A Gutsy Preacher

[MarkFL]

Well, before we go directly to the birth, life and resurrection of Christ, let's (I don't mean you personally, I mean the hypothetical "they" who try to convince) just get to the point where we have any compelling evidence for the supernatural. Once we clear this very first hurdle, then we can contemplate the multitude of hurdles remaining that would get us to theism (and our work would only just have begun at that point to get to Christianity). It is this first hurdle that stands in the way for the skeptic at the moment and is what prevents me as a skeptic from being compelled or even motivated to accept any claims made regarding the supernatural.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, before we go directly to the birth, life and resurrection of Christ, let's (I don't mean you personally, I mean the hypothetical "they" who try to convince) just get to the point where we have any compelling evidence for the supernatural. Once we clear this very first hurdle, then we can contemplate the multitude of hurdles remaining that would get us to theism (and our work would only just have begun at that point to get to Christianity). It is this first hurdle that stands in the way for the skeptic at the moment and is what prevents me as a skeptic from being compelled or even motivated to accept any claims made regarding the supernatural.

The miracles worked by Jesus left no archeology, no permanently hardened surface on the sea of Galilee on which a man may walk today, no man living still who Jesus healed, no man walking who he healed of lameness, no eternally living man risen from the dead at Jesus' command. The evidence for miracles is human testimony that they happened. Even today the testimony to miracles wrought in places like Lourdes is the testimony of witnesses. I do not think that testimony will convince a sceptic. Testimony is too mundane to bear the weight demanded by a sceptic. It appears to me that a sceptic will accept only a miracle done to him/her as credible and even then it will likely be insufficient to convince.

 

[MarkFL]

The miracles worked by Jesus left no archeology, no permanently hardened surface on the sea of Galilee on which a man may walk today, no man living still who Jesus healed, no man walking who he healed of lameness, no eternally living man risen from the dead at Jesus' command. The evidence for miracles is human testimony that they happened. Even today the testimony to miracles wrought in places like Lourdes is the testimony of witnesses. I do not think that testimony will convince a sceptic. Testimony is too mundane to bear the weight demanded by a sceptic. It appears to me that a sceptic will accept only a miracle done to him/her as credible and even then it will likely be insufficient to convince.

I have been asked before just what kind of evidence I would accept, and all I can say in return is if anything more compelling than personal testimony comes along, I will certainly consider it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I have been asked before just what kind of evidence I would accept, and all I can say in return is if anything more compelling than personal testimony comes along, I will certainly consider it.

It's good of you to say so yet I think nothing more convincing than testimony will come your way, but with God all things are possible so God willing something will come your way that finds its way home. You are a decent man Mark, that is obvious from your conduct here and from your willingness to help even though the site is for purposes and beliefs that are not your own. God bless you.

 

[MarkFL]

It's good of you to say so yet I think nothing more convincing that testimony will come your way, but with God all things are possible so God willing something will come your way that finds its way home. You are a decent man Mark, that is obvious from your conduct here and from your willingness to help even though the site is for purposes and beliefs that are not your own. God bless you.

Your open integrity, which shows clearly in your willingness to understand the positions of others without demonization or condescension, speaks volumes about how deep your faith is, so much so that you don't feel threatened or your faith compromised by your understanding and willingness to stand up and state as much. That's all I would ask of others is to judge me not based on my being an atheist (it really isn't something I see as being a significant part of who I am, but naturally here it gets discussed more), but on my character and actions.

 

[Rens]

Well, before we go directly to the birth, life and resurrection of Christ, let's (I don't mean you personally, I mean the hypothetical "they" who try to convince) just get to the point where we have any compelling evidence for the supernatural. Once we clear this very first hurdle, then we can contemplate the multitude of hurdles remaining that would get us to theism (and our work would only just have begun at that point to get to Christianity). It is this first hurdle that stands in the way for the skeptic at the moment and is what prevents me as a skeptic from being compelled or even motivated to accept any claims made regarding the supernatural.

That was my first step too, but I was 14 and I'm not a beta person, so I was easier to convince. I read occult books with a friend about ghosts and occult experiences of people, then I thought: I'm not an atheist anymore now that I have all this what we call in Holland by belief (superstition), so why not just believe, why wouldn't there be a spirit who's the boss of them? Then I checked that out, but simply by asking stuff to happen, not real scientific evidence.
My mom, my brother and I are christians. My brother got saved at the same time. He saw Jesus when he did Zen meditation. We're not the ones that are left brained or is it right lol I don't even know. My dad and sister who's a doctor use their brain for everything, so they're not as easy to convince. They need some more. My dad saw real miracles happen. It would have gotten me saved immediately.

 

[MarkFL]

That was my first step too, but I was 14 and I'm not a beta person, so I was easier to convince. I read occult books with a friend about ghosts and occult experiences of people, then I thought: I'm not an atheist anymore now that I have all this what we call in Holland by belief (superstition), do why not just believe, why wouldn't there be an spirit who's the boss of them? Then I checked that out, but simply by asking stuff to happen, not real scientific evidence.
My mom, my brother and I are christians. My brother got saved at the same time. He saw Jesus when he did Zen meditation. We're not the ones that are left brained or is it right lol I don't even know. My dad and sister who's a doctor use their brain for everything, so they're not as easy to convince. They need some more. My dad saw real miracles happen. It would have gotten me saved immediately.

