Why are atheists considered to be so dishonest?

[BleedingHeart]

"Oh boy, look at your attitude! You have certainly been hurt, I am sorry about that."

It's his own fault really. I stopped our conversation after you through a baseless insult at me (liar). JCG should've done the same instead of trying to reason with you.

"I don't understand this, you say that atheists believe God doesn't exist, but agnostics believe they don't know? So how can someone who believes they don't know, claim that they do know that He doesn't exist?"

Knowledge and belief are two completely different things. A person can believe in a deity and NOT claim to know for certain. That person is considered an agnostic theist. Likewise a person can doubt the existence of a deity and NOT claim to no for certain. That person's an agnostic atheist.

 

[oi_antz]

"Oh boy, look at your attitude! You have certainly been hurt, I am sorry about that."

It's his own fault really. I stopped our conversation after you through a baseless insult at me (liar). JCG should've done the same instead of trying to reason with you.

"I don't understand this, you say that atheists believe God doesn't exist, but agnostics believe they don't know? So how can someone who believes they don't know, claim that they do know that He doesn't exist?"

Knowledge and belief are two completely different things. A person can believe in a deity and NOT claim to know for certain. That person is considered an agnostic theist. Likewise a person can doubt the existence of a deity and NOT claim to no for certain. That person's an agnostic atheist.

Ahhh! Thank you BleedingHeart, I did not know the difference. I thought that agnostics were just those who didn't know, I didn't realize the capacity for one to have a preference but of course that makes sense. Cheers!

 

[DomainRider]

Yes, when it comes to whether someone loves Jesus or hates Jesus, then yes you should keep your nose out of the business that doesn't belong to you. It is someone's eternal life you are messing with, but you just don't realize that because you refuse to accept what God has told you about it. That is why I get upset, how selfish one must have to be to put their own needs above that of another.

A problem with this attitude is that it appears to lack the understanding that the atheist typically feels the exact opposite - that they are trying to save someone from wasting their life on what the atheist believes is superstitious nonsense and magical thinking. Each (Christian and atheist) feels the other should keep their nose out of what doesn't concern them... whether both parties understanding this would make any practical difference, I don't know, but understanding generally helps more than ignorance.

I don't understand this, you say that atheists believe God doesn't exist, but agnostics believe they don't know? So how can someone who believes they don't know, claim that they do know that He doesn't exist? It doesn't make any logical sense to me, can you please explain it in more detail.

There are many different ways of defining the relation between atheism and agnosticism. Atheism is simply lack of belief in God, whereas agnosticism is lack of knowledge of God. Strictly speaking, an agnostic is more likely than not to also be atheist because it's hard to believe in God if you don't know whether God exists... but as I say, there are many variations on the theme.

 

[JGG]

The Holy Spirit didn't tell me that you're a liar, I just happen to recognize when someone is not listening to the Holy Spirit when they read the Bible. That is because there is some resistance to what God says when they read the Bible, often this results in a rejection or misinterpretation of the verse. This is why His spirit is called "holy", because there is none other like it, and all the others are liars. The only reason you should trust the Bible, is if you want to trust the God who gave His Holy Spirit to Jesus. If you want to believe someone other than Him, then you don't have any reason to trust the Bible.

Perhaps you've noticed: I don't believe anyone, unless they can convince me that belief is justified.

Because not everyone agree's with him, I don't agree with him, and the Bible doesn't even agree with him: John 3:16 "For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."

Yeah, but not everyone agrees with you either. Does that make you wrong?

This says very clearly that God loves the world, and He loved the world before He gave His son, therefore He loves everyone even if they don't believe in Jesus. Fred Phelps is wrong, God does not hate you.

Phelps justifies his belief with this (direct from his website, which I clearly can't link to, but trust me, it's there):

"No. You are probably thinking of John 3:16, which says no such thing. The word translated "world" in that verse (kosmos) NEVER means every individual of mankind who has ever lived (see, e.g., John 17:9). Romans 9:13 says that God hated Esau, and Psalm 5:5 says that God hates all WORKERS of iniquity..."

Is he wrong? How?

And no, I don't believe God hates me. I don't "believe" God does anything.

Those who seek the light with a bad eye will find darkness, but those who seek the light with a good eye will find light.

But don't you think that people like Phelps would (and do) tell me that you're the one with the bad eye, and they have a good eye?

Atheists = child molestors? I don't follow.. can you fill me in what led you to that thought?

When an atheist lures an innocent victim into disbelieving what God tells them, that makes me upset...

The "luring innocent victims" is an obvious (albeit possibly unconscious) allusion to child molestors.

Yes, when it comes to whether someone loves Jesus or hates Jesus, then yes you should keep your nose out of the business that doesn't belong to you. It is someone's eternal life you are messing with, but you just don't realize that because you refuse to accept what God has told you about it.

But Christians do this to us all the time. What you're saying is that Christians, and only Christians should have freedom to speak out about what they believe in. I can't in any way agree with that.

I don't understand this, you say that atheists believe God doesn't exist, but agnostics believe they don't know? So how can someone who believes they don't know, claim that they do know that He doesn't exist? It doesn't make any logical sense to me, can you please explain it in more detail.

There is a difference between not believing that God exists, and believing that God doesn't exist. So, because I don't believe that we can actually know whether or not God (or other such supernatural constructs) really exist, I do not actively believe in God. This makes me an agnostic atheist.

Yes I can, but you won't believe it because you're not honest enough to admit that someone calling themselves Christian doesn't qualify them to be Christian. It is Jesus who makes that decision. It is not your decision, it is not my decision, and your chart has no idea how to distinguish by spirit so you really are following a blind leader.

