Religion… What do you think?

@frozen: Every Atheist I talk to is like a literal carbon copy of the previous, and they all can't think.

"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

SEMANTIC GAMES of the stupid, delusional, disingenuous or ignorant. Saying "I disbelieve in God" is the same as saying "I believe that God does not exist" You're just playing a pathetic word game to eliminate the word belief in the positive. You wouldn't do this with anything else because it's so transparent and stupid. Let me show you:

"I disbelieve in Santa Claus". Which could only LOGICALLY MEAN that I believe in the non-existence of Santa Clause, right? Right. You haven't eliminated belief whatsoever, only common sense.

"The emphasis is on the believer to prove why God exists."

There are plenty of Theist Academics/Intellectuals (old and new) who debate this issue and present seminars, philosophies etc with rationalizations as to why they believe what they believe. There are many Atheists who do the same BUT the difference is one side likes to PRETEND their BELIEFS are not beliefs but scientific facts. I wonder which side that is?

The emphasis is on the believer to prove why God does not exist. So can you?

No? Then what is it exactly that makes you think you're word is Gospel?

"For instance, Monotheistic Religion asserts that an all-powerful deity exists. The emphasis is utterly on the person to substantiate with evidence the being existing."

Substantiate with evidence for me the Big Bang and the ridiculous and paradoxical so called Singularity that the Universe mystically emerged from, Black Holes, Dark Matter and the completely metaphysical abstractions of Multiverse theory and all other manner of Pseudo-scientific, Quackademic, Science-Fiction nonsense. Hypocrite.

"It is a remarkable piece of illogic for you to assert that Atheism wants to force conversion considering it is Religious people who force their Religion into Science class with anti-Scientific belief (Creationism) and use their doctrine to deny homosexuals of rights. Or Religious 'Right' movements who promote values which harp back to the 1950's."

Creationism is anti-scientific but you believe an EXPLOSION and RANDOM CHANCE created everything. You bloody Dupe, you might as well write JACKASS over your forehead.

@mollydanger2210: Flagging your post there is no need to bring personal insults in here.

It really doesn't help your erroneous argument.

@mollydanger2210: Flagged. It is evident that it is an utter waste of time talking you.

@saren@god_spawn@bumpyboo@jedixman @inferiorego

I understand that you're seeking and have an open mind... that's fair enough and I have no argument with that.

All I'm trying to say is that claiming that we can't know presupposes a lot. In fact, you're already making a judgement which means you're not as open minded as you might want to be. Also, lets say that you are correct and we can't know... if that's the case, then trying to find an answer is hopeless by your own starting position. It's like if I said that it's impossible to walk to the Moon, but I'm going to spend my life trying to walk to the Moon.

Doesnt it make more sense to say that "I dont know if there is or is not a god, but I'm open to both possibilities and I'm seeking it out"?

@frozen:

By telling me what you mean. You haven't --- the emphasis for proving God is much greater than that of disproving him.

What it means is everything you believe you should try to prove and disprove to the fullest. If you don't question your stance you're promoting close minded ignorance.

Why do you ''both as much as you can''? Simply asserting God and saying ''you can't disprove that with 100% certainty'' is akin to me saying the same for the Easter Bunny.

You only say that because you don't believe, We know we created the Easter Bunny. There most likely is evidence to that fact. Regardless we don't know if god is real or just a fabrication. There is nothing sufficient to make you believe in god. So what that's your opinion? Why/how is existence? For others there are enough to fill their faith and belief. You both have your opinions and neither of you can prove it. It keeps coming down to the same thing. You choose your stance and you're either right or not. Either way he will or will not exist whether you believe it or not. Even if they're wrong you're just as clueless about existence as the guy who believes in some form of creator.

Faith is a motivator for what? Believing in a God? Yes. Religion encourages having more faith, which is believing in something without any evidence.

False you're lumping in all religions and perceptions of them together. Many actively promote questioning themselves, others believe there is evidence. You just don't believe their evidence.

Personally, I do not encourage that but faith does not make something true.

Neither does lack of belief or faith. The difference is most people doubt their faith.

If you have faith that ''Jesus is lord'' --- that does not necessarily make it true, it simply means you believe in something.

If you don't have faith in him--- that does not necessarily make it true. it simply means you don't believe in something.Again you're just repeating one side of my stance.

Again, faith does influence how they look at it. But faith does not influence whether it's untrue.

and once again you repeat the stance I've taken. I've repeatedly said faith or lack of only influences what you believe but the truth is or isn't whether you believe or not.

Do you even read what I type?

Faith is simply a belief without evidence. That is the literal definition of faith. Faith is simply a way of getting around the evidence scenario. People can have faith which leads them to believe in God but without evidence it's not necessarily true.

You keep repeating that I haven't denied or repeating the same things I've said. It's like you're having a discussion with someone other than me. It's getting annoying. You're not furthering your argument. I've already addressed that above. You're trying to make a case that you can't prove god WHEN I"VE BEEN SAYING IT ALL ALONG. They believe something. They believe they have evidence. WE BOTH SAY IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE TO US. We could be wrong. It's debatable

What you're failing to do is prove that you're not anymore wrong then they are. You're focusing on them instead of yourself. Proving them wrong does not prove you right. You can't say god doesn't exist. You can only say you don't believe in him but like with them just because that is your stance it doesn't make it true.

For instance, a Creationist could have faith in Genesis and believe The Earth is only 6,000 years old. That does not necessarily make it true just because they ''have faith''. A Creationist could also not believe in evidence but that does not alter the evidence itself. Evidence is analyzed and observed.

You're repeating your point that I've already addressed.

The stance of you cannot know doesn't make it a good argument.

• You can't know with 100% certainty that the Easter Bunny isn't real

• You can't know with 100% certainty that Santa Claus isn't real

• You can't know with 100% certainty that the flying Spaghetti monster isn't real

• You can't know with 100% certainty that Superman isn't real

• You can't know with 100% certainty that 5th dimensional beings aren't real

Your stance doesn't make a good argument because we know they were thought up by us. There is evidence and we know the intent of the ones who created those ideas.. Which differ from those who passed on the stories of gods. Again just because you don't believe their reasons and evidence does not mean you're right. You can say you don't believe but until you can prove it you'll still be in the same boat.

Etc

I believe the Easter Bunny is real. You can't prove that he's not real, so it's a 50/50 chance --- is an example of a stance that is wrong.

I addressed this.

You also seem to be under the impression that because you cannot with absolute certainty, disprove God, it must be a 50/50 chance.

This is utterly wrong. If there's little evidence for the Easter Bunny being real, it's a 99% chance that he is not real on the basis of evidence. In fact, there are MANY things which I cannot disprove with 100% certainty but because the evidence is so weak, the odds are 90/10 that the belief is untrue.

You think it's wrong because you don't believe their evidence. You think it's weak yet all that amount to is opinion. Lack of belief, odds, evidence does not guarantee non existence of a being such as that. It only influences the knowing. It's also true for things that happen. Which i what I've been saying. The only thing you can prove about god existing is your lack of belief. At the end of the day that's all it is. Which you can't prove. Either sh!te of get off the pot.

The validity of any supposed evidence is in the Easter Bunny isn't something that can be proven either way. It's defined by the person. Show me how Easter Bunny would be bound by such evidence if he didn't want to be.

