Question to Atheists

[Grizzly]

But if you have false ideas about what either or both are, you will reach a false conclusion about what a "square circle" is, and misidentify it as such.

It's illogical to believe anything that is not logically possible.

But I have to admit that I don't post in this forum very often (I'm usually confined to American Politics since they closed General Apologetics a few years ago). I see that I am not allowed to argue against the existence of your god. So I will cease and desist.

Be well - and Happy Easter tomorrow!

 

[LostWarrior]

I most certainly do, considering I have known him for almost twice as long as you've been alive. You need to look into the definition of "person," to realize it is not restricted to a human being.

And yes, He became a human being. Today we celebrate His day in the tomb.



Not as simple as you'd like it to be, no. We are commanded not to condemn. That doesn't violate Love, at all. We are also commanded to discern, such as not inviting a robber / rapist / murderer to dinner with your wife. That doesn't violate Love, either.



Ok, so now we know you don't know what fundamentalism is. Google the history of the term before you try using it again, ok? Being in black and white does no good until you understand it, and you haven't even read the NT (New Testament) In fact, you've approached the Bible the worst possible way, which is to start at the beginning and try reading it straight through just like it was any other book.



This is not a reasonable statement to make, but again; you need to educate yourself on terms before you go around using them. Fair enough?



What? You've already said you don't have training in formal debate, and this isn't a formal debate. Just try to discuss the topic, eh?



This is a nonsensical statement, in that there is no way for it to have meaning. People either believe the Bible, or they do not. EVERY STATEMENT you have made about it, has been uninformed, except for those that have been misinformed. That's ok, you've only begun reading it, and haven't had the time to even learn how to learn about it, let alone do any learning. But things everyone values like integrity and honesty dictate that you need to reserve judgment on the subject, until such time as you can make an informed opinion.

My goal is for you to form your own conclusions, based on good info



You are still making the same mistake, of "all arguments at once." You should more than recognize by now that any nonsense you can come up with, WILL BE met with the truth of the matter here. Common decency says you don't go on making absurd allegations when you haven't addressed those things you've already raised, nor the main topic. Isn't that reasonable?



That's really no attitude to take here, got it? Just about any Christian poster on CF could lecture you for hours on any such thing; don't pretend to know what you obviously don't. Learn some humility; there's a lot you don't understand yet. That's ok

You're right, some do. Count "giving G-d qualities" among the horrible things Christians have done



This is not an informed position. I would suggest you have no idea yet what Christianity even IS



Repeating your same mistake and stubbornly refusing to learn won't ever be productive



Again, you are missing the point. Is that your only intent?



Again, your conclusion is based on lack of info. That's not a strong position



You can rest assured that before you were born, I was applying more of Buddhism than you are aware of now.



You're not getting it, and really have no exposure to the Gospel. You read the beginning of the Bible, and you saw that people in a perfect environment with ONE law could never follow it.

Can you explain how is it possible for a personal, corporal body to be unchangeable for a long period of time? Or do you admit your God does change?
Aww wait a second... So God actually IS Jesus? So when Jesus said "Father, why did you abandon me?" in the cross he was talking to himself?

I gave you the verse where judgement of other people is not allowed. Go check it out.

A fundamentalist - according to 3 dictionaries around (my mobile doesn't acceed to wiki) and to my Philosophy and History scholar books - is someone who takes whatever is writen in Holy Books as literal.
And if you quote the Bible, you have no freedom to add your own interpretation to it. Either you accept it as literal or the Bible has no propuse in the discussion (unless you can supprt it is actually real and divenly inspiration.
And no, I've never read the NT and never needed to. All I know about it is from my past experience in debates that made me search some quotes, and from sites in the Internet, especially EvilBible.com. And for me, it's an ordinary book.

