This will my last round of THIS humbug

[Oncedeceived]

Really? The Bible is full of poisoning-the-well,character assassination screeds against knowledge/scepticism with scare-tactic/cult-mind control blurbs such as:

Romans 1:20-24
20-For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: NOTE:How can "invisible things" be "clearly seen" so, how are we supposed to "get it"? Oh, I know, just "believe"...)
21-Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22-Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23-And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24-Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

1Cr 3:18-20
18-1Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19-For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20-And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain. (Wow, talk about a perfect example of the concept of Orwellian Newspeak (Ex. "hate is love" Here "wisdom is foolishness")

All these examples are for those who do not believe in God but believe in their "own wisdom" or for those who believe that they are wiser than God Himself.

knowledge:

Jer 3:15 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

Dan 1:4 Children in whom [was] no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as [had] ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

Dan 1:17 As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.

Dan 2:21 And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:

Pro 23:12 Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge.

Pro 24:4 And by knowledge shall the chambers be filled with all precious and pleasant riches.

Pro 24:5 A wise man [is] strong; yea, a man of knowledge increaseth strength

Pro 24:14 So [shall] the knowledge of wisdom [be] unto thy soul: when thou hast found [it], then there shall be a reward, and thy expectation shall not be cut off.

Ecc 2:26 For [God] giveth to a man that [is] good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to [him that is] good before God. This also [is] vanity and vexation of spirit.

Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;

2 Peter 3:3-6(nice threat against non-believer aka "ungodly men" in addition to the character attack)
3-Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4-And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5-For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6-Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7-But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Psalm 14:1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Psalm 53:1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

John 20:29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.(the postmortem bribe to disregard your intelligence if the threat of character assassination/hellfire fails)

The Bible is claiming that when people disregard God their wisdom is not aided by God. That those who rely only on their own wisdom are foolish. This foolishness is not with the wisdom or knowledge itself but the fact that they haven't the assistance of God's wisdom.

What you have done here is to try to equate trust with faith. This is nothing more than an equivocation fallacy on your part and it won't fly.

From your link:

This includes using a definition of a word in a quotation that is not the definite that the author intended.

Since I am the author of the above quote, I think that I know what was intended.

While trust may be a type of faith, it is usually based on some kind of observable evidence. I have "trust" that the sun will come up tomorrow because it always has in the past, i.e, empirical evidence of the sun rising each day in the past establishes a strong probability that the sun will most probably "come up" tomorrow (unforseen, sudden celestial catastrophies like earth-destroying meteors not withstanding).

I have had observable evidence which my faith is based upon which gives me trust in God.

Science is based on tangible evidence and the scientific method has been proven to work in the past. So my trust ("faith") rests on science's solid track record of acheivement in solving/elucidating the phenomena of this universe.

And that evidence is based on those stable aspects that Science uses to achieve the results that it presents.

Has science failed in the past? Yes, but even if errors are made, science is usually self-correcting because of the enormous amount of skeptical peer-review, therefore, it's overall track-record is enough for me to have a high level of confidence in this manner of problem-solving. No "blind/no evidence" faith involved here, but very justifiable trust/confidence based on the evidence of past performance.

Which is what I use with God. The track record is phenomenal and I don't have to have blind faith to trust anymore than you do with Science.

Religious faith on the other hand is NOT based on any kind of observable evidence. Here's the Biblical definition

:

False. I have had observable evidence of God in my life.

Hebrews 11:1:"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

See the word evidence? Evidence speaks of proof does it not? So proof of things unseen does not mean believing in unproven, unseen things but faith in the proof of things of substance that come from the unseen. I may not physically "see" God but I have evidence (proof) of His existance even without
"seeing" Him.

How can you have evidence for something that is not "seen" or something that is "hoped for"?

Answer to prayer. Events that are in the physical realm that are divine in nature. Things that an unbeliever would have no "knowledge" or understanding of.

Or as one theist defined religious faith to me, "intellectual assent to that which cannot be known". If you can't "know" something about what you claim to believe in, then you are simply indulging in "blind" (no evidence) faith.

One theist an argument does not make. I know God and it does not come from blind faith.

The two things (trust vs faith) are NOT the same.

Trust and faith walk hand in hand.

 

[A4C]

Aron True -you may find some "religious lobbys" a little more demanding than Christianity - and a little more revengeful when attacked.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Only liberal Bible readers can pick and choose what they believe is truth and which is myth. They lack the boldness of God's wisdom and trust that what they perceive as problems with Creation, Adam and Eve and other parts of the Bible as possibilities to knowing God more fully.

You lack the wisdom of God too, (how arrogant!) and so did the folks who wrote the Bible. Don't kid yourself. You worship a book written by primitives. What made them any wiser than you? What makes you any wiser than a Christian scientist college professor with a doctorate in molecular biology? Could it be perhaps that others, (who do not adhere to the Bible literally) just might be wiser than you?

 

[Aron-Ra]

But as you know, evidence can become a choice. You can choose to believe in certain evidence over another by your very priori assumptions as we have seen in the other thread we have going on now.

But (as I explained in the other conversation) I don't know anything of the kind, and am unable to choose to believe anything. I told you already all evidence must be weighed, and all assumptions must be questioned, and none of mine are priori. But thank you for admitting in your own little way that you can choose to ignore whatever doesn't fit your model. That is something I can't do.

Since you've gotten some strange interpretation out of our other conversation, I have decided to post what I have of that now, rather than wait for your last three replies, just to clarify our respective positions in that to this point.

That statement alone is an unquestioned assumption for which there is no evidence.

Millions of people say there is, does that mean that there is no evidence or does it mean that there is no evidence that convinces you.

About 800 million Hindus say they have evidence of their god too. But they don't really have any either. All they have are what you have, family traditions, immutable preconceptions, subjective feelings and voices in their heads, that sort of thing. In other words, no demonstrable evidence at all.

Is that so different than those Christians that believe evolution is false?

Yes. Because they actually have to consciously ignore objective, measurable evidence after it is shown to them. Its a very dishonest practice, but one that is common among them, and I have documented many such occasions if you'd care to see them. If you'll look at my posts in the formal debates forum, you'll see that's all Mark Kennedy ever does.

Millions believe that it is true but there are those who claim the evidence is false. Does this mean that the evidence is truly false?

Claiming something without just cause is called "preaching". It doesn't mean anything. In science, what you know is what you can show. The evidence is false once someone proves that it is.

But experience has shown me that God's real. I am aware that there is a tiny possibility that God could deceive me in who He is as well but in the experience that I have had this is very unlikly.

Tell that to the 800 million Hindus who's personal experience is that you're worshipping their god and don't know it.

No you don't. You only believe he is. And you don't have any evidence or logical proof that he does.

Oh but I do. It rests on logical reasonable experience. The fact that you don't have that experience does not mean that mine is false.

One tiny correction; I do have that experience. I was even reborn once. The experience turned out to be false. -Not just for me, but for many other former Christians as well.

"I was raised in a good Christian home, served in missions and evangelism, went to a Christian college, became ordained and ministered in three churches as Assistant Pastor. During those years I was 100 percent convinced of my faith, and now I am just about 100 percent unconvinced."
--Dan Barker; Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist

You don't know God exists. And apart from your subjective desire, you don't have any reason to believe he does either. Why can't believers distinguish between what they know and what they only believe?

The faith I know does indeed move mountians. Mountains that are as hard to move as literal mountains but have moved just the same. I have no desire to move a literal mountain but I have no doubt that should I have the most ardent wish to do so, it would move if it were in the will of God to do so.

OK, so we've got a wild claim that you can't substantiate and won't reconsider. My point is made. It also seems as though you already know that it wouldn't really work, not just for you but for anyone else in the history of Christianity. After all, no one has ever moved a mountain before. Read my sig and tell me, does your faith more closely match Nietzche's definition or Mark Twain's?

There is also no guarantee, or even any indication, that he has ever even been there in the past.

Again, indeed there has been. Jesus walked this earth and there are documents that substanciate His life. Although this is circumstancial in a physical way, I know and so do millions before me that He lives.

