Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't have any fear of you or anyone else calling atheism a religion. Rather than dealing with words which are often misunderstood, why not call the planet Neptune a human being.
No, I think it has to be more than that. If I used "association" or "philosophical movement" or "ethical society" I doubt that the reaction would be the same. It seems to be something that grows out of a deep-seated animosity towards conventional religions and "religious people."
And bear in mind that this wasn't said of atheists or atheism, per se, but was in reference to the so-called "New Atheism" movement.
I notice that when I ask some of the difficult questions, Christians tend to get evasive, defensive or angry. Why is this?
That innocent question upsets you? I'm sorry, but this is a religious discussion board so, presumably, anyone who chooses to discuss religious matters here can expect religious topics to be presented for their consideration.So why do you knowingly upset people?
I notice that when I ask some of the difficult questions, Christians tend to get evasive, defensive or angry. Why is this?
The Christian God is often posited as having knowledge of everything - past, present and future. If God knows what you're going to do tomorrow and you freely choose to do something different from what god knows you will do, then what happens to God's infallible foreknowledge?
The Christian God is often described as loving everyone and being able to do anything. It would then follow that he would want to stop rapists from raping children and would be capable of doing so. But rapists do rape children. Same thing with typhoons which destroy millions of homes and kill thousands of people. How do you reconcile this?
That innocent question upsets you? I'm sorry, but this is a religious discussion board so, presumably, anyone who chooses to discuss religious matters here can expect religious topics to be presented for their consideration.
You could, of course, switch to another forum if the mere raising of a question on a thread that's already discussing that issue (atheism and religion) troubles you. You didn't say the same thing about this thread, I notice, even though it begins with an assertion that's much more heated and potentially offensive--claiming that "Christians "get defensive or "angry" when confronted with "difficult questions."
In your own words, please explain the difference between the "New Atheism" movement and atheism.No, I think it has to be more than that. If I used "association" or "philosophical movement" or "ethical society" I doubt that the reaction would be the same. It seems to be something that grows out of a deep-seated animosity towards conventional religions and "religious people."
And bear in mind that this wasn't said of atheists or atheism, per se, but was in reference to the so-called "New Atheism" movement.
I suggest you read this:That's kind of a contradiction in terms: if God knows what you're going to do... you freely choose to do something different...
God knows what you're going to do, period. That doesn't take away from your free will. He isn't controlling your choices, He's just aware of them beforehand.
I suggest you read this:
Christians often make the claim that God knows everything. If asked for specifics, theyll say this includes knowledge about the future (foreknowledge) and that such knowledge is infallible. Christians also often make the claim that man has free will. Upon being asked for specifics, theyll agree that free will entails the ability to freely make a choice and that up until the time an option is chosen, a different option could have been chosen. At quick glance, these claims may not appear to be in conflict. However, if we dig a little deeper into each of these claims, well see that they are.
Lets say Fred is faced with a free choice of A or B. He is due to make this choice on Tuesday (day 2). Well call Freds day 2 A/B choice variable Y. This means prior to day 2, variable Y has no value (or the choice lies in an unmade state), and on day 2, variable Y will acquire a value of either A or B to be decided freely by Fred.
Given the Christian claim that God has infallible foreknowledge, this would mean God knows infallibly what A/B choice Fred will make when the choice still lies in an unmade state. To gain further clarity on this, it can be asked, if it were asked on day 1 does God know infallibly what Freds day 2 A/B choice will be, would the answer be YES?. Christians would typically agree.
If asked for further specifics, such as what if Fred chooses something in conflict with what God knows he will choose, Christians will respond with the assertion that Fred will choose whatever God knows he will choose.
So well call Gods day 1 knowledge of Freds day 2 A/B choice variable X. If God knows infallibly on day 1 what Freds day 2 A/B choice will be, then it follows that X has a static or fixed value of either A or B as of day 1.
We now have three conditions:
1) X (or God's knowledge as of day 1 of Fred's day 2 A/B choice) has a value of either A or B on day 1 and this value is fixed and cannot change. If it is A, it will remain A. If it is B, it willremain B. This follows the assertion that God has infallible knowledge of future events.
2) Y (or Freds day 2 A/B choice) receives its value on day 2. Once Y receives its value, it becomes locked. Prior to receiving its value, it could potentially become A or B, as Fred freely chooses A or B. This follows the assertion that Fred has free will or can freely make choices.
3) X is equal to Y. This follows the assertion that whatever Fred chooses is precisely the same as what God knew he would choose.
Not all three of these conditions can be true.
If #1 & #2 are true, then #3 cant be true, as X wouldnt be equal to Y, nor would Y be equal to X. Not only would X receive a value at a different point in time than Y, but Y could be assigned a value in conflict with the static value of X.
If #1 & #3 are true, then #2 cant be true. Fred wouldnt be able to freely choose A or B, as variable Y would already be defined as being equal to variable X. Christians will often argue that God's knowledge of Freds future choice is a function of Freds day 2 choice. But this doesnt hold true if the answer to the question if asked on day 1, does God know what Freds day 2 A/B choice will be? is YES.
If #2 & #3 are true, then #1 cant be true. What this means is if variable Y gets its value on day 2, then variable X also gets its value on day 2 and gets the same value as variable Y. It then follows that God cant have infallible knowledge on day 1 of Freds day 2 A/B choice.