But this is exactly my point. By your own reasoning, I also have no way, or right to judge who is not a Christian, only Jesus does (and you apparently). It's not for me to judge or decide, as I really don't have an objective criteria to do so. You do, because you can say that people who aren't like you are not Christians. I cannot, because I don't know that you are a True Christian. If someone claims to be a Christian, it's not for me to say that they're not. It's just like how I have no idea who should not be considered a "Trekker." I just assume that people who claim to Trekkers, are. That's all I can really do.

Well yes in fact I do, because this study is not a measure of the effect of religion on society, but the effect of evil vs good.

No, it's not even about the effect of religion on society. We can't show that, and nobody actually tried to It could be the effect of society on religion, or something else's effect on society and religion. It is merely a study looking at how attitudes and religion relate to each other. We don't have measures for evil or good. Nevertheless, these studies show what exists. For some reason, religion and hate are associated with each other.

And you don't seem to accept what Jesus told you about why this happens, yet you seem to think that anyone who stands up and calls themselves Christian is not lying about it. Why is that?

No, I don't accept what the Bible tells us about that. Why should I just accept it? And no, as I explained before, I can assume that anyone who calls themselves Christian are, or I can assume that nobody who calls themselves Christian are. It's not for me to judge. You go ahead, but I don't have the right, or the perspective.

Ok, let me demonstrate to you what is not the behavior of a true Christian: this is a response given to an atheist who made just three posts and demonstrated polite respect not wanting to cause any trouble but simply to be heard. This was the response given by someone who calls themselves Christian:

Why do you think we care about your opinion? you are going to burn in hell

Does this seem like the action of someone who honestly believes what God says when they read the Bible, or does it sound like the type of person who refuses to hear what God says when He says something like this.

I have no doubt that said person believes what God says when they read the Bible. They just believe in what their God says, just as you believe what your God says. It's not for me to judge.

I'm not expecting you to trust me, I'm telling you that if you want peace with God, you're going to have to trust Him. I am literally incapable of helping you if you refuse to hear what I say, you should already have know this, why do you expect that I will be able to break through the hardness of your heart if you are not prepared to let it happen?

I'm not prepared to give in to an emotional response. I hear what you're saying, but I'm not going to believe in something simply because it's nice to believe in, or if it makes me happy, or even if I wanted to believe in it. Nor am I going to believe in something just because people insist it's true, but can't explain why. I have to understand it, and be convinced that it's true, just like everything else. Again, anything else would be intellectually dishonest.

I'm not looking for peace with God, I don't even know that God exists, or for that matter, what "peace with God" means or entails. I don't know that I'm actually fighting with God. You're the one who believes that. For all I know God is on my side, even if I don't believe in It.

I don't expect you to "break through the hardness of my heart," nor do I expect you to appeal to reason as would be required. What would impress me is if Christians could actually, truly understand my worldview, and the views of others, even if they don't believe it. Afterall atheism and Christianity crossover at Sir Isaac Newton.

Quite clearly, your approach in this thread has been to battle my will, but we're both strong people, so what do you think we going to be able to achieve here?

My intention is not to battle your will. As I keep saying, it's to exhibit that people like myself, do not necessarily exist in the way you assume we do. If people of religion actually understood people like us, how we think, how we see the world, they might actually be able to appeal to that, and convince us. I freely admit that I don't actually understand why people believe what they do. Why do religious people always insist that they understand why I don't?

I don't know if you're in a stable frame of mind when you say that, this comment seems to presume that God doesn't exist and that whatever He has said is not going to happen. I can't help but feel a bit concerned, you do seem to be getting increasingly frustrated.

I'm not going to simply assume that God does exist, and that whatever He says is going to happen will happen. There is no indication that I should. So why shouldn't I challenge it? If Christianity insists that I believe without understanding, then it's not worth my belief. And I can't understand it unless I challenge it, and ask questions. My only real frustration here is that you seem unable, or unwilling to understand people like me.

Well, it does depend how you define a Christian. If you are talking about Jesus' chosen ones, I would have to say probably not. If you are talking about those who Jesus has not accepted but like to put up that front, then yes it is obvious that these people are telling a greater lie about their faith than an atheist.

I define a Christian as someone who claims to be one. Again, that's all I can really do.

Well, we do have to accept the reality of the situation, but from what I've seen in your attitude you've got no fear of hell so it's clearly not a very good motive is it? Perhaps it's not intended to even be a motive, have you ever considered that?

I have, but I don't find that that theory really holds water. If it wasn't meant as a motivator then why would we need to know about it?

So that's it then, you dug around for a while and didn't see any gold, I suppose it's just not there then eh? Do you think Jesus gave you a false map or do you think it is possible you might have misread it?

No, I think there are a lot of maps out there, and I don't know if any of them lead to anything. Or maybe Jesus is throwing me off the trail because I'm not among his "chosen ones."

 

[KCfromNC]

As for hierarchy of authority, I consider myself second to Jesus in my own faith, but I believe every true Christian will also consider themselves second to Jesus in their own faith.

Trying to get back on topic :

If they disagree with you on matters of faith, are they also being dishonest with themselves and everyone else?

 

[BleedingHeart]

JCG
I think this pretty well demonstrates my first post on this thread. Christians consider atheists dishonest because we do not agree with them.
Remember that Eastern Orthodox "genius" from the first couple of pages in this thread? His arguments basically amounted to:

My brother!
1. Since atheists don't believe whatever we tell them though we don't have a lick of evidence, they must be in denial.
2. atheists have blacked out brains and "hardened hearts".
3. Christianity is right because it is.

Now, he's gone now but look at Antz. He's accused you of having a "hard heart" as well? Why? Is it because you commited a crime, or inflicted pain on them? No. It's because you don't believe what he chose to believe. Nothing more and nothing less.
And now, that he's fallen to that, he's officially out of ammo. Because theists can't demonstrate that their faith is true. They simply cannot do it. How could they, when they made some invisible thing that you have to feel with your heart and never see, never touch, and never hear. I would have an equally difficult time proving the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real.

