Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.
I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.
I think so, too.
I disagree.
Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.
It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.
There was definitely ebb and flow in my case too, so that makes three of us on this thread.
What evidence did you find that made you “ebb and flow” back to faith?
Forgive my presumption, but I assume you mean you fought between your acknowledgment that there is insufficient evidence and some other emotion? Is that accurate?
Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith. Scientists don't try to prove or disprove God's existence because they know there isn't an experiment that can ever detect God.
Evidence does not reduce to scientific evidence alone. Evidence is any kind of fact, proof or argumentation that supports an idea. There are many theological evidences and logical proofs. Whether or not you find them convincing is a different matter.
That doesn’t answer the question of what evidence?
I know a Christian who says the order of the universe points to a creator. Order doesn’t occur randomly. God is eternal and always been here, and He created the universe. He believes that a higher power had to set off events to cause the big bang. He believes that because all the major world religions think Jesus was a holy man or prophet, Jesus was really the holy man that He says He was.
He believes that the Bible is very historically accurate and he’s not wrong about that. The Bible is very historically accurate regarding geography, etc. There are finds of buildings or pottery or other evidence that proves something from the Bible quite often.
When someone questions him, he asks them to prove if the reality their eyes are seeing is accurate. People usually abruptly stop challenging him then.
Nobody can prove or disprove God, but everyone who believes in God has their own evidence or reasons.
I do find that the world around me in nature is amazingly ordered after he pointed that out. I don’t think that occurs randomly and on it’s own, either.
Thanks for your preaching, but it is off topic. The PP was asked what evidence caused them to ebb and flow. Please don't respond for them and try and respect the topic.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:He believes that because all the major world religions think Jesus was a holy man or prophet, Jesus was really the holy man that He says He was.
He believes that the Bible is very historically accurate and he’s not wrong about that. The Bible is very historically accurate regarding geography, etc. There are finds of buildings or pottery or other evidence that proves something from the Bible quite often.
Just to correct a couple of the many errors in this nonsense, there are many major religions that do not regard Jesus as a prophet or holy man -Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism etc etc.
And as an ancient historian, I can tell you that your understanding of the historical nature of the Bible is profoundly naive. There are some elements that reflect genuine historical events, but we believe that many of the elements are later interpolations or myths that have no historical basis.
In comparison to other ancient manuscripts, the New Testament boasts a very short time interval between the original composition and the the earliest availiable copy's inception. This brevity in time not only reveals the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts but also gives credence to the assertion that the manuscripts availiable today are virtually identical to the original composition. Moreover, the short gap between the period of time that the actual events of the New Testament took place (from John the Baptist to the apostle John in Revelation) and the period of time of the original composition of the New Testament prevents distortions or fables from being inserted into the storyline of the New Testament.
https://ics.uci.edu/~asuncion/transmission_accuracy.htm
Modern archaeology has helped us realize that the Bible is historically accurate even in the smallest of details. There have been thousands of archaeological discoveries in the past century that support every book of the Bible. Here are just a few examples:
(examples at link)
https://www.thedestinlog.com/story/lifestyle/faith/2017/06/15/have-you-wondered-is-bible-historically-accurate/985681007/
I am frequently asked about the historical accuracy of the four Gospels. Over the years, skeptics have said they are not history but a legendary account to appease a group desiring it to be real. My research finds this assessment remarkably wrong.
From a 21st-century perspective, where writing is far more prolific than in the 1st century and many times with a specific agenda, it is not surprising some would be suspicious of the accuracy of the Gospels and other writings in the New Testament.
But we must be careful when we evaluate writings from the 1st century using our 21st-century state of mind. Doing this is called Presentism. And when we use Presentism, we can distort the truth.
Instead, we need to insert historical context into our evaluation. The 1st century was a different time, and writing history was less about agenda and more about getting the facts right. While all books, even from the 1st century, include agenda, but to a lesser degree than today in the 1st century.
Accuracy of New Testament
https://brucelhartman.com/accuracy-of-new-testament/
I don’t know who you are speaking for, but many legitimate scholars disagree with you.
The New Testament has been found to be about 99.5% accurate.
People do not have to believe the bible, they can absolutely state they don’t believe the Bible and they do not believe in God. They can have their own opinion, but not their own facts.
Respectfully saying “I don’t believe” isn’t attacking other people’s beliefs.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.
I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.
I think so, too.
I disagree.
Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.
It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.
There was definitely ebb and flow in my case too, so that makes three of us on this thread.
What evidence did you find that made you “ebb and flow” back to faith?
Forgive my presumption, but I assume you mean you fought between your acknowledgment that there is insufficient evidence and some other emotion? Is that accurate?
Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith. Scientists don't try to prove or disprove God's existence because they know there isn't an experiment that can ever detect God.
Evidence does not reduce to scientific evidence alone. Evidence is any kind of fact, proof or argumentation that supports an idea. There are many theological evidences and logical proofs. Whether or not you find them convincing is a different matter.