Show me how he wouldn't be. I'm the one saying you can't know either way. You're the one saying the other side is wrong. Which more and more is sounding like an argument that god doesn't exit than a simple lack of disbelief. I've also explained how the analogy is a false one.

Show me how the Easter Bunny should be defined. What Easter Bunny? Is he even one that we know? Show me if he is real or not. You can't because it's not something that can be disproven or proven. Show me any of this evidence and what makes this evidence something true? Prove to me that there can even by any. You only assume there could be. Until you can pony up anything to the contrary all we have to choose is what's valid.

Again I never claimed to be a believer, always held the stance that you can't prove it either way, that neither have much validity, yet you still argue with me like I am. Why would I argue against myself. You are being highly disingenuous in your stance, motives and objectivity. I told you if you continue this route you're not worth my time.

The problem with your argument is that it's vague and improvised.

My argument is you can't prove anything either way. That's NOT vague and you've yet to counter it in any way. You've only attacked belief, something that I don't share, tryng to prove something I haven't claimed to believe. WITH many of my own arguments no less. You've done nothing but waste my time.

Science on the other hand, works. How do Airplanes work? How do mobile phones work? How do nuclear bombs work? It's because of Science. It works --- in Science, evidence is valued. Your argument is just asking a bunch of questions and nothing more.

Of course I am. THats the whole point from the beginning. I don''t claim for or against. I've aid from the beginning all there are is questions because you can't prove either way. You're the one trying to supporting a side, lack of belief, which in all honesty is sounding more and more like a belief that god doesn't exist. and discredit belief.

If you ask how to define God, then I point to the Religious doctrines to which he came from.The concept of God only originated at a specific point in time. If you think we can choose what's valid then you are massively erroneous, because evidence (pun intended) shows that evidence has contributed to the factual knowledge we know. Or is the new argument ''what is fact?''

Sorry but that is a load of bull. There are way too many ways too look at it. Which hows your closed mindedness. We don't know what it true, if it's literal, hyperbole. What's been changed over the years, what's meant something then than it does now. What was altered to support the person passing the story. Translation mistake or a poor version of what they interpret. I haven't claimed gods existence, I haven''t claimed god's non existence. I don't claim knowledge. I claim our lack of ability to prove either way. YOU're the one working his @ss off trying to prove facts and validity. So please turn that around on you. I honestly wish you can look at this some day with some objectivity.

I don't need God --- Science in general, and human man can seek knowledge without Religious assertion.

Which you keep pushing on everyone every chance you get no matter how small the comment from a poster. You're as bad as those religious people who try to force their thinking down everyone throat. Every discussion has to turn into this HUGE thing if they don't agree with you. Like I said I don't care what you do or don't believe. II have no interest in influencing you but I expect the same courtesy. You should get control of yourself it's an ugly habit of yours

Everytime.

Interesting discussion here and its a shame most topic related to religion seem to turn into religion bashing. Can we not all agree to disagree in terms of our belief.

@dernman:

What it means is everything you believe you should try to prove and disprove to the fullest. If you don't question your stance you're promoting close minded ignorance.

I'm not close-minded. Hence why I clarified, I am not 100% certain that God does not exist. And I was once Religious - I read Religious text and doctrine, and I've studied it. I've questioned my stance thoroughly, and come to the conclusion that I am an Atheist. I did not try and disprove God - I simply wanted more proof of his existence, I would like to believe in God, but the reason I do not is because evidence of his existence has not surfaced. What I like and find comforting, may not necessarily be true.

You only say that because you don't believe, We know we created the Easter Bunny. There most likely is evidence to that fact.Regardless we don't know if god is real or just a fabrication. There is nothing sufficient to make you believe in god. So what that's your opinion? Why/how is existence? For others there are enough to fill their faith and belief. You both have your opinions and neither of you can prove it. It keeps coming down to the same thing. You choose your stance and you're either right or not. Either way he will or will not exist whether you believe it or not. Even if they're wrong you're just as clueless about existence as the guy who believes

No. I say that to illustrate a parallel, a valid one tat that. You say the difference is that we created the Easter Bunny? By that logic, I can claim that we created God just as we did the Easter Bunny. The monotheistic all-powerful God (concept) only surfaced a few thousand years ago at a specific time period, the Hellenistic period between 323 BC and 31 BC. Keep in mind, I could also say that I cannot say the Greek Gods (Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, etc) exist with 100% certainty either. Since the origin of the concept of the monotheistic all-powerful God, the concept has adapted to personal belief. I base myself for the need of evidence, but my comparisons with the Easter Bunny are just as valid. Either he exists or does not.

False you're lumping in all religions and perceptions of them together. Many actively promote questioning themselves, others believe there is evidence. You just don't believe their evidence.

I had the monotheistic Religion in mind. But again, you tell me others ''believe there is evidence'' --- evidence for one person may not mean evidence for another, this is why evidence is subject to observation and analysis. For instance, Evolution has evidence which has been categorized and analyzed and it's withstood the tests. The only evidence I've seen for a monotheistic God, or argument is A) Filling in the gaps of Science with God which is weak and B) Simply saying it's a personal belief . I'm fine with people believing in God but that is not evidence, you don't seem to have a grasp of the evidence aspect of this. If there is revolutionary evidence, feel free to cite it.

If you don't have faith in him--- that does not necessarily make it true. it simply means you don't believe in something.Again you're just repeating one side of my stance.

I'm not promoting one side. You are trying to show there's an equal balance in regards to proving and disproving but there really isn't. If a claim is big, the emphasis is on the individual making the claim to present evidence for it. If we take your logic, then nothing can be substantiated whatsoever and reason fails to exist. I have told you multiple times that I cannot say with 100% certainty that God does not exist, and I've also cited an analogy which you ignore (Easter Bunny analogy). It is completely acceptable to ask for evidence because Religion mingles itself with Science, thus you have people arguing that God guided Evolution or that God created the Big Bang, Scientific theories based on Scientific value is having Religious assertion forced upon it.

''Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence''

This quote is key issue for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism. Here is an analogy:

'Alice and Bob are two friends talking after school. Alice tells Bob that she watched a movie the previous evening. Bob believes her easily, because he knows that movies exist, that Alice exists, and that Alice is capable and fond of watching movies. If he doubts her, he might ask for a ticket stub or a confirmation from one of her friends.

If, however, Alice tells Bob that she flew on a unicorn to a fairy kingdom where she participated in an ambrosia-eating contest, and she produces a professionally-printed contest certificate and a friend who would testify to the events described, Bob would still not be inclined to believe her without strong evidence for the existence of flying unicorns, fairies and ambrosia-eating contests.'

You keep repeating that I haven't denied or repeating the same things I've said. It's like you're having a discussion with someone other than me. It's getting annoying. You're not furthering your argument. I've already addressed that above. You're trying to make a case that you can't prove god WHEN I"VE BEEN SAYING IT ALL ALONG. They believe something. They believe they have evidence. WE BOTH SAY IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE TO US. We could be wrong. It's debatable

What you're failing to do is prove that you're not anymore wrong then they are. You're focusing on them instead of yourself. Proving them wrong does not prove you right. You can't say god doesn't exist. You can only say you don't believe in him but like with them just because that is your stance it doesn't make it true.

