Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You would have to find a conspiracy theorist and ask them. I believe we have a forum for that very thing. But if we are to discuss "merits" then I must say I fail to see the merit in your just replying to my post with a blanket dismissal ad hominem.

But given you did not respond to my last post to you _at all_ then I guess this is at least something of an improvement.

What I have raised however are two genuine concerns that one has to be aware of. Concerns that are not going to dilute into nothing merely by pouring enough dismissal on them.

In the interests of staying on topic I will merely repeat them and perhaps you will engage with them in your next reply, rather than lash out an ad hominem.

FIRST: When you declare that events in "Part 2" (for want of a better name) of a book were predicted in "Part 1" of a book then you are not saying anything special. This happens in fiction all the time. To make it something special you would have to establish the events in question actually did happen in reality. You appear not to have done so. And actually in your "Go use Google yourself" approach so far, you have not even made the attempt to do so. Can you show us, for example, one event predicted in Part 1 that actually happened in reality? And show it to be more than simply political commentary. After all if a "miracle" is merely predicting future political events, and those events come to pass, then we have some messiahs in our world even today as this happens often.

SECOND: Self fulfilling prophecy is actually a genuine concern. Not something I am making up for conspiracy reasons. When predictions and prophecies are made, some people will genuinely go out of their way to ensure they happen as predicted. If you want to set yourself up as the Messiah and be taken seriously, then you are going to ensure that the portents of your arrival fit with the expectations of the target audience.

You have revealed your bias.

You are suggesting the Bible is a fiction in your opinion. That suggests a conspiracy of epic proportions maintained since sometime around 1400BC

You are also suggesting that Christ reviewed the books of the prophets and then set about following all the prophecies.
Is that not another conspiracy theory?

Perhaps when your heart is more open you may feel differently about seeking God honestly rather than wasting time showing off your superiority complex. In the meantime I'll continue to think on your behalf.

Harika

Festus wrote: »

You have revealed your bias.

You are suggesting the Bible is a fiction in your opinion. That suggests a conspiracy of epic proportions maintained since sometime around 1400BC

You are also suggesting that Christ reviewed the books of the prophets and then set about following all the prophecies.
Is that not another conspiracy theory?

Perhaps when your heart is more open you may feel differently about seeking God honestly rather than wasting time showing off your superiority complex. In the meantime I'll continue to think on your behalf.

There would be another theory that is as legit as that the bible is gods word. 100 years after Jesus death, some guys thought about how to become more influental and decided to create a religion. So they used the old testament as base and used Jesus who was a preacher 100 years ago as symbol. Then they adjusted some of his stories to fit the prophecies of the old testament and you have a religion. Over time, and this could already be verified, the bible changed to what it is today and the longer it took the better the stories fitted together as the people were smart.

ABC101 wrote: »

When a Christian undergoes a journey of faith, implementing their faith in their daily life, calling on God, talking to God, asking for help with problems in their personal life etc etc a form of personal evidence slowly develops... problems get mysteriously solved, questions get answered for the believer.

“A journey of faith.” An interesting expression. I suppose faith can be defined as having confidence in something or somebody. Everyone has a human right to have faith in whatever they choose.
Faith is really an abstract concept. I can have faith in any idea that comes into my head. I can choose to jump off the Cliffs of Moher and I can have total faith that my God will save me. It doesn’t mean I will be saved, but that may not prevent me having my faith and a belief that the hand of God will reach out and grab me before I become one with the rocks below. If I do jump, with or without faith I will meet the same end. I will not be saved. However, that does not stop me having faith.
I do have faith in the people who tell me that the sun is made up of hydrogen and helium. Why, I have never been there? I can see it. It makes total sense to me. They can scientifically prove their assertions. I have faith in the existence of the stars. I believe some of them are a million light years away. I can see them through my telescope and learned people tell me how far away they are. A two year old boy has faith that his mother will catch him if he jumps off the kitchen table into her arms. He has done it before and she has never let him down.
So, should I not have faith, or confidence in the existence of God. Learned people tell me that he exists.
Let’s look at that. They tell me he is all loving, that he loves me unconditionally. Is that true based on what I know about him? Well, my personal experience of love is based on my feelings towards my family. If any of my kids decided that they didn’t want anything to do with me, would that stop me loving them? No, absolutely not.
Would I do anything in my power to prevent any harm to come to them? 100% yes.
Would I punish them for not loving me or contacting me even once a year? No.

Let me apply my experience of love to God’s love for me.
If I decided that I didn’t want anything to do with God would he still love me? I am told he would.
Would he do anything in his power to stop any harm coming to me? No, I don’t think he would, or does.
Would I be punished for not loving him or contacting him? Yes, absolutely! I am told that if I behave like that I will suffer for eternity.

