Theli

Let's just leave that discussion, doesn't seem to go anywhere, anyway.

About supernatural, I agree.
"Supernatural" and "God" are both words that are so vague, they don't describe what they are applied to.

John Page

Thank you. Could you be more specific as to what this testimony is, or appears to be? I'm assuming it the "fact of existence" but I don;t want to jump to conclusions.
Sometimes I long for a cold beer, unfortunately that doesn't make it materialize. How are you supposing that the "eternal longing" makes you believe in god any more than I believe in cold beer?

Cheers, John

rainbow walking

Hey John, I have a Bud in the frig that should satisfy your eternal longing but you must bow before me as the eternal king of beers to get your hands on it.

Douglas J. Bender

Hans,

Here's one (and it's not that they don't "please" Him, it's that they do not have faith in Him, essentially lacking faith in Jesus as their Savior):
There are some others, but this should be quite sufficient to prove my point that David Mathews absolutely and clearly contradicts the Bible when he says that atheists, while still being atheist, will not be condemned to the Lake of Fire. Remember, of course, that "...God is not willing that any should perish" - those that do do so of their own free will, by rejecting the gift of salvation which God freely offers. The David Mathews of this world, by their false teachings, hinder people from receiving this free gift.

In Christ,

Douglas

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

sandlewood

Strange as it may seem, some people would like to determine if Christianity makes sense before they decide to believe it’s true. But I think you have already presupposed that it’s true. So whether the concept of Hell makes sense or not is of no importance to you. It’s all part of God’s Plan, the Plan one that no one knows what it is.
I was not saying that you are threatening atheists with Hell. I was referring to God making the threats.
I assume these are rhetorical questions. Anyway, it’s not the point at all.
No, I wouldn’t—and didn’t—say that at all. Quite the opposite. I already answered it earlier in that paragraph: “I think people have moral standards that come from culture and society. We are social animals. In order for humans to continue to thrive and live together, we build a system of morality.”
Well, in the first post you made in this thread, you offered a link to that site. You don’t seem to be in any hurry to update it. You say that the “Questioning Atheism” section (or perhaps only the 12th part of it, I’m not sure) was directed at a specific person and not all atheists. Yet the essay is written in a form directed to all atheists. It’s odd that you would write it in that form if you were only addressing one particular atheist. And even though it reads in a way different from what you say you intended, you don’t seem in a hurry to fix it. All I can conclude is that the web page isn’t an accurate source of your opinions.
And my point there was that we should not precipitously suppose that things must be formed supernaturally when it is more likely that a natural explanation will ensue in time. Your illustration worked well to show that. In the past, there have been many things that were unknown, and when they finally became known the explanation was a natural one. Never has an explanation turned out to be a supernatural one. Supernatural explanations are only ever associated with things that are still unknown.

What makes anyone think there is such a thing as “the supernatural”. It has been engrained into our culture through myths, stories, and repeated assumptions. Finally people start to think it must be real. Supernatural can only refer to that which is unknown. Once we know it, it is no longer supernatural, it is natural. Anyway, I don’t want to waste any more time on that subject. There is no reason to believe that the supernatural exists and I don’t even think the concept makes sense.
You missed the point. I was addressing the issue of whether or not atheism makes a positive assertion or not. I wasn’t talking about the argument that God does not exist because we do not detect him. You may have gotten different posts confused. Reading through this thread, it seems to me you miss the point a lot.
I don’t think I made that argument. Maybe you confused me with someone else. Nevertheless…
You can make that argument for anything conceivable (or inconceivable). There could exist anything that we cannot perceive. But it’s not practical to assume that they all exist. What turns out to be useful and practical is to not believe something exists until we have some evidence (via senses) that it does exist. Atheists have made no assumption that God must be perceptible to humans. You misrepresent atheists there. But there is no reason to believe he exists because he is not detectable.

You have defined your God as being undetectable, and then you turn around and claim that we cannot prove he doesn’t exist because he is undetectable.

