I am interested in hearing from the religionists that post here as to wether or not there is any minimum standard of evidence that would convince you that the teachings of your particular sects are not a divinely inspired gold mine of hidden "sciency" information, historically accurate records, prophetic glimpses of the world to come, or (excuse the snickering) the literally true memoirs of humanity, etc.


EDIT: When I use the word 'theory' here I am talking about scientific theory not something like uncle Davids' 'theory' about the big pharma conspiracy or your neighbors 'theory' aliens and the government are sending microwaves into his brain to make him eat too much and watch porn compulsively.


We, as a species have amassed a staggering amount data about the world we inhabit and the life that we share it with, we have a comprehensive theory that explains the formation of Earth from the Suns accretion disk through today, though we do not currently have an understanding of the origin of life on Earth we do have an extensive amount of information regarding the evolution of the earliest forms of life (in tandem with the evolution of the planets atmosphere, interesting...) into generally more complex forms, we have a wide array of theories regarding the physical laws of the universe we live in, we have theories about the cause and spread of infectious diseases that allow us to prevent, treat, and cure the majority of these diseases....

The list of scientific fields of study goes on to cover almost every aspect of human life, life in general and the world around us and it is ALL based on observation, experimentation, perpetual criticism and looking for holes and cracks and errors that need to be corrected, when something is proven wrong scientists don't cling to it and try to talk people into believing, they discard it and begin again to formulate,observe, experiment... If you ask a scientist a question that we do not currently have an answer to you will hear "we don't know that yet." not something he pulls out of his ass because it would back up his favorite fantasy.

I am a life long atheist and skeptic, and because I am a rational and reasonable person I can tell you that I have not believed in the existence of any gods since I was 11 and set out for myself to investigate the origins of religions and since I critically and logically examined and then dismissed, as quaint bronze age mythology, the claims and fables of the bible.

All that being said I can tell you exactly what kind of evidence I would need to believe in the existence of gods in general or the sort of god that christies describe. There is a standard of evidence that would convince me. so....

Is there any amount of evidence that would convince you that your mythology is just that, or would you deny everything put forth and cling blindly to comforting fables? I am very curious about this and would like to know what sort of sect you are involved in currently.

Christians sit there and wonder the same about you. You buy into modern evolutionary theory--you assume it as true, not realizing the speculative nature of it-where it begs the question, where it touts as true pure theory. We see the speculation and we interpret nature as necessitating a Creator. It's not about what evidence there is, it's about how one interprets data. Different worldviews may differ on these points. For instance I look at the prophecy in the Bible and the Resurrection as undeniable empirical proof of supernaturalism and the Christ as the Son of God, but you take a different view because of accepting methodological naturalism (cf. Alvin Plantinga).

You should look into Greg Bahnsen's work on presuppositions and what role they play in one's epistemology.

In regards to the Biblical prophecies. You see something written in a 2k+ old book that says "X is going to happen" and X dd happen. You assume this statement was written before the event and that it's a prophecy. I'm wondering why that is?

You also take a 2k old 3rd hand account of the "resurrection" as being true. I'm also wondering why this is.

You talk about interpreting this stuff as being supernatural - why? What draws you to that conclusion when there are simple natural explanations?

the worst part is that all the "prophesy" that Christians like to claim is prophesy of Jesus, is in fact, not prophesy of Jesus. You really think the greatest Jewish scholars would still be Jewish if Jesus in fact fulfilled all the messianic prophesies that Christians claim he fulfilled?

Here's the sad truth, Jesus did not fulfill *any* of the messianic prophesies required of the messiah (which is why Jews believe Jesus, if he existed, was a false messiah, like many before and many after him), and the ones that Christians like to think he did fulfill are not messianic prophesies at all. Its just misinterpretation thats been handed down from generation to generation.

this is the most circular and awful argument i have ever heard

No there's no minimum standard of evidence because due to the changeability of scientific information, facts and theories I don't think it can claim authority over spiritual/religious claims.

Also its debatable whether or not the subjective has an objective component to it. I believe that the subjective is keenly related to perception which is the attaining of awareness or understanding of sensory information. In theory one person's perceptive abilities may exceed another person's therefore to subject your perceptive faculties to the skeptical standard of someone with less keen perception abilities is bunk.

