Atheists debates - is it worth it?

[2PhiloVoid]

Why can't the god just drop around and explain it, in the same way that Abraham shared a non kosher meal with a god and had a face to face discussion about the number of righteous children in Gomorrah before the god walked down to count them for itself, since it wasn't an omniscient or omnipresent type of god (Gen 18).

Well, next time 'the god' stops into town, I'll be sure to ask Him. In the meantime, I'll just read books about it by those who make a thoughtful guess.

 

[Mitty]

Well, next time 'the god' stops into town, I'll be sure to ask Him. In the meantime, I'll just read books about it by those who make a thoughtful guess.

And that's why less than 10% ever bother to go to church now, and why over 30% said they had no religious affiliation on the recent census compared to 22% on the previous census.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And that's why less than 10% ever bother to go to church now, and why over 30% said they had no religious affiliation on the recent census compared to 22% on the previous census.

What if one of those books I've read is about the proper interpretation and application of that ol' troublesome bug-a-boo we all like to call "prayer"? I would think, then, that admitting that Christianity is primarily and matter of 'books' (or educated and good hearted leaders) isn't an Achilles Heel to the Christian faith. It's just a recognition of the reality of the matter as God has arranged it.

You see, one thing further to take into account about 'books' is that they are simply a verbal expression of any one human being or of a set of human beings; and it stands to reason to consider that not all human evaluations are equal, so some books are actually 'better' and more 'wise' than others and we owe it to ourselves to learn from the wisest.

So, if people are leaving church because they're hacked about having to read books or that Christianity simply amounts to 'reading and doing,' or to what Jesus is reported to have asserted as being matters of, "Hearing and Doing!," then I'm thinking that maybe if people are disinclined toward Christianity, now, its mainly because they don't want to learn how to better "hear and do."

I guess I've had an advantage in that I was never caught up in some kind of Aladdin's Lamp type theology with Aladdin's Lamp type expectations. But I realize that many people who have tried to engage Christianity have been caught up in that very approach and, thereby, have become severely disappointed, especially if they were under the idea that Christianity was suppose to be an anodyne to every malady and a solution to every one of life's problems.

On top of this, not only do we have to be willing to learn through hearing (and reading), but we have to all learn, together, to do better and more intelligent hermeneutics so that when we hear and read, from whatever source, we do so more and more responsibility (and hopefully, more and more accurately).

The upshot of this is that after all of the hearing and doing, God often presents a test to see 'how well' we've learned the lessons. And as the testing goes, it's usually those persons who are still found to be willing to care and share with other people who are likely those who've learned God's lessons (in and through Jesus Christ) the best. Admittedly, I'm one of those who is still learning, so I guess it's back to the books (or to the words from the wisest leaders) for a little more "hearing."

And now, a moment for a cryptic but very telling hermeneutical Interlude with Paper Route and U2:

 

[Mitty]

What if one of those books I've read is about the proper interpretation and application of that ol' troublesome bug-a-boo we all like to call "prayer"? I would think, then, that admitting that Christianity is primarily and matter of 'books' (or educated and good hearted leaders) isn't an Achilles Heel to the Christian faith. It's just a recognition of the reality of the matter as God has arranged it.

You see, one thing further to take into account about 'books' is that they are simply a verbal expression of any one human being or of a set of human beings; and it stands to reason to consider that not all human evaluations are equal, so some books are actually 'better' and more 'wise' than others and we owe it to ourselves to learn from the wisest.

So, if people are leaving church because they're hacked about having to read books or that Christianity simply amounts to 'reading and doing,' or to what Jesus is reported to have asserted as being matters of, "Hearing and Doing!," then I'm thinking that maybe if people are disinclined toward Christianity, now, its mainly because they don't want to learn how to better "hear and do."

I guess I've had an advantage in that I was never caught up in some kind of Aladdin's Lamp type theology with Aladdin's Lamp type expectations. But I realize that many people who have tried to engage Christianity have been caught up in that very approach and, thereby, have become severely disappointed, especially if they were under the idea that Christianity was suppose to be an anodyne to every malady and a solution to every one of life's problems.

On top of this, not only do we have to be willing to learn through hearing (and reading), but we have to all learn, together, to do better and more intelligent hermeneutics so that when we hear and read, from whatever source, we do so more and more responsibility (and hopefully, more and more accurately).

