DaninGraniteCity

Oh yay, a presuppositionalist.

greyline

I wasn't trying to "convince" you of anything. I asked a simple question - one that you haven't answered.


You must be aware that many people in this world, and through the ages, have recognised God. They know they recognised God just as fervently as you know you did.

Yet curiously, they recognise various different Gods.

All these people know they've found the truth, as do you, yet it's an entirely different truth from yours. So how do you know you're right and they're wrong?

Unless you have superhuman powers...

DaninGraniteCity

He knows this because it's a priori. He has an Infallible Oracle called the Holy Bible. The Bible says that the knowledge of God is in our hearts. Therefore, that is true and that is not compromisible. If you attempt to respond to him, he'll assert that you're borrowing from his world view. He will never provide substance for this assertion, because there isn't a page of the Scripture and Christian history where reason is not surrendered for faith. So, you need to accept Jesus or else you will be inconsistent in your epistemology because science is Christian, even though Yahweh expresses to the first pair of humans that they can not learn right and wrong.

newtype_alpha

How did I ever miss this post?

Nothing to be diturbed about. Some atheists deny theism in general due to lack of evidene to support it, others deny it tactically due to evidence that certain aspects of theism (or specific religions) are false. I think it's the difference between hard atheists and soft atheists (slap me if I'm using a term incorrectly).

Plognark

The division is typically strong/weak, I rarely hear the hard/soft descriptors unless it's a fundamentalist trying to falsely lump atheism in with communism as a "hard" atheism.

Man, this lousy thread is giving me TAG flashbacks. I think i'll go puke now. :banghead:

post tenebras lux

Hi Spu', you sure seem to have something against the blind; something that I take rather personally. Plus you don't seem to be bothered to find out what the bible claims is the causes of blindness: is it demons; sin; or the will of your god? Why do you keep on having this need to dis' the blind Spu'?

Which reminds me, dear 'Absolute Certainty' one: you've yet to back up your alleged Helen Keller 'quote' with any valid references.

Here, to remind you is your alleged quote
I've asked you to provide references but you have so far declined to do so. (NOTE: linking me to a website that lists the quote but then references it as 'unsourced' does not count).
You can either: retract the quote and admit that you do not actually know if it is a genuine Helen Keller quote or a bogus one; or you can provide valid references for it.

Then again, you could always decline to do either and I will be forced to assume that you were being dishonest when you presented it as a Helen Keller quote, especially as it appears to contradict her actual know position on the subject.
To point out how dishonest, here's that quote of yours in its original context:
She usually didn't thank your god for being blind Spu', and it's sick of you to suggest that she ever did say what you claim she said unless you can provide adequate proof - even if I won't demand on absolute certainty.

Thanks in advance for your kind response.
And 'here's looking at you, Spu', although not literally of course.

Luxie

Classical

My original question of why would anyone want to be an atheist is answered by Spuleeah in the following manner:

"No one in their right mind would want to be an atheist unless they are deliberately ignoring god and scripture due to satan controlling them and placing reason above the authority of scripture" (obviously this is not a direct quote, but a summary of the posts.

First off, Spuleeah, I would have written your posts for many years, because I believed exactly as you do now. However, I would say the main reason for the start of my deconversion was because of reading scripture. In my teens I read the bible all the way through and many things struck me as "odd" for lack of a better word, but even the horrendous acts of god-ordained violence did not change my belief in the bible being god's word and the sole source of truth.

Then, in my twenties, I read it through a second time with commentaries and took careful notes. Many more things struck me as odd and unbelievable in this adult reading and one of the questions which popped into my head was this: What did people rely on for truth before the bible was written, or even before the invention of the printing press when very few but religious leaders had copies of the texts? Obviously, the world was very heavily populated from east to west at the times the scripture was being written and at that time many civilizations had no knowledge of each other, thus no knowledge of any type of religious writing that was taking place. Why in the world would a god deliver "truth" in a written form only to the people lucky enough to live after it was written and even luckier to live in modern times where there are millions of copies everywhere. (I guess you would say because god can do anything he chooses, but I don't think a just god would deliberately leave so many in the dark for thousands of years).

One question led to another until I read a book which crushed my faith in the bible and christianity, forever. It is called "Is it God's Word?" by Joseph Wheless. The reading of this book seemed to convince me beyond any doubt that the bible was the work of man and had hundreds and hundreds of contradictions. Not wanting my source of truth to be trashed, I desperately sought explanations for the accused contadictions by the greatest christian apologists I could find. After much reading and research I had to answer in my own mind if I was convinced the contraditions could be explained and unfortunately the answer was no. Much more reading and research followed, placing opposing arguments side by side, which only furthered my disbelief.

Now back to the questions of why would anyone want to be an atheist, I can say that I see no reason to want to be, it just happens due to lack of tangible, hard evidence in some kind of an invisible personal god. With that said, however, I still claim to be an agnostic. Why? I still have too many questions and I am reading more scientific works and the counter arguments to ID before I could say there are no gods.

But as far as relying on "scripture," forget it. I consider the bible a literary masterpiece in many parts, but overall it is mythology and history. I am convinced of this, and whether or not you are is of no relevance to me, except for when you begin to use the bible as a weapon to legislate a very primitive moral code on me - which is happening even as we speak! :down:

(Spuleeah, you should read my book. I wrote a detailed account of my deconversion and I doubt that you would have much to say to me upon reading how unwillingly I gave up my "faith.")

muidiri

Hmm... You know the only counter I've heard to this is that god KNEW that all those people would not be open to them, so he did not give them the choice, because obviously they would have chose wrong if he had done so...

It's interesting when people have to make excuses for their version of god's misbehavior.

Jack the Bodiless

We have had many presuppositionalists here. And it soon becomes apparent that claims such as this are merely the regurgitation of dogma.

Yes, I CAN do the same. Yes, I DO have an epistemology that is at least equal (actually, superior) to yours.

Your reason for claiming otherwise has no basis in fact: it is what you prefer to believe. By stating this belief as if it were fact, you are merely demonstrating some of that "arrogance" we've been discussing.

muidiri

Spuleeah, have you read the books of any other faith? If so, on what basis do you reject them as true?

I challenge you to go read the Q'uoran, the Torah, the Baghavad Gita, or the Tao te Ching, and then give us the REASONS why you reject it as true, even though it claims to be completely true and the word of god. As an added spice to this challenge - Reject your chosen religious book WITHOUT using any parts of the christian bible as your reason. If the books of other faiths are completely false, it should be obviously so, and since you are an intelligent and well educated person, you should be able to refute it without resorting to "The bible says so".