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: sandlewood ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

And you have every right to do so, but your doing so only indicates that you have a very arbitrary and contrary-to-the-Bible definition of "Christian". If yours is valid, so too is every single cult in the world which calls itself "Christian". The whole point, David, is whether there is any actual justification for calling a group, an individual, or onesself, "Christian". The only valid basis for doing so is comparing with the document which DEFINES what it means to be a "Christian". By that comparison, as Splashing has clearly realized, you are NOT a Christian. For the sake of intellectual and religious honesty, please find a more accurate term for yourself. Thank you.

O brave and open-minded David Mathews...wherefore hast thou chosen to avoid confronting evidence of thy apostasy, whilst reading and addressing almost every "surrounding" post? Kind of shows your true character, as opposed to your attempt to present yourself as "open-minded" and willing to consider all views. If something points out your error, avoid it at all costs.

And how in the world could you do so "...without any fear of failure", since you do not know me and have explicitly admitted "...I have not read Douglas Bender's posts, so I am in no position to evaluate his evidence that my beliefs contradict Christianity"? Or are you just saying that you might fail, but that you do not fear failure?

Fair enough, I suppose. Except that if you make particular claims, you should be willing, at least for the sake of the atheists here, to defend their validity. But you have assiduously avoided doing so, at least in the case of defending whether your views are Biblical, or whether they are merely "the gospel according to David Mathews".

Thank you. Actually, David, my "opinion" of you was related only to your false teachings - I had hoped you would be willing to listen, and to confront the fact that your teachings/beliefs do not in any way conform to the Bible. I had hoped you would be willing to at least come to admit that your beliefs are merely your opinions, and that you do not have any valid right to call your beliefs "Christian", nor yourself a "Christian". I could then have at least appreciated your courage and honesty in being willing to confront these facts, if not appreciating your false teachings. You have instead indicated that you are not willing to confront these facts - as such, my opinion of you has lessened considerably.

I never said that you had to. You DO have to answer to truth, or be exposed as either a coward or a liar (and the same is true for all of us). You have to answer to the fact that your views absolutely contradict the Bible, and that thus you have no real right to claim to be a "Christian". You have avoided doing so yet, and seem to give every indication that you will not.

My, my - so hostile or defensive for never actually having "...read Douglas Bender's posts", and for thus being "...in no position to evaluate his evidence that my beliefs contradict Christianity". I wonder why that is?

Oh, and by the way, the issue is not whether you have my "approval" or not regarding your "faith", but whether you can legitimately claim to "partake" of the "title" of a particular religion (in this case, "Christianity"). You don't need my "approval" for this, but the BIBLE'S. And you do not have it, as at least Splashing has clearly recognized. But a nice attempt at a strawman argument on your part, since I was not claiming that you needed my "approval", or "my" anything.


In Christ,

Douglas

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

David: Second: Humans are evil creatures, committed all sorts of sins and atrocities...

And why are humans "committed all sorts of sins and atrocities"? Satan? God? (I exclude Free-will because you ahevadmitted you cannot verify whether God gave it to humans)

Are you also Comitted To all sorts of sins and atrocities? Or you are not human?

If You aren't "committed all sorts of sins and atrocities", then please state which humans specifically are Comitted To all sorts of sins and atrocities.

David: David: I don't believe that anyone is obligated to do anything. Believers are not obligated to ask permission from atheists for their adhering to their religion. Atheists are not ogligated to ask permission from theists for their continued acceptance of atheism.

Aren't we obligated to show "lost" people the right path? If you know someone is wrong about something, don't you feel obligated to point that out to them? Does christianity encourage this "live and let live" care-free approach to social life?
If we all adopted such a care-free, self-centered and antisocial attitude, would we still be a "society"?

Osama, then would not be obligated to explain to anyone to explain why he holds the beliefs he holds.

David: It seems pointless for people who are fated to die to complain about the manner in which they will die.
Then if killing is so harmless and nature-assisting, why, pray tell, does God say "Thou shalt not kill"?
Why do christians bother to donate money and food to help the starving people?
Why dont we just let the sick die and ask the doctors to take a break?

