Why would an atheist come to Christ, if not to avoid hell?

[ElijahW]

Skepticism is necessary and important. Those who do not use skepticism are gullible. And like I keep saying, just because the alternative theory is poor is not evidence of yours.

But just to be clear, you're saying that if someone makes an outlandish claim, I should not be skeptical. By the way, while I'm thinking of these things, I have $10,000,000 that I need to get out of my Swiss bank account, and I need your help. I will reward you for your trouble...

The main difference here is that there isn’t anyone making this claim for you to be skeptical of. There are some questions that you need to try to figure out what you consider the most reasonable answer to. You are using people’s inability to justify the position rationally as an excuse to disregard it, instead of doing the work yourself to see which position you think is the most rational.

If you come to the conclusion that you should be skeptical of theism because you have considered the positions and materialism seems to be the rational position then that is awesome. The problem is if you are skeptical and haven’t considered the position to know why you should be skeptical. For example you thinking that a lack of empirical evidence for spiritual entities should be taken for something, is directly because you haven’t considered the position long enough to know what the position’s actual weak points are.

You can keep saying that but I’m still going to operate by believing in what the only possible option is. And you can go with your claim that you operate some different way, where you never have an opinion one way or another, until you are given some mythical absolute proof, but I’m going to be skeptical of that claim.

Firstly, Great Kirk, no. I'm suggesting that Shatner is Shatner. Secondly, I don't see why it's a problem in any event. When J=G is that a problem?

My bad. I thought you were spreading that stupid spaghetti monster meme with Shatner in its place. What exactly did Shatner do? The emphasis on the Trinity is an attempt to deal with that issue.

That's fine. But you understand you can't say they are rational claims?

If the claim of faith is rational or not is dependent on the individual. For example when we met I couldn’t assume that your skepticism was irrational. I would need to talk to you first and see where your skepticism comes from. Maybe you have thought about this and have a reason for being skeptical that is rational and comes from seeing a better explanation. I can’t just assume you are imitating irrational behavior of others until I actually see the evidence of it.

In our society, it was Aristotle. However, it was also developed in India in early Vedic transcripts, as well as in China, and the Middle East, all independent of each other.

I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear.

Between you, me or a third party, who decides which premises presented in this conversation are “established”. What standards would this decider use to determine if it was established? Which philosopher established these standards? Not Aristotle but the specific philosopher who demands empirical evidence for the premises to be “established” like you do. Not only so we can see the worldview that level of skepticism produces, but maybe get some clue what the evidence is that makes these requirements reasonable.

 

[oi_antz]

I haven't heard from her in ages, so I doubt I'd be able to find it. Suffice it to say, immediately following her departure from our conversation, she joined another where she continued to flog atheists, telling them what they think.

It does take time to adjust, that's natural with anything that grows. I remember PM'ing with her over the course of a week and I got to see whats in her heart. Why don't you look through her recent posts and see that she's matured?

The problem is, there is no right. There is merely the opinion that is expressed.

Why do you think there is no right? Since Christianity is meant to be the adherence to Jesus' discipline, then Jesus' teaching is what defines right and wrong.

Not necessarily. Which teaching? Where does Jesus or any disciple command his followers specifically to love atheists?

‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

Ps. 14: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. 2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. 3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 4 Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord.

Does that describe you? Does it describe me? Try to think about what is meant. The most important part there is this:

They are all gone aside

Is there one person alive who has never been that fool? Do you think that simply being Christian is sufficient to not be that fool? I get images in my mind when I read this, there are all those wolves in sheep's clothing who are not afraid of God, they keep Jesus' flock blind to the truth and teach them wicked lies to keep them under bondage and to fuel contention between their own type and outsiders. These false teachers are responsible for your hatred of Christianity. If they really did fear God they would be imprinting Matthew 18:6 on the minds of their followers.

It doesn't matter.

What then, is the purpose of thinking and communicating?

You asked where that grain came from, I showed you. Do you want to show me where I claimed you were delusional?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7631298-6/#post59959894

I don't understand. Know what?

God has revealed Himself to others but not to you. Don't you want to know why?

 

[JGG]

It does take time to adjust, that's natural with anything that grows. I remember PM'ing with her over the course of a week and I got to see whats in her heart. Why don't you look through her recent posts and see that she's matured?

It would be skirting the edge of a flame, so suffice it to say, I don't see it.

Why do you think there is no right? Since Christianity is meant to be the adherence to Jesus' discipline, then Jesus' teaching is what defines right and wrong.

But who's Jesus? Yours or theirs?

‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

It doesn't say atheist there. Besides, many Christians will explain to you that in Jesus' days His neighbours were Jews, and not Romans. Jesus isn't instructing to love other people, but other Christians.

Does that describe you? Does it describe me? Try to think about what is meant. The most important part there is this:

They are all gone aside

Is there one person alive who has never been that fool? Do you think that simply being Christian is sufficient to not be that fool?

Not fools as defined by God. Besides, that doesn't mean that God doesn't hate atheists, but atheists and some fake Christians.

What then, is the purpose of thinking and communicating?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7631298-6/#post59959894

Well, I'm sure you'll notice is that what I said was that I couldn't trust your testimony because for all I know you might be delusional. That's something quite different. Do you not agree that it's something different?

God has revealed Himself to others but not to you. Don't you want to know why?

Scientologists find that they can triumph over thetans, Hindus find their connection to Brahma, Buddhists find betterment through their release of desire. Do you ever really wonder why you haven't found these things?

 

[JGG]

The main difference here is that there isn’t anyone making this claim for you to be skeptical of.

Theists are making this claim, are they not?

There are some questions that you need to try to figure out what you consider the most reasonable answer to. You are using people’s inability to justify the position rationally as an excuse to disregard it, instead of doing the work yourself to see which position you think is the most rational.

Again, none of them are rational. Again, how would I distinguish any of these positions from a figment of one's imagination?

If you come to the conclusion that you should be skeptical of theism because you have considered the positions and materialism seems to be the rational position then that is awesome.

Again, I have not landed on the position that materialism is rational.

The problem is if you are skeptical and haven’t considered the position to know why you should be skeptical. For example you thinking that a lack of empirical evidence for spiritual entities should be taken for something, is directly because you haven’t considered the position long enough to know what the position’s actual weak points are.

Is there any means by which I can approach this and see that these positions are anything more than their imagination, or something they have borrowed from someone else's imagination?

You can keep saying that but I’m still going to operate by believing in what the only possible option is. And you can go with your claim that you operate some different way, where you never have an opinion one way or another, until you are given some mythical absolute proof, but I’m going to be skeptical of that claim.

Good, I'm not looking for absolute proof. Except for math, that doesn't exist. I do expect some form of evidence. However, if you are unwilling to accept my claims, why do you expect me to accept yours?

My bad. I thought you were spreading that stupid spaghetti monster meme with Shatner in its place. What exactly did Shatner do?

He starred on Star Trek, TJ Hooker and Boston Legal. Also, any question which does not have an answer can be answered with "Shatner-did-it."

If the claim of faith is rational or not is dependent on the individual.

I'm sure one can rationalize their own faith to themselves. But it's still faith, and one cannot expect everybody to bow down to them for it.

Between you, me or a third party, who decides which premises presented in this conversation are “established”. What standards would this decider use to determine if it was established? Which philosopher established these standards? Not Aristotle but the specific philosopher who demands empirical evidence for the premises to be “established” like you do. Not only so we can see the worldview that level of skepticism produces, but maybe get some clue what the evidence is that makes these requirements reasonable.

There is no judge of it. You can either trace the logic's premises back to something which is axiomatic, has the evidence required to demonstrate or prove the premise, or to which the parties have agreed upon.

 

[JGG]

If Christianity is not true, then by default, it's founders were;
a) liers/frauds
b)insane
A liar/fraus would never die in the way I mentioned above.

Perhaps they were misinterpreted, or perhaps they were fictional, mythical, or exaggerated.

If they were mad, then
1) Each Apostole would suffer from a different delusion
2) Their teachings would not appeal to anyone, while even you can't deny the beauty in some of Jesus' teachings.
If not then why do you even bother posting on this forum. To convert us to atheism?

Originally, I posted to sort out my own faith. Then, after losing faith, to have Christians to understand why I don't have it any more. Then, to understand why Christians feel the way they do toward atheists.

Excuse me for not being specific.
By 'evil' I mean someone with no respect for the human life, someone intolerant, full of hatred.
Such a person can't be truely happy in his life (according to many people, like Socrates)

That might be true. However, we can't know. We do not have access to the minds of others.

I am sorry to hear that you had to go through all this.
So, when people reject you, you leave them.
But if someone offered you company and support back then, wouldn't you accept it?
Perhaps you will answer no. Perhaps you don't need anyone (Jesus either).
But can you blame those who do?

That depends on who that person is and what the cost is. For instance, had it been a member of a cult (who did offer me comfort and support), then no.

So? Some believe that Marx is the one person they should follow, others believe it's Nitsche, other's believe it's Budha and so on.
I, like every other christian, decided that it's Jesus.
For us he is the one, because we feel it inside us.
If you can't feel this, then why do you post on this forum?

