Atheistforums.com

So I’m reading through this thread (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=7568.0) and being impressed by the honesty expressed.

Quote from: Ro3bert on April 19, 2015, 06:38:59 PM
As a thought experiment suppose, just for the moment that it was proven that the Christ and   Biblical God did, in fact, exist.

How would it affect your atheism? How would you reconcile yourself to embracing the need to worship him, :worship:  to denying your atheism?

Would you study the Bible?

I would be in deep shit, my belief is so ingrained I don't think I'd be able to make the change.

Robert

Virtually everyone essentially said that even if the Bible or the God of the Bible were proven to be true, they would still reject Him.  In one sense, that doesn’t surprise me, since that’s what the Bible predicts.  But in another sense, seeing that level of denial is a bit mind blowing.  But it started me thinking about the demand for evidence and whether or not the demand is real or just rhetorical (i.e. used for mere effect)?

Do you think your own demand for evidence or the objections you have are just rhetorical, real, or maybe both?

Why do you think a god requires worship?

Quote from: Sal1981 on May 24, 2015, 07:44:23 AM
Why do you think a god requires worship?

He doesn't.  If He did, you'd be worshipping.

You sound like a presuppositionalist.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 07:42:46 AM
But in another sense, seeing that level of denial is a bit mind blowing.  But it started me thinking about the demand for evidence and whether or not the demand is real or just rhetorical (i.e. used for mere effect)?

It's not about denial. If the God of the Bible were proven to be true, Jesus really did symbolically die for my sins on the cross, the Bible was proved to be true down to the last letter, Heaven and Hell (though Hell as evangelicals preach it isn't in the Bible?) were absolutely true, and so on, I would still reject God and Christianity. It's not about being able to accept evidence and believe.

I would believe. But what I can't get behind is all the s***ty stuff God does in the Bible. The garden, Sodom and Gomorrah, sacrifices, a great flood to get rid of all the people he made in his own image that decided to not live up to his expectations, all the weird rules about hair and clothes and gay people and women. Yes, that's the Old Testament, but if God used to be that way, what made him change? Jesus? Any God that has a change of heart about the way he runs stuff (uh, New Testament anyone?) or any regrets *cough*Noah's Ark*cough* sounds like a pretty scatterbrained sort of dude. That would suggest a God who really isn't omnipotent and all-knowing and more of some charlatan pulling puppet strings like some sick Star Trek joke.

Yep, the god of the babble is not worthy of being worshipped. He is worthy of the utmost distain and hatred.

If it were true we would all have been dead long ago..No real god would have put up with the human race this long and if it did it wouldn't be worth worship in the first place.

QuoteIf I believed the Christian God was real I would try to do what he wanted me to do because I would fear eternal damnation. It is kind of like saying if extraterrestrials appeared, vaporized Australia and said stop eating meat or we will vaporize the rest of the planet, I would immediately become a vegetarian.

If I had faith I wouldn't need evidence, but I don't have faith.

Quote from: Sal1981 on May 24, 2015, 07:53:29 AM
You sound like a presuppositionalist.

No, I'm just pointing out that He doesn't require it.  That's why you're free to not worship and to reject Him.  The incommensurable good is to know God, but that can only be done through free choices.  Otherwise, things like worship and love are meaningless.  So while God desires your appropriate behavior toward Him, He does not require it.  Nor does He force Himself upon you.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 08:15:51 AM
No, I'm just pointing out that He doesn't require it.  That's why you're free to not worship and to reject Him.  The commensurable good is to know God, but that can only be done through free choices.  Otherwise, things like worship and love are meaningless.  So while God desires your appropriate behavior toward Him, He does not require it.  Nor does He force Himself upon you.

But would you really call it a "free" choice if the only alternative he offers is to go to Hell? That's like a creditor saying "You don't have to pay your mortgage, but we all know if you don't, you'll be homeless."

Quote from: TomFoolery on May 24, 2015, 08:01:15 AM
It's not about denial. If the God of the Bible were proven to be true, Jesus really did symbolically die for my sins on the cross, the Bible was proved to be true down to the last letter, Heaven and Hell (though Hell as evangelicals preach it isn't in the Bible?) were absolutely true, and so on, I would still reject God and Christianity. It's not about being able to accept evidence and believe.

I would believe. But what I can't get behind is all the s***ty stuff God does in the Bible. The garden, Sodom and Gomorrah, sacrifices, a great flood to get rid of all the people he made in his own image that decided to not live up to his expectations, all the weird rules about hair and clothes and gay people and women. Yes, that's the Old Testament, but if God used to be that way, what made him change? Jesus? Any God that has a change of heart about the way he runs stuff (uh, New Testament anyone?) or any regrets *cough*Noah's Ark*cough* sounds like a pretty scatterbrained sort of dude. That would suggest a God who really isn't omnipotent and all-knowing and more of some charlatan pulling puppet strings like some sick Star Trek joke.

Fascinating.  So you too believe that God's station, position, nature, etc... have no bearing on what He can do with what He's created relative to what we can do with His creation.  You believe that there can be or should be no difference huh?

And sure it's about denial.  Even if you could no longer deny the truth of God, the Bible, or Christianity; you would still deny God His rightful place in your life because you've decided to misunderstand and/or disagree with God.  And then you'd use the disagreement as a wedge to keep God separated from you.  I'd call that a massive level of denial.

Quote from: TomFoolery on May 24, 2015, 08:18:02 AM
But would you really call it a "free" choice if the only alternative he offers is to go to Hell? That's like a creditor saying "You don't have to pay your mortgage, but we all know if you don't, you'll be homeless."

Sure.....and you're the proof.  You can either accept God's offer of pardon through Jesus Christ, or you can choose to pay for your own crimes and be separated from your creator forever.  People choose Hell all of the time.  In fact, most people end up choosing Hell.  They don't want their to be a God to whom they are accountable.  They don't want to bend their knee to someone else or admit that they are owned by the one who gave them life.  Human beings are in a general state of rebellion against Him, but yeah, the choice is free.  I'm choosing to accept God's offer of pardon, which He's not obligated to even offer me.  And you're choosing to reject that offering in favor of paying for your own crimes in eternity.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 08:21:28 AM
Sure.....and you're the proof.  You can either accept God's offer of pardon through Jesus Christ, or you can choose to pay for your own crimes and be separated from your creator forever.  People choose Hell all of the time.  In fact, most people end up choosing Hell. 

Alright, I'll play. I'm saying that free choice isn't free choice when the person in charge make all the other possibilities so unpleasant that the only other logical option is to choose the one that was chosen for you.

Worshipping God is like voting in a Russian election. We all know you can vote for the other guy (if one even makes it on the ballot) but you'll end up in a gulag if you do. So sure, that's choice.

And yes, I'd rather go to Hell. And eternity in Heaven would be Hell for me anyway. I'd rather spend it in Hell with all the gay people and blasphemers. It would make for more interesting conversation than having to deal with people like you for eternity.

Quote from: GSOgymrat on May 24, 2015, 08:11:51 AM
If I had faith I wouldn't need evidence, but I don't have faith.

You're correct.  If you possess the trust (i.e. faith), then you don't necessarily need evidence.  But a lot of people like to have a reason or some evidence as to why their trust (i.e. faith) will be well placed.  Faith = Trust.  Faith doesn't = Blind Leap.

The ants in my backyard don't require anything of me and I don't require anything of them. I get to play god all the time by bringing pestilence from the sky,  earthquakes from the shovel, floods from the garden hose and so on, but if they decide to move next door I'm fine with that and don't go next door to smite them.. It's a silly proposal, sure just as your god is a silly proposal..

Quote from: TomFoolery on May 24, 2015, 08:28:05 AM
Alright, I'll play. I'm saying that free choice isn't free choice when the person in charge make all the other possibilities so unpleasant that the only other logical option is to choose the one that was chosen for you.

Worshipping God is like voting in a Russian election. We all know you can vote for the other guy (if one even makes it on the ballot) but you'll end up in a gulag if you do. So sure, that's choice.

And yes, I'd rather go to Hell. And eternity in Heaven would be Hell for me anyway. I'd rather spend it in Hell with all the gay people and blasphemers. It would make for more interesting conversation than having to deal with people like you for eternity.

Okay, but unless you and every other person on the planet who are aware of the choices become Christians, then the freedom still exists.  If you didn't have the freedom to choose, then there would be no atheists.  The fact is, whether the consequences are good or bad, you can choose whatever you want.  If you choose to deny the existence of God or however your atheism is rationalized, then you're rejecting the pardon and choosing to pay for your crimes yourself.  It's as simple as that.  Saying otherwise is revealed as a falsehood immediately by the fact that you're not a Christian and neither are most of the people who frequent this forum.  If the choice was made for you, then you'd be a believer right now. And if you'd rather go to Hell, then why are you saying that there's no choice?  That can't be true, given what you've said.  If you'd rather go to Hell, then you're saying that you'd actually choose Hell over Heaven on purpose.  So you're admitting that you'd be making a free choice and the objection disappears.

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on May 24, 2015, 08:33:05 AM
The ants in my backyard don't require anything of me and I don't require anything of them. I get to play god all the time by bringing pestilence from the sky,  earthquakes from the shovel, floods from the garden hose and so on, but if they decide to move next door I'm fine with that and don't go next door to smite them.. It's a silly proposal, sure just as your god is a silly proposal..

I don't get it.  Since you didn't create the ants, the ground, or anything else....the situation isn't analogous at all.

It's Sunday, shouldn't you be in church or something? Or do you troll atheist forums to stock up on Jesus points for the week?

Quote from: TomFoolery on May 24, 2015, 08:36:30 AM
It's Sunday, shouldn't you be in church or something? Or do you troll atheist forums to stock up on Jesus points for the week?

I should be, but unfortunately, I have to work.  The upside is that I get to post here in between making events, running plates, etc...  Sunday is a pretty slow day for law enforcement, at least where I am.  Besides, I can livestream my Pastor's sermon at 11am anyway.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 08:35:30 AM
I don't get it.  Since you didn't create the ants, the ground, or anything else....the situation isn't analogous at all.

Are you sure that I didn't create the ants? I might have.  For all you really know I am the creator of all things anty.
Wait!  Which god? Which church? They all claim to know that their god and church is the correct god and church. I might go to your church only to find out that no matter how well intentioned that god, for whatever reason got really pissed off at some elder somewhere along the line and decided to condemn me and my family and all of our kids for a million generations and for what? Who knows? The preacher wore the wrong fucking hat on Tuesday and forgot to tell anyone..

As god is not testable, by logic or reason, there is nothing to show he exists as a real entity and so does not garner any attention from me anymore then father christmas.

However, and heres something you christians don't quite understand, and its pretty fucking simple to get your heads around without the road block of your ignorance. If god was real, if he really existed, what has he done that he would deserve me worshiping him over?

You've never really read the bible word for word have you Odoital778412? Maybe a priest read it to you, but the passages he liked and so you like now. God of the bible, this fictional fantasy book you refer to, is a monster. He's a twisted character presenting a false image for people to worship, while in his own 'holy book' commit mass genocide against people, causes death and suffering because he can just to prove he can, and has no problems being a dick to everyone when it suits him. Given the shit he's done in the bibles stories, if he was a real person, I'd spit on his grave as what a disgusting entity he is.

He's a tyrannical character with a demand for worship otherwise punishes those who don't, as has been said many times in the bibles on words.

So if he was real, which he isn't, I would not worship it, because I live by a moral standard higher then your own expectations.

One other thing, your atheist yourself if you didn't realize, because as has been said, because you don't believe in other religions and their deities, you deny their existence on the basis of just one.

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on May 24, 2015, 08:45:51 AM
Are you sure that I didn't create the ants? I might have.  For all you really know I am the creator of all things anty.
Wait!  Which god? Which church? They all claim to know that their god and church is the correct god and church. I might go to your church only to find out that no matter how well intentioned that god, for whatever reason got really pissed off at some elder somewhere along the line and decided to condemn me and my family and all of our kids for a million generations and for what? Who knows? The preacher wore the wrong fucking hat on Tuesday and forgot to tell anyone..

Since no human beings on the planet can create ants out of pre-existing matter that they themselves must first create, I'm pretty sure you didn't create any ants, to say nothing of all things anty.  As for the rest, since the analogy isn't a good one, I won't bother attempting to string together every odd sect of Christendom you can find out there.  The fact is that the vast majority believe the same set of important salient details and differ on other issues of lesser importance.  That's good enough for me.

Hey,  don't you have some little kids to go harass for no good reason?  You're in law enforcement?  A public servant?  Apparently you're more than just a servant of god.. You're breaking the Sabbath and working on Sunday? 
Well...see ya in H E double dirty Q-tips officer..

Quote from: Munch on May 24, 2015, 08:46:35 AM
As god is not testable, by logic or reason, there is nothing to show he exists as a real entity and so does not garner any attention from me anymore then father christmas.

Many learned people and scholars would disagree with you entirely.

Quote from: Munch on May 24, 2015, 08:46:35 AM
However, and heres something you christians don't quite understand, and its pretty fucking simple to get your heads around without the road block of your ignorance. If god was real, if he really existed, what has he done that he would deserve me worshiping him over?

He created all that has ever come into existence.  That's a pretty astounding fete, especially since we're only perceptually aware of a mere fraction of His creation.

Quote from: Munch on May 24, 2015, 08:46:35 AM
You've never really read the bible word for word have you Odoital778412? Maybe a priest read it to you, but the passages he liked and so you like now. God of the bible, this fictional fantasy book you refer to, is a monster. He's a twisted character presenting a false image for people to worship, while in his own 'holy book' commit mass genocide against people, causes death and suffering because he can just to prove he can, and has no problems being a dick to everyone when it suits him. Given the shit he's done in the bibles stories, if he was a real person, I'd spit on his grave as what a disgusting entity he is.

What, you think I'm Catholic?  Hehehe...  No, I've read through the Bible.  I own 4 different translations of the Bible ESV, NASB, NIV, and KJV.  And yeah, those things that He owns, He does possess the right to take, preserve, or restore their lives as He sees fit.  After all, they belong to Him.  Well, you'll have your chance to carry that attitude with you into eternity, but I sure wouldn't recommend it.  In fact, I suspect that you'll be so overwhelmed by the experience, you won't be able to.  Hopefully, you'll make a different choice before you reach that end.

Quote from: Munch on May 24, 2015, 08:46:35 AM
He's a tyrannical character with a demand for worship otherwise punishes those who don't, as has been said many times in the bibles on words.

Well, He punishes you for your crimes, but it won't be about your not having worshipped Him primarily.  It will be about every other thing in life that you've done to contravene the moral law.  Your rap sheet will probably been in the millions of pages, just like it is with everyone else and would be with me...were I not a Christian.

Quote from: Munch on May 24, 2015, 08:46:35 AM
So if he was real, which he isn't, I would not worship it, because I live by a moral standard higher then your own expectations.

So you actually live up to your own moral standards perfectly huh?  And your standards are higher than God's huh?  Okay, if that's true, good for you.  Good luck with that.

Quote from: Munch on May 24, 2015, 08:46:35 AM
One other thing, your atheist yourself if you didn't realize, because as has been said, because you don't believe in other religions and their deities, you deny their existence on the basis of just one.

Yeah, I do deny false religions, but that wouldn't make me an atheist.  You might want to familiarize yourself with what an atheist is.

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on May 24, 2015, 08:58:37 AM
Hey,  don't you have some little kids to go harass for no good reason?  You're in law enforcement?  A public servant?  Apparently you're more than just a servant of god.. You're breaking the Sabbath and working on Sunday? 
Well...see ya in H E double dirty Q-tips officer..

Don't worry, I'll be doing my fair share of resting in just a couple of hours.  But yeah, I'm in law enforcement.  Not an officer anymore.  I work in the dispatch behind a desk these days.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 08:15:51 AM
No, I'm just pointing out that He doesn't require it.  That's why you're free to not worship and to reject Him.  The commensurable good is to know God, but that can only be done through free choices.  Otherwise, things like worship and love are meaningless.  So while God desires your appropriate behavior toward Him, He does not require it.  Nor does He force Himself upon you.

If I was living in the Amazonian rain forest and never heard of your particular interpretation of your particular denomination, would I still go to Hell, even if I was a good person?

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 08:15:51 AM
Nor does He force Himself upon you.

tell that to a poor little virgin girl……..liar

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 07:42:46 AM
So I’m reading through this thread (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=7568.0) and being impressed by the honesty expressed.
Virtually everyone essentially said that even if the Bible or the God of the Bible were proven to be true, they would still reject Him.  In one sense, that doesn’t surprise me, since that’s what the Bible predicts.  But in another sense, seeing that level of denial is a bit mind blowing.  But it started me thinking about the demand for evidence and whether or not the demand is real or just rhetorical (i.e. used for mere effect)?

Do you think your own demand for evidence or the objections you have are just rhetorical, real, or maybe both?

I would not say that. I am all about empirical evidence. The wheels fall off when you put words in peoples' mouths.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 07:42:46 AM

Virtually everyone essentially said that even if the Bible or the God of the Bible were proven to be true, they would still reject Him.  In one sense, that doesn’t surprise me, since that’s what the Bible predicts.  But in another sense, seeing that level of denial is a bit mind blowing.  But it started me thinking about the demand for evidence and whether or not the demand is real or just rhetorical (i.e. used for mere effect)?

Do you think your own demand for evidence or the objections you have are just rhetorical, real, or maybe both?

If you were presented with empirical evidence that Hitler was your supreme ruler and wielded god-like powers, would you accept him as your lord or would you reject him?

Many atheists have no problem accepting the existence of a god if empirical evidence is provided, but believing in the existence of a being doesn't mean we choose to follow it or accept its law without defiance - especially if we perceive such a being as inconsistent, detrimental to human life, cruel, and ruthlessly unfair.

Please put away your straw man. Atheists don't have a problem with accepting the existence of a god (assuming there's evidence to substantiate the claim) - we have a problem accepting a morally bankrupt god as being worthy of following.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 08:41:57 AM
I should be, but unfortunately, I have to work. 

The big guy takes a dim view of that sort of thing from what I understand so see you in hell sinner. Or have you cherry picked that part out of your particular version of god likes and dislikes?

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 07:42:46 AM
So I’m reading through this thread (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=7568.0) and being impressed by the honesty expressed.
Virtually everyone essentially said that even if the Bible or the God of the Bible were proven to be true, they would still reject Him.  In one sense, that doesn’t surprise me, since that’s what the Bible predicts.  But in another sense, seeing that level of denial is a bit mind blowing.  But it started me thinking about the demand for evidence and whether or not the demand is real or just rhetorical (i.e. used for mere effect)?

Do you think your own demand for evidence or the objections you have are just rhetorical, real, or maybe both?

The bible can never be proven to be accurate.  Why?  There are simply too many of them.  There is too much each of those bibles left out.  Why is Mark a better source than the Gospel of Thomas, for example?  Because it was decided politically that one was worth keeping and one was not.  The Bible is totally man-made.

Proof for me would have to be some demonstration that God exists.   I have seen none, nor experienced none.  So, if god does not exist then why should I search out what it is this invisible god wants.  If God is god then that proof should be available and easily seen by all.  But it isn't.  I like to use reasons for what I do, not because of beliefs, for beliefs do not need reasoning.

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 24, 2015, 11:16:01 AM
Why is Mark a better source than the Gospel of Thomas, for example?  Because it was decided politically that one was worth keeping and one was not.  The Bible is totally man-made.

Certainly a valid point in my eyes and one I've used many times before, only to be rebuffed again by believers because the Bible was written by man but inspired by God. Obviously. One of the many pitfalls of trying to use reason to argue against faith I suppose.

Inspired by god: Offer your virgin daughters to be raped by the angry mod outside in order to try and keep said mob from raping the house guest you just met. That god, always a prankster that one.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 07:42:46 AM
Do you think your own demand for evidence or the objections you have are just rhetorical, real, or maybe both?

It is rhetorical because you have no evidence.

If you had evidence, then we wouldn't have to argue whether your god exists, we would just not want to worship the former Canaanite war god. But you don't, so there is no reason to talk to you.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 07:42:46 AM
So I’m reading through this thread (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=7568.0) and being impressed by the honesty expressed.
Virtually everyone essentially said that even if the Bible or the God of the Bible were proven to be true, they would still reject Him. 

