Philosoft

How about, "God, you know, my eternal soul is on the line here. How about a little help? It's not my fault I'm a skeptic."

<strong> Indeed. Especially if he gives us an extremely reliable method of discerning mundane facts about the world then expects us to ignore what that very same reason tells us when confronted with questions about his own existence (and, in conjunction, our souls!). God has at least given us the ability to reason that his reasoning sucks.

<strong> Yeah, you're right. Rather sporting of the chap to give us half a chance with our souls, eh?

<strong> Rather, "You know, God, this is an important decision. Why do you make it so counterintuitive?"

Michael Ledo

C-mon ishalon, you know I don't work that way- God

Walter_Mitty

David Matthews writes:

...in spite of the alleged *fact* that God is omniscient, which means he knew every action that Ishalon would choose before he created Ishalon, which basically flushes Mr. Matthew's notion of "free will" down the proverbial cosmic toilet.

Jobar

Not only does this blow any arguments for omnibenevolence completely out of the water, it also does irreparable damage to the bit about "... lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil..."

Why should an all-powerful and all-loving God *not* speak to a doubting believer? When I was a boy, I often heard a preacher talk about "That still, small voice." Is it too much to ask of God to speak just a bit louder? What greater evil is there than the loss of a human soul to damnation? (From the Christian viewpoint.)

Answerer

Blind faith, you mean.

philechat

Argument from mutual respect:

1) All healthy relationships stem from mutual respect of both parties.
2) It is disrespectful that a party repeatedly refuses to answer a sincere question raised by another party.
3) God is not respectful to the believer.
4) Therefore, the relationship between God and the believer is not based on mutual respect.
5) The relationship between God and the believer is unhealthy.

Good reason to reject God even if He happens to exist.

[ July 17, 2002: Message edited by: philechat ]</p>

Keith Russell

Greetings:

In the Bible, Thomas did not believe that Jesus had been resurrected. According to the Bible, Jesus allowed Thomas to explore his wounds, confirming Jesus' fatal torment, and leaving resurrection as the only explanation.

The Bible says that Thomas was allowed to explore the actual wounds, while all I get is a bunch of Christians who want me to take their word for things.

(Oh, and god is not possible.)

Keith.

rebelnerd

If there was a creator of the universe, a god or diety that wanted humans to believe in he/she/it, would it be so diffucult to give the would-be believers a little clue that this creator/god/diety existed? I know that if I wanted somebody to believe in something, I would offer evidence of some sort. This business about just having to have faith (and the right kind I might add) is pure excuse making bullshit. If you have proof, you don't need to make excuses. All the bible verses and rhetoric won't change this simple fact.


Filo

Doubting Didymus

Atheists should not use the bible to back up their claims. After all, we know the book is not reliable. What the bible actually says is:


The only reason that a sensible person can ever believe in christianity is because they are taught that believing without a shred of proof is a positive virtue. This is the reason that so many christians refuse to discuss their religion based on factual evidence: they are told not to.

(P.S. Yes, my handle is taken from the name of doubting thomas the disciple. I find, along with kieth, that I would react the same way to unsupported claims.)

Tercel

All of which presupposes the idea that God actually cares what you believe, and/or that going to hell or not is based on what you believe. As I've already noted, I don't believe either to be true.

So are there any serious objections to my arguments? Or do you guys think I should believe you're all going to hell, just so you can bash my arguments?