Confess!: (became a) Religious Discussion

[BriGuy92]

I almost don't want to post this because... honestly I don't know why. For some reason I feel nervous about telling people things about myself like this, even if those people are near-complete strangers and the things I'm saying can't really come back to hurt me in any way. Or at least not any way I can think of. Anyway.

There have been a lot of times lately when I've done something I know I shouldn't, gotten angry at myself for it, decided to do something about it, not done anything about it, rinse and repeat ad infinitum. Mostly this has to do with school. There have been a couple classes that I've not worked at hard in as I should, and I know it, but I continue to slack off. And my grades show it, I failed English at the end of 12th grade, failed a programming class last semester (and I'm majoring in computer science, go figure), got a D in calculus, and I'm on my way to failing calculus 2 this semester. I kinda hate myself for doing this same thing over and over. I don't really have any excuse for it.

I have a hard time showing anything creative that I've done to other people. I think it's out of fear that whoever I show it to won't appreciate it, but whenever I think that I ask myself "Seriously? Is that any reason to keep all this to yourself?" Because of that, there are a bunch of things that I've wanted to do for the longest time but have been too nervous to do. Things like playing music or drawing or writing. Basically anything that I could point to and say "I did that." There's not much I want to do more right now than learn how to play an instrument or how to draw, but I won't let myself because I don't want to have to show other people that I've done anything. I love when I show something to someone and they like it, or even if they don't like it but can tell me how to fix it. I just don't like actually showing things to people. I used to take piano lessons in third grade, and I loved playing the piano, but I absolutely hated recitals. Having someone ask me to play something for them, in the way family members do, was even worse. I'm still that way and I don't know why and that bothers me.

I'm a Christian, but I don't like identifying as such. Being Christian isn't the most popular of ideas. I've never been directly ridiculed for it, but I'm always afraid that I will. The most common belief, at least among non-religious people, seems to be that religion is only for "the weak", people who can't decide for themselves what to do with their lives, etc. I hate the idea of being labeled like that. My closest friends, and even some of my family doesn't know that I'm a Christian. Religion is supposed to be one of those things that you're not ashamed of, right? So why the hell can't I get myself to stop being ashamed of it?

So yeah, that's my stuff. For some reason I'm thinking these problems are pretty common. If they're even problems at all. I don't know. I'm kinda depressed now.

tl;dr: I have insecurity issues, but I doubt I'm the only one.

[Luigison]

tl;dr: I have insecurity issues, but I doubt I'm the only one.

BriGuy92, I've been through much of what you're talking about and know family members, cohorts, and students that have had similar issues.  From what I can tell it's normal for some and possibly most people.  Particularly I've noticed the lack of drive and fear of rejection in myself and other people with authoritarian/oppressive fathers or other family members.   Some of it is genetics.  You are born with a certain personality.  Some of it is epigenetics.  If you drink alcohol at a young age or do a lot of short term/multi-tasking then time-consuming creative tasks will lack appeal.  I know all of these from my personal experience and they may not relate to you, but I think a similar set of solutions may work regardless.

First, I suggest you do something new and exciting.  Parasailing and Bungee jumping are two ideas.  It needs to be something with a perceived risk that gives you a rush and leaves you excited.  Don't use drugs, alcohol, or anything artificial though.

Second, do something big you've seemingly always wanted to do.  For me things like writing a story, having relations with a female, being publish, moving out, taking a trip, building a house, etc. 

Third, do something religiously.  This doesn't have to be Religion.  Maybe exercise, read, write, fish, music, art, etc.  The point here is to keep yourself busy. 

You don't have to do all three of these or in the order I listed, but they worked that way for me and a few other people I know. 

[Turtlekid1]

I have a hard time showing anything creative that I've done to other people. I think it's out of fear that whoever I show it to won't appreciate it, but whenever I think that I ask myself "Seriously? Is that any reason to keep all this to yourself?" Because of that, there are a bunch of things that I've wanted to do for the longest time but have been too nervous to do. Things like playing music or drawing or writing. Basically anything that I could point to and say "I did that." There's not much I want to do more right now than learn how to play an instrument or how to draw, but I won't let myself because I don't want to have to show other people that I've done anything. I love when I show something to someone and they like it, or even if they don't like it but can tell me how to fix it. I just don't like actually showing things to people. I used to take piano lessons in third grade, and I loved playing the piano, but I absolutely hated recitals. Having someone ask me to play something for them, in the way family members do, was even worse. I'm still that way and I don't know why and that bothers me.

I know how this feels, having dealt with (and still dealing with) the same things.  As to why you don't want to put yourself out there: if you're anything like me, then the feeling you get when someone rejects or otherwise dismisses your creative efforts is one of the worst in the world.  Eventually you'll have to force yourself to be more bold.  If you're honestly not confident in your abilities, then practice.  In my experience, a lack of talent is just a lack of practice.  But sooner or later you'll have to show the results of that practice.  And I don't think it's humanly possible to not feel nervous when you do, but don't let the nervousness cripple you (and admittedly, I'm guilty of this too and should follow my own advice).  Just remember - while rejection may be one of the worst feelings in the world, having someone like your work is one of the absolute best (okay, so part of the reason this put me on cloud nine is because I have this thing for Emmy, but still).

