I lost my faith a while back

[rexlunae]

There is no natural process which creates information from matter.

From that statement, I can tell that you don't have any actual idea what information is. Information occurs all over the natural world.

 

[Spectrox War]

It's more of a problem for you than for me if you consider it dispassionately.

I know I am less deluded now than I was as a Christian. Possibly for the same reasons you know Bible God is true.

Who suggested they go around doing that?

Your God, when he wrote Numbers 22.

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.

Friday to Saturday = a weekend
Bible claims Jesus died and then was resurrected
"Ascended into heaven" is surely a pompous way of saying "flew up into the sky.?

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.

I still think that if you say yes to either of these two questions, then you would be more deluded than me saying "no."

I can't prove it but it seems obvious to me.

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.

We have been talking at cross-purposes since the get-go because you assume that Bible God is true and I assume that it's highly unlikely that Bible God is true.

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.

Don't any Christians question any of the Bible ever? Do they ever honestly seek an explanation or clarification of something?

I did and no answers came.

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.

It can't be as bad in the US surely (you from there?)? 70% of the population are Christian apparently according to some poll. Atheists are less popular than gay people according to this poll.

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.

Why am I in danger? Who is threatening me? Is there evidence for this?

Why would every principle about truth be determined by science, evidence and reasoned argument and yet when it comes to the ultimate truth, the most important truth, we are supposed to discard that and believe some old book because the book says so and it's supporters say so?

You do know that abolition was almost exclusively a Christian movement, don't you?

It took William Wilberforce 11 attempts over 18 years to get his Abolition of Slavery Bill through parliament. Why? Because he was opposed by the majority of Christian MPs and the then Archbishop of Canterbury because they accurately (but immorally) said that it wasn't Biblical. In Timothy it says "Slaves obey your masters." It says nothing like "We foresee a time when there will be no slaves because all men are equal under God." That would have helped Wilberforce. But it wasn't there. It was missing.

Been to an Episcopal church lately? Apparently not.

Read the letter to Timothy? Apparently not.

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.

You have yet to demonstrate that Bible God is good. I have provided plenty of evidence already that casts doubt on that assumption. And I haven't even got started yet.

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.

The Bible God reminds me of these totalitarian dictators sometimes.

Without religion, good people would do good things, wicked people would do evil things. For a good person to commit an evil act, it takes religion.

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.

At least there is a chance of self-correction. None is permitted in the Bible.

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.

Comparing your own parents to an invisible superbeing for which there is no physical evidence is a poor analogy.

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.

How do you know you have the right one?

Imagine it's your last day on Earth and you're about to visit your maker. You take your last breath and there is a tunnel of light and at the end of the tunnel are the 5 Gods representing the major world religions - Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Vishnu and Buddha. You go to your God and say "I want to spend the rest of eternity with you." And your God produces a little piece of card from beneath his cape and on it is written the word "Bluff." Ouch. That's gonna hurt in the morning.

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.

fair enough.

Or argue Him out of it.

The onus of proof is on the theist. If they are making a positive claim for the existance of something which they say I should take seriously, then they need to demonstrate this with evidence and reasoned argument.

Which is why I've spent a good bit of time examining that opinion.

Can I step down from the dock now? I have told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me G.... Wait a minute.

It's rationally inferred by creation and supported both by scripture and my own experience.

Creation rationally confers a good loving God? Really? It could perhaps be better argued that God is evil considering all the suffering in the world, for animals as well as humans.

I

f 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.

Man's desire for cosmic significance is all about ego. We are not the centre of the universe. We are not even the most successful species on the planet. Bacteria are - by every scientific measure.

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:

A lawyer? That explains so much. You're not William Lane Craig in disguise are you?

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.

OK. Enjoy your DIY and your new life.

 

[Town Heretic]

I know I am less deluded now than I was as a Christian. Possibly for the same reasons you know Bible God is true.

See, phrases like "Bible God" don't exactly scream objective separation and consideration. But as I never believed myself to be in a relation with a being I later believed to have never existed, I don't think we're on the same playing field. A nice attempt though. :chuckle:

Your God, when he wrote Numbers 22.
Friday to Saturday = a weekend
Bible claims Jesus died and then was resurrected
"Ascended into heaven" is surely a pompous way of saying "flew up into the sky.?

I understand the narratives. Now what's the problem with how you related it? What, contextually, is rather glaringly missing? And the TRANSLATION is in keeping with the poetic nature of narratives of the time. Your designation is the sort of mistake a layman might make without a substantive background in literature of the period and where you mean to evidence a want of humility in the author you only underscore a want of familiarity on your part regarding the thing criticized.

I still think that if you say yes to either of these two questions, then you would be more deluded than me saying "no."

Good for you? But then, your premises aren't accurate representations of what you mean to question.

We have been talking at cross-purposes since the get-go because you assume that Bible God is true and I assume that it's highly unlikely that Bible God is true.

The objective truth or falsity of the foundation, God's existence, literally has no impact on my critique of your error.

Don't any Christians question any of the Bible ever?

Not a subject I've said anything about here. I'm talking about God. But mostly I'm talking about the errant assumption of any apostate.

Do they ever honestly seek an explanation or clarification of something?

Of course. Who doesn't?

I did and no answers came.

I've never seen that happen around here. lain: The main problem among the faithful involves a number of answers that don't always coexist peacefully.

It can't be as bad in the US surely (you from there?)? 70% of the population are Christian apparently according to some poll. Atheists are less popular than gay people according to this poll.

In academic circles? Among professionals? Do a Google. The numbers are similar everywhere in Western populations.

Why am I in danger? Who is threatening me? Is there evidence for this?

I'm disinclined to address the coy, especially as you've already set out an understanding of precisely what I mean. But for the sake of discourse, you're in danger of getting precisely what you're asking for and leading others to a similar separation from the source of, metaphorically, the sunlight you now enjoy and believe yourself the source of.

