Freethought & Rationalism Archive

K · 10-08-2002, 12:43 PM

Vanderzyden:

Quote:

This appears to be a contradiction. First, you indicate that you have "concluded" that God doesn't exist. On the other hand, you inquire why God would punish you for reaching this conclusion. I wonder, are you setting yourself up to justify yourself before God on this basis? Will you say, with Bertrand Russell, "you did not give me enough evidence"?

I've addressed this many, many times before. I'm starting to believe that you are intentionally trying to twist what I say. When I speak of God having traits, I do that only to demonstrate the extreme illogicality of a being such as the normally described Christian God existing. I have absolutely no fear of being judged after death. I'll say it again. I have no belief whatsoever that the Christian God exists.

I don't believe in the Easter Bunny. How would he visit all good childrens' houses to leave candy and eggs in one night?

Do you feel that the preceeding is a contradiction because I first say I don't believe in him but then I talk about him visiting houses which wouldn't be possible if he weren't real?

Mageth · 10-08-2002, 12:50 PM

I answered the question in my first post, Van. What part of "NO" do you not understand?

Ah, I see that we have touched bottom.

You should feel right at home, then.

You know, Mageth, it's interesting. Your previous posts are full of disrespect.

Pot, kettle, black. But throw in a heapin' helpin' of condescention on your part.

Now, when I take pains to be respectful in asking a simple, straight-forward question, you refuse to answer and insist that I am rude. Quite puzzling, to say the least.

I answered it, which you'd know if you'd read it carefully. Yes, I consider it rude to respond to my "I was raised by Christian parents" with your sugarcoated "But perhaps they were not TRUE christians." Seeing as how I do consider it rude, a True Christian would apologize, would they not, and not attempt to defend their rudeness?

You should know that I checked this over with my wife. By all accounts, she is the sweetest person I know, and she finds the question most reasonable.

The question is not whether or not you, your wife, or Miss Manners finds it "reasonable," is it, but whether I find it insulting?

I indicated that I don't know your parents, yet you say that I accuse them. Furthermore, I ask the question knowing positively of several examples where people have been heavily influenced by those who claim to follow Christ, but apparently do not. Also, you indicate that you agree this is possible when you insinuate that I may not be a follower of Christ.

All the sweet-talking you added did nothing to hide the fact that you were accusing other believers of whom you know nothing of not being True Believers. What would your Christ think of that, do you suppose?

Your reply indicates that you are being defensive, in one way or another.

Yes, I'm defensive of my parents, whom I love and respect very much. All good sons are, IMO.

Is it that you really think I'm insulting your parents, or are you simply unsure if your own beliefs are fully justifiable?

You were insulting my parents. If my saying that several times is not enough for you to realize it and apologize, then IMO you're "bearing more bad fruit."

You see, Mageth, if you really thought this was all a bunch of hogwash, we should not be able to detect this defensive posture.

(Why do I always seem to run into the obnoxious psychoanalyst-wannabe xians?)

My defending my parents has nothing to do with my personal religious (dis)belief. I happen to love my parents and respect their beliefs even though I disagree with them, and I will defend them as I see fit, thank you.

If you were really sure that Jesus is no one you should be concerned with, then you wouldn't care if your parents followed him or not.

Well, I happen to love my parents the way they are, beliefs and all. I'm sure I'd still love them if they didn't have those beliefs.

I know my parents, they genuinely believe, and I respect that and in no way am attempting to change their beliefs.

If you had critically researched the truth claims of the Bible for yourself and found them all lacking, then you wouldn't react emotionally as you just did.

How in hell do you know how I'm capable of reacting in any situation?

I've told you I have researched the "truth claims" several times now. Get over it; some people look at the same "truth claims" you do and come to different conclusions. Why is this so hard for you to accept?

So, will you answer the question or not:

Is it possible that your parents, or those who had influence over you, were following Christ during your childhood?

Already answered, and, with all due respect, and not meaning to be insulting, <insert appropriate phrase that implies something along the line of "up yours">. (Come to think of it, that should have been my original answer.)

Alternatively, is it possible that a "devout Christian" is no follower of Jesus at all, but merely just another religious person?

What was it Jesus said about moats and logs?

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

K · 10-08-2002, 01:22 PM

Mageth:

What's this? An atheist with the moral fiber to defend the honor of his/her parents? Who accepts and loves them despite the fact that they hold different beliefs? By most Christian accounts, you shouldn't exist.