I'm a Christian, but I don't like identifying as such. Being Christian isn't the most popular of ideas. I've never been directly ridiculed for it, but I'm always afraid that I will. The most common belief, at least among non-religious people, seems to be that religion is only for "the weak", people who can't decide for themselves what to do with their lives, etc. I hate the idea of being labeled like that. My closest friends, and even some of my family doesn't know that I'm a Christian. Religion is supposed to be one of those things that you're not ashamed of, right? So why the hell can't I get myself to stop being ashamed of it?

Well, the truth is that religion is for the "weak" - but not in the way most would define "weak."  Everyone is weak in the sense that it's not possible to be self-sufficient enough to be completely self-sufficient.  But I digress. 

I guess you have a few choices here, that I can think of.  Either you can keep it under covers for the rest of your life (probably not too psychologically healthy to have to keep that kind of thing a secret from those close to you), or you can just not care what people think (while it's good to be proud of your faith, being defiant about it probably won't earn you any friends), or you can trust that people will be understanding.  Often, people aren't.  But if these people are close to you, then I should think they'll at least try to understand.

In any case, don't be ashamed.  These days you'll often hear people say "I'm not a Christian, I'm a Christ follower," as if the former should carry any connotations other than the latter.  Somewhere along the way "Christian" became a negative label even for Christians.  Don't let other people's interpretation of the word shame you.  Just make sure you follow Christ and do your best to help the people you know follow Christ and then trust Him for the rest.  It's harder than it sounds, but not impossible.

Third, do something religiously.  This doesn't have to be Religion.  Maybe exercise, read, write, fish, music, art, etc.  The point here is to keep yourself busy. 

This.  Do something to distract yourself, even if you think you'll hate it (if you find you don't like it after trying it, that's a different story).  Personally I go for walks and sometimes even clean.  Like, I've been cleaning my room this past week and I'm not sure why, but this is the happiest I've felt in a long time.  Just get yourself a hobby as a distraction and one day you'll find that it makes you genuinely happy.

You start pretending to have fun, you might even have a little by accident.

[PaperLuigi]

Wow, you're getting two completely different perspectives thrown at you consecutively, one from Turtlekid (a Christian) and me (a rookie existentialist). Just keep in mind that both opinions are just that: perspectives.

There have been a lot of times lately when I've done something I know I shouldn't, gotten angry at myself for it, decided to do something about it, not done anything about it, rinse and repeat ad infinitum. Mostly this has to do with school. There have been a couple classes that I've not worked at hard in as I should, and I know it, but I continue to slack off. And my grades show it, I failed English at the end of 12th grade, failed a programming class last semester (and I'm majoring in computer science, go figure), got a D in calculus, and I'm on my way to failing calculus 2 this semester. I kinda hate myself for doing this same thing over and over. I don't really have any excuse for it.

In the "grand scheme" (there is none) failing a few classes isn't going to affect you too terribly. Be strong and move on. It's a sign of strength when you have no regrets; you affirm your life by valuing it for what it is, not what it could be.

I have a hard time showing anything creative that I've done to other people. I think it's out of fear that whoever I show it to won't appreciate it, but whenever I think that I ask myself "Seriously? Is that any reason to keep all this to yourself?" Because of that, there are a bunch of things that I've wanted to do for the longest time but have been too nervous to do. Things like playing music or drawing or writing. Basically anything that I could point to and say "I did that." There's not much I want to do more right now than learn how to play an instrument or how to draw, but I won't let myself because I don't want to have to show other people that I've done anything. I love when I show something to someone and they like it, or even if they don't like it but can tell me how to fix it. I just don't like actually showing things to people. I used to take piano lessons in third grade, and I loved playing the piano, but I absolutely hated recitals. Having someone ask me to play something for them, in the way family members do, was even worse. I'm still that way and I don't know why and that bothers me.

Okay, my main problem with this is that you're behaving yourself in accordance with an external influence's opinion. You're acting in something Jean Paul Sartre calls "bad faith" because you're denying your freedom to choose. Although other people may limit you somehow, they cannot force you to follow one course over another. Instead, why not display it because it gives you pleasure?

Don't give so much friggin' weight to not showing off your art because you're afraid of what they might think. You have a lot of options man, so just go for it. If they don't appreciate it, who gives a flying ****? It's your art. It has no essence, no objective purpose. It's what you want it to be.

I'm a Christian, but I don't like identifying as such. Being Christian isn't the most popular of ideas. I've never been directly ridiculed for it, but I'm always afraid that I will. The most common belief, at least among non-religious people, seems to be that religion is only for "the weak", people who can't decide for themselves what to do with their lives, etc. I hate the idea of being labeled like that. My closest friends, and even some of my family doesn't know that I'm a Christian. Religion is supposed to be one of those things that you're not ashamed of, right? So why the hell can't I get myself to stop being ashamed of it?

I became an atheist because I felt like I was denying reality by being a Christian, not because I was "ridiculed" for it. I will agree that it's a morality worthy of the weak because it a) denies reality and b) teaches them to label wonderful, life affirming things as sinful, but you're letting other people choose for you once again. Drop a concept when it conflicts with reality, not when an external influence tells you to.

Keep in mind that I'm just presenting a perspective. I don't expect you to heed what I've said or make it your own. My words aren't metaphysically significant, insofar as they're not universally binding. In the end, you either choose for yourself or let another person do it for you.