Why would every principle about truth be determined by science, evidence and reasoned argument and yet when it comes to the ultimate truth, the most important truth, we are supposed to discard that and believe some old book because the book says so and it's supporters say so?

I've never suggested that course. It wasn't mine. I would say that science can tell us a great deal about mechanism, but nothing about the origin of being, of existence itself. That the old "prove to me that God exists" is an empty sleeve with no criteria capable of being satisfied empirically that would settle the matter.

It took William Wilberforce 11 attempts over 18 years to get bhis Abolition of Slavery Bill through parliament. Why? Because he was opposed by the majority of Christian MPs and the then Archbishop of Canterbury because they accurately (but immorally) said that it wasn't Biblical. In Timothy it says "Slaves obey your masters." It says nothing like "We foresee a time when there will be no slaves because all men are equal under God." That would have helped Wilberforce. But it wasn't there. It was missing.

In fact, the practice of slavery wasn't supported by the Bible as practiced and Wilberforce understood that, as did the "Friends" and any number of Christian sects. Slavery wasn't sustained by Christian thought so much as pragmatic capitalism and religious accommodation.

Read the letter to Timothy? Apparently not.

I've read the Bible cover to cover, but don't let me get in the way of your error. It puts me in good company. Or is it that you believe the Anglican church inadvertently omitted consideration of that particular?

You have yet to demonstrate that Bible God is good.

I've yet to demonstrate that a being you don't believe exists isn't good? Heavens. :chuckle: Christ himself is evidence of that. Even many an atheist or agnostic disinclined to honor or believe in God recognizes the worth of Jesus. And Jesus died professing and evidencing his steadfast conviction in that love. Beyond that, if God is not good then from whence good? A fruitless sidebar. The Bible is filled with descriptions of God's might and wisdom and glory and love else.

Without religion, good people would do good things, wicked people would do evil things. For a good person to commit an evil act, it takes religion.

That's funny. Semantics. I don't believe Christ came to make us perfect, only to see to it that our imperfections no longer barred us from reconciliation with God. Without God, men simply act. Good and evil would be as meaningful as like and dislike, having the same foundation.

Comparing your own parents to an invisible superbeing where there is no physical evidence is a poor analogy.

Not if you are as confident of your experience in relation...so your mistake on this part is understandable, given your history.

How do you know you have the right one?

I know I have the experience He meant for me to have and everything else in my life and understanding confirms that context on a daily basis.

Imagine it's your last day on Earth and you're about to visit your maker. You take your last breath and there is a tunnel of light and at the end of the tunnel are the 5 Gods representing the major world religions - Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Vishnu and Buddha. You go to your God and say "I want to spend the rest of eternity with you." And your God produces a little piece of card from beneath his cape and on it is written the word "Bluff." Ouch. That's gonna hurt in the morning.

Silly waste of verbiage that. Your concept of God is too small a thing. I suspect it was always a part of your problem and necessary for you to stand above it.

The onus of proof is on the theist.

That's simply not true. Any declaration beyond a pure statement of being is speculation or witness of the experiential.

If they are making a positive claim for the existance of something which they say I should take seriously, then they need to demonstrate this with evidence and reasoned argument.

But say that for the sake of accommodation I say great, what criteria, if met, would objectively settle the question? What have you?

Can I step down from the dock now? I have told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me G.... Wait a minute.

:chuckle:

Creation rationally confers a good loving God. It could perhaps be better argued that God is evil considering all the suffering in the world, for animals as well as humans.

Presumes a better material system allowing for free will is possible. Produce it.

Man's desire for cosmic significance is all about ego.

Or about the recognition that we actually are, individually, equally important to a God whom we are unfit to approach by merit. Not much of an ego boost in that, is there...

We arte not the centre of the universe. We are not even the most successful species on the planet. Bacteria are - by every scientific measure.

I'll grant you that the moment bacteria writes a sonnet.

A lawyer? That explains so much. You're not William Lane Craig in disguise are you?

:chuckle: No, but I've heard of him.

OK. Enjoy your DIY and your new life.

Thanks. I feel about it the way Parker felt about writing when she said, "I hate writing. I love having written." And Jack says hello...or jello. It's hard to say at this point. He definitely likes at least one of you.

 

[PureX]

And the TRANSLATION is in keeping with the poetic nature of narratives of the time. Your designation is the sort of mistake a layman might make without a substantive background in literature of the period and where you mean to evidence a want of humility in the author you only underscore a want of familiarity on your part regarding the thing criticized.

I think this happens a lot, both on the part of 'non-believers' and 'believers', alike. I don't claim to be any Bible scholar, myself, but I know enough about it to know that reading the Bible like it's just another book on the shelf is a mistake. There are a lot of different ancient literary styles involved, and much of the language and imagery is highly symbolic. Add to that the fact that the people who created those texts were living in a very different culture, and had very different visions of themselves and the world around them from our own, and you can begin to understand why just a strait reading isn't going to produce much of an understanding of the text.

 

[rexlunae]

I think this happens a lot, both on the part of 'non-believers' and 'believers', alike. I don't claim to be any Bible scholar, myself, but I know enough about it to know that reading the Bible like it's just another book on the shelf is a mistake.

I'd say it's more a problem of which book from the shelf it's read as. Some people seem determined to read the Bible as if it were a history textbook, whereas it makes a lot more sense to read it more like the great Greek myths.

 

[Spectrox War]

See, phrases like "Bible God" don't exactly scream objective separation and consideration. But as I never believed myself to be in a relation with a being I later believed to have never existed, I don't think we're on the same playing field. A nice attempt though. :chuckle:

It's just to distinguish the God you believe in from the hundreds of other Gods that have been worshipped throughout history.

