Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rev. Timothy G. Muse · 09-23-2004, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

???

This post is as circular as the rest of your argument. You may regard it as "unwise" because you "see the light" of God's "revelation and authority". That's all part of your belief system, of course. We atheists? We don't "see the light", so to speak, so we don't consider it "unwise" to "disregard" something we lack belief in.

Get this through your head, Rev: we atheists lack belief in said God, do not see any such "revelation", and obviously don't grant a God we lack belief in any "authority". Your veiled threat of how "unwise" that may be (according to your beliefs) do not phase us.

You're basically just regurgitating Pascal's Wager here.

I fully understand the Atheist position; but challenge the Foolishness of it.

Mageth · 09-23-2004, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Timothy G. Muse

I fully understand the Atheist position; but challenge the Foolishness of it.

Calling the atheistic position "Foolishness" is just regurgitating more of the doctrine of the Bible. More circularity, in other words.

Plognark · 09-23-2004, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Timothy G. Muse

I fully understand the Atheist position; but challenge the Foolishness of it.

The understanding you've displayed is about as accurate as if I called all Christians sheep fuckers. Please don't pretend to knowledge when you have little regarding what you're arguing against.

TomboyMom · 09-23-2004, 10:20 AM

Rev. Muse:

If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that it says in the Bible that bad things will happen to me unless I believe what it says in the Bible?

Uh, huh...that's convincing.

Hey, it says here in this Big Old Book that bad things will happen to you unless you believe what it says in this Big Old Book. Persuaded yet? Me neither.

If a thing is evident, you don't have to threaten people to get them to believe it; you can persuade them with evidence and reasoning.

Rene

chapka · 09-23-2004, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Timothy G. Muse

I do not to debate the issue of the morality of God here (& sidetrack the thread) but to point out that in light of the revelation and authority of God, it is unwise for men to disregard or deny these.

Except that your justification of your circular argument is also circular, insofar as it makes the assumption that your particular god actually has this authority and has given that word. A better analogy would be if a stranger walked up to your kids on the playground and said, "Here's a note from your father. I know it's in someone else's handwriting, but he dictated it. The note says you should get into my van and put on these blindfolds. If you don't obey your father's note, he'll be very, very angry with you and beat you black and blue when you get home. After all, he has authority over you, and it would be unwise for you to disregard or deny him."

Notice the difference between our two analogies? Would you expect your kids to obey "your" authority in this case?

Now, to make it a little more realistic, imagine that the person also has a very authentic-looking custody order saying that your father has died and the state has assigned you a new father--one you've never seen and don't know anything about. Would that make the note from the "new" father more or less believable? The one you've never seen and have no evidence exists?

Would you get into the van? Would you want your kids to? If they didn't, and it turned out the story was true, would you punish them afterwards?

Godless Wonder · 09-23-2004, 10:27 AM

It is the Christians who are "fools for Christ's sake." It says so right in the Bible, in 1 Corinthians, along with a bunch of other crap about how God has chosen the foolish things to confound the wise, to take them in there own craftiness, and that nonbelievers will be sent a "strong delusion" (in 2 thessalonians) and so on.

Now, I think that all this kind of crap is just a pack of completely transparent outright lies. The foolishness cannot be defended, so this lame excuse that God intentionally makes the Bible foolish so that only the "true believers" will not be fooled is foisted.

The Bible is a book. Many books are made by man. The Bible claims it is at least divinely inspired. That's a big claim to just swallow whole. How can you be sure it is true? Well, if you're the sort of person that believes in deity, and you wonder if this book really is divine, seems to me you ought to compare it to things which are definitely not man made. Because if something is not man made, and the deity is anything at all like what's described in the Bible, then anything not made by man must have been made by this deity, and this book ought to mesh pretty well with these non man made things. We ought to be able to look in this book and if it makes some statements about the world, then those statements, upon investigation, ought to turn out to be true. But this is not what we find at all. Not at all. The Bible is full of crap. If you believe the Bible, you must believe also that the entire world the God it describes is a massive lie designed to make the Bible look foolish, and prevent people who actually read the thing from believing it has anything to do with the truth.

Beetle · 09-23-2004, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Timothy G. Muse

In the end, even the "CIRCULAR ARGUMENT" will not fly. Going back to my earlier illustration, I as a father, who is in a position and exercises authority over my children... my childre have a right to think or believe as if they ultimately in charge of their decisions and destiny, but in the end, I will deal with their choices and actions accordingly. Here's the point. My children may argue that the argument for them to submit to my authority and respond appropriately is circular because "I" am the one that tells them I am in charge, and how do I do it, ... through my own WORD! But, in the end, their "circular argument" will not hold up, and they will not only receive their just reward, but additionally (on top of that!) be declared guilty and responsible for rejecting the word I gave to them.

On that same subject, it doesn't matter if the word is spoken, or given, guarded, preserved and propagated from one generation according to God's wisdom and pleasure, it still remains his word. Whether you recognize it as his word is an issue for another thread.

Bottom line: The circular argument, though it appears to float well, will also sink like a ton of bricks.

But you (presumably) have regular, direct face-to-face communication with your children. They have no reason to doubt your existence, your intentions or your power and ability to influence their lives. None of that applies regarding the christian god. We have no regular direct (and unambiguous) contact, we have no unambiguous proof of his existence. So it is perfectly reasonable to reach the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to accept the existence of the christian god as described in the Bible.

