the right religion

[1robin]

The above is so full of holes and so illogical that there's simply no reason for me to comment any further beyond this post because I do believe these holes are pretty apparent to most here, including your fellow Christians. I'm quite positive that most Christian theologians would assert that belief in not based on evidence but on faith, and I have seen many of them use somewhat similar words to that effect.

There simply is no logical way in which anyone can actually provide objective evidence enough to convince an unbiased jury that any one specific religion is the only right one. What may convince one person will often not convince another.

I can actually prove everything I said to a certainty. I claimed that a concepts truth is independent of anyone's perception of it. Pluto was a planet long before anyone even suspected it existed. It was an objective fact before anyone perceived it. What I said has no holes. It is perfectly logical and is a rare provable fact in a theological discussion.

You did not and cannot show that claim is in any way false.
So I guess you went for another claim all together that I never made.

I never said that any faith can be objectively proven right. No theological or historical claim of any type is argued to a certainty. They are argued to a probability. Christianity has the highest probability of being true and it is exclusive and more than likely (as truth its self is exclusive) even if it was wrong, whatever turns out to be right will be exclusive. Christianity also alone among all major faiths provides SUBJECTIVE proof to everyone who believes.

I made a claim in one context (and it is a proven fact). Why do you put it in another context and claims it did not work? You can't use a hammer to fix a PLC.

 

[1robin]

How can you say, "The one thing I consider completely invalid is metaphysical speculation" when you yourself believe in a man who can walk on water, turn water into wine and so on, and believe you yourself don't believe in metaphysics ?.

That claim is not a matter of pure speculation. It has historical documents that back it up. It has precedents in all of recorded history. In short it is no different that any study of any historical claim. I do not mean that you can't posit something that can't be proven. I meant you can't posit something you do not have good evidence and reasons to think is true. Actually you can do so, it would however mean next to nothing.

There maybe billions of you but that doesn't mean you are right, usually the majority are wrong, there is no proof of any religion being the true religion, so there is no argument, until you truly have proof, if not its just like arguing if the Easter bunny rabbit is true or not.

Historical and theological claims are not argued to a certainty. They are argued to a probability. If a belief about something that is accessible is claimed to be true by billions it has a higher probability of being true than one that has thousands or one that is not accessible. For some reason your are assigning a proof burden to a faith claim and you are claiming that if not proven I can't claim it but allow your self to claim things that have no evidence at all. Why? You are also drawing false equality claims. The Easter bunny has no evidence for his existence. Christ and God have more evidence that any other figure of ancient history. You can't equate things that are not equal. It is an act of desperation.

 

[1robin]

Can you explain this? I didn't understand what do you mean by roadmap.

The Gospels are a spiritual map that claims to lead a person to an EXPERIENCE with Christ. I and billions have followed it and found exactly what it promised. A map that leads to what it promised can't be the wrong map.

Btw, im sure 'billions' of christians have found no such roadmap.

There exists no actual Christian that did not find Christ by using the map God provided. If they have not met Christ they are not Christians, regardless of what they claim (that is according to Christ himself).

 

[metis]

I can actually prove everything I said to a certainty...

I never said that any faith can be objectively proven right. No theological or historical claim of any type is argued to a certainty.

:run:

 

[1robin]

:run:

Emoticons should never be substituted for arguments in a sincere debate. I have no idea what this means. Did you give up, punt, quit or is this sarcasm? What it is not is a refutation of anything I have said nor a response to my claims specifically.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I thought the quote (containing an apparent explicit self-contradiction) sort of said it all...

 

[1robin]

I thought the quote (containing an apparent explicit self-contradiction) sort of said it all...

What quote?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The quote immediately preceding the emoticon.

 

[1robin]

The quote immediately preceding the emoticon.

Well I can easily why I did not see what you were saying, because it was wrong.

One quote was made about specific claims that were not faith claims. They were about easily demonstrated things. The other addressed faith claims exclusively. The tactic of using one statement in a context it was never given in and the use of emoticons as an argument have the same source. At least I know what the error was even though it could not be shown by the use of a single letter. No wonder, I would not have addressed why I had thrown two unrelated statements together either.

Many things can be proven to any reasonable man. Most faith claims can't (though many get pretty close). Two types of things with independent burdens and criteria.

