A tale of two statements

"It is true therefore I must believe it"

"I believe it, therefore it must be true"

My contention is that theistic believers see little distinction between these statements.
 

El Cid

Well-known member
"It is true therefore I must believe it"

"I believe it, therefore it must be true"

My contention is that theistic believers see little distinction between these statements.
No, most Christians believe Christianity because of evidence. You may not think that some of the things they view as evidence is really evidence but very few believe in Christ for no reason whatsoever.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
"It is true therefore I must believe it"

"I believe it, therefore it must be true"

My contention is that theistic believers see little distinction between these statements.

In other words, you believe that theistic believers see little distinction between those statements, therefore it must be true.
 

Furion

Well-known member
"It is true therefore I must believe it"

I've seen butt ugly people thinking they are beautiful.

"I believe it, therefore it must be true"

I've seen butt ugly people thinking they are beautiful.

Both are true at the same time in people.

I would guess both are true at the same time with most people on this earth.

Go buy some more charisma fella, it's not helping.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
"It is true therefore I must believe it"

"I believe it, therefore it must be true"

My contention is that theistic believers see little distinction between these statements.
I think Christianity suffers reproach for taking the Bible too literally and expecting everyone else to do the same. Along the lines of “The stories (myths) are true because the Bible is true.” When I hear a Christian talk about the “evidence” for their beliefs, he/she inevitably means the Bible is the historical evidence for things written in the Bible, eg, a human rose from the dead because the Bible says he did. Then when confronted with actual evidence Christians fall back to the conspiracy theory, that is, everyone is out to mislead them. IOW, they bury their head in the sand.

Science, archaeology, and critical analysis, have been a great blessing in that they have helped dispel the stories being taken as historical events resulting in them being myths (1). Now the risk is that the pendulum swings too far in the other direction resulting in impiety and nihilism. Atheism is not the solution to bad interpretations of scripture. The solution is to sift the bad meaning from the good meaning and hold onto the good.

I rarely hear an atheist speak harshly of Jesus maybe because they recognize something good in him that they aspire to be. I encourage them to hold on to that, maybe emulate him, if nothing else. There is something to be gleaned from his example, IMO.

1) In the sense that myths convey abstract ideas involving our reality that science had not caught up to when they were written. Hence, the titles for the messengers: prophets, apostles, mystics, heirophants, philosophers, buddhas, magi, etc.
 
Last edited:

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
No, most Christians believe Christianity because of evidence. You may not think that some of the things they view as evidence is really evidence but very few believe in Christ for no reason whatsoever.
What about the idea that Christians believe Christianity because they were brought up to believe it? That explains why you see Christian predominant in one area and other religions predominant in other areas. How does Christians believing in Christianity account for the geographical distribution of religions around the world?
 
No, most Christians believe Christianity because of evidence. You may not think that some of the things they view as evidence is really evidence but very few believe in Christ for no reason whatsoever.
"I believe it therefore it's true" would be a *reason* to believe. It's magical reasoning and it is invalid, but it's still a reason. Of course they have *a* reason to believe, but what I'm pointing out here is the process.

I just want to put a part of your response under the microscope for a second here:

"You may not think that some of the things they view as evidence is really evidence"

What is and is not evidence is not a matter of opinion. Evidence means verifiable facts and data. If it's not verifiable, then it's not evidence. I FeEl tHe HoLy SpIrIt is not evidence. It might be a *reason* to personally believe, but it is objectively and definitionaly NOT evidence of any kind whatsoever.
 
So far, at least two "believers" have already demonstrated that they don't understand the difference between these two statements. Fascinating!
 
It is a reflection upon your atheistically uncharismatic "question."
If my thesis hurts your feelings, then please crawl back to your safe space and stop polluting this thread.

Otherwise demonstrate that you understand the difference between these two statements or admit that you can't.
 

Furion

Well-known member
...stop polluting this thread.

That's like an invitation, silly.

Besides, your septic skeptic thread is pollution.

Otherwise demonstrate that you understand the difference between these two statements..

Already did and responded, humans do both and believe both about themselves.

Just admit you do both.
 
But many people disagree that evidence means this. It's not even clear what "verifiable facts and data" means.
If you want to get pedantic and argue around the fuzzy borders "truth", then I suppose you can do that.

In broad strokes, however, "verifiability" is a pretty straighforward concept. Come on now.
 
Definition of verifiable adjective from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

verifiable​

adjective

/ˈverɪfaɪəbl/


/ˈverɪfaɪəbl/
(formal)
  1. that can be checked to show whether it is true or accurate
 

mikeT

Well-known member
What is and is not evidence is not a matter of opinion.
This is true in theory, but false in practice.

One definition for evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". Under this definition, the bible IS evidence for Christ's resurrection. Finding a bloody knife in a car is evidence that the driver killed the dead person nearby. Me saying I saw a flying sauce is evidence that flying saucers exist.

In practice, though, "evidence" is composed of two things: the information, and that information's credibility. As a crackhead, my flying saucer claim doesn't have much credibility, which is why the vast majority people people would rightly reject that claim being evidence for the existence of flying saucers.

Technically (aka. according to the dictionary), "evidence" is trivial. In practice, though, humans spend a lot of time figuring out whether the available information is credible or not - and THAT is where opinion is heavily influential.
 
Top