While I think the answers differ, I don't think the questions are THAT different. What's the difference? To the adherents of one religion, the other god(s) might as well be the FSM right?

Joey stop trolling please.

No way you are serious.

Comparing something with documented events against something totally made up with not ONE witness account?

I understand the view of atheist to not believe in the documented accounts but to say that a science fiction event has the same validity as the accounts of Jesus?
Seriously bro?
you are losing credibility here.

Even Bigfoot has some photos and eye witness accounts.

But even if one grants you these "predictions" to say

The bible predicted X things and said god was real
X things came true
therefore god is real

is a non sequitor. But this is even when you are granted these "predictions" which no rational person should do.

edit: but as far as the "predicitons" they are general and highly likely. If I make 200 general, highly likely predictions about the future at least 5 will come true. If i then pick these 5 and show them to you and say "see, I can see the future" and then say "and btw, Hinduism is true and Christianity is false" now you know what to tell me, on both assertions.

Yes...when proven wrong we resort to the "Joey is stupid...isn't he guys? Yea...He's a troll"



Grow up dude... you are just wrong here and you know it.

You're missing my point: if you are a Christian then you likely believe the Hindu gods are total hogwash. And vice-versa.

Also, I put very little weight to the fact that biblical events may have built on actual historical events. I would be very surprised if they didn't.

Sigh, I am wrong about what Joey. Quote me on whatever you like and I will agree ahead of time that I was wrong. I dont care if you think im wrong or right or if I am "wrong" or "right," I'm trying to ask jib a question.

I don't think I am missing your point at all.... correct me if I am off base but you said that Hinduism may be more of a valid religion than Christianity because it came first?

Did I misread that?




I was questioning your validation of hinduism possibly being a more valid religion because it came first.
I'm pretty sure that's what you said. (See above)
My rebuttal dealt with your stance of time over quantity.


It's pretty clear.

Pretty sure I elaborated above. Not sure I have more at this time. I said I was open to competing views. I haven't given this particular question a lot of previous thought.

This is where you are wrong:
You have to understand that this is entirely different from the OP.
When you resort to calling in the troops with name calling.... it just makes you look silly.

Here's an idea....just say.. "OK... What about this instead Jib....."

It's 2 totally different things.

Aro and I have already moved on to the new topic but you decided to make personal attacks to send up a smoke screen.... just move on...please.

Obvious.

Yes...you elaborated later and I still disagree with your stance. That doesn't make me right...doesn't make you right... but don't try to dodge the discussion with "I elaborated on this already" and act like you didn't make a bold and clear statement that was clearly challenged.

It's OK Aro.... sometimes we say things that others don't agree with.

I didn't claim they were the same thing, he started to answer a different question as if I was asking what the differences were. I said "no I'm not questioning the similarities / differences, I'm asking the same question just in regards to Hinduism instead of FSM, as in, whats more likely." I'm not trying to say Hinduism is similar to FSM I think that's where the misunderstanding was.

But the question is still open to Jib or anyone else who would like to contribute, namely, If someone thought Christianity and Hinduism were equally likely to be true, what would you say to them to explain to them that Christianity is more likely to be true than Hinduism.

And Joey, I'm not worried about my online image, if I think you are trolling I'm going to call you out on it.

While I may be wrong, I don't think its been shown yet ITT. And if you review my posts you will see that they were specifically not bold. I've said why I think Hinduism has the - ever so slight - edge. I've presented an argument which I'm sure has holes. So go ahead and poke them, don't just keep on asking me if I want to rethink my position. Make a counter-argument. I might end up agreeing with you.

wow....


I'm willing to just move on.... this is getting sad.

I did that?

I don't want you to agree with me Aro.... I was countering you...that's all. I think you immediately regretted your post but decided to rephrase it somehow.

Your post: "Hinduism may be more valid because it came first"

Mt post: "Is age more valid than quantity?"

That's it.


Oh...and I did go on about the fact that you don't even believe in either of these Gods but still decide to validate one over the other.

I think I elaborated in post 47. I also said why I don't think number of adherents is a deciding factor.

I don't think there is any inconsistency here. I believe that it is possible deities exist, I just think it highly unlikely. I made it clear that I thought both possibilities were unlikely. But the OP asks us to try and say which one is more likely, and so I put together an argument. I am not saying that either are likely.

Do you have any more of an argument than "Hinduism came first...ergo this god (that I don't believe exists) is more likely to exist than the Christian God (that I also don't believe exists)?

I dont believe in any of the various versions of Yahweh but i would say the Jewish version is most likely out of the three major religious views.

That's the first argument that came to mind. Why don't we just go from there. I don't have a thesis here. I happen to believe that if a god exists, he's unlikely to have the nature the Christians or Hindus attribute to him.

Oh yeah. I just wanted to say its ironic you expect atheists to say Christianity's God that they dont believe in is more likely then the FSM that they dont believe in. Then get pissy when an atheist says the Hindu Gods that they dont believe in are more likely then the Christian God they dont believe in.

So basically not believing in two things and measuring them is fine as long as the outcome is beneficial to Christianity.

As far as your "this religion is older", I have to say that we need to remember that our knowledge of history is by no means complete. Secondly, I would have to say that you because one religion defines God in a certain was and is therefore attributed to that religion, does not mean that said God could not have been revealed by another religion. 5,000 years from now people could very well say that the God of Christianity and the God of Judaism are two different Gods and that because Judaism is older that would make 'their' God more probable, even though we are actually talking about the same God.

So the discussion really needs to be, which religion is more likely to have a closer representation of the true God. And of course you really have to start out with the assumption (or conclusion) that there is a creator God in some form.

As far as if God exists he is unlikely to have the nature of the Christian God, what do you base this on? Or more specifically, what could this be based on. In other words, if God exists how are we to know anything about him.

I would point to the historical person Jesus Christ and the historical evidence surrounding his death and resurrection. But that is just one of many things that would have to be said, it is just the main point that differentiates the two.

My turn now? Plzzzz answer

Ahh good one. So you would argue that the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is > the evidence for Brahman? What if they told you that it could be the case that the latter did have more evidence it was just lost over the years, that it could just be variance? (assuming they accepted your evidence to begin with obv).

So the discussion really needs to be, which religion is more likely to have a closer representation of the true God. And of course you really have to start out with the assumption (or conclusion) that there is a creator God in some form.

As far as if God exists he is unlikely to have the nature of the Christian God, what do you base this on? Or more specifically, what could this be based on. In other words, if God exists how are we to know anything about him.[/quote]

I'm going to respond primarily to the last paragraph. I honestly think it highly unlikely that if there is a deity that exists that that deity is necessarily all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing. I think the world as we know it completely obliterates the all-loving aspect. The only argument that is even remotely convincing (and I do mean remotely) is the "mysterious plan that we can't understand". Otherwise there is very little of this world that I see as evidence of omni-benevolence. And quite a lot that would suggestion the opposite - or at the very least a morally ambiguous character.

I could make similar arguments of the other two, but I'm getting tired. Going to bed soon.