I Can't Shake It! Wtf Is Wrong With Me?

[Vigile]

It sounds to me like a completely normal response. Historical evidence would confirm that you simply cannot deny what is true, that Jesus did exist and is real. So, you may want to go back and reexamine that evidence and follow it where it leads. If you don't want to start with the Bible, go to sources outside of the Bible, most of whom were not even Christians: Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, the Jewish Talmud, and Lucian would give you a good start.

 

You know that this is a crock of shit, but I'm not going to argue with you because I'm tired of rehashing the same old shit every time a new Christian know-it-all stops by. Perhaps some of the younger members will have fun refuting some of your solid hearsay evidence.

 

I wouldn't bother writing this, except that you seem to be an unusually smart Christian, and maybe you could pull something new and interesting out of your ass. That would be more fun, and maybe even advance your cause.

 

No, I don't know anything of the sort. In fact, I have shown that these are quite valid and relevant sources. Thanks for your response and concern though.

 

Sorry but I have to snicker. I, like Chef, will leave this for the new guys to slice and dice.

 

Here's your opportunity guys, he's hanging out here like a piece of overripe fruit.

[Neon Genesis]

Stanley, Thomas (1687). The history of philosophy 1655–61. quoted in Oxford English Dictionary. "An Atheist is taken two ways, for him who is an enemy to the Gods, and for him who believeth there are no Gods." Thank you for making the point that atheism as a belief system is baseless and illogical.

And yet if you actually looked at the site, there are clear examples of atheism being defined in history as being the disbelief in God. If you're going for the oldest definition as being the most accurate, the ancient Romans identified the early Christians as atheists because they didn't believe in the Roman gods, not because they believed in no god, so even history is against your inaccurate information.

 

 

Your worldview, and that is what atheism is, despite what people say, must be able to explain the universe and the phenomena within the universe. You cannot just take a head in the sand position and say I know your wrong, but I don't know what is right. If you know one position to be untrue it is because you know information to be true that contradicts that position.

Again, I do not claim to know that God exists. I will say this again and this will be the last time I say it. If you don't get it by now, then you never will. Atheism and agnosticism are not incompatible with each other. You can disbelieve things are true without knowing they are true. A wife can believe her husband is faithful to her without knowing whether he is or isn't. Likewise, I can disbelieve in God without knowing he's real if there's no evidence to believe otherwise which you have yet to demonstrate. Just because I don't believe in God does not mean I know all the answers about the universe. And just because I'm not a pompous and arrogant like some people I know, does not mean I am putting my head in the sand. It only means I am being realistic and not making unproven truth claims like you. Apparently you can't grasp the concept of the phrase I don't know. But just because I don't know all the answers doesn't mean you do either nor does it mean that God is the answer to everything we don't know.

 

I can respect an agnostic in this state of mind who is still open to all possiblities, I cannot respect the person who flat out rules God out of the realm of possibility, since that is not based upon knowledge, but presuppositions which cannot be verified.

When did I ever claim to know there is no God? I never made such claim. Again, disbelief and knowledge are not the same thing.

[Neon Genesis]

You should do a little more reading in philosophy before asking the "who created God" question. That is what is known as a category mistake or error. Immaterial entities do not necessarily require causal explanations since they are not bound by the laws of physics like material entities.

This argument makes no sense. It makes about as much sense as a child who believes in an imaginary friend and when an adult asks them where the imaginary friend is if they're real, the child responds "Oh, they're not imaginary, they're just invisible!"

 

Second, it is commonly understood in philosophy that the definition for God is a necessary being and necessary beings are uncaused, otherwise they would be contingent.

How is God a necessary being? You have yet to demonstrate how God is necessary. And going by your logic, since oxygen is necessary for us to live, then no explanation should be needed to explain how oxygen can exist, therefore you should disbelieve in God.

 

Finally, your argument that God must be complex needs further explanation. I know that this is an argument that Dawkins uses; however, he assumes much and explains little as well. In what way would God be complex? Surely not physically since he is not physical. So, in what way is God complex?

How is a god that runs the whole universe, answers prayers, forgives sins, punishes the wicked, and saves the lost, that exists in all times and all places all at once not complex? To claim such a god is anything but complex would be an insult to your god. Even Jesus said all things are possible with God, so surely a god that can do anything would be complex?

