Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

On Changing Minds


Legion

Recommended Posts

I do believe that we as free willed creatures would not always choose God with out suffering. It is our nature. So I don't find it surprising that the world chosen by God ended up having suffering in it. Christ suffered on the cross. We would not have salvation with out His suffering.

 

So, why the choice to visit with us here? What interests you about posting on this ex-Christian site? Who invited you?

 

Phanta

An atheist told me about the site. He said I should come here and engage in debate.

 

I've spent a lot of time on many atheist sites. I want to hear why people don't believe. I want to hear what people think about Christianity. I'm compelled to respond when falsehoods are stated about the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob and His Christ.

 

You do NOT know the will and character of god.

 

You do NOT have any objective evidence for ANY of your extraordinary christian/god claims.

 

You do NOT possess any special knowledge of god, his plan or his morals.

 

You simply attributed your own deluded thoughts and stunted imagination to an imaginary deity.

 

My position is IF a living god exists no one knows the will and/or character of god (good or bad).

 

The only way christians think they "know" the will and character of god is by their idiosyncratic and SELECTIVE interpretation of spurious scripture, coupled with stunted speculative imagination.

 

I humbly submit, IF god exists, I do NOT know god; god is unknowable and christians (OC) sure as shit don't know god either!

 

--S.

 

You should reread your own posts.

 

You should quit being an arrogant ass. I know exactly what I said.

 

You made positive and definitive claims about God and me. You did not simply say He was "undefined". You made categorically positive claims Christians were wrong and you were right.

 

A snake oil salesman claims his elixir can cure what ails you.

 

He asserts his tonic can cure gout.

 

He asserts it can be used to grow hair on a bald man.

 

He asserts his tonic can be used to cure cancer.

 

My default position is:

 

The snake oil-salesman does NOT have a cure-all tonic

 

The snake oil-salesman does NOT have any objective evidence for his outlandish claims.

 

The snake oil salesman is either a charlatan or he has deluded himself to the point of insanity.

 

OC -- you're the snake-oil salesman.

 

Because the snake oil-salesman has not provided objective evidence for his claims I will continue to conclude it's ALL bullshit.

 

You being the snake-oil salesman -- protecting your outlandish claims -- would bullshit me and shift the burden of proof on to me by claiming I'm the one making positive claims that your tonic is bullshit and has NO reference in reality so you're shirking your responsibility to prove your positive claims.

 

Can you see the fallacy in this scenario?

 

So until you can prove with objective evidence ANY or ALL of your outlandish christian/god claims I will maintain my default position that:

 

You do NOT know the will and character of god.

 

You do NOT have any objective evidence for ANY of your extraordinary christian/god claims.

 

You do NOT possess any special knowledge of god, his plan or his morals.

 

You simply attributed your own deluded thoughts and stunted imagination to an imaginary deity.

 

My position is IF a living god exists no one knows the will and/or character of god (good or bad).

 

The only way christians think they "know" the will and character of god is by their idiosyncratic and SELECTIVE interpretation of spurious scripture, coupled with stunted speculative imagination.

 

I humbly submit, IF god exists, I do NOT know god; god is unknowable and christians (OC) sure as shit don't know god either!

 

I agree I hold a burden of evidence due to my positive claims, but you are shirking our duty by not upholding your claims. You pretend to be objective and rational, but you don't abide by your own rules.

 

Bullshit. The onus is on you making the outlandish claims, in the first place.

 

"Your making the positive claim my tonic doesn't work; prove it doesn't work, blah, blah blah......"

 

Screw that -- you're the one pushing your tonic, you're the one that needs to provide objective evidence. Now hop to......

 

Again; let's cut to the chase....

 

Being that christianity teeters on the resurrection:

 

Please provide objective evidence for Jesus being the resurrected son of god, savior of mankind, as opposed to a piece of fiction, written over a hundred years, based on perhaps a fallible human prophet an/or an amalgamation of several people and several earlier legends and myths.

 

Can you provide evidence that does NOT include bloated rationalizations, subjective reasoning and stunted imaginings?

 

Still patiently waiting while you play sophomoric games......

 

Provide objective evidence that God is unknowable.

 

Again you have NOT demonstrated -- with objective evidence -- a god or more specifically, a personal christian god exists.

 

Until you can provide objective evidence for your outlandish god claims, my position will be: god is unknowable. Can you comprehend the words that are coming out of my mouth?

 

Being a reasonably honest individual would you believe that I have an invisible genie who grants me wishes?