Not me, I'd believe in him, assuming of course the evidence held up.  I might not approve of him.  He's a bit too violent and unfair for my tastes.  Now if in fact, he was going to hurt me more than any hurt I can imagine by sending me to Hell, who knows, I might be on my knees kissing his ass, and groveling in the dirt.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 07:42:46 AM
Do you think your own demand for evidence or the objections you have are just rhetorical, real, or maybe both?

Sometimes it's kind of rhetorical, since we know that no one can offer any evidence that doesn't contain logical fallacies.  At other times, it's not rhetorical.  You got proof?  Show us.  The older I get, the more rhetorical in nature it becomes, however.  I've heard the same hallow arguments too many times.  I'm simply not expecting anything new.

So wait, let me get this correct, you work in law enforcement, and in such a field one would expect you to apply evidence to what you do to establish a crime or action against the law.

And yet here you are telling a story with no evidence to back it up and even strawmanning a group of people as your means of personal validation for that lack of evidence.

How interesting, would you like a warm cup of bullshit with your donut?

Quote from: TomFoolery on May 24, 2015, 11:41:07 AM
Certainly a valid point in my eyes and one I've used many times before, only to be rebuffed again by believers because the Bible was written by man but inspired by God. Obviously. One of the many pitfalls of trying to use reason to argue against faith I suppose.

Reason vs faith.  For the faithful, faith always wins.  For the faithless, reason always wins.  But it is much easier to have faith, for then your work is done.  Don't have to think that way.

Also 63 posts but can't be bothered with an introduction page?

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 07:42:46 AM
So I’m reading through this thread (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=7568.0) and being impressed by the honesty expressed.
Virtually everyone essentially said that even if the Bible or the God of the Bible were proven to be true, they would still reject Him.  In one sense, that doesn’t surprise me, since that’s what the Bible predicts.  But in another sense, seeing that level of denial is a bit mind blowing.  But it started me thinking about the demand for evidence and whether or not the demand is real or just rhetorical (i.e. used for mere effect)?

Do you think your own demand for evidence or the objections you have are just rhetorical, real, or maybe both?

Is there evidence that would convince you God is not real, the Bible has no more significance than any other book, prayers have never been heard and there will be no day of reckoning? I think you and some atheists are equally committed to different world views and it becomes very easy to simply dismiss each other as being in denial.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 09:01:48 AM
Don't worry, I'll be doing my fair share of resting in just a couple of hours.  But yeah, I'm in law enforcement.  Not an officer anymore.  I work in the dispatch behind a desk these days.

Oh yeah..I remember that passage..Dispatchers get to work on the Sabbath.. Everyone else burns in H E double dirty Q-tips.. Thanks for reminding us of that one..

Quote from: GSOgymrat on May 24, 2015, 01:29:19 PM
Is there evidence that would convince you God is not real, the Bible has no more significance than any other book, prayers have never been heard and there will be no day of reckoning? I think you and some atheists are equally committed to different world views and it becomes very easy to simply dismiss each other as being in denial.

Good point. There's plennnnnnnty of evidence that all living beings evolved from a common ancestor, yet how many Christians deny that?

Ho hum. Just another drive-by theist who will likely never have the balls to show his face here again.

He's pretty active for a drive by.  I've read like 40,000 of his posts today.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 08:34:13 AM
Okay, but unless you and every other person on the planet who are aware of the choices become Christians, then the freedom still exists. If you didn't have the freedom to choose, then there would be no atheists. 

The premise of this is wrong. You made the assumption that one must make a choice to be xtian or be atheist. In fact, this is not the case.

Everyone is born atheist.

Only through years of indoctrination, years of the same lies repeated ad nauseum,  and years of coercion can a perfectly good atheist be converted to xtianity. Or any of the other wacky religions available to young, gullible minds.

Any educated, intelligent person (who was not indoctinated at an early age) could conclude that Christ never existed.  The story of Jesus is a tale which originated hundreds of years before he purportedly walked the earth. Its just re-do of tales

The fact that not one word was ever written by or about Jesus during the time when he was alive, speaks volumes about the likelihood he ever existed.

Quote from: Johan on May 24, 2015, 02:53:12 PM
Ho hum. Just another drive-by theist who will likely never have the balls to show his face here again.

No, he is not a drive-by.  I thought so at first, but that was dispelled quickly.  His old board died and he found this one.  If we continue to treat him with respect and share our truths with him I think he will stay around.  I find it refreshing that a theist be here.  I do not think he will change my mind about anything, but I like to find out how theists think.  And finding one who does not become outraged by my open questions is very rare indeed.  I, for one, hope he sticks around.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 07:42:46 AM
So I’m reading through this thread (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=7568.0) and being impressed by the honesty expressed.
Virtually everyone essentially said that even if the Bible or the God of the Bible were proven to be true, they would still reject Him.  In one sense, that doesn’t surprise me, since that’s what the Bible predicts.  But in another sense, seeing that level of denial is a bit mind blowing.  But it started me thinking about the demand for evidence and whether or not the demand is real or just rhetorical (i.e. used for mere effect)?

Do you think your own demand for evidence or the objections you have are just rhetorical, real, or maybe both?

Are you robert?

Also. What realm of delusion do you hail from?

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 24, 2015, 05:45:59 PM
No, he is not a drive-by.  I thought so at first, but that was dispelled quickly.  His old board died and he found this one.  If we continue to treat him with respect and share our truths with him I think he will stay around.  I find it refreshing that a theist be here.  I do not think he will change my mind about anything, but I like to find out how theists think.  And finding one who does not become outraged by my open questions is very rare indeed.  I, for one, hope he sticks around.

What kind of board was his old board?  Christian?  Atheist?  I get the impression that he's honestly reporting his perceptions, although misled.

Quote from: SGOS on May 24, 2015, 07:13:22 PM
What kind of board was his old board?  Christian?  Atheist?  I get the impression that he's honestly reporting his perceptions, although misled.

I'm not sure which board it was, but in one of his earlier posts he mentioned that the board was sold or it folded for some reason.  I'm not sure what the nature of that board was.  I agree with your perception of him.  If he is to be believed, and I don't know why not at this point, he as spent quite a bit of time researching his positions.  That is what I find so interesting.  I too have spent a good deal of time researching the bible and christianity and it has led me to the opposite conclusions than he.  He seems intelligent and thoughtful, so far.  I'm interested in finding out the points on which we really disagree; points where he and I go in opposite directions. 

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 07:42:46 AM
So I’m reading through this thread (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=7568.0) and being impressed by the honesty expressed.
Virtually everyone essentially said that even if the Bible or the God of the Bible were proven to be true, they would still reject Him.  In one sense, that doesn’t surprise me, since that’s what the Bible predicts.  But in another sense, seeing that level of denial is a bit mind blowing.  But it started me thinking about the demand for evidence and whether or not the demand is real or just rhetorical (i.e. used for mere effect)?

Do you think your own demand for evidence or the objections you have are just rhetorical, real, or maybe both?

  I think you don't understand concepts that are outside of your experience.

  First lets go back the original question

  How would it affect your atheism?

   Atheism is a lack of belief, in my case it's due to lack of evidence, and nothing more.

How would you reconcile yourself to embracing the need to worship him, :worship:  to denying your atheism?

  It is never explained why the need to worship him ? Is he a dictator ???

  I said I wouldn't like it, why ? because the God in the bible is not a moral being, that is why.

  Now, if the characterization of God as is described in the bible turns out to be completely wrong, then who knows. Ill give her a chance.

 

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 08:30:15 AM
You're correct.  If you possess the trust (i.e. faith), then you don't necessarily need evidence.  But a lot of people like to have a reason or some evidence as to why their trust (i.e. faith) will be well placed.  Faith = Trust.  Faith doesn't = Blind Leap.

No, actually, faith in the religious sense is a blind leap.  It's the point at which one says, "Okay, despite the inability to prove this, I'm going to believe in it anyway."  In fact, this is why philosopher Søren Kiergegaard refers to it as a 'leap to faith' (not 'of' -- this is a common misquote).

You're conflating the theological and colloquial uses of the word 'faith' here.  When I submit my time card tonight, I can say that I have faith that my supervisor will process it before payroll closes on Wednesday, but that has nothing to do with anything supernatural, or even just unevidenced.  I trust her to do her job, because I know from long history that she does, and nothing magical has to happen here.  So in it colloquial use, yes, faith = trust, and trust can be and is based on evidence and observation.  In the theological sense, it is of necessity a blind leap because demonstrability and evidence have run out.

Quote from: Sal1981 on May 24, 2015, 10:24:57 AM
If I was living in the Amazonian rain forest and never heard of your particular interpretation of your particular denomination, would I still go to Hell, even if I was a good person?

I could give a simple answer, but since you've uncovered at least two issues, I'll take some time to explain it.  First, you say, "If I was a good person?"  The simple fact is, there are no truly good people, as all human beings violate the moral law.  There is not a single human being that does not freely violate the moral law, and so there is not a single human being on the planet who has ever existed that could actually be considered "a good person."

Second, you ask, "would I still go to Hell...?"  To understand this question, let me give a little illustration.  Suppose I'm walking in some big city downtown, and I come across 10 homeless people lined up sitting on the ground against the wall where they tend to sleep.  So a feeling of compassion comes over me, and I look into my wallet.  I have debit cards, credit cards, and a couple of bills.  I have a $100 dollar bill and a $20 dollar bill.  I'm feeling pretty compassionate, so I walk over and give the one guy who's not sleeping and is looking at me that $100 dollar bill.  I keep my $20, but I give him the $100 and walk away.  So after I do that, should I be lauded for my generosity and compassion that I had on the one guy, or should I be attacked and derided for not helping the other 9 people who were down on their luck?  In other words, if I freely decide to help one person, does that mean I'm somehow obligated to help them all?  Think carefully before you answer that.  Lots of people and organizations help people, and none of them help them all, even when they could make choices to help more than they do.  Does that mean that they are doing something wrong?

The answer should be obvious.  Because God has decided to offer a pardon to some does not mean that He must offer a pardon to all.  In fact, He's not obligated to offer a pardon to any.  And given that every single human being has committed crimes against Him hundreds, thousands, or millions of times over, He would be fully justified in simply punishing His creation for those crimes.  Instead, He's chosen to have compassion on us and offer a way out for those who respond to His act of grace, but most people will reject His offer.  So should He be blamed for guilty people going to Hell who either haven't heard or have rejected His offer of pardon when He wasn't obligated to make such an offer in the first place?  No.

So yes, most people who haven't heard will likely end up paying for their crimes, as will most people who have heard of God's offer of pardon and chosen to reject it.  However, God is light and gives us light.  And if we respond to the light we've been given, He will give us more light.  What I mean by that is that it's possible that God will have chosen to show compassion on those few to whom God has given light but who haven't specifically heard of Christ.  However, if that does occur, they will still be saved by the sacrifice of Christ, and no one can tell you for sure that such a thing will occur.  All I can say is that it's at least possible, should God make that choice.

I hope that answers your question.

Quote from: aitm on May 24, 2015, 10:29:02 AM
tell that to a poor little virgin girl……..liar

He did not force Himself upon Mary.  She was a willing participant.  In addition, that comment was meant in terms of normative expectation, not special circumstance.

Quote from: Mermaid on May 24, 2015, 10:33:58 AM
I would not say that. I am all about empirical evidence. The wheels fall off when you put words in peoples' mouths.

If you wouldn't say that, then I obviously wasn't referring to you.  Also, not everyone did say that.  It's just that nearly everyone said it.  So the wheels are still on.

Quote from: Aletheia on May 24, 2015, 10:49:17 AM

If you were presented with empirical evidence that Hitler was your supreme ruler and wielded god-like powers, would you accept him as your lord or would you reject him?

Many atheists have no problem accepting the existence of a god if empirical evidence is provided, but believing in the existence of a being doesn't mean we choose to follow it or accept its law without defiance - especially if we perceive such a being as inconsistent, detrimental to human life, cruel, and ruthlessly unfair.

Please put away your straw man. Atheists don't have a problem with accepting the existence of a god (assuming there's evidence to substantiate the claim) - we have a problem accepting a morally bankrupt god as being worthy of following.

That's somewhat like asking me if I'd like to see a one-ended stick.  I'm not tempted to want to see such a thing because such a thing couldn't be.  In order for the evidence you suggest to be given, the very God you're saying Hitler might be revealed to be wouldn't actually exist at all.  God would have to violate His nature in order to reveal such a thing, so I'd already know that such a thing, by logic &  nature, simply couldn't happen.  I understand the point of your question, but the logic of the question doesn't allow for it to be answered in the affirmative.  It's self-stultifying.

I suspect that you're saying something to effect of, "I see your God in a similar fashion as I do Adolf Hitler in that I'm morally repulsed by Him and His behavior.  And you expect me to believe in that just because it's proven that He does in fact exist?"

Is that something akin to the point you're trying to get across?  I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth.

Assuming that's the kind of thing you meant, I would answer it this way.  You have a misapprehension of God and His actions.  It would be somewhat akin to reacting to Mother Teresa as if she were Adolf Hitler even though their actions were totally different.  It would be as if the following were true:

Life spent sacrificially helping the poor and needy = Moral revulsion and horror (Your misapprehension of God and His actions)
Life spent directing subjugatory military conflict and systematically murdering people on a racial basis = Deep admiration (Your misapprehension of Christian views)

There is no straw man.  If you read the thread, I was reacting to honest answers given, in which various atheist say that if the God of the Bible and what it records were proven true, they still would choose to reject Him.  The way it's set up, it doesn't give you the option of inserting or asserting something different.  In other words, if you're talking about ruthlessness, cruelty, genocidal, etc... then you wouldn't be referring to the God Christians worship.  You'd only be referring to your own misapprehension of that God, and that's not what the original thread said.

In other words, the thread didn't ask how'd you respond if a ruthless, cruel, and genocidal God were proven true.  It didn't say, what if the atheist's conception of the Christian God were proven true.  It was specifically about the Christian God being proven true, which means in the way that Christians understand Him.  So it really doesn't leave you the room to redefine the thought experiment in such a way that it would allow you to smuggle in your rationalization used to reject the Christian God.

Quote from: Johan on May 24, 2015, 11:07:24 AM
The big guy takes a dim view of that sort of thing from what I understand so see you in hell sinner. Or have you cherry picked that part out of your particular version of god likes and dislikes?

Well, no actually.  Since we're not saved by works for by observing the Sabbath, I'm not worried about going to Hell for the reason you suggest.

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 24, 2015, 11:16:01 AM
The bible can never be proven to be accurate.  Why?  There are simply too many of them.  There is too much each of those bibles left out.  Why is Mark a better source than the Gospel of Thomas, for example?  Because it was decided politically that one was worth keeping and one was not.  The Bible is totally man-made.

Proof for me would have to be some demonstration that God exists.   I have seen none, nor experienced none.  So, if god does not exist then why should I search out what it is this invisible god wants.  If God is god then that proof should be available and easily seen by all.  But it isn't.  I like to use reasons for what I do, not because of beliefs, for beliefs do not need reasoning.

It sounds like you’ve been reading Elaine Pagels, Bart Ehrman, and others.  No offense intended, but what you’re saying suggests to me a very limited knowledge of Canonicity itself.  It also suggests that you’re not generally familiar with the manuscript evidence for the scriptures spread across three continents, contemporaneous with each other, and exceedingly early when compared with other works of antiquity.  Pages and pages could be said about, but I’ll address the less complicated issue and point you to resources for the other.  Before I get into that, let me just say that I certainly don’t mind if someone reads Pagels, the Jesus Seminar, Ehrman, and others, but you’re also going to have to read mainstream scholarship as well.  The reason that all of those I’ve just mentioned are somewhat famous is because they are seen as saying something new, edgy, and irreverent.  When one has just a broad knowledge of the topic, not even that deep, you discover that it has virtually nothing to do with the quality and veracity of their scholarship.

Okay, with regard to the idea that there are too many of them, I think not.  There are so many manuscripts from across the world available, that you can actually use the various traditions to check on the others to see if things have been changed.  In addition, you can read the words of the early church fathers, often called the Patristic Fathers, and reconstruct nearly the entire New Testament just from quotes in their own writing.  And the broader point that I’m making is that there are multiple ways in which you can test and cross-check the various texts to see if there are any variations.  And the fact of the matter is that there are very few.  Those that are of any minor significance are usually notated in every Bible, and they include things like the long ending of Mark and the woman at the well in John, Chapter 8.  However, none of those variations touch on any core Christian doctrine and could therefore be completely removed without changing anything about Christianity.  The rest of the variations have to do with punctuation and spelling changes or errors, not genuine corruptions of the text itself.  There is more historical attestation for the Bible than for any other document of antiquity and this attestation is greater by orders of magnitude.  Also, there have been more discoveries just in the last 15 or 20 years that are providing still more attestation.  I would point you toward the following books on the topic.  Feel free to read them alongside those that agree with the points of view you hold now.

The Canon of Scripture by F. F. Bruce

The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate by Michael J. Kruger

Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books by Michael J. Kruger

The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity by Andreas J. Köstenberger

Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence (Text and Canon of the New Testament) by Daniel B. Wallace

Can We Still Believe the Bible?: An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions by Craig L. Blomberg

Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels by Craig A. Evans

Reinventing Jesus Paperback: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss The Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture by J. Ed Komoszewski

The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities by Darrell L. Bock

Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way by Philip Jenkins

The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? by Walter C. Kaiser Jr.

Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times by Paul Barnett

I hope that’s helpful.  A huge amount of detail could be gone into on this topic.  If you’re interested, those versions that come closest to a word-for-word translation of the text are the New American Standard Bible (NASB) and the English Standard Version (ESV).  You can always get a side-by-side treatment of both and see if they are actually saying different things.  I think that you will find, they are not.

Quote from: the_antithesis on May 24, 2015, 12:24:54 PM
It is rhetorical because you have no evidence.

If you had evidence, then we wouldn't have to argue whether your god exists, we would just not want to worship the former Canaanite war god. But you don't, so there is no reason to talk to you.

If it's rhetorical, then you wouldn't be interested in evidence in the first place.  It's not because none exists.  And sure we'd be arguing, even if there were evidence.  That's the entire point of the threat.  If the God of Christianity and the Bible were proven completely true, most of the atheists in that thread indicated that they still would reject Him.  In other words, they were admitting that evidence didn't matter, and even if evidence existed, they would still reject Him.  In short, they were admitting to a mass campaign of denial or otherwise suppression of the truth (Rom 1 & 2).

Quote from: SGOS on May 24, 2015, 07:13:22 PM
What kind of board was his old board?  Christian?  Atheist?  I get the impression that he's honestly reporting his perceptions, although misled.

It was called DifferHonestly.  The operator used the screen name "spblat".  Mostly it was atheists.  There was one other theist, a Pastor, who frequented the place.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 25, 2015, 04:52:04 AM
You have a misapprehension of God and His actions.

You use this phrase or one very much like it a lot.  Many of us -- myself included -- were raised in one flavor or another of Christianity.  Those of us who were are versed, to one degree or another, in Christian mythology, Christian apologetics, and various Christian views of what their god is like.

How do you know -- and by know, I very much mean 'I can demonstrate objectively' rather than 'I really really believe' -- that you're not the one with a misapprehension?  Never mind other religions, or those with no religion -- there are over 40,000 different denominations just of Christianity.  Even Christians can't agree among themselves on the nature of god, of Jeshua bar-Joseph (assuming he even existed in the first place) -- heck, even over whether you should cross yourself right-to-left or left-to-right.  That doesn't suggest truth, revealed or otherwise.  So the question of authority and demonstrability is now very important, as you're speaking in pronouncements and conclusions rather than in the give-and-take of debate.

I don't question your faith.  I'm sure you genuinely believe.  But belief just isn't good enough for me and I expect it isn't for many (most?) others here, and 'I/the Bible/god said so' is not sufficient authority to compel belief.  This is what we call an extraordinary claim: that there is a divine authority behind all of physical reality whose existence defies objective demonstration.  As has been said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  I'm not even sure how you could differentiate between an alleged miracle, and the action of an extremely advanced alien intelligence -- Clarke's Law applies here, too.  If any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, any sufficiently advanced (technology-using but biologically evolved and otherwise perfectly material and natural) alien is indistinguishable from a magic-worker.