Based on that reasoning do I think it is true that God loves me unconditionally? No, there are many conditions, I have pointed out just a couple.
So, do I believe the people who tell me that God is all loving and loves me unconditionally? No, I have just proved that they are wrong.
So why should I believe anything they tell me about the existence of God and why I should have faith? I shouldn’t really. They are wrong about God being all-loving and that is a very basic piece of the jigsaw which they apply to assure us of his existence. It is one aspect of his existence we can prove or disprove.
These believers are nice people with great faith. No matter what proof I throw at them, they won't accept it. They are misguided, unfortunately. But their faith brings them strength and contentment and that is very good for them.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well your making my point for me again. Either hypothesis is unlikely. The aliens one is currently fashionable but has the draw back of leading back to the first theory, God. Aliens who could master faster than light travel and or time travel would be less likely to be as hidden as God after all they are physical beings. Once we confirm their existence we are back at square 1. Who made the aliens? What if when they do turn up it's to preach their gospel (blessed be his noodley appendages)? This is why faith tells us faith comes first then evidence. If we wait for evidence we end up with the same problem. Until in the end we reject or accept the God theory.

No, if we confirm the existence of hyper-advanced, time travelling aliens who visited Earth in the past, we do not then ask the question of who made the aliens. We would not have enough information to ascertain whether or not that is the right question to ask.
If in fact we find said aliens, they prove their time travel abilities and they say they did visit the Earth in the past and dick around with earlier humans...well then that blows the christian god hypothesis completely out of the water (since at that point, they'd have more or less confirmed that it was not a god who incarnated as Jesus, but the aliens with their advanced technology who either resurrected Jesus or more simply, cloned him).

You are suggesting the Bible is a fiction in your opinion.

The bible (and indeed any and all books) remain categorised in my view as works of fiction, (due to the principle of the null hypothesis) until such time (if ever) there is evidence supporting the veracity of their words.

That suggests a conspiracy of epic proportions maintained since sometime around 1400BC

Not necessarily. It could simply have been a mythology for a certain tribe that over time, was changed, added, deleted and morphed into what it is today, all with no malicious intent.

You are also suggesting that Christ reviewed the books of the prophets and then set about following all the prophecies.
Is that not another conspiracy theory?

Not Jesus himself. Others who probably believed he was a great man and wanted to spread his message, and thought that the best way to do it was to alter the stories and make him out to be far greater than he really was.
In North Korea, the three Kim leaders (il Sung, Jong il, and Jong un) are worshipped as gods, or close to gods. There are more than likely plenty of North Koreans who genuinely believe that these men are great, and out of a non-malicious intent, want to spread the news of these men, so they will exaggerate the accomplishments of these men.
Also...a conspiracy theory is infinitely more believable, logical and reasonable than the actual god hypothesis. We have clear definite examples of cults and religions being built around known fraudulent supernatural claims (such as scientology). It is more believable because, to explain the stories of miracles, we don't have to invent or presuppose beings with divine power who did them.
(For the record, I myself don't believe the conspiracy hypothesis. At this moment in time, I'm at the null hypothesis regarding it, it hasn't been proven to me yet. It just is far more likely than the god hypothesis).

@ Safehands,

Let me apply my experience of love to God’s love for me.
If I decided that I didn’t want anything to do with God would he still love me? I am told he would.
Would he do anything in his power to stop any harm coming to me? No, I don’t think he would, or does.
Would I be punished for not loving him or contacting him? Yes, absolutely! I am told that if I behave like that I will suffer for eternity.

I cannot determine your fate... whether you will be saved or damned. Not for me to judge.

However I think you have missed out something very important with your analysis. It is called Justice.

Whilst God does love us while we are on Earth, if we chose to reject God (for whatever reason) we make that choice. God being God... has high standards. People who have lived wicked lives, ignoring God's law, ignoring their conscience, treating others badly. These people are judged not to have met the standard required to enjoy God's company in Heaven.

Would it be just and right.... for a person such as Stalin, or Hitler etc to be enjoying Heaven along with other people who have carried out good works, made great sacrifices in their own personal lives?

You see this is the concept of Justice. Justice is not only 1) doing what is right, 2) paying your taxes etc...... Justice is about keeping to your proper position.

For example...

Would it be Just to have good people in prison, and wicked people at liberty? Obviously not. Would it be Just to have good people at liberty and wicked people in prison? Obviously yes!

So it will be in the end times. Those people who have cut the grade, who have met the standard will enjoy God's company in Heaven, and those people who have failed to love God, failed to love their fellow man will end up outside.

There are people who do not believe in Hell.....because they do not believe that a loving God could actually send people to Hell, or allow people to send themselves to Hell.

But people who think like this do not understand the concept of Justice. In fact I have read that it is the conscience of the person who actually refuses to go to Heaven. It is the conscience which realises.... It is unjust for me to be in Heaven, therefore I will go to Hell.