I understand the narratives. Now what's the problem with how you related it? What, contextually, is rather glaringly missing? And the TRANSLATION is in keeping with the poetic nature of narratives of the time. Your designation is the sort of mistake a layman might make without a substantive background in literature of the period and where you mean to evidence a want of humility in the author you only underscore a want of familiarity on your part regarding the thing criticized.

So did a donkey actually talk as described in Numbers 22? A simple enough question surely. Or is it a symbolic made up story?

The objective truth or falsity of the foundation, God's existence, literally has no impact on my critique of your error.

Which I still don't understand. If Bible God really exists then I made a mistake. If Bible God doesn't exist then I had a similar experience to other Christians.

In academic circles? Among professionals? Do a Google. The numbers are similar everywhere in Western populations.

Fair enough.

I've never suggested that course. It wasn't mine. I would say that science can tell us a great deal about mechanism, but nothing about the origin of being, of existence itself. That the old "prove to me that God exists" is an empty sleeve with no criteria capable of being satisfied empirically that would settle the matter.

Isn't God big enough to demonstrate his own existence? What's wrong with him? Is he in hiding or something?

In fact, the practice of slavery wasn't supported by the Bible as practiced and Wilberforce understood that, as did the "Friends" and any number of Christian sects. Slavery wasn't sustained by Christian thought so much as pragmatic capitalism and religious accommodation.

Read Deuteronomy. It talks about owning a slave and that it's ok to beat your slave as long as the slave gets up in a day or two! Disgusting.

I've read the Bible cover to cover, but don't let me get in the way of your error. It puts me in good company. Or is it that you believe the Anglican church inadvertently omitted consideration of that particular?

My error? Paul to Timothy: I do not permit a woman to preach or have authority over a man.

I've yet to demonstrate that a being you don't believe exists isn't good? Heavens. :chuckle: Christ himself is evidence of that. Even many an atheist or agnostic disinclined to honor or believe in God recognizes the worth of Jesus. And Jesus died professing and evidencing his steadfast conviction in that love. Beyond that, if God is not good then from whence good? A fruitless sidebar. The Bible is filled with descriptions of God's might and wisdom and glory and love else.

Jesus made a contribution to the moral debate, assuming he existed. Personally I prefer Socrates or Buddha. In fact, none of them compare to my Mum. She is the best. Loving, slow to anger, intelligent, supportive. A sense of humour too.

Not if you are as confident of your experience in relation...so your mistake on this part is understandable, given your history.

Do you realise that people from other religions are as sure about their God as you are about yours?

Silly waste of verbiage that. Your concept of God is too small a thing. I suspect it was always a part of your problem and necessary for you to stand above it.

Maybe. But it amused me when I wrote it.

But say that for the sake of accommodation I say great, what criteria, if met, would objectively settle the question? What have you?

Why can't God be honest and open and demonstrate his own existence. Why be a tease?

Or about the recognition that we actually are, individually, equally important to a God whom we are unfit to approach by merit. Not much of an ego boost in that, is there...

It's not just about ego. It's about fear. Fear of death. Fear of being unloved. Fear of the unknown.

I'll grant you that the moment bacteria writes a sonnet.

What does it care when it gets a free ride on the hand that writes?

Thanks. I feel about it the way Parker felt about writing when she said, "I hate writing. I love having written." And Jack says hello...or jello. It's hard to say at this point. He definitely likes at least one of you.

I think we have reached an impasse. I think we will have to agree to disagree. Not sure whether I've learnt anything new but, hey...

In the words of Mr Spock: Live Long and Prosper.

 

[PureX]

I'd say it's more a problem of which book from the shelf it's read as. Some people seem determined to read the Bible as if it were a history textbook, whereas it makes a lot more sense to read it more like the great Greek myths.

I agree, but a lot of people read mythology as if it were just entertainment. They don't realize that the stories represent archetypical concepts that human beings have had to deal with throughout time. And with sacred myths, there is the addition of addressing the metaphysical questions.

 

[zippy2006]

Other Christians trusted more than I did?

Let's take the story of the thief (or was it murderer?) who was crucified alongside Jesus. He had hours, maybe minutes left to live. He had nothing to lose by having a "death-bed" (or should that be death-cross) conversion. He also got to actually meet Jesus (allegedly).

Whereas I was not on my death bed when I accepted Christ, neither had I actually met him in person. Yet I believed.

And what did Jesus say to the thief? "Today you will dwell with me in paradise," or words to that effect.

What did Jesus say to doubting Thomas? "Blessed are those who have not seen yet still believe." So arguably I had much more faith than the thief because my life wasn't about to end and I had not actually seen Jesus physically. Yet Jesus seems to think the thief gets to heaven. That's not me saying that. That's from the horse's mouth.

I only said that some Christians trusted more than you. I didn't say Thomas or the thief (I do not want to argue those particular points as they seem tangential). There are Christians who, given your position, chose to have faith rather than to walk away. Maybe that faith consisted in trying to understand the Bible in a new way, or seeing what the intellectual giants of Christendom had to say about these apparently problems. It may even be that they blindly trusted out of hope and fear. Either way, they trusted more than you. So you are not telling the truth when you say "I trusted as much as anyone!" But I think the more important question is about the reasons you left and the reasons you feel Christianity to be false, rather than the level of trust, since you are claiming that your departure was an objective decision that you felt obliged to make once you "faced the facts of Christianity."

Also, my old question:

So obviously Christianity gave you something you sought, or at least you thought it did for awhile. Have you found that thing you were seeking elsewhere since?

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

It's just to distinguish the God you believe in from the hundreds of other Gods that have been worshipped throughout history.

Seriously, coy? At this late date? lain: Okay, here goes: there's no confusion on either of our parts as to which theistic model I follow. It's there for anyone who reads me, both by designation and by the reference I make within each particular posit. Bible God (though I'll credit you at least capitalize) is the stuff of insult, sophomoric in construction and aim, even if you weren't particularly aiming.

