True Grit Lady

[NotBlinded]

Christians, time and time again argue for the existance of god, but even if God does exist, they take it a step further and assume that if god exists it's the Christian god. They assume only their beliefs are correct, their particular denomination has the truth of what Christianity is, what god is, what is required for salvation, and their interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one. Everyone else who does not believe the same way they do is wrong, even other Christians.

I think this is because they believe that God and creation are separate therefore existing in duality. This thinking naturally lends itself to one having to be right while someone else is wrong. It is a non-inclusive belief system that creates enemies to the one adhering to it.

I'd like to answer this.

 

What you descibe is antithetical thinking, the dialectic mode. If this is true, then that is not true. Christianity does operate upon that mode of thinking. That there is right and wrong. We have to operate that way all the time even when we are not convinced that this is a correct system of thought...because order and law are necessarily bounded by such lines.

 

At somepoint you find yourself on one side of the fence or the other in such things....

Yes, but you blur the lines when you stated this:

 

Given that no specific instances were cited in full it would be hard to take each one in an exegesis of what is meant. Deduced down, do you have an ideal of what constitutes perfect justice? Do you have examples of that? You can condemn God as recorded in the Bible, and that means you must have some perfect justice that you implement. Even the best justice system has differing modes for types of situations. I just don't think this makes the case for condemning God...even your own stated idea of God.

 

Darn...I have to go. Be back tomorrow.

[Antlerman]

I continue to hear through TGL's posts this very Western influenced, dualistic way of looking at the world. I kept thinking of this in regards to another post I responded to, so I'll just repost it here in response to all that I am hearing:

 

Heya,

 

So I was wondering how you all deal with this common explanation that Christians use to explain the presence of evil in the world... "dark is the absence of light, cold is the absence of heat, evil is the absence of God". It just seems really weak to me, and doesn't sit right, but I can't put my finger on WHY. I was hoping you all could help me work through this so I can more eloquently respond to this the next time a Christian throws this at me when I tell them that I don't believe a good and just God could let stuff like genocide and rape happen so frequently down here on his apparently beloved planet.

 

so, yeah... little help? i'm still such a newbie at this unbeliever thing.

No problem. There is no such thing in the universe as chaos. There is no such thing in the universe as evil. Everything is on a sliding scale from less ordered to more ordered, less profitable ("evil") to more profitable ("good"). The above is black and white thinking. Absence of heat? All heat? Completely non-existent? Where does that exist? Where does absolute heat exist? Not in the natural universe.

 

"Cold" is a value word that has no meaning outside our very limited range of temperate conditions that our physical body responds to favorable, or disfavorably. Same thing with "good" and "evil". Is nature evil? If it was it wouldn't exist (defining evil as is commonly used in our culture). Is death "bad"? No. Life depends on death. Death is "good" from that perspective. But if I was to keep living as one person, then to me that event is "bad" relative to my perspective of seeing it that way.

 

Everything is "good", and everything is "evil". Nothing is good and nothing is evil. It's much simpler to just say everything "is", and leave the absolutist, black and white value words out of it. Genocide is "bad", because it violates our ideals we choose for the benefits we derive from them. But it's good to those who want that other race of people to be gone from existence. We create God, and fashion him to our image. Depending who is in power, "God" is either good or bad. The majority prefer a "good" God, because it benefits them. Whereas the few and greedy prefer a god that looks evil to the majority, but that ideal of "good" is what serves them. Yep... not a black and white world, is it?

I do also want to note that our adopted language using these sorts of terms such as "good" and "evil", defines and reinforces these sorts of black and white ideas. That language reflects an idea or a perspective, and not necessarily the reality of reality, so to speak. (footnote: this is where I see Biblical literalism also failing, looking at the absolute meaning of words, rather that an expression of abstract or emotional "impressions").

 

Additionally, I wanted to note another point I read earlier:

 

I think if we talked further, what I would find with you is a serious disconnect between your present convictions and your ongoing human need for meaningfulness. I think this will give you trouble somehwere along the line. I predict you will move toward some form of theism at some point. Paganism, unless you rediscovered Christ, would be the most likely direction I would guess from what you have shared here.

 

People need meaning and connection, that part doesn’t disappear. There is where atheism breaks down for a person.

 

I do agree that people want to find meaning in their lives, but firstly, your statement that "this is where atheism breaks down for a person", is a false statement. What about the Buddhist who does not believe in God? I disagree that "atheism" is a true "ism" of any sort. It is not a philosophy; it's simply a response to the question of whether or not someone includes a god figure in their beliefs. Likewise it could be stated back that "theism" does not address questions of meaning. It's only once you adopt a philosophy, or in the case of religion, doctrines, teachings, and rituals, that you address questions of meaning. How many people do you know that believe there's a god and have no clue about how they should find meaning in their lives?

 

Secondly, that people need meaning and connection is to me, best answered by our evolution, not a god. I see no reason to conclude that because I gravitate towards social behavior that this indicates a god. The only point I could see bringing that leap into the answer is when no other natural explanation would suffice. But before you go there, please recall the long and predictable history of the "god of the gaps" argument.

[Japedo]

"Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins"

Jesus Christ is the answer for this misunderstanding. God wants to give, rather infinite forgiveness for finite sins...

 

If God was so great and loving as you say, why would he need a human sacrifice to quench his thirst for blood? Besides isn't that against one of the Torah laws, human sacrifice...? What makes your particular god any less evil then the other gods that required human sacrifices? Feed the gods their blood and you'll be spared is not original to the Xtin Cult, it's because the Xtian cult is just that another stone aged death-cult religion which revolves around blood and death.

 

Pre-Christ: Both Cain and Moses committed murders in the bible, neither were required blood for forgiveness so somehow you believe it's required for the rest of the world who commits less evils to need blood for salvation.

 

If JC's death removed sin from the world, why is there still sin, even with people who claim to be 'saved'?

