Why do people still believe in Jesus and Christianity?

[votebiden]

Nope. A religion is based on some initial circular argument with arguments extending from that. A myth is a story involving supernatural beings or events. It is not the religion itself. Even the term 'supernatural' remains undefined here.

No. Myth just means an account of events which cannot be empirically tested for truth. Was Jesus son of God? No fact of the matter.

 

[Into the Night]

Data exists and there is consensus on what this data means.

There is no data on the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. Science isn't even people. It is a set of falsifiable theories. You cannot justify your religion on science denial or math errors. Define 'global warming'.

 

[Into the Night]

Because there is no afterlife.

How do you know? Did you come back from the dead to tell us? Oh, wait...another paradox!

 

[Into the Night]

Jack's 'Pick one'.

Nope. It's Pascal's Wager fallacy. You are not the first to try this, obviously. Blaise Pascal tried to justify Christianity with it.

 

[Into the Night]

So again consensus is fact.

Not a fact. A vote. Consensus is a vote. Science does not use consensus.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

This is known as Pascal's Wager fallacy. It has been used to try to prove Christianity before.

Bullshit. Wrong as usual. It proves nothing. First, Pascal's Wager isn't a fallacy no matter have many nutjobs claim it is. It's simply a philosophical argument just like Albert Camus famous question. There is no right or wrong with it as all sane people know.

Second, it was never used to "prove" anything much less Christianity....well, except by the aforementioned nutjobs. For those who understand Christianity, even if they don't believe some or all of the doctrines, there's a difference between mouthing a belief and actually accepting it. There's faux belief and then there's actual belief. Therefore, just making a logical decision to believe in God, Jesus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't the same as true belief. According to Christian doctrine only a true believer can be saved.

You don't pass because you talk the talk but don't walk the walk. People can judge that for themselves. Even if you did walk the walk and tricked everyone to believe you, a true believer knows if they are true or not. Do you truly believe? If so, why can't you walk the walk?

 

[Into the Night]

Delicious! You wouldn't know logic, mathematics and science if they were spitting in your face.

Actually, he's pretty good at them. Unlike you, he understands some of the fundamentals of why your 'data' is nothing more than random numbers, and some of the theories of science you deny as part of your fundamentalist belief in the Church of Global Warming.

You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot reduce entropy in any system.

You deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You are denying statistical, probability, and random number mathematics. There is no data of the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Fun to watch you pretend that you're actually acquainted with them.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). The Church of Global Warming is false. You deny science. You deny mathematics. You deny logic.

 

[gfm7175]

Double-headed Green Dildo Fallacy.

Mantra 8b.

 

[Into the Night]

It's not useless. You just didn't grasp my point.

You didn't make one.

 

[Into the Night]

Retarded jackass fallacy.

Insult fallacy. Denial of logic.

 

[Into the Night]

Why believe is something based on nothing? Maybe an invisible elephant is holding up the planet.

Maybe so, but if that were true, what was holding up the Apollo spacecraft on it's way to the Moon, or the Moon for that matter? I guess you figure that Isaac Newton is wrong concerning his theories of motion and his theory of gravitational attraction.

Maybe you should consider what you are doing when you carelessly discard a theory of science.

 

[Into the Night]

that person is a worthless troll

Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Double-headed Green Dildo Fallacy.

Mockery. Denial of logic.

 

[votebiden]

Maybe so, but if that were true, what was holding up the Apollo spacecraft on it's way to the Moon, or the Moon for that matter? I guess you figure that Isaac Newton is wrong concerning his theories of motion and his theory of gravitational attraction.

Maybe you should consider what you are doing when you carelessly discard a theory of science.

I think there is a mistake. Nothing you said is a response to my post.

 

[Yakuda]

The burden of proof falls to the one claiming that something exists.

Notice I have made no such claima whatsoever unless you can post my words. You on the other hand made a claim that there is no afterlife, so prove it.

 

[votebiden]

Inversion fallacy.

You do not know what "inversion fallacy" is. And you don't get to make up your own meanings.

 

[gfm7175]

Chinese Chicken Fallacy.
Ford Taurus Fallacy.
Inverted Bellybutton Fallacy.

So, so predictable....

Mantra 8b.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Mockery. Denial of logic.

Douchebag A1

Mantra 8b.

Douchebag A1

 

[Into the Night]

Yes. The logical conclusion. But ... who knows? Maybe you come back as an Ant or Tadpole. Maybe there's a Parallel Universe? Maybe a non-physical dimension?

What the hell is a non-physical dimension??? Even if there is a dimension we can't detect in the Universe, it's still a physical one.

I can see religious types hoping for a 'Life-after-Death' pay off at the end of the road.

Yes. It is hope. It is based on faith.

Also, 'Kings, Chiefs, Emperors, Czars' use 'religion' as a way to control the populace, so you can see how this has been used over the centuries to manipulate the People.

Sure. That does not invalidate a religion, however.

No one has been able to PROVE existence after death, ... or disprove it.

Quite right. No such proof is available.

So the Atheist and the Theist are both similar in that they both have 'Faith' that they are right.

No. An atheist has no belief concerning a religion at all. They are atheist. They have NO religion at all. A god may or may not exist. They simply don't care. Do not confuse the Church of No God with atheism. The Church of No God are theists, just like Christians are.

Agnostic:
"Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist." Hypernymously it is a degree of ambivalence between generalized metaphysical personocracy and naturalism.Wikipedia

Like usual, Wikipedia has got it wrong. You can't use this as a reference with me (and several others I know).
An agnostic is simply someone that does not concern himself with a god or gods. They are atheistic in that way. The difference is that if a god or gods exist, they are considered to be unknowable and undefinable by their nature. Atheism doesn't go there. Atheists can accept a definable god or gods, but simply doesn't care either way.

The Church of No God is a religion. It is a fundamentalist style religion. They are theists.

 

[Into the Night]

What if God is an elephant. Shouldn't we worship elephants just in case?

Some people do. There are also religions about gods being cattle, cats, or even rats.