 

Are you going to hold the absurd position that this invisible genie is actually knowable? Or will you be honest and hold the default position that it would be insane to believe in invisible genies that grant wishes, they are NOT knowable and unless I provide objective evidence for my extraordinary claims you will continue to be skeptical and make positive claims that invisible genies don't exists.

 

You can substitute invisible genies, with invisible talking dragons, or invisible gremlins or the claims people make about allah, if it makes you feel better.

 

With this said, I will have no problem finding serious flaws, inconsistencies, gaps of logic and contradictions in your particular god-concept (YOUR DEFINITION of god and his attributes) that you claim is a knowable personal christian god.

 

Just like you would find, if you pressed me into supporting my extraordinary claim that an invisible genie grants me wishes.

 

So give me your supposed best evidences for your christian/god claims, especially in regard to the resurrection.

 

I suspect you don't understand the nature evidence to be honest. Can you explain the evidence you demand from a Christian?

 

Oh -- I bet yoooooou "understand the nature evidence". More arrogant meanderings, on your part.

 

I can hardly wait for your rationalizations and mental gymnastics that demonstrates your "understanding".

 

I suspect you are far from educated and you are playing with terms and concepts you are not familiar with.

 

Regardless, I want objective evidence for your christian/god claims that does NOT include bloated rationalizations, subjective reasoning and stunted imaginings?

 

Waiting and waiting and waiting...........

 

~Also~

 

Do you also concede that asking for proof of the NON-existence of something is a fallacious endeavor?

 

--S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eusebeia, used in the New Testament to express the idea of inner piety, spiritual maturity, or godliness.

 

Nope, still doesn't make sense.

 

Here's one of the problems with godliness as used in the New Testament. It implies that the godly person has something that is more than simply morality, goodness, kindness or generosity. Specifically, something special about Christians:

 

So - how can you tell when true spirituality and maturity are present? Or, how do you know the difference between a godly man and one who is merely well educated and in control of himself? A carnal believer, the novice Christian, can be moral, can use the right vocabulary, can wear a suit and carry a Bible. He can fool some of the people some of the time.

 

But the godly believer is known by "his fruits" - the fruit of the Holy Spirit - things that an unbeliever, or the carnal believer, cannot produce. Godliness is produced in the life of a Christian who is both learning doctrine and growing thereby through edification.

 

Sounds like inner transformation as opposed to surface behaviors. Internalization. No?

 

Phanta

Yes, that is what they mean - basically piety. They proceed to discuss how you recognize it, and that is by the behavior of the Christian, and Christians are supposed to manifest special "surface behaviors".

 

"A common element in most conceptions of piety is humility."

 

Religious humility is not entirely about accepting ones limitations, but rather leans towards submission and a sense of unworthiness. By debasing the worth of humans, it becomes easier to manipulate people.

 

1 Cor. 14:33. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints,

34. women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll never forget the moment a number of years back where I severed that last last hold the mythical God held in a position in the back of my mind. It wasn't a sense of loss I felt, but incredible liberation of spirit! The world was free from needing to be concerned about some Book-Keeper in the Sky, and what I saw was the incredible Beauty and Power of life I had longed for. Nature was beyond imagination.

Brilliantly put Antlerman - you have verbalized in one concise paragraph the exact feeling I had on the 14th of November 1996, the day I finally became an atheist (I remember the date coz it was my daughter's 8th birthday). It was like that little god-paradigm had lodged itself in the back of my mind somewhere, almost invisible to me, like a mental parasite. When that nasty bugger was discovered and removed it was like something "popped" in my mind and I could see clearly for the first time in my life. A flood of questions were answered in an instant and it felt as if a huge burden had been removed from my shoulders.

 

Also what you said about the Book-Keeper/Beauty & Power of life/nature ... exactly like that - stunning post bro.

 

 

 

Just wanted to mention that this was my experience as well. And, even more strangely, the answer to all of my *unanswered* prayers and futility of thinking that some kind of "magical" answers and "magical" solutions were just "going to happen" in my life through....."sheer faith".

 

What's even stranger was the fact that things started to work out after that, very much for the better, and there wasn't any need for "miraculous" changes other than an acceptance that everything proceeded from my own thinking, thoughts, and actions, not from the "will" of some enigmatic, invisible, uber-deity in some nefarious dimension with an enigmatic package of demands in his hand.

 

I suspect at times that many who have become hypnotized by the high drama of the neo-Christian experience would balk at that; in a way it's like cutting the umbilical cord to that imaginary part of the mind, where the "Gods" live and rule. For many, I can see how that might be unpleasant, including the knowledge that you are totally alone in this universe. But comfort is merely a conceptual thing; there are times when I am enjoying music or astronomy and the company of good friends where I am really not alone at all; in fact I would say in an opposite state- the world and the universe is my oyster, and the interaction of my mind and consciousness with it all shows me that reality itself can be "magical" and comforting and fantastic.

