....Of course I could not prove to you that I am less deluded now than I was then.
It's more of a problem for you than for me if you consider it dispassionately.
However I would say that when I was a Christian I did not process any data from the real world or investigate what science had discovered. I now have an older and wiser head. I am more skeptical.
Interesting. But as I think I attempted to get at with you earlier (or it might have been bigbang :idunno
many a Christian has and continues to do all of that without any impediment to their faith.
There are two questions which would demonstrate how deluded I am compared to yourself.
1. Can donkey's speak in an intelligible human language?
Who suggested they go around doing that?
2. Is it possible for a man to die for a weekend, resurrect himself and then fly up into the sky?
No. A man couldn't. But you should understand that neither of your statements reflect the narrative truth as related by the Bible. That you feel compelled to alter that context says something about your approach and more about the thing you mean to set out as a prima facie case.
I would answer with a resounding "NO" to these two claims.
If you answered with anything other than a "no" then I would let the people viewing this thread decide who is the most deluded of the two of us.
Then you'd lose twice. First because you attempt to reduce the truth to a popularity contest (which you'd lose) and secondly because you're less than objective in the attempt.
When I hear the word "wilful" it conjures up images of me deliberately going against what is good and true so that I can go away and do lots of "sinning."
When all it actually means is that you made a choice. Your apostasy is an extension of your reservation and will. Why you did it is less meaningful than that you did and what that says. Were anyone to tell you they'd adopted a life philosophy without giving it serious and sustained consideration I imagine you wouldn't be surprised at all to find that at some point later in their life they no longer adhered to it.
That's not the way it was with me at all. I gained new information. I acquired new knowledge about the world and the Bible. And I made a decision based on that. I changed my mind. That's the nature of rational thinking - to go with the evidence, even if it's difficult and have to admit I was wrong.
Thank you for setting out rather clearly the reservation I noted prior. That's not trust. And others have weighed and measured and come to God. And many who continue to weigh and measure the world about them with marvelously rational minds manage it without a cost or conflict in relation to their faith.
"Apostacy" in some religions demands the death penalty.
Which would be impressive in that circumstance, though no less errant as an extension or argument rooted in the notion of it as a more rational choice. But in the West it's no longer even a social impediment absent someone making it an issue among others.
This is a pre-emptive strike against critical thinking.
No, it isn't. That's just the suppositional arrogance, the vanity of atheistic thought in its premise. Do you continue to ask a person for their name once you understand what that name is? That is, it isn't irrational to fail to question a thing settled. And if you continue to question what you purport to have settled for yourself I'd suggest the problem with thinking, critical or otherwise, lies with you.
Interestingly there is no apostacy in leaving atheism or agnosticism. People are free to think what they want.
Sure there is. People who leave atheism and agnosticism get to hear people like you infer their irrationality or deterioration of critical thinking skills. In academic circles that's a real peer pressure. As atheists love to set out all the time, the lion's share of opinion in those climes is set as yours. It takes real courage to announce yourself one of the faithful, to risk the subtle and not so sneering it will invite.
Apart from your occasional obscure debating style you come across as a decent well-intentioned human being. Many Christians I know are. Is this because of their faith or in spite of their faith?
I appreciate that and I hope you understand my attack is on what I see as a damnable flaw in your thinking and isn't an attack on you as a human being. I suspect you mean well, but I believe your intentions are paving a dangerous and destructive path for you and, potentially, for those you might influence.
I've always been much as I am now in terms of personality. My focus has changed and I'm much less worried about things that once consumed much of my time. That is, the context of my life has been altered. I'm happier for that and grateful for the change.
If I believed that slavery was ok,
You do know that abolition was almost exclusively a Christian movement, don't you?
that women should not preach,
Been to an Episcopal church lately? Apparently not.
that people deserve to burn in Hell forever just for not being a sycophant to an idea,
Or, that people who insist on being separate from the source of the good find themselves precisely where that wish carries them, that as with the physical world we inhabit, actions carry consequence.
then it would certainly affect the way I respond to those issues. It would be harmful to society.
You want three examples of a society premised on a rejection of those truths? Stalin's Russia, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia. The death toll and human suffering that flowed from the notion that men are the sole arbiters of morality dwarfs the totality of religious abuses of doctrine.
This is why I think there should be a separation of church from state.
There is and I agree that men should be free to determine matters of conscience that don't impinge on the rights of others for themselves.
I agree with most of what Richard Dawkins says, though not all of it.
Then you didn't invest enough time in your theological inquiry and your rejection even on that less than committed level is riddled with error.
So even in your darkest hour, your faith would be totally unshakeable and you would have no doubts at all? Are you superhuman or something?
Superhuman? :chuckle: Of course not. But that has nothing to do with my faith in God. It isn't a thing I generate. It's a recognition of what I've experienced and know to be true. Like asking me if I doubt who my parents are on the worst day of my life. Of course not.
I agree they would be mutually exclusive if they happened simultaneously. But they didn't. The two events are separated by time. Depends what you mean by "total trust." It also depends on your definitions for the words "trust", "faith", "confidence", "belief" etc.
I think you can reduce language to a sufficiently vague animal that communication is barely possible, but I don't see the value in it. As I said prior, if you trust God then it isn't a matter of degree and where doubt exists that trust cannot. If you tell me that today you doubt God but yesterday you trusted him at some point along that chronological line the answer changes and at that moment your original declaration is logically contradicted, since you cannot trust and evidence a course of conduct that demonstrates you don't, that you want to assure yourself of what you're claiming to be certain of.
Ah, okay. I think I've covered most of these pre and since.
All the religions can't be right. But they can all be wrong.
Or, all religions can be right in their premise of God and all could be wrong in their particular expression or altogether wrong in premise.
That's a bit fairer as an objective statement.
You can't define God into existence.
Or argue Him out of it.
For Biblical claims to be true, the God described in there has to actually exist.
It would tend to follow, yes.
The evidence for this is very poor IMO.
Which is why I've spent a good bit of time examining that opinion.
Why does God's nature necessarily have to be as you believe it is?
It's rationally inferred by creation and supported both by scripture and my own experience.
Maybe the fleetingness of existence is what makes it beautiful and important.
If you find futility beautiful and important you have a very different measuring stick. If you find that which contradicts your biological urge along with the historically evidenced desire of mankind for overarching purpose and transcendent meaning then I don't know what to tell you.
Maybe life is that brief interlude between two eternal sleeps.
God forbid.
Thanks. I'll take that with the intention it was given. I apologise if some of my remarks have seemed harsh. I just felt genuine frustration because I thought you were being deliberately obscure by trying to blind me with gobbledegook. I just think that our thought processes and use of language operate in different ways.
I'm a lawyer. I can get aggressive and a bit...but my intent is helpful and my concern for both you and others genuine. My life is crowded enough that I wouldn't attempt this purely for the experience of haggling over the nature and consequence of truth, as inviting as that might be.
:e4e:
Haven't had time to read over this so excuse any sloppiness. I'm in the middle of putting down flooring and handling a ten month old wunderkid.
