onceuponapriori

You don't understand. I question too much, and have learned too much, to ever believe in the existence of the defined Christian God.

I realized that my definition of "General Revelation" was too narrow. Special Revelation is the delivery of the Gospel to a particular individual. "General Revelation" is the means by which God reveals himself to people without granting them access to the Gospel message. So, two examples of General Revelation would be:

- A man realizing that the universe requires some sort of creator. He honestly seeks that Creator, and the Creator reveals himself to him.
- A man dies, and is confronted by God directly.

I realize that this is another example where I did not explain myself clearly, or that I did not think clearly while posting. Forgive me, please.

And trust me, I didn't become an atheist so I could act immorally.

I doubt that most do.

As far as the "I even allowed for the possibility that this could occur after their earthly demise" bit, resorting to magic or to unproven, unprovable claims such as an afterlife is not exactly fair in such a discussion - by using it, you're assuming the existence of God. Especially since, from my point of view, there is no "after" my earthly demise.

And still, you miss the point of my posts. I'm not trying to convince you, or anyone else, (right now) that God exists. You can imagine that each of my statements is prepended with "If the God of my understanding exists, then...". Surely, if I was creating an argument for God's existence, I could not assume the same. But I'm not. If you don't find value in reading a post that assumes that God exists, I'm sorry.

And note that if there is an afterlife, it's also possible for you to learn there that you were wrong, and that the god you believed in doesn't exist.

Of course!

When you used the term previously, you meant it to mean violation of your god's Objective Morality. And I assume in the above definition "acting immorally", "immorally" in your mind would mean the same thing - violating your god's Objective Morality.

You must have misunderstood me. I do not believe that moral truths depend ontologically on God for their existence! What I do believe is that when one apprehends the existence of God, they also realize the objectivity of certain moral truths. Note well, this apprehension of the existence of my God is not required for someone to realize that certain moral truths are objective.

"General revelation" has not, and will not, be enough for me to believe. So can I expect some sort of special revelation to be coming my way? (Remember: resorting to the afterlife is not fair).

You might think so, but I disagree. Remember, prepend each statement with "If the God of my understanding exists, then..."

If you can't describe how they are derived, then how objective can they possibly be?

I'm not sure this makes sense. Being unable to explain how something is derived does not preclude its being objective. Unless we're using two different definitions of "objective"?

That is a totally unsubstantiated claim, and in all a non-answer to my post. What are these objective "moral truths"? And yes, you need to explain how they are grasped just by apprehending the existence of God. My guess is that you have to resort to some sort of divine revelation from the Word of God explanation.

One of the moral truths is:

- Murder is wrong.

And no, I'm not appealing to the Bible for these. I happen to *think* that God aids the natural reasoning abilities of those who ask for his guidance.

So basically you're saying those that agree with you (the god you're referring to) will agree with you, while those that don't agree with you don't agree with you, are "nominal" christians and don't "actually apprehend the existence of my god", and are therefore irrelevant. Whooee, strong "no true Scotsman" argument there.

Of course that is what I think. If that is part of my understanding of who my God is, then how could they be worshipping the same deity?

I think I answered some of the questions from a paragraph I snipped, above.

Just by this description, I don't think you could claim to have been an "atheist". I know I'm also risking a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, but I think there's an important distinction to be made. An atheist does not reject God; an atheist lacks belief in god(s) or outright does not believe in god(s). In becoming an atheist, I didn't reject god; I reached a point of non-belief in god. I can't reject something that doesn't exist.

When I rejected God, I was a theist. Once I psychologically conditioned myself to not believe in him, my belief *did* fade completely away. I suppose at that moment, I was an atheist, given that I "lacked belief in God(s)".

What you appear to have done is rationalized yourself into a position where you could behave as you wished without fearing a god that you still believed in. That's my opinion, reached by reading your post; I may be wrong. Correct me if so.

Not really. You seem to continually assume that theists act morally only because they fear God. That's not what I do. But I had convinced myself (at the time), that if God did not exist, then neither did objective morals.

Did you ever truly lack belief in god(s), and I mean all gods, not just the Xian god? When you were in that state, did you feel like you were in rebellion against God, or did you not believe there was a God to be in rebellion against?

At first, I felt like I was "in rebellion". As time went on (and circumstances changed), I truly lacked belief in God at all.