I want to remind you that the bible is not evidence, not any more than 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' is evidence that there's a school of magic up in Scotland.  There are a few events therein that are confirmed by outside sources, for example the Babylonian exile, but there are many more that are not, and many that are demonstrably factually inaccurate, and many that are mutually exclusive -- they cannot both be true.  You may choose to accept it, but that does not compel its acceptance as valid to anyone else.

Fundamentally, you are speaking mysticism to rationalists.  Carl Sagan wrote a short essay called The Dragon in my Garage (http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm).  I don't ask you to read it in the hope that you'll change your beliefs.  I ask you to read it in order to understand the rationalist/skeptical minds that you're trying to communicate with here -- as far as I'm concerned, you're claiming there's a dragon in your garage, and I begin to suspect that you really don't understand why you're not getting anywhere by just repeating the claim or adding another special case.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 25, 2015, 04:18:58 AM
The simple fact is, there are no truly good people

And cops wonder why so many people think they're assholes.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 25, 2015, 04:52:04 AM
That's somewhat like asking me if I'd like to see a one-ended stick.  I'm not tempted to want to see such a thing because such a thing couldn't be.  In order for the evidence you suggest to be given, the very God you're saying Hitler might be revealed to be wouldn't actually exist at all.  God would have to violate His nature in order to reveal such a thing, so I'd already know that such a thing, by logic &  nature, simply couldn't happen.  I understand the point of your question, but the logic of the question doesn't allow for it to be answered in the affirmative.  It's self-stultifying.

No, that's like asking you if you would worship an evil deity whose existence has been empirically proven. Of course the question doesn't allow you to answer in the affirmative - because the only way you can is if you agree to worship an evil deity. The rest of this paragraph is you trying to distance yourself from this fact.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 25, 2015, 04:52:04 AM
I suspect that you're saying something to effect of, "I see your God in a similar fashion as I do Adolf Hitler in that I'm morally repulsed by Him and His behavior.  And you expect me to believe in that just because it's proven that He does in fact exist?"

Is that something akin to the point you're trying to get across?  I certainly don't want to put words in your mouth.

No, I am not saying something to that effect.

If you don't want to put words in people's mouths then the first step is to stop engaging in the act.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 25, 2015, 04:52:04 AM
Assuming that's the kind of thing you meant, I would answer it this way.  You have a misapprehension of God and His actions.  It would be somewhat akin to reacting to Mother Teresa as if she were Adolf Hitler even though their actions were totally different. 

Assuming that's what I meant = strawman. You are no longer in discussion about the topic at hand. This changes the dialogue to a monologue.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 25, 2015, 04:52:04 AM
It would be as if the following were true:

Life spent sacrificially helping the poor and needy = Moral revulsion and horror (Your misapprehension of God and His actions)
Life spent directing subjugatory military conflict and systematically murdering people on a racial basis = Deep admiration (Your misapprehension of Christian views)

Sigh... you've ran off on quite the tangent. When you've finished sightseeing, I'll welcome you back to the discussion at hand.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 25, 2015, 04:52:04 AM
There is no straw man.  If you read the thread, I was reacting to honest answers given, in which various atheist say that if the God of the Bible and what it records were proven true, they still would choose to reject Him.  The way it's set up, it doesn't give you the option of inserting or asserting something different.  In other words, if you're talking about ruthlessness, cruelty, genocidal, etc... then you wouldn't be referring to the God Christians worship.  You'd only be referring to your own misapprehension of that God, and that's not what the original thread said.

Many of your posts are replete with straw man fallacies - including this one. For a thread about honesty, you have remained somewhat inconsistent.

As the atheists here have mentioned - belief in a deity does not mean we accept the deity as worthy of worship. You can believe that Hitler existed but reject him as a ruler worthy of worship.

"Ruthlessness, cruelty, and genocide" are the characteristics of the god Christians worship. A morally good deity would never have these traits. The only one with a misapprehension of the Christian god is you.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 25, 2015, 04:52:04 AM
In other words, the thread didn't ask how'd you respond if a ruthless, cruel, and genocidal God were proven true.  It didn't say, what if the atheist's conception of the Christian God were proven true.  It was specifically about the Christian God being proven true, which means in the way that Christians understand Him.  So it really doesn't leave you the room to redefine the thought experiment in such a way that it would allow you to smuggle in your rationalization used to reject the Christian God.

You referred to the "Christian God" which is as described in the Bible is a ruthless, cruel, and genocidal being who occasionally does benevolent acts - like killing his son in order to forgive mankind. Even his most kind act had to involve torture and death. This.  is not a deity worthy of worship and therefore would be rejected.

The only one redefining the "Christian God," is you. What you have in mind is not what your Bible describes.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 25, 2015, 05:53:58 AM
If it's rhetorical, then you wouldn't be interested in evidence in the first place.  It's not because none exists.  And sure we'd be arguing, even if there were evidence.  That's the entire point of the threat.  If the God of Christianity and the Bible were proven completely true, most of the atheists in that thread indicated that they still would reject Him.  In other words, they were admitting that evidence didn't matter, and even if evidence existed, they would still reject Him.  In short, they were admitting to a mass campaign of denial or otherwise suppression of the truth (Rom 1 & 2).

The fact that most atheists would reject God were he proven real is no more to the point than the fact that most Jews reject Nazi ideology.

Quote from: aitm on May 24, 2015, 08:05:41 AM
Yep, the god of the babble is not worthy of being worshipped. He is worthy of the utmost distain and hatred.

In fact he is probably the most unsavory character in all of literature.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 25, 2015, 04:18:58 AM
I could give a simple answer, but since you've uncovered at least two issues, I'll take some time to explain it.  First, you say, "If I was a good person?"  The simple fact is, there are no truly good people, as all human beings violate the moral law.  There is not a single human being that does not freely violate the moral law, and so there is not a single human being on the planet who has ever existed that could actually be considered "a good person."

This is the same level of false attribution that Kirk Cameron does with 'one lie = always a liar' hoopla.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 25, 2015, 04:18:58 AMSecond, you ask, "would I still go to Hell...?"  To understand this question, let me give a little illustration.  Suppose I'm walking in some big city downtown, and I come across 10 homeless people lined up sitting on the ground against the wall where they tend to sleep.  So a feeling of compassion comes over me, and I look into my wallet.  I have debit cards, credit cards, and a couple of bills.  I have a $100 dollar bill and a $20 dollar bill.  I'm feeling pretty compassionate, so I walk over and give the one guy who's not sleeping and is looking at me that $100 dollar bill.  I keep my $20, but I give him the $100 and walk away.  So after I do that, should I be lauded for my generosity and compassion that I had on the one guy, or should I be attacked and derided for not helping the other 9 people who were down on their luck?  In other words, if I freely decide to help one person, does that mean I'm somehow obligated to help them all?  Think carefully before you answer that.  Lots of people and organizations help people, and none of them help them all, even when they could make choices to help more than they do.  Does that mean that they are doing something wrong?

You're not 'obliged' to do squat. I think this just illustrates, quite glaringly so too, what sort of demented moral quality the Christian deity has, even with some obtuse moral lecture on money allocation.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 25, 2015, 04:18:58 AMThe answer should be obvious.  Because God has decided to offer a pardon to some does not mean that He must offer a pardon to all.  In fact, He's not obligated to offer a pardon to any.  And given that every single human being has committed crimes against Him hundreds, thousands, or millions of times over, He would be fully justified in simply punishing His creation for those crimes.  Instead, He's chosen to have compassion on us and offer a way out for those who respond to His act of grace, but most people will reject His offer.  So should He be blamed for guilty people going to Hell who either haven't heard or have rejected His offer of pardon when He wasn't obligated to make such an offer in the first place?  No.

This is akin to saying "because my kids are my kids, I can do whatever the hell I want with them". The latter part misses the point - they have never heard of the god in question, so they would neither dismiss or worship it. This is the whole reason why there are missionaries in the first place.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 25, 2015, 04:18:58 AMSo yes, most people who haven't heard will likely end up paying for their crimes, as will most people who have heard of God's offer of pardon and chosen to reject it.  However, God is light and gives us light.  And if we respond to the light we've been given, He will give us more light.  What I mean by that is that it's possible that God will have chosen to show compassion on those few to whom God has given light but who haven't specifically heard of Christ.  However, if that does occur, they will still be saved by the sacrifice of Christ, and no one can tell you for sure that such a thing will occur.  All I can say is that it's at least possible, should God make that choice.

What grand nonsense.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 25, 2015, 04:18:58 AMI hope that answers your question.

Not in the slightest.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 25, 2015, 05:38:39 AM
It sounds like you’ve been reading Elaine Pagels, Bart Ehrman, and others.  No offense intended, but what you’re saying suggests to me a very limited knowledge of Canonicity itself.  It also suggests that you’re not generally familiar with the manuscript evidence for the scriptures spread across three continents, contemporaneous with each other, and exceedingly early when compared with other works of antiquity.  Pages and pages could be said about, but I’ll address the less complicated issue and point you to resources for the other.  Before I get into that, let me just say that I certainly don’t mind if someone reads Pagels, the Jesus Seminar, Ehrman, and others, but you’re also going to have to read mainstream scholarship as well.  The reason that all of those I’ve just mentioned are somewhat famous is because they are seen as saying something new, edgy, and irreverent.  When one has just a broad knowledge of the topic, not even that deep, you discover that it has virtually nothing to do with the quality and veracity of their scholarship.

Okay, with regard to the idea that there are too many of them, I think not.  There are so many manuscripts from across the world available, that you can actually use the various traditions to check on the others to see if things have been changed.  In addition, you can read the words of the early church fathers, often called the Patristic Fathers, and reconstruct nearly the entire New Testament just from quotes in their own writing.  And the broader point that I’m making is that there are multiple ways in which you can test and cross-check the various texts to see if there are any variations.  And the fact of the matter is that there are very few.  Those that are of any minor significance are usually notated in every Bible, and they include things like the long ending of Mark and the woman at the well in John, Chapter 8.  However, none of those variations touch on any core Christian doctrine and could therefore be completely removed without changing anything about Christianity.  The rest of the variations have to do with punctuation and spelling changes or errors, not genuine corruptions of the text itself.  There is more historical attestation for the Bible than for any other document of antiquity and this attestation is greater by orders of magnitude.  Also, there have been more discoveries just in the last 15 or 20 years that are providing still more attestation.  I would point you toward the following books on the topic.  Feel free to read them alongside those that agree with the points of view you hold now.

The Canon of Scripture by F. F. Bruce

The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate by Michael J. Kruger

Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books by Michael J. Kruger

The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity by Andreas J. Köstenberger

Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence (Text and Canon of the New Testament) by Daniel B. Wallace

Can We Still Believe the Bible?: An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions by Craig L. Blomberg

Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels by Craig A. Evans

Reinventing Jesus Paperback: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss The Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture by J. Ed Komoszewski

The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities by Darrell L. Bock

Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way by Philip Jenkins

The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? by Walter C. Kaiser Jr.

Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times by Paul Barnett

I hope that’s helpful.  A huge amount of detail could be gone into on this topic.  If you’re interested, those versions that come closest to a word-for-word translation of the text are the New American Standard Bible (NASB) and the English Standard Version (ESV).  You can always get a side-by-side treatment of both and see if they are actually saying different things.  I think that you will find, they are not.

This post is to just list some of my personal library, which is not the sum total of all that I've read.  This is about 25% of my personal religious library:
The Making of the NT--Arthur G. Potzia
The NT--Duling and Perrin #3rd ed.  I was told this was used in many seminaries.
The Canon of Scripture--FF Bruce
NT Fundamentals--Stevan Davies
Who Wrote the Bible--Richard Elliott Friedmann
In the Beginning--Alister McGrath
Who Wrote the NT--Burton L. Mack
The Lost Gospel Q--Burton L. Mack
The Five Gospels--Funk, Hoover and Jesus Seminar
What the Bible Really Says--Manfred Barthel
Jesus and the Essenes--Dolores Cannon
The Birth of Christianity--John Dominic Crossan
Jesus Christ the Sun of God--David Fideler
Intro To NT Textual Criticism--J.Harold Greenlee
And a great, great web site--TC:A Journal of Biblical Criticism.

This is not all that I have read, nor will read.  It is just a smattering to show you that I do like to look at this from many different angles. 

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 25, 2015, 05:53:58 AM
In other words, they were admitting that evidence didn't matter, and even if evidence existed, they would still reject Him.  In short, they were admitting to a mass campaign of denial or otherwise suppression of the truth (Rom 1 & 2).

Um.. no.

Most atheists are swayed by evidence. If there is a substantial amount of evindence proving a god, then we would accept it... but as we search for god, the facts and evidence point more and more away from proving the claims of the bible and more towards there being no room for the judeo-christian god at all in reality.

Are you here to ask questions, btw? or assert your fact-less beliefs on to us?

The thing I love most about such well thought out rhetoric like our friend here, is how much it serves as the further push people need to stepping out that door and into the rational world, while they remain behind rambling in the padded cell of their belief.

Quote from: Munch on May 25, 2015, 02:02:04 PM
The thing I love most about such well thought out rhetoric like our friend here, is how much it serves as the further push people need to stepping out that door and into the rational world, while they remain behind rambling in the padded cell of their belief.

Our friend here does offer insight into how indoctrination into an extensive and well-organized cult can disengage a person from their empathy and logic while substituting in their place denial and hypocrisy.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 25, 2015, 04:52:04 AM
  God would have to violate His nature in order to reveal such a thing, so I'd already know that such a thing, by logic &  nature, simply couldn't happen.  I understand the point of your question, but the logic of the question doesn't allow for it to be answered in the affirmative.

You know, I feel such a pity for you, a real sorrow for how you have rationalized this to the point of absurdity.

If your car would not start tomorrow, your knowledge and logic along with common sense easily help you identify ready such causes. If the engine doesn't run over, logic suggests the battery is dead, if the engine turns over and occasionally fires but dies, perhaps it is as simple as no gas,,, or a problem with the carburetor, if it clicks real loud the starter is most likely out….you have learned all this and you willingly and knowingly use common sense and logic to help you find the problem. But when it comes to something that you have a invested cost in, a real invested cost, time, emotion and the added problem of ego and embarrassment, you choose not just to deny logic, but to reject it so your ego cannot be embarrassed by logic. That you could be wrong so embarrasses you what with all the emotion and energy that you have gone through to deny logic and affirm your beliefs must be a terrifying thing. Your mind deep inside knows you are wrong but yet you continue to reject the obvious because to now, come out of the closet, would to admit that you were duped. I feel sorry for you… a real pity for you.

Quote from: Aletheia on May 25, 2015, 02:17:05 PM
Our friend here does offer insight into how indoctrination into an extensive and well-organized cult can disengage a person from their empathy and logic while substituting in their place denial and hypocrisy.

Yes!  And a HUGE tie to a particular worldview--a tie that would amount to a repudiation of self.  To change a worldview that deeply ingrained would be almost impossible. 

If i should speak about being muslim, there will be no difference between me and religious people. Because when you look at those people, you could see that all of them do the things that religion doesnt let them to do. Many of them stole, many of them liar, many of them wear trending clothes, many of them eat too much and they are not healthy. And i feel better than those people because i am good person but not for god just for humanity. i am not selfish and i dont do favors for heaven i just do that because i want to be like that. i deserve to be forgiven because i was a good person at all and i dont need any reason.

Dont make it complicated. Its just simple haha.

Quote from: eylul on May 25, 2015, 06:30:18 PM
If i should speak about being muslim, there will be no difference between me and religious people. Because when you look at those people, you could see that all of them do the things that religion doesnt let them to do. Many of them stole, many of them liar, many of them wear trending clothes, many of them eat too much and they are not healthy. And i feel better than those people because i am good person but not for god just for humanity. i am not selfish and i dont do favors for heaven i just do that because i want to be like that. i deserve to be forgiven because i was a good person at all and i dont need any reason.

Dont make it complicated. Its just simple haha.

Welcome, eylul--and I forgive you.  :)) I think a lot like that.  And there is no need to seek forgiveness from anyone, except yourself.  If you have done something that needs to be forgiven, then undo it as best you can, forgive yourself and move on. 

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 07:49:51 AM
He doesn't.  If He did, you'd be worshipping.

Biblical literalism isn't for you, then?

Quote from: TomFoolery on May 24, 2015, 08:36:30 AM
It's Sunday, shouldn't you be in church or something? Or do you troll atheist forums to stock up on Jesus points for the week?

lol

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 08:41:57 AM
I should be, but unfortunately, I have to work.  The upside is that I get to post here in between making events, running plates, etc...  Sunday is a pretty slow day for law enforcement, at least where I am.  Besides, I can livestream my Pastor's sermon at 11am anyway.

Don't tell me you've been gathering sticks on the Sabbath.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 07:49:51 AM
He doesn't.  If He did, you'd be worshipping.

Explain this, then....

Quote"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:" (Exodus 34:14-16)

Quoteodoital778412:

He doesn't.  If He did, you'd be worshipping.

Quote from: 1liesalot on May 25, 2015, 11:28:27 PM
Explain this, then....

Quote1liesalot:

"For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:" (Exodus 34:14-16)

I'm not sure what you're wanting me to explain exactly.  It seems entirely clear to me that nothing I said is refuted for violated by what you've cited.  God's sovereign will is what He requires.  In other words, if it were His sovereign will that all humans would worship Him, then all humans would worship Him.  Unfortunately though, human beings would cease to be free creatures in that case, as they would simply be unable to violate the sovereign will of God.  However, God's moral will, which is what you've cited, is what God desires to have happen but often does not.  In other words, God's moral will can be and is routinely violated.  The fact that God has shared His moral will with humanity does not mean that He has somehow required you or anyone else to do it.  He's simply told you that this is what you "should do" not "must do".  If it were otherwise, you'd be worshiping that jealous God right now.

I would also point out that what you've cited is God declaring His moral will with respect to the worship of other Gods, not explicitly the worship of Him, though that is certainly implied.  But in any case, it falls within the realm of His moral will, which can be contravened and is actually the basis upon which Christ was sent to provide payment for our violation of God's law (i.e. crimes against Him).

I would suggest taking time to really reflect on these issues.  One of the things that I find when I interact with atheists is that they've really not looked into these issues in any detail, and if they have, it's only been by way of an echo-chamber.  If you want what you might perceive as the nonsense beliefs of theists or Christians addressed, you're better off trying to look at scholarly Christian materials for answers to the questions you have.  Most Christians, unfortunately, will not be able to answer every single objection a person might have, but Christianity has a long history and there are very few objections that haven't been dealt with, often many times over and by many people, within Christendom over the centuries.  I hope that helps.

Quote from: Termin on May 24, 2015, 08:04:57 PM
  I think you don't understand concepts that are outside of your experience.

I suppose that’s at least possible.  I guess we’ll see.

Quote from: Termin on May 24, 2015, 08:04:57 PM
  First lets go back the original question

  How would it affect your atheism?

   Atheism is a lack of belief, in my case it's due to lack of evidence, and nothing more.

On this, we disagree.  The actual meaning of atheism is 'alpha (neg) theos (God) = No God.  As a result, if you are going by the actual meaning of the word then atheism is the affirmation of an absolute negative or of there being “No God”.  Since atheism, as a movement, was confronted with the problem in logic of attempting to affirm a universal negative, they've tried to define themselves back into agnosticism while still retaining the term atheism.  Of course, agnosticism isn't all that hard to demonstrate, at least on the surface, as you need only show that you don't know that there is a God.  In any case, whether one is affirming that no God exists, or you’re saying that no evidence for a God exists; it’s still two sides of the very same coin.  If you really think atheism is merely a lack of belief, it turns all of the books by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens into absurdities.  Whoever heard of writing volumes and volumes of material on the lack of a belief?  The fact of the matter is that these men have many many beliefs, and they all just happen to support the following notions:

1) There is no evidence for God
2) The evidence for God is bad or unconvincing
3) The God that is NOT there is a terrible one not worthy of the God moniker

None of that seems to come from a mere lack of belief.  They are clearly trying to affirm the non-existence of God.  Merely lacking a particular belief shouldn't motivate the writing of hundreds or thousands of books regarding its absence.  There’s something else going on, and I would invite you to reflect on the atheist’s project and re-evaluate how you might describe it.

Quote from: Termin on May 24, 2015, 08:04:57 PM
How would you reconcile yourself to embracing the need to worship him, :worship:  to denying your atheism?

