Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

marienbad

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?