 

"Belief More Important Than Action"

This is the tough one for you, right?

That you can do nothing to become truly good? That sort of impotence is painful-for all of us. The best answer I have is in my "Why Christ died for us" post. In some ways, having faith is the fairest way, but not everyone sees it that way.

 

God believes in what He wants to do through us, He has enough love to let us do things imperfectly. Kind of like some of us are with our children. They grow up to be something wonderful someday... and that is how I perceive God views it.

 

Tell me, Which do you prefer.

 

A) You have a husband who claims he loves you, tells you to believe it on faith that he does. No matter if he's hitting you, making you feel worthless that you can 'never be truly good enough; No matter what he does or says to you, or ignores you, You see this as love because he calls it love.

 

B ) You have a husband who attentive, supportive caring he gets up with the kids lets you sleep in, Brings you breakfast in bed, has you on a pedestal and the entire world knows he loves you with out him saying it.

 

Are you really going to sit here and try to convince all of us that belief is more important then action? You said so yourself you don't believe you'll ever be good enough, you have battered wives syndrome my friend, Only yours is applied to your god. Indecently, do you still love your child if they become everything you despise?

Contradictory Justice

 

Given that no specific instances were cited in full it would be hard to take each one in an exegesis of what is meant. Deduced down, do you have an ideal of what constitutes perfect justice? Do you have examples of that? You can condemn God as recorded in the Bible, and that means you must have some perfect justice that you implement. Even the best justice system has differing modes for types of situations. I just don't think this makes the case for condemning God...even your own stated idea of God.

 

I'll cite a few for you.

 

Exhibit A: Burning two cities of people (Including children) for sex crimes. Saving Lot and his family. Virgin daughters are offered to the mad mob to save the strangers (Angels) (this is a good thing?) After the wife is turned to a pillar of salt, Lot screws both his daughters implanting his seed. This isn't a sex crime in the eyes of god? He's some how still Righteous?

 

Exhibit B: God hardens Pharos heart forcing him into a choice he may have not had made (Removed his Free will) and then killed 1000s of Egyptian children because of it. Justice? Pharaoh was merely a puppet on god string and had zero say in the matter.

 

There are many more however these two are what I'll bring to the discussion. This wouldn't even stand in the US Courts against mere sinful humans yet you are going to tell us all God is somehow Just? I judge him by the actions that are ascribed to him, it is my duty. I apparently have a higher moral standard then god as these are horrific barbaric actions no matter what peoples religious affiliation be.

[♦ nivek ♦]

"Overwhelmed with under impression"

 

Ms. Grit uses every single attempt at apologetic repair for the xtian faith. I have yet to hear single new *anything* come from this gal's keyboard.

 

Nuttin', nada, nyet, aint happening despite the zillions of turns on the servers drives has anything of import been said from the apologists view..

 

Sorry Ms. Grit, but you've offered not a damn thing worth applying anything more than "SS-DD" to.

 

Yawn...

 

kFL

[truegrit]

There is a logical fallacy for your type of thinking: Shifting the burden of proof, additionally, atheists have no burden of proving God doesn't exist.

 

yet you try so hard;)

It doesn't take much trying. It only takes a basic knowledge of debating. The burden of proof rests with the affirmative position. Atheism just happens to be the negative position. So, it falls on you to prove that gods exist. Additionally, if you knew about logic, you'd know that belief is proportional to the evidence presented. How much evidence have you produced for the existence of gods?

 

 

Again. Atheism in its unadorned state is a negative, but once you are arguing for it as the better response, the better way to believe, it becomes something else. Then the burden of proof shifts.

 

I told you I don't believe you can prove there is a God, not through argument or scientific method. I know why I believe this... why do you believe I must be able to prove it for it to be true? There are many things that are true that we cannot presently prove, perhaps will never be able to prove. Not the least reason for this is our finite minds. Is your mind equal to the universe, holding all knowledge of it? Will it ever be for any human on any level? That is the sort of question we are asking here.

 

I no longer try to pretend I can do that- I might have at one juncture in life, but not now. I can't prove God to you. I can't catch him in a box and show you... I am not trying, so can we change to the questions at hand? The likelihood or the rationales on the two sides of debate?

 

Proof would negate the need for faith, and God demands faith. I can't help that or change it. However, reason is something we can work at, so lets look at the reasonings, ok?

[YDOAPS]

There is a logical fallacy for your type of thinking: Shifting the burden of proof, additionally, atheists have no burden of proving God doesn't exist.

 

yet you try so hard;)

It doesn't take much trying. It only takes a basic knowledge of debating. The burden of proof rests with the affirmative position. Atheism just happens to be the negative position. So, it falls on you to prove that gods exist. Additionally, if you knew about logic, you'd know that belief is proportional to the evidence presented. How much evidence have you produced for the existence of gods?

 

 

Again. Atheism in its unadorned state is a negative, but once you are arguing for it as the better response, the better way to believe, it becomes something else. Then the burden of proof shifts.

It's not necessarily "better", whatever that means. It is simply taking reality at face value.

 

There are many things that are true that we cannot presently prove, perhaps will never be able to prove.

Such as?

[euphgeek]

truegrit,

Just like the magazine advertised in comic books that no one ever bought?

 

I'd like to say that you do seem to have thought your position through. Now I'd like to ask you a few questions:

 

1) Which one better describes an all-loving God: a.) One that gives human beings one chance only to get it right and if you don't condemns you to an eternal hell, or b.) One that allows you multiple chances to get it right so that you can spend eternity in the best place possible?

 

2) People who speak of "hell" associate it with divine punishment, but punishment is usually used as a corrective measure. How do people suffering in an eternal hell learn their lesson? Doesn't that make hell mere torture with absolutely no point to it?

