# reformed Atheist



## ambush80 (Feb 18, 2009)

If an Atheist were to tell you that they were on the verge of believing in God, how could you convince them to believe in the Christian god as opposed to Buddah or Allah or any other god?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Feb 18, 2009)

You talking about yourself?

DB BB


----------



## RThomas (Feb 18, 2009)

They are called Deists.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 18, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> If an Atheist were to tell you that they were on the verge of believing in God, how could you convince them to believe in the Christian god as opposed to Buddah or Allah or any other god?



Not an easy question but one that I would answer this way.

There is only one God who came down to visit you. Who wants a relationship with you. Who has provided a sacrifice so that you may spend eternity with him even though we are not worthy of it.

There is only one God who has been consistent thru the generations and thru the history of this world.

Allah can change his mind and change the rules. The God of Abraham laid them out from the beginning.

The God of Abraham and Isaac and Paul and Peter is the Alpha and Omega. Is and always will be Jehovah.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 18, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> If an Atheist were to tell you that they were on the verge of believing in God, how could you convince them to believe in the Christian god as opposed to Buddah or Allah or any other god?



I would tell them that I can't convince them of anything...only the Holy Spirit can do that.


----------



## Phillip Thurmond (Feb 18, 2009)

I agree with you rfcruiser!


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Feb 18, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> i would tell them that i can't convince them of anything...only the holy spirit can do that.


 

*amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## jkkj (Feb 18, 2009)

If they are starting to believe , they have already be convicted by the holy spirit.Let god work..


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 18, 2009)

I guess I wouldn't "tell" them anything, but rather ask them some questions.  I'd want to hear the story.  What is it that brought someone who is avowed atheist to the point where they may believe in God?  

I mean, that's a huge development and I'd want to hear the story, show them that I care about what's going on and then possibly help them take that next step toward belief.

But I don't think I could do that until I heard what was going on.  There's not a step by step formula for every single situation(and yes, I know about the Roman Road...that's not what I'm talking about).


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 18, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> I would tell them that I can't convince them of anything...only the Holy Spirit can do that.



Then why evangelize?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Feb 18, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Then why evangelize?


 
If they are already considering then the evangelism has been done...

We can only try and answer their questions...

DB BB


----------



## earl (Feb 18, 2009)

Touche' cf


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 18, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> If they are already considering then the evangelism has been done...
> 
> We can only try and answer their questions...
> 
> DB BB



That's right that's why you don't just sit back and let the HS do it's thing. You have answers.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 18, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Then why evangelize?



Because it is commanded of us in Matt 28.

The Great Commission
 16But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 
 17When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 

 18And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 

 19"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 

 20teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 18, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Because it is commanded of us in Matt 28.
> 
> The Great Commission
> 16But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated.
> ...



Not answering my question.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 18, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Not answering my question.





You asked why I evangelize...and I told you because God commands us as Christians to do it.  

How is that not answering the question?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 18, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> You asked why I evangelize...and I told you because God commands us as Christians to do it.
> 
> How is that not answering the question?



No the point of my question is if you leave someone lacking an answer what good have you done them? 

It is not good enough to say the HS will take it from here. What if it is working in YOU and thru YOU?


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 18, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> No the point of my question is if you leave someone lacking an answer what good have you done them?
> 
> It is not good enough to say the HS will take it from here. What if it is working in YOU and thru YOU?



Aaahh...I see your point.  If they asked a question..it would be my responsibility to answer it best I knew how.

In regards to the original question...I can point to many things that show that God is real.  But can I prove it?  No...if it was that easy, Pnome and footjunior would believe in Jesus Christ


----------



## pnome (Feb 18, 2009)

Not that I would do this, but in the spirit of the thread...

I'd say something to the effect of: 

Well, if you are willing to accept the idea of a god, then you might as well choose a religion to follow.   Involvement in religious communities has some benefits.   Of all of the choices out there, for an American citizen, I would suggest Christianity.  Joining a Christian church will gain you many contacts and provide a good level of socialization and support.  With a wide variety of local communities for you to find a good fit.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 18, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Not an easy question but one that I would answer this way.
> _
> There is only one God who came down to visit you. Who wants a relationship with you. Who has provided a sacrifice so that you may spend eternity with him even though we are not worthy of it.
> 
> ...



All opinion.



rjcruiser said:


> Aaahh...I see your point.  If they asked a question..it would be my responsibility to answer it best I knew how.
> _
> In regards to the original question_...I can point to many things that show that God is real.  But can I prove it?  No...if it was that easy, Pnome and footjunior would believe in Jesus Christ



The original question is "Why Jesus and not Ganesh, Buddah, Osiris, Satan.....?"


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 18, 2009)

Double Barrel BB said:


> You talking about yourself?
> 
> DB BB



The more I learn, the less I know for certain.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 18, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> The original question is "Why Jesus and not Ganesh, Buddah, Osiris, Satan.....?"



Okay...I'd say that it is different.  All other religions are based on works...works are the means of reaching eternal bliss.  Only Christianity teaches that it is not something you do, but what Christ did for us that will allow us to obtain eternal bliss.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 18, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> All opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> The original question is "Why Jesus and not Ganesh, Buddah, Osiris, Satan.....?"



Then you still are not serious. That is stuff you can go look and read about. Not opinion. It is the Christian faith. Either you can open your eyes and mind and notice the difference or your cant. 