 

[Agnostic75]

And I said that "logically, if powerful supernatural beings exist, there is no way that puny, imperfect, fallible humans could determine which supernatural beings are good, and which are evil, or even that any good supernatural beings exist."

They cannot objectively prove it but they can satisfy their personal requirements for this, which is what Christianity was designed to accomplish. Why do I have a burden for the former?

But if a powerful supernatural being inspired the Bible, you cannot reasonably whether he was who he said he was, or is an imposter.

You against a powerful, evil supernatural being would be no contest at all. Such a being would easily be able to deceive you unless a more powerful good supernatural being prevented him from doing it, and you cannot provide any credible evidence that such a being exists.

Again that is why I do not spend much time proving God is good. I only prove why your sides' constant claims that he is evil are foundationless.

If Satan, masquerading as a good God, inspired the Bible, obviously, he is evil.

I can only decide if there I sufficient evidence to BELIEVE that he is good.

You have not provided sufficient evidence.

Humankind values self sacrifice above all else. God provided the ultimate example of that.

No, an evil God could easily have deceived the followers of all religions.

 

[Agnostic75]

You are merely appealing to your emotional self-interest. The Bible appeals to many people primarily because of their emotional self-interest. If there were ten Gospels instead of four, and they all said that God will send everyone to hell for eternity without parole, few people would believe the claim, certainly nowhere near the number of Christians that are in the world today, and most people would try to discredit the claim, and would hope that it is wrong. That proves that William Lane Craig's "multiple, independent attestations" argument is not valid.

No, God's moral dictates are against self interest many times.
Why would I emotionally want to serve anything, help anyone that would not reciprocate, be absolutely accountable to perfection? There is little self serving teachings in the Bible. The apostles sure did not gain earthly reward or comfort.

I was only referring to "ultimate self-interest," not to "temporal self-interest."

Speculating about a hypothetical reaction to a hypothetical claim is not meaningful.

I once told you that your hypothetical arguments about some issue were not practical, and you told me that hypothetical arguments are often useful, and are often valid. I agree, including the one that I made.

Today, if a powerful being showed up, and claimed that he was God, but not the God of the Bible, and demonstrated that he had vast powers, and instantly created a large building, would you believe his claim that he is God? If not, why not? What evidence reasonably proves that a being is God?

Why don't we just watch star wars if fiction is the primary context? I have already given the context or what justifies belief in God's being God. You are only confusing things, which is the opposite direction anyone should rationally head in? If reality is no boundary condition I could hopelessly complicate any claim of any kind, but why would I? Why do you?

But the Bible is not reality to billions of non-Christians, so your use of the word is ridiculous. You do not believe that the God Islam is reality, but you have discussed him on many occasions.

I made a valid hypothetical argument, and you know that it is valid, and that is why your refused to answer it. I do not recall that I have ever refused to answer any of your hypothetical questions. Refusing to reply to hypothetical arguments is a sign of weakness, and a lack of confidence.

 

[Agnostic75]

No test would be reliable if evil supernatural beings are more powerful than good supernatural beings are. You have not reasonably proven that any good supernatural beings exists, let alone good ones.

Once you get your if then you can have what is dependent on it.

The same to you. Why didn't you make a post in my thread on the Trye prophecy at another forum?

You are using one of the oldest and transparent tactics of atheism in history. Your are setting the standard so high to reliably know anything that virtually all of accessible knowledge would fail. You are basically saying that if reliable methods for establishing a likely truth produce an inconvenient truth then keep raising the standard until nothing can be reliably known. That is not productive. The supernatural is almost a logical necessity, my beliefs about specific supernatural beings meet the burden they carry and exceed the burdens even science fails to meet much of the time.

If supernatural beings exist, no mere fallible, imperfect human could reasonably know which ones are the most powerful, and which ones are evil and are masquerading as good ones, or even than any good ones exist.

 

[Agnostic75]

South Korea is one of the most heavily evangelized countries in the world. It has excellent education, and excellent media, and has the largest single Christian church in the world by far. About 29% of South Koreans are Christians. A much higher percentage of Americans are Christians, which proves that geography sometimes determines what people believe. From a Christian perspective, few non-Christians living in South Korea would not be accountable for their unbelief. There are not any doubts whatsoever that some of those non-Christians would have become Christians if they had been raised in the U.S.

