1 - 10 Next
Tens of millions have died truly believing that which is not true, is true. The number of deaths does not establish the validity of a belief, only that those people believed it.
Christians say the wonder, beauty, and allure of the resurrection outweigh the brutality, horror, and repulsiveness of death on the cross. Christians say it is the most glorious and important event of all time and also the key to Christianity’s superiority over other religions. I have a question: How do you know Jesus didn’t die like every other person has or will? What the proof for this extraordinary claim can you produce? The universal rule is: The burden of proof lies with the proponent of the proposition. There is no burden on a nonbeliever to disprove. I hope Christians would understand the reasons I have doubts. I respect the good people who have embraced the resurrection as a fact. My respect for others and my appreciation of their emotional investments in long-held beliefs does not mean such respect dictates I not ask questions. If it really did happen, then I sincerely want them to convince me so I can be better aligned with reality. As Carl Sagan made popular: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Certainly rising from the dead is extraordinary.
In response to:

Why I Wrote 'Jesus on Trial'

Richard2666 Wrote: Sep 09, 2014 11:39 AM
Using standard rules of evidence, one cannot even establish Jesus existed, let along “defend the reasonableness of the Christian faith.” A good lawyer would know this. Besides, reason and faith are incompatible by definition. Reason is the faculty which perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided by the senses. Reason integrates perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising knowledge from the perceptual level, which we humans share with animals, to the conceptual level, which humans alone can reach. Faith is the acceptance of allegations without evidence or proof, either apart from or against the evidence of one’s senses and one’s reason. Faith is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as "instinct," "intuition," "revelation," or any form of "just knowing." One cannot, by definition, have a reason for faith. In addition, I challenge Limbaugh to identify or communicate intelligibly the nature, the identity, the definition of the god he worships. Exactly, what is the meaning of the concept? Please note, I said “intelligibly” define, and by that I mean something we readers can all understand and has no internal contradictions.
Rachel provides an excellent example of a closed mind caused by cognitive dissonance.
"Just believe" is what Christians say to non-theists, yet you object when told to do the same thing on a different subject. If there is evidence for something, then believe and if there is none, then do not believe --- which makes you an atheist. Like me.
In response to:

Governed by Rules, Not Men

Richard2666 Wrote: Mar 12, 2014 11:55 AM
The only area I can think of in which I disagree with Dr. Williams is religion. Except for the last line, this article is excellent. I do not trust in a god, I don’t even know to which of the thousands of gods homo sapiens have trusted he refers. Worse, I do not think Dr. Williams can even intelligibly define the particular god in which he professes to believe. In any event, theism was not relevant to the article, is divisive among the readers, and it would have been best omitted.
In response to:

New Assaults on American Law

Richard2666 Wrote: Feb 28, 2014 11:51 AM
18 United States Code, §4 killed the atty client privilege years ago. This statute says ANYONE (no exceptions for lawyers) who knows of a crime committed by someone else must report it to the authorities. Failure to do so is a felony. You cannot tell you lawyer anything.
In response to:

Still One Nation Under God

Richard2666 Wrote: Feb 13, 2014 10:14 AM
Of the thousands of gods humans have worshipped over the years, to which does Dr. Carson refer? Most likely the Abrahamic god which is worshipped by the Jews, Christians and Muslims, but really doesn't matter. As a Libertarian I don't care if a politician goes for gods, but I do care if they want to bring their beliefs to government. There must be a separation of church and state or we go back to burning people on the cross (something for which the good Christians are so famous) or murdering entire populations as they did in South America.
Hawkins asks: “How did we end up in a world where Big Gulps are being banned in New York while the welcome mat for potheads is being rolled out in Colorado?” The answer is both Hawkins and the mayor believe whatever they think is good another person should be imposed on that other person. Same principle. Hawkins should admit he truly is a lefty and lives among the anointed. What business is it of Hawkins, or anyone else, what (good or bad) an adult puts in his own body? It is the responsibility of the individual, not government and not Hawkins. If a person wants to ruin their own live, it is their life to ruin. Leave them alone.
Ransom says: "He's doing it because a liberal will do lots of things they can do, once given the power to, good idea or not." But if you substitute the word "conservative" for "liberal" the same statement is true. Why do you care what other people do with their own lives and bodies? If they want to smoke/eat/drink poison it is none of your business, "good idea or not."
1 - 10 Next