Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

antiskeptic

Safehands wrote: »

Tell me, do you believe in angels, real angels with wings?

I certainly believe in the existence of supernatural beings such as angels and demons. I doubt the angels have wings but wouldn't consider it critical whether they do or don't.

antiskeptic

indioblack wrote: »

Good point. If they are both parts of the same mechanism then they are created, imposed. In the Christian construct we have no say in the initial part of this process.

Again, I'm not completely sure what you're trying to say.

The initial parts of the process involve our creation (we've no say in that) and our being positioned in an environment which seeks to extract an answer from us regarding the question of whether we're for what God stands for or against (we've no say in being required to give an answer but have say in what answer that will be).

Those things are deduced as explained previously..

RikuoAmero

antiskeptic wrote: »

I certainly believe in the existence of supernatural beings such as angels and demons. I doubt the angels have wings but wouldn't consider it critical whether they do or don't.

(Tongue-in-cheek comment)
So you believe in these angels then?

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

(Tongue-in-cheek comment)
So you believe in these angels then?

Your link doesn't show anything to believe in as such.

RikuoAmero

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your link doesn't show anything to believe in as such.

Methinks that you missed the tongue in cheek I mentioned before the picture. I wasn't being serious. I was simply making fun of you mentioning you doubt that angels have wings.

Safehands

antiskeptic wrote: »

I certainly believe in the existence of supernatural beings such as angels and demons. I doubt the angels have wings but wouldn't consider it critical whether they do or don't.

It takes an awful lot of dismissal of physics, logic and rational thinking to believe that angels came down from Heaven and spoke to various people telling them that the Holy Spirit had impregnated a young girl. It is beyond my capability.
I do believe that Jesus lived and that he was an extremely unique and influential individual. We can't really argue with how he suggested that we should live our lives.
The real problem I have with the people who purport to be his followers is that they all use threats and rewards instead of simple doing something because it is the right thing to do.

indioblack

antiskeptic wrote: »

Again, I'm not completely sure what you're trying to say.

The initial parts of the process involve our creation (we've no say in that) and our being positioned in an environment which seeks to extract an answer from us regarding the question of whether we're for what God stands for or against (we've no say in being required to give an answer but have say in what answer that will be).

Those things are deduced as explained previously..

We are put into an environment - and at some point we are required to accept the creator of that environment - yet within that environment, because of the circumstances of existence, it is possible to doubt if a God is behind this process at all.
This doubt can be as honest as any genuinely held religious belief and can be caused by our perception of the life we live and the world we live in.
If I wanted a straight answer from someone I would try to avoid any misunderstanding of my intentions. I would supply as much knowledge, experience and information as possible to get a satisfactory answer.
If I muddied the water by allowing doubt and confusion into my question I should not be surprised if the answer that came back to me was "I don't know what you want - what are you trying to say?"

RikuoAmero

indioblack wrote: »

This doubt can be as honest as any genuinely held religious belief and can be caused by our perception of the life we live and the world we live in.

And yet, various denominations of christianity still blame the individual person for not believing in their god, and to say there's a punishment in the next life awaiting them. It's asinine, and crazy, to blame a person for honestly not being convinced of what it is you're saying, if you're not providing enough (or any) evidence.

indioblack

RikuoAmero wrote: »

And yet, various denominations of christianity still blame the individual person for not believing in their god, and to say there's a punishment in the next life awaiting them. It's asinine, and crazy, to blame a person for honestly not being convinced of what it is you're saying, if you're not providing enough (or any) evidence.

I agree. I suspect, and hope, that there is more complexity to existence than the simplified, almost black and white image that Christianity gives.

antiskeptic

Safehands wrote: »

It takes an awful lot of dismissal of physics, logic and rational thinking to believe that angels came down from Heaven and spoke to various people telling them that the Holy Spirit had impregnated a young girl. It is beyond my capability.

Physics is a discipline which attempts to describe the physical world. The spiritual world hath nothing to do with it and in so far as it doth, there is no problem (from a physics point of view) with physical manifestation of the spiritual

Logic isn't an issue either. IF God exists THEN etc., etc. is an example of logical statement/thinking. All that need be true is the IF, in which case the various THEN's follow.

As for rational. There is nothing irrational about the existence of God. Now if you're speaking Rationalism you'd be in safer hands. But Rationalism is merely a belief system, just as Religion.

The real problem I have with the people who purport to be his followers is that they all use threats and rewards instead of simple doing something because it is the right thing to do.

Can you give me an example involving me, one of his followers.

antiskeptic

indioblack wrote: »

We are put into an environment - and at some point we are required to accept the creator of that environment

...or not

..yet within that environment, because of the circumstances of existence, it is possible to doubt if a God is behind this process at all.
This doubt can be as honest as any genuinely held religious belief and can be caused by our perception of the life we live and the world we live in.

I appreciate there are Christian views which, although right in a narrow sense, have it wrong in another, overall sense. Let me explain.



Most Christian viewpoints hold that unless you believe Jesus is your Lord and Saviour then you will be lost. Yet Abraham, who no Christian would hold to be other than saved, didn't believe Jesus was his Lord and Saviour. Jesus hadn't yet walked the Earth.

Clearly there's a subtlety to things that a bald "must accept Jesus" doesn't quite capture.

My own view (based on the fact that many Old Testament figures are, what we now called, saved) isn't that one need be a Christian - in the sense of an outward conscious acceptance of and understanding of Christian teaching on the subject of salvation. I mean, what about the sheep herder up the side of a mountain in Tibet ca. 250AD who never heard of Jesus Christ so as to "accept him into his heart" (another common-today way of phrasing the requirement for salvation)

The mechanism of salvation must (from my previous deduction regarding it's be equally available to all men at all times) somehow account for all these various categories of people and so can't be as specific as the (even mainstream) Christian denominations make it out to be.