So I would ask you to reflect on this....

1) What standards does God have? High or low?
2) If you were God... would you have high or low standards? If Stalin / Hitler turned up... would you allow them in or have them barred outside?
3) At what point does God's deep love for us stop?
4) At what point does Justice take over?

ABC101 wrote: »

@ Safehands,
Let me apply my experience of love to God’s love for me.
If I decided that I didn’t want anything to do with God would he still love me? I am told he would.
Would he do anything in his power to stop any harm coming to me? No, I don’t think he would, or does.
Would I be punished for not loving him or contacting him? Yes, absolutely! I am told that if I behave like that I will suffer for eternity.
I cannot determine your fate... whether you will be saved or damned. Not for me to judge.
However I think you have missed out something very important with your analysis. It is called Justice.
Whilst God does love us while we are on Earth, if we chose to reject God (for whatever reason) we make that choice. God being God... has high standards. People who have lived wicked lives, ignoring God's law, ignoring their conscience, treating others badly. These people are judged not to have met the standard required to enjoy God's company in Heaven.

Would it be just and right.... for a person such as Stalin, or Hitler etc to be enjoying Heaven along with other people who have carried out good works, made great sacrifices in their own personal lives?

You see this is the concept of Justice. Justice is not only 1) doing what is right, 2) paying your taxes etc...... Justice is about keeping to your proper position.

For example...

Would it be Just to have good people in prison, and wicked people at liberty? Obviously not. Would it be Just to have good people at liberty and wicked people in prison? Obviously yes!

So it will be in the end times. Those people who have cut the grade, who have met the standard will enjoy God's company in Heaven, and those people who have failed to love God, failed to love their fellow man will end up outside.

There are people who do not believe in Hell.....because they do not believe that a loving God could actually send people to Hell, or allow people to send themselves to Hell.

But people who think like this do not understand the concept of Justice. In fact I have read that it is the conscience of the person who actually refuses to go to Heaven. It is the conscience which realises.... It is unjust for me to be in Heaven, therefore I will go to Hell.

So I would ask you to reflect on this....

1) What standards does God have? High or low?
2) If you were God... would you have high or low standards? If Stalin / Hitler turned up... would you allow them in or have them barred outside?
3) At what point does God's deep love for us stop?
4) At what point does Justice take over?

You are twisting what I said "If I decided that I didn’t want anything to do with God would he still love me? I am told he would." I didn't say anything about being wicked. If I just decide to have nothing to do with him and to live a good life, that is not good enough. I will be punished for my lack of love or contact with God, not for being bad or wicked. Of course I believe in justice. But introducing Hitler and Stalin, please!

those people who have failed to love God

Like I have said in earlier posts, I prefer to call this "not being convinced God exists", to highlight the absurdity of the teaching. Imagine if the teaching was "those people who have failed to love playing Call of Duty" or "those people who have failed to love building jigsaws". It's all arbitrary, and it's absurd.
Also, it commands love, which is what I have talked about in the past, and proscribes a fate for those who do not rise to it.
Even if the fate is as simple as leaving us alone at the end of days with all the other evil people, that is still an evil thing to do. Imagine if my child was never convinced of my existence (and thus, couldn't love me), and I said "Fine, I'm going to leave you where you are, but I'm also going to put all the wicked people there along with you. All the mass murderers, rapists, cannibals, etc". (This is what I have been told by people here on this forum: that at the end of days, I will be left alone by God, left to continue my existence in a place alongside all the obviously evil people)

As for Justice...infinite justice cannot co-exist in the same being who is also described as infinite mercy. The two qualities are in conflict (like omniscience and omnipotence).

If you're trying to convince me of the existence of some entity or another, step one would be deciding which attributes it can have logically.

nozzferrahhtoo

Festus wrote: »

You have revealed your bias.

Yes, I am biased towards substantiated claims and biased against unsubstantiated ones. Nothing has been "revealed" here. That has been my explicit position ever since I joined the forum.

Festus wrote: »

You are suggesting the Bible is a fiction in your opinion.

Not what I said. I said that if you want to show that a prophecy has actually been fulfilled then the onus is on you to show the events are not fiction, and actually happened.

Festus wrote: »

You are also suggesting that Christ reviewed the books of the prophets and then set about following all the prophecies. Is that not another conspiracy theory?

Not particularly. Self fulfilling prophecies do not _have_ to be on the part of the person trying to fulfil them either. There are other alternatives. Such as if a prophecy says the messiah will ride into town on a donkey.... people are generally going to pay undue levels of attention to people who ride into town on donkeys.

Safehands wrote: »

You are twisting what I said "If I decided that I didn’t want anything to do with God would he still love me? I am told he would." I didn't say anything about being wicked. If I just decide to have nothing to do with him and to live a good life, that is not good enough. I will be punished for my lack of love or contact with God, not for being bad or wicked. Of course I believe in justice. But introducing Hitler and Stalin, please!