Therefore, it is logically impossible for God (or anyone) to have infallible foreknowledge of a yet to be made free choice.
You have a problem with this. You're presupposing a god with the same frame of reference as us. Christians often say their god is "outside of time". If god sees everything as the past, then your argument falls apart.
Like I've already mentioned, I don't let childish jabs upset me. I'm just questioning why you think it's necessary to engage in such obvious practices. .
SimpleI suggest you read this:
Christians often make the claim that God knows everything. If asked for specifics, they’ll say this includes knowledge about the future (foreknowledge) and that such knowledge is infallible. Christians also often make the claim that man has free will. Upon being asked for specifics, they’ll agree that free will entails the ability to freely make a choice and that up until the time an option is chosen, a different option could have been chosen. At quick glance, these claims may not appear to be in conflict. However, if we dig a little deeper into each of these claims, we’ll see that they are.
Let’s say Fred is faced with a free choice of A or B. He is due to make this choice on Tuesday (day 2). We’ll call Fred’s day 2 A/B choice variable Y. This means prior to day 2, variable Y has no value (or the choice lies in an unmade state), and on day 2, variable Y will acquire a value of either A or B – to be decided freely by Fred.
Given the Christian claim that God has infallible foreknowledge, this would mean God knows infallibly what A/B choice Fred will make when the choice still lies in an unmade state. To gain further clarity on this, it can be asked, “if it were asked on day 1 does God know infallibly what Fred’s day 2 A/B choice will be, would the answer be YES?”. Christians would typically agree.
If asked for further specifics, such as what if Fred chooses something in conflict with what God knows he will choose, Christians will respond with the assertion that Fred will choose whatever God knows he will choose.
So we’ll call God’s day 1 knowledge of Fred’s day 2 A/B choice variable X. If God knows infallibly on day 1 what Fred’s day 2 A/B choice will be, then it follows that X has a static or fixed value of either A or B as of day 1.
We now have three conditions:
1) X (or God's knowledge as of day 1 of Fred's day 2 A/B choice) has a value of either A or B on day 1 and this value is fixed and cannot change. If it is A, it will remain A. If it is B, it willremain B. This follows the assertion that God has infallible knowledge of future events.
2) Y (or Fred’s day 2 A/B choice) receives its value on day 2. Once Y receives its value, it becomes locked. Prior to receiving its value, it could potentially become A or B, as Fred freely chooses A or B. This follows the assertion that Fred has free will or can freely make choices.
3) X is equal to Y. This follows the assertion that whatever Fred chooses is precisely the same as what God knew he would choose.
Not all three of these conditions can be true.
If #1 & #2 are true, then #3 can’t be true, as X wouldn’t be equal to Y, nor would Y be equal to X. Not only would X receive a value at a different point in time than Y, but Y could be assigned a value in conflict with the static value of X.
If #1 & #3 are true, then #2 can’t be true. Fred wouldn’t be able to freely choose A or B, as variable Y would already be defined as being equal to variable X. Christians will often argue that God's knowledge of Fred’s future choice is a function of Fred’s day 2 choice. But this doesn’t hold true if the answer to the question “if asked on day 1, does God know what Fred’s day 2 A/B choice will be?” is YES.
If #2 & #3 are true, then #1 can’t be true. What this means is if variable Y gets its value on day 2, then variable X also gets its value on day 2 and gets the same value as variable Y. It then follows that God can’t have infallible knowledge on day 1 of Fred’s day 2 A/B choice.
Therefore, it is logically impossible for God (or anyone) to have infallible foreknowledge of a yet to be made free choice.
That's good. But it wasn't a "jab" to say that discussing religion on a forum dedicated to religious discussion isn't something the average person who comes here to discuss religious topics would see as surprising or upsetting.
And if anyone actually DOES feel that way, it's hardly the fault of the poster who asked the question.
In short I do not find Christians all that defensive, thought of course there are some exceptions.
As a general rule, faith beliefs are developed and are protected, because they are an important part of a person's psyche and the belief provides comfort, amongst other things.
In many people, when this faith belief is challenged with pointed questions, it can pose a serious risk, because doubt can then come into the picture, in regards to something that is very important to them.
We call this "cognitive dissonance" and it is unpleasant. When a person is experiencing cognitive dissonance, you are almost certain to see; denial, confirmation bias and selective reasoning exhibited, as the powerful defense mechanisms utilized to protect the faith belief.
In regards to displaying intellectual honesty, my observations on this board would not match up with yours.
Now, some people come here for actual "intellectual discussion" and that usually includes; understanding the other persons position and asking pointed questions to better understand it. It also involves, pointing out when someone responds and it simply makes no logical sense or their response is contradictory to what they have already said (which I see a lot from certain Christians).
Intellectual discussion with just people who agree with you is boring and is why some seek discussion with those who do not agree with them, because it is more stimulating to discuss where they differ and why.
I come here not to undermine anyone's faith belief, I come here to engage in discussion with those who may disagree with me and to learn why they feel differently then me.
At the end of the day, it isn't one's belief that interests me so much, it is how each person justifies to themselves, why they believe what they do. That is where the psychology part of this whole discussion, can get highly entertaining.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?