Cross Examiner

Hello Majody, hello all. I apologize in advance for any rusty arguments forthcoming, and for formatting mistakes; I'm also new here and a transplant from another discussion board system (wanted to be challenged). As to your questions:

1) They say babies are born ignorant. What happens to a baby that dies? Jesus said that the only way to heaven was "through him," but unless babies posess a higher knowledge that they lose as they age it would seem we have a problem. Does god just make an exception? This question also applies to any person that never experiences Xianity, ie: Tribes in the jungles of Brazil, etc.

The principle I see in scripture (e.g. Romans) is that we are all held responsible for what we have been given, informed of. The reason one evangelizes/proselytizes is because Christ commanded it. Secondarily, Christ will not return (per Revelation?) until all peoples and tongues have been made aware of the Gospel. I echo another poster who said Christ made it clear the judgment of those who've never heard is not anyone's concern but God's, which is fortunate since I would make a poor judge given my finite knowledge and observational capacity. I also believe that those who've never heard the Gospel will have the opportunity, even after death, to make their choice. This is not substantiated textually but rather coincides with what/who I believe God to be, the image of which I've derived from scripture. Applying the above to your question suffices for me. I sleep well.

2.This one may seem to be asked often, I'm not sure, but please bear with me: Who made god? Did someone make god? I've heard people say he "just exists," and they assume he is the highest form of life, but why couldn't there be a higher form? Because we don't have a bible for it?

I've been down this path with the skeptic before. It truly does come down to some unmoved mover, either an intelligence of some type (e.g. God) or the universe is this mover. I and many others find it more reasonable to believe that God is this mover. For me, this is anchored by (1) clear evidence of a designer in creation; e.g. too great a complexity and perfect-ness (sic?) of this planet/world to have simply happened by randomness amidst the desert that is observable space, that man has built into him a conscience (fingerprint of God), that all men since the dawn of time have sought to answer the question of the supernatural of his own volition etc. (2) I also anchor myself with the Resurrection of Christ. Which I have researched well and also conclude it to be the greatest attested-to event in ancient history. (3) And most recently, I have experienced that personal relation with the mind and person of Christ, which simply cannot be conferred to another so is clearly subjective (to an empiricist) but trustworthy if you knew me.

I hope this gives you some balance. Though I know, personally, that clearing all mental obstacles to faith a convert does not create. There is still the difficulty of humbling one's self before God and accepting upon faith the Resurrection of Christ for one's rescue. For example, Napoleon Bonaparte concluded that Christ was no ordinary man though Buddha and Muhammed most certainly were, yet as far as I know he never professed faith in Christ for his own salvation. Though you lead a horse to water, you cannot make him drink. Some are turned off by the simplicity of the Gospel but a fair God would have to make salvation accessible to even the "villiage idiot" as it were. The hard part has always been, and will always be, bending the knee before that which one cannot see. The root of the problem is human pride, which is precisely what made Lucifer, Satan.

Men freely believe whatever they wish. Julius Caesar

Just_An_Atheist

"The principle I see in scripture (e.g. Romans) is that we are all held responsible for what we have been given, informed of." Does this mean that you think that people believe anything they want? I don't think this is true. First of all, it seems to me that belief is in some sense like sight. Although you may be able to take hallucinogens to alter one's viewpoint, I don't think that I can just decide to disbelieve that there is a computer right in front of me. (You might be able to, but I can't.) This means that most, if not all, nonbelief is nonculpable. Consequently, the problem of nonbelief extends far beyond infants, if God sends people to hell who didn't deserve it at all.

Given that God has salvation planned, and that man is among his top priorities. If God has man in general's best interest's in mind, then God wouldn't damn a sizable group of human beings. Therefore, if the god of evangelical Christianity where to exist, there would probably be more believers.

onceuponapriori

Perhaps. But need there be more believers *now*? Both I and the writer you quoted mentioned that we believe that God may give men they option of accepting or rejecting him after their earthly demise.

Mageth

onceuponapriori :

I realized that my definition of "General Revelation" was too narrow. Special Revelation is the delivery of the Gospel to a particular individual. "General Revelation" is the means by which God reveals himself to people without granting them access to the Gospel message. So, two examples of General Revelation would be:

- A man realizing that the universe requires some sort of creator. He honestly seeks that Creator, and the Creator reveals himself to him.