I didn't take any course in a formal debate but have discussed a while online and on real life.
Saying "I want you to support the Bible is true" is a non-sequiteur is a nice but false way to escape it. People either believe in my magical flying unicorn or they don't. Does that mean it's true? What about if my unicorn has a book writen about him, with a few contradictions and blah blah, but then what...? Anyways, does that make it true? Does that mean it is worth the time to read it? Or can you go right ahead and saying it's fake using another logical and pratical arguments behind the book?

So, giving God qualities is bad? I don't get it: why do you worship God? And your suggestions (when said without support or ways to improve) would be better used somewhere else - become an hipnotist and get someone to actually listen to them.

Repeating the same mistake? Well, you don't seem to have corrected me so far.

You were a Buddhist and you became a Christian? What went wrong in your life?

 

[razeontherock]

It's illogical to believe anything that is not logically possible.

Very much agreed! I came to the Lord via cold, hard logic; and I assure you, there is nothing about Him that defies logic. (Our perceptions, certainly)

I see that I am not allowed to argue against the existence of your god. So I will cease and desist.

Compared to you I'm a n00b here, and not to do a victory dance or anything, I'm sad to learn of this particular quirk. I'm still really not sure how it's enforced, since I've seen differing takes on it. I do think that discussion of qualities of His Nature should be allowed, even with the intent to examine them critically to see if they make sense or what. At best, this is not the thread for that, and EC certainly gives more leeway

And a Hoppy Easter to you too!

 

[razeontherock]

Can you explain how is it possible for a personal, corporal body to be unchangeable for a long period of time?

If that happens, it would only happen if that body is quite different from our own, obviously. And this is in fact what the Gospels record; but now you're trying to take things of a Spiritual nature into the scientific realm, and that would be frustrating at best.

So God actually IS Jesus? So when Jesus said "Father, why did you abandon me?" in the cross he was talking to himself?

It is more complex than this, and you are not going to solve life's mysteries from your phone

A fundamentalist - according to 3 dictionaries around (my mobile doesn't acceed to wiki) and to my Philosophy and History scholar books - is someone who takes whatever is writen in Holy Books as literal.

Secular dictionaries are useless on the topic here, which is sacred. You just defined a literalist. Obviously Fundamentalism is a an Ecumenical movement, that defined certain fundamentals of the Faith that all agree to. If you intend to use the word, you should look that up first.

And if you quote the Bible, you have no freedom to add your own interpretation to it. Either you accept it as literal or the Bible has no propuse in the discussion

You have no idea what you're talking about and are therefore in no position to teach, as evidenced here:

I've never read the NT

You have no basis for forming any opinion on Christianity, or anything related to it.

I've never read the NT and never needed to.
All I know about it is from my past experience in debates that made me search some quotes, and from sites in the Internet, especially EvilBible.com.

That is analogous to learning about the theory of evolution from a creationist. 'Nuff said?

Saying "I want you to support the Bible is true" is a non-sequiteur is a nice but false way to escape it.

That's probably why I didn't say that, don't ya think? You can't possibly determine the veracity of something until you know what that thing IS. If you have no inclination to do that, you would be well advised to avoid forming any opinion about it. And that goes for any subject you might pick.

You were a Buddhist and you became a Christian? What went wrong in your life?

That's flaming. That's also a false concept, that the 2 somehow oppose each other. They don't.

 

[LostWarrior]

If that happens, it would only happen if that body is quite different from our own, obviously. And this is in fact what the Gospels record; but now you're trying to take things of a Spiritual nature into the scientific realm, and that would be frustrating at best.

No. It's only reasonable.

It is more complex than this, and you are not going to solve life's mysteries from your phone

I lol'ed. And there's way more in life than Jesus. There are actual misteries that don't require us to close our eyes out there. And I got an iPad now. Much easier.

Secular dictionaries are useless on the topic here, which is sacred. You just defined a literalist. Obviously

I lol'ed. Not because of my mistake - thank for correcting it - but because an English-Portuguese and two Portuguese-Portuguese dictionaries in no way can qualify as secular or religious.