 

Tangible, real things- all around me. The love of family, friends, and spouse. The friendly chirping of the birds at morning- real things that give substance, not the paralyzing fearful beliefs of ancient thinkers living in a swamp of superstition. (And they were, think about it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect at times that many who have become hypnotized by the high drama of the neo-Christian experience would balk at that; in a way it's like cutting the umbilical cord to that imaginary part of the mind, where the "Gods" live and rule.

 

Tangible, real things- all around me. The love of family, friends, and spouse. The friendly chirping of the birds at morning- real things that give substance, not the paralyzing fearful beliefs of ancient thinkers living in a swamp of superstition. (And they were, think about it)

That's it. Brilliant. The "Changing Of Minds" is possible and beautiful and free-setting. Reading through the posts of OrdinaryClay and all the frustration of others trying to get through (I LOVE the point about the snake-oil salesman and the onus of proof) I can't help but note that OC is still blinded by that little God-belief-paradigm-parasite.

 

Now my question is, and this fascinates me, what would the trigger be that would get OC to even see, let alone remove, the God-belief-parasite in the back of his head? I also used to be an evangelical "my-faith-is-immovable" Christian, as did many of us on this forum, but my mind got changed. What would get through the mist in OCs brain and finally change his mind? It doesn't seem to me as if he even listens to us. It seems rather that he's here to promote his dogma and maybe "convert" or "reach" some of us rebellious reprobates. So ... do we try and reach OC? Can we? Will you listen OC? Even once?

 

Or how about some of our other Christian posters? End3 and Kathlene? Will you ever sit down, make some coffee, and consider, even once, slowly and carefully and with integrity of mind, that what we are saying may well be the truth and God may not exist? Will you even consider the possibility?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't seem to me as if he even listens to us. It seems rather that he's here to promote his dogma and maybe "convert" or "reach" some of us rebellious reprobates.

 

He stated somewhere in one of these threads that he's writing what he's writing for those who are reading the threads but not taking part - the undecided fence-sitters, in essence. So no, he's not listening to us, and yes he's pushing his dogma but not to us 'rebellious reprobates' who he probably knows he never WILL reach, and has probably already figured out overmatch him. He's after the vulnerable, as Christianity so often is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do believe that we as free willed creatures would not always choose God with out suffering. It is our nature. So I don't find it surprising that the world chosen by God ended up having suffering in it. Christ suffered on the cross. We would not have salvation with out His suffering.

 

So, why the choice to visit with us here? What interests you about posting on this ex-Christian site? Who invited you?

 

Phanta

An atheist told me about the site. He said I should come here and engage in debate.

 

I've spent a lot of time on many atheist sites. I want to hear why people don't believe. I want to hear what people think about Christianity. I'm compelled to respond when falsehoods are stated about the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob and His Christ.

 

You do NOT know the will and character of god.

 

You do NOT have any objective evidence for ANY of your extraordinary christian/god claims.

 

You do NOT possess any special knowledge of god, his plan or his morals.

 

You simply attributed your own deluded thoughts and stunted imagination to an imaginary deity.

 

My position is IF a living god exists no one knows the will and/or character of god (good or bad).

 

The only way christians think they "know" the will and character of god is by their idiosyncratic and SELECTIVE interpretation of spurious scripture, coupled with stunted speculative imagination.

 

I humbly submit, IF god exists, I do NOT know god; god is unknowable and christians (OC) sure as shit don't know god either!

 

--S.

 

You should reread your own posts.

 

You should quit being an arrogant ass. I know exactly what I said.

 

You made positive and definitive claims about God and me. You did not simply say He was "undefined". You made categorically positive claims Christians were wrong and you were right.

 

A snake oil salesman claims his elixir can cure what ails you.

 

He asserts his tonic can cure gout.

 

He asserts it can be used to grow hair on a bald man.

 

He asserts his tonic can be used to cure cancer.

 

My default position is:

 

The snake oil-salesman does NOT have a cure-all tonic

 

The snake oil-salesman does NOT have any objective evidence for his outlandish claims.

 

The snake oil salesman is either a charlatan or he has deluded himself to the point of insanity.

 

OC -- you're the snake-oil salesman.

 

Because the snake oil-salesman has not provided objective evidence for his claims I will continue to conclude it's ALL bullshit.

