AmericanHeretic

originally posted by Apologetix
I'm glad to see that you're this reasonable. However, this does mean that your faith is in grave danger.

Are you a Biblical literalist? Do you believe in six day creation? How about Noah's Ark and the Great Flood?

The Big Bang and geological evidence clearly indicate that Genesis didn't occur nor did the Great Flood.

If you are not a Biblical literalist, then, I assume you pick parts of the Bible to be determined true, like the resurrection, and other parts you deem to be untrue, like Noah's Ark, the Great Flood, and Genesis. If so, this is arbitrary and begs the questions of how do you know which parts are true and which are not, and additionally, how do you know Christianity overall is true in light of the fact that the Bible is so obviously flawed in part and therefore may be completely flawed in terms of general structural content?

The one area I feel sorry for Christians about is the area of evidence. You have none, except personal experience, which is claimed as evidence by UFO abductees and people who claim to still see Elvis. Please realise that personal experience related to others is terribly unconvincing. This is very much why the first thing you hear from many atheists is the request for evidence.

I don't assume you have no evidence to provide, I am certain of it. If there was a God, there would be some indication of Him. Evidence would exist, His actions would have consequences in the natural world we live in. If God is non-existent, then there should be no evidence of Him whatsoever. I think, given the length and depth of the theological argument throughout history, that God, once and for all, can be said to not exist.

I know why you are a Christian. Now you know why I no longer am a Christian, and am an atheist. Nonetheless I do respect your right to choose as you see fit, with, or without evidence.

(note: strong statements politely intended, it's just the way I think, direct and garnering what certainty I can muster)

Jamie_L

Apologetix:

Me again.

I popped over to read the thread on PW that spawned this thread. Whoa. There's a lot of bad blood going on.

I think some of this stems from an unfortunate fact about atheism:

By stating that one is an atheist, you are indirectly stating that you think people who are theists are incorrect in their beliefs.

What I find happens a lot when I talk to people about my atheism is that they feel that merely by stating "I am an atheist," they feel I am attacking their religion. The feel I'm personally calling them deluded or foolish or something. Which I don't mean to do.

However, there is a kernal of truth there. I do think people who believe in God are incorrect. If I didn't, I wouldn't be an atheist. But it's not a personal judgement of anyone's intelligence. It's just a conclusion I've come to, like many claims I am skeptical of. I have good friends who have strong beliefs in the ghosts and other supernatural phenomena. I think they're wrong too. One asked me once to explain something he thought happened. I just kind of shut up because, in truth, I just thought he was plain wrong about it ever happening the way he described it. Sometimes you think decent people are wrong. It doesn't mean you don't think they're decent people. Or even that they aren't smart people.

But, if there is to be polite, meaningful debate, everyone has to get over the fact that the other side, on some level, thinks you're crazy. Any Christian who looks around and sees evidence of God everywhere is bound to think I'm nuts or a liar. While it irks me when someone comes out and makes a direct ad hominem attack against me, I mostly try to accept this nature of the debate.

This is a forum where people come to debate the existence of God. People's beliefs and lack of beliefs get questioned. That questioning (when it isn't actually personal) shouldn't be taken personal. If someone thinks we're being condescending, they need to engage in a few more debates. You want to see mocking? Spend some time in the Political forum!

At any rate. I think I'm going to have to write a sci-fi story with a robot named Apologetix now. "Warning! Warning! Danger, Father Robinson!"

Jamie

Infidelettante

Originally posted by Apologetix [/i]
I have no desire to present "facts" or to expound upon the historical accuracies of the Bible in a feeble attempt to "prove" to you why I believe in Christ. While I think such debates are healthy, I believe that they bear absolutely no fruit when in contact with hardened athiest (at least in my expirience). So instead, I just want to show you the personal reasons as to why I am a Christian.

Let me say that there others here who are more skilled than I at arguments of logic and reason. I see that you have already met a number of them. They will keep you buzy.
I have views regarding gods which I consider atheistic but I am also a pantheist and a polytheist. This is to let you know that while I can not say your God exists [ I do not say mine do either] I accept your belief in your God as valid and will, in any interplay between us assume your God does exist.