 

God doesn't create morality, it is a reflection of his eternal character. Your questions simply would lead you to an infinite regress which has logical problems of its own. There must be a starting point for everything, whether it is the universe, morality, logic, or anything other that is not infinite or eternal. The fact that some people choose to disobey or not think does not mean that they do not understand morality or don't think logically. I would say that one could not survive if one did not, in some ways, think logically.

That's not what the bible says. The bible says in Isaiah 45:7 that God created good and evil, not that they're reflections of his character. Perhaps you should try reading the bible yourself?

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

 

I am not sure what you mean by "literal belief in the Christian [G]od". Regarding the story in Judges, one must understand the flow of the book. The book recounted how the people gained victory when they trusted in God and suffered defeats when they trusted in themselves. The danger of taking one Bible verse and trying to build a doctrine from it is that one often rips it from the context, and this is the case here. If you read earlier in the passage, the people defeated armies that were much larger than their own, so to say that God was somehow stumped as to how to defeat these iron chariots is to misunderstand the chapter and the rest of the book. So, no, it doesn't prove that God could lose to iron chariots because, if you read on, they are eventually defeated.

Whether or not they eventually defeated them is irrelevant to my question. The point is at one point in that chapter, God lost to the iron chariots. It's clear in the text. If Napoleon lost to his enemies but later defeated them, it doesn't change the fact he still lost that one battle. Likewise, if God lost one battle against his enemies, it doesn't matter if he won later because he still lost that battle. So you still have not explained how God could lose that one battle if God is all-powerful. God is either all-powerful or he isn't. You can't have it both ways. I fail to see why this is so hard for you to understand.

 

 

It takes more than mere intellectual ascent for one to become a Christian or even to leave atheism. If it were only an intellectual issue, yes more people would abandon atheism; but, the truth is that it is a heart issue that prevents a person from abandoning atheism. If it were only people who were somehow predisposed to believe, then you would expect them to believe right away when they hear about Christianity; however, many become Christians after studying the validity of the claims of Christianity.

So, you admit that your belief is based entirely on emotions and not any actual truth or evidence? How is emotional reasoning any proof for Christianity to be true?

[Neon Genesis]

Go back and read my quote, I claimed no such thing. I said that I don't know of anyone who basis inerrancy on that passage, inerrancy is derived from by other reasoning. The quote does attest to Jesus being an actual person, which is why I referred to it to begin with. Jesus made many claims of deity. Did he use the words "I am God", no, but the Jews understood his claims as being equal to those very words. Here are three passages to which you can refer: John 8:48-58; John 10:22-39; and, John 14:7-12. You need to read the actual history before making these claims. The doctrine of the Trinity was accepted doctrine even in the NT writings of the Bible, so it was hardly "something the Council of Nicea made up". I would encourage you to read the NT and see that it flows throughout.

But again, Jesus doesn't actually state in John 10:22-39 that he's God. He says that he and his father are one, but that could also mean that they're one in purpose, not literally one. Jesus doesn't say he's God in John 8 either. He says if you hear his words, you hear the words of God. But the Pope claims to speak for God too but that doesn't mean the Pope is claiming to be God. Just that he's claiming to be the authority on Earth for God. Jesus doesn't specifically say it in John 14 either as he says in verse 12 believe him for the sake of his works themselves. If he was claiming to be God, why would he say that and then turn around in the same sentence, say that it's not that important to believe he's God? And if Jesus is God, why did he refuse to be called good and insisted that only God should be called good in Matthew 19:17?

So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good?[a] No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

Why is it on the one hand you claim Jesus to be God, but in this verse, Jesus is clearly denying he's God? And what about that verse in John where Jesus was praying to God before he was crucified? Was Jesus just talking to himself and going insane? What about when he was on the cross and asked God why he forsook him? Why would Jesus ask himself why he forsook himself? If the Trinity is true, it makes no sense and it frankly makes Christianity sound like a polytheistic religion. Why not just admit you believe in three gods instead of one then?

 

Yes, I have a belief that an actual person by the name of Santa Claus doesn't exist. I don't just lack belief that Santa exists, I actually have a belief that he doesn't exist. I have doctrines about all kinds of things; however, that doesn't mean that I belong to that religion. I am not claiming that you belong to a religion, just that you have a belief. That is allo that a doctrine is, a belief or set of beliefs. Now, I have shown that my position is completely logical and consistent, by properly defining terms. You follow and live according to the belief that God doesn't exist do you not?

