Freethought & Rationalism Archive

7thangel · 03-26-2003, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by orac
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?

I did not "exactly" say do not test God. I guess you have to read my previous posts.

Quote:

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.)

Now you seem to have understood me that there are some challenges that are acceptable.

Quote:

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.

The challenges should be "according to the will of God" is too broad. Maybe you could understand it in broad sense.

Quote:

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

The point of the OP is about making challenge, not going on specifics of the challenge.

Quote:

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

No, you refused to listen.

Quote:

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?

I kept explaining, hoping they would make a new way of making challenge that is acceptable to God.

Quote:

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?)

And I say it is not biblical. It does not mean that you read one verse, chapter, or book, doesn't mean that you know what is biblical or not. When you misintepret the bible, it makes your interpretations unbliblical.

orac · 03-26-2003, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 7thangel
I kept explaining, hoping they would make a new way of making challenge that is acceptable to God.

Ok, let's see if I understand correctly:

A valid challenge is one that is acceptable to the will of God, and none of us understand god's will so that's why our challenges are always unacceptable.

This is so broad and vague that it's unusable - we'ld really appreciate a few helpful guidelines as to what God could consider acceptable. Even an explanation as to what is different about us, so that a test that worked for the baal-ites is not acceptable today would be helpful. You've stated that their test is no longer valid. Can you tell us why?

Can we try this a different way? If you didn't already believe, how would you go about making a biblical challenge of God?

What would you do, assuming you still needed the evidence, to demonstrate to yourself that God is real?

Frankly, I don't believe that there is a test that you would consider acceptable. Can you give me any reason to believe that there is such a test? As long as you keep holding back, there are sinners remaining unsaved. Why would you leave us to suffer and go to hell, if you truely had a way to convince us of God's eistance?

Fiach · 03-26-2003, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BioBeing
[B]"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...[/B

I don't go to a different church than you don't go to.
I don't believe in the existence of God; You believe that God doesn't exist.
I don't believe one god has three personalities; you don't believe tthree personalities can exist in one god.
I don't believe Jesus was god and human, you don't believe he was human and god.
I don't believe Jesus walked on water, you don't believe he walked on land.

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

For reasons that I don't understand, people are often drawn to believe in the more outrageous and daffy myth schemes rather than those that approach rationality like Unitarian-Universalism. I find that very odd. I you could invent a religion goofier than Christianity, people would flock to it.

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...>

Naturally, he likes heaven and doesn't want to share it with anybody else. He is condemning all atheists to Hell for incorrect thinking and unbelief, and all theists to Hell for the sin of not thinking at all, and gullibility.

Fiach

7thangel · 03-27-2003, 10:28 AM

Quote:

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.

Shouldn't we have to conform in goals for the whole humanity? I would rather say, that we exist with differences, but we should be living in harmony which is achieved by unity of purposes and goals. Conformity is healthy too. And I guess this is one point that influenced our disagreement.

Quote:

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.

The problem is that we understand the bible differently. And in my understanding, there is more than enough for me not to doubt the Bible.

On the other hand, it is prophesied that the knowledge of God will not be given to those who profess themselves as wise. And that the church will suffer apostasy themselves. Maybe you have to refrain searching the knowledge of God from among prominent theologians, or religion.

Quote:

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.

I do not necessarily mean that the scriptures is flawed.

Quote:

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.

The Bible itself says, "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." I think I understand your point. I surely see a flaw when I take the Bible literally. But when we put them as a whole in the goal of God's purposes, I do not see any flaw.

Quote:

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

Fiach

Thanks, I appreciate your response.

vagrant · 03-27-2003, 10:49 AM

Your replies seem to me to increasingly indicate that you belive you know the mind of god. You know acceptable challenges, you indicate you understand god's greater purpose, etc.

Could you share this elightenment with us?

7thangel · 03-27-2003, 10:51 AM

[quote]"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...

No, not necesarily.

Quote:

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

No, I mean you have to have faith that you will come to understand those beliefs. Please, don't just cut and paste so that you will not lose the point of the response.

Quote:

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...>

That is possible. God will not make himself known unto His enemies.

