I know many of you for only a short amount of time. But please hear me out. Some of you don't know God, don't believe in Him, or come with contempt towards God, and to those who believe in Him.

I want to tell you what I know, from loving God.

When I am alone, I am weaker. Not to say that I am weak. In my mind I am weak, but to others, I am however they judge me. Weak or strong. But without God I am weaker. The same is true with loving God. When I focus on Him, and commit myself my love is stronger then it was before. Both my patience, and understanding, as well as any generosity or kindness. I can be a better person because God's love strengthens me to be better then when I am alone.

There are standards, there are sins. There is obedience and rebellion. But with all of this, even in spite of all this, God can strengthen us. This is what I've seen. It's what I know. The more you love God and are willing to be in His care, the stronger your love for others will be.

I do not mean that your love is weak, that you are not moral, or can not love. But that with God, He will make you stronger in the things that matter. Including our love for one another, and for our neighbors.

I see in these conversations, debates against religion, against believers, and against God as a whole. It is a conversation that seeps into other conversations regularly. It's worth talking about, so why not talk about it here.

God loves you. Otherwise He would not have sent Jesus here for your sake and mine. No, if He did not love you, He would not leave believers here to be mocked, chided, or even killed in the most horrible ways. But He has left those He's called here to be a beacon of light for those who do not know Him.

I hope you find Him if you haven't already. :)

Dear Not_Now.Soon, Many people have the idea that it would be a better world if all people believed what they believed. It's not going to happen. Christianity is one of many religions. Jesus is one of many divine figures. Many gods in the classical period were born of a virgin, were sacrificed for humankind and were resurrected. Frazer and Carpenter have told about it in their books. At this time Jesus has cornered much of the market for that kind of thing - at least in the western world. Gradually another idea has attracted more and more people. That is the idea that one of the criteria of a good society is to learn to live with the fact that other people have different ideas about religion including the idea that all beliefs in a supernatural are in error. I believe in no religion or any form of the supernatural. However, I have the idea that other people will continue to have those beliefs. Other people will continue to have a mindset different from mine. I have to find a way to get along with them peacefully, and they have to find a way to get along with me peacefully if we want to have a good society. I find the ancient philosophies of the stoics, epicureans and cynics make more sense than any religion I know of and regard all belief in any form of a supernatural as superstition. However, I have to get along with people who do not think that way and realise that people who do not think that way can be kind, decent and caring. I regard the missionary mindset that other people have to accept the beliefs of the missionary as a curse on humanity.

How people believe such nonsense in this day and age is really beyond me.

TheAtheist, What positive philosophy gives you strength of character? Remembering that atheism is a negative.

Yes, God loves you - but what does it mean?

Does He love your body? Then why does He let it die?
Does He love your mind? Then why does He allow dementia?
Does He love you assets? Then why does He allow them to be broken and dwindle?
Does He love your personality? Then why does He allow it to change?
Does He love your sins? Then can you ever hope to have them washed?

Whatever THING you can think of, will perish, so how can you say that God loves that thing?

No, there is not a thing which God loves - but fortunately you are not a thing!

By God's love, one day you will be free of sin. One day, nothing will any longer separate you from God, but so long as you think of yourself as some-thing or as a combination of things, that very thought will keep you in sin and separate you from God.

So find who you really are - till then the fact that God loves this unknown *you* would remain a nice theory that is not of much use.

---

Dear Atheist,

«How people believe such nonsense in this day and age is really beyond me.»

Have you tried, or has this day and age crushed your ability to believe?

Yes, it is quite difficult to believe against scientific evidence - which is a great loss.

No, belief in God is not strictly necessarily, but it is just so much more difficult to concentrate and focus on God whom you don't believe in.

Belief is not the main point of this discussion, but rather Not_Now.Soon's observation that «When I focus on Him, and commit myself my love is stronger then it was before». Perhaps you would like to relate to that?

THEAtheist. Sounds as if the thinks he is the one and only. Atheists are 10 a penny around here, and they all have their own god, or gods. The most dangerous being the god of self-belief.

Not_Now.Soon,

I’ll be happy to love your Lord with all my heart when He, or one of His followers, demonstrates His existence (I mean with objective evidence, not just personal experiences which can be explained by co-incidence and confirmation bias), and when He explains His appalling neglect over the millennia. His genocide; the Bible's endorsement of slavery. My Thor, your god would have some serious ‘splaining to do!

What you describe, regarding what it is that your belief does for you, is quite easily explained by psychology.

<<God loves you. Otherwise He would not have sent Jesus here for your sake and mine.>>

Firstly, you’re assuming that He did any of that. Secondly, even if He did do what you claim He did, then what he did was immoral. Substitutionary atonement is an immoral concept.

Substitutionary atonement aside, the alleged Jesus did a terrible job while He was here by perpetuating myths of demon possession (resulting in the deaths of millions over the following centuries) instead of providing us with useful information, which could not have been known at the time, about mental illness, bacteria, disease, or the benefits of hygiene.

His choice of location (and that He only appeared in one location), too, was terrible. If you're only going to appear in one location, then why make that location a remote and illiterate part of Palestine, when other parts of the world were at least far more literate at the time? (e.g. China)

<<… if He did not love you, He would not leave believers here to be mocked, chided, or even killed in the most horrible ways.>>

Of course, the other possibility is that He just doesn’t exist. This would also explain all the problems I've highlighted above.

--

Josephus,

Firstly, atheism is the default position. It is not necessarily and assertion of the contrary. Secondly, you are engaging in equivocation here by confusing two senses of the word ‘negative’. Atheism is 'negative' in the sense that it is characterised by the absence of something, it is not 'negative' in the sense that it is bad.

AJ Philips, I will ignore your ignorance of Jesus life and mission. However I will ask you to explain how you live your life in a positive philosophical personal dynamic? Certainly not by attacking Christians with negative comments is not a good foundation on which to build your life. So what is the basis of your life?

Dear Josephus,

Apparently your life is based on superstition. Can you really believe human females can become impregnated and give birth without the involvement of a human sperm? Can you really believe God sent a man with a message to a remote part of the Roman Empire? Can you really believe there is a God, and he comes in three parts? Can you really believe an intolerant individual who would claim only through him could one enter the kingdom of heaven is worth worshipping? It doesn’t matter how good a life you have lived or what a decent person you are. Are you really only worthwhile if you accept the Christian mumbojumbo? Do you really believe one who was so nutty that he would curse a tree for not bearing fruit out of season is worth worshipping? According to the Bible Jesus did not have sex with either men or women. The guy seems less than human. Do you believe that dead people can be alive again? Considering Christian intolerance, the wars of religion, the Inquisition, the massacres of heretics, Jews, native peoples and others and the martyrdom of the scientists Hypatia, Servetus, Bruno and Galileo Christianity seems less valuable than a pail of warm spit.

I believe that Christianity will eventually disappear and go on the rubbish heap of history along with Thor, Apollo, Zeus and other gods that humans have invented and worshipped. I also believe that humankind will invent new forms of superstition. Just as Christianity displaced older superstitions new superstitions will replace Christianity.

Josephus,

Yes, I’m sure you will.

<<I will ignore your ignorance [sic] of Jesus life and mission.>>

After all, I know a lot about Jesus’ alleged life and mission. I spent many years in my church’s Bible study group learning about it, and none of the problems I have raised suggest otherwise.

What the problems I raise DO suggest, however, is that Jesus needed a much better mission. A mission with more/additional useful information for mankind; a mission that spread His message to more than one illiterate and highly superstitious location and has still not managed to penetrate every corner of the globe, even after 2000 years.

<<However I will ask you to explain how you live your life in a positive philosophical personal dynamic?>>

Probably in much the same way you do. I just don’t cherry-pick the good bits of an old book (employing confirmation bias based on those ideals as I go) and pretend that the old book is where those ideals come from.

<<Certainly not by attacking Christians with negative comments is not a good foundation on which to build your life.>>

I have not attacked Christians. I have, however, criticised an idea. Ideas should be open to criticism. You just feel attacked because you have made this idea central to who you are.

<<So what is the basis of your life?>>

That's a pretty broad question. Which aspect of it?

--

ttbn,

As someone who used to be an atheist (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6644#99187), what was your god at the time? You didn't have one, did you? You just have it in for atheism ever since you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour, and thought you'd make disbelief look as dogmatic as religious belief.

And what do you mean by 'self-belief', by the way? The belief that one exists? The belief in one’s own abilities? Neither of those sound bad, to me.

I've come across some bullsheet in my time but never a condensed collection.....but hey!....when I get the message from God I'm gonna let youse all know.....promise!

Jesus never existed. He was invented.

Dear David,

«Can you really believe human females can become impregnated and give birth without the involvement of a human sperm?»

Apparently Josephus can, apparently you cannot. Is this envy?

Perhaps the whole thing is mumbo-jumbo, but then you say:
«It doesn’t matter how good a life you have lived or what a decent person you are.»

Well, if believing in some mumbo-jumbo could help me improve my personality, become more loving and caring, turn from being indecent to decent, etc., then I would be grabbing it with both hands, wouldn't you?

«According to the Bible Jesus did not have sex with either men or women. The guy seems less than human.»

Even animals have sex, so the guy seems less than an animal. Is that bad?

Dear Yuyutsu, You wrote, Well, if believing in some mumbo-jumbo could help me improve my personality, become more loving and caring, turn from being indecent to decent, etc., then I would be grabbing it with both hands, wouldn't you? «According to the Bible Jesus did not have sex with either men or women. The guy seems less than human.» Even animals have sex, so the guy seems less than an animal. Is that bad?" I value truth too much to believe in mumbojumbo and do not see how mumbojumbo would make me more loving and caring. In fact, believing in mumbojumbo might make me less caring. Considering the horrible history of the Christian superstition the mumbo jumbo has often had that effect. Yes, the Jesus person seems less than an animal. Animals are part of nature. That is better than being part of mumbojumbo.

Dear David,

Certainly we wouldn't want to see a repeat of those cruel murders which you mentioned (Hypatia, Servetus, Bruno and Galileo), so if you think that these were caused by the same Christian beliefs which Not_Now.Soon raised in this discussion, then this is indeed the place to bring it up; and if that's indeed the case, then one should keep away from such beliefs.

What is irrelevant in this context, is the mumbo-jumbo-ness or otherwise of these beliefs. All that matters here is whether they produce good - or evil.

If you say: «In fact, believing in mumbojumbo might make me less caring», then you probably need to elaborate and substantiate it. Are you speaking of ANY mumbo-jumbo, or just about the particular belief held by Not_Now.Soon (on the working assumption that it is mumbo-jumbo)? Is it only you who might become less caring as a result, or would it be anyone? Could such beliefs today actually lead you and/or others, to cruelty and murder?

One more thing that needs considering, is whether those "Christians" who carried out the said atrocities indeed believed in what Not_Now.Soon believes, or were they in fact opportunistic hypocrites?

Regarding animals and sex, do you similarly look down at asexual people for being unnatural and neglecting their duty to keep the human race going?

Dear Yuyutsu, I do not enjoy discussing matters with you so I will not continue this discussion.

Again we have nothing but attack on Christians. What we want to know what are the positive ways of life that you follow that gives you direction and hope. Of course Jesus never existed, we just made up the dates on our calendar. Herenow, There is more evidence Jesus existed than Julius Caesar yet I'm sure you do not question his existence.

HA! Ok wow. Thank you all for your responses. I'll try to get to them all.

To Davidk. You said:

[Many people have the idea that it would be a better world if all people believed what they believed.]

If all people knew God, it would be a better place. I say this by my observation that I had written above. By loving God, His love encourages me to be better then I am alone and without Him. This isn't a belief, I'm telling you. It's an observation. When I've done something wrong, and turned away from God my relationship with Him is affected. And until I reconcile it in one way or another, I notice a difference. A shorter temper, more callus words, and in general more easily to do more wrongs with more restraint to not. Comparatively speaking I'm not a "bad" person, but I am worse then I am when I stay close to God.

It is by observation that I can tell you that you are wrong to call it superstition. If other religions can make the same observation, then perhaps there's something worth consideration in them. If they can not make the same observation, then they are not in the same grouping of belief. I am likely going to tell this to everyone here. Seek God for yourself. See if you can find similar merit that I've found that not only does God exist, but that He's good and worth seeking out.

To the Atheist. You say about nonsense and belief. Tell me of this nonsense. We live in a bubble of diverse life in a desert of lifeless space. That we are able to even exist in the conditions of the universe, if it were not observable to be so, would also be beyond belief. Yet here we are. What I've offered is an observation. Not the only one. Seek God for yourself, and be the Atheist no more. He's real and he does love you.

To Yuyutsu. We've talked quite a bit. And though we both agree on the need of love and being moral, we disagree on who God is, or even what He is. I am lucky to say I know His love. It's not my own love, so He isn't just a deeper part of myself (though searching ourselves is a wonderful thing, God is greater still). I wish you well and am glad for our conversations. God loves us. All of us. But we are more to Him then our bodies. To Him we are His creation that He made and loved. With us there is a battle over us, and with that battle is another battle of either reverence or rebellion. Jesus taught that our enemies are not flesh and blood, but He listed some titles for the unseen spiritual world. It is my theory that we are allowed to be in the crossfires of an enemy, and in death and even dementia, because of the other battle to rebel against God or not, lead by the unseen forces.

To AJ Phillips. We've talked about this at length. You seek poof, then search for God yourself. He is real. If you search for Him and can't find Him, then let's talk more. Until then, as much as I'd like to, I can't drag you to the truth. It's the calling of many Christians to lead others to God, but the responsibility to find Him still is in your hands not mine.

To HereNow. Jesus not only existed, He still does. But perhaps that conversation is further down this topic. First I want to let you know, by my own observations that God is real, and that by being closer to Him, we are better for it.

To a Special Delivery. If you get a message from God you will be held accountable to it. But if you do not seek God what do you know of His merit? A blind voice leading other blind voices that have not sought God either. Seek Him to see if there is merit in your conclusion.

To Josephus and ttbn. Thank you both for your support and the active challenges to many of the other's views. I have one more request if you can though. I've given one observation with what I've seen and what I know. If you guys can give some of your observations and what you know with relation to God, it hopefully might bring a spark to many people who don't believe in God and don't care to. To hopefully at least look into God bring real and finding the light.

It's a personal request, and with done of the posters on OLO, (none do far that have responded) I know That would be furl to more mockery. So no worries if you decide not to. I appreciate your support, and your challenging the narratives of those who don't believe.

There is a difference between virgin conception and virgin birth. Mary never had sex with a man before Jesus Birth, to ensure her child was in the lineage of David. She was still a virgin at Jesus birth. God is one not three; God is one but has revealed his character, actions and wisdom in various ways, but especially in Jesus Christ. Human life is meant to be personally sacrificed for others welfare, especially those who cannot find the way, the truth and the life. The presence of the Spirit of God is present in lives that know forgiveness, a love that cares for others, especially the weak, the oppressed and sick. Character that spreads joy and peace, is long suffering and self controlled.

//Love the Lord with all your heart.//

Yeah... nah.

How about I don't, and just pretend that I do?

I love Jehovah, he's so terrific, I feel great now that I've been born again, it's like a nice cleansing colonic irrigation of love. Hooray for Jesus! Now I'm off to nag some disbelievers until they see the error of their futile, empty, meaningless lives. That will make Jesus love me even more! Then I'll get into heaven for sure, because heaven definitely exists and there is zero chance that we just die when we die, no siree, and if Jesus loves me enough that's my golden ticket to the good afterlife which makes this whole caper worthwhile.

Happy now?

Josephus,

Stop taking every criticism of your belief system as a personal attack on yourself. You conservative folk can be such snowflakes at times.

<<What we want to know what are the positive ways of life that you follow that gives you direction and hope.>>

Or, YOU want to know that, at least.

If you narrow your question down a little, I’m sure you’ll get more responses. Not everyone is foolish enough to base every facet of their lives on one idea.

<<Of course Jesus never existed, we just made up the dates on our calendar.>>

Jesus didn’t have to exist for Christian holidays to appear on our calendars, only the belief that he did.

<<There is more evidence Jesus existed than Julius Caesar ...>>

No, there’s not.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7862

--

Not_Now.Soon,

Yes, we have indeed discussed the question of the existence of a god at length. Unfortunately, though, you have not yet provided a reason as to why one should opt for the less rational explanation for so-called personal experiences, particularly not in light of co-incidence and confirmation bias.

<<You seek poof, then search for God yourself.>>

What object evidence should I start looking for? Subjective experience is too unreliable.

<<He is real.>>

You have not yet demonstrated this. I know you really, really, really believe this to be the case; but belief, no matter how strong, is not the same as knowledge.

<<If you search for Him and can't find Him, then let's talk more.>>

You forget that for half my life, I was utterly convinced that I had found Him. I stopped believing because I realised that I could not rationally support my beliefs.

<<… the responsibility to find Him still is in your hands not mine.>>

Firstly, no, it’s not my responsibility to play ‘hide and seek’ with a god who supposedly wants a relationship with everyone. It is His responsibility to reveal Himself in a way such that belief in His existence is rationally justifiable.

You forget, too, that there are about 4000 other gods to search for. How did you rule all the others out?

Religion has been around for so long, and for me
it's such a personal matter. I pray regularly.
I find through prayer a peace that I don't find
anywhere else. I would find it difficult to live
without a belief in God. I find that prayer and
meditation reconnects me with my source.

Anyway, I'm not out to convert anybody. I have
enough on my plate just trying to cope with my
daily life.

Not now soon, it would appear that a lot of gods followers disbelieve in things such as the dinosaurs as they are firm believers of creation, rather than evolution. How can this possibly be

So this god that you love nns is that the same god that sanctions slavery, rape, genocide, ethnic cleansing, blood sacrifice etc etc?
Is it the same god that will torture people FOREVER just for not believing in him?

A loving god?
You have a weird idea of love mate.

Toni Lavis appeals to humour. AJ Philips has an arsenal of appeals – logic, evidence, historical methods and fallacies in argument.

These appeals are outweighed by the fact that, for whatever reason some humans have an irresistible desire to believe in crap. It gives meaning to their lives. It bonds them with fellow believers in crap. It allows them to feel superior to those who reject belief in crap. It allows them to feel attacked by those who reject belief in crap. It allows them to feel persecuted by those who reject belief in crap.

Reason cannot prevail against the impulse to believe in crap. Of course, Christianity is not the only provider of crap. The other Abrahamic religions, the non-Abrahamic religions, New Age, conspiracy theories, advertising agencies creating wants for what is not needed, political rationalisations and other providers also produce crap.

In Dover Beach written in the nineteenth century Matthew Arnold saw religion retreating:

"The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and earth’s shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating to the breath
Of the night wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world."

Don’t worry, Matthew the Sea of Faith along with other oceans of human gullibility is still at high tide.

"What positive philosophy gives you strength of character?" Addressed to TheAtheist, but I'll take it as a general question.

All religions have had a similar core philosophy setting out how people should treat one another to maintain order and cohesion in human groups. It's basically the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you, often elaborated with specific rules. Humans must quite early have recognised that there were conflicting impulses in the dynamic of groups; we called them good and evil. (Why do we still have evil? Because some actions that are bad for the group can have advantages for individuals.) It is quite possible to hold this philosophy without believing that there was or is a non-human creator god.

So why do so many religions tie their positive philosophy to a god? Perhaps because calling on a higher authority to justify the rules works better. People were less likely to behave well just because someone else tells them to, but if it was an authority figure, father, head of extended family, tribal leader, king, or better a god, the authority's stronger. In fact, leaders could assert their own authority by saying 'it's not just me telling you this, it's God's will'. Since leaders will be seen often not to follow the rules themselves, it's more effective to have a superior non-human figure. Add to this the carrot effect - behave and god will reward you by taking you to a better life after you die.

Then, people are curious and like stories and explanations. One of the first human traits must have been curiosity about the world, tied to self-awareness: 'how did we get here? how did the world come about?' Humans could see from personal experiences how new humans came about; so it was reasonable to conclude that the world had a birth. (What's intriguing is that initially the observation would have been that new humans were created by women; so do religions as we know them develop when the penny dropped that men had a role in this?) (to be continued)

(Continued)
The downside of the idea of god (or as it used to be gods) creating the world and setting a philosophy for humans to live by, is that different people came up with different gods, so we got into competitive mode: my god is the only god, and if you don't believe in him, a) you won't be saved, and/or b) we're justified in killing you. This often underpinned the ferocity of wars that might have been fought anyway over resources; and probably made it harder to compromise. The competitive aspect totally overrode the fact the underlying philosophical basis was the same in all; people got worked up (and still do) over relative minor points of difference rather than seeing the greater commonality.

So, I am an atheist but I recognise and try to live by the common philosophical basis of all religions: the positive rules of how humans should respect each other, resolve differences without resorting to disparagement of or violence towards others, and live together well. I am capable of this without having to believe that any of the various gods and creation stories are real, although I recognise the human creativity that has gone into them.

In fact by not believing in any, I have no desire to join in the tit-for-tat attacks between people who believe in different religions. I do think it's unfortunate that some atheists are nasty to believers; but I think it's because atheists are influenced by the broader environment we've all grown up in, where attacks between people who hold different religious (and non-religious) viewpoints are the norm. The other side of this coin is evangelism: trying to recruit people from other faiths or non-faiths to your side, by saying we're the only ones with the true god, and if you don't believe what we believe you won't be 'saved'. Perhaps worse is 'if you leave our religion you will be damned'.

I'd suggest that everyone, religious or atheist, consider the golden rule and themselves stop doing all this now. Don't wait for the other to do it first.

Cossomby, Thanks for setting a better mood to the topic! We want to know what is the healthy basis of one's life, rather than conflicting with a Christian World view. It then becomes obvious they are the opponents [Hebrew Satanas} for the Christians here. They need to come up with a better way of life rather than disbelief as the basis of their character. Most of their accusation are misinformed on Christian realities, because they have listened to misinformed Christians.

//We want to know what is the healthy basis of one's life, rather than conflicting with a Christian World view.//

Yeah, your mistake there is assuming that 'conflicting with the Christian World view' and having a 'healthy basis of one's life' are mutually exclusive.

//It then becomes obvious they are the opponents [Hebrew Satanas}//

Oh dear, more equivocation. It's not big and it's not clever, Josephus.

The original Hebrew word satan does mean opponent, but we're all English speakers, and in English the word Satan refers specifically to the supernatural entity from Christian mythology, who is held to be the source of all worldly evil and thoroughly malevolent. And it is in that sense, of course, that English speakers will interpret any references to Satan. You are trying to conflate non-Christian belief with malevolent intentions. It's that sort of thinking that leads to Inquisitions and worse, Josephus.

//They need to come up with a better way of life//

Only if there is something wrong with their way of life. As far as I can work out, your argument seems to be that there definitely is something wrong with their way of life if it isn't your way of life, to which there is a rather obvious rebuttal:

It's their life, not yours. So bugger off and mind your own business, stickybeak.

//rather than disbelief as the basis of their character.//

Yeah, your mistake there is assuming that disbelief is the 'the basis of their character'. Expressing a view on something does not mean it is the 'basis' of one's character. I have been known to express the view that Hungry Jack's are better than McDonald's, but it does not follow that my preference for their hamburgers forms 'the basis of my character'. How ridiculous.

//Most of their accusation are misinformed on Christian realities, because they have listened to misinformed Christians.//

And most of yours are misinformed on non-Christian realities, because you have listened to misinformed Christians (and one in particular: yourself), instead of seizing the opportunity for a bit of education from the non-Christians you converse with.

You mean, “Thanks for allowing yourself to be diverted by my red herring”, Josephus.

<<Thanks for setting a better mood to the topic!>>

You, Cossomby, and myself (when I get caught up in your attempts to divert) are off topic.

Non-believers are being asked by Not.Now_Soon to search for his god, and are being re-assured that He is true when no evidence for this god has been provided, and nor have any means by which we are supposed to search for it. In light of the OP, the responses from myself and others are reasonable.

<<We want to know what is the healthy basis of one's life …>>

There’s that “we” again. Who’s “we”? The OP certainly doesn’t seem to belong to this group.

Again, you are deflecting.

<<They need to come up with a better way of life rather than disbelief as the basis of their character.>>

Firstly, no, “they” don’t. This is your red herring, and it’s off topic.

Secondly, no-one has said, or even suggested, that disbelief is the “basis of their character” - whatever that means.

Thirdly, I have already alluded to a philosophy superior to believing in unproven or unprovable claims: not accepting propositions that cannot be rationally justified.

Fourthly, you have not yet explained how your life-guiding/character-basing philosophies/principles are superior. You have simply assumed that atheists have no life-guiding/character-basing philosophies/principles, and then gone on further to presume that anything is necessarily better than nothing. It’s not.

Finally, despite your attempts to divert, I have been trying to answer your red-herring of a question, yet, when I request further detail from you in order to do so, you never oblige. Clearly you’re not really interested in an actual answer. You sound more like you just think you’ve found a stumbling block for non-believers and are throwing it out there to deflect from the total lack of evidence for a belief which cannot be rationally justified.

The Christian logic for the existence of god is; Only an idiot would believe in something that is not real. I believe in god, I am not an idiot. So therefore god must be real.

There are only three absolute laws of logic.

As they can be applied to god;

The law of identity: god is god.
The law of noncontradiction: god is not non-god.
The law of the excluded middle: Either its god or non-god.

The statement "God exists" is either true or false, there is no middle. God can only identify as god, there can be no contradiction, god cannot be non-god.

The use of the above is a relatively new counterargument to atheism, the so-called transcendental argument for God's existence, or TAG, as popularized by Matt Slick of Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry.

The following examines that line of reasoning and shows it to be a fallacy.

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/arminnavabi/do-laws-logic-prove-existence-god

the atheist is totally irrational /dishonest. They deny design needs a Designer, laws require Lawmaker and creation demands Creator. No wonder they must appeal to pseudo science. Walk around with eyes shut all day. The psalmist was certainly right to declare that a fool says in his heart their is no god. And they claim to be rational! Pleassse!

It's natural that atheists don't have anything to say. There is nothing to say about a non-belief.

Paul1405,

I see you know of the infamous Matt Slick and his fallacious transcendental argument, too.

Here’s a fun video of Matt Dillahunty taking down Slick’s transcendental argument during a televised debate the two had on the community access TV show Dillahunty often hosts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgDEiRTJTuk

--

runner,

So, now the Old Testament trumps the New?

<<The psalmist was certainly right to declare that a fool says in his heart their is no god.>>

“... but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” (Matthew 5:22)

Looks like you need to study your Bible a little harder.

--

ttbn,

The atheists here seem to have a lot to say. I suppose you had nothing to say when you were an atheist, too, is that right?

*Crickets chirping*

Not_Now.Soon,

Bravo. The error many believers make on pages such as this or in life generally is to try to explain their belief in the deity by logical reasoning. But that is an impossibility. The deity can neither be proven nor disproven through logic.

All you can do, is what you have done. That is to explain that God exists for you and express hope that others will come to know God as you have, There is nothing more to be said or argued.

I used to have two juxtaposed items in my office - a statue of The Thinker ( http://openclipart.org/image/2400px/svg_to_png/224300/The-Thinker-Auguste-Rodin-Grayscale.png ) and a picture of Christ praying in the desert ( http://smartandrelentless.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/jesus-praying-750x375.jpg ).

Two men in similar poses doing similar things. One is exploring the inner mind, the other exploring ultimate mind.

(Unfortunately the statue fell from the shelf one clumsy day and is no more. It was decapitated. I wanted to blame Islamists but decided it as caused by an even more fundamentalist notion. . . gravity)

I have sought your God but have not found him. I envy your 'discovery'. To me, your praying is an internal dialogue. To you its a discussion with the deity. Who's to say who is right...maybe both.

As expected you get the usual attacks from those who are utterly convinced of their superior understanding. Kudos for resisting the temptation to retaliate. For these people the absence of evidence = evidence of absence. But that is rarely true. These people will happily, even eagerly, accept all sorts of unprovable notions as fact. and then mock others who accept other unprovable notions as being naive or ignorant. Oh and then assert their tolerance of the other.

The civilisation we have inherited was built by people such as yourself. It will only survive if people such as yourself continue to espouse their views OR if others who haven't discovered your deity live their lives as though they have.

'unner,

So, now the Old Testament trumps the New?

<<The psalmist was certainly right to declare that a fool says in his heart their is no god.>>

“... but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” (Matthew 5:22)

Looks like you need to study your Bible a little harder.'

quoting as an authority what you don't believe in AJ? Not suprising as your faith has no rational answers. Pathetic!

That depends on which deity you’re referring to, mhaze.

<<The deity can neither be proven nor disproven through logic.>>

The classical omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god is easy to discredit using logic.

<<One is exploring the inner mind, the other exploring ultimate mind.>>

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by “ultimate” mind?

