Mageth

You never cease to amaze me Mageth, as you are incredibly closed-minded.

There's one word for this; I'll ask your forgiveness in advance, because the word is "bullshit".

Refusal to accept without question the existence of anything, including a god, without actual supporting evidence of such is not being closed-minded. I'm open-minded towards anything for which good evidence (or at least a good argument) is provided of its existence. No evidence, no good argument, no need to be "open-minded." Otherwise, I'd go about believing in all sorts of silly things.

Produce some solid evidence, any solid evidence, that there is such a being as a god, and I'd be willing to examine the evidence and, if I find it compelling, willing to believe. One problem is I spent the first 45 years of my life trying to believe, searching for and examining the evidence (as I said, I've read Job, along with the rest of the bible), with an "open mind" towards the existence of god, before becoming what you call a "fundie atheist." I found no solid evidence, found the arguments sorely flawed. Continuing belief under such conditions would be closed-minded, not open-minded, IMO.

Actually, what is interesting is that there is so much harping on 'Fundie Christians' here, but not so much on 'Fundie Atheists.' Maybe I should take a clue from the name and nature of the forum - but, I thought atheists were trying to make an appeal to reason, and not to blind bigotry?

I'm not bigoted, and I am using reason. Reason doesn't allow me to accept the existence of god(s) without evidence.

Got any?

And BTW, any answer to my critique of Job?

christ-on-a-stick

j ford -

Sorry I wasn't more clear but Beyelzu clarified for me. I am an atheist, I was just pointing out that insomuch as (most) theists buy into the notion of God "working in the hearts of the believers", that it should have at least crossed their minds (FotF) that if they weren't getting enough donations then perhaps God wasn't wishing their ministry to move forward.

On another note - Mageth wrote :notworthy
Concise! Beautimous!

Thieving Magpie

Do I have evidence of the existence of gods? Depends which gods we are talking about.

And in answer to your critique of Job:

The message is that physical things are unimportant in comparison to spiritual matters.

And finally:



This means that you are closed-minded towards anything for which 'good' evidence is not provided of its existence. Have you considered that there may very well be "more things on heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in our philosophies"?

You can only call what you believe silly if you think it is so.

christ-on-a-stick

(I realize that this was not addressed to me but....)

By this definition, I would *proudly* admit to being "close-minded".

However, this definition is absurd.

Thieving Magpie

A lot of people would also gladly accept being called 'closed-minded' by that definition.

In your case though, which is worse - being called 'closed-minded' or being called 'right?'

You can be both, of course, but it is a matter of internal censorship, and so one's beliefs are called into question. Which is better? To be closed-minded or open-minded? It may not be the latter, despite whatever negative connotations the former may imply.

I personally believe it is better to be open-minded, but I am far from being 100% sure.

Luiseach

What is wrong with having a high standards for what constitutes good evidence, I wonder.

Thieving Magpie

Must I reiterate? There is nothing 'wrong' necessarily with it. However, it is closed-minded, none the less.

Mageth

Do I have evidence of the existence of gods? Depends which gods we are talking about.

You name the god, in fact define it as best you can, and then present your evidence. I will consider it, even though the chances are that it's "evidence" that I've seen presented, and refuted, many times.

The message is that physical things are unimportant in comparison to spiritual matters.

You might squeeze that out of Job, but you'd have to filter it quite a bit to remove a lot of other messages contained there.

And if this is the primary message, why did god do what he did in Job 42:10, and on to the end of the chapter, giving to Job "twice as much as he had before"? What happened to those much more important "spiritual matters?"

If you say "God loved job and was honoring his faith", why did god allow him to be squashed, when god said of him in the first chapter "there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?" And did so just because Satan taunted him??? Did god, gasp, think that he might be wrong?

In Job 1, we see that Job, according to god, already had the "spiritual matters" down, no problem there. God had blessed him with "physical things" as a reward for his righteousness. Satan then wandered into Heaven and taunted god about Job, saying "But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face." God took the bait for some reason, and summarily allowed Job to be crushed, in spite of the fact that Job was an upright man.

From Job 1:

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

That passage pretty well supports the message I said I get out of Job. There may be other messages as well, but can you refute that one?

Personally, I see more of an overall message that god is a big badass who can squash you if he pleases, gives what he pleases, and takes away what he pleases. We in comparison are worthless; as Job says in 42:6, "Wherefore I abhor [myself], and repent in dust and ashes." As evidenced in Chapter 1, it doesn't even really matter what our spiritual condition is; god's just as likely to squash us as bless us, especially when Satan comes callin'.

This means that you are closed-minded towards anything for which 'good' evidence is not provided of its existence.

You can call such an approach "closed-minded" if you must, but I don't think my approach qualifies as such. I reserve judgment on the existence of something for which "good" evidence is not provided. As well I should, and I recommend you do as well. I certainly do not believe something to exist for which there is no good evidence. Do do so would be folly. In fact, I would imagine you are "closed-minded[/i] in much the way I am about a lot of things.

Have you considered that there may very well be "more things on heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in our philosophies"?

Well, there certainly may be, but I have no justifiable reason to believe in the existence of any particular "thing in heaven and earth not dreamt in our philosophies." I'll consider believing in one or more of them when presented with actual evidence for its existence.

You can only call what you believe silly if you think it is so.

Umm, I said "Otherwise, I'd go about believing in all sorts of silly things. " Using my method protects me from believing in silly things.

christ-on-a-stick

TM,

I still beg to differ, because (speaking for myself here) even if I think I have come to a correct conclusion, my mind remains open - to GOOD EVIDENCE.

Can you see the difference?

Thieving Magpie

I see a difference, but it has no bearing on what I was trying to say.