Now take those hundreds of millions of Hindus and add them to the tens of millions of Jews and well-more than a billion Muslims who all "know" he doesn't. Then figure in all the dozens of other gods whom millions of other people "knew" were real even when they weren't.

The real property of God is love.

Well then, I guess the Bible isn't really his word after all. For I found no hint of love in that, only horror.

“You can cite a hundred references to show that the biblical God is a bloodthirsty tyrant, but if they can dig up two or three verses that say "God is love," they will claim that you are taking things out of context!”
--Dan Barker

How do you Scientifically prove love?

“Love is not self denial. Love is not blood and suffering. Love is not murdering your son to appease your own vanity. Love is not hatred or wrath, consigning billions of people to eternal torture because they have offended your ego or disobeyed your rules. Love is not obedience, conformity, or submission. It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority, punishment, or reward. True love is respect and admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy, unafraid human being.”
--Dan Barker

Do you love your children? How would you scientifically prove it?

I have made a greater sacrifice for my kids than most other parents you've ever known. I think that adequately proves my position. I don't want to go into those details here, but I'm pretty sure you don't want to get into that here either. Suffice it to say that yes, I can prove I love my kids. But you still can't prove your god loves you.

If you can't does that mean that you do not love them?

No, it doesn't. But the important point is, can you prove that I exist? At least I'm there with my kids to reassure them and clarify for them what I expect, so that I don't risk them going on some misunderstanding of what I might (or might not) have said once upon a time a long time ago. I have primary custody of two children from two different mothers, (which isn't easy to do in Texas) and I get no child support from either of them. All that was important to me was that I be with them, ever present in their lives, and really real, really there, not like some kid's imaginary playmate. What's your god's excuse?

You come to that faith with a preference for superstition. Knowledge of any kind is seldom involved.

I come to faith due to the experience of God in my life. Superstition has nothing to do with it. You have no idea what my preferences are. That is very presumptuous of you to say the least.

When I look up superstition in a dictionary, I see creationism implied. I don't share your preference, and never did. When I was Christian, I had been deceived into believing there was substantial evidence to support that conclusion. The day I stopped being a Christian was the day a friend (now the principal of a Christian school) explained the "reaffirmation of faith". Once I realized what faith really meant, (see my sig) that was it for me.

Knowledge of any kind is seldom involved.

And because you say this, it must be so? You can not in anyway know that knowledge is seldom involved as you have no way to experience another's life.

I don't need to. My own life will suffice. I have participated in thousands of CREVO debates online and in person, winning my first (against an adult) when I was only 8 years old. In my extensive experience, I can tell you that knowledge of any kind is seldom involved in one's adoption of creationism.

But the practice of faith often amounts to willful ignorance, the act of ignoring something which would otherwise compromise a position which must never be admitted to be weak in any way.

In some cases perhaps, but to put all Christians together in some general group that you consider ignorant and uncompromising is biased and somewhat uncharitable on your part.

I didn't say "always". I said "often", which even you must agree makes this an accurate statement.

Obviously science does not use faith of any kind. Nor is it even permitted in the scientific endeavor.

If it were not assumed that evolution did indeed occur the very theory of evolution would be lost.

But remember that faith is an assumption that is not based on evidence. We know evolution happens. That's no assumption. We've seen it happen over and over again in real time, right before our eyes. Then we have taxonomy, transitional fossils, and genomic sequencing as further (and rather profound) evidence that it has happened many times in the past. In addition, there are always biological alternatives to the original model of evolution, and this evidence has caused many to change their minds about how it all works. If this were faith, then no one would permit their mind to change without first losing that faith.

It is due to the fact that scientists held this to be true for any number of areas of study to be in affect today. It was faith in the idea that progressed evolution to be what it is today. It was faith in evolution that has openned doors to cure diseases that are genetic, and many other positive endeavors that we see in Science today. But faith in the theory was what propelled those to find what they have. IF evolution was not taken on faith in the early studies, we would not know what we know today.

Evolution has lead to many practical applications in a number of interrelated fields, including billion-dollar industries in bioengineering and agriculture. But all of it was based on an objective analysis of demonstrable, (and more importantly, testable) evidence. Thus none of it, not one little bit, counts as faith.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Aron True -you may find some "religious lobbys" a little more demanding than Christianity - and a little more revengeful when attacked.

And so might you, if you continue to support granting religion with the powers of the state. What happens when your religion isn't the popular one anymore? -When its not a tolerant, secular government anymore? (which it already isn't) And when some other religion adopts the state powers you once awarded to your church? What will your position on secular government be then?

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur'an, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
--Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of Council of American Islamic Relations
[San Ramon Valley Herald, July 1998]

When I say "I told you so", will you say you should have listened?

 

[A4C]

And so might you, if you continue to support granting religion with the powers of the state. What happens when your religion isn't the popular one anymore? -When its not a tolerant, secular government anymore? (which it already isn't) And when some other religion adopts the state powers you once awarded to your church? What will your position on secular government be then?

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur'an, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
--Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of Council of American Islamic Relations
[San Ramon Valley Herald, July 1998]

When I say "I told you so", will you say you should have listened?

I am not too sure how many more ways that could be devised for Christians to be attacked. I suppose you are aware that 2 Christian leaders in Australia have been found guilty of villification simply for repeating the teaching of Islam. Apparently the reading of the koran by non muslims will be outlawed in some states here. Now here we have a secular system, much where if any such charge were made about far worse things happening to the Word of God (Bible) it would have been laughed out of court. Perhaps we all will be in for an awakening but I believe that the secular world will be the one's not equipped to handle it. Do you all think that the freedom you enjoy here and the insults against the belief of the hosts would be tolerated if this was an Islamic site

 

[A4C]

I am not too sure how many more ways that could be devised for Christians to be attacked. I suppose you are aware that 2 Christian leaders in Australia have been found guilty of villification simply for repeating the teaching of Islam. Apparently the reading of the koran by non muslims will be outlawed in some states here. Now here we have a secular system, much where if any such charge were made about far worse things happening to the Word of God (Bible) it would have been laughed out of court. Perhaps we all will be in for an awakening but I believe that the secular world will be the one's not equipped to handle it. Do you all think that the freedom you enjoy here and the insults against the belief of the hosts would be tolerated if this was an Islamic site

Here is an article on this matter:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004376.php#comments

 

[Aron-Ra]

I am not too sure how many more ways that could be devised for Christians to be attacked. I suppose you are aware that 2 Christian leaders in Australia have been found guilty of villification simply for repeating the teaching of Islam.

I live in the U.S. We don't get international news here.

Apparently the reading of the koran by non muslims will be outlawed in some states here. Now here we have a secular system, much where if any such charge were made about far worse things happening to the Word of God (Bible) it would have been laughed out of court.

Probably because the Qur'an, the Bible, the Torah, the Book of Mormon, the Zoroastrian Avesta, the Hindu Bhagavad-Gita, and the Sri Dasam Granth of the Sikhs are all claiming to be the "word of God".

Perhaps we all will be in for an awakening but I believe that the secular world will be the one's not equipped to handle it.

Baring this in mind, I'm surprised that you're still not with me on the whole issue on the continued separation of church and state as the only way to protect either democracy or the freedom of religion. Do you not realize that both are currently under direct attack by the Religious Right in this country? They want to overturn democracy, which they are against, and replace that with a theocracy that enforces Levitican law as proposed by the late R.J. Rushdoony, founder of the Chalcedon institute from which most of these religious right groups hail.

Do you all think that the freedom you enjoy here and the insults against the belief of the hosts would be tolerated if this was an Islamic site

Oh no. I expect them to be just as unreasonable as you are. For example, when you tell me why you think my perspective is wrong, I listen, and I consider your arguments. I really do. But when I give you a considered and researched explanation of why I think your position is wrong, you think its an insult. Why?

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes."
--- President John Adams, in a letter to John Taylor

 

[Oncedeceived]

You lack the wisdom of God too, (how arrogant!) and so did the folks who wrote the Bible. Don't kid yourself. You worship a book written by primitives. What made them any wiser than you? What makes you any wiser than a Christian scientist college professor with a doctorate in molecular biology? Could it be perhaps that others, (who do not adhere to the Bible literally) just might be wiser than you?