[Turtlekid1]

While I don't agree that Christianity denies reality or labels anything as sinful that isn't a sin, I do agree that if you don't really believe that it's true - if don't believe that it's aligned with reality - then you should reevaluate your beliefs.  Which isn't to say I think you should completely abandon your faith in favor of agnosticism or atheism; instead, I would say that you need to do some studying and decide for yourself.

Make sure you know why you believe what you do.

[CrossEyed7]

I'm a Christian, but I don't like identifying as such. Being Christian isn't the most popular of ideas. I've never been directly ridiculed for it, but I'm always afraid that I will. The most common belief, at least among non-religious people, seems to be that religion is only for "the weak", people who can't decide for themselves what to do with their lives, etc. I hate the idea of being labeled like that. My closest friends, and even some of my family doesn't know that I'm a Christian. Religion is supposed to be one of those things that you're not ashamed of, right? So why the hell can't I get myself to stop being ashamed of it?

I'd say to make sure you believe what you really believe. Believe in a way that makes sense to you, and be able to explain it to make it make sense to others, and you'll have much less reason to be ashamed. I've spent much of the last five years examining what I still believe from my upbringing, what I've revised, and reasons for believing in all of it, and it's helped me be a bit less ashamed. When you think through all the things you believe and basically come up with your own systematic theology, more often than not you'll have stuff in there that catches people off-guard because it doesn't conform to their stereotype of Christianity, and that will make some (though never all) people more likely to pay attention and see that you're an earnest, honest truth-seeker who's not just repeating what they've been told.

I can't deny that the ridiculing will come, though. It will. I mean, we follow a zombie who told us to give away everything we have, make ourselves great by becoming servants, and unconditionally love those who hate us. We're pretty ridiculous.

[BP]

There're places in the world where you'll sooner be ridiculed, if not lynched, for atheism than Christianity, rural California is one of 'em

I became an atheist because I felt like I was denying reality by being a Christian, not because I was "ridiculed" for it.

I did after many many hours in high school thinking on my own about how the universe must work, about how many things we (humans) know that we don't know, about how many things we know now, but explained with deities when when we didn't, cause and effect, chaos theory, laws of science that are never, ever broken, and how much room that leaves open for the supernatural. It's my belief that there is an explanation for how the universe got started and that whether a person chooses one thing or another is actually entirely dependent on how they are wired up to respond to stimuli. I'll admit it's kinda scary to think of what it must be like to die if nothing happens afterward, but that's all the more reason to seize the day, don't you think?

Does this mean life is meaningless? Maybe. Does it mean life can be no fun? Of course not. Does it mean you should live like an antipathetic outlaw whose only concern is self-preservation? No, no... philanthropy should be natural, not enforced by torture threats from a great beard in the sky...

And that's all I have to say about that

[Lizard Dude]

The most common belief, at least among non-religious people, seems to be that religion is only for "the weak", people who can't decide for themselves what to do with their lives, etc.

"The weak"? Nah, that's just your insecurity issues acting up. Religion is more for "the dumb" (believing literally impossible stories written over 2000 years ago to be truth), "the terrified" (of death, or of loved ones being dead, or of sex), or "the brainwashed" (being taught absolute bull[dukar] as a child and never considering that it might not be actually true because your parents said it).

No offense.

[Turtlekid1]

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6mGOeKbeTo" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6mGOeKbeTo</a>.

[CoconutMikeNIke]

I won't comment on your feelings of religion, because my thoughts would not exactly work with anything other than that which I practice.

As far as you creative endeavors, and your uncertainty with your abilities, what's wrong with creating but not showing it until you are comfortable with you skill level? Or, display it in a more passive manner.

I didn't show anyone my painting and comics for years until I was confident that I had gotten past the initial "What the he'll am I doing?" hurdle. And I don't make a big thing out of it. I posted it on Facebook so my family and friends could see it, and deviantArt for people I don't know to see. I'm already proud of what I created, and I don't need to point each new piece out to feel it's an accomplishment. Any comments and criticism is nice, especially if it's something I can learn from, but there's no pressure on either end.

[PaperLuigi]

"The weak"? Nah, that's just your insecurity issues acting up. Religion is more for "the dumb" (believing literally impossible stories written over 2000 years ago to be truth), "the terrified" (of death, or of loved ones being dead, or of sex), or "the brainwashed" (being taught absolute bull[dukar] as a child and never considering that it might not be actually true because your parents said it).

Although "terrified" and "weak" aren't synonymous, the two are interrelated. People who are terrified of reality are weaker of will than a person who accepts the finality death and doesn't attempt to avoid it with a little metanarrative.

There're places in the world where you'll sooner be ridiculed, if not lynched, for atheism than Christianity, rural California is one of 'em

Yes, in Texas if you're an atheist like myself you're kind of an outcast. I probably wouldn't use that in my defense though. I would just say that atheism can't compel a person to lynch a Christian because it's merely the rejection of a concept. Nothing more, nothing less.

I did after many many hours in high school thinking on my own about how the universe must work, about how many things we (humans) know that we don't know, about how many things we know now, but explained with deities when when we didn't, cause and effect, chaos theory, laws of science that are never, ever broken, and how much room that leaves open for the supernatural.

Well, that's essentially what happened to me, hahaha. 

I'll admit it's kinda scary to think of what it must be like to die if nothing happens afterward, but that's all the more reason to seize the day, don't you think?

