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

[DogmaHunter]

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.

I make such comparisions sometimes and, like you clearly show here, it seems that more often then not, the comparision is simply misunderstood.

When I do that, I don't compare god, the entity, to a fairy, the entity.
I am comparing the (non-existing) evidence in support of gods and fairies instead.

Like I said earlier: there is nothing that you can't believe on faith.
You can perfectly believe on faith that a tooth fairy will visit you during sleep.
You can perfectly believe on faith that the god of the bible exist.
You can perfectly believe on faith that dying in combat will grant you a spot in the great halls of Whalhalla.

There is nothing at all, that you can't believe on faith.

Which is why I consider faith to be completely useless.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So your ultimate authority is your experience. Do you see a problem when someone else's experience completely contradicts your own?

No, what is the problem? Please spell out the problem for me. Take it step by step.

Keep in mind that you had claimed that "Atheists know God exists" and that I had said that my experience of my own mind contradicts this claim. Start from there and make your case.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

@DogmaHunter You really believe faith is useless. Faith even in the non religious sense is useful. Having faith that you will accomplish difficult goals is useless? If faith was useless and no one had it then nothing spectacular would be accomplished. You need faith even if you aren't religious to be successful in life, because what does the atheist do when life goes bad? He either relies on faith he will make it or he quits life. So even a "rational" "reasonable" being like yourself should be able to see the utility of faith.

 

[Desk trauma]

what does the atheist do when life goes bad?

Work on resolving the problems that caused me to get to a point where I view life as bad.

As you never addressed the point, were I to go along with feigning belief in your deity and religion that would be a lie, do you find that lie morally acceptable?

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Work on resolving the problems that caused me to get to a point where I view life as bad.

As you never addressed the point, were I to go along with feigning belief in your deity and religion that would be a lie, do you find that lie morally acceptable?

I find it morally acceptable to "fake" belief if it leads to actions like studying the bible, hanging out at bible studies with christians and living a christian lifestyle. Especially if this leads to genuine faith. I don't think"faking" belief in something is good if it leads to good. I do think believing something genuinely is bad if it leads to bad or is evil itself.

 

[Desk trauma]

I find it morally acceptable to "fake" belief if it leads to actions like studying the bible, hanging out at bible studies with christians and living a christian lifestyle.

Not fake, lie. For me to say that I believe in your deity is a lie. How is the living a "Christian lifestyle" comparable with actively telling lies?

I am already familiar with your bible, how is spending my spare time at Christian functions a positive?

Especially if this leads to genuine faith. I don't think"faking" belief in something is good if it leads to good. I do think believing something genuinely is bad if it leads to bad or is evil itself.

What "bad" is my being honest about what I think causing?

 

[JoeP222w]

The question is, why do you believe that?

Because God has transformed my heart by His grace to know His truth.

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."

And if this is so, your reasoning requires infinite regression, and is arbitrary.

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

You are contradicting what God says about man, so you are not being honest.

How? Why?

By His transforming work of grace of a heart that hates Him to a heart that love Him. He does it for His glory, because He has objects (humans) on which to display His mercy and grace.

But the thing is, you're wrong.

Is that true? How do you know that is true?

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

No. The Quran is not the word of God because it denies the truth of Jesus Christ. If the Quran was the word of God it would be consistent with the Bible.

The Bible is not true simply because I believe it. My belief is not relevant in the veracity of the Bible. Nor does your disbelief make untrue.

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

I go on the authority of the Bible, not because I say so.

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

Answered above. Because God has transformed my heart by His grace.

Another assumption, and a pretty condescending one, that I "demand the creator bow down before me."

If you are demanding proof of God or you reject the truth of God, you are making yourself god, because you are saying that God does not meet your requirements. I don't see how it is condescending.

It's actually extremely disrespectful.

How is it disrespectful, when your profile says you are "Agnostic"? Or do you not believe what "Agnostics" traditional believe? I am not saying that Agnostics are monolithic, at least that is not my intent.

I know you already think you know my mind

I did not claim to know your mind specifically, but I do know the heart of man in general and apart from the grace of God, man's heart is hostile to God and the things of God by nature, because that is what He has revealed to be the heart of man. Man is not inherently good, but inherently evil.

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.

