Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rusting Car Bumper · 10-24-2002, 10:32 AM

SECOND REQUEST
HoosierGuy28,

Here is my question:

How can god condemn one to hell if one has no reason to believe that god exists? Doesn't god realize that he is culpable for my beliefs since he, being all powerful, can control what experiences I have which would cause my believe or not to believe?

(Please do not respond by saying Jesus is proof or that I choose not to believe. Jesus, assuming he existed, was proof only of Jesus. I don't choose not to believe any more than I choose to believe I have 10 fingers.)

DC

Goliath · 10-24-2002, 11:14 AM

Brian,

Quote:

Well, this goes back to the earlier point about how words change meaning over time. Even if your definitions coincide more with the original meanings (which I do not know or really care enough about to study much), I do not think that overrides advantages in other ways of defining the terms (that I believe exist).

Ooohkay, so new definitions are superior to old definitions?

Quote:

Really, in productive dialogue, it is a bit silly to just claim that a particular piece of information is irrelevant without giving some sort of explanation why.

Sorry, it seemed rather obvious. We were discussing the definition of atheism. You made a statement about some of the frequenters of this board. Since the atheists on this board are a very, very small minority of all atheists, I could not see any relevance to the discussion at hand in mentioning such a tiny subset of atheists.

Quote:

Well, this is probably the strongest argument you have had,

Hardly. The fact that the definition of atheism that compensates for weak and strong atheism is more consistent with the etymological meaning of the word "atheist" carries far more weight than the fact that we agree that we have had different experiences. It also has far more weight than your argument that atheists should be called strong atheists (which is........where, exactly? All that you've been saying in this thread seems logically equivalent to "I can define atheism to be a stained coffee cup, so it is! Nah-nah-nah-boo-boo!").

Quote:

If your next response has as bitter a tone as your previous ones, I will not bother responding to it.

Actually, I have strived to be very civil towards you in this thread.

Quote:

Yes, I realize that I have been a bit harsh myself,

True.

For what it is worth (which I'm guessing will be absolutely nothing at all whatsoever) I apologize if you found my posts in this thread to be a bit harsh.

I see little point in continuing this discussion, since I will continue to point out why my definition of atheism is more consistent, and you will continue to say that it can be defined differently (which I've never disagreed with), without offering any compelling reasons as to why such a redefinition is necessary.

I'll tell you what: If you want to think of me as an agnostic, nontheist, noncognitivist, obsessive masturbater, or any other definition that you want to give for someone who holds no beliefs whatsoever regarding anything supernatural, then knock yourself out. I don't care anymore.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Mageth · 10-24-2002, 11:24 AM

Wouldn't this continuing discussion of definitions be better discussed in a different thread?

Goliath · 10-24-2002, 11:33 AM

Probably. But, I think I'm done with this discussion, since (as I've already said), Brian will more than likely continue to point out that the word "atheism" can be defined differently (which I never took issue with) and he will continue not to give any compelling reasons as to why such a redefinition should occur.

Brian, if you're willing to actually discuss why your definition of "atheist" as strong atheist only should be used instead of the more inclusive weak/strong definiton, then I would be interested in a discussion of this in another thread.

Sincerely,

Goliath

sakrilege · 10-24-2002, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DigitalDruid:
<strong>Jesus cursed a fig tree. So it is reasonable to assume that the fig tree did something it should not have done. So the fig tree must have had freewill. Right? My question is: based on your knowledge and interpretation of the Bible, what other kinds of plants , insects, birds, fish etc. have freewill? Or is it that THAT fig tree alone had freewill apart from humans? If so, why? I am at a loss.
</strong>

Don't forget the flood, god decided to specifically destroy beast & fowls & 'the creepy thing' along with man. This implies there must have been nonhuman freewill.

Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

HoosierGuy28 · 10-24-2002, 01:16 PM

Kosh,

Quote:

That's an interesting thing to say considering you admitted that didn't read much of the critique. How do you know he didn't demonstrate knowledge beyond McDowells?

Yes, I began reading it and it was very poor work. The guy writing it obviously didn't do his homework. But I plan to write a short critique of his critique later on. I just haven't had time today because I had about 5 hours worth a stats work and class to attend.

Quote:

I also note that you sidstepped DigitalDruids questions concerning the depth of your comparative religions studies. Did you just take a class in it?

I've taken classes on various religions, along with purchasing literature and studying their media. No sidestepping there; I noted that in my previous post.

Joel

Kosh · 10-24-2002, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HoosierGuy28:
<strong> No sidestepping there; I noted that in my previous post.

Joel</strong>

Agreed, I missed it.

Good luck on your stats (I minored in Stats). And we'll be awaiting your critique of the McDowell critique.

HoosierGuy28 · 10-24-2002, 01:39 PM

Stephen,

Quote:

Joel, I am not now asking any questions - merely making a point; I expect you�ll skip over most of this, but perhaps not everyone will...

Great, I'm very welcoming of your posts and have not seen any bad intentions in any of them.

I don't try to skip over too much of anything, but there are times I might get a little distracted and miss a few things.

Quote:

For compelling reasons you are able to believe in the Christian god and the reliability of the Bible as a record of real events.
In the absence of those compelling reasons, I don�t.
Thus far there is a kind of equivalency, but from here on it ends.
I can speculate as to why you are able to suspend disbelief and regard the Bible as entirely credible, my speculation being that you yearn for certainties: certainty of immortality; certainty that your life has meaning and certainty that a supernatural, all-powerful being loves, guides and looks after you.

I am comfortable with that, and I hope that your beliefs deliver what you ask of them.

A lot of it comes down to personal experience and personal knowledge of God's Word. I've read a lot of the arguments for and against God and the Bible, and I've personally felt the arguments against have been lacking. The thing is, most of the knowledge of the Bible comes from outside the arguments. A lot of it comes from seeing the great order of the Bible, and the accuracy of the prophecies. Honestly, my Christianity has been the most freeing thing in my life. The experience is so amazing that it would be even hard to describe with words.

Quote:

(What I do not want is that you should require me or my children to share those beliefs, nor that the organisation which represents your beliefs should assume the right to instruct me and my children in its morality, nor impose its beliefs on the education system is such a way as to substitute Faith for Knowledge.)

I'm not trying to push my beliefs on you in any way. Actually, part of the reason behind this thread is so that I wouldn't be imposing my belief on anyone who wasn't prepared to hear what I had to say. I'm sure anyone coming here realizes that I will be responding from my perspective.

Quote:

You can speculate as to why I do not regard the Bible as even remotely credible, your speculation being that I have sinned and closed my heart to the truth of God�s revelations; that I have surrendered my soul to Satan - or, perhaps, that I have been cruelly misled. In any event, I am condemned to damnation, and because of the evangelising mission which yiu believe Jesus has entrusted you with, your duty is to enlighten me so that I may see the error of my ways, repent and be saved.

My intentions are not to hold the mistakes anyone might have made against them. I have made many mistakes myself, and if you've read through these posts, I'm sure you've seen that I have acknowledged that Christians make mistakes just like anyone else. As far as damnation, I do not wish this on anybody. In fact, I wish just the opposite.

Quote:

In other words, while I tolerate your belief, you cannot tolerate my un-belief. That is the real difference between us

I can tolerate your unbelief. I would not want you to accept anything that you were not willing or ready to accept. To do that would contradict my own system of beliefs. What I have tried to do is establish an environment in which people can ask me questions that they have about Christianity. I also try to give people are reasonable or acceptable answer, but I also realize that I can't make everybody happy.

Again, I appreciate your post, and thanks for your honesty.

Joel

HoosierGuy28 · 10-24-2002, 01:59 PM

Cipher Girl,

Quote:

No, you are still missing my point. Since many christians define god as all knowing, all powerful, and all good, how can evil exist on the world? Since evil does exist (I've shown an example) that either 1)god cannot have these three attributes at the same time or 2)god does not exist.

I'm sure you keep getting these crazy Christians telling you about free will everytime you ask this question, and I imagine it's driving you nuts.

And the reason they keep bringing up free will is because that is exactly right. Without the ability to reject God, we do not have free will. To reject God would be evil, so for one to have free will, the possibility has to exist to do evil.

Quote:

So you would let a child stick his hand in a pot of boiling water so he would "learn" not to do it again? Severe consequences for a minor lack of knowledge? Going to an everlasting hell because of lack of evidence in order to believe something? I guess this is another example proving my point. In this instance god is certainly not "all good", if he exists at all.

There are 2 possible means of salvation. First, acceptance of Christ so that we can receive redemption. Second, you can live a sinless life, and therefore you would not need redemption. If you aren't sinless, then how can you blame God, especially when He offers a means for redemption? We can't blame God, we can only blame ourselves.

Now concerning evidence. I keep hearing people say that there is no evidence. So what is it exactly that the skeptic will consider evidence? This is probably the question that baffles me the most.

Quote:

So why should I become a christian?

Sometimes the things that seem the hardest in life are actually the easiest. It's just a matter of letting go.

Quote:

I guess we are certainly on two different wavelengths. I would have to perform too many mental gynnastics and rationalization in order to become a believer. That's just not me.

Great, but we can still be friends.

Joel

Mageth · 10-24-2002, 02:09 PM

Now concerning evidence. I keep hearing people say that there is no evidence. So what is it exactly that the skeptic will consider evidence? This is probably the question that baffles me the most.

Christians on this board often claim to have evidence. Show us what you consider evidence.

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

10-24-2002, 10:32 AM	#181
Rusting Car Bumper Banned Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: U.S. Posts: 4,171	SECOND REQUEST HoosierGuy28, Here is my question: How can god condemn one to hell if one has no reason to believe that god exists? Doesn't god realize that he is culpable for my beliefs since he, being all powerful, can control what experiences I have which would cause my believe or not to believe? (Please do not respond by saying Jesus is proof or that I choose not to believe. Jesus, assuming he existed, was proof only of Jesus. I don't choose not to believe any more than I choose to believe I have 10 fingers.) DC

10-24-2002, 11:24 AM	#183
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Wouldn't this continuing discussion of definitions be better discussed in a different thread?

10-24-2002, 11:33 AM	#184
Goliath Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Fargo, ND, USA Posts: 1,849	Probably. But, I think I'm done with this discussion, since (as I've already said), Brian will more than likely continue to point out that the word "atheism" can be defined differently (which I never took issue with) and he will continue not to give any compelling reasons as to why such a redefinition should occur. Brian, if you're willing to actually discuss why your definition of "atheist" as strong atheist only should be used instead of the more inclusive weak/strong definiton, then I would be interested in a discussion of this in another thread. Sincerely, Goliath

10-24-2002, 02:09 PM	#190
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Now concerning evidence. I keep hearing people say that there is no evidence. So what is it exactly that the skeptic will consider evidence? This is probably the question that baffles me the most. Christians on this board often claim to have evidence. Show us what you consider evidence.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.