  It is never explained why the need to worship him?  Is he a dictator???

I’m not sure that this is the appropriate question.  With the knowledge of God being an incommensurable good, His being the source of your very existence, the promise of your existence after this physical life, the offerer of a pardon for your crimes by way of personal self-sacrifice, and the only perfect being; why would you not worship Him?

His is not a dictator, or you would be worshiping Him now.  The fact that you are not answers that question for you.  If you are to give Him your worship and love, He desires it only by way of your freedom.  If you are not free, then your worship and love are utterly meaningless.

Quote from: Termin on May 24, 2015, 08:04:57 PMI said I wouldn't like it, why ? because the God in the bible is not a moral being, that is why.

  Now, if the characterization of God as is described in the bible turns out to be completely wrong, then who knows. Ill give her a chance.

Is He not moral because you are holding Him to standards of human prerogative and authority rather than those prerogatives and authorities that would rightly belong to the creator of all that has ever come into existence and upon which all contingent things depend?  If so, then He is perceived as not being moral on the basis of your misunderstanding.  If you have questions about that, we can certainly talk about it, though I’ve addressed it considerably in other threads.

Quoteodoital778412You have a misapprehension of God and His actions.

Quote from: trdsf on May 25, 2015, 07:24:56 AM
You use this phrase or one very much like it a lot.  Many of us -- myself included -- were raised in one flavor or another of Christianity.  Those of us who were are versed, to one degree or another, in Christian mythology, Christian apologetics, and various Christian views of what their god is like.

These kinds of things might be true, but I have found that they are most often not true.  Most often, I find that the atheist has trouble even addressing questions of Christianity without being unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive.  For example, your use of the world “mythology” instead of “theology”.  It wasn’t necessary, but somehow the disdain you have for the beliefs I hold had to be included in your words.  I wonder if you think that helps to facilitate discussion or shut it down?  In addition, I have found that some experience in churches or groups that call themselves Christian is relatively common, but most of that even is fairly limited.  In addition, it’s almost never the case, regardless of the church one attends, that the kinds of questions and objections one my get from an atheist are actually well and fully addressed in any particular church.  It’s very rare.  So experience in going to church or being involved in church isn’t necessarily any measure of ones deeper understanding of Christianity, such that the kinds of objections and questions atheists might have are answered.  And I have occasionally run into an atheist who is superficially familiar with one or more apologists or have looked at one or more books.  However, more often, when I’ve engaged atheists in ongoing discussions, what turns out to be the case is that they’re more familiar with an atheist (usually on-line) who’s written extensive rebuttals or reviews of particular apologists or their work.  In other words, it’s more often the case that the atheist would like me to believe that they are familiar with everything I have to say and so, are impervious to any measly arguments or evidence that a lowly ignorant Christian might want to give.  I don’t know if this is true of you or not, but that has been my experience.

Quote from: trdsf on May 25, 2015, 07:24:56 AMHow do you know -- and by know, I very much mean 'I can demonstrate objectively' rather than 'I really really believe' -- that you're not the one with a misapprehension?  Never mind other religions, or those with no religion -- there are over 40,000 different denominations just of Christianity.  Even Christians can't agree among themselves on the nature of god, of Jeshua bar-Joseph (assuming he even existed in the first place) -- heck, even over whether you should cross yourself right-to-left or left-to-right.  That doesn't suggest truth, revealed or otherwise.  So the question of authority and demonstrability is now very important, as you're speaking in pronouncements and conclusions rather than in the give-and-take of debate.

In one sense, this is a very easy question to answer.  The reason is because I actually know what orthodox Christianity teaches and purports to believe.  When I hear atheists discuss it or put it forward for examination or objection, it is virtually always misconstrued or misrepresented out of ignorance, misunderstanding, or deliberation.  I prefer to think that the misrepresentations are mere mistakes resulting from ignorance or misunderstanding.  Admittedly, I’m letting my bias take over, in that I’m intentionally trying to give atheists the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are not intentionally distorting Christian beliefs so that they can publicly knock them down and give others the impression that they are false, irrational, etc…  So for example, when I hear an atheist say that because God is all-powerful, He can do absolutely anything, I just have to sigh.  I say to them, “Well, that’s not actually true.  The definition of God’s omnipotence is more precise than that.”  Then of course a quotation of their former youth pastor or some other well-meaning Christian is given saying exactly that.  “God being all-powerful means that God can do absolutely anything!”  And of course, you can find well-meaning but probably superficial and somewhat ignorant professing Christians all over the place that will tell you that very same thing and argue with you when you tell them that they’re incorrect.  But because someone professing to be a Christian says something doesn’t mean that the Bible teaches it or that it’s consistent with the historic teachings of Christianity.  In short, there is a difference between the mixed behavior, knowledge, and fervor of the professing Christian population and the actual historic teachings, doctrines, and theology of the Christianity itself.  If you’re going to make judgments, you should generally focus on the latter rather than the former.  Christianity is something in particular that is relatively well defined, but the behavior and beliefs of everyone who likes to slap on that moniker can be pretty whacky and all over the place.  So the point I’m making is that it’s usually pretty easy for me to tell when someone is operating or speaking about Christianity in ways that are at variance with the way Christianity would speak for itself because I’m more familiar, though not an expert, with the teachings, doctrines, and theology of Christianity than the typical atheist.  Most often, the atheist has a relatively superficial understanding or it’s come from a Christian or Christian church’s superficial understanding.  Why would a church have a superficial understanding of its own religion that it claims to be following?  Well, that’s a whole new thread in itself, but usually it’s because the teaching within a church is for a mass audience mixed with believers and unbelievers.  Meaning that it’s kept fairly simple or to one of the lower common denominators for the purposes of consumption and understanding.  A Sunday sermon isn’t typically meant for a seminary class.

Related to this, it’s possible that I might have a misapprehension of atheism, and the atheist is probably in a better position to know that than I would be.  Why?  Because the atheist is probably more familiar with the kinds of things atheists believe than I am, though I am experienced in the area.

Quote from: trdsf on May 25, 2015, 07:24:56 AMI don't question your faith.  I'm sure you genuinely believe.  But belief just isn't good enough for me and I expect it isn't for many (most?) others here, and 'I/the Bible/god said so' is not sufficient authority to compel belief.  This is what we call an extraordinary claim: that there is a divine authority behind all of physical reality whose existence defies objective demonstration.  As has been said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  I'm not even sure how you could differentiate between an alleged miracle, and the action of an extremely advanced alien intelligence -- Clarke's Law applies here, too.  If any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, any sufficiently advanced (technology-using but biologically evolved and otherwise perfectly material and natural) alien is indistinguishable from a magic-worker.

I agree with some of what you’ve said here, but there is one idea that is simply false.  An extraordinary claim requires ADEQUATE evidence, not EXTRAORDINARY evidence.  Really.  Think about that.  Think about all of the things that we might believe, even in the area of science, that we believe by way of adequate evidence rather than what would be considered extraordinary evidence.  It’s almost never the case that you have extraordinary evidence until many years later when you have so many different pieces of evidence that lead you to the same conclusion.  This is a rhetorical trick common to fans of Sagan and various other baloney detecting men of his type, but I think Sagan was the main popularizer of that particular and somewhat deceitful tactic.

Quote from: trdsf on May 25, 2015, 07:24:56 AMI want to remind you that the bible is not evidence, not any more than 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' is evidence that there's a school of magic up in Scotland.  There are a few events therein that are confirmed by outside sources, for example the Babylonian exile, but there are many more that are not, and many that are demonstrably factually inaccurate, and many that are mutually exclusive -- they cannot both be true.  You may choose to accept it, but that does not compel its acceptance as valid to anyone else.

The Bible can be evidence, but it depends on several factors.  One major factor is whether it’s been shown to have been reliably preserved over time.  And the other factor has to do with what is it evidence for?  Is it evidence for what or why Christians believe a certain thing, or is it evidence for God’s existence.  I would argue that it can be both, so long as other criteria have been met prior.  However, if you mean merely quoting the Bible as having some evidential merit with you or an atheist, then I’d agree that it is not and does not.  I think that’s a mistaken view of many well-meaning Christians.  It’s also a view that I do not hold.  Having said that, we disagree on the attestation of the Bible with regard to events like the Babylonian exile.  I would point you to several resources:

Archaeology and the Old Testament by Alfred J. Hoerth
Bible Archaeology: An Exploration of the History and Culture of Early Civilizations by John McRay and Alfred Hoerth
The Popular Handbook of Archaeology and the Bible: Discoveries That Confirm the Reliability of Scripture by James M. Holden and Norman Geisler

I would simply invite you to look into the issue more, not for the purpose of conversion, but simply because I know that a lot of what passes for information on these topics is anything but.

Quote from: trdsf on May 25, 2015, 07:24:56 AMFundamentally, you are speaking mysticism to rationalists.  Carl Sagan wrote a short essay called The Dragon in my Garage (http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm).  I don't ask you to read it in the hope that you'll change your beliefs.  I ask you to read it in order to understand the rationalist/skeptical minds that you're trying to communicate with here -- as far as I'm concerned, you're claiming there's a dragon in your garage, and I begin to suspect that you really don't understand why you're not getting anywhere by just repeating the claim or adding another special case.

Yes, thank you.  It’s been around for many years, and it’s been read many times.  The problem with the essay is that some people find it convincing.  Sagan is defending naturalism or materialism with his little essay, and as such, he ends up undercutting his own case, which has been pointed out ad infinitum.  Let me attempt to illustrate.

QuoteThe Dragon In My Garage â€" by Carl Sagan

Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?  If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists?  Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true.  Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder.

In the first place, Christianity is falsifiable on many fronts.  Prove that the universe is eternal.  Prove that life can come from non-life without reference to mind.  Prove that information can arise, drastically increase, substantially vary, and end in purposeful functionality without reference to mind.  There are others that are more specific to the Bible that could be listed as well, but it is falsifiable.  But the more important point is that the naturalism he’s trying to defend and the laws of logic themselves that allow him to construct meaningful sentences to make the argument, are themselves, immaterial and impervious to scientific testing.  And so if metaphysical, epistemological, and methodological naturalism are the only ways of knowing anything about reality, then we’re left with no reality at all. 

I actually think that I do understand why I’m not getting anywhere, and one of the main reasons is that I’m not trying to get anywhere, at least not in the sense you mean.  I didn’t come in here with the goal of converting anyone or even with the expectation that anyone would be open to honestly and genuinely discussing our views.  That may or may not happen.  If it doesn’t, I won’t be surprised, and if it does, that’s great.  My goal is be available for conversation, to put myself in the hot seat on a part-time basis, and hopefully to provide a credible example of a well-meaning and somewhat thoughtful Christian that atheists may not be accustomed to dealing with.  If someone accepts Christ or moves a step closer to a belief that a God might exist, that’s great.  But I’m specifically not here for that purpose.  Anyway, I hope that helps.

damn it I missed another thread!

To the OP

I would not reject god in the sense that I wouldn't believe in him. I'd still believe in him if it were proven to be true I just reject god as something to be worshiped or worthy of my love. He's a pretty evil dude in the bible. Killing innocent babies to punish a group of people is wrong no matter how you slice it.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 05:25:23 AMIn the first place, Christianity is falsifiable on many fronts.  Prove that the universe is eternal.

It's not actually possible to prove that the universe is eternal.  We can't go back further than our universe's big bang.

QuoteProve that life can come from non-life without reference to mind.

Well, we know that the universe didn't initially have life.  We know that it does have life now.  And we know that the building blocks of life (http://phys.org/news/2015-03-nasa-ames-blocks-life-laboratory.html#inlRlv) can be created by natural processes.  Without invoking magic, it's fairly obvious that life did indeed emerge from non-life.

QuoteProve that information can arise, drastically increase, substantially vary, and end in purposeful functionality without reference to mind.

Creationist cdesign proponentsist gibberish.

QuoteThere are others that are more specific to the Bible that could be listed as well, but it is falsifiable.

Right.  Like factual inaccuracies.  Contradictions.  Or if one found out that the miraculous events in the bible aren't corroborated by any other people who lived at that time and who really should've noticed.  Stuff like that would be a pretty big strike against the veracity of the Bible.

QuoteBut the more important point is that the naturalism he’s trying to defend and the laws of logic themselves that allow him to construct meaningful sentences to make the argument, are themselves, immaterial and impervious to scientific testing.  And so if metaphysical, epistemological, and methodological naturalism are the only ways of knowing anything about reality, then we’re left with no reality at all.

Classic presuppositionism.  Either God or nothing at all.  Sounds legit. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 05:25:23 AM
1.--  Most often, I find that the atheist has trouble even addressing questions of Christianity without being unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive.  For example, your use of the world “mythology” instead of “theology”. 

2.-- The reason is because I actually know what orthodox Christianity teaches and purports to believe.  When I hear atheists discuss it or put it forward for examination or objection, it is virtually always misconstrued or misrepresented out of ignorance, misunderstanding, or deliberation.

3.--   A Sunday sermon isn’t typically meant for a seminary class.

4.--Related to this, it’s possible that I might have a misapprehension of atheism, and the atheist is probably in a better position to know that than I would be.  Why?  Because the atheist is probably more familiar with the kinds of things atheists believe than I am, though I am experienced in the area.

5.--I actually think that I do understand why I’m not getting anywhere, and one of the main reasons is that I’m not trying to get anywhere, at least not in the sense you mean.  I didn’t come in here with the goal of converting anyone or even with the expectation that anyone would be open to honestly and genuinely discussing our views.  That may or may not happen.  If it doesn’t, I won’t be surprised, and if it does, that’s great.  My goal is be available for conversation, to put myself in the hot seat on a part-time basis, and hopefully to provide a credible example of a well-meaning and somewhat thoughtful Christian that atheists may not be accustomed to dealing with.

I'd like to offer some comments about your comments--I numbered them 1 thru 5, and oddly enough, I'll tackle them in that order.

1. I've been on several boards and have suffered the same as you--you say, "the atheist has trouble even addressing questions of Christianity without being unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive."  Substitute christian for atheist and you have my experience, as well.  What I think the problem is that when discussing religion we are talking about a deeply held worldview.  And to change that view is very, very difficult.  Both atheist and christian often resort to name calling rather than listening and trying to figure out the 'why' of the other person.  As for using various words, sometimes it is simply that neither party has defined terms.  I would use mythology when discussing religion, especially christanity rather than theology.  Why?  Because I think christianity is simply another mystery religion--and I think Jesus is a myth and not an actual person.  So, mythology fits my personal definition better than theology.  It is not meant to be a put-down, but I can also see where you may think that it is. 

2.  You may know what orthodox christianity is, but there are so many different sects that profess to be 'the' way and only way to god, that it is almost impossible to make generic comments about the christian religion.  So, unless you explain what that is, there is no way for others to know what you mean. 

3.  No, a sermon is not meant to be a seminary class.  One of my concerns about god is why did he make the process to get to  know what he wants and how he wants it so obscure?   So convoluted?  He very easily could have had his owners manual dropped on every contentment; put into the hands of all the peoples of the world in their language.  That did not even come close to happening.  Why does there need to be a seminary to learn about god???  That makes no sense to me.  Except that it does. Seminaries and all places like them are about teaching the hierarchy how to interpret their scripture and how to then speak to the laity.  It is all about power and control.  I see it as that simple.

4.  The problem with lumping all atheists under one banner is that it does not help to define them.  I am an atheist.  I don't believe in anything.  I think there is a lack of evidence of any kind of supernatural anything.  If it exists, it is natural.  There are no living beings that are invisible.  There are no spirits or ghosts or the like.  I have reasons for what I think is the way things are--not beliefs.  And I am different than any other atheist--so lumping us together does not help explain who I am, nor what I think.  And I think the same applies to you.  You claim Christianity.  That's fine--but it tells me absolutely nothing about what your beliefs are.  That's why I enjoy talking to people one-to-one.  Terms can be defined and progress can be make toward understanding what that person actually believes or thinks.

5..I actually stopped visiting the boards I used to frequent because it all to often became a name calling contest.  It became boring.  After about 5/6 years of staying away from the forums, I stumbled upon this place and found that I enjoy it here.  With your appearance, it has become more fun. 

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 07:42:46 AM
Virtually everyone essentially said that even if the Bible or the God of the Bible were proven to be true, they would still reject Him. In one sense, that doesn’t surprise me, since that’s what the Bible predicts. 

Because he's an asshole. Both Jesus and Yahweh can eat a barrel of dicks because their rules and thought processes don't make any fucking sense. If he was real we can't deny him being real, but we certainly can choose not to follow him.

QuoteBut in another sense, seeing that level of denial is a bit mind blowing.

I'm sure that it isn't denial. It's more rebellion. Like it was stated, the hypothetical assumes it's all true.

QuoteBut it started me thinking about the demand for evidence and whether or not the demand is real or just rhetorical (i.e. used for mere effect)?

Are you asking if we're faking it?

QuoteDo you think your own demand for evidence or the objections you have are just rhetorical, real, or maybe both?

They're both. The objections are real and our demands for evidence are both real and rhetorical. They're often extremely difficult demands to theists only because the premise has no basis in reality and it's really to teach a lesson (or attempt to)

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 08:15:51 AM
The incommensurable good is to know God, but that can only be done through free choices.

How about making himself known?

QuoteOtherwise, things like worship and love are meaningless.

Why does he care? He's perfect.

QuoteSo while God desires your appropriate behavior toward Him, He does not require it.  Nor does He force Himself upon you.

The threat of hell?

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 05:25:23 AM
These kinds of things might be true, but I have found that they are most often not true.  Most often, I find that the atheist has trouble even addressing questions of Christianity without being unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive.  For example, your use of the world “mythology” instead of “theology”.  It wasn’t necessary, but somehow the disdain you have for the beliefs I hold had to be included in your words.  I wonder if you think that helps to facilitate discussion or shut it down?

You're asking me to be a hypocrite if you ask me to use 'theology'.  While I am willing to accept that you believe it and that to you it is a 'theology', I do not, and for me to use that term would be wholly inaccurate and entirely dishonest.

In addition, it explicitly cedes ground that I will not cede, that there is a real god about whom one might discuss a real theology.  I continue to assert that there is none, and that for me to use a term other than 'mythology' would be intellectually and philosophically dishonest.  Or do you expect me to refer to Classical Greek 'theology' and Norse 'theology' -- to say nothing of Hindu, Islamic or Pagan 'theologies'?

And do you genuinely not think it disdainful, hostile or rude when you assert that all atheists are joyless nihilistic materialists, and that we "just don't understand"?  Is it not disdainful or hostile to demand a higher respect for your view of the very matter on which we disagree than we do?

I will not be a liar or a hypocrite for you, or for anyone else.  I would never complain that you call it 'theology', since it is 'theology' to you and is entirely appropriate for you to use that term.

But it is very much mythology to me, and I stand by the word and my use of it. 

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 05:25:23 AM
In one sense, this is a very easy question to answer.  The reason is because I actually know what orthodox Christianity teaches and purports to believe.

This is basically saying "I know because I believe" or even just "I know because I know", which is certainly the ultimate in circular reasoning.  While this may be an answer to your satisfaction, it isn't to mine -- it lacks any reference to the repeatable, the experiential and the demonstrable.

Granted, saying "I know" is philosophically problematic all around, at least if one wants to engage in the kind of deep, logic-chopping philosophy that makes my eyes cross.  I presuppose that when I say "I know" something, that it's meant in the sense that it has been demonstrated beyond all possible contradiction -- that is, it's thunderingly obvious and denying it is the mark of the clinically delusional, as in "I know 1+1=2"; or, it's meant with an assumed "pending further observations" tacked onto it.

So I can say "I know Mars has two moons" and stand on firm ground.  If a third moon is discovered tomorrow, continuing to assert that would be wrong, but based on the data and observations currently available, I am for the time being entitled to say that I know this.

I can not say that "I know" there are other intelligent species in the galaxy, or in the rest of the universe.  I consider their existence exceedingly likely, and given a chance I can make quite a compelling case for supposing they exist, but I don't have the tiniest shred of direct evidence to say so and therefore I am in no way, shape or form entitled to say that I know they're out there.

