Why religious people should renounce their faith

[dontsnitch]

You keep saying it's evidence which I agree but you don't specify if it's convincing evidence or not. Testimony from superstitious, bronze-iron aged people is simply not convincing evidence when it comes to supernatural claims.

Evidence is subjective, there's no way around this. For example, someone may make a claim and the believability depends on how well you know them.

The second part to your claim I disagree, there is more CONVINCING evidence that you went to space then Christ was resurrected and I would have an easier time believing it. When we look at claims like this we must break it up into 2 parts:

1) Does the act fall into the realm if what I view as possible

2) What is the probability of that person accomplishing that task

With your space claim you pass 1) right away because I know how the technology works and have witnessed people do it. You may pass 2) right away depending how well I knew you, if not I'd ask for more evidence

The Christ claims fails at 1) right away without extra evidence as it's something I do not view as currently possible.

I disagree. There is zero evidence that I went to space. A routine investigation would refute any such claim.

Well the Pharoh's walked among their people and they believed them to be divine, Alexander walked among his men and died for him and they believed him to be divine. That's resounding evidence as well.

If you want to claim that the evidence for both are the same, it's within your right. I don't see it like that.

Ok, so we established that given what we know of the world today and without any special revelation from god that the supernatural aspects of the bible are not believable.

I wouldn't phrase it like that. The evidence of the Bible is not sufficient for me to form a belief.

 

[meauneau]

Forget about miracles, what is the probability that Christ is God versus the others I mentioned?

Isn't it from testimony that this belief is transmitted? If so then the probability that Christ is god, to be greater than 0, requires the testimonye to be true.

Without the testimony it would be 0, there would be no mention of Jesus being god.

 

[dontsnitch]

Isn't it from testimony that this belief is transmitted? If so then the probability that Christ is god, to be greater than 0, requires the testimonye to be true.

Right, but you need to claim that you know Christ is not God for this to be accurate. Are you ready to make this claim and feel justified in it?

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Evidence is subjective, there's no way around this. For example, someone may make a claim and the believability depends on how well you know them.

Agreed, thus in law they've produced the Reasonable Person Test, it's not perfect but the best that we can do.

I disagree. There is zero evidence that I went to space. A routine investigation would refute any such claim.

There may be more as in quantity of unconvincing evidence for Jesus being god then for you going into space but the latter is more believable.

If you want to claim that the evidence for both are the same, it's within your right. I don't see it like that.

Well it fit within your criteria...

I wouldn't phrase it like that. The evidence of the Bible is not sufficient for me to form a belief.

Difference between strong and weak Atheist LOL, ok I'll concede that.

 

[dontsnitch]

Agreed, thus in law they've produced the Reasonable Person Test, it's not perfect but the best that we can do.




There may be more as in quantity of unconvincing evidence for Jesus being god then for you going into space but the latter is more believable.




Well it fit within your criteria...



Difference between strong and weak Atheist LOL, ok I'll concede that.

The only thing I disagree with is that even though the claim that I went to space may be more believable in theory it's not in actuality. When we investigate the claim there is no evidence. Whereas, the claim that Christ is God is less believable in theory, but its more believable in actuality. There is some evidence.

It would be wrong for you to say you know Christ is not God, but it would not be wrong for you to say (if you looked into my life) that I did not go to space.

 

[meauneau]

Right, but you need to claim that you know Christ is not God for this to be accurate. Are you ready to make this claim and feel justified in it?

I know it is more likely that the testimony is false than that Jesus is god. The probability that Jesus is god is so low and the probability that the testimony for Jesus is god being so high I can confidently claim to know.

Also, if we know the testimony is false because the informer is deceiving us, we have direct evidence of this, then we have reason to conclude that what he claims is false; in this case we know it is false that____. If we know he is deceived, from some evidence we have, we also know it is not true that____. So in the case that we know that the testimony is false we know that____ is not true.

If I don't know now perhaps in the future we will discover some evidence that establishes the human fabrication of the Jesus character we read about in the bible. This will increase our knowledge.

What you seem to be demanding of me is absolute and irrefutable knowledge that is certain; knowledge that cannot be doubted, that is immune to scepticism. I think this is an unattainable and so unreasonable a demand. We can know things without meeting such unattainable standards.

 

[meauneau]

The only thing I disagree with is that even though the claim that I went to space may be more believable in theory it's not in actuality. When we investigate the claim there is no evidence. Whereas, the claim that Christ is God is less believable in theory, but its more believable in actuality. There is some evidence.

It would be wrong for you to say you know Christ is not God, but it would not be wrong for you to say (if you looked into my life) that I did not go to space.

I think what you mean is that you going to space is intrinsically more probable than the claim that Christ is god. The epistemic probability of you having gone to space depends on the probability of you going to space given what we know of you and space, etc and the evidence we have. This will be higher than what we have for Jesus being god.