Some undoubtedly won't. And because they can't do it, what else can one do except rationalize in way that will conform to preexisting beliefs. What else can they do except hate us? Because in the mind of a strong theist, it's not the theist's fault that their arguments are bad. It's our fault their arguments are bad.
It's our fault because we are wicked. It's our fault because we have "hardened hearts". It's our fault because we are "dishonest". About what? I still don't know. And probably never will.

 

[oi_antz]

And now, that he's fallen to that, he's officially out of ammo.

Hi BleedingHeart, I'm on lunch break right now, you are jumping the gun here. I'll address what has been said when I get home tonight, cheers.

 

[BleedingHeart]

Hi BleedingHeart, I'm on lunch break right now, you are jumping the gun here. I'll address what has been said when I get home tonight, cheers.

Look forward to your response. But I don't think so.

 

[oi_antz]

Hi JGG, thank you for your patience, I do make a point not to involve my ministry with employment unless the topic arises by itself, which it seldom does. BleedingHeart seems to think that your response is too challenging for my reply, I'm not sure why that is, but let's see.

Perhaps you've noticed: I don't believe anyone, unless they can convince me that belief is justified.

Yes, I have noticed, but I don't think this is true. Since you have indicated a preference to believe that God doesn't exist, you must be trusting what someone has told you that happens to not be justified. This is one of those things that you can't prove until either a) you die and discover that God doesn't exist, or b) you die and discover that God does exist, or c) Jesus comes and proves that God exists, or d) you accept that God exists and ask Him to reveal His true nature to you. It would pay to examine your motives as to why you would prefer to believe what you believe, because quite clearly there is no way to justify either way on this one except to trust what deep down inside you know to be right.

Yeah, but not everyone agrees with you either. Does that make you wrong?

Probably, I would not be the least bit surprised. It does concern me though if I am wrong, so if someone is able to show me a scripture that I am wrong about then sure, that will test my honesty won't it? This is where a lot of Christians get tripped up (and even non-Christians for that matter), that when our need for pride exceeds our need to be right, then we will refuse to listen to the truth and thus, we become wrong. So you are welcome to quote scripture to me if you believe I am wrong about something, that would be very much appreciated

Phelps justifies his belief with this (direct from his website, which I clearly can't link to, but trust me, it's there):

"No. You are probably thinking of John 3:16, which says no such thing. The word translated "world" in that verse (kosmos) NEVER means every individual of mankind who has ever lived (see, e.g., John 17:9). Romans 9:13 says that God hated Esau, and Psalm 5:5 says that God hates all WORKERS of iniquity..."

Is he wrong? How?

Nice, this is a terrific example! So, I can see here that what Fred is saying is correct. However, the way he says it is not at all how Jesus would say it, or how Christ's disciples are instructed to spread the word. Therefore although Fred is correct in what this statement says, the message he gave to you is not true. In fact, Fred is holding a sign up to the world which indiscriminantly says "God hates you", which is pointed toward anyone who looks. Now a man who does that is in fact claiming the right to judge another person, which the Bible says we must not do. Because it is never our right to cast judgment on another person, have you ever heard the saying "never judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes"? Do you think that is a fair thing to believe? I happen to believe it is, and the Bible also happens to say that this is what we should do:

Matthew 7 (New Living Translation)

Matthew 7

Do Not Judge Others

“Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. 2 For you will be treated as you treat others.[a] The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged.
3 “And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye[c] when you have a log in your own? 4 How can you think of saying to your friend,[d] ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.

6 “Don’t waste what is holy on people who are unholy.[e] Don’t throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you.

This is Jesus Himself telling us that we have no right whatsoever to judge another person. Who then has a right to judge us? I believe only God has the right to judge us, and I believe it is our responsibility to be honest to ourselves that we can stand before God and say that we had repented on every charge our concsience convicted us on. If you think this is not wise, then I would like you to explain why.

So then, seeing I have demonstrated to you that the Bible can be used to support what a person want's to say, whether it be saying that God is the judge and no-one is right to judge another, or whether it be that God hates everyone and we have to tell them, let us see whether we can discover love in the hateful propaganda you have presented me here:

Romans 9:13 says that God hated Esau, and Psalm 5:5 says that God hates all WORKERS of iniquity..."

Well I don't know the story of Esau too well so I can't suggest to you at this stage what it was that made God hate him, I guess he was generally not of good enough character that God would love him. Off the top of my head I can think of foolishness that he sold his inheritance for a plate of soup, and his spite at his brother for claiming what was rightfully his by virtue of the oath he had made. Beyond that, I would have to research the story to really get a feel for the mans character. As for Psalm 5, of which Fred quotes "5 The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.", it is clearly stated here that king David (who we know was the first Righteous king acceptable in God's sight), that he was pleading with God to destroy those were opposed to God. It is important to note that the ones who do truly know God will demonstrate God's nature as being righteous, that He absolutely hates anything that is not "good". So king David was a very strong soldier for the Lord, and that he did not wish mercy upon those who did not respect the Lord. But ultimately it is not our decision to make as to who God chooses to punish, who He chooses to hate, or what He should do about it. Those decisions all belong to the Lord. But what I want to point out here is that Fred Phelps has no right to tell you that God hates you, nor do I. But only God has the right to tell you that, and when you read a passage like this, I think it is up to your conscience to say whether God might consider you to be "righteous" or "a worker of iniquity". I don't know you well enough to suggest that you need to repent of specific sins, but I do know that your conscience tells you that whenever you read the Bible. There is just one thing I want to show you about this, that is not my own judgment but it is Jesus' judgment, and it pertains to my comment earlier about robbing someone else of their salvation:

Matthew 18
5 “And anyone who welcomes a little child like this on my behalf[a] is welcoming me. 6 But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Finally, I want to mention something that I hate. I hate Windows. I hate it because the company never cares about what I want, and it drives me crazy whenver it get's in my face. IF however, the company made an effort to give me what I want, then I would love it, and I wouldn't hold a grudge about their dark past. So really, it's entirely up to you whether you want to be the type of person God loves or hates, and from what I've seen in your attitude I don't see that you are harbouring any particular hate toward God, but more so toward those who claim to belong to Him, and who can blame you for that?