 

3) There are thousands of different denominations in Christianity, each thinking they have it right. All other religions think that they have it right, as well. How can you be sure that you have it right, when the odds are that you are actually wrong?

 

4) Where in the Bible does Jesus say that people must worship him or pray to him? Doesn't he identify himself as the "Son of Man" who was sent by the Father?

 

5) Jesus himself and his disciples seem to believe in reincarnation, as evidenced in Matthew 11:10-15, Matthew 17:10-13 and John 9:1-2. Why is the word of Paul in Hebrews 9:27 taken over Jesus in Christian doctrine?

 

I look forward to your answers.

[white_raven23]

Again. Atheism in its unadorned state is a negative, but once you are arguing for it as the better response, the better way to believe, it becomes something else. Then the burden of proof shifts.

Except no one here has done that. Claiming oneself to be an atheist doesn't make or imply that it's "better". It's a statement of belief.

 

We don't evangelize, that is your department.

 

So burden of proof is still on you.

[truegrit]

Interesting post,Antlerman.

 

I continue to hear through TGL's posts this very Western influenced, dualistic way of looking at the world. I kept thinking of this in regards to another post I responded to, so I'll just repost it here in response to all that I am hearing:

 

<snip> fast forward to answer

No problem. There is no such thing in the universe as chaos. There is no such thing in the universe as evil. Everything is on a sliding scale from less ordered to more ordered, less profitable ("evil") to more profitable ("good"). The above is black and white thinking. Absence of heat? All heat? Completely non-existent? Where does that exist? Where does absolute heat exist? Not in the natural universe.

 

"Cold" is a value word that has no meaning outside our very limited range of temperate conditions that our physical body responds to favorable, or disfavorably. Same thing with "good" and "evil". Is nature evil? If it was it wouldn't exist (defining evil as is commonly used in our culture). Is death "bad"? No. Life depends on death. Death is "good" from that perspective. But if I was to keep living as one person, then to me that event is "bad" relative to my perspective of seeing it that way.

 

Everything is "good", and everything is "evil". Nothing is good and nothing is evil. It's much simpler to just say everything "is", and leave the absolutist, black and white value words out of it. Genocide is "bad", because it violates our ideals we choose for the benefits we derive from them. But it's good to those who want that other race of people to be gone from existence. We create God, and fashion him to our image. Depending who is in power, "God" is either good or bad. The majority prefer a "good" God, because it benefits them. Whereas the few and greedy prefer a god that looks evil to the majority, but that ideal of "good" is what serves them. Yep... not a black and white world, is it?

[/indent]

I do also want to note that our adopted language using these sorts of terms such as "good" and "evil", defines and reinforces these sorts of black and white ideas. That language reflects an idea or a perspective, and not necessarily the reality of reality, so to speak. (footnote: this is where I see Biblical literalism also failing, looking at the absolute meaning of words, rather that an expression of abstract or emotional "impressions").

 

Additionally, I wanted to note another point I read earlier:

 

I think if we talked further, what I would find with you is a serious disconnect between your present convictions and your ongoing human need for meaningfulness. I think this will give you trouble somehwere along the line. I predict you will move toward some form of theism at some point. Paganism, unless you rediscovered Christ, would be the most likely direction I would guess from what you have shared here.

 

People need meaning and connection, that part doesn’t disappear. There is where atheism breaks down for a person.

 

I do agree that people want to find meaning in their lives, but firstly, your statement that "this is where atheism breaks down for a person", is a false statement. What about the Buddhist who does not believe in God? I disagree that "atheism" is a true "ism" of any sort. It is not a philosophy; it's simply a response to the question of whether or not someone includes a god figure in their beliefs. Likewise it could be stated back that "theism" does not address questions of meaning. It's only once you adopt a philosophy, or in the case of religion, doctrines, teachings, and rituals, that you address questions of meaning. How many people do you know that believe there's a god and have no clue about how they should find meaning in their lives?

 

Secondly, that people need meaning and connection is to me, best answered by our evolution, not a god. I see no reason to conclude that because I gravitate towards social behavior that this indicates a god. The only point I could see bringing that leap into the answer is when no other natural explanation would suffice. But before you go there, please recall the long and predictable history of the "god of the gaps" argument.

 

======conversation======

 

"There is no such thing in the universe as evil. Everything is on a sliding scale "

That works as long as everythings stays all abstract and ivory tower, but as soon as we go to torturing people or considering what some call evil to be on our scale of good... that is all fine and dandy til you are on the receiving end of your existance and rights getting trampled and destroyed. Then it gets more real when we talk good and evil. It breaks down right there,...for you. Sometimes more for those who love you...

 

"Life depends on death."

 

I could agree with this if you could prove that our present reality is the only possible reality. But maybe the Bible view is a possible reality...maybe an existance without death or pain or sorrow ...or evil... is possible. What then? Life without death doesn't depend on death in that case. Just what we presently see supports that view- and so much just doesn't jive for us, that I would be willing to bet that something is wrong with this picture.

"Everything is "good", and everything is "evil". Nothing is good and nothing is evil."

Admittedly I am entrenched in the way I believe, but I genuinely don't see how I can come up with a rationale not to do whatever appeals to me even if it harms you. If there is no "right" where is justice? Is there room for justice in your thinking here?

 

"I disagree that "atheism" is a true "ism" of any sort"

I've answered this in another post, I think you are sincere, but I think the argument is disingenuous,

 

"What about the Buddhist who does not believe in God? "

You could help me by explaining what you think the Buddhist view of the meaning of man's existance is. One of the things I like about the apologetics of Christianity is how it is cohesive in thought. It makes alot of sense to me, apart from the fact that I have "faith". The Buddhist view of unity loses the individuality of the person, so I find difficulty in rendering meaning from the "nirvana" or "bliss". It just "is". Maybe you could explain it better to me, if you wish.

 

"How many people do you know that believe there's a god and have no clue about how they should find meaning in their lives?"