That doesn’t answer the question of what evidence?
I know a Christian who says the order of the universe points to a creator. Order doesn’t occur randomly. God is eternal and always been here, and He created the universe. He believes that a higher power had to set off events to cause the big bang. He believes that because all the major world religions think Jesus was a holy man or prophet, Jesus was really the holy man that He says He was.
He believes that the Bible is very historically accurate and he’s not wrong about that. The Bible is very historically accurate regarding geography, etc. There are finds of buildings or pottery or other evidence that proves something from the Bible quite often.
When someone questions him, he asks them to prove if the reality their eyes are seeing is accurate. People usually abruptly stop challenging him then.
Nobody can prove or disprove God, but everyone who believes in God has their own evidence or reasons.
I do find that the world around me in nature is amazingly ordered after he pointed that out. I don’t think that occurs randomly and on it’s own, either.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.
I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.
I think so, too.
I disagree.
Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.
It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.
There was definitely ebb and flow in my case too, so that makes three of us on this thread.
What evidence did you find that made you “ebb and flow” back to faith?
Forgive my presumption, but I assume you mean you fought between your acknowledgment that there is insufficient evidence and some other emotion? Is that accurate?
Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith. Scientists don't try to prove or disprove God's existence because they know there isn't an experiment that can ever detect God.
Evidence does not reduce to scientific evidence alone. Evidence is any kind of fact, proof or argumentation that supports an idea. There are many theological evidences and logical proofs. Whether or not you find them convincing is a different matter.
That doesn’t answer the question of what evidence?
I know a Christian who says the order of the universe points to a creator. Order doesn’t occur randomly. God is eternal and always been here, and He created the universe. He believes that a higher power had to set off events to cause the big bang. He believes that because all the major world religions think Jesus was a holy man or prophet, Jesus was really the holy man that He says He was.
He believes that the Bible is very historically accurate and he’s not wrong about that. The Bible is very historically accurate regarding geography, etc. There are finds of buildings or pottery or other evidence that proves something from the Bible quite often.
When someone questions him, he asks them to prove if the reality their eyes are seeing is accurate. People usually abruptly stop challenging him then.
Nobody can prove or disprove God, but everyone who believes in God has their own evidence or reasons.
I do find that the world around me in nature is amazingly ordered after he pointed that out. I don’t think that occurs randomly and on it’s own, either.
Anonymous wrote:He believes that because all the major world religions think Jesus was a holy man or prophet, Jesus was really the holy man that He says He was.
He believes that the Bible is very historically accurate and he’s not wrong about that. The Bible is very historically accurate regarding geography, etc. There are finds of buildings or pottery or other evidence that proves something from the Bible quite often.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.
I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.
I think so, too.
I disagree.
Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.
It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.
There was definitely ebb and flow in my case too, so that makes three of us on this thread.
What evidence did you find that made you “ebb and flow” back to faith?
Forgive my presumption, but I assume you mean you fought between your acknowledgment that there is insufficient evidence and some other emotion? Is that accurate?
Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith. Scientists don't try to prove or disprove God's existence because they know there isn't an experiment that can ever detect God.
Evidence does not reduce to scientific evidence alone. Evidence is any kind of fact, proof or argumentation that supports an idea. There are many theological evidences and logical proofs. Whether or not you find them convincing is a different matter.
That doesn’t answer the question of what evidence?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.
I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.
I think so, too.
I disagree.
Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.
It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.
There was definitely ebb and flow in my case too, so that makes three of us on this thread.
What evidence did you find that made you “ebb and flow” back to faith?
Forgive my presumption, but I assume you mean you fought between your acknowledgment that there is insufficient evidence and some other emotion? Is that accurate?
Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith. Scientists don't try to prove or disprove God's existence because they know there isn't an experiment that can ever detect God.
Evidence does not reduce to scientific evidence alone. Evidence is any kind of fact, proof or argumentation that supports an idea. There are many theological evidences and logical proofs. Whether or not you find them convincing is a different matter.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.
I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.
I think so, too.
I disagree.
Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.
It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.
There was definitely ebb and flow in my case too, so that makes three of us on this thread.
What evidence did you find that made you “ebb and flow” back to faith?
Forgive my presumption, but I assume you mean you fought between your acknowledgment that there is insufficient evidence and some other emotion? Is that accurate?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.
I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.
I think so, too.
I disagree.
Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.
It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.
There was definitely ebb and flow in my case too, so that makes three of us on this thread.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.
I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.
I think so, too.
I disagree.
Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.
It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.
Anonymous wrote:I have been an atheist since my second earliest memory of church, around age 4 or 5. I remember asking my parents about god back then and it seemed like such a farce. My parents are devout Christians and good people but their religiosity didn’t rub off. However I am planning to raise my children with some church upbringing because I have witnessed that teens raised as agnostic/atheist are more likely to be caught up in fundamentalist or new age cults.