It’s only a bait and switch if you mean to do it. Confusing a fact with an article of faith is one thing, but deliberately playing some kind of shell-game with other SD posters is another. As far as I can tell, I haven’t performed any kind of verbal trickery with you guys. I’m not competing with anyone.
I think any type of Jesus character would feel like Harold Camping: disappointed.
The two share many things in common; both being apocolypticals and both were damn sure this rapture crap would happen in their lifetime, both used whatever primitive or modern technology was available, etc.
But Jesus went one step further, got himself killed for us to “save” us.
I think Jesus would feel humiliated. Perhaps if he listened to himself, he’d understand. He told us that until we follow ALL laws in Exodus that we wouldn’t be worthy of being with his dad. (Matthew 5:17-46) He had very little practical knowledge for a son of a deity, not realizing how big the planet (flat surface) was and how many people there really were.
Still, he was nicer to his 12 man flock than say Jim Jones, so he had that going for him.
I guess Jesus would think that prayer and adulation is for the benefit of humans not God, and if some people have a need to adulate the part of the divine Trinity that is Jesus then go for it. Same as for Maria or any of the saints.
You have misrepresented Matthew 5. Completely.
Jesus came to replace Law with Grace, old covenant with new covenant. The OT laws don’t apply to us.
And how, exactly, does this differ from the atheist assertions?
Because the null hypothesis needs to be falsified, not proven.
Sorry, but what atheist assertions are you talking about?
What he said. Which assertions are you talking about?
Exactly. Your test recognizes only positive results (good things prove God exists) while shying away from negative results (bad things are God moving “mysteriously”, not evidence that God is evil or that God is nonexistent).
There’s no point in arguing about your faith - you can believe whatever you choose to believe, or just accept what you were taught to believe, or whatever - but if you’re going to argue with people who are trying to use reason, at least put some thought into bringing some substance to the discussion.
If, for example, one of your premises is that it is logical to believe in the power of God and/or Jesus, perhaps you can explain why it is not logical to believe in the power of Zeus. Or is it? How about Odin or Osiris?
Agreed. If he deserves adulation for anything, it would be for the ultimate Darwin award. Like I said, he would only feel disappointed and humiliated at a lethal failure.
Methinks you’re only paying attention to one side of your null hypothesis.
Go figure.
How? He asks for all his father’s laws to be followed until we’re worthy for salvation. What news changes/commandments did Jesus bring to specifically differentiate from the written laws?
Even if you still feel this way about me misrepresenting, it’s very clear Jesus wasn’t very smart. If so, we might’ve heard something like, “There are islands on this global planet with people you’ve never heard of. Go and spread me and my father’s word. Here are the directions and DON’T try to build another ark! They won’t float for five minutes!” 
I guess what I’m saying is that if “proof” is the only thing we’re going to accept, we’re all in the same cosmic boat. We’re all witnessing to each other.
We’ve got a full decade under our belt with atheists shrieking for “proof” blissfully ignorant of the irony that they’re attacking subjective beliefs with…their subjective beliefs. While that’s great fun and all, at least the theist owns up to his faith.
Well, possibly FinnAgain mispoke (very) slightly, and the null hypothesis doesn’t have to be falsified, but it does have to be falsifiable. There wouldn’t be any point saying “H[sub]0[/sub]: God exists”, and then declaring (or at least implying) that there was no possible evidence that could cause you to reject H[sub]0[/sub].
Some newborn has AIDS? That’s just God being mysterious.
A group of devout Christians were killed in an avalanche? GBM.
Someone prayed diligently eight hours a day for years, then was killed by a hurricane? GBM.
A death-camp commandant who killed or supervised the killing of thousands died peacefully in his sleep at the age of 85? GBM.
That’s not what I was talking about. I was saying that if you want to assert an opinion, you can do that (“it’s my opinion that God exists”), but if you want to assert that something is a fact - “Lady Gaga’s fans hate Christianity” - then you should be able to back that up with facts. And I was saying that you can’t make a statement of fact and then try to get off the hook by saying it’s a personal opinion. Theophane, you’re saying you are not trying to play word games. I’d like to take you at your word, but you’ve done this a couple of times. Nobody’s asking you to prove that God exists, but you’ve made some other assertions that should be backed up if they are true.
Atheism isn’t a faith. But if a decade of arguing on that point hasn’t made this clear to you, I’m not going to try my luck.
Words have no inherent meaning. None. We attach meaning to them. So, if one was to define “faith” as a subjective belief system that lacked “proof”, one could reasonably call atheism a faith.
Now I’m not naive, and both of us know that there are better words than “faith” to describe atheism. But it remains true that atheism is subjective and only agnosticism requires no proof.
So the SDMB atheist version of “bait and switch” involves channeling Abbot & Costello with the whole atheism dressed up in agnosticism routine.
Not really sure what you’re trying to say here, but if you’re suggesting some sort of equivalency because atheists can’t “prove” god doesn’t exist, you’re missing the point. I don’t need proof, evidence, or faith, or whatever to not believe in god. The lack of evidence is sufficient. Disbelief is not an article of faith. It’s not a subjective belief.
And for the record, I don’t go around “witnessing” to theists or attacking their beliefs. If they’re not trying to push their beliefs on me, or using their beliefs to rationalize things I disagree with, I have no problem with them.
You realize, then, that that minor revision puts you back to square one, right? As far as proof is concerned, you’re in the same boat with the rabid theist, right?
No, I simply realize that you didn’t get my point, and are probably not interested in trying to get my point.
In any case, I’m glad to embrace the scientific method because it gets results like usable electricity and computers and whatnot, while the rabid theist, left to his own devices, would barely have quills and parchment. Frankly, I’m a little curious where we’d be if not for the Enlightenment/Renaissance/Industrial Age, a process during which rabid theists are shown to be not only useless to progress, but actually an obstruction to it.
Heck, the rationalist’s “boat” is a nuclear aircraft carrier, while the rabid theist’s is… what, a trireme? Hardly the same at all.