TomboyMom

:boohoo: It's so sad when I go to the atheist website and the people there are actually atheists. I expect everyone to agree with me all the time, after all, I'm Christian, and Christians are RIGHT, so no one should express their disagreement, even atheists on an atheist forum. Christians should proselytize, but atheists shouldn't, because, since they're not Christian, they're wrong.

I hate when I'm at home minding my own business and two young atheists in ties ring my doorbell to ask me if I want to talk about how God doesn't exist.

And those atheists who hang out down on the mall and preach at passing strangers about how there is no God really annoy me.

But the worst part is when an atheist gets an award, or wins a game, and thanks the non-existence of God for their victory, that happens almost every day. It's because atheists proselytize so much. :boohoo:

TomboyMom

Did you have something specific you wanted to discuss, or do you just enjoy insulting and taunting people?

If I went to a Christian website and called the participants militant and borg-like, do you think that would be polite? I don't know about Christians in general, but you in particular could use a little etiquette.

Haran

So far I have seen only perhaps one or two intelligent responses to my beliefs. I am not evangelizing in this thread, so you can drop that notion. I am simply explaining my beliefs because I was questioned on them in another thread in the Biblical Criticism forum. For the person who did not understand my comments with respect to his/her morality, they need to re-read my posts. I am saying that you cannot condemn my morality because your morality is subjective. If you do not realize this about atheistic and agnostic views, then you need to visit the philosophical forums more often.

Don't have much time...will try to respond more thoughtfully much later. The tone of the opening to this post is confrontationl because I was confronted harshly in threads in the Biblical Criticism forum. I am not mad, I just enjoy a little sarcasm now and then... If you write calm and rational to me, then I will return the favor.

Johnny Skeptic

As you wish.

Item #1

To what extent would a loving God go in order to keep people out of hell? The correct answer is that a loving God would make sure that there was as little doubt as possible regarding his existence and will, and we know that the God of the Bible has not come anywhere close to doing that.

Has God done all that he can to insure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell? Most certainly not.

The Bible says that God is loving, which means that for him to fairly ask people to love him he must first reasonably prove that he is loving.

God's priorities are indeed suspect, and suggest that he does not exist. A loving God's #1 priority would have to be insuring that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. God has not done that. Today, if Jesus made some more appearances, surely some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced, and surely they deserve that chance. Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and other historical characters, attracted lots of followers based upon much less evidence that the miracles that the Bible attributes to Jesus.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Matthew 14:14 And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.

Mark 8:2-3 I have compassion on the multitude, because they have now been with me three days, and have nothing to eat: And if I send them away fasting to their own houses, they will faint by the way: for divers of them came from far.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Luke 15:10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

Johnny: Are you going to try to tell me that Jesus had compassion upon people because of their brief, temporal needs for physical healing and food, and suffered on the cross for mankind, and yet God refuses to do all that he can in order to insure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell? A loving God who was willing to give mankind something that cost him a lot would surely be much more willing to give mankind something that would cost him little, namely sending Jesus back to earth to make some more appearances. God could not possibly have anything to lose by doing that, and surely mankind would have much to gain.

Item #2

Many Christians claim that there is a lot of evidence other than faith that reasonably proves that the Bible should be trusted, but they would surely reject THE VERY SAME EVIDENCE if the evidence said that everyone would go to hell. In other words, the number of eyewitnesses, the number of gospels, or the number of copies of ancient manuscripts would not matter at all, in fact, even if the evidence was TWICE AS GOOD as the evidence that is found in the Bible.

Regardless of the evidence, self-interest ALWAYS presumes that whenever a person is confronted by evidence that claims that he will go to hell, it is best to argue against the evidence, or if a person is uncertain to hope that the evidence was wrong. There would be no possible advantage in doing otherwise.

If a powerful being came from outer space, claimed be a God other than the God of the Bible, demonstrated FIRSTHAND in front of everyone in the world, not hearsay evidence like in the Bible, that he could destroy a mountain in one second, said that he was going to destroy the earth in six months, and left the earth, most Christians would hope that the supposed God would somehow not be able to carry out his threat. On the other hand, if a being from outer space came to earth, claimed that he was Jesus, and demonstrated THE EXACT SAME POWERS, Christians would hope, in fact assume, that the being was actually Jesus. It is interesting to note that even if that being was an imposter, as long as he provided Christians with a comfortable eternal life, that would be fine with them. Eternal comfort is the prize completely regardless of who provides it.

Hypothetical arguments are often excellent means of revealing inconsistent arguments. Christians frequently use them whenever they believe that it suits their purposes to do so. A good example is C. S. Lewis’ ‘Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.’ Evidence that cannot be consistently applied is not evidence at all.