I was not specifically referring to you deciding to lead a "wicked life". It was just a general usage of the term, not specifically personal to you. Apologies if it caused offense.

I am glad you accept the concept of Justice... so we are agreed on that score.

You point about youself... just leading a 'normal' day to day life, but with out acknowleding God in any way. Good question!!

We cannot say for certain... because the final decision belongs to God. However it is clear that God does have a standard... or pass mark which has to be obtained for a person to enter Heaven.

Writing generally, not specifically to yourself....A person could ask themselves... If I should choose to ignore God, deny his existance.. and should I die.... what should happen to me at judgement day.

What do you think the answer to this question would be?

I think you are going to say... if there is a God... and the person has done no harm during their lifetime... that they will be allowed into Heaven for this alone. Am I right?

[Deleted User]

ABC101 wrote: »

I was not specifically referring to you deciding to lead a "wicked life". It was just a general usage of the term, not specifically personal to you. Apologies if it caused offense.

I am glad you accept the concept of Justice... so we are agreed on that score.

You point about youself... just leading a 'normal' day to day life, but with out acknowleding God in any way. Good question!!

We cannot say for certain... because the final decision belongs to God. However it is clear that God does have a standard... or pass mark which has to be obtained for a person to enter Heaven.

Writing generally, not specifically to yourself....A person could ask themselves... If I should choose to ignore God, deny his existance.. and should I die.... what should happen to me at judgement day.

What do you think the answer to this question would be?

I think you are going to say... if there is a God... and the person has done no harm during their lifetime... that they will be allowed into Heaven for this alone. Am I right?

As someone totally unclear about this, could you explain this statement? Firstly, how it is clear that there is a standard, and then secondly what this standard might be?

ABC101 wrote: »

I was not specifically referring to you deciding to lead a "wicked life". It was just a general usage of the term, not specifically personal to you. Apologies if it caused offense.

No, it didn't cause offence to me. I was not talking about wicked people, that's all.

ABC101 wrote: »

You point about youself... just leading a 'normal' day to day life, but with out acknowleding God in any way. Good question!!

We cannot say for certain... because the final decision belongs to God. However it is clear that God does have a standard... or pass mark which has to be obtained for a person to enter Heaven.

Writing generally, not specifically to yourself....A person could ask themselves... If I should choose to ignore God, deny his existance.. and should I die.... what should happen to me at judgement day.
What do you think the answer to this question would be?
I think you are going to say... if there is a God... and the person has done no harm during their lifetime... that they will be allowed into Heaven for this alone. Am I right?

If the God you believe in actually exists, then there are several contradictions or anomalies concerning his dealings with the souls on Earth. On the one hand you believe he is all loving, which is great. On the other hand his "justice" is very severe for seemingly innocuously offensive behaviour, such as me being honest, using my judgement and making a declaration that I don't believe he exists in the way you describe. For that "wicked" behaviour, we are told that I will not be allowed into Heaven when I die.
I suddenly appear at the pearly gates to be confronted by God in all his glory. Obviously in that scenario I feel like a bit of a fool. I have been wrong in my beliefs. So, is the all loving God going to gloat and confirm that I have been an idiot? Is he going to tell me there is no room at the Inn for any doubters? Is he going to tell me to go elsewhere? Where else is there to go? If what we are told is all true, the only other accommodation is in Hell, so is he going to send me there to live for eternity? If he does, then here comes the anomaly; he is not all loving!

What about the parable of the prodigal son? I am the son who rejected him, break out the fatted calf and have a party. I have returned to the fold, a little late I admit, but let's celebrate, his well loved son is back!
That is the God I would like to believe in.

I suddenly appear at the pearly gates to be confronted by God in all his glory. Obviously in that scenario I feel like a bit of a fool. I have been wrong in my beliefs. So, is the all loving God going to gloat and confirm that I have been an idiot? Is he going to tell me there is no room at the Inn for any doubters? Is he going to tell me to go elsewhere? Where else is there to go? If what we are told is all true, the only other accommodation is in Hell, so is he going to send me there to live for eternity? If he does, then here comes the anomaly; he is not all loving!

What about the parable of the prodigal son? I am the son who rejected him, break out the fatted calf and have a party. I have returned to the fold, a little late I admit, but let's celebrate, his well loved son is back!
That is the God I would like to believe in.

O.K.. I understand your view point now. I'll take the top paragraph first.

Yes.. standing at the pearly gates... and you realise you have badly misjudged the situation. However your comment about God gloating over refusing your entry into Heaven.... I think that is unfair phrase to use there.

God does love you... but seeing as you failed to love him back i.e. following the 10 commandments of which keeping the Sabbath Holy is just one....you clearly have failed to cut the grade or obtain the pass mark. I mean how can you love God... if you deny he exists? Or if you do not follow the 10 commandments? Particularly when you are aware of the 10 commandments, and have made a deliberate conscious decision to ignore them.

