Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

marienbad · 01-01-2015 5:36pm

Nick Park wrote: »

I do take it personally when people falsely ascribe views to me that I do not hold. It is a form of lying.

And quoting the lie in your post is little better. You could easily have addressed the inherent problem without using a quote that misattributed a view to me.

How can you take it personally on an anonymous forum populated by people you don't even know, probably will never know and they are in the same boat concerning you is a bit surprising to me .

Though there may be a moral in there somewhere along the lines of the sin and not the sinner and people taking offence at that and refusing to see the difference.

So maybe you are right after all and it is impossible to separate the poster from the post and therefore you are right to take offence.

indioblack · 01-01-2015 6:08pm

.

There isn't much point in trying to explain something which, if Christianity is true, you are utterly blind to. It would only be when you can see that the whole thing comes to make sense. And according to Christianity, God is the only one who can lift the blinkers. No amount of explaining by me would do it.

So why doesn't God "lift the blinkers"?
By not doing so surely he is perpetuating the negativity.

antiskeptic · 01-01-2015 6:43pm

indioblack wrote: »

So why doesn't God "lift the blinkers"?

It would appear that lifting the blinkers is something that occurs around salvation.

And arrival at salvation (or not) is a function of the (largely) unconscious response of a person to God's system of salvation which is aimed at bringing a person beyond rebellion and into a full (read: knee crumbling) "consciousness of sin".

It is open to a person to resist and deny and evade God's attempt to reveal the depth of a persons sin. A refusal to have eyes opened to the truth about themselves. In which case no salvation.

Why? The persons wills not.

indioblack · 01-01-2015 8:10pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

It would appear that lifting the blinkers is something that occurs around salvation.

And arrival at salvation (or not) is a function of the (largely) unconscious response of a person to God's system of salvation which is aimed at bringing a person beyond rebellion and into a full (read: knee crumbling) "consciousness of sin".

It is open to a person to resist and deny and evade God's attempt to reveal the depth of a persons sin. A refusal to have eyes opened to the truth about themselves. In which case no salvation.

Why? The persons wills not.

Thanks for the reply.
My concern is more about our perceptions of God - and that was behind my post.
Most of the people I've known who have a belief in Christianity usually have a fairly straightforward image of God. Predominantly Catholic - and the view of God they gave us at school - and the one still around for many people - just look at the Christmas cards!
This perception of God is perfection, unlimited. This gives equally unlimited abilities and powers. Logically it also implies inescapable responsibilities - hence my post.

RikuoAmero · 01-01-2015 8:35pm

indioblack wrote: »

Thanks for the reply.
My concern is more about our perceptions of God - and that was behind my post.
Most of the people I've known who have a belief in Christianity usually have a fairly straightforward image of God. Predominantly Catholic - and the view of God they gave us at school - and the one still around for many people - just look at the Christmas cards!
This perception of God is perfection, unlimited. This gives equally unlimited abilities and powers. Logically it also implies inescapable responsibilities - hence my post.

Precisely that. It's a situation of wanting to eat your cake and have it too. Antiskeptic replied back to me confirming that he believes that God knew right from the first moment of creation that sh*t would hit the fan, and yet he doesn't attribute responsibility to God for allowing it to happen anyway.
Imagine I'm a doctor, and I diagnose an unborn child with a disease that I could easily cure before the birth. Instead of doing that, I wait until the child is born, starts suffering and only later, after many years of suffering, do I reveal that I created a clone of myself so that I could harvest the clone's heart for a transplant (and that the operation was done while the clone was still alive and conscious). When pressed for an answer why I allowed all that to happen, I answer with "You weren't there at the moment of creation, you know nothing!" or that it's to show how awesome I am.

Also antiskeptic...forgiveness entails I have to sacrifice something? Really?

I've forgiven people in the past, and I did not have to sacrifice anything. I forgave my sister who bullied me throughout my childhood, and I lost not one thing doing so. So I've falsified your statement.

As for what aspect of God would render loss impossible? I haven't a clue, but I would say for a more pertinant point, it would render the loss meaningless. Imagine if I had ten billion euro in the bank, and I gave you €100. To me, that is an insignificant loss. It hurts me not at all. I don't even notice the drop in my bank account. It would mean I'd be an ass if I went around saying how great I was and how you should love me for giving you that one hundred euro.
Logically speaking, an infinite God "sacrificing" something is meaningless.

Three persons, one God.. isn't one and the same person.

Violates the logical laws of identity and non-contradiction.

antiskeptic · 01-01-2015 8:57pm

indioblack wrote: »

This perception of God is perfection, unlimited. This gives equally unlimited abilities and powers. Logically it also implies inescapable responsibilities - hence my post.

It would appear that God, in creating us immediately set about giving us a choice as to whether we would be lovers of righteousness (a.k.a. align ourselves with what God stands for) or lovers of the opposite. There isn't much by way of extreme options open than that.

His only responsibility, that I can see, is that all are given a balanced choice in whether they will opt for him or against him (although that notion of mine only stems from a sense of fair play ... which would stem from my being made in his image and likeness ... which would stem from him)

I don't see how any of that impinges on his being perfect or unlimited

indioblack · 01-01-2015 9:44pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

It would appear that God, in creating us immediately set about giving us a choice as to whether we would be lovers of righteousness (a.k.a. align ourselves with what God stands for) or lovers of the opposite. There isn't much by way of extreme options open than that.

His only responsibility, that I can see, is that all are given a balanced choice in whether they will opt for him or against him (although that notion of mine only stems from a sense of fair play ... which would stem from my being made in his image and likeness ... which would stem from him)

I don't see how any of that impinges on his being perfect or unlimited

And yet there are peoples lives where it appears that they are unaware of these options - lives in which other "values" - perhaps negative - dominate and influence their behaviour.

RikuoAmero · 01-01-2015 9:49pm

indioblack wrote: »

And yet there are peoples lives where it appears that they are unaware of these options - lives in which other "values" - perhaps negative - dominate and influence their behaviour.

For me, the righteousness that I'm hearing from the christian camp is actually gullibility and mindless obedience. How can it be other than gullibility when I'm being told that it's a "good" thing to believe that a magic god-man lived, died and was resurrected 2,000 years ago all with little to no evidence?

indioblack · 01-01-2015 10:04pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

For me, the righteousness that I'm hearing from the christian camp is actually gullibility and mindless obedience. How can it be other than gullibility when I'm being told that it's a "good" thing to believe that a magic god-man lived, died and was resurrected 2,000 years ago all with little to no evidence?