I am simply relaying what Scripture says about God's wisdom. I am not claiming that I am wiser than a College professor with a doctorate in molecular biology(or anyone else for that matter) but what I am claiming is that this same professor claims to be wiser than God Himself. She is claiming to be a Christian and in the same context claims to know more than God. Where then does the arrogance lie?

 

[Oncedeceived]

But (as I explained in the other conversation) I don't know anything of the kind, and am unable to choose to believe anything. I told you already all evidence must be weighed, and all assumptions must be questioned, and none of mine are priori. But thank you for admitting in your own little way that you can choose to ignore whatever doesn't fit your model. That is something I can't do.

I didn't admit any such thing.

Since you've gotten some strange interpretation out of our other conversation, I have decided to post what I have of that now, rather than wait for your last three replies, just to clarify our respective positions in that to this point.

Noted.

About 800 million Hindus say they have evidence of their god too. But they don't really have any either. All they have are what you have, family traditions, immutable preconceptions, subjective feelings and voices in their heads, that sort of thing. In other words, no demonstrable evidence at all.

In your opinion.

Yes. Because they actually have to consciously ignore objective, measurable evidence after it is shown to them. Its a very dishonest practice, but one that is common among them, and I have documented many such occasions if you'd care to see them. If you'll look at my posts in the formal debates forum, you'll see that's all Mark Kennedy ever does.

Blindness to evidence can be frustrating but to call anyone dishonest I feel is very misquided. I can see this happening on both sides of the fence and I don't feel dishonesty is really a product of either.

Claiming something without just cause is called "preaching". It doesn't mean anything. In science, what you know is what you can show. The evidence is false once someone proves that it is.

But there are numerous gaps in the knowledge of Science and evolution being an example. Just because you have no problem with the gaps does not mean that someone who does is being dishonest. You seem to be very quick to attack the person rather than the person's perspective. But considering that you have said that people have resorted to doing the same to you I imagine that it comes with the territory.

Tell that to the 800 million Hindus who's personal experience is that you're worshipping their god and don't know it.

If any ask, I will be glad to do so.

One tiny correction; I do have that experience. I was even reborn once. The experience turned out to be false. -Not just for me, but for many other former Christians as well.

How were you reborn when you don't believe in Christ? Even if you once believed and now don't how would you then claim being reborn? Obviously I can't know your experiences as a Christian or for that matter as a non-Christian but I do know that being reborn as I myself know it....constitutes Christ living within us and going on what you have told me in our discussions here, you don't believe that to be a possibility.

"I was raised in a good Christian home, served in missions and evangelism, went to a Christian college, became ordained and ministered in three churches as Assistant Pastor. During those years I was 100 percent convinced of my faith, and now I am just about 100 percent unconvinced."
--Dan Barker; Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist

In this quote there is nothing that hints to a relationship with God. There are the outside image but nothing that states a personal relationship in this man's life.

You don't know God exists. And apart from your subjective desire, you don't have any reason to believe he does either.

And you call me arrogant? I do know that He exists and it has nothing to do with subjective desire. I have every reason to believe He exists as He has revealed Himself to me in such a way as to prove to me He does.

Why can't believers distinguish between what they know and what they only believe?

This is very humorous to me because many times I have said, "Why can't agnostics/atheists understand that there is a big difference between knowing and believing. Believing is an act of thinking that something is true but not having any confirmation on that something; whereas Knowing is an established proof with confirmation of a particular something. I once believed but now I know. There is a difference and I can and do distinguish between the two. I can choose to believe anything I wish but to know something I must have proof of that something. I can not choose to not believe in God as I know Him to exist. To believe anything other than what I know is impossible. It would be like asking me to believe that I have no mother. I know that I do so that of course would be ridiculous to tell me that I only believe that I have a mother. Of couse, logic would tell us that I would have to have a biological mother to exist and so you can accept that but your belief that there is no God prohibits you to believe that God must exist for you to exist too. You don't know so you can believe what you wish to. I can understand that.

OK, so we've got a wild claim that you can't substantiate and won't reconsider. My point is made.

I can substanciate that in my life mountains have been moved (in the non-literal sense) and others in my life could back up my claims.

It also seems as though you already know that it wouldn't really work, not just for you but for anyone else in the history of Christianity.

If I knew that God willed such a thing then yes, I know that a literal mountain would be moved. IF God wanted to glorify Himself then even today fire would come from the sky to prove His existence. But this is something that I simply can not prove myself. I can't demand God do my will. Christianity is not based on my will but that of God. Is there something in your life... a mountian that can be moved only by divine means? IF so, I ask God this very minute to move your mountain. I pray that God move in such a way that you will know it is Him that is at work. Not because I am a Christian, not because I believe that I have any power within myself to do this but I have trust in God to move if it be His will. Thank you Lord, Amen.

Now take those hundreds of millions of Hindus and add them to the tens of millions of Jews and well-more than a billion Muslims who all "know" he doesn't. Then figure in all the dozens of other gods whom millions of other people "knew" were real even when they weren't.

I will leave that up to God to sort out. Just because there are millions that believe in another way does not mean that God of the Bible is false. So I will concede that there are millions that also believe their god is real as well. But in that I know that just because I concede that point I don't concede that they are right based on my knowledge and understanding. That being said, I don't expect for you to believe me either.

Well then, I guess the Bible isn't really his word after all. For I found no hint of love in that, only horror.

You find what you seek.

“You can cite a hundred references to show that the biblical God is a bloodthirsty tyrant, but if they can dig up two or three verses that say "God is love," they will claim that you are taking things out of context!”
--Dan Barker

Do you worship Dan Barker?

“Love is not self denial.

God denied His rightful Divinity to take on the form of man and die for us all. That is the utmost in self-denial.

Love is not blood and suffering.

Would you not bleed for those you love, would you not suffer?

Love is not murdering your son to appease your own vanity.

IF you are love, if you are rightousness, if you are the very concept of these and can not abide by unrightousness, can not abide by evil and must allow for them to be present in creation to exemplify Love and Goodness is it vanity or love to give a way to free those from this? Jesus died so that all would be rightous, that all would be free. We are not Godly. WE are not perfect and we need God's perfection to cover our inperfection.

Love is not hatred or wrath, consigning billions of people to eternal torture because they have offended your ego or disobeyed your rules.

Eternal torture of separation from God, was it not you that said that you would not worhip the Christian God even if you found that He was real? Is it wrong of God then to give you over to your desire to be set apart from Him?

Love is not obedience, conformity, or submission. It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority, punishment, or reward.

Are you being obedient? Are you conforming? Are you submitting? Love is not forcing you to do so, and it will never in eternity either. God could force your obedience, He could force you to conform and He could force you to submit but He loves you and wants you to do these things from Love yourself and not because He has forced you. That would be counterfeit.

True love is respect and admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy, unafraid human being.”

--Dan Barker

I couldn't agree more. And that is what God wants but He will not force it. He doesn't need our love but He wants it. But ultimately, He is God and has the right to do His will.

I have made a greater sacrifice for my kids than most other parents you've ever known.

Greater than giving your own life for them? Obviously not but I don't doubt that you think that you would and I have no way of knowing that you wouldn't as I know that I feel I would give my life for my own children.

I think that adequately proves my position.

I see no proof. I have no such evidence.

I don't want to go into those details here, but I'm pretty sure you don't want to get into that here either. Suffice it to say that yes, I can prove I love my kids. But you still can't prove your god loves you.

No, I haven't seen any proof or evidence that you love your kids. No better than I can prove that God loves me....except that I know He died for me and to me that proves a great deal. But that doesn't prove anything to you. We are in the same boat here I am afraid.

No, it doesn't. But the important point is, can you prove that I exist?

I can't prove that you exist.

At least I'm there with my kids to reassure them and clarify for them what I expect, so that I don't risk them going on some misunderstanding of what I might (or might not) have said once upon a time a long time ago.

God is here for me as well. And as far as your children misunderstanding you....you can bet on it. How old are they anyway? Surely they must be young or you would have meet with this long before this.

I have primary custody of two children from two different mothers, (which isn't easy to do in Texas) and I get no child support from either of them.