Everything gets boring after a while, which is why death is a relief.

Does this mean life is meaningless? Maybe. Does it mean life can be no fun? Of course not. Does it mean you should live like an antipathetic outlaw whose only concern is self-preservation? No, no... philanthropy should be natural, not enforced by torture threats from a great beard in the sky...

Well, I'm of the opinion that there are no metaphysical morals, just consequences to avoid if we are to preserve the species.

[CrossEyed7]

Although "terrified" and "weak" aren't synonymous, the two are interrelated. People who are terrified of reality are weaker of will than a person who accepts the finality death and doesn't attempt to avoid it with a little metanarrative.

So a person can't possibly believe in religion because he thinks it's actually true?

And what makes "People who are terrified of reality are weaker of will than a person who accepts the finality death and doesn't attempt to avoid it with a little metanarrative" any more valid a claim than "People who are terrified of consequences are weaker of will than a person who accepts that there is an authority higher than them and doesn't attempt to avoid it with a little arguing"? Both are totally subjective.

[CoconutMikeNIke]

Someone should just rename Not at the Dinner Table to "Gays and Athiest: What's up with That?"

At least then absolutely no one will be surprised when every discussion leads to it.

[PaperLuigi]

And what makes "People who are terrified of reality are weaker of will than a person who accepts the finality death and doesn't attempt to avoid it with a little metanarrative" any more valid a claim than "People who are terrified of consequences are weaker of will than a person who accepts that there is an authority higher than them and doesn't attempt to avoid it with a little arguing"? Both are totally subjective.

Not necessarily, the former is supported by empirical evidence (or at least suggests that if God exists he or she cannot be discovered through legitimate natural methods) while the latter is just another strange "explanation" (like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.) for the origin of everything.

[CrossEyed7]

You weren't talking evidence at all, you were saying "People who disagree with me obviously only think the way they do because they're afraid of the truth."

[Black Mage]

Not necessarily, the former is supported by empirical evidence (or at least suggests that if God exists he or she cannot be discovered through legitimate natural methods) while the latter is just another strange "explanation" (like Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.) for the origin of everything.

Would you mind sharing this empirical evidence that supports your statement?

[PaperLuigi]

Look it up yourself. It still stands that abstract concepts like the afterlife cannot be proven by natural means.

[CrossEyed7]

Look it up yourself. It still stands that abstract concepts like the afterlife cannot be proven by natural means.

A: That's kinda why it's called "supernatural." Who decided that natural explanations are the only possible legitimate ones -- not in science, but in life? Who decided that scientific knowledge is the only real knowledge -- which is itself a philosophical, not scientific, assertion?

So science can't deal with God. Big surprise. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Science cannot possibly disprove God, because God is outside the defined purview of science.

Using science to deny God is the same thing as that blogger saying Friendship is Magic is racist. She looked at the show already assuming it was made by racists and looked for things to interpret racially, then acted shocked at her own interpretations ("Those ponies there are kinda dark grey. If the animators are racists, then those are black slave ponies. ...Oh my God, this show has black slave ponies! Therefore the animators are racist!"). Using science is the equivalent of looking at the world and asking "How did this happen if a wizard didn't do it?" Science then says "Well, if a wizard didn't do it, then it had to happen this way." Then you say "Look at this! Science says a wizard didn't do it because it happened this way!" That's what you're doing.

You're taking the "If p, then q" ("If Lauren Faust is racist, then there are slave ponies." or "If God doesn't exist, then science."); then saying "p because q". If you assume that p is true, then q is also true. But then, while under that assumption, you say to yourself, "Oh, look, q is true now!" and expand that out as a universal truth, and then look back at the original statement of "If p, then q" and say "Well, q is true, so p must also be true," which wouldn't even necessarily follow anyway (it's not "if and only if". There could be slave ponies because Lauren Faust wants to make a point about racial issues; God could be using natural means for his own purposes).

B: Maybe not. I haven't read it yet, but I just put in a request for it at my library. I'll let you know if it's any good.

C: This is starting to get a little off-topic I think (if there even is a topic). We're ending up in the same fundamental philosophical questions as we always do.

[PaperLuigi]

A: That's kinda why it's called "supernatural." Who decided that natural explanations are the only possible legitimate ones -- not in science, but in life? Who decided that scientific knowledge is the only real knowledge -- which is itself a philosophical, not scientific, assertion?

Well, it's all we've got really. Anyone can assert that they've had a supernatural experience. Would you believe me if I told you that I spoke with a rainbow pegasus last night?

So science can't deal with God. Big surprise. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Science cannot possibly disprove God, because God is outside the defined purview of science.

Well, okay then. Same thing with a space teapot. We can't disprove it, but would you accept its existence with absolute certainty anyway?

C: This is starting to get a little off-topic I think (if there even is a topic). We're ending up in the same fundamental philosophical questions as we always do.

Eh I agree.

[BriGuy92]

As far as you creative endeavors, and your uncertainty with your abilities, what's wrong with creating but not showing it until you are comfortable with you skill level? Or, display it in a more passive manner.

The thing is, I tend to not want anyone seeing it at all. Like, not even in a "curious passerby" kind of way. I guess the best way to get over that would be to just do it, though.

[Black Mage]

Look it up yourself. It still stands that abstract concepts like the afterlife cannot be proven by natural means.