It probably would be a good thing were it not for peoples perceptions and experiences of life - a complexity I find hard to explain with the simplicity of religion.

antiskeptic · 01-01-2015 10:15pm

indioblack wrote: »

And yet there are peoples lives where it appears that they are unaware of these options - lives in which other "values" - perhaps negative - dominate and influence their behaviour.

I'm not of the view that a person need have been exposed to Christianity or even heard of Jesus Christ in order that they have a, let's call it, fair crack at the whip.

And I'm not of the view that there is anywhere in the world where the basic fabric of the mechanism of salvation isn't both available and at work. All people have a (God-given) conscience, all people operate in an environment influenced by that conscience and a sin-infected nature urging them to act counter to that conscience. All people face challenges, pain, sickness, the misery of their own sin visited upon them, injustice. God can ensure the deck is stacked evenly to take account of all the fluctuations in influences (external and internal) and experiences that go to make up the fabric of his enquiry of each person. "Do you want what I stand for or what I stand against".

I found it somewhat ironic that Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion cited scientific research which concluded that, when you strip away outside influences such as country of origin, religion, socio-economic position, education, sex, etc, etc., human morality the world over is essentially the same. Richard, naturally, was aiming to shore up the notion of common ancestor. I don't think God was who he had in mind though

Nick Park · 01-01-2015 10:42pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Nick replied back to me confirming that he believes that God knew right from the first moment of creation that sh*t would hit the fan, and yet he doesn't attribute responsibility to God for allowing it to happen anyway.

Actually I didn't. I said that God is outside of time and space, so in Him there is no 'before'.

Also Nick...forgiveness entails I have to sacrifice something? Really?

I never said it did. This ascribing of views to me on the basis of imagination seems to be catching. Is there a course in it that atheists have to take before they post here?

Nick Park · 01-01-2015 10:45pm

marienbad wrote: »

How can you take it personally on an anonymous forum populated by people you don't even know, probably will never know and they are in the same boat concerning you is a bit surprising to me .

Though there may be a moral in there somewhere along the lines of the sin and not the sinner and people taking offence at that and refusing to see the difference.

So maybe you are right after all and it is impossible to separate the poster from the post and therefore you are right to take offence.

I'm not anonymous.

But I'm interested that you seem to think that misrepresenting the views of others is more acceptable if you do it anonymously. Most people would think that compounds the offence rather than being a mitigating factor.

RikuoAmero · 01-01-2015 10:48pm

Nick Park wrote: »

Actually I didn't. I said that God is outside of time and space, so in Him there is no 'before'.

I never said it did. This ascribing of views to me on the basis of imagination seems to be catching. Is there a course in it that atheists have to take before they post here?

I apologize sincerely to you Nick. Upon re-reading, it turns out that it was antiskeptic who said that bit about forgiveness requiring sacrifice.
I admit that it is a problem here, where I'm busy replying to people and I get some of you mixed up in my head. Again, apologies!

indioblack · 01-01-2015 10:49pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not of the view that a person need have been exposed to Christianity or even heard of Jesus Christ in order that they have a, let's call it, fair crack at the whip.

And I'm not of the view that there is anywhere in the world where the basic fabric of the mechanism of salvation isn't both available and at work. All people have a (God-given) conscience, all people operate in an environment influenced by that conscience and a sin-infected nature urging them to act counter to that conscience. All people face challenges, pain, sickness, the misery of their own sin visited upon them, injustice. God can ensure the deck is stacked evenly to take account of all the fluctuations in influences (external and internal) and experiences that go to make up the fabric of his enquiry of each person. "Do you want what I stand for or what I stand against".

I gave a friend of mine a copy of Dawkins book - he gave me a book entitled "Richard Dawkins Delusions"!
Some trials in life happen to those who can have no influence over what befalls them. By reason of their youth, for example.
The mechanical, physical world may be balanced with regard to your belief - if so, it could be argued that for some these trials of life are imposed without any discernible reason.

marienbad · 01-01-2015 10:58pm

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm not anonymous.

But I'm interested that you seem to think that misrepresenting the views of others is more acceptable if you do it anonymously. Most people would think that compounds the offence rather than being a mitigating factor.

Nick - Of course you are ,at least to me and vice versa , and taking offence at posts done in a humorous vein is even more strange.

antiskeptic · 01-01-2015 11:09pm

indioblack wrote: »

I gave a friend of mine a copy of Dawkins book - he gave me a book entitled "Richard Dawkins Delusions"!

Although you might say "you would say that" TGD was a pretty shoddy piece of work. It had a pretty infantile understanding of the construction of the Christian argument and proceeded to knock holes in that.

Some trials in life happen to those who can have no influence over what befalls them. By reason of their youth, for example.

Whether trials are self-sourced or come from without isn't the core issue. The issue is that however sourced, pressures are brought to bear that probe on a persons willingness to remain self-sustaining and independent of God.

What do they do with the probing caused by an appreciation of the magnitude of the universe (if they are susceptible to the awe due on appreciation of it): bury it or suffer the ache? What do they do with perversions within: bury the guilt and keep it buried to the end of their days or suffer the pain of it's bubbling back up to the surface? What do they do when faced with the end of their lives? Insist there is nothing beyond (which they cannot know). Or open the door to the possibility and humble themselves before a yet-unknown, still-unbelieved in God.

I'm basing this view on both the drumbeat theme of the Bible: people in trouble, under pressure, in fear, sick, rejected turning to God. And my own experience and that of folk around me. Christianity (and religion in general) is frequently mocked as made up of those in need of a crutch. Which is in fact true. It's for those who recognize they can't solve urgent, agonizing issues by themselves.

The mechanical, physical world may be balanced with regard to your belief - if so, it could be argued that for some these trials of life are imposed without any discernible reason.

I agree that this is certainly the case. Perhaps mostly the case. But that doesn't prevent that raw material being woven into a purposeful fabric by God.

RikuoAmero · 01-01-2015 11:15pm

What do they do with perversions within: bury the guilt and keep it buried to the end of their days or suffer the pain of it's bubbling back up to the surface?

I choose door number 3. Accept the perversions as part of themselves, same as any other facet of their personality, but choose not to act on them due to having learned of the harm caused to others.
Logical fallacy of the false dichotomy, you have just committed.

antiskeptic · 01-01-2015 11:30pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I choose door number 3. Accept the perversions as part of themselves, same as any other facet of their personality, but choose not to act on them due to having learned of the harm caused to others.

Jesus spoke of lusting in your heart (paralleling the OT commandment forbidding adultery). It doesn't cause harm to anyone (apart from you perhaps) yet is sinful.