I think I explained that above.

Everything is subjective. Everything is changing.
That is why I need faith in something eternal. Something whose meaning won't fade no matter what. Like God. After studying Christianity, I decided it is the Word of God. That conclusion is subjective and that is why, unlike other believers, I don't go around rubbing my beliefs to people's faces.

I appreciate that.

You asked me sth concerning my faith and I aswered to you.
But I am certain that it is True because I have Faith that it is true. I feel it.
That's what faith is all about.

I'm sure you understand why it isn't true for me, or other people then?

Of course!
I am just telling you what Christianity claims. You came on this forum to examine it right?
Well, what Christianity claims is not that God can exist only in our mind, but that we, along with this whole World can exist only in God's mind.

I'm not sure that Christianity does claim that. However, it is more interesting than most claims I get from Christians.

That's not the case with Christianity.
Jesus said; "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword "

He also told us to never call unclean someone who God allows to exist in this world.

And despite being omnipotent, he accepted death and humiliation instead of fighting back.

Of course, you will say; "What about the Crusades?"
The crusades were contrary to the teachings of the Bible.
There is not a single Christian today that believes otherwise.
And in Orthodox theology ( ) there was never a concept of Holy War.
Don't believe me?
wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_army#Byzantine_military_philosophy

But that's my point. Who are you to say that the Truth of those Christians who carried out the Crusades really are wrong? Why is your Truth better than theirs?

As you can see, Jesus accepted everyone. If you wish to continue to believe that the Christ would hate atheists then go on. But know that it is not true. If you read the New Tastement, you will see He accepted even the most hated person of the sociaty of His time.

Jesus accepted His followers. Atheists aren't His followers.

You sound just like a christian fundamentalist

Where do you think I learned the argument from?

He says the exact same thing when he hears that the teachings of the Bible are objective. The only difference between you and him, on this subject, is that he has the Bible and you have human conventions. What the both of you have to understand is that people don't think alike and they never will.
Everyone will try to approach Truth through different paths. and you have to respect their choices.
If they commit a crime in the name of their ideology, then they will be judged by the laws of one's country.
But you can't persecute them just because of their ideology.

Sure I can. Why can't I? Atheists are summarily treated with contempt by Christians, Mormons, Muslims, and Jews are they not?

You asked in your post; Why would I come to Christ?
I'll tell you why. To be complete.
Faith is, for me, one of the most beautiful feelings a human being can experience. A very complex feeling.
I wouldn't want to die without experiencing it. That would be a waste!
And last but definitely not least; Faith is a sense like hearing, sight, vision etc.
You can't see air, but you can hear it and touch it.
You can't see, touch, taste God, but you can percieve His existance through faith.
A man without faith is , as much as you may hate me for saying this, a disabled man, like a man without vision.

That might be so. But that might not necessarily be a good thing.

 

[The Unorthodox Orthodox]

Perhaps they were misinterpreted, or perhaps they were fictional, mythical, or exaggerated.

They are not fictional nor mythical.
Even Richard Dawkins accepts that Jesus and the Apostoles existed in reality.
Exagerated? Paul himself said that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then our trust in God is pointless.
I don't think that any of the above is possible.

That might be true. However, we can't know. We do not have access to the minds of others.

We can't know anything.
We can't even know that our senses are really giving us a reliable image of the real world around us.
We may only guess what is most likely possible. And that's what I did.
I can always be wrong of course. But do you really believe that such a person can be happier?
Or are you just trying to avoid agreeing with me

I'm sure you understand why it isn't true for me, or other people then?

Of course.
I am just trying to explain what our faith is, so that you may understand it and not attack it as sth abnormal.

I'm not sure that Christianity does claim that. However, it is more interesting than most claims I get from Christians.

Every theistic ideology claims that.

But that's my point. Who are you to say that the Truth of those Christians who carried out the Crusades really are wrong? Why is your Truth better than theirs?

Because it is contrary to the Bible. Because they acted contrary to His own wishes.
When Jesus says; "Put up again thy sword into his place"
and you go on beheading, killing torturing in His name, you are wrong.
I don't even have to justify it really.

Jesus accepted His followers. Atheists aren't His followers.

1) Jesus accepted the company of Publicans, harlots, Idolatrs and in general
all people who were considered unclean and corrupted back then.
What makes you believe He would not accept you?
2) He did not die for only our sins, but for everyone's sins. Your's included.
3) Jesus said that "Those who reject the Son will be forgiven. It is those who reject the Spirit that will not be"
In theology, the one who has accepted the Holy Spirit, is the one who is a good human being.
The one full of love and understanding.
So ask yourself; Have you denounced The Holy Spirit? Because you sound like a good person.
Besides, a person can only be considered as a christian if his actions are in accordance with Jesus' teachings.

So you see, an atheist can actually be a follower of Jesus even though he doen not believe in Him.

Sure I can. Why can't I? Atheists are summarily treated with contempt by Christians, Mormons, Muslims, and Jews are they not?

Because you are (supposed to be) better.
If you go on hating and being intolerant against people who happen to believe in different things than you, then what's your differance from the Christians/Mormons/Muslims/Jews who attack you?
None! You are just as good as them.
In fact you are worse because you have been to the place of the oppressed, you have experienced his suffering and yet you go on attacking him.
How is that gonna fix anything?

Besides you are a minority. Would you really want every person in the world to think like that?
Because if he did, you would probably not be alive right now. No atheist in the world would.
What I am trying to say is that it is intolerance and not an ideology in itslef that is causing all this trouble.
If you want to understand why some Christians are making your life difficult, then you are on the wrong place;
Start studying the phychology of intolerance, not Christianity.

That might be so. But that might not necessarily be a good thing.

Why?
Is it good to die without experiencing something so beautiful and in accordance to human nature?
Besides, if it is true, then you are fooling yourself by refusing it.
You are intentionally deluded.
Isn't intentional delusion cowardice?
And isn't cowardice bad?
I can't understand you.

 

[ElijahW]

Theists are making this claim, are they not?

No they aren’t making the claim, they are agreeing that position is the likely option of what they have seen. The claim that God exists is independent of any theist alive to make it. The claim you had that you have some money to give away you actually made because the claim wouldn’t exist without your activity. The claim that you need empirical evidence to have a position isn’t your claim but just what you are agreeing with, not making.

Again, none of them are rational. Again, how would I distinguish any of these positions from a figment of one's imagination?

You go with the position that seems rational to you, if nothing seems rational to you, then keep working on both options until one of them does, or the other one seems impossible. This isn’t going to be handed to you from someone else, you are going to have to do some actually work and contemplation to understand this subject matter.

Again, I have not landed on the position that materialism is rational.

If you were there out of reason then your skepticism towards idealism would be warranted.

Is there any means by which I can approach this and see that these positions are anything more than their imagination, or something they have borrowed from someone else's imagination?

You have to understand the subject matter yourself first and then you can be a critique of other people’s beliefs and how rational or made-up they are. Right now you're not in the position to inquire rationally about this subject matter because you have picked up some bad habits that are preventing you from forming your own opinion and forcing you into a state of chronic indecisiveness. This indecisiveness is preventing you from developing your position one way or the other and stagnating your progress on this subject.

Good, I'm not looking for absolute proof. Except for math, that doesn't exist. I do expect some form of evidence. However, if you are unwilling to accept my claims, why do you expect me to accept yours?

What is your claim? The problem here is that you refuse to take a position and support it.

He starred on Star Trek, TJ Hooker and Boston Legal. Also, any question which does not have an answer can be answered with "Shatner-did-it."

I’m aware of the television he did but I’m looking for what he did that is relative to the conversation.

I'm sure one can rationalize their own faith to themselves. But it's still faith, and one cannot expect everybody to bow down to them for it.

Bow down to them for it? You hang with a weird bunch of Christians. Try not to assume that all Christians are like the group that wants you to bow down to them.

If someone’s faith is rational or not is dependent on how they came to believe. Just like your skepticism could be blind faith produced from believing your professors or it could be produced from reason that sees a more rational solution.

There is no judge of it. You can either trace the logic's premises back to something which is axiomatic, has the evidence required to demonstrate or prove the premise, or to which the parties have agreed upon.

Can I get the name of the philosopher that establishes this criteria? Since you are unable to produce a logical premise because of a lack a position to support, I need to see someone put forward these premises that you find acceptable. I know you say that there is no judge but you have already dismissed premises like things in our perception change and it isn’t possible for the universe to exist an infinite amount of time. So the idea that there isn’t a judge, but a nice set of rules to see if the ideas line-up, sounds nice, but I’d need to see evidence that you follow by those rules.

 

[oi_antz]

It would be skirting the edge of a flame, so suffice it to say, I don't see it.

Why not?

But who's Jesus? Yours or theirs?

There is only one Jesus. Some Christians don't listen to Him though, they listen to their pastor and peers. Do you see the difference? There is a culture of inward breeding that produces condescending attitudes. Jesus never condescended, though He always made a judgement. Right there you can witness whether someone is demonstrating the likeness of Christ in their actions.

It doesn't say atheist there. Besides, many Christians will explain to you that in Jesus' days His neighbours were Jews, and not Romans. Jesus isn't instructing to love other people, but other Christians.