And no, I don't believe God hates me. I don't "believe" God does anything.

Is this belief based on personal experience? The reason I ask is because many people do believe that God does things, and that is based on their experience. I don't know how you can rationalize this except by dismissing the credibility of their experiences.

But don't you think that people like Phelps would (and do) tell me that you're the one with the bad eye, and they have a good eye?

No doubt about it. You really do have to think for yourself.

The "luring innocent victims" is an obvious (albeit possibly unconscious) allusion to child molestors.

Well I have to tell you that you are wrong about that. I didn't intend to give that impression and even now that you tell me I don't believe that is the impression I meant to give, even if you think it was done subconsciously. I think in fact it is your subconscious that gives you that impression, and this is a good example of someone looking for darkness rather than looking for light. If this is the way you read the Bible, it is no wonder you get the impression that it is not true. But if you want to know my opinion as to why you derived that meaning from what I said, I would tell you it isn't your subconscious that you are listening to, it is the deity you have chosen to trust.

But Christians do this to us all the time. What you're saying is that Christians, and only Christians should have freedom to speak out about what they believe in. I can't in any way agree with that.

No I'm not really saying that, what I'm saying is that you seem to think that your needs to have someone believe what you tell them is apparently greater than that person's need to believe what Jesus tells them. So you're actually behaving like someone who is working against Jesus Christ, and to do that you must be suicidal, I just can't see any other way you would go up against the one who holds your life in His hands and has told you that there is life after death. Why is it that you are prepared to take such a risk like that?

There is a difference between not believing that God exists, and believing that God doesn't exist. So, because I don't believe that we can actually know whether or not God (or other such supernatural constructs) really exist, I do not actively believe in God. This makes me an agnostic atheist.

Thanks, yes BleedingHeart explained agnostic atheism to me.

But this is exactly my point. By your own reasoning, I also have no way, or right to judge who is not a Christian, only Jesus does (and you apparently). It's not for me to judge or decide, as I really don't have an objective criteria to do so. You do, because you can say that people who aren't like you are not Christians. I cannot, because I don't know that you are a True Christian. If someone claims to be a Christian, it's not for me to say that they're not. It's just like how I have no idea who should not be considered a "Trekker." I just assume that people who claim to Trekkers, are. That's all I can really do.

Not really, I mean you have to trust your conscience and be honest what it says. Does what I say about the meaning of the Bible conflict with what you say about the meaning of the Bible? And if it does, then who is it that is lying? Also, you need to examine whether someone is acting in love or hate, and I can see quite clearly that Fred Phelps is acting in hate, that means that he isn't demonstrating the likeness of Christ.

No, it's not even about the effect of religion on society. We can't show that, and nobody actually tried to It could be the effect of society on religion, or something else's effect on society and religion. It is merely a study looking at how attitudes and religion relate to each other. We don't have measures for evil or good. Nevertheless, these studies show what exists. For some reason, religion and hate are associated with each other.

Ok, got it. Yes I have been buttered up by another atheist thread which showed some statistics comparing the effects of religion on society, in terms of quality of life. I had formed my comment on the basis of that discussion, so thank you for correcting me there. Yes, I do concede with what you have said here, that religion itself cannot eliminate hate, and this is essentially because religion itself is not the solution, but it is people's honesty that is the solution. You will find this with every religion, that there are sectors within them that demonstrate love, and there are sectors within them that demonstrate hate. This is due to the culture of the individuals. Those who hate others are going to find fuel for their fire, whereas those who love others are likewise going to find fuel for their fire. Of those who subscribe to a religion, the birds of a feather will flock together. I'm not sure if this is helping you to see that religion itself doesn't make someone more holy/righteous/justified in God's eyes, but rather it simply gratifies whatever the individual's personal needs are.

 

[oi_antz]

No, I don't accept what the Bible tells us about that. Why should I just accept it? And no, as I explained before, I can assume that anyone who calls themselves Christian are, or I can assume that nobody who calls themselves Christian are. It's not for me to judge. You go ahead, but I don't have the right, or the perspective.

Oh but you do have that right, in fact it is an obligation if your primary intent is to be honest, and it seems that it is only too convenient for you to plead the case of ignorance. That is hardly the attitude of an honest person, and since you don't accept that what Jesus says here is correct, you put me in the position that I have to insist that you tell me what is the real reason for it. Why are there Christians who love others, and Christians who hate others? If you believe that the explanation Jesus gave is incorrect, what then do you believe the correct explanation is?

I have no doubt that said person believes what God says when they read the Bible. They just believe in what their God says, just as you believe what your God says. It's not for me to judge.

Yes, well what we all agree on is that there is only one God. Now, if that God gave you life, which god would you rather trust, the one who loves you or the one who hates you? I know who I trust, and I'd rather trust Him than whoever Fred Phelps is listening to.

I'm not prepared to give in to an emotional response. I hear what you're saying, but I'm not going to believe in something simply because it's nice to believe in, or if it makes me happy, or even if I wanted to believe in it. Nor am I going to believe in something just because people insist it's true, but can't explain why. I have to understand it, and be convinced that it's true, just like everything else. Again, anything else would be intellectually dishonest.

That's fine and in fact it is good, but the impression you are giving me is that you are tending to believe that God doesn't exist, yet you don't have any proof for that. So by promoting the belief that God doesn't exist while knowing full well that there is a possiblity that He does exist, don't you see your actions as potentially being a little bit disrespectful toward Him?

