Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not

[2PhiloVoid]

Actually, Logic is the systematic study of inferences and relation within arguments and between propositions. The goal being to determine the soundness or validity thereof.
You seem to confuse the adjectival sense of something being Logical, with Logic itself. You did the same in your previous thread.


This is itself an assumption, that observational data is required and that it is inherently useful or valid. So if you say you cannot demonstrate anything starting just from assumptions, then you cannot demonstrate anything.

So, NV's basic problem is cognitive--that he has his own conceptualization of what logic is and his own framework by which he decides how it is to be used and applied?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Introducing multiple people asserting how many gumballs there are, changes nothing. You still need to take on authority whether we know the amount thereof or to deny that authority otherwise. It is not the simplistic picture you presented in the OP of merely asserting that we don't know. This is a quite silly analogy, in my opinion.

Dillahunty's analogy is only meant to show the difference between the statements "I don't believe X to be true" and "I believe X is false". In this case the statements could be "I don't believe the number of gumballs is odd." and "I believe the number of gumballs is not odd." As such, it's as good an analogy as any. It's not silly at all.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Dillahunty's analogy is only meant to show the difference between the statements "I don't believe X to be true" and "I believe X is false". In this case the statements could be "I don't believe the number of gumballs is odd." and "I believe the number of gumballs is not odd." As such, it's as good an analogy as any. It's not silly at all.

I'd say it's good as an analogy...if believe and faith in the God of Christianity was completely dependent upon each person using only rational means by which to arrive at belief. But, the truth of the matter (and one that is ignored by some Christians and Atheists) is that belief and faith are more than just our personal attempts to make "heads or tails" out of the biblical materials and traditions.

Thus, Dillahunty's Gumball Machine analogy has limited application. It would be a good analogy if the epistemic claims for Christianity were other than they really are.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'd say it's good as an analogy...if believe and faith in the God of Christianity was completely dependent upon each person using only rational means by which to arrive at belief. But, the truth of the matter (and one that is ignored by some Christians and Atheists) is that belief and faith are more than just our personal attempts to make "heads or tails" out of the biblical materials and traditions.

You're missing the point. The analogy doesn't necessarily pertain to theism, or any other particular thing, at all. Again, it's only showing the difference between "I don't believe X is true" and "I believe X is false". I'm constantly faced with theists that insist that I must believe that no gods exist when I say that I don't believe in any god or gods. The gumball analogy is useful... sometimes... to show how this just isn't the case.

In fact, it's quite useful in determining if you should continue talking with a particular person. Along with questions like "Do you believe your god can create a married bachelor."

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You appear to have committed the false-cause fallacy in your reasoning here:

Please elaborate.

A person who expresses his knowledge of scripture by the spirit of Jehovah does not express any contradiction in their representation of Him. That one's views are always consistent with what scripture has already expressed, and he can show that there is no contradiction within scripture regarding Jehovah's properties.

Matthew 19:26
With God, all things are possible.

Judges 1:19
God could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots.

An atheist might not be of the spiritual disposition to handle scripture for the same purpose as the ones who wrote scripture, thereby they receive a meaning from it's words that is different to the meaning that the writer placed in those words. In this way, they are not receiving the meaning of the scripture that the writer intended to convey. Saint John wrote of this phenomenon in 1 John 4:6.

So are you saying it was impossible for the divinely inspired writers of the scriptures to write something that is clear to everyone, despite the fact that all things are possible with God? If not, what is God doing... playing games with us?

This shows that there is a bias in the reading of one who does not find the consistency in the scriptures that is inherent.

No, it doesn't show that there is a bias. Also, there isn't one.

That bias prevents the reader from listening to what the writer of the scripture means to say. His intention by reading scripture, is to look for an opportunity to twist the meaning of the words so that he might be comfortable to view them as supporting his predetermined position.

Hmmm... so you know my intentions, do you?

Most atheists who are former Christians lost their faith because they read the Bible. This holds for me as well. The only twisting I did of scriptures as a Christian was my attempt to reconcile the bizarre ramblings of ignorant savages with what is currently known about reality via modern science.

Whereas a person who is reading the scriptures in holy spirit has already resolved to humble himself and receive a correction to his position in the sight of Jehovah if he should encounter that the meaning of the words challenges his present position (understanding, belief, lifestyle etc).

Begging the question logical fallacy... unless we are assuming that Christianity is correct? I don't know... did we establish that in the OP? What are you responding to? Do you know what the topic is?

In this way, the one who reads scripture in holy spirit is finding consistency rather than contradiction, because their spirit is that of truth (hearing the writer) instead of error (arguing against the writer).