Actually, you have been saying what I thought all along. The underlined confirms my point. You have this thought in your head that if they fail to substantiate their claims, however grand, we still cannot say God does not exist. What we can infer from that is that there is a higher probability based on that evidence, that he does not. Again, as I told you, being unable to say God doesn't exist with 100% certainty does not make it a 50-50 scenario. You have this impression that it's still 50-50 but without evidence the odds based on evidence will be at 90-10 once you parallel the evidence to the extent of the claim. You keep coming back to this ''both could be right'' scenario and I again, cite you the Easter Bunny comparison.

Your stance doesn't make a good argument because we know they were thought up by us. There is evidence and we know the intent of the ones who created those ideas.. Which differ from those who passed on the stories of gods. Again just because you don't believe their reasons and evidence does not mean you're right. You can say you don't believe but until you can prove it you'll still be in the same boat.

Again, you are displaying some contradictory argument here. I cannot tell whether it's intentional or not but I'll repeat myself - The monotheistic all-powerful God (concept) only surfaced a few thousand years ago at a specific time period, the Hellenistic period between 323 BC and 31 BC. Keep in mind, I could also say that I cannot say the Greek Gods (Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, etc) exist with 100% certainty either. Since the origin of the concept of the monotheistic all-powerful God, the concept has adapted to personal belief. I base myself for the need of evidence, but my comparisons with the Easter Bunny are just as valid. We can look at a specific time period and geographical area and suss out where the monotheistic God concept originated from, roughly, but it's within a quantifiable time period.

I addressed this.

No, you didn't.

1. You ignored the 50/50 call out
2. You failed to acknowledge the validity of the analogy

You think it's wrong because you don't believe their evidence. You think it's weak yet all that amount to is opinion. Lack of belief, odds, evidence does not guarantee non existence of a being such as that. It only influences the knowing. It's also true for things that happen. Which i what I've been saying. The only thing you can prove about god existing is your lack of belief. At the end of the day that's all it is. Which you can't prove. Either sh!te of get off the pot.

Again, you constantly harp back to the 100% certainty point and expect me to roll with it, despite the fact that I have given you analogies of how absurd you are beginning to sound. No. I say that to illustrate a parallel, a valid one tat that. You say the difference is that we created the Easter Bunny? By that logic, I can claim that we created God just as we did the Easter Bunny. The monotheistic all-powerful God (concept) only surfaced a few thousand years ago at a specific time period, the Hellenistic period between 323 BC and 31 BC. Keep in mind, I could also say that I cannot say the Greek Gods (Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, etc) exist with 100% certainty either. Since the origin of the concept of the monotheistic all-powerful God, the concept has adapted to personal belief. I base myself for the need of evidence, but my comparisons with the Easter Bunny are just as valid. Either he exists or does not.

Show me how he wouldn't be. I'm the one saying you can't know either way. You're the one saying the other side is wrong. Which more and more is sounding like an argument that god doesn't exit than a simple lack of disbelief.

You have misinterpreted my argument and thus making an argument from fallacy. I said that based on evidence, I do not belief --- this is an argument of probability, not absolute certainty. I am not saying the other side is 100% certainly wrong, I am saying that the emphasis is on them to provide evidence, not for us to provide evidence to disprove him. That notion alone is ridiculous.

I've also explained how the analogy is a false one.

No, you simply made a false assertion.

Again I never claimed to be a believer

...When did I assert you were?

, always held the stance that you can't prove it either way, that neither have much validity, yet you still argue with me like I am. Why would I argue against myself. You are being highly disingenuous in your stance, motives and objectivity. I told you if you continue this route you're not worth my time.

What route? I am using your own logic against you. You are telling me that I cannot say God isn't real with 100% certainty and I constantly tell you that I haven't disagreed with that, instead my argument is based on probability which you have not grasped. Hence the consistency of failure to produce compelling evidence brings me to this analogy which relates to my quote:

Alice and Bob are two friends talking after school. Alice tells Bob that she watched a movie the previous evening. Bob believes her easily, because he knows that movies exist, that Alice exists, and that Alice is capable and fond of watching movies. If he doubts her, he might ask for a ticket stub or a confirmation from one of her friends. If, however, Alice tells Bob that she flew on a unicorn to a fairy kingdom where she participated in an ambrosia-eating contest, and she produces a professionally-printed contest certificate and a friend who would testify to the events described, Bob would still not be inclined to believe her without strong evidence for the existence of flying unicorns, fairies and ambrosia-eating contests.

My argument is you can't prove anything either way. That's NOT vague and you've yet to counter it in any way. You've only attacked belief, something that I don't share, tryng to prove something I haven't claimed to believe. WITH many of my own arguments no less. You've done nothing but waste my time.

It doesn't need 100% proving. The problem is that you've assumed it does. Most Scientific principals/theories do not have 100% certainty yet they are reliable. The original tenants of monotheistic Religion assert faith as a virtue which works against the argument God needs tor a probability increase. I've not once called you a believer either. I've given you analogies, quotes, logic, reason and concepts. In addition some history.

Sorry but that is a load of bull. There are way too many ways too look at it. Which hows your closed mindedness. We don't know what it true, if it's literal, hyperbole. What's been changed over the years, what's meant something then than it does now. What was altered to support the person passing the story. Translation mistake or a poor version of what they interpret. I haven't claimed gods existence, I haven''t claimed god's non existence. I don't claim knowledge. I claim our lack of ability to prove either way. YOU're the one working his @ss off trying to prove facts and validity. So please turn that around on you. I honestly wish you can look at this some day with some objectivity.

Read up some History. The concept of a monotheistic God can be tracked to a specific point in time. The monotheistic all-powerful God (concept) only surfaced a few thousand years ago at a specific time period, the Hellenistic period between 323 BC and 31 BC. The concept has molded over the years. For instance, people believed he literally created the world in 6 days 6,000 years and now most (in America) believe he guided Evolution, an example of God finding a way to creep into Science. An 'evolution' of the concept but nonetheless it's concept can be tracked, as can the Easter Bunny's.

You assert you haven't claimed much but you've indirectly done so. Such as telling me the Easter Bunny was made at a specific time, the concept of God in human History originated at a specific time.

Which you keep pushing on everyone every chance you get no matter how small the comment from a poster. You're as bad as those religious people who try to force their thinking down everyone throat. Every discussion has to turn into this HUGE thing if they don't agree with you. Like I said I don't care what you do or don't believe. II have no interest in influencing you but I expect the same courtesy. You should get control of yourself it's an ugly habit of yours

Nope. Religion is asserted without evidence, I can dismiss it on that same basis. In this society we're encouraged to not criticize Religion but this is absolutely false. I've not attacked believers in any way, shape or form. I've attacked the idea that non-believers should disprove him more than believers attempting to prove, it simply does not work that way. I'm giving you information on the history of Religion/concept of Gods and various other concepts but you are throwing it in my face.

Evidence must be natural? That assumes that everything that exists is limited to the 3rd dimension, but any serious scientist would laugh at such a claim. There is so much we do not know about the world, and there are even elements of our own world that we believe in only by experience, not due to any physical evidence. How would you go about physically proving something like imagination for example?