My view is that folk are posed with, and answer, God on the issue of their position w.r.t. his query of them each and every day. In the course of their normal lives and faced with the everyday challenges and temptations and crises that affect all, everywhere. They don't have to believe he exists in order to be asked by him or in order to answer him. Yes, Richard Dawkins is speaking to God today, and everyday.

And at some point, when the threshold for giving one's answer has been passed, the person is either saved or damned. I don't suppose this threshold to necessarily extend up to the point of a persons death. Them being saved won't necessarily result in them believing in Jesus Christ in the classic way demanded of by many Christian denominations. I mean, what about someone in a remote tribe ca. 500AD who had no access to Christian teaching?

There is biblical support for this view, especially since it is described how some sheep (a description of the saved) act in surprise and the point of separation of sheep and goats (a description of the lost) in finding out that they in fact belong to God's flock. The mechanism of salvation sifted them out without their even knowing it in fully conscious fashion.

If I wanted a straight answer from someone I would try to avoid any misunderstanding of my intentions. I would supply as much knowledge, experience and information as possible to get a satisfactory answer.
If I muddied the water by allowing doubt and confusion into my question I should not be surprised if the answer that came back to me was "I don't know what you want - what are you trying to say?"

And so. God see's the heart and the heart gives it's answer in a currency freed from the ties of Religion, country of birth, era of living, education, intelligence. Free of all that isn't relevant, in fact.

Do you desire what I stand for or what I don't stand for? That's the question. It's the heart (or core of a person) that answers. Not the vehicle we travel around in.

RikuoAmero

Can you give me an example involving me, one of his followers.

And at some point, when the threshold for giving one's answer has been passed, the person is either saved or damned.

Given that I am in the Land of Saints and Scholars, raised by a christian family and educated in christian schools, I don't fit this criteria below

I mean, what about someone in a remote tribe ca. 500AD who had no access to Christian teaching?

Would I or would I not be considered by your religion has having had enough evidence that should convince me of the 'truth' of your religion? I've read the bible, (in fact, just today, I bought two copies, Good News and King James, to re-read and study), I've been educated by priests, I've been told things by believers, etc etc. So given all of that, should I be a believer? Given that I am not at the moment, would it then make sense for your religion to then say I am damned, deserving only of punishment?

As an aside, would I be correct in guessing that you don't hold Romans 1:21 "They know God" to mean that literally everyone on the planet knows about and is consciously aware that they know about the christian god Yahweh?

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Given that I am in the Land of Saints and Scholars, raised by a christian family and educated in christian schools, I don't fit this criteria below

Nope you don't. The point was to highlight it not being necessary to have heard the Christian Gospel in order to be saved. If not necessary to have heard then the fact you've heard it isn't germane to your being saved.

Would I or would I not be considered by your religion has having had enough evidence that should convince me of the 'truth' of your religion? I've read the bible, (in fact, just today, I bought two copies, Good News and King James, to re-read and study), I've been educated by priests, I've been told things by believers, etc etc. So given all of that, should I be a believer? Given that I am not at the moment, would it then make sense for your religion to then say I am damned, deserving only of punishment?

See above. In the course of your studies you'll no doubt have come across the jingle "was blind but now I see". What matter all this exposure to Christianity if you are blinded to what it's saying?

Reading poetry because you are able to read. Or looking at a painting because you are able to see .. doesn't mean you get the poetry in poetry terms or painting in painting terms. Similarly, if the Bible is primarily a spiritual entity then reading it because you can read, but not get it spiritually, won't produce much of the intended result.

The issue is whether your spiritual eyes are opened. Eyes opened occurs, largely* after you are saved. If not open, you can read the bible from now to kingdom come without profit (in the primary sense it was intended for).

(* it could be that a person comes to 'get' what the bible is saying on the cusp of their salvation. Or even get glimpse of what it's saying spiritually as part of the general mechanism of salvation, which might not necessarily produce salvation in the person who did get a glimpse.)

As an aside, would I be correct in guessing that you don't hold Romans 1:21 "They know God" to mean that literally everyone on the planet knows about and is consciously aware that they know about the christian god Yahweh?

You would be correct. Everyone knows good from evil (as in absolute & God defined) and to know good is to know God (or the character of God). I read that verse as meaning everyone has access to and knowledge of absolute good and evil. Similarly, Jesus said he is the way, the truth and the life. He is the truth. And we know what is true and what is not .. even if made fuzzy around the edges by our immersion in sinful flesh/world. We know Jesus/God thus too.

Pulling the sheep herder in Tibet back in here we can see that it's our response to the call of good (and evil) and truth (and lie) that forms our response to God. Do we love the truth (measured against Gods truth)? And perhaps more importantly, do we hate the evil/lie (measured against what isn't of God)? For if we love the truth and hate the lie we are in effect answering God that we love what he stands for and hate what he hates. Not just what occurs outside ourselves by way of injustice and ugliness in the world but far more importantly than that - what occurs within ourselves.

The person who comes to their wits end and what is to be done about all that is ugly within is the one closest to salvation. You don't need to be brought up in a Christian country to arrive at that point.




I mentioned previously how Richard Dawkins The God Delusion cited research indicating a universal morality the world over (whether Western, Eastern, remote tribe) once you stripped away external influences such as education, religion, culture, intelligence etc.

Dawkins agrees with that verse in Romans

P.S. If you are familiar enough with the Bible to be able to pluck out that verse then you should be aware of the drumbeat explanation Paul gives about the two states of man. Lost = dead to God/blind to spiritual things. Found = alive to God/perceiving of spiritual things. The reason why lost men don't get spiritual things is simply because they cannot. They're blind.

