Originally posted by Bardock42
Meh, I answered it. And nothing came from it. I assume Digi's reply would be similar anyways.
It would (it's back on pg. 2 for others' reference).
If Jesus proved incontrovertibly that he existed and was the son of God, then I really don't see why I wouldn't believe in him. But that's kinda the point, isn't it? I'm not a Christian because I don't see any good reason to believe in him. So his question: "if Jesus really is who the Bible says, would you believe" has kind of a self-evident response. But it's showing valid reasoning for the first half of the statement that is the tricky part.
Whether or not I'd agree with everything he says at that point is another matter entirely.
...
In any case, it wasn't an intentional question dodge Gav. I'm not quite sure why it was an issue. I was, and am, far more concerned with his gross mis-characterization of atheists, which amounts to little more than misinformed bigotry.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
It would (it's back on pg. 2 for others' reference).If Jesus proved incontrovertibly that he existed and was the son of God, then I really don't see why I wouldn't believe in him. But that's kinda the point, isn't it? I'm not a Christian because I don't see any good reason to believe in him. So his question: "if Jesus really is who the Bible says, would you believe" has kind of a self-evident response. But it's showing valid reasoning for the first half of the statement that is the tricky part.
Whether or not I'd agree with everything he says at that point is another matter entirely.
...
In any case, it wasn't an intentional question dodge Gav. I'm not quite sure why it was an issue. I was, and am, far more concerned with his gross mis-characterization of atheists, which amounts to little more than misinformed bigotry.
So what you are saying is: if Jesus was the son of god, then you would be a follower. Sense you are not, then Jesus is not. Is that what you are saying?
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonNo dude, that's not at all what he's saying. That would be a major logical fallacy.
So what you are saying is: if Jesus was the son of god, then you would be a follower. Sense you are not, then Jesus is not. Is that what you are saying?
He is saying that if Jesus proved that he existed he would believe that Jesus existed. He didn't say whether he would follow him.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So what you are saying is: if Jesus was the son of god, then you would be a follower. Sense you are not, then Jesus is not. Is that what you are saying?
What bardock said.
Also, "since I'm not, Jesus is not" is a statement of fact, which isn't provable. One also doesn't follow from the other, though I like the implication that Jesus' validity is dependent on my belief. False, but amusingly empowering ( 😉 ). Anyway, worded differently I might be able to agree, but in that state it's a bit too dogmatic. Atheism, like any other religious -ism is a statement of belief, not of dogmatic truth, since we can't know the truth of the matter.