Because it won’t mess up. This is gravity, we’re talking about, not a car.
No they wouldn’t: we have scientific tests and legitimate means of recording events (i.e. not just writing them down).
EDIT: @danielsangeo: plus, we know how it works, and can prove it. I don’t mean higgins particles, just the formulas and stuff.
I think the problem with proof and evidence for many people is this:
You can’t prove how something works (i.e. gravity), but you can prove that it works.
Of course, in the case of gravity for example, you could observe particles on a much smaller scale and prove how it works that way, but then you’re essentially proving that something else works.
@Jesus claiming to be the son of God.
He certainly did in the Bible. But if that doesn’t count as evidence, Jewish historian Josephus records this, and then you have the Romans crucifying him with ‘king of the jews’ on top in three different languages.
I’m assuming you’re referencing “Testimonium Flavianum”, a work of very dubious authenticity, in which “Josephus?” does not mention that he’s the son of God at all…but simply that there was a “the Christ”. It was a title, not an admittance that this “the Christ” was “the Son”.
IF that happened, an atheist would look for information as to why. I would tend to think the tests were conducted with a tainted test area. Perhaps a room flooded with sulfur hexafluoride or something. If something doesn’t follow the expected results, then it would be researched until explained, and if no evidence can be found it would remain unexplained until evidence could be found.
Again, lack of evidence doesn’t make opposition true.
[pedant mode=ON]
If you were in a room flooded with so much sulfur hexafluoride to stop the descent of an apple (for example) before it reached the earth, you’d suffocate.
[pedant mode=OFF]
But, you’re absolutely right. IF something like that happened (like, say, if my hand spontaneously turns into a brightly colored peacock), we’d have to check to see why something like that happened…something previously unknown to ANYONE ever.
(Then again, if you were able to survive in a room with sufficient SF6, the apple is STILL falling to the Earth. It’s just not reaching it because something is getting in the way. You might as well claim that gravity fails because an apple dropped over a table will not reach the Earth.)[/SIZE]
Not for a few minutes. I would have enough time to run my flawed experiments.
Of course. 
However, like I said in my edit, something is getting in the way. It’s much safer to say, “Durr hurr I dropped the apple over a table and it didn’t reach the Earth durr hurr!” or “Aw hyuck I just tied the apple to a large helium balloon and it didn’t fall to the ground aw hyuck!”
I have just the emoticon for those types of people:
:facepalm:
The bible of course doesn’t count as evidence, because it was written by Jesus’ followers rather than by Jesus, and some believe his followers may have ascribed to him supernatural powers out of adoration or wishing to extend his legacy. It’s the subject of the debate itself so it can’t be used as evidence.
As far as “king of the Jews” goes, how does that relate to “son of God?” I’m not a Christian so I might be missing something.
Yeah, I thought “Christ” was synonymous with “King.” I actually don’t know anything about this debate, there was an offhand reference to it in a book on Zen Buddhism that I’m reading. Zen Buddhists also believe supernatural abilities ascribed to the Buddha were either allegorical or invented by his followers to describe their adulation.
The King of Jews is a popular title given to the prophesied Messiah of the Jews
And the name “Christ” means Messiah. The “Son of God” is not related to any of those.
Sorry about the lack of reply - just moved back to uni and the internet’s been terrible, plus I have more of a life here.
I think I’m doing that anyway. There are parts of the Bible that I agree with 100% and others that I disagree with. It’s inevitable that I’m going to follow some and ignore the things I don’t understand or agree with.
I get your point though, but in my experience, it’s human nature to only want to look out for yourself, or at least your loved ones. Christianity teaches to look after everyone. If I were to take only the parts of the Bible I agree with and follow those without a religion, I would inevitably neglect it or simply forget it. Although there may be parts of the Bible that I don’t agree with or understand, I’m not prepared to simply give up. I’m sure there is an explanation or something I’m not seeing - after all, the Bible isn’t so much a story or a basis of a belief as it is a record. You have a lot of remnants of Jewish beliefs in there, beliefs that Jesus corrected. And a lot of what Jesus taught needs to be put in context, so that you can see the connection between what the Jews believed and what Jesus corrected.
I don’t believe that you need religion to do good things - there are people in the world who do incredible good through no want of reward who aren’t in any way religious. I do believe that religion makes it easier to do good things - it encourages you, gives you support and keeps your morale up. It also gives you a larger purpose. When I did volunteer work abroad recently, I felt incredibly good because I had done something that was selfless - something that I had been taught all my life but never had the balls to do. And that feels incredibly satisfying. I can only explain religion from my point of view you understand, not anyone elses. You might see me as weak - having to go to church every week to attend and believe something, but I want to go. I imagine I would have a similar life if I didn’t follow Christianity - but I don’t think I would have the same level of pleasure in doing some good.
But a place of religious worship isn’t the centre of my life - that is simply where I spend an hour a week. The rest of the time is ample opportunity to make personal discovery - and uninfluenced, to use your term.
I disagree with you on belief. I’ll get chastised to no end for this I know, but for me at least, the want to believe in something is a large part of my personal belief. I believe in the human spirit and certain key parts of Christianity, but that doesn’t amount to a belief. But then I don’t think that belief has to be able to stand up on its own for someone to be strong in religion - the belief and spirituality, as well as knowledge and moral understanding, are all intrinsically interconnected. I realise that I’ve just said that I want to believe in something that has little to no proof, and that is something that I have to face myself. I came to that realisation a long time ago and it’s something that I struggle with, but that’s where we disagree. I say I struggle with it, but in all honesty it doesn’t tear me up too much.
I enjoy following Christianity because I get something out of it that I can’t get elsewhere in my experience. In following it, I have met incredible people, one of whom is my girlfriend, experienced overwhelming joy, elation and relaxation with no apparent cause, and seen surprising changes in people - life-altering sometimes. These things will all have logical explanations I’m sure - I’m not saying they’re supernatural, but for me the logical explanations only serve as a buffer between God and us - it’s just I believe that the explanation puts a name to something that God has done.
It’s a flawed existence in the eyes of fact and logic, but that doesn’t matter so much for me. If I get to the end of my life and I’m still in the same spiritual place - wanting to believe something but not believing entirely, I won’t mind. I like to think that I’ll have done some good in the world that I wouldn’t have done without my belief, however small it might be, in Christianity. And if God truly exists, I hope that he sees my reluctance to believe as a good thing - that I’m not gullible or weak-minded. I’m willing to take a chance.
Divine Comedy and Canterbury Tales? We can agree on that.
Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.