You have no idea what you're talking about and are therefore in no position to teach, as evidenced here:

I lol'ed

You have no basis for forming any opinion on Christianity, or anything related to it.

I lol'ed. Go back to my unicorn and see who has the burden of proof in a debate like this.

That is analogous to learning about the theory of evolution from a creationist. 'Nuff said?

Most creacionists (at least in Portugal) who don't believe in evolution - with this I mean that they don't integrate it in their believes - have been banend from churchs. I lol'ed again.

That's probably why I didn't say that, don't ya think? You can't possibly determine the veracity of something until you know what that thing IS. If you have no inclination to do that, you would be well advised to avoid forming any opinion about it. And that goes for any subject you might pick.

So you can only talk about religion if you have experience with it. And you can only have experience with it by believing it. I lol'ed.

Besides making me laugh, you fail at a debate. You ignore my arguments. You don't know that, as a believer, your job is to prove me your God exists, not otherwise. You fail at suporting your arguments. You think that a religion can only be learnt and disproved by the Bible - you demonstrate no ability to realise the Bible assumes that your God exists, while you are discussing his existance, which is a circular argument and a very serious logical flaw at the same time. That's why in professional debates nobody talks about the Bible; Your believes have been proved unreasonable by 2 people now and your last arguments failled. I'm out. Nice talking to you (do I go to Hell if I lie in a forum? I surely hope not). Happy Easter.

By the way, I was a Buddhist too for some time. Do you know the nice thing about it? There is not a need for a God. Get it ?

 

[AtheistVet]

Very much agreed! I came to the Lord via cold, hard logic; and I assure you, there is nothing about Him that defies logic. (Our perceptions, certainly)

I have never, ever heard a cold hard logical reason for believing in the Christian god. And I've heard a LOT of arguments.

 

[razeontherock]

You don't know that, as a believer, your job is to prove me your God exists

Absolutely false, impossible to do online, and against CF rules.

You fail at suporting your arguments.

I'm not arguing, and you refuse to stop.

you demonstrate no ability to realise the Bible assumes that your God exists, while you are discussing his existance, which is a circular argument and a very serious logical flaw at the same time.

That's not what's happening here at all. Again, what you're attempting is prohibited by forum rules.

By the way, I was a Buddhist too for some time.

You're 16; no, you were not a Buddhist for some time.

 

[razeontherock]

I have never, ever heard a cold hard logical reason for believing in the Christian god.

One would expect that, from looking at your faith icon

 

[TerranceL]

Absolutely false, impossible to do online, and against CF rules.

Which rule?

 

[razeontherock]

Which rule?

What you're responding to is his claim of "proving G-d." That would delve squarely into GA

 

[candle glow]

And my take on love and morality is simple: you learn it by growing in an animal community like ours, where friendship and love are necessary. Just like fishes of the same species love and protect each other by instint and need, we are no different.

Well, I wasn't asking about love and morality in general. I was asking about your understanding of what Jesus said about love and in particular, is there ANY teaching from Jesus which you can agree with, or do you throw it all away on the basis that it is found in the bible?

If you can appreciate any teaching from Jesus then I'd feel it's worth continuing with you, but if you throw it all away on technicalities then you appear to be nothing more than an angry trouble maker out to "destroy".

Again, you are missing the point. Is that your only intent?

Yes, I believe, after many exchanges, this is lost's intent. He feels he has his evidence and his mind is made up (which is not bad in itself) but he is not listening.

This happened with some of the first few "contradictions" he posted. When it was shown that there were no contradictions, he claimed that he was not familiar with the Bible and refused to acknowledge that he'd made a mistake.

After being further challenged, he claimed that he's only 16 and English is not his first language. This only came out after he was challenged. In other words, he should be free to attack the Christian religion and people should take it easy on him because of his age.