In some ways that is a hard question. Not everyone has the same approach to thinking, some go more by say, INFP, some are more INTP ( like me) some are something else. Not everyone who seeks meaning does it through asking cognitive questions. I suppose that is like some who say they find their meaning in their experieince of life situations... only for those who beleive in God it reaches beyond their own experience, it connects them with the "what is" out there. Your day to day life experience doesn't always provide that metaphysical connection, at least not for all people.

 

"I see no reason to conclude that because I gravitate towards social behavior that this indicates a god."

 

I don't see how evolution would explain any of this. It seems that it works against it, rather. To see ones finite end, and seek to always extend the final marker, because given a satisfying life few want it to end. It is very human to seek the meaning of what our purpose is, to be frustrated constantly by the way things are... fighting, but hating the fighting when able to really see its senselessness. See, that very word: we need to "make sense". Other creatures don't have to have this inner conflict, they don't have religions, although that is sort of funny to thik about....

[truegrit]

It's not necessarily "better", whatever that means. It is simply taking reality at face value.

 

There are many things that are true that we cannot presently prove, perhaps will never be able to prove.

Such as?

 

Saying you have the reality and I don't is a value judgment. You haven't proven your side of it, you just believe it is the better choice. That makes it a type of faith. You are calling your side of it better, in this way.

 

"such as"

Ok. such as the origination of all things.

explain that one with proof and replication.

"It just is" right?

[truegrit]

We don't evangelize, that is your department.

 

So burden of proof is still on you.

 

yeah, that is my dept, but I'm not so good at it.

 

so what is my burden exactly?

 

I'm answering questions in a dialog, and I don't quite get what it is you are doing.

 

I do think some of you ex-Christians do evangelize, I know some atheists do, but that is okay with me in my reality of how things work. We work to convince each other of the things we believe are true. I personally do not have a problem as long as it isn't forced with intimidation tactics, etc.

May the best argument win.... me

[YDOAPS]

It's not necessarily "better", whatever that means. It is simply taking reality at face value.

 

There are many things that are true that we cannot presently prove, perhaps will never be able to prove.

Such as?

 

Saying you have the reality and I don't is a value judgment.

Where did I say that?

 

 

You haven't proven your side of it, you just believe it is the better choice. That makes it a type of faith. You are calling your side of it better, in this way.

I'll tell you what. I believe there is an invisible pink elephant living in the trunk of my car. You go disprove that, and then I'll disprove God.

 

 

"such as"

Ok. such as the origination of all things.

explain that one with proof and replication.

"It just is" right?

Why do you assume that there has to be an origin of "all things"?

[Lycorth]

You have several problems in what you say here. It is not my duty to prove anything to you. It is my privilege should I desire to do so, and where I can explain thing, I will try. That doesn't guarantee you will understand or even try to.

 

False. I have no problem in a thing I've posted. Rather, you continue to shift the burden of proof.

 

You come here, say there is a god, and then try to shirk your duty to prove it.

 

The burden of proof is still on you.

 

There is a logical fallacy for this type of thinking: Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance)

additionally, suggesting is far from proving.

 

My argument succinctly proved the Xian god does not exist. Furthermore, I have committed no logical fallacy. Quoting Latin doesn't mean you understand anything about your lame attempt at a rebuttal.

 

For example, Jebus said all prayers offered up in his name will be answered. I have prayed many times for things in Jebus' name and never got them. Hence, Jebus doesn't exist.

 

It's simple, really.

 

I've heard them admit it, but we are one to one on this, aren't we?

 

I've never heard it, and we aren't one-to-one on a public forum.

 

Any Atheist can disprove God's existence. The Abrahamic god is easily disproven, as I have just proved.

 

this is basically the theodicy. It usually isn't cited for proving that God doesn't exist but to put forth a problem with the God of the Bible, that those three things can't be true simulataneously. <snip>

 

And the problem with the God of the Babble that I have put forth is that he doesn't exist. That's a big problem for those who claim Xianity is real.

 

the presence of evil is the absence of God, but in order to have the negative, there needs to be the correlative positive against which we compare the negative. To know evil we must also have a concept of good. Your citation of levels is one of lesser good which could be lesser evil, but the ends of the spectrum remain. Evil is not good, and vice versa. Otherwise we lose meaning in absurdity and can't know anything... then, what is the point of the thinking process at all?

 

The only absurdity is in all that obfuscation you posted. Evil is the absence of good, not of God. The Abrahamic god is unarguably more evil than any other god known to man, so one could argue the presence of God is the very source of all evil. A god who drowns babies, incinerates cities, creates an ugly world wherein living beings must devour each other to survive, and tortures souls eternally for finite crimes is nothing less than evil.

 

All we know of Satan from his name to his nature we learn from God's testimony in the Bible. But every culture has a concept of evil, and many have evil entities. There is a clue in all that. Man has a basic problem with evil and pain: trying to explain it , understand it, and deal with it.

 

All we know of the Xian religion comes from the Babble. But that is irrelevant. Satan does not exist, and you must prove he does. The burden of proof is not on those who refuse to accept specious reasoning and nonsense.

 

Man's attempts to explain pain and evil, in part, leads to the invention of religions to explain them. Xianity is one such example. That however lends it no veracity.

 

Why the need to blame God for everything. God can exist and still allow us to make our mistakes and rebellions...even very evil ones. Genesis account gives us the explanation for the Christian system of looking at this. God didn't create evil to rule the existance of man originally. Man exercised his right to choose. There is a systematically degrading system described. Christians explain this as the rule of sin as it invaded all parts of earth's existance. See, pagans have a different scope on this, many of the nature religions want to accept death as part of the good which is found as balance in the earth.