You must prove God is contradicting himself by allowing these conditions to exist once you prove they are true.

No, you must prove that all South Koreans who know about Christianity, and rejected it, were not properly evangelized, and would not have become Christians if they had lived anywhere else in the world, assuming that they knew the same things about the Bible under those hypothetical circumstances. If there are any, then God is not fair. You must also prove that all South Koreans who became Christians would have become Christians if they had lived anywhere else in the world. If any wouldn't have become Christians, God is not fair.

An Internet website says:

"There are big churches, and then there’s the Yoido Full Gospel Church here in Seoul, South Korea. It’s the mother of megachurches, with the largest congregation in the world. On a typical day 200,000 will attend one of seven services along with another two or three hundred thousand watching them on TV in adjoining buildings or satellite branches. While some other churches may be losing members, this one just keeps growing. The main sanctuary here holds 21,000 worshipers packed to the rafters seven times every Sunday. Each service has its own orchestra, its own choir, its own pastor. There are hundreds of assistants. There need to be. Each service is translated into 16 different languages for visitors. Karen Kim is a pastor with the church’s international division. She says she was shocked when she first moved here from Australia."

Equal opportunity is one of the hallmarks of democracy, love, and fairness, and is intuitive for most humans. Few people would approve of a Texas holdem card playing competition where everyone did not start with the same number of chips.

Yet the entire basis (100%) of equality, rights, and the value of human life cease to exist if God does.

What does that have to do with what I said?

At this time humanity is left to destroy even that which it values. You have no basis for demanding a garden of Eden to exist even if God does, and no basis for demanding the slightest moral right if he does not.

I did not ask for a garden of Eden, only at least equal opportunity for all humans.

The NIV basically says in the book of Acts that the disciples went about performing miracles in order to confirm the Gospel message. Now that was after the Holy Spirit had come to the church, and after Jesus had performed many miracles in many places, including "throughout all of Syria" according to the book of Matthew, and there were thousands of still-living, firsthand eyewitnesses still around, but God still provided additional evidence of tangible miracles in order to help people become saved. There are not any good reasons why a loving God would want to change a system that worked quite well to get his church started.

As the written text became established then miraculous events were reduced.

But less effective, at least in cases where some skeptics who are alive today would become Christians if they had the same evidence as the evidence that Jesus provided.

You have no way to demand any certain ratio occur. You must produce an objective standard to claim God's deficiency to meet it.

God set his own standard, and later changed it.

Today, people who reject Christianity and would accept it if they had the same evidence that Jesus provided back then are not rejecting? God, they are rejecting a lack of sufficient evidence of the same kind that God already provided for many other people.

Yet many of those that had the most evidence denied him and those with the least have accepted him.

Nevertheless, today, more skeptics would become Christians if God provided the same evidence that Jesus provided.

Is there any reason to suggest we should have more?

Indeed, common sense, logic, and reason provide some excellent reasons. First of all, historically, many people accepted all kinds of strange religions based upon far less convincing evidence than the miracles that Jesus performed. Second, If Jesus has performed many miracles all over the world, it is quite obvious that far more people would have become Christians. That is because supposedly authentic miracles were of great interest to many people who lived back then, and would also be of great interest to people who are living today.

Today, it is partly a question of to what extent God will go in order to save people. He could easily save lots more people without interfering with their free will, but refuses to do so.

 

[Agnostic75]

How do you know that God could not achieve any fair, worthy, and just goal if he gave everyone enough food to eat? If hurricanes are necessary in order to God to achieve some of his goals, what goals are those, or do you not have any idea what God's goals are? If hurricanes are beneficial for people, why do people try to avoid them? AIDS would not exist if God had not created a virus that infected primates, and the virus was probably accidentally transferred by a doctor via a vaccine to some gay men who had hepatitis. Animals have transferred a number of viruses to humans.

Humans have free will.

I said:

"How do you know that God could not achieve any fair, worthy, and just goal if he gave everyone enough food to eat? If hurricanes are necessary in order to God to achieve some of his goals, what goals are those, or do you not have any idea what God's goals are?"

Please answer those questions.

