Original Sin?

Quote: stinkingliberal

There are mountains of evidence supporting the existence and origins of the universe; there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God. So yeah, exactly equivalent :)

The difference between science and religion in how they assess the nature of reality is that science forms hypotheses and theories, adds incrementally and slowly to its understanding, and always leaves open the possibility that it's wrong. Christianity, like almost all other religions, expresses absolute certainty about everything and brooks no dissent or statements that it has ANYTHING wrong, even in the slightest detail.

Understanding and accepting science is not a bias. Scientific views of the universe include the possibility that there is a divine creator out there. It just might not be remotely resembling what earthly religion thinks it is. Really, now, what is the objective actual chance that Christianity has it all correct?

You couldn't be more wrong about Christianity expressing absolute certainty about everything, it doesn't. The view one takes of anything is biased, even choosing among scientific theories. All the evidence out there is the same evidence for everyone to look at. The thing is we look at it through different lenses or bias. Two people see the same thing and come up with different conclusions, just like with Trump. Some things are unproved in spite of evidence so we have to say we believe something to be true. Neo-Darwinism is a prime example as is abiogenesis.

Quote: Evenbob

You're ability to misunderstand and twist
a post to change its meaning accomplishes
nothing. Also, your choice to swoop in and
lay an egg, then ignore the responses to it,
is not very productive.

Didn't twist anything. The poster didn't provide any proof (not evidence) of anything so I am making my point that people are biased. I am biased. I also hunt and peck when typing so I must choose my posting carefully. I try for brevity. Sorry.

Quote: pew

You couldn't be more wrong about Christianity expressing absolute certainty about everything, it doesn't. The view one takes of anything is biased, even choosing among scientific theories. All the evidence out there is the same evidence for everyone to look at. The thing is we look at it through different lenses or bias. Two people see the same thing and come up with different conclusions, just like with Trump. Some things are unproved in spite of evidence so we have to say we believe something to be true. Neo-Darwinism is a prime example as is abiogenesis.

So...you're claiming? See below.
\

Quote:

Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity within themselves, but rather only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.

Quote: rxwine

So...you're claiming? See below.
\

Hell no! One of us is right and the other of us is wrong absolutely. My point is simply that we all have a biased view. It has nothing to do with right or wrong. I don't know why it's so hard for some people to admit.

How long before a miracle occurs?

He really toned down his hairstyle. Trump could take a lesson.

Quote: pew

You couldn't be more wrong about Christianity expressing absolute certainty about everything, it doesn't.

ROFL, as they say.

Quote: FrGamble

It's a hard question to answer because now Christianity is so large and varied.

Ah, that actually makes it easier.

See, in ancient times, the gods were a central part of life for everyone. Not perhaps in the sense that people spent most of their day in ritual and prayer, or that they even did so every day (aside from full-time priests), but that most people believed the gods directed and ran the world. And that staying the good graces of the various gods was essential for one's continued survival, never mind actual good fortune and success.

Consider Diocletian. he put a final end to the Third Century crisis in Rome, reformed the structures of the empire, stabilized runaway inflation (without fully understanding it), and even shared power with three other men, and voluntarily gave up the throne when he judged it best for Rome. We're talking about a smart, sophisticated military and political leader.

This smart, sophisticated man, hired priests to slaughter animals to "read" their entrails in order to find out details of the future and the will of the gods. And when on one occasion the ritual turned up nothing, he readily accepted the explanation that the presence of Christians nearby made the rituals fail.

He wasn't just upset that a ritual hadn't worked. He was scared that Christians would so displease the gods, they'd turn their favor away from Rome. So he began one more in a series of persecutions.

Can you imagine what the reaction would be to a modern politician saying we need to persecute this or that group because otherwise god will look unkindly on us and punish the country? We call such people extremists.

Or consider Hadrian, another solid, competent Roman emperor. After putting down the latest revolt in Judea, he leveled Jerusalem, expelled all Jews from it, and renamed the city Aelia Capitolina to honor Jupiter. He intended to make it very clear to the Jews their god had abandoned them. Again, can you imagine a modern leader doing the same thing today?

In short, what do we call a regime that bases either their goals or the means to attain them in religion? Back in ancient times, we'd have called them "normal." Today, we call a level of devotion comparable to that, in any person, as extreme and dangerous.

Quote: Evenbob

But you say it about Xtionity all the time!!
You are always pointing out that millions
of people have been Christians in the last
2000 years, and that alone should be proof
that the story of Jesus is real.

I point it out a piece of evidence in the ever mounting accumilation of evidence testifying to the truth of Christianity, but not that it is proof by itself. I hope that this is clear and you won't keep trying to twist my words and create your strawmen.

Quote: stinkingliberal

If I widen my definition of evidence beyond personal experience and scientific observation, then I have perverted the very concept of evidence. I (like the courts in the US) can't take hearsay evidence into account. Somebody tells me they witnessed a divine manifestation. Fine, I say. Do you have photos? Video? Audio? Is there someone else who can verify the manifestation that you saw? Failing that, I can't take your anecdote as factual. EVEN THOUGH you may really really believe in your heart of hearts that you saw God.

I want to put aside the radical notion you have that nothing that doesn't have a photo, video, or audio is real and address that in a bit because I don't want to offend you again. Let me try instead try to take you out of a courtroom. We are talking about seeing if God is real through a relationship, that is what He wants. If you hold onto the hypothesis that God is not real I can take you to a courtroom and show you evidence after evidence that would point to His existence and you would have no evidence to support your position. However, in the end we both lose. You acknowledge the possibility of God, which you already have I think, but you still don't know God or have personally experienced God. Do the test, open your mind and heart and pray. Then we can talk about the results.

Quote:

I wish you would drop the insulting tone about my "radical skepticism." Realizing that I could be wrong about or imagining something I believe to be true--how is that so radical? And "come back to sanity"? Are you implying that I'm insane because I don't believe in God or that I require proof of his existence before I do?

Okay, sorry if it came across as insulting it was not the intent. Radical doubt can be good, it can really open us up to new possibilities. While I don't agree with good Descartes he was a brillant man and thought that his radical doubt might be considered insanity but it was what he needed to do to bring him to at least a foundation that he could build from. You are not insane for requiring evidence before you believe in something. You are a little off or biased if you doubt God because you could be imagining it and not doubt other things. You could also be a little off if you require absolute proof of God before believing in Him when you do not require that level of proof for literally everything else in your life.