No, your position is not logical nor is it consistent. Again, saying not believing something is the same thing as having a belief is like saying not belonging to a club is the same thing as belonging to a club. I don't know how many times you want me to repeat myself before you get it.

 

If you will read back on what I have written, you will find that I never claimed that atheists are inherently more immoral than Christians.

Yes, you did. You said if we're atheists, we have no reason to complain when someone does evil to us because you claim we have no morals and you've just lied again by denying you ever said that. If you don't believe we're inherently immoral, why did you argue that we have no morals?

 

I believe that all people deserve to be punished by God, including me. I don't believe that God will reward Christians with heaven for following a rulebook, that is a common misunderstanding of the gospel. I believe that although I deserve hell, God has sent his Son to earth to go to the cross and pay the penalty that I deserved. Because I have put my trust in him, his payement applies to my sin and his righteousness is applied to me. I don't deserve it, it is a free gift that God offers to anyone who will trust in him. So, no, I don't have a materialist belief as you claim.

Now you're lying again. First you deny we have to follow a rulebook to get to heaven and then claim this is a misunderstanding of the gospel. Then, you turn around and say that to be saved you have to believe the bible, which is the same thing as believing in a rulebook. Either you have to believe in the rulebook called the bible to be saved or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

 

I don't know how you conclude that I have been conflating materialism with economic materialism, I have given no such reference to economic materialism. It is not me who argues that man is a slave to his DNA, that would be no less than Richard Dawkins. So, if you have a problem with that argument, please go to www.richarddawkins.net and take it up with him. Your last statement only goes to prove my poiint as you tacitly admit that people are slaves to their DNA. I don't claim such as I believe that God has given man free agency to make choices. Man is not a robot if God exists and has been created in his image.

No, the opposite is what is true. If God exists and controls everything in the universe as you claim, then there is no freewill. You can't have a god that rules everything with an iron fist on the one hand and then tell us we have a choice on the other. The two ideas are entirely incomptabible with each other. It's like how an author writes a story and within the context of the story, the characters might think they have freewill and are making choices, but in reality, they're just made up characters the author created and is controlling with their imagination. Now replace the author with God, the story with the universe, and us with the characters, and tell me how we can have freewill if God controls everything. And where in the bible does it say we have freewill? As far as I'm aware, freewill is not mentioned anywhere in the bible at all.

[MathGeek]

Stanley, Thomas (1687). The history of philosophy 1655–61. quoted in Oxford English Dictionary. "An Atheist is taken two ways, for him who is an enemy to the Gods, and for him who believeth there are no Gods." Thank you for making the point that atheism as a belief system is baseless and illogical.

 

You will brush this off, but that definition is not accepted nowadays. Christians can get away with explaining the horribly micromanaging edicts put forth in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy because Jesus symbolizes brought forth a new covenant, and atheists can't get away with deriving their own definition free of Christian bias. Again, duplicity abounds.

 

You are clouded by the reality that not everybody agree your religious point of view, therefore they are your enemies. With that point of view, I guess you could call a follower of the Greek or Norse pantheon an atheist.

 

I think the second premise is more valid because an atheist normally discounts any theistic worldview.

 

What I don't get is that if I take a few tenets from Christianity, biology, mathematics, history and make them up into some kind of worldview and I believe that there is no God, why is that logically wrong?

[MathGeek]

It is also logical to surmise that that agent is personal, since we are personal, and that had to come from somewhere (unless personality is an illusion). Also, it is logical to surmise a personal agent since the universe is only about 14 billion years old. If it were the product of an impersonal agent, we would expect it to be much older - eternally older. I can explain if you don't understand why this is the case, let me know.

 

Sure, that doesn't fit at all with the current models we have for our universe. The Earth is on the periphery arm of the Milky Way Galaxy and we are on of the smallest planets in the solar system that is anchored by a poetically misnamed star called "The Sun", which is smaller than some of the stars seen through earthbound and space-based telescopes. It seems to me if we were the pinnacle of God's creation, wouldn't he have put at least closer to the center of our Galaxy and closer toward the center of the universe and have it remained FIXED IN PLACE. Therefore, I find your personal argument more than flawed.