<<As expected you get the usual attacks from those who are utterly convinced of their superior understanding. Kudos for resisting the temptation to retaliate. For these people the absence of evidence = evidence of absence … These people will happily, even eagerly, accept all sorts of unprovable notions as fact. and then mock others who accept other unprovable notions as being naive or ignorant. Oh and then assert their tolerance of the other.>>

Wow, there’s a lot of accusations there. Mind pointing out which ones apply to whom, and providing some examples? Or would you rather keep it all vague, with no specific examples, lest you have your accusations shown to be utter BS?

My guess is it’ll be the latter.

<<[Civilisation] will only survive if people such as yourself continue to espouse their views OR if others who haven't discovered your deity live their lives as though they have.>>

That sounds like a rather bold, board, and presumptuous claim, especially given that you would have little idea of what Not.Now_Soon actually believes. What if his deity is against stem cell research? Have you considered the impact of resistance to such beneficial persuits? Or does this claim of yours pertain to just having something called “Christianity” around, while taking care to ignore just how frequently secularism has had to drag it kicking and screaming into modernity since the Enlightenment?

Furthermore, how have you determined what exactly civilisation requires now, and what it will require in the future, given that our needs are constantly changing? What worked in the past does not necessarily work now, and will not necessarily work in the future.

I think you need to unpack this claim of yours a little. It doesn’t look to me like you’ve thought it through very well.

Re AJPhilips: "You, Cossomby .... are off topic." I don't believe I was; just explaining why I will pass on Not.Now.Soon's advice in a non-confrontationist manner. I will be more explicit, though still polite.

Dear Not.Now.Soon, Thank you for your personal recommendation to adopt your religious belief. I accept that you feel you have gained strength from a belief in your god. However, I do not feel that need to believe in a god in order to feel strong and to have a philosophy based on the golden rule: "do unto others as you would have them do to you".

You write as though the god you believe in is 'the' god. But humans have and still do believe in many different gods; today, the closely related three Abrahamic faiths each act as though their version (or sub-version, eg Protestant v. Catholic, Sunni v. Shia) is the only valid one. This has led to a lot of cruelty and persecution between religions. Although I was brought up in the CofE, going to Sunday school and church, and being confirmed, this discrepancy was apparent to me before I was 10. I puzzled: if people from different religions believed that they were the only ones with the truth, and everyone else was wrong, maybe, just maybe, everyone was wrong, and no-one could claim to know the truth, or the only true god; maybe there was no god, and the concept was invented by humans to explain the world and their own existence. I became an atheist in my teens, and later a scientist.

I am sorry that believers are getting a lot of mocking and criticism these days, but then so are atheists. I'll do a deal with you: even though we both believe the other to be wrong or at least misguided, I won't criticise your beliefs, and in return I expect you not to criticise or try to convert me, and especially not to insist that I live by your version of the rules.

Regards, Cossomby

A specific question to Not.Now.Soon: I am puzzled by your statement: "No, if He did not love you, He would not leave believers here to be mocked, chided, or even killed in the most horrible ways."

There are three negatives here, and I can't unravel them. Do you mean that if he did love people, he 'would not leave' believers here to be mocked, chided, etc.? Or that if he loved people, he 'would leave' believers to be mocked and chided? Or if he did 'not' love people, he 'would leave' believers to be mocked etc. or he 'would not leave' them to be mocked and chided? I am seeking clarification of your meaning.

It's difficult to spell out all the possible ways of interpreting this multi-negative statement.

I wasn't about to add anything to this discussion, as a 'non-believer or atheist' or whatever label you want smack squarely on my forehead. I've always believed in one thing with the Christian Religion. If it gives an individual comfort, so why rip it down, just to unsettle someone's belief system in their hour of need. To do such a thing is a real dog act in my view.

And those who wish to resort to some academic argument that's calculated to disprove the existence of God and/or Jesus Christ, to me at least, it just smacks of academic arrogance. It's as if I say; because I have an MA in Theology, I 'know' God does exist. Conversely, another similar academic with his research, might claim, God can't possibly exist. Which really surprised me coming as it did from somebody as learned as DAVID F, with his strong attack on those who claim to be true believers in God.

Nobody can 'prove' or 'disprove' God's existence - It's my 'personal believe' there's no God, or any other supernatural being, which will save us all, at the time of our death. I say this neither to support other non-believers, or to upset true believers.

Point taken, Cossomby.

--

runner,

I was quoting, as an authority, what you believe to be an authority, to be more precise.

<<quoting as an authority what you don't believe in AJ?>>

Nothing wrong with that.

--

mhaze,

As you ponder your response (if that is indeed what you are doing), here’s a quote that I thought was rather apt, in light of your last response:

“You don't get to advertise all the good that your religion does without first scrupulously subtracting all the harm it does and considering seriously the question of whether some other religion, or no religion at all, does better.” - Dan Dennett

--

o sung wu,

I don’t think Not.Now_Soon (or any other Christians here) are currently in their “hour of need”. Not.Now_Soon started a discussion with a suggestion of what non-believers should do, which hinged on and explicit assertion that his beliefs are true. Therefore, his beliefs are fair game (and to his credit, he takes it well). It’s not like the critics here are going up to cancer patients in hospital beds trying to convince them that they are about to slip into an eternity of nothingness.

Now, THAT would be a "dog act".

<<Nobody can 'prove' or 'disprove' God's existence…>>

As I was saying to mhaze, that depends on which god you're talking about. The classical omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent Abrahamic god can be disproved by explaining how such a god is logically impossible, which is why theologians have been redefining Him in recent years. That aside, until evidence for a god is presented, the burden of proof remains with those claiming that a god exists. Atheism (at least the weak form of atheism) is the default position.

To Foxy. I agree with what you've said about prayer. Good luck with what life has for you and thank you for sharing what you know about praying. :)

To mhaze. Thank you for your kindness. You've sought for God and haven't found Him? I'm sorry to hear that. I'll keep your searching in my prayers. It's not as great as finding God yourself, but if you want I can tell you what I've found. Both from study and from experience. There's an online Christian community that I'm part of too. Many of them have shared their faith and their experiences. If you get the chance go to http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php and look for (well lots of choices) look for a guy named Christ_Empowered. He's gone through a lot in his life, and then sees God's healing hand after being saved.

To Cossomby. Thank you for the positive outlook, and the generous tone. However, I would like to share the same realization I have about God with you too. Belief and rules are great, and they do have their roles as a foundation in a person's faith. But God is more then that.

A strange thought for you. I know a few Jehovah Witnesses that visited my home when
I was younger. I let them in and we talked. I was Christian, and they said they were too. But I never found what they were coming for. Reasons to give up my understanding of Christianity for theirs. I think it was actually heartbreaking for one man. Because he'd come week after week to try and save me. I'd enjoy the conversation, think on the points made, but ultimately I did not follow his beliefs. What struck me though is that this man was trying to save me. It must have been heart breaking to him.

Please think of this in the same light. I've found that with God I am a better person then I am without Him. But how can I say I am good if I don't care enough about other people to let them find God too. Saving them, yes that's part of my beliefs. But on the other hand living with Him while on this side of eternity. That is more then worth it too.

Thank you for your kind attitude and for acknowledging the golden rule.

(Continued)

(Continued)

To clarify what I meant.

"God loves you. Otherwise He would not have sent Jesus here for your sake and mine. No, if He did not love you, He would not leave believers here to be mocked, chided, or even killed in the most horrible ways. But He has left those He's called here to be a beacon of light for those who do not know Him."

God has sent His own son to suffer to save those who would believe in Him. He allows those who believe in Him to suffer to reach even more people. The question of if God exists is not a question in my opinion. He is real. But as a measure on a broken and breaking world, Hod sends out those who believe in Him to care for the world. Love your neighbor, love your enemy. And even more then that to bring those people back to Him.

To David f.

[Reason cannot prevail against the impulse to believe in crap.]

Is this an excuse to not look? This sounds like a philosophical stance to reject something before giving it a chance. Like not giving acupuncture a chance because you know better and it's crap. Or not go to consoling because it's crap. If you want to test your beliefs, that's great. Be warned that many tests are given in a way to garnish a certain answer. But even with that your crap can be tested and refuted. God is not crap. Don't find excuses to be blind because your too smart to look.

To Paul1405. Like David f, you are rationalizing my stance without addressing anything I've said. I've seen you on these conversations, and I think you have a good head on your shoulders. But don't let that get in the way. Too much rationalization sometimes leads people away from what is right in front of them. And rationalizing Christianity away without addressing what is Christian is not a good approach.

The bible has a verse. Seek and you will find. See if that is right.

To AJ Philips.

[You forget that for half my life, I was utterly convinced that I had found Him. I stopped believing because I realised that I could not rationally support my beliefs.]

It was my impression from what you've said that you use to believe in God, but never found him. Then when you found doubts, there was nothing to hold up against them. If I'm wrong and you thought you found God, not just believed in Him. Let me know. That changes a little of how I see your stance.

[It is His responsibility to reveal Himself in a way such that belief in His existence is rationally justifiable.]

If I could question God as a kid, and He showed that He was there, and again a few times as a teen, and later as an adult. Each time having proof provided. Then I trust you can do it too. I'm not saying to rationally justify God, or have the correct theology of God and then He'll show up. No just seek Him. Prayer is a method I used. I've heard of books of ex-atheists looking to disprove God exists and instead through searching found that He had to exist, or that proof showed that He did. (I haven't read the books, but they caught my intreats. Maybe one day).

My point is that I don't think I can drag you to the conclusion, because you will always want to qualify my answers and search for weakness to proof you've not come close enough to really examine. It is a mockery in itself, but is easier if you just look on your own. I see no reason that I can find God and you can't.

To Mikk. Would you like a conversation on Love instead? Not on what love isn't. But on what love is. When I was a child, I grew up in a family that believed in God. I saw what love was in many instances from my family. As I grew I developed friendships with people, both Christian, and non Christian. I found a group of wonderful friends, and their personalities showed different aspects of kindness, looking out for each other, and loyalty. Different elements then I saw in my own family. I saw their ability to love and I envied the attributes they were strong in. However, because of knowing some of them and conversations, I also knew doubts and counter arguments to God existing. The evidance of Him being real out weighs the counter arguments that try to explain away God.

I've also dated, and observed a girl I dated with her family. Very different show of support and love then I got from my own family. Made me do a double take on what love is and what love could be. When employed I worked with a woman who's son was my age. And she loved him but could not trust him due to addiction to drugs and apparently an issue of theft for obtaining drugs. It was a sad element of loving even those who are not well. Perhaps a conversation about love is worth while. But I can tell you also that I know of God's love too. It is not a belief, it is a proof I have to know that God is real. Among other proofs of God is what made me seek which religion(s), if any, are from God. As I told AJ Phillips. If I can find God at different stages in life, with different levels of maturity and intelligence. Then so can you.

To o sung wu.

If I would give you a label, it'd be a police offices that cares about his community. Or possibly a retired police officer. That seems to line up with what I've seen that you've written. I'm glad you joined the conversation and for your attitude to not tip another's beliefs down. I will say though that I disagree that there is no proof for God. It might be that I can't prove him to another person. But that's why I've suggested for dope to search for God on their own. Thank you for your services to the community, and for looking out for others.

//One is exploring the inner mind, the other exploring ultimate mind.//

So, like, universal consciousness and stuff? Far out, man.

But I dunno, sounds a bit New Age to me...

And I just can't be havin' with bloody hippies.

//The civilisation we have inherited was built by people such as yourself.//

Was it though? Not_Now.Soon is a Biblical literalist, to the point that he will happily reject really basic and fundamental principles of physics if they disagree with his reading of the Bible. And yes, I can provide citations if needed.

I don't think the civilisation I've inherited was built by people like that. I think the civilisation I've inherited was built by brilliant, pioneering, and inquisitive people. Most of whom were Christian. I can, off the top of my head, write a fairly substantial list of noteworthy chemists and physicists - and most of them were Christian through and through. But if they'd been sort of people who favoured dogmatism over evidence, who didn't say to themselves 'well, the Bible's all very well and good but it doesn't really explain how it all works'... well, I very much doubt we'd have any internet to allow this conversation, to say the least.

//It will only survive if people such as yourself continue to espouse their views//

That the answers are all in the Bible, so why look anywhere else?

I remain unconvinced that rejecting science because it fails to meet the dogma test is the best survival strategy for our civilisation.

But hey, that's just my view... each to their own.

Live long and prosper, mhaze.

Thanks for your clarification, Not.Now.Soon. You wrote 'God has sent His own son to suffer to save those who would believe in Him. He allows those who believe in Him to suffer to reach even more people.'

This is a major stumbling block I have with Christianity. If you or I saw someone suffering we would run to their aid. We see helping those who suffer as one of the highest goods we can do. We respect and praise paramedics, we give medals for bravery in saving others. Yet we are just human.

You posit a god who is loving, compassionate and all-powerful. yet you say he 'allows those who believe in him to suffer', and the purpose of that suffering is to 'reach even more people'. For me this is counter-intuitive. I could never accept that it is valid for a human, let alone a god, to allow people to suffer when they had the power to prevent it, for any reason whatever. So if this is meant to be the means to 'reach me', well, it's a negative message I'm getting.

Dear o sung wu, I am sorry to disappoint you about me. There are some things I feel passionate about. One of those things is a great respect for people with the drive to uncover the facts of nature and to make those facts known to humankind. I lament the fate of some of them. Unfortunately Christianity has been active in martyring some of those people. Christianity celebrates the martyrs to their faith, but I would also celebrate the martyrs to reason. One was Hypatia murdered by a Christian mob in 415. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hypatia “She was, in her time, the world’s leading mathematician and astronomer, the only woman for whom such claim can be made. She was also a popular teacher and lecturer on philosophical topics of a less-specialist nature, attracting many loyal students and large audiences.” “Hypatia became the victim of a particularly brutal murder at the hands of a gang of Christian zealots. It remains a matter of vigorous debate how much the guilt of this atrocity is Cyril’s, but the affair made Hypatia a powerful feminist symbol and a figure of affirmation for intellectual endeavour in the face of ignorant prejudice. Her intellectual accomplishments alone were quite sufficient to merit the preservation and respect of her name, but sadly, the manner of her death added to it an even greater emphasis.” Another martyr to reason was Michael Servetus, discoverer of pulmonary circulation, who was burned at the stake in Protestant Geneva in 1553. He doubted the Trinity. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Michael-Servetus Another martyr to reason was Giordano Bruno who was burned at the stake in 1600 in Catholic Rome. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Giordano-Bruno “Italian philosopher, astronomer, mathematician, and occultist whose theories anticipated modern science. The most notable of these were his theories of the infinite universe and the multiplicity of worlds, in which he rejected the traditional geocentric (Earth-centred) astronomy and intuitively went beyond the Copernican heliocentric (Sun-centred) theory, which still maintained a finite universe with a sphere of fixed stars.” Continued

//But how can I say I am good if I don't care enough about other people to let them find God too.//

Yeah, there is a difference between leading and pushing. It is a subtle and fine difference.

//Saving them, yes that's part of my beliefs. But on the other hand living with Him while on this side of eternity.//

Yeah, I think your problem is that assuming everybody needs saving. If I might use an analogy... it's as though we're all at the beach, with many of us happily bobbing about in the water of non-Christian belief, practising some quite Buddhist meditation on our inflated inner-tube, or doing a bit of atheist surfing, or maybe just wading about in uncertainty, quite happy and unconcerned. And you, good bloke that you are, are doing some volunteer lifesaving... and you see all these people in those deep, dangerous waters where there could be sharks and rip currents and deadly marine stingers and all the awful things that can happen at sea, and you see them waving their arms, and you think they must be in trouble and need saving. So you bravely plunge into the surf to save them.

But here's the thing: they're waving, not drowning. Everybody knows that if you're in trouble at the beach you just stick your hand straight up and don't wave it about. All those happy people waggling their hands that you think are in dire trouble are just waving at you guys back on the beach of Christianity, just to say 'hi', or 'you guys built a mad sand sculpture', or maybe 'come on in, the water's lovely'. And while you're so helpfully, and with the best of all possible intentions, trying to save those who don't need it... well, maybe you're too busy to see the desperate little hands sticking feebly upright. The ones that belong to the people who really do need a bit of Christian charity. But maybe not in the form of invitations to convert... they don't feed you when you're hungry. Do you guys have the Vinnies in Colorado?

continued

Another martyr to reason was Galileo who spent his last years under house arrest by the Inquisition because he maintained that the earth went around the sun.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Galileo-Galilei

“Italian natural philosopher, astronomer, and mathematician who made fundamental contributions to the sciences of motion, astronomy, and strength of materials and to the development of the scientific method. His formulation of (circular) inertia, the law of falling bodies, and parabolic trajectories marked the beginning of a fundamental change in the study of motion. His insistence that the book of nature was written in the language of mathematics changed natural philosophy from a verbal, qualitative account to a mathematical one in which experimentation became a recognized method for discovering the facts of nature. Finally, his discoveries with the telescope revolutionized astronomy and paved the way for the acceptance of the Copernican heliocentric system, but his advocacy of that system eventually resulted in an Inquisition process against him.”

For a large part of its history Christianity has been an enemy to reason and to those who questioned its dogmas. Other great minds have questioned but were more cautious. Isaac Newton also questioned the Trinity but his writings on that subject are among his unpublished papers.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Isaac-Newton

The most important work of Spinoza was published posthumously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza

I support a world where there is freedom to express an opinion especially if it questions current popular beliefs, and scientists and other explorers of nature are free to go wherever evidence takes them. When Christianity dominated the polity such a world did not exist.

Not_Now.Soon wrote:

To David f.

[Reason cannot prevail against the impulse to believe in crap.]

Is this an excuse to not look?

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Your assumption that I have not looked at Christianity is false. I assure you that I have knowledge of Christianity and have thoroughly looked into it. That knowledge convinced me that it is crap.

Have you looked into Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam or Judaism? What excuse, if you haven't looked, did you use not to look?

Sadly these discussions tend to be hijacked by this silly question, whether or not God exists. That's a pity because the actual topic is whether or not [when, where, why, how, and to what extent] belief in God [whether in the Christian way or otherwise] improves one personality.

Until and unless we significantly improve our personality, discussing God is useless, because our guilt feelings would prevent from finding Him. What to speak of finding God - a person with a guilty heart who even finds a treasure of gold, would not be able to enjoy it and will somehow find a way to waste it, perhaps gamble it away.

Nevertheless, I think that believing in God, or in God's existence, is a great technique which can help the believer to improve their personality. This is the topic here. Whether this technique can also lead us even further towards God, beyond just having a better personality, that discussion I suggest to keep for another day.

Practising this technique of believing in God used to be easy, but today, due to the onslaught of material science, it has become quite difficult. I salute those who are able to practice this technique despite the difficulties, but I cannot blame those who due to the modern environment can no longer practise it - for them, however, other methods are available and following the Golden-Rule is great as well.

Yuyutsu, you propose that whether or not God (a god, any god, or just the Christian god?) exists is a silly question. I guess that depends on whether or not the existence of god is relevant to a belief in god. If the belief is what's important, then it probably does not matter if there really is a god, or any god.

Humans are good at believing in non-existent entities, and we often see this as good. We are delighted to see the joyous belief of small children in Santa Claus. In that case, of course, we expect them to realise that he doesn't actually exist when they grow up.

Not_Now.Soon,

Despite the fact that I have said nothing to suggest anything of the sort, I can understand how you would get that impression.

<<It was my impression from what you've said that you use to believe in God, but never found him.>>

This is the type of arrogant and offensive assumption Christians make of former Christians: that they couldn’t REALLY have found Jesus, otherwise disbelief would supposedly be impossible. I’d know, I used to make the same silly assumption.

Technically, I think you’re right, though, because there was no Jesus to find. I just thought I had found Jesus. At the time, however, I believed with every of my ounce of my being that I had found Him.

As I pointed out at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19198#341464, I was a fervent believer who was very active in his church. I was quite evangelical, actually, and was keen to save souls. I’d often carry a pocket Bible around with me, and, when I was a kid, would happily debate other kids at school. After finishing school, I even briefly considered travelling to Adelaide to enrol in the Lutheran Church’s seminary here in Australia.

If I was not a true believer, then no-one is.

True believers can still come to reason. Former preacher and author, Dan Barker, is a well-known example. There is an entire organisation set up as a support group for clergy and former clergy who no longer believe but have no other skills and/or have lost, or are about to lose, their entire social group if and when they leave their profession.

http://clergyproject.org

<<Then when you found doubts, there was nothing to hold up against them.>>

I didn’t just “find doubts”, I found reasons to doubt. Reasons we have already been through, and reasons you unsurprisingly didn’t seem keen to explore in any depth.

Continued…

…Continued

But, no, none of my beliefs held up against logic and reason, and from my observations in debating theists for many years, and sharing experiences with other Christians when I was still a Christian, there is nothing in the religious beliefs of others that hold up against reason and logic either, which is why they need to have ‘faith’.

<<If I could question God as a kid, and He showed that He was there, and again a few times as a teen, and later as an adult. Each time having proof provided. Then I trust you can do it too.>>

If the proof to which you refer is along the same lines as the personal experiences which you shared in some of our previous discussions, then, no, I would not find that convincing at all since there are more rational explanations for the experiences.

If there is a god, then that god would know what it would take to convince me of its existence. If it doesn’t do that, then I can only assume that either it doesn’t exist or that it is not interested in revealing itself any way such that a belief in it could be rationally justifiable.

But, again, it is not my responsibility to go looking for a god who apparently wants to play silly buggers with vague signs.

<<… just seek Him. Prayer is a method I used.>>

Same here, and boy did I pray hard when I was losing faith. After all, the thought of hell can still be terrifying to the indoctrinated - even after the belief is completely gone, in some cases. However, try as I might, no evidence was forthcoming. Nothing.

<<… you will always want to qualify my answers and search for weakness to [prove] you've not come close enough to really examine.>>

I had examined the evidence you presented to me very closely and explained in great detail why your evidence falls short of rationally justifying a belief in a god. It is unfair of you to suggest otherwise.

We can all observe here AJ Philips life and mind is based in settled doubts and negative reasons to live. He poses no answers to even his own life, no reason or purpose only to act as Satan [opponent] for believers. To follow his life is empty of hope, reason for existence and positive purpose. His life and purpose is based in opposition to faith. He has no answers to his own purpose for life or anyone else's.
.

Dear Cossomby,

The question of existence, of anything, is a material question - not a spiritual one.

Say a child believes that if he behaves well (speaks politely, doesn't hit his little sister, sit straight properly and eat everything on his plate), then Santa will give him a present. If AS A RESULT he behaves as expected, then there is nothing spiritual about it, then he is just a shrewd little merchant who believes he's making a good business deal.

Now the said child still gains good habits which will serve him well later in life, and meanwhile also he consumed nutritious food, his spine developed well, people respect him and he doesn't carry a baggage of guilt for hitting his sister. Great - this possibly prepared him for spirituality, but in itself it was not yet spiritual.

Now if he did the same, exactly the same, not because he wanted a gift, but because he loved Santa, then he is into the spiritual already.

Now you can see how a belief that God exists can be toxic. It is far better to believe in God and sing His glories than to believe in His existence (which is a logical impossibility, but let's avoid this digression). My love of God is all I care, while if I thought that He existed, that would reduce Him in my eyes to the level of a mere object, thus could detract my respect and lead me astray, into materialism.

Hi there DAVID F & A.J.PHILIPS...

Between the two of you I'd have no hope of maintaining my point of view because you're both intellectual heavyweights when it comes to arguing a case.

The only point I'd like to make - if someone derives some comfort, whether it's in their hour of need, or otherwise - why not let them have that comfort. Some people like to believe they have some supernatural unity in their corner, why not? Just because I don't believe in it. People like me have no right to go around trying to dismiss those beliefs. You would've seen men in the US Army DAVID F, who harboured Christian beliefs I sure? Likewise you would seen those who previously had those beliefs, completely jettison them as well. I lost ALL my Christian convictions, in an oppressively hot, wet country, called South Vietnam, back in the late 1960's.

I recall years later we had to do a building entry (police), in order to arrest a known fugitive who we'd suspected of being armed. My No, 2 on 'the key' (copper speak) always without fail, crossed himself like a Catholic, moments before he 'swung' the key. The whole squad had frequently seen him do this, but were not of a mind to ask him (privacy and his 'short fuse') because it was considered deeply personal.

Some time later, after 'stand-down' from another job, and over a beer I decided to enquire why he did it. He astounded me with his quiet, even gentle answer, he simply stated, he believed in God. Even though I was his sergeant, I wasn't going to encourage him to elaborate any further with his answer, otherwise I might find myself flat on my face sucking up concrete, or worse. The 36 months I did with the squad, this S/C continued to persevere with this practice. And why not? I don't believe in any of his Christian beliefs, but that's me - Let's live and let live I say.

Hi there NOT_NOW.SOON...

Thank you for your kind remarks, albeit undeserved. As you've no doubt discovered I'm not the 'sharpest tool in the shed' so I can't very well mount a case either way, 'for' or 'against' the existence of a God. My position has always been - 'Live and let live'. The only real departure to that, is these Muslims who seek to cloak their terrorist activities in their Islamic religion. To me that's utterly untenable in my view.

AJP,

"The classical omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god is easy to discredit using logic."

I say proven/disproven, you say discredited. I guess this subtle re-framing of the discussion usually works for you since you do it so often. But it never works with me, so why do it? No plan B I guess.

Anyway….how do you discredit something that doesn't exist? And/or how do you discredit an omniscient being? . You can use our criteria but they probably don't apply to such a being.

"Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by “ultimate” mind?"

NNS and believers like him think they are talking to the creator, the omniscient being, the intelligence that created all, knows all, controls all. The ultimate mind.

"Mind pointing out which ones apply to whom, and providing some examples?"

A whiff of paranoia there, AJ? I noticed the same thing t'other day when I wrote a general post that you assumed was directed specifically at you.
Again…. look back through the posts here which are liberally sprinkled with words like "idiot", superstition", "nonsense", requests for "objective evidence" etc. As I said, there are some (many?) who'll treat unproven theories (eg AGW, DarkMatter/Energy, Big Bang and a host of other best-guesses) as though they are established fact, while belittling others who adhere to other unproven theories (eg the deity).

"That sounds like a rather bold, board, and presumptuous claim, especially given that you would have little idea of what Not.Now_Soon actually believes".

Well I'm a bold guy (but rarely board).What NNS believes in detail is not really my concern or point. My point was that we need Christians to continue to be Christian and to act in a Christian manner, and advocate for Christianity and we need those who aren't Christian to act in a Christian manner.

In this regard I was talking about individuals such as NNS, not the various organisations that claim to speak for Christians and the Christian God. What the churches think about stem cells is an entirely separate issue to what NNS did in the opening post on this thread.

/cont

/cont

Equally your oft repeated assertions about the churches being dragged into the Enlightenment, misses the point. The churches, like most hierarchical organisations, were resistant to change, particularly change that threatened their leader’s power-base. But the church isn't the same as Christianity. And you should never forget that those doing the dragging were also Christian (Locke, Rousseau etc). And you should never forget that the Enlightenment happened in, and only in, Christian societies. Not in China. Not (and still not) in Islam. The Christian church might have opposed it, but Christianity enabled it.

"Furthermore, how have you determined what exactly civilisation requires now, and what it will require in the future, given that our needs are constantly changing? What worked in the past does not necessarily work now, and will not necessarily work in the future."

I've spoken before about "chronological snobbery", the notion that we live in special times such that the old rules don't apply. My impression is that your historical understanding is rather limited and not a little jaundiced so I don't know how much I can explain since a certain level of pre-requisite knowledge is needed.
I was talking about our civilisation - basically western civilisation. The civilisation we inherited from the mixing of Greek empiricism, rationalism and science, Roman rule of law, work ethic and individuality and Christian values.

If we lose those we no longer have a Western Civilisation but something different. I've seen from the past that you just don't want to credit any of the Western civilisation’s positive attributes to Christianity but I think that's wrong. As we start to lose the Christian leg to the pillars of western civilisation, we start to lose western civilisation. The civilisation won't cease to exist but it will become something different.

/cont

/cont

And since I think that, on balance, western civilisation has been the most advanced and beneficial in human history and will continue to be so for as long as it exists, the loss of those values will be to the detriment of humankind. Whatismore, all the replacement candidates seen so far will be a backward step.

Now I can't KNOW this with any degree of certainty. But if you look back over the 10000 or so years of human civilisation (in my view there were no civilisations in pre-history) and see what caused the decline and disappearance of past civilisations, it’s rather easy to see that these losses occurred because fundamental aspects of the civilisation fell into disrepute and/or disuse.
So much of what the west the west is under threat with attacks on free speech, the rule of law, the idiocy of postmodernism and identity politics among others. Included in that is the apparent decline in Christian values which in turn feeds into the other problems. Each of these issues has to be addressed individually and severally if this civilisation is to salvaged.
So, while not being a Christian, I continue to barrack for its retention.