Thus you have demonstrated one of my previous points: God is required to bow down before you as if you are the Judge of the universe. God is not obliged to you and anyone.

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.

The Quran is radically different than the Bible. Christianity does not teach us to hate our enemies but to love our enemies. Islam teaches that unbelievers must be destroyed. So they cannot both be the word of God.

The Bible is not God's word merely because it says it is. The Bible is God's word because it is God breathed scripture.

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

Ok, that is your choice. But it is not the same reasoning.

 

[ToBeLoved]

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.

But you do not believe their is a God. So show me how you can show that to be true?

 

[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 have no way of discerning truth from lie on your own, how do you know what God revealed to you through his creation and the bible is the truth? What method do you employ to verify God is truth?

 

[JoeP222w]

No, what is the problem? Please spell out the problem for me. Take it step by step.

My experience is that God exists.

So who is correct? I would assume that you would say I am wrong. So if there are 2 contradicting experiences, they can both be wrong, one can be right, but both experiences cannot be right, as it would violate the law of non-contradiction. That is why experiences are not the absolute standard of truth. God is the absolute standard of truth. Not because I say so, but because it is the truth that is not founded in me, the individual.

I do not play the game of trying to prove God exists to the rebel sinner. I call you to repent of your sins and trust in Jesus Christ.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't know your exact details, but I know the nature of man, especially as you claim to have all knowledge by making an absolute claim that no god exists by claiming to be an atheist.

Do you know the difference between the claim "no God/Gods exist" vs "I don't believe in God"?

 

[JoeP222w]

But if you have no way of discerning truth from lie on your own

I already address this. Truth does not come from within me ("on your own"). It comes solely from God.

What method do you employ to verify God is truth?

I don't verify the truth in the sense you are employing, as I am not the Judge of God's truth. He reveals it to me by His grace. God is not required to meet my evaluation standards.

 

[JoeP222w]

Do you know the difference between the claim "no God/Gods exist" vs "I don't believe in God"?

Not much of a difference there. Either way it is sinful man thinking that he can define the terms of truth and reality, rather than the Creator.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

Why is that such an unreasonable comparison? Please explain.

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Why is that such an unreasonable comparison? Please explain.

Are they equally credible?

 

[DogmaHunter]

But you do not believe their is a God. So show me how you can show that to be true?

Not believing the claim that there is a god, is not the same thing as positively believing the claim that there is no god.

I don't make the claim that there is no god.
I think any claim of the non-existance of unfalsifiable things, is pretty meaningless.

Claims of existance are the claims with the burden of proof.
I reject the claim that a god exists, on the grounds that it fails to live upto its burden of proof.

As the Hitch used to say: That which is asserted without evidence, can be dissmissed without evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

My experience is that God exists.

A hindu's experience, is that Shiva exists.
A muslims's experience, is that Allah exists.
A viking's experience, is that Thor exists.
An alien abductee's experience, is that aliens exist and kidnap humans.

Clearly, people's own explanations for their experience, are not necessarily accurate.

So who is correct?

Indeed, who is correct (in the above examples)? You can't all be right...
However, you can all be wrong.

I would assume that you would say I am wrong.

Not really. To tell you that you are wrong, one would have to have evidence that demonstrates you being wrong.

However, you're the one making claims. YOU are the one who's responsible for supporting those claims. The burden of proof, lies with your positive claims. The question is not if we can show you wrong. The question rather is, if you can show that you are right...

If you can't, why should we believe that you are right?

So if there are 2 contradicting experiences, they can both be wrong, one can be right, but both experiences cannot be right, as it would violate the law of non-contradiction. That is why experiences are not the absolute standard of truth.

Exactly

God is the absolute standard of truth.

If you say so. I wouldn't know how you could ever support such a (vague) claim though.
But in any case, you're not solving anything. Because apparantly, the only way to know about god, is through personal experience.

And as you have just established yourself, that's not really a good standard to go by.
So your vague and unsupported statement, is utterly meaningless. It doesn't solve anything.

Not because I say so, but because it is the truth that is not founded in me, the individual.

It actually is, as I have just explained.
Whatever you think you know about god, you derived it from either your "personal experience", or the "personal experience" of others. Necessarily. If there was actual evidence to base that on, then you'ld just immediatly mention the evidence and not go on this dead trail of personal experience.

