What evidence is there that christians are all mass deluded?

[nonbeliever_92]

yeah, you're gonna have to supply a source buddy.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Here's my point. I am not one of those people who can just believe in something without first having researched it thoroughly. I guess some would call it "blind faith." My journey to Christ was fairly long and full of questions/answers. Based on everything I had read and taking into consideration everything I had heard, it appreared clear to me that Christ walked this earth, performed amazing miracles, was crucified and later resurrected. Accounts set forth in the Gospel have been confirmed archaeologically; substantive tanslations of the Bible have held true; prophetic accounts in the OT have come true in the NT; etc. Moreover, no one has shown me anything that has even come close to poking a hole in the "Jesus story." So, getting to the main point, I'm wondering at what point (if any) is the "Jesus story" commonly accepted? Sure, there are going to be a number of people who refuse to believe "just because." However, I'm talking about the larger group - the group of open-minded people who are willing and able to take a hard look at the facts. If someone has empirical evidence showing that the "Jesus story" is untrue or is unworthy of credence, I'd love to hear it.

Clearly you don't realize that saying thaty you've researched something doesn't mean that we believe you if you can't provide a single source. 2nd an atheist's argument goes much farther than "just because"

 

[logician]

17 percent of NJ republicans think Obama is the antiChrist, and 18 percent are not sure, that seems a little mass deluded to me.

 

[SHANMAC]

Clearly you don't realize that saying thaty you've researched something doesn't mean that we believe you if you can't provide a single source. 2nd an atheist's argument goes much farther than "just because"

Perhaps something has been lost in translation. My point was that I've been waiting for someone to show me something, some kind of hard evidence, that proves or at least suggests that the Gospel should not be believed. Instead of receiving information or evidence allegedly showing this, I get question after question asking me to prove my beliefs. What I've been saying in this thread is that you're proving my point by not offering evidence, but, instead, asking more questions. I don't think this point can be much clearer.

As for proof that the Gospel is corrcect, I've already indicated a few ways in which it has been proven accurate and trustworthy. If you want sources, I'd refer you to Lee Strobel's books documenting his move from agnosticsm to Christianity wherein he discusses the proof at length. He addresses the question of whether the Gospel should be believed from all angles, including but not limited to those examples I provided above. Within his books, he cites to esteemed members of academia who are on both sides - believers and non-believers, as well as historical and archaeologica proof. If you don't like Lee Strobel, there's a plethora of other authors out there who have covered the same topic. I've just found Lee Strobel to be the best read.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Perhaps something has been lost in translation. My point was that I've been waiting for someone to show me something, some kind of hard evidence, that proves or at least suggests that the Gospel should not be believed. Instead of receiving information or evidence allegedly showing this, I get question after question asking me to prove my beliefs. What I've been saying in this thread is that you're proving my point by not offering evidence, but, instead, asking more questions. I don't think this point can be much clearer.

As for proof that the Gospel is corrcect, I've already indicated a few ways in which it has been proven accurate and trustworthy. If you want sources, I'd refer you to Lee Strobel's books documenting his move from agnosticsm to Christianity wherein he discusses the proof at length. He addresses the question of whether the Gospel should be believed from all angles, including but not limited to those examples I provided above. Within his books, he cites to esteemed members of academia who are on both sides - believers and non-believers, as well as historical and archaeologica proof. If you don't like Lee Strobel, there's a plethora of other authors out there who have covered the same topic. I've just found Lee Strobel to be the best read.

Sorry, that's not how it works. If you make the claim that the bible has been a consistent ,accurate, and trustworthy account of history and or morals than you must present some evidence to this claim. Telling me that I should read Lee Strobel's book is not presenting evidence. I'm taking it that you think that you don't have to justify your statment and this is fine, But you're on a debating site! Don't go to the picnic if you're not gonna bring anything to the park.

 

[Autodidact]

First, I provided a couple examples above. Second, my full claim is that no one has been able to offer evidence to me that it is untrustworthy or unreliable. So far, this still holds true. Do you have anything of shall I keep waiting?

No, SHANMAC, you are now lying, and it's really dumb, because we can all look back at your post and see what you said. You said

the Bible has been proven accurate and trustworthy over and over again throughout history.

What in the Bible has been proven accurate and trustworthy over and over again throughout history, and how?

 

[Autodidact]

Perhaps something has been lost in translation. My point was that I've been waiting for someone to show me something, some kind of hard evidence, that proves or at least suggests that the Gospel should not be believed. Instead of receiving information or evidence allegedly showing this, I get question after question asking me to prove my beliefs. What I've been saying in this thread is that you're proving my point by not offering evidence, but, instead, asking more questions. I don't think this point can be much clearer.

As for proof that the Gospel is corrcect, I've already indicated a few ways in which it has been proven accurate and trustworthy. If you want sources, I'd refer you to Lee Strobel's books documenting his move from agnosticsm to Christianity wherein he discusses the proof at length. He addresses the question of whether the Gospel should be believed from all angles, including but not limited to those examples I provided above. Within his books, he cites to esteemed members of academia who are on both sides - believers and non-believers, as well as historical and archaeologica proof. If you don't like Lee Strobel, there's a plethora of other authors out there who have covered the same topic. I've just found Lee Strobel to be the best read.

