I'm a Christian Open to Questions

[Alzael]

The Bible has multiple translations for clarity.

You're kidding right? This is a joke,yes? Please, somebody tell me this is just a Poe and this isn't a serious statement.

It was edited to be as accurate as possible as the original texts.

So........ the bible was edited, to as accurate as possible to the original texts.

It was edited (a word meaning to modify, adapt, or delete) to be accurate to the original.

You know what,I'm trying to think of a smart-ass comment that I could use to mock this. But honestly, I don't think I can top this.

"It was edited to be as accurate as possible to the original texts." This is pure gold.

[Danielos]

About Jesus sacrifice:

* Wouldn´t it have been better to just have the disciples nail him to the cross then? Why should Jews suffer endless hate and persecution for just playing along in God´s cosmic plan.

* Also, since Adam and Eve never existed in the first place, how did humans become in need of atonement for sins?

* What kind of loving and merciful God would set up a system of blood sacrifices to forgive sins? Wouldn´t sacrifice an innocent animal or human be considered a new sin? So you forgive a sin by making a new even worse one??

[velkyn]

Jesus had to be killed because God set up sacrifice as the means to forgiveness of sins. Therefore an ultimate sacrifice was required to forgive sins.

And who required that sacrifice?  God. So there is no "had" here at all. God *wanted* to use blood sacrifice as a forgiveness of sins.  And sacrifice means a permanent loss.  Where is it here?  An animal's death is permanent, why change the rules for JC? 

The Bible has multiple translations for clarity. It was edited to be as accurate as possible as the original texts. This has nothing to do with God, just human error.

funny how these "multiple translations for clarity" have caused many wars and deaths.  AGain, reality shows that you are simply wrong.

Their salvation is still through works. The grace of God just helps people get to Heaven in Islam. In Christianity it is grace alone.

Except when James and Jesus say it isn't. 

People wouldn't have suffered for their faith during the time immediately after Jesus when they were preaching his existence and power if he wasn't doing miracles and even more so if he didn't exist. That's foolish.

yes it is foolish and unfortunately people do it all of the time. See "Heaven's Gate". See all of those Christian sects that other Christians tried (or suceeded in) exterminating. 

[Asmoday]

People wouldn't have suffered for their faith during the time immediately after Jesus when they were preaching his existence and power if he wasn't doing miracles and even more so if he didn't exist. That's foolish.

yes it is foolish and unfortunately people do it all of the time. See "Heaven's Gate". See all of those Christian sects that other Christians tried (or suceeded in) exterminating.

Velkin, I'm sure it won't surprise you that JT was already told that on page one of the thread when he brought the exact same argument. He chose to conveniently ignore that point of my reply to him.

I would not be surprised not to see a reply to this here either.

[Alzael]

Their salvation is still through works. The grace of God just helps people get to Heaven in Islam. In Christianity it is grace alone.

What about the parts of the bible where it states that god simply chooses who goes to hell and who goes to heaven. That he, in fact, chose whether that would happen before you were born, irregardless of anything you might do? What about the parts that say that god deliberately condemns people to hell? Or how he causes some people to disbelieve in him in order to condemn them? You really have never read that book, have you?

[Ambassador Pony]

Vessels of wrath they are.

[Positiveaob]

Jesus had to be killed because God set up sacrifice as the means to forgiveness of sins. Therefore an ultimate sacrifice was required to forgive sins.

Why the hell would a divine, supposedly all-powerful, being require himself to sacrifice himself in order to forgive “sins”?  Do you honestly feel this makes rational sense?

And how does that jibe with the whole worldwide flood tale?  I mean, if he was doing that to wipe out all the “evil” people (and “evil” animals presumably), why not just forgive Noah and his family of such “sins” right then and there and start everyone off with a clean slate?  Or for that matter why not just come down and sacrifice himself to himself then instead?  Seems odd he would change his approach like that.

And what exactly was accomplished with this “forgiveness of sins”?  I wasnt alive 2,000 years ago, I didnt have any “sins” back then.  Does this mean that my current “sins” are forgiven but those committed by people 2300 years ago werent?  What was different in China if you died a few days before this supposed event as compared to if you were born a few days later?  Did anyone notice the difference? 

