidence that supports premises in arguments, not evidence that will directly confirm the existence of a deity or not.

Of course science isn't compatible with the supernatural, science doesn't answer metaphysical questions.

 

[enkoda]

Which is why it has been mentioned numerous times in this thread that the people who lived back then wouldn't have known much about the size of the earth and "global" could mean something very different to them then than it does to us now.

Exactly. Therefore a global flood probably didn't happen, therefore the story of Noah starts to fall apart at the seams.

This sounds like some form of evolution to me. Are you suggesting evolution is a miracle?

I really hope you are being pedantic here? The trout isn't getting bigger, it's people's inability to recount facts is the crux of my example.

Take for example the Christian doctrine of the resurrection. Some experts have dated the record of this event from an early creed which was written 2-5 years after the event supposedly took place. Can legend develop in that length of time?

I propose to you that Jesus wasn't dead. It is more likely he was either unconscious or semi-comatose. Taking into account the extremely limited medical knowledge at the time, what is more believable?

I'm seeing a statement here that says "miracles are impossible". It is built on the assumption that these events were exaggerated over time. Is there actually any evidence to support this or is it is just your opinion?

I'm saying that there were never any miracles in the first place. Just stories about an ordinary guy who may have done something to bring notice to his actions, which were then exaggerated to the point of appearing miraculous.

I have watched many debates and have yet to hear a convincing argument in support of religion. By all means have faith in something, but why have faith in something (I'm pointing a finger at God here) that you must fear in order for it to love you?

 

[Kamwah]

I have watched many debates and have yet to hear a convincing argument in support of religion. By all means have faith in something, but why have faith in something (I'm pointing a finger at God here) that you must fear in order for it to love you?

I'd agree to an extent about other religions but I wouldn't say that has anything to do with the God of Abraham. He doesn't require you to fear him.

 

[ringo747]

Exactly. Therefore a global flood probably didn't happen, therefore the story of Noah starts to fall apart at the seams.

Quite possible, however the concept of "global" may have meant something different to the people who lived back then. Also, a metaphorical interpretation doesn't necessary fall apart.

I really hope you are being pedantic here? The trout isn't getting bigger, it's people's inability to recount facts is the crux of my example.

Apologies, I misread this first time round. I fully agree that legend can develop but within a time frame of 2-5 years this doesn't seem likely, especially considering the large following of this creed after the supposed resurrection event.

I propose to you that Jesus wasn't dead. It is more likely he was either unconscious or semi-comatose. Taking into account the extremely limited medical knowledge at the time, what is more believable?

Possible but unlikely given that surviving crucifixion was nigh on impossible. These soldiers would have been trained killers and failure to finish off a victim would have merited death themselves. Maybe someone else can add some input to this but I'm not aware of this theory being widely supported.

I'm saying that there were never any miracles in the first place. Just stories about an ordinary guy who may have done something to bring notice to his actions, which were then exaggerated to the point of appearing miraculous.

On what basis are you certain that there were no miracles? I believe there is some historical reporting of supposed miracles so there must be some reason why you conclude they didn't happen. Is it the historical record you don't trust or is there some additional contradicting evidence that suggests that they didn't happen?

 

[elmarko]

Somebody saying miracles occurred a long time ago isn't evidence that it did by any stretch of the imagination.

They could have made it up, the story could have been changed over time, the person in question could have hallucinated it, people could have been duped by a simple trick.

All of the above counter-suggestions to explain the "miracles" require less assumptions than the temporary suspension of our laws of physics (in which all of our scientific understanding of the universe are grounded in).

Think of it this way, you walk into a garden & a tree has been toppled.

Do you assume it's god?, a giant monster or maybe the wind? - if you don't have the ability to verify exactly how it occurred (as nobody witnessed it, neither does any residual evidence remain to specifically state how it happened).

You can't recreate a god toppling down a tree, neither can you recreate a monster - but you could in theory recreate the wind (via turbines) & you also have video footage of wind blowing down other tree's.

You can also look at wind & tree's & formulate a predictive hypothesis on how many tree's will get blown down within a set area over a given year - you can't do the same for the other two.

How many assumptions are involved in each contradicting theory?, do you understand as to why a rational person would pick "the wind"?.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Ringo, the probability of surviving crucifixion is infinitely higher than the probability of coming back to life after dying.

 

[ringo747]

Somebody saying miracles occurred a long time ago isn't evidence that it did by any stretch of the imagination.

They could have made it up, the story could have been changed over time, the person in question could have hallucinated it, people could have been duped by a simple trick.

All of the above counter-suggestions to explain the "miracles" require less assumptions than the temporary suspension of our laws of physics (in which all of our scientific understanding of the universe are grounded in).

Of course all these explanations are possible but there has to be some reason to believe that they are the correct explanation. Let's take your example of being duped by a simple trick. Of course this is possible but is there a reason to accept this as being the correct assumption? Not only do you need to invalidate the historical account, but also there would need to be reasons to think that it was made up.

Taking the resurrection example which apparently features eye witness accounts. Firstly, there must be a reason to discount the various historical sources and secondly, there would also need to be some reason to believe the counter-explanation as being true.

 

[ringo747]

Ringo, the probability of surviving crucifixion is infinitely higher than the probability of coming back to life after dying.

Correct, assuming atheism is true.

What value would you assign to these probabilities?

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Correct, assuming atheism is true.

What value would you assign to these probabilities?

No. Correct assuming that science is correct in saying that cells cannot come back to life after they have perished. I think I'm safe in saying that this is a fact. I would assign a value of 100% certainty. This is nothing to do with atheism; the simple fact is that living creatures cannot come back to life after they have died after such a long period (I only say over a long period because you can, on occasion, restart a heart).

