atheism as lack of belief.

[Eudaimonist]

What is it that you have that I lack?

It is difficult for me to know specifically what you lack. That is not an easy thing for me to determine from the proverbial armchair.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bhsmte]

The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit

Nothing wrong with relying on you're personal perception in regards to what the above is, per you're own mind. If it works for you, knock yourself out.

It is only when an individual such as yourself, can't seem to acknowledge the following; you believe on faith and others may have a completely different faith belief which is just as valid to them personally, or maybe no faith belief at all.

IMO, when I see Christians struggling with acknowledging the above, there is a good chance they have some internal struggle in regards to their own faith and are trying desperately to self convince themselves.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Nothing wrong with relying on you're personal perception in regards to what the above is, per you're own mind. If it works for you, knock yourself out.

It is only when an individual such as yourself, can't seem to acknowledge the following; you believe on faith and others may have a completely different faith belief which is just as valid to them personally, or maybe no faith belief at all.

IMO, when I see Christians struggling with acknowledging the above, there is a good chance they have some internal struggle in regards to their own faith and are trying desperately to self convince themselves.

People can and do believe a lot of different things.

If Jesus Christ was who He said He was (which He is), then anyone that believes otherwise will answer to Him.

It is just that simple my friend.

 

[Davian]

FYI, I was not born full-grown and armed like Athena. As a child, I believed it because my parents taught me to. In my teens when I was re-evaluating what I believed, if I remember correctly the cosmological argument was quite primary in giving me confidence that God exists, and everything else I mentioned had a role too.

Yet it was not those things that convinced you that gods were possible.

I've been critically examining my beliefs regularly since then, and have made some changes as a result. I used to be a young earth creationist and believe the Bible was inerrant, but have found a lack of evidence for those beliefs, and evidence against them.

Changing the colour of the paint on a house does not repair its foundation.

So clearly I'm not just believing because I was raised that way.

Indoctrinated at a young age, rationalizing it as a teenager... clearly you are.

 

[Davian]

People can and do believe a lot of different things.

If Jesus Christ was who He said He was (which He is) <snip>

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

 

[bhsmte]

People can and do believe a lot of different things.

If Jesus Christ was who He said He was (which He is), then anyone that believes otherwise will answer to Him.

It is just that simple my friend.

Sure, if what you personally believe is true.

If you can reconcile the christian story and discern what Jesus said and what he didnt say with the historicity of the NT, then you have formed your own personal belief structure.

I cant reconcile the claims with reality and it would appear, as more throughout the world acquire knowledge, more people have trouble reconciling the story with reality and ultimately, believing it.

To me, the talk of threats (you will have to answer to him) are likely driven by an unsettling feeling those who use those tactics, deal with internally.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

[/SIZE]
Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

You're right. I cannot demonstrate it to you.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Sure, if what you personally believe is true.

If you can reconcile the christian story and discern what Jesus said and what he didnt say with the historicity of the NT, then you have formed your own personal belief structure.

I cant reconcile the claims with reality and it would appear, as more throughout the world acquire knowledge, more people have trouble reconciling the story with reality and ultimately, believing it.

To me, the talk of threats (you will have to answer to him) are likely driven by an unsettling feeling those who use those tactics, deal with internally.

Ok.

 

[Davian]

You're right. I cannot demonstrate it to you.

Then I will conclude that all you have is a character in a book.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What about them?




Because that is where God comes into man and makes His presence known.





The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit.

You haven't really answered my questions, Jeremy. Let's go through your responses.

What about them?

Are they deceived by their sensus divinitatis (SD)? If their SD isn't infallible, then is it possible that yours isn't either?

Because that is where God comes into man and makes His presence known.

That's just a description of the SD; it's not a reason for why you lend so much epistemic weight to it.

The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit.

In what way does that make your SD more reliable than that of someone who claims that their God makes their SD more reliable?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes.

Just because God must first draw a man to Himself through prevenient grace, it does not follow that therefore those who do not receive this grace are not culpable or responsible for their rejection of God and their stubborn, persistent, and willfull denial of Him.

If ten men are on death row and two receive a pardon from the governor because they have been acquitted and declared not guilty because someone stood in the gap for them and took the punishment they deserved, it does not mean that the other eight guilty men are going to get off also.

It simply means that the two received grace and the other eight did not. All were equally deserving of punishment, but since the two had an advocate, they were not called upon to suffer the punishment they deserved.

This doesn't even address my comment. You're descending to preaching now, which often seems to happen when you run out of arguments.

If your belief is based on some SD, then you cannot find epistemic fault in those who do not believe as you do. Their SD is obviously telling them something different, and since you refuse to reconsider the content of your own SD, why should you expect them to reconsider theirs? Isn't that a double standard?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

People can and do believe a lot of different things.

If Jesus Christ was who He said He was (which He is), then anyone that believes otherwise will answer to Him.

It is just that simple my friend.

Answer to him for what? He never spoke to their SD, so why are they at fault for not believing what their SD never told them to believe?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Answer to him for what? He never spoke to their SD, so why are they at fault for not believing what their SD never told them to believe?

For sin.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

For sin.

Sin that would be mitigated if he had spoken to their SD, leading them to believe in the salvific doctrines.

 

[Albion]

Then I will conclude that all you have is a character in a book.

Half of the things you (or others) believe in cannot be "demonstrated." To accept some of them as true anyway while rejecting others on this basis is just a way of justifying one's preferences.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Sin that would be mitigated if he had spoken to their SD, leading them to believe in the salvific doctrines.

And if they had yielded to this voice.

 

[bhsmte]

This doesn't even address my comment. You're descending to preaching now, which often seems to happen when you run out of arguments.

If your belief is based on some SD, then you cannot find epistemic fault in those who do not believe as you do. Their SD is obviously telling them something different, and since you refuse to reconsider the content of your own SD, why should you expect them to reconsider theirs? Isn't that a double standard?

Jeremy has basically been simply preaching for sometime now.

I'm not sure if he doesn't realize it doesn't help his argument to others, but it may help his personal psyche.

 

[Davian]

Half of the things you (or others) believe in cannot be "demonstrated." To accept some of them as true anyway while rejecting others on this basis is just a way of justifying one's preferences.

List these things that you refer to, since you know me so well.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

List these things that you refer to, since you know me so well.

The veridicality of your five senses.

 

[Davian]

The veridicality of your five senses.

A 10 second search shows that I have used the term "demonstrably unreliable" in these forums at least a dozen times in reference human senses and perception.

Also, [pedant] I certainly do not limit the human experience to only five senses. From wiki: "Humans have a multitude of senses. Sight (ophthalmoception), hearing (audioception), taste (gustaoception), smell (olfacoception or olfacception), and touch (tactioception) are the five traditionally recognized. While the ability to detect other stimuli beyond those governed by the traditional senses exists, including temperature (thermoception), kinesthetic sense (proprioception), pain (nociception), balance (equilibrioception), and various internal stimuli (e.g. the different chemoreceptors for detecting salt and carbon dioxide concentrations in the blood), only a small number of these can safely be classified as separate senses in and of themselves. What constitutes a sense is a matter of some debate, leading to difficulties in defining what exactly a sense is."
[/pedant]

Try again, Elio?