Nothing in this entire post is true. Nothing in this entire post even makes sense. Nothing in this entire post is even on topic. Please don't do something like this again.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Analogies are always fun, and this one doesn't disappoint. But while we're all standing around staring at a gumball machine, the larger question hasn't been posed. How did the gumball machine get here?

Do you know what a thought experiment is?

The natural mind can only go so far. Beyond that we rely on special revelation, and historical proofs.

What is a historical proof, and how do I go about receiving special revelation? Also, this is relevant to the OP how exactly?

The chances of a ancient small tribe surviving 4000 years until this day are more than daunting.

They obviously survived because they were surrounded on all sides by nations. Those nations buffered Israel against barbarian attacks.

See, in the ancient world, you're much safer being next to an empire than you are being next to "empty" land. If you're invaded by an emperor, then he will give you the chance to pay tribute to him rather than suffer attack. Your choice is to either fight an unwinnable battle, or else give the emperor wealth and resources (and of course bow down before him and touch your head to the ground, and things of that nature). The Jews chose the latter, and indeed the latter kings of Israel and Judah were vassals.

Conversely, if you're invaded by barbarians, there is no negotiation that will ensue. They will attack you, and either you will kill them all or they will kill all of you. If they sack your city, they will rape all your women, burn all your possessions, and cover the farms in salt. Maybe you can fend off barbarians the first few times, but they will just keep coming and coming and coming, and eventually you will fall.

So no, the survival of the Jews is not some miracle. This notion is among the biggest lies in all of apologetics.

Also, this is totally off topic.

The chances of a small start-up sect from within that tribe surviving and converting much of the world to itself are equally so.

True, Christianity becoming dominant does not appear to have been inevitable.

And then there is the unbroken string of personal miracles and changed lives down to our day.

Not one of which can actually be shown to have happened.

And again... we are off topic.

Believe what you will, but the Bible says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Happily, it doesn't end there, because perfect love casts out fear, but it does start there.

For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.
But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;
God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,
so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption,
so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” -1Cor 1:18-31​

Awesome, thanks for hijacking my thread and veering it way off topic.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Introducing multiple people asserting how many gumballs there are, changes nothing. You still need to take on authority whether we know the amount thereof or to deny that authority otherwise.

And how do you propose we know which authority to choose to accept, aside from drawing a name out of a hat?

It is not the simplistic picture you presented in the OP of merely asserting that we don't know. This is a quite silly analogy, in my opinion.

Well then why did you propose it? Try sticking to the original thought experiment instead of attempting to alter it unreasonably.

That is etymological, and is not what I am talking about at all. I am talking of the original meanings and definition of the terms. You are the great lover of definition, yet happily abuse it here. To assert atheism, is to assert lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods, not simply the position of no evidence.

And this is exactly why the very first thing I brought up was the gumball analogy. Please go back and re-read it, and this time just think about it instead of mangling it.

The latter position denotes by nature that it may be possible, but cannot be shown either way - which is what agnosticism entails. To say that lack of evidence provides plausibility for or assert disbelief thereby, is a claim itself, not an intellectually neutral position. As I said, I am not going to be drawn into such a patently dumb argument again, as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of semantics can show this to be the case. So, I am done in this regard.

I don't think you know what you are talking about in the slightest. Yet again you have trouble reading even the first paragraph of the OP. We had this same problem on the last thread.

Yes, I was thinking of the null position, not a term from inferential statistics. This does not fit your racing stripe analogy at all though, from the OP. That seemed to be based on parsimony, but this asserts from statistical inference of data that either the observed data fits the hypothesis or significantly does not, in which case it is rejected; or two hypotheses are contrasted based on the data.

The null hypothesis states that the default position is that there is no causal correlation between two things. My racing stripe analogy absolutely does fit, and you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Parsimony is not advantaged here, for in Atheism, there is no data to support it at all. In fact, the atheist position is based on lack of empirical data being present as to the question of God's existence.

If we scan the stars for a Dyson Sphere, and we find nothing, then, according to your methodology here, we would have no data on Dyson Spheres. You literally could not possibly be more wrong.

The Theist position, uses the data of accrued human experience, in the form of centuries of claimed revelations, spiritual experiences and religion. Thus we have data for, on the one hand, and no data at all, on the other. To contrast the two, Theism is better supported by the one model of the Null Hypothesis; by the other, the data does not significantly contradict it either, as Atheism is based on lack of supposed data.

Again, more of the same ignorance.