That is dead wrong. Read the passage again and you will see that the priest and the temple assistant walked past, then the Samaritan stopped. Jesus asked "Which of those do you think was a neighbour to that man?". That very clearly shows that Jesus did not judge based upon a rite, but upon the nature of the heart. Some atheist's are good Samaritans.

Not fools as defined by God. Besides, that doesn't mean that God doesn't hate atheists, but atheists and some fake Christians.

I would agree if you said "some athiests".

Well, I'm sure you'll notice is that what I said was that I couldn't trust your testimony because for all I know you might be delusional. That's something quite different. Do you not agree that it's something different?

No I don't. I believe what you said here is that you can't trust my testimony because you think I might be delusional, otherwise you might have said something else.

Scientologists find that they can triumph over thetans, Hindus find their connection to Brahma, Buddhists find betterment through their release of desire. Do you ever really wonder why you haven't found these things?

No I don't, and the reason is this: God has called me.

 

[JGG]

They are not fictional nor mythical.
Even Richard Dawkins accepts that Jesus and the Apostoles existed in reality.
Exagerated? Paul himself said that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then our trust in God is pointless.

But that's kind of the point.

We can't know anything.
We can't even know that our senses are really giving us a reliable image of the real world around us.
We may only guess what is most likely possible. And that's what I did.
I can always be wrong of course. But do you really believe that such a person can be happier?
Or are you just trying to avoid agreeing with me

First of all, even if we do take for granted that we can know something, we still can't observe the thoughts of others.

As for whether an evil person can be happier than a good one, I would say that it depends on which two people we are comparing. I have known some good people who suffer from severe depression. And there are people who get delight and satisfaction from killing, stealing, lying, and setting things on fire.

Because it is contrary to the Bible. Because they acted contrary to His own wishes.
When Jesus says; "Put up again thy sword into his place"
and you go on beheading, killing torturing in His name, you are wrong.
I don't even have to justify it really.

Luke 22:36 - Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Matthew 10:34 - Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

1) Jesus accepted the company of Publicans, harlots, Idolatrs and in general
all people who were considered unclean and corrupted back then.
What makes you believe He would not accept you?

Which of those people did not first accept that Jesus was the son of God? Which of these people did not accept the existence of God? Jesus only accepts believers.

2) He did not die for only our sins, but for everyone's sins. Your's included.

I'm pretty sure you'll find that he died for the sins of believers only.

3) Jesus said that "Those who reject the Son will be forgiven. It is those who reject the Spirit that will not be"
In theology, the one who has accepted the Holy Spirit, is the one who is a good human being.
The one full of love and understanding.
So ask yourself; Have you denounced The Holy Spirit? Because you sound like a good person.

I'm somewhat certain that's not what it says:

1 John 2:23 - For those who reject the Son reject also the Father; those who accept the Son have the Father also.

Besides, a person can only be considered as a christian if his actions are in accordance with Jesus' teachings.

That might be so, but it should be clear by now that the teachings of Jesus are not as forthright and indisputable as one would hope. It's just a matter of which teachings one chooses to focus on and which interpretation one chooses to follow.

So you see, an atheist can actually be a follower of Jesus even though he doen not believe in Him.

I'm pretty sure every other Christian disagrees with you.

Because you are (supposed to be) better. If you go on hating and being intolerant against people who happen to believe in different things than you, then what's your differance from the Christians/Mormons/Muslims/Jews who attack you?
None! You are just as good as them.

If I may say so, it was not long ago in this very thread that I was condemned for being prideful, and now I'm supposed to believe that I am "better" than Christians? Even God states that an atheist can do no good, much less do "better."

In fact you are worse because you have been to the place of the oppressed, you have experienced his suffering and yet you go on attacking him.
How is that gonna fix anything?

It's not supposed to. Christianity is not something I can fix.

Besides you are a minority. Would you really want every person in the world to think like that? Because if he did, you would probably not be alive right now. No atheist in the world would.

Every person in the world does think like that toward some group.

What I am trying to say is that it is intolerance and not an ideology in itslef that is causing all this trouble.
If you want to understand why some Christians are making your life difficult, then you are on the wrong place;
Start studying the phychology of intolerance, not Christianity.

There's a comedian who has a line that basically says "Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Guns just make them go really, really fast."

The more religious someone is, the more bigoted and and intolerant they are likely to be. Maybe not cause, but definitely correlation.

Why?
Is it good to die without experiencing something so beautiful and in accordance to human nature?
Besides, if it is true, then you are fooling yourself by refusing it.
You are intentionally deluded.
Isn't intentional delusion cowardice?
And isn't cowardice bad?
I can't understand you.

Long ago I volunteered at a mental health hospital. There were at least several people there suffering from severe forms of schizophrenia. Some imagined beautiful worlds where they were far more important than they felt in real life. One man in particular believed himself the King of the Western Hemisphere (or thereabouts it was subject to change), and saw himself as wielding enormous power, with important friends, and family.

While that might be a nice fantasy, that he enjoyed, it didn't exactly help him. He failed to connect to other people in any meaningful way because they didn't fit into his created world. He couldn't participate in the real world because he had a tendency to lash out with violence toward people who didn't acknowledge his supremacy. That might be a wonderful, beautiful life for him to live in, but I wouldn't want any part of it.

I remember the stir of Harold Camping last year, and the number of people whose fantasies destroyed their real life, as they quit their jobs, sold their homes, and gave away all of their possessions preparing for the end of the world. Now that their prophecy hasn't come to pass, they're destitute.

Just today I read another story about a religious group in the States who are preparing for Nibiru, the planet that is supposedly going to collide with Earth by the end of the year (it is 2012 you know). Again, these people are quitting their jobs, selling their homes, leaving their families, giving their money to their church to prepare, and all despite the fact that astronomers expressly deny that such a planet is even possible.

If I begin to allow others to influence, manipulate and pressure me into belief I cannot confirm for myself, and actions that are nonsensical, where does it stop? When I throw away my livelihood? When I start threatening or assaulting others? When I fly a passenger plane into a skyscraper?

 

[JGG]

No they aren’t making the claim, they are agreeing that position is the likely option of what they have seen. The claim that God exists is independent of any theist alive to make it. The claim you had that you have some money to give away you actually made because the claim wouldn’t exist without your activity. The claim that you need empirical evidence to have a position isn’t your claim but just what you are agreeing with, not making.

So, if theists do not claim that God exists, who are these people who claim that God exists? Who did make that claim? I don't think I have ever seen such mental gymnastics to avoid the burden of proof.

You go with the position that seems rational to you, if nothing seems rational to you, then keep working on both options until one of them does, or the other one seems impossible. This isn’t going to be handed to you from someone else, you are going to have to do some actually work and contemplation to understand this subject matter.

That's what I do. However, just because one scenario seems impossible doesn't mean that it is, and just because one scenario seems impossible does not mean that another is any more possible. It seems like I keep stating this. The absence of facts makes all options look impossible.

If you were there out of reason then your skepticism towards idealism would be warranted.

I don't actually need a reason to be skeptical. I need a reason to not be skeptical.

You have to understand the subject matter yourself first and then you can be a critique of other people’s beliefs and how rational or made-up they are.

You yourself admit that these are areas where knowledge is not possible. Understanding is impossible, which is the implication of your own statement.

Understanding the subject matter is a moot point. It is still merely conjecture, indistinguishable from make-beleive. I will ask again, how do you distinguish this subject matter from fantasy?

Right now you're not in the position to inquire rationally about this subject matter because you have picked up some bad habits that are preventing you from forming your own opinion and forcing you into a state of chronic indecisiveness. This indecisiveness is preventing you from developing your position one way or the other and stagnating your progress on this subject.

I do not need to decide on a metaphysical position to realize that supernatural might be a term that refers to nothing that is real. Which supernatural superstition seems less impossible is not the most pertinent question. All you have done is provide claims, none supported by actual facts. You don't understand logic, the burden of proof, the need for skepticism, or how to wield evidence. If I merely accepted these unwarranted claims without question, that would be a bad habit. Indecisiveness is the better option.

What is your claim? The problem here is that you refuse to take a position and support it.

No, it isn't. The problem is that you are unable to factually support your claims in any way. My position is irrelevant to you supporting yours.

I’m aware of the television he did but I’m looking for what he did that is relative to the conversation.

Whatever he has been, is, or will be required to do. Why did life form on Earth? Shatner did it. How did my car keys get behind the TV? Shatner did it. Why is the sky blue? Shatner did it. Why? I don't know, he must like blue.

Bow down to them for it? You hang with a weird bunch of Christians. Try not to assume that all Christians are like the group that wants you to bow down to them.

I'm talking to you aren't I?

If someone’s faith is rational or not is dependent on how they came to believe. Just like your skepticism could be blind faith produced from believing your professors or it could be produced from reason that sees a more rational solution.

Or realizing that none of the solutions provided are rational, and there's always the possibility that a rational solution may come along.

Can I get the name of the philosopher that establishes this criteria?

Aristotle

Since you are unable to produce a logical premise because of a lack a position to support, I need to see someone put forward these premises that you find acceptable.