Science is one of our greatest tools, but it has its limits, and that is listed right in its description and definition. It is limited to our 5 senses (we have more, but just for the sake of argument we'll keep it at the generally accepted 5), it is limited to our tools, and most of all: it doesn't deal in absolutes.

If you are waiting for 100% proof for God, you will be waiting for the rest of your life and never get any. It is clear in Christian doctrine that God does not bend to human wishes. Faith would be irrelevant otherwise. Yet if you use that as an excuse, you will be fooling no one but yourself. Every single day of every human's life, we take many things by faith. It is impossible to live otherwise.

@willpayton:

I understand that you're seeking and have an open mind... that's fair enough and I have no argument with that.

All I'm trying to say is that claiming that we can't know presupposes a lot.In fact, you're already making a judgement which means you're not as open minded as you might want to be. Also, lets say that you are correct and we can't know... if that's the case, then trying to find an answer is hopeless by your own starting position

Yes and no Saying he's above or didn't leave us a way to prove is a presumption. Then there is just whether or not our own skeptisiim would prevent us from believing even if it was given to us. Either way I said (which i think I edited out that I also question that) I'm open to being wrong.

You're right. It does seem hopeless at times. I will most likely never know but I push forward anyway. I don't know who it was I said it too but seeking the truth is a life long journey It's important to have that introspection. I'll change over my life and so will my perspective. If I keep asking these questions over and over, along with new ones. It's a good chance I will no longer see things with the same outlook.

. It's like if I said that it's impossible to walk to the Moon, but I'm going to spend my life trying to walk to the Moon.

We believed we couldn't once. We learned new things and ended up walking on the moon.

Doesnt it make more sense to say that "I dont know if there is or is not a god, but I'm open to both possibilities and I'm seeking it out"?

I hope I fully answered it above.

It's a shame they turn into bashing, as you can see the drivel in comment #155501.

While agreeing to disagree is an option on personal belief I've seen some faulty logic and flat out false assertion here in regards to approaching evidence.

There are Scientific theories which theorize in regards to beyond the 3 dimensions. 4th dimension theory. 5th dimension theory. Multiverse theory.

Sure, there is a ALOT Scientists do not know about The Universe, but to fill in the gaps with God is illogical. There is so much we do not know and because of this, Scientists seek to learn more, that does not mean filling the gaps with magic, not by Scientific basis, anyway.

Religious doctrine certainly does not limit God to our senses, but a Deistic approach could argue otherwise, it would not be very substantiated.

It's why I rarely take part and why I just stop when I see it going nowhere.

@blacklegraph:

If you are waiting for 100% proof for God, you will be waiting for the rest of your life and never get any. It is clear in Christian doctrine that God does not bend to human wishes. Faith would be irrelevant otherwise. Yet if you use that as an excuse, you will be fooling no one but yourself. Every single day of every human's life, we take many things by faith. It is impossible to live otherwise.

Not sure where you got the idea that I want 100% proof. Never remotely alluded to that improbability. In Christian doctrine, God communicates with human. He sends himself down as Jesus. He involves himself in human affairs from a social standpoint (e.g. on sinning).

I dont think its necessarily Atheist bashing.

You have to admit the reason your conversation got sour here was because you started criticizing religion, started with prayers and moving towards the anti-homosexual stuffs from Christianity.

I think this is a topic better left alone with people being left to their own device; let them believe whatever they want to believe without questioning each other faith or lack thereof.

I don’t believe every word in my holy book and I know there are some extremely dark things in my religion, but it’s the preaching of the religion that I respect.

Well, I didnt say "walking on the Moon", I said "walking to the Moon".

@claymore1998: I criticized aspects of Religion which tie God to social human aspects, hence me questioning the validity of the supposed Omnipotent. I didn't dabble into prayers into either.

There is nothing wrong with criticizing Religion. Nothing whatsoever. We should criticize Religion and critically analyze it if we see wrong with some aspects, why should it be immune? It is a key aspect to critical thinking, meta-narratives are prone to critical analysis. This topic is 'what do you think about Religion?' --- people cherry pick Religion, that is the reality. They cherry pick the good but ignore stuff which won't adhere to the social setting of the time, hence why I felt need to pick apart aspects of Religion.

In the 21st century, an age which we criticize politics, media and law. I see no problem in why I should not criticize Religion. Do you know that in some parts of the world, people are killed for criticizing the dominant Religion in that area?

So I take it you don't believe the resurrection counts as evidence?

I think that's a very wise choice.

@willpayton: My bad. Give it time though. I think I saw it in a comic once. :p

@blacklegraph: Evidence of what? It's evidence for the Judo-Christian God concept being socially connected to humans. But I don't take it as legitimate evidence for actually occurring.

In fact, I was just watching a documentary on the Bible. Parts of it are misinterpreted. A famous example is the 'Virgin Mary' --- the original, unscathed text actually meant young Mary, but the Greek translation (IIRC) translated to virgin.

There is nothing criminal in regards to questioning though it being a touchy topic it's prudent to tread carefully. I think the bigger question would be if people having faith have done nothing wrong is there really a need to correct them even if their belief isn’t factual? I wouldn't think people, who are patrons of this site, be they religious or otherwise, often going around forcing people to follow the religious protocol.

Factual or otherwise faith is inherently a very personal topic, too close to the heart, for anyone to question without expecting a harsh retaliation. I don’t think anything is achieved by doing so other than having few people unhappy.

People should be respectful of each other regardless of what they believe; it's not a matter of one side being factual or otherwise but rather a moral question of whether or not hurting people feeling on this topic is really worth it.

Sorry to say but you have actually actively going around challenging people who embrace faith so it's not really surprising a lot of the conversation directed towards you in this topic has turned repugnant.

Questioning religion aggravates feeling of people who were otherwise calm and collected and we know full well the conversation isn’t going to culminate into something productive. In lieu of this I would question is it really worth it when people belief in the said site has no detrimental effect on others?

Its the second part which sums up why questioning faith isn't going to end well.

While it has happened and is currently happening which most people with faith lament upon, are you really trying to suggest people on this website are extremists or you challenging their believe would actually lead them to change their religious beliefs?

People being killed for criticizing religion is heinous but i do not think its applicable in this website though.

We'' never be able to prove whether or not God exists?

I guess y'all have made the mistake of not worshiping the god that is me.

Heheh... will do.

@claymore1998:

There is nothing criminal in regards to questioning though it being a touchy topic it's prudent to tread carefully. I think the bigger question would be if people having faith have done nothing wrong is there really a need to correct them even if their belief isn’t factual? I wouldn't think people, who are patrons of this site, be they religious or otherwise, often going around forcing people to follow the religious protocol.

Factual or otherwise faith is inherently a very personal topic, too close to the heart, for anyone to question without expecting a harsh retaliation. I don’t think anything is achieved by doing so other than having few people unhappy.

People should be respectful of each other regardless of what they believe; it's not a matter of one side being factual or otherwise but rather a moral question of whether or not hurting people feeling on this topic is really worth it.

Sorry to say but you have actually actively going around challenging people who embrace faith so it's not really surprising a lot of the conversation directed towards you in this topic has turned repugnant.

It is a touchy topic for some, this is why there are opposing viewpoints. This is why I clarified several times that I am fine with people believing in God/Religion. My argument of attacking faith was in regards to evidence. Faith works against evidence - it is a belief without evidence, hence it does not roll very well with the evidence aspect. Aspects of Religion encourage anti-evidence viewpoint.