 

Secondly, in terms of lifespan (going from the accepted life expectancy of now to the age of Methusaleh) the "God" that possibly created us would be eternal because humans can't conceive in REAL TERMS what 14 billion years is. This may be a metaphorical digression that doesn't hinder your case, but hugely finite is infinite in the mind of the average human. If a human were to count to a billion, it would take a person about 32 years of their natural life assuming the person was counting one number per second. Counting to 14,000,000,000 would take about 450 years (assuming the person who started counting was a member of the Medici Dynasty). Therefore, it is likely fair to assume that if a God created us, it would be very impersonal.

 

Furthermore, what is the nature of this being? Does this being have a name? Is it physical or extra-material? Since it left us on this blasted hunk of rock, does it even want to know us at all? Does it even care?

 

I may have made straw-men, false dichotomies, and category errors, but the physical nature of our placement in the old Universe definitely undermines anything the Bible says about the personal nature of God.

[MathGeek]

Do you have kids? Have you ever told them not to do something, only to see them do it anyway? Who did the wrong, you for making the rule and thereby tempting them, or them for violating the rule. You can't have it both ways. God didn't set a loaded gun in the room, he made a simple rule that was even simpler to obey. There are thousands of tress that you can eat from and only one that you can't eat from. It could have been millions or billions of trees, and it still wouldn't have mattered. What you want is a world with no rules or no consequences, and either scenario leads to chaos and confusion. I don't think anyone would want that. The only other possibility would be to make robots who could not make free choices. I don't think you would want that either.

 

Bogus again.

 

The job of the parent is to establish rules to ensure the safety of the child, but I think the entire fruit scenario in Genesis is still God's doing. Since God created man fully formed, we should likely assume that Adam that had the capability of reason at his disposal and the ability to recognize deception. I have read Genesis 2 a few times and I don't see that scenario playing out at all. All we really are two fully formed adults that have childish abilities when it comes to reasoning skills, but this opens up a contradiction of a specific kind. I call it a thematic contradiction. Since God gave Adam stuardship over the Earth, wouldn't he have been able to manage his own affair free of interference from God and yet Adam didn't have enough foresight to tell his wife that eating the fruit would cause trouble. Since women supposedly held a secondary place in Hebraic society, why didn't Adam use his power to subdue Eve? If the story of Adam and Eve was written from a perspective that women were to be secondary to the man, then why didn't she put the fruit down? In my opinion, since God was omniscient and he gave Adam sub-standard motivation to remain in Paradise, then it really goes back to him as having fault.

[chefranden]

Just to defend the facts, Kant did use "leap of faith" in the context mentioned above by LNC

 

Really? Where? I haven't read all of Kant's books, but I did read the first Critque and parts of Groundwork. I don't recall Kant using that phrase. Of course I read these books several years ago.

 

However, unless I am very much mistaken, Kant was not theist in the ordinary sense. To the extent that I understand it, Kant's moral system--and again, I'm not an expert--stems from rational deduction, not the dictates of Scripture.

 

Well gee, I'd like to go back and re-read Kant for you to find the reference, but I'm getting way to old. I kant do it any more. You'll either have to trust my memory or reject it as you choose.

[Ouroboros]

It is also logical to surmise that that agent is personal, since we are personal, and that had to come from somewhere (unless personality is an illusion).

Doesn't follow.

 

It's just as possible (using my imagination and influence of alternative religious ideas) that we all are infinite spiritual beings who possess these bodies for a short time, and then transition back to whatever other dimension, then to return back to new bodies here or in another world.

 

If personal agents needs to be created (us) to exist, then the explanation is not to bring in another super-personal-agent which created us and exists without having to be created. The solution is not to give this super-being a free-pass from the criteria you demand on our existence.

 

Also, it is logical to surmise a personal agent since the universe is only about 14 billion years old.

Huh?

 

So if it was 15 billions years old, then it could be a non-personal agent? Or if it was 13 billion years old, then it was a turtle? I don't see the logic at all with your infinite v personal requirements.

 

If it were the product of an impersonal agent, we would expect it to be much older - eternally older. I can explain if you don't understand why this is the case, let me know.

I guess you kind of have to, because, if God is eternal, then God is... what? Impersonal or personal?

 

If the Universe is a drop in a multiverse of universes, and it came to existence during an eternal process of universes coming and going, then the infinite nature of total existence would be there for anything to exist. Maybe Panentheism is a better view than Theism? Maybe the very fabric of existence is alive and conscious, and we're just the finite reflections of that infinite?