So did a donkey actually talk as described in Numbers 22? A simple enough question surely. Or is it a symbolic made up story?

I think both questions were fairly simple, but more to the point, Christ wasn't a man and Balaam's narrative reads like an illustration of a moral point and not like a history. Your first hint is that Balaam doesn't appear to be startled by a talking donkey. lain: Your second is the time honored use of talking animals in folklore and fables.

Which I still don't understand. If ...God really exists then I made a mistake. If ...God doesn't exist then I had a similar experience to other Christians.

My criticism has never been about what you believe but about what I should reasonably believe about it and whether it's internally consistent. So when I note that what you believe about your experience contains logical contradictions that you believe it or if it's true doesn't really factor...not at that point.

Isn't God big enough to demonstrate his own existence? What's wrong with him? Is he in hiding or something?

He isn't hiding from me. :idunno: Maybe it isn't about Him hiding.

Read Deuteronomy. It talks about owning a slave and that it's ok to beat your slave as long as the slave gets up in a day or two! Disgusting.

Read the context of the Law. It's hard. It's remorseless. It's meant to be. Any idea why? (as an aside, the Biblical model bears little resemblance to the horror of the practice as developed in Western "civilization")

My error? Paul to Timothy: I do not permit a woman to preach or have authority over a man.

Right. "Women in the Anglican Communion" (1935) You might want to read it. Or not. Here's a link that goes to your note. You might want to explore if the tome doesn't interest you. :cheers:

Jesus made a contribution to the moral debate, assuming he existed.

Much more reason, absent faith, to believe he did.

Personally I prefer Socrates or Buddha. In fact, none of them compare to my Mum. She is the best. Loving, slow to anger, intelligent, supportive. A sense of humour too.

A good mom is a grand thing. But God is still the only thing.

Do you realise that people from other religions are as sure about their God as you are about yours?

I'd hope so or what the heck are they up to anyway?

Maybe. But it amused me when I wrote it.

Well, if you're marking time until you die you might as well enjoy it. :idunno:

Why can't God be honest and open and demonstrate his own existence. Why be a tease?

So you can't think of how to apply the empirical either. Else, same answer as the first time.

It's not just about ego.

Or even necessarily, as per my counter.

It's about fear. Fear of death.

Everyone rational fears death. But it's no more demonstrably about fearing death than atheism is about embracing defeatism.

Fear of being unloved. Fear of the unknown.

All natural human responses to being that aren't addressed if the methodology fails. And if it doesn't then how does it differ from a warm feeling you might get from a humanist manifesto?

What does it care when it gets a free ride on the hand that writes?

Who cares if it cares? It doesn't even get to judge...because if it did it would be congratulating me on taking the point about now.

I think we have reached an impasse.

Were we ever any other place? :think:

I think we will have to agree to disagree. Not sure whether I've learnt anything new but, hey...

Then I'm not sure if you were paying attention, because there was apparently a number of things you hadn't considered fully before you met me. How seriously you consider them now is out of my control, but a guy can hope.

In the words of Mr Spock: Live Long and Prosper.

John 3:16 We are who we are.

:e4e:

 

[zippy2006]

He isn't hiding from me.

Was He hiding for the first few decades?

 

[Town Heretic]

Was He hiding for the first few decades?

Nah, I was just the stubborn sort. I was so busy looking for the truth I roared right past it. :chuckle: Until it grabbed me by my shirt collar and stared me down.

 

[Spectrox War]

Seriously, coy? At this late date? lain: Okay, here goes: there's no confusion on either of our parts as to which theistic model I follow. It's there for anyone who reads me, both by designation and by the reference I make within each particular posit. Bible God (though I'll credit you at least capitalize) is the stuff of insult, sophomoric in construction and aim, even if you weren't particularly aiming.

It is just as offensive to take offense as it is to give offence, especially when no offense was actually intended.
I like to keep redefining things otherwise people make assumptions. The word "God" has got so much baggage, I don't like using it without clarification.
But if me saying "Bible God" upsets you I'll just say "Biblical God" or "the God you believe in" or just "God" if it's important to you. You seem to be much harsher in this post than in the previous 2 posts.

I think both questions were fairly simple, but more to the point, Christ wasn't a man and Balaam's narrative reads like an illustration of a moral point and not like a history. Your first hint is that Balaam doesn't appear to be startled by a talking donkey. lain: Your second is the time honored use of talking animals in folklore and fables.

But did it actually happen? What do you believe?

My criticism has never been about what you believe but about what I should reasonably believe about it and whether it's internally consistent. So when I note that what you believe about your experience contains logical contradictions that you believe it or if it's true doesn't really factor...not at that point.

Can you point out a key point you made on this thread so that I can look over it again because I honestly cannot understand any logical contradiction I may have made. It has not been clearly demonstrated.

Can anyone else on TOL point out the logical contradiction in my account?

This is getting ridiculous!

He isn't hiding from me. :idunno: Maybe it isn't about Him hiding.

For something to exist, it has to be a measurable, verifiable, demonstrable manifestation.

There is no reality in a concept. It's just a tool. A device.

Read the context of the Law. It's hard. It's remorseless. It's meant to be. Any idea why? (as an aside, the Biblical model bears little resemblance to the horror of the practice as developed in Western "civilization")

The slavery in the OT is bad enough. I don't need to compare it to 18th century western slavery to know that it's wrong for any person to be owned (and sometimes abused).

There's no vision for the end of slavery in the Bible. None. Can't God repeal any of his old laws? Humans manage it.

Right. "Women in the Anglican Communion" (1935) You might want to read it. Or not. Here's a link that goes to your note. You might want to explore if the tome doesn't interest you. :cheers:

I'll look at this but if it's a directive from the Anglican church, this is not necessarily sourced from the Bible and isn't necessarily "God's word".

Anglicans I've met don't have to believe in God. They just believe that Jesus was a nice bloke.

