Saw this question on r/atheism today.

[sandorski]

Are changed lives more than assertions?

Changed lives are changed lives. They are not assertions. The assertions lie within Religion.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Changed lives are changed lives. They are not assertions. The assertions lie within Religion.

I've seen my own parents go from free-base coke-addicts to people that are now taking care of their children and contributing to society because of their faith in Christ. There are many other people with similar outcomes because of their faith.

There are also shitty outcomes; but I believe in you sandorski. I think you'd be one of the good ones ;-)

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Changed lives are changed lives. They are not assertions. The assertions lie within Religion.

You like to play word games with yourself as well, I see. Why define your life in a negative fashion when you have the chance to do it positively?

 

[LunarRay]

In the trial of Faith - as defined in terms of belief without proof - what evidence is relevant to that proposition? If we toss a bowling ball up and it falls back to Earth we can have faith that the same will occur should we toss the bowling ball up again. The fact that it did repeat substantiates the faith previously held. I'd think...

The preponderance of the evidence seems appropriate - that it is more likely than not that the evidence supports the claim that Faith in God is a valid proposition. And, therefore, the evidence of God's existence appears to justify the Faith that he does, as claimed.

Direct Evidence: "Evidence in the form of testimony from a witness who actually saw, heard, or touched the subject of questioning. Evidence that, if believed, proves existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption. That means of proof which tends to show the existence of a fact in question, without the intervention of the proof of any other fact, and which is distinguished from Circumstantial Evidence, often called indirect."

Circumstantial evidence would be any other evidence presented. For instance, Scientific or logical inference presented by an expert. Direct evidence and because of the bolden above trumps the Circumstantial evidence or should.

So... in our trial of Faith is there any circumstantial evidence going either way? Sure, lots of it but the value of it is held in the mind of the jury subject to their individual life experience and bias 'toward' or 'away' from the evidence presented. In the absence of Direct Evidence this situation would produce a verdict but a verdict of bias and not one based on the unbiased view of the facts. In the case of Faith (In God) a change in venue might be argued successfully... :hmm: (To find an unbiased Jury... hehehehe good luck with that)

Is there Direct Evidence? Maybe! But is it all hearsay and not admissible as is found in the bible and does it meet the test of being Direct Evidence? (First hand knowledge of the issue and it allowed to be read into evidence due to the death of the testifier)? Well... No... The Bible is NOT Direct Evidence of anything more than a historian recording what someone said they witnessed in the form of hearsay to double hearsay to many multiple hearsay statements.

My verdict would be; if you are the claimant in this case you lose! There is no direct evidence and the circumstantial evidence does not support the claim....


But!!!! This case ought to be about convincing one's self and not another... So... it boils down to YOUR take on the evidence regardless of any other person's take on it... The upside is eternity and the downside is the notion that upon death nothing happens... and you won't know if you were right.... I like the option of something good if the former is true rather than the irrelevant situation if the latter is true...

 

[sandorski]

I've seen my own parents go from free-base coke-addicts to people that are now taking care of their children and contributing to society because of their faith in Christ. There are many other people with similar outcomes because of their faith.

There are also shitty outcomes; but I believe in you sandorski. I think you'd be one of the good ones ;-)

No, you saw people who saw that they had a problem, then they fixed it.

It's good that you believe in me. I am a real being, you have Evidence of my existence.

 

[sandorski]

You like to play word games with yourself as well, I see. Why define your life in a negative fashion when you have the chance to do it positively?

What word games?

What negative fashion?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

SD :I am not interested in anything based upon nothing but assertions.

DC :Are changed lives more than assertions?
Changed lives are changed lives.

SD :They are not assertions. The assertions lie within Religion.

DC :I've seen my own parents go from free-base coke-addicts to people that are now taking care of their children and contributing to society because of their faith in Christ.

SD :No, you saw people who saw that they had a problem, then they fixed it.

DC :And they fixed it through faith; thus providing much more than assertions in support of the value of faith.

 

[sandorski]

And they fixed it through faith; thus providing much more than assertions in support of the value of faith.

No. They fixed it by changing what they did.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

No. They fixed it by changing what they did.

And why did they change what they did?

 

[sandorski]

And why did they change what they did?

Realized they had a problem.