Statements about the existence of a god necessarily fall into this same category.  Until it can be demonstrated, it is a belief.  It is not knowledge.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 05:25:23 AM
Related to this, it’s possible that I might have a misapprehension of atheism, and the atheist is probably in a better position to know that than I would be.  Why?  Because the atheist is probably more familiar with the kinds of things atheists believe than I am, though I am experienced in the area.

I think it's extremely likely you have a misapprehension of atheism.  You've spent quite a bit of time declaring what (you think) atheism is and what (you think) atheists are, rather than asking for clarification.

Also, and I copy it down here because of its relevance, you said:

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 05:25:23 AM
In addition, I have found that some experience in churches or groups that call themselves Christian is relatively common, but most of that even is fairly limited.  In addition, it’s almost never the case, regardless of the church one attends, that the kinds of questions and objections one my get from an atheist are actually well and fully addressed in any particular church.  It’s very rare.  So experience in going to church or being involved in church isn’t necessarily any measure of ones deeper understanding of Christianity, such that the kinds of objections and questions atheists might have are answered.

Why is your above-claimed experience in atheism applicable to this conversation, when you also claim that my experience of having once been a Christian is not?  We're back to you making assumptions and presuppositions and basing your arguments on those strawmen rather than asking and engaging.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 05:25:23 AM
I agree with some of what you’ve said here, but there is one idea that is simply false.  An extraordinary claim requires ADEQUATE evidence, not EXTRAORDINARY evidence.  Really.  Think about that.  Think about all of the things that we might believe, even in the area of science, that we believe by way of adequate evidence rather than what would be considered extraordinary evidence.  It’s almost never the case that you have extraordinary evidence until many years later when you have so many different pieces of evidence that lead you to the same conclusion.  This is a rhetorical trick common to fans of Sagan and various other baloney detecting men of his type, but I think Sagan was the main popularizer of that particular and somewhat deceitful tactic.

Adequate evidence for an extraordinary claim would be pretty extraordinary.

This is just wordgames anyway -- the point is, adequate or extraordinary, the evidence is still necessary.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 05:25:23 AM
The Bible can be evidence, but it depends on several factors.  One major factor is whether it’s been shown to have been reliably preserved over time.  And the other factor has to do with what is it evidence for?  Is it evidence for what or why Christians believe a certain thing, or is it evidence for God’s existence.  I would argue that it can be both, so long as other criteria have been met prior.  However, if you mean merely quoting the Bible as having some evidential merit with you or an atheist, then I’d agree that it is not and does not.  I think that’s a mistaken view of many well-meaning Christians.  It’s also a view that I do not hold.  Having said that, we disagree on the attestation of the Bible with regard to events like the Babylonian exile.  I would point you to several resources:

Well, the Bible is suspect as a historical source for the simple reason that the version(s) in common circulation today are so far removed from the source material -- which is itself missing.  The earliest copies are exactly that: copies of unknown generation.  If it were one of several books by the same author -- the works of Cicero, Ovid, Thucydides, Herodotus -- we would have bases upon which we could judge their reliability.

And despite your assertion, we really can't say the Bible -- certainly not the New Testament -- has been "reliably preserved".  It has been the subject of politicially and/or philosophically biased translation from the very beginnings, whether those in power were trying to suppress Gnosticism, Manicheanism, all the way up to the King James Version, which was commissioned in part to combat Puritanism rather than to just provide a definitive English-language bible.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 05:25:23 AM
Yes, thank you.  It’s been around for many years, and it’s been read many times.  The problem with the essay is that some people find it convincing.  Sagan is defending naturalism or materialism with his little essay, and as such, he ends up undercutting his own case, which has been pointed out ad infinitum.  Let me attempt to illustrate.
In the first place, Christianity is falsifiable on many fronts.  Prove that the universe is eternal.  Prove that life can come from non-life without reference to mind.  Prove that information can arise, drastically increase, substantially vary, and end in purposeful functionality without reference to mind.  There are others that are more specific to the Bible that could be listed as well, but it is falsifiable.  But the more important point is that the naturalism he’s trying to defend and the laws of logic themselves that allow him to construct meaningful sentences to make the argument, are themselves, immaterial and impervious to scientific testing.  And so if metaphysical, epistemological, and methodological naturalism are the only ways of knowing anything about reality, then we’re left with no reality at all. 

That is probably the most incorrect reading I've seen of the scientific method and logic that I've ever seen.  Of course logic can be applied to logical systems to test their consistency and completeness.  That's among the reasons we know that logic and the scientific method are good tools -- they have been tested, and passed the fundamental tests of consistency and repeatability.

You're also suggesting here that if the Bible is falsifiable, then so is everything else, and that just doesn't hold.

Lastly, you also evade the central point: what is the difference between an entity that cannot be detected by any physical means whatsoever, and one that's just not there at all?  At some point after special case number n+1 has been pled in response to objection n, there is justification in saying it's not there.

I might refer you to Asimov's short story "The Obvious Factor", one of his Black Widowers mystery shorts, on the nature of adding special case after special case after special case when trying to deduce the facts of a matter.  There comes a point when, after the goal has been moved one more time, it's not worth kicking that football again

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 05:25:23 AM
I actually think that I do understand why I’m not getting anywhere, and one of the main reasons is that I’m not trying to get anywhere, at least not in the sense you mean.  I didn’t come in here with the goal of converting anyone or even with the expectation that anyone would be open to honestly and genuinely discussing our views.  That may or may not happen.  If it doesn’t, I won’t be surprised, and if it does, that’s great.  My goal is be available for conversation, to put myself in the hot seat on a part-time basis, and hopefully to provide a credible example of a well-meaning and somewhat thoughtful Christian that atheists may not be accustomed to dealing with.  If someone accepts Christ or moves a step closer to a belief that a God might exist, that’s great.  But I’m specifically not here for that purpose.  Anyway, I hope that helps.

Fair enough.  To that end, I might recommend making fewer declarations about what atheism "is" and what atheists "are", and asking instead.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 02:56:01 AM
I'm not sure what you're wanting me to explain exactly.  It seems entirely clear to me that nothing I said is refuted for violated by what you've cited.  God's sovereign will is what He requires.  In other words, if it were His sovereign will that all humans would worship Him, then all humans would worship Him.  Unfortunately though, human beings would cease to be free creatures in that case, as they would simply be unable to violate the sovereign will of God.  However, God's moral will, which is what you've cited, is what God desires to have happen but often does not.  In other words, God's moral will can be and is routinely violated.  The fact that God has shared His moral will with humanity does not mean that He has somehow required you or anyone else to do it.  He's simply told you that this is what you "should do" not "must do".  If it were otherwise, you'd be worshiping that jealous God right now.

I would also point out that what you've cited is God declaring His moral will with respect to the worship of other Gods, not explicitly the worship of Him, though that is certainly implied.  But in any case, it falls within the realm of His moral will, which can be contravened and is actually the basis upon which Christ was sent to provide payment for our violation of God's law (i.e. crimes against Him).

I would suggest taking time to really reflect on these issues.  One of the things that I find when I interact with atheists is that they've really not looked into these issues in any detail, and if they have, it's only been by way of an echo-chamber.  If you want what you might perceive as the nonsense beliefs of theists or Christians addressed, you're better off trying to look at scholarly Christian materials for answers to the questions you have.  Most Christians, unfortunately, will not be able to answer every single objection a person might have, but Christianity has a long history and there are very few objections that haven't been dealt with, often many times over and by many people, within Christendom over the centuries.  I hope that helps.

You've lost me.

Even if God did exist (I mean the Judeo/Christian/Islamic omnimax God) then I would certainly not worship him, even if it meant spending eternity in hell. I've read the Bible, so I know what that God is like:
What the Bible's God Is Really Like (http://nullgod.com/index.php?topic=164.0)

Any such being as that is surely a monster, not any sort of loving God. It's just lucky for all of us, Christian or otherwise, that we're free from that cosmic bully!

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Richard Dawkins

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 26, 2015, 02:41:21 PM
I would use mythology when discussing religion, especially christanity rather than theology.  Why?  Because I think christianity is simply another mystery religion--and I think Jesus is a myth and not an actual person.  So, mythology fits my personal definition better than theology.  It is not meant to be a put-down, but I can also see where you may think that it is. 

I agree. Using the word theology, meaning "the study of divinity," presupposes that a divinity exists to be studied. Mythology is better because believers in one religion will accuse people of other religions of believing mythology. So they're all mythology.

Quote from: Unbeliever on May 28, 2015, 06:09:05 PM
I agree. Using the word theology, meaning "the study of divinity," presupposes that a divinity exists to be studied. Mythology is better because believers in one religion will accuse people of other religions of believing mythology. So they're all mythology.

Agreed. Like many religious individuals, the OP expects us to use a term that assumes his deity exists before providing any evidence that such a deity actually exists. I grow so tired of the games of semantics that theists love to play.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 05:25:23 AM
Most often, I find that the atheist has trouble even addressing questions of Christianity without being unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive.  For example, your use of the world “mythology” instead of “theology”.

You can't intrude on another's world view, either by trying to outright convince others that your belief in spirits should be adopted, or by passing laws that step on the rights of others, or even to just defend wacky beliefs.  It evokes hostility and insults.  Oh, I'm sure you want people to listen with interest, and say, "Oh yes, this all sounds very logical.  I don't have a reason in the world to not believe what you do.  Please show me how I can learn to believe in mystical things."   And of course we are going to dismiss your ideas when you have no evidence to support the existence of your especially favored spirit.  That's exactly what not believing something that contradicts reality is.  It is so far from reality it gets dismissed.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 05:25:23 AM
Most often, I find that the atheist has trouble even addressing questions of Christianity without being unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive.  For example, your use of the world “mythology” instead of “theology”. 

First of all not every atheist is guilty of this. We are all individuals. Second of all plenty of christians are every bit as unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive when addressing atheists.

And keep in mind that you can walk into almost any job in this country wearing a cross around your neck and hang up a jesus picture on your office wall and no one will say jack shit to you about it. Try putting your atheism on display at work and you can get fired for it legally in many places. Live in that reality for a while and see where your threshold for being hostile, insulting or dismissive ends up.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 08:21:28 AM
Sure.....and you're the proof.  You can either accept God's offer of pardon through Jesus Christ, or you can choose to pay for your own crimes and be separated from your creator forever.  People choose Hell all of the time.  In fact, most people end up choosing Hell.  They don't want their to be a God to whom they are accountable.  They don't want to bend their knee to someone else or admit that they are owned by the one who gave them life.  Human beings are in a general state of rebellion against Him, but yeah, the choice is free.  I'm choosing to accept God's offer of pardon, which He's not obligated to even offer me.  And you're choosing to reject that offering in favor of paying for your own crimes in eternity.

No they don't want to be with a 'god' that's imaginary. There's a big difference.

The issue with you guys is that you start with the premise that 'god' (however defined, there's as many gods as there are believers) exists and work from there. Everything beyond that is simply begging the question, rendering your premise moot.

However, to play the game, is my request for evidence rhetorical or real? Truthfully, it doesn't make any difference. The god squad have failed to provide any regardless, so again, the point is moot (until such a time as if/when evidence is forwarded that meets my very basic requirements of being testable and verifiable).

You do of course realise that threatening us with eternal torture/punishment is sort of pointless right? I realise you're trying to make a grand point about this ultimatum which has been given to us by this god thing you keep referring to, but it's akin to threatening us by saying you'll throw us into a star, or freeze us is carbonite. Neither of those things will ever happen, just like the hell thing, so it has no effect on us. ^_^ I understand that you, directly, are not threatening us but rather relaying the message from your chosen deity (whatever one it is). Does make you wonder why it can't just do it itself.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 24, 2015, 08:21:28 AM
Sure.....and you're the proof.  You can either accept God's offer of pardon through Jesus Christ, or you can choose to pay for your own crimes and be separated from your creator forever.  People choose Hell all of the time.  In fact, most people end up choosing Hell.  They don't want their to be a God to whom they are accountable.  They don't want to bend their knee to someone else or admit that they are owned by the one who gave them life.  Human beings are in a general state of rebellion against Him, but yeah, the choice is free.  I'm choosing to accept God's offer of pardon, which He's not obligated to even offer me.  And you're choosing to reject that offering in favor of paying for your own crimes in eternity.

For a long period of time I wanted to believe , that went on for years, and that's when I realized I was an atheist, you see I wanted there to be a god, and i realized wanting meant I didn't believe it existed.

  My atheism is not about avoiding accountability, in fact it's the exact opposite, If I do wrong I am accountable to those who I have hurt, not after my death, but in the here and now, and I have a duty to make things right in the here and now, otherwise I risk the harm I did to become worse and for that person to suffer longer than necessary.

  I am not rejecting god, what I am rejecting is other people's assertions the it exists without evidence.

"Human beings are in a general state of rebellion against Him"

   You are assuming they believe him to exist in the first place, and I am not talking about athiest's here, I am referring to the many good people in this world who have a faith in a different god or gods. Just not yours. I don't know if you see the , and ill give benefit of the doubt , the unintended arrogance of your statement.



   


 

 
 

Quote from: Johan on May 29, 2015, 07:07:47 AM
First of all not every atheist is guilty of this. We are all individuals. Second of all plenty of christians are every bit as unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive when addressing atheists.

And he's whining for what reason? We call Christianity a myth? This guy almost certainly thinks that about every other religion on the planet. That their events aren't true. That their beliefs are wrong. And he comes across people who think of his religion EXACTLY the same way and has the gall to bitch?

Quote from: Termin on May 29, 2015, 11:51:15 AM
For a long period of time I wanted to believe , that went on for years, and that's when I realized I was an atheist, you see I wanted there to be a god, and i realized wanting meant I didn't believe it existed.

  My atheism is not about avoiding accountability, in fact it's the exact opposite, If I do wrong I am accountable to those who I have hurt, not after my death, but in the here and now, and I have a duty to make things right in the here and now, otherwise I risk the harm I did to become worse and for that person to suffer longer than necessary.

  I am not rejecting god, what I am rejecting is other people's assertions the it exists without evidence.

"Human beings are in a general state of rebellion against Him"

   You are assuming they believe him to exist in the first place, and I am not talking about athiest's here, I am referring to the many good people in this world who have a faith in a different god or gods. Just not yours. I don't know if you see the , and ill give benefit of the doubt , the unintended arrogance of your statement.

Not to mention that idiocy of saying that it's okay for God to screw us over essentially because we are his property and he can do with us what he wants. To me, a black guy, that thought process is fucking horrifying.

Quote from: Termin on May 29, 2015, 11:51:15 AM
For a long period of time I wanted to believe , that went on for years, and that's when I realized I was an atheist, you see I wanted there to be a god, and i realized wanting meant I didn't believe it existed.

Wonderful.  To me, that's one of those insights that has the potential to hit me like a ton of bricks.

Quote from: Termin on May 29, 2015, 11:51:15 AM

  I am not rejecting god, what I am rejecting is other people's assertions the it exists without evidence.

I love how this was worded.  I read it and said, 'Yes!'.

Quote from: Termin on May 29, 2015, 11:51:15 AM
For a long period of time I wanted to believe , that went on for years, and that's when I realized I was an atheist, you see I wanted there to be a god, and i realized wanting meant I didn't believe it existed.

I'm in that camp. Only I couldn't hold up my belief in God. I quite literally let my belief die. And it's weird, something that supposedly exists should require you to reconvince yourself it exists. Means I really didn't believe it in the first place.

PART â€" ONE

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 05:25:23 AMThese kinds of things might be true, but I have found that they are most often not true.  Most often, I find that the atheist has trouble even addressing questions of Christianity without being unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive.  For example, your use of the world “mythology” instead of “theology”.  It wasn’t necessary, but somehow the disdain you have for the beliefs I hold had to be included in your words.  I wonder if you think that helps to facilitate discussion or shut it down?

Quote from: trdsf on May 27, 2015, 04:53:52 AMYou're asking me to be a hypocrite if you ask me to use 'theology'.  While I am willing to accept that you believe it and that to you it is a 'theology', I do not, and for me to use that term would be wholly inaccurate and entirely dishonest.

In addition, it explicitly cedes ground that I will not cede, that there is a real god about whom one might discuss a real theology.  I continue to assert that there is none, and that for me to use a term other than 'mythology' would be intellectually and philosophically dishonest.  Or do you expect me to refer to Classical Greek 'theology' and Norse 'theology' -- to say nothing of Hindu, Islamic or Pagan 'theologies'?

And do you genuinely not think it disdainful, hostile or rude when you assert that all atheists are joyless nihilistic materialists, and that we "just don't understand"?  Is it not disdainful or hostile to demand a higher respect for your view of the very matter on which we disagree than we do?

I will not be a liar or a hypocrite for you, or for anyone else.  I would never complain that you call it 'theology', since it is 'theology' to you and is entirely appropriate for you to use that term.

But it is very much mythology to me, and I stand by the word and my use of it.

No, I am not.  I am not asking you to pretend to believe in or agree with Christian theology by pointing out how replacing the word ‘theology’ with the word ‘mythology’ is an example of an atheist being unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive.  I’m merely pointing out that you are conflating the definitions of two different words for the purpose of communicating your disrespect for me and what I believe.  If you’ll examine the rest of your speech, I suspect you’ll find that you don’t speak this way uniformly.  Do you really refuse to refer to everything else you disagree with by their appropriate name and instead, choose some other term?  Probably not.

We use all kinds of words in everyday speech without having to adopt an affirming belief in the veracity of whatever the word’s definition happens to be.  From my perspective, this is an essentially irrational position to take regarding speech, but then, as I said, I suspect that you don’t let this framework of understanding govern your speech entirely.  As I stated above, I suspect it was adopted for a very specific purpose.

No, you would only use the term ‘Greek theology’ if you were engaged in a rational and systematic study of the Greek concept of God(s), as found in ancient Greek mythology and culture.  In other words, the terms are not synonyms for one another.  They actually mean or refer to different things.  With regard to comparative religion and the like, they do have an overlapping aspect, in that they would each be studied and considered within a broader study of religion, but they are two different words with two different meanings.  So referring to (my) ‘theology’ as (my) ‘mythology’ is simply a conflation of two different words, likely for the purpose of being insulting and dismissive of me.  How sad for you.

I’m not aware of calling all atheists joyless nihilistic materialists, but I admit there could be some.  Having said that, such a description doesn’t describe all of the atheists that I’ve met over the years.  With regard to being described or told that you just don’t understand, all I can say is that whether it is disdainful or not would depend on whether it were true.  What if that person were simply reporting a factual matter?  It wouldn’t be disdainful if they were reporting a fact.  And no, it’s not disdainful for me to raise the bar in terms of respect and discourse, but that assumes that I’m actually doing so.  I’m not complaining so much as I am simply discussing my experience.  I expect less than hospitable treatment from atheists, though there are a few that I’ve met who prefer to act more decently toward everyone, regardless of how personally stupid or uninformed they may feel the other people to be.  For example, Mike Cl (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?action=profile;u=27203), has no love for the beliefs that I hold, but he’s made an effort to engage me in a more civil manner and lend me a modicum of respect in order to facilitate that engagement.  It’s not a requirement to have a conversation, but in his wisdom, I’m sure he realizes that it helps a great deal.

Well, depending upon what I’m talking about, it would be theology to anyone, if I’m actually referring to theology.  They are two different terms.  The use of the word theology says absolutely nothing about its truthfulness or veracity.  I realize that you’re a skeptic, but adopting a radical skepticism of the type you appear to be favoring won’t really help to support your position.  At least not so far as truthfulness and facts are concerned.  I cannot make you a liar, and would not ask you to be.  The only way you’ll be a liar is if you keep referring to one word with the use of another.  That is a category mistake, and if you know that you’re making that mistake and persist, you’d be a liar.  Unfortunately, it would be by your own choosing, not mine.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 05:25:23 AMIn one sense, this is a very easy question to answer.  The reason is because I actually know what orthodox Christianity teaches and purports to believe.

Quote from: trdsf on May 27, 2015, 04:53:52 AMThis is basically saying "I know because I believe" or even just "I know because I know", which is certainly the ultimate in circular reasoning.  While this may be an answer to your satisfaction, it isn't to mine -- it lacks any reference to the repeatable, the experiential and the demonstrable.

Granted, saying "I know" is philosophically problematic all around, at least if one wants to engage in the kind of deep, logic-chopping philosophy that makes my eyes cross.  I presuppose that when I say "I know" something, that it's meant in the sense that it has been demonstrated beyond all possible contradiction -- that is, it's thunderingly obvious and denying it is the mark of the clinically delusional, as in "I know 1+1=2"; or, it's meant with an assumed "pending further observations" tacked onto it.