And please tell me how this was a “sacrifice” anyways.  If you believe in the whole “3 divine persons in one god” idea (which also makes no sense by the way), it wasnt his “son”, it was him.  And he was pretty much just taking a quick vacation down to earth (although inexplicably didnt do a thing for 30 years of it), got tortured a bit then when right back to heaven.  Getting nailed to a cross might be pretty painful, but it’s nothing compare to the years of intense suffering many cancer victims go through.  Certainly nothing compared to the hell on earth of “locked-in syndrome”.  Certainly nothing compared to the slow agonizing death of ALS.  If the Jesus of the tale had lived through any of those afflictions, that might be a bit more impressive.

Sorry, it makes no sense, and it didnt happen.  Time to get over that and move on.

[Positiveaob]

You asked if it was referring to Christians' denying the resurrection and being killed and said no. In fact that is what the letters were about.

No actually I asked you how you know how the apostles died (or for that matter anyone how who supposedly witnessed such a “resurrection” taking place died).  I did that here:

Why don't you enlighten us with how you know how the apostles died.  Please include all contemporary accounts documented at that time, as well as evidence that they were given the option to recant their beliefs but refused.  Otherwise, can we dispense with this nonsense of "all the apostles died for their beliefs"?

Then again here:

Were Pliny's letters to Trajan referring to the apostles?  Were they referring to xtians denying the resurrection?  No.  So yes, please find more sources.

And again here:

I'm not seeing any references to apostles here, nor to anyone who has supposedly witnessed a resurrection.  So...care to try again?

Now, finally, I ask it in bold and in caps:

DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE FOR HOW THE APOSTLES DIED??? DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE FOR HOW ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD HAVE WITNESSED SUCH A RESURRECTION DIED???

[Positiveaob]

No, I said nothing about them being persecuted proving Christianity is true. People wouldn't have suffered for their faith during the time immediately after Jesus when they were preaching his existence and power if he wasn't doing miracles and even more so if he didn't exist.

They would if they hadnt actually witnessed any such thing.  They would have if they had just been told such nonsense and lived in a time where such things couldnt be recorded and word of mouth was pretty much the only way news spread, leading of course to exaggeration and addition of little embellishments and “miracles” to the stories as they went from person to person.  They would if they really knew nothing else of what we now know through modern science.  They would if they had convinced themselves that this was how they were going to get to eternal paradise. 

Sort of like how one flies planes into skyscrapers or blows themselves up in crowded marketplaces to get to heaven and be with their 72 virgins.  Sort of like how one asphyxiates himself to get on the spaceship behind Halle Bopp comet.  Or drinks kool-aid laced with cyanide.  Etc etc. etc.

They would have died for such beliefs the same way that many thousands of natives in the americas died for their beliefs rather than convert to xtianity.  They would have died for such beliefs the ways the Cathars or the Jews would have during the inquisition.  I could go on...

That's foolish.

No, actually “foolish” is being an adult in the 21st century believing in invisible beings in the sky. 

Very “foolish” is believing that such a god would just expose himself in a small population in a localized region of the world in a specific time in history where there was really no means of recording such events, and expecting them to get the word out to everyone else gradually over the following couple of millenia.

Extremely “foolish” would be believing in today’s and age in tales of talking snakes, men staying alive in a fish’s stomach, talking donkeys, etc etc.

And “MORONIC” would be to make a statement such as this:

The Bible has multiple translations for clarity. It was edited to be as accurate as possible as the original texts. This has nothing to do with God, just human error.

[Positiveaob]

Their salvation is still through works. The grace of God just helps people get to Heaven in Islam. In Christianity it is grace alone.

From Sahih Islam, book 39:

Chapter 15: NONE WOULD ATTAIN SALVATION BECAUSE OF HIS DEEDS BUT IT IS THROUGH LORD'S MERCY (THAT HE WOULD ATTIAN (sic) THAT)

(source: http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/039.smt.html)

Now granted, you can probably point to another of the writings in islam stating something a bit different.  But then again, I could point to plenty of places in the judeo-christian bible about how you would need “works” to get this “grace” from this supposed “god”. 