If you're not willing to back it up, don't make the statements. I don't even know where I'd begin to search for a scientific study of the correlation of a person's "will" and their belief in God or an afterlife.

Your second statement is true, but science cannot explain many things. But that doesn't stop me from yawning.

[PaperLuigi]

Science can't explain everything...yet. And I wouldn't attribute the unknown to a god.

[CrossEyed7]

Science will never be able to explain everything because it can't explain why you picked science in the first place.

[BP]

Gods used to explain flames, tides, the rising sun, storms, languages.

I wonder if there was ever a god whose poetic tales explained why we shiver when we pee

[PaperLuigi]

Science will never be able to explain everything because it can't explain why you picked science in the first place.

...I'm not sure I understand your argument. Perhaps science can't explain a lot of "out there" things like reason, consciousness and love, but I'd like to think that it could, given that it's explained a lot of once "unexplainable" happenings.

If you're not willing to back it up, don't make the statements. I don't even know where I'd begin to search for a scientific study of the correlation of a person's "will" and their belief in God or an afterlife.

No no no, I was saying that it's likely that the Christian god doesn't exist because empirical evidence has disproven a lot of "supernatural" events in the Bible. I concluded that people who accept it anyway are fooling themselves. They're being weak. That's just my take on it.

[Black Mage]

No no no, I was saying that it's likely that the Christian god doesn't exist because empirical evidence has disproven a lot of "supernatural" events in the Bible. I concluded that people who accept it anyway are fooling themselves. They're being weak. That's just my take on it.

I see. But I don't really see how you can come to that conclusion unless you take every story in the Bible literally.

[CrossEyed7]

No no no, I was saying that it's likely that the Christian god doesn't exist because empirical evidence has disproven a lot of "supernatural" events in the Bible.

I'd be interested to see this empirical evidence that disproves the Bible. Carbon-dating that shows that no one named Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale? Debunking of the significant evidence for the resurrection of Christ?

I mean, on the one hand, it'd be derailing an already derailed thread, but on the other hand, it's an unsupported assertion that I really don't want to leave unchallenged. Hrm.

[BP]

And that's the standstill--how do you prove Greg didn't walk on water and give sight to the blind and return from the dead? Easy. You can't do that, so he didn't. There are proofs that humans just can't.

Apply the same proofs to Jesus, the retort is that he was magic.

Argue that he couldn't have been magic, the retort is yes he was

[PaperLuigi]

And that's when I say, "You know, it could've happened but it's not likely."

I see. But I don't really see how you can come to that conclusion unless you take every story in the Bible literally.

My reasoning is that the Bible is supposed to be perfect, but it's not. It's full of inaccuracies outright impossibilities. Why should I take it seriously if it says it's inerrant but it's not?

EDIT: I'm actually laughing pretty hard. BriGuy92 comes to us and he's really depressed and we're like "sure we'll help and stuff" and then this.

[BP]

And that's why I don't like to press what I think on to people (intentionally, at least). I can't prove I'm right. It can't be proven I'm wrong. The only worthwhile religious debates to me are the political ones, where the issue is preserving a government free of it

My reasoning is that the Bible is supposed to be perfect, but it's not.

It is also partially forged, possibly

Whether or not the Bible is full of [dukar] isn't a point I count against Christians though, I took most of it as myths even when I was pious

[CrossEyed7]

And that's the standstill--how do you prove Greg didn't walk on water and give sight to the blind and return from the dead? Easy. You can't do that, so he didn't. There are proofs that humans just can't.

Apply the same proofs to Jesus, the retort is that he was magic.

Argue that he couldn't have been magic, the retort is yes he was

Again, that's kinda the point of supernatural stuff. God does stuff that humans can't do to prove that he's God. How would you propose God prove his existence without doing anything that humans can't do?

Science doesn't know what to do with that because it's science and therefore assumes that God never does stuff like that. But that's science's problem.



I kinda just wanted an excuse to use this gif. (You're welcome, Turtlekid)

It's full of inaccuracies outright impossibilities.

...And there's another sweeping, unsupported assertion.

I'm not accusing you of not being able to back these up in your own mind, as I'm sure you've thought these things over quite extensively, but I am saying that it's irresponsible to throw them out if you're not going to back them up here.

[PaperLuigi]

http://www.coppit.org/god/contradictions.php

I don't know how to be any clearer. I could look all over the internet for you if you'd like.

Again, that's kinda the point of supernatural stuff. God does stuff that humans can't do to prove that he's God. How would you propose God prove his existence without doing anything that humans can't do?

Science doesn't know what to do with that because it's science and therefore assumes that God never does stuff like that. But that's science's problem.

Where's the evidence for these supernatural events? Are they happening now? What do they look like?

What can be asserted without evidence can be denied without it or attributed to something else. A rainbow pegasus creating the universe is a 20% cooler explanation in my opinion. Does it have any weight? Not really, it's absurd.

And that's why I don't like to press what I think on to people (intentionally, at least).

Oh I agree. An individual is autonomous over his or her beliefs. We shouldn't coerce someone into becoming an atheist. Ever. By leaving the theist alone in that regard, he'll achieve a certain level of utility. In turn, my utility won't be compromised because he isn't doing anything to hurt me. 

Of course, we don't have to approve of his religion, and we can certainly show evidence to the contrary.

