Christians, What Would Make You Leave Your Faith.

[disillusioned]

I think it's becoming fairly clear that OC doesn't really understand his own beliefs.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

^^^You're confusing clear with evident. Obvious is not transparent.

[bornagainathiest]

I think it's becoming fairly clear that OC doesn't really understand his own beliefs.

 

And as Ficino has just shown, he's also having problems recalling how events in another thread played out, just three years ago.

 

Which casts even greater doubt on his ability to recall knowing that he had a deep love for the God of Abraham... as far back as he can remember.

[disillusioned]

^^^You're confusing clear with evident. Obvious is not transparent.

 

Look prof, if you had a modicum of understanding of how to use thesaurus, you'd know that those are all pretty much synonyms.

 

Do I win now?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

^^^You're confusing clear with evident. Obvious is not transparent.

 

Look prof, if you had a modicum of understanding of how to use thesaurus, you'd know that those are all pretty much synonyms.

 

Do I win now?

 

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make; but if you understood the bible at all you'd know that:

 

The sins of some are obvious, reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them.  

1 Timothy 5:24

[duderonomy]

 

 

I hope OrdinaryClay returns. I enjoy reading his posts. He does well defending his faith. 

As a believer, I'm glad to see another Christian post here. 

The posted in this thread is worth taking the time to read. 

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/59185-discussion-with-ordinaryclay-on-eternal-hell-and-the-veracity-of-the-new-testament/?fromsearch=1#.V32JJdIrLq4

 

On page 5 OC quotes Carl Sagan:

 

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed."

 

~ Carl Sagan

 

The few comments about this quote avoided agreeing or disagreeing with Sagan. 

 

Ironhorse, this has come up before. You said you are #2 on the Dawkins scale, and here you seem to be agreeing with Sagan who says one just can't be sure.

 

The Bible says that you can't even come to god unless you believe that he is (Hebrews 11:6). Are you sure you are a Christian, and not just a wishful thinker?

How can you have faith in someone who you think most probably exists? How can you have saving faith in a god that according to you might not even exist?

 

 

 

Yes it has. I go with number 2 on the scale, not because I have any doubts but because I cannot prove God's existence

in a test tube. I can't say, 'I know God exists' and then point to God sitting in the corner for all to see. I think that is just being honest with the scale. 

 

 

Richard Dawkins’ Belief Scale Scoring Rubric

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.

2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.

3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.

4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.

5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.

6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.

7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

 

 

Ironhorse, not to put too fine a point on this, but are you saying then that you only assume god exists and you just don't know for sure?

I'm not trying to hassle you. I just don't get why you'd hold to admitting such a thing. Not being able to "prove" your belief to anyone but yourself shouldn't define your belief, should it?

[quinntar]

nothing

Is that nothing with or without evidence.

[sdelsolray]

 

nothing

Is that nothing with or without evidence.

 

 

Ironhorse doesn't do evidence.  That is outside of his comfort zone.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

I hope OrdinaryClay returns. I enjoy reading his posts. He does well defending his faith. 

As a believer, I'm glad to see another Christian post here. 

The posted in this thread is worth taking the time to read. 

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/59185-discussion-with-ordinaryclay-on-eternal-hell-and-the-veracity-of-the-new-testament/?fromsearch=1#.V32JJdIrLq4

 

On page 5 OC quotes Carl Sagan:

 

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed."

 

~ Carl Sagan

 

The few comments about this quote avoided agreeing or disagreeing with Sagan. 

 

Ironhorse, this has come up before. You said you are #2 on the Dawkins scale, and here you seem to be agreeing with Sagan who says one just can't be sure.

 

The Bible says that you can't even come to god unless you believe that he is (Hebrews 11:6). Are you sure you are a Christian, and not just a wishful thinker?

How can you have faith in someone who you think most probably exists? How can you have saving faith in a god that according to you might not even exist?

 

 

 

Yes it has. I go with number 2 on the scale, not because I have any doubts but because I cannot prove God's existence

in a test tube. I can't say, 'I know God exists' and then point to God sitting in the corner for all to see. I think that is just being honest with the scale. 

 

 

Richard Dawkins’ Belief Scale Scoring Rubric

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.

2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.

3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.

4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.

5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.

6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.

7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

 

 

Ironhorse, not to put too fine a point on this, but are you saying then that you only assume god exists and you just don't know for sure?