RikuoAmero

The issue is whether your spiritual eyes are opened

Lost = dead to God/blind to spiritual things.

Okay, so just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, let's do an analogy. Let's say I'm physically blind and deaf, my physical eyes and ears don't work. I go for a walk and I stop in the middle of the rail-road tracks, only to be killed by a train I had no awareness of.
Is that what you think and believe is happening with those like me who you say are spiritually blind? We simply have no perception of spiritual things?
So when I die, presumably as I am now (a non-believer) will I be 'killed' by some sort of spiritual train?

As for Dawkins

Yes, Richard Dawkins is speaking to God today, and everyday.

Sorry to say, but I don't believe you. Richard Dawkins is in my mind the best and most reliable person as to what it is Richard Dawkins thinks and believes, just as I, RikuoAmero, am the best and most reliable person on what it is that RikuoAmero thinks and believes, and ditto for you. So whenever I listened to Dawkins and he said what it is he thinks and believes, I will believe him, and not you.
Why is it you think you can somehow speak for what is in the contents of another person's mind?

As for Romans 1:21, why do you interpret it as people having access to and knowledge of absolute good and evil? Wouldn't this be falsified by the fact that everyone has a different opinion on what is good and evil? Your belief cannot make sense, since if it were true, then we would make the prediction that everyone would agree on what is good and evil, only for this prediction to fail when we actually go out and observe the world, and ask people.
Why is it that the verse says "They know GOD", but you in your mind add in a second O to the last word and instead read "good"? That is what the text has, only one O in that word, so why the mental revision? Is it because if you were to accept the text as written, you realise that it doesn't make sense (given that there have been and are groups of people in the world unaware of the christian religion and its god, thus falsifying it)?

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Okay, so just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, let's do an analogy. Let's say I'm physically blind and deaf, my physical eyes and ears don't work. I go for a walk and I stop in the middle of the rail-road tracks, only to be killed by a train I had no awareness of.
Is that what you think and believe is happening with those like me who you say are spiritually blind? We simply have no perception of spiritual things?
So when I die, presumably as I am now (a non-believer) will I be 'killed' by some sort of spiritual train?

Conscious, eyes-open perception of spiritual things means you can understand the spiritual terrain. But your eyes being opened (and the advantages of being able to better navigate the spiritual terrain) is only a consequence of your having been saved, it's not a cause of your being saved.

If your eyes stay closed til the day you die it will be because you were never saved. You would be damned because you weren't saved. Not because you didn't receive the consequences of being saved (i.e. eyes opened)

Sorry to say, but I don't believe you. Richard Dawkins is in my mind the best and most reliable person as to what it is Richard Dawkins thinks and believes, just as I, RikuoAmero, am the best and most reliable person on what it is that RikuoAmero thinks and believes, and ditto for you. So whenever I listened to Dawkins and he said what it is he thinks and believes, I will believe him, and not you.
Why is it you think you can somehow speak for what is in the contents of another person's mind?

I'm giving you the biblical take (my take on the biblical take, better said). The biblical take is that like it or not, all people are set a question, in a realm and manner of God's own choosing. If that take of mine is correct, then what you think is the case, isn't. Even if you reckon it is from a blind man who can't see it, perspective.

As for Romans 1:21, why do you interpret it as people having access to and knowledge of absolute good and evil? Wouldn't this be falsified by the fact that everyone has a different opinion on what is good and evil?

As I pointed out Richard Dawkins scientifically pointing out: once stripped of incidental and local influences, people the world over have the same basic moral system. They think the same things are right and wrong. People have a disdain for cowardice. People admire and find honourable, courage and selflessness. That kind of thing.

That's not to say the outer wrapping isn't important but even then, the views can be merged. You might consider gay marriage a right because to prevent it would be discrimination. And you might get very heated up about discrimination. And in that you would share my morality - I get heated up too about that. But in the case of gay marriage, I've a different reference point than you, don't see this case as discrimination (whereas I might share your view on other kinds of discrimination) and so don't get heated up about it.

We would at root have the same morality on the discrimination issue however - once you strip back outside influences.

And that base morality is, like Dawkins points out, is common to all.

Or don't you believe Science?

Why is it that the verse says "They know GOD", but you in your mind add in a second O to the last word and instead read "good"?

To know someone, anyone, doesn't mean you know everything about them. Since only God is good (says Jesus) to know good is to know God. An aspect of God.

There would be too for many, the bare-conscious sense of Judgment ahead and fear of death and what lies beyond. A survey was done of folk asking that they assess themselves in good/evil doing. The average score was 70% - which is a first class honour as it happens. Even amongst the populations of prisons and even amongst serious offenders in those prisons.


God is also Judge. God is also Jury and Excutioner. There are a lot of aspects to God - and in the context of that passage, Judgement, folk know enough to allow for condemnation.

That is what the text has, only one O in that word, so why the mental revision? Is it because if you were to accept the text as written, you realise that it doesn't make sense (given that there have been and are groups of people in the world unaware of the christian religion and its god, thus falsifying it)?

There's a lot more to the text than a single verse. You really can make the Bible say anything with a verse. It's an overarching picture that I'm (still in the process of) building up. Made up of a lot more than a verse

RikuoAmero

If your eyes stay closed til the day you die it will be because you were never saved. You would be damned because you weren't saved. Not because you didn't receive the consequences of being saved (i.e. eyes opened)

Since I can't as an act of will choose to be convinced of your religion, or what you would call be saved, then to damn me is an unjust act, since it is something wholly outside of my control. Your god would be an unjust tyrant, going "I don't care that you didn't have enough evidence to convince you or that you lived a good life, the fact your spiritual eyes weren't open even though that was something outside your control somehow gives me licence to damn you to eternal punishment".
Why is it you follow such an unjust monster? Oh wait, you've answered that before, mentioning that you did it out of fear of being destroyed yourself.