An insurance company looks at your driving history, and you have 0 accidents and 0 tickets. Hmm, no data, right?

No evidence for God *is* data.

I'm hoping something happens inside you and you admit that you're wrong, but I'd probably have better luck shaving a flea's butt with a chainsaw.

So yes, Theism seems to be the Null Hypothesis.

Wow, a positive claim is a null hypothesis. Absolutely unbelievable that you just said this.

This is how the null hypothesis works:

Suppose we think there might be some correlation between fossil fuels and global warming. The null hypothesis is that there is no correlation. If we find that there is no correlation, then the null hypothesis is vindicated; if we do find a correlation, then the null hypothesis is falsified.

So the null hypothesis regarding God is that he doesn't exist. If you think you've made a case for his existence, the null hypothesis is falsified. You seem to think that either the null hypothesis is always correct - and that we change the null hypothesis with accumulation of evidence - or that a positive claim could be a null hypothesis.

And again, you literally could not be more wrong.

I'd suggest reading the essays Myth became Fact and The Grand Miracle by CS Lewis for starters. GK Chesterton's Everlasting Man is another good example of such arguments.

And I'd suggest you read the OP before responding, research the subjects being discussed, and have the requisite humility to admit when you're wrong.

We had this discussion in your previous thread. To assert a position on anything, whether you would justify it by observation or reasoning or whatever, eventually boils down to asserting a belief therein - even if this is via belief in the axiomatic assumptions from whence it is derived.

We've had many discussions, and none of them will be fruitful until you show some Christian humility.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Actually, Logic is the systematic study of inferences and relation within arguments and between propositions. The goal being to determine the soundness or validity thereof.
You seem to confuse the adjectival sense of something being Logical, with Logic itself. You did the same in your previous thread.


This is itself an assumption, that observational data is required and that it is inherently useful or valid. So if you say you cannot demonstrate anything starting just from assumptions, then you cannot demonstrate anything.

There's what logic actually is. Then there's what logic is used for. We use it to make inferences. But that's not what it is.

We use cars to drive, but does that mean a car is the act of driving?

Artificial intelligence may one day be able to make inferences. Or maybe it already can. But most computers on earth cannot make inferences, and yet all they do is perform logic. So I await your admission that you are wrong. Here's me waiting for that day:

Spoiler

 

[Serving Zion]

Please elaborate.

You presumed that a real or perceived relationship between things means that one is the cause of the other.
Many people confuse correlation (things happening together or in sequence) for causation (that one thing actually causes the other to happen). Sometimes correlation is coincidental, or it may be attributable to a common cause.

Example: Pointing to a fancy chart, Roger shows how temperatures have been rising over the past few centuries, whilst at the same time the numbers of pirates have been decreasing; thus pirates cool the world and global warming is a hoax.
Your logical fallacy is false cause

Matthew 19:26
With God, all things are possible.

Judges 1:19
God could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots.

I see that you have read these two verses to be in contradiction, to demonstrate your belief that scripture shows something was impossible for Adonai while you also believe Jesus to have said that nothing is impossible for Adonai. I will show you how you have come to make this error, and how the correct reading of the intended meaning demonstrates that there is no inconsistency of Adonai's character between them.

Could you please tell me which translation you have used for Judges 1:19 here? All translations I have consulted say that Judah failed to drive out the inhabitants of the valley, despite that God was with him. (Consult Judges 1:9 on biblehub.com). This indicates a lack of faith to be the limiting factor, whereby they were intimidated by the iron chariots to the detriment of their trust in God, and this prevented them from going forth to act in war.

.. Also, may I ask you to confirm that you have not read Matthew 19:26 to say "For God, all things are possible" when the operative word (Strongs #3844) means to say "with/from/in the presence of/alongside", so that Jesus is saying we can achieve anything if God is with us as we do it.

So are you saying it was impossible for the divinely inspired writers of the scriptures to write something that is clear to everyone, despite the fact that all things are possible with God? If not, what is God doing... playing games with us?

No, it's not that it isn't clear to them, but that it isn't convenient. When a message is clear enough yet it doesn't fit with the desire of the reader, if the reader is not willing to adjust his position so as to receive the message, then he needs to choose a different way of responding to the message. One of those ways is to twist the meaning of the words so that he can be comfortable by thinking that the words mean something different than what the writer meant. This is easier to do in the absence of the writer, whereas the writer probably would have corrected them if they had misunderstood him in his presence.