 

You being the snake-oil salesman -- protecting your outlandish claims -- would bullshit me and shift the burden of proof on to me by claiming I'm the one making positive claims that your tonic is bullshit and has NO reference in reality so you're shirking your responsibility to prove your positive claims.

 

Can you see the fallacy in this scenario?

 

So until you can prove with objective evidence ANY or ALL of your outlandish christian/god claims I will maintain my default position that:

 

You do NOT know the will and character of god.

 

You do NOT have any objective evidence for ANY of your extraordinary christian/god claims.

 

You do NOT possess any special knowledge of god, his plan or his morals.

 

You simply attributed your own deluded thoughts and stunted imagination to an imaginary deity.

 

My position is IF a living god exists no one knows the will and/or character of god (good or bad).

 

The only way christians think they "know" the will and character of god is by their idiosyncratic and SELECTIVE interpretation of spurious scripture, coupled with stunted speculative imagination.

 

I humbly submit, IF god exists, I do NOT know god; god is unknowable and christians (OC) sure as shit don't know god either!

 

I agree I hold a burden of evidence due to my positive claims, but you are shirking our duty by not upholding your claims. You pretend to be objective and rational, but you don't abide by your own rules.

 

Bullshit. The onus is on you making the outlandish claims, in the first place.

 

"Your making the positive claim my tonic doesn't work; prove it doesn't work, blah, blah blah......"

 

Screw that -- you're the one pushing your tonic, you're the one that needs to provide objective evidence. Now hop to......

 

Again; let's cut to the chase....

 

Being that christianity teeters on the resurrection:

 

Please provide objective evidence for Jesus being the resurrected son of god, savior of mankind, as opposed to a piece of fiction, written over a hundred years, based on perhaps a fallible human prophet an/or an amalgamation of several people and several earlier legends and myths.

 

Can you provide evidence that does NOT include bloated rationalizations, subjective reasoning and stunted imaginings?

 

Still patiently waiting while you play sophomoric games......

 

Provide objective evidence that God is unknowable.

 

Again you have NOT demonstrated -- with objective evidence -- a god or more specifically, a personal christian god exists.

 

Until you can provide objective evidence for your outlandish god claims, my position will be: god is unknowable. Can you comprehend the words that are coming out of my mouth?

 

Being a reasonably honest individual would you believe that I have an invisible genie who grants me wishes?

 

Are you going to hold the absurd position that this invisible genie is actually knowable? Or will you be honest and hold the default position that it would be insane to believe in invisible genies that grant wishes, they are NOT knowable and unless I provide objective evidence for my extraordinary claims you will continue to be skeptical and make positive claims that invisible genies don't exists.

 

You can substitute invisible genies, with invisible talking dragons, or invisible gremlins or the claims people make about allah, if it makes you feel better.

 

With this said, I will have no problem finding serious flaws, inconsistencies, gaps of logic and contradictions in your particular god-concept (YOUR DEFINITION of god and his attributes) that you claim is a knowable personal christian god.

 

Just like you would find, if you pressed me into supporting my extraordinary claim that an invisible genie grants me wishes.

 

So give me your supposed best evidences for your christian/god claims, especially in regard to the resurrection.

 

I suspect you don't understand the nature evidence to be honest. Can you explain the evidence you demand from a Christian?

 

Oh -- I bet yoooooou "understand the nature evidence". More arrogant meanderings, on your part.

 

I can hardly wait for your rationalizations and mental gymnastics that demonstrates your "understanding".

 

I suspect you are far from educated and you are playing with terms and concepts you are not familiar with.

 

Regardless, I want objective evidence for your christian/god claims that does NOT include bloated rationalizations, subjective reasoning and stunted imaginings?

 

Waiting and waiting and waiting...........

 

~Also~

 

Do you also concede that asking for proof of the NON-existence of something is a fallacious endeavor?

 

--S.

Any default position is one of equal probability, see The Principle of Insufficient Reason. This means that given no knowledge there is a 50/50 chance for the existence of God. If you claim the likelihood of God is less then %50 then you must have evidence to the contrary or at least some reasoning to conclude it so. These are positive claims on your part, and places a burden of evidence on you.

 

How do you know what I know about God is not true?

 

I believe in God and not genies because the evidence for God is much greater then for genies. Describe the evidence you would find acceptable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I believe in God and not genies because the evidence for God is much greater then for genies.

 

WHAT 'evidence'? You haven't come up with any so far. If all you're claiming is a 50/50 probability then you have no solid 'evidence.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect at times that many who have become hypnotized by the high drama of the neo-Christian experience would balk at that; in a way it's like cutting the umbilical cord to that imaginary part of the mind, where the "Gods" live and rule.