Nice try, mhaze.

<<I say proven/disproven, you say discredited.>>

“Disproven” is better, and is what I usually say. Why, it was my word of choice in my response to o sung wu:

“As I was saying to mhaze, that depends on which god you're talking about. The classical omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent Abrahamic god can be disproved…” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#251963)

I never try to reframe arguments. This is just another one of your dishonest smears. You tried it on at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7832#241990 and it flopped there, too. It's a common tactic of yours, isn't it? Try to make it look like your opponent regularly engages in some sort of dishonest activity. You tried it on with my pointing out of fallacies, until it became abundantly clear that you were getting nowhere with it.

<<... how do you discredit something that doesn't exist? And/or how do you discredit an omniscient being?>>

By explaining how it can't exist. Do I need to explain to you why an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent good cannot exist in a world where so much evil and suffering exists?

<<A whiff of paranoia there, AJ?>>

No, I was just wondering which, if any, of your accusations were directed at me, since none of them applied to me, so that I could expose them for the BS that it was. After all, there were far too many accusations there to apply to just one or two people. Looks like I was right, though, and - like the slanderous, mendacious coward that you are - you are opting to keep the objects of your accusations vague.

<<I noticed the same thing t'other day when I wrote a general post that you assumed was directed specifically at you.>>

Oh please, mhaze. Tell me to whom, and with regards to what exactly, was that comment directed.

<<... look back through the posts here which are liberally sprinkled with words like "idiot", superstition", "nonsense", requests for "objective evidence" etc.>>

Firstly, requesting objective evidence for a god is not unreasonable when one is being told that they should find this god.

Continued…

...Continued

Secondly, this hardly justifies your very specific accusations. Some of which contained assumptions about what others believe.

<<As I said, there are some (many?) who'll treat unproven theories (eg AGW, DarkMatter/Energy, Big Bang and a host of other best-guesses) as though they are established fact ...>>

There is at least evidence for those other things you mention. There is no evidence for deities. Your analogy is flawed.

<<My point was that we need Christians to continue to be Christian and to act in a Christian manner …>>

What constitutes a “Christian manner” is constantly evolving, and, as Toni pointed out, this is not always desirable.

<<What the churches think about stem cells is an entirely separate issue ...>>

... and what Christians think of stem cell research, the two are not mutually exclusive.

<<... the church isn't the same as Christianity.>>

Technically, no. One is a belief system, the other is an institution. However, the Church reflects the beliefs of the individuals within it, even if there is sometimes a little lag.

<<And you should never forget that those doing the dragging were also Christian …>>

More so in the past, when lower levels of education and a lack of knowledge with regards to the biological sciences compelled people to opt for supernatural explanations for origins.

<<And you should never forget that the Enlightenment happened in, and only in, Christian societies.>>

Indeed it did. So what?

<<I was talking about … [t]he civilisation we inherited from the mixing of Greek empiricism, rationalism and science, Roman rule of law, work ethic and individuality and Christian values.>>

Yes, I understand that. I have a good understanding of how Christian principles enabled principles in law. They teach you it in law school.

However, the rest of your posts consist of a lot of assumptions, conjecture, and supposition (far too much to address here), to which I would refer you back to the quote I provided you with. Your fears and assumptions fail to consider all factors.

mhaze wrote: “In this regard I was talking about individuals such as NNS, not the various organisations that claim to speak for Christians and the Christian God.” In the above mhaze has made a critical distinction. We can call religion the organised actions of a group or a body representing that group. We can call religiosity the feelings and acts of an individual identifying with such a group. Religion can cause humans to unite to massacre or to build a hospital or school. Religiosity can give one the quiet courage to deal with danger or the arrogance to try to push one’s belief on others. O sung wu wrote of the religiosity of his colleague and its giving him strength to deal with matters. “I recall years later we had to do a building entry (police), in order to arrest a known fugitive who we'd suspected of being armed. My No, 2 on 'the key' (copper speak) always without fail, crossed himself like a Catholic, moments before he 'swung' the key. The whole squad had frequently seen him do this, but were not of a mind to ask him (privacy and his 'short fuse') because it was considered deeply personal. Some time later, after 'stand-down' from another job, and over a beer I decided to enquire why he did it. He astounded me with his quiet, even gentle answer, he simply stated, he believed in God. Even though I was his sergeant, I wasn't going to encourage him to elaborate any further with his answer, otherwise I might find myself flat on my face sucking up concrete, or worse. The 36 months I did with the squad, this S/C continued to persevere with this practice. And why not? I don't believe in any of his Christian beliefs, but that's me - Let's live and let live I say.” I can only admire the religiosity of o sung wu’s colleague and o sung wu’s attitude of “- Let's live and let live”. Continued

Continued

However, that is not the same as what Not_Now.Soon has done. He has assumed that what is good for him is good for other people. He does not believe in “Let's live and let live”. He wants to push his belief system on others. There is too much of this in our world. Not_Now.Soon also had the arrogance to assume I did not buy his belief system because I did not know about it. One cannot live in a largely Christian world without being subject to the attention of Christian missionaries of which Not_Now.Soon appears to be one. I have not met one who does not assume that the subject of their unwelcome attention does not know about Christianity. It is impossible to live in a largely Christian and be unaware of the mind-numbing nature of the religion.

I see history as very different from the way mhaze sees it. I see Christianity as the greatest man made disaster visited on our society. In the classical world there were a number of pagan faiths which in general were tolerant of each other and did not demand exclusivity. There were the great philosophies of Stoicism, Epicureanism and Cynicism. Stoicism encouraged one not to allow an unpleasant external reality to affect one’s inner composure. Epicureanism advocated seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. It saw pleasure in moderating one’s desires, seeking friendship and enjoying the working of one’s intellect. Cynicism saw doubt as more worthwhile than faith as it is the beginning of knowledge.

Then disaster struck. With the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire the Dark Ages rapidly followed. Christianity with its opposition to questioning and its support of the divine right of the ruler was an ideal religion for serving the powers-that-be. Renaissance reconnected with the pre-Christian world and along with Enlightenment encouraged humanity to free itself from the grasp of Christian tyranny.

Continued

continued

One of the works I have read on Christianity is MacCulloch’s “A History of Christianity”.

Two quotations from that work:


“For most of its existence, Christianity has been the most intolerant of world faiths, doing its best to eliminate all competitors, with Judaism a qualified exception, for which (thanks to some thoughts from Augustine of Hippo) it found
space to serve its own theological and social purposes.” P. 4



“I still appreciate the seriousness which a religious mentality brings to the mystery and misery of human existence, and I appreciate the solemnity of religious liturgy as a way of confronting these problems. I live with the puzzle of wondering how something so apparently crazy can be so captivating to millions of other members of my species.” P. 11

Thanks for that, david f. Well put.

--

mhaze,

Could you specify to which Christian values you refer, and how exactly they were necessary? I mean something unique to Christianity, not just a universal principle hijacked by Christianity, like the golden rule. The last time I asked, you never specified which values you were referring to.

I know of several pertaining to principles of law where Enlightenment figures appealed to ideals found in Christianity (e.g. Locke on property), possibly just to lend their ideas some authority in more superstitious times (a possibility you've overlooked).

I want to see if you actually have anything specific in mind, or are just repeating exaggerated claims repeated ad nauseum in conservative and nationalist circles.

Hi thereDAVID F...

You've again bowled me out, 'first ball' with your rational and scholastic argument. But if I stand by my default position of; 'live and let live', generally speaking I don't incur too much trouble. They say you should never enter an argument over religion and politics. Stupidly I do stick my head up on some political discussions, and generally have it well and truly shot off. I guess I don't know too much about either topic, to even win a round or two? Ah well, them's the breaks I guess.

I'm really pleased to see you still take an active interest in our Forum DAVID F.! Without your input, I'm sure the quality of what's written would invariably decline, so thank you very much indeed, for adding to the literary content of the Forum.

To Cossomby.

[If you or I saw someone suffering we would run to their aid. We see helping those who suffer as one of the highest goods we can do.]

I agree. But it's also true that we send people to those suffering, even to set up shop to try and help them whike living in the same conditions as them. It's not just churches that do this kind of missionary work. Sending someone to danger or hardship in order to save another is exactly what I meant that God has done to those who are in this broken world. It's not just a message to convert people. It's a calling to care for people.

To Toni Lavis. If your analogy was accurate, then that would be great. But unfortunately it's not. Everyone needs saving. Including you. Including me. I can't save you. I can try, but much of what we need saving from we don't know about it until it's too late. I couldn't save my friend from a failing marriage, though I tried to be there for him through it. I couldn't save a cousin from suicide. Didn't even know there was an issue till I heard he had taken his life.as much as it breaks my heart, I can't even save my wife from growing anxiety that I'm finally getting a fuller picture of how bad it is. I have seen in my life where God has rescued me. And that's what I know can be there for you too. For both this life and the next we all need saving.

I haven't heard of a Vinnies, but we have Goodwill. Looks similar to the Google search of Vinnies. We also have a few programs for homelessness.

From David f and AJ Philips we have not heard the basis of their life just the negative attacks in an endeavour to push their beliefs onto others. Quote from D f: "He does not believe in “Let's live and let live”. He wants to push his belief system on others. There is too much of this in our world." It is a pity they cannot see themselves. Their belief system is negative "We don't believe", and not a foundation for a healthy society. A positive world view and a healthy view of the true character [God] and living a life in blessing others, rather than cursing, creates a good society.

To David f.

Looking at Christianity is one thing. Looking for God is another. Perhaps you've never been in a place where you thought you needed Him. On the one hand if that's the case, I'm glad you've had such a good life. On the other hand, if that's the case I'm sorry you missed finding God because you never needed to look for Him. It's a great loss.

To o sung wu. You seem smart to me. Better then that though , you also sound kind and experienced that you can challenge or refute some things people say.Reading these comments, I'm now wondering if people search but for whatever reason don't find God. In that case, I wonder why those that do find Him, do find Him. In most things in life I see myself as the bottom of the barrel. "If I can do it so can you" kind of attitude. I still think that, but I'll have to consider a few on here. If I can't help, then live and let live is a second best choice I guess.

To AJ Philips.

[Despite the fact that I have said nothing to suggest anything of the sort, I can understand how you would get that impression. This is the type of arrogant and offensive assumption Christians make of former Christians: that they couldn’t REALLY have found Jesus, otherwise disbelief would supposedly be impossible. I’d know, I used to make the same silly assumption.]

If you had mentioned a tragic loss, I might have considered it. But instead you only seemed to be stuck on thinking about it too much. If you had found God you wouldn't be trying to explain Him away. It was philosophical thinking that seemed to turn you away. That in my opinion is not enough. I can see theology and philosophy butting heads and coming out the way you did. I can't see philosophical arguments and logic issues actually convincing me that God did not comfort me when I was needing it. Any other experience could possibly be argued to a stalemate where no one can prove or disprove. (Still unlikely with most of them). But that experience is more then enough to tip any scale to the point that God can be verified, because there's no other explanation.

Don't double standardize me with your view of Christian arrogance though, you seem pretty prone to try and speak for my views or say you know them, because you were there before. If you must know, after talking to you I hoped I could help others in the Christian communities I am in, to avoid the problems you had. Still need to find a way to apply it in my church, but on an online community I asked for anyone's testimonies of God answering their prayers. Hopefully to be an encouragement to anyone who's facing doubts. http://christianforums.net/Fellowship/index.php?threads/on-the-subject-of-prayer.70639/

Dear Josephus,

I have mentioned three ancient philosophies Epicureanism, Stoicism and Cynicism. I believe any of the three is superior to the Christian superstition. Apparently you sound off without reading my posts.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

I used to believe in God. After reflection I concluded I believed in an entity that existed only in the human mind and not elsewhere. I wrote an article to that effect.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10065 points to my article “God is a human invention”. God or the idea of God is not even necessary in religion. Buddhism is such a religion. There is no notion of God or soul in Buddhism.

So David you are a Buddhist, it is a pity you would only practise it. Like live and let live.

Hi david f, I once met a god in the flesh, after a long drive, my partner took me on a 30 minute trek into the Waipoua Forest New Zealand to meet the god Tane Mahuta. "T"'s belief is that the mythology of her Maori people is as plausible as any other religious belief. I don't dispute that.

http://teara.govt.nz/en/te-waonui-a-tane-forest-mythology

Dear Josephus,

Pointing out that Buddhism is a religion without a God does not make me a Buddhist. Your logic and reasoning are questionable. Maybe you can read up on Buddhism and other non-Christian religions, and learn that some of the world can do without your superstition. Nobody was a Christian before Christianity was invented. Religions are born and die. At one time the religion, Manichaeism, extended from Spain to China. As far as is known there are no more believers in Manichaeism. some day there will be no believers in Christianity. Except for people like me who take an interest in history nobody will have even heard of it. Have you heard of Manichaeism?

As for me I do not find it necessary to believe in any religion. I believe the world would be better off without mumbojumbo.

//Everyone needs saving. Including you. Including me.//

Saving from what? I know what I need some saving from right now: the heat. Will Jesus bless me with a cool change, or will some weather god beat him to it?

Or perhaps the weather will just change, without the helpful intercession of the barometer gnomes.

/And that's what I know can be there for you too.//

This man claims to hold knowledge beyond the ken of mortal men. If this be truth, then surely he be a witch. And what do we do with witches?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3jt5ibfRzw

Burn 'em!

And if this be lies, he stands guilty of breaking the 9th Commandment. A sin more grievous even than witchcraft. Let his punishment then be even more grievous than immolation.

Truth or lie, this man stands condemned. Not_Now.Soon, I name thee heretic and witch. May the angels of the abyss show him mercy, for the Lord will surely not.

The Exquisition has passed sentence on this heretic. Let the Inquisition make his sentence merciful, divine, and a sound example to those who might choose heresy.

In the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit,

Vice-Curate Lavis

Not_Now.Soon,

So, if I had lost my Christian faith because of a tragic loss, then you would have considered the possibility that I had really found Jesus, but since I was (*ghasp*) THINKING, you as assumed that I could not have possibly been convinced that I had found Jesus?

<<If you had mentioned a tragic loss, I might have considered it. But instead you only seemed to be stuck on thinking about it too much.>>

In other words, the less rational a reason an individual has for losing their faith, the more likely it is that they had found Jesus? That makes no sense at all.

<<If you had found God you wouldn't be trying to explain Him away.>>

I wasn’t trying to explain Him away. The irrationality of my beliefs, and the lack of real evidence that I had for them, simply became increasingly difficult to ignore. It only took one small realisation to get the ball rolling uncontrollably (over the space of many years), without any conscious effort on my part at all.

If you read Dan Barker’s ‘Losing Faith in Faith’, you will get a pretty good understanding of what my journey from faith to reason was like.

<<It was philosophical thinking that seemed to turn you away.>>

Only to the extent that philosophy touches on every facet of life. Otherwise, it was simply the eventual realisation that I could not rationally justify my beliefs.

Science probably played a bigger role than philosophy. Especially where evolution was concerned. After all, no Adam and Eve = no Fall = no Original Sin = no need for redemption = no need for Jesus. Then there was the problem of a god sitting around for millions of years, not caring about what happened to us, and then finally deciding that it was finally time to intervene 5000 years ago…

<<I can't see philosophical arguments and logic issues actually convincing me that God did not comfort me when I was needing it.>>

Well, basic Psychology should be able to do that. There’s no need to bring philosophy into it.

Continued…

…Continued

<<… [Personal] experience is more then enough to tip any scale to the point that God can be verified, because there's no other explanation.>>

That would be an appeal to ignorance.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance

Nevertheless, there ARE other explanations. It’s usually co-incidence, or something that has a perfectly rational psychological or neurological explanation. And if one wants to appeal to multiple experiences as some sort of cumulative evidence, then confirmation bias becomes factor which brings personal experiences into doubt.

<<Don't double standardize me with your view of Christian arrogance though, you seem pretty prone to try and speak for my views or say you know them, because you were there before.>>

This statement doesn’t make much sense. Are you accusing me of being condescending because I said that I used to make the same mistake (and, presumably, know better now)? If so, then I apologise that it came across as condescending, but I wanted explain that I knew, from personal experience, what it was like to make the assumption that you and so many other Christians make.

<<… after talking to you I hoped I could help others in the Christian communities I am in, to avoid the problems you had.>>

I didn’t have any problems. So, I’m not sure what it is that you think you are fixing. If assessing my own beliefs rationally, objectively, and dispassionately was a problem (and I can certainly see how it would be for religion) then, yes, I suppose I had what you would call a problem. But I fail to see how that’s actually a problem. I am a better person for having seen reason: I’m more sceptical, I’m less gullible, I’m less of a busybody, I respect women’s rights to bodily autonomy, I’m no longer homophobic, I care more about the truth of my beliefs, and I’m more humble because I no longer believe that the entire universe was created with me in mind.

I am living counter-example to mhaze’s assertion that we need Christianity.

AJ Philips.

You just said that you had no evidance. This is not the first time you've said this. Is it unreasonable to think you did not know God? After all without evidance all you have is belief. That is why I tried to approach the problem elsewhere. If not everyone has evidance in their own lives, then as a community we should strengthen eachother by sharing how God has been in our lives, before people leave because of over thinking an issue they don't understand.

As for arrogance, that is your words, your accusation towards me. I'll say it again. Don't give me your double standard. If I am arrogant in taking what you say to mean the most plausible conclusions, (no evidance of God being no experience knowing Him), then how much more arrogant are most of your comments as a general rule. Sorry for the tangent away from the topic, but a double standard is something I detest.

Still haven't told me what it is that I need saving from, NNS. But I'm going to hazard a guess and say that it's my pantheism you want to 'save' me from. I'm curious: do you consider your personal mission to save, say, Jews from Judaism or Sikhs from Sikhism? Or are there only certain faiths, such as pantheism, from which it is your duty so save people? In a nutshell, is there another religion I can covert to that you won't try to 'save' me from? Because if there is, consider me converted (to that religion, not Christianity).

//but on an online community I asked for anyone's testimonies of God answering their prayers.//

As a science nerd I believe very strongly in the importance of experimental evidence. So last night I did a small experiment in the power of prayer. I prayed to the sun god, Apollo, that in the morning the Titan Helios would ride forth in the chariot of the sun to give us light. And what do you know, he did.

Well, you just can't argue with evidence like that. Prayer does work, and the Gods must be real (well, Apollo and Helios at least). Because there's just no other possible explanation for the sun coming up in the morning like that.

That’s correct, Not_Now.Soon. Certainly no reliable evidence.

<<You just said that you had no evidance.>>

And I don’t believe anyone else has any reliable evidence, either, since there are usually more rational reasons for personal experiences, and any other so-called evidence commits any number of fallacies.

<<Is it unreasonable to think you did not know God?>>

No, I don’t think it’s unreasonable, because I don’t think there are any gods to know.

Is it unreasonable for you to assume that I wasn’t as convinced as you that I knew God? Yes, because you don’t have a time machine and you cannot read minds.

<<That is why I tried to approach the problem elsewhere. If not everyone has evidance in their own lives, then as a community we should strengthen eachother by sharing how God has been in our lives ...>>

I already told you that I’d had my own personal experiences which I thought was evidence (and even gave you an example of one). That aside, unreliable evidence does not become reliable just because there’s lots of it. In the end, all you are still left with is unreliable evidence.

As for arrogance and double-standards, your comments are still reading quite muddled. Are you saying that, while it may be arrogant of you to assume that I didn’t really know God, it is also arrogant of me to assume that your personal experiences are not evidence of God, and, therefore, I hold a double-standard?

That would be more hypocritical.

Nevertheless, I am only going by the personal experiences that you have described to me. I don’t find them particularly convincing, and I gave you the reasons as to why I don’t.

Can I say for sure that your experiences definitely aren’t the work of a god? Of course not. What I can say, however, going by what you have described, is that I don’t think your personal experiences (or anyone else’s that I’ve heard) constitute reliable evidence. Even if there were no rational explanation for them, assuming that a god must therefore be responsible would be fallacious.

Oh, mhaze, just in case you try to accuse me of re-framing arguments again…

<<I guess this subtle re-framing of the discussion usually works for you since you do it so often. But it never works with me, so why do it? No plan B I guess.>>

let me reword a comment of mine from yesterday which contains a typo:

“What constitutes a “Christian manner” is constantly evolving, and, as Toni pointed out, this is not always desirable.”

should actually be:

"What constitutes a “Christian manner” is constantly evolving, and, as Toni pointed out, is not always desirable.”

My apologies for the numerous typos in that double-post of mine to you. I did it on a phone while surrounded by drunk people. Another typo:

“... and what Christians think of stem cell research, the two are not mutually exclusive.”

would read better as:

“... and what Christians think of stem cell research. The two are not mutually exclusive.”

That read poorly with the comma there instead of a full stop.

Deary me. The things we need to do when others are dishonest enough to portray typos or sloppy wording as a dishonest tactic. It certainly smacks of desperation, that's for sure.

Since I’m here. I’d like to formally welcome back your flawed ‘dark matter’ analogy. I thought you’d finally dumped that after the numerous times I’d discredited. But, alas, somehow you still think it softens or justifies the irrationality of believing in a god.

It never works with me, so why use it?

No plan B, I guess.

Dear Josephus,

A friend is a former Lutheran pastor. Part of his training was in St. Olaf’s seminary in the USA. One of my sources for books about Christianity is Fortress Press, the Lutheran Publishing House.
I found in talking to him that his views on Christianity were not much different from mine. He was quite aware that the virgin birth was only myth and did not happen. At St. Olaf’s they discussed its origins and its justification. I asked him if he had discussed any of this with his parishioners. He told me he did not want to disturb their simple faith. Apparently it would be disturbing to their simple faith to know they had been fed nonsense. He is no longer a minister as he apparently could not continue and feel comfortable in his role. After leaving the ministry he left the church. I have not seen him recently so I don’t know if he still considers himself a Christian.

As a new religion invented about 2,000 years ago Christianity was looking for converts. One way to get listened to was to give Jesus the attributes of a pagan god. Many of those gods were born of virgins so a virgin birth was attributed to Jesus. One problem was the appeal to the Jews. The text of the Jewish Bible in Isaiah 14:7 contains prophesy which makes no mention of a virgin. This obstacle was overcome by a translation which mentioned a virgin.

Translation first. The prophesy in the original Hebrew translated to English:

Isaiah 7:14 therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: a maiden is with child and she will bear a son, and will call his name Immanuel.

Almah is the Hebrew word, and maiden is the meaning of the Hebrew word. Bethullah is the Hebrew word for virgin.

King James version: Isaiah 7:14 14Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

continued

continued

Why does the King James Version refer to a virgin when the Hebrew does not refer to a virgin.

From https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?

‘There is no 'controversy'. The only 'controversy' that exists is akin to the evolution 'controversy'--most educated people accept the facts; a small few bury their heads in the sand, and then call it a 'controversy' because the term 'controversial' is more appealing to them than to be called called 'obstinate'. The simple truth is: no matter how hard certain people may want to, they simply do not get to change the meanings of words to create a meaning in a text that did not originally exist there. Especially if they can't even read the original text in its original language.

The term in Isaiah 7:14 is not the specified Hebrew term for 'virgin'--just as any translation of the Latin 'virgo' or the Greek 'parthenos*' would not necessarily mean 'virgin'. 'Almah'--which means a nubile young woman. "Almah'' can be used in reference to a virgin, especially in a society that expected virginity from young women in the first place-- but that is not the primary meaning of the word. The Hebrew word for a virgin is 'betullah'; that is the specific word that applies nearly exclusively to virgins--and if Isaiah were writing a Messianic Prophesy, I'd think the man would care enough to be specific.

There have been some efforts on the part of Christian fanatics to swap the meanings of the two words, some more clever than others, none that can really be called 'clever' at all, and all, inevitably, laughable. This is something so glaringly obvious that many Christian Bibles are correcting the cynical mistranslation to make it refer to a 'young woman'.

If Jesus existed he is the result of a man and a woman having sexual intercourse which is why you and I exist. Would you believe your pregnant daughter if she claimed she was a virgin?

continued

continued

The list of pagan gods born of a virgin can also be found on the net:

From https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?

There are at least a few dozen instances of virgin births in history that I'm aware of, mostly of religious figures.

Eighteen hundred years before Christ, we find carved on one of the walls of the great temple of Luxor a picture of the annunciation, conception and birth of King Amunothph III, an almost exact copy of the annunciation, conception and birth of the Christian God.

Roman/Greek: Demeter and Persephone, Rhea and Zeus, Apollo

In Egypt, virgin mother Isis begat Horus

In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama.

A nymph bathing in a river in China is touched by a lotus plant, and the divine Fohi is born.

In Siam, a wandering sunbeam caresses a girl in her teens, and the great and wonderful deliverer, Codom, is born.

In the life of Buddha we read that he descended on his mother Maya, "in likeness as the heavenly queen, and entered her womb," and was born from her right side, to save the world."

In Greece, the young god Apollo visits a fair maid of Athens, and a Plato is ushered into the world.

From Greece comes the virgin birth of Adonis, who was resurrected after being killed by a wild boar. Adonis was revered by the Phoenicians as a dying-and-rising god, and Athenians held Adonia, a yearly festival representing his death and resurrection, in midsummer.

From the Americas comes a remarkable story of the god-man Quetzalcoatl told by the Aztecs and Mayans. Not only did he have a virgin birth, but he was associated with the planet Venus, the morning star, as was Jesus. In addition, the religion built around him used the cross as a symbolic representation. Like the myths around Jesus, Quetzalcoatl said he would return to claim his earthly kingdom.

continued

Davidf,
There is a difference between Virgin Birth and immaculate conception, which is a Roman Catholic doctrine. The Catholics worship the Virgin, assuming she was miraculously impregnated. That is nonsense, Mary was artificially impregnated by sperm from the Davidic line to raise a king in Israel. She never had sex with a man at least not until Jesus was born to ensure she was still a virgin at Jesus birth. That ensured Jesus was the product of the Kingly Davidic line as authorised by the Priest Zechariah. Mary spends time with Elizabeth, the wife of Zechariah till Joseph who had three sons is chosen to take Mary. Joseph's sons initially refuse to accept Jesus, but later became his followers. James the eldest son becomes the leader in the Jerusalem Church and writes about Jesus.

That is what Virgin Birth means! It does not mean immaculate conception.

Josephus, spruiking heresy I see. Good Sister Mary warned me at Catholic school about the pagans and the Protestants, especially those of the C of E. Who, when they weren't spruiking heresy, or bad mouthing the Holy Father in Rome, you don't bad mouth the Holy Father do you? They were doing the dirty on the good Irish folk, including those in Dublin where she came from.

//That is nonsense, Mary was artificially impregnated//

O... kay.

This would have been through the ancient Jewish IVF program, would it Josephus? Remarkably advanced, those ancient Jews. Presumably we're to ignore all those historians who tell us that the first recorded case of artificial insemination in humans occurred in the late 16th century, because all those historians are in league with the Dark Lord.

Anyway, somebody should probably tell the Christians. Protestants as well as Catholics, I'm afraid. This isn't some sectarian disagreement over doctrine; it's more a case of Josephus's very weird take on Christianity vs. mainstream Christian teachings. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that artificial insemination "dissociates the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by two persons giving themselves to one another, but one that 'entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is, in itself, contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children". The largest Protestant denomination, the Anglicans, have this to say:
"To achieve union but not children by means of contraceptives and to achieve children but not union by means of artificial insemination are both equally wrong."

It should be noted here that almost everybody, Josephus included, misunderstands the meaning of the phrase 'Immaculate Conception'. The Immaculate Conception is the conception of Mary - not Jesus - free from original sin. The virginal conception of Jesus is an entirely different matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

I rather suspect that if this nonsense about the Immaculate Artificial Insemination isn't just some claptrap that Josephus has pulled directly from his fundament, then it is a modern invention which would have never been conceived of without the rise in assisted reproduction technology that occurred in the latter half of last century. Before that, when artificial insemination was being commonly used for livestock but not people, such an idea would have been regarded as extremely blasphemous and a disgusting mockery of the scripture as the Gospels of Luke and Matthew are quite clear that Jesus was conceived by the divine intercession of the Holy Spirit.

so so funny how the god deniers mock the virgin birth and then believe this whole complex earth came from nothing. And they have the audacity to laugh at others faith. Oh well!

Tony,
Artificial insemination was also used in Ancient Egypt on young virgin hymen intact to ensure the offspring was the child of the Pharaoh, who actually became the child of Ra, god of the sun. I gained that knowledge from reading History of Ancient Egypt. The hymen must still be intact till the time of birth, that is virgin birth.