And that’s really the problem with religions isnt it?  You just take the parts of the stories you like, discard the parts you dont, and then you create this “god” in your imagination that fits all the things you want it to be. 

There’s nothing that separates christianity from any of the other thousands of religions throughout mankind’s history.  It’s all just mythology.  You happened to be born in a time and place where christianity was the local cultural superstition.  Would have been different had you been born in Athens in 5th century BCE, or 6th century China, or in the Andes mountains in the 13th century, or modern day Kandahar.  It’s just mythology, nothing more.

[velkyn]

Velkin, I'm sure it won't surprise you that JT was already told that on page one of the thread when he brought the exact same argument. He chose to conveniently ignore that point of my reply to him.

I would not be surprised not to see a reply to this here either.

no, it doesnt' suprise me a damn bit. I figured *someone* had to have mentioned this way earlier. I do find these willfully ignorant liars for Christ quite amusing when they evidently think no one notices their actions. 

[jtk73]

The Bible has multiple translations for clarity. It was edited to be as accurate as possible as the original texts. This has nothing to do with God, just human error.

So what does that say about this 'God' that he/it allows his/its message to be potentially screwed up by humans considering how important it supposedly is?

Think about this.
If a god created and truly loves humans and wants them to be able to join him/her/it in an eternal paradise or heaven
AND it has rules that it wants the humans to follow OR wants them to have 'faith' in it to attain this goal...
why would this rule book/instruction manual EVER be open to interpretation. There would be no 'context' - everything would be straightforward and easily understood. This god is supposedly omnipotent - there would be no need for it to be translated. The words would 'magically' change to the reader's native language.

Either a) your god does not really love his creation
b) your god is an incompetent buffoon
OR
c) your god does not exist.

Hmmm....

[JT812]

I hate to be like what every other Christian you probably see on this site is like. I hate to leave because I could argue all day against your points. But that's irrelevant since it's pretty apparent everyone on this site is already very determined in their beliefs and it's obvious that many (not all) just have a blatant hate for religion/God in every way. Claiming that Muhammad, Jesus, and Siddhartha are all made up is just ridiculous. Even if all these people were real that wouldn't make any of their religions true, but people feel the need to try and disprove their very existence because of their strong ill-will toward religion. This clearly marks someone who has lost all open-mindedness and true research and resorted to accepting and investigating anything that could even possibly show religion isn't true. It's not searching for the truth, it's just finding ways to claim God isn't the truth. There are people on this site whom I feel would have a reasonable conversation/debate and be open-minded. But far too many post comments that aren't even worth responding to and that attack parts of Christianity they know nothing about. I understand not believing in God, but attacking a religion you don't actually understand is just sad. At least search for the truth and not additional ways to insult people. I know that some users are going to make fun of me and claim they hurt my feelings, but you didn't. Go ahead and make fun I really don't care. I enjoy debating and seeing other people's beliefs but when people aren't even willing to be reasonable it's just frustrating. And I would stay on despite the frustration but unfortunately I don't have enough time. Maybe I'll comment on posts occasionally but I just didn't realize the time committment holding up this post would require. I'm sorry to bail on you guys (and girls) but my time here is over  Happy camping!

[12 Monkeys]

Claiming that Muhammad, Jesus, and Siddhartha are all made up is just ridiculous

 So you believe these others existed? so how about Zues,Mercury,Odin,Posieden,Aries The Raven,Thor Isis,Horus are the NOT made up,or is it ridiculus to think they are as real as your 3 examples

[rev45]

I hate to see you go but I also don't like to see you misrepresenting many people's positions on religion.  Some here may genuinely hate religion.  But if you were to stick around you would see that many here are asking religion the hard questions and when theists try to answer them, they find themselves out of their league.  It's not that we're close-minded toward a god or gods existing, its the theists who can't answer the questions to any sort of satisfaction. From what I see the discussion isn't about disproving a god, it's about refuting the claims of theists.  And the claims tend to be the same thing over and over.  I've seen theists ask people on this board to consider points that they bring up and when those points get shot down quickly, its because this board has seen the same arguments many times.  It's not that we've not considered your religious belief to be true, it's that we've found no answers to our questions in it. 