 

Tangible, real things- all around me. The love of family, friends, and spouse. The friendly chirping of the birds at morning- real things that give substance, not the paralyzing fearful beliefs of ancient thinkers living in a swamp of superstition. (And they were, think about it)

That's it. Brilliant. The "Changing Of Minds" is possible and beautiful and free-setting. Reading through the posts of OrdinaryClay and all the frustration of others trying to get through (I LOVE the point about the snake-oil salesman and the onus of proof) I can't help but note that OC is still blinded by that little God-belief-paradigm-parasite.

 

Now my question is, and this fascinates me, what would the trigger be that would get OC to even see, let alone remove, the God-belief-parasite in the back of his head? I also used to be an evangelical "my-faith-is-immovable" Christian, as did many of us on this forum, but my mind got changed. What would get through the mist in OCs brain and finally change his mind? It doesn't seem to me as if he even listens to us. It seems rather that he's here to promote his dogma and maybe "convert" or "reach" some of us rebellious reprobates. So ... do we try and reach OC? Can we? Will you listen OC? Even once?

 

Or how about some of our other Christian posters? End3 and Kathlene? Will you ever sit down, make some coffee, and consider, even once, slowly and carefully and with integrity of mind, that what we are saying may well be the truth and God may not exist? Will you even consider the possibility?

 

 

I will and do often sit here and read the threads and think, yeah they have a point! I dont drink coffee whilst doing it though, cause I dont drink coffee :HaHa:

 

I did travel down the path of having no god in my life for nearly a year. It teared me to bits, to be honest. Its not like when I read these posts that I think its all rubbish...I do believe there are some really valid and good points in here. I always have an open mind in reading the posts and I do think deeply on the arguments thrown up in here.

 

Btw Sconnor, I am still pondering your question to me. Its been a long day..

 

So back to this post. While I do take in all that is said in here, I also have to listen to my own heart and what I know. I walked away once, and all i got in return for it was confusion, stress, hurt, pain and torment. However when I went back and repented to God I found intense peace and stability and yeah, freedom. So why would I possibly go back to what I had before? Yeah yeah, I know you guys think I like living in my fluffy safe world of delusion..

 

To me this is my life. I get such joy out of praying and worshipping God. I love God and I love his presence in my life. Im not going to back down from it or be ashamed of it. I do however read these posts very intently and give them lots of thought. I wonder if you guys do the same in reciprocation? Sure there are times I doubt and waver, but I dont give up. I choose to trust even in the dark when I cant see. My faith becomes even stronger in those times, because in reality all I am trusting in is purely God then, nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I walked away once, and all i got in return for it was confusion, stress, hurt, pain and torment.

 

Kathlene, I felt all that when I first deconverted, because I had shorn what had been my very grounding for some eighteen years - but it passed, I just had to build a grounding of my own. Not taking any offense with you or trying to argue or debate, just saying new directions can be like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I walked away once, and all i got in return for it was confusion, stress, hurt, pain and torment.

 

Kathlene, I felt all that when I first deconverted, because I had shorn what had been my very grounding for some eighteen years - but it passed, I just had to build a grounding of my own. Not taking any offense with you or trying to argue or debate, just saying new directions can be like that.

 

That is a part of a new direction, for sure.

 

That said, I both believe that you think seriously about what we write here, kathlene, and that you are walking a really good path for you.

 

I do read what you write and seriously consider it. Your genuine, gentle, plain, and personal approach make it easy to consider your perspective.

 

Phanta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2Pe 1:5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge;

 

2Pe 1:6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness;

 

2Pe 1:7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.

 

End...what's "godliness" mean in this list?

 

Phanta

Judging from some of the questions you ask I would like to suggest you read the New Testament. It would give you a better ground from which to converse this subject.

 

A sensible suggestion. However, my mind wanders hopelessly when attempt. The writing style doesn't appeal, doesn't hook me. Short passages, though, I'll look at if they are interesting.

 

Thanks anyway,

Phanta

Godliness is both the fruit of the Spirit and our complete submission to God.

Gal 5:22

(22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

 

Eph 1:4

(4) even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:

 

1Jn 4:8

(8) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

 

Psa 34:18

(18) Jehovah is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart, And saveth such as are of a contrite spirit.

 

Psa 51:17

(17) The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: A broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2Pe 1:5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge;

 

2Pe 1:6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness;

 

2Pe 1:7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.

 

End...what's "godliness" mean in this list?