There are many premises that are acceptable: "The dog ate my homework," for instance. Supported by evidence, this is an entirely acceptable premise.

I know you say that there is no judge but you have already dismissed premises like things in our perception change and it isn’t possible for the universe to exist an infinite amount of time.

Firstly, as I stated before, I accept that things in our perception can change. Please do not mssrepresent what I have said. However, I do not accept the premise that things we cannot perceive necessarily do not change simply based on the premise that things we perceive do change. This is a premise that must be supported with facts, or brought back to an axiom. Just because things we perceive change does not mean that things we do not perceive do not change. We can only say that we do not perceive them, which is defined. More to the point, there is no way to actually determine whether there even is anything that we are completely incapable of perceiving. Such a thing, we would never be able to perceive.

Secondly, as I stated before, I have not dismissed that the universe may not be infinite, but I also cannot dismiss with certainty that it is. Your premise was based on your own statement that nothing is infinite, which you then contradicted by stating that God has no beginning, and we have no reason to believe that He has an end. If nothing is infinite then God necessarily had a beginning, and necessarily will have an end. If we are going to suggest that something infinite is not actually impossible, let us consider the possibility that that something may be the universe itself, or that there might be an infinite process in which a new universe is created from the remains of a collapsed one.

So the idea that there isn’t a judge, but a nice set of rules to see if the ideas line-up, sounds nice, but I’d need to see evidence that you follow by those rules.

For starters you could honestly, and accurately reproduce what I have actually "dismissed" and what I have questioned. That would help out a lot. Then you could actually learn these rules and construct your logical sets properly. The problem right now is not whether I follow these rules, but that you know how to do so.

 

[JGG]

Why not?
There is only one Jesus. Some Christians don't listen to Him though, they listen to their pastor and peers. Do you see the difference? There is a culture of inward breeding that produces condescending attitudes. Jesus never condescended, though He always made a judgement. Right there you can witness whether someone is demonstrating the likeness of Christ in their actions.

You can say there is only one Jesus, but there are clearly many ways to perceive and interpret Him. You maintain that you hold the correct interpretation and perception. Otherwise, you have no way of saying that someone else's is not correct.

As for Jesus being condescending:

Matthew 15:22-28 - A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

The bolded part, in the absolute very least, is condescending. Notice also how He says he was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel, and furthermore it is reasonable for us to assume that he cared little for her, if not hated her, until she announced that He was her master.

That is dead wrong. Read the passage again and you will see that the priest and the temple assistant walked past, then the Samaritan stopped. Jesus asked "Which of those do you think was a neighbour to that man?". That very clearly shows that Jesus did not judge based upon a rite, but upon the nature of the heart. Some atheist's are good Samaritans.

For starters it only shows that Jesus does not judge based upon race. Samaritans are merely a different race of Jews. Secondly, God Himself says that an atheist can do no good. How can they possibly be "good" Samaritans?

I would agree if you said "some athiests".

The book does not say "some."

No I don't. I believe what you said here is that you can't trust my testimony because you think I might be delusional, otherwise you might have said something else.

My exact quote:

So you claim, but I don't know that you're viewing God firsthand either. You might very well be delusional for all I know.

No I don't, and the reason is this: God has called me.

So, then do you not reject the testimony of all of those who claim something contrary to your reality?

 

[oi_antz]

You can say there is only one Jesus, but there are clearly many ways to perceive and interpret Him. You maintain that you hold the correct interpretation and perception. Otherwise, you have no way of saying that someone else's is not correct.

The words of Jesus Christ are written clear for anyone to see. There is no way you can say there is more than one Jesus. If you are talking about spirituality then that is a different matter altogether. Since there is no guarantee that the spirits we consult will always be representing God, or even Jesus in person, they may be angels or demons popping ideas in our mind. That verse I showed you that converted me was the verse which showed me how to identify the ideas that have been put in my mind over the course of my life, and whether those ideas represent God or not. Notice that I recognized a lot of ideas originating from that spirit of the antichrist.

As for Jesus being condescending:

Matthew 15:22-28 - A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.” Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

The bolded part, in the absolute very least, is condescending. Notice also how He says he was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel, and furthermore it is reasonable for us to assume that he cared little for her, if not hated her, until she announced that He was her master.

What was Jesus' intention when He said those words? Was He intending to condescend her, or to challenge her to justify her faith? There is one thing so obvious when I read what Jesus said here, and the meaning you derive from it. I see that sometimes God allows us to suffer for a purpose. Jesus had a purpose for making her suffer, the result was that she got upon her knees and begged. Why do you think that is? Although God claims Israel to be holy, even a Canaanite can receive God's mercy. That demonstrates that although (some) Christians are called by God, even atheist's can receive God's mercy. Remember what Jesus says: unless you become humble and accept the kingdom of Heaven as a child you cannot enter it. Not a lot of atheist's are humble before God, they all tend to justify their disbelief, even looking for more material to substantiate their disbelief.

There's something important to take from this contrast. Atheist's never get closer to God by doing what atheist's do. The only way to get closer to God is to do what that Canaanite woman did.

For starters it only shows that Jesus does not judge based upon race. Samaritans are merely a different race of Jews. Secondly, God Himself says that an atheist can do no good. How can they possibly be "good" Samaritans?

It doesn't say that atheist's can do no good, it says those who say in their heart "there is no God" are not interested in doing good. Thus, these people have decided there is no need to respect the giver of life, rather they can take what they like from life. I don't think that attitude is reflected by all atheist's, certainly not all the time. Given enough time as an atheist, a person having rejected the truth about God so much, they all might become like that. I still don't want to smear a blanket statement over a personal identity, there are always exceptions to a rule, and we are discussing individuals afterall.

The book does not say "some."

The book does not say "atheist".

My exact quote:

Exactly. You said two things in that statement: 1. you implied that you do not believe that I know God, then you suggested that I could be delusional instead.

So, then do you not reject the testimony of all of those who claim something contrary to your reality?

No I don't reject someone else's testimony so long as they are being honest, because that is their reality. If it contradicts my reality that is simply because we have witnessed life through different perspectives. Don't you think that is what it means to "love your neighbour as yourself"?

I am determined with you JGG, you must learn what real Christianity is and stop confusing it with those fake Christians who like to think themselves above everyone else.

 

[ElijahW]

So, if theists do not claim that God exists, who are these people who claim that God exists? Who did make that claim? I don't think I have ever seen such mental gymnastics to avoid the burden of proof.

Claiming that you believe in God is not making the claim of God existence. Like two people may have an opinion on if you have money to give away but neither one is making that claim about you having money, you are the one making the claim, and in that situation you would have the burden of proof. Neither the person who thinks you have money or the person who thinks you are lying have the burden of proof because they didn’t make the claim.

It may seem like mental gymnastics from your perspective but that is because you are imitating someone else’s mental gymnastics that you assume is rational behavior. Think about it. One side has made it so they don’t have to put an alternative position forward while demanding for evidence that isn’t possible. Who is performing the mental gymnastics is obvious from who is performing tricks instead of putting positions forward.

That's what I do. However, just because one scenario seems impossible doesn't mean that it is, and just because one scenario seems impossible does not mean that another is any more possible. It seems like I keep stating this. The absence of facts makes all options look impossible.[/quote]Then state the position you think is rational if that is what you do.

I don't actually need a reason to be skeptical. I need a reason to not be skeptical.

Maybe you should try some of that skepticism towards that belief.

You yourself admit that these are areas where knowledge is not possible. Understanding is impossible, which is the implication of your own statement.

It may be how you are defining your words here. For me knowing something like what an apple is doesn’t mean you understand it. And not being able to know something like spirit doesn’t mean that you can’t understand it because the reason you can’t know it gives you some understanding into it.

Understanding the subject matter is a moot point. It is still merely conjecture, indistinguishable from make-beleive. I will ask again, how do you distinguish this subject matter from fantasy?

How would you know if you don’t understand the subject matter. I’m not sure what you mean by fantasy but how would you know if it was until you understood the subject matter yourself?

I do not need to decide on a metaphysical position to realize that supernatural might be a term that refers to nothing that is real. Which supernatural superstition seems less impossible is not the most pertinent question. All you have done is provide claims, none supported by actual facts. You don't understand logic, the burden of proof, the need for skepticism, or how to wield evidence. If I merely accepted these unwarranted claims without question,

that would be a bad habit. Indecisiveness is the better option.

You aren’t in an informed enough position to know if you need to understand the subject to question it properly. If you did understand it then you could claim that it wasn’t necessary but you don’t.

The best option though would be the one that actually leads to some progress in thinking which doesn’t seem possible with chronic indecisiveness preventing you from contemplating any of the positions until you get some proof that doesn’t require you to think about it one way or the other.

Whatever he has been, is, or will be required to do. Why did life form on Earth? Shatner did it. How did my car keys get behind the TV? Shatner did it. Why is the sky blue? Shatner did it. Why? I don't know, he must like blue.

Any reasoning for those beliefs?

Or realizing that none of the solutions provided are rational, and there's always the possibility that a rational solution may come along.

It could be if you are talking to someone informed on the positions and not just making a guess.