Isaiah 9 mentions that the child would be born of a virgin [meaning not having intercourse with a man]. That was written 600 years before Messiah was born, as is also verified by the Dead Sea Scrolls of Isaiah. The Essene community also used artificial insemination, so as not to be made ceremonially unclean. That was contemporary with the time of Jesus conception. Zechariah also visited the Essene Community and knew the Isaiah scrolls.

To David F.

[I used to believe in God. After reflection I concluded I believed in an entity that existed only in the human mind and not elsewhere. I wrote an article to that effect.]

I started on the thought that if it's something I've seen, or something I can do, (whatever the task, or the activity), then it is common enough that most everyone else has too. I may have to reconsider that logic. So if that is the case and having an experience with God is rare, (as opposed to something everyone experiences at least once but don't recoginize it/ or ignore it), if it is rare, then I should go into more detail.

How do you love God. There are more answers then I am aware of, just like I told Mikk, there are many forms love can take. Here are a few examples though. Love can be shown by wanting to be around someone, and appreciating them. A child running to their dad or mom excited to see them is like that kind of love. Giving thanks to God is one way to show your love to Him, when you pray. Being excited for how He did something for you, or for someone else, that's a love of appreciation too, even if you don't thank Him. Spending time with God can be as simple as making time for Him, with prayer and bible study. If a person does this gladly, I think God knows the love they have for Him.

(Continued)

Toni, there you go mentioning the Anglicans, Sister Mary said never mention the Anglicans unless it was to be in the most disparaging of terms. You're not being too disparaging there. You know they were in league with the devil, don't you? Aka Henry VIII, who also had nasty thing to say about the Holy Father in Rome, as well as the Irish!

You know St Patrick was an Irishman from god knows where! If he wasn't, he should have been.

p/s Sister Mary always referred to the Blessed VIRGIN Mary, not Sister Mary, the other Mary.

I should point out there was another "immaculate conception"; When my step sister got up the duff at 16, I distinctly recall the Old Man shouting "What is this... the immaculate bloody conception!" see there were two.

(Continued)

Obeying God's word is another sign of love. Like a husband and wife who love each other respect each other's wishes and don't do something they know the other doesn't like, it's a sign of love through commitment. Any time we find a way to apply one of His teachings to our lives it is a continuation of commitment and love. But commitment can be it's own focus. Many families get hurt because one person is committed to their job so they can support the family they love. In the same way if a person holds many responsibilities to be committed to God, but lose sight of God in the process, it might be a negative effect instead of a positive one.

Third way I know is to show love by caring and loving those God cares about. This basically includes everyone. Care for one another and help each other. Especially those who need it. This ties into being obedient to His teachings, because so many of them are about being good to each other. In fact I'd say by practicing all three aspects, (appreciation, commitment, and love for others) all mix well together to strengthen your faith as well as keeping you strong in being a good person. But being thankful to God I think is a real deal, because our love for Him is strengthened by His love for us. He can and does help us better love each other when we also love Him and stay close to Him.

To AJ Philips. You asked about your arrogance. Consider your comment when you called me arrogant.

[If I was not a true believer, then no-one is. True believers can still come to reason.]

And a later comment.

[if I had lost my Christian faith because of a tragic loss, then you would have considered the possibility that I had really found Jesus, but since I was (*ghasp*) THINKING, you as assumed that I could not have possibly been convinced that I had found Jesus?]

Your arrogant and snide remarks are almost always in your comments. And your arrogant attitude that Christians can't think just adds to this. Don't call anyone else arrogant unless they are at least as arrogant as you. Hold yourself to the same standards you push onto others. That said I don't want this to be the focus of the discussion. You don't need to apologize, and definitely don't need ask what I mean. You should be smart and observant enough on your own to see it. I would rather move on because it might be needed to show how to love God, and how God has loved us. (On that note I can only tell from my experiences and those that have been told to me). God does love each of us, I hope by telling the experiences and observations I've found it can be an encouragement to to anyone, to seek God.

Dear Josephus,

I don't understand your response. I did not mention the immaculate conception so your explanation of its difference from the virgin birth is irrelevant. I did point out that there is no mention of a virgin in the original prophesy in Isaiah, but you chose to ignore that preferring a faulty translation to the original. The only thing I gather from your reply is that you prefer Protestant nonsense to Catholic nonsense.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

When I was a child I heard or read the story of the binding of Isaac and was horrified by it. I asked my father what he would do if he heard a voice from God telling him to sacrifice me. Dear old Dad did not disappoint me. He told me he would see a psychiatrist.

Unfortunately psychiatrists were not available in Abraham’s time, and he probably would not be sensible enough to see one if they were. Apparently belief in God dulls one’s critical senses.

The God of the Bible is unreasonable and vengeful.

He sets up a scenario in the Garden where he knows they will eat the fruit. He destroys most life on earth by a flood. In the New Testament he condemns his own son to a torturous death. He is a nasty guy who does a lot of nasty things.

Can you recommend another God for me to love? That nasty piece of work in the Bible is not lovable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

“There is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion.”

“There are an estimated 10,000 distinct religions worldwide,[9] but about 84% of the world's population is affiliated with one of the five largest religions, namely Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or forms of folk religion.”

People believe many different things in the way of religion. All religions do not have a concept of a God or a supernatural. Unitarians and humanistic Judaism do not require either belief in a God or a supernatural.

However, among all those 10,000 religions there must be some with a God who less a monster and more lovable than the biblical gent.

David f, are you related to that other David mentioned earlier? You both have the same name.
Sister Mary said the Catholic nonsense was fair dinkum' nonsense, where as the Protestant nonsense, particularly that C of E nonsense, was exactly that... NONSENSE! And I must say there was no better authority on nonsense than Sister Mary, she sure knew plenty of it.

I to asked my Dear Old Dad what he would do if he heard a voice from God telling him to sacrifice me. Dear old Dad did not disappoint. He told me "That would be a hard decision son, I wouldn't know if I should cut your throat, or disembowel you." I was relieved, I always knew Dear Old Dad would make the right decision.

//Artificial insemination was also used in Ancient Egypt//

Yes, of course it was. [sarcasm]

You haven't been watching History Channel documentaries have you?

To David f.

If any other religion's gods, showed signs of being real, then we can talk about choices.

My knowledge base on other religions is very small when it comes to their experiences with the god of their beliefs. Reading their texts and knowing their traditions aren't enough to know the merit of the god they believe in. If there are historical and modern day events that have that kind of intervention, then I might consider it.

Until then, the various stories of answered prayers, miracles, Angels, NDEs, and a few other things that give Christian and Jewish faith merrit are what I know, and what seperates that religion from the thousands of other religions. And seperates God from the thousands of other gods.

To Toni Lavis. Whether you believed in a pantheism religion, or in anything else you still need saved. We all do. We need a Redeemer. We live in a broken and breaking world, and we are all part of it. On some things people say, don't do this or don't do that. And it can be thought of as a choice to be a good person or not. But on other things, people say to not be nieve. This is the way the world is, and the way it works. Usually the difference is when you talk about one person's personal choice, verses one person trying to do right in either the business elements of the world or the political element of the world. Or it gone up when talking about our own safety and taking measures to stay safe (such as locking your doors), because that's the way the world is.

Your philosophy makes you think you don't need to be saved. Which makes you blind on that aspect. Both Jewish and Christian faiths acknowledge that we need God to save us. Christians believe they need to be saved, and are thankful we have a savior. The rest of the world also needs to be saved to. Regardless of your beliefs or your attitude. You personally also need to be saved.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Christianity and Judaism do not own God - all religious people worship the same God.

It is arrogant to call the god (or deity) through which you worship God, 'God' with a Capital-G while calling the gods through which other people worship the same and only God, just 'god' with a small-g.

God cannot be fathomed or even imagined by the human mind, how less so described in words, yet humans need something a bit more tangible and/or comprehensible, some image and/or an idea to hold onto, which POINTS to God, represents Him/Her/It, supports and inspires us to seek Him/Her/It and walk in His/Her/Its ways, and so they created and keep creating gods.

The Judeo-Christian god which you worship is one of them. I am glad that you are able to use that biblical image for your spiritual progress and I support you in that, but your progress is hindered by disrespecting the images which other people chose and use in order to attain the very same and only God.

You already asked me before about miracles in Hinduism. I responded that there is plenty of literature, including modern and including evidence which I heard in person from people involved. I didn't elaborate too much about it as I am not personally into it, but that does not allow you to ignore the many miracles that occur all around us, except when they happen to Christians.

Yes, we all need to be saved - and we all shall eventually be, by God's grace alone, but this doesn't mean that we all shall be saved at the same time and by the same Godly person.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Your message is simple. You claim that what you believe is true and what others who don't believe what you do are in error. Some other religions have that same idea. Some Muslims believe that non-Muslims are destined for hell. There is no arguing with such a mindset. You have your counterparts in other faiths.

All religions are human inventions, and I see no need to believe any of them.

However, some claim the object of worship by whatever name is it called is essentially the same. These people are not fanatics, and one can live peacefully with them.

Your mindset is the source of crusades and jihads.

You admit that you know little of other beliefs, and you probably have no desire to learn since you have what you are convinced is true. Sadly there are probably many like you.

None of us will be saved. We will all eventually die, and that will be the end of us. According to scientists the planet and other parts of the universe will eventually be lifeless. The whole business may recycle. It may not. We don't know.

While we are alive we can live with other life. We can be humble enough to realise we are finite beings who live in a vast universe. We can realise that our knowledge is only sand on the beach of a sea of ignorance. We can enjoy love and picking up pebbles on the beach

To Yuyutsu. I don't live in a culture where I see the stories of miracles from Hinduism. I do live in a culture where there is a ton of philosophy about God, about spirituality and in general theories about what we are as spiritual beings or as human in general.

My figuring is that there is too much theory to conflict and confuse people without any reliability in those theories or beliefs. Cutting through that we can look straight at what happens to people, not what they believe. If something happens and supports a belief, such as a miracle in Hinduism, I would very much like to find them and be encouraged by them. It is not out of ignoring these events that I don't speak about them. It's that I don't know them at all. As far as I'm aware they don't happen. Where as miracles from answered prayers or otherwise that I know from my culture, I know of them. I know people who have their own stories to consider them.

As for God verses god. You and I do not agree on who God is or what He is. I can not see every religion as a path to God, because like I said before there are too many conflicting paths. If I see the merit of other gods, then I might accept as something more then as David f. and many others view my beliefs, and your beliefs. Just something imagined.

To David f.

[All religions are human inventions.]

[You admit that you know little of other beliefs, and you probably have no desire to learn since you have what you are convinced is true. Sadly there are probably many like you.]

[Your message is simple. You claim that what you believe is true and what others who don't believe what you do are in error]

First, don't count all religions as the same. That is an error to impede people from searching through any. Second. You can base each religion and each belief on it's own merit. If they hold up then that's great. I no longer search other religions like I use to. I focus my efforts on God because I've found that to be reliable and true. It is not a sad element to find a truth and build a foundation on it. Instead of keep searching and never committing.

Third. My beliefs are strong. But I also believe that experience is more authoritative then belief. If someone else shares their belief, I do consider it. If they share their experiences I consider it more. But I am not wrong about God. He is not a man-made invention. Man is a God-made invention. The only thing with more authority then our experiences is God Himself. Everything else we test with our senses (experience) or use a lesser evidence of deductive reasoning. But God is both real and trustworthy. You might not believe that, but it is the truth. His words won't let us down. Best case argument is that I am wrong about God. Not that He doesn't exist.

My consistent message is to seek Him yourself to see if I am right or not. That's the simple message.

(Psa 94:8) Understand, you beastly ones among the people; and fools, when will you be wise?

(Psa 94:9) He who planted the ear, shall He not hear? He who formed the eye, shall He not see?

(Psa 94:10) He who chastens the nations, shall He not correct, He who teaches man knowledge?

(Psa 94:11) Jehovah knows the thoughts of man, that they are vain.

no pysch could sum up the deniers as well as this.

"These abundant historical references leave us with little reasonable doubt that Jesus lived and died. The more interesting question – which goes beyond history and objective fact – is whether Jesus died and lived."

See: Simon Gathercole [who]is Reader in New Testament Studies at the University of Cambridge.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died

The French live in Paris.

Italians live in Rome.

Russians live in Moscow.

But English live at home.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Why do you need more miracles when the fact of your own consciousness is the greatest miracle of all?

If you want, I can (reluctantly) provide you with lots of pointers to Hindu miracles - in ancient scripture, in modern scripture and information I have from people I know (for me that's 2nd hand, for you it would be 3rd hand). But please think carefully before you ask me: given that your faith depends that much on miracles, I have no desire to spoil it!

This reliance on miracles is unhealthy. I think you would know this already from Deuteronomy 13:1-3.

While some Hindu sects like to talk about miracles more than others, Hinduism itself (perhaps unlike Christianity) does not rely on miracles.

Hinduism acknowledges that miracles occur, but warns against making a big deal of them. Specifically, Patanjali's Yoga Sutras describes the miracles that will almost-inevitably occur along our spiritual path, but explains that these can distract and side-track us from the path. As wonderful as miracles can be, one should ignore them and continue on the straight and narrow.

Sincerely, I think that you should continue to progress steadily along your Christian path, rather than zigzag and seek another god every time you see a miracle happen to worshippers through other gods.

«As for God verses god. You and I do not agree on who God is or what He is.»

This is very good. You consider the biblical god of Israel to be God, whereas I understand that in reality, the biblical god of Israel is only a representation of God which you personally use for approaching God. I am happy with this: it works for you, so let's leave it at that. What I am not happy with, is your disrespect for other people who use other gods in the same (or similar) manner as the way you use the biblical god of Israel.

«there are too many conflicting paths»

Paths conflict only when the same person attempts to traverse them simultaneously. No conflict is present when two different people traverse two different paths.

A belief in god doesn't automatically mean a belief in Christ or any other religious figure. Many people believe in god without religious affiliation.
Men have believed in god/gods since the beginning of time. I think it is an instinctive response to the hope that life doesn't end with the death of the physical body. Most people find it hard to cope with the concept that at death they will simply cease it exist, in some form.
Faith is a great comfort to many many people and is what has sustained them through some pretty horrific circumstances and who has the right to ridicule anyone's personal beliefs?
The belief in the existence of a god is no less credible than the belief that the universe was created from nothing but a Big Bang.

Not_Now.Soon

I don’t recall asking for commentary on my alleged arrogance.

<<You asked about your arrogance.>>

But thanks all the same for obliging.

There is nothing arrogant about stating that no-one is a true believer if I wasn’t. Comments structured in such a way are a common form of expression used to stress a point. It’s not like I was actually suggesting that no-one else is a true believer.

I see no arrogance in the second comment of mine that you claim is arrogant. I was trying to point out the complete lack of logic in an earlier statement of yours, albeit in a cheeky manner.

<<Your arrogant and snide remarks are almost always in your comments.>>

I think I have remained polite in virtually all my communications with you. That you suddenly interpret it ALL as ‘arrogant’ and ‘snide’ is rather revealing.

<<And your arrogant attitude that Christians can't think just adds to this.>>

At no point have I suggested this. You are making this up.

<<Don't call anyone else arrogant unless they are at least as arrogant as you.>>

I haven’t called anyone arrogant. You are making this up, too.

I have, however, pointed out that a comment of yours was arrogant. Assuming that former Christians couldn’t have been just as convinced as you that they had found God because they no longer believe, is arrogant.

If you say something arrogant, then I will point that out.

<<Hold yourself to the same standards you push onto others.>>

I have not "pushed" anything onto anyone. Nor have I displayed any double-standards, for that matter. Your language has become rather emotive.

<<You don't need to apologize, and definitely don't need ask what I mean. You should be smart and observant enough on your own to see it.>>

Thanks, I think. But I genuinely wasn’t sure what you were getting at. And, as it turns out, that was probably in part due to the fact that your claims of arrogance and holding a double-standard were not true.

Continued…

...Continued

<<I would rather move on because it might be needed to show how to love God, and how God has loved us.>>

Good idea. Attacking someone else with slanderous claims, just because you don’t like what they’re saying, is probably not the best way to go about that. (1 Peter 3:15)

<<God does love each of us …>>

You might find that people start listening you to more if you qualify your claims with caveats such as, “In my opinion”, or, “I believe”. To state as fact that which is not evidently true is dishonest.

<<The only thing with more authority then our experiences is God Himself.>>

For the sake of clarification, I will point out that this is equivocation. When you speak of ‘experiences’ you use the word ‘authority’ in a different sense to what you do when you speak of your god’s alleged authority.

The bigger problem here, however, is that you make no mention of objective, falsifiable evidence - which has far greater authority than personal experiences. This is the type of evidence you need to find and present if you want to convince others. It was my realisation that objective evidence was required to rationally support my beliefs, and convince others of them, that spelled the eventual end of it after a fruitless search.

I can appreciate your attempts to fulfill your obligations under Matthew 4:19, but people need more than anecdotal testimony.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

--

Big Nana,

Ridiculous beliefs are, by definition, deserving of ridicule.

<<... who has the right to ridicule anyone's personal beliefs?>>

Nevertheless, as a general rule, it is still best to avoid it.

<<The belief in the existence of a god is no less credible than the belief that the universe was created from nothing but a Big Bang.>>

There is at least evidence for the Big Bang. Your analogy is flawed. That the Big Bang started from nothing is not a part of the theory. It is currently impossible to investigate what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang. It may not even make sense to ask.

Dear Nana,

«The belief in the existence of a god is no less credible than the belief that the universe was created from nothing but a Big Bang»

You may be right, you may be wrong, but both beliefs are secular in nature and have no religious or spiritual implications, so I don't give a damn how the universe was created.

You see, suppose you worshipped someone just because [you believed that] they were big and strong and all-knowing, where both your environment and your fate was completely in theirs hands for eternity, then your worship would only comprise a cowardly survival strategy of bowing to authority, rather than a religion.

//Whether you believed in a pantheism religion, or in anything else you still need saved. We all do.//

Yeah, you've said. But you still haven't said what I need to be saved FROM, which is what I asked you. Just repeating 'you need to be saved' is a bit too short on information for my liking. I want to seen the fine print before I go making any rash commitments. What, specifically, is it that I need to be saved from?

Perhaps you could just write a bullet point list consisting of quite specific nouns, because your last response was rather vague and waffly, and for much of it I really wasn't sure what you were trying to say.

//Your philosophy makes you think you don't need to be saved.//

It might if I knew what it was that I needed to be saved from. Since I don't know what that is, let's just assume for the sake of argument that it is gluten. Lots of people seem to think we all need to be saved from gluten these days, but my philosophy is that you should trust medical science (because the only alternative is quackery). And if medical science says that only people with gluten intolerance actually need to worry about gluten, I'm not going to worry about it unless I get diagnosed as gluten intolerant.

Now, if we change our axioms and assume that it is male pattern baldness that I need to be saved from: 3 of the 5 men in my immediate family are baldies and my hairline is receding fast. My philosophy is that vanity is for dicks, but that hair is also practical (protects my scalp from the sun in summer and warms it winter) and I'd rather not lose it. So if it's gluten, no thanks, I don't need saving. And if it's baldness then save me, save me, oh Lord Jeebus, save me from being a baldy. But I still don't know what it is I actually need to be saved from.

My philosophy is also that it's hard to make informed decisions in a vacuum of information. Basically, my nature abhors a vacuum of knowledge. But if you want keep your cards close to your chest, that's fine.

Taboos about secret knowledge are as old as the hills, and still remain popular - from Indigenous cultures with their 'secret (wo)men's business' to the Rites of Freemasonry, everybody likes to keep a secret. It's exciting. Thing is though, those sort of taboos and strictures are usually designed to keep outsiders outside, which makes them a remarkably poor evangelistic stratagem. Surely an evangelist's job is to spread knowledge, not to give vague hints at secret knowledge which you can only obtain if you join the club without getting to read the fine print first?

//Both Jewish and Christian faiths acknowledge that we need God to save us.//

//If any other religion's gods, showed signs of being real, then we can talk about choices.

My knowledge base on other religions is very small when it comes to their experiences with the god of their beliefs.//

So the Jews and the Christians are the only religions whose God is real, and everybody else has just got it wrong?

I have to say, I didn't expect you to be quite so narrow-minded. Not so much because I expected you to be ecumenical towards faiths you know little about, but because it undermines your own position. Your argument essentially boils down too 'Well they may be their sincerely held religious beliefs but just because they believe something, it doesn't mean that it's true.'

Which sounds an awful lot like something an atheist would say....

//Until then, the various stories of answered prayers, miracles, Angels, NDEs, and a few other things that give Christian and Jewish faith merrit are what I know//

Confirmation bias.

//and what seperates that religion from the thousands of other religions. And seperates God from the thousands of other gods.//

And cognitive dissonance.

I think I've worked out how to program an Electric Monk.

"The Electric Monk was a labour-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. Dishwashers washed tedious dishes for you, thus saving you the bother of washing them yourself, video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electric Monks believed things for you, thus saving you what was becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expected you to believe."
- Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency by Douglas Adams (PBUH)

//Regardless of your beliefs or your attitude. You personally also need to be saved.//

Whether I like it or not, huh? There is a certain point where evangelism runs slap bang up against liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
- United States Declaration of Independence

//That the Big Bang started from nothing is not a part of the theory. It is currently impossible to investigate what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang. It may not even make sense to ask.//

AJ, I agree with the first sentence but not the second. My philosophy is that it always makes sense to ask.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04cbbld

Dear Toni Lavis,

Part of my philosophy is not always to commit oneself to act in a certain way. Sometimes one should ask. Sometimes one should not ask. Sometimes one should get further information before deciding. Sometimes one should try to find the information by experiment or research rather than by asking. Sometimes one should ask oneself whether the question could be formulated better or is worth asking. if one is dealing with a person who confuses their opinion with truth and thinks others should have that opinion it may be wisest to keep quiet. I question my participation in this stream. Has it been worthwhile? Have I or anybody else benefitted from my participation?

Looking back on my statements I do not regret mentioning MacCulloch’s “A History of Christianity”. I learned much from that book, and I hope others will also.

Toni Lavis,

Thanks for the link. It looks interesting. I'll be sure to check it out when I've got more time.

If it makes any difference (and I'm sure I'll find out if it does when I check out the episode you've linked to), what I meant by "it may even not make sense to ask" is that, so far as we can tell, time didn't exist before the Big Bang; so, to therefore ask what came "before" the Big Bang may be a nonsensical question.

//Sometimes one should ask.//

Not sometimes: always.

How else do you expect to learn anything?

//Sometimes one should not ask.//

Nah, piss off.

//Sometimes one should get further information before deciding.//

Falls under the general heading of 'asking'.

//Sometimes one should try to find the information by experiment or research rather than by asking.//

See above. Also, did you even bother listening to the podcast?

//Sometimes one should ask oneself whether the question could be formulated better or is worth asking.//

Sometimes one should not fall to prey to self-doubt and second-guess oneself.

The Force will not be with you if you are not with the Force.

//if one is dealing with a person who confuses their opinion with truth and thinks others should have that opinion it may be wisest to keep quiet.//

Appeasement?

Nah, bugger that for a joke. Look where it got Neville Chamberlain....

//I question my participation in this stream.//

See above point about self-doubt.

I think you do a sterling job: keep up the good work.

//Has it been worthwhile? Have I or anybody else benefitted from my participation?//

Yes to both.

Hi David f,

All discussion is worthwhile, even if its only to get one out of mowing the lawn. Seriously, an inquiring mind is a healthy mind, and like all the discussions on the forum you take part in, you have again constructed a reasoned argument, and even your detractors cannot deny that. Myself, I tend to be flippant at times, not appearing to be all that serious, now and then when the discussion get a little hot, I find its good to lighten up and laugh at ourselves with a bit of frivolity. I have read all the posts on this thread and have learnt a great deal from every contributor.

Hi there TONI LAVIS...

You briefly touched on the Freemasons and the secrets they allegedly like to possess. Freemasonry and this topic, are in no way in conflict with each other, in so much, one of the important tenets of Freemasonry is the belief in a superior 'being', whatever that 'being' may be called? There are claims Masonry is a 'secret' society. No, Masonry is a society with some 'secrets'.

There are so many myths, fallacies and legends, all of which have been ascribed to the Freemasons, you'd be sitting down all day, trying to find them all, and furnishing all the answer(s) to those who're critics of the Craft. In fact I've found, after nearly forty years or so in the Masons, the greatest critics are those who know the least about them?

First the negative:

AJ,
1. The great disproven/discredited debate. I said the deity can’t be disproven (or proven). Since that is axiomatically correct you try to rebut by claiming it can be discredited, which I sort of agree with, up to appoint. But you did try to change the debate…it’s in black and white, but we all know that you continue to argue that black is white because of reasons. Discredit is a subjective term. Disproven is objective term. Which is why you prefer to discredit rather than disprove.

2. “You tried it on with my pointing out of fallacies, until it became abundantly clear that you were getting nowhere with it.”
Au contraire my lad. I got everywhere with it. After I started pointing out the illogicality and dishonesty of you use of ‘fallacies’, you went from barely being able to write a post with resort to some reference to your myriad fallacies, to not using them at all. How long has it been since you’ve resorted to the fallacy rule-book? Indeed I was more than a little surprised at just how easy it was to manipulate you out of one of your go-to memes.

3. I wrote: “A whiff of paranoia there, AJ?”

You replied …”No, I was just wondering which, if any, of your accusations were directed at me, “
Which is completely different to paranoia…..</sarc>

4. “There is at least evidence for those other things you mention. There is no evidence for deities. Your analogy is flawed.”
We’ve been here before. There is no evidence, there are theories. They aren’t the same thing. These things (DM/DE, Big Bang etc) exist in models used to explain how the universe works given our limited understanding. But theories/models aren’t evidence. I doubt you’ll understand this…the last time we were on this path your assertion was that the evidence was that many scientists believe it. I didn’t bother following up since that was too ridiculous for words.

/cont

/cont

Davidf,

1. “Then disaster struck. With the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire the Dark Ages rapidly followed.”
That is just ambiguous enough to leave me unsure of the meaning. Does David assert that Christianity caused the fall of Rome and the Dark Ages? I leave him to advise.
But rapidly? There were a couple of hundred years between these events. It’s a common error of those who haven’t study history and especially ancient history, to compress time-scales. From a distance things look very different.
Try this…the Seven Years War came to an end and WW1 rapidly followed.

2. davidf to NNS: “ You claim that what you believe is true and what others who don't believe what you do are in error.”
Whereas David’s thinking is much more evolved because he thinks that what he believes is true and what others who don’t believe what he does are in error.
Worlds apart dontcha know

And the positive…:

I could go on about the ways the Christian church preserved the Greco-Roman inheritance in The Middle Ages. I could mention the fact that the churches created the first universities. I could talk about how the church acted as a brake on the tyrannical power of the state. I could talk about how the Reformation unleashed the power of the west in ways never before seen in human history. But if I did that AJ/david would concentrate on those things rather than my main point…so I won’t mention them. :)
And the main point?
Christianity enables liberty. At its core it advocates a one-on-one relationship between man and God. (Christ in the desert communing with JHWH, “two or three gathered in my name” ie no need for authorities, and multitudinous other examples). Islam eg requires authorities. Indeed the average mohamedian can’t understand their sacred texts without authorities to guide. But the Christian texts are accessible to all who are literate. That’s why the Reformation so rapidly (that word again) followed Gutenberg.
From this it follows that Christianity enables the notion of the equality of man and that man has God given rights. It still recognises hierarchy (render to Caesar) but all men have access to God by their own hand. The Magna Carta happened in a Christian country and could only have happened in a Christian country. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” would only make sense in a Christian country.
Clearly this didn’t make a significant difference in the first millennium of Christianity. But the Reformation, partially unleashed by the democratising of access to the Bible, unleashed pent up forces. Liberty expanded. Nations freed themselves from Rome. Peoples also. Such things could have unleashed chaos and descent into violence (French Revolution) but the common belief in the Christ held it together. The great thinkers were, to a man, Christian and they used the new circumstances, relatively unhindered by their religion, to delve into all aspects of existence.

