Given your options

[wellnamed]

6 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

So why do it? Well it wasn't a choice.

 

This is nitpicky but I think it's OK to call it a choice. Although I know what you mean, i.e. I think you mean that it's a choice which is compelled by the strength of the evidence (or lack thereof). It's not an arbitrary choice or a simple matter of subjective preference. It's a decision which we believe to be justified. We choose to disaffiliate from various religious groups, or to cease certain religious practices, or to disavow certain beliefs for good reasons.

 

But I also think some people choose to continue their affiliations, practices and beliefs in many cases long after they have acceded to the intellectual arguments against them. I say that because I think you could count me as such a case. But we find ways to make that work, i.e. by shifting to more symbolic interpretations or more mystical ones. Basically there's enough room to maneuver that it is possible to find ways to continue in religious belief or practice even under those conditions. There really is a choice involved in going beyond the intellectual acknowledgement to a change in one's way of life or worldview.

 

So I think it's OK to call disaffiliation a choice, or atheism a choice, in that sense. It's just not an arbitrary one. I don't see a reason to implicitly accept the premise that the only good choice could be faith.

 

It's also interesting to me that it might make clear that there are multiple facets to it. There's the purely intellectual questions about things like the existence or characteristics of a deity, but there's also the choice to reject communities of believers for various reasons. I always thought for example that one of the best arguments against Christianity was the line in the Gospel of John that people will know Jesus' disciples because of their love for one another. I found that hard to reconcile with my actual experiences of Christians even as a Christian, and it's an example of a reason to be skeptical of the religion that has nothing to do with arguments about the existence of God.

 

 

[ag_NO_stic]

3 minutes ago, Christforums said:

Are you offended?

 

First of all, you're not the only one responding to me. I am only one man which is being addressed by a group of people.

 

In the other thread I invited staff from here or the board's reps. Instead a few people pointed me to this thread.

 

I think I know the truth? Well, lemme give you my first impressions based on our engagement. You obviously think you understand me, who or what I believe. I asked a question in the OP, it has been clarified but not really answered. Midniterider answered the actual question instead of judging the question at hand or fitting into preconceived constructs as others have demonstrated. Are you suggesting that your case is different than Midniterider's and is special? Or would you agree with the answer given and say it has application in your life?

 

Actively offended? Not really, I don't care that much. But I'll call you on it for sure, I have a low tolerance for bullshit since leaving my faith. It's annoying. I post once to answer your question and another asking you to clarify your question so I can better answer it, since it apparently wasn't genuinely asked enough. Then you ignore both of my responses to comment that only ONE  post appears to be genuine. No, it's the only one that has given you a little evangelical foothold. Your question makes NO sense and I'm trying to figure out what you're actually asking, so I can "answer the actual question." I totally understand having lots of things to respond to, it's how a forum works. But I was like, "hey man, what are you asking? it's not clear" and you literally ignored that because you got a post that allows you to worm your way in with your theology. 

 

11 minutes ago, Christforums said:

No maybe, at least in my mind. There's no evidence to the contrary. You cannot prove that you'd truly accept God because true acceptance is defined Biblically as a response to God which entails, confession, repentance, and faith. None of which you're capable of.

 

What are you even saying "No" to? What part of, "I haven't rejected god, I'll talk to him if he shows up" allows for a "No." That literally doesn't involve you in any way. Furthermore, you are not the god you claim to worship. So how about you let god show up on here and speak for himself. I recognize that you don't understand, but you don't know me either. You have no idea how long I was a fervent believer nor do you have any authority whatsoever to claim that I never was. I was "capable" of repentance and confession for a long time and you have no idea how deeply hurtful it is to people when you try to speak about things of which you don't have any understanding. 

 

16 minutes ago, Christforums said:

Obviously, my question attempts to members about "why" that is,

 

No. It's NOT obvious what you're asking, at all. Please, again I ask, clarify what you want us to answer.