I think God would feel very sorryful for you in that situation. I do not believe God would gloat and smile with glee as you are denied entry. Here is a person who God knew intimately... and that person has failed to meet the standard and because of this...they are denied entry into Heaven.

Your point about the Prodigial Son. In this parable... the son did NOT die. As you well know... the Son went off and did his own thing for a number of years. When he realised the error of his ways, it was the son who decided to change and return to his family.

The son realised the error of his ways himself. It was an internal realisation of his predicament.

This is not the same as standing at the pearly gates. With the prodigal son ... he still had time to change his ways, and return to the father. The Prodigal son still had time to make amends.

On the other hand... when you arrive at the pearly gates.. the cause of realization of Heaven and God is not an internal one.

The cause of the realization is external... you now believe because you can see your dead body on Earth... and you can now see and touch the Pearly gates. But you have run out of time, it is not possible to go back and change the way you have lived.

So the comparison between the two... whilst similar are very different.

Your point...if he does, then here comes the anomaly; he is not all loving!

Well what do you expect? As mentioned previously....

You are given a life.
You are given the rules (10 commandments, teachings of the prophets, Gospels, God even sent his own Son etc)
You are given a choice to follow or reject God.

And if you choose not to follow God's teaching... you still expect to get into heaven? Because God is love. If that was the case... you would only be taking advantage of God's love. It would be in effect a form of abuse of God. God's justice would not allow this.

Further more.... IF it was the case.... that all you had to do was to live a good life whether or not to believe in God, or Love God... then why do we have the teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament? Why do we have the 10 commandments? Why all these rules and regulations if it ultimately is not necessary?

If to get into Heaven it is not necessary to have these guidelines, rules.... then why did God give humanity these rules, guidelnes?

It is like God saying... here are the rules... if you follow them or not... don't worry... I still love you... and you will still get entry at the pearly gates!

Thisname

Don't mean to hijack(!) but just want to add that it's important to be clear that it isn't being "good" or following the rules that qualifies us entry into heaven when we die.

Yes God has a holy standard as laid out in the 10 commandments. That's God's law and in order to be righteous and therefore deserving of eternal life, you would have to keep this law perfectly.

But we know that no one can keep the 10 commandments and live a perfectly righteous life. God knows this. He gave us the 10 commandments not only to show us his holy standard but also to make us aware that we are sinners and in need of a saviour. This is why Jesus came. He lived a perfect life for us and gave himself as a sacrifice for our sins.

He took our punishment so that we could go free, be declared righteous and therefore given entry to heaven when we die. Yes God does expect christians to live godly lives but that's nothing to do with our salvation. Our salvation is in Christ alone.

Thisname wrote: »

He took our punishment so that we could go free, be declared righteous and therefore given entry to heaven when we die. Yes God does expect christians to live godly lives but that's nothing to do with our salvation. Our salvation is in Christ alone.

So if I have understood your statment correctly.... you are stating..

Because Jesus Christ died for the sins of mankind... the salvation of each person is now guaranteed? Is my understanding correct?

Thisname

ABC101 wrote: »

So if I have understood your statment correctly.... you are stating..

Because Jesus Christ died for the sins of mankind... the salvation of each person is now guaranteed? Is my understanding correct?

Jesus did die for the sins of mankind but that doesn't mean everyone is saved. Only those who believe that gospel message, that Jesus (the Son of God) came in the flesh and died a sacrificial death to atone for your sin. If you truly believe that in your heart and put your trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of your sins, you will receive the free gift of eternal life.

Safehands wrote: »

What about the parable of the prodigal son? I am the son who rejected him, break out the fatted calf and have a party. I have returned to the fold, a little late I admit, but let's celebrate, his well loved son is back!
That is the God I would like to believe in.

It is good that there is a God you would like to believe in and the God you describe is the God we believe in.

However, returning to the fold must be done while still alive. Death is too late as you then die in a state of rejecting God. Want to cry over spilt milk? You will have an eternity for that.

Remember, this is about free will. It is by free will you choose to question God and it is by free will you choose to listen to and accept the answers that supported your rejection of God. It is by free will you choose not to seek alternative answers and it is by free will you choose not to seek God anymore. Dying in a state of rejecting God is a choice you make out of your own free will and God will not reject or interfere with the choice that you make.

It is because of this state that you cannot remain with Him after death. You rejected Him and He gives you, out of love, what your soul desires - a place as far away from God as is possible, with all the others who rejected God.
Or if you like, because you rejected Him and followed a different father in this life, on death He will release you to the father you chose.

It is up to you to choose the truth. No one else can make that choice for you. There is only one truth. Though many will tell you the truth and others will tell you what they believe to be the truth and yet others will tell you what they know to be lies dressed up as truth, it is ultimately up to you to decide which truth you want to believe, the truth or a lie.