I applaud your character and I sincerely hope your parents are aware of the upstanding human being they have raised.

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: K ]

Mageth · 10-08-2002, 01:24 PM

Thanks, K.

Jack the Bodiless · 10-08-2002, 01:26 PM

Vander:

Quote:

Ah, I see that we have touched bottom.

You know, Mageth, it's interesting. Your previous posts are full of disrespect. Now, when I take pains to be respectful in asking a simple, straight-forward question, you refuse to answer and insist that I am rude. Quite puzzling, to say the least.

And yet YOU have repeatedly used "Oh, my, he's being rude to me!" as an excuse to disengage from awkward situations. How "interesting".

I note that you are struggling rather desperately to come up with ANY explanation of atheism rather than the obvious one: lack of belief based on lack of evidence (and existence of contrary evidence).

We "must" be prideful. Or we "must" have been raised by False Christians(tm). Or whatever.

You repeatedly ignore all posts and comments to the contrary. Even when Mageth explains that he has searched for 45 years and found nothing, you ignore what he says, invent some baloney about False Christians, then pounce on something else you can use as an excuse to avoid confronting the truth: his imaginary sensitivity (actually, his perfectly reasonable frustration at your tactics).

Yes, Vander, we HAVE "touched bottom". Your evasion has long since passed all bounds of reason. You're certainly not fooling anyone else, but your deliberate efforts to fool yourself are very interesting to behold.

You cite "overwhelming evidence" that you do not present. You blatantly ignore the problem of contradictory evidence: anyone who suggests such evidence exists is being "insulting". You even sought to support your claim that the evidence is obvious by quoting the Bible's claim that it is!

Perhaps you should peruse an old thread of mine, <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=001973&p=" target="_blank">The Argument from Incomprehension</a>

Here is what I said then:

Quote:

According to theists, the true distinction between theists and atheists is that theists have knowledge which the atheist lacks, some sort of special revelation or information-channel to God. The atheist, conversely, believes that the theist has become locked into a wish-fulfilment fantasy, and this personal sense of "oneness with God" is a delusion. In either case, it is reasonable to assume that there will be a "comprehension gap" between those who share the revelation/delusion and those who do not: we expect the atheist to have difficulty understanding the worldview of the theist.

However, in many discussions I have noticed that the most severe comprehension block operates in the opposite direction, with the theist struggling to comprehend (or flatly refusing to comprehend) some aspect of atheism. Examples vary from one theist to another, but include such things as an inability to comprehend how random mutation and natural selection can lead to increased complexity without divine guidance, or how morality can possibly be subjective, or how anyone can have morals without belief in God. Over and over again, the atheist is the one trying to explain things to the theist. Why does this keep happening?

A related issue is "why do so many theists use such lame arguments"? There are many so-called "proofs of the existence of God", and all of them contain blatant logical fallacies and holes big enough to drive a truck through: flaws which should be rather obvious, yet the patient atheist again struggles to point them out to the theist.

So what's going on here? Of course, there are theists who fully accept that religion is "a matter of faith" and won't try to justify their belief with a "logical argument", but in many other cases it seems that the atheist, rather than the theist, has an understanding which the theist lacks. And this fits with the correlation between atheism and scientific understanding: atheists are in the minority in the general population, but most modern scientists are atheists, with the most accomplished ones being the most atheistic (Scientific American did a survey on this, which also showed that biologists, those most familiar with the "miracle of life", were the most atheistic among scientists).

Coclusion: far from being atheists who have "something extra", many theists seem to have "something lacking" when compared to atheists. This isn't what could reasonably be expected if there is a deity of which some people have knowledge: it is more consistent with the model of religion as a dysfunction...

...As SingleDad said, "Just because we don't agree doesn't mean we don't understand". However, my point is that it is reasonable to assume that many atheists will be baffled by theistic views, based as they are on unsupported "faith" in concepts that have no relation to the everyday world (such as the 1+1+0=1 arithmetic of the "triune God", an "omnipotent and benevolent" entity who makes people suffer for eternity for trivial reasons because his nature forces him to). My point is that if there IS a God whose existence is known to some, those who know should have no difficulty in comprehending the position of those who do not: "Yep, that sounds reasonable, and that's just what I would say if I didn't believe in God". Yet many theists persist in saying, not just that atheism is wrong, but that atheism doesn't make sense to them: and yet they cannot point out the flaws that supposedly invalidate it, and get tangled up in a mess of logical fallacies when they try...