How sad, two failed marriages, two children that have no mother. I feel for them. I feel for you too.

All that was important to me was that I be with them, ever present in their lives, and really real, really there, not like some kid's imaginary playmate.

I am sorry that you did not have that type of relationship with God. I do have His presence in my life and know that He is here for me. Imagination has never comforted me in the least.

When I look up superstition in a dictionary, I see creationism implied. I don't share your preference, and never did. When I was Christian, I had been deceived into believing there was substantial evidence to support that conclusion. The day I stopped being a Christian was the day a friend (now the principal of a Christian school) explained the "reaffirmation of faith". Once I realized what faith really meant, (see my sig) that was it for me.

Well I don't know what the reaffirmation of faith is so I guess I can't address that.

I don't need to. My own life will suffice. I have participated in thousands of CREVO debates online and in person, winning my first (against an adult) when I was only 8 years old. In my extensive experience, I can tell you that knowledge of any kind is seldom involved in one's adoption of creationism.
I didn't say "always". I said "often", which even you must agree makes this an accurate statement.

Not to offend but the adult you debated when you were 8 may have been rather slow for all I know. Just kidding. But please don't be offended when I don't seem impressed.

But remember that faith is an assumption that is not based on evidence. We know evolution happens. That's no assumption. We've seen it happen over and over again in real time, right before our eyes. Then we have taxonomy, transitional fossils, and genomic sequencing as further (and rather profound) evidence that it has happened many times in the past. In addition, there are always biological alternatives to the original model of evolution, and this evidence has caused many to change their minds about how it all works. If this were faith, then no one would permit their mind to change without first losing that faith.
Evolution has lead to many practical applications in a number of interrelated fields, including billion-dollar industries in bioengineering and agriculture. But all of it was based on an objective analysis of demonstrable, (and more importantly, testable) evidence. Thus none of it, not one little bit, counts as faith.

I disagree. If evolution had to rely on demonstrable evidence in the early years it would have fallen out of favor. It was due to the progression of thought in regard to it as well as hypothesis's that as usual were tested and failed and some that were tested and succeeded.

 

[Dragar]

Aron, I too have been recently noticing that 'belief' seems always to be associated with something 'good'. How many movies has the successful outcome of the hero 'trusting' or 'believing' in some power, or person, or force - often when trust is not rationally warranted?

I do not know why there is this association. I think it is something to do with social interactions between humans ("I trust you" is often a compliment, is it not?), than anything else. But our culture certainly has a problem in the way it indoctrinates us with the idea that blind trust or belief is a virtue.

 

[gladiatrix]

Really? The Bible is full of poisoning-the-well (character assassination) screeds ) against knowledge/scepticism with scare-tactic/cult-mind control blurbs such as:

Romans 1:20-24
20-For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: NOTE:How can "invisible things" be "clearly seen" so, how are we supposed to "get it"? Oh, I know, just "believe"...)
/snip/
22-Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23-And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like

1Cr 3:18-20
181Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19-For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20-And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

All these examples are for those who do not believe in God but believe in their "own wisdom" or for those who believe that they are wiser than God Himself

Jer 3:15 /snip/

Dan 1:4 Children in whom [was] no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as [had] ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

Dan 1:17 As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.

Dan 2:21 And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:

Pro 23:12 Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge.

Pro 24:4 And by knowledge shall the chambers be filled with all precious and pleasant riches.

Pro 24:5 A wise man [is] strong; yea, a man of knowledge increaseth strength

Pro 24:14 So [shall] the knowledge of wisdom [be] unto thy soul: when thou hast found [it], then there shall be a reward, and thy expectation shall not be cut off.

Ecc 2:26 For [God] giveth to a man that [is] good in his sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to [him that is] good before God. This also [is] vanity and vexation of spirit.

Isa 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;

Your Bible only "tolerates" knowledge only so long a you don't dare entertain any skeptical thoughts that what your religion tells you might not be true (god might not exists, don't even think it, don't question ever). The fact remains that skepticism of your God is ALWAYS tied to vilification of the character and motives of the non-believer. This is a classic cult mind-control device. In addition to the control given by keeping people in fear of hell-fire/divine punishment, if people dare to question any part of the cant, their very lives as well as their character (only foolish, evil corrupt people are skeptical) are also fair game because they have now become "not us". Not too many members of the group are going to risk being seen as "not us" because all of the "not us" (non-believers) are automatically panned as evil, simply because they don't believe in your god. Skeptics almost always have this thrown at them :

I JOHN 2:19
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

I find this "us versus them"(they were not all of us) mind set to be a very dangerous one because this is often an excuse by the "us" side to take orchestrate all kinds of discrimination (up to and including murder) against the "them" side. If that were not so, then the history of Christianity would not be replete with examples of Christain atrocities against non-Christians and Christain-on-Christian violence (in battles over possession of the TRUE Christains™ "trademark"). Nothing like having "permission" from an omnipotent Being to knock off the nay-sayers with no compunction and even better, having the excuse that one might be "saving their (the filthy, "not- us" heathens!) souls while furthering "the greater glory of our God (the Great Excuser)". Gotta love all that religious Orwellian Newspeak for justifying persecution/murder/repression ! (NOT!)

2 Peter 3:3-6(nice threat against non-believer aka "ungodly men" in addition to the character attack)
3-Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4-And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
5-For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6-Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7-But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Psalm 14:1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Psalm 53:1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

John 20:29Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.(the postmortem bribe to disregard your intelligence if the threat of character assassination/hellfire fails)

The Bible is claiming that when people disregard God their wisdom is not aided by God. That those who rely only on their own wisdom are foolish.

Well, you believe that all people who disagree with the claims made in a 1600 year old book are "foolish"? Don't forget that non-believers are vilified here as corrupt and evil SOLELY because they don't kowtow to your claims. Since you apparently agree with the "foolish" ad hominem attack, I can only conclude that you also agree with the rest (all skeptics just don't believe because they are corrupt and want to do evil). Now wonder some Christians have been so cool with butchering/persecuting non-believers for centuries, they're "corrupt and evil" (dehumanizing ad hominem) and "deserved" it (can to anything to these evil/corrupt, dehumanized "not us").

While trust may be a type of faith, it is usually based on some kind of observable evidence. I have "trust" that the sun will come up tomorrow because it always has in the past, i.e, empirical evidence of the sun rising each day in the past establishes a strong probability that the sun will most probably "come up" tomorrow (unforseen, sudden celestial catastrophies like earth-destroying meteors not withstanding).

I have had observable evidence which my faith is based upon which gives me trust in God.

Really, and that would be what? I challenge you to show me anything that can be directly linked to the action of your god.

How can you have evidence for something that is not "seen" or something that is "hoped for"?

Answer to prayer. Events that are in the physical realm that are divine in nature.

How can you possibly "know" if a physical event in the natural realm has a "supernatural" cause? The very nature of the alleged supernatural (invisible, not perceptible to the 5 sense, timeless, transcendal, eternal, etc.) would preclude you from being able to directly link something in this natural world to such an alleged "other reality/entity". Looks like wishful thinking on your part. If you fall back on personal experience the here is why I reject that:

Why Religious/Personal Experience is NOT Convincing

If you say, well look at what it's done for my life, my question would be how do you KNOW that your god had anything to do it? All believers say that, so I assume that because happy Hindus who claim "look at what my gods have done for me in my life", that the Hindu gods exists? If not, the why not? Why would that argument be evidence for your god and NOT evidence for theirs?

I have YET to see any believer produce an event that can be linked to directly (beyond a reasonable doubt) ANY supernatural agent. When I say "linked" I mean that you need direct evidence that A causes B. What have you got? Oh wait, I keep forgetting the theist moving-the-goal post response:

Things that an unbeliever would have no "knowledge" or understanding of.

The above simply translates to "you're just too blind to see it", which of course is just a variant of crafty tailors claim that "only the incompetent, lazy, stupid people would be unable to see their beautiful new clothes"(The Emperor's New Clothes). Pardon me if I don't fall for that con game.

One tiny correction; I do have that experience. I was even reborn once. The experience turned out to be false. -Not just for me, but for many other former Christians as well.