/cont

/cont
Sure there were pockets where the Church held on and delayed further understanding, but there were always other pockets where the Church encouraged it.
Because the relationship between man and God was personal and the communication personal, it followed that man might and should try to understand his God. When Newton examined the heavens he thought that by doing so he would get closer to the mind of his God. By contrast, as Bernard Lewis pointed out, science in Islam withered because they had no concept of understanding their God. It was pointed out that a Christian scientist wants to know why a certain chemical reaction occurs whereas to a mohamedian it occurs because Allah wills it and it won’t occur tomorrow if Allah wills that instead. So there is no reason to search the nature of the world because it exists at the whim of Allah.
This to me is how Christianity, in alliance with the legacies from Greece and Rome created the greatest civilisation the world has known. But as others (eg Arnold Toynbee) have feared, as we lose that Christianity we lose the link to personal liberty. And the civilisation, at least as we know it, will not survive that. Hence why we need the NNS of the world.
NOW:

Why was it that the only civilisation in the whole history of man to actively work to eliminate slavery was Christian?
Why was it that the only civilisation in the whole history of man to even conceive of human rights was Christian?
Why was it that the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Christian West?
Why, when Guttenberg democratised knowledge, the Christian west allowed and encourage that opening of knowledge whereas other cultures (Islam, China) worked to monopolise knowledge?
Why did democracy arise in the Christian west?

Over the past 10000 years there have been innumerable civilisations. The Christian West stands out from all of them both in terms of the advance human rights and scientific advancement. On what basis can we simply dismiss Christianity’s roll in that development

mhaze,

I already explained that “disproved” is more appropriate than “discredited”.

<<I said the deity can’t be disproven ... you try to rebut by claiming it can be discredited …>>

No, I have rebutted you by saying that the god can be disproved (as I had also said to o sung wu). You take careless wording and cling to it for dear life in your slanderous attempts at character assassination. It's pathetic.

<<But you did try to change the debate…it’s in black and white>>

No, I didn’t. Read my initial response. Why would I try to change the debate when ‘disproved’ is better ‘discredited’?

<<Discredit is a subjective term. Disproven is objective term. Which is why you prefer to discredit rather than disprove.>>

No, I prefer “disproved” because an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god can be objectively disproved in a world where evil and suffering exist.

<<After I started pointing out the illogicality and dishonesty of you use of ‘fallacies’, you went from barely being able to write a post with resort to some reference to your myriad fallacies, to not using them at all.>>

I still point fallacies out all the time. Why, I pointed one out earlier in this thread.

Your accusations, with regards to my pointing out of fallacies, were false, and your inability to provide an example of me misapplying or misidentifying them was evidence of that. Care to give it a crack now?

<<How long has it been since you’ve resorted to the fallacy rule-book?>>

Twenty-two hours. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252037)

<<You replied … Which is completely different to paranoia…..</sarc>>>

Paranoia is characterised by feelings of obsessive anxiety, an emotion I hardly displayed. Still don’t have the balls to say to whom your accusations applied, do you?

<<There is no evidence [for dark matter] …>>

Yes, there is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence

<<… the last time we were on this path your assertion was that the evidence was that many scientists believe it.>>

Was it really now? Please, tell me where? The last two times dark matter was mentioned in our debates:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7832#241946
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14814#255819

The lies don't stop, do they mhaze?

mhaze wrote: Why was it that the only civilisation in the whole history of man to actively work to eliminate slavery was Christian?

Let us consider that claim? Human concern with slavery predates Christianity. I visited Greece a few years ago and was at ancient Delphi. There were many buildings around with writing on them. Many of the writings proclaimed that the person doing the writing had freed his slaves.

People questioned slavery before Christianity. The Jewish Bible put limitations on slavery, there is nothing in the New Testament, the defining document of Christianity, condemning slavery.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery tells of the great diversity of Christian views on slavery. " In several Pauline epistles, and the First Epistle of Peter, slaves are admonished to obey their masters, as to the Lord, and not to men. Masters were also told to serve their slaves in obedience to God by "giving up threatening". The basic principle was "you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality." There will be pie in the sky bye and bye.

Not until the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries did opposition to slavery develop a following. Although some Christians such as William Wilberforce condemned and fought against slavery many Christians supported it. The main issue in the Civil War in the USA was slavery. The Confederacy fought vigorously for slavery. The part of the USA that was the Confederacy is still the most Christian part of the USA. The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the USA split off from the other Baptists because it supported slavery.

If I ignored the Inquisition, the support of authoritarian rule by the divine right of kings, the Dark Ages (Church opposition to independent thought made them dark), the Wars of the Reformation, the Crusades, the inquisition, the centuries of hatred which made fertile soil for the Nazi Holocaust and other atrocities I might have a positive view of Christianity.

Sorry, mhaze. My answer to one of your mendacious assertions was incorrect. Let's try again, shall we?

<<How long has it been since you’ve resorted to the fallacy rule-book?>>

The answer to this question is that I have never 'resorted' to pointing out a fallacy. I have only ever pointed out a fallacy when one was committed. You just don't like it when I point them out because I usually point them out to discredit claims that you would otherwise agree with. Am I right?

I have challenged you in the past to provide an example of myself misapplying a fallacy, or misusing this 'Fallacy List' (again, capitals) of which you speak, and you have so far come up with precisely squat.

Is it any wonder why?

I might get around to responding to your comments regarding the extent to which Christianity was necessary for Western civilisation to emerge, if I can muster the enthusiasm and find the time. However, that may be difficult since there's a lot of assertions there and my primary concern is with whether the claims within Christianity are true or not. Whether they were accidentally beneficial (and it would have to have been by accident, as even a non-believer such as yourself would have to admit) is a distant second to that.

In the meantime, I'd like to point out the fact that even if one of your claims (regarding the role Christianity playing in the rise of Western civilisation) were correct, to assert that therefore it is necessary in the future, is to commit the Genetic fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

<<How long has it been since you’ve resorted [sic] to the fallacy rule-book?>>

0:00.

Is it possible that, in many societies, the term "virgin" simply meant a woman who had not become pregnant, or had any children ? After all, women didn't go around displaying their intact hymens (if there are such things), so who is to know ? Legend, and a multitude of dirty jokes, suggest that it is possible to re-create a hymen anyway.

In other words, was a "virgin" a "maiden", a woman without children yet, and no sign of being pregnant ? i.e. marriageable ?

That might solve a bit of confusion.

Joe

Oh, would you look at that, mhaze:

“How could you know that a god, which has been disproven, exists when it’s been disproven to exist.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19198#342273)

A comment of mine to Not_Now.Soon a while back.

So much for needing to re-frame the debate.

--

Joe,

'Virgin' was a mistranslation. It was originally the 'young' Mary, but the early Church wanted a 'pure' woman to birth the son of God.

'Virgin' was also mistranslated in the Qur’an. Islamic martyrs are are going to be bittlerly disappointed when they are handed a fist-full of raisins.

AJ,

Allah ! Not bloody raisins again !

Joe

An interesting take there TTBN you claim all atheists have their own God or God's, the most dangerous being the God of self-belief - if we don't have belief in ourselves, then who're we to believe in, God? Sounds cyclical to me.

Dear Joe, They are the raisin d'etre. One of the products of western Christian civilisation is Nazi Germany. They fought against atheistic Soviet Russia with support of the German Christian churches. Of course, after the German attack Stalin called on the Russian Orthodox Church for support, and the support was there. Whether for good or for ill the Christian churches generally support the government.

Toni Lavis:

<<Also, did you even bother listening to the podcast?>>

With my deafness I can't hear much of anything

To Yuyustu. You've mentioned that it's good that I hold my position of God being the God of Israel. Yet you rob me of fully holding my faith. By saying He is God, and there is no other god then Him, it is in agreement with what He has said through the bible. It is also in agreement with the rejection of false religions and idolatry that is also within the bible. To do anything less is not about arrogance, but about being unfaithful.

This topic was started as a way to bring more people to God, and encourage those who already believe. A simple observation that can be checked by anyone willing to test it's merit. If it's true great, there's the divine love that is available to anyone who looks for Him. If not, shoot, no harm and it was at least tested for the merit and instead of the copout that nothing sopiritual is relialbe and can be proven or disproven.

Shoot me for being so arrogant to be faithful, and hope others could share in the encouragement that comes from knowing God and knowing they can rely on Him.

To Big Nana. It's good to have faith and hope in God. But let's be fair, not every belief is correct. If this is not respectful, so be it. What I'm saying isn't the harshest of truths, and people can check it to see if it could be as true as it is. That God both loves us and we can be better then we were before through our faith with God. This isn't so outrageous as the teachings I've heard that link faithfulness with prosperity and ask for donations so the donors will be rich too. Nor is it the harsh teachings of varying harshness leveling out our sins and wickedness. All it is is a first step to looking for God. Neither in the false teaching department nor the fierce brimstone lecture that every person should one day in their lives face with their own wrongs and sins.

To Toni Lavis. What do you need to be saved from. Yourself, the world, and death. Essentially everything sin is mucking up. Not that you actually give a damn, but you did ask.

To AJ Philips. I should apologize for not speaking as well as you. Were you actually confused at what I meant that you accuse me of arrogance when you regularly flaunt your own spiteful arrogance. Heck look after that comment. Last time you used a fallacy argument? "0:00." But for the record, if proof or disproof of God is of value, then as previously pointed out it goes more then philosophy and logic problems. We can come to logical errors by not understanding the situation correctly. Experience, and verifiability is stronger then logic issues. You should be excited, I've given an observation that anyone can test for themselves. Seek God and see the results. It is not my opinion that God loves you, but the testominy of the bible. Want proof? Test it!

To anyone here. Most of your comments are a trial of anyone's patience. God loves you and would celebrate with all of Heaven if you turned to Him. (Again not my opinion). For that I am trying to give anyone who is willing a finding I've seen in my own life. You can test it to see if it has merit. Or you can ignore it, and continue to build on whatever this culture of hate has filled you with regarding God. Test it, or continue to bash Christianity and be suprised that it did not fall apart. Not now. Not in 80 years from now. Maybe at that time you'll wonder why it lasted and question God "are you really there?" But if you are lucky, you'll find Him sooner and have a much better life because if it.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

I am sorry to hear that I rob you of fully holding your faith. This is not my intention and if that's how my responses affect you, then you should not read my responses.

«You've mentioned that it's good that I hold my position of God being the God of Israel»

Yes, and so you should!

This doesn't mean that others should necessarily hold that very position, but for you it is good, so please keep it.

«By saying He is God, and there is no other god then Him, it is in agreement with what He has said through the bible.»

Indeed, He is God. He represents God to you and being a Christian, no other god should fulfil this purpose.

Notice that the bible never claims that other gods do not exist. Rather, it commands: "Thou shalt have none other gods before me", "Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them". This is further explained in Leviticus 25:55-26:1 : "For unto me the children of Israel are servants; they are my servants whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the Lord your God."

As a Christian who identifies with the children of Israel, you should follow these instructions.

«To do anything less is not about arrogance, but about being unfaithful.»

Indeed, when applied to your own practices, not others'. Arrogance only comes in when you claim that everyone else ought to follow the same path as yours, or else they would not be saved.

It is good that you want to bring more people to God, to share the hope and encourage others to find the divine love that is available to anyone who looks for Him. However, your path is not the only and others may come to God using other paths which suit them better.

So now my alleged arrogance is “spiteful”, Not_Now.Soon?

<<Were you actually confused at what I meant that you accuse me of arrogance when you regularly flaunt your own spiteful arrogance.>>

No, I wasn’t sure what you were talking about because your wording was quite muddled and, as I explained in my last post, because your examples of my supposed arrogance were either not a display of arrogance to begin with, or were things that I had never said. This next one of yours is a good example:

<<Heck look after that comment. Last time you used a fallacy argument? "0:00.">>

Um, no, the zero minutes and zero seconds was the amount of time since I had last pointed out a fallacy in someone else’s argument (something mhaze was alleging I no longer do because he supposedly called me out for misapplying the common fallacies as some sort of a last resort tactic (his mendacity is breathtaking, I know)). I was not claiming that I have never used a fallacy.

Yet another example of alleged arrogance that was never there to begin with.

<<… if proof or disproof of God is of value, then as previously pointed out it goes more then philosophy and logic problems.>>

I’m not sure what you're trying to say here, sorry.

<<We can come to logical errors by not understanding the situation correctly.>>

Sure. If you could tell me where any of my logic has failed, then I’ll be happy to correct it.

<<Experience, and verifiability is stronger then logic issues.>>

No, I’m afraid logic always wins out, so long as the logic is sound. If it is a logical impossibility for an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god to exist in a world where suffering and evil exist, then claiming you have experienced such a god doesn’t trump that.

<<… I've given an observation that anyone can test for themselves. Seek God and see the results.>>

None of the results you or others describe sound very reliable. I’d much prefer results that did not have other, more rational explanations.

Continued…

…Continued

<<It is not my opinion that God loves you, but the testominy of the bible.>>

How do you know the Bible is right?

<<Most of your comments are a trial of anyone's patience.>>

If requesting evidence and explaining why I find your evidence unconvincing tests the patience of everyone else, then that is unfortunate, but I cannot be held responsible for the hypersensitivity of others. I understand that we still live in times where we’re not supposed to question religious belief (unless it’s Islam). However, no idea should be immune to criticism.

<<God loves you and would celebrate with all of Heaven if you turned to Him.>>

Anything that could qualify as a god would know what it would take to convince me of its existence. It is not up to me to play Hide and Seek with a god who supposedly wants to play silly buggers. The ball is in His court.

<<You can test it to see if it has merit.>>

I did. I found no merit.

On a different note, I have to say that it is rather disappointing to see your tone deteriorate since we first discussed religion five months ago. I have made a conscious effort to remain polite in my communications with you because I know from experience that no matter how nice a person a theist may be, that can change very quickly if their beliefs are challenged, and if that happens, I want to ensure that I played as little a role in that as possible.

So, why do it then? Good question.

I do it anyway because people can change their minds and, in hindsight, I would have liked someone to try to change my mind when I was a Christian, no matter how uncomfortable the experience may have been at the time. Leaving people to hold irrational beliefs does them no favours, in my opinion. If someone really needs the belief, then they'll hold on to it no matter what. But I've never known of a person who felt that their life was destroyed because they saw reason.

//Not that you actually give a damn, but you did ask.//

Well there's no need to be like that.

//What do you need to be saved from. Yourself, the world, and death.//

Yourself: Fair point and well made. Yes, I'm fairly sure that technically speaking the greatest threat to myself does come from myself. I'm not into self-harm, nor suicidal, and I am quite cautious by nature so not a big risk-taker. But my diet, frankly, is appalling. Too much cheese and red meat and not nearly enough fruit, veg, grains... plants, basically. I really need to eat more plants. And changing my religion could definitely help: if I go Muslim, there's all the pork gone for a start. I've read that many Seventh Day Adventists, Hindus too, are vegetarian. Maybe that could be the way to go.

Or maybe I just eat better, without losing my religion.

the world: Cheer up Brian, the world isn't such a bad old place. Look, there are plenty of bad things in this world. I could write you huge big list, but I have a word limit. And if you focus on all those bad things all the time, of course you're going to think the world is a huge stinking cesspit. You're also going to do dire things to your mental health: been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. I'm not saying you should become one of those annoying, overly-cheerful people who believe in the 'power of positive thinking'. Those people irritate me. I'm just saying that whilst maintaining a healthy-but-not-excessive level of cynicism, you might want to gain a sense of perspective: a cooler, more objective view of how mankind is progressing as a species than that promoted by those who subscribe to Apocalyptic theology.

We're doing okay, dude. Compared to the historical average: War and Famine are down. Pestilence is way down. Death remains steady, but lifespans are up. Prosperity is up. Education is up. Human rights are up. As the barman said to the horse: why the long face, pal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJUhlRoBL8M

and death: O... kay

Do you have any idea how many dead Christians there are? See above point about lists and word limits. Suffice to say, there an awful lot. Did they just not believe hard enough?

//Yourself, the world, and death. Essentially everything sin is mucking up.//

So sin is 'mucking me up', is it?

There's absolutely no call for that, mate. We're all just having a nice friendly chat, no need for the abuse.

Here's a nice little song I heard the other day. Not terribly relevant, but I thought the chorus could be adapted into some useful advice for you: Don't save people who don't wanna be saved, even if you wanna save them. Everybody! Don't save people who don't wanna be saved, even if you wanna save them (it's complicated, isn't it?).

http://www.facebook.com/ThePippaEvans/

david f,
I've been away for a couple of days so the topic has moved ten pages.
However I am not Protestant, that means protesting against the Roman Church, nor Hindu like Yuyutsu who has many gods. I am an independent thinker and have read contemporary historical text to the Bible. Understanding Jesus gives us the best understanding of the heart and character of God who created all things including human society.

There is a universal truth hidden in the heart of a good society that is implanted there by God. It has been Christ Jesus that opened this light to a closed hierarchal society. mhaze has given a good exposure of the development of society under the freedom of Christian world views. Jesus in his introductory to his mission states he came to set captives free. He came to give his life to freeing sinners from their sins. He teaches and practise the equality of all persons, including the outcast of society, and Paul follows it be stating there is neither male or female, slave or free in the kingdom where God rules. Even the concept of rule is to be a servant of others not a dictator to be served, says Jesus Christ. We are to work in the best interest of all persons including our enemies.

This still is a concept not understood in practise by the enemies of Christianity, including atheists and other religions. It is not a principle of being superior, but of being best practice for healthy relationships.

You need not fear that your absence went unnoticed, Josephus. It has been really pleasant not having you pop your head in to make offensive, unfounded, and downright false assumptions about what myself and others base our lives or character on.

To decline to provide specifics with regards to what is it that you mean when to speak of basing one’s character on something, and then assume that those who present arguments unfavourable to your religious belief must necessarily base their lives and character on their disbelief in what you believe you base yours on, is both dishonest and absurd.

In the original post which started this thread there was a comment.

<<I want to tell you what I know, from loving God.>>

Having hearing you I think you have confused religious belief with knowledge and will continue to confuse religious belief with knowledge. I think lots of people with different religions do the same thing. That would be perfectly OK if they were content to rely on their belief, and live and let live. The problem arises when they want others to share that confusion. In my experience and my long life I have met many missionaries. All those I have met assume that other people have not encountered their belief system - that they are dealing with any empty mind - as though they are bringing a fresh insight. You are only one of many.

Many atheists are curious about different religions and want to know their history and their belief systems. One apparent fact about religion is that most people identify with their parents' religion.

I was curious about Islam and went to a Mosque in the West End of Brisbane. After the prayers the worshippers (all male) broke up in discussion groups), and I was invited to join one. They discussed a portion of their scripture which contained the injunction to seek knowledge. One of the participated had read "Satanic Verses" which produced a fatwa from an Islamic cleric advising somebody to go out and murder the author. The reader had the opinion that it wasn't a good read, but no book justifies killing the author. After the discussion the imam invited me to take some books. Although I would have liked to have seen the books I refused as I did not want him to think I was a potential convert.

AJ,

“… god can be objectively disproved in a world where evil and suffering exist”.

That’s true if you assume that the deity sees evil/suffering in the same way as you do. So then you’ve ‘disproven’ the existence of a God that has the same values as you ie you’ve discredited that type of God. But you haven’t disproven a deity that has a different view on the nature of evil or suffering or sees them as a means to an end. You may not like, or want to worship such a deity but that’s not the same as disproving it. Which is why someone might want to change the terms of the issue from prove to discredit.

“I still point fallacies out all the time. Why, I pointed one out earlier in this thread.”

I was referring to you using them against me. You stopped using them when I started pointing out their invalidity. What happens in other sub-threads, I’m not sure. I tend not to follow the interminable “I never said what I said” arguments.
“…your inability to provide an example of me misapplying or misidentifying them was evidence of that. “ I said ‘misuse’. You changed the terms of the issue to make it more to your liking…seems to be a fair bit of that around, eh? And I’ve already shown where you did misuse the fallacy meme, so asked and answered.

Your Wikipedia DM link doesn’t provide evidence of DM, it provides evidence of a gap in our knowledge which is currently filled by DM. Much the same as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps .

“I might get around to responding to your comments regarding the extent to which Christianity was necessary for Western civilisation to emerge, if I can muster the enthusiasm and find the time.
Translation: I can’t think of any way to rebut your learned and well researched post so I’ll pretend to ignore it.


“….the Genetic fallacy.”
I had a little bet with myself that, when I pointed out you weren’t using this failed meme, you’d start using it again. You’re so easily manipulated.

Davidf,

“People questioned slavery before Christianity. “

Yes they did. There was even a legal method for Romans to free their slaves and indeed it wasn’t unknown for slaves to gain citizenship and political power in Rome. Some even rose to the very heights of power eg Narcissus under Claudius. Most of the writings you saw at Delphi were from that period rather than the classical age of Greece. But even when these people were ‘freed’ they still, for the most part, had to live in the former masters house until he died. A slave by another name.

But this misses the point. Slavery, the institution, remained in Greece and Rome even though some slaves were released. Gracchus was known to release his female slaves once he tired of them, but always replaced them with new slaves.

And yes, the move in the 18/19th century to close slavery as an institution was strongly opposed by some Christians. But it was strong favoured by others, and they succeeded.
This was the first time in human history that a civilisation moved to outlaw slavery. It’s never been attempted in Islam and remains favoured by many (see what happened to the Yazidi and is currently happening in Libya). There was a desultory effort in China in the 9th century but that failed and wasn’t tried again. Outlawing of slavery was never tried in India or, as far as we know Japan or Mesoamerica. Most Aboriginal women were slaves and could be sold – eg to Chinese traders in Arnhem in the 16th-18th century and to white sealers in Tasmania.

/cont

/cont

As far as we know slavery has existed throughout human history and almost certainly back into pre-history and it has existed in every region.

Yet one, just one, society moved to close slavery. That society was Christian. Averting your gaze to that fact because of an ingrained hatred of the religion and its adherents simply means that you failed to understand recent history. As we as a society forget why and how this victory over barbarity was achieved we invite its return. Again the Yazidi horror and the present problems in Libya are a foreshadowing of things to come as the Christian society folds.

________________________________________________________________________

“If I ignored the Inquisition, the support of authoritarian rule by the divine right of kings, the Dark Ages (Church opposition to independent thought made them dark), the Wars of the Reformation, the Crusades, the inquisition, the centuries of hatred which made fertile soil for the Nazi Holocaust and other atrocities I might have a positive view of Christianity. “

Funny how, in your jaundiced thinking, anything bad that happened in Christian realm was down the Christianity, but anything good has nothing to do with Christianity. Very even-handed of you!

The Dark Ages were dark because of the Church? So why no Dark Ages in Constantinople?

Its very true that the history of Christianity isn’t perfect. But to simply look at its shortcomings while ignoring the vastly greater problems with other religions is not even unhistoric, I’d call it a-historic. A complete lack of historic understanding.

As Churchill might have said…”Christianity is the worst of all religions, except for all the others that have tried”.

Dear mhaze,

Yes, I think the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, the suppression of knowledge and thought along with the other atrocities stem from the intolerance inherent in Christianity. In my opinion it has achieved its pre-eminence because it is an ideal religion of rule. Oppose the tyrant, and you are opposing God and Jesus. As far as I am concerned it is evil. Christianity is excellent at clouding people's minds so they can as you have done rationalise the evil. One Christian I know has written that I should think of the goals of Christianity rather than what Christians have actually done. Individual Christians might be quite honourable and decent people, but as a religion I think it inferior to most other religions. One of Christianity's flaws is its demand that its adherents accept nonsense.

I don't think the increasing percentage of people in the western countries who are leaving Christianity are leaving it because it is evil. I think they leaving because they think it is basically nonsense, and they don't want to be bothered

It doesn’t matter how the deity sees suffering or evil, mhaze.

<<That’s true if you assume that the deity sees evil/suffering in the same way as you do.>>

A god that allows ANY suffering or evil cannot, by definition, be omnibenevolent at the same time as omniscient and omnipotent.

<<So then you’ve ‘disproven’ the existence of a God that has the same values as you...>>

No, I’ve disproven the classic omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god. Sophisticated theologians, who have redefined God to be ‘maximally powerful’, seem to agree.

<<But you haven’t disproven a deity that has a different view on the nature of evil or suffering or sees them as a means to an end.>>

If it’s supposed to be omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent, I have. An omniscient and omnipotent god could think of a better way. A way that doesn’t involve millions of people starving to death and dying in hideous ways.

<<Which is why someone might want to change the terms of the issue from prove to discredit.>>

No, as you can see above, there was no reasonable suspicion in your mendacious claims.

You know what I do when someone uses a different word to what I used? I correct them. I don’t accuse them of trying to re-frame the argument, and then have the gall to claim that it’s something they regularly do (an allegation you are yet to demonstrate). That just smacks of dishonesty and desperation.

<<I was referring to you using them against me. You stopped using them when I started pointing out their invalidity.>>

Firstly, no, you didn’t point out their invalidity. You couldn’t even provide an example.

Secondly, I haven’t pointed out any fallacies in your arguments because I haven’t spotted any (apart from the Genetic fallacy). I gave you enough credit to assume that you were exercising a little more caution. I had already pointed out your use of the Genetic fallacy earlier by noting that just because Christianity enabled (or at least didn’t hinder enough) certain progress, that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily required now or in the future. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#251954)

Continued…

…Continued

I will admit, however, that I did resist noting that the error in your logic had a name, because I know how dishonest you are, and was not willing at the time to waste words/posts on discrediting your oh-so predictable claim that you had already supposedly called me out on them. Which, unsurprisingly, you have now done. So, let's get down to business:

1. mhaze: “I don't hate ... the way you (mis)use the fallacy table. “ (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7832#241939)

2. AJ: “You are yet to provide an example of myself misidentifying a fallacy ... You have invented this “meme tool” line to suggest that I am abusing something [i.e. misuse], presumably because you now realise that you cannot pin me on the misidentification of fallacies.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7832#241945)

3. mhaze: “I say (mis)use, you 'refute' by saying misidentify.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7832#241982)

[I’ll jump in here for a second to note something which I never pointed out at the time: there is no meaningful difference between 'misusing' the “list” of common fallacies and 'misidentifying' them, in this context, because the only way they could be misused would be to misidentify them.]

4. AJ: “I mentioned your talk of “misuse”, too: [I then quoted the second part of my comment above in 2]” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7832#241990)

Then you slipped off into the night, only to come back now with the audacity to pretend you were successful. This isn't the first time you've done that either, is it?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7994#247454
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7994#247502

<<And I’ve already shown where you did misuse the fallacy meme, so asked and answered.>>

No, as you can see above, you never did.

It is because I tire of going through this kind of crap with you that I resisted noting that there was a common fallacy which describes the error in your reasoning earlier.

<<Translation: I can’t think of any way to rebut your [claims].>>

We’re mind reading now, are we? I had already shown a massive gap in your thinking with my quote earlier. You are yet to overcome this. So, excuse me if I’m not enthusiastic about responding to a lengthy, one-eyed take on history.

Davidf,
“ As far as I am concerned it is evil.”

Yes I gathered that. But its based on a lack of knowledge of other religions and the real world.

“as a religion I think it inferior to most other religions”
Islam? Tengrianism? Aztec religion? Heard of the Rohingya….It’s been going on for centuries. Shinto?

“One of Christianity's flaws is its demand that its adherents accept nonsense.”
As opposed to all the other religions? Seriously…get a grip.

“In my opinion it has achieved its pre-eminence because it is an ideal religion of rule. Oppose the tyrant, and you are opposing God and Jesus. “
Yes and then it allowed that society to move to democracy and overthrown the tyrant. And how is supporting the tyrant worse than being the tyrant as happens in Islam? The religion is the state.

“I think the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, the suppression of knowledge and thought…”

Again so why no Dark Ages in Eastern Christendom?

AJ,

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19110#340159
I can’t imagine how you missed that one….he says with a knowing grin.

Re omnibenevolent …
Your argument assumes that your definition of benevolent is universal. What if this deity has a different understanding of how to be benevolent? I’m sorry to do this to you since clearly you have no concept of your view being one of many, but benevolence can come in many forms.

Oh please, mhaze. Don't keep it to yourself now, will you?

<<I can’t imagine how you missed that one….he says with a knowing grin.>>

Tell us all what the link you provided was supposed to reveal.

Did I miss something there that was supposed to be revealed in the post you linked to, or were you speaking in third person?

Don’t hold back now, I’m sure I’ll be terribly embarrassed once you explain the significance.

<<Your argument [re omnibenevolence] assumes that your definition of benevolent is universal.>>

My definition is the same as everyone else's (so far as I can tell):

Benevolence:
“The quality of being well meaning; kindness.”
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/benevolence

Omnibenevolence is, therefore, unlimited goodwill and kindness:

Omnibenevolence:
“(with reference to a deity) perfect or unlimited goodness.”
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/omnibenevolence

So, if the classical Abrahamic god is also omniscient and omnipotent, then it would have not only the will, but also the foresight and the power to create a world in which no suffering or evil occured (I’m aware that, at this point, all sorts of paradoxes start to rear their heads, but these only strengthen my argument about the impossibility of such a god).

<<What if this deity has a different understanding of how to be benevolent?>>

Unlimited benevolence is an absolute. There is no different way to understand it without being wrong.