Aristotle

Again, the person you are looking for is not Aristotle. The person you are looking for is one of the later empiricists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

To me, this is the most important question for you to answer. I don’t know if you are dodging the question or just aren’t aware of who you are aligned with. If you are incapable of articulating your position and have a problem with the reasoning I’m putting forward then I need to see who you think got it right, and used logic/reason to your standards to produce a rational understanding.

That is unless you are making up a new standard of logic and in that case you would certainly need to provide what the differences are and why.

Firstly, as I stated before, I accept that things in our perception can change. Please do not mssrepresent what I have said. However, I do not accept the premise that things we cannot perceive necessarily do not change simply based on the premise that things we perceive

do change. This is a premise that must be supported with facts, or brought back to an axiom. Just because things we perceive change does not mean that things we do not perceive do not change. We can only say that we do not perceive them, which is defined. More to the point, there is no way to actually determine whether there even is anything that we are completely incapable of perceiving. Such a thing, we would never be able to perceive.

The logic set isn’t addressing the existence, only the nature if something out of our perception exists. If something doesn’t change then it is incapable of being perceptible in anyway by anything. If something changes then it is capable of being perceptible because the change is going to have an effect on whatever the being is connected to by causality. And through that connection, perception is possible. It doesn’t mean that there are things that we can’t perceive currently that are in motion just that it requires some kind of change to make something perceptible.

Secondly, as I stated before, I have not dismissed that the universe may not be infinite, but I also cannot dismiss with certainty that it is. Your premise was based on your own statement that nothing is infinite, which you then contradicted by stating that God has no beginning, and we have no reason to believe that He has an end. If nothing is infinite then God necessarily had a beginning, and necessarily will have an end. If we are going to suggest that something infinite is not actually impossible, let us consider the possibility that that something may be the universe itself, or that there might be an infinite process in which a new universe is created from the remains of a collapsed one.

There is no infinite God either. There is no time before God which is different. It wouldn’t be possible for an infinite God before creation because what is infinite about it? Time? Time is a measurement of change and if God doesn’t change then there isn’t an infinite amount of time before creation because there isn’t any time until creation. The fact that the universe may be in a cycle of explosion and collapsing doesn’t address a necessity to a beginning to the start of the cycles, so we aren’t addressing the problem of an infinitive number of universes having been created before this one.

For starters you could honestly, and accurately reproduce what I have actually "dismissed" and what I have questioned. That would help out a lot. Then you could actually learn these rules and construct your logical sets properly. The problem right now is not whether I follow these rules, but that you know how to do so.

If you are questioning it then you are dismissing it as being an acceptable premise to use.

 

[JGG]

Claiming that you believe in God is not making the claim of God existence. Like two people may have an opinion on if you have money to give away but neither one is making that claim about you having money, you are the one making the claim, and in that situation you would have the burden of proof. Neither the person who thinks you have money or the person who thinks you are lying have the burden of proof because they didn’t make the claim.

That is a horrible analogy. It's true if I say I have money (although it's not clear in your scenario), that is a claim, and the burden of proof is on me. However, those two parties have also made secondary claims: One that claims that I am lying, and one that claims that I am not. Both parties have made an argument in which they take sides on an issue one which they are either right or wrong. That is a secondary argument in which I do not even need get involved.

Those who say that God is real are making a claim. That's the long and the short of it.

It may seem like mental gymnastics from your perspective but that is because you are imitating someone else’s mental gymnastics that you assume is rational behavior. Think about it. One side has made it so they don’t have to put an alternative position forward while demanding for evidence that isn’t possible. Who is performing the mental gymnastics is obvious from who is performing tricks instead of putting positions forward.

What are you talking about? I put forth an alternate position: Shatner-did-it. It's a completely ridiculous claim, but it's closer to being rational than yours in that we know William Shatner exists. So my position wins out, we don't need yours.

Then state the position you think is rational if that is what you do.

I think 2 is greater than 1.

It may be how you are defining your words here. For me knowing something like what an apple is doesn’t mean you understand it. And not being able to know something like spirit doesn’t mean that you can’t understand it because the reason you can’t know it gives you some understanding into it.

If we can't know x, how can we know that x is even there? Let me put forth the possibility that x is not there.

How would you know if you don’t understand the subject matter. I’m not sure what you mean by fantasy but how would you know if it was until you understood the subject matter yourself?

Because there is no subject matter. There is stuff you make up. I can't possibly understand stuff your just imagining.

You aren’t in an informed enough position to know if you need to understand the subject to question it properly. If you did understand it then you could claim that it wasn’t necessary but you don’t.

That's a completely ridiculous statement. How would we ever understand anything if we didn't ask questions about it? What you're talking about is just blind faith.

The best option though would be the one that actually leads to some progress in thinking which doesn’t seem possible with chronic indecisiveness preventing you from contemplating any of the positions until you get some proof that doesn’t require you to think about it one way or the other.

Not if we're not actually learning anything. Making stuff up and calling it true, is not learning, it's making stuff up.

Any reasoning for those beliefs?

Of course. Do you have reason to believe they're wrong?

It could be if you are talking to someone informed on the positions and not just making a guess.

You understand that there is no positions to be informed on. Anybody can make up anything and potentially be just as correct, if not more so, than anything you've presented. Because you have made no explanation as to why your statements are true.

Again, the person you are looking for is not Aristotle. The person you are looking for is one of the later empiricists.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

Well, if you look at the first name on the list, it's Aristotle(!). And no, I'm not talking about empiricism, I'm talking about logical processes. Yes, he's the first Western philosopher to formally write the process down.

To me, this is the most important question for you to answer. I don’t know if you are dodging the question or just aren’t aware of who you are aligned with. If you are incapable of articulating your position and have a problem with the reasoning I’m putting forward then I need to see who you think got it right, and used logic/reason to your standards to produce a rational understanding.

I can't expect you to possibly understand. You clearly cannot tell the difference between the process of logic, and the philosophy of empiricism. I am not required to articulate my position at all. They're all still your claims, and I don't have to articulate anything until you explain where those claims come from.

The process of logic is the foundation of formal scientific and philosophy study. Perhaps you want to study logic to figure out where these ideas are coming from.

The logic set isn’t addressing the existence, only the nature if something out of our perception exists.

You understand that you will have to address the premise of the existence of these unperceptable things, right? It's part of the premise. It begs the question, if we can perceive them, how can we know that they're there at all? Part of the premise you're presenting is that we know they exist.

If something doesn’t change then it is incapable of being perceptible in anyway by anything. If something changes then it is capable of being perceptible because the change is going to have an effect on whatever the being is connected to by causality. And through that connection, perception is possible. It doesn’t mean that there are things that we can’t perceive currently that are in motion just that it requires some kind of change to make something perceptible.

Again, it begs the question, how can we discuss their nature if we cannot perceive them. How do we even know they exist? If we cannot even determine their existence, then h

There is no infinite God either. There is no time before God which is different. It wouldn’t be possible for an infinite God before creation because what is infinite about it? Time? Time is a measurement of change and if God doesn’t change then there isn’t an infinite amount of time before creation because there isn’t any time until creation. The fact that the universe may be in a cycle of explosion and collapsing doesn’t address a necessity to a beginning to the start of the cycles, so we aren’t addressing the problem of an infinitive number of universes having been created before this one.

You understand that infinity is not a concept of time, right? Infinite refers to something which does not end. Infinite can be applied to time, but not exclusively.

Now, we also have to address the beginning and end of a God which is not infinite.

If you are questioning it then you are dismissing it as being an acceptable premise to use.

That's kinda funny. Ridiculous, but funny. So what you're saying is that any premise that you believe to be true, you have accepted without ever even questioning it? That explains a lot.

 

[ElijahW]

That is a horrible analogy. It's true if I say I have money (although it's not clear in your scenario), that is a claim, and the burden of proof is on me. However, those two parties have also made secondary claims: One that claims that I am lying, and one that claims that I am not. Both parties have made an argument in which they take sides on an issue one which they are either right or wrong. That is a secondary argument in which I do not even need get involved.

Those who say that God is real are making a claim. That's the long and the short of it.

We can just agree to disagree because I just see this as nothing more than a crutch for people who can’t articulate an alternative position.

What are you talking about? I put forth an alternate position: Shatner-did-it. It's a completely ridiculous claim, but it's closer to being rational than yours in that we know William Shatner exists. So my position wins out, we don't need yours.

If your point is to illustrate that empirical evidence doesn’t necessarily lead to a rational or more rational understanding then you are presenting an excellent example.

I think 2 is greater than 1.

In what what is it greater and in what way does 2 or 1 exist?

If we can't know

x, how can we know that x is even there? Let me put forth the possibility that x is not there.

It may not be there but if it is then it is at rest.

Because there is no subject matter. There is stuff you make up. I can't possibly understand stuff your just imagining.

I’m not making this stuff up. There is a conversation that has been going on for over 2000 years now and you can at any point read up on the subject and see what the varying opinions have been. Once you understand the conversation and the position then you can take the time to consider which you think is the most rational and come to understand the strength and weakness of different points of view.

That's a completely ridiculous statement. How would we ever understand anything if we didn't ask questions about it? What you're talking about is just blind faith.

