Freethought & Rationalism Archive

7thangel · 03-25-2003, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
I cannot speak for the other mods of this forum, but if you want to start a thread and outline your challenge, I'll ensure that it stays on track.

PM me if you want to discuss specific parametres. (make sure your PM is active as well).

Thanks for the respond, Wyz. I will think of something that we all can both agree.

Celsus · 03-25-2003, 09:16 PM

What was wrong with my original challenge? <grumbles>

Joel

keyser_soze · 03-26-2003, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Celsus
What was wrong with my original challenge? <grumbles>

Joel

Dont' know, but my grill sat around not doing anything until lit by myself!

Keith Russell · 03-26-2003, 07:29 AM

Good morning.

People don't propose challenges to demonstrate the colour of the sky to one another, nor to show that human beings exist, nor that death is final.

If 'God' were so powerfully self-evident, no one would feel any need to propose challenges to convince anyone that 'God' exists.

Anyone who self-identifies as 'atheist' is more than aware of the various concepts of 'God'.

We atheists have each already challenged 'God', and found the concept more than wanting.

Keith.

Baloo · 03-26-2003, 08:38 AM

Quote:

7th angel:
I am making a point why such challenges are not accepted by showing the complication of making such challenges because of clash in principles, and also of no intention subjecting to the winner. Which bring me back Baloo's challenge, where I noted in his thread the problem of no interest of following me, such as agreeing with my beliefs. Becasue in such scenario, it really does not benefit God becasue Baloo will just create scism in the church of God because of going on with his(baloo) own beliefs. And having such beliefs that contradict my God, he(baloo) therefore will still remain an enemy of God. And that is the like scenario of what Angrilori quoted about those false prophets of baal. And that the story of Elijah challenging the false prophets, the real beneficiary are those who believed. So if you challenge God without intention of subjecting unto Him, then it will have no benefit for you, and for God as well. And if such challenge will not benefit you, there is no reason for us Christians to accept it.

7th, it was not my intention to propose a challenge which, if passed, would threaten the unity of the church. As such, I'll make a small ammendment: any theist who desires may PM me, state their revealed number, and ask that the results be kept forever between the two of us (or even to myself, if you don't even want to know the results). The only sign of a correct guess will be my sudden decision to explore Christianity, for myself, following all of the original criteria, but w/o ever telling anyone about the success of the challenge (not on the board, not in my life). Naturally, I will keep unsuccessful challenges to myself as well - in fact, if requested, I will not even mention whether I've recieved any challenges from anyone.

Fiach · 03-26-2003, 03:17 PM

7th Angel says: And having such beliefs that contradict my God, he(baloo) therefore will still remain an enemy of God.

You see the basic problem with Christianity as with other theims is that its very nature of vaguenss and fuzzy concepts invite schisms.

That is why there are 2000 Christianities in the USA alone. You have a God whom you can't rationally define. You have the Trinity that is not really 3 but 1, and not really 1 but 3. You have a god-human deity, Jesus, who is both human and god. And the human part doesn't appear very informed about the world. He is the creator but doesn't know that he created the bacillus for Leprosy, and thinks it is due to sin. He doesn't know about epilepsy thinking it to be demonic possession. He doesn't know that the world is a sphere, yet he supposedly invented it. He was supposed to die and resurrect in three days but he did it in 36 hours or so.

All of this is likely to split people into groups. One tries to explain away the errors by saying that Jesus didn't want to enlighten the people too fast, or didn't want to confuse them, or wanted to sidestep the germ theory to get them to reform morally, all the way to fundamentalists who also don't believe in the germ theory of disease, electrochemical mechanisms of epilepsy, and perhaps the shape of the Earth.

Fiach

7thangel · 03-26-2003, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fiach
[b]7th Angel says: And having such beliefs that contradict my God, he(baloo) therefore will still remain an enemy of God.

You see the basic problem with Christianity as with other theims is that its very nature of vaguenss and fuzzy concepts invite schisms.

Well, schisms also exist even in atheism. What should we realize is that all men do not have the same knowledge, and that man have no power at all to control man's way of thinking, nor to force what to think. And such differences in knowledge by itself does more harm than we think. See the posters in this site? They proclaim themselves scientists as if they knew better and of that which is good. But what made them post unlikely of how they characterize themselves? It happens to both atheists and theists. My point is that if we do not understand something, as in when we see a doctrine deemed vague, does not give us the right to condemn it, worst be against it. However, if we really see it us nonsense and very harmful to humanity, then we have the right to be against it.

