# Christians, what are you talking about?! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 2, 2011, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936 "2011-04-02T13:09:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936/61 "2011-04-03T18:27:06Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No. That book presumed a Christian definition and identity for Jesus, an focused mainly on his struggle to accept his identity and go through with it. My Jesus only wonders if he’s the Jewish Messiah, which has a different set of criteria. He won’t wonder if he’s God, and he won’t think he’s supposed to die. This book sounds very like a very interesting take. Good luck with it- it sounds very intriguing! ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936/62 "2011-04-03T18:30:12Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > That isn’t how logic works. You need to support your claim of supernatural fiddle-faddle, not have everyone else support that it didn’t happen. I have never seen “logic” or “rational” used correctly at the SDMB, ferpetessake. There oughta be sticky, or something. Maybe it should be part of the Doper orientation. > [@](#): > > The texts Jesus is mentioned in are full of things that are not true. Why do you assume specifically that the supernatural elements are true when much of the rest of it isn’t? I’ll be honest, I don’t have a lot of time for you to tell us what they are. > [@](#): > > Atheism isn’t a faith. You really ought to commit that to memory if you’re gonna debate religious stuff. Of course it’s a faith. C’mon be serious will ya? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936/63 "2011-04-03T18:31:14Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Ah, witnessing ensues! > > _Can I get a witness?_ > > If the Super-Duper High Octane God exists I would suggest the scientific sampling is small enough (read: one) that its going to defy your attempt at laying odds. > > Further, the case for a “ghost” (among presumably any number of ghosts…) isn’t the argument. The argument is: Is there a **singular personage** in the universe who’s responsible for all this? > > There is no responsible non-witnessing way to quantify the odds. What are the odds, then of it existing _and_ it being worthy of worship? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936/64 "2011-04-03T18:37:15Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > I have never seen “logic” or “rational” used correctly at the SDMB, ferpetessake. There oughta be sticky, or something. Maybe it should be part of the Doper orientation. Brave talk for someone who thinks that people have the onus to prove your imaginary friend \*doesn’t \*exist. 😃 > [@](#): > > I’ll be honest, I don’t have a lot of time for you to tell us what they are. Well I don’t have a lot of time to look them up, why not start with the contradictions? > [@](#): > > Of course it’s a faith. C’mon be serious will ya? I am serious. I also understand what faith means. Since your faith is important to you, maybe you could work at understanding what the word means. You believe something with no evidence behind it. I don’t believe because there is no evidence. The two aren’t the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. To say that they are is simply wishful thinking on your part. Although, since your faith is based on wishful thinking, I see why you’re so good at it. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936/65 "2011-04-03T18:54:13Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Do you honestly think these burdens are equal? That all claims that physical laws have been violated automatically have a 50% chance of being true, and that disbelievers have a burden to _dis_prove them? > > First I would say that miracles are, by definition, physically impossible (i.e they violate the laws of physics), and that impossible claims can safely be assumed to be impossible until proven otherwise. > > Secondly, I would say that the Bible can be demonstrated not to be a reliable record of history, that some of the claims in the Gospels can be proven to be ahistorical, and that if the source is impeachable as literal history (which the gospels assuredly are, though I don’t believe they ever intended to represent themselves as journalistic history), then the supernatural claims within them have even less credibility. In all seriousness, and sincerity, you are witnessing for your strong faith. So we won’t get all constipated over religion I’ll post to you as an atheist. As an atheist I _recognize_ and _concede_ that, while I find the whole thing ridiculous, if this God exists he c_onceived_, _designed_ ,_implemented_ , and ultimately _governs_ the laws of physics. So I must insist that miracles are indeed “physically impossible” for us, but it is _equally ridiculous_ for me ascribe the same limitations to the \*creator \*that the creator has imposed on the _created._ In other words, it is silly for me to say that “_I_ can’t raise the dead, so if this God exists _he_ can’t either.” I mean, you’re one of the smartest guys at SDMB. Do you not see that? ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936/66 "2011-04-03T18:58:00Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What are the odds, then of it existing _and_ it being worthy of worship? Good question. Blaise Pascal sincerely tried to answer that question, and largely in vain. (and we’ve been debating it for 350 years) Now whether this God is worthy of our worship is a personal choice, and the answer to that I submit is the reason we’re all here. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936/67 "2011-04-03T19:02:02Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Brave talk for someone who thinks that people have the onus to prove your imaginary friend \*doesn’t \*exist. 