 

[LunarRay]

No, you saw people who saw that they had a problem, then they fixed it.

It's good that you believe in me. I am a real being, you have Evidence of my existence.

Not direct evidence, but, I suppose circumstantial evidence does exist. However, I'm not sure the simple presence of postings from 'Sandorski' proves 'Sandorski'. A talented Chimp might have hit the enter button on a program self developed by a computer to debate the Faith issue in a manner that hopes to support the sentient properties of a computer at some future date. :+)

 

[sandorski]

Not direct evidence, but, I suppose circumstantial evidence does exist. However, I'm not sure the simple presence of postings from 'Sandorski' proves 'Sandorski'. A talented Chimp might have hit the enter button on a program self developed by a computer to debate the Faith issue in a manner that hopes to support the sentient properties of a computer at some future date. :+)

Fair enough, but it's still more evidence than that offered for Yahweh.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Realized they had a problem.

Lots of people realize they have a problem with drugs, as they did, but many fewer actually get out of their problem behaviors.

So how did they get out of their problem behaviors?

BTW you're just being obtuse at this point.

 

[LunarRay]

No. They fixed it by changing what they did.

Does this response go to the 'Why' or 'How' aspects of the parental units and their issue?

 

[LunarRay]

Fair enough, but it's still more evidence than that offered for Yahweh.

Yes... that would be true!

I've had issues with evidence and folks who claim God exists based on something like....
A person with some bad disease prays to God and is cured in a manner that baffles the Md's... 'Impossible', they might say... but yet the person is cured.... Is that evidence of God?.... It may not be persuasive but it is ummmmm interesting or should be.

 

[sandorski]

Lots of people realize they have a problem with drugs, as they did, but many fewer actually get out of their problem behaviors.

So how did they get out of their problem behaviors?

BTW you're just being obtuse at this point.

True, many people don't get beyond their problems. However, some people do it all the time and many don't try Faith as the way to succeed.

They realized they had a problem, decided to correct it, probably had support from other people.

BTW, are you sure you believe that "Faith" is what helped them? Isn't the teaching that God responded to their Faith and fixed them?

 

[LunarRay]

I would argue that when a person claims God's will cured some disease or condition they also say that all the animals who ever died including humans was God's will and when some of those deaths resulted from some particularly cruel event that condition breeds a whole bunch of Anti Theists.... Folks who'd not want living in an Universe with a heavenly Saddam Hussein...

 

[Dr. Zaus]

SD :I am not interested in anything based upon nothing but assertions.

DC :Are changed lives more than assertions?

SD :Changed lives are changed lives. They are not assertions. The assertions lie within Religion.

DC :I've seen my own parents go from free-base coke-addicts to people that are now taking care of their children and contributing to society because of their faith in Christ.

SD :No, you saw people who saw that they had a problem, then they fixed it.

DC :And they fixed it through faith; thus providing much more than assertions in support of the value of faith.

SD :No. They fixed it by changing what they did.

DC : And why did they change what they did?

SD :Realized they had a problem.

DC :Lots of people realize they have a problem many fewer actually get out of their problem behaviors. So how did they get out of their problem behaviors?

SD : are you sure you believe that "Faith" is what helped them?

That did not answer my question...

many don't try Faith as the way to succeed.

if I argue that some itches are bitches and some bitches are snitches finding non bitches are that also snitches does not disprove my argument.

I must now conclude that by not responding to my line of questioning you've conceded the point that there is more than simple assertion backing the pragmatic value of faith; therefore we are back to this post:

SD : What am I giving up?

DC

"That's between you and the faith you enter.

From a Christian perspective you would be giving up other-hurting self-serving lust and pride (which is the definition of 'sin' in Christianity); Which means accepting a change in 'who you are' such that you give up 'yourself' and accept being turned into someone that is 'more like christ'.

If you're happy with who you are and where you are in life then this isn't for you. This "Christian" thing is for people in need of emotional/spiritual healing, ready, essentially, to leave behind their former identity.

I encourage investigating other paths as well if you're interested in spirituality, there seems to be an unfortunately low number of non-christian faithful in these threads :-\.

I don't know where you are in your life, but if you're happy with who you are then I'm fairly sure you are who God wants you to be."