I am fine with people having faith for their personal beliefs, my assertions outline how having faith does not necessarily make something true. At no point did I attack someone's personal belief, at all costs I stayed away from that.

When criticizing Religion, something which lacks evidence, people will naturally get defensive because it means a-lot to them. But that does not take away my right to criticize aspects of Religion on this thread.

Questioning religion aggravates feeling of people who were otherwise calm and collected and we know full well the conversation isn’t going to culminate into something productive. In lieu of this I would question is it really worth it when people belief in the said site has no detrimental effect on others?

Yes, it is worth it from my perspective. This thread asks 'what are your thoughts on Religion?' - there are bound to be arguments which criticize Religion, it is a meta-narrative which is thousands of years old and it doesn't have immunity to critique. Taking into account the actual text from Religious doctrine and the oppression it has caused to society (I do however acknowledge the positives it has caused, such as Martin Luther King's civil rights / Liberation Theology) I am justified in my argument.

While it has happened and is currently happening which most people with faith lament upon, are you really trying to suggest people on this website are extremists or you challenging their believe would actually lead them to change their religious beliefs?

People being killed for criticizing religion is heinous but i do not think its applicable in this website though.

I did not even remotely suggest this.

I meant that I value the free speech I have on the topic. Considering that people do get killed for legitimately criticizing Religion in some areas of the world, I am proud that most people in the 21st Century can now champion critical thinking to all aspects of society, including meta-narratives such as Religion.

Mary was a virgin. Being young doesn't change that.

My question for you would then be: how do you think Jesus' body disappeared? Why did Christianity spread through Judea after Jesus was killed.

Speaking for myself, if it was actually shown that a resurrection did occur... I'd consider that valid evidence. Now, would it prove that the Christian God exists... no, not by itself. It'd only prove that something happened that we cant explain yet. Maybe space aliens did it. Who knows.

But, the big problem here is... that there is zero evidence that any resurrection or any other supernatural thing in the Bible every occurred. And, this is the big problem because Christians seem to believe that just because they read a story about it means that it's true. It's not. Even the evidence that Jesus existed is flimsy at best. First, give solid evidence for a resurrection, and then we can talk.

Well, how do you explain the disappearance of Jesus' body?

Sure, maybe space aliens did it. But someone already took credit for it, so it would be more reasonable to believe that than come up with alternative theories with no basis.

And the evidence that Jesus existed is pretty extensive.

Need evidence for the resurrection? No body was found. People saw the guy alive again. That's kinda the whole point of a resurrection.

It's not about evidence or lack thereof, while you might have said so you continue probing with an intention of challenging their belief. Your very first conversation started questioning the existence of god, the need for prayers etc. Faith is a beautiful thing and it would be better to leave them on their own device unless they are intruding upon yours.

I am not saying it's wrong to question faith nor am I asserting it has empirical evidence, all I am merely saying is it’s a touchy topic not to tread carefully and bashing religion be it factual or otherwise isn’t going to end well.

There really is nothing fruitful that would culminate for challenging the need for god's existence, prayers or holy book other than heart ache and some rather unpleasant conversations.

While that might have been your intention that's not really what is actually happening though.

See this is venturing from where our conversation started because I do not necessarily believe what you are doing is wrong. I however believe what you are doing is going to upset a lot of people and the eventual outcome of all this in terms of people actually changing their view on the topic would be nil.

Questioning faith isn’t wrong; it's just not the most prudent thing to do in a public thread.

I still don’t understand why you felt the need to mention said happenstance, obiter dictum, when there is nothing about the said tragedy that pertains to this website.

@claymore1998: I vastly differ in my outlook. I'll simply have to agree to disagree with you.

@frozen:

That does seem like the most reasonable course of action.

Debating with you was fun, if this counts as debating. ^_^

@claymore1998: I don't think this was really a debate per-se. This was a discussion about how I approach debate.

Though yes differing outlook is interesting, it was fun :)

In order for us to properly address this, I first need to see convincing evidence for the following:

1. Jesus existed

2. Jesus was killed and buried in the manner told in the Bible

3. Jesus' body was later found missing, also as told in the Bible

As of now I'm not even convinced that Jesus was a real person, much less any of the rest.

Because someone comes up with a story is in no way evidence that that story is true. Furthermore, if that story is predicated on supernatural events, then that makes it even more unlikely. Any natural explanation is much more likely to be the correct one.

I've done research on this topic numerous times, and the evidence I'm aware of is flimsy. But, even if we assume for arguments sake that a person named Jesus existed and all this is based on him, we still have no reason to believe in any of the supernatural stuff without evidence. If there's little evidence that Jesus existed, then there's ZERO convincing evidence that he was resurrected or did any of the supernatural/superhuman things in the stories.

Again, we'd have to first assume all these things to be true. But, lets say we do, there's many more plausible explanations.

1. no body found... that just means someone took it. Or, it could mean that he wasnt actually dead and found a way out on his own. Or, it could just be a made up story.

2. people saw him again... this is just stories about other stories. Even first hand eye-witness testimony isnt that convincing, much less 2 thousand year old stories about those testimonies.

Do you have any evidence that a resurrection that isnt just some old stories?

@willpayton: I'm not sure on the evidence, but I have read that most Historians all regard Jesus the man to have existed and to have been a revolutionary figure.

I didn't read the detail though.

I agree that most current historians think he existed as an actual historical figure. However, when I looked at the evidence myself I'm still not fully convinced. It's not really a major issue because it's entirely plausible that a person by that name was in some way related to the stories. It's just that almost everything about him comes from earlier stories and myths. At best what we have is a real person that later got imbued with divine characteristics from earlier myths in order to build up the Jesus myth. Richard Carrier has an interesting hypothesis that Jesus never existed based on his studies of the actual Bible stories and the historical context. We have to remember that Christianity was just one of many such cults at the time. Most just came and went, but for historical reasons this one took hold.

1) If you have not even reached the stage of accepting the historical figure of Jesus the man, then there is really nothing we can discuss further. Like Frozen has said, it is pretty much agreed upon.

Although, I am interested to find out how you think he became the figurehead of the Christian faith. How do you think some Jews came around to start following this "Jesus"? Do you think they just picked some random name on some random day for the fun of it? Cause I would say that requires far more faith than accepting the real figure.

2) If someone claimed they would raise someone from the dead and that person indeed rose up, I'd be far more inclined to believe them than some aliens did it. Interesting to see you also believe in aliens when no evidence exists for those.

3) As for your more "plausible" scenarios:

i) That person would have to be insanely superhumanly strong to roll a stone that took a dozen men to set in place (if they weren't actually dead), and would have to have survived hours hanging on a cross yet still have the strength to move said stone. It would also require a unit with enough strength to easily overpower a Roman guard legion and move the stone without anyone noticing to take the body.

ii) Only 3 witnesses are needed in court. 1000s of witnesses who saw the same thing tend to be far more convincing.

I have already presented you with my evidence, but you believe the man himself never existed, so like I said, there really is nothing for us to discuss if you've already taken that stance.

@pooty: Look I gave you the answer and you still question it. The problem isn't the answer, it's you.