Once a person begins on that course of error, the more that they proclaim their position in opposition to the true intended meaning, the more personal investment (pride/reputation) they have made to that position of being opposed. The more they invest into being opposed, the greater the perceived cost becomes should they need to consider conceding. This can happen to people who read scripture and identify as Christian too, because the underlying principle is the same: it is choosing to believe that what is said means something different than what the writer actually meant to say. Bias is a huge contributor to that, for which the false doctrines in Christianity teach Christians to misinterpret scripture (Confirmation bias - Wikipedia).

Then the person who has made that error will continue on that course of error for as long as t takes before he is able to reason that the cost of continuing on that course is greater than the cost of repentance. Tragically, there is a time limit imposed upon the human, and it is for this very reason: that God is spirit, yet the human who is avoiding God has ample opportunity through the provisions of carnal reality, to think that they have life sufficiently without acknowledging spiritual reality. (This is conveyed in Genesis 6:3, where Adonai says that His spirit will not contend with man forever).

No, it doesn't show that there is a bias. Also, there isn't one.

I accept that this could be true in some cases, but not in the context for which I made the statement.

Hmmm... so you know my intentions, do you?

Our intentions become observable through our actions, therefore I keep coming to know your intentions. This is why I first asked whether you were seeking to be corrected. In your response to that question, I perceived that you might be capable of receiving correction, although many factors that happen throughout the day have a consequential impact upon our mood and spirit, that determines our intentions in (purpose for) acting. So in other words, our intentions are not constant, but are somewhat dependant upon our state of comfort. I will simply regard you according to your intentions at the time you speak, not for whatever I believe they could hypothetically be.

Most atheists who are former Christians lost their faith because they read the Bible. This holds for me as well. The only twisting I did of scriptures as a Christian was my attempt to reconcile the bizarre ramblings of ignorant savages with what is currently known about reality via modern science.

The only way that someone would choose to think evil of a holy one, is if they think wrongly of that one. As far as the bible goes to describe Adonai's character and thereby present that opportunity/risk, not only do we have potential for reader bias in interpretation being a cause of mischaracterisation, but there is the added layer of translation into a language that the original writers did not consider the meaning to be conveyed through. The result is that we are hugely jeopardised by the ease for which misunderstandings can occur.

Not only that, but there is an overwhelming culture of mischaracterisation of Adonai in Christianity through false doctrines, that as a result causes offence to those whom offence is not due. These undue offences in the name of God create a valid belief that Christianity is unjust in the view of the offended innocent party, that triggers them to begin a course of opposition to Christianity. But in fact, it is not Christianity that has caused that offence, it is the false doctrines of the antichrist being presented in Jesus' name that triggered it. (2 Peter 2:1-2 speaks of this: "because of them the way of truth will come into disrepute").

This has been happening for 2,000 years, so we have in the present day a highly ingrained culture of the antichrist operating in the name of Jesus. This is why Jesus said "men are recognised by their fruits - will a man pluck a fig from a thorn bush?".

Begging the question logical fallacy... unless we are assuming that Christianity is correct? I don't know... did we establish that in the OP? What are you responding to? Do you know what the topic is?

It's not really important to me, but I do believe that our conversation provides good evidence to refute the title of the thread positing that atheism is reasonable and Christianity is not. I am showing that you have made a logical error in your supporting argument. If you do not wish to receive this correction, I will simply cease from explaining it.

Nothing in this entire post is true. Nothing in this entire post even makes sense.

This is not true, but rather it is case in point for what I said through introducing 1 John 4:6.

Nothing in this entire post is even on topic. Please don't do something like this again.

Well, it is saddening that you would prefer to receive me this way. I have not said anything that you should have been offended by.

 

[Serving Zion]

The only twisting I did of scriptures as a Christian was my attempt to reconcile the bizarre ramblings of ignorant savages with what is currently known about reality via modern science.

[...] not only do we have potential for reader bias in interpretation being a cause of mischaracterisation, but there is the added layer of translation into a language that the original writers did not consider the meaning to be conveyed through. The result is that we are hugely jeopardised by the ease for which misunderstandings can occur.

.. further to this, I would like to recommend that you consider this very well-written explanation of how the Genesis creation story is not properly conveyed through the English language: Hebrew Genesis 1.

The whole thing takes about 5 minutes to read, so I'll just copy/paste the central piece. This guy explains it in such a good way:

We traditionally read (I paraphrase here): 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. ... and on the first day. God said "Let there be light", and there was light.

So in English, we read a past tense verb: created. Then we read an imperative (Let there be light), and then another past tense of the verb to be.

But in Hebrew, there is no past, present or future tense, only the perfect (completed action) and the imperfect (incomplete action). How do we even render that in English?