To which this was a useful addendum:

MB :Faith isn't about reinventing yourself although, that certainly happens. It's about opening yourself to God's love and his plan for you. It's about learning how to use your talents, the ones you were born with. It's about putting your trust in a power greater than yourself. It's about becoming a better human. It's about sharing the strength you receive by choosing to have faith. It's about peace of mind. Faith is not just about the wounded in spirit, the weak or, needy, it's about being a source of strength and leadership to those around you.

DC :While I agree; I think that brokenness is needed before these benefits of living in the Kingdom. This is why Jesus came for prostitutes, thieves, the treasonous, and other social-outcasts: not for the religious scholars who's only prayer was "thanks for making me awesome".

To answer you succinctly(tl;dr):

"From a Christian perspective you would be giving up other-hurting self-serving lust and pride (which is the definition of 'sin' in Christianity)"

This part is the answer to your question: "What am I giving up?". If you don't have any such problems, or if you don't feel like such are indeed problems, then I'm fairly sure that Christianity is not the path for you.

If the bolded portion does apply to you, and you think this is a problem, then I know a path out that I've seen work. I encourage anyone else with an alternate path to offer their perspective and I encourage you to find whatever path helps you not have the problem.

ps

sorry to ignore you lunar ray; i've liked what you and moon are doing here.

 

[randomrogue]

I've seen my own parents go from free-base coke-addicts to people that are now taking care of their children and contributing to society because of their faith in Christ. There are many other people with similar outcomes because of their faith.

There are also shitty outcomes; but I believe in you sandorski. I think you'd be one of the good ones ;-)

Your parents were coke heads and you credit Jesus for them getting their shit together? This is evidence to you?

So is this the way it works? Anything good is credited to Jesus and anything bad is blamed on the person?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I find it entirely believable that people can use religion to turn their lives around. People who lack direction are desperate to find something to give them order and purpose. It makes a lot of sense, and is one of the positive aspects of religion.

But the point is that it is their belief in something they consider good and worth working for that turns them around. What they believe in doesn't have to exist for this effect to occur.

Many people turn their lives around in similar fashion using motivations or life events that have nothing to do with religion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

yeah, evidence... presuming that future evidence of God's existence won't come to light.

That's the problem with Atheists today, I think. Some go as far as writing off future evidence.

I wonder if future evidence would even change some of you, seeing how grounded your presuppositions already are.

Wait... just so I'm grasping your point here...

Are you saying that people who do not have sufficient evidence to believe should believe anyway "just in case" some "future evidence" were to come to light?

Do you not realize how stupid that sounds?

 

[randomrogue]

They believed in improving their lives. The believing in Jesus is a secondary issue. He's just a middleman. I suppose if you have no family, no support, and nobody who gives a shit about you then maybe your imaginary friend is the next best thing to lean on. Either way all that ends well is well so good for your parents. I personally had a similar thing happen to me. I was a heavy smoker but my belief in Santa Clause pulled me through. I saw Santa at the mall and he told me I had to quit. He also gave me a pony. Praise Santa.

 

[randomrogue]

Wait... just so I'm grasping your point here...

Are you saying that people who do not have sufficient evidence to believe should believe anyway "just in case" some "future evidence" were to come to light?

Do you not realize how stupid that sounds?

No evidence for 2000 years. They're very patient. Despite the fact that the bible states that the evidence was to be presented 2000 years ago.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Actually, the evidence is all around you.

Where?

I once heard someone say "everything can be explained by science" as if science eliminates God.

I once heard someone say everything can be explained by God, as if science was useless.

It really doesn't. Just as science can explain how a robot works, that doesn't eliminate the fact that someone built it.

Someone took some pieces of matter and reconfigured them into a piece of matter we call a "robot." So what?

I really don't know what you're looking for as sufficient evidence. What would convince someone like yourself?

I answered this question earlier.

For God to show himself?

The problem is that you can't trust your senses once you start believing in magic.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That's because they don't believe he even exists, that's probably the reason why they want him to.

It's not like God is going to come and say "here I am, I am real" and go back to the Heavens.

The problem for me and many other skeptics is that the claims Christian make about their God appear inconsistent. They say that God is all powerful, that all things are possible with God, that he loves us, and that he wants us to know him because our eternal fate depends on it.

...but God won't make his existence obvious to everyone. No, sir. That would be a no-no.

It doesn't add up.