Should atheists believe in the God of christianity if...

[JoeP222w]

No. Your authority is the word of men. The men who wrote the Bible.

Men inspired by the Holy Spirit, so the Bible is ultimately the word of God. You choose to reject it, but your rejection does not mean it is not valid, just as my acceptance of the Bible does not make it the word of God either. The truth of scripture is not dependent on human belief.

Though I'm sure you don't think the same of the Koran, or the Sutras, or the Bhagavad Gita, or the Book of Mormon, or L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics.

Correct, because none of those are the word of God, since those you mention deny the truth of Jesus Christ. And some of them are polytheistic.

I suspect we can both agree these are all products of the human imagination. To me, the same applies to the Bible.

The Koran, Sutra, etc, yes, those are the product of the idol factory of the human heart. You may think that same principle applies to the Bible, but truth is not relative, nor are you the ultimate authority of truth, so you would be wrong.

But have you ever really studied the Bible objectively?

Yes, and I continue to. The Bible has never failed examination.

Meaning as an academic would study ancient scriptures like Egyptian hieroglyphs, and Sumerian cuneiforms? (Which predate the oldest Hebrew texts by 1000-2000 years.)

Simply because a text predates the Bible, that does not mean it is more authentic or is the word of God.

But it's mixed in with a lot of fable, folklore, fallacy, and fabrication.

On that you would be greatly mistaken. You may reject it as truth, but your rejection does not make it so.

Much of it should be taken metaphorically.

Some of the Bible is metaphor, but simply using metaphor does not automatically disqualify it as the word of God.

Same goes for the gospel accounts in the NT, too. Here's a book written by Rev. John Spong, an Episcopal bishop. You probably won't agree with him, but it's interesting reading and may expand your horizons.

No, I don't agree with him, because he is an extreme liberal who rejects that God can provide us his inerrant word. He rejects the word of God because he loves his sin.

 

[JoeP222w]

Seriously? You can’t really believe that nonsense?

The word of God is folly to those who are perishing but for those of us who are being saved, it is the word of God.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Why would we assume that?



What if Paris could fit in my pocket? Well, then Paris could fit in my pocket.
Or what if a table was really a chair? Well, then we'ld use the word "table" for chair.

You're making entirely meaningless statements here.

Yes, you are correct, if we assume that it is the case that X is true, then X is true in that hypothetical. What's the point of such an exercise?




That's not actually a "what if". That's in fact how it is.
There is no god model that can be independently verified.

And when there is no such model, then there is no reason whatsoever to believe it.

The point.



What if there is an undetectable dragon about to eat you?

My point is if you are wrong, which assuming you are humble enough to admit you could be wrong then my statements are relevant. They are relevant because you believe that you need to be able to independently verify something that by design can't be verified because it would remove the faith necessary for a person to be saved. So thats why it's relevant. Of course you missed that point because your view is slanted into only seeing things lineup to your world view which is living in an inconsistent way. Because atheists say all the time i'll only believe it if its scientifically proven yet they believe things all the time that aren't, so it's not like they can't or don't do this. It's just God inparticular they don't want to believe in so they put God to a test in which if you understand christianity you would understand why such proof would never be possible. To remove the freedom to believe freely is to remove the whole point of our existence which is to make a free choice to believe in God or not.

I believe that God has created the world in which there is enough evidence for people willing to freely choose him to believe and low enough amount of evidence where people can choose not to believe. The world seems perfectly designed to allow this. It's very hard for me to go through life and experiencing the improbability of something so wonderful even existing at all and to attribute that to nothingness or well we just haven't figure it out yet but no its not God.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Atheists come on here all the time claiming to want to have an honest open civil discussion, yet they keep making the nonsensical comparison of God to a fairy. How is anyone supposed to have a conversation with someone spewing something as ignorant as that? There is no conversation to be had with someone who would even say such a thing.

 

[Strathos]

Atheists come on here all the time claiming to want to have an honest open civil discussion, yet they keep making the nonsensical comparison of God to a fairy. How is anyone supposed to have a conversation with someone spewing something as ignorant as that? There is no conversation to be had with someone who would even say such a thing.