I'm giving you the biblical take (my take on the biblical take, better said).

I don't have any reason to believe you, especially since your earlier comment where you say you aren't trying to convince me of anything. So why do you come here then and say what it is you personally believe? Okay, great, that's what you believe, I disagree with you, but you're more or less wasting your metaphorical breath by coming here onto this specific thread.

people the world over have the same basic moral system.

No they don't. You view the issue of homosexuality as immoral, and yet there have been civilizations in the past and today that embraced it. To you, that is not the same as your moral system. There have been civilizations that allowed temple prostitutes and did ritualised sex, there are countries today that execute you for minor crimes (such as blasphemy in fundamentalist muslim nations).

A survey was done of folk asking that they assess themselves in good/evil doing.

Link please. Who did the survey, what were the questions, what was the methodology? I too can mention surveys, I can mention that a survey was done asking people if they believed they were Superman and 5,000% of those surveyed said yes.

The average score was 70%

70% what? 70% good, 70% evil? Without any clue as to the actual questions being asked, I refuse to use this brief snippet stand as evidence for anything.

God is also Judge. God is also Jury and Excutioner.

...debating whether or not I should press your for evidence on that, given ya know, the thread that we're on.

in the context of that passage, Judgement, folk know enough to allow for condemnation.

All people? What if someone is mentally challenged? Do they get a bye for that? Or those people who live in a society that has never heard of the bible or Jesus, and has a completely different set of morals?

don't see this case as discrimination

At it's most basic, you've got two couples standing before the priest or the civil registrar. One couple share the same genitalia, the other couple don't. Based on that alone, you're completely fine with the priest/registrar choosing not to marry the same sex couple. This is discrimination, it meets all the criteria for discrimination.
There are verses in the New Testament that can be very legitimately be interpreted as Jesus endorsing racism
Matthew 10:5-6

These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 15:22-8

And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying; Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

You might have read that second quote and said to yourself before - look, that woman's faith is an example to us, because she had faith, her daughter was healed, but I urge you to take a look at it again. A woman of a different race dares to come before the Jewish messiah, who deliberately ignored her at first. Even after she worshipped him and called him lord, he compared her to a dog. Is that racism or sexism or both, I'm seeing there? It's only after she completely strips herself of all dignity and self-respect that her daughter is supposedly healed. Your Jesus's bedside manner and complete lack of compassion in that scene leave me horrified - if that was a doctor doing so today, I'd be calling for his medical licence to be revoked.

If a priest were to have two couples standing before him, a white couple and a black couple, would you think him not to be racist if he quoted those verses and said "I am descended from Israel, I won't marry the black couple"? He's doing the exact same thing as the priest who refuses to marry the homosexual couple.

However, given what you've said before, about your religion being about the destruction of will and the debasement and surrender of humans, I wouldn't be surprised if you wouldn't care even if you were to accept that passage as having racist/sexist connotations - it's all about bowing down and worshipping your god, and accepting whatever he does to you like meek little sheep.

How about this - would you vote to allow civil homosexual marriage, but obviously you wouldn't want it happening in churches? Basically, stripping priests of the power to act as a civil registrar. This way, christians can have all the heterosexual marriage ceremonies they want in their churches, but in the eyes of the state, it means nothing unless those same couples go to a separate official and have him declare their marriage recognised by the state. If an LGBTQ couple want to marry, then they can, before the registrar, and receive the same benefits and responsibilities as the hetero couple

You really can make the Bible say anything with a verse.

And you honestly don't see this as a problem given that this is supposedly the one true holy book of the one true religion?

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Since I can't as an act of will choose to be convinced of your religion, or what you would call be saved, then to damn me is an unjust act, since it is something wholly outside of my control.

You indeed can't, by act of will, chose to be convinced - since you'd need "your eyes to be opened" in order to see how the whole stitches together and 'fits'. Like I say, however, your eyes being opened is a consequence of salvation, not a contributor to it. So no issue with the fact your eyes aren't opened if damned.

You can however, by a surrender of will, fulfill God's criterion of salvation being applied to you. That surrender (should it happen) takes place on a canvas designed for the purpose and doesn't require you to be aware that you are in fact taking part in such 'proceedings'. Your will chooses in respect to choosing good, choosing evil, responding to guilt, responding to the good feelings that come with doing good and a whole host of other players and influences contributing to things in which your will plays a part.

There is no requirement for you to know that your activity contributes to your salvation or damnation. Indeed, if you did know, wouldn't that affect your free will ability?

The essence of God's quest is to determine whether you love or not, the things of God and what God stands for. The consequences, saved or not, are a secondary issue.

Why is it you follow such an unjust monster? Oh wait, you've answered that before, mentioning that you did it out of fear of being destroyed yourself.

Where did I say that?? The first time I believed in God's existence (other than in any vague, pre-believer sense that there might be a god) and came to know hell was real was the day I knew I wasn't going there. Nor will I be going there - salvation is assured.

I don't have any reason to believe you, especially since your earlier comment where you say you aren't trying to convince me of anything. So why do you come here then and say what it is you personally believe? Okay, great, that's what you believe, I disagree with you, but you're more or less wasting your metaphorical breath by coming here onto this specific thread.

Let's suppose some or other of your objections to Christianity was dealt with by what I say. For example, say you had the objection "what about all those who believe in other religions? Are they damned - that's not fair"

And you hear that by no means are those of other religions damned. At least no more damnable or saveable than those brought up in Christian nations. End of objection. Now keep going. What happens if objection after objection is eliminated?