 

The need to "blame God" is simple: if God made the world, the state it is in is his doing. If the world is imperfect or cruel, he must have intended it this way. To say he allows evil or anything else is irrational; there is no reason an all-powerful, all-good, and all-powerful can't create and maintain a paradise. If he allows anything to harm it, he is not all-good or not all-powerful. Or simply doesn't exist.

 

Um, I think that is a basic tenet of Christianity. Not on your timetable, but it is in the doctrine.

 

My timetable is the timetable of common sense. Any idiot knows that if a rabid dog is loose in the yard, the guy with the gun (ie, the ability to end the threat posed by the rabid dog) shouldn't be twiddling his thumbs while his children in the yard are in danger.

 

To say God has his own timetable is to make a completely bullshit excuse to cover up the fact your god does nothing about evil because your god doesn't exist.

 

To allow for suffering is not the same as wanting it. I don't think God wanted rebellion from Himself, but certainly allowed for it. Can you construct true freedom any other way if you are God? And being god is what this type of statement is implying. As though if it were you and you were good you wouldn't do things this way.

 

To permit suffering is to want it by proxy. That's like me letting dirty dishes pile up in the sink because I'm too lazy to deal with it. I might as well deliberately want dirty dishes to pile up, because by doing nothing about it, I'm bringing it about as much as if I were to to it willfully.

 

If I were God, I wouldn't do things that way. I would do away with evil and use my omnipotence to create a flawless world wherein all living beings could reach their full potential without harming each other. If I, a "mere mortal" can think that up, surely an omnipotent god can.

 

The fact that your god doesn't do this proves he doesn't exist. Or, if he does exist, he's not all-good and probably wicked.

 

Which brings an additional problem for you: just how have you come to construct your ideas of good and evil? Are you so original and free that you didn't get them...somehwere? eh?

 

I construct my ideas of good and evil not by believing in the devil named Jebus, but by moral intuition. I also use my reason and common sense to think things through and come to understand morality as best I'm able. Just like you do - because if you think you obediently accept the Babble without question, think again. You measure and ponder everything you believe in, just like everyone else does.

 

I'm just honest in saying that my reason and common sense, as well as all the moral traditions of humanity (not merely the lame Xian attempt at one) are what help me to understand good and evil. You claim you are obeying a god, when all you have are some books written in human hands and the as-of-yet unproven speculation of a god who gave them to you.

 

And since you haven't typed one word to prove the existence of your god, I declare you the loser in this argument. It wasn't hard - all you had to do was try. We could've gone on from there. But you chose to duck and evade, rather than live up to the Great Commission and spread Jebus' word to me. As well as try to put on high-and-mighty airs with other posters in place of defending your sick-ass religion. Feel free to spout whatever smart-ass, self-righteous, cult-brainwashed tripe you wish in response to my post. I will appreciate the amusement

 

Like nivek said, "overwhelmed with under-impression." Indeed, it's another fine example of Xian "love" and "wisdom" to be seen on this board.

 

Game over

[Antlerman]

I told you I don't believe you can prove there is a God, not through argument or scientific method. I know why I believe this... why do you believe I must be able to prove it for it to be true? There are many things that are true that we cannot presently prove, perhaps will never be able to prove. Not the least reason for this is our finite minds. Is your mind equal to the universe, holding all knowledge of it? Will it ever be for any human on any level? That is the sort of question we are asking here.

We don't need to prove something true absolutely to act upon it. It is not possible to do this. However, when it comes to devoting your life to belief in a god, you first of all in my opinion need to do what you are leaning towards, acknowledge that it defies reason that it is at its heart "irrationality". This then is in according with reason at least, considering there is far less compelling reasons to accept it as a valid "truth" on that level, versus something within a naturalist world-view. Secondly, you would need to show why it offers something to humanity that has value above any other aesthetic pursuit (don't confuse the word with atheist). How does it speak to people beyond any of the thousands of alternatives out there today?

 

Proof would negate the need for faith, and God demands faith. I can't help that or change it. However, reason is something we can work at, so lets look at the reasonings, ok?

I am so entirely happy to hear a Christian finally say this! Why then do they try and try so hard to justify it then, do you suppose? I would very much appreciate your opinion on this.

 

I look forward to your response to what I said above.

[truegrit]

You said this:

It is simply taking reality at face value

 

this is a flat statement without support of argument that claims truth through the meaning of the words "reality" and "face value". What else did you mean by it? and are you willing to say that my belief has merit and truth? If you think so, say plainly, otherwise, fess up to what you are really saying here.

 

 

please.

[truegrit]

"such as"

Ok. such as the origination of all things.

explain that one with proof and replication.

"It just is" right?

Why do you assume that there has to be an origin of "all things"?

 

Things are here. The normal way things are here is through a beginning on the time/place continuum. We don't have anything else to go by but the way these things have beginnings, continuance, and endings. So by what do you assume that there is anything else, but an origniation of "what is"?

[YDOAPS]

You said this:

It is simply taking reality at face value

 

this is a flat statement without support of argument that claims truth through the meaning of the words "reality" and "face value". What else did you mean by it? and are you willing to say that my belief has merit and truth? If you think so, say plainly, otherwise, fess up to what you are really saying here.

 

 

please.

This "flat statement" is a fact. It is taking reality as it presents itself.

 

Do your beliefs have merit and truth? Not if you take the Bible literally. The several aspects of the Bible have been disproven many, many times here and elsewhere. You would have to define your beliefs for me to answer that question, don't you think?

 

 

 

"such as"

Ok. such as the origination of all things.

explain that one with proof and replication.

"It just is" right?

Why do you assume that there has to be an origin of "all things"?

 

Things are here.That doesn't necessarily require a beginning. After all, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form.

 

The normal way things are here is through a beginning on the time/place continuum.

What necessitates the spacetime continuum to abide by the laws of causality which are present in such continuum. Basically. Spacetime is the background for events. Events are constrained by causality, but that doesn't necessitate causality constraining the background for the events.