So I can say "I know Mars has two moons" and stand on firm ground.  If a third moon is discovered tomorrow, continuing to assert that would be wrong, but based on the data and observations currently available, I am for the time being entitled to say that I know this.

I can not say that "I know" there are other intelligent species in the galaxy, or in the rest of the universe.  I consider their existence exceedingly likely, and given a chance I can make quite a compelling case for supposing they exist, but I don't have the tiniest shred of direct evidence to say so and therefore I am in no way, shape or form entitled to say that I know they're out there.

Statements about the existence of a god necessarily fall into this same category.  Until it can be demonstrated, it is a belief.  It is not knowledge.

No, that is explicitly not what I’m saying.  I am not claiming to “know because I believe” or “know because I know”.  The mere fact that you state that this kind of reasoning is not only the kind of thing I’m saying but is also somehow an answer to my satisfaction is simply more evidence that you possess a misapprehension of my point of view.  In other words, you possess an understanding of my views that bear no genuine resemblance to my views at all.  What you’ve stated is no basis for belief, mine or any other, so I join you in rejecting such nonsense.

I’m going to choose not to quibble with regard to your idea that claiming knowledge is problematic because I think it would distract from the point of the conversation.  I must say that I don’t entirely agree that you can’t say that you know something unless it’s “been demonstrated beyond all possible contradiction”.  I think your bar for the simple knowledge of facts is a bit too high, for obvious reasons.  It would put a great deal of our knowledge into a different category, if we adopted your definition.  However, I think I understand the point that you’re trying to make. But let me be clear, logical truths cannot be proven by science, as science must first presuppose the laws of logic in order for it to begin to function.  The truths of logic are therefore impervious to scientific proof and to argue otherwise is simply circular.

With regard to your other comments, I found them quite interesting.  You say the following.

“[You] don't have the tiniest shred of direct evidence to say…there are other intelligent species in the galaxy, or in the rest of the universe.” BUT [You] consider their existence exceedingly likely, and given a chance [you] can make quite a compelling case for supposing they exist.”

So you strongly believe in the existence of other intelligent species in the galaxy or universe, but you cannot make that claim with certainty?  To that, I would say, congratulations!  This is precisely why a lot of Christians believe.  But it’s just the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.  I think you can get to the existence of a God deductively.  And I think you can get to the existence of the Christian God inductively, but it is a probabilistic case.  Having said all of that, I think that there are other ways as well.  I would point you to Alvin Plantinga’s Warranted Christian Belief.  And in any case, you can still make knowledge claims, as there are very few things in everyday life that we “know” in the sense of certitude or deductive reasoning.  This is an old argument, but I’m afraid it’s true that if you actually lived in this fashion, there would be very little in life that you could claim knowledge of.  Certainly all of human history would essentially be unknowable, by your definition.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 05:25:23 AMRelated to this, it’s possible that I might have a misapprehension of atheism, and the atheist is probably in a better position to know that than I would be.  Why?  Because the atheist is probably more familiar with the kinds of things atheists believe than I am, though I am experienced in the area.

Quote from: trdsf on May 27, 2015, 04:53:52 AMI think it's extremely likely you have a misapprehension of atheism.  You've spent quite a bit of time declaring what (you think) atheism is and what (you think) atheists are, rather than asking for clarification.

Also, and I copy it down here because of its relevance, you said:

QuoteIn addition, I have found that some experience in churches or groups that call themselves Christian is relatively common, but most of that even is fairly limited.  In addition, it’s almost never the case, regardless of the church one attends, that the kinds of questions and objections one my get from an atheist are actually well and fully addressed in any particular church.  It’s very rare.  So experience in going to church or being involved in church isn’t necessarily any measure of ones deeper understanding of Christianity, such that the kinds of objections and questions atheists might have are answered.

Why is your above-claimed experience in atheism applicable to this conversation, when you also claim that my experience of having once been a Christian is not?  We're back to you making assumptions and presuppositions and basing your arguments on those straw men rather than asking and engaging.

This could well be true.  I certainly wouldn’t deny the possibility of such a thing being true.  It would probably depend on the atheist, and exactly how well they match what I know of atheists and the various experiences I’ve had in talking with them.

The reason my experience is applicable is because in discussions with you about God, you persist in moving forward with an understanding of God that bears no resemblance to the Christian understanding of God.  So if you’re going to define what you see as a problem with your opponent’s point of view, you’d want to do so fairly, so that in taking exception with whatever your opponent is saying wouldn’t merely be a straw man.  By that I mean, an argument that creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition and then refuting or defeating that false argument instead of the original proposition.

So if you have an objection to a Christian’s view that God can take the life of or punish that which He owns and has created, you cannot legitimately employ your objection by redefining the Christian God into something that the Christian does not positively affirm, which is what you’ve done repeatedly in past discussions.

In short, you claim to have been a Christian, but when discussing Christianity, you appear to either have no significant understanding of the nature, authority and attending prerogatives of the Christian God that would substantially affect the way in which His actions are seen or judged.  So while atheists often make many claims about their Christian backgrounds and what should be their attending understanding, I often find that the claims are more overblown than real.  But as we’ve discussed before.  I think this has something to do with your tactic of essentially stipulating that you will not explore implications of ideas by way of “arguendo” or assuming for the sake of discussion.  So my comment appears to apply perfectly, as you seem to be doing the kinds of things I’ve seen before.

And your experience of having once been a Christian might be relevant, if it meant that you could or would engage on that basis.  I’ve asked and engaged a great deal of discussion, but to very little benefit.  You’ve essentially stipulated that you won’t explore the implications of Christian belief, unless you can fill that Christian belief with your own notions.  Now maybe you received those notions from some church you say you attended, but it wouldn’t change the fact that such notions do not match the historic teachings of Christianity regarding God.  We can talk about possible explanations for that, but it’s really beside the point.  The point is that the notions you propound don’t correspond with historic Christian teaching.  And who would be a better judge of that?  Someone who studies such things, or someone who’s had a background in a Christian church but now rejects Christianity and God; so much so that he cannot bring himself to use words of the English language that refer to their appropriate subject, ‘mythology’ vs. ‘theology’, for fear that he’s ceding some kind of ground and in anyway admitting or affirming something of Christianity, even if provisional or for the sake of an argument.

So if you think I’m creating straw men, I don’t know what to tell you.  I’m responding to what I see and experience, taken into account with the knowledge I possess.  I’m certainly not attempting to misrepresent anything.  If there are things I don’t know, please feel free to fill me in.  My knowledge is finite and my nature is fallible.

CONT’D

PART â€" TWO

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 05:25:23 AMI agree with some of what you’ve said here, but there is one idea that is simply false.  An extraordinary claim requires ADEQUATE evidence, not EXTRAORDINARY evidence.  Really.  Think about that.  Think about all of the things that we might believe, even in the area of science, that we believe by way of adequate evidence rather than what would be considered extraordinary evidence.  It’s almost never the case that you have extraordinary evidence until many years later when you have so many different pieces of evidence that lead you to the same conclusion.  This is a rhetorical trick common to fans of Sagan and various other baloney detecting men of his type, but I think Sagan was the main popularizer of that particular and somewhat deceitful tactic.

Quote from: trdsf on May 27, 2015, 04:53:52 AMAdequate evidence for an extraordinary claim would be pretty extraordinary.

This is just wordgames anyway -- the point is, adequate or extraordinary, the evidence is still necessary.

Yes, this may be true, but it doesn’t change the fact that the two words have different meanings.  It is a canard, propounded popularly by Carl Sagan and now a lot of other people who’ve not really reflected on the issue.  Typically, in my own experience, it’s been used as a way of raising the bar for the theist in a way that goes beyond the actual warrant.  And of course, you are free to try to bring the bar back down and pretend that we’re speaking of the same thing by way of the adequate seeming extraordinary, but I think you’ve essentially made my point for me.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 05:25:23 AMThe Bible can be evidence, but it depends on several factors.  One major factor is whether it’s been shown to have been reliably preserved over time.  And the other factor has to do with what is it evidence for?  Is it evidence for what or why Christians believe a certain thing, or is it evidence for God’s existence.  I would argue that it can be both, so long as other criteria have been met prior.  However, if you mean merely quoting the Bible as having some evidential merit with you or an atheist, then I’d agree that it is not and does not.  I think that’s a mistaken view of many well-meaning Christians.  It’s also a view that I do not hold.  Having said that, we disagree on the attestation of the Bible with regard to events like the Babylonian exile.  I would point you to several resources:

Quote from: trdsf on May 27, 2015, 04:53:52 AMWell, the Bible is suspect as a historical source for the simple reason that the version(s) in common circulation today are so far removed from the source material -- which is itself missing.  The earliest copies are exactly that: copies of unknown generation.  If it were one of several books by the same author -- the works of Cicero, Ovid, Thucydides, Herodotus -- we would have bases upon which we could judge their reliability.

And despite your assertion, we really can't say the Bible -- certainly not the New Testament -- has been "reliably preserved".  It has been the subject of politically and/or philosophically biased translation from the very beginnings, whether those in power were trying to suppress Gnosticism, Manicheanism, all the way up to the King James Version, which was commissioned in part to combat Puritanism rather than to just provide a definitive English-language bible.

No they aren’t.  We have more textual attestation for the earliest documents than we’ve ever had in human history.  And the best translations like the NASB make use of that material from which to translate.  You might be able to say that about the KJV, which used the Latin Vulgate to bring about the English translation, but even if you look at that, you’d be amazed at how much it got correct with far less textual attestation.

Because the Bible’s early textual copies were grown geometrically and across cultures & continents, you can take copies from various places in Europe, Asia, and Africa and compare them to see if there has been differentiation, additions, or subtractions.  All good Bible translations will note things like the long-ending of Mark as not being part of the earliest manuscripts, as well as John 8.  Having said that, neither of those variants have anything to do with Christian doctrine and could be removed without changing anything significant regarding Christian doctrine and theology.  In addition, those variants are known to the Church, so it’s not as if changes have been made over the years, and we just don’t know it.  And are you aware that the translators today still use the full textual attestation of the Greek & Hebrew to do their translations, only now the attestation is even better than it was 50, 100, or 200 years ago?

I would urge you to take a look at the process of canonization and the reliability of the Biblical accounts, in terms of the transmission over time.

The Canon of Scripture by F. F. Bruce

The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate by Michael J. Kruger

Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books by Michael J. Kruger

The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity by Andreas J. Köstenberger

Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence (Text and Canon of the New Testament) by Daniel B. Wallace

Can We Still Believe the Bible?: An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions by Craig L. Blomberg

Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels by Craig A. Evans

Reinventing Jesus Paperback: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss The Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture by J. Ed Komoszewski

The Missing Gospels: Unearthing the Truth Behind Alternative Christianities by Darrell L. Bock

Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way by Philip Jenkins

The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? by Walter C. Kaiser Jr.

Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times by Paul Barnett

It’s only going to be when you look into the actual state of affairs that you’ll be disabused of the current notion that you have, so I would really encourage you to at least, bare minimum, take a look at Blomberg’s book, which is a pretty easy read.  In terms of the rest, there is plenty of proof that the Bible has been amazingly preserved, far better than any other work from antiquity that we have.  And by far, I mean that there is essentially no comparison to be made, as the differences are just that vast.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 05:25:23 AMYes, thank you.  It’s been around for many years, and it’s been read many times.  The problem with the essay is that some people find it convincing.  Sagan is defending naturalism or materialism with his little essay, and as such, he ends up undercutting his own case, which has been pointed out ad infinitum.  Let me attempt to illustrate.

In the first place, Christianity is falsifiable on many fronts.  Prove that the universe is eternal.  Prove that life can come from non-life without reference to mind.  Prove that information can arise, drastically increase, substantially vary, and end in purposeful functionality without reference to mind.  There are others that are more specific to the Bible that could be listed as well, but it is falsifiable.  But the more important point is that the naturalism he’s trying to defend and the laws of logic themselves that allow him to construct meaningful sentences to make the argument, are themselves, immaterial and impervious to scientific testing.  And so if metaphysical, epistemological, and methodological naturalism are the only ways of knowing anything about reality, then we’re left with no reality at all.

Quote from: trdsf on May 27, 2015, 04:53:52 AMThat is probably the most incorrect reading I've seen of the scientific method and logic that I've ever seen.  Of course logic can be applied to logical systems to test their consistency and completeness.  That's among the reasons we know that logic and the scientific method are good tools -- they have been tested, and passed the fundamental tests of consistency and repeatability.

You're also suggesting here that if the Bible is falsifiable, then so is everything else, and that just doesn't hold.

Lastly, you also evade the central point: what is the difference between an entity that cannot be detected by any physical means whatsoever, and one that's just not there at all?  At some point after special case number n+1 has been pled in response to objection n, there is justification in saying it's not there.

I might refer you to Asimov's short story "The Obvious Factor", one of his Black Widowers mystery shorts, on the nature of adding special case after special case after special case when trying to deduce the facts of a matter.  There comes a point when, after the goal has been moved one more time, it's not worth kicking that football again.

So you believe in the laws of logic, and therefore believe in the existence of immaterial things?  That’s fantastic!

I’m not sure that I know what you mean by the idea “…that if the Bible is falsifiable, then so is everything else...”  Could you expound upon what you mean?

Your question is loaded, in that is assumes that the effects of God cannot be detected.  The evidence for a finite universe provides support for a necessary first cause.  Beyond that, arguments can be further made to support various aspects of this necessary first cause’s nature.  In addition, the existence of objective morality and objective moral facts can be recognized.  These find their grounding in a transcendent and personal creator, and their objectivity cannot be explained by any contingent process (i.e. evolutionary development).  In addition, information in the form of code providing meaningful instruction toward a purposeful end cannot be explained without reference to mind.  Each of these things can be discussed in their turn, but it’s simply untrue that there is no difference between the Christian conception of God and an entity that isn’t really there.  And before the objection is made, none of these have to do with circular reasoning or a God of the gaps play.  If you want to know why I would say that, you’re free to ask, but the response is getting rather long at this point.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 05:25:23 AMI actually think that I do understand why I’m not getting anywhere, and one of the main reasons is that I’m not trying to get anywhere, at least not in the sense you mean.  I didn’t come in here with the goal of converting anyone or even with the expectation that anyone would be open to honestly and genuinely discussing our views.  That may or may not happen.  If it doesn’t, I won’t be surprised, and if it does, that’s great.  My goal is be available for conversation, to put myself in the hot seat on a part-time basis, and hopefully to provide a credible example of a well-meaning and somewhat thoughtful Christian that atheists may not be accustomed to dealing with.  If someone accepts Christ or moves a step closer to a belief that a God might exist, that’s great.  But I’m specifically not here for that purpose.  Anyway, I hope that helps.

Quote from: trdsf on May 27, 2015, 04:53:52 AMFair enough.  To that end, I might recommend making fewer declarations about what atheism "is" and what atheists "are", and asking instead.

Like you, I can only respond with what I know or have experienced in my considerable time interacting with atheists, which is closing in on two decades.  If I’m wrong about something, or you’d like to take exception with someone I’ve said regarding atheists or atheism, please do.  If I’m wrong about something, I’d love to be corrected because I’m desiring to deal with the truth here, not just unsupported views or feelings.  I hope that helps answer your questions.

THE END…

Quote from: Mike Cl on May 26, 2015, 02:41:21 PM
I'd like to offer some comments about your comments--I numbered them 1 thru 5, and oddly enough, I'll tackle them in that order.

1. I've been on several boards and have suffered the same as you--you say, "the atheist has trouble even addressing questions of Christianity without being unnecessarily hostile, insulting, and dismissive."  Substitute christian for atheist and you have my experience, as well.  What I think the problem is that when discussing religion we are talking about a deeply held worldview.  And to change that view is very, very difficult.  Both atheist and christian often resort to name calling rather than listening and trying to figure out the 'why' of the other person.  As for using various words, sometimes it is simply that neither party has defined terms.  I would use mythology when discussing religion, especially christanity rather than theology.  Why?  Because I think christianity is simply another mystery religion--and I think Jesus is a myth and not an actual person.  So, mythology fits my personal definition better than theology.  It is not meant to be a put-down, but I can also see where you may think that it is. 

2.  You may know what orthodox christianity is, but there are so many different sects that profess to be 'the' way and only way to god, that it is almost impossible to make generic comments about the christian religion.  So, unless you explain what that is, there is no way for others to know what you mean. 

3.  No, a sermon is not meant to be a seminary class.  One of my concerns about god is why did he make the process to get to know what he wants and how he wants it so obscure?   So convoluted?  He very easily could have had his owners manual dropped on every contentment; put into the hands of all the peoples of the world in their language.  That did not even come close to happening.  Why does there need to be a seminary to learn about god???  That makes no sense to me.  Except that it does. Seminaries and all places like them are about teaching the hierarchy how to interpret their scripture and how to then speak to the laity.  It is all about power and control.  I see it as that simple.

4.  The problem with lumping all atheists under one banner is that it does not help to define them.  I am an atheist.  I don't believe in anything.  I think there is a lack of evidence of any kind of supernatural anything.  If it exists, it is natural.  There are no living beings that are invisible.  There are no spirits or ghosts or the like.  I have reasons for what I think is the way things are--not beliefs.  And I am different than any other atheist--so lumping us together does not help explain who I am, nor what I think.  And I think the same applies to you.  You claim Christianity.  That's fine--but it tells me absolutely nothing about what your beliefs are.  That's why I enjoy talking to people one-to-one.  Terms can be defined and progress can be make toward understanding what that person actually believes or thinks.

5. I actually stopped visiting the boards I used to frequent because it all to often became a name calling contest.  It became boring.  After about 5/6 years of staying away from the forums, I stumbled upon this place and found that I enjoy it here.  With your appearance, it has become more fun.

Yes, I agree with you regarding what is more typical of Christian behavior on boards like this.  The difference being, that most Christians wouldn’t or don’t spend a lot of time in places like this.  We’ve talked about some of the reasons for that in past posts, but I think another important reason is because most Christians don’t have the courage of their convictions, at least when it comes to an environment like this.  This in part because we’re talking about Christians that live in the cushy western world, but it is also related to the level of teaching that exists within the Church writ broadly.  Sermons on Sunday have been boiled down to the least common denominator, so more often than not, you receive a sort of milk toast type of fare.  In short, you could spend multiple decades in most churches and not be at all equipped to deal with the questions and issues you might be immediately confronted with in a forum like this and others.

We agree with regard to both holding deeply held beliefs and having its obvious impact.  However, with regard to mythology vs. theology, we do disagree.  It’s perfectly fine for you to personally think of Christian theology as a form of mythology, in that you believe it isn’t the rational systematized study of something real (i.e. God).  However, use of mythology amongst people who don’t see it the same way does have the effect of generating an insult and conveying disrespect throughout, whether intended or not.  In other words, for the purposes of avoiding unnecessarily insulting whoever you might be talking to, I would use the word ‘theology’, as using such a word doesn’t necessitate that you affirm the reality of theology’s content.  Now obviously, if you’re talking to someone that you know either holds the same or is sympathetic to the stance you’ve taken, then I think using the word mythology is fine.

With regard to Christian sects and the near impossibility of making generic or blanket statements with regard to Christianity, I’m sympathetic.  But that’s why I gave those 5 core truths of the Christian faith, to which several others could be added.

1)   The authority of scripture
2)   The deity of Jesus Christ
3)   The sinfulness of man
4)   The substitutionary atonement
5)   Salvation by grace through faith (i.e. trust)

Those 5 were meant as a bare minimum.  But something like the triune nature of God could be added to that list, as well as the bodily or physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.  If you’re talking to someone who doesn’t hold to those core doctrines of the Christian faith, then you’re probably not talking to someone who can rightly be called a Christian.  That is part of the difficulty these days.  Everyone uses the term Christian, whether they believe any of those things or not.  I know people and churches who either don’t believe in any of those, or they make those beliefs optional, in the sense of, “whatever works for you”.  If they’re optional, then they aren’t beliefs that are actually held to.  So right away, vast numbers of churches would be excluded, simply because they are no longer Christian but derive their existence from an extinct Christian tradition.  I mean the word extinct, as in extinct from their particular church sect or denomination.  And I would encourage interested parties to make these kinds of distinctions. 