How were you reborn when you don't believe in Christ? Even if you once believed and now don't how would you then claim being reborn? Obviously I can't know your experiences as a Christian or for that matter as a non-Christian but I do know that being reborn as I myself know it....constitutes Christ living within us and going on what you have told me in our discussions here, you don't believe that to be a possibility.

Looks like you just claimed that Aron-Ra was never a "True Christian™". I too was a former Christian, now turned atheist (no belief based on the fact that there is no reliable evidence to believe in anything supernatural). Why I disagree with the you:

REASON #1: It violates "free-will"...
So what you are saying is that a True Christian™ can't be atheist? This means that we would expect 100% of all True Christians™ to be "locked into that position" in that no point of evidence, reason, logic, etc. can presuade one to abandon that position, EVER. If that is true, that means that a True Christian™ doesn't have the all important FREE WILL to choose.

If you STILL claim that you DO have the free will to choose atheism, then why couldn't people who claim to be atheists NOW simply have exercised their FREE WILL to reject Christianity after having once accepted it (EXACTLY what you position would be IF you decide to reject Christianity NOW, by claiming that you still have the free will to do so)? Your position is ultimately self-contradictory or else you are maintaining a double standard with regard to free will===>Atheists have exercised their free will to reject Christianity so God is "just" in condemning them to Hell. However, the True Christain™ can't exercise free will and make the "wrong choice" (what condemns the atheist). I thought God wasn't supposed to "rig the game" so that people couldn't choose. The best one can say of such a situation is that it is a rigged game.

REASON #2: How to define the TRUE Christian™ (who defines this?)
You are operating under the "no true Scotsman" fallacy . The above is just a variant of "but they weren't TRUE Christians™" ! This argument that atheists/non-believers were never TRUE Christains™ doesn't wash because Christians themselves haven't been able to agree on what a TRUE Christain™ is (you have an ecumenical statement defining the phrase "TRUE Christain™" that has been attested to by all of the thousands of Christian sects?).

This "but they were never TRUE Christians' is really an insult to all atheists who were once Christians because it implies that they didn't know their own minds (were kidding themselves about being Christians) and/or are just plain liars. Many Christians often complain that they "get no respect" and often get ridiculed for their beliefs. Did it ever occur to you that part of the "ridicule and disrespect" that you encounter from "non-believers" is just a reaction to this sort of arrogant attitude? Namely, that only you, know the definition of what constitutes a TRUE Christian™.....If one was EVER a TRUE Christian™ , they couldn't possibly deconvert! Most people's reaction to this kind of hubris is going to be "well, who in the sam-hill appointed you the One-True-Judge of who is or is/was not a TRUE Christian™"?!!! Ask yourself how disposed you would be to listen to someone who came at you with that sort of attitude?

I guess you really can't comprehend that even strong Christians can simply come to the conclusion that there is no evidence to justify god(s?) belief and reject on logical ground. They are just "foolish, vain," and reject your god-belief because "Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good--Psalms). Try to dance around it all you want, but skepticism is in all case linked to an "evil" character (hence eminently disposable "not us" people) There is no case that I am aware of where skepticism(thinking your god doesn't exists) is NOT associated with anything but character flaws/evil in the Bible. (you have an example?)

 

[Aron-Ra]

Aron, I too have been recently noticing that 'belief' seems always to be associated with something 'good'. How many movies has the successful outcome of the hero 'trusting' or 'believing' in some power, or person, or force - often when trust is not rationally warranted?

I do not know why there is this association. I think it is something to do with social interactions between humans ("I trust you" is often a compliment, is it not?), than anything else. But our culture certainly has a problem in the way it indoctrinates us with the idea that blind trust or belief is a virtue.

All I know is that without faith, deception is impossible. And to my experience, the only thing in the universe that really requires faith is a bad liar.

 

[Event Horizon]

All I know is that without faith, deception is impossible. And to my experience, the only thing in the universe that really requires faith is a bad liar.

Quote worthy.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I am simply relaying what Scripture says about God's wisdom. I am not claiming that I am wiser than a College professor with a doctorate in molecular biology(or anyone else for that matter) but what I am claiming is that this same professor claims to be wiser than God Himself. She is claiming to be a Christian and in the same context claims to know more than God. Where then does the arrogance lie?

On your end entirely. For one thing, you're guilty of idolatry by equating the Bible, (written by mere fallible men) as if it were the same as God. This is why I say that you worship a book. You ignore the creation itself, and worship primitive men's faulty impressions of it instead. In your eyes, to contest the ignorant opinion of some Bronze-age goat herder who's personal speculations and fever dreams happened to be chosen by mere human editors to be included in the Biblical compilation, -is to claim to be greater than God. This makes no sense. My professor, despite all her knowledge, claims to be humbled by God. But her god isn't a false idol. She doesn't worship a storybook. Her god is the one whom (she believes) created the real world, not the flawed fables in your tome. My professor is wise enough to know that men can't fake things like fossils and mitochondria. But we make up fiction all the time, and the Bible is full of it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your Bible only "tolerates" knowledge only so long a you don't dare entertain any skeptical thoughts that what your religion tells you might not be true (god might not exists, don't even think it, don't question ever). The fact remains that skepticism of your God is ALWAYS tied to vilification of the character and motives of the non-believer. This is a classic cult mind-control device. In addition to the control given by keeping people in fear of hell-fire/divine punishment, if people dare to question any part of the cant, their very lives as well as their character (only foolish, evil corrupt people are skeptical) are also fair game because they have now become "not us". Not too many members of the group are going to risk being seen as "not us" because all of the "not us" (non-believers) are automatically panned as evil, simply because they don't believe in your god. Skeptics almost always have this thrown at them :

I am sorry, I don't feel that you or any unbeliever to be evil.



I JOHN 2:19
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

I find this "us versus them"(they were not all of us) mind set to be a very dangerous one because this is often an excuse by the "us" side to take orchestrate all kinds of discrimination (up to and including murder) against the "them" side. If that were not so, then the history of Christianity would not be replete with examples of Christain atrocities against non-Christians and Christain-on-Christian violence (in battles over possession of the TRUE Christains™ "trademark").

It is also dangerous when Christians are killed for their faith as well.

Nothing like having "permission" from an omnipotent Being to knock off the nay-sayers with no compunction and even better, having the excuse that one might be "saving their (the filthy, "not- us" heathens!) souls while furthering "the greater glory of our God (the Great Excuser)". Gotta love all that religious Orwellian Newspeak for justifying persecution/murder/repression ! (NOT!)

But God does not give His permission for anyone to take this into their own hands. We are never to judge others. If we kill others we are not following Christianity.

Well, you believe that all people who disagree with the claims made in a 1600 year old book are "foolish"?

No, I said that God does. I have no claim to make.

Don't forget that non-believers are vilified here as corrupt and evil SOLELY because they don't kowtow to your claims.

I make no claims other than citing what the Bible claims.

Since you apparently agree with the "foolish" ad hominem attack, I can only conclude that you also agree with the rest (all skeptics just don't believe because they are corrupt and want to do evil).

Not at all.

Now wonder some Christians have been so cool with butchering/persecuting non-believers for centuries, they're "corrupt and evil" (dehumanizing ad hominem) and "deserved" it (can to anything to these evil/corrupt, dehumanized "not us").

I don't find this to be true. Remember that many many Christians are killed for thier faith throughout history as well.

Really, and that would be what? I challenge you to show me anything that can be directly linked to the action of your god.

I didn't claim that the evidence was for you. You were claiming that I am not in total control of my faculties and not intelligent enough to determine my experiences or in some way lacking in my mental compacity if I have evidence of God and then you tell me that I am attacking you? Please look at my post and tell me where I attacked you in any way.

How can you possibly "know" if a physical event in the natural realm has a "supernatural" cause?

How could you possibly "know" that it wasn't?

The very nature of the alleged supernatural (invisible, not perceptible to the 5 sense, timeless, transcendal, eternal, etc.) would preclude you from being able to directly link something in this natural world to such an alleged "other reality/entity". Looks like wishful thinking on your part. If you fall back on personal experience the here is why I reject that:

The fact that you don't or can't doesn't mean that others don't or can't. What makes you the authority of what can be linked or can not to God?