[Cyberia]

Dang, and I was hoping to learn why the Big Bang was impossible.

[rev45]

^ http://www.seekthetruth.org/bb.html
Here you go.  The entire theory refuted in about 50 sentences.   Read if you want to drop a few IQ points.

[Dinosaurs]

It's not that we're close-minded toward a god or gods existing, its the theists who can't answer the questions to any sort of satisfaction.

What you are close minded to is accepting something without proof. We are both in the same situation to start with, that is, neither of us knows the answer. Equally, I am close minded to the need to get every piece of evidence and all the boxes ticked before I go with something.

I think the keen atheist is an atheist as a default position. In other words other aspects of his life are the same, that is, no acceptance without proof. The religious/spiritual or whatever you might call us, accepts and also acts with far less evidence or proof and this applies to his life in general. Thus his position on the spritual is also a default position.

[wright]

What you are close minded to is accepting something without proof.

I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you don't mean this as a general statement. Certainly I know Christians who are very shrewd, intelligent people about lots of things. It's just that they do not apply their critical thinking to their religious beliefs.

We are both in the same situation to start with, that is, neither of us knows the answer. Equally, I am close minded to the need to get every piece of evidence and all the boxes ticked before I go with something.

I think the keen atheist is an atheist as a default position. In other words other aspects of his life are the same, that is, no acceptance without proof. The religious/spiritual or whatever you might call us, accepts and also acts with far less evidence or proof and this applies to his life in general. Thus his position on the spritual is also a default position.

Bolds mine. Unfortunately, I think you're right. Can you see how this unquestioning acceptance of what one is told is not a good thing?

[Asmoday]

I hate to be like what every other Christian you probably see on this site is like. I hate to leave because I could argue all day against your points.

Isn't it a strange coincidence that practically all Christians who claimed to be "open to questions" and who would love to "argue all day against [our] points" have to leave all of a sudden and are just to busy to be able to continue posting if their arguments get shot down one after the other?

But that's irrelevant since it's pretty apparent everyone on this site is already very determined in their beliefs

I seriously wonder what you expected? That people would convert en masse?
That we never ever heard these arguments before and that there would be no responses countering said arguments?

We're open minded but that does not mean we gobble your arguments up without thinking. Open mindedness doesn't mean that you can't defend your point of view.

and it's obvious that many (not all) just have a blatant hate for religion/God in every way.

And here it's getting ridiculous. Nobody is hating God here. We don't believe in God. We don't hate entities we deem fictional.

I'd rather say that you are not used to having your arguments countered and properly examined. Posting on an atheist board certainly leads to different results than posting on a christian board where at least half the thread will consist of "You're so right! Bless the Lord!" no matter what you actually said as long as the last line reads either "so God did it" or "that proves Jesus was real."

And, let's face it, your arguments were lousy. I'm not even saying this in a mocking way; they were simply bad. Your tries at presenting extra-biblical contemporary sources for the existence of Jesus are more than enough evidence of that.
First you list a Christian apologist and saint as nonbeliever who backed up the empty tomb story (Gee...I still wonder how that particular mix-up could have happened...  ) then as your second attempt you try to sell us a medieval Jewish parody of the gospel as "contemporary" and "historical" evidence and last but not least you try to drop the bomb on us with accounts of Tacitus and Josephus (of which the former is dubious and of which the latter is a known forgery).

And you seriously wonder why your arguments were met with contempt at best?

Claiming that Muhammad, Jesus, and Siddhartha are all made up is just ridiculous.

I think you have not understood my argument at all.
I even further clarified it in my response to Azdgari.

Most atheists will not deny the possibility that an actual human was the basis for a particular myth but there is no evidence that the aforementioned religious figures existed as described by the respective religious texts.

Even if all these people were real that wouldn't make any of their religions true, but people feel the need to try and disprove their very existence because of their strong ill-will toward religion.

Emphasis added.