 

[Agnostic75]

The God of the Bible cannot exist since it would not make any sense for God to ask people to love him since he can only do good things. In another thread, you said that God did not have to create humans, but that is not a good argument. First of all, Craig, Moreland, and Aquinas basically said that God is the greatest possible being, and cannot improve. That means that God's nature compels him to always do the best possible thing, and creating humans was one of the best possible things that God has done. God must not only do good things since that is his nature, but he must also do particular good things. Otherwise, all good things would be equal, but of course, they are not all equal. Refusing to do good things would be against God's nature.

Tell that to the 3 out of every four people in history that have thought he made perfect sense.

That is an example of the fallacy of "argumentum ad populum," which Wikipedia says "is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: 'If many believe so, it is so.'"

What you said has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. When I make good arguments that you know are difficult for you to refute, you often refuse to directly discuss what I said at all, and make an evasive reply that does not address my arguments. What I said is very logical for the reasons that I gave. You have not said anything that adequately refutes what I said. I used arguments from some of your own gurus to support my arguments, and the Bible itself says that God is perfect, and cannot lie, and that his nature is unchanging.

You have claimed that God did not have to create humans, but he certainly did since that was part of his nature, and he has to always act according to his nature. Even sinful, fallible, imperfect humans are often compelled by their conscience to do good things, not only good things, but particular good things. An omnibenevolent God would be far more compelled by his conscience to do good things, including particular good things. Surely God must always do the best possible good thing since all good things are obviously not equal. God was not able to refuse to create humans. John 3:16 says that God sent Jesus to the earth because he "so loved the world," and the Bible says that angels rejoice when people get saved. Such love by an omnibenevolent being must by necessity be manifested not only by doing good things, but also by doing particular good things.

You basically said that after the fall, God did not have to do anything for humans, but he certainly did since before he created Adam and Eve, he planned to save lots of people besides them, and even knew their names before he created the earth, and he could not save lots more people unless he provided them with enough food to survive. God's nature always compels him to do what he plans to do, and he only plans to do the best possible things.

Logically, no being is admirable if he does not have the option to not be admirable. Morality has no meaning without choice, whether for God, or for humans. Loving God is illogical since he does not have free will regarding his character. Obviously, an omniscient, omnibenevolent God would never deceive people by pretending to be admirable, and by asking people to love him. Therefore, the God of the Bible cannot exist, although some other God might exist.

Please reply to my posts #1519, and #1520 in the thread on homosexuality at the Religious Debates Forum. I made those posts today.

 

[Muffled]

Everyone really don`t know what is right religion, they all believe in their religion.

I beleive the rules of RF don't allow that kowledge is possible only belief, so for the sake of debate you are correct.

However I believe that a person's belief in their own religion is not necessarily the right religion. In my case I believe it is.

 

[Muffled]

Why can't there be more than one right religion? For example there are infinite answers to the question 'addition of what two rational numbers is five?'

Back to topic, people!

I believe the five represents the right relgion and the numbers adding to it only represent the paths to it. If one adds 8 and 9 one does not get the right number and so it is if a person is on a wrong path, it will never get to the right relgion.

 

[Muffled]

There isn't such thing as the right religion, religion is an inner transformation, it is not an organization, as long as you feel you need to be in an organization you will never truly know religion.

I don't believe this to be true. I believe it may result from right relgion but it is not religion in itself.

I agree on this. I beleive an organization can be the result of right religion but it is not religion in itself.

I beleive you are probably going by your own definition. I am in an organization and I know religion and am in right religion.

Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence - Wikipedia

re·li·gion
the belief in a god or in a group of gods
an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

Webster's Dictionary

 

[psychoslice]

I don't believe this to be true. I believe it may result from right relgion but it is not religion in itself.

I agree on this. I beleive an organization can be the result of right religion but it is not religion in itself.

I beleive you are probably going by your own definition. I am in an organization and I know religion and am in right religion.

Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence - Wikipedia

re·li·gion
the belief in a god or in a group of gods
an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

Webster's Dictionary

As long as you live your life quoting from the scriptures and Webster's Dictionary, you will never truly know what is behind the words, behind the organised religion. Yes I do have my own language in how I share what i share, that is because I have gone within and found my true SELF, the Christ, my words are from my own inner religion, not second hand hand me downs.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts #3850, #3851, #3852, #3853, #3854, and #3855.