You speak harshly about atheists (I am an agnostic), but the vast majority of people in the world are religious people. In addition, many non-Christians are much more moral than the typical Christian is. Further, the largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion was conquered by Christian nations by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property, actions that were completely contrary to the teachings in the New Testament. At any rate, the Bible does not teach that a person can go to heaven on good conduct alone. I submit that God does not have good conduct. For instance, Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" How utterly detestible. Why do you justify such awful behavior? Possibly because you are afraid to contest one single thing that God does lest you go to hell?

Do you believe that might makes right? What evidence do you have that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfect? Are you an inerrantist? If so, where is your evidence? If not, how do you pick which Scriptures are inerrant?

Writer@Large

How is this any different from a Christian coming to a nontheist website arguing the case for his deity? One would arrgue that it makes you a militant Christian trying to convert us. Does that make you hypocritical, or just upset that there are atheists out there using your tactics?

--W@L

TomboyMom

Nice to hear from the self-appointed arbiter of other people's intelligence. Could you get a little more obnoxious? No, I didn't think so. Who said anything of the kind. I believe that YOU accused us atheists of prosyletizing, not the other way around. So when you want to explain your beliefs, this is how you do it: Any wonder why there was some confusion about your intent? I didn't get any explanation or even an offer to explain. I got an insult and an invitation for others to share their opinions, which due to your apparent persecution complex, you experience as ganging up. <edit> If you want to discuss objective vs. subjective morality, and try to convince us that yours is the former (I doubt it, since we know that you believe that whatever God does is moral, no matter how heinous; I call that wildly subjective) and ours is subjective, which you haven't done, and that the former is better, and the latter cannot condemn the former, make your argument, preferably in the M F & P forum, but don't assume that you've already won the argument, since you haven't even begun to make it. And before you try, be warned that we were cutting our teeth on TAG and moral presuppositionalism before you ever heard of it.

Why take it out on us? If you wanted calm and rational discourse, why open with an insult and a taunt? Fortunately we are better at turning the other cheek than you, and can respond with thoughtful and rational posts despite your rude OP.

babelfish

So far, this has been one of the most excellent points ignored in this thread.

BadBadBad

To decide that God is the standard of morality, you have made a judgement. What moral standards did you base this judgement upon?

Supposed? I thought the stories told in the Bible were supposedly true. Do you allow for the possibility these stories are fiction?

Would you accept that sane people could rationally conclude that either, the stories are fiction, or that the god entity described in the story is immoral?

These stories supposedly demonstrate God's ultimate standard for morality. Why would these stories then not be a guide for how we should behave?

Don't you think that could be important? Let's say you were with Joshua. Joshua puts a sword in your hand and asks you to hack and butcher a begging child to death. Would you want to know God's ultimate reasons then? What if you found that the ultimate reason was to appease God's jealousy, wrath, and vengeance?

.

We're talking about ultimate standards for morality. What do you understand about God to conclude that he is the ultimate standard for morality?

Really? Why would you conclude that? Accepting for a moment that you conclude there must be a god, why do you presume that this god must have revealed himself to mankind other than through our existence? Why would you presume that this god would reveal himself to a limited number of people in a limited period of time, and that this would be the only revelation of his existence?

My moral standards are the same as yours. Except that when you conclude God is motivating your actions, you might abandon your own sense of morality.

Johnny Skeptic

Sure you do. You have judged that you approve of God's choice to provide you with a comfortable eternal life. Who wouldn't appreciate a comfortable eternal life if they believed that it was available?

funinspace

Hum…wants a dog pile, but wants a calm and rational discussion. What would Yoda say?…Confuuused, this man iseth

This is an interesting topic "you cannot condemn my morality because your morality is subjective", if you wanted a topic? Now obviously you are not saying us heathens cannot condemn in the literal sense, because we can whether it's logical or not. So I'll assume your saying that someone who has a subjective moral worldview has no rational/reasoned place from which to criticize the morals of another. I wouldn't argue that my standards are necessarily better, just different. And as a society we all join the big tussle to come up with legal and social standards, which necessarily evolve over time.

However, I suspect that you consider your moral standards to be absolute due to your God. True? Well, if not the rest is waisted type... Now I wouldn't quibble with a purported God's moral standard being absolute, if such a entity existed. However, since your God didn't exactly lay out a huge clearly laid out list regarding morality, you have to use your subjective mind (like all other Christians) and come up with your moral standard. And that ends up meaning that your moral standard is also necessarily subjective. I think this is well evidenced by the wide variety of Christian views on all sorts of moral issues. Here's a simple one that Christians cannot agree on: What defines adultery, especially within the Hebrew canon? Other items could be compared and contrasted as well like alcohol or premarital sex.