Note that the Creator which is revealed to people in such situations tends to be the god or gods of the religion of the person's culture, the religion to which they were indoctrinated in or at least exposed to. This sort of revelation happens to people all over the world, and it is typically the case that the god that's revealed to them is the god they already "know" of. In other words, such revelations tend to be based on the religious influences to which the person has been exposed. That lends a good deal of subjectivity to such experiences, does it not?

- A man dies, and is confronted by God directly.

I simply don't think that really qualifies as "general revelation". Maybe you need to put it in a new category so we can just discuss meaningful stuff like real-world incidences of "revelation." After all, you cannot give me one such verifiable example of where that has actually happened, unlike the other forms of "revelation" of which you speak. (and don't bother claiming NDEs; that's a different discussion).

And still, you miss the point of my posts. I'm not trying to convince you, or anyone else, (right now) that God exists. You can imagine that each of my statements is prepended with "If the God of my understanding exists, then...". Surely, if I was creating an argument for God's existence, I could not assume the same. But I'm not. If you don't find value in reading a post that assumes that God exists, I'm sorry.

I understand the need to assume god's existence for some arguments - I do the same.

But you're assuming the existence of god and an afterlife. Note that the OP and the topic in general is talking about things of the here-and-now, of the existence we know exists, how do we find god now. Introducing what may happen in an afterlife is not necessary for this discussion, and indeed detracts from it. It's superfluous.

You must have misunderstood me. I do not believe that moral truths depend ontologically on God for their existence! What I do believe is that when one apprehends the existence of God, they also realize the objectivity of certain moral truths.

Then how are those objective moral truths not tightly coupled to the God you apprehend? You're right, I don't understand. Are you saying this objective morality exists separately and independently from God? If God's not its source of objectivity, what is?

Note well, this apprehension of the existence of my God is not required for someone to realize that certain moral truths are objective.

Fair enough, but if apprehending that God results in apprehending the objective moral truths, it still sounds like you're assuming a definite link between them. You seem to be implying that the objectivity derives from your god, whether the person recognizes it or not.

You might think so, but I disagree. Remember, prepend each statement with "If the God of my understanding exists, then..."

Please, let's try to keep this to the tangible world, to our human existence in this world. Introducing the afterlife and what may occur there adds nothing to the discussion at hand. What does or does not happen in the afterlife, if there is one, is irrelevant.

I'm not sure this makes sense. Being unable to explain how something is derived does not preclude its being objective. Unless we're using two different definitions of "objective"?

I assume "objective" requires some source, some foundation on which the morals may be labeled "objective". Failure to provide such a foundation, and a means for determining those morals and their objectivity, leads me to question their true "objectivity."

One of the moral truths is:

- Murder is wrong.

First, you need to define "murder". What is murder? How do you know what your god considers murder? Are you sure that "murder is wrong" is "objective"? Does everyone, even Christians, always assume that murder is wrong? Do you consider murder wrong in all situations? Or do you use subjective methods to determine what murder is and when murder is wrong or not wrong?

And if these morals are objective, you should be able to list more than one, and do a similar breakdown on them that I've asked you to do for "murder is wrong".

And no, I'm not appealing to the Bible for these.

Answer my questions above without appealing to the bible, implicitly or explicitly, then.

I happen to *think* that God aids the natural reasoning abilities of those who ask for his guidance.

Really? If these things are objective, then everyone asking God for guidance should always come up with the same answers to moral questions. Do they? I think not. And how many of them come to any answer without appealing to the Bible?

Of course that is what I think. If that is part of my understanding of who my God is, then how could they be worshipping the same deity?

Your understanding of who your god is? That's describing a subjective determination. All of your "objectivity" is based on this subjective determination.

How do you come to the conclusion that you are right and they are wrong? You have to subjectively determine that you are right, that you understand the "objective" morals and know the correct definition of god. And how you can do that without appealing to the bible, your subjective interpretation of the bible, I don't know.

When I rejected God, I was a theist. Once I psychologically conditioned myself to not believe in him, my belief *did* fade completely away. I suppose at that moment, I was an atheist, given that I "lacked belief in God(s)".

And that is right in line with my statement "What you appear to have done is rationalized yourself into a position where you could behave as you wished without fearing a god that you still believed in." And yes, if you reached the point where you lacked belief in God(s), then you were an atheist. I take your word for it that you did.