<<I’m sorry to do this to you since clearly you have no concept of your view being one of many, but benevolence can come in many forms.>>

No need to be sorry, mhaze. All you did was confuse yourself by going from omnibenevolence (an absolute) to mere benevolence (somewhat subjective). The fool was you. But, hey, I’ll at least give you enough credit to assume that the switch there wasn’t a deliberate attempt to deceive.

Not that you deserve it.

//“ As far as I am concerned it is evil.”

Yes I gathered that. But its based on a lack of knowledge of other religions and the real world.//

Is that how it works? Things are which clearly unethical become ethical if examples of more unethical things can be found?

I'm not sure I agree... it sounds a lot like 'two wrongs make a right'. I don't think that's good ethics. And it seems to lead to an ethical race to the bottom, where only the most wicked and despicable acts can be regarded as immoral. Dante's Inferno reduced to just the 9th Circle, with all the other sinners getting a free pass because they're not as bad as the traitors? Bugger that for a joke.

If Christians have behaved or are behaving in an unethical manner, it's still unethical behaviour. Even if their wicked deeds are overshadowed by the blood of sacrificial victims fleeing so freely that it pours like a waterfall down the temple steps as the Sun-priests raise their knives, over and over again...

Or the phansigar, subtly slipping his garrotte around the victim's neck, and then throttling their life away in honour of Kali...

Even at their very worst (child rapists), Christians have never been that bad. But that doesn't excuse them from, for example, burning Jews for being Jewish. Or hanging old women for being 'witches'. Or raping children. That's still grossly unethical behaviour, and you can't just excuse it - or indeed any other unethical behaviour - by pointing out that 'well, at least they aren't Thuggees'.

AJ, You said. "So, if the classical Abrahamic god is also omniscient and omnipotent, then it would have not only the will, but also the foresight and the power to create a world in which no suffering or evil occurred." Yes The Creator has. Example; It is called Mars. The very nature of our complex chemistry is change; that means cell decay and injury to delicate tissue. Evil exists because of self cantered and selfish behaviour in a being called human. It appears you think the universe should have an inert chemistry, and a lifeless existence to prove God is omnipotent. The very fact of the nature of Earth's chemistry and complex life forms indicates a creator who has put complex principles in place of which we are as human part of that chemistry and changing principles of life. Some want to imagine they exist apart from the nature of the reality and more intelligent than the reality. That a loving Creator God could not be part of our reality. Life for humans is not just mechanical it is also social and character development.

Toni Lavis,
By quoting evil behaviour of some, it appears you want to compare yourself; Well I'm not as bad as them. The fact is all humans have a selfish nature the must be supressed and considered dead and supplanted with pure and caring thoughts and actions.

Calling oneself Christian does not cut it with God. God who is pure and holy, who revealed how to live as a human by giving Jesus Christ. By quoting evil human behaviour by persons calling themselves Christian does not identify what God is like. It is merely an excuse for not accepting the reality of a pure and holy character.

mhaze wrote: <<Yes and then it allowed that society to move to democracy and overthrown the tyrant. And how is supporting the tyrant worse than being the tyrant as happens in Islam? The religion is the state.>>

What a complete distortion! The above shows one of the ways that evil Christianity prevails. After fighting democracy and trying to preserve the union of church and state Christianity claims credit for the society which allows democracy. The credit is due to people like Spinoza and Voltaire who were aware of Christian evil not to Christianity which tried to preserve autocracy. Democracy and seoaration of church come from opposing Christianity.

From http://hemed.univ-lemans.fr/cours2011/en/co/grain3_4_2.html

"In 1555, the Peace of Augsburg laid down a principle which gained ground in no time: cujus regio, ejus religio. It meant that each prince of the Germanic realm had the right to opt for the faith of his choice, the which became compulsory for all his subjects. If they did not wish to adopt the prince's religion, they could migrate to a state where the faith of their choice was practised. They had two options only: Roman Catholicism of Lutheranism."

Before the Reformation there were no options. It took the vicious wars of the Reformation with Christians killing Christians to establish any option.

Islam has a tradition of separation of mosque and state. It is often violated, but the tradition is there. The Shia especially have violated that tradition in current Iran.

//The very nature of our complex chemistry is//

Entirely subject to the will of God, if he exists and is omnipotent.

//change; that means cell decay and injury to delicate tissue.//

No, an omnipotent god could prevent that. The thing about being an omnipotent god is that the rules are all up to you.

//It appears you think the universe should have an inert chemistry, and a lifeless existence to prove God is omnipotent. //

If God is omnipotent, nothing prevents him from creating a universe with people and 'inert chemistry' (no, I don't know what it means either. Something to do with noble gases, I assume. Or maybe Josephus is just having another one of his funny turns).

//The very fact of the nature of Earth's chemistry and complex life forms indicates a creator who has put complex principles in place of which we are as human part of that chemistry and changing principles of life.//

TLDR: the good old fashioned Argument from Design.

I despair at your lack of imagination, Josephus.

//Some want to imagine they exist apart from the nature of the reality and more intelligent than the reality.//

Oh yes? And who would they be?

//Life for humans is not just mechanical it is also social and character development.//

Yes, I recommend that the latter two be added to your bucket list. Something new for you to try before you pass beyond the veil.

//The fact is all humans have a selfish nature//

And selfish genes as well.

Of course we're all a bit selfish, Josephus. Do you know what happens to species that aren't? Extinction.

Your fact - possibly the first ever accurate fact you've ever stated, so well done for that - is the reason that capitalism works and communism doesn't. It is an integral part of the reason we're here having this conversation.

It's healthy, and fine, and I don't see how we could get rid of it even if we wanted to. But like all fine things in life, if it is taken to excess then it becomes a bad thing. An excess of selfishness leads to greed, and worse.

It should be noted that as well as all being a bit selfish, we're all a bit altruistic (well, maybe not socipaths). There's good reasons for that as well: acting in the interests of others can be in the interests of those selfish genes.

//must be supressed and considered dead and supplanted with pure and caring thoughts and actions.//

How very 'utopian', comrade.

But I'm not big fan of crimethink. Maybe people could just carry on with using the age-old tradition of relying on their conscience & altruism to temper their selfishness, thus (hopefully) avoiding the temptations of greed.

//Calling oneself Christian does not cut it with God.//

I should hope not, although your statement is fraught with dodgy assumptions.

//By quoting evil human behaviour by persons calling themselves Christian does not identify what God is like.//

Ahh, my favourite fallacy: No True Scotsman.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

//It is merely an excuse for not accepting the reality of a pure and holy character.//

Jehovah or Jesus? I've been over this before: taking into account detracting views, I consider that on the balance of probabilities Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. Who wasn't divine. Jehovah, at least as he is conventionally presented, is nonsense on stilts.

Dear Toni,

If we are completely selfish the species may not survive. If a mother is not willing to take risks for the survival of her offspring her genes may die out. If she takes too many risks she will not survive and her offspring who are not yet capable of fending for themselves will not either. Among animals that have a family structure this applies to the father. In dealing with groups as opposed to other groups a group has a better chance of survival if some individuals will take risks for the group. The relation between selfishness and altruism is complex. Complete selfishness or complete altruism will not work in many cases. My father and mother lived through the depression. It probably would have been a good survival strategy for him to abandon his family. If he had I would be less likely to be here, and his genes would be less likely to be passed on.

The capitalistic societies of Scandinavia are quite prosperous, provide an extensive net of social survival and foster entrepreneurial activity. They have achieved a good balance between selfishness and altruism.

Hi David,

You make an interesting point about family and survival. In my own case I have become a part of my partners Maori family. The family is far greater in number than what us Europeans see as the immediate family of off spring plus a few siblings etc. The extended family is massive, certainly hundreds, if not thousands of members of the tribe.
What I realized early was there is a great dependency on family, those unable to support themselves fully are helped by others without question. Ones social responsibility to whanau (the extended family) is seen as a paramount responsibility. That is not to say the bludger is tolerated, over the years I have not come across many of those within the society. In the past when times were much tougher this inter family support was a necessity as an overall survival technique.
I see this also in village life among our family in Fiji as well.

Toni Lavis, You stated,"I consider that on the balance of probabilities Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure. Who wasn't divine. Jehovah, at least as he is conventionally presented, is nonsense on stilts". It becomes obvious you do not understand what divine means. The nature / character of the divine is right attitudes, behaviours and words. It is wisdom and righteousness expressed and lived. Christians should express the Spirit of God through their attitudes, actions and speech. This is the divine human character, Jesus as human expressed that character.

//It becomes obvious you do not understand what divine means.//

Of course not, Josephus. After all, you are the ultimate authority on the English language and dictionaries are wrong if they disagree with you. How silly of me to forget. [sarcasm]

Perhaps you could now explain for me why the demi-God Heracles from the Greek pantheon is considered divine, even though he has naught to do with Christianity?

Josephus,

The ‘It’s not God, it’s man’s sin’ argument doesn’t get you around the problem mhaze is currently fumbling with, for many reasons. One of which Toni Lavis has already explained.

“I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.” (Isaiah 45:7)

You can resolve the problem by simply by removing one of the three omnis (e.g. a god could be omnibenevolent, but not be omnipotent and/or omniscient, and that would explain the existence of suffering and evil). But a god that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent is internally contradictory and suffers from many paradoxes (e.g. if a god is omnibenevolent, then that means He cannot let any suffering or evil occur, which means that He cannot therefore be omnipotent because His power is limited by His omnibenevolence (c.f. Can God make a rock so big he can’t carry it?))

<<The very fact of the nature of Earth's chemistry and complex life forms indicates a creator who has put complex principles in place of which we are as human part of that chemistry and changing principles of life.>>

Sounds like a bit of a non sequitur, to me. Either way, an omnipotent god could have just simplified things and reduced at least the suffering. There are only two ways in which complexity arises out of design: necessity or sloppiness. Neither of which should be the case where an omnipotent god is concerned. Why, for example, would an omnipotent god create brains that use 20% of our energy, thus requiring us to eat and breath more? Especially if we have souls to do all that for us.

That’s not just a redundancy, that’s an inefficient redundancy.

Josephus wrote: "The nature / character of the divine is right attitudes, behaviours and words. It is wisdom and righteousness expressed and lived. Christians should express the Spirit of God through their attitudes, actions and speech. This is the divine human character, Jesus as human expressed that character."

Kim and Trump also express that character. Their brandishing of nuclear weapons and threats to wipe out many lives has been possibly inspired by the example of the Flood where God wiped out almost all life on earth. I really can't see how a benevolent God could do that.

Of course if God is omniscient, benevolent and omnipotent he doesn't need Jesus. Jesus is a pagan God figure with such pagan attributes as virgin birth, resurrection and a ceremonial meal.

The whole business is silly, but silly appeals to many.

AJ,
Your constant semantic ’discussions’ can be exhausting. As usual, when you’ve talked yourself into a corner, your ‘solution’ is to keep talking.

Re Omnibenevolence,

I visited Wikipedia to see if they might have a better way of explaining why the concept is subjective and why a deity that isn’t benevolent in your terms can still be benevolent in its own terms.
See if this helps your understanding (although I suspect you already understand but ain’t gunna admit it)…
“The word "omnibenevolence" may be interpreted to mean perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful, or any number of other qualities, depending on precisely how "good" is understood. As such, there is little agreement over how an "omnibenevolent" being would behave.” Does that help?

“Is that how it works? Things are which clearly unethical become ethical if examples of more unethical things can be found?”

No Toni, that’s not how it works and that’s not at all what I was saying or arguing. Had you not walked in in the middle of the conversation, you might have seen things like “Its very true that the history of Christianity isn’t perfect. “. See, it pays to go back and pick up the threads of the discussion before pontificating lest you misconstrue things, unless of course you WANT to misconstrue the issues in which case waking in in the middle of a conversation is definitely the way to go.

The point is that all religions have done things and had things done in its name that are abhorrent. But compared to the others Christianity has a good record and when considered along with the creditable things done by it and in its name, a fine record. Those who choose to exhibit a-historic hatred of Christianity won’t agree but then they also don’t understand the history.

For example: “Islam has a tradition of separation of mosque and state. “ Unbelievable..that’s about as incorrect an assertion as it is possible to make. In Islam the law of the state is sharia which is the law of the religion – they aren’t separated, they are the same.

Meanwhile:

Why was it that the only civilisation in the whole history of man to actively work to eliminate slavery was Christian?...crickets
Why was it that the only civilisation in the whole history of man to even conceive of human rights was Christian?...crickets
Why was it that the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Christian West?...crickets

Why did democracy arise in the Christian west?...crickets

Why, if Christianity caused the Dark Ages, was there no Dark Ages in the Christian East?...crickets

Tony, You said, "Perhaps you could now explain for me why the demi-God Heracles from the Greek pantheon is considered divine, even though he has naught to do with Christianity?" If you are ancient Greek and admire the character and actions attributed to Heracles you would consider him god. That is how gods are determined, so if you have a character of a person you seek to emulate then you consider something of his / her character and actions as valuable. For example Muslims see the character and behaviour of Mohamed as living the laws of Allah, so they see the divine nature of a demi-god in him. He being the model of Islam the second largest following in human history.

Dear mhaze, Apparently you didn't look up anything about Sharia before you sounded off. Most Muslim countries have laws 'inspired by European models', and Sharia is aplied mostly to family law. There is not one sharia but many. What I gather is that you have the opinion that your Christian superstition is somehow better than the Muslim superstition. I have the view that all religions are not equal but possibly monotheistic religions are more advanced than polytheistic religions. With its humanoid god and Trinity Christianity is not monotheistic, but Islam is. Actually both are superstitions with bad records, but I think Christianity is a bit worse than Islam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia "In the modern era, sharia-based criminal laws have been widely replaced by statutes inspired by European models. Judicial procedures and legal education in the Muslim world were likewise brought in line with European practice. While the constitutions of most Muslim-majority states contain references to sharia, its classical rules were largely retained only in personal status (family) laws." Personally I think it would be better to have neither superstition.

I know how you 'feel', mhaze.

<<Your constant semantic ’discussions’ can be exhausting.>>

(Quotes: because they're not REALLY discussions, are they?)

Correcting your dishonest versions of events in debates gone by can be exhausting too.

What do you have against semantics, anyway? Semantics are fundamental to productive discussion. For if we cannot agree on definitions, then communication is pointless.

<<As usual, when you’ve talked yourself into a corner ...>>

Really? And just how exactly have I done that, pray tell? As usual, you’re conveniently lacking in the details department.

It seems to me that you’re the only one here who has cornered themselves: you tried to make it look like I was attempting to re-frame the debate, and that it was something I regularly do; then, when that flopped, you had another crack at the ‘fallacy’ line.

As for your quote from Wikipedia:

“The word "omnibenevolence" may be interpreted to mean perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful, or any number of other qualities, depending on precisely how "good" is understood.”

The three examples there sound fine to me. I don’t see how the end result of any of them should not look at least far better than what we’ve had and what we currently have. Perhaps you have another understanding of ‘good’ in mind in which the end result allows for the level of suffering and evil we've seen throughout history?

“As such, there is little agreement over how an "omnibenevolent" being would behave.”

Sure. How exactly it behaves is ultimately irrelevant, though, because unlimited of anything that could qualify as 'good' should have the same result.

It could be argued that a world with no suffering or evil at all may be absurd or undesirable, but with natural disasters having consumed entire civilisations, mass starvation, diseases that affect infants, worms that need to burrow into our eyes just to survive, genocide, etc., the level suffering in the world is clearly excessive and not what we should expect to see from an omnibenevolent god (however one reasonably defines ‘good’) who is also omnipotent and omniscient.

//Had you not walked in in the middle of the conversation, you might have seen things like “Its very true that the history of Christianity isn’t perfect. “. See, it pays to go back and pick up the threads of the discussion before pontificating lest you misconstrue things, unless of course you WANT to misconstrue the issues in which case waking in in the middle of a conversation is definitely the way to go.//

Ooohh! My, aren't we a grumpy little snowflake this afternoon?

Did you miss your nap?

It don't read a lot of what you post, because life is too short. You don't seem to understand the nature of a public forum: the thing is that it's public. If you put something out there, it's free for everyone to read, ignore, or comment upon as they see fit. If that bothers, you might want to find a new medium for your message. Maybe start a blog or something?

//But compared to the others Christianity has a good record and when considered along with the creditable things done by it and in its name, a fine record.//

TLDR: Well, at least they're not Thuggees.

//Those who choose to exhibit a-historic hatred of Christianity won’t agree but then they also don’t understand the history.//

Yes, everybody who disagrees with you is a bumbling simpleton who barely knows how to tie their own shoelaces, let alone comprehend really complicated things like history. That's the way it always works.

//Meanwhile//

Selective readings of history and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies remain unconvincing lines of argument.

//That is how gods are determined, so if you have a character of a person you seek to emulate then you consider something of his / her character and actions as valuable.//

So if we admire somebody, they get elevated to the status of godhood? Are you sure about that, Josephus? I admire the work of Richard Dawkins, are you sure you're happy for him to be granted divine status? Would you like a little while to stop and think about this a bit more?

Toni Lavis writes: “Selective readings of history and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies remain unconvincing lines of argument.”

Indeed.

It could also be a case of the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

One would need to control for environmental and sociological factors to gauge the extent to which Christianity can be thanked. Controlling for other factors after the fact, however, becomes a highly speculative exercise.

My apologies, mhaze. I allowed you to bog me down in a useless debate about definitions.

So, to that extent that I had allowed myself to be talked into a corner, I guess you were right. But it was not me who did the talking.

You originally stated:

“The error many believers make on pages such as this or in life generally is to try to explain their belief in the deity by logical reasoning. But that is an impossibility. The deity can neither be proven nor disproven through logic.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#251950)

And again later on when doubling down on your porkie:

“I said the deity can’t be disproven (or proven).” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252107)

Clearly I showed that this was not the case. Deities can be disproven, depending on how they’re defined.

So, even if you come back to me with a form of ‘good’ in which an unlimited amount could still result in the suffering and evil we’ve witnessed throughout history, it would make no difference to my initial point: that there are some deities that can be disproven.

At best, all you’ll have done is shown that some forms of the classical omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god (and ones whose quality of omnibenevolence is so specific that most christians - in my extensive experience with them, at least, including as a former Christian myself - have probably never even considered and certainly have never bothered to specify) cannot be disproven.

Now, wasn’t that a colossal waste of both our time?

But thank you, nevertheless, for a demonstration of when semantics CAN be a needless diversion.

To Toni Lavis.

[There's absolutely no call for that, mate. We're all just having a nice friendly chat, no need for the abuse.]

Are you saying that talking about sin is abusive? Look in the mirror man. See if you can find you'r faults. It's a healthy practice to continually strive to be better. But how w will you become better unless you acknowledge where you are now. How will you progress unless you acknowledge your faults and so something about them.

If the topic of sin is abuse (which I barely brought up in this conversation), the you've no right to call anyone a "snowflake."

To mhaze.

What you've said on the connection of Christianity on the historical advancement of society has my intrest. Is there any books to read to get started in this aspect of history!? Or if not books, anything else to learn the positive elements of Christian influence in history and society?

To David f.

[Having hearing you I think you have confused religious belief with knowledge and will continue to confuse religious belief with knowledge. I think lots of people with different religions do the same thing. That would be perfectly OK if they were content to rely on their belief, and live and let live. The problem arises when they want others to share that confusion. In my experience and my long life I have met many missionaries. All those I have met assume that other people have not encountered their belief system - that they are dealing with any empty mind - as though they are bringing a fresh insight. You are only one of many.]

Honestly, I would have liked to go into the topic more, but right away the reactions to my post was that I needed to defend my beliefs before I could confront any practical application if my beliefs and how they've worked out. The topic was pulled in any direction that (to me at least) appeared that everyone's resolve to ignore what I had written and instead broaden the subject to defend the belief in God, or defend Christianity. So yes I was trying a fresh approach.

(Continued)

(Continued)

As for being a missionary, I never thought of myself that way. Thankyou for that thought. It's not that I think Christianity is unknown, or that anyone's mind is empty and ready to be taught. Instead often I've assumed it was known more then it actually is and then am surprised that it isn't. But more frequently regardless if Christianity if known at all, is that it is largely misunderstood. That is something I'd like to correct if ever given the opportunity. In this crowd though that's a hard topic to approach without it going down the route of proving God exists instead of correcting misunderstandings.

For this topic my hope was to approach one belief and it's practical applications. Basically that one teaching and law, to love the Lord with all your heart, actively helps us to fulfill a second teaching and law. To love your neighbor as yourself. According to Jesus these are the two greatest laws that all the other rules in the law given through the prophets hinge on.

My observation, that to focus on God first makes everything else to be a better person easier and requires less effort to accomplish. Less effort to forgive or to restrain anger. Less effort to be hospitable and generous. It's a general observation. One that I had hoped could be tried and compared by other people as well.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

You are a missionary and are behaving like other missionaries I have met. You believe in God. Fine. That is your belief, but don't expect other people to believe in God because you believe in God. Don't expect other people who have already thought deeply on the matter and have concluded that God is a human invention to rethink.

In this thread there was a discussion as to whether Jesus existed. Whether he did or not the account of his life and death in the New Testament did not happen. There have been no genuine miracles which have been attested without a doubt.

You wrote: "To love your neighbor as yourself. According to Jesus these are the two greatest laws that all the other rules in the law given through the prophets hinge on."

Leviticus 19:18 KJV: Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I [am] the LORD.

Jews don't need Jesus for that insight. It is in the Jewish Bible. The Jewish Jesus was citing what Jews know.

Jains, Hindus and Buddhists do not need Jesus for that insight. They have Ahimsa which extends love not only to one's neighbour but to all living creatures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa

"Ahimsa ... means 'not to injure' and 'compassion' and refers to a key virtue in Indian religions. ... Ahimsa is also referred to as nonviolence, and it applies to all living beings—including all animals—in ancient Indian religions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder

Hillel said "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

You might profit by the last three words.

Not_Now.Soon,

If you’re interested in the role Christianity played in the rise of Western civilisation, I’d recommend the following:

- So You Just Can’t Bring Yourself to Believe: A Right-Wing Atheist’s Guide to the Next Best Thing, by Conservative McRightwinger

- Judeo-Christian But Definitely Not Islamic: How You Can Interpret History to Appear Inclusive While Still Remaining Divisive, by Rightie de Nationalist

- Diverting Attention From the Irrational Beliefs of Your Religious Political Allies: A Conservative’s Take on Christianity in the West for the Non-Believer, by Rightist McAltright

- Race and IQ: How Even Beliefs that Aren’t True Demonstrate the Supremacy of Whites, by Fascist McWhitey

In all seriousness, though, if you want some reading on the history of Christianity, I’d recommend ‘Lost Christianities’, a book by Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman. It’s a real eye-opener.

But, if you really want to communicate your beliefs with atheists, or try to convert them, then I’d recommend you first read Sam Harris’s ‘A Letter to a Christian Nation’. It was written as response to all the responses he received after releasing his book, ‘The End of Faith’, and gives a good explanation to Christians of how they come across to non-believers when they proselytise, and why their beliefs are seldom ever taken seriously.

NNS,

You might like to look at these various aspects of the issue:
Essay by Dalrymple, in my opinion, the greatest essayist of our age… http://www.city-journal.org/html/what-new-atheists-don%E2%80%99t-see-13058.html

This essay by Arnold Toynbee… the greatest historian of his age… http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/toynbee.html

Bernard Lewis book “What Went Wrong” is mainly about the reasons why Islam, which was far in advance of Christendom in say 1453 AD, failed. By extension it is therefore an examination of why the West succeeded.

Parts of Landes book “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations” touches on the same issue.

Also let Mr Google be your friend. Google “Christianity Western Civilisation” and you’ll find an enormous number of articles on the issue.

Toni,
“If you put something out there, it's free for everyone to read, ignore, or comment upon as they see fit.”
No argument. Read what you want, ignore what you want. But reading a portion and then mischaracterising that as my entire view don’t expect a civil response. I see it as very uncivil and bordering on dishonest to attribute views to me that I don’t hold and have explicitly argued against. Don’t read it all if that’s your want. But don’t assume that you then understand my views sufficiently well to mock them.
At the least its uncivil…at the most dishonest.

"Selective readings of history and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies remain unconvincing lines of argument."

How do you know that's my line of argument if you haven't read my line of argument?

Davidf,

“Apparently you didn't look up anything about Sharia “

When you seek to disparage Christianity you’ll happily troll back through the past 1500 years to find something, anything, that you can use. (The Crusades…really?). But in defending Islam, you’ll assert that because a few of its outposts have adopted Western (Christian) laws, in the past few generation then Sharia doesn’t exist. I’m not sure the Saudi women would agree, or those women in Iran arrested for showing their hair, or the victims of ISIS etc etc. This break from Sharia in some places is recent and may well be temporary. Is Turkey reverting to kind? Is Indonesia?
I’ll just note the hypocrisy of judging Christianity based on its FULL history, but Islam on SOME of its most recent history.

AJP,
Earlier I’d explained that you hadn’t disproven the deity only disproven/discredited the type of deity that you defined ie that the deity might be different to that which you described.

Now you say :
“Deities can be disproven, depending on how they’re defined.”

and

“there are some deities that can be disproven.”

Glad to see you caught up…..or caught on.

Elsewhere….

“ you had another crack at the ‘fallacy’ line. “
You raised it again. I’ve been happy to let it lie, so to speak.

Dear mhaze,

One don't have to troll back 1500 years to disparage Christianity. It does a pretty good job by itself. Hitler was a great twentieth century monster. The German churches almost all followed him and supported him. Their Christianity did little to oppose the hate and evil he promoted. Although the Catholic Church has excommunicated many Catholics it apparently didn't find reason to excommunicate Hitler.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_excommunicated_by_the_Catholic_Church:

"Fr. Roy Bourgeois (also laicized and dismissed from the Maryknoll Fathers) for participating in the ordination of a woman."

Hitler doesn't get excommunicated. Excommunication is only for those who the Church do something they consider really bad.

The reaction of most of the churches to the revelations of sexual molestation of children by clergy was to cover up their crimes. In Australia PM Turnbull recently announced that he planned to make Australia one of the leading arms suppliers. Tim Costello objected, but the churches have been silent in general. Possibly they want to continue to feeding at the public trough with tax exemptions and public money going to support their schools and other activities. Meanwhile the churches subject children to their fairy tales.

Out and out evil appeals to just about nobody so churches can point to hospitals and other benevolent institutions that they operate. However, in consideration of the blood money of the arms trade and other great wrongs of the society in which we live they are largely silent. Unfortunately, other religions follow the same pattern. They don't want to upset governmental support so they support the government. Religion seems only concerned with sex. For morality in general don't look to religion. Their collective snouts are busy slurping goodies from the public trough.

mhaze,

Yes, but this is where the ambiguity of your language potentially creates confusion - almost as if your wording had been purposefully left ambiguous so as to allow you some wriggle room in the event that you were challenged. I’ll show you what I mean…

<<Earlier I’d explained that you hadn’t disproven the deity only disproven/discredited the type of deity that you defined …>>

Yes, but what exactly is “the deity”? Because, “the deity” is what you spoke of in your initial claim to Not_Now.Soon, too:

“The error many believers make on pages such as this or in life generally is to try to explain their belief in the deity by logical reasoning. But that is an impossibility. The deity can neither be proven nor disproven through logic.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#251950)

Without a description from Not_Now.Soon of who or what exactly his deity is (and there is a diverse range of opinions on who/what God is within Christianity), “the deity” can only be interpreted to mean ‘any deity’.

Therefore, it was reasonable for me to have given you an example of a deity that COULD be disproven, and your nit-picking over the definition of ‘benevolent’ was irrelevant to that.

<<Now you say :>>

As if anything had changed. That's adorable.

No, how one defines God was always a caveat. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have specified a version of God which could be disproven. You had needlessly diverted us onto an irrelevant tangent with regards to different interpretations of what omnibenevolence means when, either way, I had already demonstrated that at least one form of god could be disproven.

Nice try, though.

You still haven’t pointed to an understanding of the word ‘good’ for which an unlimited amount would result in a world with the level of suffering and evil which we have witnessed throughout history either, by the way.

<<You raised [the fallacy line] again. I’ve been happy to let it lie, so to speak.>>

Indeed I did. However, that does not change the fact that you took the opportunity to repeat a falsehood of yours used slanderous purposes.

Tony said, "if we admire somebody, they get elevated to the status of godhood? Are you sure about that, Josephus? I admire the work of Richard Dawkins, are you sure you're happy for him to be granted divine status? Would you like a little while to stop and think about this a bit more?" Posted by Toni Lavis, Wednesday, 31

If you implicitly believe the words and character of Dawkins to be inspired words and your model for life then you have made him your god.