A good mom is a grand thing. But God is still the only thing.

At least I am convined my Mum is real. I can even do genetics testing on her and me showing the biological relationship. I can't do any of this with any God.

Well, if you're marking time until you die you might as well enjoy it. :idunno:

Most Christians I know are just hanging around waiting to die. They've given up on life and given up on themselves.

Everyone rational fears death. But it's no more demonstrably about fearing death than atheism is about embracing defeatism.

It's whether or not my views are true and accurate. Most atheists I know actually care whether or not their beliefs are true. Many Christians I know don't give off that same vibe of authenticity.

All natural human responses to being that aren't addressed if the methodology fails. And if it doesn't then how does it differ from a warm feeling you might get from a humanist manifesto?

Christian methodology has well and truly failed for me.
It's been healthy coming here to TOL. It's good to remind myself of what I used to believe and why I no longer believe it. I usually think that Christianity can't have been that bad. Then I come on to a site like this with all the excuses and threats (not from you) and realise it's actually worse than I remembered.

Were we ever any other place? :think:

Probably not. Maybe this dialogue doesn't serve any useful purpose? You will never convince me nor I you. Undecided people reading it may have gotten something from it.

Then I'm not sure if you were paying attention, because there was apparently a number of things you hadn't considered fully before you met me. How seriously you consider them now is out of my control, but a guy can hope.

Once again, can you reiterate one last time why - in plain English, with logical steps, major and minor premises, a valid and sound argument and a conclusion. Otherwise it's meaningless and just playing with words.

John 3:16 We are who we are.

:e4e:

"I am what I am." Gloria Gaynor

 

[Spectrox War]

I only said that some Christians trusted more than you. I didn't say Thomas or the thief (I do not want to argue those particular points as they seem tangential). There are Christians who, given your position, chose to have faith rather than to walk away. Maybe that faith consisted in trying to understand the Bible in a new way, or seeing what the intellectual giants of Christendom had to say about these apparently problems. It may even be that they blindly trusted out of hope and fear. Either way, they trusted more than you. So you are not telling the truth when you say "I trusted as much as anyone!" But I think the more important question is about the reasons you left and the reasons you feel Christianity to be false, rather than the level of trust, since you are claiming that your departure was an objective decision that you felt obliged to make once you "faced the facts of Christianity."

Also, my old question:

So obviously Christianity gave you something you sought, or at least you thought it did for awhile. Have you found that thing you were seeking elsewhere since?

:e4e:

I simply set out what I think is a logical Biblically-based argument why my faith was no less than two Bible characters who were in all probability saved (the thief and the Apostle Thomas). How can my former faith have been deficient? i.e. if I had been run over by a bus during the height of my belief in God and Jesus, why would God not have saved me? If he was interested in saving my soul for all time, why didn't he arrange for that bus to come hurtling towards me?

Have I found anything else worth following?

I got into some New Agey stuff a few years ago. I actually quite like it but I don't think it's the ultimate answer. Maybe there is no ultimate answer - and that is the answer.

Saying there is no such thing as Absolute Truth is an absolute truth in itself. So absolute truth must exist but to me it is the sum total of all the little truths and truisms that make up the universe. The pathway to discovering that truth is through science and reasoned argument. Not appeals to emotion about an old superstitious book, which is not very well written and contains some horrendous morals.

 

[Lon]

You are correct. I never met Jesus. Neither have you.

Oh boy, we have another kid who doesn't believe Saint Nicholas existed because he thinks he's the same thing as "Santa Claus."

If you don't believe in historical beings, I can see your neurosis and help you with that, I think. Head-start: One of the above is real and the other is stuff about him that might be partly real and partly flattery and publicity.

There are guys on TOL I've never actually met. Are you just being stuffy with the definition? Rhetorical? Same idea but you've now rejected it? Something profittable in that direction for either of us?

Unless you can demonstrate what "meeting Jesus" actually means?

Are you looking for fodder for your own website? Just play it out here. Honestly, it won't play out on that other site as well as it does here.
How persnickity are you going to be? If you are going to get technical, for instance, on the term 'meet' such that it has to be your way or the highway, we might as well stop wasting each other's time?

If you have met Jesus, what was he like? Was he chatty at all?

What did you 'think/imagine/pretend' he was like when you thought you met him and are now denying that that took place? I'm sorry, we don't get generally 'smarter' after college, it is usually downhill. I do know there are some nuns in Switerland that are against that grain, but they are exceptions. Generally, we start losing it. At one time you believed in Jesus, now you don't. I almost guarantee it is something rather mundane that caused the dilemma. A poor personal experience, or disallusionment. The problem? Always NEVER ABOUT JESUS. Always (or "Never about Jesus, never").

I would say pretty much as you imagined him when you thought you met him, I think. We can argue over specifics.

Or is "meeting Jesus" more abstract, more intangible than that?

Yeah, let's go for that. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are more real to me than you. I've only exchanged what? 3 lines w/you? Santa and the rabbit left stuff for me every year.

Real is partly to do with what 'we' decide. Oh it won't stop you from being real to other people, but it just shows how relative our conversation is.

Maybe it will make a difference for somebody but my point is that long after you and are I gone, with or without our delusions, history will either be accepted or rejected. Facts or corrections will accompany those historical figures but it takes quite a bit to get noticed. Let's see, we have Jesus on the one side and your currently favorite atheist on the other. Who will be remembered in 2k more years? Which one of us actually stands for 'more tangible and real?' Whatever is 'real' for me isn't going to be your golden fleece. Gideon had a golden fleece, I did not. I have something else. You might be accepting of nothing. I do know Jesus promised this: "If you seek Him, you will find Him, if...."

e.g.
1. When you read the Bible and Jesus' words do you feel a tingle or a warm glow?

Why is that the place you want to start? I feel warm and tingly thinking about Grandma's love and I felt warm and tingly thinking of reindeer paws on the roof as a child. "Tingly" in my opinion has nothing to do with proving something/someone exists. It is rather a benefit that doesn't need either persay.