 

18 minutes ago, Christforums said:

I think I know the truth? Well, lemme give you my first impressions based on our engagement. You obviously think you understand me, who or what I believe. I asked a question in the OP, it has been clarified but not really answered. Midniterider answered the actual question instead of judging the question at hand or fitting into preconceived constructs as others have demonstrated. Are you suggesting that your case is different than Midniterider's and is special? Or would you agree with the answer given and say it has application in your life?

 

.....but you yourself are a human is you're rejecting or only accepting what you believe god is not or is. I touched upon this by an apparent logical fallacy as another has tried to point out a fallacy. Are you not the sole authority in your life? Subject to no other God or god other than your "self"? This is what I consider hidden idolatry. It comes natural to man and is why I am addressing the nature of man in my OP question. 

 

No, unfortunately, I am not the sole authority in my life. I have many authorities. I have to conform my behavior to society's laws/the government, my boss, as a Christian, I would have said my husband, etc." But if you're asking if I am going to waste my tears, prayers, and heartache on a being that "only wants a relationship" but did nothing. Maybe, after awhile, I started to realize it was because life looks, acts, seems, and smells like there isn't a god at all. There are only so many excuses I can make before I need a little proof.

[florduh]

I shall clarify for the last time here.

 

It is one thing to reject a god that exists because you don't like him, you want to sin or whatever reason, and it's entirely another to reject the unfounded assertion that a god exists because nobody has presented evidence.

 

Two different things, get it?

 

The Bible cannot be used as an authority here unless you can also be the first in history to demonstrate that the book, in its current or even a previous form, is factual and are the words of a supreme being, creator or god of some description.

 

If belief in the Bible and its God are axiomatic and non negotiable for one participant, any meaningful conversation is rendered null. There can't even be agreement on terminology and meaning.

[midniterider]

49 minutes ago, Christforums said:

 

Exactly, your point is a major ingredient to my question.

 

Why do you think you "prefer" or have the desire to run the show your way and that you do not desire God?

 

This is the heart of my question and one that touches upon the nature of man.

 

Thank you midniterider, what appears as the first genuine answer pegged the question.

 

I was raised by an agnostic (ex-christian) and an atheist to be self-reliant. It might be a genetic defect. Or maybe my preference for self-governing was ordained by God. 

[Christforums]

10 minutes ago, wellnamed said:

I always thought for example that one of the best arguments against Christianity was the line in the Gospel of John that people will know Jesus' disciples because of their love for one another. I found that hard to reconcile with my actual experiences of Christians even as a Christian, and it's an example of a reason to be skeptical of the religion that has nothing to do with arguments about the existence of God.

 

Interesting point. Are you rejecting Christianity because the people you encountered are no different than those outside the church? Second question, are you holding the people you encountered up to a higher standard? And if, whose standard?

 

3 minutes ago, midniterider said:

I was raised by an agnostic (ex-christian) and an atheist to be self-reliant. It might be a genetic defect. Or maybe my preference for self-governing was ordained by God. 

 

I can point you to where self-governing is actually stated. It is the only place where such statement exists as to suggest man has an autonomous or libertarian will. I refer you to Genesis 3:5.

 

Anyhoot, I thank you for your answer.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 minutes ago, Christforums said:

There's no evidence to the contrary that you're capable of decision other than rejecting God. 

This is a mere assertion, which you have not proven.  You broach the topic as far back as the OP; but you have yet to offer evidence that rejection is the only option.

 

14 minutes ago, Christforums said:

You cannot prove that you'd truly accept God because true acceptance is defined Biblically as a lifelong response to God which entails, confession, repentance, and faith. None of which you're capable of

This is a variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy.  Rather instead of saying "you weren't a Scotsman, this purports to say, "you could never be a Scotsman."

 

19 minutes ago, Christforums said:

Are you not the sole authority in your life? Subject to no other God or god other than your "self"? This is what I consider hidden idolatry. Though you suggest that you reject gods self idolatry is worship of a god.

This is a false equivalence.  Using one's own judgement or perception as the final authority for one's own life is not the same as worshipping oneself.  

 

33 minutes ago, Christforums said:

It comes natural to man and is why I am addressing the nature of man in my OP question. 

