Barriers to belief

Originally posted by JS357
I wonder if any of the Christians posting here has had "specific, elaborate communication with divine beings comprising instructions, rules, promises of ..." as you mention.

By "communication", I was referring to the content of ancient Hebrew scripture and the breakaway religion's texts in the New Testament. All that stuff is purported to be divinely inspired written communication and contains the specific, elaborate instructions, rules, rewards and punishments I am talking about.

Originally posted by FMF
I think it's reasonable for me to ask you to justify why I should believe the same things as you believe. If you gave me convincing reasons to believe - for example - that I am immortal (will live on after death, for ever) because the Romans executed a Jewish rabbi 2,000 years ago - then I'd be a Christian. But I'm not. Like I said, I'm not a Muslim or a Hindu e ...[text shortened]... bscribe to your religion, and I've told you time and time again. But you just ignore my answers.

The way I see it, when it comes to a matter of belief you either find the evidence for an idea to outweigh the evidence against an idea, which convinces you to believe the idea. Or you find the evidence against the idea to outweigh the evidence for an idea, which causes you to reject the idea. If evidence is put forward, and you claim that it is not convincing it means if you have thought it through, there must be some criteria by which you decide what is convincing and what is not. If you can't tell me what that specific criteria is it seems you have not really thought it through. Simply claiming not to be convinced by something (without saying why) means you haven't thought it through in my opinion. Saying you are not convinced may be true, but surely there has to be a reason why you are reject something (and don't find it convincing).

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The way I see it, when it comes to a matter of belief you either find the evidence for an idea to outweigh the evidence against an idea, which convinces you to believe the idea. Or you find the evidence against the idea to outweigh the evidence for an idea, which causes you to reject the idea. If evidence is put forward, and you claim that it is not conv ...[text shortened]... but surely there has to be a reason why you are reject something (and don't find it convincing).

We bury our dead relatives, friends and neighbours in the ground or incinerate their remains. If you have evidence that these people have gone on to some sort after 'afterlife', then what is it? Note: your certainty, and sincerity, and hopes, are not evidence.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Simply claiming not to be convinced by something (without saying why) means you haven't thought it through in my opinion.

Well then, as interesting as this opinion may be, I think it's nonsense. But, be my guest, tell yourself what you want.

I have had people here claim that I do believe in the Christian God and I am lying when I say that I don't, and I have had people here say that it's so patently obvious that the Christian God exists (exactly as Christians portray it) that it's willfully stupid not to realize/believe it. I have had people here claim that I claim I do not believe in the Christian God because I resent the authority and as a form of rebellion under the influence of a very, very bad supernatural being ["Satan"]..

And now here you are claiming that someone (like me) who does not believe in the Christian God as "hasn't thought it". Frankly speaking, I find all this to be a comical brand of discourse.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Saying you are not convinced may be true, but surely there has to be a reason why you are reject something (and don't find it convincing).

For the kind of fantastical things you claim, the burden of proof is yours.

Originally posted by FMF
For the kind of fantastical things you claim, the burden of proof is yours.

If I gave you evidence, on what basis would you decide whether or not that evidence was credible?

Originally posted by FMF
We bury our dead relatives, friends and neighbours in the ground or incinerate their remains. If you have evidence that these people have gone on to some sort after 'afterlife', then what is it? Note: your certainty, and sincerity, and hopes, are not evidence.

What in your mind would suffice as credible evidence? If you don't know now, then how would you know in the future if you were facing credible evidence?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
What in your mind would suffice as credible evidence? If you don't know now, then how would you know in the future if you were facing credible evidence?

I have answered this question maybe three or four times in the last week. Asking the same thing over and over again and just blanking out the answer every single time is not a proper conversation.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If I gave you evidence, on what basis would you decide whether or not that evidence was credible?

What evidence do you have that you are going on to live forever in the afterlife?

Originally posted by FMF
I have answered this question maybe three or four times in the last week. Asking the same thing over and over again and just blanking out the answer every single time is not a proper conversation.

You mean you have dodged the same question maybe three or four times.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
You mean you have dodged the same question maybe three or four times.

I have answered this question maybe three or four times in the last week. Asking the same thing over and over again and just blanking out the answer every single time - or simply claiming that I have dodged the same question maybe three or four times - is not a proper conversation. The fact that you disagree with an answer or find it inconvenient does not somehow poof it out of existence.

Originally posted by FMF
I have answered this question maybe three or four times in the last week. Asking the same thing over and over again and just blanking out the answer every single time - or simply claiming that I have dodged the same question maybe three or four times - is not a proper conversation. The fact that you disagree with an answer or find it inconvenient does not somehow poof it out of existence.

Saying you don't believe something because you don't find it credible is a dodge.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Saying you don't believe something because you don't find it credible is a dodge.

The credibility of what you claim is your responsibility. If I were trying to persuade yout to become a Muslim, the burden of proving that it would offer you "truths" that other religions don't offer or deal in would be mine.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
You mean you have dodged the same question maybe three or four times.

No I have not. Meanwhile, What evidence do you have that you are going on to live forever in the afterlife?

Originally posted by FMF
The credibility of what you claim is your responsibility. If I were trying to persuade yout to become a Muslim, the burden of proving that it would offer you "truths" that other religions don't offer or deal in would be mine.

The credibility of what you claim is your responsibility.

So you are not the one who decides whether or not my claims are credible?