[BP]

Again, that's kinda the point of supernatural stuff. God does stuff that humans can't do to prove that he's God. How would you propose God prove his existence without doing anything that humans can't do?

But that's what I'm sayin'--to add some more fluff to what I said, no one, no one is going to believe Greg did those things for any reason. It's silly to think so. And the most pious of monks probably hold some skepticism that what David Blaine does is anything more than illusion.

But it's not silly at all to think Jesus did what he did. Because he was God's son.
But what if he wasn't?
Well, he was.
Can you prove he was?
Can you prove he wasn't?

There's the standstill.

[Black Mage]

My reasoning is that the Bible is supposed to be perfect, but it's not. It's full of inaccuracies outright impossibilities. Why should I take it seriously if it says it's inerrant but it's not?

And I guess that's where we disagree. It's my understanding that common belief is that the Bible is the word of God written by man. Being as it's purported to be written by many different people across different times (stories tend to change when passed down verbally) it's expected that there will be contradictions.

Is that a convenient excuse to cover up the inconsistencies of a grand scheme to control people? I don't know and I expect I'll never know.

And the website you posted is extremely knit-picky and lacks anything of particular importance. Most of what I'm seeing in there is extremely minor and accounted for by different authors and translations.

If you believe the Bible is "perfect", I can see where that sort of thing causes issues. If I am missing a glaring contradiction, please inform me.

[CrossEyed7]

But it's not silly at all to think Jesus did what he did. Because he was God's son.
But what if he wasn't?
Well, he was.
Can you prove he was?
Can you prove he wasn't?

There's the standstill.

But it's only a standstill if you keep going at it from that angle. If you instead prove or disprove that he did those things, it'd be settled.

Can that be done? Maybe.

Within a decade of Jesus' crucifixion, people who would have known better believed that he rose from the dead. No reliable contemporary documents indicate that anyone ever even tried to deny that the tomb was empty. The Jewish authorities spread the story that the disciples stole the body, but all but one of the eleven were martyred. (Note: I'm not saying martyrdom = truth. People who die for their faith today do it because they believe what a book says; the disciples died because of what they believed they saw firsthand) There was not enough time for the story of Jesus to become a myth, and if the disciples had stolen the body, how did nobody spill the beans about it (especially while being crucified upside-down)?


As for http://www.coppit.org/god/contradictions.php, first off, I should say that you will never hear me claiming that an English translation of the Bible is inerrant, nor that the manuscripts we currently have perfectly preserve the originals.

I'll also note that the Bible never actually calls itself inerrant. The verse often used to support that idea is 2 Timothy 3:16: "There's nothing like the written Word of God for showing you the way to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Every part of Scripture is God-breathed and useful one way or another--showing us truth, exposing our rebellion, correcting our mistakes, training us to live God's way. Through the Word we are put together and shaped up for the tasks God has for us."
When I read that, I don't see a guarantee that an English translation 2000 years later isn't going to have any typos on the part about how many soldiers a guy had.

Most of the contradictions presented on that page seem to be relatively minor copying errors, or the use of language that is either poetic, or phrased in a way that ancient readers would understand, or poetic because it is phrased in an ancient way. In fact, that said, this is the only one from that page that seems worth extensive discussion here:

Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:12)
Do not repay any one evil for evil. (Romans 12:17, likewise Matthew 5:39)

You have to consider the cultural context. When the Mosaic law was given, the standard was "a life for an eye", making "an eye for an eye" quite progressive. They weren't ready for the law of love, but they could at least get to the law of fairness.

Most unsavory things in the Old Testament are just the trappings of the ancient culture. Humanity isn't pretty, and the farther back you go, the worse it looks. God met the Israelites where they were. "You want to keep slaves?" he said. "Then treat them fairly and humanely, and offer them an opportunity to be set free. You want to stone people? Then at least reserve it for heinous crimes, and give them a fair trial (by 2000 BC standards)."

Jesus gives an example of this in Matthew 19:

One day the Pharisees were badgering him: "Is it legal for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?"

He answered, "Haven't you read in your Bible that the Creator originally made man and woman for each other, male and female? And because of this, a man leaves father and mother and is firmly bonded to his wife, becoming one flesh -- no longer two bodies but one. Because God created this organic union of the two sexes, no one should desecrate his art by cutting them apart."

They shot back in rebuttal, "If that's so, why did Moses give instructions for divorce papers and divorce procedures?"

Jesus said, "Moses provided for divorce as a concession to your hardheartedness, but it is not part of God's original plan. I'm holding you to the original plan, and holding you liable for adultery if you divorce your faithful wife and then marry someone else. I make an exception in cases where the spouse has committed adultery."

Moral discrepancies between Old and New Testament are usually the result of progressive revelation.

I know there are much better apparent contradictions, and if you want to bring up more (probably either in another thread or in PMs), I'm game.

[Lizard Dude]

explained why we shiver when we pee

Uh, sounds like a personal problem.

[TEM]

Analyze the following image as far as it allows within the context of this thread.

[BP]

Uh, sounds like a personal problem.

You've never had or heard of **** shivers? Are you sure?

@Crosseyed again: But still, proof. You're a great debater and I really don't want to bother trying to counter you each time, I'm just still not convinced. How do you know all the witnesses weren't made up, that the Bible isn't all urban legends glorifying an ordinary person or something to that effect? Fact of the matter is that two thousand years ago these impossible things supposedly occurred and there are two clashing theories as to where they came from: a magic man used the powers of an omnipotent overseer, of whom we are all playthings on strings, or they're bologna. Jesus existed, it's a fact. Was he the son of a god? There's reasonable doubt.

