Okay, so as per my above post, why are you not a Muslim?
Muhammed did exist, did he not?
I will tell you why you "haven't received a good answer", because this is clearly circular reasoning.
Your premise is that Christians aren't Muslims because they were born in the US, and therefore, by being born in the US, they're gonna be Christians.
Based on your post history on this subject, arriving at your conclusion that Christians are only Christians because of their place of birth is at the heart of these same, tired old questions you ask.
Hence, they will be ignored.
I will tell you why you "haven't received a good answer", because this is clearly circular reasoning.
Your premise is that Christians aren't Muslims because they were born in the US, and therefore, by being born in the US, they're gonna be Christians.
Based on your post history on this subject, arriving at your conclusion that Christians are only Christians because of their place of birth is at the heart of these same, tired old questions you ask.
Hence, they will be ignored.
Okay, so as per my above post, why are you not a Muslim?
Muhammed did exist, did he not?
He won't answer this.
I can take a stab at your question. For me, it is because Mohammed did not as Islam does not today, accept Jesus as the Son of God.
The historical part is irrelevant because if that is the basis for your belief, then it could equally apply to any number of religions.
So Islam and Judaism dont believe he was the son of God. That is 2 against 1. Maybe you guys are totally wrong on that part :whiste:
....but you're going to go on believing that they happened anyway. Like I said, unreasonable.Well, I cannot establish that Biblical miracles happened because I am unable to. I wasn't alive during their supposed happenings, none of the writers are alive to cross-examine, and I am not God.
To someone who was interested in coming to a rational and honest decision on what actually happened in reality that moved the authors to write about such happenings in the Bible, I'd say it is decidedly inconvenient.Sound convenient?
Indeed.Well, keep in mind that 2000+ years have elapsed since they are said to have happened, so there is nothing that can be done to change that.
What I'm interested in is why anyone would find them reasonable to believe.However, I do respect that you don't find those reasonable to believe.
So Islam and Judaism dont believe he was the son of God. That is 2 against 1. Maybe you guys are totally wrong on that part :whiste:
....but you're going to go on believing that they happened anyway. Like I said, unreasonable.
Of course I do, but I do also realize that some are simply uncomfortable with anything that breaks our still incomplete knowledge of the laws nature. Only when our knowledge becomes complete can we call something "false", or we'd be claiming a universal negative with no evidence to back that.
A brief example I read somewhere:
John Locke related this story about the Dutch ambassador and the king of Siam: While describing his country, Holland, to the king, the ambassador mentioned that at times it was possible for an elephant to walk on water. The king rejected the idea and felt that the ambassador was lying to him. However, the ambassador was merely describing something that was beyond the kings personal experience. The king did not realize that when water freezes and becomes ice, it can support the weight of an elephant. This seemed impossible to the king because he did not have all the facts. [Italics mine]
Is this to say miracles did happen? Absolutely not! But before you assert that they're "unreasonable" to believe, I think what should be established is a complete understanding of the laws of nature.
"Just one black swan undoes the theory that all swans are white. One exception can cause science to re-evaluate everything it "knew" about that law, hence, why I say its more prudent not declare miracles are unreasonable to believe.
This is a convoluted argument. The King of Siam may have been ignorant of some things, however the Dutch Ambassador could have shown the King how it was possible.
This brings us back to the oft requested, "Where is the Evidence?"
It also brings up another oft pointed out fact, "Other Religions claim Miracles, why don't you accept them?"
Sandorski, my point is simple; having incomplete knowledge can turn wise men into fools...very, very quickly.
whose over the head again.....you can only ask for evidence so many times before you need to ask what am I missing here??? BTW -- this "evidence" talking point of the atheists is getting worn out....That's fine, but where is this Knowledge verifying Miracles?
The King in your example was only a "fool" because the phenomena was well known to many. In other words, you are using the same criteria to judge him a "fool" that I am using to reject the claims of Miracles.
whose over the head again.....you can only ask for evidence so many times before you need to ask what am I missing here??? BTW -- this "evidence" talking point of the atheists is getting worn out....
I think the best way to evaluate a religion is to look at the people who represented it. I think Muhammed and Jesus are representatives of their religions, and what's written about them is largely contrasting, I think.
I am not a Muslim because I don't think Muhammed is representative of the type of person I see myself aligning myself with. Not that he's a bad guy, but I perfer a person like Christ.
My interest is around your suggestion that you exercised some judgment in choosing to be a Christian rather than a Muslim, picking the god that seemed preferable to you. While this seems like a very natural thing to do, I wonder how confident you are that your preference is a reliable guide for divining the true nature of god.
(I'm implicitly assuming here that you consider non-Christian choices made by others based on their preferences to be wrong.) In some ways, I'd find your argument for belief based on faith a bit more convincing if your god wasn't one that you preferred. Your thoughts?
That's fine, but where is this Knowledge verifying Miracles?
The King in your example was only a "fool" because the phenomena was well known to many. In other words, you are using the same criteria to judge him a "fool" that I am using to reject the claims of Miracles.
I wasn't presenting a "god of the gaps" argument...I was only saying that all science can speak to is the improbability of miracles not happening.
The only way this works is if its "well-known" that miracles cannot happen.
It is well known that Miracles do not happen. The possibility that they can is irrelevant.
By practically every single person.
Every single person to ever live? Or every single person living since you were born?
Mind you, the same persons denying miracles are the same sort of people who supported, as Gospel, the Steady State Theory among a whole slew of now superseded theories that no longer provide an accurate description of reality.
So don't be shocked if your argumentum ad populum is dismissed out-of-hand, but I will raise you a how-wrong-people-are back handed bitch-slap to the mouth.
I think the best way to evaluate a religion is to look at the people who represented it. I think Muhammed and Jesus are representatives of their religions, and what's written about them is largely contrasting, I think.
I am not a Muslim because I don't think Muhammed is representative of the type of person I see myself aligning myself with. Not that he's a bad guy, but I perfer a person like Christ.
not true at all....By practically every single person.