There have been some brilliant people who have dedicated a lot of time to put the ideas forth in the most efficient way possible so that you wouldn’t have to rely on asking Bob on the street to teach you philosophy. It doesn’t seem like reading the texts is something you are interested in doing but I can’t stress enough that it is an excellent way to learn about philosophy.

Of course. Do you have reason to believe they're wrong?

That would be the time to put them forward if you had them. The reason to believe they are wrong is that Shatner is a man and men don’t have that ability.

Well, if you look at the first name on the list, it's Aristotle(!). And no, I'm not talking about empiricism, I'm talking about logical processes. Yes, he's the first Western philosopher to formally write the process down.

What we are looking for is empiricists to justify your base premise that empirical evidence is the necessary cornerstone for a rational belief. We don’t need the name of the first guy to formally write out a logic process. Take the time to familiarize yourself with some of the names and see who is the first to put forth the level of skepticism you think is correct and are demonstrating in this conversation. It’s fairly shocking that you don’t know the name already.

You understand that you will have to address the premise of the existence of these unperceptable things, right? It's part of the premise. It begs the question, if we can perceive them, how can we know that they're there at all? Part of the premise you're presenting is that we know they exist.

Again, we never know. I don’t think there is one reason that says spirit is real but the best one to me is that matter isn’t going to be able to be broken down infinitively so there is going to be something different from matter that we need to consider.

You understand that infinity is not a concept of time, right? Infinite refers to something which does not end. Infinite can be applied to time, but not exclusively.

Thanks for that point.

Now, we also have to address the beginning and end of a God which is not infinite.

Address away

That's kinda funny. Ridiculous, but funny. So what you're saying is that any premise that you believe to be true, you have accepted without ever even questioning it? That explains a lot.

The premise is put forward because on examination it seems obvious. Like spirit isn’t perceptible and what is perceptible is in motion.

 

[JGG]

]We can just agree to disagree because I just see this as nothing more than a crutch for people who can’t articulate an alternative position.

How about Shatner-did-it? Or the universe just created itself? Both are superior to the claim that God-did-it because they are supported by some evidence.

If your point is to illustrate that empirical evidence doesn’t necessarily lead to a rational or more rational understanding then you are presenting an excellent example.

That is a good point, but the point is that it's a completely ridiculous explanation, and yet it's still better than yours.

In what what is it greater and in what way does 2 or 1 exist?

It's simple mathematics.

It may not be there but if it is then it is at rest.

How do we know? Maybe there are things where it's nature make it imperceptible. If we can't perceive it, and don't actually know if it's there, or any facts about it, we can claim anything and have it be correct? Besides, if it is not caused, does not cause anything, and is inperceptible, in what way can we say it exists?

I’m not making this stuff up. There is a conversation that has been going on for over 2000 years now and you can at any point read up on the subject and see what the varying opinions have been. Once you understand the conversation and the position then you can take the time to consider which you think is the most rational and come to understand the strength and weakness of different points of view.

Oh, so all you're doing is parrotting what other people have made up. It's the same story as before: We imagine something that we do not perceive, cannot find evidence for, cannot support with facts, and then we call it a position. That's all fine and good, but we can't pretend that any of it is factual. Again, how do we distinguish these "positions" from imagination?

There have been some brilliant people who have dedicated a lot of time to put the ideas forth in the most efficient way possible so that you wouldn’t have to rely on asking Bob on the street to teach you philosophy. It doesn’t seem like reading the texts is something you are interested in doing but I can’t stress enough that it is an excellent way to learn about philosophy.

I've taken more than my fair share of philosophy classes. Reading "the texts" is a bit short-sighted. Philosophy does not come with two sides to every story. Every culture brings with it a different philosophy. When it comes to things supernatural, each culture can often be divided up into different eras. There is no single philosophy. I've read plenty of texts. They just happen to be different than the all-might texts that you expect me to bow down to. And ultimately they all start with a premise that cannot be supported, in any event. The difference is, they know that. You evidently do not.

That would be the time to put them forward if you had them. The reason to believe they are wrong is that Shatner is a man and men don’t have that ability.

Firstly, says who? Most men do not have that abiltity. William Shatner is not just any man, he's Shatner. He exists both in time and space and without it. He sings, he dances, he acts, he keeps the universe in check. You can believe that it's wrong, but it's still more valid than anything you've presented so far.

What we are looking for is empiricists to justify your base premise that empirical evidence is the necessary cornerstone for a rational belief. We don’t need the name of the first guy to formally write out a logic process.

No, we were talking about where the logic process comes from. Follow the conversation back, and you'll see. We don't even need to talk about Empiricism yet, we're still getting you straight on how to identify logic.

Again, we never know. I don’t think there is one reason that says spirit is real but the best one to me is that matter isn’t going to be able to be broken down infinitively so there is going to be something different from matter that we need to consider.

Energy.

Address away

If God isn't infinite, and God doesn't change, and God didn't create anything, and God in inperceptible, why do we include God in the equation at all? It seems redundant.

The premise is put forward because on examination it seems obvious. Like spirit isn’t perceptible and what is perceptible is in motion.

How are you examining that which by your own definition can not be examined? Why is it obvoius that spirit is there at all? Perhaps that which is imperceptable does not actually exist. But then again, you have never questioned the existence of spirit have you?

 

[ElijahW]

How about Shatner-did-it? Or the universe just created itself? Both are superior to the claim that God-did-it because they are supported by some evidence.

We are back at the same ol law of identity issue again. God is the label we apply to the beginning/creator of the of the universe. The first rule to understanding what that label is referring to is by not trying to put something in there that isn’t the creator but a created thing. God is not a man. God is not a magic marker. God is not the universe itself. You arguing against God did it and trying to place a created thing at the beginning is completely illogical..

It's simple mathematics.

That doesn’t answer my question. Are you saying numbers are real?

How do we know? Maybe there are things where it's nature make it imperceptible. If we can't perceive it, and don't actually know if it's there, or any facts about it, we can claim anything and have it be correct? Besides, if it is not caused, does not cause anything, and is inperceptible, in what way can we say it exists?

We can’t claim that it changes, and that is one of the ideas that changed western civilization. In that it said the sacrifices to gods that was dominant in our culture back then, wasn’t actually swaying the gods, because the gods were constant.

Oh, so all you're doing is parrotting what other people have made up. It's the same story as before: We imagine something that we do not perceive, cannot find evidence for, cannot support with facts, and then we call it a position. That's all fine and good, but we can't pretend that any of it is factual. Again, how do we distinguish these "positions" from imagination?

Not only am I parroting ideas, I went looking for philosophers who thought like me to confirm what I already thought.

What does it matter if they are imagined? You can imagine something that is correct if you use reason. The source of the opinion isn’t an issue. Producing a rational counter to the position is the issue if you want to argue against the theist position.

I've taken more than my fair share of philosophy classes. Reading "the texts" is a bit short-sighted. Philosophy does not come with two sides to every story. Every culture brings with it a different philosophy. When it comes to things supernatural, each culture can often be divided up into different eras. There is no single philosophy. I've read plenty of texts. They just happen to be different than the all-might texts that you expect me to bow down to. And ultimately they all start with a premise that cannot be supported, in any event. The difference is, they know that. You evidently do not.

Please let me know which philosopher you have read the most texts of, and are familiar with enough, that you feel that you can converse about the position they were putting forward. I’ll try to work with what you are familiar with.

Firstly, says who? Most men do not have that abiltity. William Shatner is not just any man, he's Shatner. He exists both in time and space and without it. He sings, he dances, he acts, he keeps the universe in check. You can believe that it's wrong, but it's still more valid than anything you've presented so far.

No, men don’t have that ability. Again, the law of identity.

No, we were talking about where the logic process comes from. Follow the conversation back, and you'll see. We don't even need to talk about Empiricism yet, we're still getting you straight on how to identify logic.

No that is you dodging the question repeatedly. I’ve been asking you for so long to provide your philosopher there is no way I’m going back to the first time.

You haven’t put forward any logic for any position yet and the person who can’t get the law of identity correct isn’t in the position to get anyone straight about logic. All you can do is take the time to educate yourself on the position you hold, so that you can point to the person you are imitating, and hopefully that person can explain your position for you. It is the least you can do for the convenience of people conversing with you.

Energy.

Correct, if we are working from your non material understanding of Energy.

If God isn't infinite, and God doesn't change, and God didn't create anything, and God in inperceptible, why do we include God in the equation at all? It seems redundant.

Redundant? Again, God is the label we apply to the beginning of what are experiencing. How do we start an explanation about what is going on around us without considering and including the initial cause into the equation?

How are you examining that which by your own definition can not be examined? Why is it obvoius that spirit is there at all? Perhaps that which is imperceptable does not actually exist. But then again, you have never questioned the existence of spirit have you?

Swing and a miss. You need to work on those assumptions man.

 

[The Unorthodox Orthodox]

But that's kind of the point.