With the perfect tense, we can represent it by the English simple past, e.g.: "I walked".

But with the imperfect tense things become difficult, because it doesn't simply mean futurity.

Sure, "I will walk", future tense in English, would be the imperfect tense in Hebrew.

But so would "I am walking", or "I walk everyday", or "I was walking" (because the action is not complete), or "I might walk", or "When I walk...".

See the problem? A bunch of things that are at different times in the timestream, past, present and future in English or French or modern Hebrew, are all the Hebrew imperfect tense.

This might seem to be an abstract, even abstruse linguistic point - a "who cares?", but the problem is that the Hebrew Bible, and Genesis, is written ENTIRELY in just those two tenses: perfect and imperfect. Which means that if we're translating the imperfect tense into English, there are a RANGE of possibilities, and none of them is exactly right.

Let's go back to our example: 'In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. ... and on the first day. God said "Let there be light", and there was light.'

Truth is, the Hebrew doesn't say this at all. It doesn't say "In the beginning", the word we translate as "God" is actually the Hebrew word "Powers" (or "Mighty Ones"), It doesn't say "Heavens", only skies (there is no Ancient Hebrew word for heaven. There is only the skies). Nor does it say "earth" (there is no Ancient Hebrew word for "earth" - the planet; there is only "the land"). The word "created" is not in the text. Rather, the Hebrew word "fattened" - like fattening a cow, or "filled" as in filling things up is there, and it is in the perfect tense, referring to a completed action.

"Let there be light" is an imperfective: "He will exist light!", but that next expression "and there was light" is an IMPERFECT verb in Hebrew.

In English, we could say "light will exist", or we could say "light began to exist". The key is that God did NOT "create light" on Day One. He BEGAN to create light. He didn't actually COMPLETE the creation (the "fattening" or "filling up" or "making substantial", of anything from Day One through Day 6. The text for Day 7 says that God completed his work on that day, in English. But in Hebrew, once again, the imperfect tense is used: God WILL complete his work, God BEGAN to complete his work.

So, "light" was being "fattened" from Day 1 into Day 7, and the same thing is true of the rest of creation. Those verbs are all imperfects. And then, even on day 7, he "will complete" or "began to complete" his work. In English we so very much want to write all of these verbs as past tense, and sequential: Day 1 - God did this, Day 2, God did this, Day 2, God did this, Day 7, he was done and he rested.

The Hebrew says only that he began those things, and on Day seven, he began to rest. None of the verbs are in the past, completed tense. They are all in the imperfect tense, which means that none of the actions were in fact completed in the time described. They were open, and creation and resting all continued forward after that.

In fact, those verbs are NEVER closed out in the Hebrew text. The English verb tenses give 7 days of Creation. The Hebrew gives seven days of beginning to fill up the sky and the land, and no completion of the "creation".

The English speaking mind has difficulty enough with the Hebrew, but the English speaking theological mind REBELS at all of these open verbs, because English-speaking theology has always imposed closure on all of those verbs. Which simply means that the entirety of theology based on the closed verb tense is wrong, and always has been wrong, on this point, because the actual revealed word of God was exclusively in ancient Hebrew, and GOD used open, imperfect verbs throughout the entirety of Genesis one, except for the first verb in the first line.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I see that you have read these two verses to be in contradiction, to demonstrate your belief that scripture shows something was impossible for Adonai while you also believe Jesus to have said that nothing is impossible for Adonai. I will show you how you have come to make this error, and how the correct reading of the intended meaning demonstrates that there is no inconsistency of Adonai's character between them.

Could you please tell me which translation you have used for Judges 1:19 here? All translations I have consulted say that Judah failed to drive out the inhabitants of the valley, despite that God was with him. (Consult Judges 1:9 on biblehub.com). This indicates a lack of faith to be the limiting factor, whereby they were intimidated by the iron chariots to the detriment of their trust in God, and this prevented them from going forth to act in war.

Click on the link (Judges 1:19) and read the official christianforums.com version:

And Jehovah was with Judah; and drove out [the inhabitants of] the hill-country; for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

.. Also, may I ask you to confirm that you have not read Matthew 19:26 to say "For God, all things are possible" when the operative word (Strongs #3844) means to say "with/from/in the presence of/alongside", so that Jesus is saying we can achieve anything if God is with us as we do it.

Irrelevant because you refuse to acknowledge the KJV.

The KJV says that God could not drive the inhabitants of the valley away. You twist that into saying that the Hebrews could not do it.

