greeney2 wrote:In our laws we have a term reasonable doubt, as opposed to normal everyday doubt. You could say the same applies to skeptics. Everyone has doubts and everyone is a skeptic. Question is what is your idea of what is "sound"? Back to that same old question, is you can not define what proof you would accept, or consider "sound".
I did actually say what I would consider proof. I think it's wrong to focus on "proof", though, all I really require is enough evidence to make it more likely than not that God is real, and is accurately portrayed in any of the existing religions. From my perspective, way more things point to them all being false belief systems, than a true one.
greeney2 wrote:Where you think Christians can be fanatics with eternal never wavering Faith, what does that make the never wavering Atheist, who looks only for absolute proof, and everything else is null and void.
It's just as bad of course, but I don't consider myself one of those atheists. Skepticism is about doubt, and that precludes certainty. The only people on this forum who I have seen who imply they are certain they are right are the Christians.
greeney2 wrote:Is it "sound" that you side with only 5% of the world population, without "sound" reason other than unproven doubt.
I don't see what it matters what other people believe, but it also depends how you look at it. If you take your exact specific beliefs, you would be in the vast minority too.
How many people believe in exactly the same God as you do, and interpret the Bible in the same way? The fact is, everyone's beliefs are mostly in the minority because no two people believe precisely the same things.
What you're doing isn't really fair, because your lumping all believers together, and all unbelievers together, but in reality the beliefs of the believers vary greatly, they all believe in different deities and different interpretations, and different rituals and rules for getting into heaven, and whether hell is real, and the Bible is literal, and so on, and so on.
Also, it's a cultural thing. If you lived in the Middle East, you would be considered a minority being a Christian, and nearly everyone would think you were completely wrong, whereas here in England the majority of people are nonreligious or atheist.
greeney2 wrote:If the Bible is so unreliable why do you think its still the best seller book today? Studied by billions everyday? Why it has produced billions of believers though out history, world aritfacts and art thousands of years old?
The Quran is very widely read too, does that make it right?
It's a pretty complex question as to why Christianity is so successful, but a study of the history of the religion gives a lot of clues.
greeney2 wrote:History of the world, Ancient places uncovered in Digs, all kinds of events both historic or personal to give a person "sound" reason. You just have a mindset of nothing short of God appearing is only acceptable.
Yes, and artifacts found show the Titanic existed and really sunk, but the movie was filled with a ton of fake events. Much fiction has a backbone of truth, and a ton of falseness, even you admit much of the Bible is likely symbolic or not true at all.
greeney2 wrote:Your are right we have a multitude of different theology just in the Christian religion, and they do differ in great ways except one. They do not disagree that Jesus is the Son of God, Died on the cross for us, and is the Savior. They differ in what they believe the rite of Baptism and Confirmation is, differ about Communion and the transformation of the Eucarist, and differ on what is a Sacrament.
There are very big differences, and those differences contradict the claim that people are in direct communication with God, and that he reveals the truth of the Bible to them. The differences in opinion are so great it has been the cause of many deaths.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."
- Sam Harris