The Bible says that God is not the author of confusion, but the Bible is definitely confusing. At another forum, I told you that the story of the flood since it is not obvious whether the flood was global, regional, or a parable. You were not able to tell which was the case, which proves that the story is confusing, and you said that the message would be clear even to a child since the message is that bad things sometimes happen as a consequence of sin. However, to many Christians, what happened is very important, not just what the message is, and lots of time has been spent debating what happened. Anyway, your interpretation of the message is absurd since it does not tell which bad actions cause which bad consequences, and for which people. Hurricane Katrina had consequences for all kinds of people, including some devout Christians, so your interpretation of the flood story does not make any sense.

Jesus said that divorce is wrong except in cases of adultery, but millions of Christians who have not committed adultery have gotten divorced. You refused to discuss the issue because you said that it is a contentious issue. Yes, it is a contentious issue because it is confusing. What Jesus said was very clear, but many Christians who have not committed adultery and want to get divorced do not want to separate and practice abstinence for the rest of their lives (although you have no problem demanding that for all homosexuals), so they interpret the Bible in ways that allow them to enjoy the pleasures of having sex with other people after they get divorced.

Tithing is another confusing issue, and so is the role of women in the church. Many churches do not allow women to become pastors.

I said that it is immoral for God to punish skeptics for eternity without parole. Like the Jehovah's Witnesses, you said that God destroys skeptics. If that is the case, that is also immoral, but anyway, I told you that your gurus William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, and Thomas Aquinas disagree with you. At first, you claimed that that is not William Lane Craig's position even though what I quoted from one of his articles was very clear, and shows that that is his position, but I proved to you that that it is his position. I also told you that the Southern Baptist Convention disagrees with you. You said that that was surprising, but it might be surprising to them, and to three of your gurus that you claimed that God will destroy skeptics. Anyway, once that I had proven that the issue is confusing, you said that it is not clear who is right, but since you previously believed that you were right, you are definitely confused.

Millions of Christians strongly disagree about whether creationism, or theistic evolution is true. That is because the story of Adam and Eve is confusing. In order to try to eliminate the confusion, William Lane Craig said that he does not have any idea whether or not creationism is true (which proves that the story of Adam and Eve is confusing), but that it doesn't matter since even if it isn't true, God gave early humans a soul. Well my gracious, of course it matters to millions of conservative Christians since if it isn't true, that means that the entire book of Genesis might be parables other than the claim that God created the heavens and the earth, as well as all other supernatural claims in the Old Testament, and maybe even some in the New Testament.

The issues of slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women have certainly been confusing to millions of Christians for thousands of years. In 1650, many Christians accepted slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women, but most of them would not have accepted those things if they had been born in the 21st century instead of the 1600s.

An omniscient God could easily have prevented lots of needless confusion, and wars even among Christians, but he preferred to cause confusion, with no possible benefits for himself, or for humans. Regarding morality, motives are everything. With no known, or postulated motives for God needlessly causing confusion, it is reasonable to assume that the God of the Bible does not exist, although some other God might exist.

At another forum, you mentioned that some of the greatest scientists were Christians, but what does that prove? Today, the majority of leading physicists do not believe in God, and ancient Greeks knew far more about science than ancient Hebrews did, not to mention art, literature, and philosophy.


Regarding the issue of Christian martyrs, did you say that that reasonably proves that a God inspired the Bible? If so, I visited a number of Christian websites that discuss that issue, and all of them said that Christian martyrs does not reasonably prove that, and only reasonably proves that some early Christians died for beliefs that they believed were true.


Many Christians claim that the disciples died for their beliefs. What non-biblical evidence do you have regarding how all of the disciples died? What biblical evidence do you have regarding how all of the disciples died?


There is not any valid research that shows that the religion that has the most martyrs is the one true religion.


The large size of Christianity is only due to it being the most popular choice among "available" choices, not the best choice among "all possible" choices. If Islam becomes larger than Christianity, I am sure that very few Christians will give up Christianity just because of that.

There are easily hundreds if not thousands of other examples, and if you wish, I will be happy to discuss many of them with you.