 

[Adisan]

I believed in God when I was young.. But then eventually I just thought it was all silly, I don't believe in anything now :/

 

[ringo747]

No. Correct assuming that science is correct in saying that cells cannot come back to life after they have perished. I think I'm safe in saying that this is a fact. I would assign a value of 100% certainty. This is nothing to do with atheism; the simple fact is that living creatures cannot come back to life after they have died after such a long period (I only say over a long period because you can, on occasion, restart a heart).

Yes, that is assuming that a naturalistic explanation is all there is.

What reason is there to think that our physical laws cannot be overrided IF there was an all powerful transcendent being outside of our universe?

 

[elmarko]

Of course all these explanations are possible but there has to be some reason to believe that they are the correct explanation.

Not all are scientifically possible.

Let's take your example of being duped by a simple trick. Of course this is possible but is there a reason to accept this as being the correct assumption? Not only do you need to invalidate the historical account, but also there would need to be reasons to think that it was made up.

There is no reason to believe for 100% certainty it's the correct assumption, science doesn't deal with "beliefs".

It simply would say that the theory of "being duped" is more reasonable (due to the fact we have recorded events of people being duped now) along with it requiring very few assumptions.

Compared to person A performing genuine magic which would invalidate the laws of physics (which we know are correct due to the fact those laws are used in the creation of the very machine you are typing this text on).

Taking the resurrection example which apparently features eye witness accounts. Firstly, there must be a reason to discount the various historical sources and secondly, there would also need to be some reason to believe the counter-explanation as being true.

Eye witness accounts are not trustworthy, neither are "historical sources".

Not to mention much of the bible was written a significant amount of time AFTER the events they write about.

Yes, that is assuming that a naturalistic explanation is all there is.

What reason is there to think that our physical laws cannot be overrided IF there was an all powerful transcendent being outside of our universe?

Wrong way around.

"What reason is there to think that our physical laws CAN be overrided or there is an all powerful transcendent being outside of our universe?"

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Yes, that is assuming that a naturalistic explanation is all there is.

What reason is there to think that our physical laws cannot be overrided IF there was an all powerful transcendent being outside of our universe?

Come off it old chap, he was sleeping for a few days! Why choose the most ridiculous explanation as opposed to one that actually makes sense, and can be proven?

 

[ringo747]

Not all are scientifically possible.

I agree. This doesn't address the possibility of supernatural intervention though.

There is no reason to believe for 100% certainty it's the correct assumption, science doesn't deal with "beliefs".

It simply would say that the theory of "being duped" is more reasonable (due to the fact we have recorded events of people being duped now) along with it requiring very few assumptions.

Compared to person A performing genuine magic which would invalidate the laws of physics (which we know are correct due to the fact those laws are used in the creation of the very machine you are typing this text on).

Just because people are known to have been duped in the past doesn't imply that that was the case in this example. Is there nothing else to support the 'they were duped' theory?

Eye witness accounts are not trustworthy, neither are "historical sources".

Not to mention much of the bible was written a significant amount of time AFTER the events they write about.

Interesting. With this statement you are going to wipe out an awful lot of what we know through history. The historians would love this!

What about historical scientific data such as our understanding of early humans, do you discount it too?

Wrong way around.

"What reason is there to think that our physical laws CAN be overrided or there is an all powerful transcendent being outside of our universe?"

That's quite simple really. "All powerful" suggests that anything is possible.

 

[Angilion]

Why should a "God" reveal himself to every generation? My understanding of the Christian faith is that he did reveal his son in the man Jesus and we apparently have a historical record of that today. [..]

No, we don't.

We don't have a historical record of it happening. We have a historical record of some people who, as an act of religious faith, believed it happened.

 

[ringo747]

No, we don't.

We don't have a historical record of it happening. We have a historical record of some people who, as an act of religious faith, believed it happened.

Do you not believe that the Jesus figure existed?

 

[Angilion]

[..]
Take for example the Christian doctrine of the resurrection. Some experts have dated the record of this event from an early creed which was written 2-5 years after the event supposedly took place. Can legend develop in that length of time?

Of course it can, especially if it's been vigorously promoted by people who gain a great deal from it.

What is the early creed you're talking about? Which experts? What are they expert in? There are people who are experts in the lore of Xenu, but that doesn't mean they're experts in determining whether or not it's true.

 

[ringo747]

Of course it can, especially if it's been vigorously promoted by people who gain a great deal from it.

What is the early creed you're talking about? Which experts? What are they expert in? There are people who are experts in the lore of Xenu, but that doesn't mean they're experts in determining whether or not it's true.

There would need to be some reason to think that it was as a result of legendary development. These are the sorts of issues that biblical scholars and historians study and comment upon the reliability of such sources.

 

[Angilion]

Do you not believe that the Jesus figure existed?

I try to not believe things, as a general principle. Why take things as being definitely true when you either have no evidence or the evidence is against them being true? It's not very sensible, really.

Your statement was that we have historical records of the Abrahamic god existing and sending some aspect of himself in mortal form to Earth as his own son.

That is not true. We have historical records of some people believing that as an act of religious faith. That is not the same as a record of it actually happening.

That has nothing to do with whether or not I believe that the Jesus figure existed - your question is an irrelevant distraction from the fact that the statement you made isn't true.

 

[Angilion]

There would need to be some reason to think that it was as a result of legendary development. These are the sorts of issues that biblical scholars and historians study and comment upon the reliability of such sources.

There are reasons to think that it's the result of legendary development:

It's an account of an impossible event as part of a religion - "our religion is more real - this impossible event proves it so!"
It's similar to numerous other such accounts in various times and places.
It had a strong effect in the real world, resulting in gains in power for the people who started the legend.