Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Radorth · 04-30-2003, 08:03 AM

Re Nogo:

Quote:

What you are implying is that in the Kingdom of God you will not have free will otherwise there is the possibility of sin and all that comes with it (at least according to your way of thinking).

Correcto. However you are still avoiding the issue of whether you would agree to live here, as it is. Obviously the Bible tells us of a "world to come" which will be better than this one, but that has nothing to do with the question I'm asking.

Quote:

And on this subject, I wonder when Radorth will tell us that evolutionary biology owes its existence to Xtianity, and that Darwin was only describing something clearly written about in the Bible.

Speaking of off-thread comments. I guess Ip doesn't want to respond to my points. (Some day we must discuss how Augustine's revelation beat Darwin to the punch by 1400 years, when the former postulated a less presumptious theory of evolution which no "scientific" discovery has yet disproved).

Rad

Rhea · 04-30-2003, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen T-B
Hello Butlerk
I thought this thread was developing well until all at once it seemed to shoot off at a tangent, referring to posts and arguments I still can�t find in it.

I was confused by this too, until I realized that they were probably quoting from the essays (links provided on page 1). Although they didn't say who they were quoting. I'm guessing that's what they meant.

Stephen T-B · 04-30-2003, 08:20 AM

Just interested - do these essays have anything to do with the OP?

Rhea · 04-30-2003, 08:24 AM

Yes, they seem to be related to the OP.

Quote:

Originally posted by Cofffee
Hmm, I've never read the book, but here's an II section that critiques "The Case for Faith" - titled Objections Sustained!.

While I was still seeking, I read Strobel's The Case For Christ. It left me with more questions than answers.

She made it seem like she was on a quest to get the facts about Christianity, but her final decision to "choose" Christ seemed to be mainly an emotional one. I was a little disappointed, because I was expecting a bit more substance.

I went on to read Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a verdict and while yet a Christian at the time, even I could see through his weak arguments...This is the book to read if you want a good laugh at poor apologetics. The II even wrote an excellent rebuttal for it called The Jury is In.

There's lots of other critiques in the II's apologetics section.

Yellum Notnef · 04-30-2003, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
I suspect Fenton and Daggah well knew I was being facetious (as virtually everyone else knows) but are just, typically, baiting Rad. Anyone besides them think not?

Calm down old timer. Nobody is "baiting" you,but we would like you to cut out the nonsense.

Btw,
If anyone is looking for Rad's "The Case For Atheism",it's not that hard to find.
You don't even need to be able to read very well to spot it at the bookstore.
Just look for the book with a picture of a scarecrow on the dust jacket.

[horn sound] Waa Waaaaaaa[/horn sound]

luvluv · 04-30-2003, 09:36 AM

lpetrich:

Quote:

That may be an overstatement, but that is what many people have believed about those who believe in religions other than theirs.

Just to name one example, I wonder what luvluv thinks about the Islamic Paradise -- does he think that anyone who believes in it is grossly gullible?

Also, the large majority of people who have ever lived have NOT believed in luvluv's favorite brand of religion. Which is still true today, no matter what sect luvluv believes in.

Hey, you're looking at the last person who would ever be disrespectful of the deep, intellectual traditions of other religions, particularly Islam and Judaism. I have the highest respect for many medieval Islamic philosophers and many contemporary and ancient Jewish ones (Averroes, Mahominindes, etc [excuse the inevitable mispellings]). Hey, half my Bible is written by ancient Jewish philsophers!

I believe that theism in general is a reasonable view, one that is suggested by many things about our world, and I wouldn't consider anyone who believes any particular brand of theism to be stupid, or brainwashed, or lead sheeplike. You're dead wrong about that. I respectfull disagree with them while having enough respect for their intelligence and honesty to believe that there intellects, along with tradition, brought them to that viewpoint legitimately.

It is not necessary to DEGRADE one's opponents, nor to underestimate them, in order to disagree with them. I disagree with you guys but I do not come in here calling you a bunch of anti-god communist perverts who only try to avoid the reality of theism so that they can persue their sexual desires. I can fathom that you might have good intellectual and experiential reasons for your atheism and I can discuss those with you with full respect for your intellectual integrity.