What you're essentially doing is taking the denial option (in the event Christianity is true)

Logical fallacy of the false dichotomy, you have just committed.

You wouldn't hold off on citing logical fallacies as frequently as you do would you? Doing so is a) so very internet discussion forum ca. 2005 b) more likely to result in mis-application (as you appear to have done here) than hit the target.

indioblack · 01-01-2015 11:32pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Although you might say "you would say that" TGD was a pretty shoddy piece of work. It had a pretty infantile understanding of the construction of the Christian argument and proceeded to knock holes in that.

Whether trials are self-sourced or come from without isn't the core issue. The issue is that however sourced, pressures are brought to bear that probe on a persons willingness to remain self-sustaining and independent of God.

What do they do with the probing caused by an appreciation of the magnitude of the universe (if they are susceptible to the awe due on appreciation of it): bury it or suffer the ache? What do they do with perversions within: bury the guilt and keep it buried to the end of their days or suffer the pain of it's bubbling back up to the surface? What do they do when faced with the end of their lives? Insist there is nothing beyond (which they cannot know). Or open the door to the possibility and humble themselves before a yet-unknown, still-unbelieved in God.

I'm basing this view on both the drumbeat theme of the Bible: people in trouble, under pressure, in fear, sick, rejected turning to God. And my own experience and that of folk around me. Christianity (and religion in general) is frequently mocked as made up of those in need of a crutch. Which is in fact true. It's for those who recognize they can't solve urgent, agonizing issues by themselves.

I agree that this is certainly the case. Perhaps mostly the case. But that doesn't prevent that raw material being woven into a purposeful fabric by God.

The raw material being us - the weaver being God.
An interesting perception of us - but a more interesting view of God.
The methods used for this work could make some description of the agency responsible, could it not?

RikuoAmero · 01-01-2015 11:52pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Jesus spoke of lusting in your heart (paralleling the OT commandment forbidding adultery). It doesn't cause harm to anyone (apart from you perhaps) yet is sinful.

What you're essentially doing is taking the denial option (in the event Christianity is true)

So accepting something as a facet of my personality...is denial?

I choose door number 3 because it is the option with the highest number of positive outcomes for all concerned. If we take your lusting in your heart that you mentioned, this means I don't feel guilty over feeling lust, and no-one else suffers because I don't act on it (against their will, that is). The two options you listed would have had me either bury it deep (which is psychologically harmful) or be aware of it and feel constantly guilty (which is also psychologically harmful). I've been down both roads and neither was a pleasant experience.

You wouldn't hold off on citing logical fallacies as frequently as you do would you? Doing so is a) so very internet discussion forum ca. 2005 b) more likely to result in mis-application (as you appear to have done here) than hit the target.

Logical fallacies are a valid means of critiquing arguments, especially on a board dealing with the existence/non-existence of a named entity. You did do false dichotomy - you mentioned a facet of human experience, and listed two means of dealing with it as if they were the only two valid options.

Safehands · 02-01-2015 12:58am

antiskeptic wrote: »

God the Father valued his Son - the relationship was more loving and intimate than any between earthly father and son. The Father gave up relationship with his son (his son carrying all sin couldn't have any relationship with the Father) and watch that son suffer ignomy, pain, suffering, death

The Son was the Prince of the most glorious Kingdom. He set that aside to delve down into the muck of humanity and tolerated the worst ill treatment and injustice and faced into that which terrifies us - death. In order that others be saved the Fathers wrath.

I've read about and listened to this since I could talk. I have never understood it.
If the son was divine, he could dress up as, and act like a human but he was still divine. He knew what was going to happen. Ill treating a person with supernatural powers is not the same as ill treating a normal person. If he was supernatural and could raise people from the dead and cure all ills, then he would not really be bothered by the mistreatment he received at the hands of the Romans. If we are to believe the story, he knew he was going to come back again, so its not exactly like killing somebody permanently, is it? He knew what it was all about, so why was he so terrified by it?

Who exactly was saved from the Father's wrath and how? Is this the same loving father that believers go on about all the time? How can a bad tempered Father be all loving and forgiving? If I as a father, took my wrath out on my kids, for not obeying me, or showing me love, I would not be all loving to them, would I?
I think that Christian believers really don't understand the term "loving father".

antiskeptic · 02-01-2015 1:17am

indioblack wrote: »

The raw material being us

The raw material being us, what we do, the consequences that follow what we do .. and all that comes at us in our lives.

- the weaver being God.

That. Or the notion of shepherd is a common biblical one also - the idea of attempting to gather a flock, capable of own mind, together to safety.

An interesting perception of us - but a more interesting view of God. The methods used for this work could make some description of the agency responsible, could it not?

I'm not sure what you mean. God responsible for the outcome (whether we are saved or not) perhaps?

If so, then no, not necessarily. If his weaving aims to ensure that a fair, balanced choice between the options is presented us, but that the ultimate choice between options is ours, then no.

antiskeptic · 02-01-2015 1:42am

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So accepting something as a facet of my personality...is denial?

I'm not sure that accepting some (what you consider to be) perverse aspect of your character is problematic in itself. It's what you do with the guilt that rises when you engage in that perversity (whether harming others or not). One thing to do is simply re-calibrate so that the perversity is no longer considered a perversity. Another is to suppress the guilt and maybe try harder to resist engaging in whatever it is next time. Both forms of denial.

It's important what happens to that guilt (which is actually intended to highlight and signpost the sin for what it is). If it is really buried down deep by means of virulent denial then it's as if that part of the conscience dies. It actually doesn't see the evil as evil anymore.

I choose door number 3 because it is the option with the highest number of positive outcomes for all concerned. If we take your lusting in your heart that you mentioned, this means I don't feel guilty over feeling lust, and no-one else suffers because I don't act on it (against their will, that is). The two options you listed would have had me either bury it deep (which is psychologically harmful) or be aware of it and feel constantly guilty (which is also psychologically harmful). I've been down both roads and neither was a pleasant experience.

Door number three deals with the pain by taking a pain suppressant. This isn't at all unusual. M.Scott Peck, the psychologist writer of a very popular book some years ago made the observation from years of counselling practice that people weren't interested in a cure for their psychological pain, they simply wanted the pain to go away.

And the world, like any good market provides mankind with any number of ways in which to dull the ache.

Pain, might be psychologically difficult. It might bring to you the point of taking your own life. But pain ultimately is there to indicate something wrong and unless you apply the right fix you're wasting your time.

Suppression of guilt can be dealt with in two ways. It can be kept right down deep til the day you die when, the Bible says, all will be revealed about you anyway. Or the pressure of holding it in becomes too much as it swells to the surface where you can see it and you are overwhelmed by the truth of your awful condition.