Best case scenario for you is that I chose the wrong verse to support God's omnipotence. Do you think I can't find another?

No, it's not that it isn't clear to them, but that it isn't convenient.

So... is "Sell all that you have and give the money to the poor" not clear to you, or is it not convenient?

When a message is clear enough yet it doesn't fit with the desire of the reader, if the reader is not willing to adjust his position so as to receive the message, then he needs to choose a different way of responding to the message.

Yep. The irony here is thick.

Or are you typing this up at a public library because you gave away all your possessions?

One of those ways is to twist the meaning of the words so that he can be comfortable by thinking that the words mean something different than what the writer meant. This is easier to do in the absence of the writer, whereas the writer probably would have corrected them if they had misunderstood him in his presence.

Atheists don't have to twist the Bible. It says terrible things all on its own (or do you like slavery?). It's the Christian who twists the Bible.

Once a person begins on that course of error, the more that they proclaim their position in opposition to the true intended meaning, the more personal investment (pride/reputation) they have made to that position of being opposed. The more they invest into being opposed, the greater the perceived cost becomes should they need to consider conceding. This can happen to people who read scripture and identify as Christian too, because the underlying principle is the same: it is choosing to believe that what is said means something different than what the writer actually meant to say. Bias is a huge contributor to that, for which the false doctrines in Christianity teach Christians to misinterpret scripture (Confirmation bias - Wikipedia).

Then the person who has made that error will continue on that course of error for as long as t takes before he is able to reason that the cost of continuing on that course is greater than the cost of repentance. Tragically, there is a time limit imposed upon the human, and it is for this very reason: that God is spirit, yet the human who is avoiding God has ample opportunity through the provisions of carnal reality, to think that they have life sufficiently without acknowledging spiritual reality. (This is conveyed in Genesis 6:3, where Adonai says that His spirit will not contend with man forever).

I accept that this could be true in some cases, but not in the context for which I made the statement.

Our intentions become observable through our actions, therefore I keep coming to know your intentions. This is why I first asked whether you were seeking to be corrected. In your response to that question, I perceived that you might be capable of receiving correction, although many factors that happen throughout the day have a consequential impact upon our mood and spirit, that determines our intentions in (purpose for) acting. So in other words, our intentions are not constant, but are somewhat dependant upon our state of comfort. I will simply regard you according to your intentions at the time you speak, not for whatever I believe they could hypothetically be.

The only way that someone would choose to think evil of a holy one, is if they think wrongly of that one. As far as the bible goes to describe Adonai's character and thereby present that opportunity/risk, not only do we have potential for reader bias in interpretation being a cause of mischaracterisation, but there is the added layer of translation into a language that the original writers did not consider the meaning to be conveyed through. The result is that we are hugely jeopardised by the ease for which misunderstandings can occur.

Not only that, but there is an overwhelming culture of mischaracterisation of Adonai in Christianity through false doctrines, that as a result causes offence to those whom offence is not due. These undue offences in the name of God create a valid belief that Christianity is unjust in the view of the offended innocent party, that triggers them to begin a course of opposition to Christianity. But in fact, it is not Christianity that has caused that offence, it is the false doctrines of the antichrist being presented in Jesus' name that triggered it. (2 Peter 2:1-2 speaks of this: "because of them the way of truth will come into disrepute").

This has been happening for 2,000 years, so we have in the present day a highly ingrained culture of the antichrist operating in the name of Jesus. This is why Jesus said "men are recognised by their fruits - will a man pluck a fig from a thorn bush?".

I fail to see the relevance.

It's not really important to me, but I do believe that our conversation provides good evidence to refute the title of the thread positing that atheism is reasonable and Christianity is not. I am showing that you have made a logical error in your supporting argument. If you do not wish to receive this correction, I will simply cease from explaining it.

You've pointed out no error unless you really think I meant that Matt Dillahunty's analogy is the reason that all "lack of belief" atheists hold the position that they do. I'm merely pointing out that the same approach was taken by all such atheists. You are very uncharitable in your interpretation here... right after complaining that people read the Bible incorrectly.

This is not true, but rather it is case in point for what I said through introducing 1 John 4:6.

Mmhmm.

Well, it is saddening that you would prefer to receive me this way.

I prefer that you are reasonable and on topic. I would never prefer this interaction that we've had.

I have not said anything that you should have been offended by.

I'm not offended. Just annoyed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're missing the point. The analogy doesn't necessarily pertain to theism, or any other particular thing, at all. Again, it's only showing the difference between "I don't believe X is true" and "I believe X is false". I'm constantly faced with theists that insist that I must believe that no gods exist when I say that I don't believe in any god or gods. The gumball analogy is useful... sometimes... to show how this just isn't the case.