I'd rather call it a strong determination to find out the truth and reality. Just because many people believe something as a given does not mean it is that way.

You base your life on ancient writings. Doesn't that alone warrant that these writings are subjected to the same, if not even greater scrutiny than "normal" historic texts that make extraordinary claims?

This clearly marks someone who has lost all open-mindedness and true research and resorted to accepting and investigating anything that could even possibly show religion isn't true.

Quite the contrary.

It is a sign of open-mindedness to look at all kinds of research and not just accept the status quo.

And I can't help but wonder what it says about your open-mindedness when all you brought forth in defense of your position are forgeries, parodies and biased sources and you run when you get called out for every single one of them?

It's not searching for the truth, it's just finding ways to claim God isn't the truth.

If there existed scientific evidence in favor of God's existence I'd happily present that, too.

There are people on this site whom I feel would have a reasonable conversation/debate and be open-minded. But far too many post comments that aren't even worth responding to and that attack parts of Christianity they know nothing about. I understand not believing in God, but attacking a religion you don't actually understand is just sad.

Let's be honest here, even the posts you responded to you haven't actually answered.

That you are unable to answer the questions, which in turn makes the discussion uncomfortable for you, is not our fault.

At least search for the truth and not additional ways to insult people.

Did it ever occur to you that we are doing just that? And that "the truth" does not happen to be what you believe in?
Which incidentally might also be the reason why you find the responses to you so outrageous?

I know that some users are going to make fun of me and claim they hurt my feelings, but you didn't. Go ahead and make fun I really don't care.

For someone who doesn't care you certainly tried very hard to write a post that says you actually do.

I enjoy debating and seeing other people's beliefs but when people aren't even willing to be reasonable it's just frustrating.

I'm sorry that I have to correct you on this but there is a difference between "being reasonable" and "being gullible."

To say it bluntly, you expected us to be the latter. You could not hold yourself up in this debate because practically all your arguments have been shot down rather quickly.

I don't doubt that you enjoy debating but I do doubt that you have debated with many people before who have insisted on you backing up your arguments properly or who called you out on the fallacies you use. The way you handled replies pointing out such things is evidence for that.

And I would stay on despite the frustration but unfortunately I don't have enough time. Maybe I'll comment on posts occasionally but I just didn't realize the time committment holding up this post would require. I'm sorry to bail on you guys (and girls) but my time here is over  Happy camping!

When you started here I thought you could bring something new to the table. After all good Christian members are few and far between.

Well, let's just say that after your "mistake" with Justin Martyr I already knew it would be disappointing. And that you "suddenly" discovered you don't have enough time to continue posting here did not really come as a surprise.

[rev45]

What you are close minded to is accepting something without proof. We are both in the same situation to start with, that is, neither of us knows the answer. Equally, I am close minded to the need to get every piece of evidence and all the boxes ticked before I go with something.

This is one of the arguments that is brought up time and time again called Russell's Teapot.  Will you accept without proof that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun and it's too small to be seen with our best telescopes?  We can come up with an almost unlimited amount of ideas for which no proof will ever be found.  I would hope that you would need something more than just a person's word before you would believe what they say.  Do I know with 100% certainty that a god does not exist?  No.  All I can do is listen to the claims put forward by someone who does believe and make my decision based on all (if any) evidence they bring. 

[jetson]

It's not that we're close-minded toward a god or gods existing, its the theists who can't answer the questions to any sort of satisfaction.

What you are close minded to is accepting something without proof. We are both in the same situation to start with, that is, neither of us knows the answer. Equally, I am close minded to the need to get every piece of evidence and all the boxes ticked before I go with something.

I think the keen atheist is an atheist as a default position. In other words other aspects of his life are the same, that is, no acceptance without proof. The religious/spiritual or whatever you might call us, accepts and also acts with far less evidence or proof and this applies to his life in general. Thus his position on the spritual is also a default position.