Would you accept an arguement similar to "Believe in God because the Bible is trustworthy. We know the Bible is trustworthy because God says so in the Bible" for anything else? Would you buy this arguement from Dan Rather, for instance?

maddog · 09-23-2004, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Timothy G. Muse

I do not wish to debate the issue of the morality of God here (& sidetrack the thread) ....

Too confounded late. Nothing you have said relates to the OP; every post has "sidetrack[ed] the thread." If you want to talk about God, the Bible, "relativism" and how "Jesus is on the throne," circular arguments and "Foolishness of atheisim," I'm sure IrishGuy would appreciate it if you would please start your own thread.

Bright Life · 09-23-2004, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev. Timothy G. Muse

ignores point by point replies to his assertions and brings up a totally irrelevant analogy

Tim, you are totally ignoring everyone's responses to your assertions by dismissing valid arguments instead of addressing them.

Instead of looking within yourself and realizing that there is a moral conflict here, you are choosing to obsfucate. It's as if you are trying to convince yourself that the whole "rules of hell" thing is true and just.

If your replies weren't so self-righteous, I could probably feel sorry for you.

Rev. Timothy G. Muse · 09-23-2004, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chapka

Except that your justification of your circular argument is also circular, insofar as it makes the assumption that your particular god actually has this authority and has given that word. A better analogy would be if a stranger walked up to your kids on the playground and said, "Here's a note from your father. I know it's in someone else's handwriting, but he dictated it. The note says you should get into my van and put on these blindfolds. If you don't obey your father's note, he'll be very, very angry with you and beat you black and blue when you get home. After all, he has authority over you, and it would be unwise for you to disregard or deny him."

Notice the difference between our two analogies? Would you expect your kids to obey "your" authority in this case?

Now, to make it a little more realistic, imagine that the person also has a very authentic-looking custody order saying that your father has died and the state has assigned you a new father--one you've never seen and don't know anything about. Would that make the note from the "new" father more or less believable? The one you've never seen and have no evidence exists?

Would you get into the van? Would you want your kids to? If they didn't, and it turned out the story was true, would you punish them afterwards?

First, thanks for your serious reply, and the way you framed your argument through like analogy. This helps further useful debate (as well as sets your skills above your companions).

I follow your argument, but disagree with several issues. First, God does not just send complete "strangers", on one level he has sent his own Son (Jn 3:31-32 "The one who comes from above...The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony.") He also has sent his Spirit that accompanies the word, like an ambassador or recognizable spokesmen. (How foolish it would be for anyone or any country to reject the testimony of Colen Powell speaking on behalf of the President of the U.S.) Additionally, he sends those, who though they may be strangers in one sense, are recognizable because to some extent they have become like God (speaking truth, rightly interpreting both the Scripture and man's experience) They possess identifiable likeness and connection to the Father. [The reason they do not listen to us is that they do not know him.]

Second, the word we receive is NOT get in the van and put the blindfold on; but rather, having had the blindfold removed, come, let us lead you that you might be free and reunited with your Father.

Third, the message of Scripture is not cast in the language of a threat. (This is the message many unbelievers get because Christians often seek to warn them of their future, but if you read the Scripture, the message is one of "good news" and "great joy". The threat is only found as a warning to those who reject the message.

The disciples once said 'This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" Jesus responded 'The spirit gives life...The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe."

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

09-23-2004, 10:20 AM	#24
TomboyMom Contributor Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 10,931	Rev. Muse: If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that it says in the Bible that bad things will happen to me unless I believe what it says in the Bible? Uh, huh...that's convincing. Hey, it says here in this Big Old Book that bad things will happen to you unless you believe what it says in this Big Old Book. Persuaded yet? Me neither. If a thing is evident, you don't have to threaten people to get them to believe it; you can persuade them with evidence and reasoning. Rene

09-23-2004, 10:27 AM	#26
Godless Wonder Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 4,197	It is the Christians who are "fools for Christ's sake." It says so right in the Bible, in 1 Corinthians, along with a bunch of other crap about how God has chosen the foolish things to confound the wise, to take them in there own craftiness, and that nonbelievers will be sent a "strong delusion" (in 2 thessalonians) and so on. Now, I think that all this kind of crap is just a pack of completely transparent outright lies. The foolishness cannot be defended, so this lame excuse that God intentionally makes the Bible foolish so that only the "true believers" will not be fooled is foisted. The Bible is a book. Many books are made by man. The Bible claims it is at least divinely inspired. That's a big claim to just swallow whole. How can you be sure it is true? Well, if you're the sort of person that believes in deity, and you wonder if this book really is divine, seems to me you ought to compare it to things which are definitely not man made. Because if something is not man made, and the deity is anything at all like what's described in the Bible, then anything not made by man must have been made by this deity, and this book ought to mesh pretty well with these non man made things. We ought to be able to look in this book and if it makes some statements about the world, then those statements, upon investigation, ought to turn out to be true. But this is not what we find at all. Not at all. The Bible is full of crap. If you believe the Bible, you must believe also that the entire world the God it describes is a massive lie designed to make the Bible look foolish, and prevent people who actually read the thing from believing it has anything to do with the truth.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.