Lee Strobel is (1) and idiot or liar, I'm not sure which (2) not here to talk to. You are. You made an assertion. Do you have any support at all for it, or should we just assume it's false?

 

[Perfect Circle]

Perhaps something has been lost in translation. My point was that I've been waiting for someone to show me something, some kind of hard evidence, that proves or at least suggests that the Gospel should not be believed. Instead of receiving information or evidence allegedly showing this, I get question after question asking me to prove my beliefs. What I've been saying in this thread is that you're proving my point by not offering evidence, but, instead, asking more questions. I don't think this point can be much clearer.

As for proof that the Gospel is corrcect, I've already indicated a few ways in which it has been proven accurate and trustworthy. If you want sources, I'd refer you to Lee Strobel's books documenting his move from agnosticsm to Christianity wherein he discusses the proof at length. He addresses the question of whether the Gospel should be believed from all angles, including but not limited to those examples I provided above. Within his books, he cites to esteemed members of academia who are on both sides - believers and non-believers, as well as historical and archaeologica proof. If you don't like Lee Strobel, there's a plethora of other authors out there who have covered the same topic. I've just found Lee Strobel to be the best read.

You mind find this documentary interesting. It's called "Who Wrote the Bible?". Maybe watching something that doesn't agree with your original position would stimulate some thought.

YouTube - Who Wrote The Bible? (1/12)

 

[DeepShadow]

To be honest DS you and other theists I`ve debated are guilty of this exact same "incorrigible" belief concerning the validity of their holy texts and doctrine.

On the contrary, my beliefs have changed thanks to many of the discussions here. That none of these discussions were with you is another matter entirely. My current sig is a testament to the fact that I accept correction on matters of doctrine, as Autodidact can attest.

The fact that I do not draw the same conclusions that you do does not mean I don't draw conclusions and change my beliefs. Nor is this strictly about me. The fact that some LDS scholars have been convinced out of the faith is evidence that their belief was not, in fact, incorrigable. If it was, they never would have discarded those beliefs.

 

[SHANMAC]

No, SHANMAC, you are now lying, and it's really dumb, because we can all look back at your post and see what you said. You said What in the Bible has been proven accurate and trustworthy over and over again throughout history, and how?

It is quite clear to me that you have not reviewed all of the posts to put my quotes in their proper context. Instead, you have taken one assertion out of one of my posts and demanded that I provide support for it. As I've said repeatedly, your demand for support is the exact point I have been making. The support for the assertion pulled form one of my posts should be the point of an entirely new thread. The question in this thread is all about the burden of proof. The assertion that is important for our purposes is who's burden is it - not what support do you have. The follow up question to my initial point was what evidence is there that the Gospel is inaccurate or untrustworthy. Until just recently, this question has gone unasnwered by any of you. I have to thank Perfect Circle (and applaud him for the reference to the lyrics from Tool) for providing some information in response to my inquiry. One final note - when accusing someone of being a liar, you better be sure that you've read and understood exactly what you're talking about.

 

[SHANMAC]

You mind find this documentary interesting. It's called "Who Wrote the Bible?". Maybe watching something that doesn't agree with your original position would stimulate some thought.

YouTube - Who Wrote The Bible? (1/12)

As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm glad you provided this link. I intend to check it out sometime today. Also, I completely agree with your sentiments. The only way anyone gets to the truth is by hearing a totality of the evidence.

 

[linwood]

The fact that I do not draw the same conclusions that you do does not mean I don't draw conclusions and change my beliefs. Nor is this strictly about me. The fact that some LDS scholars have been convinced out of the faith is evidence that their belief was not, in fact, incorrigable. If it was, they never would have discarded those beliefs.

I`m not talking about "Some LDS scholars" I`m talking about you.

Your incorrigible belief that the BOM is an entirely independent entity from the King James Bible is demonstrably false.

Yet you still hold this belief (Or did) against all evidence to the contrary.

That`s delusion, by your definition...not mine.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It isn't me who has defined the word, but psychiatry...

For the record:

dictionary.com, "delusion":

4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
​

So to answer the question, "Are Christians deluded?" in a general way, we might consider whether standard Christian dogma generally satisfies the following conditions:

1. Beliefs are fixed
2. Beliefs are false
3. Beliefs are resistant to reason
4. Beliefs are resistant to actual facts

It is almost trivial to show Christians, in general, have beliefs that satisfy conditions 1,3, and 4 because this is the whole point of "faith". If your beliefs are NOT fixed, if they change and depending on reason and evidence, then you are a "doubting Thomas", which is bad, from the Christian perspective.

In general condition 2 is debatable. But if we adopt a detached, scientific perspective, condition 2 is clearly satisfied.