For me it is the knowledge that there is an all knowing, all powerful God out there. It's not the thought that yes He does judge us, or that He will punish us for our wrongs, but the thought that compells me more than anything to believe in Him is the fact that out of all the religions, Christianity is the only one in which the God dies for the people. I find it amazing that Jesus, who was God, was willing to die for His own creation. To me there is no greater love. I cannot find any reason other than to follow Him for that. And that is just a short snipit of why I believe what I believe. I do look forward to the responces.

I will ask you to answer one question. Your God came to Earth as a man. He died and came back to life. Then he left. Why? This should not be too difficult to answer for one who appears to have an apologetic turn greater than his OP would lead us to think.

JT

As an aside, your statement that Christianity is the only religion whose god dies is untrue. The dying and reborn god is a central belief in my own pagan spirituality as it is for many neo-pagans.

Magus55

His flesh died and he ressurected himself. Death doesn't contain God - he is above it - it has no control over him. But he still suffered pain, anguish and physical death in the flesh.

Mageth

Death doesn't contain God - he is above it - it has no control over him.

If god's above death, then god didn't die, as was alleged.

But he still suffered pain, anguish and physical death in the flesh.

As do we all. Is that supposed to make him special or something?

miss djax

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gooch's dad
[B] Yes, I'm bored at work today.





One of the biggies for me is the difference between the nativity accounts in Luke vs. Matthew. They cannot be reconciled with known history, specifically Josephus and Dio Cassius. I'm happy to start a new thread in the Biblical Criticism & Archeology area if you'd like to go over this.



hi gooch's dad

i would love to go over this... my parents are ministers *can i say that enuff? tee hee* and i was completely amazed at some of the things bishop spong had to say in 'stealing the bible from fundamentalists'.. he discusses different creation stories and i was PISSED that i missed this growing up.....i felt so misled, how did the discrepancies get overlooked?

so im really interested in the new thread

miss djax

Jobar

Hello, Apologetix.

Magus55, who posted not far up in the thread, has also stated his belief in Biblical inerrancy. The conversation thus engendered is here; if you want to add your comments there, or start your own thread about the Bible, please do so in our BC&A forum.

Now, you tell us, as many before you have done, that the God you believe in is outside, or beyond, or above this universe, correct? He is not bound by time and space, and is not a being of matter and energy.

Others have asked you how such a- well, we can't call God a 'being' because that means something that exists in the universe- such a *concept* affects and interacts with the world we live in. Since you say you are not about 'proof' in the sense of physical evidence, just how *do* you come to the conclusion that there is a God with no Earthly connection, and yet affects the world, and we who live in it?

(Oh yes- it's atheist. One of the exceptions to the 'i before e' rule.)

Koyaanisqatsi

Just to chime in here and also, welcome...

Ok.
The "personal reasons?" Ok.
As others have pointed out, that's not a "reason;" that's a positive claim.
Not true as, again, others have pointed out (missing Mithra, I do believe, and the "Righteous One" of the Essene cult and, I'm sure, others). So, now what does that do to the "thought that compells" you "more than anything"?

Nothing?
Ok, let's analyze that right here, then. So many questions leap to mind, so forgive me the randomness. I'll start with, if Jesus (who was God) was willing to die for His own creation, then why the need for God to "die" for his own creation?

God's, well, God, right? He created us and, if the Bible is true, intervened directly in our affairs on a seemingly constant basis, talking all the time to various people in the region for, apparently, thousands of years. He commanded the deaths of whole cities (not to mention the whole globe) and made it known that there is a severe and (some would say) everlasting torture for not believing in either him or his son (which you say is just him again), so "free will" doesn't exist. Indeed, he actually dies for us to be saved, which certainly would imply that he wants us to be saved, yet is not, for some inexplicable reason, going to just magically blink and have us all be saved, right?

The sacrificial death was therefore necessary for some reason; god couldn't just will us all saved, he had to die for all of us to be saved, yes?

At the risk of you taking an easy out by saying something convenient like "God moves in mysterious ways," or "we can't know the mind of god," why? Why was a sacrifice of a pure "being" (i.e., himself) necessary?

Well, the notion of a sacrifice of the pure comes from the Old Testament, right? Only, in the OT, the sacrifice is to god in order to appease him and quell his wrath, yes? That's the whole origin of the sacrifice of the pure to god to begin with, right?