The former position requires an act of will to maintain things. The latter the surrender of will to bring about the release.

Curiously, it's the surrender of will which brings a person to God. The exposure to one's true state which brings about a cry for help. Cry that way, and he will turn up and resolve your problem for you.

Logical fallacies are a valid means of critiquing arguments, especially on a board dealing with the existence/non-existence of a named entity. You did do false dichotomy - you mentioned a facet of human experience, and listed two means of dealing with it as if they were the only two valid options.

See above. Acceptance, then what. What do you do with the guilt?

antiskeptic · 02-01-2015 2:00am

Safehands wrote: »

I've read about and listened to this since I could talk. I have never understood it.

I doubt anyone does fully. The bible uses all kinds of symbols and examples based on our experience in our lives so as to enable us to begin to get insight. Insight sufficient. But it can't explain things fully since we simply don't operate in the same environment as all this stuff which is taking place. I mean, what's it like to suffer for three days in eternity? Is it like suffering for three days here or is it something else?

If the son was divine, he could dress up as, and act like a human but he was still divine. He knew what was going to happen.

The description is fully man, fully divine. Fully human and you can begin to appreciate the terror and suffering and sense of abandonment as he experienced it. Fully divine and you're in the realm of not really being in a position to understand what is involved in a spotlessly morally clean person bearing the filth of the world. The World, man. Start imagining that load.

Now you can take one of two tacks with what is certainly mysterious. You can seek to dismantle it, minimize it, shrink it, project man-sized ideas onto it supposing that's all it can be. Or you can treat it like you would looking into space - wonderous what you can see, dumbstruck awe at knowing there is so much more to it.

Who exactly was saved from the Father's wrath and how? Is this the same loving father that believers go on about all the time? How can a bad tempered Father be all loving and forgiving? If I as a father, took my wrath out on my kids, for not obeying me, or showing me love, I would not be all loving to them, would I?

The bible is necessarily forced to describe things in terms we can understand as humans. That's a limitation that not even an omnipotent God can circumvent. And so many pictures are used. Father, King, Servant, Judge, Executioner, Almighty, Shepherd, etc.

Not all pictures apply to all situations at the same time and a flaw in many atheists arguments stems from failing to understand this. You for example (assuming you are an atheist) aren't a child of God. I, a saved person, am a child of God. An adopted one.

God doesn't and won't ever take his wrath out on me (although he might correct me as a father as the need arises and that could very well be a painful experience for me - but the motivation of his is love. He want's to steer me right. Thus the father picture is applicable in my case). Whereas God will, should you die unsaved, take out his wrath on you. Not as a child, but as a defeated rebel who has brought havoc to the a Sovereigns Kingdom.

It's not that some of the basic mechanisms are super-complex but there is a decent amount to it, rendering the need to thread carefully through things and not mash all the objections into a messy, unworkable pile.

I think that Christian believers really don't understand the term "loving father".

Probably not. But the atheist view of God is frequently little more than a cardboard cut out, blown over by the merest puff of wind. Dawkins has a lot to answer for for those comic book-like apologetics he writes.

Safehands · 02-01-2015 12:40pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

what's it like to suffer for three days in eternity? Is it like suffering for three days here or is it something else?

That is an oxymoron, 3 days in eternity.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The description is fully man, fully divine. Fully human and you can begin to appreciate the terror and suffering and sense of abandonment as he experienced it. Fully divine and you're in the realm of not really being in a position to understand what is involved in a spotlessly morally clean person bearing the filth of the world.

A nice explanation but fully made up. A fully divine being can choose to feel no pain.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The bible is necessarily forced to describe things in terms we can understand as humans. That's a limitation that not even an omnipotent God can circumvent. And so many pictures are used. Father, King, Servant, Judge, Executioner, Almighty, Shepherd, etc.

The Bible was written by men, with an extremely limited understanding of rudimentary science. If it was divinely inspired, would that divine inspiration not have explained, even once, somewhere, some very basic scientific facts, such as the fact that the Earth orbits the sun, not the other way around. If that had happened, if God, when chatting to Moses or Abraham or in one of the many prophets he seemed to instruct on a regular basis, had told them a very basic fact, lets say he told them that comets were not celestial objects which bring bad luck or illness. If he told them they were just pieces of rock. If he told them anything at all which could today be scientifically verified, then I think I would be inclined to believe the stories. The Bible was not FORCED to say anything. It was written by people who knew no different.[/QUOTE]

RikuoAmero · 02-01-2015 5:55pm

It's what you do with the guilt that rises when you engage in that perversity (whether harming others or not).

If there's no harm being done, then why would I feel guilty? At this point, saying that I would or should feel guilt is just as insane as saying I should feel guilty for eating my porridge in the morning. I didn't steal the porridge did I? Grab it out of a child's hands and wolf it down in front of them? No, I bought it.
Now, if there is harm being done to others, then yes, I more than likely would feel guilt.

One thing to do is simply re-calibrate so that the perversity is no longer considered a perversity. Another is to suppress the guilt and maybe try harder to resist engaging in whatever it is next time. Both forms of denial.

So here you are trying to convince me that feeling lust is a perversity and your evidence is...? Let me guess, the bible, what Jesus is claimed to have said about it? Can I remind you of one thing really quick? *whisper* I don't accept much, if anything in the bible, to be true *end whisper*
If you don't have evidence for your positive claim (X is definitely this thing i.e. lust is a perversion), then I cannot believe you. People's psyches are made up of positive and negative feelings, it's what makes us human. Seems to me that you and your religion are saying we should apologize or feel guilty for being human.
Nope. Not gonna happen.

It's important what happens to that guilt (which is actually intended to highlight and signpost the sin for what it is). If it is really buried down deep by means of virulent denial then it's as if that part of the conscience dies. It actually doesn't see the evil as evil anymore.

Or maybe it was never evil in the first place? It was called evil as a method of control? Controlling sexual reproduction in humans is one of the oldest methods of population and social control there is.

Door number three deals with the pain by taking a pain suppressant.

You do know that your analogy fails, right? A pain suppressant numbs pain, it doesn't make the pain go away. It's not that I'm numbing any guilt, it's that from where I'm sitting, I don't have any guilt in the first place.

people weren't interested in a cure for their psychological pain, they simply wanted the pain to go away.

In my case, that's not true. I had psychological problems growing up (still do in fact, in some areas), but acknowledging my inner demons as being part of my psyche means acknowledging that this means they are under my control. For example, I had urges to do violence when I was a teenager. However, not once did I ever act on them. I went through a rigorous regimen of meditation and self-control. Whenever I got angry and felt the urge to do violence, I would remind myself that this urge is a part of me, and is under my control. So far, no violence done.