I think that everyone should acknowledge as a basic undeniable truth that death is inevitable, and that all people will die before they want to die and in a manner in which they would rather not die. Would it make any difference if everyone lived until they reached two hundred fifty years old before they died? I don't think it would matter in the least.
It would matter very much because if it did not matter, we would not even get to know that it does not matter.
You hold that opinion because you are alive. Everyone would like that chance to be alive and not get drowned by a global flood.

If your parents got killed when they were kids, you would not be here telling us it does not matter.
You really have some nerve!

You are like someone who is rescued from a pool of drowning people then you quip that "Argh, let the rest drown, they will still die anyway"
Why should someone not kill you if it does not matter? Better yet, why not commit suicide and die since it does not matter?

Its not just about one life, there are friends and relatives who are left in pain...

David: I do not believe that Satan will have a numerical advantage on Judgment Day. I don't imagine that billions of humans are going to go to hell on judgment day.
Why do you believe this?

David: There is no denying that people suffer. But I suspect that people would suffer in any universe because humans do put themselves at risk (living on the coast subject to hurricanes, living near a river subject to floods, living in fault zones, living underneath volcanoes) and humans also commit atrocities against each other (prejudice, hate, violence, war, genocide).
Why are humans so evil?
If you created intelligent robots and gave them free will, would you sit back and blame it all on them?
Doesnt God share any part of the responsibility for humanitys' flaws?

If humans were not able to suffer, I suppose humans wouldn't be able to make any conscious choices or exerise any free will.
Aaah, so when you have some dogs, put some landmines here and there on your garden, poison a bone or two and scatter them in the garden. Then release the dogs and let them excercise free will.

Are we responsible for all the floods that kill people? Do you honestly believe people choose to live under volcanoes? Do we also cause all the earthquakes that kill thousands?

David: What sort of evidence are you asking for? What sort of evidence would convince you that a god or God exists?
First, I would sincerely appreciate it if you clearly described this God (you see, I am an atheist). Give us his/ her characteristics, then based on those, I will provide you with what evidence I would need.

will continue later..

madmax2976

<strong> Then why do you conclude the biblical god Yahweh created the universe? According to you there is not enough information to resolve the question.

<strong> Truth is a descriptive term regarding how things really are. Finding out the truth facts of things has greatly enhanced our ability to survive and our standard of living - which is why we're interested in it. Of course this only works if you hold to the axiom that there is an objective reality to being with, and that our senses allow us to find out true facts about that reality. If you don't hold to that, I guess "truth" would be meaningless to you.

Since you seem to believe the statement "God exists" is a true statement about reality, I would guess that you would concur with all of this and there would little point to your question.

I'm not sure what you mean by "positive content"? Does this imply that have to be 100% certain of things before we can determine that we have discovered some truth? Please explain. Are you 100% certain that the biblical Yahweh (or Jehovah) exists? If so, how?

<strong> As I see no reason to conclude Yahweh exists, as it seems to have no impact on us such that its existence can be verified, it seems its importance is directly related upon humans and their belief it does exist.

<strong> Assuming Yahweh exists buts has no impact upon us, then it might as well not exist. It is as useful and germane to us as a spec of space dust floating in space 10 billion light years away - perhaps less. The invisible dragon in my garage may exist even if I am not aware of it and have no way of detecting it. However it is just as irrelevant to me as Yahweh if such is the case.

However I don't believe you really think this. I suspect you believe that Yahweh really is important to us and really does have an impact on us. I suspect you believe that the existence of Yahweh is a fact of reality. Its your inability to demonstrate this is claim as being true that is the problem.

<strong> Right, the weak sense of natural as I suspected. Since we were discussing the sense of natural as opposed to the supernatural, this demonstrates your analogy was flawed. You equivocated from one sense to the other in the attempt to make a point.

<strong> Quite right. I may hear a noise in my garage and upon investigation found that a hammer fall on the floor because I had secured it improperly. Of course it could be that the invisible dragon or even a ghost who lives there caused the hammer to fall, thus not excluding the possibility of supernatural. Its even possible two leprechauns were having a fight and the hammer got knocked over. Such speculations are endless.