That'd be the logical answer - if no more objections left then you'd be in a spot of bother.

-
In fact I don't care whether I change your mind or defeat an objection. I recall my own case and many argumentative conversations with the Christian who was round and about around the time I experienced this life transformative event. It's not that I was convinced by her - in fact I used to rail in much the same way as most atheists rail at me. It is despite of that fact rather than because of it that I came to faith. Somehow and in some way that person played their part. It's a habit of God, to use man to interact with man on his behalf. Read the Bible if you don't believe me.

No they don't. You view the issue of homosexuality as immoral, and yet there have been civilizations in the past and today that embraced it. To you, that is not the same as your moral system. There have been civilizations that allowed temple prostitutes and did ritualised sex, there are countries today that execute you for minor crimes (such as blasphemy in fundamentalist muslim nations).

I did say when stripped of influences such as religion, culture and the like. Richard Dawkins seemingly views it possible to get to the nub of morality by stripping things down like that. If you don't agree with him, take it up with him. I'm such citing his argument for a common ancestor (albeit, God)

Link please. Who did the survey, what were the questions, what was the methodology?

I'd have to dig it out. Curiously, intrigued as I was I went and spent a few weeks asking folk the same question whenever I thought of it (on a scale of 1 to 10, with one being Hitler and 10 being Jesus (purely on the basis that Jesus still bears at least a caricature likeness as being the epitomy of goodness in peoples minds)

The answer typically was .. 7. But it's not critical to the point. Don't believe it if you don't want.

It's late now. Back when I get a chance but probably more like if, with work back on shoulders. Nice talking to you..

Auntie

Safehands

antiskeptic wrote: »

Physics is a discipline which attempts to describe the physical world. The spiritual world hath nothing to do with it and in so far as it doth, there is no problem (from a physics point of view) with physical manifestation of the spiritual

"A physical manifestation of the spiritual world" is another oxymoron. Physics cannot analyse a spiritual occurrence. As far as I know there is no way to scientifically verify the existence of a spiritual world, therefore it doth not exist.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Logic isn't an issue either. IF God exists THEN etc., etc. is an example of logical statement/thinking. All that need be true is the IF, in which case the various THEN's follow.

I agree! And IF God does NOT exist then .......

antiskeptic wrote: »

As for rational. There is nothing irrational about the existence of God.

Quite, to a religious person! but to a rational thinking person who believes in facts the existence of God is irrational.

antiskeptic wrote: »

you give me an example involving me, one of his followers.

I'll give you plenty, just look at today's posts!

I believe that the "believers" are far too hung up on irrelevant silliness. They ignore the much bigger picture. A man who decides that God is not for him, but lives his life as Jesus preached, should never be damned or punished, if it turns out that the Biblical story is actually true. If I read the old testament, then I read about a God I do not want to be true. My own belief is that the Old Testament should be totally disregarded, because it is far too violent. The people portrayed in it are quite often psychotic. It can be read as a piece of fiction, by all means, but should not be taken as factual accounts of actual events.

Safehands

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's late now. Back when I get a chance but probably more like if, with work back on shoulders. Nice talking to you..Auntie

You are Good, very good indeed, Auntie!

Always a pleasure debating with you!

RikuoAmero

Where did I say that??

Antiskeptic, you've got this annoying habit of asking that question, only for I and others to give you those precise quotes.

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.

Since someone who doesn't "surrender" to God and believe in him is unsaved in your book, this has the very strong implication that you converted out of fear of this wrath.

The first time I believed in God's existence (other than in any vague, pre-believer sense that there might be a god) and came to know hell was real was the day I knew I wasn't going there.

There you go, hell and the fear of the possibility of you going there played a part in your conversion. How else am I supposed to interpret that?
So what...you know for a fact, that this isn't going to happen to you? How? What evidence has you so convinced that you are able to say know instead of believe?

Logic isn't an issue either. IF God exists THEN etc., etc. is an example of logical statement/thinking. All that need be true is the IF, in which case the various THEN's follow.

I'm still stuck at the If...then stage. So far, not one theist here on this board has given me satisfactory evidence to help me move along from the If. So basically, the best I can do is treat christianity's claims as a hypothetical.

Physics is a discipline which attempts to describe the physical world. The spiritual world hath nothing to do with it and in so far as it doth, there is no problem (from a physics point of view) with physical manifestation of the spiritual

Anything that manifests in the physical world is a thing that is then able to be measured by physics. Logic 101. So, it's completely asinine to say "the spiritual manifests in the physical world, but physics cannot measure it".

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Antiskeptic, you've got this annoying habit of asking that question, only for I and others to give you those precise quotes.

Is that so? Well perhaps prove the point with this particular quote of mine. Where I said I follow God (the unjust monster) for fear of being destroyed?

Since someone who doesn't "surrender" to God and believe in him is unsaved in your book, this has the very strong implication that you converted out of fear of this wrath.

I only believed in God after I was saved. I didn't fear his wrath before that.
This isn't the same as folk knowing God (per Romans mentioned). This isn't to say that a sense of foreboding of what might well be to come after death isn't a utilized in turning to God. But why would someone fear if they felt they'd not done anything / enough to warrant judgement? It must be that they are convicted of their sin in addition to their being fearful of the consequences.

Anyways, they find after the event that there is to be no judgement in their case. So even if fear an element in turning, it's not an element in staying.

The first time I believed in God's existence (other than in any vague, pre-believer sense that there might be a god) and came to know hell was real was the day I knew I wasn't going there.