From what I'm reading of what you wrote, you would have had me say to myself that I am helpless to stop these urges, to beg an invisible father god to do the work of stopping me.

Pain, might be psychologically difficult. It might bring to you the point of taking your own life. But pain ultimately is there to indicate something wrong and unless you apply the right fix you're wasting your time.

Been there, done that, was saved by my friends and family. Unlike your god, they prove their existence each and every day. They don't hide away and play peek-a-boo. (In fact, it was my best friend calling me at literally the last second that stopped me from doing the deed. Not your god, my bestie)

Suppression of guilt can be dealt with in two ways.

Again, this could only possibly be a valid argument if there was guilt in the first place. I don't have it. Once the human thinks their way through your arguments and realises their fragility, the method of control your religion wishes to impose simply falls apart.
Also, this ignores working through guilt that a person is feeling. For example, if I shoplift and later on feel guilty, the best and most rational course of action is to give back what I stole, pay the store's price for it, and maybe volunteer to work for a few hours for free. This serves a purpose of reminding me not to do it again in the future (since working for free sucks) and also serves as an instruction method for others (since they can can see me).

Curiously, it's the surrender of will

I actually did that as a child. I remember quite clearly praying one day for God to take control of my life.
Nothing happened (either that, or he did and my non-belief is a result of his control. Either way, it would be asinine to try and blame me, make me feel guilty, for the non-belief)
Also, surrendering of will? Thanks for confirming for me that christianity is all about mindless obedience to a god.

The description is fully man, fully divine. Fully human and you can begin to appreciate the terror and suffering and sense of abandonment as he experienced it.

Again, this is you wanting to eat your cake and have it too. When it suits your purposes to try and make people feel guilty or grateful for the pain and suffering Jesus supposedly went through, then he's a man. However, when you then try to convince people of his power and authority, then he's a god.
We are pointing out to you that you can't have both. If he was a god, then the pain would have meant nothing to him. If the pain did mean something, then he couldn't have been a god. We don't allow you to claim both simultaneously. Logic simply doesn't work that way.

wonderous what you can see, dumbstruck awe at knowing there is so much more to it.

When we see something mysterious that leaves us at a guess, we say "We don't know what that is, but let's go and find out". We don't (for lack of a better phrase) make stuff up about it, especially things that are flat out contradictory/paradoxical.

Whereas God will, should you die unsaved, take out his wrath on you. Not as a child, but as a defeated rebel who has brought havoc to the a Sovereigns Kingdom.

Wow again, you confirm for me what I've said before about christianity, that it teaches people to be terrified of this magic creator god and to worship him in hope of not being destroyed.
Also, the way you worded that reveals yet another logical flaw. The key words there are "rebel" and "kingdom". This is militaristic thinking. Problem is, that only makes sense in the context where the "rebel" is actually in a position to do harm. However, I, the "rebel", can't possibly do harm to your all-powerful, all-knowing god, can I? Do you honestly see us atheists as somehow being capable of destroying heaven or something?

Dawkins has a lot to answer for for those comic book-like apologetics he writes.

Just a little note in edgewise. Dawkins doesn't speak for all atheists. In fact, I'm barely familiar with him. I've watched all of...two or three debates he was in on Youtube, and I'm only half-way through the God Delusion.
That's it. I've been an atheist for far longer than I've even known of Dawkins. In fact, most of what I believe I came to on my own accord (mainly because I didn't have home internet access until my first job).
Now that I think about it, your dig at Dawkins could indicate how you think: you think that people can't come up with ideas or beliefs on their own, and must get them from somewhere. While mostly true (we learn things from others while growing up), there is still the potential for spontaneity, or originality, in most/all people. If I independently come to many of the same conclusions as other famous people did (and I did them with no possible way of their thinking getting to me, since I didn't have internet access, I never read their books and no-one else I grew up with was an atheist), then that doesn't mean that those other people are somehow responsible for what I think or believe.

So Safehands et al, how did I do here? I'm feeling pretty good about this response, but I'd still like a critique please.

indioblack · 02-01-2015 8:30pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

The raw material being us, what we do, the consequences that follow what we do .. and all that comes at us in our lives.

That. Or the notion of shepherd is a common biblical one also - the idea of attempting to gather a flock, capable of own mind, together to safety.

I'm not sure what you mean. God responsible for the outcome (whether we are saved or not) perhaps?

If so, then no, not necessarily. If his weaving aims to ensure that a fair, balanced choice between the options is presented us, but that the ultimate choice between options is ours, then no.

No, I didn't mean God being responsible for the out come - but certainly responsible for the mechanics, the physical journey that we are engaged in.

antiskeptic · 03-01-2015 1:29pm

indioblack wrote: »

No, I didn't mean God being responsible for the out come - but certainly responsible for the mechanics, the physical journey that we are engaged in.

Responsible for providing, sustaining and enabling the canvas on which all is painted: physically, emotionally, spiritually. And responsible for the fact things will end up with evil destroyed and righteousness prevailing.

Us for our ultimate destination.

antiskeptic · 03-01-2015 6:15pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

If there's no harm being done, then why would I feel guilty?

Because "harm done is reason alone" is your criteria for what constitutes sin/immorality/transgression. But it need not be Gods. Certainly harm done is part of it but not all of it.

So here you are trying to convince me that feeling lust is a perversity and your evidence is...? Let me guess, the bible, what Jesus is claimed to have said about it? Can I remind you of one thing really quick? *whisper* I don't accept much, if anything in the bible, to be true *end whisper*

*whisper* I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm pointing out IF/THEN. If Christianity is true then lust, even though it seeminlgy doesn't harm anyone (except you) is a sin. S'all.

IF your system is TRUE then your only if harm done is true.

--

So Safehands et al, how did I do here? I'm feeling pretty good about this response, but I'd still like a critique please.

If I may. You've shifted from a position of critiquing the Christian position (which involves accepting the Christian position true, for the sake of argument) to demanding evidence that the Christian position is true (which doesn't involve accepting the Christian position is true for the sake of argument). For example, from post 9751

Rickuo wrote:

According to you, it's either I kneel in unquestioning obedience, don't ask why I should do or not do certain actions...or I don't and suffer in one way or another.

.. you're accepting God real for the sake of argument in order to critique God. Now you'd simply be saying "but God doesn't exist so I don't have to kneel to him"

Safehands · 03-01-2015 6:31pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So Safehands et al, how did I do here? I'm feeling pretty good about this response, but I'd still like a critique please.