The upshot of this is that after all of the hearing and doing, God often presents a test to see 'how well' we've learned the lessons. And as the testing goes, it's usually those persons who are still found to be willing to care and share with other people who are likely those who've learned God's lessons (in and through Jesus Christ) the best. Admittedly, I'm one of those who is still learning, so I guess it's back to the books (or to the words from the wisest leaders) for a little more "hearing."

And now, a moment for a cryptic but very telling hermeneutical Interlude with Paper Route and U2:

Personally I'd just prefer that a god drops by for a beer and a chat about it's issues, just like the god that asked Abraham what was happening in Gomorrah. Otherwise gods just imaginative words in a book too.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Personally I'd just prefer that a god drops by for a beer and a chat about it's issues, just like the god that asked Abraham what was happening in Gomorrah. Otherwise gods just imaginative words in a book too.

That's got to be the silliest non sequitur I've ever heard! It doesn't follow that just because The Lord doesn't descend down like a comic-book superman and give us the time of day that He's, therefore, "just imaginative words in a book."

No, what it is is what you said it is, "your personal preference."

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

That's got to be the silliest non sequitur I've ever heard! It doesn't follow that just because The Lord doesn't descend down like a comic-book superman and give us the time of day that He's, therefore, "just imaginative words in a book."

No, what it is is what you said it is, "your personal preference."

Is it possible for God to convince me he exists?

 

[Mitty]

That's got to be the silliest non sequitur I've ever heard! It doesn't follow that just because The Lord doesn't descend down like a comic-book superman and give us the time of day that He's, therefore, "just imaginative words in a book."

No, what it is is what you said it is, "your personal preference."

So why did a god drop in to ask Abraham about the number of righteous children in Gomorrah, or was it hungry and just wanted a free meal even if it was a non-kosher meal (Gen 18)?

And it's your choice if you think that those biblical stories are just comic book stories.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is it possible for God to convince me he exists?

I imagine He could, but assuming that all some one individual might do is spit in His face when He shows up (and I've had some people in my life tell me that if He did show up, that's exactly what they would do), what would His "showing up" for that person do other than move that person's condemnation from being a conditioned possibility to an absolute certainty?

Furthermore, if any of the epistemic issues that Rolfe King (2008) talks about in his book, Obstacles to Divine Revelation: God and the Reorientation of Human Reason, are cogent and applicable, and some of them may be, then what we conceptualize in our heads as a simple act of God becomes even more fraught with epistemic freight that would be, or is, problematic.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So why did a god drop in to ask Abraham about the number of righteous children in Gomorrah, or was it hungry and just wanted a free meal even if it was a non-kosher meal (Gen 18)?

First of all, not all questions are answerable, especially not from a limited, non-comprehensive book such as the Bible. It's not as if the bible is, or even was written, to answer every minute question about God, His Person and His work that our human brains can concoct.

However, with that said, we might look at the contents of Genesis, and maybe other portions of the writings, and see if we find and further indications as to 'why' the Angel of God showed up and interacted with Abraham and stated that He "had to go down to the cities to see if the outcry was as great as what He had heard ..."

And it's your choice if you think that those biblical stories are just comic book stories.

There are epistemic differences between biblical stories and comic book stories ... so my "choice" in the matter will be quite limited.

 

[Mitty]

So why did a god drop in to ask Abraham about the number of righteous children in Gomorrah, or did it just want a free meal (Gen 18)?

First of all, not all questions are answerable, especially not from a limited, non-comprehensive book such as the Bible. It's not as if the bible is, or even was written, to answer every minute question about God, His Person and His work that our human brains can concoct.

However, with that said, we might look at the contents of Genesis, and maybe other portions of the writings, and see if we find and further indications as to 'why' the Angel of God showed up and interacted with Abraham and stated that He "had to go down to the cities to see if the outcry was as great as what He had heard ..."



There are epistemic differences between biblical stories and comic book stories ... so my "choice" in the matter will be quite limited.

But why did the god need to have a face to face chat with Abraham anyway, before it walked down to Gomorrah to have a look for itself, even though it was neither an omniscient or omnipresent type of god?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But why did the god need to have a face to face chat with Abraham anyway since it walked down to Gomorrah to have a look for itself anyway?

What does the Bible say about it? You can read as well as I can, can't you? Seriously? Are you asking because you've read through the biblical text which you're referring to, or are you just shooting from the hip after having 'heard about' this little face-to-face story involving The Angel of God and Abraham?