There you go, hell and the fear of the possibility of you going there played a part in your conversion. How else am I supposed to interpret that?[/quote][/quote]

Let me spell it out:

The moment I was saved and thus came to know God existed and came to know Hell existed was also the moment I knew I wasn't going to Hell. Hell didn't play a role in my being saved since I didn't believe in Hell before I was saved.

So what...you know for a fact, that this isn't going to happen to you? How? What evidence has you so convinced that you are able to say know instead of believe?

Sure. God's first words to me were these - and whilst I'd have trouble remembering what someone said to me 5 minutes ago I've never forgotten those words:

"Everything is going to be okay".

By "everything" was meant Everything. My life, my troubles, my death and thereafter. All was going to be okay.

The Bible goes on in this vein and explains the mechanics of that notion but I knew it from the off.

I'm still stuck at the If...then stage. So far, not one theist here on this board has given me satisfactory evidence to help me move along from the If. So basically, the best I can do is treat christianity's claims as a hypothetical.

That's fine. I do wonder at the whole industry of apologetics from time to time. No problem talking about God or the gospel workings but sometimes I think apologists things folk can be argued into the Kingdom of God by rational logical argument.

They can't. It happens at a different level ultimately - even if the likes of what I and others do, plays a part.

Physics is a discipline which attempts to describe the physical world. The spiritual world hath nothing to do with it and in so far as it doth, there is no problem (from a physics point of view) with physical manifestation of the spiritual

Anything that manifests in the physical world is a thing that is then able to be measured by physics. Logic 101. So, it's completely asinine to say "the spiritual manifests in the physical world, but physics cannot measure it".[/QUOTE][/quote]

You're problem with my requesting "where did I say that?" stems, it appears, more from your inaccurate paraphrasing that what I said.

If the spiritual manifests in the physical word - such as Jesus incarnating, then physics may be able* to measure the physical aspect. Clearly it can't measure the non-physical aspect since physics is limited in its scope.

*Physics can't measure the fact a bird flew past my window just now because it was unpredicted and it's too late to set up measuring equipment to measure such a past event. Even though it was a physical one.

antiskeptic

Safehands wrote: »

"A physical manifestation of the spiritual world" is another oxymoron.

E.g. Jesus' incarnation.

Physics cannot analyse a spiritual occurrence.

Nor many physical ones - ones that occur before physics is around to observe it.

As far as I know there is no way to scientifically verify the existence of a spiritual world, therefore it doth not exist.

The tragedy is that you got thanks for this.

I agree! And IF God does NOT exist then .......

Precisely. End of logic lesson.

Quite, to a religious person! but to a rational thinking person who believes in facts the existence of God is irrational.

Rational thinking isn't the preserve of the philosophies of empiricism and rationalists. And truths, as opposed to facts, aren't only arrived at via those philosophies.

Now I know those philosophies would have a different view but unfortunately for them, their claims aren't verifiable in any absolute sense. You have to be a believer in those philosophies to suppose them uber alles.

You got da faith?

A man who decides that God is not for him, but lives his life as Jesus preached, should never be damned or punished, if it turns out that the Biblical story is actually true.

Unfortunately, neither you nor I are able to live as Jesus preached. He never preached "try your best to live this way" he preached "live this way or else.."

If I read the old testament, then I read about a God I do not want to be true. My own belief is that the Old Testament should be totally disregarded, because it is far too violent. The people portrayed in it are quite often psychotic. It can be read as a piece of fiction, by all means, but should not be taken as factual accounts of actual events.

You like the soft snuggly wuggly "do-unto-others" Jesus better do you? In fact it was him who preached about Hell most. Where, he said, there would be "wailing and gnashing of teeth".

Jesus isn't out of step with the Old Testament. Not at all atall. It's a gross simplification to say the OT reveals the Justice/Judgement of a Righteous, Sovereign God and the NT reveals the mercy, meekness and love of a caring father God. But those aspects are there and are summed up in what Jesus achieved.

God's love sacrificed all he had to save you from the furious wrath God will express against all who love and practice evil. Love / Wrath all wrapped up in the same God.

Mock it all you like - the thief on the cross did but by the grace of God had revealed to him who Jesus was and he was saved. Let's but hope the same will occur for you. Truly.

RikuoAmero

Sure. God's first words to me were these - and whilst I'd have trouble remembering what someone said to me 5 minutes ago I've never forgotten those words:

"Everything is going to be okay".

Okay, I'm going to ask the question you probably fully expect me to ask you. I ask it in the most polite way I can think of and I do mean no dis-respect or offence.
*clears throat*
How is it you know/what evidence do you have that you really did hear the voice of God himself at that moment? How did you rule out the possibilities of temporary insanity, self-delusion, hallucination, hallucinogenic drugs or anything at all that could trick you into thinking you heard the voice of God?

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Okay, I'm going to ask the question you probably fully expect me to ask you. I ask it in the most polite way I can think of and I do mean no dis-respect or offence.
*clears throat*

How is it you know/what evidence do you have that you really did hear the voice of God himself at that moment? How did you rule out the possibilities of temporary insanity, self-delusion, hallucination, hallucinogenic drugs or anything at all that could trick you into thinking you heard the voice of God?

As you can imagine, I've been asked this a zillion times.

1. I didn't know it was God speaking at the time because it was the very next morning after I was saved. I didn't know I was saved just yet. It was afterwards I realised.

2. How is it anyone knows anything? When you follow that one down the rabbit hole you come to the realisation that you and you alone are the determining agent deciding what is what in terms of the reality around you.

- you can't point to other peoples opinion - I mean, how do you know they aren't a delusion? That you aren't insane

- you can't point to science since the value of science is something you assign to it because it's output appears to make sense to you.