Why Religious/Personal Experience is NOT Convincing

The problem with this is that I am not trying to convince anyone of what I have experienced other than claim that I have evidence in my own life. I have experienced a prayer that was answered and everyone witnessed it. That is it. But for you to tell me that what I experienced is not true or real is to attack me personally. You are claiming that you "know" better than I what I have as evidence and that it lacks substance when in fact you have no idea. That is arrogant to me.

If you say, well look at what it's done for my life, my question would be how do you KNOW that your god had anything to do it?

And I would say to you, how do you "know" that He hasn't?

All believers say that,

And all skeptics say that.

so I assume that because happy Hindus who claim "look at what my gods have done for me in my life", that the Hindu gods exists? If not, the why not? Why would that argument be evidence for your god and NOT evidence for theirs?

I would have to discuss that with them.

I have YET to see any believer produce an event that can be linked to directly (beyond a reasonable doubt) ANY supernatural agent. When I say "linked" I mean that you need direct evidence that A causes B. What have you got? Oh wait, I keep forgetting the theist moving-the-goal post response:

The above simply translates to "you're just too blind to see it", which of course is just a variant of crafty tailors claim that "only the incompetent, lazy, stupid people would be unable to see their beautiful new clothes"(The Emperor's New Clothes). Pardon me if I don't fall for that con game.

I can give you an example if you wish. But without being present I don't know how valid you would feel it was.

Looks like you just claimed that Aron-Ra was never a "True Christian™". I too was a former Christian, now turned atheist (no belief based on the fact that there is no reliable evidence to believe in anything supernatural). Why I disagree with the you:

Not at all. I wanted him to explain his experience. I don't understand how someone can know the presence of the Holy Spirit and then "not" know it. I simply don't understand that concept. I said:

Obviously I can't know your experiences as a Christian or for that matter as a non-Christian

how does this equate with you were not a true Christian.

Also, I have talked to Aron-ra in other discussions and from what he has said I made my comments. It was what he had claimed about his experiences as a Christian that made me curious how he would consider himself born again.

REASON #1: It violates "free-will"...

So what you are saying is that a True Christian™ can't be atheist?

No actually you said that.

This means that we would expect 100% of all True Christians™ to be "locked into that position" in that no point of evidence, reason, logic, etc. can presuade one to abandon that position, EVER. If that is true, that means that a True Christian™ doesn't have the all important FREE WILL to choose.

No, you seem to think I think that.

If you STILL claim that you DO have the free will to choose atheism, then why couldn't people who claim to be atheists NOW simply have exercised their FREE WILL to reject Christianity after having once accepted it (EXACTLY what you position would be IF you decide to reject Christianity NOW, by claiming that you still have the free will to do so)? Your position is ultimately self-contradictory or else you are maintaining a double standard with regard to free will===>

I suppose that would be true if that is what I believed.

Atheists have exercised their free will to reject Christianity so God is "just" in condemning them to Hell. However, the True Christain™ can't exercise free will and make the "wrong choice" (what condemns the atheist). I thought God wasn't supposed to "rig the game" so that people couldn't choose. The best one can say of such a situation is that it is a rigged game.

You are creating a straw man.

REASON #2: How to define the TRUE Christian™ (who defines this?)
You are operating under the "no true Scotsman" fallacy . The above is just a variant of "but they weren't TRUE Christians™" ! This argument that atheists/non-believers were never TRUE Christains™ doesn't wash because Christians themselves haven't been able to agree on what a TRUE Christain™ is (you have an ecumenical statement defining the phrase "TRUE Christain™" that has been attested to by all of the thousands of Christian sects?).

No, actually I am not.

This "but they were never TRUE Christians' is really an insult to all atheists who were once Christians because it implies that they didn't know their own minds (were kidding themselves about being Christians) and/or are just plain liars.

I agree. And I feel that you are claiming that Christians don't know their own minds and are just plain liars.

Many Christians often complain that they "get no respect" and often get ridiculed for their beliefs. Did it ever occur to you that part of the "ridicule and disrespect" that you encounter from "non-believers" is just a reaction to this sort of arrogant attitude?

Actually up until now I haven't encountered ridicule and disrespect. I have been on the boards for over seven years now and I find non-believers to be great people on the whole and have many online friends that are non-believers. They may disagree with my viewpoints but are never disrespectul to me or me to them.

Namely, that only you, know the definition of what constitutes a TRUE Christian™.....If one was EVER a TRUE Christian™ ,

I don't claim anything of the sort.

they couldn't possibly deconvert! Most people's reaction to this kind of hubris is going to be "well, who in the sam-hill appointed you the One-True-Judge of who is or is/was not a TRUE Christian™"?!!! Ask yourself how disposed you would be to listen to someone who came at you with that sort of attitude?

And I ask you, who in sam-hill appointed you the one-true-judge of my experiences and knowledge of God?

I guess you really can't comprehend that even strong Christians can simply come to the conclusion that there is no evidence to justify god(s?) belief and reject on logical ground. They are just "foolish, vain," and reject your god-belief because "Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good--Psalms).

You are very good about putting words into my mouth (screen) but unfortunately they are not my words or thoughts.

Try to dance around it all you want, but skepticism is in all case linked to an "evil" character (hence eminently disposable "not us" people) There is no case that I am aware of where skepticism(thinking your god doesn't exists) is NOT associated with anything but character flaws/evil in the Bible. (you have an example?)

Take it up with God. If God doesn't exist then you are home free and no worries mate. If you don't believe I am not going to count you as evil. That is between God and you. I am not here to judge.

 

[JohnR7]

This is a classic cult mind-control device.

This board has nothing to do with "cult mind-control". You have every opportunity to present your scientific evidence that will show us IF the Bible is true or not. This is about science and the question does science varify or falsify the Bible?

 

[Aron-Ra]

thank you for admitting in your own little way that you can choose to ignore whatever doesn't fit your model. That is something I can't do.

I didn't admit any such thing.

You said that evidence can become a choice, and that you can choose to believe in certain evidence over another by your very priori assumptions. Myself, I disagree whole-heartedly. Such is not possible for me. But you certainly made that sound like that was your opinion.

About 800 million Hindus say they have evidence of their god too. But they don't really have any either. All they have are what you have, family traditions, immutable preconceptions, subjective feelings and voices in their heads, that sort of thing. In other words, no demonstrable evidence at all.

In your opinion.

No ma'am. Not this time. It is a fact that neither of you has any demonstrable evidence whatsoever. Of course, you're more than welcome to prove me wrong, and that would indeed be easy to do, if I was. I await your demonstration.

Blindness to evidence can be frustrating but to call anyone dishonest I feel is very misquided. I can see this happening on both sides of the fence and I don't feel dishonesty is really a product of either.

I don't usually see dishonesty from my side of the fence. But what I have consistently seen from your side can't be described any other way. As I said, I've kept the links to the worst cases of that, and some of them were professional evangelists, the most wantonly dishonest of all. 100 years ago, they would have sold snake oil as a miracle cure.

Claiming something without just cause is called "preaching". It doesn't mean anything. In science, what you know is what you can show. The evidence is false once someone proves that it is.

But there are numerous gaps in the knowledge of Science and evolution being an example. Just because you have no problem with the gaps does not mean that someone who does is being dishonest.

Yes it does, and I would be happy to prove that point. There are no significant gaps in this particular science, where, conversely, creationism has nothing but a gap. Its entirely void, lacking any substance at all. What I know of evolution, (and supportive peripheral concepts) you would be forced to ignore simply because your belief system will not permit you to admit them. Would you care to challenge that?

You seem to be very quick to attack the person rather than the person's perspective. But considering that you have said that people have resorted to doing the same to you I imagine that it comes with the territory.

I have made an open challenge to more than 100 creationists over the last few years to engage in a conclusive debate to prove that biological evolution is the truest, best explanation there is for the origin of our species, and that it is the only concept of origins with either evidentiary support or scientific validity. Most have just ignored my challenge. But a few have formally refused even though they had previously charged that they would debate "any evolutionist, any time, anywhere". Among those who made that challenge but still refused to debate me are Young-Earth Creationists; Christian talk-radio host, Russ Miller, microbiologist, Dr. Luke Randall Ph.D., and of course, the notorious Mr. Kent “Dr.Dino” Hovind who refuses to debate anyone in writing because he can't afford a public record of his losses.