Yes, beliefs that are certain, impossible, and have proof/a preponderance of evidence against them that the person rejects... those are delusions...

Say someone is certain they are King of the United States of America. You could show them the President, you could show them the Constitution, show them that in the history of the U.S.A. there has never been a king, they could try to order people around, and no one listen... and they would still be 100% certain they were King of America, no doubts... if they were deluded...

Okay. But could you provide real (contemporary or historical) examples of mass delusions, please?

 

[dogsgod]

Okay. But could you provide real (contemporary or historical) examples of mass delusions, please?

Christianity.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

So, what happens when you have identified someone as being "deluded" by your definition (resistant to reason and evidence) and that person is later determined to be correct by empirical evidence? I guess you then become the deluded one, right?

There is no guarantee that conclusions based on the best reason/evidence available will be correct. It's just the most honest way of forming conclusions. Experience has demonstrated it is also the most successful way.

In poker, for example, you bet or fold based on the best reasoning and evidence available (the cards in your hand, the behavior of the other players). But even if you do this "perfectly" it is no guarantee you will win every hand. It's just the best method. People will say "That was the right move" even when the player lost the hand.

Forming conclusions based on the best reasoning/evidence we have is "the right move" i.m.o. Our conclusions will sometimes be wrong, they will just be wrong *less often* than if we neglect reason/evidence.

Case-in-point: the world is flat.

Really?

The people who believed the world was flat were not generally deluded. There was some evidence the world was flat. Better evidence came along showing it was not flat. Most people CHANGED their belief, to match the new and better data. So the original belief was not fixed or resistant to evidence (the definition of 'delusion').

Interestingly, some people did not change their belief that the world was flat, or that the Earth orbits the Sun, in spite of the evidence. They did so out of loyalty to Christianity (and other religions).

 

[logician]

Here's my point. I am not one of those people who can just believe in something without first having researched it thoroughly. I guess some would call it "blind faith." My journey to Christ was fairly long and full of questions/answers. Based on everything I had read and taking into consideration everything I had heard, it appreared clear to me that Christ walked this earth, performed amazing miracles, was crucified and later resurrected. Accounts set forth in the Gospel have been confirmed archaeologically; substantive tanslations of the Bible have held true; prophetic accounts in the OT have come true in the NT; etc. Moreover, no one has shown me anything that has even come close to poking a hole in the "Jesus story." So, getting to the main point, I'm wondering at what point (if any) is the "Jesus story" commonly accepted? Sure, there are going to be a number of people who refuse to believe "just because." However, I'm talking about the larger group - the group of open-minded people who are willing and able to take a hard look at the facts. If someone has empirical evidence showing that the "Jesus story" is untrue or is unworthy of credence, I'd love to hear it.

Please quote one historian contemporay to the time of the supposed Jesus, that ever heard of such a man, that is not considered to be a forgery.

 

[Autodidact]

It is quite clear to me that you have not reviewed all of the posts to put my quotes in their proper context. Instead, you have taken one assertion out of one of my posts and demanded that I provide support for it.

Yup. btw as I recall there wasn't much context, just the bald assertion. Now, are you going to support it, retract it, or sacrifice your credibility. The choice is yours.

As I've said repeatedly, your demand for support is the exact point I have been making.

That atheists expect theists to support their assertions?

The support for the assertion pulled form one of my posts should be the point of an entirely new thread.

You want to start a new thread to support your assertion? Great. Shall I start it?

The question in this thread is all about the burden of proof. The assertion that is important for our purposes is who's burden is it - not what support do you have.

Well then you should have asserted that. But you didn't. In fact, you asserted that the Bible has been proven accurate and trustworthy over and over again throughout history, and we're waiting for you to support that assertion. If it's irrelevant, then you shouldn't have made it in the thread. But you did. So can you support it, or not?

The follow up question to my initial point was what evidence is there that the Gospel is inaccurate or untrustworthy.

No, the followup question is: what evidence do you have that it has been proven accurate and trustworthy over and over again throughout history. btw, I gave at least 5 example of ridiculous, disproven, patently false assertions just in the opening pages of Genesis before I realized that I really don't have time to list all the falsehoods in the Bible, but you ignored that post.

Until just recently, this question has gone unasnwered by any of you.

No, I answered it, you just ignored that answer. But, speaking of burden of proof, when you make an assertion, the burden is on you to support or retract it.

One final note - when accusing someone of being a liar, you better be sure that you've read and understood exactly what you're talking about.

I did. That's why I cut and pasted the precise post that demonstrates that you lied.

 

[Autodidact]

Here, let's take a simple example. Do you believe that the sun stood still in the sky for Joshua? Do you believe that story has been been proven accurate and trustworthy over and over again throughout history?

 

[linwood]

Okay. But could you provide real (contemporary or historical) examples of mass delusions, please?

Wouldn`t the continued popularization of crop circles and alien abduction fall under the label "mass delusions"?

 

[logician]

Well Karl Marx did say that
"Religion is the sign of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."