We all have our own stories and ways we came to our positions on theism. What works for one may not work for another. I'm just happy to have a chance to explain my personal methodology (and that it's not rooted in evil, only on skepticism), and to get more people to understand that atheism in general is not a positive claim, but simply a rejection of a claim. Thanks to all who listened.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Just because science can't explain everything doesn't mean it can't explain anything. And we don't get or need to just invent unfalsifiable explanations to fill those ever receding pockets of ignorance. Such assertions have no real explanatory power. Where science offers a theory (a scientific theory), we have knowledge, and where it doesn't we simply have ignorance at that point in time. The best we can do is continue to investigate, hypothesize, and test...that's how we make real progress.

But science cannot, at this time, confirm or deny the existence of GOD or the non material on any level. This could be because matter is the basis and extent of all existence, or it could be because we just haven't come nearly as far in our scientific knowledge as we would like to think. I agree that we should not assume anything about what we don't know. But that isn't atheism it's agnosticism.

Peace

 

[Rens]

But that isn't atheism it's agnosticism.

Peace

Oh no.. not again. It's agnostic atheism, no wait atheist agnosticism AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH

 

[popsthebuilder]

Well, before we go directly to the birth, life and resurrection of Christ, let's (I don't mean you personally, I mean the hypothetical "they" who try to convince) just get to the point where we have any compelling evidence for the supernatural. Once we clear this very first hurdle, then we can contemplate the multitude of hurdles remaining that would get us to theism (and our work would only just have begun at that point to get to Christianity). It is this first hurdle that stands in the way for the skeptic at the moment and is what prevents me as a skeptic from being compelled or even motivated to accept any claims made regarding the supernatural.

But the supernatural, by definition is outside of the normal scope of things so how would you even test for it? And why does GOD have to be supernatural? What if out knowledge is just so limited that what we consider to be supernatural is just simple inexplicable within current scientific measures and methods?

Peace

 

[MoreCoffee]

Oh no.. not again. It's agnostic atheism, no wait atheist agnosticism AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH

It's just atheism.

 

[MarkFL]

But science cannot, at this time, confirm or deny the existence of GOD or the non material on any level.

Correct...no one can legitimately confirm or deny the existence of the supernatural...thus the default position is to reject any claim made about it.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Correct...no one can legitimately confirm or deny the existence of the supernatural...thus the default position is to reject any claim made about it.

Not to reject per say, but to be open to new data and possibilities though our ability to measure or test such is as of yet bereft from us.

Not gullible, but not insistent on ones own unevidenced presupposition.

Peace

 

[MarkFL]

Not to reject per say, but to be open to new data and possibilities though our ability to measure or test such is as of yet bereft from us.

Not gullible, but not insistent on ones own unevidenced presupposition.

If new evidence comes to light, then yes we should all be open to it. Until then, the default position in the face of no evidence is to reject a claim. This is not a presupposition...it is in fact the opposite of presupposition.

 

[popsthebuilder]

If new evidence comes to light, then yes we should all be open to it. Until then, the default position in the face of no evidence is to reject a claim. This is not a presupposition...it is in fact the opposite of presupposition.

To be skeptic is okay again, but you shouldn't allow incomplete theories to dictate truths.

Peace

 

[MarkFL]

To be skeptic is okay again, but you shouldn't allow incomplete theories dictate truths.

What we shouldn't do it is say that since science can't answer everything, it therefore can't answer anything. Science already explains a great deal, and is directly responsible for the technological progress we have made. But, there is much our science cannot yet explain...so our work is not finished.

But my skepticism, which drives my atheism, has nothing to do with science. It simply has to do with me not accepting things without evidence...and that's what works best for me. I would not presume to tell others that they can't or shouldn't believe things by faith.

 

[Lamb]

There were those who had proof in the form of the risen Christ yet still did not believe.

 

[Rens]

There were those who had proof in the form of the risen Christ yet still did not believe.

They believed He rose from the dead, is was obvious. They just hated Him. That's why they only got the sign of Jonah.

 

[Rens]

LOL I'm having a discussion again with a Freethinker I met years ago on a Freethinker site. On purpose they go to christian fora to throw seeds of doubt, they said that on their own site. They tell each other there how to approach those silly christians, act like you're seriously interested, just unbelievable those guys. So one guy asks questions, don't know if he's from that site too, about God being evil with Adam and Eve and all and then he says: God should have told Eve. He doesn't know women. Women never listen to a man. So this other guy comes who's trolling on purpose, but in Holland that's freedom of speach and doesn't even give you a warning, no problem, and he says: would you want to be in heaven with such a God blablablablabla God is evil.
I said: Bonjour (that guy told me I should see a psychiater, they say christians are delusional, religion is a mental illness), you know what you should do?
Listen to a woman LOL.

 

[MoreCoffee]

There were those who had proof in the form of the risen Christ yet still did not believe.

Claimed resurrection probably was not sufficient evidence for them. Even if they believed he rose from the dead they might have thought it didn't make him God.