Every one listed above deliberately lied in these posts with full knowledge and intent, as you could plainly see if you were to read them.

So far, only three believers have actually accepted, all of them amateurs. One backed out immediately after the opening question, and accused me of being either in league with Satan or of being the devil himself. Another simply stopped replying, and dropped out of the forum rather than answer the questions I kept repeating, but which he knew he had to avoid. He even admitted in another thread that he couldn't respond because I was winning. How's that for the quest for truth? And then there was Mark Kennedy, who who violated every one of the rules of the debate, with each infraction counting as grounds to forfeit. Then of course, he claimed to have won.

My experience has lead me to the conclusion that it is not possible to be honest and creationist for very long in any forum such as this where one will eventually learn encounter truth.

Tell that to the 800 million Hindus who's personal experience is that you're worshipping their god and don't know it.

If any ask, I will be glad to do so.

That would be funny. Two people with supposedly different, mutually-exclusive gods, both blindly asserting their alleged "knowledge" of the "absolute truth" in their "revealed religions" according to their "infallible" "word-of-God", whom they both claim to know personally, yet neither one has any way to prove their side over the other. Its a perfectly absurd stalemate. Whoever can exaggerate the most wins. Surely one of you must be wrong, right? But with such fierce, closed-minded conviction and identical claims of absolute certainty, if one of you even can be wrong then so can the other!

How were you reborn when you don't believe in Christ?

Obviously, I still believed in him at the time. I even felt once that I had met him, and that he was communicating to me, and through me. Now I know how easy that feeling is to fake.

Even if you once believed and now don't how would you then claim being reborn? Obviously I can't know your experiences as a Christian or for that matter as a non-Christian but I do know that being reborn as I myself know it....constitutes Christ living within us and going on what you have told me in our discussions here, you don't believe that to be a possibility.

Not anymore. But I was very gullible once, and naive enough to believe just about anything.

"I was raised in a good Christian home, served in missions and evangelism, went to a Christian college, became ordained and ministered in three churches as Assistant Pastor. During those years I was 100 percent convinced of my faith, and now I am just about 100 percent unconvinced."
--Dan Barker; Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist

In this quote there is nothing that hints to a relationship with God. There are the outside image but nothing that states a personal relationship in this man's life.

Then read the rest of the book. He listened to the voices in his head too, and thought they were someone else's, just like you do.

You don't know God exists. And apart from your subjective desire, you don't have any reason to believe he does either.

And you call me arrogant? I do know that He exists and it has nothing to do with subjective desire. I have every reason to believe He exists as He has revealed Himself to me in such a way as to prove to me He does.

Yes, he has revealed himself to you, just as Krsna revealed himself to George Harrison, and Bast the cat-headed goddess recently revealed herself to one of my friends. How is this not merely subjective?

Why can't believers distinguish between what they know and what they only believe?

This is very humorous to me because many times I have said, "Why can't agnostics/atheists understand that there is a big difference between knowing and believing. Believing is an act of thinking that something is true but not having any confirmation on that something; whereas Knowing is an established proof with confirmation of a particular something. I once believed but now I know. There is a difference and I can and do distinguish between the two.

No you don't. There is a difference between them. But you're wrong about what it is. Knowledge can be tested, and you accuracy can measured by others around you. If your accuracy can't be objectively verified, then it isn't knowledge. A feeling of certain conviction which cannot be objectively verified is what we call a "belief".

I can choose to believe anything I wish

There's another difference between us. I can't.

but to know something I must have proof of that something. I can not choose to not believe in God as I know Him to exist.

No you don't. But I know you're unable to accept that. George Harrison knew for certain that Krsna existed too. And I had another friend who was just as certain that God was talking to him as you are.

To believe anything other than what I know is impossible.

No it isn't. I know lots of former reborn evangelists who are now atheists. Where do you think most atheists come from? It can be done. You just have to break the mental shackles of your dogmatism. Its not easy to do, but I know others who have done it.

You should read both of these links! The first is an example of someone who could not be reasoned with, and the latter is an example of someone who would not be reasoned with. It explains from the perspective of a former evangelist how it is possible to close the mind in favor of priori dogma, and thus remain shrouded in a lie which you yourself cannot (or will not) perceive.

It would be like asking me to believe that I have no mother. I know that I do so that of course would be ridiculous to tell me that I only believe that I have a mother.

And then Morpheus hands you the red pill. Or your mother admits you were adopted. I know people that has happened to. Obviously you haven't read any of my posts in the other thread yet, or you certainly wouldn't have said either of these things.

Of couse, logic would tell us that I would have to have a biological mother to exist and so you can accept that but your belief that there is no God prohibits you to believe that God must exist for you to exist too. You don't know so you can believe what you wish to. I can understand that.

Obviously not. My belief that God does not exist doesn't prohibit anything as even that belief is tentative. I lean to the negative because not one of his supporters has any credibility at all. And if he were real, then at least some of them would.

I can substanciate that in my life mountains have been moved (in the non-literal sense) and others in my life could back up my claims.

Also in the non-literal sense. But we'll talk about what you can substantiate in a moment. Because I smell hypocrisy here.

OK, so we've got a wild claim that you can't substantiate and won't reconsider. My point is made.

If I knew that God willed such a thing then yes, I know that a literal mountain would be moved. IF God wanted to glorify Himself then even today fire would come from the sky to prove His existence. But this is something that I simply can not prove myself. I can't demand God do my will. Christianity is not based on my will but that of God.

I guess I must have misunderstood Matthew 7:7-8 and Luke 11:9-10 then.

Is there something in your life... a mountian that can be moved only by divine means? IF so, I ask God this very minute to move your mountain. I pray that God move in such a way that you will know it is Him that is at work. Not because I am a Christian, not because I believe that I have any power within myself to do this but I have trust in God to move if it be His will. Thank you Lord, Amen.

[/quote]If that was the demonstration of your evidence? If so, I guess you made my point. Or you lack even the faith of a mustard seed. That's OK though. A lack of faith is just a mind that isn't closed.

figure in all the dozens of other gods whom millions of other people "knew" were real even when they weren't.

I will leave that up to God to sort out. Just because there are millions that believe in another way does not mean that God of the Bible is false.

Funny. Millions of Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Shintos, and Sikhs say the same thing about you in defense of their scriptures. But out of the whole lot of you, only one (at most) can be right. And all you claim to "know" they're that one.

 

[Aron-Ra]

So I will concede that there are millions that also believe their god is real as well. But in that I know that just because I concede that point I don't concede that they are right based on my knowledge and understanding. That being said, I don't expect for you to believe me either.

Fair enough.

Well then, I guess the Bible isn't really his word after all. For I found no hint of love in that, only horror.

You find what you seek.

Obviously that's not the case, is it? Because I read the Bible seeking that being of love and truth that everyone told me about. Instead what I found was a petty, shallow, vindictive, racist, sexist, wholly immoral homicidal liar who was amazingly insecure, and not even all that powerful. I was wrenched with disgust that the truly supreme being I had always believed in wasn't to be found in the Bible anywhere. Very soon, I hurled my Bible away in a rage and demanded that he either explain his crimes in that book or atone for them. For if that really was his work, (which it obviously couldn't have been) then he would not have my soul, for I would not spend eternity pretending to praise a tyrant unworthy of my respect. Better that I go to Hell for my principles, where at least I would be in good company. I was twelve years old then.

Do you worship Dan Barker?

To be honest, I don't even like him. But one page from him seemed to adequately address everything you said at that moment.

Love is not self denial.

God denied His rightful Divinity to take on the form of man and die for us all. That is the utmost in self-denial.

Nope. Didn't happen. Even in your own mythology, God never did anything of the kind. He made Jesus do it instead.