There are clear differences in the religions. If you take it that all are opinion then why ask?


----------



## Phillip Thurmond (Feb 18, 2009)

If someone is turning from being an atheist to beleving in God then 1st I would say that the holy spirit is dealing with that person.  As for what I could say to convince them I would just tell them what the lord has done for me and how he has changed my life and made it more complete and better.  I would also share that only through Jesus would someone have enternial life and not by works or deeds or following the 5 pillars of faith or all that other stuff.  however I would think that I would not have to say much at all because if the holy spirit is dealing with you then you already know the truth!!! and now its your time to take that step of faith.  One that I know you will never regret!


----------



## Ronnie T (Feb 18, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> No the point of my question is if you leave someone lacking an answer what good have you done them?
> 
> It is not good enough to say the HS will take it from here. What if it is working in YOU and thru YOU?




Much of what the Holy Spirit does is thru God's children.  
I don't see how there can ever be a point that we stop teaching and encouraging someone who's looking.  To simply sit back and allow the Holy Spirit to bring people to Christ is not a Biblical teaching.
God's spirit works in US to teach and carry forth the word of God.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 18, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Okay...I'd say that it is different.  All other religions are based on works...works are the means of reaching eternal bliss.  Only Christianity teaches that it is not something you do, but what Christ did for us that will allow us to obtain eternal bliss.



You have to accept that Jesus is the one and only God; that's what you HAVE to DO.   But do you choose Christianity because it makes the most sense?  Or because it's the easiest one?  Or because that's how you were raised? How, exactly do you know that its the right path?



celticfisherman said:


> Then you still are not serious. That is stuff you can go look and read about. Not opinion. It is the Christian faith. Either you can open your eyes and mind and notice the difference or your cant.
> 
> There are clear differences in the religions. If you take it that all are opinion then why ask?



If I "opened my mind" to Buddhism, I might find it more to my liking than Christianity.  If I then knew it in my heart and soul to be true, what would make me wrong and you right or vice versa?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 18, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Much of what the Holy Spirit does is thru God's children.
> I don't see how there can ever be a point that we stop teaching and encouraging someone who's looking.  To simply sit back and allow the Holy Spirit to bring people to Christ is not a Biblical teaching.
> God's spirit works in US to teach and carry forth the word of God.



You just said it much better than I could have.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 18, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> You have to accept that Jesus is the one and only God; that's what you HAVE to DO.   But do you choose Christianity because it makes the most sense?  Or because it's the easiest one?  Or because that's how you were raised? How, exactly do you know that its the right path?



I answered that already in post #18.

To me, it is obvious.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 18, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Allah can change his mind and change the rules. The God of Abraham laid them out from the beginning.



  Not to take this thread off course, but if this situation occurred and you gave the atheist a Christian bible to read, they are going to find a HUGE difference in the 'rules' laid out in the OT as opposed to the changing of the rules in the NT.  I'm just sayin'.....


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 18, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Not to take this thread off course, but if this situation occurred and you gave the atheist a Christian bible to read, they are going to find a HUGE difference in the 'rules' laid out in the OT as opposed to the changing of the rules in the NT.  I'm just sayin'.....



Not if you read it from start to finish.


----------



## rjcruiser (Feb 18, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Not to take this thread off course, but if this situation occurred and you gave the atheist a Christian bible to read, they are going to find a HUGE difference in the 'rules' laid out in the OT as opposed to the changing of the rules in the NT.  I'm just sayin'.....



Yes and no..biggest difference is that Christ became the perfect sacrificial lamb.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 18, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Not to take this thread off course, but if this situation occurred and you gave the atheist a Christian bible to read, they are going to find a HUGE difference in the 'rules' laid out in the OT as opposed to the changing of the rules in the NT.  I'm just sayin'.....



How about a run down of the "Greatest Hits"?   Saying one thing in the OT and something else in the NT?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 18, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> I answered that already in post #18.
> 
> To me, it is obvious.



So there you are; shoulder to shoulder with the Druids and the Satanists...waiting to die, to finally find out who was right or wrong.    What if they were right?


----------



## RThomas (Feb 18, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Not to take this thread off course, but if this situation occurred and you gave the atheist a Christian bible to read, they are going to find a HUGE difference in the 'rules' laid out in the OT as opposed to the changing of the rules in the NT.  I'm just sayin'.....



The vast majority of atheists _have_ read the bible.  I've found atheists to be much more knowledgeable about the bible, and especially biblical history, than most christians.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 18, 2009)

RThomas said:


> The vast majority of atheists _have_ read the bible.  I've found atheists to be much more knowledgeable about the bible, and especially biblical history, than most christians.



Say it ain't so......Did they read the Koran and the Satanic verses as well?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 18, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Not if you read it from start to finish.



ESPECIALLY if they read it from start to finish!

OT= circumcision, kosher eating, monotheism, God has no form,. no human sacrifice, etc.

NT= no circumcision, eat whatever you want, trinity-theism (yes I made that word up  ), God comes to earth as a man, human sacrifice, etc.

That is just a very small tip of the iceberg, but enough to make my point....


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 18, 2009)

RThomas said:


> The vast majority of atheists _have_ read the bible.  I've found atheists to be much more knowledgeable about the bible, and especially biblical history, than most christians.