I'm not trying to hassle you. I just don't get why you'd hold to admitting such a thing. Not being able to "prove" your belief to anyone but yourself shouldn't define your belief, should it?

 

 

 

IH claimed in the past to be a gnostic theist (#1 on Dawkin's list).  Since that was pointed out to him, he backpedaled to #2 on the list.  It's safer for him.

[quinntar]

 

 

nothing

Is that nothing with or without evidence.

Ironhorse doesn't do evidence. That is outside of his comfort zone.

I understand that feeling, but I doubt we'd survive if we didn't use evidence in someway.

 

Come on IronHorse

 

You can do it, I believe in you.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

How about you, Ironhorse?

[ironhorse]

 

 

 

 

I hope OrdinaryClay returns. I enjoy reading his posts. He does well defending his faith. 

As a believer, I'm glad to see another Christian post here. 

The posted in this thread is worth taking the time to read. 

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/59185-discussion-with-ordinaryclay-on-eternal-hell-and-the-veracity-of-the-new-testament/?fromsearch=1#.V32JJdIrLq4

 

On page 5 OC quotes Carl Sagan:

 

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed."

 

~ Carl Sagan

 

The few comments about this quote avoided agreeing or disagreeing with Sagan. 

 

Ironhorse, this has come up before. You said you are #2 on the Dawkins scale, and here you seem to be agreeing with Sagan who says one just can't be sure.

 

The Bible says that you can't even come to god unless you believe that he is (Hebrews 11:6). Are you sure you are a Christian, and not just a wishful thinker?

How can you have faith in someone who you think most probably exists? How can you have saving faith in a god that according to you might not even exist?

 

 

 

Yes it has. I go with number 2 on the scale, not because I have any doubts but because I cannot prove God's existence

in a test tube. I can't say, 'I know God exists' and then point to God sitting in the corner for all to see. I think that is just being honest with the scale. 

 

 

Richard Dawkins’ Belief Scale Scoring Rubric

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.

2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.

3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.

4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.

5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.

6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.

7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

 

 

Ironhorse, not to put too fine a point on this, but are you saying then that you only assume god exists and you just don't know for sure?

I'm not trying to hassle you. I just don't get why you'd hold to admitting such a thing. Not being able to "prove" your belief to anyone but yourself shouldn't define your belief, should it?

 

 

 

IH claimed in the past to be a gnostic theist (#1 on Dawkin's list).  Since that was pointed out to him, he backpedaled to #2 on the list.  It's safer for him.

 

 

 

I have never claimed to be a gnostic.

I am not a gnostic. I have never claimed to be #1 on the scale. To be number one I would be claiming to KNOW in a concrete provable way.

If I were an atheist: I cannot claim to KNOW there is no God for the same reason. I would be number 6 on the scale.

I see signs of evidence of God and gain more understanding of God in the scriptures but by definition faith is subjected. It is by faith I believe. I’m 99.9% sure God is real. I don’t say 100% because of the reason I just stated.

[L.B.]

IronHorse said:

 

"These people are misrepresenting Christianity".

 

My question is this: WHICH people are misrepresenting Christianity, and how can you prove that definitively?

 

For instance:

 

Are Roman Catholics the only Christians, a kind of Christian or not Christian at all?

 

Are Protestants the only Christians, a kind of Christian or not Christian at all?

 

Your version of the story is obviously not the only one, so upon what evidence do you claim that your version is the true one?

 

If your version is 100% true, then are you admitting that everyone who does not attend your kind of church and hold to your version of the story is doomed to hell?

 

If your version is not 100% true, what parts of it are wrong, yet not wrong enough to condemn YOU to hell?

 

If other people's versions are not 100% true, same as the last question.

 

Finally, if the differences between your version and the church down the street are NOT grounds for a right/wrong dichotomy, why are you all not uniting?

 

If your differences ARE grounds for a right/wrong, absolute separation between you, how can you prove your group is correct or the other group is not?

 

You cannot rationally hold that something is true in an absolute, cosmic sense and yet still allow for people who believe otherwise to be seen as fellow "believers".

 

If, however, ALL of these things are just what you "choose to believe", then there is de facto NO AUTHORITY that can bind ANY belief on ANY person in your religion - thus, your god is as much of a mythical personal belief as is the tooth fairy.