There is no external agent you can point to to undergird in any absolute sense that what you experience is real. You assess and you evaluate in a way that is satisfying to you and that's about the size of it.

I concluded God exists because this dusty old book which would have been utterly impenetrable to me suddenly began to reveal it's message before my eyes. And when I looked at people far more intelligent than me who stumbled around it like blind men I couldn't help being struck by the bible saying even the intelligent would stumble around the things of God like blind men.

I could go on and on about the ways in which the truth of God's existence has been solidified since those early days but there is no point. You can't peer into my experience to appreciate why what I've experienced has produced the conviction I have.

I might add that my being certain that God exists doesn't mean he does. I could be deluded. Just as you could be about the existence of that computer screen on front of you. But as someone pointed out long ago, there's no real point in going there.

RikuoAmero

Okay, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I honestly don't believe you did hear the voice of God, since you haven't presented to me any evidence that this is in fact what happened. I accept that this is what you believe did happen, but I don't believe it myself. Others in the past have said they also did hear the voice of God, and yet they said different things on theology than you.
Of course, I cannot inspect your memory or experience of the event in question. All I have to go on is your word. Do you understand, since that is all I have to go on, why I don't believe you? It's incredibly easy for people to say they heard the voice of God, or were contacted by angels or aliens or what-have-you, but it's a different thing altogether for them to prove it.

you can't point to science since the value of science is something you assign to it because it's output appears to make sense to you.

On the contrary, you can. I did hear of a study a while ago (you might want to take this with a pinch of salt, since I can't link to it, just as I took the study you mentioned before with some incredulity) where two groups of people, one group believing in god, the other ones atheist, were put in an MRI scanner and had their brains scanned. The ones who were atheist were asked to think about themselves and a specific portion of their brains lit up. The theist group were asked to pray to god, and the exact-same portion of their brains lit up, thus indicating to the researchers that, at the very least, when the theist crowd they had brought in were praying to god and thinking they were hearing him reply back, they were instead only hearing themselves.

I concluded God exists because this dusty old book which would have been utterly impenetrable to me suddenly began to reveal it's message before my eyes. And when I looked at people far more intelligent than me who stumbled around it like blind men I couldn't help being struck by the bible saying even the intelligent would stumble around the things of God like blind men.

Yet, I've heard from countless other christians of differing views on what it is the bible means say more or less the same thing. They would disagree with you quite strongly on several points you've brought up here, and yet, at the same time, they would be saying to me that the bible does indeed make sense and other intelligent people who read it have it wrong on certain points. Basically, both you and they are telling me that god somehow gave them the correct understanding/interpretation of the bible, yet both of you claim different opinions on what this, that or the other thing in the bible means.
Both of you cannot be correct.

I might add that my being certain that God exists doesn't mean he does. I could be deluded. Just as you could be about the existence of that computer screen on front of you. But as someone pointed out long ago, there's no real point in going there.

Yes, let's not get into solipsism, you completely obviously fake mind that I'm hallucinating

antiskeptic

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Okay, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I honestly don't believe you did hear the voice of God, since you haven't presented to me any evidence that this is in fact what happened.

No worries. I'd be worried if you did.

Of course, I cannot inspect your memory or experience of the event in question. All I have to go on is your word. Do you understand, since that is all I have to go on, why I don't believe you? It's incredibly easy for people to say they heard the voice of God, or were contacted by angels or aliens or what-have-you, but it's a different thing altogether for them to prove it.

Ditto above.

On the contrary, you can. I did hear of a study a while ago (you might want to take this with a pinch of salt, since I can't link to it, just as I took the study you mentioned before with some incredulity) where two groups of people, one group believing in god, the other ones atheist, were put in an MRI scanner and had their brains scanned. The ones who were atheist were asked to think about themselves and a specific portion of their brains lit up. The theist group were asked to pray to god, and the exact-same portion of their brains lit up, thus indicating to the researchers that, at the very least, when the theist crowd they had brought in were praying to god and thinking they were hearing him reply back, they were instead only hearing themselves.

At the very least?? You'd be lucky!

A "thinking about myself" part of the brain sounds a little too specific to me to be true. So far all I have here is when two sets of people involved in mental activity. What specifically was different about what they were thinking such as to suppose different parts of their brain would light up? I mean, did anyone get them to think about the football on the tellie last night to cross check?


To which part of a person would a spiritual God communicate to a spiritually awake person (the Bible says spirit to spirit which). How did folk figure that an MRI would pick up God's voice so as to bother.

Yet, I've heard from countless other christians of differing views on what it is the bible means say more or less the same thing. They would disagree with you quite strongly on several points you've brought up here, and yet, at the same time, they would be saying to me that the bible does indeed make sense and other intelligent people who read it have it wrong on certain points. Basically, both you and they are telling me that god somehow gave them the correct understanding/interpretation of the bible, yet both of you claim different opinions on what this, that or the other thing in the bible means.
Both of you cannot be correct.

Indeed not. Not that I think that matters all that much to God. What point a book of comfort, book of instruction, book of hope, book of inspiration, book of all sorts when there are countless billions of people with individual needs and desires. You'd need a book the height of the spire to accomodate all.

If it's a God sized book (and I point you to a God sized creation to draw a comparison) then it's not going to read like any other book

I remember underlining a word in a verse in a passage I was reading just after I was saved. A whole understanding which was dawning on me, arising from that passage, rested on and hinged around that single word. A few years later and I was reading that section of the Bible whilst travelling on a completely different journey through the scripture ... and I noticed the underline and remembered the original journey I had been on which involved that passage.

This single word was like a crossroads with two completely separate journeys passing through it. No doubt many more different journeys could pass through that same point. And many more journeys had through the words on either side and above and below this particular one.

