Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ab_Normal · 10-04-2002, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Is it possible that the athiest merely claims to deny what most see as obvious...

My mother never let me get away with, "But all the other kids are doing it." Her usual response was, "If everybody else jumped off the roof, would you too?"

The number of people who agree with a preposition has no bearing on its truth.

Vanderzyden · 10-04-2002, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ab_Normal:


The number of people who agree with a preposition has no bearing on its truth.

That is not what I am saying. If you are going to reply, then please focus on the essence of the question.

(This is one reason why such discussions become so fragmented)

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden · 10-04-2002, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:

You're confusing me, Van. Doesn't the bible say something along the lines of "Faith is the evidence of things not seen", and hold that such faith is the cornerstone of belief? If so, how can the belief system claim both that faith is necessary because its target cannot be "seen", and that what they "see" is "obvious"?

Does it say that faith is a substitute for reason? No.

Tell me, Mageth, since you claim to understand what that verse means:

What is faith, in the biblical sense?

(Hint: Abraham)

Vanderzyden

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

Mageth · 10-04-2002, 08:59 AM

The ever elusive Van once again responds to a question with a question.

Hebrews 11, in the first verse of which my brief quote appears, is often considered the defining text for biblical "faith". I think the first verse is a succinct definition of what the rest of the chapter is getting at.

To me, it implies that "faith" entails belief in God and God's plan (as in Abram) even though neither is in any way, shape or form obvious.

Now, answer my question. How do you reconcile Faith, the cornerstone of Biblical belief, with what you claims as things "obvious"? Oh, and by the way, if they're obvious, point them out to us.

MrDarwin · 10-04-2002, 09:00 AM

Since Vanderzyden is posting in this thread again, I'd like to (again) bring this exchange to his attention:

Quote:

Originally posted by Kind Bud:
They don't even agree with themselves. The gospels contradict each other.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
No sir, they do not. This is a common objection made by those who have not read them carefully nor undertaken to understand the meaning.

Please tell me, in your own words, what is the single most obvious contradiction in the gospels, or the entire NT for that matter. Please demonstrate your case with examples from the text.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ron Garrett:

I gave the Judas example in response to Vandy's inerrancy challenge on the prior page.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:


You are in error, sir. I did not present an inerrancy challenge.

Perhaps you have a unassailable defintion of inerrancy that you could share with us.

I'm sure several of us are wondering just what he meant when he implied that the gospels do not contradict each other, asked for examples of such contradictions, and then abandoned the discussion upon being offended by Ron Garrett.

I'm still waiting for Vanderzyden to demonstrate to the rest of us (never mind that terribly rude and offensive Ron Garrett for the moment) how the two stories of Judas do not contradict each other, or how two stories that contradict each other do not suggest that one is errant, or what his definition of inerrancy might be to encompass two completely different--some might say contradictory--stories.

Vanderzyden, do you understand that you only succeed in making yourself (and by extension, Christianity) look foolish, if you make such statements and then refuse to follow up on them?

Jamie_L · 10-04-2002, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Is it possible that the athiest merely claims to deny what most see as obvious, and that this denial is actually a rejection of an "egomaniac" god?

Alright everyone, lets not dance around the man's (woman's?) question.

It is certainly possible that a particular atheist has chosen to reject a god he believes in at some level rather than coming to an intellectually honest conclusion that the god in question does not exist.

However, your wording seems to imply a more general question: Is it possible ALL atheists knowingly reject god, and none of them have reached an honest position of denial, but rather lie that they have?

Well, in answer to that question, I would say no it's not possible. This hypothesis is disproved by the existence of one atheist who genuinely believes God does not exist. I for one, genuinely believe God does not exist. So, there you go.

This leads to another question: Do you, Van, believe we are all lying, perhaps even to ourselves? Do you believe it is NOT possible to honestly deny God? Because I would think in order for it to be possible that we all reject God, it must be impossible to deny God. Do you believe God is justified in punishing us because we are willfully rejecting him rather than denying him? If so, what leads you to that conclusion?

I don't ask this disrespectfully, just out of honest curiousity.

Jamie

Philosoft · 10-04-2002, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:


Yes. It is possible to maintain unjustifable beliefs. Many theists and athiests alike hold untenable opinions.

No offense, but I'm not sure what to make of this, coming from you. The question was actually for Geo. If you don't agree with the part of his post that I responded to, or if he doesn't agree with your response above, I have no context for your argument. I took Geo's original comments to be indicative that faith is a reliable way of knowing. If, as you suggest, faith is not a reliable way of knowing (actually, I suspect you have an out for yourself here), then my point is prima facie made.