Gerry T

ABC101 wrote: »

@ Safehands,

Would it be just and right.... for a person such as Stalin, or Hitler etc to be enjoying Heaven along with other people who have carried out good works, made great sacrifices in their own personal lives?

I thought if these people Stalin, Hitler, Vlad, the pope, Pol Pot. If they were seriously repentant at judgement day that they would get into heaven. So yes you could easily see any of these in heaven.

Harika

Gerry T wrote: »

I thought if these people Stalin, Hitler, Vlad, the pope, Pol Pot. If they were seriously repentant at judgement day that they would get into heaven. So yes you could easily see any of these in heaven.

Cool that would make the way to heaven for me as atheist easy as I defo have been more following of the christian policies than them and as soon as I stand in front of god I will seriously repent and there I have not a doubt about that.

ABC101 wrote: »

So if I have understood your statment correctly.... you are stating..

Because Jesus Christ died for the sins of mankind... the salvation of each person is now guaranteed? Is my understanding correct?

Welcome to my life. Now you see what I was talking about before, about christians from different denominations all saying different things?

Remember, this is about free will. It is by free will you choose to question God and it is by free will you choose to listen to and accept the answers that supported your rejection of God. It is by free will you choose not to seek alternative answers and it is by free will you choose not to seek God anymore. Dying in a state of rejecting God is a choice you make out of your own free will and God will not reject or interfere with the choice that you make.

I reject and disagree with everything you have said there. I've pointed out numerous times that the command to believe is the same thing as saying "Be convinced of this little factoid".
I cannot choose to be convinced of something. It is not within my free will. As I've asked numerous times before, demonstrate that believing is something able to done by choice. I'll let you pick what it is. Pick something that at this moment in time you don't believe is true, are not convinced is true, are aware is false...and then choose to believe it. Let me know how that goes.
I find it quite suspicious how I've raised that challenge quite a few times in this thread, the theists have doubtlessly read it each...and yet not one of them want to prove to me that their claim is true.

Particularly when you are aware of the 10 commandments,

What we, as atheists, are aware of is the existence of a body of law called the ten commandments (which ones by the way, ABC? There's two sets). We are aware of the claim that these laws are divine in origin, but are not convinced that they are.
Tell me ABC, Festus, and all the other theists...just how does it make sense to you guys to fault people for not being convinced of something? For your god to fault people for not being convinced? Do you earnestly believe that convincing oneself is an action one can do via their own will?

tommy2bad

RikuoAmero wrote: »

As I've asked numerous times before, demonstrate that believing is something able to done by choice. I'll let you pick what it is. Pick something that at this moment in time you don't believe is true, are not convinced is true, are aware is false...and then choose to believe it. Let me know how that goes.
I find it quite suspicious how I've raised that challenge quite a few times in this thread, the theists have doubtlessly read it each...and yet not one of them want to prove to me that their claim is true.

I do this everyday, if I didn't I couldn't evaluate anything. Lets see, obvious one, God dose not exist. I can firmly believe this as theirs no evidence and no way to prove it. It's not hard to convince yourself that god dose not exist, in fact it's kinda the default position. Another one, Batman is real. Every time I watch Christian Bale face up to evil I believe batman is real, I can see him, I know his history ( that thing with his parents..tears your heart out) I have followed his exploits for years. Batman is as real to me as my own friends. So what? I know the difference between entertaining a proposition and committing to one. The problem is hard line atheists seem to commit to refusing to entertain the proposition more than anything else. I suspect they lack trust for which I cant blame them, even we believers have been let down too many times, they want certainty before they will commit to something. Lack of adventuring spirit if you will.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I do this everyday, if I didn't I couldn't evaluate anything. Lets see, obvious one, God dose not exist. I can firmly believe this as theirs no evidence and no way to prove it. It's not hard to convince yourself that god dose not exist, in fact it's kinda the default position. Another one, Batman is real. Every time I watch Christian Bale face up to evil I believe batman is real, I can see him, I know his history ( that thing with his parents..tears your heart out) I have followed his exploits for years. Batman is as real to me as my own friends. So what? I know the difference between entertaining a proposition and committing to one. The problem is hard line atheists seem to commit to refusing to entertain the proposition more than anything else. I suspect they lack trust for which I cant blame them, even we believers have been let down too many times, they want certainty before they will commit to something. Lack of adventuring spirit if you will.

No, we do entertain the proposition. It's called thinking in hypotheticals. So, Batman is as real as your friends...? What? So if you're out with your friends, say five of them, you'll have a sixth seat set aside and say "Batman is sitting there"?
Are you honestly saying to me that you see Batman standing beside your friends, he is as real as they are, you think and believe him to be as physically real as they are?