1. Adam was not a child. He was an Adult. He had to have some degree of knowledge of right and wrong because God had told him not to eat the fruit. So, basically Adam was given a Law to follow that gave the option to obey or disobey.

That is what this situation is about.. not big bad guy against a little child. Adam made a moral choice. Doing so he made a bad choice. So, the analogy doesn't work. Plus the serpent wasn't trying to hurt them, but to trick them.

Matthew Mark Luke And John collectively described events of the public beating of Jesus by death crucifixion and burial.

(Mark 15:15)

The chances of surviving Crucifixion were really low. Roman Army had a strict policy about. If you're looking after a prisoner of war no matter rank or title or position and that person gets away your life would replace his. Now if A prisoner of execution got away just imagine the trouble you would be in..

The Romans were experts at killing people. They specialized in it.

(John 19:34) Medical experts have concluded this account from John (an eyewitness of the execution) is evidence that as he suffocated on the cross his heart ruptured.

(Mathew 27: 57-60) All of the Gospels confirm that Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. The evidence is 1. Joseph of Arimathea was identified as a member of the counsel. The Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus.

His presence at the empty tomb narrative shows that this is a historical reliable account of what really happened. He would have been known to people back then. Just like a senator is known in America. There would have been no mistake about his tombs whereabouts. This also indicates that this story could not have been simply made up.

(Luke 24:1) To understand or appreciate the finding of the empty tomb you have to understand that women were second class citizens at this time. Also, if you were going to invent.. an account about an empty tomb. Why the heck would invent primary witnesses that no one would believe? One witness with a sketchy past if I might add. No one would just make this up.

(Mathew 28:12-13) Mathew reports the Jewish authorities claiming the followers of Jesus stole his dead body. (Verified by Justin and Tertullian) saying that the Jewish leaders were still saying the same thing in their time. The claim that the body was stolen confirms that the enemies of Jesus acknowledged that the no one is in the tomb. If the tomb was not empty, Jesus' opponents would surely have gone and got the body and shown it as soon as the disciples began proclaiming the resurrection.

(1 Corinthians 15-4-8) The earliest passage about the resurrection of Jesus from Paul who was a first generation Christian who met the resurrected Jesus. He describes the appearance to Peter, the apostles, James and lastly to himself. He also mentions 500 people who saw Jesus alive. Eyewitnesses first hand accounts of someone who saw Jesus alive and 500 others who did as well. Whether you believe it or not that's strong evidence. Paul was quoting this from a creed which was an early formula tradition that predates the New Testament which most scholars date 3 to 5 years before the crucifixion itself. The accounts of the resurrection were credal tradition that were passed down to Paul.

1 Corinthians 15: 3-7 confirms that belief in the resurrection was already present among Jews within two or three years after Jesus was killed. Meaning this account didn't evolve after 3, 4, or 5 decades.

The best way to describe the full impact of these events is the growth of the early church during intense persecution. Tactius even wrote about the persecution with a passage about Nero.

If this ressurection never happened I wouldn't be here having this discussion. There have been others who have claimed what Jesus had did and were killed.. yet no movements arose from those claims and deaths.

(2 Corinthians 11:23) The disciples experienced hardship for 2 to 4 decades and were eventually executed. They didn't just die for something they believed in. They died for something they saw with their own eyes.

What's interesting is James who was the half brother of Jesus, but wasn't a believer in Jesus in his life time and later on died a death of a martyr as the leader of a local church. In the same way Saul of Tarsus (a persecutor of Christians) and later becomes the apostle Paul

So in the cases of James and Paul they did not believe in Jesus before the crucifixion. They thought he was crazy and did not accept his teachings.

James was a skeptic who didn't go to Jesus until he met the risen Jesus which critics allow.

Paul was a persecutor until he met the risen Jesus. "This isn't the testimony of someone who all gets together and says yea lets just cook this thing up.."

The only rational reason for them to continue what they were doing in ministry is something happened crucifixion and 3 days after and their answer was they saw a risen Jesus.

Yes I have compared. That's is why I stayed a Christian in the first place.

I'm willing to stipulate that such a person existed for the sake of argument. All I'm saying is that there's weak evidence for his existence, especially given the things that are attributed to him. For example, the Bible says that when Jesus was resurrected there was an earthquake and the dead came out of their graves and walked the streets. Now, surely if this actually happened there would be many historical records of it... yes? Where are those records???

As far as how a person named "Jesus" became the figurehead of a religion, it could happen many ways. The fact that there's a religion with "Jesus" as the center no more means that Jesus was real than does a religion with "Thor" as the center mean that Thor actually existed.

I never said that I believe in aliens. In fact I dont believe that we have been visited by aliens.

But, it's funny that you should say that there's no "evidence" for aliens since there's much more evidence for aliens of the same type that you claim for Jesus. There are stories and eye-witness testimony, and more importantly physical evidence for the existence of aliens. Why do you discount them, but you accept Jesus?

"Someone took it" doesnt necessarily mean "one single person pushed a huge stone and took it", it just means that a person or group may have done it. If people could put a body in a grave, then surely people can take it out. There's nothing physically impossible in that that requires supernatural intervention.

There is no "1000s of witnesses", there are a few stories likely all based on the same one story that says that many people saw it. If you actually have thousands of individual first-hand eye-witness testimonies... lets see them.

Again you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that I believe Jesus never existed, I said I'm not convinced that he did exist. Do you see the difference?

As far as evidence, I havent seen what evidence you're presented for anything. Maybe I missed it, in which case I apologize. Can you list the evidence that you presented?

@chillxpill: We just have to disagree on those points. I say adam was an adult in age but not in mind. He never experienced life and was naive. Dude didn't even know he was naked. and thousands of people tell the same story about Bigfoot but that doesn't make it true.

Christians vary on these questions so i'll ask you

But do you believe the entire Bible is completely true? If not what is untrue

Is God always perfect and just?

You say you studied other religions. What about Christianty made you believe it was the "true religion"?

@willpayton:

I'm willing to stipulate that such a person existed for the sake of argument. All I'm saying is that there's weak evidence for his existence, especially given the things that are attributed to him. For example, the Bible says that when Jesus was resurrected there was an earthquake and the dead came out of their graves and walked the streets. Now, surely if this actually happened there would be many historical records of it... yes? Where are those records???

As far as how a person named "Jesus" became the figurehead of a religion, it could happen many ways. The fact that there's a religion with "Jesus" as the center no more means that Jesus was real than does a religion with "Thor" as the center mean that Thor actually existed.

Like I mentioned, it is not that there is no evidence or that the evidence is weak, it is simply that you do not accept it.

And who exactly would you expect to have kept records? The Leaders who did not want to substantiate Jesus' story? The people present? There are 4 different accounts from disciples that were present if that is the case.

As far as how a person named "Jesus" became the figurehead of a religion, it could happen many ways. The fact that there's a religion with "Jesus" as the center no more means that Jesus was real than does a religion with "Thor" as the center mean that Thor actually existed.

There are huge differences between the 2. Thor was a figure of a rising culture where none existed beforehand. while Jesus arose in a probably the most stringent culture of the time (Judaism) which was already established for many centuries. Thor was also regarded as a god born in a realm beyond human reaches, while Jesus was regarded to have been born in an earthly city and witnessed by many and have an earthly family. Also, belief in Jesus was accompanied by severe persecution, while believing in Thor was the accepted cultural norm of the Vikings. Also, Thor remained a cultural figure for only the Vikings, while belief in Jesus spread like wildfire despite the persecution.