SanDiegoAtheist · 03-27-2003, 01:09 PM

Quote:

originally posted by 7thAngel

On the other hand, it is prophesied that the knowledge of God will not be given to those who profess themselves as wise. And that the church will suffer apostasy themselves. Maybe you have to refrain searching the knowledge of God from among prominent theologians, or religion.

I think this is precisely the point that you don't understand about atheists. We do NOT search for the knowledge of God from amongst prominent theologians or religions. Most of us have examined the 'knowledge' that these sources profess to posesss and have found it wanting in justification.

What we need is EVIDENCE. Not half baked theodicies, apologetics, and the like. Without any evidence, we simply see them as "building castles in the air" - they have no support, no foundation, no framework. Evidence that an omnipotent God should be able to provide that is sufficient for both the wise and the foolish. That is ALL we ask - is that too much? After all, the Bible - and every other holy book known to man - is replete with examples of God (or gods, depending on religion) providing evidence that would be quite compelling - if it wasn't for the fact that the 'evidence' is, by now, at least 3rd or 4th hand, and never attested to beyond the holy writings of whichever God(s)(esses) are written about.

Why is it, now that communication is able to show ALL humanity any evidence which happens to show up, that evidently NONE of the Gods care any more about providing this type of highly compelling evidence? (examples, from the Bible, would include things like the parting of the Red Sea, the plagues (although this particular piece of evidence I could probably do without seeing repeated, as we'd have to try God for war crimes), various and sundry resurrections, angels blowing up city walls with trumpets, and so forth).

The tests which have been proposed in this thread are perfectly consistent with methods in which the Christian God has supposedly shown himself in overt signs before - why now is it that God no longer provides overt evidence?

I simply find it far easier to believe that those earlier believers were misled, by their priests, by their ignorance, and by their FAITH - it is a simpler explanation than positing a deity which acts so inconsistantly, and provides no verifiable evidence of existance when that evidence is capable of being crosschecked.

Cheers,

The San Diego Atheist

Fiach · 03-27-2003, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 7thangel
Shouldn't we have to conform in goals for the whole humanity? I would rather say, that we exist with differences, but we should be living in harmony which is achieved by unity of purposes and goals. Conformity is healthy too. And I guess this is one point that influenced our disagreement.

Aye, it would be great if we all had the same positive ideas for goals to help humanity. We agree on that. But as noble as that goal may be, we need to realise that given human nature and these schismatic trends you identify, common universal goals are impossible. You are recommending Utopia, and that is non-achievable, and many have tried.

The problem is that we understand the bible differently. And in my understanding, there is more than enough for me not to doubt the Bible.

It is much more than you and I disagreeing on the Bible. Many of us Atheists disagree on what it says, and history is full of wars because different groups of Christians differed on what it says (and they were all believers.) None of them DOUBTED the Bible but it said different things to different people.

On the other hand, it is prophesied that the knowledge of God will not be given to those who profess themselves as wise. And that the church will suffer apostasy themselves. Maybe you have to refrain searching the knowledge of God from among prominent theologians, or religion.

I did. I was confused by what they were telling me. So I read the Bible for myself very slowly, and contemplating each verse. It took me a year (about age 9) and it ended my Christian faith. I did review all of it again in university college as an elective. I took 4 credits in Theology each year for 4 years (about age 16-19) and it was heavy on Greek with some Aramaic meanings. I found it fascinating but unconvincing. I tried on multiple occasions to find a reason to believe. I chose to believe. But my brain would not respond.

I do not necessarily mean that the scriptures is flawed.

I think they are flawed because they do not give a clear message that is interpreted the same way by all people. The problem is that it was written by some 30 writers or more who themselves had different ideas at different times.

The Bible itself says, "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." I think I understand your point. I surely see a flaw when I take the Bible literally. But when we put them as a whole in the goal of God's purposes, I do not see any flaw.

Fundies insist on literal interpretation of the Bible, and that necessarily reveals literal errors which you and I both agree is present in literal verses. If one takes it in a metaphorical sense the trivial errors are unimportant.

Thanks, I appreciate your response.

I hope that you and I can be examples to others on the forum that we can have different points of view and still be polite.