Plus, what I mean by "willing yourself to be convinced" is to take something that you know and believe to be false (such as that Batman is real or that Gotham City is a real place you could visit) and then...without any supporting evidence, without anything at all, just flip the switch in your mind and somehow will yourself to believe that that thing is now true.
Can you do that? This isn't thinking of things as a hypothetical, this is honestly saying to yourself "I believe this to be true, despite the fact that five seconds ago, I wasn't, and nothing sound has been presented to me in support of it"

Festus wrote: »

It is good that there is a God you would like to believe in and the God you describe is the God we believe in.
Remember, this is about free will. It is by free will you choose to question God and it is by free will you choose to listen to and accept the answers that supported your rejection of God. It is by free will you choose not to seek alternative answers and it is by free will you choose not to seek God anymore. Dying in a state of rejecting God is a choice you make out of your own free will and God will not reject or interfere with the choice that you make.

It is because of this state that you cannot remain with Him after death. You rejected Him and He gives you, out of love, what your soul desires - a place as far away from God as is possible, with all the others who rejected God.
Or if you like, because you rejected Him and followed a different father in this life, on death He will release you to the father you chose.

First of all I don't reject God. I don't believe he exists as you describe him so I can't reject him.

You make the point, very clearly, that you do not believe he loves us unconditionally. There are conditions. As I stated in my earlier post, a parent would never condemn their child, who they love in a truly unconditional way, to a life of misery. You are telling us that, if we don't obey certain conditions, God will send us to Hell. Conditional love.

Safehands wrote: »

You are telling us that, if we don't obey certain conditions, God will send us to Hell. Conditional love.

Where did I say that God will send you to Hell? What I said was that if you reject God, God will give you what you want and let you go to the place you have chosen.

When did you realize that your parents love for you was unconditional? Or did you at some stage question why your parents were putting conditions on you. I suspect most people don't realize what a parents unconditional love is until they become a parent themselves. I also suspect that some parents may spend a lot of time wondering if their child loves them back, especially as their child gets older. Further I suspect that many parents put conditions on their children, mostly because of that unconditional love.

If a child rejects its parents there comes a point in time, usually when the child has reached the age of 18, or younger in some jurisdictions, when the parents must accept that their child is rejecting them and despite their best efforts and their unconditional love for their child they have to let that child go.
Where their child goes is no longer in their control.
The child can at any stage before they die return to their parents, if their parents are still alive, and ask for forgiveness. Or they can die before they take that opportunity.

If an atheist winds up in Hell for rejecting God is that God's fault or the atheists? If an atheist wants a place with no God why would God not give them that?

Heaven or Hell, it's your choice.

There are conditions on getting in to Heaven, of course there are. God only wants those who want Him and choose Him of their own free will, and the first condition is obedience to God. Human parents expect obedience from their children do they not? How else do they keep them out of harms way? However here are no conditions on getting in to Hell. You can do what you like. It's unconditional.

Festus, by trying to compare your god's love to that of a parent's, you're only destroying your own argument.
The most important point here is that we as atheists are not convinced. I have to say it YET AGAIN because your latest response only mentions an active willful rejection of your god, which is not what we atheists are doing. It's like you guys just don't bother reading what I'm saying or you don't understand it. Have you even attempted to try and understand just how horrible it would be for a 'loving' creator god to turn his back on someone simply because they were never convinced?
To try and compare that to parenthood, is to try and say "The child isn't convinced that the other person actually is his parent".
Not only that, but what I've been told by you and others is that the parent in your analogy will say to the child "Since you're not convinced I am your parent, I will turn my back on you. I will leave you in this place called hell (that I created, and don't you even try and twist the ultimate responsibility for hell away from your god) with all of the other truly bad people such as murderers and rapists".
That is pure evil in my eyes.

Your "when the child hits 18" analogy only works in the case of the child being convinced he has parents, that these specific people are his parents but is now growing up and wants independence. It does NOT apply to the situation with atheists who are not convinced that there even is a parent god figure at all.

nozzferrahhtoo

Somehow diluting the threat of hell, which has nothing to do with evidencing whether there is or is not a god despite the sermons festus has regaled us with above, by describing it as the atheists "choice" has never failed to sound like nonsense to me.

Firstly because as another user pointed out, one is not "rejecting" god. One is simply failing to think there even is one. The description of this as "rejecting" god is like describing not opening my front door when no one is there, no one has knocked or used the doorbell, as a refusal to be sociable. It simply makes no sense.

Second as I have mentioned many times on the thread, I do not think of belief as a "choice" which some people on the thread clearly do. I can not "choose" to believe things or not believe them. There is either compelling reason to convince me, or there is not. There is no "choice" in this for me. I can not, for example, receive a clearly empty box and simply CHOOSE to believe it full of money.