Not really. You seem to continually assume that theists act morally only because they fear God. That's not what I do.

I don't assume that at all. Note in my earlier post I said “You're getting morality all mixed up with belief; the two aren't as tightly coupled as you think. A morally-inclined person will behave morally as he or she sees fit in spite of their beliefs.” So it’s demonstrably true that I don’t “continually assume that theists act morally only because they fear God.”

But I had convinced myself (at the time), that if God did not exist, then neither did objective morals.

Then your thinking on morals was screwed up. The existence of a god does not necessarily entail objective morals; morals could be subjective under a god. And the non-existence of a god does not necessarily entail the non-existence of objective morals; systems have been described in which objective morals may be obtained in the absence of god. Some here on this board describe and defend such a position.

At first, I felt like I was "in rebellion". As time went on (and circumstances changed), I truly lacked belief in God at all.

I accept that, but the way you put it does lead to a question. You say “lacked belief in God”. Are you implying the Abrahamic, Christian God (e.g. the one of your preferred definition) or any old god? One can be atheistic about a particular god and still be a theist, you know.

Mageth

Perhaps. But need there be more believers *now*? Both I and the writer you quoted mentioned that we believe that God may give men they option of accepting or rejecting him after their earthly demise.

Then why all this mess in the current life, the uncertainty of the "revelations", the many different paths that people find to many different gods, the need for "objective moral truths", and the need for the Christ? That just doesn't add up. Why not just let us live our lives here the way we see fit and then give us an option in the "afterlife" of whether we want to enter paradise, hell, non-existence, or some other realm of choice? Or why not just go ahead and reveal himself in an undeniable way in the here-and-now so we can get our act straight before dying? Or even just skip this physical life bit and create us directly in heaven with options to choose from?

Just_An_Atheist

"Perhaps. But need there be more believers *now*? Both I and the writer you quoted mentioned that we believe that God may give men they option of accepting or rejecting him after their earthly demise."

Firstly, there is not much scriptural support for the claim that God wants more believers but he is content to wait until the afterlife. Even though there is one verse that seems to imply that Jesus might want to wait until the after life. (Where Jesus is portrayed as preaching to those in hades.) However, the term "preached" has a number of different uses. For example-I think I learned this in bible class- it seems that Jesus could just be announcing something, and exactly what he might have suppossedly have announced is unclear.

Even if one grants that Jesus did do it, this is in no way helpful for the afterlife defence, because this would seem that Paul, while preaching to the Athenians, he told them that in the past (e.g. Before Christ.) God forgave such ignorance. But now, he commands that everyone repent.

This seems like one could concede the verse in the first paragraph, and it would still be of no significance.

Furthermore, this seems to make nonesense of the general commission of Jesus (e.g. go and make servants of all nations.) If God didn't want people to be saved in *this* lifetime- or didn't care about it very much- then why give the command at all?

Furthermore, there are some biblical passeges that imply that "narrow" is the road, and few will find it. This wouldn't make sence, because if given a choice between going to heaven and being damned, it seems more logical that a great many would choose heaven over hell. So, if everyone were given a choice to believe in the afterlife, that would seem to falsify one of Jesus's prophecies.

Cross Examiner

Hello Just_An_Atheist, I'll bet you were surprised by my position given my handle?

I don't think people believe what they want in spite of what they experience (sight, sound, smell, touch, taste etc.), like denying a computer exists before them purely out of volition. Rather, when deciding one's stance absent sense data (e.g. atheism vs. theism) one's presuppositions (desires) most certainly do influence said stance. Call it an amateur human-behaviorist's observation.

I also see in scripture that God will not put anyone where they do not want to be (hell vs. heaven that is). Frankly, the atheist would be more miserable w/ God than without him. If you cannot love the fraction of God you're given here, you will not love the entirety you are given after this life, when this proving-ground experience is over. I see this as benevolence. God would never have given you free-will if he did not intend for it to be exercised.

I reiterate that while God loves man and desires him, he will not violate your free will. Truly, man's best interest, as you put it, is not his final destination but his free-will in the matter, self-determination. I'll add that not everyone who sits in a pew loves God. There are far fewer Christians in the world than the oft-stated 2-billion between Protestantism and Catholicism, respectively. Numbers are utterly beside the point my friend.