Quote:

Now, Philo, I have a similar question for you:

Not really similar, as we shall see.

Quote:

Is it possible that the athiest merely claims to deny what most see as obvious, and that this denial is actually a rejection of an "egomaniac" god?

Forgive my presumptuousness but I suppose you want "see" in the above passage to be equivalent to "I see the words on my monitor."

That's the whole problem. It isn't equivalent. I do not "see" any gods like I "see" words on my monitor. Neither do you. What I suspect you mean by "see" is "have a subjective feeling (beauty, love, etc) that the objective things I observe are the product of an ill-defined entity for which I have already presupposed existence."

RJS · 10-04-2002, 09:32 AM

Quote:

I for one, genuinely believe God does not exist. So, there you go.

Sorry for the interruption, but I would like to ask a quick question on this general theme. It requires a hypothetical situation, so I am doubtful whether I can get a straight answer, but here it is.

Assume I held an envelope, and inside was the indisputable answer to the following question:

"Is there a loving perfect God with whom I can exist eternally in Heaven?"

What would you want to be answer inside the envelope to be -
"Yes" or "No".

Hopefully we can avoid trying to define loving, Heaven, perfect, what would I do in Heaven, etc.

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: RJS ]

ManM · 10-04-2002, 09:35 AM

K,

Quote:

Your definitions of Heaven and Hell is nice, but it really doesn't fit the traditional Christian definitions.

My views might not fit within modern "fundamentalist" Christianity, but I would contend they are nothing new. I have pulled many of my ideas from the likes of St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Isaac the Syrian.

Quote:

In your Hell, a huge percentage of Christians will find torment.

It would be even more accurate to say that the line between heaven and hell will split down the middle of each of our hearts. It is impossible to judge by appearances how someone will react to God.

Jamie_L,

Quote:

It actually makes much more sense to me than the more commonplace definitions. Those stricter definitions are the ones that really give me heartache WRT to the OP.

I agree whole-heartedly. I find it very distressing that a person (or their God) desires for others to be roasted eternally in a lake of fire. As St. Silouan once said, "Love could not bear that. We must pray for all."

ex-preacher · 10-04-2002, 09:36 AM

As far as I can tell, Vandy, you haven't answered my post from back on page 3. Here it is again:

You:

------------Originally posted by Vanderzyden:

A justified belief is one that is intellectually honest. To be justified in believing something, I must have examined the issues from "both sides" and performed sufficient inquiry. My motivation must be one of finding the truth, not affirming my comfortable presuppositions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Me:

I have tried to honestly study the god issue from all sides. I was a minister for 12 years and have always wanted what I believed to be true. My rigorous inquiry over several years convinced me that the truth was that god doesn't exist. This ran contrary to my "comfortable presupposition." Tell, Vanderzyden, how honestly and thoroughly have you studied the god issue from both (or all) sides?

Is my lack of belief in god justified? Will I go to hell? (don't cop out)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-04-2002, 08:59 AM	#204
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	The ever elusive Van once again responds to a question with a question. Hebrews 11, in the first verse of which my brief quote appears, is often considered the defining text for biblical "faith". I think the first verse is a succinct definition of what the rest of the chapter is getting at. To me, it implies that "faith" entails belief in God and God's plan (as in Abram) even though neither is in any way, shape or form obvious. Now, answer my question. How do you reconcile Faith, the cornerstone of Biblical belief, with what you claims as things "obvious"? Oh, and by the way, if they're obvious, point them out to us.

10-04-2002, 09:36 AM	#210
ex-preacher Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: University of Arkansas Posts: 1,033	As far as I can tell, Vandy, you haven't answered my post from back on page 3. Here it is again: You: ------------Originally posted by Vanderzyden: A justified belief is one that is intellectually honest. To be justified in believing something, I must have examined the issues from "both sides" and performed sufficient inquiry. My motivation must be one of finding the truth, not affirming my comfortable presuppositions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Me: I have tried to honestly study the god issue from all sides. I was a minister for 12 years and have always wanted what I believed to be true. My rigorous inquiry over several years convinced me that the truth was that god doesn't exist. This ran contrary to my "comfortable presupposition." Tell, Vanderzyden, how honestly and thoroughly have you studied the god issue from both (or all) sides? Is my lack of belief in god justified? Will I go to hell? (don't cop out)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.