Like they say, the miracle of the church somewhat speaks for itself. How the hell it grew into this from the very get go, throughout all of history with people studying it through the years and still existing as advanced as we are as humans says something. Maybe just a tiny something at the most to you, but still something. Either everybody's totally duped and wasting their existence and we all could be , but I can cope with it if I die and end up knowing no differently (not trying to pull Pascal here either), or there might actually be some truth to all this as to how this possibly grew into what it did and is currently still exists esp in the current world super power.

There is a ton of asserting here, unfortunately all illegitimate. I don't even know one Jewish scholar who would claim Jesus didn't fulfill ANY Messianic prophecy. You make many bold claims, of course not one with any substantiation.

The matter of Jews rejecting Jesus as Messiah is not intellectual but personal. Just because you place your faith in the belief that Jewish scholars wouldn't "miss" the real Messiah doesn't make it legit. You really think 2,000 years of Christendom and your little contentions have not been addressed? Apply your own reasoning to the contrary arguments.

So the reason to come to a supernatural conclusion is because of the Church's growth and survival in history?

So I guess Islam and every other religion that has grown and survived can say the same thing, right? Uh oh, competing claims! Somebody must be wrong . Hence your argument is invalid, since the growth and survival of a religion provably does not verify it's supernatural claims.

So what does that have to do with anything? You also wont find a practicing Jew who believes he filled the prophecy's necessary to be the messiah.

The only reason you accept Jesus is because you reject the Jewish religion for personal reasons and ignore thousands of years of their intellectual thought.

Why would the greatest Christian scholars be Christian of Jesus *didn't* fulfill any of the prophecies?

Clearly this line of thinking doesn't work out very well. Just because there are Jewish scholars who think Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecies doesn't mean he didn't - I'm sure there's also Christian scholars who were once Jewish, realized Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, and then became Christian.

If you can find such a Christian, I would be happy to read his reasoning. Until then, Christians should stop touting all those "prophesies" in Isaiah and other OT books that they so foolish claim are messianic prophesies that Jesus fulfilled, because they aren't. I think I'll go with the Jewish scholars, who had 4000+ years before Jesus arrived, instead of the relatively newer religion (that hinges on Jesus being the messiah) regarding what the Bible says about the messiah. You guys do realize that the Jews *want* the messiah to have returned, right (considering what it means for the Jewish people)? They have no reason to reject Jesus other then the fact that he is not the messiah. Its not personal (how could and why would it be?), its intellectual.

But you (or whoever) is right, I misspoke when I stated that Jesus did not fulfill *any* of the messianic prophesies. i'm sure he may have fulfilled a minor one here and there, but by Jewish standards he did not fulfill any of the *major* messianic prophesies. If you want, I would be happy to discuss what you (or any other Christian) considers a major messianic prophesy that Jesus fulfilled. This thread might not be the best place, but i guess that depends on where the conversation goes.

There are countless websites listing the 300-400 or so prophecies Jesus fulfilled. There are also many Jewish websites listing those that he did not.

Like two opposing hypotheses, you can't side with one just because there's debate for it... this is what you seem to be doing. "Jews say Jesus didn't fulfill the prophecies, so he must not have."

And of the Jews you say had 4000+ years to study the prophecies, some converted to Christianity, some did not. Some alive today study the prophecies and come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah, some don't. You can't appeal to the authority of the Jews to say they're right because many Christians were once Jewish too.

The arguments in favor of the Christian side of this debate are weak, which is exactly why i want you to tell me what you think the *major* messianic prophesies Jesus fulfilled are. If you can't even list 2-3, then why do you believe Jesus is the messiah?

The only reason why I side with the Jewish argument on this one is because i have studied both sides extensively (there also was a 500+ post thread on this very topic in the old SMP 3 years ago which had a lot of Jewish posters involvement), and find the Jewish argument much more compelling and accurate when reading the Bible as its meant to be read.

Again, if you can find a former Jewish scholar who converted to Christianity because of the prophesies, i would love to read his reasoning. You may think that I am set in my ways, but I am happy to be shown wrong, and am more that willing to believe whatever the evidence suggests is correct. Can you say the same about yourself?