I'm not looking for peace with God, I don't even know that God exists, or for that matter, what "peace with God" means or entails. I don't know that I'm actually fighting with God. You're the one who believes that. For all I know God is on my side, even if I don't believe in It.

Ok, well that's for you to sort out with Him, and when you get His peace then you will know that indeed He is on your side. Until you do, perhaps you should think about whether you are on Jesus' side, because that will show you whether you are the right sort of person for God to be on side with.

I don't expect you to "break through the hardness of my heart," nor do I expect you to appeal to reason as would be required. What would impress me is if Christians could actually, truly understand my worldview, and the views of others, even if they don't believe it. Afterall atheism and Christianity crossover at Sir Isaac Newton.

Nope, well I can't I'm afraid, that level of deception is well beyond my safe zone. I can only offer you a hand to get your heart right with the God of love, but if that isn't what you want then that's your very own decision to make.

My intention is not to battle your will. As I keep saying, it's to exhibit that people like myself, do not necessarily exist in the way you assume we do. If people of religion actually understood people like us, how we think, how we see the world, they might actually be able to appeal to that, and convince us. I freely admit that I don't actually understand why people believe what they do. Why do religious people always insist that they understand why I don't?

Perhaps if you reverse the roles of what you are saying, you'll see how polarized our beliefs are. What you're asking is for someone to alter their reality, and I'm not sure whether a person is really capable of doing that. Maybe they are, but I know that when I altered my reality to trust Jesus it wasn't that easy to do, so I just don't dare venture back to whence I came for the time being. Maybe in future I'll have the confidence to think the way you do.

I'm not going to simply assume that God does exist, and that whatever He says is going to happen will happen. There is no indication that I should. So why shouldn't I challenge it? If Christianity insists that I believe without understanding, then it's not worth my belief. And I can't understand it unless I challenge it, and ask questions. My only real frustration here is that you seem unable, or unwilling to understand people like me.

Well, you have to make the best decision you can. This is something you only get one shot at, and no-one else can do it for you.

I define a Christian as someone who claims to be one. Again, that's all I can really do.

Well, if that is the case then you shouldn't be using that terminology as though it represents Christ's disciple, because we all know that wolves can wear sheeps clothing, and if you are honest enough you'll be looking for all the tell-tale signs of someone who wants to drag your soul to hell, and be very careful who you choose to trust. This is why I trust Jesus, and I'm not afraid to disagree with someone when what they say seems to be untrue.

I have, but I don't find that that theory really holds water. If it wasn't meant as a motivator then why would we need to know about it?

Well, maybe you don't properly understand that information is not always intended to be used the way it is used. So while it is important to know some of the details about what God's intention is with us, it is not meant to be the reason why we choose to seek His love and to love Him, nor is it the reason why we would choose to love one another or live a righteous life. All these things are motivated by a true desire to do what is good, and heaven/hell just happen to be the place that God wants to put people according to whether they are good or bad. I don't think you can actually be good simply because you are coerced to do so.

No, I think there are a lot of maps out there, and I don't know if any of them lead to anything. Or maybe Jesus is throwing me off the trail because I'm not among his "chosen ones."

No it is not Jesus who is throwing you off trail, it must be someone else.

 

[oi_antz]

Trying to get back on topic :

If they disagree with you on matters of faith, are they also being dishonest with themselves and everyone else?

Well, it's either them or me who is dishonest, so yes in my opinion I see people who are honest in the message they give from the Bible, and I see people who are dishonest in the message they give from the Bible. Do you see it differently?

 

[oi_antz]

Look forward to your response. But I don't think so.

Did you want my opinion about something in post #166? If so, please address it to me.

 

[JGG]

Yes, I have noticed, but I don't think this is true. Since you have indicated a preference to believe that God doesn't exist, you must be trusting what someone has told you that happens to not be justified.

That's not true. I actually would say that I have a preference to believe in something, it's just not your God.

This is one of those things that you can't prove until either a) you die and discover that God doesn't exist, or b) you die and discover that God does exist, or c) Jesus comes and proves that God exists, or d) you accept that God exists and ask Him to reveal His true nature to you. It would pay to examine your motives as to why you would prefer to believe what you believe, because quite clearly there is no way to justify either way on this one except to trust what deep down inside you know to be right.

What deep down inside I know to be right? What does that mean? I will know something is right when I can understand it, and analyze it, and decide it is right. I used to count on what I "wanted" to be right, and frequently found that I was wrong. I don't rely on that now.

Probably, I would not be the least bit surprised. It does concern me though if I am wrong, so if someone is able to show me a scripture that I am wrong about then sure, that will test my honesty won't it? This is where a lot of Christians get tripped up (and even non-Christians for that matter), that when our need for pride exceeds our need to be right, then we will refuse to listen to the truth and thus, we become wrong. So you are welcome to quote scripture to me if you believe I am wrong about something, that would be very much appreciated

I meant about Jesus. Most people don't believe he's God. I won't find scripture for that, just other religious texts.

Nice, this is a terrific example! So, I can see here that what Fred is saying is correct. However, the way he says it is not at all how Jesus would say it

Well, how did Jesus say it?

Now a man who does that is in fact claiming the right to judge another person, which the Bible says we must not do. Because it is never our right to cast judgment on another person, have you ever heard the saying "never judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes"?

Fred says:

Doesn't the Bible say not to judge?
Yes. However, you may not understand what that means. It means not to judge unrighteously, it means not to judge using your human judgment, and it means not to judge hypocritically. In other words, don't substitute your judgment for God's, and don't judge other people when you are guilty of impenitently engaging in the same sins (i.e., Don't cast the first stone). However, there are several verses in the Bible where we are told to judge. "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" John 7:24. "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man" I Corinthians 2:15. "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?" I Corinthians 6:2.