From their perspective they genuinely cannot see the difference.

 

[KCfromNC]

So your ultimate authority is your experience.

About one's own beliefs? Yes, kinda by definition.

Do you see a problem when someone else's experience completely contradicts your own?

How can anyone experience what others believe?

 

[JoeP222w]

About one's own beliefs? Yes, kinda by definition.

Then you make yourself god, and that is idolatry.

How can anyone experience what others believe?

Many people believe you should stop at red traffic lights, you experience the effects of this belief everyday if you drive.

 

[KCfromNC]

Atheists come on here all the time claiming to want to have an honest open civil discussion, yet they keep making the nonsensical comparison of God to a fairy. How is anyone supposed to have a conversation with someone spewing something as ignorant as that? There is no conversation to be had with someone who would even say such a thing.

This would be a lot more convincing if you had a concrete reason to convince others that one is real and the other isn't. But instead, we get rhetoric and attempts to demonize people making the comparison.

 

[KCfromNC]

Then you make yourself god, and that is idolatry.

I have no idea why you'd think this. Or more importantly, why anyone else would believe you.

Many people believe you should stop at red traffic lights, you experience the effects of this belief everyday if you drive.

OK, and many people don't believe in gods. You experience the effect of this lack of belief every time they don't pray, go to church, and so on. Your point?

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

This would be a lot more convincing if you had a concrete reason to convince others that one is real and the other isn't.

It's self evident why a fairy and God should not be compared at all. If I have to even attempt to convince you these two aren't comparable then it would be a waste of time to have a discussion with you.

 

[KCfromNC]

My point is if you are wrong, which assuming you are humble enough to admit you could be wrong then my statements are relevant.

More like might be relevant, assuming you are correct. If you're not, then they aren't. Now what?

They are relevant because you believe that you need to be able to independently verify something that by design can't be verified because it would remove the faith necessary for a person to be saved.

That's awfully convenient. And another good reason to think there's not much supporting this particular belief.

Of course you missed that point because your view is slanted into only seeing things lineup to your world view which is living in an inconsistent way. Because atheists say all the time i'll only believe it if its scientifically proven yet they believe things all the time that aren't, so it's not like they can't or don't do this. It's just God inparticular they don't want to believe

Maybe you should lay out what you think non-believers are taking on faith while rejecting god(s). Then we can see if there really is a difference or not.

To remove the freedom to believe freely is to remove the whole point of our existence which is to make a free choice to believe in God or not.

And if you choose wrong you'll be tortured forever, but don't bother asking for any reason to understand what the correct choice is - that's the whole point of existence or something.

I believe that God has created the world in which there is enough evidence for people willing to freely choose him to believe and low enough amount of evidence where people can choose not to believe. The world seems perfectly designed to allow this. It's very hard for me to go through life and experiencing the improbability of something so wonderful even existing at all and to attribute that to nothingness or well we just haven't figure it out yet but no its not God.

None of this is a convincing reason for anyone else to believe what you do on the subject.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's self evident why a fairy and God should not be compared at all. If I have to even attempt to convince you these two aren't comparable then it would be a waste of time to have a discussion with you.

Yeah, I didn't expect to get an actual explanation of the obvious, "self evident" differences.

 

[jayem]

The Bible has never failed examination.

That depends on how thoroughly it’s examined.

Simply because a text predates the Bible, that does not mean it is more authentic or is the word of God.

But why wouldn't God's real word be the very first transmitted to man and written down? Does it make sense that God would allow false scriptures to circulate for a thousand years before the genuine article is recorded?

You may reject it as truth, but your rejection does not make it so.

And as you said, neither does your belief make it so.

No, I don't agree with him, because he is an extreme liberal who rejects that God can provide us his inerrant word. He rejects the word of God because he loves his sin.

Do you only read books with which you agree? If so, you never learn anything new. There's nothing to fear. Is your faith not strong enough to be confronted by alternative opinions?

 

[JoeP222w]

I have no idea why you'd think this.

I understand because you don't know the Bible.