No, no, no.  Why do I have to keep repeating myself to you?  We are NOT in the same situation AT ALL.  They are not even CLOSE to the same.  Please try to understand this very, very simple idea.  Atheists, in general, do not claim to KNOW anything with absolute certainty.  They just don't.  At times, it may seem that when we say something like "there are no gods", or "god is imaginary", that we are making some claim of absolute certainty, but we are not.  Most of us would gladly accept a proven god - when something is proven, what would be the point of denying its existence?

It means that, there is NO EVIDENCE or PROOF of any god.  That's all.  And some of us, like me, will push that idea a bit harder, simply because we have so little reason to even consider that a god was anything BUT imaginary.  Keep in mind that you would be very hard pressed to find an atheist who will claim there are no gods with 100% certainty, but...to them, it is pretty much the same thing as saying there are no microscopic purple mammals hiding under our eyelids.  What is the point of pushing such an idea?  Well, to many atheists, it amounts to about the same thing as positing that a specific god is actually real, and really cares about you and me.  It's silly, like Santa!

On the other hand, far too many theists fly through here and claim that they know their god is real, and that they know their god cares abou them, and yes, even that they know that they will be accepted in the kingdom of heaven, simply because they have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior.  That is the epitome of close-minded.  They will NEVER accept the idea that their god is not real.  It's kind of sad, really.

[Dinosaurs]

I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you don't mean this as a general statement. Certainly I know Christians who are very shrewd, intelligent people about lots of things. It's just that they do not apply their critical thinking to their religious beliefs.

But when the buy they are far more inclined to buy a concept.

We are both in the same situation to start with, that is, neither of us knows the answer. Equally, I am close minded to the need to get every piece of evidence and all the boxes ticked before I go with something.

I think the keen atheist is an atheist as a default position. In other words other aspects of his life are the same, that is, no acceptance without proof. The religious/spiritual or whatever you might call us, accepts and also acts with far less evidence or proof and this applies to his life in general. Thus his position on the spritual is also a default position.

Bolds mine. Unfortunately, I think you're right. Can you see how this unquestioning acceptance of what one is told is not a good thing?

But they/we/me don't accept everything. For example, myself and many others see churches or formal religions as just man made.

Many of us will also have different view points at the same time. That may at first seem like a contradiction but it is not. Our one consistent belief is the answer is some being or beings. That is the starting pont if you like. Just as your starting point is no beings of any type provide the answer. But sometimes you might think there is only one universe at other times your view could be there are many universes.

Both sides also have their own bias in how they see evidence.

[Dinosaurs]

This is one of the arguments that is brought up time and time again called Russell's Teapot.  Will you accept without proof that there is a china teapot orbiting the sun and it's too small to be seen with our best telescopes?  We can come up with an almost unlimited amount of ideas for which no proof will ever be found.  I would hope that you would need something more than just a person's word before you would believe what they say.  Do I know with 100% certainty that a god does not exist?  No.  All I can do is listen to the claims put forward by someone who does believe and make my decision based on all (if any) evidence they bring.

This the key point. As a "type" we don't need the same amount of evidence as you need and we don't collect the evidence for reproduction at any time.

But what we believe has a degree of it "feels right and looks right".

Do I know with 100% certainty that a god does not exist?  No

Likewise, I don't know with 100% certainty that God or a god or gods etc. exist or existed.

But for me it seems more likely that God or gods are the solution to how all this got here.

One thing that often crossed my mind is that if we had another sense then the answer could be obvious. Imagine if you will that human life becomes extinct on earth and a bunch of very advanced aliens arrive. However, these aliens have possesed th sense of sight. Could you imagine the difficulties they would have with windows in buildings and cars. Why did these earthlings make all these structures weaker with this material etc

[jetson]

Dinosaurs, can you go create a topic in the Introduction section, and tell us about yourself?  Your world views, religious beliefs, background, etc.?  It appears that you are not a typical Christian to me...it will help us in understanding where you are coming from in these replies.

[Dinosaurs]

On the other hand, far too many theists fly through here and claim that they know their god is real, and that they know their god cares abou them, and yes, even that they know that they will be accepted in the kingdom of heaven, simply because they have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior.  That is the epitome of close-minded.  They will NEVER accept the idea that their god is not real.  It's kind of sad, really.

