Which concept has done more good in the world? Karma or The God of Abraham?

[Slimebeast]

dsgrue3 said:

Slimebeast said:

Are you able to have a discussion about principles? The practical evidence, obviously you need those, and they are there, but I already told you that this wasn't the thread for those. I only touched on one type of evidence, the likelyhood of a creator versus carmic force. I argued that an independent agent is more likely than a nameless and undefined "force". I can't explain it better at the moment, it's too big of a topic if you can't even grasp the principal difference.

About the childish hope. Of course it can be there at the same time as logic and reason. It's self-evident. One works as a motive to search, the other as a basis to hold on to that worldview. It's a far more complex than that in Christian theology, but for the sake of simplicity, surely you can accept the principal difference between hope/wish versus evidence/logic, and realize that they both have a purpose, they both are real factors.

I understand that you as an atheist despise the hope/wish part, and you try everything to get rid of that in yourself, and you are very careful in avoiding public claims which have anything to do with such primitive feelings or instincts. That's okay, but don't pretend for one second that they are not there, that you or any other person is just a purely logical, biological machine. 

I don't think the instinct/hope/wish part bears nowhere near the weight as facts (EDIT: I messed up this sentence, I think it should say evidence/logic instead of facts), especially not in public arguments, but I am open about their existance and I acknowledge their influence on our minds and how we grasp reality. And like I said earlier, "instinctual faith" (it's a term I made up) as a concept is very important in Christianity. It's not just "blind faith" and that's that, it's a big and complicated thing theologically. If you as an atheist just dismiss it as blind faith, without showing any awareness that it's a complex issue, you're out of the discussion.

The whole faith and evidence thing, all the reasons why you hold to a certain worldview, obivously it has multiple levels. Like I said, different weight to different evidence, and evidence with completely different natures.

In short, I have internal and external evidence for being a Christian. And since you ask for it, here are some examples:

Internal (these don't bear much weight in relation to the outsideworld):
- that instinctual impulse, what to an atheist is pure "blind faith" and delusion.

- personal spiritual experience, within the Christian realm but also related to spirituality

External (these can at least be argued about in discussions such as on VGC):

- The history of the Jewish people, Christianity and the Church. How it connects together in such an intriquate and intelligent way, historically and theologically. In my opinion. I don't see that with any other religion. Just as a concrete example, the literal restoration of Israel, just like was prophesied.

- Prophecies about Christ in the Old Testament fulfilled by the person Jesus Christ, and prophecies made by Jesus Christ and human history. A radical peasant ideology that conquered the world. Something else like this is completely unheard of.

- The biblical analysis of humanity and human nature, including sin, righteousness, morality and salvation. It's brilliant, especially in the New Testament. I don't see such a clear analysis of human nature anywhere else, not from any psychologist, sociologist or anybody in our modern world. To me it's a sign of divine inspiration, that the biblic authors were able to encapsulate human nature in a theological ancient text in such a brilliant way.

I'll leave it at that for the moment.

This isn't an argument about principles. It's an argument about truth. 

Yes, you did mention that you believe it's more likely that a being exists than a force but you failed to back up that claim. Why bother making the claim if you can't back it up? It's not furthering anything. Saying "I can't back it up right now" is simply admitting you have no rational reasons for that position. 

If there is evidence for a particular belief, it isn't naive or childish. You were the person who said the belief was naive and childish, so don't pretend there is evidence. 

I don't despise hope or wishes. But they have no place in an argument for the validity of a claim. I'm about as logical a person as you will find, but I'm human; I emote.

Of course what draws people to Christianity is more than blind faith. It's one of more of the following: Credulity, Indoctrination, Spiritual Experience, Desperation.

"Instinctual impulse" - this can be described as the desire for answers. Humans are anxious about the words "I don't know". Simply, any answer seems better to fallible minds than no answer. That being said, it's not evidence for anything even remotely supernatural. 

"Spiritual Experience" - this can be refuted by not being exclusive to Christianity. Every religion ever manifested by mankind has had members who had these. Some replication has even been performed in laboratories. 

"Prophecy" - this one is rather easily explained. Are you familiar with Nostradamus? Same deal, accompanied by cherry picking and deliberate obfuscation.

"The biblical analysis of humans and human nature" - if you think humans are made of dirt I think you need a basic chemistry lesson. I hope you weren't being sincere in this argument. Its elementary interpretation of the psychology of humans is readily apparent as well. You mean if you dangle food source in front of a hungry human, they will consume it? Wow, astonishing.

I just wanted to reply to tell that I have read your post, but that I don't have much to add at the moment. I think we have cleared up any possible confusions or misunderstandings about out positions enough for now, and the arguments have started mostly to go around in circles (the first half o your post).

Bolded points: I am looking forward to discuss these and other evidence in more detail in the future in a thread where it's more appropriate.