This is where the evangelizing will start.  Man's nature is evil, therefore "god."  And this gives the lie to the claim that christforums is not here to evangelize.

[LogicalFallacy]

8 minutes ago, Christforums said:

 

Thank you first for your responses and engagement.

YW

 

Quote

Assumptions?

 

Assumption "a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof."

 

Examples:

 

"Why is your only option to reject God?

 

Assumes a person has rejected God. Possibly mis-phrased, but a poorly formed question that makes little sense in the context.

 

"And, why has the option been the basis or foundation of your position against God? "

 

Assumes that that the first question is true, and assumes that its the basis for a 'position against god'. (Not sure what that means btw. I have as much position against God as I do against Zeus or the FSM. I do however take positions against religion as religion is a human phenomenon that can be very harmful, hence opposition.)

 

Quote

Did you lose faith or belief or did God not fit into your human perception of who God should be? In other words did you reject God because you could not mold him in the hands of your mental projection? God is the standard bearer and not vice versa. Sounds to me like you might of wanted to appeal to the majority or fit in rather than genuinely responding to God? I am not criticizing you, only asking for consideration.

 

Put it this way, upon reading much of the OT, IF that God did exist, and I knew he existed I still wouldn't worship him. That God is an immoral monster, not a supreme being. However at that point we are not arguing over existence, merely whether one should worship such a god. Why worship a being that appears to have as much wisdom and understanding of reality as humans do?

 

Did I lose belief or did I simply stop believing? Hmm irrelevant distinction. I am simply not convinced any gods exist. You are claiming this as yet undefined entity exists and I should pay attention to it. I'm saying I see no evidence or reason to accept the that that said entity exists.

 

 

Quote

Tis' the nature of man to support their presuppositions.

 

Oh I know - that's about every Christian ever.

 

Quote

And quite contrary to what you're suggesting the bible speaks awfully about the heart of man. In essence the heart of man is an idol factory.

 

Paul in the NT makes it clear that he thinks god has revealed himself to the heart of every man. The OT also talks about the law of god being written on peoples hearts. This implies that everyone knows Gods exists, and is pure B/S. That is my point. I'm aware of the various verses speaking to the nature of humanity.

 

Quote

All I'm asking for here are honest answers which may be derived from a source of knowledge or introspection.

 

I was honest with myself. Which is why I know longer believe, and why when my parents say come back to church, I reply, what's the point in make believing?

[TABA]

2 hours ago, Christforums said:

 

 Why is your only option to reject God? And, why has the option been the basis or foundation of your position against God?

 

 

Hi William,

Rejecting God was not my only option.  When I got to the point where I concluded that the God of the Bible - the only god I had ever believed in - most likely did not exist, I could have decided to continue in faith anyway.  I have seen many Christians acknowledge the difficulties with the Christian concept of God: difficulties with scripture, with the flourishing of evil, etc, and still continue in their faith, simply because they wanted to, as best I can tell. Maybe they didn't want to lose the community of believers, or the approval of family and friends, or maybe they just found atheism too bleak a prospect to accept.  I did not feel a compelling reason to hold onto the faith once reason told me there was no such god.  So here I am.

 

2 hours ago, Christforums said:

 

And, why has the option been the basis or foundation of your position against God?
 

 

I'm afraid I don't really understand this question.  Could you restate it in light of my answer to your first question?

[disillusioned]

@Christforums

 

I answered your question,  now let me put one to you.

 

It seems to me that either you think you can justify your belief in Christianity with an argument,  or you take it on faith. Which is it?

 

If it's option one,  then make your argument, and I'll either show how it fails,  or I'll reconvert.

 

If it's option two,  that's nice,  but I don't think anyone here will find anything you have to say persuasive. 

 

So which is it?

 

(Aside: there is no false dichotomy here.  If it's an argument that involves or rests on faith claims, then it boils down to merely taking it on faith.)

 

(Anticipated objection: I understand that all arguments rest on certain assumptions.  These are different from faith claims in that they are "normal", and required by basically everyone.)

[wellnamed]

2 minutes ago, Christforums said:

Interesting point. Are you rejecting Christianity because the people you encountered are no different than those outside the church?