 

Phanta

Judging from some of the questions you ask I would like to suggest you read the New Testament. It would give you a better ground from which to converse this subject.

 

A sensible suggestion. However, my mind wanders hopelessly when attempt. The writing style doesn't appeal, doesn't hook me. Short passages, though, I'll look at if they are interesting.

 

Thanks anyway,

Phanta

Godliness is both the fruit of the Spirit and our complete submission to God.

Gal 5:22

(22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

 

Eph 1:4

(4) even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:

 

1Jn 4:8

(8) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

 

Psa 34:18

(18) Jehovah is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart, And saveth such as are of a contrite spirit.

 

Psa 51:17

(17) The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: A broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

 

Thanks for the reply, Clay. Your reply is similar in content to LNCs (over PM), that godliness is kindness, goodness, etc.

 

That may work in the context of other verses, but "godliness" is presented in this list here: goodness, knowledge, self-control, perseverence, godliness, brotherly kindness, love. If faithfulness, kindness, goodness, etc. are intrinsic to godliness, it doesn't make sense to me that it would be in the middle of an equally weighted list with them like this.

 

That's like saying, "I like basset hounds, cocker spaniels, shorthair pointers, poodles, dogs, irish setters, and black labs."

 

Do you get how that is strange? It makes me think "godliness" means something else in this verse.

 

Phanta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any default position is one of equal probability, see The Principle of Insufficient Reason. This means that given no knowledge there is a 50/50 chance for the existence of God. If you claim the likelihood of God is less then %50 then you must have evidence to the contrary or at least some reasoning to conclude it so. These are positive claims on your part, and places a burden of evidence on you.

 

 

Excuse me! Did you miss or simply ignore the 1/n part of “The principle of insufficient reason”? There are thousands of gods claimed throughout human history. So the chance of the existence of your god according to that rule is less than one tenth of one percent.

 

Stop running your “facts” through the typical Christian bullsh-t filter!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now my question is, and this fascinates me, what would the trigger be that would get OC to even see, let alone remove, the God-belief-parasite in the back of his head?

I think this depends on what needs the beliefs fulfill, what purpose they serve. They may serve many functions. They may give him hope, provide him with a sense of security, and bond him to a community of people. If we cannot provide beliefs which serve the same purposes then I doubt he will relinquish his adherence to his current beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2Pe 1:5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge;

 

2Pe 1:6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness;

 

2Pe 1:7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.

 

End...what's "godliness" mean in this list?

 

Phanta

Judging from some of the questions you ask I would like to suggest you read the New Testament. It would give you a better ground from which to converse this subject.

 

A sensible suggestion. However, my mind wanders hopelessly when attempt. The writing style doesn't appeal, doesn't hook me. Short passages, though, I'll look at if they are interesting.

 

Thanks anyway,

Phanta

Godliness is both the fruit of the Spirit and our complete submission to God.

Gal 5:22

(22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

 

Eph 1:4

(4) even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:

 

1Jn 4:8

(8) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

 

Psa 34:18

(18) Jehovah is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart, And saveth such as are of a contrite spirit.

 

Psa 51:17

(17) The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: A broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

 

Thanks for the reply, Clay. Your reply is similar in content to LNCs (over PM), that godliness is kindness, goodness, etc.

 

That may work in the context of other verses, but "godliness" is presented in this list here: goodness, knowledge, self-control, perseverence, godliness, brotherly kindness, love. If faithfulness, kindness, goodness, etc. are intrinsic to godliness, it doesn't make sense to me that it would be in the middle of an equally weighted list with them like this.

 

That's like saying, "I like basset hounds, cocker spaniels, shorthair pointers, poodles, dogs, irish setters, and black labs."

 

Do you get how that is strange? It makes me think "godliness" means something else in this verse.

 

Phanta

No I don't think it strange. I don't know why the list must be some equally weighted disjoint check list? We already know that brotherly kindness and goodness are intrinsic to love. It is simply a list of traits a person filled with the Holy Spirit demonstrates. Just as love covers and includes many traits so does Godliness.

 

Godliness is more then what you do. It is who you are internally as I tried to point out with the verses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any default position is one of equal probability, see The Principle of Insufficient Reason. This means that given no knowledge there is a 50/50 chance for the existence of God. If you claim the likelihood of God is less then %50 then you must have evidence to the contrary or at least some reasoning to conclude it so. These are positive claims on your part, and places a burden of evidence on you.

 

How do you know what I know about God is not true?

 

I believe in God and not genies because the evidence for God is much greater then for genies. Describe the evidence you would find acceptable?