I think your response is logical and that is where you are falling down. You can present Born Agains with the most logical argument imaginable. They will either ignore it, present their own version of logic, based on their book of logic called "The Bible" or if all else fails, they will use their "get out jail free card" which states that with God all things are possible. Do you really think that people who believe in angels believe your logic?

tommy2bad · 03-01-2015 6:35pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure that accepting some (what you consider to be) perverse aspect of your character is problematic in itself. It's what you do with the guilt that rises when you engage in that perversity (whether harming others or not). One thing to do is simply re-calibrate so that the perversity is no longer considered a perversity. Another is to suppress the guilt and maybe try harder to resist engaging in whatever it is next time. Both forms of denial.

It's important what happens to that guilt (which is actually intended to highlight and signpost the sin for what it is). If it is really buried down deep by means of virulent denial then it's as if that part of the conscience dies. It actually doesn't see the evil as evil anymore.

Door number three deals with the pain by taking a pain suppressant. This isn't at all unusual. M.Scott Peck, the psychologist writer of a very popular book some years ago made the observation from years of counselling practice that people weren't interested in a cure for their psychological pain, they simply wanted the pain to go away.

And the world, like any good market provides mankind with any number of ways in which to dull the ache.

Pain, might be psychologically difficult. It might bring to you the point of taking your own life. But pain ultimately is there to indicate something wrong and unless you apply the right fix you're wasting your time.

Suppression of guilt can be dealt with in two ways. It can be kept right down deep til the day you die when, the Bible says, all will be revealed about you anyway. Or the pressure of holding it in becomes too much as it swells to the surface where you can see it and you are overwhelmed by the truth of your awful condition.

The former position requires an act of will to maintain things. The latter the surrender of will to bring about the release.

Curiously, it's the surrender of will which brings a person to God. The exposure to one's true state which brings about a cry for help. Cry that way, and he will turn up and resolve your problem for you.

See above. Acceptance, then what. What do you do with the guilt?

Great post, however I'm wondering about the bold bit. surrendering of will, I have the feeling that this is a bit off for some reason. Possibly I'm uncomfortable with the idea of surrender or abandonment of my will.
If what your referring to is the alcoholics 'rock bottom' or John of the Cross's dark night of the soul, I agree, it might take that depth of letting go of 'the world' to bring about change but unless you make the decision by your own will to change then it's not really a positive thing.
No offence to you or your experience, more shading of the notion of surrender.

antiskeptic · 03-01-2015 6:51pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Great post, however I'm wondering about the bold bit. surrendering of will, I have the feeling that this is a bit off for some reason. Possibly I'm uncomfortable with the idea of surrender or abandonment of my will.
If what your referring to is the alcoholics 'rock bottom' or John of the Cross's dark night of the soul, I agree, it might take that depth of letting go of 'the world' to bring about change but unless you make the decision by your own will to change then it's not really a positive thing.
No offence to you or your experience, more shading of the notion of surrender.

It's that kind of thing I'm talking of (although I wouldn't suppose the rockbottom need always be as destructive as the alcholics). But I choose surrender of will deliberately since I believe that salvation is finally arrived at not from an active choice made from a position of strength. Rather, it's a relinquishing of self-determination made as a result of defeat. Relinquishing because there is no other option at that point, no strength or fight left in the will to continue the resistance. It simply lays down it's arms and rolls over.

Such defeat was of course, preventable. All the way along, the will could have insisted it's will be done, that it's wrongdoing isn't wrong, that it could face the sickness and pressure and lonelieness that life throws at it, alone. That it was self-sufficient.

I recall conversing with a woman in her 70's, estranged from most of her offspring and alone in the world, insisting that she had never, ever sinned. Not once.

Weak, not far from death, her mind suffering from the consequences of drink, her body wracked by a life time of cigarettes. But the will still a rigidly in denial as it had ever been. More rigid probably.

RikuoAmero · 03-01-2015 7:46pm

Because "harm done is reason alone" is your criteria for what constitutes sin/immorality/transgression. But it need not be Gods. Certainly harm done is part of it but not all of it.

It's the only one that makes logical sense. If I impose any other criteria, then I'm veering into authoritarianism territory. So far, all I'm hearing from your side of the argument is "X is a sin because God says so" and that's not good enough for me.
1) I'm not hearing it directly from God, whom I'm not yet convinced exists.
2) I'm hearing it from a priest class, who all insist to me they are chosen by their god to spread his message, but there are thousands of conflicting denominations. I've even heard of a christian denomination that directly allows gay weddings in their church.
3) Your acceptance of something being wrong merely because you're convinced it is because someone said it is means you're not willing to think your way through moral issues. Can you honestly tell me that you do think your way through them and each and every time, what you find aligns with the bible, self-conflicting though it is? What criteria do you use other than "Because God said so"?

If Christianity is true then lust, even though it seeminlgy doesn't harm anyone (except you) is a sin. S'all.

Ifs are not a good tool to convince someone. If Voldemort was right about blood purity, we should go out and find wizards who can trace their ancestors for multiple generations to enslave us muggles for the greater good. Fortunately, we don't even need to entertain the possibility of Voldemort being right, since his existence has yet to be proven.
Also, if I grant your if, then this means the ceasing of intellectual discovery. So I imagine myself converting right this minute to your religion, saying to myself "Lust is a sin" and for some reason being happy with that. Well, why? Because God said so? At that point, I'm not moving forward, I'm not thinking and puzzling things through, I'm just happy to be lazy and wanting to be given an answer sheet.

If I may. You've shifted from a position of critiquing the Christian position (which involves accepting the Christian position true, for the sake of argument) to demanding evidence that the Christian position is true (which doesn't involve accepting the Christian position is true for the sake of argument).

So? Both methods are perfectly valid. I've done both and will continue to use both methods.

since I believe that salvation is finally arrived at not from an active choice made from a position of strength. Rather, it's a relinquishing of self-determination made as a result of defeat.

Thank you for yet again saying to us how horrible your religion is. That it involves an active destruction of a person's will, that it views thought and strength of character as enemies to be defeated. What happened to "God respects free will?"
*clap clap clap*

antiskeptic · 03-01-2015 10:14pm

RikuoAmero wrote: »

It's the only one that makes logical sense.

Surely you mean philosophical sense? As in, your philosophy. Logic is a different, formal discipline and can't be applied in the sense you're trying to apply it. If you disagree, make a logical statement that limits morality to harm causing.

IF my actions don't cause harm THEN they are not immoral is NOT a logic statement btw.