In fact, it's quite useful in determining if you should continue talking with a particular person. Along with questions like "Do you believe your god can create a married bachelor."

...I hate to say this, but you likewise missed the point, Todd. You missed the part of my implication that "heads" and "tails" are not equal.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

.. further to this, I would like to recommend that you consider this very well-written explanation of how the Genesis creation story is not properly conveyed through the English language: Hebrew Genesis 1.

The whole thing takes about 5 minutes to read, so I'll just copy/paste the central piece. This guy explains it in such a good way:

Off topic.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

...I hate to say this, but you likewise missed the point, Todd. You missed the part of my implication that "heads" and "tails" are not equal.

I'm going to need a bit more explanation, since we're not really talking about about binary positions.

 

[Chriliman]

Matt Dillahunty has clarified the atheist position with the following gumball analogy, which I have paraphrased:

Suppose there exists a gumball machine, and we don't know how many gumballs are inside it. If you told me that there were an even number of gumballs in the machine, then I would reject your assertion. Your assertion is rejected on the grounds of insufficient evidence, and I am not claiming that there is an odd number of gumballs. The fact of the matter is that we don't know and can't know how many gumballs there are, and so any positive assertion is unreasonable.

This is why most atheists are the "lack of belief" type of atheist. Some of these atheists might positively assert that Jehovah cannot exist, but this is usually because of the fact that Jehovah is often saddled with self-contradictory properties. Make Jehovah's properties self-consistent, and most atheists will not positively assert that he does not exist.

Those atheists who do assert that no gods exist are (hopefully) operating under the null hypothesis. For example, we might say that adding racing stripes to a vehicle will not make it go faster. This is not a declaration that experiments have been performed to conclude this, but rather that, by the null hypothesis, this is the default position. So, in that sense, when atheists say that there are no gods, they are (hopefully) speaking formally under the null hypothesis.

If an atheist were to say that there are definitively, absolutely, positively no gods, then they would be unreasonable. For if they were not saying this under the umbrella of the null hypothesis, then they must be declaring it as some conclusion. But most of us can agree that there is no argument which will soundly and validly conclude that there are positively no gods.

But now that we've clarified this, we should turn our attention to the Christian and see that they are unreasonable. The vast majority of theistic arguments are only suited to advance deism, which allows for the existence of one, many, or infinitely many deities. While all of these arguments are flawed, they are at least deductive, whereas Christian-specific arguments are rarely, if ever, deductive. Proving to the satisfaction of an atheist that Jesus rose from the dead does not definitively disprove the existence of Zeus or Thor.

So if a Christian cannot argue beyond the existence of potentially many generic deities, then - just like the atheist - the Christian would be unreasonable to positively assert that Zeus, Thor, and the countless other deities definitively do not exist. Yet, Christian creed demands that this declarative statement is made.

Even if the Christian were to successfully prove the existence of a supreme deity, there is nothing that can be done to show lesser deities do not exist. And gods like Thor certainly are lesser deities, since they are not said to be omnipotent or omniscient. Their existence cannot be disproved.

This means that Christianity is fundamentally unreasonable. Christianity cannot be defended logically, but must be believed by faith. And faith is not a path to the truth: just look no further than Islam.

Can you clarify something: are you saying that no one can ever know whether the number of gumballs is even or odd?

If not, then can we agree that there is a true answer, but it will take some investigation and searching to figure it out?

The same then would be true of the God of Jesus. There is a true answer about whether He exists or not, but it will take some investigation and searching to know the true answer.

 

[Serving Zion]

Click on the link (Judges 1:19) and read the official christianforums.com version:

And Jehovah was with Judah; and drove out [the inhabitants of] the hill-country; for he could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.



Irrelevant because you refuse to acknowledge the KJV.

The KJV says that God could not drive the inhabitants of the valley away. You twist that into saying that the Hebrews could not do it.

Best case scenario for you is that I chose the wrong verse to support God's omnipotence. Do you think I can't find another?



So... is "Sell all that you have and give the money to the poor" not clear to you, or is it not convenient?



Yep. The irony here is thick.

Or are you typing this up at a public library because you gave away all your possessions?



Atheists don't have to twist the Bible. It says terrible things all on its own (or do you like slavery?). It's the Christian who twists the Bible.



I fail to see the relevance.