So, to whom is the sacrifice of god being offered? To himself? Why? To appease him and quell his wrath? He kills himself as a necessary sacrifice to himself in order to save all of us from himself?

To what end? He sacrifices himself to himself in order to save all of us from himself to what end? So that his death will mean that mankind is saved? Saved from what? Himself, yes?

So, god wants to grant mankind salvation so badly that he kills himself to do it (somehow), right? Then why didn't he just will us all saved?

Further, as I understand it, there are strings attached to this supposedly pure sacrifice, yes? God said, "I will sacrifice myself to myself in order to save you all from myself, but only if you believe that I am actually god doing all this?" Right?

If there are any strings attached, then how can you consider it to be a true, loving, altruistic sacrifice? Doesn't a sacrifice mean that it is done on your behalf without even your own knowledge, necessarily (as has been the apologetic response to the question of all those people living prior to Jesus)?

If that's the case, then why the requirement that everyone believe he did this? Why wasn't the sacrifice pure?

I'm not even getting into the "fact" that Jesus inexplicably begged himself to "take this burden from me" and the like, just tell me how a sacrifice that isn't freely given (i.e., no strings attached) could possibly be considered a pure sacrifice?

After all, what happens to us if we don't believe that Jesus died for our sins?

On another tangent, if I leap on a grenade then I have sacrificed myself for your life, yes? The action I instigated would have happened and you will live, yes? So where in any of that do you see any strings attached to my jumping on that grenade for you after the fact? Strings that I attached to the action of my deciding to jump on that grenade that are somehow conditional to your continued existence after I decided to jump on that grenade in order to save you?

Now, a more direct question, since we're supposedly talking not just about your body, but your soul, how would god's death (however that could be possible) be a necessary condition of your own salvation?

Setting aside the "fact" that salvation is supposedly granted by god's grace alone (i.e., that nothing you do as a human can earn god's favoritism, including belief), how does somebody else dying for your crimes mean that you are saved?

You have (presumably) sinned against god, which means you are responsible for your own sins, yes? Are you seriously arguing that since god decided to die for your sins, that this in turn means you have no responsibility for your own sins?

Or are you a catholic; meaning that god merely died to alleviate the original sin of Adam eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and you're still responsible for the other sins you committed in life?

If so, then what in actuality did god sacrifice himself to himself for as it relates to you? To grant you eternal life? Doesn't god grant you eternal life by his will alone, meaning that his death would be entirely irrelevant?

So what, precisely did your god sacrifice himself to himself for? To satisfy to himself the appeasement of his own wrath? He was so mad for Adam's actions thousands of years ago, that he just had to sacrifice himself to himself in order to forgive all of us for what Adam did? A crime that Adam isn't arguably guilty of, other than being persuaded by a more powerful creature than himself (i.e., Eve through Satan)?

And how is that just? Your father killed somebody. Does that mean you are equally responsible? No.

As before, doesn't god have the power to simply grant mankind salvation for Adam's sin any time he damn well pleases? And why did it take some three thousand years for god reallize what he would have to do in order to appease himself from his own wrath over what Adam did and nobody else?

You also mention that this was the ultimate act of love, but how if there are strings attached? "I love you so much that I will sacrifice myself to myself in order to save you all from my own wrath, but if you don't believe that I have done any of this, you will be horrifically punished for your lack of belief?"

Wouldn't a true act of love (i.e., a godly act of love) be, "I love you so much that I will sacrifice myself to myself (for reasons you can't comprehend)," and leave it at that? Meaning that we are all now and forever saved by his true act of sacrifical love for us, with no conditional strings attached?

Now do you see why there are legitimate reasons to ask theists who come here for the "facts" behind their conditioning?

Now, as to the whole "fact" in philosophy can mean anything dodge you've tried to employ, since you are the one who is declaring that god actually exists, doesn't that ipso facto mean that "facts" are not in question and are, in fact (if you'll pardon the usage) absolutely determined to be unquestionably true, since they are the result of a god's existence that they in turn exist?

Many theists argue in here about how we can never "know" anything absolutely as an argument that their beliefs could be true, but if your god factually exists (i.e., is not merely a mythological creature from ancient cult dogma), then doesn't that mean we can "absolutely know" that everything we see around us does indeed exist?