If I impose any other criteria, then I'm veering into authoritarianism territory.

I prefer sovereignty territory.

Since God created all according to his purpose he is entitled to have it according to his purpose. The only say we have in things is the say assigned to us by him. There is nowhere else we can turn to for our rights. Is there?

Even the right to rebel and express a different (groundless) opinion is a right granted by him to us. And if that right is granted but for a time then so be it - it's not an inalienable right but merely one with fixed duration and for a purpose decided upon by God.

So far, all I'm hearing from your side of the argument is "X is a sin because God says so" and that's not good enough for me.

The only thing I'm hearing from you is "sin or not because you say so". You pick "harm" but don't say why that should be a criteria. Why harm, other than because you say so?

You'll find you end up in arbitrary-land, leaning on some unspoken principle which, without anywhere to ground it, will too, be arbitary.

I'm always keen to hear someone who believes in a naturalistic evolution chase morality down to source. Because accidental/blind/mute/purposeless/amoral evolution is the only generator of morality in town. Some morality that!

3) Your acceptance of something being wrong merely because you're convinced it is because someone said it is means you're not willing to think your way through moral issues.

If God had an express view on a particular issue then I wouldn't have to think through since I've already concluded elsewhere that he is the fixed reference point. It's like not having to think about which way a house might be pointing when Googlemap compass shows which way is North.

That isn't to say there isn't thinking to be done on a multitude of issues such as FFA, gay civic unions etc. But the thinking would be aimed at figuring out "how would this fit in God's way of doing things" since he'd be my reference.

Can you honestly tell me that you do think your way through them and each and every time, what you find aligns with the bible, self-conflicting though it is? What criteria do you use other than "Because God said so"?

Consider the year of Jubilee (in the OT). God decreed that every 50 years, the land originally assigned to each of the Israelite tribes had to be handed back to that tribe. In the intervening years it could be traded, rented, sold etc but on 50 years it went back to the original owner. And so there was a complex system of value-assignment which took into account this decree - the land would be worth more in year one than in year 49.

What would such a system do for the current system in which vast wealth can be accumulated by individuals/countries with nothing, but nothing stopping them accumulating more and more leading to the kind of society we have today were some sections of the world starve and others stuff themselves so full they can't even think of what to spend their wealth on.

To answer your question: "God said so" is a choice I can choose just as "the general view of society says so (subject as it is to change)" or "just because I conclude so (subject though that is to change)" is a choice I can chose. I choose ... is the source in all cases. It's just that with God, his makes more sense than the alternative. Once you get to understand how it fits in the overall goal. Without that overall goal to hand his way wouldn't make sense to you.

Ifs are not a good tool to convince someone.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I've told you that before.

So? Both methods are perfectly valid. I've done both and will continue to use both methods.

You'd be speaking to yourself in that case since I'm not evidencing God's existence so your objection that you don't believe as a counter to IF/THEN is boxing with shadows.

Thank you for yet again saying to us how horrible your religion is. That it involves an active destruction of a person's will, that it views thought and strength of character as enemies to be defeated. What happened to "God respects free will?"

The choice to continue rebellion or surrender that rebellion is respected by God. That you will reap the rewards for your choice, whatever that might be, will be the tangible fulfillment of that respect. (That's why annihilation as a eternal option doesn't make sense to me: it sidesteps the will of a person to remain a rebel to the end of their days)

It would be non-sensical to demand that some other option, than the options you've been presented with, be presented to you. God created with a purpose and goal in mind, we're a part of that and get to make a choice. It could have been another way had God been another god but this is the God we've got and this is the way it is.

marienbad · 03-01-2015 10:19pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Surely you mean philosophical sense. As in, your philosophy. Logic is a different. formal discipline and can't be applied in the sense you're trying to apply it.

Or sovereignty territory if you like.

Since God created all according to his purpose he is entitled to have it according to his purpose. The only say we have in things is the say assigned to us by him. There is nowhere else we can turn to for our rights. Even the right to rebel is a right granted by him to us. And if that but for a time then so be it - it's not an inalienable right but merely one with fixed duration and for a purpose decided upon by God.

The only thing I'm hearing from you sin or not because you say so. You pick "harm" but don't say why that should be a criteria. Why harm, other than because you say so? You'll find you end up in arbitrary on leaning on some unspoken principle which, without God will to be arbitary.

I'm always keen to hear someone who believes in a naturalistic evolution chase morality down to source. Because accidental/blind/mute evolution is where you must end up. Some morality that!

If God had an express view on a particular issue then I wouldn't have to think through since I've already concluded elsewhere that he is the fixed reference point. That isn't to say there isn't thinking to be done on a multitude of issues such as FFA, gay civic unions etc. But the thinking would be aimed at figuring out "what would God reckon to do here" since he'd be my reference.

Consider the year of Jubilee (in the OT). God decreed that every 50 years, the land originally assigned to each of the Israelite tribes had to be handed back to that tribe. In the intervening years it could be traded, rented, sold etc but on 50 years it went back to the original owner. And so there was a complex system of value-assignment which took into account this decree - the land would be worth more in year one than in year 49.

What would such a system do for the current system in which vast wealth can be accumulated by individuals/countries with nothing, but nothing stopping them accumulating more and more leading to the kind of society we have today were some sections of the world starve and others stuff themselves so full they can't even think of what to spend their wealth on.

To answer your question: "God said so" is a choice I can choose just as "the general view of society says so (subject as it is to change)" or "just because I conclude so (subject though that is to change)" is a choice I can chose. I choose ... is the source in all cases. It's just that with God, his makes more sense than the alternative. Once you get to understand how it fits in the overall goal. Without that overall goal to hand his way wouldn't make sense to you.

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I've told you that before.

You'd be speaking to yourself in that case since I'm not evidencing God's existence so your objection that you don't believe as a counter to IF/THEN is boxing with shadows.

The choice to continue rebellion or surrender that rebellion is respected by God. That you will reap the rewards for your choice, whatever that might be, is the fulfillment of that respect.

It would be non-sensical to demand that some other option, than the options you've been presented with, be presented to you. God created with a purpose and goal in mind, we're a part of that and get to make a choice. It could have been another way had God been another god but this is the God we've got and this is the way it is.

You are offering nothing as a basis for your argument other than the bible says so and you are accusing him of misusing logic !

Why would anyone accept that ?

RikuoAmero · 03-01-2015 10:32pm

The only thing I'm hearing from you sin or not because you say so. You pick "harm" but don't say why that should be a criteria. Why harm, other than because you say so?

