babelfish

Here, I'll chew on you a little:

And yet, you seem to be implying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that all that our senses can take in is simply the superficial things, the sights, the sounds, of the universe. That although both atheist and believer can marvel at these superficial aspects, there is "something more," "something Greater" if you will, that is beneath all these marvels.



And here, you seem to be implying, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the thing that is unseeable and unknowable by us, is this "God," as described by some inspired ancient writers in a book called the "Bible."

And that we should believe that this unseeable, unknowable, "force" (for lack of a better word), is not really unseeable and unknowable, having been described in this book. That a fortunate few have the good sense to believe this book, and to believe that the unknowable thing is "God," based on the testimony of these ancient writers.


Okay, and what you seem to be saying here is "I am so blessed and fortunate, for I have not only been born in the right place (the US, a Christian nation), and the right time (a time of great religious fervor and evangelism), but I am also wise enough to be one of the few who believe the Right Thing. For I know I am right."

Please feel free to show where I may have erred in my assessment.

diana

Greeting, Stormy.

Actually, that was my response to "annoyance." I'm markedly less amiable when I'm offended.

You've done nothing to alleviate my annoyance with you yet, by the way. I asked many questions. None of them, to my memory, were hypothetical in any way. You must support your position. Assertions don't cut it. You must support your position by answering counter-arguments directly.

Well. Let's review what you said, then what I said, and we can get to the bottom of this. OK?

Looks to me like I responded directly to your implication that the "bounty" in the natural world for the unbeliever has limits. There would be no other reason for you to specify "for the believer."

Two points, Stormy.

First, would you say it's rude--presumptuous, even--for a person who's never even met you to make comments about why you've made certain choices or about your history? Hm? I thought so.

Second, is it fair to say (as I said before), this is essentially your argument?

How do you know there can be only one? How do you know there's one at all?

So far (egads...this is the second time I've used this term today. What is my vocabulary coming to?), you're only empty calories. I can take Twinkies or leave them.

Directly answer the questions that are put to you, please. This is where we argue about the VERY existence of god(s). So far, you're only assuming and asserting. I suspect even the Holy one wouldn't ride those "ass"es.

d

Stormy

diana: I am sorry that I have annoyed you. I am not here (I don't think) to bring you to faith. To be honest I registered back in December because I was invited. I did not post until Friday when CF was closed down.

I do know for a fact that the Atheist that believes that God does not exist is wrong. No, I am not sure other than by Faith that God is the Christian God.

But he knows that I am Christian and has made no effort to change that fact. He has performed miracles in my life and given my family undeniable proof.

But still I have no idea why?

Guess I will leave and head back over to CF.

You take care.

Oh... BTW... You still did not read me correctly.

"For God's bounty for the believer is without limitations of this natural world. "

operative word... natural

God has gifts for us that exceed the limits of this Earthly life.

The unbeliever does not think this could be possible.

I really do believe that without faith... he is correct.

Bree

Do you know "for a fact" the same way we know that the earth is round "for a fact" - how exactly do you personally measure truth?

diana

I'm sorry you annoyed me, too.

In addition, let me extend my sincere sadness that you apparently ignored my pleas to at least read the most elementary guidelines on critical thinking, as any reply I could make to this comment is apparently lost on you.

You are clearly unaware of what constitutes (and differentiates) "fact" and "belief."

I'm intrigued, of course. Miracles, you say? "Undeniable proof," you say? This is getting good.

Happy trails.

The problem here is that I understood what you said, but not what you meant. In reality, I read you correctly. You may try to foist the blame for your inability to coherently express your thoughts to me, but I will not relieve you of your burden.

Your leaving is probably for the best. It's simply not working out between us.

d

Stormy

Actually the earth is not round... it is a bit miss-shaped... not entirely a sphere.

I am aware of the definition of fact... It is the same with a Christian as an Atheist.

diana

Now you're just being petty. But since you bring it up, would you say any situation where pi equals 3 is "round" enough to be called "round"?

It doesn't seem fair that you would excuse this mathematical goof and then turn around and suggest that Bree is somehow ignorant because she used the term "round" to refer to a less-than-perfectly formed sphere.

Along these lines, it strikes me as quite hypocritical for you to insist that she be utterly explicit in her word usage--even when "the earth is round" is commonly used and understood without further explanation--when your own holy book claims the earth is a "circle"--and the connotation is one of flatness, no less--not a ball or sphere, by any stretch of the imagination.

A little consistency, please. Or just get off your petty broom.

All evidence to the contrary. On both counts.

You can redeem yourself by explaining how you determine something qualifies as fact, and what, precisely, is the difference between fact and belief.

d

Bree

Let's simplify things. How do you know things are "right" or "wrong" - ? You said you know that not believing in God was wrong. Is it possible that you just think it's wrong based on your own moral system, the social constructs of the society you live in, and your religious beliefs?

In order to know something is wrong, one must have demonstrable proof - i.e. the statement "the world is flat" is wrong because it has been demonstrated that it is, in fact, spherical (sorry for not being, ahem, precise enough the last time around). Do you have demonstrable proof that not believing in God is wrong, and if so, what is that proof?

Stormy

Bree: I do not have proof that your unbelief is wrong.

I only know that God is true.

Read again what I said...

"I do know for a fact that the Atheist that believes that God does not exist is wrong."

Please understand...

By fact I know that you are wrong in thinking that there is no God.

But I do not know by fact... that God thinks it is wrong for you to not have faith.


"It's a long story and I really do not know why it all happened.

If you are interested you can read a bit of it on CF. There was a thread an atheist started to disprove supernatural events that Christians may have had... he could not help me.

I do not know why I keep bringing this up... it is very upsetting to me.

Why??? I am not sure, but it was much more comforting to just "think" that God was true.

diana

Logically, Stormy, you contradicted yourself between the first and second sentence. Please look again. It's very simple. Either you know God exists or you don't. You say you know, as per your second sentence.

Knowledge is something you have only with proof. But you said in your first sentence that you don't have proof that she is wrong (which is the same as saying you don't have proof that you are right.)

It looks to me like you're equivocating the words "know" and "believe." This is why I was pressing you for your explanation of the difference between facts and belief. You say you know the difference, yet you use them interchangably.

I think what you mean is that you believe God is real, and that is enough for you. You have already admitted you can't prove her unbelief wrong.

Still with the assertions. Why do you know her lack of belief in God is wrong? That is the question on the table. Answer it.

If you cannot provide a reason, you "don't know it for a fact." You only believe.

You still assume the existence of God in your discussion. What you don't know, "by fact," is that God even exists. For this reason, you cannot "know by fact" that Bree's unbelief is wrong or that she is wrong in thinking there is no God.

I'm sorry to hear that, because I would love to discuss it. Something you have backward is that there is never any burden for anyone to disprove a "supernatural event," ever. All a rational person needs to do is find a rational explanation that addresses the observed phenomenon. If you wish to argue that it was, indeed, a supernatural event, the burden of proof rests entirely upon your shoulders.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The more fantastic the claim, the proof I'm going to require--naturally--to believe it is true.

This strikes me as the most intellectually honest thing you've said. That took guts, and I respect it. Thank you.

d