So then, seeing I have demonstrated to you that the Bible can be used to support what a person want's to say, whether it be saying that God is the judge and no-one is right to judge another, or whether it be that God hates everyone and we have to tell them, let us see whether we can discover love in the hateful propaganda you have presented me here

That's okay you can take it up with Fred.

But ultimately it is not our decision to make as to who God chooses to punish, who He chooses to hate, or what He should do about it. Those decisions all belong to the Lord. But what I want to point out here is that Fred Phelps has no right to tell you that God hates you, nor do I.

Funny, you already insisted that God doesn't hate me. Now you don't have the right to tell me that?

Finally, I want to mention something that I hate. I hate Windows. I hate it because the company never cares about what I want, and it drives me crazy whenver it get's in my face. IF however, the company made an effort to give me what I want, then I would love it, and I wouldn't hold a grudge about their dark past. So really, it's entirely up to you whether you want to be the type of person God loves or hates, and from what I've seen in your attitude I don't see that you are harbouring any particular hate toward God, but more so toward those who claim to belong to Him, and who can blame you for that?

God is comparable to a guy who hates Windows? This is not a God I can put faith in.

Is this belief based on personal experience?

Again, it's not a belief. "I don't believe God does anything," is not equivelant to "I believe God does nothing." I would say it based on a lack of personal experience.

The reason I ask is because many people do believe that God does things, and that is based on their experience. I don't know how you can rationalize this except by dismissing the credibility of their experiences.

I would say one, because I wasn't the one who experienced it. Two, because other people in other religions credit a completely different deity, and deny yours. Three, because the experiences themselves are pretty much always explained by other phenomena, usually just coincidince.

No doubt about it. You really do have to think for yourself.

I'm the only one with my brain.

Well I have to tell you that you are wrong about that. I didn't intend to give that impression and even now that you tell me I don't believe that is the impression I meant to give, even if you think it was done subconsciously. I think in fact it is your subconscious that gives you that impression, and this is a good example of someone looking for darkness rather than looking for light.

Can you explain "the light" in the accusation that atheists "lure in innocent victims?"

No I'm not really saying that, what I'm saying is that you seem to think that your needs to have someone believe what you tell them is apparently greater than that person's need to believe what Jesus tells them.

If Jesus "tells" them that I'm a liar who lures in innocent victims, I believe I have every right to tell them that Jesus is wrong.

Not really, I mean you have to trust your conscience and be honest what it says. Does what I say about the meaning of the Bible conflict with what you say about the meaning of the Bible? And if it does, then who is it that is lying? Also, you need to examine whether someone is acting in love or hate, and I can see quite clearly that Fred Phelps is acting in hate, that means that he isn't demonstrating the likeness of Christ.

Again, I will quote Fred:

Why do you preach hate?
Because the Bible preaches hate. For every one verse about God's mercy, love, compassion, etc., there are two verses about His vengeance, hatred, wrath, etc. The maudlin, kissy-pooh, feel-good, touchy-feely preachers of today's society are damning this nation and this world to hell. They are telling you what you want to hear rather than what you need to hear, just like what happened in the days of Isaiah and Jeremiah.

This is due to the culture of the individuals. Those who hate others are going to find fuel for their fire, whereas those who love others are likewise going to find fuel for their fire. Of those who subscribe to a religion, the birds of a feather will flock together. I'm not sure if this is helping you to see that religion itself doesn't make someone more holy/righteous/justified in God's eyes, but rather it simply gratifies whatever the individual's personal needs are.

Yes this is true, birds of a feather flock together. However, the big question is why does the effect increase as the groups get more religious, and decrease as they get less religious?

Oh but you do have that right, in fact it is an obligation if your primary intent is to be honest, and it seems that it is only too convenient for you to plead the case of ignorance.

I'm confused. I have an obligation to judge who is a Christian, even though I have no criteria to do so, but...

But ultimately it is not our decision to make as to who God chooses to punish, who He chooses to hate, or what He should do about it. Those decisions all belong to the Lord. But what I want to point out here is that Fred Phelps has no right to tell you that God hates you, nor do I.

So I can't judge who God loves and hates, but I can judge whom God has chosen as a follower?

Yes, well what we all agree on is that there is only one God. Now, if that God gave you life, which god would you rather trust, the one who loves you or the one who hates you? I know who I trust, and I'd rather trust Him than whoever Fred Phelps is listening to.

Wait, why would I trust God simply because He gave me life? I don't see how that follows. Especially, since we've already agreed that it's just as likely that God hates me as loves me.

That's fine and in fact it is good, but the impression you are giving me is that you are tending to believe that God doesn't exist, yet you don't have any proof for that. So by promoting the belief that God doesn't exist while knowing full well that there is a possiblity that He does exist, don't you see your actions as potentially being a little bit disrespectful toward Him?

No, my tendency is to search for "God." I'm just not on the trail of the one you believe in.

Nope, well I can't I'm afraid, that level of deception is well beyond my safe zone. I can only offer you a hand to get your heart right with the God of love, but if that isn't what you want then that's your very own decision to make.

Safe zone?

Perhaps if you reverse the roles of what you are saying, you'll see how polarized our beliefs are. What you're asking is for someone to alter their reality, and I'm not sure whether a person is really capable of doing that.

Uh-huh, and yet that's exactly what Christians are expecting me to do, and then judge me if I don't.

Well, you have to make the best decision you can. This is something you only get one shot at, and no-one else can do it for you.

And yet, everyone tries to do it for me.

Well, if that is the case then you shouldn't be using that terminology as though it represents Christ's disciple, because we all know that wolves can wear sheeps clothing, and if you are honest enough you'll be looking for all the tell-tale signs of someone who wants to drag your soul to hell, and be very careful who you choose to trust.