But even if he did, your belief makes no kind of sense. He caused us to "sin", refused to forgive us as any loving parent would, cursed us instead, and thousands of years later, he decided to forgive us, but only partially and provisionally. In order to earn forgiveness for seeking wisdom, we had to prove that we didn't really have any, by killing an immortal being, who knew he wouldn't really die. To atone for doing something he should have been proud of us for, we had to prove we didn't deserve to be forgiven. And he momentarily "killed" himself to save us...from what? Himself! That is pointless and insane.

Would you not bleed for those you love, would you not suffer?

That depends. Am I the reason for their suffering in the first place? If so, then it wouldn't make any sense for me to suffer, since I could just as easily decide to forgive them unconditionally. That's what love is. That's what wisdom is too, since it doesn't make any sense to make myself suffer in order to forgive my creations for being the only way I allowed them to be.

Love is not murdering your son to appease your own vanity.

IF you are love, if you are rightousness,

...then you wouldn't have had anything to do with anything that happened in the Bible, Old or New testament.

if you are the very concept of these and can not abide by unrightousness, can not abide by evil and must allow for them to be present in creation to exemplify Love and Goodness is it vanity or love to give a way to free those from this?

Could you phrase that in some way that makes sense? Because what we have here is a being who supposedly can't abide evil, yet claims singular credit for all the evil in the world, and who is somehow without sin while being encumbered with five of the seven deadly ones.

Jesus died so that all would be rightous, that all would be free.

Then why aren't we? Why do we still have to forego reason, and believe the unbelievable for literally no reason at all, in violation of all that is sane, or else suffer a fate worse than death?

We are not Godly. WE are not perfect and we need God's perfection to cover our inperfection.

I personally think God is our imperfection. I know of no other catalyst that would cause so many to hate so fiercely, lie so unabashedly, and even murder their own children if they thought the voice in their head was beyond question.

Love is not hatred or wrath, consigning billions of people to eternal torture because they have offended your ego or disobeyed your rules.

Eternal torture of separation from God,

I can take it.

was it not you that said that you would not worhip the Christian God even if you found that He was real?

Yes, provided he is the same evil monster depicted in the Bible. If he were really a being of loving wisdom, truth and grace on the other hand, that would be another matter. But he cannot be one-and-the-same.

Is it wrong of God then to give you over to your desire to be set apart from Him?

Yes. Remember, he is supposed to love me. And he is supposed to want to save my soul. More importantly, he is supposed to care about things like truth and wisdom. In any of these cases, he should have convinced me otherwise. However, if he does exist, then he has indeed answered my prayer. Because he gave me a million ways to know that the atrocities in the Bible weren't his doing, but those of someone else blaming him.

Love is not obedience, conformity, or submission. It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority, punishment, or reward.

Are you being obedient? Are you conforming? Are you submitting?

Yes and no. It depends on what you're talking about. Could you be more specific, please?

Love is not forcing you to do so, and it will never in eternity either. God could force your obedience, He could force you to conform and He could force you to submit but He loves you and wants you to do these things from Love yourself and not because He has forced you. That would be counterfeit.

That's funny. Because according to you, God says; "Believe this book or else I'll torture you mercilessly forever ." And you consider that a choice of free will given by a being of love.

True love is respect and admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy, unafraid human being.”
--Dan Barker

I couldn't agree more. And that is what God wants but He will not force it. He doesn't need our love but He wants it. But ultimately, He is God and has the right to do His will.

But I cannot worship a thing that has less wisdom, love, truth, and benevolent compassion than I have. That's why I could only worship God if I discarded the Bible as the work of barbarians justifying their atrocities by claiming that's what God wanted them to do. Deana Laney, the Son of Sam, and Mohamad Atta all said the same thing, you know.

I have made a greater sacrifice for my kids than most other parents you've ever known.

Greater than giving your own life for them? Obviously not but I don't doubt that you think that you would and I have no way of knowing that you wouldn't as I know that I feel I would give my life for my own children.

Yes I would, certainly. But for me, that sacrifice has meaning. Because, being a material atheist, I know that all I am is this body, and that when I die, all I will be is a couple hundred pounds of ape meat. The sacrifices I have already made already outweigh anything Jesus did. He knew he wasn't really going to die. All he did was spend Easter week-end in a hell that was run by him anyway. If you could promise me infinite power and eternal existence on that same criteria, I would accept in a moment, and without a thought to all these other people.

I think that adequately proves my position.

I see no proof. I have no such evidence. No, I haven't seen any proof or evidence that you love your kids. No better than I can prove that God loves me....except that I know He died for me and to me that proves a great deal. But that doesn't prove anything to you. We are in the same boat here I am afraid..

And yet you just admitted that you did see that proof, when you said you had no doubt but that I would sacrifice my life for my children, and by your own definition, that was the height of love. Yup. I thought I smelled hypocrisy.

the important point is, can you prove that I exist?

I can't prove that you exist.

Then how could you substanciate that in your life mountains have been moved? There's that smell of hypocrisy again.

By the way, a word of warning: If you can't prove I exist, don't talk to me. If you keep talking to people who might not exist, someone's going to give you a year's supply of Thorazine.

At least I'm there with my kids to reassure them and clarify for them what I expect, so that I don't risk them going on some misunderstanding of what I might (or might not) have said once upon a time a long time ago.

God is here for me as well.

Just like an invisible playmate, and no more real than that.

And as far as your children misunderstanding you....you can bet on it. How old are they anyway? Surely they must be young or you would have meet with this long before this.

I don't know what you're talking about. My son is old enough to decide whom he wants to live with. My daughter is old enough to drive.

How sad, two failed marriages, two children that have no mother. I feel for them. I feel for you too.

Both my children's mothers live a few miles away and have them over often. Learn to question more and assume less.

All that was important to me was that I be with them, ever present in their lives, and really real, really there, not like some kid's imaginary playmate.

I am sorry that you did not have that type of relationship with God. I do have His presence in my life and know that He is here for me. Imagination has never comforted me in the least.

On the contrary, what I have learned from my time as a Christian, and my subsequent dabblings in the occult are that imagination is all you ever had.

The day I stopped being a Christian was the day a friend (now the principal of a Christian school) explained the "reaffirmation of faith". Once I realized what faith really meant, (see my sig) that was it for me.

Well I don't know what the reaffirmation of faith is so I guess I can't address that.

The summation is similar to what Gladiatrix implied; "Don't ever question whether this feeling is really coming from God. And if you do, just tell yourself that it is, and keep telling yourself that until you believe it." One of the links I just gave you says the same, and you really should read it!

Not to offend but the adult you debated when you were 8 may have been rather slow for all I know. Just kidding. But please don't be offended when I don't seem impressed.

I was impressed. -Not at that time, but years later. Because as my aguments improved, theirs never changed. This guy pulled that old canard about dogs coming from cats, and millions of flash-frozen mammoths, and all that nonsense, just like most of them still do.

Evolution has lead to many practical applications in a number of interrelated fields, including billion-dollar industries in bioengineering and agriculture. But all of it was based on an objective analysis of demonstrable, (and more importantly, testable) evidence. Thus none of it, not one little bit, counts as faith.

I disagree. If evolution had to rely on demonstrable evidence in the early years it would have fallen out of favor. It was due to the progression of thought in regard to it as well as hypothesis's that as usual were tested and failed and some that were tested and succeeded.

Wrong again. Right at the onset, Darwin, Lamark, and many others long already knew about selective breeding. The trick was how it worked. We knew it worked. We had already used it to breed new types of dogs, horses, corn, cattle and wheat. So there was no question but that it did work. The question was how. And between Darwin, Wallace, and Gregor Mendel, they figured out how: Natural selection and inheritable genetics.

Darwin also many times expressed a near complete lack of faith in his own ideas, even commenting that if transitional species weren't found, or if some inheritable units of information from both parents weren't identified, that his theory would be falsified. That is the antithesis of faith.

 

[NajaHaji]

Only liberal Bible readers can pick and choose what they believe is truth and which is myth. They lack the boldness of God's wisdom and trust that what they perceive as problems with Creation, Adam and Eve and other parts of the Bible as possibilities to knowing God more fully.

Sort of like how the rabbis picked and chose which stories they wanted to steal from other cultures and make them their own. Sort of like the Adam and Eve myth, the flood myth, and the Jesus myth?