Notice, first, that it wasn't simply God who showed up, but specifically The Angel of God, the entity whom many Trinitarian Christians believe could very well have been the Pre-Incarnate Jesus.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I imagine He could, but assuming that all some one individual might do is spit in His face when He shows up (and I've had some people in my life tell me that if He did show up, that's exactly what they would do), what would His "showing up" for that person do other than move that person's condemnation from being a conditioned possibility to an absolute certainty?

Furthermore, if any of the epistemic issues that Rolfe King (2008) talks about in his book, Obstacles to Divine Revelation: God and the Reorientation of Human Reason, are cogent and applicable, and some of them may be, then what we conceptualize in our heads as a simple act of God becomes even more fraught with epistemic freight that would be, or is, problematic.

Could God convince me he exists and convince me he is good and worthy of worship?

 

[Mitty]

What does the Bible say about it? You can read as well as I can, can't you? Seriously? Are you asking because you've read through the biblical text which you're referring to, or are you just shooting from the hip after having 'heard about' this little face-to-face story involving The Angel of God and Abraham?

Notice, first, that it wasn't simply God who showed up, but specifically The Angel of God, the entity whom many Trinitarian Christians believe could very well have been the Pre-Incarnate Jesus.

Have you ever read the story? If so, where does Gen 18 say that it was just an angel and not a god, given it was referred to as "the LORD" and not as an "angel of the LORD"? Genesis 18:1 Then the LORD appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre in the heat of the day, while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent.

And what was the relevance of the number of righteous children in Gomorrah to Abraham anyway?

Or is that just another imaginative fantasy story like the story about a meeting between a number of gods to discuss creating a male person in the image and likeness of the male creator god and creating a female person in the image and likeness of a goddess (Gen 1:26-27) or how a god protected Cain(an) from retribution after he killed his brother Abel (Gen 4)?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Could God convince me he exists and convince me he is good and worthy of worship?

If you've already 'determined' that He's immoral, then I'm not sure how He's going to do that. Should He DENY that He had all those helpless, well-meaning, innocent and human rights shorn Canaanites killed?

 

[Mitty]

If you've already 'determined' that He's immoral, then I'm not sure how He's going to do that. Should He DENY that He had all those helpless, well-meaning, innocent and human rights shorn Canaanites killed?

Is that why the bible commands genocide (Deut 7:16) and condones slavery?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

If you've already 'determined' that He's immoral, then I'm not sure how He's going to do that. Should He DENY that He had all those helpless, well-meaning, innocent and human rights shorn Canaanites killed?

So god cannot convince me that he is moral. Well the conclusion is that he is not moral then. I have determined he is immoral becasue of his actions, the evidence. If god is actually moral then he should have the evidence to provide to convince me.

 

[RBPerry]

If you've already 'determined' that He's immoral, then I'm not sure how He's going to do that. Should He DENY that He had all those helpless, well-meaning, innocent and human rights shorn Canaanites killed?

You will soon realize that these debates are a waste of time, and become circular arguments that go nowhere. God doesn't need to convince anyone, and neither do you. The old testament is a combination of history, the law, and prophecy. The new testament is the prophecies full filled through Jesus Christ as you are obviously aware. I'm not a bible literalist for a number of reason that I will not share on a forum like this. One must study the bible from a spiritual perspective and look for the spiritual messages given. If someone rejects your testimony, wipe the dust off your feet and move on.

I have presented the existence of God based on Near death studies that to me have overwhelming circumstantial evidence that to me is impossible to dispute, however you will find skeptics that reject the evidence with no viable arguments to support their opinions.
Now if you just get a kick out of useless debates, have a ball.

 

[RBPerry]

By the way, Pascal was interesting, just don't attempt to use the Pascal argument, it is a very weak one.

 

[Mitty]

You will soon realize that these debates are a waste of time, and become circular arguments that go nowhere. God doesn't need to convince anyone, and neither do you. The old testament is a combination of history, the law, and prophecy. The new testament is the prophecies full filled through Jesus Christ as you are obviously aware. I'm not a bible literalist for a number of reason that I will not share on a forum like this. One must study the bible from a spiritual perspective and look for the spiritual messages given. If someone rejects your testimony, wipe the dust off your feet and move on.