AJ, you said,"Sounds like a bit of a non sequitur, to me. Either way, an omnipotent god could have just simplified things and reduced at least the suffering. There are only two ways in which complexity arises out of design: necessity or sloppiness. Neither of which should be the case where an omnipotent god is concerned. Why, for example, would an omnipotent god create brains that use 20% of our energy, thus requiring us to eat and breath more? Especially if we have souls to do all that for us."

AJ, please tell us what chemical composition and reproduction process you would design so as to avoid decay and cell renewal and the need for reproducing ourselves.

david f, So you do not want storms and floods or the presence of Uranium and the human capacity to kill each other. Search where the problems can be changed for a better world!
Cont,

I found that article by Dalrymple you cited to be rather dishonest, mhaze.

Firstly, the so-called “new atheists” don’t claim to be presenting anything new (although 9/11 did alter the tone somewhat, giving their arguments a greater sense of urgency, compared to the critics of religion who came before them). No, the biggest difference between ‘old' atheists and ‘new' atheists can be summarised entirely by the following image:

http://i.imgur.com/y704dLr.jpg

Which is why I detest the term. It doesn’t warrant a new label, in my opinion. It is a pejorative coined by those who, in response to “The Four Horsemen”, are pushing back under the guise of so-called ‘sophisticated theology’.

Secondly, Dalrymple repeats the tiresome old quote, taken out of context, that the likes of Reza Aslan have perpetuated, to make it sound like Harris is advocating genocide:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/10/13/the-dishonesty-of-some-of-sam-harris-foes-who-clearly-know-better-but-smear-him-anyway
http://samharris.org/on-the-mechanics-of-defamation

Thirdly, Dalrymple misquotes (but at least doesn’t italicise his alteration) the title of Hitchens’ book so that he can introduce a false analogy which speaks of “spoiling" things rather than ‘poisoning’ them:

“Science and technology spoil everything: without trains and IG Farben, no Auschwitz; without transistor radios and mass-produced machetes, no Rwandan genocide.” - Dalrymple

Dalrymple’s above attempt at an analogy would not have made much sense had he used the word ‘poison’ instead of ‘spoil’. It’s an astonishing level of dishonesty. This guy is hardly “the greatest essayist of our age”, but I can see why you would like him.

They were the most glaring problems in the article, to me. There are plenty more which I simply don’t have the time or post allowance to go into. Clearly you haven’t read any of the four main books criticised in the article if you think that that article gave what was in any way an accurate representation of them. No doubt you’ll claim that you have, though.

The article reminds me of another book on Christianity’s role in the rise of Western civilisation:

Christianity as the Bedrock of Civilisation: How to Transition From Christianity to Atheism Without Feeling Like a Commie, by Tory McCarthyist.

Josephus,

What makes you think that chemicals or a reproductive process would be necessary in the first place, where a god is concerned?

<<AJ, please tell us what chemical composition and reproduction process you would design so as to avoid decay and cell renewal and the need for reproducing ourselves.>>

The fact that these exist, and are necessary, are more consistent with a naturalistic worldview.

Nevertheless, there are many problems in the design of human bodies which could have been done better, one doesn’t need to be a chemist to know this:

http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/04/the-most-unfortunate-design-flaws-in-the-human-body

If God is so magical that He is capable of performing miracles (but somehow not healing amputees), then there is no reason why He couldn’t just make us magical spirits or blobs of simplistic flesh for which life and consciousness had no rational explanation.

Why would a god bother to make us so unnecessarily complex and appear precisely as though we evolved from simpler life forms and chemicals, when we could have just been like Teletubbies?

//I see it as very uncivil and bordering on dishonest to attribute views to me that I don’t hold and have explicitly argued against. Don’t read it all if that’s your want. But don’t assume that you then understand my views sufficiently well to mock them.
At the least its uncivil…at the most dishonest.//

There is trouble in the gypsy village.

You've got a habit of doing the same things... you're just not as upfront about it.

//How do you know that's my line of argument if you haven't read my line of argument?//

Oh jesus, the tedious little twat wants to start splitting hairs...

Just because I don't read everything, it doesn't follow that I read none of your arguments.

But in the interests of keeping our hairs nicely split, I officially attest that I've read these...

//Why was it that the only civilisation in the whole history of man to actively work to eliminate slavery was Christian?...crickets
Why was it that the only civilisation in the whole history of man to even conceive of human rights was Christian?...crickets
Why was it that the Industrial Revolution occurred in the Christian West?...crickets

Why did democracy arise in the Christian west?...crickets

Why, if Christianity caused the Dark Ages, was there no Dark Ages in the Christian East?...crickets//

And they definitely contain a lot of bollocks. But so do sausage rolls, and people swallow them every day.

//If you implicitly believe the words and character of Dawkins to be inspired words and your model for life then you have made him your god.//

I don't, I just like his books and stuff. But if he can be God, why can't anybody? You're starting to sound more and more like Yuyutsu... I might leave this conversation before you start telling me that I exist because I don't which coincidentally makes me god, but not actually god because he doesn't exist either even though everybody is god even if they don't believe in him but especially if they don't believe him.

And I hate those conversations.

//Are you saying that talking about sin is abusive? Look in the mirror man. See if you can find you'r faults.//

You just don't get it, do you?

If you want to sit on your high horse and tell me that I'm sinful, mucked up, full of faults... you might want to bring some legitimate criticisms to the table instead of vague platitudes. What is it, precisely, that you think I've done wrong - besides not believe in your god? Or am I just a wicked person because I chose the wrong god?

Because the message I've been getting so far is very much the latter: that I'm just wrong because I don't share your faith. Which from where I'm sitting just sounds like you slagging me off in the name of God. And my rebuttal to that is: go fornicate yourself with the rough end of a pineapple.

So if I had to give you a score out of 10 for being a missionary, it'd be about 3. You haven't gone for the fire and sword method of conversion, so bonus points for that... but you lack a lot of basic knowledge about the history of Christianity and the practices of Christians beyond your own small insular community, your apologetics are unconvincing, and you cannot seem to shake your unfortunate habit of airing your views that people are sub-standard human beings unless they share your particular interpretation of Christianity.

To mhaze, thankyou for the links. I'll look into them more when I have more time. (They looked longer then I expected). I'll also look at the books too. Hope I can find one of them at a liburary. Becoming more educated on the history of the Christian church(es) is on my to do list someday. But to consider Christianity's influence on societies, that was a new thought that I now also want to consider and look into more fully. Thankyou for that.

...if there's anything I can do to return the favor, let me know. I'll try to consider it and see what I can do.

To David f.

I wasn't insulted by your calling me a missionary, if that's the way you see it that I act like other missionaries I'll take that as a compliment. But I get the impression that my discussion is an insult to you and many others here. If that's the truth, then
I'm sorry for any insult I've caused you, but I think it would be a mistake for me to stop talking about God, Christianity or similar topics. From what I can tell it seems there are a lot of misunderstandings, when talking about those topics. There is also confusion due to either misunderstanding, lies, or ignorance. But my reason for staying on these topics aren't just for you and other beliefs outside of Christianity. I also hope that if anyone reads them who is Christian they can be encouraged in their faith, and to seek their faith further instead of caving in under pressure the pressure of well spoken atheists or by insults that come with the territory in growing cultures that think they've outgrown God.

It's not that I think you have or haven't thought your beliefs through. Honestly I don't know anyone here well enough to know who has and who hasn't thought hard to reach their conclusions. A common belief from atheists that I see is that a Christian is someone who hasn't thought their conclusions through. Don't let that be your mistake. But instead see if what I say holds merit.

(...continued)

One other observation I've seen is non-Christians telling what Christians believe. With a mix of less then half of their assessment being accurate. I've seen this same issue with anyone outside of a held perspective trying to explain it. Because of this as well, I think there is merit to have a Christian view here. So that the bold statements of "Christian's believe ___________ or _____________," can be held more accountable by having a Christian voice to say true or not true about them. Or to teach in a missionary way that would keep those false but boldly asserted statements in check.

....for instance. That the teaching of Jesus to love your neighbor and to love God is not actually a new teaching is not to dismiss His words. The context of it is due to a religious teacher asking Jesus what was the greatest commandment. So of course Jesus taught from the laws themselves to answer him and also teach us. As for Jesus himself. I see no reason to question if he existed. People nowadays are making a lot of claims about history that they can't confirm or deny. And until there is evidence to say they are wrong, and deny their claims, they all say that their portrait of history is correct. Jesus's is likely to have existed because his disciples who knew him died for their faith in Jesus instead of wavering under pressure. The rest gets theological about Jesus's assurance that nothing could remove His kingdom, that His message would be taught to all the nations, and among other things that He would not leave us, but could be invited into each of our hearts. Even to lead us from there through the Holy Spirit.

Why should I tell you this if you've already come to your own conclusions? So that you know anyways.

AJ, I have looked at your supposed faults in the human body and have heard it all before in my biology classes. Nothing new there, just the fact that you believe they are faults in design. Eg,The blind spot, or scotoma, is the place in our eyes where the optic nerve passes through the retina to the brain. All humans and all vertebrates have a blind spot. However there are other forms of sighted things like a fly. So you think flies are preferable as they have no optic nerve to the brain creating a blind spot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSAmADQHx9w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSAmADQHx9w

Josephus,

They’re not faults so much as they are just poor design.

<<I have looked at your supposed faults in the human body and have heard it all before in my biology classes.>>

It's nuts to claim that a god could not have designed us more efficiently and with less complexity, if it is supposed to be all-powerful. A team of engineers and biologists could probably design something far better, given the same materials. The human body (not to mention the bodies of every other living creature) is inefficient because natural selection can only work with what it is given.

<<Nothing new there, just the fact that you believe they are faults in design.>>

It has nothing to do with what I believe. The human body is objectively a poor design. There is no reason to believe that an omnipotent god could not do better if even we mere mortals can spot flaws.

<<So you think flies are preferable as they have no optic nerve to the brain creating a blind spot.>>

Preferable to what? Do you mean superior? If one measures superiority based on the absence of a blind spot then, yes, flies are superior to us.

But why the focus on the optic nerve?

Are you saying that an omnipotent god could not have designed a stronger lower back, or given us multiple sets of adult teeth, or sinuses that drain downwards instead of upwards, or a wider birth canal?

One of my friends is a Jehovah's Witness and a sweet old lady. She commented one day on what a wonderful designer God is. She is an intelligent person and a published author. In addition she is able to forget her arthritis and faulty knees which would not exist if she were designed with no flaws.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Deacon%27s_Masterpiece points one to a poem which describes a humorous example of good design.

If we were designed well everything would fail at the same time and we would die by decomposition rather than by failure of one of our parts.

AJ, According to your evolutionary selection theory, then only those with a stronger lower back would survive. A wider birth canal would mean more preterm aborted babies during pregnancy.

In your view of evolution all these things will naturally change. Not likely!

We learn to live with who we are, not what some believe we should be. You had better start breeding your preferred humans by natural selection.

It's not just my scientific theory theory, Josephus. It's the scientific theory of scientists. Evolution is a fact whether you like it or not.

<<According to your evolutionary selection theory, then only those with a stronger lower back would survive.>>

Not necessarily.

Over time, however, nature would select for backs that were strong enough to see the next generation in, at least. And indeed it has done that. But adequate does not always equal optimal.

<<A wider birth canal would mean more preterm aborted babies during pregnancy.>>

No, it wouldn't. You just made that up. I'm guessing you're not an obstetrician.

<<In your view of evolution all these things will naturally change.>>

Perhaps. That depends on a lot of variables.

<<Not likely!>>

How did you determine the likelihood?

<<We learn to live with who we are...>>

Indeed we do, Josephus. Indeed we do.

<<You had better start breeding your preferred humans by natural selection.>>

Well, it wouldn't be natural selection then, would it? It would be selective breeding. As is done with domesticated animals.

//AJ, According to your evolutionary selection theory, then only those with a stronger lower back would survive.//

It's not his theory.

And that isn't what the theory says. It says that if there is a selective pressure which favours people with stronger lower backs in terms of their fecundity, then on average those people will have more children and stronger lower backs will become more predominant within the population. If there is no selective pressure, then it doesn't make a difference.

//A wider birth canal would mean more preterm aborted babies during pregnancy.//

Umm... no. You just make this up as you go along, don't you?

//We learn to live with who we are, not what some believe we should be.//

Some of us, anyway. Some of us prefer that to believe that God made us out of clay in some heavenly ceramics workshop and then breathed life into us. Perhaps not in those exact terms, but that's the basic gist of it. And if that's the case, then he's a remarkably poor engineer for somebody who supposed to be omniscient.

Others prefer to believe that we arose as a result of evolution, which gives a much better explanation for quirks of our anatomy that don't really make much sense if you start from the premise that a perfect being attempted to make the best creature he possibly could.

//You had better start breeding your preferred humans by natural selection.//

O.... kay

Breeding programs rely on artificial selection. If they didn't, we wouldn't see the phenomenal growth in agricultural production that we need to feed our ever-growing population. Breeding things by natural selection exactly the same as not making any effort whatsoever to breed them.

Tony said, "Some of us prefer that to believe that God made us out of clay in some heavenly ceramics workshop and then breathed life into us." What you do not understand is that the human body is made of chemistry that is found in the Earth. What is not found in the Earth is life which is defined by breathing. The body comes from the Earth and returns to the Earth. What remains is the influence of your life; character, actions and wisdom or the lack of it. That is the reality of who you are.

Josephus wrote: "What is not found in the Earth is life which is defined by breathing."

Dear Josephus,

Bacteria, fungi and many organisms are alive and don't breathe. Life is not defined by breathing. Your definition of life is very limited since it omits many forms of life. Early forms of life did not take in oxygen, and the early atmosphere of the earth did not contain free oxygen. The waste product of some forms of life was oxygen, Their waste products made it possible for life forms that breathe to exist. Plants produce free oxygen, but plants are a later development in the history of life. They did not exist for most of the time the earth has existed. Life is found in the earth. Bacteria which are alive are found deep in the earth. The earth is teeming with life. Perhaps, you have been using the Bible as a scientific textbook. A course in biology is much more valuable in learning about life than the Bible.

Tony Lavis possibly understands what life better than you since your knowledge of biology which is the study of life appears limited.

//What you do not understand is that the human body is made of chemistry//

The human body is made of the scientific study of matter? O... kay. Is that supposed to be a metaphor or something? Because I don't get it.

Are you trying to say that human body is made of matter? Because I don't think anybody is disputing that.

//that is found in the Earth.//

It may surprise you to learn that matter can be found elsewhere than Earth. Shocking, I know.

//What is not found in the Earth is life//

Incorrect. This planet is crawling with life, and not just on the surface: bacteria get everywhere (don't worry, most of them are harmless). They have been found well over a kilometre down inside the Earth's crust.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827874-800-life-is-found-in-deepest-layer-of-earths-crust/

//which is defined by breathing.//

Incorrect. The current definition is that organisms maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, and reproduce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Note that respiration is not even mentioned (although it's somewhat implicit), let alone breathing - which can only done by organisms with lungs, i.e. a tiny fraction of all the organisms out there.

To ancient writers they only knew that life for humans was defined by breathing, bacteria was an unknown. If you lived before 1600 AD you would never have heard of such. Anton van Leeuwenhoek, the Dutchman first observed bacteria through his single-lens microscope in 1674. So in context of life known to humans it is breathing that defines life. However it is not just existence that defines human life, it is character, behaviour and wisdom that defines humans.

Dear Josephus,

You wrote: "So in context of life known to humans it is breathing that defines life."

"In context of life known to humans at the time" the Bible was written and before Leeuwenhoek, but we know so much more now. We know that breathing does not define life. It did not define life even then. Insects were alive and known in biblical times, and they get their oxygen through spiracles not from breathing. It was only through ignorance that the Bible defined life by breathing. It is an apt metaphor that Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. The Bible keeps humans in a state of ignorance.

A Catholic priest gave a sermon expounding on curiosity which could be a sin.

http://blog.adw.org/2014/07/sinful-curiosity-is-at-the-root-of-many-sins/

"However, as a double-edged sword, curiosity can also wound us very deeply and mire us in serious sin. Indeed, it can be a very sinful drive within us. Eve grew curious of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and thus Satan was easily able to turn her curiosity into a deep dagger that has reached every human heart."

Such absolute rubbish! Curiosity is a glory of humankind, but evil Christianity seeks to keep us ignorant. Curiosity becomes sin when humans question the nonsense basic to Christianity.

david f, Stop spouting blind ignorance about the Christian and science, as it was Christians that led scientific discovery. The early Catholic Church supressed science, but independent Christians worked in the field of science that has opened our development of a world view. https://relevantmagazine.com/god/worldview/9-groundbreaking-scientists-who-happened-be-christians Francis Collins helped complete a ground breaking research into human DNA and gene sequences as a leader of the Human Genome Project. Collins, who is currently the Director of the National Institutes of Health, is also passionate about another topic: Exploring the intersections of science and his Christian faith through his idea of “BioLogos.” In his bestselling 2006 book The Language of God, Collins discusses his view of theistic evolution, suggesting God is a master creator and designer, responsible for setting forth the events resulting in life. He’s also an influential voice in modern Christianity: His BioLogos Foundation fosters dialogue in faith an science communities, and he was even recognized by Pope Benedict, receiving an appointment to the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The Bible 3,000 years ago talks about life being in the blood or body fluid so without blood or body fluid circulating in the cells one was dead.

Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth to an accuracy of better than 99% several centuries before Christianity was invented. Christians did not lead scientific discovery. Christians murdered the scientists Hypatia, Servetus and Bruno. The Inquisition put Galileo under house arrest. Christians like Newton and Copernicus have made scientific discoveries, but they feared the wrath of the church because of the fate of other scientists. Newton kept his views on the Trinity secret and did not publish. Copernicus' works were published posthumously. Darwin and Galileo were attacked by various Christian groups because their finding contradicted Scripture. It is true that Collins is a believing Christian, but the rest of your post is rubbish. Christianity is evil.

//To ancient writers they only knew that life for humans was defined by breathing/

Yeah, I'm not sure how true that is... people used to have some seriously wacky ideas about medicine way back when, and breathing isn't a terribly reliable indicator of mortality.

//bacteria was an unknown. If you lived before 1600 AD you would never have heard of such.//

Unless you were favoured by a timeless and omniscient God who could have divinely revealed this information to his chosen prophets.

//So in context of life known to humans it is breathing that defines life.//

No, it really isn't. There is a lot of life out there, Jehosophat, far more than is dreamt of in your philosophy. And indeed, more than is dreamt of in mine because there is so bloody much nobody can possibly fit it all in one head. But I like gardening, and my plants are alive but sans lungs and thus sans breathing. And the yeast that brews my beer and rises my bread is also alive, and it doesn't have lungs either.

Life known to humans that doesn't breathe.... you were saying?

//However it is not just existence that defines human life, it is character, behaviour and wisdom that defines humans.//

And Josefus rolled three's for Wisdom, Intelligence and Charisma... one for all the old D&D players out there.

Dear Josephus, One of the ideas in science is that one must go where evidence leads one. Evidence can be obtained by experiment, observation or rigorous logic applied to facts. God, Satan, virgin birth, resurrection, an afterlife and a tripartite God are ideas which are not supported by experiment, observation or rigorous logic applied to facts. Collins evidently has some or all of these ideas. However, when he does science he must not let these non-scientific ideas influence his scientific work if he wishes to be a scientist.

Toni can't be blamed for misunderstanding my views because (s)he hasn't the time to read my posts but can't be accused of not being in a position to understand my posts since (s)he's totally read them. But I'm probably wrong here since I don't understand how these sites work. I have the quaint notion that views ought to be consistent across posts and days.

" the tedious little twat" Toni.

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” So Crates.

___________________________________________________

Davidf,

Its like playing Whac-A-Mole. davidf comes up with his latest anti-Christian rant, I refute it, he goes back to his list of '101 reasons to hate Christianity' and comes up with his latest anti-Christian rant, I refute it, he goes back to his list of '101 reasons to hate Christianity'.....

Now he's gone full Godwin. Apparently the Church wasn't sufficiently anti-Hitler for david's liking. They should have excommunicated Adolph which would have achieved precisely nothing. But the warm inner glow of linking the church to the Nazis is too good to pass up. By the way, weren't lots of Christians killed trying to stop the Nazis? I guess that didn't count.

Meanwhile, many leaders of Islam (you know, that religion david thinks is superior to Christianity) were fully supportive of Hitler....
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1987-004-09A%2C_Amin_al_Husseini_und_Adolf_Hitler.jpg

but that's different because.....

_________________________________________________________________

AJP is now in the face saving phase. Having previous ridiculed the idea that the deity can't be disproven he's now brack-tracking with declaration like "[only] some deities that can be disproven.”.

So how to square the circle. Now it seems that disproving 'any' type of deity is the same as disproving 'the' deity.

This'll go on for a while with AJP trying to find a form of words that allows him to deny his initial error and in a few months he'll declare that he totally disproved the existence of 'any' deity and provide copious links to this discussion knowing that (1) if people followed the links they'd see the opposite and (2)people won't follow the links. The more things change....

I see you’re still not willing to specify to what exactly “the deity” refers, mhaze.

<<Having previous ridiculed the idea that the deity can't be disproven he's now brack-tracking with declaration like "[only] some deities that can be disproven.”.>>

No, I had originally said:

“The classical omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god is easy to discredit [or disprove] using logic.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#251954)

My position has remained consistent throughout the entire discussion.

<<Now it seems that disproving 'any' type of deity is the same as disproving 'the' deity.>>

Apparently not. I feel embarrassed for you.

<<… in a few months he'll declare that he totally disproved the existence of 'any' deity …>>

I have never once claimed to have disproven 'any' and all gods. Nor have I ever inaccurately recalled a past discussion. Your accusation is unfounded.

(Watch now has he engages in equivocation with the word 'any'.)

<<… and provide copious links to this discussion knowing that (1) if people followed the links they'd see the opposite and (2)people won't follow the links.>>

A rather bold lie there, given that I often provide quotes as well.

Try pointing to one example where I have linked back to a past debate where the opposite happened to what I had claimed...

*Crickets chirping*

Do you really believe the lies you tell, or are they consciously contrived? I'm starting to find it difficult to believe that anyone, without some sort of serious personality disorder, could possibly be this mendacious.

Ad hominem and character assassination are all you have left now, aren't they? You've made such an ass of yourself with the whole omnibenevolence business you figure that if you're going down anyway, then you may as well try to take me down with you. Is that it?

It's all reasoned argument and pretence until you cross swords with people who are able to cut through your BS and poke holes in your arguments, then the real mhaze shows - a vindictive and mendacious person who will lie about anything if it means trashing someone else's reputation.

You're disgusting.

mhaze,

Since you’re having so much difficulty keeping up, I’ll recap the discussion in as simple terms as I possibly can.

You claimed that no god could be disproven:
“The deity can neither be proven nor disproven through logic.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#251950)

I gave an example of a god that COULD be disproven (i.e. at least one god can be disproven):
“The classical omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god is easy to discredit [or disprove] using logic.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#251954)

You said none, I said at least one.

Now, to make it look like I’ve had to concede something by changing my position, you’re pretending that my original claim was that all gods can be disproved.

This isn't the first time you've pulled this sort of trick, is it mhaze? It seems to be a common tactic of yours.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7994#247607

When you can't win a debate, just recount the events in a way that makes your opponent look like some sort of a bumbling fool, and hope no-one actually remembers what happened.

Dear mhaze,

An unpleasant fact about Christianity is that most of the German churches supported Hitler, and their Christianity did not prevent them doing so. Attacking me for pointing that unpleasant fact out will not change that fact. It is much easier and apparently more satisfying to you to attack me than to confront that unpleasant fact.

There are many unpleasant facts about Christianity. They all can be dealt with by attacking those who point them out, but that doesn't make Christianity any better.

davidf,

"An unpleasant fact about Christianity is that most of the German churches supported Hitler"

It might be unpleasant but its not a fact. eg "With burning concern" from Pius XI or the Barmen Declaration. It is a fact that the church sought ways to continue to minister within Nazi Germany, but they didn't actively seek its support - unlike that other religion starting with I and ending with slam.

I'm gunna leave you alone now david. I can only battle so much historic ignorance.

____________________________________________________________

AJ,

"You claimed that no god could be disproven"

Nup...untrue...Never thought it, never said it, never wrote it.

....in fact said the opposite. ("That’s true if you assume that the deity sees evil/suffering in the same way as you do. So then you’ve ‘disproven’ the existence of a God that has the same values as you ie you’ve discredited that type of God.")

But don't let mere truth get in the way of your attempts to find a way to rationalise your original errors.

davidf, doesn't read the background to the Christian attempts to smuggle Jews out of Germany. He just reads the regular historians claims.

Dear Josephus,

Heroic Christians such as Franz Jaegerstatter and Dietrich Bonhoeffer gave their lives to oppose Hitler.

However, Christian churches in Germany had a tradition of persecuting and massacring Jews. The Nazis printed in their newspapers the sermons against Jews of Martin Luther:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

"In the treatise, he [Martin Luther] argues that Jewish synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes burned, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and "these poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[W]e are at fault in not slaying them""

Hitler was following the program of the founder of Lutheranism.

Unfortunately Christian hate was more influential than Christian love in Nazi Germany. I have read a lot of history, and much of the history of Christianity is ugly. Historically, Christian hate has usually been more influential than Christian love.

//Toni can't be blamed for misunderstanding my views because (s)he hasn't the time to read my posts//

Why the sudden gender confusion, mhaze?

And it's not that the time isn't available to me, it's just that I feel it can be better spent doing other things. There are other, better things to read.

//but can't be accused of not being in a position to understand my posts since (s)he's totally read them.//

No, I've already pointed out that I haven't 'totally' read them. I just don't see why it would matter, unless one is the sort of narcissist that would feel personally affronted if people don't hang off their every word.

But as I said, trouble in the gypsy village...

Arguments stand or fall on their own merits. The idea that a weak argument somehow becomes a strong argument so long it is understood properly in context sounds like post-modernist claptrap to me.

//I have the quaint notion that views ought to be consistent across posts and days.//

Well there you are then... if your arguments never change from post to post, I don't need to read them all, do I?

//“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” So Crates.//

In the interests of tedious twattery and keeping hairs properly split (which I must confess to being somewhat fond of myself), I feel it is necessary that your quote from Socrates doesn't really apply here. If it was defamatory it would be libel rather than slander, but it's not defamatory because it is an insult that is not intended to be taken literally or believed, and does stand to damage your reputation.

Oh, and I do admire the way in which you've declared yourself the winner because I called you a rude name. I imagine you're the sort of chap who views everything as competition, and thinks that winning is terribly important. So good for you for winning, well done for that, the better man won on the day.

Doesn't change the fact that your arguments are full of bollocks though.

mhaze,

I asked you what exactly you meant by “the deity”, but got no response:

“Yes, but what exactly is “the deity”?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252286)

I also explained why it is reasonable to assume that you were referring to any god:

“Without a description from Not_Now.Soon of who or what exactly his deity is ... “the deity” can only be interpreted to mean ‘any deity’.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252286)

There’s two reasons right there as to why it would have been a good idea to clarify what you meant by “the deity”, and yet you declined.

Now, when I paraphrase you using with an assumption that I had already explained was reasonable and that you did not bother to correct, you suddenly find it in you to object.

<<Nup...untrue...Never thought it, never said it, never wrote it.>>

Not only that, but you STILL don’t take the opportunity to explain to what the exactly “the deity” refers!

I was right to suspect that you used such ambiguous wording to leave yourself with some wriggle room, wasn’t I?

“… almost as if your wording had been purposefully left ambiguous so as to allow you some wriggle room in the event that you were challenged.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252286)

<<....in fact said the opposite.>>

Yes, but only after I had explained how a version of god could be disproven. Initially, you had no idea:

"... how do you discredit something that doesn't exist? And/or how do you discredit an omniscient being?" (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252011)

Are we ready to explain what “the deity” refers to yet? Do you even know anymore?

See what happens when we lie? We get tangled up in those lies and they become plain for all to see.

<<But don't let mere truth get in the way of your attempts to find a way to rationalise your original errors.>>

Really? Which errors would they be? Quotes this time, please.

P.S. No examples of me linking back to past discussions claiming that the opposite happened to what had actually happened, I see. Why am I not surprised?

Errors detected.

//and does stand to damage your reputation.//

should be

\\and not does stand to damage your reputation.\\

and

//I feel it is necessary that your quote from Socrates//

should be

\\I feel it is necessary to point out that your quote from Socrates\\

Mea culpa.

AJ

You said that I said that no god could be disproven.

I categorically denied saying or thinking any such thing.

As evidence you say I failed to define "the deity". I assume you think there's logic in that thought process...but you'd be wrong.