You can believe whatever you want and I won't bother you. As I said I can't prove what I think, either; it just sounds logical to me. Scientific method and all that. I'm more saying why I won't argue with you than trying to do it

[PaperLuigi]

I stopped replying because I didn't think CrossEyed and I would've been able to convince each other of anything. I'm perfectly fine with him being a Christian because he doesn't want to use coercion to get other people to adhere to his beliefs.

[CrossEyed7]

It's certainly possible that the New Testament and contemporary documents are faked, just as it's possible that any evidence in any field is faked, or that any supposed expert on any subject is lying or mistaken. I'd just challenge you to ask yourself if it's really the evidence that you have a problem with, or the conclusion that it would lead you to (which would be an appeal to consequences).

The proposition that one or more deities and some kind of afterlife exists is one that well over 90% of the world has believed in for thousands of years up to this day, including some of the brightest minds ever to exist (many of whom have put together proofs from logic and science that have proven difficult to dismantle), and one that, if true, is extremely important to you. If your worldview categorically and preemptively eliminates anything regarding that idea from consideration because it doesn't know what to do with it, that's rather dangerous, not to mention intellectually dishonest.

I won't force anyone into anything, and I won't keep the debate up if you don't want to. Like I said, I just want to get you thinking about it and examining your own beliefs. And it's been a real good discussion, by the way, guys.

[Luigison]

The proposition that one or more deities and some kind of afterlife exists is one that well over 90% of the world has believed in for thousands of years up to this day, including some of the brightest minds ever to exist (many of whom have put together proofs from logic and science that have proven difficult to dismantle), and one that, if true, is extremely important to you.

The fact that 90% of the population believe something does not make it true.  (Is the 90% from some data or did you guess at the percent.)  Regardless, that's an Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to Numbers).  Such a high percentage of people believing something may say more to how we think than what is true, but I realise this may also be a poor argument.   

[Lizard Dude]

Actual science is based on repeatable experiments. You can fake some test but when others try to verify your results, the jig is up.

And sanity is not statistical.

[PaperLuigi]

I'd just challenge you to ask yourself if it's really the evidence that you have a problem with, or the conclusion that it would lead you to (which would be an appeal to consequences).

Nah, it's not the conclusion at all. An afterlife sounds pretty sweet but there just ain't enough evidence.

The proposition that one or more deities and some kind of afterlife exists is one that well over 90% of the world has believed in for thousands of years up to this day, including some of the brightest minds ever to exist

Well, a great many minds supported things like eugenics, fascism, and even genocide. It's a little more than dangerous to appeal to authority. Let's also not forget that majority rule doesn't work in mental institutions.

If your worldview categorically and preemptively eliminates anything regarding that idea from consideration because it doesn't know what to do with it, that's rather dangerous, not to mention intellectually dishonest.

I mean if you can prove it, hell yeah I'll accept it.

[CrossEyed7]

The fact that 90% of the population believe something does not make it true.  (Is the 90% from some data or did you guess at the percent.)  Regardless, that's an Argumentum ad Populum (Appeal to Numbers).  Such a high percentage of people believing something may say more to how we think than what is true, but I realise this may also be a poor argument.   

Granted, but I wasn't using it as proof, just a thought-provoker -- if one's rationale for not believing in Christianity is that science disproves it or some such (which, as I showed, is circular reasoning), then they are dismissing a belief that, historically, was almost universally held, and they ultimately have no real reason for doing so. Still, the 90% and the smart people thing were, if not actually fallacious, close enough that I should have worded it differently.

Actual science is based on repeatable experiments. You can fake some test but when others try to verify your results, the jig is up.

In most branches of science, yes. Archaeology and history are science too.

By the methods employed in archaeology and history and related fields, it is established fact that Jesus existed, and that people who would have known better and had nothing to gain believed that his tomb was empty (a claim that would have been easily and undeniably disproved if untrue). From the reliable historical evidence we have, the only theory that fits all the facts is a resurrection.

I put a line here because this part isn't really specifically responding to LD.

You can't respond to the argument "People don't come back from the dead, this evidence shows that Jesus came back from the dead, therefore, Jesus is God" with "People don't come back from the dead, therefore Jesus couldn't have come back from the dead, therefore there must be something wrong with the evidence even though I haven't found it yet but there's gotta be."

If you don't want to believe in anything supernatural, more power to you, but don't pretend that your choice not to believe in something is itself an argument against that thing.

I mean if you can prove it, hell yeah I'll accept it.

I can't prove it with lab experiments, but I'd definitely recommend looking into historical evidence, treating the resurrection of Jesus as any other supposed historical event, and the books of the New Testament as any other ancient texts (along with other contemporary documents, submitting them all to the same standard historical scrutiny).

[CoconutMikeNIke]

The thing with history is it's written by the winners. And historically speaking, Christians have been some of the pushiest of religious practicioners. Not always Inquisition levels, but fairly successful in making others follow it. So it's really easy to claim that it has to be the truest because a great number practice it.

