Douglas J. Bender

Hans,


Not explicitly, but implicitly and clearly. For example, "he who comes to God" is anyone who seeks God's favor or aid - this would include seeking forgiveness of sins, which the Bible indicates is not granted to a person except through faith in Jesus. Therefore, combined with the other Scripture passages I cited, this clearly indicates that all those who do not have faith in Jesus by the time they die, or by the time Jesus comes again to Earth, will face the judgment for their sins, which the Bible states will be an eternity in the Lake of Fire ("where the fire is not quenched").

David Mathews, by "preaching" that a person does not need faith in God or Jesus in order to be accepted into Heaven, deceives people, misrepresents God's character, and lies (unintentionally, I imagine) about Jesus and His mission.

In Christ,

Douglas

David Mathews

Hello Splashing,

David: I could choose to do so, but I have chosen not to do so.

David: I don't know that your explanations for the origin of the Universe and of consciousness are mundane. I suspect that if those explanations were investigated in sufficient detail, they would reveal themselves quite extraordinary.

David: What I am saying is that you do not know that Yahweh doesn't exist, and that you do not know that atheism is correct, and finally that you don't know that atheism is intrinsically better than invisible pink unicornism.

At the present moment I do not know what you know, nor do I know what you do not know. If there is some knowledge that you possess relevant to these opinions of yours, I would like to hear them.

David: If atheism has no positive content whatsoever it is not subject to scientific validation or empirical proof. If atheism does have positive content, it is possible and even inevitable for there to exist numerous variants of atheism.

David: I do not assert that one religion is true and that all others are false. I make no comparitive judgments of this sort. All I say is that I accept one religion and only one, I respect all the others but do not follow them.

David: I don't see any evidence that atheism is the default position. If that were the case, then atheists must also reject science, philosophy, math and all of the other disciplines. Babies are born ignorant of all these just as they are born ignorant of atheism.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Goliath,

Technically speaking: If you make no affirmation of God's existence and also make no denial of God's existence, you are an agnostic and not an atheist.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Goliath,

David: No, you do not have a choice in this matter. God owns your soul and He will do whatever He wishes to it.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Goliath

David Mathews,

Actually, there are many hotly debated definitions of atheist and agnostic. This is how I break it down, and you can find these definitions in Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God"

A strong atheist makes the positive assertion that no gods exist.

A weak atheist (such as myself) does not believe that any gods exist.

An agnostic is one who asserts that it is impossible to know whether or not any gods exist (consequently, there are theistic agnostics, and atheistic agnostics).

However, if you really want to think of me as an agnostic, then go ahead.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath

So, if I do not wish to go to heaven, but am forced to go nonetheless, then that would kinda flush "free will" down the toilet, now wouldn't it?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Hans

Douglas,

The paragraph indicates that those who do not have faith in God will not "please" God. If you wish to rely on this paragraph to support your assertion I think you need to find further biblical support that God does not bring into heaven those who do not please Him. I didn't see that in any of the other quotes you listed.

madmax2976

<strong> No relevance is not the same as not believing what their mythological texts say. However, you apparently agreed now that at least we are justified in not accepting them.

<strong> Then I congratulate you. Well done.

<strong> I suspect the same way you do. I evaluate the evidence and make a determination as to whether that evidence is sufficient to reach a conclusion. If the evidence is insufficient, which happens often, then we speculation and attempt to find support for our speculations. Lots of times this is a dead end, but it can be fun. We all just need to be careful not to hold up our speculations as actual facts. There's nothing wrong with admitting we don't know the answer to something, if in fact, we don't know. Its actually the most honest position.

<strong> Quite right. Mere possibility is not all that interesting. Leprechuans and Zeus are possible. However, I find the existence of both those things unlikely, just as I find the existence of the biblical deity unlikely.

<strong> Thats the way I read it, but if thats not what you meant, point taken. However, whether those person drew a disctinction or not, there is a difference.

<strong> Thats fine. Might I suggest that in future writings you draw clear distinctions rather than speak in generalities. As your esssays are offered publicly on your site, I think most would assume you are refering to atheists in general. Just a thought.

<strong> I disagree. Science is useless if it doesn't find out true facts about the world.

<strong> Actally these questions are intended to evaluate theist claims that such and such a deity exists or is likely to exist. Since theists offer little tangible evidence, its one of the few ways atheist/agnostics can evalute such claims. Many atheists believe certain deities are inconsistent with how they are defined and use those inconsistencies to demonstrate the unlikelihood of their existence.

<strong> You referenced the limitations of science and equated that with atheism. I assumed your reference to the limitations of science was offered as some detraction of atheism and science.

<strong> Granted.

<strong> Thats like asking what amount of evidence will convince you a person is guilty of murder before the trial begins. Its quite difficult to ascertain. Sometimes the answer is ambiguous, sometimes its a slam dunk one way or the other.