I do not play the game of trying to prove God exists to the rebel sinner. I call you to repent of your sins and trust in Jesus Christ.

It's kind of hard to "trust" entities we don't even consider to be real.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not much of a difference there.

It's actually a world of difference...

Either way it is sinful man thinking that he can define the terms of truth and reality, rather than the Creator.

If you are just going to repeat your assertions even after people have corrected you and pointed out that you are incorrect, then there is no much point in continueing the discussion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Are they equally credible?

Since level of credibility is determined by the amount and strength of evidence in support of the proposition, I'ld have to answer that question with a resounding YES.

 

[holo]

Because God has transformed my heart by His grace to know His truth.

How did that happen?

And if this is so, your reasoning requires infinite regression, and is arbitrary.

Just like yours then. Your infinite regression seems to be "it's true because the bible says so, and the bible says so because it's true." What I'm asking for is justification for that belief to begin with.

It's like if you ask a physicist "what does it really mean when quantum physics says that a particle can be in two places at once?" and the physicist answers "it means that a particle can be in two places at once." It's not answering the question, it's just repeating the statement that you're trying to get clarified and justified.

You are contradicting what God says about man, so you are not being honest.

No, it's you who are contradicting God.

By His transforming work of grace of a heart that hates Him to a heart that love Him. He does it for His glory, because He has objects (humans) on which to display His mercy and grace.

How does that mean the bible is inerrant?

Is that true? How do you know that is true?

Because God told me.

No. The Quran is not the word of God because it denies the truth of Jesus Christ. If the Quran was the word of God it would be consistent with the Bible.

You've got it backwards. If the bible was the word of God it would be consistent with the koran. Therefore, it is obvious that the bible is not the word of God. Simple.

I go on the authority of the Bible, not because I say so.

Yes, but what makes the bible authorative?

Answered above. Because God has transformed my heart by His grace.

Same as Allah did for me then.

If you are demanding proof of God or you reject the truth of God, you are making yourself god, because you are saying that God does not meet your requirements. I don't see how it is condescending.

No, there's more to being God than simply stating "God does not meet my requirements." So I'm not in any way making myself God. What you call "demand the creator bow down before me" is in fact the simple acknowledgement that I don't see convincing enough proof of his existence.

How is it disrespectful, when your profile says you are "Agnostic"? Or do you not believe what "Agnostics" traditional believe? I am not saying that Agnostics are monolithic, at least that is not my intent.

It's disrepectful because you're not considering what I have to say about myself. Instead you insist that what it's really all about, is that I hate God and/or am scared of him.

Agnostics don't traditionally believe anything in particular. In this day, to most people, it just means "I don't know whether or not there is a God", but originally and fundamentally it's a way of relating to things that can't be proven. Agnosticism is basically to not believe something unless you have a rational reason to.

I did not claim to know your mind specifically, but I do know the heart of man in general and apart from the grace of God, man's heart is hostile to God and the things of God by nature, because that is what He has revealed to be the heart of man. Man is not inherently good, but inherently evil.

Then I would suggest that you phrase it differently. For example something like "it's my belief that man is in fact hostile to God by nature, because A B C etc etc." Rather than "you hate God!" It should be obvious that the latter version isn't exactly going to build any bridges, much less draw people to your God - but then maybe that wasn't the point anyway.

Thus you have demonstrated one of my previous points: God is required to bow down before you as if you are the Judge of the universe.

Nope. I am the judge of what I find convincing. So God is required to convince me of his existence. So far he hasn't, and I haven't seen convincing enough arguments to conclude that he even exists. If he does exist, I would need further convincing to settle on one of the religions, if any.

I assume that if God is real, then he knows exactly what it would take to convince me, and he can do it if he chooses to. I don't know exactly how, of course, but I do know that it's not going to be through people telling me that I already believe in God, I just hate him...

The Quran is radically different than the Bible. Christianity does not teach us to hate our enemies but to love our enemies. Islam teaches that unbelievers must be destroyed. So they cannot both be the word of God.

Oh, so it's you who decides what the word of God must be like?

If it's not like this or that, then it can't be God's word? Why not? How do you tell?