It's called class.

Quote:

And the same can be said about religions and ideologies and sacred books that luvluv rejects.

You bet your sweet bippy! But you'll never catch me calling them stupid or sheeplike or dishonest.

Biff the unclean · 04-30-2003, 10:32 AM

Class?

I can't help but notice, luvluv, that you only name religions that have the same "base" god as the one you believe in. And since these are only extensions of your own beliefs I, for one, would be very surprised if you called them stupid or sheep like or dishonest.

I'd be more impressed if you sang the praises of believers in polytheism. Or would you not try to convert followers of Maui, Kane and Pele out of respect for their theism?

Rhea · 04-30-2003, 11:32 AM

Take the Raelians, for example. I was appalled at the newsmedia snickering and laughing at their beliefs when the claim of a cloned baby was made.

Luvluv - do you afford them respect and admiration? Does your "class" extend to them as well?

(giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming yes until you answer...)

NOGO · 04-30-2003, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Radorth
Correcto. However you are still avoiding the issue of whether you would agree to live here, as it is.

I agree with Eccles. on this one.

... a live dog is better than a dead lion.

But you agree that a better world is possible since Jesus promised it. So God is giving us a raw deal.

Radorth · 04-30-2003, 09:38 PM

Nogo, please don't take half my words and tell me what I agree on in order to bolster your own views and assertions. I'll let you know what I agree with you on as I have with several other atheists.

For one thing, Jesus was apeaking of a Kingdom without atheists claiming "There is no God, therefore I have no sin." He's talking about a kingdom of willing servants for another, inherited by the meek, the humble and repentant. Should be quite the little heaven, as we won't need cops, war, welfare departments, government handouts to irresponsible people who bring children into the world, etc. And of course there won't be any phony religious people. Maybe we can agree that will be a good thing.

The only "raw deal" is the one he's getting for dying for your sins, and having you reject him.

But tell us this: If most of what the Christians claim (see Nicene Creed) turns out to be true, will you serve God? Or will you continue to vilify him for supposedly "murdering" millions of people or allowing them to die in wars, etc? Under what conditions would you decide to serve God? What if, for example, you find out most of the "innocent" he supposedly "murdered" were saved?

Rad

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

04-30-2003, 08:20 AM	#93
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	Just interested - do these essays have anything to do with the OP?

04-30-2003, 10:32 AM	#97
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	Class? I can't help but notice, luvluv, that you only name religions that have the same "base" god as the one you believe in. And since these are only extensions of your own beliefs I, for one, would be very surprised if you called them stupid or sheep like or dishonest. I'd be more impressed if you sang the praises of believers in polytheism. Or would you not try to convert followers of Maui, Kane and Pele out of respect for their theism?

04-30-2003, 11:32 AM	#98
Rhea Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Recluse Posts: 9,040	Take the Raelians, for example. I was appalled at the newsmedia snickering and laughing at their beliefs when the claim of a cloned baby was made. Luvluv - do you afford them respect and admiration? Does your "class" extend to them as well? (giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming yes until you answer...)

04-30-2003, 09:38 PM	#100
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	Nogo, please don't take half my words and tell me what I agree on in order to bolster your own views and assertions. I'll let you know what I agree with you on as I have with several other atheists. For one thing, Jesus was apeaking of a Kingdom without atheists claiming "There is no God, therefore I have no sin." He's talking about a kingdom of willing servants for another, inherited by the meek, the humble and repentant. Should be quite the little heaven, as we won't need cops, war, welfare departments, government handouts to irresponsible people who bring children into the world, etc. And of course there won't be any phony religious people. Maybe we can agree that will be a good thing. The only "raw deal" is the one he's getting for dying for your sins, and having you reject him. But tell us this: If most of what the Christians claim (see Nicene Creed) turns out to be true, will you serve God? Or will you continue to vilify him for supposedly "murdering" millions of people or allowing them to die in wars, etc? Under what conditions would you decide to serve God? What if, for example, you find out most of the "innocent" he supposedly "murdered" were saved? Rad

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.