OK. You know Apollo 11 landed on the moon. How do you know that. What real evidence do you have except what you have read or seen on TV etc.

But you are 100% certain Apollo 11 went to the moon but with zero real evidence.

You are 100% certain because it all seems possible and there is no way you could see a conspiracy being pulled off.

But to a "moon landing hoax" person you are totally close minded.

What you are failing to grasp with this topic is as I have already posted and that is how different people see "evidence"

From my perspective it is impossible to understand how you can so clearly eliminate a superior being or beings from the equation.

[Dinosaurs]

Dinosaurs, can you go create a topic in the Introduction section, and tell us about yourself?  Your world views, religious beliefs, background, etc.?  It appears that you are not a typical Christian to me...it will help us in understanding where you are coming from in these replies.

In what way am I not typical?

[jetson]

On the other hand, far too many theists fly through here and claim that they know their god is real, and that they know their god cares abou them, and yes, even that they know that they will be accepted in the kingdom of heaven, simply because they have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior.  That is the epitome of close-minded.  They will NEVER accept the idea that their god is not real.  It's kind of sad, really.

OK. You know Apollo 11 landed on the moon. How do you know that. What real evidence do you have except what you have read or seen on TV etc.

But you are 100% certain Apollo 11 went to the moon but with zero real evidence.

You are 100% certain because it all seems possible and there is no way you could see a conspiracy being pulled off.

But to a "moon landing hoax" person you are totally close minded.

What you are failing to grasp with this topic is as I have already posted and that is how different people see "evidence"

From my perspective it is impossible to understand how you can so clearly eliminate a superior being or beings from the equation.

Hey, no one is asking everyone to believe everything they see and hear.  No one is telling you that you MUST believe science, or NASA, or THE FUCKING ASTRONAUTS that flew up there and walked around (I have personally met Buzz Aldrin, not that it would prove he went to the moon, of course.)  It's OK to consider hoaxes, and conspiracies....but - what is the point?  Why?  When we spend all of that money, time, effort, and resources to put men on the moon, and then televise it, bring back samples, leave equipment up there...why would anyone bother with such a HOAX?  And why would anyone have a need to follow such nonsense?

Were you standing there in person when the rocket shot up from the ground and blasted out of our atmosphere?  I was in an airplane and I literally saw the space shuttle on its rocket shoot through the cloud bank and scream into space, out of sight.  Where in the world was it going? 

Anyway, I will be patient for a bit longer and just remind you that ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.  But we really need to look for those things that are demonstrable, real, and useful.  Gods - eh, not very useful.  Not to mention they don't really explain anything.  When someone say's God did it, they are being completely lazy.  They don't care about the truth.  They WANT God to be real.  There's nothing great about that at all.

[12 Monkeys]

I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you don't mean this as a general statement. Certainly I know Christians who are very shrewd, intelligent people about lots of things. It's just that they do not apply their critical thinking to their religious beliefs.

But when the buy they are far more inclined to buy a concept.

We are both in the same situation to start with, that is, neither of us knows the answer. Equally, I am close minded to the need to get every piece of evidence and all the boxes ticked before I go with something.

I think the keen atheist is an atheist as a default position. In other words other aspects of his life are the same, that is, no acceptance without proof. The religious/spiritual or whatever you might call us, accepts and also acts with far less evidence or proof and this applies to his life in general. Thus his position on the spritual is also a default position.

Bolds mine. Unfortunately, I think you're right. Can you see how this unquestioning acceptance of what one is told is not a good thing?

But they/we/me don't accept everything. For example, myself and many others see churches or formal religions as just man made.

Many of us will also have different view points at the same time. That may at first seem like a contradiction but it is not. Our one consistent belief is the answer is some being or beings. That is the starting pont if you like. Just as your starting point is no beings of any type provide the answer. But sometimes you might think there is only one universe at other times your view could be there are many universes.

Both sides also have their own bias in how they see evidence.

YA YA the 38,000+ denominations if Christianity are here because they all AGREE on everything....And no I dont know if they landed on the moon....all I know is what they told me......I am suspicous as to why they have not returned as technology is now 10,000X what it was in 1969