I would agree with that.
I would also add that a high percentage of atheists I know were also brought up in a religion-believing household.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 18, 2009)

So once again,  What if "they" are right?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 18, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> ESPECIALLY if they read it from start to finish!
> 
> OT= circumcision, kosher eating, monotheism, God has no form,. no human sacrifice, etc.
> 
> ...



Do we really need to have this discussion again. I mean I can lay it all out again but what's the point? It's still just my opinion right?

It also does not make your point Dixie. It shows a lack of understanding not a study of the Bible.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 18, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Say it ain't so......Did they read the Koran and the Satanic verses as well?



I thought I had posted this answer but will do so again.

I own a copy and have read the Quran. Also the Satanic Verses is Salmon Rushdie's work on what Mohammed received from an "angel". That Satan gave him the vision and idea.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 18, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Do we really need to have this discussion again. I mean I can lay it all out again but what's the point? It's still just my opinion right?
> 
> It also does not make your point Dixie. It shows a lack of understanding not a study of the Bible.



No, we don't need to go over it again.
It is a FACT that the OT required circumcision and the NT does not.
It is a FACT that the OT required kosher eating and the NT does not.
It is a FACT that the OT prohibited human sacrifice and the NT says your salvation is because of it.

There is nothing to rehash.  And I understand perfectly.  A-B=C.  Plain and simple. No need to make it an algebraic equation  

And you know I ain't got nothin' but love for ya!!


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 18, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> No, we don't need to go over it again.
> It is a FACT that the OT required circumcision and the NT does not.
> It is a FACT that the OT required kosher eating and the NT does not.
> It is a FACT that the OT prohibited human sacrifice and the NT says your salvation is because of it.
> ...


Read Paul's letter to Timothy and get back to me.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 18, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Read Paul's letter to Timothy and get back to me.



Which one?

And really, what good will that do?  Are you saying that you do have to be circumcised to be a Christian?  Or eat Kosher?  Or that God is ok with sacrificing people?

Either what I stated is correct or it isn't.  If it isn't, then I'd love to see where the OT says otherwise, or the NT says otherwise.  The how and why that it got that way is of no consequence.  My point was, it is 100% different in the OT than it is in the NT.  How it got that way doesn't matter.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 18, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Which one?
> 
> And really, what good will that do?  Are you saying that you do have to be circumcised to be a Christian?  Or eat Kosher?  Or that God is ok with sacrificing people?
> 
> Either what I stated is correct or it isn't.  If it isn't, then I'd love to see where the OT says otherwise, or the NT says otherwise.  The how and why that it got that way is of no consequence.  My point was, it is 100% different in the OT than it is in the NT.  How it got that way doesn't matter.



Read 1 Tim first a 2 Tim second.

Read it and take notes and we can discuss it.


----------



## formula1 (Feb 18, 2009)

*Re:*

I will avoid all the other talk and try to answer the original poster's question:

If an Atheist were to tell you that they were on the verge of believing in God, how could you convince them to believe in the Christian god as opposed to Buddah or Allah or any other god? 

Answer:

The essential difference between Christianity and all other religions is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  Without the Resurrection, there is no eternal life, without it there is no one sacrifice for mankinds sins, without it there is no possibility of relationship to God.

Budda is dead, Mohammed is dead, but Jesus Christ is the only one even proclaiming Resurrection. Of course you have to have some acceptance of the historical reference to come to acceptance that the resurrection was real and not just some staged event. 

I have accepted it as truth as I have found just enough faith to believe it, and just enough is all I need.

Now as far as convincing others, I can't do. But I at least can point you to the difference and it's your chioce to accept it or not and find the truth in Christ if you care to try.

Best wishes in your search!


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 18, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> If an Atheist were to tell you that they were on the verge of believing in God, how could you convince them to believe in the Christian god as opposed to Buddah or Allah or any other god?



This is a very good question. As someone who holds to a presuppositional approach to apologetics I would have to say first of all there is nothing I could do to convince him of what he already knows to be true. Secondly, a comparative look at religion is never a bad thing. 

How do really compare the Triune God to allah or buddah? 

Once you lay out of the details-doctrine- then where do you go? 

You might point out to him the vast different cultures each religion produces and from there talk about the god worshiped in those cultures. 

Every culture is the expression of the god or gods or God of that culture. Culture is religion externalized. Even atheistic ones. 

Islam- heavily oppressed economically and other wise. Male dominated society with no recourse for the wives or daughters. Very technologically challenged and very behind. Its a religion of outward performance with no expectation of an inward reality. No true justice in the courts.

Buddhism- oppressed, challenged in international politics and ethics, again a very lopsided view of male and female roles. I would even say that any culture that holds to this religion has a perverted view of man and animal. Animals often take an elevated position over man. This is the height of arrogance, since man is made in God's image. No real justice in the court system. An elite based society. 

Compare with Christianity

Economically Christianity has produced the wealthiest societies the world has ever known. 

Freedom- Christianity has produced the freest people the world has ever known. 

Social status- Christianity treats women as an image bearer and not a peace of meat. She is mans help-meet she is by his side. Not in the front of him or behind him but by his side and she has man to protect her from people and situations that are harmful, and she doesn't have to die if her husband dies before her like other religions! A woman in a christian culture is encouraged to be highly educated unlike the other ones considered. Only Christianity has produced the strongest family structure the world has ever seen. 

What does all this prove to the atheist ultimately? Nothing really. The atheist is blinded by his own hatred of God, which he disguises with false intellect and suppresses in unrighteousness. God has already proven Himself. 