😃 > > Well I don’t have a lot of time to look them up, why not start with the contradictions? > > I am serious. I also understand what faith means. Since your faith is important to you, maybe you could work at understanding what the word means. > > You believe something with no evidence behind it. I don’t believe because there is no evidence. The two aren’t the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. To say that they are is simply wishful thinking on your part. Although, since your faith is based on wishful thinking, I see why you’re so good at it. I can afford to be brave. I’m handsome, well endowed with an effervescent smile and personality. I’ve read the bible 34 times, including 4 times backwards, once in Russian (in French), in 9 translations (correcting translating errors in the margins) and in the source language. _I’m on the internet._ ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936/68 "2011-04-03T19:03:27Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > In all seriousness, and sincerity, you are witnessing for your strong faith. > > So we won’t get all constipated over religion I’ll post to you as an atheist. > > As an atheist I _recognize_ and _concede_ that, while I find the whole thing ridiculous, if this God exists he c_onceived_, _designed_ ,_implemented_ , and ultimately _governs_ the laws of physics. > > So I must insist that miracles are indeed “physically impossible” for us, but it is _equally ridiculous_ for me ascribe the same limitations to the \*creator \*that the creator has imposed on the _created._ > > In other words, it is silly for me to say that “_I_ can’t raise the dead, so if this God exists _he_ can’t either.” > > I mean, you’re one of the smartest guys at SDMB. Do you not see that? This is begging the question, and it’s a tautology (if X then X). The problem is that we not only lack _evidence_ for X, we also lack any observable _necessity_ for it? Why posit a superfluous God? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936/69 "2011-04-03T19:07:16Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > \*I initially wrote moracles. I like that. Moral-cles. That sounds like the somewhat more condescending twin brother of Hercules, who lectures people on proper behavior while slaying lions and hydras and so forth. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936/70 "2011-04-03T19:13:57Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Good question. > > Blaise Pascal sincerely tried to answer that question, and largely in vain. (and we’ve been debating it for 350 years) > > Now whether this God is worthy of our worship is a personal choice, and the answer to that I submit is the reason we’re all here. Then, based on the only recorded information we on this entity called “God”, I submit that it is not worthy of worship. It may be capable of _forcing_ us to worship it, but that doesn’t make it worthy, does it? Now, it may be true that this “God” has reasons it does things that we are incapable of understanding, but I tend to make decisions like these on what I _do_ understand, with the stipulation that I could change my mind if more information presents itself. That is how we humans make decisions involving every other thing in our lives, and nobody has yet given me a reason to treat religion any differently. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936/71 "2011-04-03T19:16:42Z")
> [@scamartistry](#): > > You believe that God sent himself on a suicide mission to pay for sins committed by the first humans. > > Seriously as adult, is it possible to believe this story with a straight face? The sacrifice of Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of all human beings, not merely ‘the first’ human beings. And yes, I do believe this, and so do over a billion other adults. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936/72 "2011-04-03T19:19:12Z")
By “first humans,” the OP was referring to the doctrine of Original Sin, and the notion that all humans somehow inherit a “sinful” nature through their DNA because the first humans ate some fruit after snake told them that God was lying when he told them it would kill them. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936/73 "2011-04-03T19:19:19Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The sacrifice of Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of all human beings, not merely ‘the first’ human beings. And yes, I do believe this, and so do over a billion other adults. Might I gently suggest that you may know what _you_ believe, but you can only guess what is in the hearts and minds of others. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936/74 "2011-04-03T19:22:05Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The sacrifice of Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of all human beings, not merely ‘the first’ human beings. And yes, I do believe this, and so do over a billion other adults. So? More people don’t believe in Jesus’ divinity than do. Never mind that the “sacrifice” was trivial. Taking a three day nap is hardly impressive, even when you do factor in that the only reason He had to do it was because He had made up the stupid rule in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936/75 "2011-04-03T19:27:28Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is begging the question, and it’s a tautology (if X then X). The problem is that we not only lack _evidence_ for X, we also lack any observable _necessity_ for it? Why posit a superfluous God? Even if I answer both of those questions in my favor, it only speaks to this God’s utility, not his existence, right? In other words, my atheism might ultimately state “I don’t know (or rather, I can’t _prove_) that this God exists **or not** , but even if he did exist, he is useless.” ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936/76 "2011-04-03T19:35:16Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Even if I answer both of those questions in my favor, it only speaks to this God’s utility, not his existence, right? _Can_ you actually answer either of/both of these questions, or is this yet another version of “I’ve got the answers, but you’d only(fill in the blank) if I gave then to you, so I’m not gonna.”? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936/77 "2011-04-03T20:42:30Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Even if I answer both of those questions in my favor, it only speaks to this God’s utility, not his existence, right? > > In other words, my atheism might ultimately state “I don’t know (or rather, I can’t _prove_) that this God exists **or not** , but even if he did exist, he is useless.” I’m saying that a hypothesis which lacks either observable evidence or demonstrated necessity is insufficient to negate the null hypothesis. Therefore my assumptions necessarily default to the null. In other words. I assume gods (like leprechauns and unicorns) don’t exist unless and until I am shown either evidence or necessity. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936/78 "2011-04-03T23:59:03Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I’m saying that a hypothesis which lacks either observable evidence or demonstrated necessity is insufficient to negate the null hypothesis. Therefore my assumptions necessarily default to the null. > > In other words. I assume gods (like leprechauns and unicorns) don’t exist unless and until I am shown either evidence or necessity. I think you’d probably receive some variation or combination of the following arguments: **A) You’re confusing the word “evidence” with the word “proof” and treating them as interchangeable.** There are many, many discussions/ debates that argue the evidence for a creator. They don’t make a case for direct evidence for a/the creator,rather they make a case for evidence of a creator via the visible world; the [presumably] created. From Intelligent Design to irreducible complexity, there have been many arguments for a creator on this message board alone. More importantly venues with more intellectual heft than this MB have had running debates about just this evidence. (including many highly credentialed people in relevant fields) “Proof”, they’ll point out doesn’t exist. “Observable evidence?”, will elicit a “don’t be silly.” Lastly, just as “evidence” and “proof” are not interchangeable, you cannot say that evidence you see as less then compelling is the same as “no evidence.”…or; \*\* B) You’re being disingenuous.\*\* After all, they’ll argue, you’ve argued the evidence many many times on this message board. The same evidence you now say just doesn’t exist. What’s up with that?, they’ll say \*\* 3) You have the strongest of faiths in your subjective beliefs.\*\* It’s only the strongest of beliefs that produces a level of moral certainty that makes evidence not just less then compelling, but invisible. “demonstrated necessity” in another post. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936/79 "2011-04-04T03:10:53Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > Even if I answer both of those questions in my favor, it only speaks to this God’s utility, not his existence, right? > > In other words, my atheism might ultimately state “I don’t know (or rather, I can’t _prove_) that this God exists **or not** , but even if he did exist, he is useless.” That’s agnosticism, not atheism. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936/80 "2011-04-04T03:29:16Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > I think you’d probably receive some variation or combination of the following arguments: > > **A) You’re confusing the word “evidence” with the word “proof” and treating them as interchangeable.** > There are many, many discussions/ debates that argue the evidence for a creator. They don’t make a case for direct evidence for a/the creator,rather they make a case for evidence of a creator via the visible world; the [presumably] created. > > From Intelligent Design to irreducible complexity, there have been many arguments for a creator on this message board alone. More importantly venues with more intellectual heft than this MB have had running debates about just this evidence. (including many highly credentialed people in relevant fields) “Proof”, they’ll point out doesn’t exist. “Observable evidence?”, will elicit a “don’t be silly.” > > Lastly, just as “evidence” and “proof” are not interchangeable, you cannot say that evidence you see as less then compelling is the same as “no evidence.”…or; > \*\* > B) You’re being disingenuous.\*\* > After all, they’ll argue, you’ve argued the evidence many many times on this message board. The same evidence you now say just doesn’t exist. What’s up with that?, they’ll say > \*\* > 3) You have the strongest of faiths in your subjective beliefs.\*\* > It’s only the strongest of beliefs that produces a level of moral certainty that makes evidence not just less then compelling, but invisible. > “demonstrated necessity” in another post. Yep. Just another tired version of “I _could_ show you what you are asking for, but you’d only (fill in the blank), so I’m not gonna.” Is there a formal name for this arguing technique? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/christians-what-are-you-talking-about/576936.md?page=5)