But to be frank David, I don't think your being honest with yourself . If we find a cause of a disease, then we determine that is the cause - and you will accept it as well. If we discover how a car engine works, then that is the explanation of how it works - and even you won't suppose there is an underlying supernatural explanation. When we figured out how microwave ovens work, even you wouldn't suppose there are supernaturual forces at work underneath. I could go on an on. The point being that we have every reason to believe the trend will continue. If we discover how life or the universe began, and explain it, then that will be the explanation and we will not suppose there is still some underlying supernatural explanation.

As Ochams Razor implies, there is no reason to complicate things unecessarily. The supernatural in general, and Yahwah specifically, appear to be the unecessary multiplication of entities. The weight of history is against the supernatural, but of course, anyone is free to dismiss this as evidence and believe in the supernatural anyhow. I guess I just don?t understand why they do so.

<strong> Thus we have the Deistic God. A deity that supposedly created the universe but is essentially irrelevant to us. For all intents and purposes, such a deity might as well not exist at all. I see no reason to conclude that it did create the universe or that it even exists. It's the invisible dragon in my garage.

<strong> It would if you could actually demonstrate your views are actually more likely to be true. I would be intrigued to listen to any such evidence that you could present. But again, this doesn?t seem to be something your interested in, which in some ways is a refreshing attitude.

<strong> And you may say that. However it's a straw man since I hold 100% is not necessary to be "certain". However, your claim will require support. I'm prepared to support why I hold some things to a high degree of probability. Are you prepared to support your claim that I should not hold them as such? That's what productive debate is all about - using evidence and reasoning to determine what is most likely to be true. But again, this doesn't seem something your interested in.

<strong> Yes you do. You do it the same way - at least for most things. I use evidence and reason to make such determinations. I just don't understand how you reached the conclusion that the biblical god Yahweh, spirits, souls, heaven and hell exist.

<strong> Sure, but what gives you this "confidence"? Mere whim? Unsupported opinion? Because to accept otherwise would ruin whatever point your attempting to make? What? As you have continually avoided actually arguing for any position you hold, I feel quite reasonable in rejecting such claims.

<strong> Actually you have asked me to explain what truth is, you've asked about how the universe originated, you've asked me why I conclude that atheism is more likely than theism, you've asked me what motivated me to become an atheist, you've asked me what I see as the benefits in not believing the biblical God are, you've asked me how we would verify the existence of a supernatural entity, and probably lots of other questions that I'm forgetting.

When I asked you for why you conclude the supernatural, including the god Yahweh, exists, I don't recall ever getting much of answer. I've yet to see you actually argue and defend any of the points you have made - you just assert them. You assert Yahweh exists, you assert the bible God is all of the things you have attributed to it, you assert it can and will "save" atheists implying the further assertion that we have something to be saved from, you assert this deity gets to determine our ultimate destination implying the further assertion that we have an "ultimate" destination - heaven or hell, I suspect you would also assert the bible is the inspired word of Yahweh and the Jesus Christ was his offspring.

That's a lot of assertions which you seem uninterested in defending. Therefore, unless your next post reveals something new in this regard, I'll take my leave and wish you the best of luck. Take care and be well.

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>

David Mathews

Hello Philosoft,

{QUOTE]Except, of course, for all that wasted space and matter.[/QUOTE]

David: I don't know how you determined that all that space and matter is wasted. How would you design the Universe differently?

David: If you are not satisfied with the design of your body, you ought to take comfort in knowing that soon enough you won't have it anymore. How would you have designed the body differently?

David: The search for something else, something infinite, is a universal trait of humankind. I think it remarkable that a humanist such as Gene Roddenberry filled his universe (Star Trek) with Divine and semi-divine beings.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Splashing,

David: Would you renounce your atheism? You are presenting me with a great opportunity.

What sort of evidence would convince you of God's existence?

David: If it would serve any purpose for you, I will present you with one of my core beliefs for your comments or criticism:

1. God exist.

I believe that God exists because materialism and naturalism do not account for everything that exist, and are in themselves philosophies which are empty and hopeless.


David: I am not being defensive. My words are an invitation for this sort of discussion.

Sincerely,

David Mathews