This is only an example.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 18, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Economically Christianity has produced the wealthiest societies the world has ever known.
> 
> Freedom- Christianity has produced the freest people the world has ever known.
> 
> Social status- A woman in a christian culture is encouraged to be highly educated unlike the other ones considered. Only Christianity has produced the strongest family structure the world has ever seen.



Where oh where is this Shangri-La you so eloquently speak of!!!!


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 18, 2009)

I wouldn't use modern America as an example if that's what your thinking. 

But do you disagree???


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 18, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> I wouldn't use modern America as an example if that's what your thinking.
> 
> But do you disagree???



Since you offered no examples of what you stated, I'd have to say yes, I disagree....


----------



## gemcgrew (Feb 18, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> If an Atheist were to tell you that they were on the verge of believing in God, how could you convince them to believe in the Christian god as opposed to Buddah or Allah or any other god?



First of all, I would see through their "verge of believing in God" lie. They are not being honest with me or their self. 

Secondly, I could not convince them nor would I try.


----------



## pnome (Feb 18, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> The atheist is blinded by his own hatred of God, which he disguises with false intellect and suppresses in unrighteousness.



Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


----------



## footjunior (Feb 18, 2009)

pnome said:


> Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr



I agree.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 18, 2009)

Come on, now guys.  You know that the sheep need a simple story to believe in.  One that gives them purpose, scares them from doing wrong, promises happiness that can not be put into words for eternity (for a select few only, maybe them), makes them give up money, terrorizes them into fear of eternal fire and agony just for being born a sinner and will even give them their own tithing envelopes with their names on the front when they stand up front and cry tears of fear/joy after a good hellfire and ****ation sermon.  Oh, don't forget the custom choir robe later in life!

That should convince them to take the Christian route, at least the fundamental Southern Baptist one!


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 18, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> I would tell them that I can't convince them of anything...only the Holy Spirit can do that.



Right on bro!

And all they have to do is to open the door and invite Him in.


----------



## mtnwoman (Feb 18, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Much of what the Holy Spirit does is thru God's children.
> I don't see how there can ever be a point that we stop teaching and encouraging someone who's looking.  To simply sit back and allow the Holy Spirit to bring people to Christ is not a Biblical teaching.
> God's spirit works in US to teach and carry forth the word of God.



Yeah, I agree with that. We are to disciple them on an ongoing basis.

Even though that isn't what the original question was, but I'm sure you know that.


----------



## boxofrox (Feb 18, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Come on, now guys.  You know that the sheep need a simple story to believe in.  One that gives them purpose, scares them from doing wrong, promises happiness that can not be put into words for eternity (for a select few only, maybe them), makes them give up money, terrorizes them into fear of eternal fire and agony just for being born a sinner and will even give them their own tithing envelopes with their names on the front when they stand up front and cry tears of fear/joy after a good hellfire and ****ation sermon.  Oh, don't forget the custom choir robe later in life!



Simple story? Hardly.  

Why such hatred? What gives you the right to make a mockery out of someone's faith?  

I have been following this board for awhile and it seems that there always has to be someone on here who makes some rude and small minded comment.  

Yes, small-minded.  If you cannot see that this world was CREATED, you are small minded.

It's called the THEORY of evolution for a reason.  Before I even became a Christian I knew it was a bunch of baloney.  You can't tell me that this world wasn't created.  Just a couple of degrees off, couldn't sustain life.  Gravity off a little bit - couldn't sustain life.

Do this experiment for me: Take apart a remote control, throw it in a bag and shake it really hard so all the pieces bounce into each other.  Open the bag.  Do you have an intact remote control? No.  Why? Because someone had to build (create) it.  

I'm sorry if I sound aggravated, I am.  Comments like yours are just a pathetic attempt to put down others for everything they hold dear.  

And atheists always say they don't need religion in order to have morals.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 18, 2009)

Let's not forget this is an Atheist we are dealing with.  It is hard to convince them a ghost is gonna enter their body and persuade them to make a choice in an invisible sky-father.

See, that's the twisted logic that just will not fly with an Atheist.
That's how they see the Christian belief system.  It would take much more than that to sell it.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 18, 2009)

boxofrox said:


> Simple story? Hardly.
> 
> Why such hatred? What gives you the right to make a mockery out of someone's faith?
> 
> ...



I think you are missing my sattire.  I apologize if you felt offended, but understand we are discussing how to convince an Atheist one belief system is better than another.  I mentioned nothing about any individual's personal faith, I addressed the way Atheists look at one particular belief system.

Please let go of emotions and understand what both sides bring to the table.

And, to answer your question, Atheists, and Darwin followers, believe that if you can grasp the concept of eternity then the concept of previous planets and other chances at life have come and gone.  There are mathmatical calculations regarding other planets holding life right now.  They also believe more will happen in the future eternity.  As space and matter has always been, it will always be, just not in the same forms we see today.  They believe this current earth and its trappings are results of one situation in time.  They believe there have been others, there will be more.  Each will be different.  Success is relative.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 18, 2009)

IF a person wishes to attempt to convert or persuade/evangelize someone they need to have a strong understanding of the mindset and beliefs of that potential convert.  I spent quite some time in seminary studies doing just that.  It is not about only understanding fully your own belief system, but how to communicate it effectively to others.