Fiach

7thangel · 03-27-2003, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Aye, it would be great if we all had the same positive ideas for goals to help humanity. We agree on that. But as noble as that goal may be, we need to realise that given human nature and these schismatic trends you identify, common universal goals are impossible. You are recommending Utopia, and that is non-achievable, and many have tried.

I agree, that is one reason why I need God.

Quote:

It is much more than you and I disagreeing on the Bible. Many of us Atheists disagree on what it says, and history is full of wars because different groups of Christians differed on what it says (and they were all believers.) None of them DOUBTED the Bible but it said different things to different people.

But I think it is not appropriate that we claim flaw of the Bible because of flawed humanity. Actually, the bible is even picturing man as "not knowing that which is good." And that without God santifying man, he will remain unrighteouss. My understanding is that God is showing in many ways to us to know such hopelessness in man, even through prophesying that humanity's state is chaotic despite the increase of knowledge.

Quote:

I did. I was confused by what they were telling me. So I read the Bible for myself very slowly, and contemplating each verse. It took me a year (about age 9) and it ended my Christian faith. I did review all of it again in university college as an elective. I took 4 credits in Theology each year for 4 years (about age 16-19) and it was heavy on Greek with some Aramaic meanings. I found it fascinating but unconvincing. I tried on multiple occasions to find a reason to believe. I chose to believe. But my brain would not respond.

I disagree with a lot of doctrines amongst the most common religions. Especially about the trinity and literal hell. I guess this is one of your foremost turn off doctrines. What I believe is that when the church suffered apostasy, so does its doctrines.

Quote:

I think they are flawed because they do not give a clear message that is interpreted the same way by all people. The problem is that it was written by some 30 writers or more who themselves had different ideas at different times.

Interpretation is a very big issue among theists ourselves. And adding that God is pictured in different perspectives, it is hard to present the coherence of these ideas. Worst, when the one defending the faith is ignorant himself, or doesn't care about making sense.

Quote:

Fundies insist on literal interpretation of the Bible, and that necessarily reveals literal errors which you and I both agree is present in literal verses. If one takes it in a metaphorical sense the trivial errors are unimportant.

I agree.

Quote:

I hope that you and I can be examples to others on the forum that we can have different points of view and still be polite.

Fiach

That will be excellent! In fact, I come to appreciate you better.

7thangel · 03-27-2003, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by orac
Ok, let's see if I understand correctly:

A valid challenge is one that is acceptable to the will of God, and none of us understand god's will so that's why our challenges are always unacceptable.

This is so broad and vague that it's unusable - we'ld really appreciate a few helpful guidelines as to what God could consider acceptable. Even an explanation as to what is different about us, so that a test that worked for the baal-ites is not acceptable today would be helpful. You've stated that their test is no longer valid. Can you tell us why?

Can we try this a different way? If you didn't already believe, how would you go about making a biblical challenge of God?

What would you do, assuming you still needed the evidence, to demonstrate to yourself that God is real?

Frankly, I don't believe that there is a test that you would consider acceptable. Can you give me any reason to believe that there is such a test? As long as you keep holding back, there are sinners remaining unsaved. Why would you leave us to suffer and go to hell, if you truely had a way to convince us of God's eistance?

It is inappropriate to challenge God when you have no intention to accept His doctrines. Gideon asked for a sign from God, that is a good challenge. But of Elijah challenging the baalites is more of condemning, and that challenging of the baalites is of the purpose of showing God unto the Israelites.

I offer challenge because it is for my benefit, like when Gideon asked for a sign; I need God's confirmation. And yet, it must be according to God's will, not just because we think we need it. Also, if our challenge contradicts the prophesies, or the very nature of God itself, then it is not acceptable. I see no intention from those who make challenge to obey God's doctrines, and becasue they have no intention to subject themeselves unto those whom they challenge.

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

03-27-2003, 10:49 AM	#85
vagrant Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrington, IL USA Posts: 130	Your replies seem to me to increasingly indicate that you belive you know the mind of god. You know acceptable challenges, you indicate you understand god's greater purpose, etc. Could you share this elightenment with us?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.