Quote:

That is why there are 2000 Christianities in the USA alone. You have a God whom you can't rationally define. You have the Trinity that is not really 3 but 1, and not really 1 but 3. You have a god-human deity, Jesus, who is both human and god. And the human part doesn't appear very informed about the world. He is the creator but doesn't know that he created the bacillus for Leprosy, and thinks it is due to sin. He doesn't know about epilepsy thinking it to be demonic possession. He doesn't know that the world is a sphere, yet he supposedly invented it. He was supposed to die and resurrect in three days but he did it in 36 hours or so.

All of this is likely to split people into groups. One tries to explain away the errors by saying that Jesus didn't want to enlighten the people too fast, or didn't want to confuse them, or wanted to sidestep the germ theory to get them to reform morally, all the way to fundamentalists who also don't believe in the germ theory of disease, electrochemical mechanisms of epilepsy, and perhaps the shape of the Earth.

Fiach

There were a lot of verses that made no sense to me yet I did not lose my faith in God. Believe me, even the very first time I heard of baptism, I depended on my understanding that the true baptism of water does not really mean to be literally dipped in water. Now I came to understand that my presumption about the true baptism of water was correct. Hence I probably could not answer all vague things that you see in the Bible, all I can say is that you hold on to believe in God.

But if you could understand in the whole concept, in principle, it will not be reasonable for all of us to be the same, in knowledge, in gifts of healing, in physical abilities, etc. Simply because we will lose meaning as a church, as a body. The implication is that if none needs anyone becasue of having the same thing and needing the same thing, then what is the meaning of sharing, or how will we define harmony? God had made us like parts of the body, not all having the same things, and that our perfection is being a part of a body, not as being independent of ourself. So my point is maybe God had not given you understand of those vague things you enumerated. I myself do not have much knowledge of the Bible, but I have learn something which I consider very wise and kept me hoping of God.

In any case, I do not agree with the trinity concept. Such doctrine had made me realized the apostasy of the church.

orac · 03-26-2003, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 7thangel
To all:

I have a question:

Would you like a challenge in which if can met the challenge, you will follow and defend my theistic beliefs?

You've rejected every proposal, by saying that testing God isn't actually allowed, and now you're telling us to offer a challenge. Why is that?

And what challenge would you consider acceptable? Clearly you won't accept biblical challenges (though you haven't explained why we're "different" to the Baal-ites, for some reason.)

If you want to be taken seriously, tell us what sort of challenge you would consider acceptable, and we'll tell you if it qualifies as even vaguely convincing. If nothing else, once you offer your side, then we'll have a better chance of working towards a middle ground that's acceptable to everyone. Then we can finally persuade every last atheist that you're right - at least we can if you are right.

You've claimed God wants us to be intellectually convinced, but have offered nothing to convince us.

You've claimed that there is a valid test, but refused to tell us what it is.

Is there any chance that you'll actually contribute to this discussion, or do you want to just keep telling us that we don't understand and that you're not going to explain anything?

You already know what we want. You know what sort of challenge we want - and even that it's biblically valid. Will you please get around to telling us what sort of challenge is acceptable? (Or are you afraid that there is no challenge that can be met by God? Just how weak powerless and fearful is your deity?)

Fiach · 03-26-2003, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 7thangel
Well, schisms also exist even in atheism.

That is not possible. One cannot differ about a total lack of a belief. Atheists as human beings can disagree about politics, economics, ethics, sports, and some areas of scientific hypothesis (e.g. that a comet killed the dinosaurs, of which I disagree.)

What should we realize is that all men do not have the same knowledge, and that man have no power at all to control man's way of thinking, nor to force what to think.

Right.

And such differences in knowledge by itself does more harm than we think. See the posters in this site?

Differences are good. It is people who doubted the status quo and differed with orthodoxy who have accounted for all progress.

They proclaim themselves scientists as if they knew better and of that which is good.

As scientists we do know more about the natural world. What is your argument with that? I don't know more about neurophysiology, behavioural neurology, and neuroanatomy than others in my field. But I know more than a geologist about neuroscience. The geologist knows more geology than I. But both of us know more about natural science in general than an English teacher, a lawyer, or a fridge repairman.

But what made them post unlikely of how they characterize themselves?

I had not noticed that such was happening.

It happens to both atheists and theists.

Both Atheists and Theists may be conservatives, or libertarians, or socialists, or liberals, stamp collectors, supporters of different sports teams. Differences of opinion are healthy. Conformity is totalitarianism.

My point is that if we do not understand something, as in when we see a doctrine deemed vague, does not give us the right to condemn it, worst be against it. However, if we really see it us nonsense and very harmful to humanity, then we have the right to be against it.