 

We don't have anything else to go by but the way these things have beginnings, continuance, and endings. So by what do you assume that there is anything else, but an origniation of "what is"?

Let's go with your answer to this question. So, we assume God did it. Who created God? Your answer leads to an infinite regression.

[truegrit]

Game over...so soon?

 

You have several problems in what you say here. It is not my duty to prove anything to you. It is my privilege should I desire to do so, and where I can explain thing, I will try. That doesn't guarantee you will understand or even try to.

 

False. I have no problem in a thing I've posted. Rather, you continue to shift the burden of proof.

 

You come here, say there is a god, and then try to shirk your duty to prove it.

 

The burden of proof is still on you.

 

<snip>

 

My argument succinctly proved the Xian god does not exist. Furthermore, I have committed no logical fallacy. Quoting Latin doesn't mean you understand anything about your lame attempt at a rebuttal.

 

For example, Jebus said all prayers offered up in his name will be answered. I have prayed many times for things in Jebus' name and never got them. Hence, Jebus doesn't exist.

 

It's simple, really.

 

<snip>

 

I've never heard it, and we aren't one-to-one on a public forum.

 

Any Atheist can disprove God's existence. The Abrahamic god is easily disproven, as I have just proved.

 

<snip>

 

And the problem with the God of the Babble that I have put forth is that he doesn't exist. That's a big problem for those who claim Xianity is real.

 

<snip>

 

The only absurdity is in all that obfuscation you posted. Evil is the absence of good, not of God. The Abrahamic god is unarguably more evil than any other god known to man, so one could argue the presence of God is the very source of all evil. A god who drowns babies, incinerates cities, creates an ugly world wherein living beings must devour each other to survive, and tortures souls eternally for finite crimes is nothing less than evil.

 

All we know of Satan from his name to his nature we learn from God's testimony in the Bible. But every culture has a concept of evil, and many have evil entities. There is a clue in all that. Man has a basic problem with evil and pain: trying to explain it , understand it, and deal with it.

 

All we know of the Xian religion comes from the Babble. But that is irrelevant. Satan does not exist, and you must prove he does. The burden of proof is not on those who refuse to accept specious reasoning and nonsense.

 

Man's attempts to explain pain and evil, in part, leads to the invention of religions to explain them. Xianity is one such example. That however lends it no veracity.

 

Why the need to blame God for everything. God can exist and still allow us to make our mistakes and rebellions...even very evil ones. Genesis account gives us the explanation for the Christian system of looking at this. God didn't create evil to rule the existance of man originally. Man exercised his right to choose. There is a systematically degrading system described. Christians explain this as the rule of sin as it invaded all parts of earth's existance. See, pagans have a different scope on this, many of the nature religions want to accept death as part of the good which is found as balance in the earth.

 

The need to "blame God" is simple: if God made the world, the state it is in is his doing. If the world is imperfect or cruel, he must have intended it this way. To say he allows evil or anything else is irrational; there is no reason an all-powerful, all-good, and all-powerful can't create and maintain a paradise. If he allows anything to harm it, he is not all-good or not all-powerful. Or simply doesn't exist.

 

Um, I think that is a basic tenet of Christianity. Not on your timetable, but it is in the doctrine.

 

My timetable is the timetable of common sense. Any idiot knows that if a rabid dog is loose in the yard, the guy with the gun (ie, the ability to end the threat posed by the rabid dog) shouldn't be twiddling his thumbs while his children in the yard are in danger.

 

To say God has his own timetable is to make a completely bullshit excuse to cover up the fact your god does nothing about evil because your god doesn't exist.

 

[<snip>

 

<snip>That's like me letting dirty dishes pile up in the sink because I'm too lazy to deal with it. I might as well deliberately want dirty dishes to pile up, because by doing nothing about it, I'm bringing it about as much as if I were to to it willfully.

 

If I were God, I wouldn't do things that way. I would do away with evil and use my omnipotence to create a flawless world wherein all living beings could reach their full potential without harming each other. If I, a "mere mortal" can think that up, surely an omnipotent god can.

 

The fact that your god doesn't do this proves he doesn't exist. Or, if he does exist, he's not all-good and probably wicked.

 

Which brings an additional problem for you: just how have you come to construct your ideas of good and evil? Are you so original and free that you didn't get them...somehwere? eh?

 

I construct my ideas of good and evil not by believing in the devil named Jebus, but by moral intuition. I also use my reason and common sense to think things through and come to understand morality as best I'm able. Just like you do - because if you think you obediently accept the Babble without question, think again. You measure and ponder everything you believe in, just like everyone else does.

 

I'm just honest in saying that my reason and common sense, as well as all the moral traditions of humanity (not merely the lame Xian attempt at one) are what help me to understand good and evil. You claim you are obeying a god, when all you have are some books written in human hands and the as-of-yet unproven speculation of a god who gave them to you.

 

And since you haven't typed one word to prove the existence of your god, I declare you the loser in this argument. It wasn't hard - all you had to do was try. We could've gone on from there. But you chose to duck and evade, rather than live up to the Great Commission and spread Jebus' word to me. As well as try to put on high-and-mighty airs with other posters in place of defending your sick-ass religion. Feel free to spout whatever smart-ass, self-righteous, cult-brainwashed tripe you wish in response to my post. I will appreciate the amusement

 

Like nivek said, "overwhelmed with under-impression." Indeed, it's another fine example of Xian "love" and "wisdom" to be seen on this board.

 

Game over

 

"You come here, say there is a god, and then try to shirk your duty to prove it."

 

It isn't my duty to prove it or anything else. I say there is a God, but I don't say you have to beleive me. but you seem to be running out of steam. I didn't come to the board because I was going to "prove there is a god/God". That is your issue. I just like to talk to you guys.

 

"My argument succinctly proved the Xian god does not exist."

Argumentum ad ignorantiam says you did not prove any such thing.