Some feel this can lead to a loss of faith.  Others feel it will make faith stronger.  Some feel faith is empty and replace it with logic.
It is discussion, that is all.

I'll never call anyone small minded.
And I am certainly not here to convert anyone to believe anything.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 18, 2009)

boxofrox said:


> Why such hatred? What gives you the right to make a mockery out of someone's faith?



...



			
				boxofrox said:
			
		

> Yes, small-minded.  If you cannot see that this world was CREATED, you are small minded.





> It's called the THEORY of evolution for a reason.



I agree:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#Theory



> You can't tell me that this world wasn't created.  Just a couple of degrees off, couldn't sustain life.  Gravity off a little bit - couldn't sustain life.



This argument holds no substance. It is only the planets which fit this description that will be home to intelligent creatures that will then question the (im)probabilities of their existence. It is hard to express this thought in words.

Somewhere out in one of the billions of galaxies in the known universe, which hold billions of stars, each of which potentially have planets orbiting them, there is most likely a planet with intelligent creatures who are having the same discussion that we are right now. Some otherworldly inhabitant of the planet might think, "Clearly this world was created for us because our planet is lined up just perfectly, having just enough light from our star." And that inhabitant would be making the same mistake. The only reason he is able to make that argument is because he inhabits the improbable planet.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 19, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Since you offered no examples of what you stated, I'd have to say yes, I disagree....



The examples are all around you. Where christianity as been strong and vibrant those culture have thrived and the majority of folks living in such a setting prosper and enjoy a greater quality of life. Even the atheist and those of other faiths are protected and benefit in a Christian culture. 

Can you offer something to the contrary? 

No one can escape the reality that a person is what they think. Those who hate God love death and every single society that does not bow to the God of scripture loves death. Look at America? We have strayed so far from God that we call the murder of unborn children a "mothers right." In India  and other places a father can legally kill his child for converting to christianty. Those who hate me love death!!!!!!


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 19, 2009)

pnome said:


> Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr



Is this a problem? Why the frustration?


----------



## pnome (Feb 19, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Is this a problem? Why the frustration?




You impugned my integrity.   It made me mad.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 19, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> The examples are all around you. Where christianity as been strong and vibrant those culture have thrived and the majority of folks living in such a setting prosper and enjoy a greater quality of life. Even the atheist and those of other faiths are protected and benefit in a Christian culture.
> 
> Can you offer something to the contrary?
> 
> No one can escape the reality that a person is what they think. Those who hate God love death and every single society that does not bow to the God of scripture loves death. Look at America? We have strayed so far from God that we call the murder of unborn children a "mothers right." In India  and other places a father can legally kill his child for converting to christianty. Those who hate me love death!!!!!!



I do still disagree.
It hasn't been until the last century and a half or so that women have been 'allowed' to be educated past the ability to write their name, etc.   Prior to that, their only use was housekeeping and childbearing. 

http://cwp.library.ucla.edu/articles/WL.html
http://www.dean.sbc.edu/pegues.html

In fact, I would go so far as to say that women have gradually fought for their 'freedom' and the ability to be educated in spite of the Christian religion.

As far as quality of life, well, in this country alone I would say that the quality of life up until 160 or so years ago rested upon the backs of slaves who were bought, sold and used by good God-fearing Christian men, especially the southern ones who were so adamant to not give their slaves their freedom that they tried to split the country in half.  I wonder if those slaves would have agreed with you?

Any progress in humanity has been made in spite of religion and religious views, in my humble opinion.


----------



## boxofrox (Feb 19, 2009)

footjunior said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




First off, I apologize.  My small minded comment was a little strong.  Usually that's the first thing I get from an atheist "you're small minded if you believe in God" so I guess I just wanted to nip that one.

There is nothing that says that God did not create more planets.  This is something I have always wondered.  Just because He didn't put it in the Bible, doesn't mean He didn't do it.  If He did, it really wouldn't pertain to us.  

I have jokingly asked one of my friends "I wonder if somewhere else God created another earth and they never ate of the tree of life and are still enjoying Eden, and when we get to Heaven they'll laugh and say "You ate of the tree? Boy you guys were dumb!""  

I think the reason that we cannot fully understand God and study Him to "prove" Him is because you cannot study that which is outside of your realm of comprehension.  The knowledge we do have of God is just a tip of the iceburg, like someone else said "our faith is just enough".  

I do fear my God, I fear Him the same way a child fears disobeying her earthly father.  I fear disappointing him, I fear wronging him, and I fear being disobedient.  He is a strict but loving Father.  

As for the human sacrifice argument, it was a self-sacrifice, and Christ was much more than human.  No one forced Christ on the cross, he went willingly, as he could have called legions of angels from the sky at any point (Matthew 26:53).

No one can 100% prove this to you.  That's why it's called FAITH.  Sure, God could give us this proof.  He could put it in all of our minds that Christ is the ONLY way (He is) but He gave us free will.  All God wants is our love and respect, and true love has to be freely given.  If he forced us, we would just be living, breathing robots.  

Again, sorry about the small-minded comment.  That was rude of me, I apologize.  I'll try to leave my feelings at the door when debating


----------



## gtparts (Feb 19, 2009)

pnome said:


> You impugned my integrity.   It made me mad.