Or more importantly, why anyone else would believe you.

Apart from the grace of God, no one believes the Bible as the word of God.

Your point?

Experience does not define truth.

 

[JoeP222w]

That depends on how thoroughly it’s examined.

Examined thoroughly and honestly, the Bible has never failed. It is not dependent on the reader.

But why wouldn't God's real word be the very first transmitted to man and written down? Does it make sense that God would allow false scriptures to circulate for a thousand years before the genuine article is recorded?

God's word is not required to meet your standards of truth. You are the created, not the Creator.

And as you said, neither does your belief make it so.

Ok, you are simply reiterating my point.

Do you only read books with which you agree? If so, you never learn anything new. There's nothing to fear. Is your faith not strong enough to be confronted by alternative opinions?

No, of course not. But I know enough about John Shelby Spong to know he is a liberal who rejects the word of God and denies that God can provide revelation to man, so his credibility is very lacking.

My faith being strong or not strong has nothing to do with the invalid approach by Spong.

 

[jayem]

I believe that God has created the world in which there is enough evidence for people willing to freely choose him to believe and low enough amount of evidence where people can choose not to believe. The world seems perfectly designed to allow this. It's very hard for me to go through life and experiencing the improbability of something so wonderful even existing at all and to attribute that to nothingness or well we just haven't figure it out yet but no its not God.

I won't belittle anyone for their faith. As my avatar notes, I'm a naturalist. My view of the world is what you see, is what you get. The universe is wonderful enough as a purely natural phenomenon. There's no need to invoke anything supernatural. And I can't make myself sincerely believe in anything supernatural. If there really is a god, who is as the Judeo-Christian tradition claims, then he would know that I'm not being honest if I said I believed. So what good would that do me? How would it please God if I claimed to believe, but I really had overwhelming doubts?
.

 

[Ken-1122]

As I wrote, because God is truth. It is not my idea, it is what He has revealed to us through His creation and through His inerrant word of the Bible.

But if you are unable to recognize truth on your own, how do you know what he has revealed to you isn't a lie that he has tricked you into believing is the truth? If you have no means of establishing the truth on your own, you have no way of really knowing God is truth; other than blind faith.

 

[JoeP222w]

But if you are unable to recognize truth on your own,

This is a false premise. The only knowledge we have is from God. And truth is not defined by our own self, since we did not self-create.

how do you know what he has revealed to you isn't a lie that he has tricked you into believing is the truth?

Then even with the false premise, you are claiming you can't know truth at all.

If you have no means of establishing the truth on your own,

This is the false premise repeated again. We don't establish truth. God does.

you have no way of really knowing God is truth

Since this is based on a false premise, this statement is also false.

other than blind faith.

God never commands blind faith (i.e. without knowledge of Him). God has revealed Himself to mankind and He can be known, so it is not blind faith by any means.

 

[holo]

If something is the absolute truth, it is not vicious circular reasoning to refer to itself. The Bible is not truth merely because it says so, but because it is God breathed scripture.

The question is, why do you believe that?

No, I don't see why, unless you require me to meet your standards that are based in you and not in the truth of God.

One of my "standards" for discussion is to say "I believe this is true, and I believe it because of reasons A B and C." Of course you may be 100% convinced that you're right about something, but the moment you go "nope, I know this because it is the truth", and "you agree with me, you just won't admit/realize it", then no, there's no discussion. It's more akin to teaching, except that the listener won't take you seriously.

And as you claim to be agnostic, where the traditional position is that you don't know that God exists, means that you have no foundation in truth.

I don't know the truth about God, that's my "foundation." I'm simply being honest about it.

I never claimed to know all truth, never claimed to be omniscient. But we can know what God has revealed to us in His inerrant word of the Bible as truth.

How? Why?

False statement. The truth of God can be shown by reasoning and logic and arguments, but it is not to meet your standards, as you are not the Judge. No human has the right to hold God on trial. And yes, by God's grace, I do know He is truth.

But the thing is, you're wrong. It's Allah who is the one true God. It says so right in the Koran, you just don't want to believe it...