<strong> Actually I was just making fun of how you were arguing, not suggesting that I would actually argue in that manner. Perhaps my sarcasm was not overt enough.

But again David, I salute your liberal views. They are a refreshing change to the rather dogmatic and, I think , rather dispicable views of mainstream C of C members and fundamentalist Christianity in general.

advocate_11

So, if I do not wish to go to heaven, but am forced to go nonetheless, then that would kinda flush "free will" down the toilet, now wouldn't it?

Supposing that God always knows at present what would produce the most desirable pleasure/pain ratio in yourself, then God can take the action to that will cause this to occur, and can do so an indefinite number of times.

Supposing that you at present say that you might wish to be annihilated, could not God produce the same effect by simply bringing about a dreamless deep sleep, and once again awake you should your desires (by what mechanism I am not sure) change?

rainbow walking

Hello rainbow walking,

David: Ideally, information is true.

Rw: Hello David. Thanks for responding to my questions. Since I asked you a direct question, relative to a person’s faith, to determine if truth is relevant to a theistic ideology, I must assume the idealism you are here referring to is that of a believer and are declaring they hope it’s true. Are you then conceding there is no way to verify it as true?

David: Practically, the subject matter of religion and God is so vast (The Universe, humankind, history, moral, ethics, philosophy, science) that it is impossible to verify the truth of all of the information that we receive.

Rw: This is true David. When we begin to examine the subject matter that religion claims to encompass, (universe, humanity, history, morals, ethics, philosophy and science), in relation to a god it is, indeed, impossible to verify that a god has, or has ever had, anything to do with any of it. We can verify that people who believe in god have had a considerable impact on humanity, history, morals, ethics, philosophy and science. What we seem to be finding impossible, David, (and the reason for my asking the question), is any rational realistic verifiable practical connection between all these people who believe in a god and the actual existence of a god to believe in. That is one of the reasons I asked you for an opinion on the truth-value of these beliefs. People can believe whatever they want to but when they begin to claim that their beliefs have explanatory value in relation to the universe and man, they have taken a step away from private belief into the public domain of ideas where truth does have a bearing on what people claim.

I would suggest that the subject matter of religion and god are not so vast as you would have us believe because religion has never established a connection between what it claims and what it can verify as factual. Before religion can address any claims in relation to the universe and man it owes us a reason why we should accept its claims as having any explanatory value. I have thoroughly examined the information from this source (religion) and have found no practical value in it whatsoever. So why do you?

David: For those people who do search for truth, many years are necessary and yet after all that effort the answers remain provisional.

Rw: Answers are provisional to the questions being asked. If one is to arrive at correct answers one must begin by asking the correct questions. People have been asking if god really exists for centuries but no one has ever provided a factual response. Yet the beliefs persist and have a definite impact on the future and the present condition of our world. The truth of our own existence confronts us everyday and demands a response. Our thoughts and responses revolve around our view of this world we’ve inherited as it’s been handed down to us. Anyone who claims a belief that purports to explain the world for them in a cohesive meaningful way shouldn’t hesitate or be ashamed to give an account of their belief and be able to demonstrate its viability in relation to truth. So when someone asks them if their beliefs are founded on true information they should have some rational grounds for defending their claims as true. Are correct answers provisional on belief or on facts?

David: At some point, ultimately, all people collect just enough information to satisfy their curiosity and from that information form their convictions with finality.

Rw: This would be true if curiosity were the only reason for gathering information. But we live in a world that requires us to know a lot of factual information about a lot of things to function as rational human beings. God does not appear to be one of those requirements. But religion asserts otherwise without any rational, factual support for its claims. If the subject of a god and religion were just a pastime that some folks indulge in, that would be fine with me, but religion in its multi-various designations has had a much greater impact on my world than its claims warrant or justify so I have no choice but to resist it, for the sake of truth.

David: No one is obligated to do anything in regard to their faith, convictions or opinions.

Rw: If, and or when, one expresses one’s faith, convictions or opinions, and they are challenged, one is obligated to defend or give an account of them. Or one can skirt the obligation and evade the issue. But when this happens it appears to the challenger that their faith, convictions or opinions are not genuinely held. Obligation is not a physical force but an intellectual compulsion generated by ones desire to be heard and heeded. Since you came here it is apparent you have something to say and wish to be heard. If you have any additional desire that we heed your opinions then you are obligated to defend them, explain them and justify their truth-value. {b]Must a person’s religious beliefs be true to be rational?[/b]

David: If the information provided is relevant to the believer and impacts upon his or her belief in God, he/she will naturally respond to it positively or negatively. If the information is not relevant to the believer for any reason, the believer will disregard the information and therefore his or her faith will remain impervious to it.

Rw: What would you, as a believer, base your decision on as to what is relevant and what isn’t?