Or it could be that there are good Christians, and bad Christians. Just as there are good New Yorkers, and bad New Yorkers, Good Scrabble lovers and bad Scrabble players, good Trekkers and bad Trekkers, good people and bad people. However, I can't sit here and say who are and who are not the True Christians, because I don't know. At least on this board the criteria is simply those who believe in the Nicene Creed. What criteria should I use?

Well, maybe you don't properly understand that information is not always intended to be used the way it is used. So while it is important to know some of the details about what God's intention is with us, it is not meant to be the reason why we choose to seek His love and to love Him, nor is it the reason why we would choose to love one another or live a righteous life.

Why is it important that we know these details? If the heaven/hell thing is going to be such a spiritual pitfall for so many people, would it not have been better not to present it at all? What is the reason that you choose God, and choose to be righteous? What is the purpose of heaven and hell if not motivation?

No it is not Jesus who is throwing you off trail, it must be someone else.

Satan? Is it Satan?

 

[oi_antz]

Satan? Is it Satan?

You surrendered the answer in your first sentence:

That's not true. I actually would say that I have a preference to believe in something, it's just not your God.

I would say to you that you need to investigate whether you prefer to love or hate. What you are showing me here is that you would rather think that Fred Phelps is correct that God hates us than that I am correct that God loves us. This is inconsistent with Jesus' actions, which were all demonstrations of love. He did not condemn sinners, but forgave them and showed them how to repent.

It is always going to be difficult to be told something that you don't like, but that is only pride. Can you let me know if there is something further you want to know from me?

 

[JGG]

I would say to you that you need to investigate whether you prefer to love or hate.

You're still not listening. Whether I prefer love or hate is redundant, as neither is a valid or objective indicator of truth. Both are used to cloud judgment. I prefer to attempt for reasonable, and objective.

What you are showing me here is that you would rather think that Fred Phelps is correct that God hates us than that I am correct that God loves us. This is inconsistent with Jesus' actions, which were all demonstrations of love. He did not condemn sinners, but forgave them and showed them how to repent.

No, I think you're both wrong. You say Jesus loves, and maybe your right. Phelps says God hates, and you agreed that he's right. You yourself said earlier that I can't discard information just because I don't like it. But ultimately you're telling me to discard what Phelps says because I prefer love and don't like hate.

To be fair, I don't pursue the information Phelps gives me because I don't see any justification in doing so. I have to take his word for it that he's right, and I have no reason to do that. Thus, for all intents and purposes, I discard it.

Obviously, I don't believe God loves us or hates us. These are human concepts, and human emotions, and even we can't really define them, or explain them, or quantify them very well. We just project them on our concept of God.

Even if I believed in God, I wouldn't think that such a being loved us or hated us. I don't understand how such a being would make use of these, and how it would apply to us. I would find it more reasonable to believe that God both loves and hates us all the time. Although even that can't be justified.

My problem with "God" is that our concepts of It are so small that I honestly can't say I believe in them. We try to take Infinity and place It into little boxes of preference so we can claim righteousness, and that doesn't work for me. Every time we try to confine God, we make It a little smaller, and smaller, and smaller, until God is smaller than we are, which is how I see the God concepts that are all around us. Earlier you compared God to an angry Windows customer. That's a pretty small God.

On the other hand, if I let myself really think about where concepts of a large God go, everything just runs away into endlessness, and I can't know what that means. It is because I fully admit that I don't know, and probably can't ever understand, that I call myself agnostic. It is because I don't understand that I say I don't believe, and call myself an atheist. Afterall, I still lack even a concept to believe in.

The point is, everyone picks the God that they want to exist. People choose the God that is comfortable, safe, and simple, and hates all the same people they do.

I'm just not interested in settling on safe and simple. I don't want a "safe zone," and it's not because I'm brave, or courageous (if you weren't being facetious) it's because I'm curious, and interested, and fascinated by the literal endless possibilities that come with stepping outside my comfort zone.

A long time ago, in another thread you asked what I thought you had closed your mind to. Well, I would say it is whatever is outside that "safe zone." And considering that understanding how an atheist thinks is well outside that safe zone...

It is always going to be difficult to be told something that you don't like, but that is only pride.

It's not a matter of what I do, or don't like. Even if I liked what you were saying, that wouldn't justify belief. There are concepts of God (or thereabouts) that I really like, find fascinating, and/or really enjoy thinking about and considering. But I realize that that doesn't make me believe them. I just like them, much like I like Batman, or Freudian theory. I don't believe in either, but both are fun to try to wrap my brain around.

Can you let me know if there is something further you want to know from me?

Maybe the better question is whether there's anything else you want to know from me?

 

[oi_antz]

You're still not listening. Whether I prefer love or hate is redundant, as neither is a valid or objective indicator of truth. Both are used to cloud judgment. I prefer to attempt for reasonable, and objective.

No, I think you're both wrong. You say Jesus loves, and maybe your right. Phelps says God hates, and you agreed that he's right. You yourself said earlier that I can't discard information just because I don't like it. But ultimately you're telling me to discard what Phelps says because I prefer love and don't like hate.

To be fair, I don't pursue the information Phelps gives me because I don't see any justification in doing so. I have to take his word for it that he's right, and I have no reason to do that. Thus, for all intents and purposes, I discard it.

Obviously, I don't believe God loves us or hates us. These are human concepts, and human emotions, and even we can't really define them, or explain them, or quantify them very well. We just project them on our concept of God.

Even if I believed in God, I wouldn't think that such a being loved us or hated us. I don't understand how such a being would make use of these, and how it would apply to us. I would find it more reasonable to believe that God both loves and hates us all the time. Although even that can't be justified.

My problem with "God" is that our concepts of It are so small that I honestly can't say I believe in them. We try to take Infinity and place It into little boxes of preference so we can claim righteousness, and that doesn't work for me. Every time we try to confine God, we make It a little smaller, and smaller, and smaller, until God is smaller than we are, which is how I see the God concepts that are all around us. Earlier you compared God to an angry Windows customer. That's a pretty small God.