Simple, mutual self-interest. I desire to live in a peaceful society, able to pursue my dreams. Most other people desire the same thing. A quote I like from Terry Goodkind is "Your life is your own: rise up and live it". When it comes to social cohesion, and keeping things peaceful and civil, it is in our best interests to discover what works, what things do and do not harm people and society as a whole.
Take homosexuals wanting to marry, to be formally recognised by the state for being a couple just like a heterosexual couple would, to be allowed to have all the same rights (and responsibilities). When I look into that, all I'm seeing from your side of the camp is "God says no". Not good enough. When I examine the issue, I see no harm whatsoever can come from allowing homosexuals to marry. If you're going to try and convince me...
wait...

I'm not trying to convince anyone.

Right, you and I are done. I desire debates with people who are genuinely interested in trying to sway me to their side. Not people who have no interest in doing so, but merely want to say what it is they believe.

antiskeptic · 03-01-2015 10:40pm

marienbad wrote: »

You are offering nothing as a basis for your argument other than the bible says so and you are accusing him of misusing logic !

You don't seem to know what logic means either. With respect.

I'm not making any points other than those predicated on the bible being true. And am not addressing any points predicated on the bible being anything else but true, i.e. the points originally brought up by RA.

That RA has shifted into "requiring evidence" mode is his business. I'm not following him down that rabbithole.

marienbad · 03-01-2015 10:46pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't seem to know what logic means either. With respect.

I'm not making any points other than those predicated on the bible being true. And am not addressing any points predicated on the bible being anything else but true, i.e. the points originally brought up by RA.

That RA has shifted into "requiring evidence" mode is his business. I'm not following him down that rabbithole.

So you have nothing to offer on the title of the thread ?

And if you think applying logic after you believe everything in the bible to prove anything than neither do you. With respect

antiskeptic · 03-01-2015 10:52pm

marienbad wrote: »

So you have nothing to offer on the title of the thread ?

And if you think applying logic after you believe everything in the bible to prove anything than neither do you. With respect

It's a catch all thread. I wouldn't get too hung up on a 1000 year old title.

Besides, there are way of arguing for the existence of God without arguing for the existence of God.

marienbad · 03-01-2015 11:11pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's a catch all thread. I wouldn't get too hung up on a 1000 year old title.

Besides, there are way of arguing for the existence of God without arguing for the existence of God.

There are indeed and I fully respect that , buts lets not be giving others lectures on logic along the way .

antiskeptic · 03-01-2015 11:24pm

marienbad wrote: »

There are indeed and I fully respect that , buts lets not be giving others lectures on logic along the way .

I've no issue batting away that which has no place: demands for evidence from a person who started out accepting-for-the-sake-of-argument the bible was true in order to forward an objection to the God therein contained (they didn't read the thread title either).

That and claiming my approach/argument illogical when it clearly isn't.

marienbad · 03-01-2015 11:50pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've no issue batting away that which has no place: demands for evidence from a person who started out accepting-for-the-sake-of-argument the bible was true in order to forward an objection to the God therein contained (they didn't read the thread title either).

That and claiming my approach/argument illogical when it clearly isn't.

any argument based on the bible as true is illogical . Might as well base it on the Lord of the Rings .

basing an argument on the basis that the bible is inspirational and a basis for living is a completely different matter . Not one I would agree with mind you ,but one I can understand .

antiskeptic · 04-01-2015 12:06am

marienbad wrote: »

any argument based on the bible as true is illogical .

Give me the logical statement that demonstrates this so. Seeing as you're not open to 'lectures' on the subject I might as well let you slit your own throat.

Might as well base it on the Lord of the Rings .

What part of an opponent "undertaking to believe the bible is true for the sake of argument" in order to probe it's internal (in)consistency

..do you not understand?

Someone needn't do so formerly but if they chose to attack characteristics of God then they are, for the sake of argument accepting he exists.

marienbad · 04-01-2015 1:13am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Give me the logical statement that demonstrates this so. Seeing as you're not open to 'lectures' on the subject I might as well let you slit your own throat.

What part of an opponent "undertaking to believe the bible is true for the sake of argument" in order to probe it's internal (in)consistency

..do you not understand?

Someone needn't do so formerly but if they chose to attack characteristics of God then they are, for the sake of argument accepting he exists.

Pompous much ?

For the very same reasons that you don't accept Lord of The Rings, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita or a host of other books.

Why don't you accept the Koran then ?

antiskeptic · 04-01-2015 5:23am

marienbad wrote: »

Pompous much ?

For the very same reasons that you don't accept Lord of The Rings, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita or a host of other books.

Why don't you accept the Koran then ?

Address the substance of the response. Otherwise..

indioblack · 04-01-2015 10:33am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Responsible for providing, sustaining and enabling the canvas on which all is painted: physically, emotionally, spiritually. And responsible for the fact things will end up with evil destroyed and righteousness prevailing.

Us for our ultimate destination.

And therefore responsible for the creation of this journey, the physical, emotional and spiritual mechanism that leads to the inevitable end.

marienbad · 04-01-2015 1:48pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Address the substance of the response. Otherwise..

I addressed the heart of the response ,but as usual the avoidance kicks in....

antiskeptic · 04-01-2015 2:01pm

indioblack wrote: »

And therefore responsible for the creation of this journey, the physical, emotional and spiritual mechanism that leads to the inevitable end.

To one of a choice of two inevitable ends.

antiskeptic · 04-01-2015 2:23pm

marienbad wrote: »

I addressed the heart of the response ,but as usual the avoidance kicks in....

The "heart of the response" pointed out that the kind of biblical discussion being had (before RA switched tracks) was one that had no need for evidencing the truth of the Bible. You ask why not the Koran, why not the

Why not Haynes Workshop manual for the Audi A4 2001-2005?

Because the discussion involves the Bible knumbnutz

.

marienbad · 04-01-2015 3:25pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

The "heart of the response" pointed out that the kind of biblical discussion being had (before RA switched tracks) was one that had no need for evidencing the truth of the Bible. You ask why not the Koran, why not the

Why not Haynes Workshop manual for the Audi A4 2001-2005?

Because the discussion involves the Bible knumbnutz

.

Only because you try to make it so . And only then when they accept your rules that your interpretation of the Bible is true .

As your starting position is just completely irrational anything based on it equally so. So you may as well use the Audi manual or the Koran .

So why the Bible above the Koran , or why your interpretation of the Bible rather the that of the Catholic Church or those churches that seem to be able to accept LGBT relationships ?

Or will you avoid this one too ?

As an aside why is it so many Christian posters always resort to rudeness and arrogance in these conversations ?

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments