Quote:
Originally posted by Z-man
Counterpoint:
I suppose then, that you have a difficult time accepting evolution as the way we came to be. After all, there are no eyewitness accounts for the first time muddy-mudskipper decided to get out of the goop and take a walk around the neighborhood.
Again, the same thing can be said for the other side of the coin -- if the evidence for evolution and the non-exsistence of God were so convincing, then the whole world would be full of athiests who believe in evolution. There are people who have spent their whole lives as staunch believers of evolution yet end up finding faith in God. Did they not believe the evidence strongly enough? Were they not real athiestic evolutionists?
-Z-man.
|
Well, we have scientific evidence for evolution. Fossils and such. While no one was there to see it, there is evidence to be studied. This is not the case for the resurrection.
I’ve said this before, but I my thoughts are that god meets fundamental psychological needs. Here is what I have said before:
Quote:
Religion meets a number of basic human needs. It meets these needs so well that believers are utterly convinced that god exists. The bible must be true, otherwise how could it meet my needs so well? Here’s a short list of some of the needs I’ve identified that are met by religion. I see some of these needs in myself, but I don’t meet them via religion. If you are honest with yourself, you will see some in yourself and you should recognize those that are met via religion. The list is not complete, and every individual has their own set, with their own priorities. In no particular order:
1) Something to explain the unexplainable
2) The need to know that death is not the end
3) Something to absolve guilt, e.g. forgiveness from your “sins”
4) The need to belong to a group
5) The need to feel superior to others
6) The need for unconditional love
7) An absolute authority for morals
8) Direction on how to live your life
9) A need to be right
|
Having these needs met so well via religion is considered some as “evidence” that god exists. It is, of course, not really evidence.
Can someone confirm what nota said above? That there are no first person accounts of the resurrection? I always thought that those books were written in the first person. Yes, I read the bible, a long, long time ago, but I don’t remember these details.
If so, I find it astounding that people believe a second hand account of an event from a biased person. It’s like one of David Koresh’s followers giving an account of what another one of his followers claimed they saw.