[chefranden]

Just to defend the facts, Kant did use "leap of faith" in the context mentioned above by LNC

 

Really? Where? I haven't read all of Kant's books, but I did read the first Critque and parts of Groundwork. I don't recall Kant using that phrase. Of course I read these books several years ago.

 

However, unless I am very much mistaken, Kant was not theist in the ordinary sense. To the extent that I understand it, Kant's moral system--and again, I'm not an expert--stems from rational deduction, not the dictates of Scripture.

 

Well gee, I'd like to go back and re-read Kant for you to find the reference, but I'm getting way to old. I kant do it any more. You'll either have to trust my memory or reject it as you choose.

 

Edit: Upon consulting an old classmate of mine who actually professes philosophy the conclusion is that Kant rejected the leap of faith. I trust him better than my memory, therefore I stand correct and humbly drag my foot through the sand.

[MathGeek]

Just to defend the facts, Kant did use "leap of faith" in the context mentioned above by LNC

 

Really? Where? I haven't read all of Kant's books, but I did read the first Critque and parts of Groundwork. I don't recall Kant using that phrase. Of course I read these books several years ago.

 

However, unless I am very much mistaken, Kant was not theist in the ordinary sense. To the extent that I understand it, Kant's moral system--and again, I'm not an expert--stems from rational deduction, not the dictates of Scripture.

 

Well gee, I'd like to go back and re-read Kant for you to find the reference, but I'm getting way to old. I kant do it any more. You'll either have to trust my memory or reject it as you choose.

 

Edit: Upon consulting an old classmate of mine who actually professes philosophy the conclusion is that Kant rejected the leap of faith. I trust him better than my memory, therefore I stand correct and humbly drag my foot through the sand.

 

We all make mistakes, Chef.

[chefranden]

Also, it is logical to surmise a personal agent since the universe is only about 14 billion years old. If it were the product of an impersonal agent, we would expect it to be much older - eternally older. I can explain if you don't understand why this is the case, let me know.

 

Why? From your logic it would be logical to assume a woody creator of trees, or a gelatinous creator of jellyfish. Just because the qualia of personality is important to you doesn't mean that it is important to any possible Creator.

 

Perhaps you have some experimental evidence that supports your hypothesis of a personal agent. But I doubt it. The math of physics gets us back to a few nanoseconds after the initiation of "the big bang". No one can "yet" get farther back then that including you. The God of the Bible is only about 6000 years old considerably older than me, but orders of magnitude younger than the Universe.

 

It is useless to assume that there is something older than the universe, because the initiation gave rise to time as well as space -- no time, no universe, or no universe no time. It is nonsense to ask what was before, because there was no before. That is time itself is only about 14 billion years old give or take a few ticks. Putting God before that is just speculation without evidence.

 

If something can self-exist without an endless regression of causes, then the universe can self exist without an endless regression of causes. At least we know the universe is here, a thing we don't know about God or any other Creator candidate. The "big bang" whatever it turns out to be is likely the end of causal regression or rather much more likely the end than some superhuman in the nothingness of no time.

[agnosticator]

Neon Genesis: How can you rebel against something you don't believe in? And why should a loving God care if people rebel against him or not if they're otherwise basically good people? Even if rebellion deserves a just punishment, how is eternal torture justified? That's like saying if a child runs away from home, that means the parent can beat the child to death. Since you believe people who rebel against God deserve punishment simply for not sucking up to God, then do you believe that the Holocaust was justified and that God was just in allowing Hitler to torture the Jews if it's justified to torture the Jew for rebelling against God? Don't you realize this is the same "logic" that Hitler used for the Holocaust?

 

LNC: It doesn't matter whether you believe in the truth or not, it doesn't affect the outcome. One can disbelieve the laws of gravity and yet, when that person steps off a cliff, the law still holds and they are dead (assuming the cliff is high enough). Again, God is more than just loving, he is also just; therefore, rebellion cannot be tolerated. However, he is loving and provided a way for that rebellion to be paid for by the death of Jesus, so he made the most loving sacrifice for us, if we will trust in him. You also mistake your standing before God, we are not "basically good people" if we are rebelling against him, that simply doesn't make sense. I never said that we deserve punishment because we don't "suck up" to God, we deserve punishment because we rebel against God - there is a difference. The Holocaust was not justified and Hitler and his henchmen will suffer punishment for their parts in this tragedy. In your worldview, they have gotten off basically with no punishment for their crimes. God will not violate our freedom, even if it means that we do horrible things, however, it is we who are guilty, not he.