It? What is the "it", that made you mad? Wouldn't it make more sense to admit that you allowed, gave yourself permission, to be angry. Perhaps your integrity is such that it is discarded out of hand with cause. Integrity is difficult to objectively evaluate in ones self. Pride has a way of inflating the ego of those who already consider themselves above others. You have already shown yourself to be quite proud of your intellect, as though it were the sole accomplishment of your own effort.


----------



## RThomas (Feb 19, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> The atheist is blinded by his own hatred of God, which he disguises with false intellect and suppresses in unrighteousness.



Yes, and I also hate other things I don't believe exist.  Such as, the easter bunny, santa, and the tooth fairy.  Those guys are a bunch of jerks.  
Here's a tip: if you hate god, then by definition you're not an atheist.



> God has already proven Himself.



How? Which god? Surely you don't mean "self-evident".



> Islam- heavily oppressed economically and other wise. Male dominated society with no recourse for the wives or daughters. Very technologically challenged and very behind. Its a religion of outward performance with no expectation of an inward reality. No true justice in the courts.



With a name like "reformedpastor" I would have expected you knew your own religion's history.  You may also want to do a little research on the least religious countries.


----------



## pnome (Feb 19, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Wouldn't it make more sense to admit that you allowed, gave yourself permission, to be angry.



Ok, I allowed myself to be angered.   What's the difference?

And a hearty good morning to you gtparts.  Thanks for the ad hominem.   


I'll just set it over here with all the others, if that's ok with you.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 19, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I do still disagree.
> It hasn't been until the last century and a half or so that women have been 'allowed' to be educated past the ability to write their name, etc.   Prior to that, their only use was housekeeping and childbearing.
> 
> http://cwp.library.ucla.edu/articles/WL.html
> ...



This is really for all atheist here-  would you prefer Christians to make a statement like this, 

"We owe all that is good and noble to the idea of atheism, our belief in God has hindered sincere and solid progression of every society resulting in mass genocide and untold oppression of the weak. We are responsible for the French revolution, European holocaust, ethnic cleansing in Africa and the American holocaust of the unborn. So let us break free from this idea of god that has been the source of this unspeakable behavior and let each one of us live according to his standard and do what is right in his own eyes what ever that may be, for in this is true freedom." 

You like?? 

By the way D.D. I'm not surprised at your opinion. In fact, I expected as much. Your last statement clearly exposes your bias against truth and your hatred towards God, and our humbleness certainly amuses me. I have serious doubts about that, IMHO. All one has to do is read some of your posts and then they would plainly see how you love to toss your opinions around with no accountability. Even your comment listing your location oozes your arrogance. You mock something that will be a day of terror for you and others like you.


----------



## pnome (Feb 19, 2009)

> By the way D.D. I'm not surprised at your opinion. In fact, I expected as much. Your last statement clearly exposes your bias against truth and your hatred towards God, and our humbleness certainly amuses me. I have serious doubts about that, IMHO. All one has to do is read some of your posts and then they would plainly see how you love to toss your opinions around with no accountability. Even your comment listing your location oozes your arrogance. You mock something that will be a day of terror for you and others like you.




I see DD is getting her morning ad hominem as well.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 19, 2009)

pnome said:


> Ok, I allowed myself to be angered.   What's the difference?
> 
> And a hearty good morning to you gtparts.  Thanks for the ad hominem.
> 
> ...



Owning your emotions is the equivalent of "putting on your big girl pants".

Good morning!

If "over here" means the circular file, and even if it is not, do as it pleases you.

Have a blessed day.


----------



## RThomas (Feb 19, 2009)

> Again, sorry about the small-minded comment. That was rude of me, I apologize. I'll try to leave my feelings at the door when debating



boxofrox, I know your comment wasn't directed at me, but just wanted to say that I respect what you had to say.  I think our emotions get the best of us sometimes in these type of debates.
I also respect anyone who can admit that their faith is personal, and though it can't be "proven", it is real to _them_.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 19, 2009)

RThomas said:


> Yes, and I also hate other things I don't believe exist.  Such as, the easter bunny, santa, and the tooth fairy.  Those guys are a bunch of jerks.
> 
> Here's a tip: if you hate god, then by definition you're not an atheist.
> 
> ...




Hey, we have something in common I too hate santa cluse and the easter bunny. SO! 

Thanks for the tip but I don't need it. You rail against something you don't think exists??? That might be insane. 
I don't believe in santa clause nor do I crusade against it. The fact he doesn't exist is self evident and everything that is false is self defeating. 

Yes God is self evident that's my point. To be God is to be evident. The very fact you can attempt to disprove God proves Him. You rally against what is obvious. IF He doesn't exist why do you care???????? IF He is just another imaginary person or a bad idea, so what, what is to you?????

And by the way, it doesn't have to be obvious to you to be obvious. See, the problem with atheism is that its self defeating. How can your opinion start with you and end with you and be the final authority and still be intellectual and objective??  Please, help me here, I'm listening. 

You may disagree with my view of Islamic culture but you have not proved anything. You disagree, fine. What you need to do is point out my ignorance.


----------



## boxofrox (Feb 19, 2009)

RThomas said:


> boxofrox, I know your comment wasn't directed at me, but just wanted to say that I respect what you had to say.  I think our emotions get the best of us sometimes in these type of debates.
> I also respect anyone who can admit that their faith is personal, and though it can't be "proven", it is real to _them_.




