jonjizz

“first, i wasn't trying to be funny, i told you, i take the truth/knowing the truth seriously.”

As you still haven't taken investigative steps to find the evidence and information supporting Christianity, this just simply cannot be true; your questions are repetitive and don't demonstrate that you've quite digested your answered questions from the post that you're responding to. Being reluctant to encounter evidence and information, for fear of being persuaded, isn't a sign of truth seeking.

“second, i don't believe i'm in the majority, and i never claimed so! i don't think it's any relevant to the truth.”

In this context, the numbers certainly are quite relevant to the truth; remember, in so many words, you tried to ask me why Christianity is thriving, while the world religions aren't, with some being unsuccessfully revived from extinction; obviously, there must be some real truth supporting Christianity. You're in the minority, because you both have a purported standard that is separate from the objective standard used by most people to become Christian and you're reluctant to evaluate the evidence and information relied upon by most people to support their decisions to become Christian.

“third, i'm not asking you to bring me evidence, you can attribute my claims about there being lack of evidence a result of my innate scepticism if you will, but i've made no requests nor am i going to blame you for not providing any evidence.”

You phrased questions as if there was no evidence and information supporting Christianity other than the Bible, when it was pointed out that you're reluctant to seek out evidence and information that serves as the foundation for most peoples' objective decisions to be Christians. How can you be skeptical of anything, when you're too reluctant to even locate the evidence and information supporting most peoples' objective decisions to be Christians? This isn't skepticism, as it implies that you actually know anything about all the evidence and information supporting our objective foundations as Christians?

The objective isn't for me to provide evidence and locate it, but, rather, the objective is to critique what you actually know about the evidence and information supporting Christianity that is so abundantly available to be found by anyone applying just a bit of detective effort to locate it that you apply in your everyday life. This was explained in the post that you're providing a response to, supposedly.

“fourth, other religions also firmly believe that their prayers are being answered by their gods! surely you can understand why actual miracles would be the only unquestionable evidence and determining factor in favour of any particular religion.”

This just isn't true; it's just a statement of hope on your part; the lack of faith in other religions is one of the pillar reasons for Christianity's rapid spread and growth throughout its history; and, this is so, because Christianity involves actual answered prayers; the evidence and information that I tried to direct you towards would explain in much greater detail. Thus, personal experiences, along with evidence, supports our objective foundation to be Christian; we're based on actual reality, not something that we would only like to be the case, as real reality is the case.

“fifth, what may convince you, may not convince others; and those who disagree with you, shouldn't be assumed ignorant... what's the point of amassing knowledge when you neglect this basic logic?”

Well, you need to actually read; I didn't describe things personally being able to convince me as what convinces others, per se, I described an objective standard that would convince most people; and, with that objective standard, I, like most people in the world, can be confident in Christianity, be it faith, massively available evidence and information, or a combination of the two; that's just the real world where we all live within.

“sixth, can you be sure instead that you're not the one who's creating a reality so skewed in one direction that all you see is evidence of god?”

Sure, I explained that my background was in science and that it was important to go seeking to embrace the evidence and information that is available, not reluctance to encounter it for fear of being persuaded by the abundantly available evidence and information that would support an objective foundation in Christianity by most people around the globe. The available information, at times, involves the application of science, when the context is appropriate; hence, there is no way to skew real laboratory results by explaining your findings based purely on the resulting observations to be described and seen by people.

“to be fair, most philosophers and scientists are more likely to be atheist/agnostic, while it's the uneducated who are mostly religious, that should give you some insight on who's creating what.”

No, you're reading or hoping at the real available data wrong; first, just because someone may lack a degree in science and philosophy doesn't mean that someone is uneducated; secondly, there are plenty of uneducated atheists and agnostics; that's how people can be persuaded by it, in most cases: they don't have much support available to them in order to use to apply critical thinking to the recycled misinformation about Christianity that they've likely received; thus, they can play with uneducated people who simply want to support a certain worldview and have a reluctance to examine what really supports Christianity in terms of evidence and information; basically all professed atheists and agnostics start off with the same old lamb punchlines that are frequently debunked within the scholarly Christian community; and, third, a larger number of uneducated Christians is possible to be found simply because Christianity is relied upon by far more people globally than the cases that you reference; as Christianity is orders of magnitude larger, it's easier to find any group of people within it, as compared to a group that is around 1-3% of the global population. Additionally, Christianity is under attack far more than atheism, as atheism is one of the main drivers attacking Christianity, usually with misinformation that has already been debunked within the scholarly Christian community. Any hope of success in that regard is dependent upon creating a reluctance within more and more people to actually look for the evidence and information that supports Christianity; this includes other groups, as well.