 

It's not the only consideration, but it's one that I find reasonably important. For example I would argue that there are theological constructions and views about a properly Christian way of life which would be easier to sustain if there was actually good evidence for something like the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

 

To be clear, there are also a great many theological and historical claims which I think are unsustainable regardless of the above. How one evaluates the likelihood of a virgin birth, a resurrection from the dead, or a great flood doesn't depend much on how Christians act, either now or historically. But if one is motivated by an ideal of union with a God of love and personal transformation in the Spirit of God then the reality of how Christians live is more directly relevant.

[midniterider]

45 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

 

Are you serious? You can ask anyone here, I don't get annoyed easily.

 

You asked for a representative to go debate on your site, I agreed to do it, you said nevermind. You asked a question on this thread, I answered genuinely, you have literally not responded to anything else I've asked or said to you. Then you go past my reply to call another post the only one that looks genuine to you? 

 

We get it. You think you know the truth. I know, because I used to think that too. I understand.  You'll likely go on some tangent about how this life isn't about what we want, it's about what god wants, and spending eternity with him.  Or maybe you'll go the "What you want is of the flesh, what you "prefer" is sinful, so of course you will pick it." Not doing it for you? Maybe, "Your perspective is limited, why would you choose to lean on your own understanding over the understanding of an all-powerful, loving, infinite creator?"

 

Easy. If god wants me to worship him, he needs to show up. I'm willing. I don't "reject god," I reject what humans tell me god is. Just like you're trying to do. Tell me who he is, what he wants, etc. He can tell me himself and maybe I'll do it.

 

William likes me better. Sticks my tongue out at you.

 

Awesome point : What "humans telling you God is" is the entirety of Christianity. In a nutshell. Seriously, if it isnt the bible telling you what God is, it's all those Christians jabbering at each other.

[Christforums]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This is a mere assertion, which you have not proven.  You broach the topic as far back as the OP; but you have yet to offer evidence that rejection is the only option.

 

This is a variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy.  Rather instead of saying "you weren't a Scotsman, this purports to say, "you could never be a Scotsman."

 

This is a false equivalence.  Using one's own judgement or perception as the final authority for one's own life is not the same as worshipping oneself.  

 

This is where the evangelizing will start.  Man's nature is evil, therefore "god."  And this gives the lie to the claim that christforums is not here to evangelize.

 

I simply point to you as evidence in your own life. For example, I am not going to assume that because someone else has genuine faith or belief that I am capable of such thing. If the fruit of faith doesn't exist in my life, how may I prove otherwise other than by life long example? Nothing more than a hypothesis.

 

Actually I am pointing to a true Scotsman and saying these are the characteristics of a true Scotsman.

 

Worshiping? We'd have to define worship. If I may vaguely suggest that worship is to an object which is pleasing to said object as a basis. If the object is self, do I do what is desirable and pleasing to my "self"? Is it in the nature of man to live for one greater than their "self".

 

I'm curious to how you define evangelizing? I haven't encountered anything but evangelizing for the theme of this board.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 minutes ago, Christforums said:

Are you rejecting Christianity because the people you encountered are no different than those outside the church? Second question, are you holding the people you encountered up to a higher standard? And if, whose standard?

Now we get to hear about how we "reject" christianity because we're "angry at the church."

 

Besides the annoying repetition of the phrase "lemme", I'm not seeing much difference between this guy and any other christ apologizer we've had here.

[NeverHealed52Years]

  And here we go again ..... around and around and around we go...god never speaks, never shows up in any tangible way...ever...but we are supposed to believe anyway ...it is all our fault,.. never the no show god...blame the victim...we try harder...numb out more thoughts and feelings ...more blind faith, more self blaming  and still no show, no speak, no tangible anything from god ,,,,so we repent and change and change and change and improve and improve....and still nothing ...and it is still us thinking, believing, doing something incorrectly..........we didn't believe the right thing, about the right god, at exactly the right time, in exactly the right way, on the 5th Tuesday, of the sixth month, during the correct leap year, on the correct solstice, while only wearing the exact required shade of blue, when it is a waning (not waxing) crescent moon ..what exactly is that method, formula, belief, perception, understanding, teaching and feeling to please god we didn't get right so he will actually be real?     