You don't get it.
What I am saying is than the founders of Christianity are nor mythical, nor exagerrated. They existed in reality and prefered persecution, poverty, humiliation, torture and death over just saying that what they were representing were false.
Thus, my argument still stands;

If Christianity is not true, then by default, it's founders were;
a) liers/frauds
b)insane
A liar/fraus would never die in the way I mentioned above.

If they were mad, then
1) Each Apostole would suffer from a different delusion
2) Their teachings would not appeal to anyone, while even you can't deny the beauty in some of Jesus' teachings.

Luke 22:36 - Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

In the original greek text, it is not sword, but knife (Μαχαιρ&#945.
He is pretty much telling them to equip themselves for a long journey.

Matthew 10:34 - Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

He was refering to the persecutions that his followers would have to suffer.

I understand of course that you mean that the people behind the crusades used these quotes as excuses for their war, but come on! Two misinteprited quotes somehow overight the rest of His teachings?
That's disortion of the Bible! If people could read back then (and understand latin) they would have known.

I have known some good people who suffer from severe depression.

First of, depression is a sickness.
Secondly, how do you know they are good?

And there are people who get delight and satisfaction from killing, stealing, lying, and setting things on fire.

The are adicted to these horrible things. They are just like junkies;
They get satisfaction but not happiness.

If I may say so, it was not long ago in this very thread that I was condemned for being prideful, and now I'm supposed to believe that I am "better" than Christians? Even God states that an atheist can do no good, much less do "better."

I said you believe yourself to be better than the christians bullying you, don't you?
Well, if you do believe yourself and your atheism to be better, act likewise and stop being intolerant towards theists, the same way some heists are intolerant towards you.
Otherwise, what the difference between you and them? None!

Which of those people did not first accept that Jesus was the son of God? Which of these people did not accept the existence of God? Jesus only accepts believers.
I'm pretty sure you'll find that he died for the sins of believers only.

Did he not say during his crusifixion "Father forgive them, They know not what they do?".
He forgived those who not only rejected Him, but mocked Him, humiliated Him, tortured Him and executed Him as well!

I'm somewhat certain that's not what it says:

1 John 2:23 - For those who reject the Son reject also the Father; those who accept the Son have the Father also.

Oh really?

Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or the Age to come.”
Matthew 12:30-32

No, I think I am right on this one

It's not supposed to. Christianity is not something I can fix.

I was not refering to Christianity. I was refering to people hurting other people because they simply have different beliefs than them. How are you gonna fix this?

Every person in the world does think like that toward some group.

Not hardly. I have never posted an inslultive comment against a muslim or an atheist.
And I believe every civilised person, whether christian, muslim or atheist acts likewise.
If you believe it is OK to be intolerant against someone just because he is a christian and you are an atheist, or because he is an atheist and you are a christian, then what can I say?

The more religious someone is, the more bigoted and and intolerant they are likely to be.

That sounds pretty bigoted in itself.
I've met atheists that are equally, if not more bigoted and intoleran than any theist I've known.
Don't act like you do not know. Just browse your web a bit;
Read a few comments over at youtube and see for yourself.
Countless m*rons cussing, bullying and cursing every religion/religious person they can think of.
If that's not enough then think about that;
atheist army, anti-theists etc etc.
And before saying that no atheists have killed any theists check out how many orthodox and budhists monks and believers were tortured or executed by the atheist state of the Soviet Union.

Maybe not cause, but definitely correlation.

One can say the same thing about technological progres;
We can now kill each other far quicker and much more effectively. It's true.
But should we stop any form of technological progress just because some fools are using it that way?
No.

What you do not understand is this;
Religion can be a way through which a person can channel his hatred towards others.
You can take away religion, but it doesn't matter. The cause remains;
He will find another way to cahnnel his hatred;
Political beliefs, the belief that religion is bad and must be extinct (wink, wink) etc etc.
To attack the correlations and not the cause is foolish.
A form to comfort ourselves for being to coward to face the real problem.

Long ago I volunteered at a mental health hospital. There were at least several people there suffering from severe forms of schizophrenia. Some imagined beautiful worlds where they were far more important than they felt in real life. One man in particular believed himself the King of the Western Hemisphere (or thereabouts it was subject to change), and saw himself as wielding enormous power, with important friends, and family.

While that might be a nice fantasy, that he enjoyed, it didn't exactly help him. He failed to connect to other people in any meaningful way because they didn't fit into his created world. He couldn't participate in the real world because he had a tendency to lash out with violence toward people who didn't acknowledge his supremacy. That might be a wonderful, beautiful life for him to live in, but I wouldn't want any part of it.

That was nor a religion nor a form of spirituality.
That's just a phyckological sickness that only him, or a few other people suffered from.
On the other hand, spirituality, the need to approach the Divine, existed since the appearence of our kind in this Earth.
It is catholic among our species, which indicates it is a human need, just like thirst or hunger.
You cannot be thirsty while there is no water somewhere to fulfill your thirst.
You cannot be hungry while there is no food to fulfill you hunger.
You feel the need to approach the Divine if there is no Divine there to be approached.
In any case, it is something natural. And that's what sets it apart from this person's delusion.

Plus, about these other cults you mentioned;
Christianity is different than them because, once again;
The founders of these cults didn't die for what they represented, nor suffered in any way to support their beliefs.

I'm pretty sure every other Christian disagrees with you.

I don't know if they do, but judging from your posts you'd want them to, wouldn't you?
I have been trying to explain to you that people irrelevantly of their religious beliefs can coexist.
And you've been striving to reject this idea.
Ever considered why? Here is my assumption;
It just feels good to have an "enemy" to blame and attack when everything goes wrong with your life, so that you can release pent up anger.

You are forgeting sth though;
You live at the 21st centuary A.C. and you were born in an environment of religious apathy.
Religion can no longer cause that much trouble. No more than any other idea can.
So why don't you focus on solving more important issues and stop comforting yourself by saying you do enough for this world by attacking religion?

 

[JGG]

The words of Jesus Christ are written clear for anyone to see. There is no way you can say there is more than one Jesus. If you are talking about spirituality then that is a different matter altogether. Since there is no guarantee that the spirits we consult will always be representing God, or even Jesus in person, they may be angels or demons popping ideas in our mind. That verse I showed you that converted me was the verse which showed me how to identify the ideas that have been put in my mind over the course of my life, and whether those ideas represent God or not. Notice that I recognized a lot of ideas originating from that spirit of the antichrist.

So, what you're saying is that you alone know the real Jesus, and everyone else is faking. Are you suggesting that you're a True Christian(tm)?

What was Jesus' intention when He said those words?

If I may say so, and quote you above: His words are written down, but the intentions behind them are not. Someone else, such as myself, has no reason to believe your interpretation as you are injecting your own beliefs into it. I see it as it is written: He calls the Canaanite woman a dog. The text of the story says that Jesus treated her like a dog, asking her to beg. If Jesus was just being a jerk to the woman, how would the story be different? Afterall, at the end of the story, nobody has said that the woman is anything other than a begging dog. Which is definitely condescending.

Was He intending to condescend her, or to challenge her to justify her faith? There is one thing so obvious when I read what Jesus said here, and the meaning you derive from it. I see that sometimes God allows us to suffer for a purpose. Jesus had a purpose for making her suffer, the result was that she got upon her knees and begged.

Yes, he was intending to condescend her. If He was not then He would not have done so. You rebuked Ronald for putting forth the very same attitude, but it's okay when Jesus does it. How is what Ronald did, significantly different from what Jesus did? Why are Christians suddenly doing wrong by acting like jerks for Jesus?

Why do you think that is? Although God claims Israel to be holy, even a Canaanite can receive God's mercy. That demonstrates that although (some) Christians are called by God, even atheist's can receive God's mercy. Remember what Jesus says: unless you become humble and accept the kingdom of Heaven as a child you cannot enter it. Not a lot of atheist's are humble before God, they all tend to justify their disbelief, even looking for more material to substantiate their disbelief.

Canaanites are a race. Atheists are not. It still stands to reason that Jesus hates atheists. Realistically, He must think us worse than dogs because we don't come begging to worship Him.

It doesn't say that atheist's can do no good, it says those who say in their heart "there is no God" are not interested in doing good.

Well, I think those who say in their heart there is no God could very well describe atheists. We certainly don't say in our heart there is God. Let's observe the actual text:

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

That's pretty clear, I think.

Thus, these people have decided there is no need to respect the giver of life, rather they can take what they like from life. I don't think that attitude is reflected by all atheist's, certainly not all the time. Given enough time as an atheist, a person having rejected the truth about God so much, they all might become like that. I still don't want to smear a blanket statement over a personal identity, there are always exceptions to a rule, and we are discussing individuals afterall.

But it's what the Bible explicitly says. And no, there are no exceptions to Biblical rules.

Exactly. You said two things in that statement: 1. you implied that you do not believe that I know God, then you suggested that I could be delusional instead.

You read into it what you like, but I know what I said, and know how I used the language that I used.

No I don't reject someone else's testimony so long as they are being honest, because that is their reality.

So, if you meet a Buddhist that experiences enlightenment you convert to Buddhism? Because that's generally the equivelant of what you're expecting from me.

If it contradicts my reality that is simply because we have witnessed life through different perspectives. Don't you think that is what it means to "love your neighbour as yourself"?