I have presented the existence of God based on Near death studies that to me have overwhelming circumstantial evidence that to me is impossible to dispute, however you will find skeptics that reject the evidence with no viable arguments to support their opinions.
Now if you just get a kick out of useless debates, have a ball.

So what parts of the bible have any relevance to the 21st century and which parts are just pure fantasy, given that the bible says that there are many gods (Deut 10:17 Gen 1:26-27 Exodus 20:1-3). And afterall Jesus didn't claim to be a god nor to be without sin (Mark 10:18) and only claimed to be a prophet, even though his own family (including his mother and her husband) didn't believe him (Matt 13:55-8).

 

[coffee4u]

But what if you believe the wrong one? Aren't you an Atheist then, because you are not believing in a real God?

My view of an atheist was always a person who did not believe any form of God at all. Christian God or other god's and didn't believe in the spiritual realm either. This is what it used to be but it appears to be wider now, would you say that was correct?

Atheist come in many varieties just as Christians do. What so many theists do in their attempt to debate with atheist is to convince them of the accuracy of the bible, and that is generally a waste of time. Many atheists are well versed in the bible, they may have been raised in the Christian home and taught Christian principles and then walked away. The issue isn’t why they are atheists but understanding that since they believe there is no god, they generally believe that there is no existence outside of the physical existence that we the living are part of.

It is like attempting to tell someone what clean air looks like, you can not debate spiritual issues with physical examples it normally doesn’t work unless they are on their death bed, then at times they become receptive to the idea of a spiritual existence outside of the physical body.

Those of us that have been around a lot of death can tell when the spirit leaves the body, and many times it does before the physical body is clinically dead. What do I mean by clinically dead, a flat line EEG, meaning the brain is dead. Personally, I believe once the frontal lobe has ceased to function that is normally physical death. The first thing you will hear from the skeptical side of this is the dying brain theory and that has been debunked in my opinion.

Almost every Christian I know has had a come to Jesus experience in their lives, it may not have been traumatic or earth shaking, but the Holy Spirit gave them the spiritual insight and the faith to believe in God. Many have had that experience and still walked away for whatever reason.

Some of the most profound experiences is commonly referred to as near death experiences. Some truly are near death, but many were clinically dead long enough to dispel the dying brain theory. Along with many of these testimonies are subjective, meaning the individuals testimony can’t be substantiated, they may be true, but the lack of scientific or medical evidence to support their stories leave them questionable.

At one time I would waste considerable time attempting to debate atheists and finally realized it was a waste of time. If a person is closed minded to any subject, then there is no room for debate or evaluation of evidence or beliefs.

If a person is an agnostic and willing to make an honest evaluation of Christianity, then you have someone you can have a meaningful dialog with. Again, they must first understand that the spirit and the physical body are separate, the spirit is who you really are, and your body is just the shell that the spirit functions through while the body is alive.

I had one very meaningful relationship with an atheist and as stated above, all my arguments were a waste of time. I left him with this, “If you ever want to know if there is a God, ask Him to reveal himself to you, give a come to Jesus moment. Two years later he looked me up, his comment was interesting, “You made me so angry, I didn’t want to even consider a god, but I had a come to Jesus moment, and I now know the truth.”

The other side is I gave a friend the book “Evidence that demands a verdict”, and “A case for Christ”. He read both and a few weeks later we had lunch, I asked him about both books. His comment was “Very compelling evidence that I find very difficult to dispute, however I still don’t believe.” He is a law professor, and we remained friends until his death a few years ago. That convinced me that with some people no matter the evidence, they will refuse to believe. I think with some people it is a sin they hold onto and will refuse to let go of that blinds them to the reality of God, but that is just my opinion.

It is interesting that many atheists that had death experiences and returned are no longer atheists and were given another chance in life. Obviously, God seen some redeeming qualities in the person, and that is understandable because I know many non-believers that are wonderful people.

Remember Jesus instructions to the disciples, they were told to go into a town, share the gospel, if it was rejected wipe the dust off their feet and move on. My point to all of is why waste a great deal of time with someone that is just looking for an argument, with little or no desire to know the truth?

It's a waste of time. Tried it once on here but since they dismiss personal experience and dismiss the spiritual I was left with nothing. They kept asking for 'evidence', but that is like a 3-dimensional man trying to explain to a 2-dimensional man the world he sees.