“believe me, most people in general would want miracles and magic and supernatural things to be true, we're all fascinated by these ideas and that's also why i'm on this site where we talk about comicbook characters with superpowers! but this is just a fantasy, and in reality no such thing was ever recorded, so i can only see religion as a form of escapism for adults.”

Well, this statement demonstrates the problem with your refusal to go and take a look at the available evidence and information that I directed you to. This statement demonstrates that it was either totally over your head or you just don't want to listen and know about the evidence. Being reluctant to go explore the evidence doesn't entitle you to make broad and sweeping generalizations about there not being evidence and information available.

People in general, in the real world are Christians, as it's the largest block of people in the world. You're living in a state of denial that has you believing that your take is the majority, where it's just a small block of people in the world. Basically, you're apart of a small group who can successfully sucker most people into bringing you their evidence and information so that you can argue with the evidence in the hopes of drawing them into your worldview with you (e.g. but, in the process, you can't discern how you've discussed possibly volumes of evidence and information, forgetting to see the overall picture and allowing yourself to view things from a more totality standpoint, as opposed to bit by bit or just piece by piece; while you argued with the information and evidence, sure, does that actually mean that you've refuted and debunked that evidence and information, really? it's being honest with yourself to come away objective); these people are being suckered in by your broad statements about the availability of evidence and information supporting our side, when this should be flipped around where you have to demonstrate what you actually know about the topic that you're attacking in sufficient detail to support your broad and sweeping generalizations. Based on what you typed, I can both tell that you're trying to be funny and that you know very little about what it is you're trying to comment about with broad and sweeping generalizations. Basically, as that old cliche goes, you're throwing paint in our direction, in the dark, hoping that there will be a surface available for the paint to touch. Again, the solution is just to go with your normal everyday detective skills and find the evidence and information that is so abundant.

With your comment, you're purporting to believe that Jesus's miracles is the only thing supporting our faith, for lack of anything else, ever since. But, no matter how hard you want to live in denial, there is literally no legitimate way that you could actually believe your own mess or what you're suggesting from your comments.

One of the very things that both attract and keep people firmly committed to Christianity is our answered prayers and our boiling desires to spread the good news about the answered prayers to other people (e.g. while I said something likes this before, but, it's true; I just had several answered prayers throughout this weekend; and, the last time I commented on this, I was describing a recently answered prayer; but, it's true; I'm glad that God is validating for me, when I need it, as that's just instinctive for me as a scientist: to need validation from time to time, despite the persuasive evidence that I received in the past). Thus, to literally believe what you actually say, outside of our speak here on Comicvine, you'd have to literally have not encountered Christians in your real life trying to convert you to Christianity, when your attacking Christianity is the very thing that demonstrates that you've likely encountered Christians confessing the good news from time to time. This is one of the quickest barometers that I can employ to see how disingenuous you really are about things that you say; especially if you're living anywhere in the west, particularly, the United States.

Basically, it's not hard for me to see that you're extremely reluctant to follow my suggestions; you can even view the YouTube clips that I post regularly, here in this very thread, but, you avoid them; the titles of the clips clearly suggest information about evidence; or, you probably do view portions, but you want to stick with your worldview despite the available information and evidence that supports Christianity. Just think about that for a moment: it could be so easy for you, why don't you want to just become Christian? I have read your comments and I don't find them to be rooted in an anti-theism, unlike some other comments; or, when they seemingly are, I can tell that you're largely just pretending to know about something, where you know very little about the Bible. You want to either know, you want to draw us to your worldview, or a combination of them both. I can deal with someone who isn't also an anti-theist, in real reality. My background truly is in science; and, what you're doing, trying to avoid reviewing information and evidence for fear of being persuaded by it, is not a demonstration of how knowing or learning science or from science truly works; it's about reviewing the information and evidence, as it comes along, and going where that evidence and information leads you. If something comes up that says otherwise, you also examine that evidence and information, objectively; basically, when Christianity is the subject, you have to be a judge of sorts and balance the scales, not try to skew the scales so far to one side that it seems correct for you (e.g. a worldview where Christianity and religion is the minority of thought; this can only work for you in your own mind, however).