God is evil:::God is good

 

Default position of equal probabilities? Sure, why not. It turns out they are exactly equal. With further investigation and considering the evidence, the conclusion that there are no gods means that the probability of each of these is exactly 0.

 

You essentially ask the question: "What evidence would convince you that there was a god?"

 

We would first need to define "god."

 

Then we would need to apply standards consistent with scientific methodology and unversally applicable and verifiable.

 

Hypothetically, if the stars started moving quickly and spelling out messages readable by everyone, and everyone agreed upon the content of the message, and every person was receiving the same message in their own language even though looking at the same stars, I would have to seriously consider that there was something happening that I needed to know about. Even if turned out to be aliens with great powers, I might have to worship them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2Pe 1:5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge;

 

2Pe 1:6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness;

 

2Pe 1:7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love.

 

End...what's "godliness" mean in this list?

 

Phanta

Judging from some of the questions you ask I would like to suggest you read the New Testament. It would give you a better ground from which to converse this subject.

 

A sensible suggestion. However, my mind wanders hopelessly when attempt. The writing style doesn't appeal, doesn't hook me. Short passages, though, I'll look at if they are interesting.

 

Thanks anyway,

Phanta

Godliness is both the fruit of the Spirit and our complete submission to God.

Gal 5:22

(22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

 

Eph 1:4

(4) even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:

 

1Jn 4:8

(8) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

 

Psa 34:18

(18) Jehovah is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart, And saveth such as are of a contrite spirit.

 

Psa 51:17

(17) The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: A broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

 

Thanks for the reply, Clay. Your reply is similar in content to LNCs (over PM), that godliness is kindness, goodness, etc.

 

That may work in the context of other verses, but "godliness" is presented in this list here: goodness, knowledge, self-control, perseverence, godliness, brotherly kindness, love. If faithfulness, kindness, goodness, etc. are intrinsic to godliness, it doesn't make sense to me that it would be in the middle of an equally weighted list with them like this.

 

That's like saying, "I like basset hounds, cocker spaniels, shorthair pointers, poodles, dogs, irish setters, and black labs."

 

Do you get how that is strange? It makes me think "godliness" means something else in this verse.

 

Phanta

No I don't think it strange. I don't know why the list must be some equally weighted disjoint check list? We already know that brotherly kindness and goodness are intrinsic to love. It is simply a list of traits a person filled with the Holy Spirit demonstrates. Just as love covers and includes many traits so does Godliness.

 

It doesn't need to be an equally weighted list. End and Kathlene suggested it is a progressive list, because each was being added to the previous. I then have the same confusion for the same reason.

 

It reads to me not as a descriptive passage, but rather as an instructive passage. I.e., it is not describing Christians, but rather instructing Christians in a certain practice. "make every effort to add to your faith.." A call to actions of growth!

 

I will think on your statement about goodness and brotherly kindness being instrinsic to love. It is a decent point, and I would be curious which "love" is being used here. The Bible uses several different words for love in the original languages, doesn't it?

 

Godliness is more then what you do. It is who you are internally as I tried to point out with the verses.

 

Are you saying the actions become an intrinsic part of your character, become the nature of the doer?

 

Phanta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It reads to me not as a descriptive passage, but rather as an instructive passage. I.e., it is not describing Christians, but rather instructing Christians in a certain practice. "make every effort to add to your faith.." A call to actions of growth!

The Bible does both instruct and describe separately and at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Godliness is both the fruit of the Spirit and our complete submission to God.

Gal 5:22

(22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

 

Eph 1:4

(4) even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love:

 

1Jn 4:8

(8) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

 

Psa 34:18

(18) Jehovah is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart, And saveth such as are of a contrite spirit.

 

Psa 51:17

(17) The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: A broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

 

You can read the beautifully expressed thoughts by Antlerman, Stevo, Frank, Shyone, et. al. and all you can do in response is post snippets from the big book of Jewish faerie tales? You are obviously out of ammo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It reads to me not as a descriptive passage, but rather as an instructive passage. I.e., it is not describing Christians, but rather instructing Christians in a certain practice. "make every effort to add to your faith.." A call to actions of growth!

The Bible does both instruct and describe separately and at the same time.

 

How is it doing both in this passage?

 

Also, why would it seek to do both in this passage, instead of speaking plain and clear, one message at a time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any default position is one of equal probability, see The Principle of Insufficient Reason. This means that given no knowledge there is a 50/50 chance for the existence of God. If you claim the likelihood of God is less then %50 then you must have evidence to the contrary or at least some reasoning to conclude it so. These are positive claims on your part, and places a burden of evidence on you.