On the other hand, if I let myself really think about where concepts of a large God go, everything just runs away into endlessness, and I can't know what that means. It is because I fully admit that I don't know, and probably can't ever understand, that I call myself agnostic. It is because I don't understand that I say I don't believe, and call myself an atheist. Afterall, I still lack even a concept to believe in.

The point is, everyone picks the God that they want to exist. People choose the God that is comfortable, safe, and simple, and hates all the same people they do.

I'm just not interested in settling on safe and simple. I don't want a "safe zone," and it's not because I'm brave, or courageous (if you weren't being facetious) it's because I'm curious, and interested, and fascinated by the literal endless possibilities that come with stepping outside my comfort zone.

A long time ago, in another thread you asked what I thought you had closed your mind to. Well, I would say it is whatever is outside that "safe zone." And considering that understanding how an atheist thinks is well outside that safe zone...

It's not a matter of what I do, or don't like. Even if I liked what you were saying, that wouldn't justify belief. There are concepts of God (or thereabouts) that I really like, find fascinating, and/or really enjoy thinking about and considering. But I realize that that doesn't make me believe them. I just like them, much like I like Batman, or Freudian theory. I don't believe in either, but both are fun to try to wrap my brain around.

Maybe the better question is whether there's anything else you want to know from me?

JGG, I feel that you aren't listening to me too, so I don't know what more I can say. There are only two options, you have to choose who you want to trust. After seeing the extent of evil that plagues various minds, I don't think you should hold it against me that I want to close my mind to it. It appears to me from my recent experience with the Fred Phelps faith that you can choose God's love or you can choose God's hate. So I'll leave that decision up to you now, but as I say, if you want to know anything further from me, just ask.

 

[paul becke]

Militant atheists on the Internet misrepresent Christians and Christianity in a host of different ways. Also many start from a position of wanting to defend am aberrant sexual life-style at any cost to the truth, so truth is never a genuine consideration.

Once they accept the intelligent design of the universe, they must accept a designer with intelligence and purpose, and that we have been created physically to certain definite specifications.

There is a strange mismatch between their habitual, sneering affectation of superiority and their abject need to infest religious and scientific sites. I would imagine this would occur because it would not occur to the vast majority of Christians to wonder what atheists believe, and to visit their folders sites. I don't imagine talking to themselves gives them a whole lot of joy, or a sense of validation. "Why are we a lonely bunch of outliers?" sort of thing.

They claim to 'own' science, despite the fact that the greatest innovative thinkers in physics during the last 100 years, the great paradigm-changers, all believed in intelligent design. I don't capitalise the first letters of the latter term, because they have systematically conflated it with the forms of creationism antithetical to evolution, despite the latter not in any way precluding the divine creation one whit.

 

[BleedingHeart]

Militant atheists on the Internet misrepresent Christians and Christianity in a host of different ways. Also many start from a position of wanting to defend am aberrant sexual life-style at any cost to the truth, so truth is never a genuine consideration.

Once they accept the intelligent design of the universe, they must accept a designer with intelligence and purpose, and that we have been created physically to certain definite specifications.

There is a strange mismatch between their habitual, sneering affectation of superiority and their abject need to infest religious and scientific sites. I would imagine this would occur because it would not occur to the vast majority of Christians to wonder what atheists believe, and to visit their folders sites. I don't imagine talking to themselves gives them a whole lot of joy, or a sense of validation. "Why are we a lonely bunch of outliers?" sort of thing.

They claim to 'own' science, despite the fact that the greatest innovative thinkers in physics during the last 100 years, the great paradigm-changers, all believed in intelligent design. I don't capitalise the first letters of the latter term, because they have systematically conflated it with the forms of creationism antithetical to evolution, despite the latter not in any way precluding the divine creation one whit.

Wow, what a useful and relevant post once you get rid of the ad hominems, sweeping statements, and add relevance to the thread topic.

 

[JGG]

Militant atheists on the Internet misrepresent Christians and Christianity in a host of different ways. Also many start from a position of wanting to defend am aberrant sexual life-style at any cost to the truth, so truth is never a genuine consideration.

Once they accept the intelligent design of the universe, they must accept a designer with intelligence and purpose, and that we have been created physically to certain definite specifications.

There is a strange mismatch between their habitual, sneering affectation of superiority and their abject need to infest religious and scientific sites. I would imagine this would occur because it would not occur to the vast majority of Christians to wonder what atheists believe, and to visit their folders sites. I don't imagine talking to themselves gives them a whole lot of joy, or a sense of validation. "Why are we a lonely bunch of outliers?" sort of thing.

They claim to 'own' science, despite the fact that the greatest innovative thinkers in physics during the last 100 years, the great paradigm-changers, all believed in intelligent design. I don't capitalise the first letters of the latter term, because they have systematically conflated it with the forms of creationism antithetical to evolution, despite the latter not in any way precluding the divine creation one whit.

Thank-you so much for this. Is it okay for me to assume that this does represent Christianity?

 

[JGG]

JGG, I feel that you aren't listening to me too, so I don't know what more I can say. There are only two options, you have to choose who you want to trust.

Why are there only two options? Experience generally tells me that most apparent dichotomies are false. I see a multitude of options. What exactly are these only two options?

After seeing the extent of evil that plagues various minds, I don't think you should hold it against me that I want to close my mind to it. It appears to me from my recent experience with the Fred Phelps faith that you can choose God's love or you can choose God's hate.

So, what you're saying is that because you don't like the "God's hate" side, which you admit is valid, you choose to ignore it, or discard it, and in fact advise me to do the same. This is after you told me not to discard information just because I don't like it. It just seems inconsistent, doesn't it?