It takes a little patience (slightly dry through spots), but overall it's very interesting when you get to the end. I highly recommend watching when you have time. If you get through it, my guess could make one a stronger Christian!

I think this goes to show just how deep the chasm is between an atheist and theist. We are not one, but two giant leaps apart. When you can find no compelling reason to think there's a god, you certainly can't find reason to believe in the Christian god.

100 years ago, I might have agreed with you about deism. But we have learned too much about our world and universe since then. There is no longer sufficient reason to postulate a god of any kind. Unless of course, you just can't deal with no ultimate morality and purpose.

In a similar vein to the others: the default should be: we don't know what created the universe. We start from there. Then you can start trying to build a case for a non-interventionist god.

I agree. This is all I have ever said.

Huh? Am I misreading the post I sited? You said: "even if you reason to believe that the bible is false and is just a product of man, that should not lead you to atheism, but deism."

he started with a belief in the christian God. coming to a belief that the bible is false does in no way disprove a deistic god.

You are talking about starting out. He already started out. So we are not talking about forming a worldview, we are talking about what happens if you no longer trust part of your worldview.

I agree that there are two steps, I just think that they are pretty small, unless you purposefully make then large.

And a 100 years ago I might have agreed with you. Back when we thought that reality was relatively simple. Now in light of all we know from science, I just cannot find atheism very plausible.

But if his reason for believing in God was due to the bible, or believing the bible, then going back to atheism is the logical next step.

Really?

I would say i rejected all Gods accept Yahweh out of hand when i was a Christian.

If the bases for your rejection is honest then i would say its justified but ignorant.

The problem with Christianity for me is regardless of the interpretations i reject it. Like i said in my other post i could accept every one of your interpretations and i would still say i dont think your God is real. I think the only thing that could convince me of the Christian God is the Christian God. His book no matter how you interpret it won't do it and in fact, that he has one at all hurts him.
I disagree and again i can only speak for myself. Going to deism from Christianity would of meant i would of had to define who God is and what he can and can't do. If there is a God i dont know if he/she/it can or can't interact with the universe. I have no knowledge of what God can or can't do.

This is pretty much what i have believed since i left Christianity. I went form believing in the Christian God to not knowing if there is a God or what his attributes would be if there is one. If thats skipping steps im ok with that. But i dont really think there are any correct outlined steps anyway so...

Twice in the same sentence is so painful.

Either you have some 2nd question already in que for my response, or you really haven't thought about these things.

But first, the true onus is on you, the Bible makes these claims, why should they be rejected off-hand?

What i do twice? I cant even figure it out. I suck.

I assume he means grammer,

Well that cant be helped, sorry.

I think i see what i did there. I should of used of.

Im getting better then when i first started to post though. Another 3 or 10 years and ill be able to wright whole paragraphs that actually go together and work.

No second question ready, I thought my point was obvious. [see below]

Because they're preposterous. Same reason you reject a claim by some guy on the internet that he has a foolproof betting system to beat roulette. Or the claims of an astrologer that he/she can tell you your future based on your birth date.

If you have some reason why I should treat Biblical claims differently, I'd love to hear it.

But these aren't just claims of what could happen, but claims of what did happen. There is burden of proof on both sides, but nothing will get accomplished if you a priori rule out miracles because of your narrow egotistical worldview.

Don't be ridiculous, there is certainly not burden of proof on both sides. When a claim is made that a human person turned into salt, I don't have to prove it didn't happen. Even supposing I allow room for miracles in my "egotistical worldview," whatever that means, that is not evidence that the miracles written about in the Bible are true. You know why Sklansky always brings up Bayes's Theorem? This is why, because in situations like this, you can ask yourself what's more likely, that all the languages on earth stemmed from a single incident involving a large building, or that some ignorant ancient person made up the story to try to explain why there are multiple languages? Only a fool would conclude that the former is more likely than the latter.

At some point you're going to have to admit to yourself that your standard of evidence for miracles in the Bible is woefully lacking, and it's a different standard than the one you use to evaluate pretty much all other claims in your life. There is no way you can believe that a bunch of old Jewish ancestors lived almost one thousand years and then with a straight face say you have a reasonable standard of evidence for believing Biblical claims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na9XNAIOOLg

^^^^Has to be Pletho. Age listed as 40, and sounds just like him

Oh great doupers back.

Haven't read the thread but can pretty much guarantee this a waste of time.

Meh. When X seems (or really is) wrong, it's way too easy to keep remodeling your "understanding of X" until it becomes right again. Gunth, Pletho and Splendour do this all the time, and I'm sure you take issue with it.

It can be objectively demonstrated WHY monkeys shouldn't give birth to humans. You cannot objectively demonstrate why your interpretation is right, or why one metaphysical event in the Bible is literal and why another metaphysical event isn't.

If you believe the bible to be written history, you are mentally ill.

Slam dunk.

speechless...

sure i can. i do it all the time on here.