Yes, faith is a very personal thing.  But in that sense, someone who is true to their faith will follow the commandments of their God.  That, in essence, is the big problem that everyone has with Christianity.  We as Christians are COMMANDED to go and tell the good news of Christ in The Great Commission, yet people want us to just ignore that part of our faith.  That's the same as telling a Muslim woman she shouldn't wear the face covering that is required by her religion (I can't think of the proper name of it).  

I think the biggest thing atheists don't understand is that true, whole hearted Christians stay awake at night, cry, pray, and feel miserable at the prospect of what awaits those who haven't accepted Christ.  It is a gut wrenching feeling, one very personal to me.  I myself have family members who aren't Christian and don't believe in Christ, and I can't tell you the nights I have sat awake so fearful that I would get a phone call that they'd been killed or died, knowing that if it was to happen right now they were bound for Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----.  

There are so many stigmas and misconceptions about the church and Christianity, but really all it boils down to is this:  God saw that we alone could not uphold his level of righteousness that was laid out for us, and that sin was winning.  Instead of leaving us to be bound for Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, he sent HIS ONLY SON.  Think about that for a second. He loved us enough to send HIS SON.  

I've always imagined that conversation as this: 

God: "Man cannot do this on their own, they are falling away and the sacrifices have become nothing more than a ritual to them, with no repentance in their hearts.  I must do something to save them from their sins, or they will be separated from me eternally."

Jesus: "I will go, dad. I will sacrifice myself, and my blood will cover their sins."

God: "No son, I can't let you do that. I love you too much to watch you carry the weight of my wrath on your shoulders."

Jesus: "It's okay, dad.  I love them too much not to."

Of course, this is just how I imagined it, not biblical by any means.

All that he asked in return is for us to love Him, love each other, and even love our enemies.  To live a life of holiness.  No one here can argue that if a society based their governing on the New Testament and 10 commandments and it was followed accordingly, it would be nothing short of an utopia.  Jesus does not ask us for anything outrageous.  As a matter of fact, for someone who laid His life down for us, He really isn't asking much at all.


----------



## boxofrox (Feb 19, 2009)

Okay evidently we can't say the h-e double hockey sticks word on here...my bad


----------



## RThomas (Feb 19, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Hey, we have something in common I too hate santa cluse and the easter bunny. SO!
> Thanks for the tip but I don't need it. You rail against something you don't think exists??? That might be insane.
> I don't believe in santa clause nor do I crusade against it. The fact he doesn't exist is self evident and everything that is false is self defeating.
> 
> ...



Wow. I see we have a lot to address here.  Misconceptions and poor arguments abound.

Let's start with this:


> You rail against something you don't think exists??? That might be insane.
> I don't believe in santa clause nor do I crusade against it.



No one is trying to convince me that santa is real.  No one says that not believing in santa will lead to eternal torment. No one is trying to pass laws based on their belief in santa.
I don't "rail against" something because I don't believe it exists, I speak out when a group of people attempt to push their religious beliefs on others.  I speak out when people have a misconception about those that don't share their beliefs.  This shouldn't be so difficult a concept.



> Yes God is self evident that's my point. To be God is to be evident.



When you can't make a valid argument, just claim what you're trying to prove is "self-evident" and can't be proven on it's own merits. "Self-evident" is a cop-out.  We can apply the term to anything we are attempting to prove.  It is meaningless.  



> The very fact you can attempt to disprove God proves Him.



Are you being serious?  You can _attempt_ to disprove anything. 
This is absurd beyond words.  What your argument boils down to is that if it can't be disproven, then it therefore exists.  
So, you believe in all other gods? You believe in all fairytale creatures?  After all, since they can't be disproven, then they must exists- based on your reasoning.



> See, the problem with atheism is that its self defeating. How can your opinion start with you and end with you and be the final authority and still be intellectual and objective??  Please, help me here, I'm listening.



I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.



> You may disagree with my view of Islamic culture but you have not proved anything. You disagree, fine. What you need to do is point out my ignorance.



Who said I disagreed? I made a point that Islam and Christianity share a similar history.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

boxofrox said:


> I think the biggest thing atheists don't understand is that true, whole hearted Christians stay awake at night, cry, pray, and feel miserable at the prospect of what awaits those who haven't accepted Christ.



No, Atheists realize a human being does not have to mentally torture themselves like that.  In their eyes, you are only believing the fabrications found in a book full of threats and promises written by men and edited by men.

I'm not trying to insult anyone's belief or faith, but some folks really need to do some reading as to what Athiests, Deists and Agnostics believe.  They are quite different.
Christians just lump them together because they do not follow the exclusivity of their religious belief system.

Most Atheists could care less what a person believes at the end of the day.  But they will discuss the emptyness of blind faith versus sound logic anytime.  And they rarely get emotional about it.  It is usually the religious belief system follower that does.  That's just how it is.  Atheists are most often prepared for that.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 19, 2009)

RThomas said:


> Wow. I see we have a lot to address here.  Misconceptions and poor arguments abound.
> 
> Let's start with this:
> 
> ...




Dido to your statement we have a lot to work through. 

Ok, here is where I am coming from. I presuppose God. I do this because the bible never assumes the position of proving God. It opens with "God is." I interpret life as defined from the bible. 

You presuppose God doesn't exist or is improbable. Maybe you can clarify this for me. Therefore you interpret life from your empirical view point. So we are both guilty of beginning from a presupposition point of view. You agree? 

