re: "I refuse to be a slave to religion!"

quote:

---

This is called religious pluralism- the belief that all religions are true.

---

Nah. I believe in my religion, although I might reject some post-Christian human interpretations of it. I'm just not trying to impose what I believe on others. I myself am not that dogmatic, so how could I expect others to be? I just want people to love one another and lead a good life. If Allah or Buddha or the gods of Hinduism get you there, I wont interfere.

quote:

---

I also walked away from the faith for a period of years. My problem was with the existence of evil

---

I’ve wondered for a long time why this is a problem for Christians and not for Atheists. All that is needed to explain the existence of evil for the Christian God is a plan and intention to bring about a greater good, while “evil” cannot objectively exist in an Atheistic worldview due to the lack of objective moral reasoning allotted by the pure subjectivity required by a worldview without purpose and personal guidance.

I see evil as a problem for Atheists, not Christians. Atheists have no right to call anything “evil” in any meaningful way, as Atheism reduces all moral issues down to individual preference and opinion, and who really cares about opinions, at the end of the day?

What then, are you claiming?

quote:

---

...and who really cares about opinions, at the end of the day?

---

You do.

We all do.

We're biologically wired to be social creatures. Of course we care (some more than others) what our peers think of us.

Without objective morality, humanity's subjective opinions on morality are all that's left. If that's all that's left, then those opinions not only hold value, they're the only things that have any value at all.

No longer can you just assert that a man picking up sticks on the wrong day of the week should be stoned to death (Numbers 15:32-36), you now need to convince the people around you that what that man did was so horrible he should be stoned to death.

quote:

---

I’m interested to hear your thoughts on the kalam argument.

---

If I may, I couldn't get past the first premise.

"Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence."

There are two types of creation (beginning to exist):

1.) Creatio Ex Nihilo - "Creation out of nothing"
2.) Creatio Ex Materia - "Creation out of material"

#1 is pure speculation, it's not something we've ever seen/established/proven. Even the idea is hard to grasp. If something doesn't exist to begin with, how can you cause it to do anything? There's no "it" to act on.

So, all we're left with is #2, creation out of material.

Right out the gate the Kalam Cosmological argument is resting on at least 1 unprovable premise. That disrupts the conclusion.

quote:

---

Sorry bud, but "I seent it" doesn't count as historical fact.

---

There’s no evidence that can be corroborated that Jesus ever existed as a man on Earth much less rose from the dead. People who consider this a historical fact are confusing historical fact with what we call “faith”. They call it faith precisely a because it is to be believed despite having no evidence, or even having evidence to the contrary.

Some folks believe their Bible, translated in English from old manuscripts and scrolls written in ancient languages no longer in use believe that as a whole it is inerrant. They believe in contradictory statements and they believe in ideas that modern science has disproven. That’s “faith”.

I would expect no less for our resident hyper religious folks here to argue that the stars were created for the expressed purpose of being used as navigation aids and installed just below the firmament. They would also argue that the stars were capable of falling out of the sky onto the ground. It’s in their Book so it’s part of their faith, despite science proving that stars are balls of burning gas millions of light years away.

Religious folks, understand that some people need evidence of something being true before they acknowledge it. Not everyone can will themselves to believe something they know is untrue. Quoting scripture, without some sort of evidence, as proof of anything to a non religious person isn’t going to accomplish much.

The writer of the gospel according to Mark lists no sources, and his claims cannot be corroborated. All the other gospels and the pastoral epistles were written after Mark and simply copy or steal ideas from Mark. Work on finding that evidence to corroborate Mark, and if you find something, please share with the world.

quote:

---

I never have. Not in adulthood.

---

Are you married?

quote:

---

So probably the three really big things were gratuitous evil, belief not being a conscious choice, and the Herod/Quirinius timeline contradiction with respect to Jesus' birth. There were a lot of other things as well (the whole born without consent and before taking your first breath you're already deserving hellfire, the idea that children who die before a certain age get a free pass to Heaven, the soul/brain conflict - I never bought the brain is an antenna between your soul and your body, Jesus not speaking out against slavery, the massive difference in tone and tenor between the Old Testament and New, the pretty barbaric things that happened in the Old Testament, etc., etc., etc.), it's really hard to rank order them

---

I have had many of the same issues. It is natural to be skeptical when you have limited knowledge (which is what my problem was/is). One thing I have found, is that there are more books than I can read on any given subject- meaning that there are reasonable, logical, biblical answers to every question and doubt that I have had. I just have to put forth the effort.

Based on what, exactly?

quote:

---

Most people don't accept that concept of "good" or "bad".

---

Then they wouldn't be convinced to stone a toddler... If they wouldn't be convinced to stone a toddler, where does their hesitancy of "that concept" come from?

I don't think most people are against the concept of "convince me of something and I'll accept it", it honestly sounds definitionally true.