 

I can't help but repeat what I have said to other christians who believe as you do. You refer to rebellion. I'm assuming you mean: unbelief=rebellion.

So therefore, the unbeliever who lived a morally good life will be punished because of unbelief, while the serial killer-turned-christian (jeffrey dahmer, for example) will be forgiven and rewarded. This is supposedly a just god practicing "justice". Yet the bible admits it is not justice, but revenge;vengeance. Revenge for unbelief-not immorality. All the guilty criminals have a simple way out: sincere christian belief. In the christian world view, our actions can be overlooked, but our beliefs, unforgivable. This is the best reason to reject biblical christianity for the cynical and inhuman religion that it is. Cynical, as to human nature (all evil and no good), and inhuman for unjust, cruel punishment.

[Ouroboros]

Agnosticator,

 

Exactly. Christianity is the elaborate religion which allows evil to be rewarded through a 'get-out-of-jail' card given by a supposed God only based on a persons belief in said God. Christianity doesn't make people good. It only allows people to act bad against society, have no clue why it harms other people, and then get away with it.

[agnosticator]

Agnosticator,

 

Exactly. Christianity is the elaborate religion which allows evil to be rewarded through a 'get-out-of-jail' card given by a supposed God only based on a persons belief in said God. Christianity doesn't make people good. It only allows people to act bad for society and have no clue why it harms other people.

 

...and so we generate more criminals than most (or all?) other countries. We also have to put up with twisted ramblings of believers!

[Justin]

The grammar of your sentence was a bit too tortured for me to actually understand what you were asking, sorry.

 

Wow, nothing to contribute but a personal attack. Shame, shame.

 

As for the sadness and loss that people feel in leaving Christianity (I won't speak for cults as that is not my realm of understanding), it seems that many on this site express that sadness. As for what that is about, maybe it is the sadness of leaving the truth behind, and with it, family, friends, etc.

 

It is not a result of leaving the truth as has been pointed out again and again to you. As everyone has said, people who leave all religions and cults experience saddness. Until you address this, stop repeating yourself. As i said too, (which you still haven't responded to), i left christianity twice and when i went back the second time i felt a loss and saddness about leaving atheisim. Also, as far as "leaving" family and friends goes, in my experience and in many others experience on here, it is the friends and family that turns on the one who left.

 

Where in the Bible do you see the age of the earth given? I don't see it in there. If you know differently then maybe you can quote chapter and verse.

 

You know, the six days of creation and Bible geneologies. Old earth creationists just compromise their beliefs by fabricated the idea that "day" means whatever the crap they want it to mean.

 

Consider the book by Christopher Wills and Jeffrey Bada entitled The Spark of Life in which they say that the early atmosphere of the earth would have been too hostile to allow for abiogenesis to occur.

 

As with both links i provided, there are several theories on the origin of life. Some believe it sprang forth from a primordial soup and others think it came from space in through various means.

 

It appears you are no different than kcdad, and old earth creationist. Since you obviously think the Bible does not advocate a literal 6 day creation, am i too assume you also believe in evolution and an old universe? If so, then what is your point in trying to debate life's origins with me?

 

The theory has a number of problems to it

 

I'm sorry, i didn't know you were a scientist with a gigantic degree on the subject. Of thats right, you are not.

 

I am not appealing to magic (another straw man argument) but to that which lies beyond nature as the logical answer.

 

How is that a straw man arguement chief? You believe that an invisible, omnipotent being who lives in an invisible kingdom created everything by merely blinking or snapping his fingers or what have you.

 

One otherwise has to appeal to magic by claiming that the universe and life just popped into existence (by magic or by itself) which is not logical.

 

The fact that they don't know for sure does not mean they believe it just randomly popped into existence. The use of science, the scientific method, and knowledge is a far more logical way to find out the truth than to just give up and say "goddidit". You advocate pseudeoscience, which is not even peer reviewed in ANY scientific publication nor debated in any real venue where science is debated and discussed. So really, how can you even come at me with this garbade?

 

Read 'Cosmos' by Cark Sagan, and 'A Brief History of Time', by Stephen Hawking. Or check out the Talk Origins or Pandas Thumb website for evolution.