There's no end to the Bible, literally no end to it. Whilst you can get folk rallying around particular flags I don't think it pays to be too dogmatic (in the sense of getting all het up about it). What matters more is whether you dogma flows in line with the core message of Jesus Christ. Love.

Yes, let's not get into solipsism, you completely obviously fake mind that I'm hallucinating

When folk ask the question you did they invariably point to something that they consider to be the most absolute way of establishing what is or isn't the case. All these tools have use - I'm not against them

But if God choses to establish himself before you then there isn't anything in the world that's going to be able to trump that. That I can't demonstrate God neither worries me, nor worry God. God's dealing with you and everyone else will be between him and you. He's a personal God. And doesn't give us the picture Father, for no reason.

Interesting aside: In the Bible Jesus addresses his father as "Abba". A Christian mate of mine was sitting outside a cafe in Jerusalem when he saw a little boy, who'd knocked his head hard against something run up to his dad with outstretched arms crying "Abba, Abba"

Dad/

RikuoAmero

To which part of a person would a spiritual God communicate to a spiritually awake person (the Bible says spirit to spirit which). How did folk figure that an MRI would pick up God's voice so as to bother.

It is our physical brains that do the thinking process. We know this for a fact, since we've studied brains (or other similar neurological systems in creatures that don't have brains). We've observed that when it is the brain that gets damaged, then that person's thinking becomes muddled at the very least. If you have a stroke, you could lose the ability to speak or process language.
At no point has the hypothesis of a soul/spirit ever been proven (the concept of a separate non-physical entity to the mind that is somehow responsible for some sort of consciousness or conscious thought). If there is a spirit, does damage to the physical brain affect it? Is the spirit/soul invulnerable to damage? If the soul is invulnerable/unaffected by damage, how come when a person's brain is damaged, their thinking becomes muddled? Wouldn't the non-damaged soul still be able to function perfectly?
As for their methodology, let's assume for the moment that they did double blind tests or some other method to ensure the patients concentrated on what they were told to.

Indeed not. Not that I think that matters all that much to God. What point a book of comfort, book of instruction, book of hope, book of inspiration, book of all sorts when there are countless billions of people with individual needs and desires. You'd need a book the height of the spire to accomodate all.

So is the bible necessary then, on at least some level? Is it possible, in your view, for someone to go through life, be 'saved', never read it, and still get into heaven?

There's no end to the Bible, literally no end to it.

Why is it you used the word literally there, when it's obviously not true? (at least in terms of the number of pages)

But if God choses to establish himself before you then there isn't anything in the world that's going to be able to trump that. That I can't demonstrate God neither worries me, nor worry God. God's dealing with you and everyone else will be between him and you.

Let's take the possibility of god never choosing to establish himself before me. Let's say I go through the rest of my life, an unbeliever, not saved, and I die.
Would you then think it fair if I didn't get into heaven/suffer the ultimate punishment, because god never bothered showing himself to me?

Safehands

antiskeptic wrote: »

E.g. Jesus' incarnation.

E.G. No! He was a man, remember, not a spirit. But if you want to go down the road of him being a spirit lets go there, but spirits don't feel pain so that road is rocky for you. We can make up whatever story you like. It will all be as real as the incarnation of Jesus.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nor many physical ones - ones that occur before physics is around to observe it.

A complete distortion of the facts. I am surprised at you.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Unfortunately, neither you nor I are able to live as Jesus preached. He never preached "try your best to live this way" he preached "live this way or else.."

Yea, the old threat again. You guys love that.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You like the soft snuggly wuggly "do-unto-others" Jesus better do you?

I would never describe him like that, its ok if you feel that way about him though. But at least he wasn't psychotic like the OT God.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God's love sacrificed all he had to save you from the furious wrath God will express against all who love and practice evil.

Thank goodness I don't practice evil then or your all loving "God" will come to get me.

Turtwig

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Why is it you follow such an unjust monster?

MOD:
\\\\

This is the CHRISTIANITY forum please don't refer to God as a monster...
Note: minor transgressions of this nature, on this very thread are beginning to tot up. Please take more due diligence with your posts before posting. Otherwise you may find cards and worse coming your way


////

antiskeptic

Safehands wrote: »

E.G. No! He was a man, remember,

Yet miracles flowed .. remember?

Not that that's the issue. My point was that something spiritual (God) choosing to manifest physically doesn't defy the laws of physics since those laws have nothing to say other than examine the physical aspect of God it would have before it.

But if you want to go down the road of him being a spirit lets go there, but spirits don't feel pain

Physical pain not, I'll grant you

A complete distortion of the facts. I am surprised at you.

A bird flew by my window just now. Physics isn't around to measure that. Yet it happened. Is what I mean.

Yea, the old threat again. You guys love that.

I've no issue with evil being destroyed nor evil being punished. Neither have you in fact. That only difference between you and God (and me, who happens to agree with God) is where we draw the line on what is evil.

According to you the line stops a lot further downstream than you. According to God it stops a lot further upstream than you or me.

I would never describe him like that, its ok if you feel that way about him though. But at least he wasn't psychotic like the OT God.

Point was that OT God and Jesus are the same God. You can't like one without the other. If you see them as different then you're not studying things enough

Thank goodness I don't practice evil then or your all loving "God" will come to get me.

Like I say, it depends on who is doing the defining of what's evil. The mechanism of salvation attempts to bring the horse to water (as it were) so that you can better see the sorry state you're in when compared to an absolute (as opposed to subjective, largely self-defined (problem anyone?), standard).

If you come to see that you'll fall to your knees faster that you can say "Goodness, gracious, You).