 

 

Excuse me! Did you miss or simply ignore the 1/n part of “The principle of insufficient reason”? There are thousands of gods claimed throughout human history. So the chance of the existence of your god according to that rule is less than one tenth of one percent.

 

Stop running your “facts” through the typical Christian bullsh-t filter!

If you phrase it as does God exist then the split is 50/50. If you phrase it as does the supernatural exist then the split is 50/50. If you phrase it as do gods exist then the split is 50/50. If you phrase it as do N gods exist then the split is 1/N per god including 1/N for no gods. So in your case the larger you make N (many many gods for example) the smaller the chance for no gods existing which makes the atheist position even more untenable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you phrase it as does God exist then the split is 50/50. If you phrase it as does the supernatural exist then the split is 50/50. If you phrase it as do gods exist then the split is 50/50. If you phrase it as do N gods exist then the split is 1/N per god including 1/N for no gods. So in your case the larger you make N (many many gods for example) the smaller the chance for no gods existing which makes the atheist position even more untenable.

Wow. So can you apply this to gnomes, trolls, elves, and unicorns as well?

 

Btw, why is "a god" part of the set, but also "no god"? The problem is in your set definition:

 

This is how you define it:

 

gods = { no-god, Yahweh, Jesus, God, Allah, Buddha, Shiva, ... }

 

While no-god is really the empty set, and the gods set is really defined = { Yahweh, jesus, God, Allah, ... }

 

So when n->∞, it's not like the chance of no-god diminishes. However... You're God does. The chances of your God existing does diminish when n->∞.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you phrase it as does God exist then the split is 50/50. If you phrase it as does the supernatural exist then the split is 50/50. If you phrase it as do gods exist then the split is 50/50. If you phrase it as do N gods exist then the split is 1/N per god including 1/N for no gods. So in your case the larger you make N (many many gods for example) the smaller the chance for no gods existing which makes the atheist position even more untenable.

 

Your god is a specific god, the Bible God. By your reasoning, if you claim more than 50% chance that God (Bible God) exists, then the burden of proof lies with you. The same 50/50 rule applies to all other specific gods. So which of thousands of gods is it? The principle in this case is irrelevant, mere static to impress the gullible.

 

The atheist position relevant to this rule is that there is no evidence that God (Bible God) exists. The burden of proof lies with the person positing the existence of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Provide objective evidence that God is unknowable.

 

2. I suspect you don't understand the nature evidence to be honest.

 

3. Can you explain the evidence you demand from a Christian?

 

1. Provide objective evidence that Ganesha is unknowable.

 

You are the one making the positive claim here. You therefore have the burden of proof. If I told you that there were three little green men and that you'd better believe it or else :brutal_01: I'm sure you would have the common sense to make me prove it. And I'm sure that you would not accept, "provide objective evidence that the three little green men are unknowable" as a legitimate demand.

 

2. I do understand the nature of evidence to be honest. And therefore to be honest I can't believe that your particular myth among many is about something real.

 

3. "Furthermore, I tell you with certainty that if two of you agree on earth about anything you request, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven," Let's see it happen.*

 

Edit: What was so special about Thomas? He wanted concrete proof and he got it according to the story. It may be more blessed to believe without proof, but I'll have to settle for the lessor blessing. Nowadays God would just say fuck you to Thomas? No I don't suppose. God wouldn't say anything to Thomas. He would just be acting as if he wasn't there.

 

*I'm sure it would be easy to get a couple of Christians to agree on ending abortion. When you, your buddy and the Father in heaven, get that done, let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you phrase it as does God exist then the split is 50/50. If you phrase it as does the supernatural exist then the split is 50/50. If you phrase it as do gods exist then the split is 50/50. If you phrase it as do N gods exist then the split is 1/N per god including 1/N for no gods. So in your case the larger you make N (many many gods for example) the smaller the chance for no gods existing which makes the atheist position even more untenable.

 

Your god is a specific god, the Bible God. By your reasoning, if you claim more than 50% chance that God (Bible God) exists, then the burden of proof lies with you. The same 50/50 rule applies to all other specific gods. So which of thousands of gods is it? The principle in this case is irrelevant, mere static to impress the gullible.

 

The atheist position relevant to this rule is that there is no evidence that God (Bible God) exists. The burden of proof lies with the person positing the existence of God.

Yes, of course I make a positive claim that God exists. The problem is that those who make the positive claim that God does not exist pretend they have no burden as well. The principal applies in the case where someone makes the claim that non-belief is the default position. It is not. The default position is one of complete agnosticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.