What I found when people are either aware of this kind of distinction or are informed regarding its necessity, is that the tendency is to avoid or refuse to make this distinction.  As you might imagine, all kinds of objections follow.  “Who are you to define what Christianity is or isn’t?” and similar questions/accusations proceed from there.  My point is that Christianity has defined itself, in that a limited number of core or vitally important doctrines are taught in the Christian scriptures and held to by the early church and its historic descendants, thus allowing us to have an outline of what constitutes the difference between the orthodox and the unorthodox or heretical.  The tendency today (i.e. 20th & 21st centuries) to turn Christian churches into social justice programs and change teaching and doctrine to fit more easily into a vastly changing culture (i.e. the cultural acceptance of fornication, abortion, homosexuality, etc…) simply unmoors such churches from the teachings of its scriptures, its founder, and the history of the Church itself.  Why attempt to bind those two groups together simply because they’ve chosen to keep using the same, somewhat misleading moniker, Christianity?  Failure to make this distinction just makes it more difficult to discern the difference between people who have wildly divergent worldviews.

I think your third comment is more closely related to the premium God places on human freedom and all that such a thing entails, but I think you’re making more of the idea (i.e. difficulty, obscurity, convolution, etc…) than is there.  It’s not necessary that one has to attend seminary simply to know anything about God.  It’s that human beings generally don’t want to know God, and as such, they construct barriers for themselves to help rationalize their actions against Him, even if it’s mere indifference.  For the sake of the argument, let’s just say that a lot of what atheists or just thinking people in general might call ‘critical thinking’ with regard to the question of God simply didn’t exist.  Do you think it would be easier or harder to know about God?  Probably easier, because all of the questions and objections wouldn’t be there getting in the way.  On the other hand, while it might be easier to know God, it might be more difficult to know as much about God in that circumstance. 

But this isn’t just a matter of human beings rationalizing.  A great deal of it just has to do with the nature of human progress.  The more information and knowledge we possess, the more implications there are for everything that has been accepted before.  Some things get discarded, and others do not.  But for those that do not, questions and objections crop up specifically related to the increase in knowledge and information.  So while a Sunday sermon might have been enough 300 or 400 years ago, in most cases that kind of thing simply won’t do for the informed person of the modern world.  Or think about another area like medicine.  How specialized was medicine back in the year 1800?  Well, it was so primitive at that time, it’s almost as if it didn’t exist.  But then move forward to 1900.  What happened?  We became more advanced, had different tools, and different specialties began to slowly proliferate. Now move to the 21st century where we’ve advanced almost at an exponential pace and specialties are proliferating at an astonishing never-before-seen rate.  This same kind of process has happened with respect to Christianity and God.  The core teachings of Christianity were clear from very early on.  Reading the creeds, the patristic fathers, etc… it wasn’t hard to get a sense of what Christianity stood for.  But as theologians, philosophers, and things like science have grown and interacted, there has been so much more that has had to be reflected upon and developed in the way of reasons, theory and explanation that one now has to attend school to get a deeper and more specialized knowledge of God that simply wasn’t necessary or available to earlier generations.  Just as those who go to medical school are standing on the shoulders of all the great scientists and doctors that have come before them, so too does the seminarian stand on the shoulders of the various theologians, philosophers, and scientists that came before them.  This isn’t so much a function of power and control, but is just part of the nature of a vast increase in knowledge and understanding, coupled with the natural human desire to be free from accountability to a God whose standard they can never live up to on their own.  Also, I should point out that one needn’t necessarily attend seminary to know these things.  I’m a guy in my mid 30s who has a great deal of this information and have received no formal religious education at all.  Why is that?  I wanted to know if what I was placing my trust in was something real and actually true, so I began checking it out.  And I continue that process, as a layman, of learning and exposing my beliefs to the best this world has to offer, to see if it stands up to scrutiny.

I should also point out briefly that there is merit in reflecting on the idea of free creatures and God making His presence too obvious.  If He is trying to bring the maximum number of free creatures into an eternal relationship and knowledge of Himself, I can imagine an overly obvious presence being counter-productive to that aim.  If the presence were so obvious that you were, in some ways, rationally compelled by His reality in such a way that to do otherwise would have meant you were essentially mentally ill, I think freedom would have been greatly impacted.  I can also imagine the development of a resentment among human beings in that circumstance that might have meant far fewer people freely choosing to pursue the knowledge of God.

Well, I don’t know that I agree with your fourth point.  You have to be able to tell one thing from another.  I do agree that given the various ways in which people define their atheism, it can be difficult, but a generalized non-belief in a supernatural creator, whether one defines that as an affirmative no or lacking a belief almost doesn’t matter.  Of course, everyone is free to fine-tune that definition for themselves, but we have to have ways to make distinctions without having to know, in detail, each person that we’re speaking with.  In other words, it’s great to have one-on-one conversations that let me get to know the individual, but I shouldn’t have to have that level of knowledge merely to refer to a group that is typified by a particular stance, belief, or lack of belief.  Saying I’m a Christian should tell you a lot about my beliefs, assuming that you’re making the distinction I talked about earlier.  It won’t give you detail, but it will give you an idea that you’re probably talking to one kind of person vs. another.

Now regarding some of the other things you said, like the following:

Quote… I think there is a lack of evidence of any kind of supernatural anything.  If it exists, it is natural. …

I think this is something of a contradiction.  If something supernatural did exist, it would be by definition, not natural…right?  And how is it that you would know that there are no living beings that are invisible?  By their nature, as immaterial, they wouldn’t necessarily even be susceptible to things like science.  And we know that immaterial things exist, in the form of the laws of logic, which have to be presupposed for anything to even make sense.  In addition, I think that things like the so-called near death experience does provide, at least an indication that something beyond this physical world exists.  I also thing things like the moral law are immaterial and objective.  It’s rather like that old question, “How would you know what a crooked looked like without reference to a straight one?”  I think that’s correct, and the objective nature of that law lends itself to their being an objective reference point that is personal in nature, given that morality is about our personal obligations to one another.

I put a great deal of time and effort into the last forum that I frequented often, but the moderator lost patience with me.  He was frustrated that I wasn’t changing my mind, though the reverse didn’t seem to bother him.  And after a few years of dialogue, as well as facilitating dialogue with others designed to disabuse me of my superstitions, he became bored.  I was sad to see that particular place go the way of the Dodo, but all good things must come to an end it seems.  I have a pretty busy life, so I don’t know exactly how prolific I’ll be able to be here, but I do relish the possibility of being able to engage others and be engaged in a climate of respect and intellectual curiosity.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on June 02, 2015, 06:39:31 AM

Now regarding some of the other things you said, like the following:I think this is something of a contradiction.  If something supernatural did exist, it would be by definition, not natural…right?  And how is it that you would know that there are no living beings that are invisible?  By their nature, as immaterial, they wouldn’t necessarily even be susceptible to things like science.  And we know that immaterial things exist, in the form of the laws of logic, which have to be presupposed for anything to even make sense.  In addition, I think that things like the so-called near death experience does provide, at least an indication that something beyond this physical world exists.  I also thing things like the moral law are immaterial and objective.  It’s rather like that old question, “How would you know what a crooked looked like without reference to a straight one?”  I think that’s correct, and the objective nature of that law lends itself to their being an objective reference point that is personal in nature, given that morality is about our personal obligations to one another.

Thanks for your reply--and I fully understand the pull of real life, so visit as you can.  And I need to chop up your reply--it's easier for me to keep track. 
Why is regarding supernatural as being impossible a contradiction?  I really don't see what you mean.  Of course if something were supernatural and existed it would not be natural--it would be other than natural.  How would I know there are no invisible beings?  There is no evidence.  Not a smidgen.  None.  If there were a supernatural being which was invisible, and that being wanted me to know that it was real, it would be incumbent upon that being to show me.  I could, otherwise, spend my entire life looking for or even acknowledging all sorts of invisible beings--the tooth fairy, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the easter bunny, trolls, orcs, Frodo, Harry Potter, Pecos Bill,--and on and on.  My world is actually littered with invisible beings inside my head.  But that does not mean I want to make a pilgrimage for find Harry Potter or Hogwarts.  Near death experiences.  Yes, they do seen real to those who profess to have experienced such things.  But science may yet provide us with an answer--our brain and its functions are just only now beginning to be understood.  My current hypothesis is that it is a brain function and not supernatural.  So, I don't consider that as being proof of an afterlife or some such. Understand that there really isn't anything in this universe that is invisible.  There are things in this universe that humans cannot see, but that is because our sensory organs are not all that good.  But we do have ways of demonstrating that they do exist even if we can't see them.  We know atoms exist, but I have yet to see them.  I am told my any number of scientists that study this that they do test for them all the time--and find them.  The term 'invisible' is mostly used as a convenience to indicate that we cannot see something, not that it does not exist.  However, all that does exist, the seen and the unseen (by humans) can be tested for--that's how theories are established.  If something is tested for and not found, then I'd say it does not exist.  God have not been found using any theories that I am aware of.  Nor any hypothesis, either. 

Moral laws are immaterial?  So, that makes them supernatural?  No, they came from somebodies thoughts and those thoughts were not supernatural.  Moral laws are regional and cultural.  And they evolve.  That makes them subjective.  There is not a single universal moral law--and if there were that would not change the fact they are subjective.  Why?  Because they are natural defense mechanisms designed for the survival of the group.  As the conditions of those groups evolve and change, so do the moral laws.  That is subjective.  Yes, each society develops personal obligations to each other and to that society or group.  That is what morality is--how we treat each other and ourselves.  But each society, culture, age has it's own set of obligations, which change with time.  Totally subjective.  Nothing divine is needed.

How would I know crooked if I did not know straight?  Easy.  I know blue because I was shown what it was.  It did not need to be contrasted with it's opposite.  What would that be, anyway?  We do use compare and contrast to make it easier to communicate--it's simply a convention. 

So, to wrap up--I see no evidence of anything supernatural.  No evidence of god--of any kind.  No evidence of invisible beings.  No objective moral laws (other than in a purely personal sense, I suppose)--all laws a subjective.  I see no evidence for any of that.  Whereas, you see the opposite.  And so, for you, what is proof of invisible beings? 
William Blake stated it well, I think:
Both read the Bible,
day and night,
but where I read black, you read white. 

Quote from: Odoital778412 on June 02, 2015, 06:39:31 AM
And how is it that you would know that there are no living beings that are invisible?  By their nature, as immaterial, they wouldn’t necessarily even be susceptible to things like science.

We don't know that there are no living beings that are invisible, but the important point is that we don't know that there are.  We can't point to them, test for them, or see their tracks in the sand.  Just as you can't do any of those things with these alleged supernatural beings, yourself.  Christians contest this, however.  They are convinced they have some gift of insight, unavailable to the rest of us, that allows them to know about the unseen and the unknowable.  Our reaction as atheists, or skeptics, or scientists (for those of us who are) is, "Well ain't that just fine and dandy.  Magic powers!  Ha Ha"

QuoteAnd how is it that you would know that there are no living beings that are invisible?  By their nature, as immaterial, they wouldn’t necessarily even be susceptible to things like science.

This is absolutely true, but the question is how do you know then if it is true they exist with no material evidence? Can you see them? Then you are hallucinating or have epilepsy . Do you hear them? Then you are schizophrenic. If you can touch them, then you are delusional, and if you believe in them with no evidence, you are not thinking correctly. 

Quote from: Odoital778412 on June 01, 2015, 06:17:19 AM
I’m not aware of calling all atheists joyless nihilistic materialists, but I admit there could be some.  Having said that, such a description doesn’t describe all of the atheists that I’ve met over the years.

Reeeeeally.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on May 26, 2015, 06:06:09 AM
Isn't Paganism a bit more hopeful and positive than atheism?  Atheists aren't monolithic of course, but if they are genuine materalists, then you're pretty much left with a deterministic and nihilistic world.  For people that know, perceive or just sense that, it can be pretty depressing.

Granting that you did not explicitly say "all", it is a canard that you have thrown out more than once, implying that atheism is a philosophy of nihilism and depression.  Along with your repeated statements that we "just don't understand".  There is little doubt left by your comments that yes, you mean 'all', yes, you mean 'depressing', yes, you mean 'nihilistic' even if you disclaim use of the actual words.  And if you're going to pull a bait-and-switch, it's probably better to pull it on someone who hasn't got your own reply to them in hand.

You know what?  I'm done playing your word games.  If you can't even recall for yourself the things you've said, and then act like the wronged party when you're called on it, and demand special respect for your position after throwing your scorn out upon mine and questioning my knowledge and reasoning ability because I refuse to automatically agree to your beliefs, fine.

I have better people to debate with, and better conversations to have with them.  You are not an honorable debating opponent.  I hope you become one, but it makes not a whit of difference to me whether or not you ever do, because I'm done with you and with your dishonest tactics.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on June 02, 2015, 06:39:31 AM



With regard to Christian sects and the near impossibility of making generic or blanket statements with regard to Christianity, I’m sympathetic.  But that’s why I gave those 5 core truths of the Christian faith, to which several others could be added.

1)   The authority of scripture
2)   The deity of Jesus Christ
3)   The sinfulness of man
4)   The substitutionary atonement
5)   Salvation by grace through faith (i.e. trust)

Those 5 were meant as a bare minimum.  But something like the triune nature of God could be added to that list, as well as the bodily or physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.  If you’re talking to someone who doesn’t hold to those core doctrines of the Christian faith, then you’re probably not talking to someone who can rightly be called a Christian.  That is part of the difficulty these days.  Everyone uses the term Christian, whether they believe any of those things or not.  I know people and churches who either don’t believe in any of those, or they make those beliefs optional, in the sense of, “whatever works for you”.  If they’re optional, then they aren’t beliefs that are actually held to.  So right away, vast numbers of churches would be excluded, simply because they are no longer Christian but derive their existence from an extinct Christian tradition.  I mean the word extinct, as in extinct from their particular church sect or denomination.  And I would encourage interested parties to make these kinds of distinctions. 

This is the crux of the matter. This is where we disagree 100%. I'd like to touch upon each and every one of these points and see if we cannot express to the other exactly what we mean when we do discuss these matters.  If we can do that, then I think it will be very easy to understand why we each think as we do. 

This is your view of what Christianity is.  This is not shared by all Christians.  This is your view--and that is important to this discussion.  Your views of christianity cannot be held out as being the definitive definition of that religion.  These rules can be held out as being your beliefs.  And I'm sure they are shared by many who call themselves Christians as well.  But just because you sincerely believe these to be the definitive rules for being Christian, they cannot be held out as being the only rules that define that religion.  Otherwise there would not be so many sects calling themselves Christian and with as much sincerity as you.  Which leads us to jargon and semantics and vocabulary.  If we are to have a meaningful communication, we have to recognize that   jargon is very important.  The set of definitions you attach to various words colors your thoughts and expressions here--and me as well.  Each vocation has it's own set of specific words they use.  I'm sure you run across that all the time in police work.  In order to navigate quickly, efficiently, and accurately in their field a person in law enforcement must learn the correct jargon.   That is the same for education, medical occupations, well, any vocation.  These words with their specific meanings do not usually match the meanings when used by the general public.  For example, when you use the word faith, I'm sure you have a specific definition in mind when using it.  When I use it, I define it as not caring about the facts and simply believing something because you want to or are told to.  I am positive that does not match your definition.  So, when discussing subjects we should take pains to define key words so that we are not talking past each other.  English is famous for the multiple meanings words can have.  So, it will be easy for us to simply assume that we each agree on what a certain word means.  We need to guard against that assumption. 

You are being quite patient and considerate Mike. Kudos.

Quote from: Savior2006 on June 05, 2015, 12:32:12 PM
You are being quite patient and considerate Mike. Kudos.

Thanks.  But from my past experience, strong (hard rock, extreme, fundamental--whatever) Christians just don't talk for very long without becoming angry.  To run across one who will at least attempt to answer questions about their beliefs is rather refreshing. 

Quote from: Savior2006 on June 05, 2015, 12:32:12 PM
You are being quite patient and considerate Mike. Kudos.

Yes, as they say in the Bible, "He has the patience of Job."

Quote from: Mike Cl on June 03, 2015, 11:59:09 AM
Thanks for your reply--and I fully understand the pull of real life, so visit as you can.  And I need to chop up your reply--it's easier for me to keep track. 
Why is regarding supernatural as being impossible a contradiction?  I really don't see what you mean.  Of course if something were supernatural and existed it would not be natural--it would be other than natural.  How would I know there are no invisible beings?  There is no evidence.  Not a smidgen.  None.  If there were a supernatural being which was invisible, and that being wanted me to know that it was real, it would be incumbent upon that being to show me.  I could, otherwise, spend my entire life looking for or even acknowledging all sorts of invisible beings--the tooth fairy, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the easter bunny, trolls, orcs, Frodo, Harry Potter, Pecos Bill,--and on and on.  My world is actually littered with invisible beings inside my head.  But that does not mean I want to make a pilgrimage for find Harry Potter or Hogwarts.  Near death experiences.  Yes, they do seen real to those who profess to have experienced such things.  But science may yet provide us with an answer--our brain and its functions are just only now beginning to be understood.  My current hypothesis is that it is a brain function and not supernatural.  So, I don't consider that as being proof of an afterlife or some such. Understand that there really isn't anything in this universe that is invisible.  There are things in this universe that humans cannot see, but that is because our sensory organs are not all that good.  But we do have ways of demonstrating that they do exist even if we can't see them.  We know atoms exist, but I have yet to see them.  I am told my any number of scientists that study this that they do test for them all the time--and find them.  The term 'invisible' is mostly used as a convenience to indicate that we cannot see something, not that it does not exist.  However, all that does exist, the seen and the unseen (by humans) can be tested for--that's how theories are established.  If something is tested for and not found, then I'd say it does not exist.  God have not been found using any theories that I am aware of.  Nor any hypothesis, either. 

Moral laws are immaterial?  So, that makes them supernatural?  No, they came from somebodies thoughts and those thoughts were not supernatural.  Moral laws are regional and cultural.  And they evolve.  That makes them subjective.  There is not a single universal moral law--and if there were that would not change the fact they are subjective.  Why?  Because they are natural defense mechanisms designed for the survival of the group.  As the conditions of those groups evolve and change, so do the moral laws.  That is subjective.  Yes, each society develops personal obligations to each other and to that society or group.  That is what morality is--how we treat each other and ourselves.  But each society, culture, age has it's own set of obligations, which change with time.  Totally subjective.  Nothing divine is needed.

How would I know crooked if I did not know straight?  Easy.  I know blue because I was shown what it was.  It did not need to be contrasted with it's opposite.  What would that be, anyway?  We do use compare and contrast to make it easier to communicate--it's simply a convention. 

So, to wrap up--I see no evidence of anything supernatural.  No evidence of god--of any kind.  No evidence of invisible beings.  No objective moral laws (other than in a purely personal sense, I suppose)--all laws a subjective.  I see no evidence for any of that.  Whereas, you see the opposite.  And so, for you, what is proof of invisible beings? 
William Blake stated it well, I think:
Both read the Bible,
day and night,
but where I read black, you read white.

Well, you’d made the following comment:

Quote… I think there is a lack of evidence of any kind of supernatural anything.  If it exists, it is natural. …

It’s possible that the term contradiction is too strong a word.  I was thinking in terms of things being natural, that they are open to confirmation by things like the scientific method.  But since we know things like the laws of logic exist and are not confirmable by things like the scientific method, as they must first be presupposed in order for science, reasoning, or anything else to even make sense or be intelligible; not everything would qualify as being natural, at least not in the same way.  In addition, if there is an immaterial being, He wouldn’t necessarily be subject to the material sciences in the way that most other things are.  So it wouldn’t make any sense to “look for” an immaterial or invisible man and conclude His nonexistence by the fact that He couldn’t be “sighted”.  You might have to look for evidence of His effects rather than direct evidence of Him.

Also, I should point out something I’m sure you already know.  The absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of absence.  So what you conclude is a lack of evidence, wouldn’t necessarily be a positive indicator for idea that an invisible being doesn’t exist.  And I think that it’s possible that such a being has declared Himself to humanity, but that humanity has increasingly chosen to ignore those declarations and rationalize Him away using the increase in their knowledge of the natural world as a tool in doing so.