 

[dontsnitch]

I know it is more likely that the testimony is false than that Jesus is god. The probability that Jesus is god is so low and the probability that the testimony for Jesus is god being so high I can confidently claim to know.

Also, if we know the testimony is false because the informer is deceiving us, we have direct evidence of this, then we have reason to conclude that what he claims is false; in this case we know it is false that____. If we know he is deceived, from some evidence we have, we also know it is not true that____. So in the case that we know that the testimony is false we know that____ is not true.

If I don't know now perhaps in the future we will discover some evidence that establishes the human fabrication of the Jesus character we read about in the bible. This will increase our knowledge.

What you seem to be demanding of me is absolute and irrefutable knowledge that is certain; knowledge that cannot be doubted, that is immune to scepticism. I think this is an unattainable and so unreasonable a demand. We can know things without meeting such unattainable standards.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. You should not be making truth claims about Christ either way, and no matter how low you assign this probability, there are other such claims with even less probability.

As for your very last paragraph, there's two ways to look at this. One is practically, that is, given your perspective it makes sense for you to live as an atheist. The other is philosophically, which is what we are speaking about here, where you should not claim that the probability of Christ's divinity is zero. There is a non-zero chance Christ is God.

 

[dontsnitch]

I think what you mean is that you going to space is intrinsically more probable than the claim that Christ is god. The epistemic probability of you having gone to space depends on the probability of you going to space given what we know of you and space, etc and the evidence we have. This will be higher than what we have for Jesus being god.

Perhaps this was not a good analogy because we know I haven't been to space so I risk begging the question by continuing the argument. I think my general point stands, though I have to discard this particular analogy.

 

[RIPWarrior]

If we forget the money part as you say and focus instead on their intelligence, then this becomes an appeal to authority. You find this funny? Why because it is fallacious?

Their money or intelligence doesn't entail that their claims or beliefs are true; they need arguments and evidence for this.

I find it funny that you would tell them they should renounce their faith. They would laugh at you and continue destroying the earth. They have all evidence they need and they probably won't share it. There's plenty of other evidence out there.

 

[STEVEN SEAGOLD]

Atheists need to waaaake up.

 

[Warfist]

The sherdog gods dont give a fuck about you or your post, TS.

Go pound sand

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

The only thing I disagree with is that even though the claim that I went to space may be more believable in theory it's not in actuality. When we investigate the claim there is no evidence. Whereas, the claim that Christ is God is less believable in theory, but its more believable in actuality. There is some evidence.

Christ being god is not "less believable" it is "unbelievable" given what I know of the world today. To clarify I'm not saying he isn't god, I'm saying that I don't believe he is god because I don't currently believe in the supernatural.

(No evidence of a natural occurrence) > ( A lot of unconvincing evidence of a supernatural occurrence) in believably and actuality

It would be wrong for you to say you know Christ is not God, but it would not be wrong for you to say (if you looked into my life) that I did not go to space.

I would say that I do not believe that Christ is God because it is an extra-ordinary, supernatural claim that I'm not sure is possible.

I would say that I do not believe you went into space because I see no evidence for it but it's still possible that you did.

 

[Tycho]

If you believe in a religion because you were born into it, because you accept the testimony of the those who claim to have witnessed the miracles for said religion, because it makes sense to you, because you feel something in your heart that assures you of the truth of your religion, etc, then, if there are reasons that undercut the evidence on which you base your belief, you should thus renounce your faith and become agnostic.

The reasons are these: given the diversity of religions in the world today, the fact that the majority of people are born into their religion; their claims that they have miracles witnessed by people of such and such character which validates them; that it makes sense to their followers, who experience something spiritual which assures them of their religion, and so on, then it follows that all of them cannot be true. These religions, at least the major ones, are exclusivist. Either all are false, or only one is true and the rest false.

Since all the believers of this kind base their belief on the same or similar grounds and the fact that their beliefs are mutually inconsistent, then it follows that there is no reason for them to rationally accept their religion as true. All these religions claim to have the truth on their side on the same or similar grounds; on these grounds alone we cannot determine the truth of any of these religions. This is like 20 witnesses in a courtroom each of whom was denounced as a liar by the other 19; so who do we trust?

Furthermore, each of these religions has the same a priori intrinsic probability, neither has an a priori advantage over the other and the reasons mentioned as ground for the belief do not increase the intrinsic probability of any of these religion. Therefore the only rational position in this case is one of agnosticism.

Until you have other reasons apart from the ones mentioned above you should remain agnostic and suspend judgement, that is until you acquire evidence to make up your mind rationally for the position the evidence point to.