..But a worldview isn't a complete package which stands or falls as a unit. This is the mistake made by those who argue that the Bible must be literally correct in every detail because archaeologists have found evidence that a city mentioned in the Bible actually existed. I have seen Christians use this as an argument, and it's another example of the comprehension problem I'm referring to: why would any theist imagine that this is a logical argument that has any power to convince an atheist? Similarly with those who use Biblical quotes as arguments against atheists: why don't they understand that this strategy won't work? Similarly with the First Cause argument: why bother to try to prove a "first cause" when there's no reason to assume it's the J/C God (or any other sort of personal god) except "the Bible says so"?

And so on, and so on... WHY are so many theists mentally incapable of understanding atheism well enough to frame arguments against it? What is so inherently baffling about the concept of a Universe without a deity?

Vanderzyden · 10-08-2002, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by K:
Vanderzyden:

I've addressed this many, many times before....

Perhaps you should look again, K. That was addressed to Jamie.

Vanderzyden

Mageth · 10-08-2002, 01:35 PM

Jack the Bodiless: That would make a great Library article, IMO.

K · 10-08-2002, 01:35 PM

Vanderzyden:

My apologies. Please consider the comment withdrawn.

Vanderzyden · 10-08-2002, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
All the sweet-talking you added did nothing to hide the fact that you were accusing other believers of whom you know nothing of not being True Believers.

Mageth,

Please tell me: What is specifically accusatory in either my tone or the content of my inquiry?

After all of this, we still have no answer from you. I will try again:

Is it possible that some "devout Christians" are really not followers at all?

If you reply again without answering, then I will presume that this question is simply too sensitive, and that you refuse to consider it carefully.

Incidentally, Mageth, this is clear demonstration that you have not read the gospel accounts very well:

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth:
What was it Jesus said about moats and logs?

Matthew 7:3 -- "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

You should also realize that your attempt is a complete misapplication of this verse.

Note: I'm not saying that you haven't read the NT carefully. Rather, I am showing you what seems to be the case.

Vanderzyden

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

Mageth · 10-08-2002, 02:01 PM

Van:

After all of this, we still have no answer from you. I will try again:

Is it possible that some "devout Christians" are really not followers at all?

If you reply again without answering, then I will presume that this question is simply too sensitive, and that you refuse to consider it carefully.

You are disingenuous, are you not? Have you read my earlier post to see where I answered your question about my parents WHEN YOU FIRST ASKED IT?

As far as this question goes, why would this question be "sensitive" for me? I'm an atheist, remember, and I already answered it for my parents.

Nevertheless, from a xian biblical standpoint, I don't think god gives any xian the right to judge the true heart or state of salvation of any other particular xian. You can judge doctrine, but not hearts. I'm pretty sure the biblical god reserves such judgment to himself. But the bible plainly says that some will claim to be believers who are not. As a xian, I often thought that an amazing thing about heaven would be who was there and who was not. I kinda thought those most wont to accuse other believers who didn't match up to their particular standards of not being "true christians" were themselves risking missing the Big Show.

Incidentally, Mageth, this is clear demonstration that you have read the gospel accounts very well:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mageth:
What was it Jesus said about moats and logs?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, more an indication of my poor spelling and memory for particular words. From the KJV:

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

I distincly remember from childhood the "beam" being referred to as a "log."

You should also realize that your attempt is a complete misapplication of this verse.

You can perceive it that way, if you wish, but if I were you I'd check myself in the mirror real carefully before accusing other believers of not being "true christians."

[ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

10-08-2002, 12:50 PM	#412
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	I answered the question in my first post, Van. What part of "NO" do you not understand? Ah, I see that we have touched bottom. You should feel right at home, then. You know, Mageth, it's interesting. Your previous posts are full of disrespect. Pot, kettle, black. But throw in a heapin' helpin' of condescention on your part. Now, when I take pains to be respectful in asking a simple, straight-forward question, you refuse to answer and insist that I am rude. Quite puzzling, to say the least. I answered it, which you'd know if you'd read it carefully. Yes, I consider it rude to respond to my "I was raised by Christian parents" with your sugarcoated "But perhaps they were not TRUE christians." Seeing as how I do consider it rude, a True Christian would apologize, would they not, and not attempt to defend their rudeness? You should know that I checked this over with my wife. By all accounts, she is the sweetest person I know, and she finds the question most reasonable. The question is not whether or not you, your wife, or Miss Manners finds it "reasonable," is it, but whether I find it insulting? I indicated that I don't know your parents, yet you say that I accuse them. Furthermore, I ask the question knowing positively of several examples where people have been heavily influenced by those who claim to follow Christ, but apparently do not. Also, you indicate that you agree this is possible when you insinuate that I may not be a follower of Christ. All the sweet-talking you added did nothing to hide the fact that you were accusing other believers of whom you know nothing of not being True Believers. What would your Christ think of that, do you suppose? Your reply indicates that you are being defensive, in one way or another. Yes, I'm defensive of my parents, whom I love and respect very much. All good sons are, IMO. Is it that you really think I'm insulting your parents, or are you simply unsure if your own beliefs are fully justifiable? You were insulting my parents. If my saying that several times is not enough for you to realize it and apologize, then IMO you're "bearing more bad fruit." You see, Mageth, if you really thought this was all a bunch of hogwash, we should not be able to detect this defensive posture. (Why do I always seem to run into the obnoxious psychoanalyst-wannabe xians?) My defending my parents has nothing to do with my personal religious (dis)belief. I happen to love my parents and respect their beliefs even though I disagree with them, and I will defend them as I see fit, thank you. If you were really sure that Jesus is no one you should be concerned with, then you wouldn't care if your parents followed him or not. Well, I happen to love my parents the way they are, beliefs and all. I'm sure I'd still love them if they didn't have those beliefs. I know my parents, they genuinely believe, and I respect that and in no way am attempting to change their beliefs. If you had critically researched the truth claims of the Bible for yourself and found them all lacking, then you wouldn't react emotionally as you just did. How in hell do you know how I'm capable of reacting in any situation? I've told you I have researched the "truth claims" several times now. Get over it; some people look at the same "truth claims" you do and come to different conclusions. Why is this so hard for you to accept? So, will you answer the question or not: Is it possible that your parents, or those who had influence over you, were following Christ during your childhood? Already answered, and, with all due respect, and not meaning to be insulting, <insert appropriate phrase that implies something along the line of "up yours">. (Come to think of it, that should have been my original answer.) Alternatively, is it possible that a "devout Christian" is no follower of Jesus at all, but merely just another religious person? What was it Jesus said about moats and logs? [ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

10-08-2002, 01:22 PM	#413
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	Mageth: What's this? An atheist with the moral fiber to defend the honor of his/her parents? Who accepts and loves them despite the fact that they hold different beliefs? By most Christian accounts, you shouldn't exist. I applaud your character and I sincerely hope your parents are aware of the upstanding human being they have raised. [ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: K ]</p>

10-08-2002, 02:01 PM	#420
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Van: After all of this, we still have no answer from you. I will try again: Is it possible that some "devout Christians" are really not followers at all? If you reply again without answering, then I will presume that this question is simply too sensitive, and that you refuse to consider it carefully. You are disingenuous, are you not? Have you read my earlier post to see where I answered your question about my parents WHEN YOU FIRST ASKED IT? As far as this question goes, why would this question be "sensitive" for me? I'm an atheist, remember, and I already answered it for my parents. Nevertheless, from a xian biblical standpoint, I don't think god gives any xian the right to judge the true heart or state of salvation of any other particular xian. You can judge doctrine, but not hearts. I'm pretty sure the biblical god reserves such judgment to himself. But the bible plainly says that some will claim to be believers who are not. As a xian, I often thought that an amazing thing about heaven would be who was there and who was not. I kinda thought those most wont to accuse other believers who didn't match up to their particular standards of not being "true christians" were themselves risking missing the Big Show. Incidentally, Mageth, this is clear demonstration that you have read the gospel accounts very well: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Mageth: What was it Jesus said about moats and logs? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, more an indication of my poor spelling and memory for particular words. From the KJV: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" I distincly remember from childhood the "beam" being referred to as a "log." You should also realize that your attempt is a complete misapplication of this verse. You can perceive it that way, if you wish, but if I were you I'd check myself in the mirror real carefully before accusing other believers of not being "true christians." [ October 08, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

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

10-08-2002, 01:24 PM	#414
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Thanks, K.

10-08-2002, 01:35 PM	#417
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Jack the Bodiless: That would make a great Library article, IMO.

10-08-2002, 01:35 PM	#418
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	Vanderzyden: My apologies. Please consider the comment withdrawn.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.