When challenged further, he claimed that it's only his inexperience which was leading his arguments to be refuted, and that if more experienced atheists (presumably the same atheists he's copy/pasting his info from) were here, they'd "tear us to pieces in seconds".

"personality quirks" like this just keep coming up. I know we all have them to some degree, but insisting that others MUST accept our arguments despite these problem areas is not rational. Ignoring these problem areas during a discussion is like trying to brute-force a point.

It certainly does not fit the respectable model that nearly all atheists like to claim, of rationally and calmly working through the issues.

 

[quatona]

I just want to say right from the start that I love that you guys are here.

My question is, why?

Because I knew you´d love me being here.

 

[candle glow]

Because I knew you´d love me being here.

 

[RoadWarrior]

You don't know that, as a believer, your job is to prove me your God exists, not otherwise.

I've heard this comment before from several atheists and I don't get it. By what logic do you believe it to be true? Matthew 28:18-20 is "The Great Commission", but nowhere does it say proof of God must be presented before conversion to Christianity. Even Richard Dawkins is uncertain about God since he cannot prove or disprove Gods existence. It's a matter of faith.

Absolutely false, impossible to do online, and against CF rules.

Agreed, agreed (and IRL too) and not so sure. One rule is this: You will not insult or mock Christianity or any part of the Trinity-Father(God), Son(Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Honest debate about the nature of God and Christianity is allowed, but derogatory remarks will be promptly removed.


Another is this: Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.

 

[candle glow]

I have never, ever heard a cold hard logical reason for believing in the Christian god. And I've heard a LOT of arguments.

Something Jesus is recorded as saying, which I feel somewhat addresses this issue comes from John 7:

JN 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

I think it may be unreasonable to ask people to put their faith in something which does not work, so the test is to try it and see. I feel this is also consistent with the scientific method of trying something to test it.

There are something like 240 commands of Jesus spread throughout the 4 gospels, some of which are implied commands, but most of which are grammatical commands.

A HUGE portion of them relate specifically to HOW we show love towards others, and a huge portion of those commands relate specifically to greed and materialism as a fundamental hindrance to showing love.

Only the most sincere, desperate, and genuine seekers will apply these teachings in the way they are meant to be applied by the one who gave the commands, but that is part of the standards of the Kingdom of Heaven, too. God is looking for quality, not quantity.

People who choose not to test it have very little ground to stand on when it comes to arguing against the validity of those teachings. For a comprehensive list of the commands of Jesus you can visit my website and click on the link for the commands of Jesus (about halfway down the page on the left side). the link is in my profile.

 

[LostWarrior]

Absolutely false, impossible to do online, and against CF rules.

Are you serious?

I'm not arguing, and you refuse to stop.

So you get in the middle of my conversation with someone else, start talking about religion, and when your believes are totally dismissed you become angry and say you weren't arguing. This is a complet joke-

That's not what's happening here at all. Again, what you're attempting is prohibited by forum rules.

Stop being that much of ... [you complete the blanks] and start taking responsability for what you believe in and your actions.

You're 16; no, you were not a Buddhist for some time.

By the way you think age matters and by the way you act, YOU were never a Buddhist.

 

[LostWarrior]

Well, I wasn't asking about love and morality in general. I was asking about your understanding of what Jesus said about love and in particular, is there ANY teaching from Jesus which you can agree with, or do you throw it all away on the basis that it is found in the bible?

I agree we should love each other in the right context. I don't agree we should love our enemies. I don't agree we should judge people by their romantic choices or supposedly supernatural powers.

Yes, I believe, after many exchanges, this is lost's intent. He feels he has his evidence and his mind is made up (which is not bad in itself) but he is not listening.

This happened with some of the first few "contradictions" he posted. When it was shown that there were no contradictions, he claimed that he was not familiar with the Bible and refused to acknowledge that he'd made a mistake.