 

And to answer you, I have prayed many things in Jesus name and received. I can't tell you why the difference. My experience is different than yours and my conclusions are equally different. That doesn't make you "right". And I wouldn't try to pull that one on you. I know my subjective experience proves nothing to you. You would have to value my truthfulness as a witness. You don't know me, so I don't expect that.

 

"I've never heard it, and we aren't one-to-one on a public forum."

I meant your word against mine. I have been on lots of forums, and numerous of them clsed, as forums often do, some lost their past files, such as the intp forum. I just cited my experience with other atheists, it is fine if you doubt me.

 

"moral intuition."

mmmHmmm. and what makes yours superior to others who differ with you? You still have to abide by the public consensus known as "law" on what "construct my ideas of good and evil". And that trumps your constructs every time. so there is some authority above you on the matter of "good and evil".

 

"Man's attempts to explain pain and evil, in part, leads to the invention of religions to explain them"

This is very true. we agree.

 

"I would do away with evil and use my omnipotence to create a flawless world wherein all living beings could reach their full potential without harming each other."

 

Would you be in that world?

 

"make a completely bullshit excuse to cover up the fact your god does nothing about evil because your god doesn't exist."

 

That isn't a logical statement. For one thing, how do you know that God does "nothing" about evil, since mankind is on a longer continuum than you personally are. Is justice never accomplished? Is there never righting of social wrongs? Does no one ever attribute good and obliteration of evil to God? You are in no position to make the statements you do. I made as good a statement as any, simply one that you don't like or desire. I don't like it alot myself, but I am hopeful for justice in the long run. And willing to believe that if things went like I would have it more injustice could result. 'Cause I really hate certain evils. I hate when someone molests little children, for instance. I hate the way women are treated in some countries. I would likely give them their own medicine if it were me, but would I irradicate evil? Does revolution always result in something better? Usually not.

I don't trust myself in that way... I don't think I can sit in judgment over all things. But I want to see final justice. Sometime.

 

"The Abrahamic god is unarguably more evil than any other god known to man"

 

As soon as someone resorts to this sort of conversation I know they have run out of arguments. So I guess the game is over. You can think I am the loser and that is ok.

 

"I will appreciate the amusement "

Thanks:)

 

I probably am more arrogant than I ought to be, and I am sure if I were a better person, better Christian I wouldn't ruffle you so much. But you get what you get with me, I do want to tell you that I don't doubt the honesty in searching for truth on your part. I often say that at the beginning atheists are more honest than most. They truly do have real questions and I don't downplay that in your posts. I prbably did deserve your anger. It is my warrior mentality - haven't really handled that well. That is another reason I left the forums...I mean really, what purpose is there in this...I just make you mad. but ;find it interesting to discuss- and there are always lots of ideas you come across in this stuff that is a different take than what you are used to.

[Lycorth]

I appreciate you not acting like a jackass, tgl, but can't help but roll my eyes at everything you said in "rebuttal" to my arguments. I'm sorry, but if Jebus makes a bunch of promises and can't fulfill them 100% of the time (like he promised) then he either exists and is a liar or simply doesn't exist.

 

And using Occam's Razor, I realize there's no need to over-complicate my life by believing in a god who, if he did exist, would behave far differently than my experiences in the real world tell me.

 

You can claim I've used any logical fallacy you wish, but anyone reading my posts can see I did not. If you wish to come here and criticize us for our lack of belief in a real Jebus, expect to see your faith under fire. And there is still the matter of the Great Commission, where Jebus tells all believers to spread his word to the world.

 

Perhaps you do not try because you know you can't?

 

Either or, I'm hardly out of steam simply because I think your god is scum. I have many good reasons for believing your god does not exist and is furthermore depicted as an evil monster in your own holy book. After 27+ years of Xianity, I'm hardly ignorant of it. I'm simply the kind of person your pastor probably hates with a passion - someone who has been there, done that, and won't go back.

 

As a side note, I have no anger against you. I simply hate your religion. If you want to talk, fine, but don't expect anything less than hatred from those of us who despise the Jebus cult.

[truegrit]

We don't need to prove something true absolutely to act upon it. It is not possible to do this. However, when it comes to devoting your life to belief in a god, you first of all in my opinion need to do what you are leaning towards, acknowledge that it defies reason that it is at its heart "irrationality". This then is in according with reason at least, considering there is far less compelling reasons to accept it as a valid "truth" on that level, versus something within a naturalist world-view. Secondly, you would need to show why it offers something to humanity that has value above any other aesthetic pursuit (don't confuse the word with atheist). How does it speak to people beyond any of the thousands of alternatives out there today?

 

=====

I am so entirely happy to hear a Christian finally say this! Why then do they try and try so hard to justify it then, do you suppose? I would very much appreciate your opinion on this.

 

I look forward to your response to what I said above.

 

I don't accept "leaps of faith", don't think there is irrationality to faith, and don't believe Christians need to lay aside their minds and their thinking.

 

"versus something within a naturalist world-view"

 

I find materialism at odds with ones humanity. It reduces every thing finally to the molecular level. How are you different than a log or dirt teaming with organisms? What sets you apart from that, so that human life should be valued? Why not grind up the disabled for fertilizer ? ... or anything we might consider "inhumane"? if there is no difference between my existance and that of an amoeba? Atheists must borrow their moral arguments. They might truly be moral in their leanings, but materialism will not give that morality any moorings, basis of why others should follow suit. "It is, because I say it is...until someone stronger than me says something different." Unless there is borrowed moral reasoning from somewhere. This is why science can't keep up with the ethics of their research and discoveries while anchored in solely materialistic philosophy. Their science outstrips their ability to metabolize the morality of an action and its consequences to humanity.

 

"try so hard to justify it then, do you suppose?"