You have given no viable alternative as to how a man, a carpenter no less became the figurehead of such a vibrant and rapidly growing religion.

I never said that I believe in aliens. In fact I dont believe that we have been visited by aliens.

But, it's funny that you should say that there's no "evidence" for aliens since there's much more evidence for aliens of the same type that you claim for Jesus. There are stories and eye-witness testimony, and more importantly physical evidence for the existence of aliens. Why do you discount them, but you accept Jesus?

That doesn't say that you don't believe they exist. There's been physical evidence? Where? Actually, extensive study of our galaxy has yielded not a single planet (among billions) that is viable for life. Not a single one out of billions is pretty staggering evidence to show that it is incredibly unlikely that life can arise by chance.

"Someone took it" doesnt necessarily mean "one single person pushed a huge stone and took it", it just means that a person or group may have done it. If people could put a body in a grave, then surely people can take it out. There's nothing physically impossible in that that requires supernatural intervention.

That remains a vague assertion. Who took it? Again it would require a group that could fight off some of the best fighters in the region without making noise. That is incredibly unlikely and requires belief in an event that would be short of miraculous, so no dice there for you. You also have the compounded problems of the motives for taking it, reasons why it was not recovered and how no one would have knowledge of such a large group. Not to mention the people that saw said body alive after in the dozens.

There is no "1000s of witnesses", there are a few stories likely all based on the same one story that says that many people saw it. If you actually have thousands of individual first-hand eye-witness testimonies... lets see them.

500+ is hardly "a few". These were obviously mostly oral accounts but the sheer number of those who attested to them makes them practically undeniable.

Again you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that I believe Jesus never existed, I said I'm not convinced that he did exist. Do you see the difference?

As far as evidence, I havent seen what evidence you're presented for anything. Maybe I missed it, in which case I apologize. Can you list the evidence that you presented?

There is no difference. You either believe he existed or not. You have made it clear you fall on the "don't" side.

I presented the evidence of the empty grave and eyewitness accounts. You are yet to give any reasonable alternatives. All that you have mentioned are just as incredible and require belief in numerous extraordinary events.

@pooty: Well the easiest way I can explain this is the inclination wasn't there before they ate the fruit. Every part of there body had a purpose to them. There was no lust involved. Only when they knew what lust was is when being naked was the problem.

Haha I know we can both agree that a blind man knows if he is naked so I doubt they really didn't know they were naked.

I believe the Bible is true. Though Christians have to be careful about what they read and actually take time to understand what the passage really means. Just like with anything you don't understand or isn't in its original translation.

Yes.

Christianity isn't work based. Christianity is more of a relationship than "religion". Although I will say, one can get TOO comfortable being a Christian. I admire Muslims for being on point with their strong dedication for their belief.

Even though their have been tons of historical figures who have claim to be God, Jesus was the only one to make that claim and prove it.

@pooty: For the last question, I;d also add in that I find polytheism to be inadequate to account for existence as it doesn't propose an ultimate first source of all things.

With that, we are left with monotheism of which there are fewer religions that ascribe to this. Judaism seems to be the primary one, but exclusive to the descendants of the Hebrews. Christianity proposes the same God with a plan for all of humanity and fulfilment of the promises within Judaism, hence my alignment with that.

I also find Islam to be inadequate because it tends to contradict the message of the other 2.

@frozen: think of it this way, my whole family is hard core fundamentalist "bible thumping" Christians. They raised me as a young earth creationist in a small town with one church that everyone in the town goes to. People would and still do talk in tongues (gibberish), act like they are healed etc... In that church. And if people found out, I wouldn't be welcomed anywhere. I am forced to keep my opinions on the down low, which is why I like the internet so much. And being in college (away) is a "blessing".

Yes, the two do seem to be interchangeable in a lot of areas.

Incorrect. I accept the evidence that exists for Jesus having been a historical person. I just think it's weak evidence. I'm not sure why this is a problem. I already said multiple times that I'm willing to stipulate that he existed.

As far as records, I expect that historians and record keepers of the day would have kept records. There are plenty of historical accounts of all kinds of things from that time. Surely anything as extraordinary as mass numbers of dead people walking the streets and a massive earthquake would have been recorded.

Using stories that are in the Bible to support this is very weak because the Bible was put together specifically to support the religion. Even beyond that, we'd have to look at how trustworthy the Bible sources are and whether those stories are actually independent accounts or just retellings of other earlier accounts.

If you dont like the Thor examples then I can give many more. The fact is that people are gullible and will believe in ridiculous things and follow people and stories even to their own deaths. Persecution has never stopped people from following false beliefs. Even in modern times we have examples like the followers of Jim Jones, the Branch Davidians, the Heaven's Gate cult, the followers of Charles Manson... do I need to continue?

Cults and religions start all the time. Scientology was started in the 1950's by a science-fiction writer! Why do you expect me to show how one such cult started 2,000 years ago? I'm not the one making any claims about what happened 2000 years ago, you are.

There's been plenty of claims about physical evidence that aliens have visited the Earth... photographs, videos, implants, debris from crashed ships, and more. If you want specifics then just Google it.

Of course I think that all of it is really bad evidence, but they do have it. The point remains, there's more evidence for aliens visiting Earth than there is for a resurrection.

Yes, of course it's very unlikely that aliens are visiting us. But, you seem to have no problem believing that the supernatural exists even though there's not a single shred of evidence for it. Not just that, but every test on the supernatural has failed. And not just that, but it clearly goes against the laws of physics and even basic logic. You believe this stuff, but are skeptical about... aliens?

Of course it's a vague assertion... because I'm not claiming any such thing happened.

Again the claim that many people saw a resurrected Jesus. 1) I still dont see the actual accounts of this, and 2) seeing someone alive doesnt mean he was dead and rose from the dead. A more plausible explanation is he wasnt dead to begin with.

If you actually think that seeing someone alive after you thought they were dead is convincing... then I'd like to show you plenty of evidence that someone can cut a woman in half and then put her back together.

So far you're just claiming that these first-hand accounts exist. Stories about other stories are not evidence, you need the actual accounts themselves.

No, there is a difference. One is a positive statement of belief, the other is not. It's like in courts of law, "guilty" is different from "not guilty". One means that you're convinced that a person is guilty and the other means that you're not. He might be guilty or he might not be, you're just not sure.

Those are not evidence, those are claims about evidence. There's a difference. It's like if I claim that I have a UFO parked in my back yard, and claim that that's evidence for aliens. It's not, I actually have to provide the evidence that a UFO is actually in my yard.

So as of now you still havent given evidence, only stories. I dont really have to give any "reasonable alternatives"... and I'm not sure why you think I do. The burden of proof is on the person making the claims. This is basic logic.

@blacklegraph:

I also find Islam to be inadequate because it tends to contradict the message of the other 2.

What message does Islam contradict regarding Judaism and christianity?