Mageth

I've been down this path with the skeptic before. It truly does come down to some unmoved mover, either an intelligence of some type (e.g. God) or the universe is this mover. I and many others find it more reasonable to believe that God is this mover.

And, in that scenario, Occam's razor slices God right out of the picture. But I must ask, which god?

For me, this is anchored by (1) clear evidence of a designer in creation; e.g. too great a complexity and perfect-ness (sic?) of this planet/world to have simply happened by randomness amidst the desert that is observable space,

"Space" is not the desert that you think.

"Perfectness"? How do you determine that this world is perfect?

And the typical "randomness" strawman. Randomness may be involved, but there are a slough of natural mechanisms that lead to emergence of complexity in the universe.

that man has built into him a conscience (fingerprint of God),

How do you know that our conscience (or consciousness) is a "fingerprint of God"? I think it's the other way around; we've projected our consciousness/conscience into a personifaction of a God (gods, really). We created God in our image. God has our fingerprints all over him.

that all men since the dawn of time have sought to answer the question of the supernatural of his own volition

Now that's a statement with no support, impossible to prove.

(2) I also anchor myself with the Resurrection of Christ. Which I have researched well and also conclude it to be the greatest attested-to event in ancient history.

That's obviously highly debatable.

(3) And most recently, I have experienced that personal relation with the mind and person of Christ, which simply cannot be conferred to another so is clearly subjective (to an empiricist) but trustworthy if you knew me.

And the Buddhist in Japan has experienced the Buddha, the Moslem in Iran Allah, and the Hindu in India Shiva. All equally as trustworthy as you.

I hope this gives you some balance. Though I know, personally, that clearing all mental obstacles to faith a convert does not create. There is still the difficulty of humbling one's self before God and accepting upon faith the Resurrection of Christ for one's rescue.

First, one needs to consider oneself in need of rescuing. And where does one come to that need? Through the Bible, of course.

Christianity is a debasing religion, requiring one to submit to the idea of corruption of the human spirit (and body, for that matter) and to "humble oneself" before a wrathful, "just" god for any hope of salvation. Where's the "love" in that?

For example, Napoleon Bonaparte concluded that Christ was no ordinary man though Buddha and Muhammed most certainly were,

And they, themselves, didn't claim to be anything but ordinary men. That claim is attributed to Christ, but whether he was anything but an ordinary man (though perhaps, like Buddha and Muhammed, an "enlightened" man and an extraordinary teacher) is definitely in doubt.

yet as far as I know he never professed faith in Christ for his own salvation. Though you lead a horse to water, you cannot make him drink. Some are turned off by the simplicity of the Gospel but a fair God would have to make salvation accessible to even the "villiage idiot" as it were. The hard part has always been, and will always be, bending the knee before that which one cannot see. The root of the problem is human pride, which is precisely what made Lucifer, Satan.

More debasement. The root of the problem here is the human spirit, if you will. Requiring one to recognize oneself as corrupt and to "bend the knee" before the God who created you as such is a primitive, cruel concept that we'd be better off shedding ourselves of.

Men freely believe whatever they wish. Julius Caesar

Even 'ole Julius could be wrong. Men believe what they are capable of believing; you can't make yourself believe something.

Mageth

I also see in scripture that God will not put anyone where they do not want to be (hell vs. heaven that is).

Curious, where does the scripture make this clear?

Frankly, the atheist would be more miserable w/ God than without him.

How do you know which I, or any other atheist, would prefer? If (and that's a big "if") I'm given a choice in the afterlife of choosing hell over paradise, I think I'd opt for paradise (if hell is as bad as some describe; if it's a wide-open, free will kinda place with lots to do and lots of other "infidels" to talk with, and heaven is merely standing around praising the awesome Yahweh, I might seriously consider hell).

If you cannot love the fraction of God you're given here, you will not love the entirety you are given after this life, when this proving-ground experience is over.

I haven't been given any recognizable fraction of god to love here, though. I do love other people; I love nature; is that what you're getting at?

I see this as benevolence. God would never have given you free-will if he did not intend for it to be exercised.

The big question is: do we really have free will? There's no way of knowing for sure on that one, in my opinion. I personally tend to lean heavily towards determinism, with "free will" as a useful illusion.