In fact, as the argument goes, the only way to "absolutely know" anything at all is to first posit that a god does factually exist, right? Since you are the one claiming one does exist, then why are you arguing that none of us can "know" anything for sure? Shouldn't you be arguing that, because a god exists, that is the only way to know absolutely that facts are "true?"

You start off by saying that nobody can know anything, yet doesn't that instantly negate god?

SecularFuture

Apologetix
If you don’t have any “facts”, and if you can’t “prove” anything, what’s the point? Without facts or proof to support your beliefs, what do you have? Nothing. You believe through a religious faith, a blind acceptance of an unfounded *notion* that is devoid of logic, reason, and evidence.

Having know-ledge is to *know* something, right? However, how can you *know* anything without facts or proof? You can only *assume*. You, like all humans, do not *know*.

Where are you getting this information from? Your bible, right? Before you make the claim that your bible is the “inspired word” of your god, you first need to submit proof that your god exists. Without proof for your god’s existence, your bible – by default - is nothing more than a well-written novel.

Another unfounded assumption based from a novel.

A love that is based on reality could be easily be classified as being greater in nature.

As a theist, you are making the claim that there is a god. As an atheist, I am denying your claim. It is not up to me to prove you wrong. It is up to you to give evidence and reason to support your claim for the existence of a supernatural god.

If I were to go onto a job interview and say “I can type 80wpm”, it would not be up to the manager to prove or disprove anything. It would all boil down to me sitting down at a computer, and proving to the manager that I could indeed type 80wpm.

The burden of proof is on you.

diana

Greetings, Apologetix. Welcome to II.

Hm. Why do you think that is? Do they bear any fruit when in contact with a hardened Hindu? A hardened Yahwist? How about a hardened pantheist?

So you'd classify yourself a gnostic Xn? (BTW, I'm a fan of the letter X and think it's underused in English, as it could frequently reduce three letters, cks, to one simple one. Due to this, and because of the common shorthand for "Christian," I think your handle is really cool. It comprises all of the above, IMO.)

So how do gnostics know what they "know"? You've already stated that you don't depend upon what we'd accept as facts or evidence.

As has been pointed out, this is not a fact at all. But I wanted to ask why you believe in a god at all? You've stated that you've judged between available gods. We're wondering how you came to the conclusion that any of them actually exist.

As to this:Let the record show you admit to being here only to "prove a point." The point appears to be how rude atheists are.

Well, I'll go on record saying I've never been prouder of the behavior, politeness, patience and consideration of my fellow atheists--even after you wiggled out of all requests for evidence and reasoning AND admitted that you're just here to "prove a point."

If you could remove yourself from, well, seeing the attempts at debate in this thread through the eyes of the apologetic who is engaged in it (you), and instead look at it through the eyes of Those Who Lurk, you'll see you've unwittingly made the opposite point you appear to have set out to. So...I suppose thanks are in order.

Thanks.

Um....what claims are those? Atheism makes no claims. The atheist merely refuses to accept claims that lack support.

From your post on the BB where you came from:
If you review this thread, it was pointed out to you that you provided no evidence. Several people have asked you for your evidence, and you have not been forthcoming. Many have also shown your reasoning flaws.

This is, after all, a forum where we debate. Debate involves disagreement, questions, nitpicking on what words mean and constantly putting people's reasoning up to the light in search for flaws.

Contrary to what you appear to think, we have assumed nothing. We've asked you to support your claim--as anyone in any debate will do--and you have failed to deliver.

I know just how you feel, Apologetix. I visit Xn boards from time to time. Funny thing...many come on there, after I've stated my case, and basically take the stance that I have no idea what I'm talking about. Looking through the Xn site of your choice, we see the same thing. It's not the outright rudeness that they show (calling atheists ignorant), yet it basically takes the stance that anyone who doesn't believe in Xst obviously doesn't know what they are talking about.

Actually, they say that outright, and frequently. Yet they produce no evidence in their favor. Not a scrap. When I call them on their reasoning flaws, they tell me I just don't know enough about the bible, or that I have to put the cart before the horse and believe first--then all will be clear to me. When I point out how little sense this makes, they gleefully tell me I'm lost in my ignorance, a tool of Satan, and will roast in hellfire forever.

That, my friend, is rude.

Enjoy your stay.

d