[Justin]

So, how does God create free agents but still not allow any temptation? If it wasn't the tree, there would have been plenty of other situations that would have tempted Adam and Eve. The fact is, we are either free, and therefore, subject to temptations, or we are not free. God could not create both free agents and a world that would have been completely free of temptations. He would have had to have a world with no rules, which would have been a world of chaos. So, do you believe that that would have been better?

 

Do you have kids? Have you ever told them not to do something, only to see them do it anyway? Who did the wrong, you for making the rule and thereby tempting them, or them for violating the rule. You can't have it both ways. God didn't set a loaded gun in the room, he made a simple rule that was even simpler to obey. There are thousands of tress that you can eat from and only one that you can't eat from. It could have been millions or billions of trees, and it still wouldn't have mattered. What you want is a world with no rules or no consequences, and either scenario leads to chaos and confusion. I don't think anyone would want that. The only other possibility would be to make robots who could not make free choices. I don't think you would want that either.

 

I don't believe it's possible for anyone to top you in the act of not answering something.

 

Why would it be so hard to not place temptations in their way? With free will there will be temptations, the kinds like, "should i buy this lottery ticket", or "should i fornicate with this woman". There is more than enough temptation in a christians worldview since they have villianized damn near everything without having god place them directly in their pathway. The simple fact is that temptation or no temptation, the price paid by the mortal human is far far FAR more horrific and barbaric than the sin itself. Infinate torment for finate sins is criminal beyond measure.

 

You're right, god didn't place a loaded gun in the room, he placed something there far more sinister and dangerous, death, hell and eternal torture. I don't have children but even so, i can still judge right from wrong. You obviously cannot. I would be to blame if i put a gun in a room full of kids and told them not to touch it. I know they are kids and curious, and fallible. I know i created a damn dangerous, deady situation. I would be completly to blame. Don't believe me, try it in a court of law and find out what they would say. Whats more, one would never have to place blame on either me or my children for the wrong because i would not construct such an insane situation as that, i would simply have the intellect to not put the damn gun there in the first damn place.

 

In short, i do want a world with rules and consequences. However, what you advocate is not this. You advocate a world of barbarism and insanity. A world were the punishment far outweights the crime. A world were it is "just" and "right" for a child to have his fingers cut off for the mere crime of picking his nose, as SWIM's post on Hell addressed. Things such as this. If you think i am being over the top and harsh with this statement about what you believe, i am not. You do believe that hell awaits those who commited the pety crime of merely not believing in your god, that all the ills of the world, the wars, the diseases, death, suffering, etc. was all "rightly" brought on by two people eating fruit from a god damn tree. That one sin brought all the shit that is in the world into existence. Thats why the analogy of a little child having his fingers cut off for picking his nose is spot on.

[Justin]

So, in conclusion, I don't think that you have credibly debunked any of these sources, thus they stand as relevent witnesses.

 

LNC, your reply to AM in no way refutes what he said in his post.

 

If you believe this you will have to give reasons. sorry, but all this is is an empty assertion.

 

 

As Cheif said, it is all hearsay. No eyewitness accounts. It would be like me saying, "Godzilla lived in 1950's-60's Japan", without me ever being born in that time or having lived there.

[LNC]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Are you claiming that your god is omniscient but not restricted by that omniscience? I can see that being possible if the omniscience was limited to the present moment only, but the moment a being has 100% accurate information about a future event, it and that event are inexorably bound one to the other.

 

I don't see why God, being omniscient would be trapped in any perception, he simply knows truth, he doesn't perceive truth. To perceive would be to gain knowledge that you didn't previously have, and that would place limits on God, i.e., there would be knowledge that he would not have until he perceived it. God knows all true propositions, whether past, present, or future, so, in a sense, he is bound by that truth, but that doesn't in any way limit him. He is also bound by logic and by doing moral actions, so how does that make him any less than God in your estimation? My response to you was in regard to something else that you said and I can't remember on which page that post is located to remind myself of what that was specifically.

 

Yes, I'm quite fine with it. If consciousness is an illusion, it's a functional one. Likewise, one's sense of meaning can be part of that illusion.

 

You might hold out the hope of looking outside the bubble and finding another level of "meaning", but I suspect that this just puts you in a bigger bubble and doesn't actually solve anything. I prefer to stay on the inside and work with what I've got.

If living in illusion is what makes life bearable for you, then I don't really have a connection point with you. However, it is when reality starts to break through that illusion that I believe I can offer direction to people.

