Quote:
Originally Posted by Manic_Skafe
Nice thread, Will.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manic_Skafe
Atheists often posit that the existence of god need only be substantiated by those who believe while believers pretend as if their capacity to believe serves as anything more than a testament to their capacity to believe. Aren't both perspectives similarly flawed? How are religiosity and atheism anything more than opposite sides of the same coin? How does either amount to anything more than grasping toward certainty when none is to be found?
|
Religiosity, or theism, generally is not agnostic in any way. Most believers are certain of the existence of god or gods. If you present them with verifiable evidence, they are more likely to take the role of an apologist. Most atheists are atheists because of null theory, or we're unconvinced. If presented with verifiable evidence for the existence of the supernatural, I swear I'd be totally interested and I'd do everything within my intellectual ability to understand it.
The opposite of a theist would be a hard atheist, or someone who absolutely is unwilling to believe in god or gods even when presented with verifiable evidence. These people are out there, but they're uncommon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strange Famous
If you died, and met God, would you disappointed?
|
It depends on which one. If I were to find myself, after death, face to face with a god, it could just as easily be Ra, Ba'al, Zeus, or some god no one's ever heard of. If it's the God of the Bible, I'd be supremely disappointed if he is anything like the way he's depicted in scripture. I really look down on the whole "I require you to worship me" thing, especially when there's vengeance involved for those who don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitesportscar
Have you ever investigated the historical (extra-Biblical) evidence of the person known as Jesus Christ and/or his claims to be God (I and the Father are One)?
|
I have. There's nothing at all from the time when Jesus is said to have lived, and the stuff that came after bears little to no resemblance to the Jesus that came out of the ecumenical councils. That substantial inconsistency tells me that Jesus was a story that was retold over and over again, changing as the story was retold, and eventually a highly politicized process finally hammered out the story we're familiar with today.
It's possible there was a Jesus, a Joshua, son of Joseph, that went around performing and preaching, but there's no reason at all to think that he was superhuman or was a god.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitesportscar
Hmm...maybe that is 2 questions.....
The reason I ask is because some Christians base their faith and belief not only on the Bible, but on the historical evidences as well.
|
With due respect, I doubt that's the case. The Bible reads a great deal like historical fiction, or fantasy woven in with historical record. There was a Herod, but that doesn't mean there was a Jesus, in order words.