 

wheeeeeee, around and around and around we go!!!!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

24 minutes ago, ag_NO_stic said:

only ONE  post appears to be genuine. No, it's the only one that has given you a little evangelical foothold.

Quoted for Truth

[Christforums]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Now we get to hear about how we "reject" christianity because we're "angry at the church."

 

Besides the annoying repetition of the phrase "lemme", I'm not seeing much difference between this guy and any other christ apologizer we've had here.

 

No problem.

 

I withdraw from the thread and the board.

 

I can definitely relate to communities of like mindedness.

 

Enjoy,

William

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Christforums said:

 

Actually I am pointing to a true Scotsman and saying these are the characteristics of a true Scotsman

This is a lie.  You pointed to a specific member of this forum and said, "you are not capable."

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 minutes ago, Christforums said:

 

No problem.

 

I withdraw from the thread and the board.

 

I can definitely relate to communities of like mindedness.

 

Enjoy,

William

Run back to Scotland, you True Scotsman, you.

[LogicalFallacy]

4 minutes ago, Christforums said:

 

No problem.

 

I withdraw from the thread and the board.

 

I can definitely relate to communities of like mindedness.

 

Enjoy,

William

 

Holy shit folks - that was faster that Miriam!

 

I did warn you that typical Christian behaviour wasn't going to be well received.

 

@TheRedneckProfessor It's your fault! You did the same to Miriam! You chased them away.  

[disillusioned]

[midniterider]

27 minutes ago, NeverHealed52Years said:

  And here we go again ..... around and around and around we go...god never speaks, never shows up in any tangible way...ever...but we are supposed to believe anyway ...it is all our fault never the no show god...blame the victim...we try harder...numb out more thoughts and feelings ...more blind faith, more self blaming  and still no show, no speak, no tangible anything from god ,,,,so we repent and change and change and change and improve and improve....and still nothing ...and it is still us thinking, believing, doing something incorrectly....we didn't believe the right thing at exactly the right time in exactly the right way on the 5th Tuesday, of the sixth month, during the leap year on the correct solstice, while only wearing the exact required shade of blue, when it is a waning (not waxing) crescent moon ..what exactly is that method, formula, belief, perception, understanding, teaching and feeling to please god we didn't get right so he will actually be real? wheeeeeee, around and around and around we we go!!!!

 

Fifty two years of service to Christ....I bet that's more than the OP's lifetime of service.

[midniterider]

27 minutes ago, Christforums said:

 

No problem.

 

I withdraw from the thread and the board.

 

I can definitely relate to communities of like mindedness.

 

Enjoy,

William

 

Have a good one.

[TABA]

15 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

@TheRedneckProfessor It's your fault! You did the same to Miriam! You chased them away.  

 

 

If the goal here is to run Christians off as quickly as possible, then Congratulations.  

But I think we would be better served by holding off on the flame thrower and dialing down the hostility.  Of course we’re going to be impatient with Christian arguments. I know it’s going to be frustrating. But we need to make our best arguments against Christianity, for the benefit of the silent audience of lurkers.  Dog knows we have plenty of good arguments to make.  I think that’s why the Lions Den exists. If we get too frustrated by our Christian counterpart then we can disengage and let others step up. 

 

Just my two cents worth...

[midniterider]

22 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Holy shit folks - that was faster that Miriam!

 

I did warn you that typical Christian behaviour wasn't going to be well received.

 

@TheRedneckProfessor It's your fault! You did the same to Miriam! You chased them away.  

 

Shit, I almost had him in my pagan grip!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Holy shit folks - that was faster that Miriam!

 

I did warn you that typical Christian behaviour wasn't going to be well received.

 

@TheRedneckProfessor It's your fault! You did the same to Miriam! You chased them away.  

I don't like Scotsmen anyway... cantankerous lot, they are.

 

People from Scotland, though, they're some of the best on earth.