2. Do you hear your own voice inside your head independent of the Bible? This is called thinking.

Okay, your sarcasm wasn't lost on me here but I'm ignoring it for the moment. I say things snarky as well and appreciate the reminder to tone it down. What happened before, that you 'didn't' have a brain, and now, somehow you do?

Quite the opposite for me, the bible has tested my thinking and beliefs more than any other literature over my lifetime.
You read and go: "Fiction."
Shoot, that's easy! You don't have to think at all for that.

3. Do you hear somebody else's voice in your head?
If so, please seek professional help.

I'm kind of 'hearing' you in my head at the moment. I 'think' you are somebody else. Regardless, did you have to get help? If not, why are you telling me to? If it is a desperate plea in sympathy and empathy, why didn't you give a phone number? How committed are you to this venture? Right now, I'm not feeling much more of a concern to you than you have for Jesus who you don't believe in and that's sad because even now, He has to be more real to you than a guy you've only traded 3 posts with. Jesus made a couple of promises that you and I could find out for sure if He keeps them or not. For me, those promises are kept.
I know I'm married by a similar way: certain promises have been kept. Oh sure, there is other evidence, both for Jesus and my wife, but thats the gist.

 

[Lon]

It is just as offensive to take offense as it is to give offence, especially when no offense was actually intended.
I like to keep redefining things otherwise people make assumptions. The word "God" has got so much baggage, I don't like using it without clarification.
But if me saying "Bible God" upsets you I'll just say "Biblical God" or "the God you believe in" or just "God" if it's important to you. You seem to be much harsher in this post than in the previous 2 posts.

Mine and TH's are beginning to resemble each other in both posts and reply alike. I would simply guess here that: It entirely depends on the reasonability of your skepticm. We generally don't spend much time with "I cant's."

But did it actually happen? What do you believe?

"Can" God make a donkey speak? Yes, you bet. We've seen Hollywood do it. If they can do it, I'd hope to spit that God should be able to do it. This kind of question isn't important to me. There is nothing in the story that demands that answer. Tell me the 'moral' of that story. That's what is important.

Can you point out a key point you made on this thread so that I can look over it again because I honestly cannot understand any logical contradiction I may have made. It has not been clearly demonstrated.

Can anyone else on TOL point out the logical contradiction in my account?

This is getting ridiculous!

My guess: You are projecting. My experience isn't your experience. We also project back: "There is no way you can 'not' be a christian if you were ever a christian (at least by what and how I think that must mean)."

For something to exist, it has to be a measurable, verifiable, demonstrable manifestation.

I actually agree, but we don't just perceive reality by our five senses. Example: You may say my father doesn't exist. He died, most of him is probably in plants in Africa or something. Even if you argued with that, you'd probably say he doesn't have a soul that currently exists. Well, then again you might say what we call 'soul' can still exist among those who love[d] him. Well then, what about your great great grandfather? Is his "soul" dead now that nobody remembers fondly? Does it no longer exist? How do we know if it even existed, then? Why does anything about me matter? What does it do for your 5 senses, that I exist at the moment? Anything? Point: Existence(meaning) isn't merely sensual or intellectual.

There is no reality in a concept. It's just a tool. A device.

You are a concept to me at present. You are wrongly mixing your meaningful-metaphors for purpose and existence (making them relative and therefore meaningless).

At least I am convined my Mum is real. I can even do genetics testing on her and me showing the biological relationship. I can't do any of this with any God.

Couldn't you do the same thing with us as a human race? That we have similarities and relationships? If you did, here is one inescapable fact:

As part of the human race, you can observe that most of us believe in a divinity. I tend to love just about every odd neat little thing about us...
except what we do wrongly to each other (comission) and neglect other's needs (omission). Unfortunately, none of us has escaped this. It is part of us from the priest to the atheist. Why then, if that is the thing we all tend to agree is not good, is anybody in the world looking to rid us of God as if that is the one attributable problem. It is not. We'll do these things to one another over food, money, land, power, oh, just about anything. Getting rid of 'food' would be stupid.

Most Christians I know are just hanging around waiting to die. They've given up on life and given up on themselves.

I don't think we own the corner on this market by any stretch.

It's whether or not my views are true and accurate. Most atheists I know actually care whether or not their beliefs are true. Many Christians I know don't give off that same vibe of authenticity.

Are you comparing this idea out? Honestly? I'm not seeing it, just the opposite. Maybe you are seeing dead religion or something?

Christian methodology has well and truly failed for me.
It's been healthy coming here to TOL. It's good to remind myself of what I used to believe and why I no longer believe it. I usually think that Christianity can't have been that bad. Then I come on to a site like this with all the excuses and threats (not from you) and realise it's actually worse than I remembered.

I can appreciate that. TH has WAY more patience with this sort of thing than I do. Well, like look above again, I don't see it as bad as atheists do. I'm actually convinced that most religion has really good benefit and that it is really stuff like 'monetary' items we mostly fight about ("I want what you have, give it to me now!")

Probably not. Maybe this dialogue doesn't serve any useful purpose? You will never convince me nor I you. Undecided people reading it may have gotten something from it.

I actually see disagreement as a good thing (as long as we don't walk away killing or desiring to kill). If we walk away appreciating another's perspective for what it is, that'd be a good thing. If we agree on something? Even better. Maybe reading TownHeretic, I walk away with more needed patience because I'm "Biggotted" against those hateful atheists.

Once again, can you reiterate one last time why - in plain English, with logical steps, major and minor premises, a valid and sound argument and a conclusion. Otherwise it's meaningless and just playing with words.