Again, I do not have to prove God since you already know He exists

No, I don't. It's pretty preposterous of you to claim that you know what I believe better than I do myself.

so I don't play that game of providing evidence to the Atheist, Unbeliever or Agnostic.

Sure, but I'm not asking you to provide proof for God, but to tell me why you believe the things you do.

The proof of God is for those who have already humbled themselves before Him and do not demand that their Creator bow down before them the Creature.

Another assumption, and a pretty condescending one, that I "demand the creator bow down before me." It's actually extremely disrespectful. I know you already think you know my mind, but if you'd bothered to ask me what I mean instead of telling me what I mean, I would've answered that I simply don't see convincing proof of a God in the world, especially not one who is omnipotent and/or omnibenevolent. That may change, because I realize there are perspectives I haven't experienced yet.

You have no idea of my motivation.

Right back at ya...

I don't hate you or any other Unbeliever, nor do I want you dead.

No, but had you been a muslim, you probably would. That's what scares me. They too (the radical ones) are just as convinced as you are that their holy book is basically the word of God, and it's true because God says so. How do they know he said so? Because it's in the koran. How do they know the koran is true? Because God said the koran is true. In the koran. Which is God's word because it says so.

To me it seems like you're reasoning in the same way.

 

[DogmaHunter]

My point is if you are wrong, which assuming you are humble enough to admit you could be wrong then my statements are relevant.

If I am wrong, then I'ld be justifyably wrong.
To believe something, to accept something as true, that can't be shown/supported to be true and which in fact is even unfalsifiable, is not a rational position. Even if it turns out to be true anyway.

They are relevant because you believe that you need to be able to independently verify something that by design can't be verified because it would remove the faith necessary for a person to be saved.

Here's the thing: there literally is an infinite amount of unfalsifiable things you could believe in. And because they are unfalsifiable, and as such thus untestable/unverifiable, there is no objective rational reason to believe one such thing over the others.

Your religious claims sound about as convincing to me as any of those other potentially infinite amount of unfalsifiable claims. I can not bring myself to believe something that doesn't convince me. At all.

Furthermore, "faith" is not something that I consider to be a virtue. To me, such "faith" is synonymous to gullibility. It's how you get taken in by con-men. It's how you end up with false beliefs.

Having evidence lead the way, is how you end up with ever-more accurate beliefs.

Of course you missed that point because your view is slanted into only seeing things lineup to your world view which is living in an inconsistent way.

How is it "inconsistent" to setting a consistent standard for accepting claims as accurate?
You are in fact, asking me to be inconsistent by applying a special standard for your god claims and only for your god claims.

Because here's another thing: there is NOTHING that you can't believe "on faith".
The "faith" you appeal to, to believe in your god, can just as easily be appealed to, to believe any of those potentially infinite amount of unfalsifiable claims.

See?
Yes, perhaps this is my worldview. And sure, my mind is firmly planted within such a view. Yes: I require valid rational reasons to accept something as accurate - even more so if it concerns such extra ordinary claims as those in your religion. I require rational evidence.

Because atheists say all the time i'll only believe it if its scientifically proven yet they believe things all the time that aren't, so it's not like they can't or don't do this. It's just God inparticular they don't want to believe in so they put God to a test in which if you understand christianity you would understand why such proof would never be possible.

First, be carefull when you generalize about "atheists" because more often then not, people are incorrect about those generalizations.

Secondly, no, I don't have any personal or emotional problems with your god. I don't have any feelings of "not wanting to believe in him", any more then you have any feelings of "not wanting to believe in darth vader".

I just don't have any valid rational reason to believe the claims of your religion.
That's all. There's nothing more to it then that.

I believe that God has created the world in which there is enough evidence for people willing to freely choose him to believe and low enough amount of evidence where people can choose not to believe. The world seems perfectly designed to allow this. It's very hard for me to go through life and experiencing the improbability of something so wonderful even existing at all and to attribute that to nothingness or well we just haven't figure it out yet but no its not God.

Sure.

But such teleological arguments of incredulity don't sound very appealing to me either.