Why do you care who I pray to? Not sure why Agnostic/atheists waste their precious mortal lives trying to convert religious people on the internet. Not like anyone will reward you.

 

[dontsnitch]

Christ being god is not "less believable" it is "unbelievable" given what I know of the world today. To clarify I'm not saying he isn't god, I'm saying that I don't believe he is god because I don't currently believe in the supernatural.

(No evidence of a natural occurrence) > ( A lot of unconvincing evidence of a supernatural occurrence) in believably and actuality



I would say that I do not believe that Christ is God because it is an extra-ordinary, supernatural claim that I'm not sure is possible.

I would say that I do not believe you went into space because I see no evidence for it but it's still possible that you did.

I agree with you in terms of belief and in terms of how you apply this in actuality, but not in terms of a philosophical debate.

My claim is that there is a non-zero chance that Christ is God, and whatever probability you assign to that, no matter how low, it is higher than other similar claims of divinity.

 

[5H3RD0G]

.......................................no good has come from it since it's inception.

 

[Pixelated Porn]

why muslims should renounce their faith
The Religion of Peace has struck again! This time in Pakistan, where an 18-year-old bride was burned alive by her own mother.

This wasn’t the wedding celebration Zeenat Rafiq had in mind. The horrific incident occurred when Zeenat’s mother offered to throw the newlywed couple a wedding celebration last June. Rafiq had been married to her childhood love, Hassan Khan, for just a week before her mother, who had long disapproved of the relationship, appeared to be coming around to the marriage.

Rafiq had suspicions of her mother, but a male relative guaranteed her safety, according to her husband. Khan told Newsweek Rafiq knew she was taking a risk, telling him, “Please forgive me if I don’t come back."

What awaited Zeenat was absolute horror.

The Washington Post reports: “But there was no celebration on her return to the family’s home in Lahore, Pakistan. Instead, her mother and brother beat and strangled her, then tied her to a cot, doused her in kerosene and lit her on fire, according to reports at the time.”

Remorseless, Zeenat’s mother, Perveen Bibi, proudly beat her chest after the attack, yelling, “I have killed my daughter for misbehaving and giving our family a bad name,” "the mother’s sister.”

Even after police detained the mother and her son, Zeenat’s brother, Anees Rafiq, Bibi hardly blinked an eye at the fact that she had slaughtered her own daughter.

“I have no regrets,” she told the police during an interrogation.

After all, Zeenat’s death was a result of an honor killing, a sacrament in traditional Islamic circles codified by patriarchal mandates and religious ritual.

“Such ‘honor killings’ are commonplace in Pakistan, where roughly 1,000 women are slain every year by relatives, most of them men, who believe they have disgraced their families,” explains the Post. “In 2015, about 1,100 women died in honor killings, while another 900 suffered sexual violence and 800 attempted suicide or took their own lives, the country’s independent Human Rights Commission said in its 2015 report.”

Zeenat isn’t the first, and she won’t be the last. Islamic puritans need the blood of “disgraced” women.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/12547...ani-woman-elopes-without-moms-michael-qazvini

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I agree with you in terms of belief and in terms of how you apply this in actuality, but not in terms of a philosophical debate.

My claim is that there is a non-zero chance that Christ is God, and whatever probability you assign to that, no matter how low, it is higher than other similar claims of divinity.

What's the agreed upon metric for determining the score? I could care less how many ancient people believed, how many ancient mythological books were written or how passionately some believed. That means nothing in determining the validity of the claim.

For me the claim with the highest score would be the one that is most believable / least absurd. The one that comes to mind right away is Mahayana Buddhism, I've read about sects that believe Siddhartha Gautama was an incarnation of the primordial force who's purpose was to bring enlightenment to the world. I still don't see any strong evidence for it but it's not completely ridiculous like others I've read about.

 

[dontsnitch]

What's the agreed upon metric for determining the score? I could care less how many ancient people believed, how many ancient mythological books were written or how passionately some believed. That means nothing in determining the validity of the claim.

For me the claim with the highest score would be the one that is most believable / least absurd. The one that comes to mind right away is Mahayana Buddhism, I've read about sects that believe Siddhartha Gautama was an incarnation of the primordial force who's purpose was to bring enlightenment to the world. I still don't see any strong evidence for it but it's not completely ridiculous like others I've read about.

I'm not really criticizing the "score" you assign, as long as there is some kind of hierarchy. Buddha in first place is cool, I just don't think they can all be equal, philosophically.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I'm not really criticizing the "score" you assign, as long as there is some kind of hierarchy. Buddha in first place is cool, I just don't think they can all be equal, philosophically.

It was a puzzling question, basically:

Which one of these gods that you don't believe exist has the best chance of existing?

I don't believe any of them have testable and verifiable evidence so I'm left with which god was the least convoluted. I really don't see any other criteria I could use.