As to defining "the deity" I neither failed to do so nor declined to do so. I ignored the request because its asking for the impossible. I no more know the nature of the deity (if it exists) than you or anyone else does. NNS thinks he knows what the deity is like and more power to him. But I don't. That's why its impossible to prove/disprove/'discredit' the deity. You can't prove/disprove/'discredit' something that can't be defined. You can create your own definition and then seek to examine your version but since your version isn't necessarily mine or his or their's then you've disproven nothing, at least not to the satisfaction of those who don't agree with your version.

For example, you assume an omnibenevolent god wouldn't allow suffering... that it would have the same understanding of suffering as you. But what if the deity views the three score and ten years here as a mere blink of time in terms of infinity and that a little suffering will be of benefit in enjoying infinity elsewhere. A bit like an omni-loving parent might see the suffering of having a band-aid ripped off as acceptable suffering. I'm not saying that's my definition, just that its a possible definition that invalidates your discrediting conceit.

There you go...I've given you more fodder to talk around as you seek to find a way out of the hole you've dug.

As evidence of what, mhaze?

<<As evidence you say I failed to define "the deity".>>

That you meant that no god could be disproven?

I suppose you could put it that way. However, I was more curious about the fact that you suddenly felt an urgency to reject my interpretation of what you had meant, despite there having been ample reason and opportunity to do so before that. Your actions seem a little opportunistic to me.

<<As to defining "the deity" I neither failed to do so nor declined to do so. I ignored the request because its asking for the impossible.>>

I wasn’t asking you to describe the nature of a god or gods. We hadn’t gotten that far. I was just asking if you had a specific god in mind or if your ambiguous wording was meant to encompass any god by alluding a general concept rather than a specific instance:

“Without a description from Not_Now.Soon of who or what exactly his deity is ... “the deity” can only be interpreted to mean ‘any deity’.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252286)

The:
1. Denoting ONE OR MORE … things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge. [Emphasis added]

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/the

Nevertheless, according to the rest of your post, you appear have been only referring to one deity.

<<I no more know the nature of the deity (if it exists) than you or anyone else does.>>

What if it does exist, but there are many? I guess it wouldn’t be THE deity either in that case, would it?

For someone who doesn't know if this deity exists and claims that it cannot be defined, you're certainly making a lot of assumptions about it.

Already we have two characteristics:

1. That it is unique, and;
2. That it is unknowable.

You claim to not know if this god exists, yet speak about it as though you believe you do. Your language is very confused.

<<You can't prove/disprove/'discredit' something that can't be defined.>>

How do you know that “the deity” cannot be defined?

Continued…

…Continued

What’s the difference between something that cannot be defined and something that does not exist, and how do you tell the difference?

<<… since your version isn't necessarily mine or his or their's then you've disproven nothing, at least not to the satisfaction of those who don't agree with your version.>>

Sure, but Not_Now.Soon believes in the version I described, so I had disproven his version of god. Not that it matters, though. My only point was that at least one version could be disproven.

<<… you assume an omnibenevolent god wouldn't allow suffering...>>

No, I’ve allowed for the possibility of some suffering:

“It could be argued that a world with no suffering or evil at all may be absurd or undesirable …” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252243)

<<… that it would have the same understanding of suffering as you.>>

You are yet to come up with a reasonable understanding of what it means to be ‘good’ which still allows for the level of suffering and evil that we have witnessed throughout history.

<<But what if the deity views the three score and ten years here as a mere blink of time in terms of infinity and that a little suffering will be of benefit in enjoying infinity elsewhere.>>

But it’s not just a little suffering, though, is it? It’s still clearly excessive:

“… natural disasters having consumed entire civilisations, mass starvation, diseases that affect infants, worms that need to burrow into our eyes just to survive, genocide, etc.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252243)

<<A bit like an omni-loving parent might see the suffering of having a band-aid ripped off as acceptable suffering.>>

You forget that omnipotence was a part of the equation. If a parent were omnipotent, then they could remove the band-aid without the pain. Your analogy is invalid.

<<I've given you more fodder to talk around as you seek to find a way out of the hole you've dug.>>

What hole? You’re the only one trying to dig themselves out of a hole with this ill-defined “the deity” of yours. You're not doing a very good job of it, either.

My apologies for the brain fart, mhaze. My answer to this claim didn’t address your new variable:

<<… you assume an omnibenevolent god … would have the same understanding of suffering as you.>>

Apparently not able to point to an understanding of ‘good’, for which an unlimited amount should result in a better word than what we’ve witnessed thus far, you appeal to various understandings of suffering instead.

Unfortunately for your irrelevant diversion, this argument doesn’t hold. You see, an omnibenevolent god would view the suffering from the perspective of the sufferers, as it would not be a show of unlimited or perfect kindness to view the suffering from any other perspective - let alone from the perspective of an eternal being for whom the suffering would arguably be infinitely smaller.

Your argument is flawed.

The best you could do at this point would be to again appeal to different understandings of what it means to be ‘good’, and we can go in circles. Yay!

Again, though, this is an irrelevant diversion because my only point was that there is a version of "the deity" that can be disproved. And, in my extensive experience with Christians and as a former Christian myself, it just so happens to be the god that most Christians believe in - despite your attempts to portray it as some obscure invention of my own making, irrelevant to any actual believers understanding of their god.

There are a few other attributes to consider though too, before you say you've disproven God AJ Philips. For instance, one aspect is that God knows that we need Him. Often we don't know this though, and try to do our own thing without Him with mixed results.

With the aspect of needing someone, sometimes the only way people realize how much they need and depend on someone else, is if that other person steps aside and let's them do things on their own. And if they really do depend on that person they notice it right away.

In the same way, when people have become super successful, wealthy, or greatly recoginized in some other way, they forget about God. This happens several times in the history of Israel in the bible. And when Israel forgot about God they were described as a murderous and greedy people. And growing worse till finally they fall from their plesent position and are conquered by some other people's and Israel repents and again turns to God.

(continued)

(Continued)

God let them fall. Is that evil? Is it evil that that they became as rotten as they were? In today's world it is still the same. We have abudent crime among the poor who hold great struggles, and among the rich that have no reason for their corruption, but they still have it (even make laws or lobby laws to protect themselves). And crime among everyother strata of society. As a body of people, a population, we need God.

As indivuals too, we need God. Often we forget this until we go through hardship, sorrow, or experience something to suffer through. Then many people call out to God. And if He helps them that is justification for trusting God and seeking Him more.

The more I think about it, the more I think mhaze has a point that Christianity has helped the societies it is involved in. When the world turns away from God it suffers. Same for any smaller populations. Nations, countries, or anything else. But to indivuals, even if we acknowledge and turn to God, we are surrounded by a world that actively turns away and encourages others to do the same (as you do AJ Philips). It's likely the connection to good people suffering because as a whole the world is in an enviornment where people get hurt.

To mhaze.

Thank you for your support of Christianity. Even the support of "the Deity" without knowing who or what He is. I have a question for you though. You've supported Christianity for it's impact on societies. And you've supported God without a belief in Him. Can I ask why? Do you recognize God in a simular way Yuyutsu recogizes God? Unknowable but definitely there? Or do you recognize God without knowing which religions might have come from Him, so don't try to guess at His nature and qualities.

Don't get me wrong, I really appreaciate your support. But I'm courious about your stance on the spiritual world. And also wondering if you would like to know God more. It is one of the belief in Chrustianity that God wants us in a relationship with Him. To be close to Him and depend on Him. Even to send His Son to not only save us from our sins, but to teach us, as well as offer us the Holy Spirit to be in contact with God.

...I'm not a prophet, or a miracle worker, but I do know God. It might not be much, but if your interested I can tell you what I've found, and hopes you can find Him too. I don't think God is unknowable. I don't mean that as an argument, but as an encouragement. :)

To David f.

I feel like I need to thank you. Though you don't believe in God, and have voiced that you think Christianity is evil. You've shown that you've looked into it more then I would have assumed by your first claim that you put a lot of thought into it. I want to thank you for the aspect of Martin Luther eventually speaking out against the Jews. That was something I did not know and can consider now that I can look for more about it.

However, I disagree that Christianity is evil. Every time I see people putting into practice what Jesus taught, it seems to be good. (As best that I can tell what is good anyways). Any time I am around a church or around those who are Christian, I'm not worried about something evil about to happen. The worst I can give credit for is that within the Christian ranks there is judgmental people that are more willing to cast people out or worse to hell, instead of trying to rescue eachother. That is the worst I've seen. It's also not all Christians either. Keep that in mind. It's not evil.

Not_Now.Soon,

If we all need your god, then that is a universal human trait, not a trait of your god. You effectively acknowledge this when you go on to say, “With the aspect of needing someone…”.

<<There are a few other attributes to consider though too, before you say you've disproven God AJ Philips. For instance, one aspect is that God knows that we need Him.>>

But even if it WERE a trait of your god, that doesn’t mean that omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence suddenly become possible. No, they are still three logically impossible traits to possess all at the same time (especially in light of the evil and suffering we have witnessed throughout history). We may need your god (although that’s highly debatable), but that doesn’t mean that your god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, too. You could just be mistaken about one of those last three traits.

<<Often we don't know this though, and try to do our own thing without Him with mixed results.>>

The results are also very mixed WITH your god, so He doesn't seem to be the determining factor here.

<<… when Israel forgot about God they were described as a murderous and greedy people.>>

Well, the Bible would say that, wouldn’t it? But we have no reason to believe that any of those stories are actually true.

More to the point, though, this is not what we observe in reality. At least not in the modern world. Religiosity shares an inverse correlation with every measure of societal health:

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf
http://i.imgur.com/WkCW6ok.png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA

Furthermore, by most measures, the world is overall more peaceful now than it has ever been before. So, your god, or humanity, don’t seem to be in much of a rush to prove that they need Him.

Continued…

…Continued

<<God let them fall. Is that evil?>>

Evil of God to them fall? No, if this god is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then I’d say the evil (or less-than-omnibenevolent behaviour, at least) lies in the fact that He created this reality knowing in advance that he would have to let them fall, when He could have just created a different reality.

<<In today's world it is still the same.>>

No, it’s not. And even if it were, clearly accepting your god doesn’t help (see the above links).

<<We have abudent crime among the poor who hold great struggles …>>

And who also tend to live in the most religious parts of the planet, too (with a few exceptions that have perfectly rational explanations for their bucking of the trend). This can also be observed even when one looks at the states and neighbourhoods of predominantly-Christian America. So, clearly, finding your god isn’t doing much to help. It may provide comfort to the more desperate, but it appears to be doing nothing to elevate them from their situations.

<<As indivuals too, we need God. Often we forget this until we go through hardship, sorrow, or experience something to suffer through. Then many people call out to God.>>

People will naturally grasp at anything when they’re desperate. But that doesn’t mean your god exists, or that He is waiting for us to realise we need Him, or that we actually need Him. It only proves that, when desperate enough, people will turn to anything that will bring them comfort.

I’ve always thought it was rather co-incidental that God only ever revealed Himself when people were at their most desperate. It’s rather unethical when you think about it. As is Churches praying on the needy when looking for converts.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Jesus according to the New Testament said in Matthew 7:16 King James Version (KJV), "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

I follow that and judge Christianity by what Christians have done in the name of Christ - not by what Jesus taught but by the results of the teachings. If we really look at the history we will find both good and evil in the teachings of Jesus and in the history of Christianity. Since Constantine issued the Edict of Toleration giving Christianity a status equal to the other religions in the Roman Empire and Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire Christianity has primarily been on the side of the rulers and the rich and powerful - not the poor who Jesus spoke of.

One of my Critisms of Jesus is to this words attributed to him in John 14:6, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

It doesn't matter to the arrogant Jesus who good a life you have lived or what a decent person you are. You are only OK if you follow him. What is the result of that intolerant thinking? What happened after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I

"The Christian persecution of Roman religion under Theodosius I began in 381, after the first couple of years of his reign in the Eastern Roman Empire. In the 380s, Theodosius I reiterated Constantine's ban on former customs of Roman religion, prohibited haruspicy on pain of death, pioneered the criminalization of magistrates who did not enforce laws against polytheism, broke up some pagan associations and tolerated attacks on Roman temples.

Between 389–392 he promulgated the "Theodosian decrees" (instituting a major change in his religious policies), which removed non-Nicene Christians from church office and abolished the last remaining expressions of Roman religion by making its holidays into workdays, banned blood sacrifices, closed Roman temples, confiscated temple endowments and disbanded the Vestal Virgins.

continued

The practices of taking auspices and witchcraft were punished. Theodosius refused to restore the Altar of Victory in the Senate House, as asked by non-Christian senators.

In 392 he became sole emperor (the last one to claim sole and effective rule over an empire including the western provinces). From this moment till the end of his reign in 395, while non-Christians continued to request toleration, he ordered, authorized, or at least failed to punish, the closure or destruction of many temples, holy sites, images and objects of piety throughout the empire.
In 393 he issued a comprehensive law that prohibited any public non-Christian religious customs, and was particularly oppressive to Manicheans. He is likely to have disbanded the ancient Olympic Games, whose last record of celebration was in 393, though archeological evidence indicates that some games were still held after this date."
Theodosius not only persecuted non-Christians, but he persecuted Christians who didn't follow his branch of Christianity. In that he was following intolerant Jesus.

I much prefer the words of Thomas Jefferson to those of Jesus. Thomas Jefferson said:

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

You were following in the intolerant footsteps of Jesus. You didn't care how good or bad we were - you cared that we saw God and Jesus the way you see God and Jesus.

Whether I am a good or bad person is up to the results of my actions and for others to decide. However, I know I felt an immense sense of relief when I gave up the superstition of believing in supernatural entities. You are secure in your beliefs. I feel at peace with my lack of religious belief. I appreciate the words of Jimmy Durante: "Why doesn't everybody leave everybody else the hell alone?"

NNS ,
AS background... in my late teens I was heavily invested in Christianity via the lower Anglican Church. Heavily. But I began to realise that my 'faith' was of a much lower order than the truly faithful that I knew through my church. I began to realise that I didn't truly accept things like John 3:16 which I saw as the core of Christianity. I spent many, many hours with a number of extremely good people working through my doubts but in the end, despite their efforts I walked away from the church.

For a time, I called myself atheist, but was never a church hater like some in these pages. Eventually I came to realise that the honest position for those who don't accept the deity is to acknowledge that they just don't know, so I now call myself agnostic.

I don't know if there is a creator. If I was forced to jump one way or t'other I lean to the view that there is a higher intelligence. I try to avoid the term God since that has the notion of anthropomorphising this being and I feel that's not correct. For a time I sought the higher intelligence through meditation (Sam Harris has an interesting take on that....http://www.amazon.com/Waking-Up-Spirituality-Without-Religion/dp/1451636024/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8) but to no avail. Nonetheless I remain of the view that prayer, chanting, ritual and meditation are similar processes.

So my summary view would be that I feel there is more likely than not a creator but I don't know with any degree of confidence. Without writing a large essay I'd struggle to reveal all my beliefs on this. But a quick summary would be that I think (again with little confidence) that after death we all move to a higher, or at least different, plain where the creator is made known to us, irrespective of how we've lived this life. Why all the mucking around to get to that plain? Not the foggiest idea. But OTOH we might all just be worm food and the soul merely something we need to tell ourselves to get through the night

/cont

As to my defence of Christianity...
Although my career became finance and statistics, my passion and early university education was history. Over many, many years I read on and consider myself rather knowledgeable on the legacies we owe to the Greco-Roman world. For example I could (and have) written extensively on why 490BC was the most consequential year in the formation of our society.
In those studies I've formed the view that Western Civilisation was/is the pinnacle of human development to date and that those civilisations likely to immediately follow it will be deficient by comparison. When asking why such a society came to be, I look to the Greeks and the Romans who bequeathed a great legacy that was different to all other societies. But I also look to religion which was also unique to those societies that became the modern West. Earlier in this thread I gave some explanation as to why Christianity (especially post-Reformation Christianity) was integral to the process of forming this exemplary society.

I also see this society beginning to unravel just as other civilisation have in the past and I feel that one of the causes of that is the loss of our Christian foundations. That's why I support a religion that I don't really accept. Not for its spiritualism but for its very concrete value to this society. If we can save it as a foundation stone (and there is some hope of that) then we might extend the life of this civilisation. Indeed, maybe it can be saved indefinitely. No civilisation has yet managed that, but then no civilisation has yet managed to do what the West has done so far. So I hold out some hope there for my decedents and for mankind.
If we fail then I see a dark veil falling on much that we value. ‘1984’ wasn’t a prediction but the society that follows this one will be closer to Orwell’s dystopian vision than I’d like

mhaze,

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive positions, each addresses a different question. Theism and atheism go to what one believes, while agnosticism concerns what one can know.

While we’re free to label ourselves whatever we please, by stating that you are an agnostic, you are only telling others what you think we can know about the existence of a god. Not a very interesting revelation, in my opinion. Personally, I’m more interested in what others believe.

<<If I was forced to jump one way or t'other I lean to the view that there is a higher intelligence.>>

So, you DO believe in “the deity”? Why should such a belief need to be “forced” out of you? Surely we all hold beliefs on a number of questions for which the answers we do not profess to have knowledge. There’s no reason why a belief can’t be subject to change, either.

So, why such special and widespread caution on this particular question?

One theory I’ve often heard is that those who refer to themselves as ‘agnostic’ almost always believe in a god, they just don’t know who or what that god is. This is consistent with what I have observed in all my years of debating religion. In my experience, for example, self-described ‘agnostics’ will reserve a disproportionate amount of their criticism for atheists; often with irrelevant and misguided questions such as, “But how can you KNOW?!”

You position as an agnostic-theist would not surprise me at all.

The vigour with which you defend "the deity"; the things you erroneously compare this deity to, which even Blind Freddy could see are in no way analogous (e.g. dark matter); the implications that referring to it as ‘the’ deity rather than just ‘a’ deity entail; the assumptions you are willing to make about something you claim is unknowable; and the mental gymnastics you are willing to engage in to defend the possibility that this deity may be in at least some sense omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent - all suggest that you already believe this deity exists.

It all makes sense now.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«Do you recognize God in a simular way Yuyutsu recogizes God? Unknowable but definitely there?»

I never claimed that God is unknowable.

Rather, God cannot be perceived via any means.

If there are two separate entities, 'A' and 'B', then for 'A' to know 'B' (albeit imperfectly) it needs to perceive it, thus some means are necessary to bridge the divide.

But if 'A' and 'B' are the same, more accurately when there is only 'A', then the type of knowledge is different: it is direct and uses no means. This is the case "between" us and God ("between" is in quotes because separateness is only an illusion, there is nothing truly in between).

God can only be known directly - neither through the senses (I think you agree), nor through the mind. Specifically, no intellectual understanding of God is possible. To know God, the mind has to be sidestepped.

---

Dear Mhaze,

«I don't know if there is a creator.»

I would like to draw your attention that this is quite a different question: A creator might not be God and God might not be a creator.

Just because someone created the universe doesn't imply that we should worship him or that it is good to sing his praises. What for example if the world was created in the lab of a sadistic mad professor from the 12th dimension?

In Hinduism we consider the god Brahma to be the creator - nevertheless, he is quite unpopular among humans (they say that he is popular among daemons, but I digress) and only very few temples are dedicated to him. Brahma is generally perceived as "the guy who got us into this whole mess to begin with".

«For a time I sought the higher intelligence through meditation»

I doubt that there's a higher intelligence, but if you persist in your meditation you will eventually find God.

«Nonetheless I remain of the view that prayer, chanting, ritual and meditation are similar processes.»

Yes, all being religious methods. One doesn't need to declare themselves "religious" in order to be religious.

To David f.

If more people held a "live and let live" attitude then this discussion would be over due to a lack of interest. Instead of leaving people the hell alone, this conversation from the get go has been giving me the intolerant view of "shut up, no one wants to hear it." Including you. From ignoring the subject matter in the origional OP and focusing on a blow to Christianity, to saying how arrogant and intolerant I am for approaching Christianity at all in a positive manner. The constant view (aside from perhaps three posters) is for me to shut up. Not for anyone to "live and let live."

Either way ya'll are getting what you wanted. I'm done. I'm out. Maybe some time I'll try again, but probably not. Congrats on the "tolerance" of "living and letting live."

To Mhaze. If you change your mind, let me know. I don't know if I can tell you much, but who knows. Thanks again for the articles. Still reading them.

Not_Now.Soon,

While it is indeed arrogant to assert what we all need to be saved from something and to assume that your god is the only thing that can save us, I don’t hold that against you because I understand that that’s just the theology. At the risk of sounding condescending, I understand where you’re coming from and can remember feeling an intense sense of urgency to save as many souls as I possibly could in my lifetime.

<<Instead of leaving people the hell alone, this conversation from the get go has been giving me the intolerant view of "shut up, no one wants to hear it.">>

If you look at my posting history, you’ll see that I’ve actually been more critical of Protestant Christians who don’t try to save souls because I worry about people who are happy to let others burn for an eternity without lifting a finger to prevent that. Although, I’m sure most of these people justify their inaction in some way or another. Either way, I completely understand where you’re coming from.

<<From ignoring the subject matter in the origional OP and focusing on a blow to Christianity …>>

I believe I have addressed the subject matter of the OP. I have explained that, in contrast to your experience, I am a better person for not believing in Christian dogma. I have explained that it is more honest to present mere assertions with caveats such as, “in my opinion”. And I have challenged you on the truth of your claims. I’m not sure how I could have better addressed the OP, to be honest.

<<… to saying how arrogant and intolerant I am for approaching Christianity at all in a positive manner.>>

No-one has said you are arrogant, let alone for approaching Christianity in a positive way. Your assumptions have been arrogant, but that’s not entirely your fault.

davidf, I note you cannot help yourself in trying to convince others to accept your position on these threads. It is obvious you have double standards by your statement. "I appreciate the words of Jimmy Durante: "Why doesn't everybody leave everybody else the hell alone?" Posted by david f, Wednesday, 7 February 2018 1:22:02 PM Obviously you do not appreciate Jimmy Durante's words one bit, I think that is called hypocrisy.

Yuyutsu,

Re creator: If there was a creator rather than just some fluke of some unknown physics AND if it is possible to know 'him' then that's worth the effort. Its possible that the creator has been superseded by some other entity but that doesn't get us anywhere - its just the 'Turtles all the way down' issue in a different form. I just use the word creator as shorthand for whatever the super intelligence might be. As I explained earlier I'm averse to using the word 'God'.

Re meditation/prayer : I explained earlier that I see them as two sides of the same coin. The people doing each believe they are talking to different things (one is talking to the external intelligence, t'other to their inner being). I'm not sure who's right...maybe neither, maybe both. Sam Harris believes meditation puts him in touch with the the universal spirit (its more complex than that but 350 words...). Maybe and maybe that's why prayers feel they a communing with something beyond them

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

I posted what Luther wanted done to the Jews. However, he first approached the Jews to get them to accept his new religion. When they didn't he wanted them destroyed. That's been the pattern of many Christian missionaries. "Become Christians or we'll destroy you".

The history of missionaries is more than you telling others about your religion. It is a story of blood and violence. With the exception of Ireland Christianity spread in Europe through violence.

You didn't know about Luther, and you probably don't know how Christianity has been spread. Christian missionaries have been associated with gunboats and political power. Go and learn.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/12/07/out-of-china-barbarians/

It is an ugly history. In my opinion you are the face of evil.

I am not telling you to shut up I am telling you to go and learn.

AJ,
I get that your default attitude is that it (whatever it is) is either black or white,atheist or theist. Many people in this age, and I suspect many in previous ages, are disturbed by the notion that we just don't know and aren't prepared to accept that.

There is either a God or there isn't.
There is either DM or there isn't.
We are destroying the word through CO2 or we aren't.

For such people, and you are certainly in the majority here, 'I don't know' isn't acceptable.

So thinking goes that we are all either theists (believe in the supernatural) OR we are atheist (not believe). They refuse to accept grey just as you've refused to accept that I choose not to choose.

I don't believe there's a deity. I don't believe there's not a deity. I know that technically the former makes me an atheist but the word carries connotations that I reject.

I do lean toward there being a higher intelligence. If I weigh everything in favour of the deity and everything against the deity, the scales lean slightly more to the former. But not enough to make it definitive. Whatismore, belief is not wholly an intellectual exercise and as I said I don't have emotional belief either way.

I'm perfectly comfortable with 'I don't know' on a range of issues. In this age, popular conceit is that we know enough to know how everything works but I suspect that our decedents will look back with derision at some of what we thought we knew just as we do to our ancestors.

"which even Blind Freddy could see are in no way analogous (e.g. dark matter)".

I have a feeling you know quite a bit about blind Freddy :) .
But, and clearly you can't get this, I'm not comparing the deity to DM, I'm comparing the belief in the deity to the belief in DM. Perhaps the subtlety is too subtle.

/cont
"self-described ‘agnostics’ will reserve a disproportionate amount of their criticism for atheists"

For some atheists. NNS' first post said he knew God and hoped others would also know that joy. I have no problem with the atheist who responds.."Thanks but no thanks" and moves on. But there is a class of atheist who wants to belittle the theist and prove their intellectual superiority to those they see as ignorant. They see themselves as intelligent and educated and someone holding different views is, to their thinking, ignorant and stupid. Its those atheists I have no time for and will disproportionately criticise.

" mental gymnastics you are willing to engage in to defend the possibility that this deity may be in at least some sense omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent"

You missed the point. I was trying to get you to see that your definition of benevolent isn't the only possible definition and that the deity may not see it the way you decide it should. And therefore saying the deity isn't benevolent isn't valid in its own terms.

"all suggest that you already believe this deity exists.".

I say I neither believe not disbelieve. You decree that you know my beliefs better than I. Why would anyone call you arrogant?

No, it’s not a black and white attitude, mhaze.

<<I get that your default attitude is that it … is either black or white,atheist or theist.>>

Theism and atheism are a legitimate dichotomy. (i.e. ‘theist’ and ‘not theist’). Here, I’ve created a sophisticated Venn diagram for people who don’t understand this:

http://imgur.com/LBo0WK3

<<Many people in this age … are disturbed by the notion that we just don't know ...>>

Yeah, but now you’re talking about knowledge. Theism and atheism don’t address knowledge. They are positions with regards to belief. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)

<<There is either a God or there isn't.>>

Correct.

<<There is either DM or there isn't.>>

Correct, but this dichotomy is not what your terrible analogy utilised.

<<We are destroying the word through CO2 or we aren't.>>

Hmmm, no, too loaded. It would be better worded as, “The CO2 we produce is either contributing to climate change or it is not.”

<<For such people, and you are certainly in the majority here, 'I don't know' isn't acceptable.>>

Firstly, you’re confusing knowledge with belief again. At no point have I made a claim to knowledge here.

Secondly, and to the contrary, I am someone who has always advocated for ‘I don’t know’ as a more honest answer to making stuff up, when theists mistakenly suggest that their made-up answers are of any value:

“… sceptics are content with, “I don’t know”, as an indefinite answer. Which is a lot more honest than just making stuff up.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#323958)

<<So thinking goes that we are all either theists (believe in the supernatural) OR we are atheist (not believe).>>

Correct. Now you’re talking about belief.

<<They refuse to accept grey just as you've refused to accept that I choose not to choose.>>

Then that would make you an atheist, because you would not be a theist.

<<I know that technically the former makes me an atheist …>>

Thank you!

<<… but the word carries connotations that I reject.>>

And it is your prerogative to choose not to refer to yourself as an atheist. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Continued…

…Continued

I, on the other, accept the label because it is the only way we can rid disbelief and the label ‘atheist’ of the unfair connotations that theists and McCarthyists have deliberately and maliciously attached to it.

<<If I weigh everything in favour of the deity and everything against the deity, the scales lean slightly more to the former.>>

Interesting. What exactly is it that you’re weighing then?

<<I'm perfectly comfortable with 'I don't know' on a range of issues. In this age, popular conceit is that we know enough to know how everything works …>>

Sure, but now you’re talking about knowledge again.

<<But, and clearly you can't get this, I'm not comparing the deity to DM, I'm comparing the belief in the deity to the belief in DM.>>

This makes no difference. Your analogy is still invalid because there are good reasons to believe dark matter exists. Not only is there evidence for it, but no appeals to the supernatural are needed to explain it.

<<… there is a class of atheist who wants to belittle the theist and prove their intellectual superiority to those they see as ignorant.>>

Indeed, and you are right to want to criticise such people.

<<I was trying to get you to see that your definition of benevolent isn't the only possible definition and that the deity may not see it the way you decide it should.>>

I know. What you still don’t seem to realise is that it made no difference to my point. Therefore, your attempts came across as defensive as they were utterly irrelevant to anything.

<<I say I neither believe [nor] disbelieve.>>

That’s impossible. You’re talking about two logical absolutes.

Athieism:
“Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.”

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism

Disbelief:
“Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.”

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/disbelief

<<You decree that you know my beliefs better than I.>>

At not point have I suggested that I do. You are making this up.