I’d also point out that God probably isn’t on the level of Tooth Fairy, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Easter Bunny, trolls, orcs, Frodo, Harry Potter, Pecos Bill, etc... I can see how you might think so, since you probably regard them as equally false, but I would suggest that there are qualitative differences that you are ignoring.  Some of the qualitative differences:

1)   The claims made by God(s)
2)   The revelation(s) supposedly of or from God to mankind
3)   The sheer number and longevity of devout followers
4)   The good inspired by that God and carried out by its followers

And science may indeed provide some kind of natural explanation for some or all of near death experiences, but so far that is not the case.  I think near death experiences do provide a kind of evidence for their being an existence that goes beyond the current physical existence that we enjoy.  I don’t think it’s a knock down drag out, but I think it warrants much more study and currently points toward an immaterial existence after death but connected to our prior physical existence.  Is your current hypothesis based on the evidence available or based upon what you already believe?  For example, at least some of the near death experiences have taken place after medically verified brain death. 

With regard to your assertion that nothing invisible actually exists, I would simply say that you are making a statement that goes beyond what can actually be said truthfully.  I take your point that many things that have previously been thought apparently invisible can be detected in other ways.  However, it simply doesn’t follow that because some things that were once though invisible can be detected, nothing invisible actually exists.  Having said that, it’s a minor point, because I don’t think it actually detracts from the idea of God’s existence anyway.  I don’t think His immateriality is a substitute for saying that He cannot be detected.  I think He can be, but not in ways or by way of categories that don’t make sense (i.e. looking with your eyes for something invisible to the human eye).

I think that as time goes along, more and more will realize that fundamental mind or intelligence will be forced on them by the reality of what they discover with regard complex coded instruction that leads to purposeful functional processes of physical things.  I don’t think that will be able to be re-created by way of a naturalistic process.  I think our repeated common experience in reality will simply be too powerful for us to continue ignoring, and no amount of knowledge will give nature a power it doesn’t possess (i.e. being from non-being and functionally purposeful information from non-conscious material nature).

No, the moral law being immaterial in nature doesn’t make them supernatural, but it does demonstrate that physical nature is not all that exists.  There are immaterial things that are actually extant realities.  I don’t believe that moral laws are regional or cultural.  I think that there are things that are objectively wrong, regardless of what anyone says or believes.  If I said that torturing handicapped babies for fun was wrong, I don’t think that I could ever be wrong in declaring that as a true fact.  And it wouldn’t matter if I were living in the midst of culture that believed the exact opposite.  Otherwise, there is no basis for genuine moral disagreement about anything.  Our disagreement with Hitler was akin to a difference of opinion over whether Chocolate or Vanilla is the superior ice cream flavor.  Moral facts are simply different, in their nature, than other facts of reality.

The moral law is only subjective in how they are understood and applied, but the law itself is not subjective.  Be careful not to confuse the moral value itself with the changing understanding of how that moral value is applied over time.  There is a difference between an absolute moral value and the changing understanding of that value.  For example, it was once the case that witches were sentenced as murderers, but now they are not.  What changed was not the moral principle that murder is wrong.  Rather, our understanding changed about whether witches really murder people by their curses.  One’s factual understanding of a moral situation is relative or subjective, but the moral values involved in the situation are not.  Does that make sense?

Morality is not how we treat one another.  That’s just sociology or the reporting of facts.  Morality is about how we “ought” to treat one another.  Morality is about our obligations to others, in terms of treatment.

Is there an opposite of blue?  No, it’s a continuum.  Is there an opposite of crooked?  Yes.  It may be true that we use certain things as conventions of learning, but it doesn’t change the fact that you wouldn’t and couldn’t know one unless you had the other.  You could feel water’s wetness, but if you never knew the concept of dryness, the concept of wetness would never be fully understood.  It wouldn’t make sense to talk of wetness as if it were something in particular if it were the only thing and therefore couldn’t be particularized.

Proof for the kind of God you discuss has to do with the evidence for premises in an argument that make the existence of a creator much more probable than not.  Personally, I like the cosmological argument.  I also like the moral argument because I’m convinced that my moral faculties are giving me valid information rather than mere tastes or distastes.  But I think that there is plenty of evidence and proof for those willing to look at it…fairly that is.  When people uncritically treat the Tooth Fairy as being the same as God, given the obvious and stark differences; I do wonder if they’ll have trouble being fair in looking at the issue.  That certainly doesn’t mean that they can’t be fair.  It just gives me pause, as do other things like that.

Mike! Why are you giving this rationalizing a soapbox as though he were making legitimate points somewhere along the way? These posts are becoming unreadable. If an atheist were to go through and correct this nonsense at every point, the theist will only come back with more rationalizing. The fact that he's being polite about it is keeping you in the conversation, but you are not making any progress that I can see. He is deep into the process of brainwashing himself, exactly like I was when I started Bible-college 30 years ago. It took schizophrenia, ironically, to wake me up to the difference between rationalizing and reasoning. This guy will probably never realize how empty his "cosmological" and most especially his "moral" arguments are. He wants the Christian God to be true, and since the whole myth is based on something "immaterial," which by definition  cannot be empirically disproven, he will go on rationalizing.

I hope this thread isn't setting a precedent.

 In a random mood

Quote from: Odoital778412 on June 07, 2015, 01:45:37 AM

Is there an opposite of blue? 

  Actually yes, it's yellow.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on June 07, 2015, 01:45:37 AMIs t  Is there an opposite of crooked?  Yes.

Actually no, crooked is a term relative to the original shape.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on June 07, 2015, 01:45:37 AM
Also, I should point out something I’m sure you already know.  The absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of absence.

It is however evidence for the lack of evidence.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on June 07, 2015, 01:45:37 AM
The moral law is only subjective in how they are understood and applied, but the law itself is not subjective.

   Actually this point is moot, it doesn't matter what you call the law, objective or subjective, heck you can call it frank if you want, but what truly defines it is how it's used, and since humans use laws, they will always be subjective.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on June 07, 2015, 01:45:37 AM
I think that as time goes along, more and more will realize that fundamental mind or intelligence will be forced on them by the reality of what they discover with regard complex coded instruction that leads to purposeful functional processes of physical things.  I don’t think that will be able to be re-created by way of a naturalistic process.  I think our repeated common experience in reality will simply be too powerful for us to continue ignoring, and no amount of knowledge will give nature a power it doesn’t possess (i.e. being from non-being and functionally purposeful information from non-conscious material nature).

  This reminds me of the life cannot come from non life argument, which amuses me, because we are made of non living matter.

And btw, we are made from non-conscious material.

And stating a being from non being is non nonsensical, unless you are arguing in favour of something similar to reincarnation or that we are infinite in nature ?




 
   

Quote from: Solomon Zorn on June 07, 2015, 07:35:34 AM
Mike! Why are you giving this rationalizing a soapbox as though he were making legitimate points somewhere along the way? These posts are becoming unreadable. If an atheist were to go through and correct this nonsense at every point, the theist will only come back with more rationalizing. The fact that he's being polite about it is keeping you in the conversation, but you are not making any progress that I can see. He is deep into the process of brainwashing himself, exactly like I was when I started Bible-college 30 years ago. It took schizophrenia, ironically, to wake me up to the difference between rationalizing and reasoning. This guy will probably never realize how empty his "cosmological" and most especially his "moral" arguments are. He wants the Christian God to be true, and since the whole myth is based on something "immaterial," which by definition  cannot be empirically disproven, he will go on rationalizing.

I hope this thread isn't setting a precedent.

Solomon, this type of rationalizing is alive and well around the world.  He will always think his points 'legitimate' points.  I don't expect to make head-way.  I simply wish to understand in more detail how a person of intelligence can take the positions he does.  To think all fundamental religious people are all stupid and irrational is to give their movement more power.  I think they are all misguided, and wrong.  But not all stupid; their movement ultimately causes more damage than good, so to face it best is to face it squarely and   try to figure out how they 'think'.  If reasoning is superior to believing, then one should encourage this type of exchange.  Besides, where better for this guy to be on a 'soapbox' than on this site??  Can he possibly do any damage here?  Do any of the members of this board think reasoning is not better than just believing???  I don't think so. 

when it takes 500 words to answer a simple question…someone is making shit up.

Quote from: aitm on June 07, 2015, 08:50:03 PM
when it takes 500 words to answer a simple question…someone is making shit up.

When a christian uses 5 words for any question someone is making shit up.

Quote from: aitm on June 07, 2015, 08:50:03 PM
when it takes 500 words to answer a simple question…someone is making shit up.

I agree, and I don't mean to heap shit on the theist in question, but long drawn out blather in logical arguments always seems unnecessary to me.  But it is a handy tool to obscure thoughts, meanings, and flawed logic.  When I encounter it, it sends up a huge red flag.  Someone is trying to fool himself or others or both.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on June 07, 2015, 01:45:37 AM

I’d also point out that God probably isn’t on the level of Tooth Fairy, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Easter Bunny, trolls, orcs, Frodo, Harry Potter, Pecos Bill, etc... I can see how you might think so, since you probably regard them as equally false, but I would suggest that there are qualitative differences that you are ignoring.  Some of the qualitative differences:

1)   The claims made by God(s)
2)   The revelation(s) supposedly of or from God to mankind
3)   The sheer number and longevity of devout followers
4)   The good inspired by that God and carried out by its followers

Those are not qualitative differences. Those are logic fallacies.

The number and longevity of devout followers is argumentum ad populum, "appeal to the population" which goes "because many believe it, it must be so." This is fallacious, that is the conclusion does not follow. Just because many believe a thing does not make it so. Many seem to think the Kardasians are interesting, but does that mean they are? Of course not. Likewise, that many believe in a god does not at all speak to the truth value of the existence of such a thing.

None of this speaks to the truth value of whether gods exist. It's mostly emotional manipulation, which we've come to expect from christians. It's all they have.

Quote from: aitm on June 07, 2015, 08:50:03 PM
when it takes 500 words to answer a simple question…someone is making shit up.

Either that, or they don't understand the subject well enough to explain with less words.

Quote from: Odoital778412 on June 07, 2015, 01:45:37 AM
You----Well, you’d made the following comment:It’s possible that the term contradiction is too strong a word.  I was thinking in terms of things being natural, that they are open to confirmation by things like the scientific method.  But since we know things like the laws of logic exist and are not confirmable by things like the scientific method, as they must first be presupposed in order for science, reasoning, or anything else to even make sense or be intelligible; not everything would qualify as being natural, at least not in the same way.  In addition, if there is an immaterial being, He wouldn’t necessarily be subject to the material sciences in the way that most other things are.  So it wouldn’t make any sense to “look for” an immaterial or invisible man and conclude His nonexistence by the fact that He couldn’t be “sighted”.  You might have to look for evidence of His effects rather than direct evidence of Him.

Me----Laws of logic are not a material thing and have nothing to do with invisible beings.  But they are confirm-able  by other methods.  Invisible beings are not confirm-able by any means--except wishful thinking or blind belief.  I have seen more evidence for the tooth fairy than any invisible god--I got money under my pillow.   

You----Also, I should point out something I’m sure you already know.  The absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of absence.  So what you conclude is a lack of evidence, wouldn’t necessarily be a positive indicator for idea that an invisible being doesn’t exist.  And I think that it’s possible that such a being has declared Himself to humanity, but that humanity has increasingly chosen to ignore those declarations and rationalize Him away using the increase in their knowledge of the natural world as a tool in doing so.

Me----But absence of evidence is necessarily a strong suggestion that there is nothing there.  I have neither seen, heard, smelled, tasted or otherwise experienced any indication that an invisible or visible god exists.   That suggests strongly that there is nothing there.  Otherwise I could just make up beings left and right and simply insist that you are simply choosing not to see the signs.  You are allowing your 'belief' to shut yourself off from the reality of the fact that invisible beings just don't exist.  I find it compelling that your god, who declared himself some time well beyond the time he created humanity, did so (at least according to you--not me) in such an ineffectual way that the religions of the world are numbered in the 10's of 10's  of thousands, not in the single numbers.  And in such an ineffectual way the supposed scripture (for you) is not in a single edition, but in literally hundreds.  There is not a single autograph of it in existence.  It has been demonstrated that the bible is simply tales made up and cobbled together--that is quite a statement from your non-existent invisible being.  So, how can anybody rationalize something that has never existed????  You, on the other hand, are rationalizing your need to believe what it is you want to--and with no proof other than what you want to believe. 

You-----I’d also point out that God probably isn’t on the level of Tooth Fairy, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Easter Bunny, trolls, orcs, Frodo, Harry Potter, Pecos Bill, etc... I can see how you might think so, since you probably regard them as equally false, but I would suggest that there are qualitative differences that you are ignoring.  Some of the qualitative differences:

1)   The claims made by God(s)
2)   The revelation(s) supposedly of or from God to mankind
3)   The sheer number and longevity of devout followers
4)   The good inspired by that God and carried out by its followers

Me----In my eyes and experience, god is exactly the same as the tooth fairy and all other invisible beings.
    1--God has made no claims--not in any provable way.  People believe in many invisible gods.  All are purported to have made claims--all different all equally factious.  Why chose the Christian one above the others?  I suggest it is a geographic accident--if you were born in Iran, it would allah who would be the invisible god you'd claim.
    2---See #1.
    3---I see.  If a falsehood is believed by enough and for a long enough time, it turns into the truth????  Wow!  And if we can find follows of Mithra or Zoroaster still in existence, then their beliefs would then trump Christianity? 
     4---The good inspired?  Okay, that is on the plus side of the equation.  I see, however, the bad done by the name of this invisible being far outweighs the good.  They cancel each other out, with the remainder all on the bad side.


You----And science may indeed provide some kind of natural explanation for some or all of near death experiences, but so far that is not the case.  I think near death experiences do provide a kind of evidence for their being an existence that goes beyond the current physical existence that we enjoy.  I don’t think it’s a knock down drag out, but I think it warrants much more study and currently points toward an immaterial existence after death but connected to our prior physical existence.  Is your current hypothesis based on the evidence available or based upon what you already believe?  For example, at least some of the near death experiences have taken place after medically verified brain death. 

Me-----Of course you want to believe that near death experiences are real and prove some kind of point for you.  You asked if my current hypothesis is based on evidence or based on what I believe.  My beliefs are not important.  I think there is enough evidence to suggest that we know little of how the brain functions--but we are learning.  And the more that is learned in this area supports that the NDE's can be physical.  I think you already know what you want to believe and then believe it. 

You-----With regard to your assertion that nothing invisible actually exists, I would simply say that you are making a statement that goes beyond what can actually be said truthfully.  I take your point that many things that have previously been thought apparently invisible can be detected in other ways.  However, it simply doesn’t follow that because some things that were once though invisible can be detected, nothing invisible actually exists.  Having said that, it’s a minor point, because I don’t think it actually detracts from the idea of God’s existence anyway.  I don’t think His immateriality is a substitute for saying that He cannot be detected.  I think He can be, but not in ways or by way of categories that don’t make sense (i.e. looking with your eyes for something invisible to the human eye).

Me----do you know of some God detection meter?  You immaterial, invisible being creates a material race.  And this invisible being then leaves signs, but they can't be seen.  He gives his Word, yet not in one coherent, unified manner.  You say--"I think He can be, but not in ways or by way of categories that don’t make sense (i.e. looking with your eyes for something invisible to the human eye)."  What does that mean???  That this immaterial being creates humans in a material plane, yet does not allow that material creation the ability to experience the creator in a material way??? He's there--you just can't see him?????  What you are saying is what the hierarchy of your religion have been saying from the beginning.  And they have been saying it because only they can explain it--and this allows them to control and keep control of the flock.  This is the crux of organized religions destructive power.

You------I think that as time goes along, more and more will realize that fundamental mind or intelligence will be forced on them by the reality of what they discover with regard complex coded instruction that leads to purposeful functional processes of physical things.  I don’t think that will be able to be re-created by way of a naturalistic process.  I think our repeated common experience in reality will simply be too powerful for us to continue ignoring, and no amount of knowledge will give nature a power it doesn’t possess (i.e. being from non-being and functionally purposeful information from non-conscious material nature).

Me---I have no  idea what you mean in that paragraph. 

You-----No, the moral law being immaterial in nature doesn’t make them supernatural, but it does demonstrate that physical nature is not all that exists.  There are immaterial things that are actually extant realities.  I don’t believe that moral laws are regional or cultural.  I think that there are things that are objectively wrong, regardless of what anyone says or believes.  If I said that torturing handicapped babies for fun was wrong, I don’t think that I could ever be wrong in declaring that as a true fact.  And it wouldn’t matter if I were living in the midst of culture that believed the exact opposite.  Otherwise, there is no basis for genuine moral disagreement about anything.  Our disagreement with Hitler was akin to a difference of opinion over whether Chocolate or Vanilla is the superior ice cream flavor.  Moral facts are simply different, in their nature, than other facts of reality.

Me----Your beliefs don't make your selection of morality god's law or some such.  The fact remains that each group agrees to what is moral, what the individual obligations to each other are, and those agreements evolve.  Study social anthropology to see that that is so.  What does ice cream flavors have to do with morals??  You simply want to believe that your morals gathered from an invisible being in a flawed bible are objective and are real.  For you, I suppose they are--because that is what you want to believe.

You----The moral law is only subjective in how they are understood and applied, but the law itself is not subjective.  Be careful not to confuse the moral value itself with the changing understanding of how that moral value is applied over time.  There is a difference between an absolute moral value and the changing understanding of that value.  For example, it was once the case that witches were sentenced as murderers, but now they are not.  What changed was not the moral principle that murder is wrong.  Rather, our understanding changed about whether witches really murder people by their curses.  One’s factual understanding of a moral situation is relative or subjective, but the moral values involved in the situation are not.  Does that make sense?

Me----Does that make sense??? No, not at all.  You are simply saying--these moral laws, are the moral laws, are the moral laws--because I was told that is so by an invisible being in a flawed book.  Repeating a refrain does not make it so.

You----Morality is not how we treat one another.  That’s just sociology or the reporting of facts.  Morality is about how we “ought” to treat one another.  Morality is about our obligations to others, in terms of treatment.

Me----And???  These do not flow from an invisible being from a flawed book.  They come from each society.


You----Proof for the kind of God you discuss has to do with the evidence for premises in an argument that make the existence of a creator much more probable than not.  Personally, I like the cosmological argument.  I also like the moral argument because I’m convinced that my moral faculties are giving me valid information rather than mere tastes or distastes.  But I think that there is plenty of evidence and proof for those willing to look at it…fairly that is.  When people uncritically treat the Tooth Fairy as being the same as God, given the obvious and stark differences; I do wonder if they’ll have trouble being fair in looking at the issue.  That certainly doesn’t mean that they can’t be fair.  It just gives me pause, as do other things like that.

Me--And I have troubles thinking you can be fair and unbiased as well.  You suggest that an invisible being created all.  But in a material way.  And that material creation has to experience that creator in an immaterial way.  And all the signs and proofs come from non-provable sources or sources that are not material.  And you expect me to simply take that on 'faith'.  I would suggest that you give me pause , as things like that do, that you want to see what you want to see--and that is all you will see. 

I don't want to de-rail the thread or pile on here but...

Quote from: Odoital778412 on June 07, 2015, 01:45:37 AM
4)   The good inspired by that God and carried out by its followers

For example, it was once the case that witches were sentenced as murderers, but now they are not.  What changed was not the moral principle that murder is wrong.  Rather, our understanding changed about whether witches really murder people by their curses. 

Probably something to do with a line in a book...

Quote
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. (http://biblehub.com/exodus/22-18.htm)

Quote from: Odoital778412 on June 07, 2015, 01:45:37 AM

The moral law is only subjective in how they are understood and applied, but the law itself is not subjective.  Be careful not to confuse the moral value itself with the changing understanding of how that moral value is applied over time.  There is a difference between an absolute moral value and the changing understanding of that value.  For example, it was once the case that witches were sentenced as murderers, but now they are not.  What changed was not the moral principle that murder is wrong.  Rather, our understanding changed about whether witches really murder people by their curses.  One’s factual understanding of a moral situation is relative or subjective, but the moral values involved in the situation are not.  Does that make sense?

Yeah it makes sense. So you believe witches actually exist but thankfully you no longer believe they murder people with their curses. Got it.