 

This is how people work. They think in order to understand, then justify their thinking; measuring it against the ever new things of their reality. That is why there are ex-Christians, and why some atheists become Christians.... we are not static.

 

lastly:

"Secondly, you would need to show why it offers something to humanity that has value above any other aesthetic pursuit "

 

No, the aesthetic is not the final litmus test. Truth is the final litmus test. There are many pleasing things that are far removed from Truth.

 

You see I have come to Big T truth in this conversation with you. There is something out there that stands unaltered by circumstance. And we keep seeking to measure against it, to seek it, even when we fail to define it.

 

What I have to know is whether something is true. And that is the result of my own discovery of it, whether by gracious revelation or by experience.... and this is what lifts one thing above the other alternatives:whether it is indeed the Truth. Each one is responsible for seeking the answer to that discovery. It is ...what do you say...non-transferable.

 

I believe God helps those who want to know Him, there are those who say that isn't and can't be true. We are then at an impasse, but we are not static, and thus working out things in dialog is sometimes part of the process.

 

that is my preaching side. but I would say this is what we have to look for: Big T truth. Otherwise we have no idea where we are at in this life. We need to know if there is a God and whether He is Impersonal or Personal; do we relate or not? Do we need to?

 

I suppose at this point I am on the wrong board.

Listen - if you want to engage me more you know where my blog url is. You are welcome there. I will come back if there is more to discuss, but it feels pretty much done. It is far away from the original topic.

[Vixentrox]

She prayed many things in Jesus name and received. Perhaps she should take a shot at Pugs prayer thread.

[Asimov]

There is a logical fallacy for your type of thinking: Shifting the burden of proof, additionally, atheists have no burden of proving God doesn't exist.

 

yet you try so hard;)

 

It doesn't take much effort to refute the arguments of theists, so no I don't really try that hard at all.

 

All that is apparent is that God concepts originate from humans. It is not empirically observable that a God exists, so the only source of information that is given regarding God is from people who already believe in his existence.

 

Furthermore, concepts that are considered valid would be rational concepts with a basis in logic. Since you cannot provide a rational basis for your belief, nor is it evident empirically (as it should be with God) that God exists, what should I conclude?

[truegrit]

{{Varokhar}} Hon, you gave me high praise indeed...and I realize you don't want evangelization here, it isn't that I don't try, but I'm not real good at it, admittedly. I don't have much faith in the power of dialog to do that. I think it breaks down a few barriers and that is all- it helps if we communicate so we don't make villains out of each other.

 

"I'm simply the kind of person your pastor probably hates with a passion"

Probably not my Pastor- we're Vineyard people, but I've been in churches where, yeah, you are likely right.

 

We use Occams Razor differently;)

 

"I have no anger against you. I simply hate your religion"

I sense that, thanks for saying it. I would rather it was the other way around but there it is....

 

I am not a big fan of organized religion myself, but I am not moving out of that category in present company I know;)

 

Sorry how you feel about Jesus. That is all.

 

 

I appreciate you not acting like a jackass, tgl, but can't help but roll my eyes at everything you said in "rebuttal" to my arguments. I'm sorry, but if Jebus makes a bunch of promises and can't fulfill them 100% of the time (like he promised) then he either exists and is a liar or simply doesn't exist.

 

And using Occam's Razor, I realize there's no need to over-complicate my life by believing in a god who, if he did exist, would behave far differently than my experiences in the real world tell me.

 

You can claim I've used any logical fallacy you wish, but anyone reading my posts can see I did not. If you wish to come here and criticize us for our lack of belief in a real Jebus, expect to see your faith under fire. And there is still the matter of the Great Commission, where Jebus tells all believers to spread his word to the world.

 

Perhaps you do not try because you know you can't?

 

Either or, I'm hardly out of steam simply because I think your god is scum. I have many good reasons for believing your god does not exist and is furthermore depicted as an evil monster in your own holy book. After 27+ years of Xianity, I'm hardly ignorant of it. I'm simply the kind of person your pastor probably hates with a passion - someone who has been there, done that, and won't go back.

 

As a side note, I have no anger against you. I simply hate your religion. If you want to talk, fine, but don't expect anything less than hatred from those of us who despise the Jebus cult.

[truegrit]

There is a logical fallacy for your type of thinking: Shifting the burden of proof, additionally, atheists have no burden of proving God doesn't exist.

 

yet you try so hard;)

 

It doesn't take much effort to refute the arguments of theists, so no I don't really try that hard at all.

 

All that is apparent is that God concepts originate from humans. It is not empirically observable that a God exists, so the only source of information that is given regarding God is from people who already believe in his existence.

 

Furthermore, concepts that are considered valid would be rational concepts with a basis in logic. Since you cannot provide a rational basis for your belief, nor is it evident empirically (as it should be with God) that God exists, what should I conclude?

 

It is through discussions like this that I came to this conclusion for myself:

 

I do personally have a rational basis for belief. It is more rational to believe there is a God over all the intricate order of creation than to not believe it, but that is my rationale not yours.

 

God does prove Himself empirically to individuals on a subjective basis. I can't say what His basis is, as it is a combination of things : we are to pray for people, we are to witness, He shows up to some of those most unlikely people in unlikely ( to our mind) ways. You have found the place where I really have no present explanations. My dad was an atheist, hard core. I prayed for him and talked with him endless, endless hours. He loved to talk religion. But at the end I was unsure of where his heart was at.

 

I just don't know the how or why of faith in a person. I know you can ask for it, but why was I so ready and others aren't? don't know don't know.

 

Christians all wish they could prove God empirically on an objective basis. That is why they argue proof of his existance so often. It just isn't going to work that way, though.

 

You know, like in Acts: "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds. "

 

got my bible verse in;) apologies.

 

do I qualify as a Bible Thumper yet?

[euphgeek]

truegrit,

Did you see my previous post to you? Are you ignoring it or are you still formulating a reply to it?