Me? Probably not. TH? He is way more empathetic toward you than I am. I do not relate to atheists. They are usually people that 'stopped' believing than never having believed. I kind of do general binning by thinking that it is something usually more emotional than most let on. Why? Because being a christian isn't usually 'intellectual' for most coming to Christ. To me, it looks like somebody bad-mouthing marriage. It just doesn't play out as reality to me, but of course I'm still married.



"I am what I am." Gloria Gaynor[/quote]

 

[One Eyed Jack]

From that statement, I can tell that you don't have any actual idea what information is. Information occurs all over the natural world.

I don't think anyone is denying that. The question is, where did it come from?

 

[alwight]

I wonder what the longest intro thread is? :think:

 

[Spectrox War]

Oh boy, we have another kid who doesn't believe Saint Nicholas existed because he thinks he's the same thing as "Santa Claus."

I have never said this. I have no problem believing that St Nicholas actually existed and that Santa Claus as we know him today was partly a German re-invention and then Coca Cola came along and finished the job.

But somebody from 2000 years ago, the evidence gets more muddy.
I'm not even sure that Socrates exitsed. He could have been an invention of Plato. But there are no weird claims about Socrates. There are about Jesus.

I have no problem believing that a spiritual leader existed 2000 years ago in the Middle East and went around giving speeches and finally got done in by the authorities.

My problem is when it is claimed that this man performed miracles, died for a weekend, then resurrected himself so that he can judge my soul after I die.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence supporting Biblical claims is embarrasingly bad.

There are guys on TOL I've never actually met. Are you just being stuffy with the definition? Rhetorical? Same idea but you've now rejected it? Something profittable in that direction for either of us?

But at least they respond in a semi-intelligent way. The Bible is just words on the page of a book.

Are you looking for fodder for your own website? Just play it out here. Honestly, it won't play out on that other site as well as it does here.
How persnickity are you going to be? If you are going to get technical, for instance, on the term 'meet' such that it has to be your way or the highway, we might as well stop wasting each other's time?

No. I am not setting up a website about atheism or anything like that. Nor do I have an existing site. You're just making stuff up as you go along.

I say again, what do you mean when you said you have "met Jesus"?

What did you 'think/imagine/pretend' he was like when you thought you met him and are now denying that that took place? I'm sorry, we don't get generally 'smarter' after college, it is usually downhill. I do know there are some nuns in Switerland that are against that grain, but they are exceptions. Generally, we start losing it. At one time you believed in Jesus, now you don't. I almost guarantee it is something rather mundane that caused the dilemma. A poor personal experience, or disallusionment. The problem? Always NEVER ABOUT JESUS. Always (or "Never about Jesus, never").

I've already described how I felt and how I behaved. Not sure I can add anything else.

Yeah, let's go for that. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are more real to me than you. I've only exchanged what? 3 lines w/you? Santa and the rabbit left stuff for me every year.

And how would go about determining the truth of these things? Santa, the Easter Bunny and the likelihood that I am a real person who is speaking to you via the internet?

Real is partly to do with what 'we' decide. Oh it won't stop you from being real to other people, but it just shows how relative our conversation is.

So if I decided that unicorns live in a pyramid above my head, there's objective reality there that I could demonstrate to others?

Maybe it will make a difference for somebody but my point is that long after you and are I gone, with or without our delusions, history will either be accepted or rejected. Facts or corrections will accompany those historical figures but it takes quite a bit to get noticed. Let's see, we have Jesus on the one side and your currently favorite atheist on the other. Who will be remembered in 2k more years?

I thought the world was ending in December this year?

Why is that the place you want to start? I feel warm and tingly thinking about Grandma's love and I felt warm and tingly thinking of reindeer paws on the roof as a child. "Tingly" in my opinion has nothing to do with proving something/someone exists. It is rather a benefit that doesn't need either persay.

here we agree.

Okay, your sarcasm wasn't lost on me here but I'm ignoring it for the moment. I say things snarky as well and appreciate the reminder to tone it down. What happened before, that you 'didn't' have a brain, and now, somehow you do?

I didn't utilise my brain fully or I hadn't developed sufficient maturity.

Quite the opposite for me, the bible has tested my thinking and beliefs more than any other literature over my lifetime.
You read and go: "Fiction."
Shoot, that's easy! You don't have to think at all for that.

How do we go about determining what's likely to be false and what's likely to be true?

I'm kind of 'hearing' you in my head at the moment. I 'think' you are somebody else. Regardless, did you have to get help? If not, why are you telling me to? If it is a desperate plea in sympathy and empathy, why didn't you give a phone number? How committed are you to this venture? Right now, I'm not feeling much more of a concern to you than you have for Jesus who you don't believe in and that's sad because even now, He has to be more real to you than a guy you've only traded 3 posts with. Jesus made a couple of promises that you and I could find out for sure if He keeps them or not. For me, those promises are kept.
I know I'm married by a similar way: certain promises have been kept. Oh sure, there is other evidence, both for Jesus and my wife, but thats the gist.

The problem is the character of Jesus in the Bible is probably a mish-mash of real person and myth. It's difficult to know what to believe when none of it can be reliably verified. Any semi-intelligent God would know this when they hatched a plan to incarnate themselves in the Iron Age.

 

[Spectrox War]

"Can" God make a donkey speak? Yes, you bet. We've seen Hollywood do it. If they can do it, I'd hope to spit that God should be able to do it. This kind of question isn't important to me. There is nothing in the story that demands that answer. Tell me the 'moral' of that story. That's what is important.

Your comment demonstrates my point about the Christian delusion. The story is laughably absurd if we are to believe it really happened. Where's Eddie Murphy when you need him?

My guess: You are projecting. My experience isn't your experience. We also project back: "There is no way you can 'not' be a christian if you were ever a christian (at least by what and how I think that must mean)."

Hebrews 5:11-14 talks about dangers of falling away from the faith so I'm not sure this "once a Christian always a Christian" thing is actually Biblical.