Christianity proposes the same God with a plan for all of humanity and fulfilment of the promises within Judaism, hence my alignment with that

Islam does the same thing. Muslims worship the same abrahamic god and has a plan for all humanity. Islam doesn't agree with the "Son of God" part but neither does Judaism. They all contradict each other

@chillxpill: Christianity isn't work based. Christianity is more of a relationship than "religion

Christianity, like Islam and Judaism is part faith and part works. You have to believe in a certain person and you have to keep their commandments,correct? Matthew 7:21,22 James 2:14-18. Or do you believe that as long as you believe that Jesus is your savior that is enough?

Wow, I cant even imagine what that must be like.

@pooty: Sry forgot to add: I'm talking about Salvation in Christianity has nothing to do with works.

God has blessed the Jewish people in both Judaism & Christianity while Allah curses them for example. There are many more too numerous to list (spreading the religion by the sword or even at all, the praying towards Mecca which was a compromise for the pagan worshippers there, etc) Judaism has texts that say they Messiah would initially be rejected by his own people which is supported by both Jews rejection of him and Christianity's acceptance of him. Islam does away with the Messiah altogether.

Also, works should naturally follow faith, but all that is required is a belief in Jesus. It kind of follows that if you believe him, you would desire to do what he says.

I know. I quoted two scriptures that say you do need works in order to be saved.

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

James 2:14-18 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?......Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead

In the Bible, in different places, it says you are saved by faith, grace of God and by works. all three are needed.

@king_saturn:

The definition of Unicorn is (one-horned).

I never said there was no word for beast in hebrew. I told you there MAY NOT or MIGHT NOT be a word for beast in ancient hebrew/aramaic. Ive never looked up the hebrew for beast before, it just isn't that important to me.

And your talking about the hebrew word for beast did you also check to see if that word is from the new or old testament. The languages between the two are different.

@pooty: In both Judaism and Christianity, the Jews were God's chosen people in terms of the convenant, while Allah curses the Jews for instance. The Jewish texts have verses declaring that the Messiah would initially be rejected by his own people, which is supported by both the Jews rejection of him and the Christians' acceptance. Islam does away with the Messiah altogether.

Also, works are naturally meant to follow faith. Belief in Christ is all that is required, and it kinda follows that if you believe in him, you would want to do what he says.

@willpayton:

Incorrect. I accept the evidence that exists for Jesus having been a historical person. I just think it's weak evidence. I'm not sure why this is a problem. I already said multiple times that I'm willing to stipulate that he existed.

As far as records, I expect that historians and record keepers of the day would have kept records. There are plenty of historical accounts of all kinds of things from that time. Surely anything as extraordinary as mass numbers of dead people walking the streets and a massive earthquake would have been recorded.

Using stories that are in the Bible to support this is very weak because the Bible was put together specifically to support the religion. Even beyond that, we'd have to look at how trustworthy the Bible sources are and whether those stories are actually independent accounts or just retellings of other earlier accounts.

You have now accepted that Jesus was a real man. That's one step of progress I guess.

Which historians exactly did you expect to keep records? You've just reiterated these vague expectations that some nameless person or another would have recorded something. You are under the impression that because it was extraordinary, it must have been recorded when we are dealing with a group that still favoured oral tradition and events that would have been bad for the ruling political powers. You refuse to consider the context of the time.

Using stories in the Bible is not weak seeing as there was stringent measures taken to preserve the texts and make sure that they corresponded with supporting documents. The Bible contains many of the most conservely preserved documents in history and some of the most accurate writings as well. I'm sure I don't need to explain why having a document that is meant to support an event doesn't make what the documents contain untrue. That is to be judged by its own merit, and the books of the Bible excel in that.

If you dont like the Thor examples then I can give many more. The fact is that people are gullible and will believe in ridiculous things and follow people and stories even to their own deaths. Persecution has never stopped people from following false beliefs. Even in modern times we have examples like the followers of Jim Jones, the Branch Davidians, the Heaven's Gate cult, the followers of Charles Manson... do I need to continue?

Cults and religions start all the time. Scientology was started in the 1950's by a science-fiction writer! Why do you expect me to show how one such cult started 2,000 years ago? I'm not the one making any claims about what happened 2000 years ago, you are.

I'm sure it has been mentioned that treating every religion or belief system the same is ignorant. They arise in different circumstances and the context is extremely important. None of those you mentioned faced any persecution similar to the early church. Your examples also defeat your own argument seeing as they required strong figureheads to lead, which is impossible if said figurehead never existed ;) The fact is none of them required as much proof as the resurrection which was the entire basis of the Christian faith. Scientology makes no special claims about a man who lived on Earth being crucified for instance and actually had many popular figures give it its fame.

Again, the circumstances remain very different and mostly incomparable.

There's been plenty of claims about physical evidence that aliens have visited the Earth... photographs, videos, implants, debris from crashed ships, and more. If you want specifics then just Google it.

Of course I think that all of it is really bad evidence, but they do have it. The point remains, there's more evidence for aliens visiting Earth than there is for a resurrection.

Yes, of course it's very unlikely that aliens are visiting us. But, you seem to have no problem believing that the supernatural exists even though there's not a single shred of evidence for it. Not just that, but every test on the supernatural has failed. And not just that, but it clearly goes against the laws of physics and even basic logic. You believe this stuff, but are skeptical about... aliens?

Wow! Who would have guessed that the supernatural cannot be proven by the natural? How earth-shattering! Next we'd find out you can't use a thermometer to measure the weight of a car!

All joking aside, it is logical that the natural cannot prove the supernatural (like no duh), or use the laws of physics to prove the meta-physical. And you have repeated the "no evidence" instead of the "I don't accept the evidence" bit. Of course there is some evidence to alien encounters, but like I said, the main necessity which is a habitable planet remains un-supportable. That is where my decision lies. Plus there remains far more evidence for the resurrection than any alien encounters, seeing as all accounts were of the same man and a public event while those for alien activity tend to be contradictory and individualized.

Again the claim that many people saw a resurrected Jesus. 1) I still dont see the actual accounts of this, and 2) seeing someone alive doesnt mean he was dead and rose from the dead. A more plausible explanation is he wasnt dead to begin with.

That remains just as implausible. It would require a man hang on a cross, be confirmed dead by soldiers who had huge reasons to be sure, be drained of body fluids and then move a stone that required a dozen men to move even if he survived all that.

So far you're just claiming that these first-hand accounts exist. Stories about other stories are not evidence, you need the actual accounts themselves.

They are in the Gospels. I thought that was clear. And you'd be surprised how much of history is pieced from "stories about stories". Unless you want to say history did not exist before the invention of writing.

No, there is a difference. One is a positive statement of belief, the other is not. It's like in courts of law, "guilty" is different from "not guilty". One means that you're convinced that a person is guilty and the other means that you're not. He might be guilty or he might not be, you're just not sure.

In court, the verdict is either guilty or not guilty, if the jury is not convinced, they cannot vote guilty. Again, there is no difference. Whether he's guilty or not is irrelevant to the jury's decision. They either believe he is or he isn't.

Not being sure he is guilty doesn't change a "guilty" verdict from being a positive statement of belief.

Those are not evidence, those are claims about evidence. There's a difference. It's like if I claim that I have a UFO parked in my back yard, and claim that that's evidence for aliens. It's not, I actually have to provide the evidence that a UFO is actually in my yard.

I can't hold your hand and take you to the grave to see for yourself that it is empty, that is something you will have to do on your own, but remains evidence. It is up to you to verify for yourself that the grave is empty.