Aye, for me if a thesis is ill written, incoherent, vague, difficult to make any valid points that even its adherents believe, then there is enough of a flaw to doubt the entire document. If there is a God and if he wants us to be exactly dogmatically correct he would have made his scripture clear and unequivocal, not vague, error filled, and self-contradictory.

There were a lot of verses that made no sense to me yet I did not lose my faith in God.

I respect you for admitting that. I respect that you can think for yourself in your belief and do not let your mind be led by obviously flawed scriptures.

Believe me, even the very first time I heard of baptism, I depended on my understanding that the true baptism of water does not really mean to be literally dipped in water. Now I came to understand that my presumption about the true baptism of water was correct. Hence I probably could not answer all vague things that you see in the Bible, all I can say is that you hold on to believe in God.

If you believe in a god because you think and it makes sense to you, that is superior to those who believe merely on authority. Then they use as authority a book that is factually and morally badly flawed. In this way you are immune to the common atheistic refutations of Christianity, the demonstations of the badly flawed Bible.

But if you could understand in the whole concept, in principle, it will not be reasonable for all of us to be the same, in knowledge, in gifts of healing, in physical abilities, etc. Simply because we will lose meaning as a church, as a body. The implication is that if none needs anyone becasue of having the same thing and needing the same thing, then what is the meaning of sharing, or how will we define harmony? God had made us like parts of the body, not all having the same things, and that our perfection is being a part of a body, not as being independent of ourself.

As social animals we survive partly because we are different. We have individuals who are better at some tasks and not so good at others. I think I am a good, successful neuroscientist, but a mediocre fiddler, and less than average gardener.

So my point is maybe God had not given you understand of those vague things you enumerated. I myself do not have much knowledge of the Bible, but I have learn something which I consider very wise and kept me hoping of God.

In any case, I do not agree with the trinity concept. Such doctrine had made me realized the apostasy of the church.

Thanks 7th Angel. I think I have come to respect your mind, even though we arrive at different beliefs or lack thereof.

Fiach

BioBeing · 03-26-2003, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 7thangel
Well, schisms also exist even in atheism.

"The God I do not believe in is more unbelievable than the God you don't believe in"
"No, my God is far more irrational than yours"
"No! My un-God says his book is the truth, so it must be the one true wrong faith"
"But my un-God says that too! Only he says it better!"
"Yeah, well take that, splitter!" <punches other guy on the nose>

Yup - we athesist just keep forming those schisms...

Quote:

Hence I probably could not answer all vague things that you see in the Bible, all I can say is that you hold on to believe in God.

However vague, convoluted, contradictory and just plain silly that belief is.

Quote:

So my point is maybe God had not given you understand of those vague things you enumerated.

So God is keeping us from God. He doesn't want to save us. <BioBeing goes off to check for a 666 tatooed on his body somewhere...>

03-26-2003, 07:29 AM	#74
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Over and done already... Good morning. People don't propose challenges to demonstrate the colour of the sky to one another, nor to show that human beings exist, nor that death is final. If 'God' were so powerfully self-evident, no one would feel any need to propose challenges to convince anyone that 'God' exists. Anyone who self-identifies as 'atheist' is more than aware of the various concepts of 'God'. We atheists have each already challenged 'God', and found the concept more than wanting. Keith.

03-26-2003, 03:17 PM	#76
Fiach Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Scotland, UK Posts: 602	Schism 7th Angel says: And having such beliefs that contradict my God, he(baloo) therefore will still remain an enemy of God. You see the basic problem with Christianity as with other theims is that its very nature of vaguenss and fuzzy concepts invite schisms. That is why there are 2000 Christianities in the USA alone. You have a God whom you can't rationally define. You have the Trinity that is not really 3 but 1, and not really 1 but 3. You have a god-human deity, Jesus, who is both human and god. And the human part doesn't appear very informed about the world. He is the creator but doesn't know that he created the bacillus for Leprosy, and thinks it is due to sin. He doesn't know about epilepsy thinking it to be demonic possession. He doesn't know that the world is a sphere, yet he supposedly invented it. He was supposed to die and resurrect in three days but he did it in 36 hours or so. All of this is likely to split people into groups. One tries to explain away the errors by saying that Jesus didn't want to enlighten the people too fast, or didn't want to confuse them, or wanted to sidestep the germ theory to get them to reform morally, all the way to fundamentalists who also don't believe in the germ theory of disease, electrochemical mechanisms of epilepsy, and perhaps the shape of the Earth. Fiach

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

03-25-2003, 09:16 PM	#72
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	What was wrong with my original challenge? <grumbles> Joel

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.