Not quite. I did reply to your replies to my contraditions. But then you simply started drifting away from what's writen and adding your own interpretation. As a Bible is an "open book" - in the sense it can have any interpretation - either you are able to read exactly what is there, or it has no place in a discussion like this.

After being further challenged, he claimed that he's only 16 and English is not his first language. This only came out after he was challenged. In other words, he should be free to attack the Christian religion and people should take it easy on him because of his age.

Not quite (again). I said that, indeed, but your interpretation is wrong (see the problem with open phrases). I believe that when someone puts his believes or desbelieves out in public, everyone has the right to challenge them as hard as they can.

When challenged further, he claimed that it's only his inexperience which was leading his arguments to be refuted, and that if more experienced atheists (presumably the same atheists he's copy/pasting his info from) were here, they'd "tear us to pieces in seconds".

I'm not copying my info from any atheists. I've already gave you my sources. Another interpretation wrong.

 

[LostWarrior]

I've heard this comment before from several atheists and I don't get it. By what logic do you believe it to be true?
Matthew 28:18-20 is "The Great Commission", but nowhere does it say proof of God must be presented before conversion to Christianity. Even Richard Dawkins is uncertain about God since he cannot prove or disprove Gods existence. It's a matter of faith.

1. If I believe in something aditional to this world/an extra belief (for example, if I believe you ran into me and you somehow don't) I'm the one who has to prove I'm right.
2. "Faith" is the word used when there are no evidences. Simply put, if there are no evidences, it's an unreasonable belief.

Agreed, agreed (and IRL too) and not so sure. One rule is this: You will not insult or mock Christianity or any part of the Trinity-Father(God), Son(Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Honest debate about the nature of God and Christianity is allowed, but derogatory remarks will be promptly removed.

Can you quote where I insulted or mocked anything? I've been harsh in my replies, on propuse, but that is different from insulting/mocking (and call an atheist to confirm your accusation, because they may most likely suffer from "Confirmation Bias").

Another is this: Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.

I'm quite guilty of the last part, but so is everyone in the last pages, and so are you. Basically by telling me this, you aren't replying to the original poster, and you aren't even an atheist so this post wasn't even supposed to be replied by you.

 

[candle glow]

I agree we should love each other in the right context. I don't agree we should love our enemies. I don't agree we should judge people by their romantic choices or supposedly supernatural powers.

Thanks for being specific about some of these issues, lost. I understand what you mean about enemy loving (though I disagree with your conclusion).

However, I am unclear what you mean by the "right context".

I think I know what you mean about romantic choices (though I am only assuming) but I am unclear what you mean by "supernatural powers".

Please elaborate.

 

[Mling]

I've heard this comment before from several atheists and I don't get it. By what logic do you believe it to be true?

In any form of philosophy or debate, it's always the burden of the person making a claim to prove that the claim is true. You can't just make an assertion (such as, "there are faeries in my garage,") and insist that everybody accept it as true unless they can prove it false. This is because it's nearly impossible to prove anything false, if people were required to believe anything that could be asserted, but not disproved, everybody would be compelled to believe any stinkin' thing anybody around them said.

For example: I am the emperor of the world. I demand my tax in the form of Easter candy. It's ok if you can't find any support for this claim--it's an ancient lineage, carefully kept hidden, but I've asserted it exists, so now you owe me your Easter candy.

Matthew 28:18-20 is "The Great Commission"

, but nowhere does it say proof of God must be presented before conversion to Christianity. Even Richard Dawkins is uncertain about God since he cannot prove or disprove Gods existence. It's a matter of faith.

Right...the same way he can't disprove the existence of Bertrand's tiny teapot, or the faeries in my yard, or my assertion that buried deep in my family history, I'm secretly an emperor. You're probably as "uncertain" of my claims to royalty as Dawkins is of your claims of a god: maybe you can't disprove them, but you're not going to believe something that has no support, just because somebody told you to.[/quote]