“why don't YOU explore the possibility that god is just a human illusion?”

For one, my personal experiences with God is strong enough for me to be totally convinced that God isn't just a human illusion. Secondly, way two many other people have similar personnel experiences and shared them. And, finally, a knowledge of the totality of the available information and evidence shows otherwise. It's all about a matter of embracing the possibly available information to be found as opposed to avoiding it, being reluctant to see it, or trying to create a reality so skewed in a direction that leads to you think in such a way. Again, you have to find a way to become way more objective in your exploration of this topic.

“if you can't observe it in nature, and all you have is ancient books and stories from long lost times of extreme superstitions and ignorance, logically, doesn't it make sense to you that this was all simply invented?”

While this may be your worldview on this topic, it just simply isn't real reality. There is way more information and material to be explored supporting Christianity than just the Bible, even though most of it has validated the Bible to be true, which is also important for sustaining a belief in a subject. Plus, clearly, you're reluctant to explore the available information; that would be the only problem here; just go explore the available evidence and information and come back demonstrating that you've undertaken the process of exploration.

“think about ancient egypt for example, in the past, the ruling class, the pharaohs, were venerated as gods amongst humans! they managed to convince an entire kingdom that they were superhuman beings! (historically at least, there must've been plenty of sceptics back then as well) all so their rule would be unquestioned... doesn't this prove to you that people are gullible enough to be manipulated into believing a fake religion? and that christianity, having transformed so much over the years, has all the traits of a fake religion as well?”

How has Christianity transformed so much over time? This sounds like, in your efforts to skew things so far in one direction to support your worldview, that you would believe whatever misinformation about Christianity that comes your way, with absolutely no critical thinking in place to examine what you've found or been told, largely because you're just independently so ignorant about the topic of Christianity. Thus, since you so clearly don't want to believe that evidence supports Christianity and you want to believe the misinformation that you encounter, it's best to have you share what you actually know on your own. You seem to need Christianity to be attacked and brought down for you by other people. But, Christianity is a living organism that can defend itself, too; that's why it tends to stay and grow, despite haven been the most attacked belief system ever to exist and is still existing. Normally, this would start to persuade someone who is somewhat objective on a topic. Christianity just simply is not comparable, and there's just simply no analogy between it and the ancient pharaohs, speakings as someone more informed for cause of being more objective in my exploration of Christianity.

“i respect that you take your faith seriously, but i take the truth just as seriously... there isn't enough evidence to suggest that any god COULD be real, and i know you're smart enough to understand this when it comes to other religions, so why not apply the same standards to your own?”

For being far more informed about the available information and evidence supporting Christianity, my applying the same standards is precisely the reason that Christianity is so much more persuasive and believable; and, it's far deeper than a topic to explore, due to the personal experience factor.

“ironically i'm not sure about @dshipp17... even though his faith is the strongest here, he doesn't strike me as being AS close-minded and obtuse as the others, just much more deluded/delusional, to the point that arguing with him is just as much of a waste of time.”

I'm only aware of the evidence and information that you are preventing yourself from exploring. Once you go and actually explore that evidence and information, you might start to understand my points, as well as a number of their points, much better. Thus, given that you won't go and take a look at the evidence and information that I suggested that you explore, do you actually truly know what being deluded is in this scenario? We know about evidence and information that you refuse to examine for yourself; I'd like you to start examining that evidence and information, and then come back so that we can have a discussion about it; not an argument, a discussion, unless, of course, there is a reason to argue about something (e.g. maybe a flaw with the evidence that has a sound and logical explanation).