[BP]

Everyone in the USSR believed Stalin was tall for the same reason, no joke

[Lizard Dude]

Another issue: why does CE7 so readily accept these "historically witnessed" Christian miracles but not the countless other such bogus claims made by most other religions? (Or does he?) Why is he not a Buddhist because of Haedong Kosung-jon records of when an entire court gathering saw Ichadon's severed head fly to the sacred Geumgang mountains and milk spray 100 feet into the air from the neck of his corpse? Why isn't he a Muslim, for Muhammad once split the moon in two in view of the Quraysh tribe to convince them he was a prophet? Does he deny Sufi biographical records of their holy men who could turn invisible and teleport quickly across large distances? What of the much more historically recent group of witnesses who saw the golden plates from which Joseph Smith, Jr. translated the Book of Mormon?

Taking all the mythologies of man into account, everyone is 99% atheist. The 1% you Christians foolishly cling to is no less ridiculous and no less false.


In those parts of the world where learning and science have prevailed, miracles have ceased; but in those parts of it as are barbarous and ignorant, miracles are still in vogue.
   ~Ethan Allen

[CrossEyed7]

Why do you accept the theory of relativity but not Lamarckian evolution? They're both scientific theories.

The account of Jesus in the New Testament is corroborated by reliable extrabiblical sources and fits with established history. Other religions' stories do not.

Admittedly, I haven't done enough research on that yet to defend it in an argument, but I've done enough to convince myself.

[Luigison]

I'm not well educated in the area either, but I could see a Muslim making a similar argument. 

"The account of Muhammad in the Quran is corroborated by reliable extraquranical sources and fits with established history. Other religions' stories do not." 

[PaperLuigi]

Why do you accept the theory of relativity but not Lamarckian evolution? They're both scientific theories.

The theory of relativity has a mountain of evidence supporting it. And Lamarckian evolution is no longer considered a theory because it was discredited by Darwin over a hundred years ago.

[CrossEyed7]

The theory of relativity has a mountain of evidence supporting it. And Lamarckian evolution is no longer considered a theory because it was discredited by Darwin over a hundred years ago.

That's what I'm saying. Some scientific theories are right, some are wrong. Believing in one theory doesn't mean you have to believe every theory ever. Religions should be treated the same.

I'm not well educated in the area either, but I could see a Muslim making a similar argument. 

"The account of Muhammad in the Quran is corroborated by reliable extraquranical sources and fits with established history. Other religions' stories do not." 

My impression is that most other religious texts have clear, major historical contradictions (for example, the Book of Mormon's account of ancient America is not supported by any contemporary evidence, and I believe the Quran says that Jesus was taken off the cross by angels before dying, which would clearly contradict historical consensus). But like I said, I haven't done nearly enough research on that, so I won't say anything more for now.

[Black Mage]

But like I said, I haven't done nearly enough research on that, so I won't say anything more for now.

But that goes back to LD's original statement, right? If you haven't done enough research to be able to discuss it, how could you possibly know enough to have come to an internal conclusion without having a double standard? I'm not out to get you here, it's just that you're dancing around the original point.

[CrossEyed7]

This guy makes a point kinda similar to the points I was making here last year, though in a more eloquent and also a more restrained, liberal way (those adjectives sound contradictory together now that I write them out, but you know what I mean, I think). And it turns out it was actually written before I said it, even though I just found it yesterday.

It’s not that miracles are by definition improbable and therefore historians, who only deal in probabilities, couldn’t ever affirm one. The problem is that our data sets are invariably inadequate to rule out the more probable naturalistic explanations.

But what if that wasn’t the case? Here’s a thought experiment: Suppose that Barack Obama were to suffer a tragic accident wherein he lost a leg. The accident happens in a very public setting and is viewed by millions in person and on television. Doctors try in vain to reattach the leg, but are unsuccessful. With the proceeds going to charity, the leg is purchased by a Las Vegas casino and is permanently displayed next to a grilled cheese sandwich bearing the image of Christ. In the months that follow, Obama is clearly seen by millions to have only one leg. He vacations in Hawaii and is photographed repeatedly wearing only a Speedo. It is self-evident that the leg is gone.

Now suppose that one day Obama goes to church and receives prayer for healing. Suppose he comes bursting out of the church with two good legs, claiming to be remarkably healed. Countless doctors examine him and agree that he now has two legs. DNA tests confirm that both legs are his and that this is indeed President Obama. He vacations again in Hawaii and the Speedo pics portray him clearly in all his bipedal glory. The old leg is still keeping company with the grilled cheese sandwich. Skeptics test the DNA from the old leg and find that it too matches Obama’s DNA.

What now? Must the historian still insist that the miraculous explanation is the least probable explanation?

If you rule out supernatural events categorically, well then yes, the miracle is still the least probable explanation. But only because you’ve decided that miracles have a frequency of zero. If you allow for the possibility of miracles, then it would be possible for a historian to affirm that a miracle probably occurred (at least in theory) where the data set was so compelling as to allow the historian to rule out all competing natural explanations.

There is merit to the idea that history, as a science of sorts, ought not to dabble in the supernatural. And if this is Ehrman’s position, I would probably agree. But we should not treat this methodological limitation of the discipline as though it were an argument against miracles. If historians have decided to exclude the miraculous from consideration in their discipline, the fact that historians cannot affirm that a miracle probably occurred does not mean that a miracle probably did not occur. It simply means that the discipline of history is, by definition, incapable of affirming the miraculous.