Why do Christians believe what's in the New Testament?

[Thumpalumpacus]

There are scores of battlegrounds in the East and South which still have the mouldering bodies of soldiers dressed in the rotting uniforms of the respective sides.  There are plentiful gravestones in cemeteries attesting to the nature and cause of the deaths of the interred.  Mathew Brady, amongst others, took photos to worldwide acclaim.

What, exactly, is your point?  That religions lack this sort of solid evidence?  Well, we knew that already.

Oh so bodies of soldiers dressed in what is thought to be authentic Civil War uniforms...and there are no movies made today using "authentic" uniforms...what if some one is simply dressing dead bodies in these?  There are many explanations, all of which have a probability of being the case.

I have emphasized the relevant evidences that these are authentic and not movie props.  What is more likely:  That someone is running around exhuming these bodies and dressing them in artifically-aged uniforms, and then transplanting them into storied battlefields, complete with period-correct, artificially-aged impedimenta, without anyone noticing -- or that they died in situ roughly 150 years ago?

You see, your essential problem is that there is absolutely no physical evidence that your god existed at all.  Rather than surrender your precious theology, you prefer to throw rational epistemology under the bus.  What you don't seem to realize is that this policy is very detrimental to your point, insofar as you are arguing, perhaps unconsciously, that no one can know anything.

What is the probability of this "movies" theory?

Virtually nil, for the reasons outlined above.

Really.  So on instances of "biblical" happenings you revert to possibilities, but on belief in scientific matters you "believe" regardless of the probability however farfetched the probability says it is.

No.  I weigh and judge the evidence.   Also, am I the only one who finds humor in a theist slagging someone else for alleged "far-fetched" possibilities?

 

At what point does the high degree of improbability become impossible?

That depends on what laws of nature are being used as reference.

I'm a Christian and some say this leads to low IQ, but it seems to this person of low IQ that you pick and choose what you want to "believe" based on what falls within your bias.

Once again, I haven't said this about you.  Unless you quit using this straw-man, I shall be forced to conclude that you are arguing in bad faith.  

I don't deny that all humans have bias.  I disagree, however, with the assertion that it cannot be accounted for and thus factored out.  Indeed, the scientific method is merely a formalization of techniques used to remove bias from  hypothesis.

And our government is 100% honest and has never hidden, nor changed the facts to further their perceived agenda.  In other words, you trust your government to give you 100% truth.  Ok.

Special pleading is the name of this fallacy.  You wish to argue that documents 150 years old are untrustworthy, but stories two to four millenia old are trustworthy.

Again, so when archaeology digs up evidence that supports your bias, it's proof, but when the same goes for biblical archaeology...

And what evidence is that?

[DropLogic]

Google search for evidence, archaeological support, historical support for biblical 'fables/tales".  You may find some.

Sorry, I didn't turn up anything more definitive today than I did last month or a year ago on similar dares.  

Plus the photographic evidence of Jesus could have been----wait a second..

[AnimatedDirt]

Virtually nil, for the reasons outlined above.

[Jim Carrey]: "What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me? One in a thousand?"

[Lauren Holly]: "Um, more like one in a million."

[Jim Carrey]: "So you're saying there's a chance!"

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Nice retreat into images.

I have yet to mock you. Stay tuned.  

If that's the game you wish, that's the game you'll get.  If not, then please advance a cogent argument. Otherwise, don't get butthurt when I sound off.

Maybe next you can formulate your thoughts into words.  I await your reply.

[i_am_i]

I don't know. Does anyone really, I mean really, believe in that? As I think about it it occurs to me  anyone would have to be completely stupid to believe all that and still be any kind of a functioning productive human being.

It seems to me that the believer of all that has somehow developed two minds. In one mind life is really as it is, he has to deal with the world as it is, not how he might think it should be, he has to do that to make a living and he does very well.

In the other mind exists a fantastical belief structure that he can access anytime, but he really only has to access that mind on Sunday or when he's posting on religion discussion forums.

[Sophus]

Google turned up were religious and not scholarly/academic sources? Anyone can go to GoDaddy.com and register a website.

There are examples, however, of Biblical tales that have basically been proven false, or extremely unlikely. The Wall of Jericho, for example, fell due to a cataclysmic earthquake, not Israelites marching around it (surprise!). And why was Jesus crucified between two common thieves? The Romans never crucified thieves.

[wildfire_emissary]

Is this another way of saying that there's a conspiracy behind the overwhelming evidence of US Civil War? This government conspiracy/cover up you speak of is somewhat similar to the flat earthers' argument. Just empty assertions, no evidence. Even if there were evidence, much is circumstantial. Implied not manifest.

[wildfire_emissary]

now, I believe in god because good ole jimmy said there's a chance it might be true. Wait, wasn't that from Dumb and Dumber with the decapitated parakeet?

[Gawen]

Nice retreat into images.

I have yet to mock you. Stay tuned.  

If that's the game you wish, that's the game you'll get.  If not, then please advance a cogent argument. Otherwise, don't get butthurt when I sound off.

Maybe next you can formulate your thoughts into words.  I await your reply.

My sentiments exactly.

[Gawen]

I don't know. Does anyone really, I mean really, believe in that? As I think about it it occurs to me  anyone would have to be completely stupid to believe all that and still be any kind of a functioning productive human being.

It seems to me that the believer of all that has somehow developed two minds. In one mind life is really as it is, he has to deal with the world as it is, not how he might think it should be, he has to do that to make a living and he does very well.

In the other mind exists a fantastical belief structure that he can access anytime, but he really only has to access that mind on Sunday or when he's posting on religion discussion forums.

A couple of weeks ago a church in my area had a church sign out front that said:
"Live your life in the world not of this world."
The promise of eternal life in heaven or eternal damnation is a great motivator for the superstitious. A fear based religion will do this to people gullible enough to believe it. Promises of seeing your loved ones in heaven is something taught and longed for, yet has no biblical support for such an assertion. "Don't be sad, rejoice, for they are in a better place!" is heard at every Christian funeral, yet has no biblical support because those who die are not in heaven until judgment day. Go figure.

The carrot and the stick. The disease and the cure. One doesn't need to follow all those nasty and time consuming commandments in the Torah. That's why a perfect Jew died for your sins. But watch out, now there's a heaven and a hell, not just Sheol and Gehenna. We've upped the ante so you better behave or you'll languish for an eternity separated from God (but God is everywhere, right?)

Superstitious nonsense. No different than astrology, palm reading, black cats, broken mirrors and salt over the shoulder.  All tailor made for those who know no bounds of their own ways into self deception.

[AnimatedDirt]

Nice retreat into images.

I have yet to mock you. Stay tuned.  

If that's the game you wish, that's the game you'll get.  If not, then please advance a cogent argument. Otherwise, don't get butthurt when I sound off.

Maybe next you can formulate your thoughts into words.  I await your reply.

I was hardly mocking you.  The comical situation of that movie popped up the moment I read your words of "virtually nil" which as you know, leaves room for the "impossible".

I'm sorry you took offense.

[The Magic Pudding]

AnimatedDirt wrote: Again, so when archaeology digs up evidence that supports your bias, it's proof, but when the same goes for biblical archaeology...

And what evidence is that?

I pity you living in your narrow doubter mind.
How do you explain all of those arks that beached themselves on Mt Ararat?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Uncharted reefs claim hundreds of watercraft annually, and you expect me to raise an eyebrow over one obsolete livestock-hauler?