And thirdly the dilution of the threat as a choice of the threatened sits with me in the same way as a mugger saying "I am not threatening you with this knife, I am offering you the choice to give me your money or accept this knife into your stomach. If you reject my offer, then I am just giving you what you truely want.... the knife in your belly". Clearly portraying an outright threat as a choice the target should be happy to make, does not stop it being a threat all the same.

Is not issuing threats, even vicariously, illegal? How is it issuing them vicariously on behalf of god is not illegal? Perhaps because no one else actually takes these threats seriously either.

Festus wrote: »

Where did I say that God will send you to Hell? What I said was that if you reject God, God will give you what you want and let you go to the place you have chosen.

Nowhere in anybody's wildest dreams, could I be accused of choosing Hell because I am honest enough to say I don't believe in your God. That statement is truly twisting the argument to suit your beliefs.

Festus wrote: »

When did you realize that your parents love for you was unconditional? Or did you at some stage question why your parents were putting conditions on you. I suspect most people don't realize what a parents unconditional love is until they become a parent themselves. I also suspect that some parents may spend a lot of time wondering if their child loves them back, especially as their child gets older. Further I suspect that many parents put conditions on their children, mostly because of that unconditional love.

Very few kids realise that their parent's love is unconditional. Parents may place conditions on their kids, but if the kid doesn't adhere to those conditions, (most kids don't) only a really bad, cruel parent would say "right I am excluding you from the comforts of my home because you chose not to meet my conditions. You will live on the streets from now on, it's your own fault, so you're out. You knew the rules and by the way, this is my way of showing you I love you"
If that is your idea of love then I could never, ever agree with anything you say about the subject.

Festus wrote: »

Heaven or Hell, it's your choice.

What a Christian threat! A charming way to behave!

Festus wrote: »

There are conditions on getting in to Heaven, of course there are. God only wants those who want Him and choose Him of their own free will, and the first condition is obedience to God. Human parents expect obedience from their children do they not? How else do they keep them out of harms way? However here are no conditions on getting in to Hell. You can do what you like. It's unconditional.

You know Festus, you make Christianity sound like a very strict, unpleasant way of existing. You make your God sound like a bit of a narcissistic sociopath. LOVE ME or burn in Hell, your choice! How could I be expected to LOVE someone like that

Gerry T wrote: »

I thought if these people Stalin, Hitler, Vlad, the pope, Pol Pot. If they were seriously repentant at judgement day that they would get into heaven. So yes you could easily see any of these in heaven.

I think you are misunderstanding Judgement day.

Judgement day is the last day. It is the day when everybody will stand before God and final judgement will be passed. It is not going to be the last chance saloon where Stalin / Hitler / Pol Pot can plead with God for a transfer from Hell to Heaven.

Just for example...

If I was to lead a wicked life.... & die tomorrow, I would most probably be denied entry into Heaven. I would then end up in Hell.

But Hell is a place where the Devil and his angels reside.

At the end time... there will be Judgement day. Where all peoples will be gathered, each soul will have to account for their actions, and Final Judgement will be passed.

At the moment ... Hell is a very unpleasant place to be... because the Devil hates humans (as they are God's creation). So Hell is a place of torment for humans.

When Judgement day passes.... Those who are judged for eternal damnation will be sent to Hell with the Devil and his evil spirits. But Hell then will become a much worse Hell. Because Hell will become a place where humans are tormented (as before) but also where Devils are tormented.

So the Hell which exists now... is a place of torment for humans but not devils. After Judgement day... Hell will become much worse..as it will be a place of torment for humans and devils.

Your comment that people who are in Hell now.. can at Judgement day make a special case for a transfer... is not going to happen. Judgement day is a day when everybody will see everybody else's sins. So if a person at judgement day is sent to hell... everybody will know why they are there... as everybody will know what sort of life they lived etc.

Safehands wrote: »

Parents may place conditions on their kids, but if the kid doesn't adhere to those conditions, (most kids don't) only a really bad, cruel parent would say "right I am excluding you from the comforts of my home because you chose not to meet my conditions. You will live on the streets from now on, it's your own fault, so you're out. You knew the rules and by the way, this is my way of showing you I love you"
If that is your idea of love then I could never, ever agree with anything you say about the subject.

If your best response is a strawman argument what does that say about you? To me it says you have to rely on fallacy and misrepresentation to make your case.

Read what I actually wrote. I did not suggest that parents would exclude their (minor) children for not keeping the rules, I said that if a child over the age of majority decides to reject their parents then the parents must let that child go to do whatever he or she wants. The parents are not excluding the child, the child is excluding himself.

You are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with yourself.

jezzer

A priest asked me recently, do you think God is angry, I said I thought God doesnt do angry, what if God has become fed up with what we have become or would he have foreseen all that happens? Then again, if you look at what used to happen at the hands of Gods so called representatives you would imagine that would have made him mad if anything.