I actually agree, but we don't just perceive reality by our five senses. Example: You may say my father doesn't exist. He died, most of him is probably in plants in Africa or something. Even if you argued with that, you'd probably say he doesn't have a soul that currently exists. Well, then again you might say what we call 'soul' can still exist among those who love[d] him. Well then, what about your great great grandfather? Is his "soul" dead now that nobody remembers fondly? Does it no longer exist? How do we know if it even existed, then? Why does anything about me matter? What does it do for your 5 senses, that I exist at the moment? Anything? Point: Existence(meaning) isn't merely sensual or intellectual.

I'm sorry that you lost your father.

I did my family tree a while back and compiled information and photos of distant relatives. So I've kept some of them alive in a sense. I think it's important to honour your ancestors for what they achieved. Without them I would not have been allowed the grotesquely lucky chance of existence.

What does it all matter? I don't think an afterlife makes life matter more. I think it makes it matter less. It cheapens it and turns it from something special into a drop of poison.

I go on living because living today is better than dying. That's it. And I enjoy what I can. It's irrelevant what I think anyway. What matters is what is actually true. All the evidence I can get is that this is the only life I know I'm going to get and I will not sacrifice my humanity or freedom in deference to some God who is immoral, unbelievable and probably doesn't exist.

You are a concept to me at present. You are wrongly mixing your meaningful-metaphors for purpose and existence (making them relative and therefore meaningless).

If I'm just a concept, write "Are you really there Spectrox War?" and I'll write something meaningful in response.

Couldn't you do the same thing with us as a human race? That we have similarities and relationships? If you did, here is one inescapable fact: As part of the human race, you can observe that most of us believe in a divinity. I tend to love just about every odd neat little thing about us...
except what we do wrongly to each other (comission) and neglect other's needs (omission). Unfortunately, none of us has escaped this. It is part of us from the priest to the atheist. Why then, if that is the thing we all tend to agree is not good, is anybody in the world looking to rid us of God as if that is the one attributable problem. It is not. We'll do these things to one another over food, money, land, power, oh, just about anything. Getting rid of 'food' would be stupid.

I can appreciate that. TH has WAY more patience with this sort of thing than I do. Well, like look above again, I don't see it as bad as atheists do. I'm actually convinced that most religion has really good benefit and that it is really stuff like 'monetary' items we mostly fight about ("I want what you have, give it to me now!")

Secular countries (such as Sweden) have less crime, less underage pregnancies, less mental health problems, less human rights violations etc than more religious countries such as the US. This is a correlation although it may not be causal. But you certainly cannot make the reverse argument that religion is good for society.

I think religion causes a lot of problems throughout the world. Also I think our debt-money system does as well. My favourite Jesus story is when he chased the bankers out of the Temple with whips - the only story in which Jesus becomes violent. There needs to be more of that these days! Why aren't Christians up in arms about the economy?

Me? Probably not. TH? He is way more empathetic toward you than I am. I do not relate to atheists. They are usually people that 'stopped' believing than never having believed. I kind of do general binning by thinking that it is something usually more emotional than most let on. Why? Because being a christian isn't usually 'intellectual' for most coming to Christ. To me, it looks like somebody bad-mouthing marriage. It just doesn't play out as reality to me, but of course I'm still married.

Which is why I don't understand why TH is an intellectual. There's nothing in the Bible in praise of intellect. In fact in most religions it's usually discouraged.

 

[Town Heretic]

... Hebrews 5:11-14 talks about dangers of falling away from the faith so I'm not sure this "once a Christian always a Christian" thing is actually Biblical.

Well I didn't apply a No True Scotsman approach. I didn't say you lacked faith, I said you lacked trust and that it doomed the faith you did have. No Biblical conflict there at all.

What does it all matter?

Depends on your perspective. By yours what does?

I don't think an afterlife makes life matter more.

Then you're right in stating you aren't thinking. It necessarily makes life matter more, your decisions having an eternal element to them, an actual purpose being served, etc.

I think it makes it matter less. It cheapens it and turns it from something special into a drop of poison.

Then why aren't you long dead? One supposes that you have had the means to shorten your life at will. And given you appear to believe that brevity sweetens the pot...but you don't chase death. You will, if you're reasoned, attempt to live as long as you can do so enjoyably. As with a penny, so with a pound, to borrow.

I go on living because living today is better than dying. That's it.

Why is it better than dying? But thanks for pointing out the splendor and sweetness of the atheist's lot. It sings.

...I will not sacrifice my humanity or freedom in deference to some God who is immoral, unbelievable and probably doesn't exist.

Sacrifice your humanity how? What freedom? Freedom to do what? The immoral God bit is useless. If He doesn't exist then the judgment is without teeth and if He does it's without merit.

Secular countries (such as Sweden) have less crime, less underage pregnancies, less mental health problems, less human rights violations etc than more religious countries such as the US.

Smaller, more homogeneous populations tend to have lower rates of crime and universal healthcare will tend to reflect in overall statistics relating to health. Human rights violations? Such as? And what makes you believe that religion has something to do with it beyond your bias?

This is a correlation although it may not be causal. But you certainly cannot make the reverse argument that religion is good for society.

You absolutely can and in any number of measurable ways, beginning with individual happiness. Atheists self describe as being less happy than their counterparts in faith. More particularly, those who regularly attend church services tend to give more of their time and money to charitable pursuits. The argument is easily made that in larger populations, where cultural identity is less uniform, religion is or can be the glue that binds the social compact together.

Which is why I don't understand why TH is an intellectual.

I think it's peculiar to imagine that anyone who loves God would be less than involved in understanding His creation. I was reared in a family with a generational commitment to education and culture.

There's nothing in the Bible in praise of intellect.

Horsefeathers. Solomon is a study in both the value of intellect and the dangers of unrestrained power and vanity.

In fact in most religions it's usually discouraged.

It isn't in the Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or Christian traditions. I can't speak to every religion though.