I am determined with you JGG, you must learn what real Christianity is and stop confusing it with those fake Christians who like to think themselves above everyone else.

Yeah, but you clearly think yourself above me. If a Buddhist comes to you with a testimony that he is enlightened, you're not about to convert to follow Buddha, because his reality is different from yours. Those Christians who believe different from you because their reality is different, are fake Christians. But, when you say you have a relationship with Christ, I'm supposed to take your reality as fact, and convert to Christianity, despite what my reality is. You hold me to a different standard than you hold yourself. How is that not believing yourself above me? All Christians do this.

 

[JGG]

You don't get it.
What I am saying is than the founders of Christianity are nor mythical, nor exagerrated. They existed in reality and prefered persecution, poverty, humiliation, torture and death over just saying that what they were representing were false.
Thus, my argument still stands;

They may have existed, and they may not have been exaggerated. However, worldwide floods, burning bushes, people whose superhuman strength comes from their hair, men living in fish, people born of a virgin, who walk and water, and rise from the dead? That certainly sounds exaggerated, if not mythical.

In the original greek text, it is not sword, but knife (Μαχαιρ&#945.
He is pretty much telling them to equip themselves for a long journey.

Then why not take food, and why sell clothing for a knife if they're not going to be violent?

He was refering to the persecutions that his followers would have to suffer.

I understand of course that you mean that the people behind the crusades used these quotes as excuses for their war, but come on! Two misinteprited quotes somehow overight the rest of His teachings?

I just assumed that I needn't put forth anything from the Old Testament, as it is pretty much recognized as a bloodbath.

That's disortion of the Bible! If people could read back then (and understand latin) they would have known.

And today, the excuse is?

First of, depression is a sickness.
Secondly, how do you know they are good?

Relative to arsonists, cleptomaniacs, and serial murderers, I'll consider them good.

The are adicted to these horrible things. They are just like junkies;
They get satisfaction but not happiness.

How do you know?

I said you believe yourself to be better than the christians bullying you, don't you?
Well, if you do believe yourself and your atheism to be better, act likewise and stop being intolerant towards theists, the same way some heists are intolerant towards you.

I don't believe myself to be better, and don't see why I'm expected to be. You clearly don't hold Christians to the same standards you're holding me know. No Christian does. That's why there's dozens of threads on the Christians Only forums about how atheists are jerks, but none that hold Christians to that same standard. Although, I'm certain I can find several that praise Christians for being jerks.

Otherwise, what the difference between you and them? None!

I never said there was one. I follow their lead on this. In all honesty, if Christians consider me their enemy (and they do), it would be downright stupid of me to not recognize that by defauly that makes them my enemy.

Did he not say during his crusifixion "Father forgive them, They know not what they do?".
He forgived those who not only rejected Him, but mocked Him, humiliated Him, tortured Him and executed Him as well!

He might have. I don't see how that applies. As Christians often say about atheists, Jews, and gays (and I paraphrase): Forgiveness does not imply acceptance.

No, I think I am right on this one.

I would assume so. Why?

I was not refering to Christianity. I was refering to people hurting other people because they simply have different beliefs than them. How are you gonna fix this?

I can't. It's not for me to fix. I gave up a long time ago. Now, I just try to understand.

Not hardly. I have never posted an inslultive comment against a muslim or an atheist.

That doesn't mean you don't hold the belief. It just means that your politically correct.

And I believe every civilised person, whether christian, muslim or atheist acts likewise.

People may act a certain way. It doesn't mean that they don't hold themselves above those who are different than they are.

If you believe it is OK to be intolerant against someone just because he is a christian and you are an atheist, or because he is an atheist and you are a christian, then what can I say?

I'm just saying that's how it is, and there's nothing to be done about it. It's the nature of religion to seek out enemies, and most of the time those enemies are unbelieves. That's simply how religion works.

That sounds pretty bigoted in itself.

Maybe, but that's how it works.

I've met atheists that are equally, if not more bigoted and intoleran than any theist I've known.
Don't act like you do not know. Just browse your web a bit;
Read a few comments over at youtube and see for yourself.
Countless m*rons cussing, bullying and cursing every religion/religious person they can think of.

That's true. However, statistics show that the more religious someone is, the more racist, bigotted and intollerant of unbelievers they are likely to be.

If that's not enough then think about that;
atheist army, anti-theists etc etc.

What atheist army? And anti-theists are simply people who hold the belief that there is no God. It's essentially just a strong atheist.

And before saying that no atheists have killed any theists check out how many orthodox and budhists monks and believers were tortured or executed by the atheist state of the Soviet Union.

I never said that they hadn't. I just said that the more religious someone is, the more likely it is that they are intollerant, bigotted, and racist.

One can say the same thing about technological progres;
We can now kill each other far quicker and much more effectively. It's true.
But should we stop any form of technological progress just because some fools are using it that way?

The difference is technology only allows people to kill more. It doesn't actually correlate with hate. People without technology hate people just as much as people with technology.

What you do not understand is this;
Religion can be a way through which a person can channel his hatred towards others.
You can take away religion, but it doesn't matter. The cause remains;
He will find another way to cahnnel his hatred;
Political beliefs, the belief that religion is bad and must be extinct (wink, wink) etc etc.
To attack the correlations and not the cause is foolish.
A form to comfort ourselves for being to coward to face the real problem.

Either religion causes the hatred, or people who are hateful are attracted to religion. In either case, religion is not helping.

Besides, it doesn't go beyond my notice that the hatred between political beliefs is somewhat exasperated by bringing religion into it. Look at the American political system, which is heavily influenced by religious doctrine, vs. the Canadian system which is vastly more civil, and where religion is far less of an influence.

That was nor a religion nor a form of spirituality.
That's just a phyckological sickness that only him, or a few other people suffered from.

That's not the point. You're selling religion on it being something beautiful that one is missing out on if they don't experience. And that I'm a coward if I don't want experience it. But the experiences were beautiful, and calming for those who experienced them, but I don't think either of us would want to go through the same thing. Does that really make us cowards, or realists?

On the other hand, spirituality, the need to approach the Divine, existed since the appearence of our kind in this Earth.
It is catholic among our species, which indicates it is a human need, just like thirst or hunger.
You cannot be thirsty while there is no water somewhere to fulfill your thirst.
You cannot be hungry while there is no food to fulfill you hunger.
You feel the need to approach the Divine if there is no Divine there to be approached.
In any case, it is something natural. And that's what sets it apart from this person's delusion.

People get hungry and thirsty because our bodies need energy to survive. We have a biological drive to get food and water, like all animals. Nobody has articulated why we need something divine, and it's clear that other animals do not seek out God. It's not exactly the same thing. Furthermore, seeking out the divine is not the same thing as religion. Some of us just stay grounded.

Plus, about these other cults you mentioned;
Christianity is different than them because, once again;
The founders of these cults didn't die for what they represented, nor suffered in any way to support their beliefs.

Scientology again claims that Hubbard suffered immensely, and was the target of much persecution for his religion. Others would be Falun Gong, Jim Jones and the People's Temple, Marshall Applewaite and the Heaven's Gate. They all died for their beliefs, or are claimed to have died for them.

However, I don't see that that's true, or relevant. Again, it could very well be exaggerated, or even mythical. You can claim otherwise, but the evidence of that is scarce. Even if it were true, it doesn't make the belief system any more true, only that they died.

I don't know if they do, but judging from your posts you'd want them to, wouldn't you?
I have been trying to explain to you that people irrelevantly of their religious beliefs can coexist.

Some of them can. But I have been told again, and again by Christians that I am their enemy, and that we cannot coexist. My in-laws, and my son are Jewish. I live in a Jewish neighbourhood. My wife was Jewish. We can coexist. My best friend is Hindu. My partner is Muslim. We can coexist. Christians have made it abundantly clear that they wish not to coexist with atheists, Muslims, gays or Jews. Look at my signature, that pretty much says it all.

And you've been striving to reject this idea.
Ever considered why? Here is my assumption;
It just feels good to have an "enemy" to blame and attack when everything goes wrong with your life, so that you can release pent up anger.

I've put my life back together after I was excommunicated by my church, and abandoned by my family...because I wanted to marry a Jew. I get to blame that on Christianity. My best friend was driven to suicide when his family, friends and church abandoned him because he was gay. Our pastor then danced on his grave. I get to blame that on Christianity. I still get migranes, because several years ago I was given a concussion by a Christian who assaulted me for being an atheist. I get to blame that on Christianity.

That's about it. I have other problems, but they're because of other factors. Because stuff just happens.

You are forgeting sth though;
You live at the 21st centuary A.C. and you were born in an environment of religious apathy.
Religion can no longer cause that much trouble. No more than any other idea can.
So why don't you focus on solving more important issues and stop comforting yourself by saying you do enough for this world by attacking religion?

I can't solve them, and I do enough for this world just by existing, and doing what I do. I accept that religious intolerance is, as it has always been, a fact of life. All I can do is point it out, and hope that the religious hold themselves to a higher standard of humanity than where they are. However, that will never happen. I'm the religious minority, and Christians will always hate me for not believing in their saviour. It's just the way the religion works.