 

I've found that thinking about and attempting to analyze life is an obstacle to direct experience of that life. My technique of choice is mindfulness meditation, which is present-oriented rather than past- or future-oriented.

What is the difference between mindfulness meditation and contemplation? Can one not contemplate the present? And, are you saying that you never focus on the past or future? I find that hard to believe as it would make life impossible to navigate. Someone once said that those who forget history are bound to repeat it.

 

Quite frankly, moral-values-from-a-god look just as subjective as moral-values-from-humans. I don't think that moral values can be objective, either.

 

You have missed the gist of the argument. I am speaking about the grounding of objective moral values not what those moral values happen to be. If one believes in objective moral values one must provide a basis for why those moral value are objective.

[LNC]

If you feel that way, why did you come here ultimately? I think you know that all of us are not going to fall for your arguments to come back. Why accept the invite at all then?

 

I was given a challenge to defend my position with people who, I was told, were better educated on the subject than she who invited me. I accepted the challenge. Simple as that.

[LNC]

Oh hell no, he did not just use this little gem.

 

LNC, you are like a walking bumper sticker. I haven't seen a Christian willing to use such cheesy christianise lines like these in a long time, so thanks for the laugh. Whats next? Quote some Chick tracts?

 

Don't let me down now, you have set the bar for humor quite high, so if you are going to have to start saying some really absurd stuff if you want to keep me laughing.

 

Did you have an alternative definition for religion that you would like to posit? Or, do you just like to rip on others? Please, enlighten me.

[LNC]

It's called axiomatic thinking, my friend. Furthermore, we sometimes need to make definitions. How can I see that and you cannot?

 

Even axiomatic thinking must stand up to scrutiny my friend. The materialist must show how something immaterial can exist, not just assume it when it doesn't fit within his worldview. Thoughts, concepts, etc. are immaterial in nature and don't fit within a purely materialistic framework. So, please let me know how you fit them into yours.

[LNC]

So morality defined by the different philosophical theories are wrong, because they are not taken from the Bible or given in a vision from God? So when the Greeks laid out reciprocation as a possible foundation for morality hundreds of years before Jesus, they were wrong, while Jesus was right when he did it? Such hypocrisy.

Your answer bears no relation to what I said.

 

"Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." (Pittacus)[3]

"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." (Thales)[4]

"What you wish your neighbors to be to you, such be also to them." (Sextus the Pythagorean)[5]

"Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others." (Isocrates)[6]

"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." (Epictetus)[7]

"It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing 'neither to harm nor be harmed'[8]),

 

and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life." (Epicurus)[9]

They were all wrong, because they didn't know Jesus.

 

But, "Do to others..." by Jesus, ooooooh, that must be good then...

 

Again, the question is not what morals are, but whether they have objective grounding. We have to answer that question first, and you have to do it from an atheistic perspective. Otherwise, we are merely speaking about preferences.

[LNC]

If I make a decision based on my Free Will, then that decision was not made by God. Hence the First Cause of that decision was ME, not God. That leaves us with 6 billion First Cause agents currently in action. Where does God fit in there? And how can you NOT see this problem? If I make a decision to lift the pen, what was the First Cause of events for that pen to be lifted? God? Then my decision was caused by God. By me? Then God wasn't the cause.

 

I don't argue for free will, but rather free agency. However, you must show me that an atheist actually has free will before you can justify your claim above. From a materialist perspective man has no free will. As Dawkins so eloquently puts it we are the result of our DNA and "DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." IOW, you have no free will, you are simply doing what your DNA directs you to do.

[nightflight]

If I make a decision based on my Free Will, then that decision was not made by God. Hence the First Cause of that decision was ME, not God. That leaves us with 6 billion First Cause agents currently in action. Where does God fit in there? And how can you NOT see this problem? If I make a decision to lift the pen, what was the First Cause of events for that pen to be lifted? God? Then my decision was caused by God. By me? Then God wasn't the cause.

 

I don't argue for free will, but rather free agency. However, you must show me that an atheist actually has free will before you can justify your claim above. From a materialist perspective man has no free will. As Dawkins so eloquently puts it we are the result of our DNA and "DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." IOW, you have no free will, you are simply doing what your DNA directs you to do.

 

And yet Christianity teaches us that we are bound by a "sin nature". So it posits no free will either.