You've pointed out no error unless you really think I meant that Matt Dillahunty's analogy is the reason that all "lack of belief" atheists hold the position that they do. I'm merely pointing out that the same approach was taken by all such atheists. You are very uncharitable in your interpretation here... right after complaining that people read the Bible incorrectly.



Mmhmm.



I prefer that you are reasonable and on topic. I would never prefer this interaction that we've had.



I'm not offended. Just annoyed.

In light of the fact that you have said you fail to see the relevance of what I said above, and then you have complained that I am not being reasonable, I recognise that I will not able to help you at this time. There might yet be another opportunity!

Let me know if there is anything else I can do for you.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Can you clarify something: are you saying that no one can ever know whether the number of gumballs is even or odd?

Yes. That is the premise of the thought experiment.

If not, then can we agree that there is a true answer, but it will take some investigation and searching to figure it out?

What makes you think that some amount of investigation will guarantee an answer?

The same then would be true of the God of Jesus. There is a true answer about whether He exists or not, but it will take some investigation and searching to know the true answer.

Again, what is backing this guarantee?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

In light of the fact that you have said you fail to see the relevance of what I said above, and then you have complained that I am not being reasonable, I recognise that I will not able to help you at this time. There might yet be another opportunity!

Let me know if there is anything else I can do for you.

Thanks for being willing to help out in other areas. Perhaps you could tell me if you positively affirm that all gods aside from Adonai do not exist (and if so, what your supporting argument is), or if you accept that other gods can exist (and if so, why you don't believe in them yet do believe in Adonai).

 

[Chriliman]

Yes. That is the premise of the thought experiment.

How do you know that the answer can never be known? Can't we at least conclude that there is a finite amount of gumballs and therefore a true answer as to whether the number is even or odd, even if we currently don't know the true answer.

What makes you think that some amount of investigation will guarantee an answer?

Logic says that there must be a finite amount of gumballs and therefore a true answer as to whether that number is even or odd. The logical next step is to investigate further in the hopes of finding the true answer.

Again, what is backing this guarantee?

Logic and hope or faith or whatever you want to call it.

 

[Serving Zion]

Thanks for being willing to help out in other areas. Perhaps you could tell me if you positively affirm that all gods aside from Adonai do not exist (and if so, what your supporting argument is), or if you accept that other gods can exist (and if so, why you don't believe in them yet do believe in Adonai).

It is not reliable to speak of all gods as though all gods are really knowable, but there is definitely evidence that some people have a personal relationship with a spirit being that they know to be a god (a spirit being that does not claim to be Adonai).

My pursuit of this knowledge has led me to understand that Adonai reigns supreme (eg, scriptures speak of Adonai as being supreme even within a polytheistic society Jonah 1:4-10). Adonai is highest, most revered, most wise and enduring, because He alone is holy (beyond reproach, without sin, impervious to accusation). All who love life will honour Him, all who oppose Him are opposed to righteousness and therefore must use deceit to evade the truth that would expose their truly despicable form.

I refer to the spiritual creatures that have chosen opposition to him as demons, as being members of a Satanic empire that undermines Adonai's empire. It's empire is established by leveraging human's sinful tendency to influence them to believe contrary to the truth, in order that the human will act in a way that enslaves them to deceit so that they can not be righteous in the sight of the holy one, and in this way they become naturally opposed to The Holy Spirit. Some of those humans in fact claim to represent Adonai, because they have fallen into a satanic belief system through the false doctrines introduced into Christianity while the church was taking root (See 2 Peter 2:1-2). This is how Gandhi has found "your Christians are so unlike your Christ". (That is to divide and conquer the church, as Jesus warned in Matthew 12:25).

Therefore, gods who are not Adonai are legends and personas that are created by demon spirits, in order to capture the loyalty of belief of those who would end up in a place that they are able to believe that the one they worship is worthy of that worship, but this is also not to say that all who believe non-Christian religions are demon worshippers, because Jesus said "I have other sheep that are not of this fold (Judaism). They will follow me and I must bring them also". Jesus was speaking about the end of the present age, when the seed of the kingdom that He had established 2,000 years ago would mature into the mustard tree that would eventually bring forth the completion of His Messianic mission. In accordance with Isaiah 11:9, the whole earth will be full of the knowledge of Adonai as the waters cover the sea, and in this way there would be no more confusion or conflict over the true nature of God, because everybody will recognise that The Holy Spirit they have been worshipping in their respective cultures is in fact the same spirit that was incarnate as Jesus Christ. The world will know that He is holy (and what that even means), and this would produce peace.

I hope this is sufficient to explain my views, or I could explain more in detail if you would ask for clarification. Thanks for having asked!