If I understand you, you are not railing against God per se only the act of christians forcing on you this God. Is this correct? That is pushing their religion down your throat. Is that a correct observation? My reply is how can anyone make you believe in God? How can anyone force you to worship God? Is some one physically making you do believe something you don't want to believe? If that is the case I will fight for you, though I don't think that it is. So in essence you are railing against God and these Christians on here because you want to and like not because you have to or made to. You are right it's an easy concept. This seems top prove my point. You simply are compelled to fight against God. 

Self evidence is not a cop out if its true. I can just as easily say to you prove He is not self evident. And!!!!!!!!! It's not meaningless in my worldview only in yours. But again, why are you fighting against meaningless things???? Ok, I also presuppose that since God made man in His image that image testifies to God. You have to suppress this every time you look at yourself and those you love. Simply, not believing in God is hard work 

You give us an example of how far you will go to not believe by equating the Christian God to fairytalel creatures. You can't take what I was saying about the christian God and arbitrarily apply it to fairytale creatures. This is nothing more than a smoke screen and you are demonstrating that you really don’t have a better position or argument. Please can you do better than this!!!! This should be easy, since you are convinced there is no God. Everybody knows fairytale creatures don't exist. 

My point that you didn't follow was that atheism defeats itself. It can't stand alone and survive. The very principle that atheism promotes lends to an ever evolving philosophy. Example: lets take atheism at its basic level. Man is the end of all things. Yet man changes his mind all the time thus anything that starts with man will in time change to something else. It's inevitable.

Because we start from different points of view our interpretation of the evidence is going to be just as different. Think about it this way the evidence must be interpreted and depending on who is doing the interpretation will determine how the evidence is known. 

You can't make sense of all the evidence you have around you and since the obvious would cramp you ego you choose to deny the truth. I have no problem understanding love, joy, faith, and peace. All of things that every culture seeks and all you can do is rail. So rail on, work at avoiding the obvious because from your perspective life can't really be meaningful. 

We come from nothing and we go to nothing- Friedrich Nietzsche.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> No, Atheists realize a human being does not have to mentally torture themselves like that.  In their eyes, you are only believing the fabrications found in a book full of threats and promises written by men and edited by men.
> 
> I'm not trying to insult anyone's belief or faith, but some folks really need to do some reading as to what Athiests, Deists and Agnostics believe.  They are quite different.
> Christians just lump them together because they do not follow the exclusivity of their religious belief system.
> ...





Seriously, aren't you guilty of lumping all christians together? AS a pastor I have major problems with many of their arguments on here but I also believe they are well meaning and are doing their best.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> How can your opinion start with you and end with you and be the final authority and still be intellectual and objective??  Please, help me here, I'm listening.



That is true of every thinking individual, no matter what their beliefs are.  Some choose faith and place a belief in a higher power, others look to logic and reason to find answers that are tangible and do not require a blind belief in any system outside of science and nature.  You can know that you are alive and exist.  You do not have to live in fear of the unknown.  Death itself is the final authority.  No one knows what is on the other side for a fact.

The debate is circular.  Atheists do not care if a person choose to have faith and a belief in a deity.  That's their choice.  Athiests have found for themselves that throughout history such belief systems come and go and they all have variations of one another.

Rarely will you find an Atheist that is not well read, in scriptures and other religious works.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 19, 2009)

It's convenient (but true) for the atheist that the burden of proof in every single thread and discussion in here is on the Christian (assuming we're talking about Christian discussion...I know this is a "religious" forum).

All the atheist has to say in response to anything is "I don't buy it" or "prove it" and they've done their job.  It just something that I've been thinking about.  You guys don't really have to support anything.  I agree, the burden of proof is on us.  The thing that makes folks want to give up, I think, is that we're in a vicious cycle.

You want proof.  But proof is only experienced in this relm (according to us).  So we can only tell you what we have experienced.  You don't buy it because you haven't experienced the same and on and on we go.

You say we're making it up just to make ourselves feel better.  We say we're not.  Neither side can prove the other wrong.

Just something I've been mulling over.





Anyway, back to the thread.  You guys need to remember that the OP was talking about an atheist who is ALREADY thinking about accepting it...implying that they have already been convinced that they may need to consider believing.

We're not talking about convincing a staunch atheist.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Seriously, aren't you guilty of lumping all christians together? AS a pastor I have major problems with many of their arguments on here but I also believe they are well meaning and are doing their best.



Oh, no.  I am well aware of the fundamental differences found in the faiths and doctrines of the many various churches.  It stems from the different interpretations of the writings each chooses to use as their basis for belief.

But I do lump together Christians (and even Deists) when it comes down to the discussion of exclusivity.  Just like I would if discussing Islam or Buddist exclusivity.


----------



## boxofrox (Feb 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> No, Atheists realize a human being does not have to mentally torture themselves like that.  In their eyes, you are only believing the fabrications found in a book full of threats and promises written by men and edited by men.
> 
> I'm not trying to insult anyone's belief or faith, but some folks really need to do some reading as to what Athiests, Deists and Agnostics believe.  They are quite different.
> Christians just lump them together because they do not follow the exclusivity of their religious belief system.
> ...




They say "blind faith versus sound logic" but to me my faith is very logical, and hardly blind.

I wasn't raised Christian.  I have gone through many religions, and Christianity is the most logical to me.  I have even claimed agnosticism before.  At one point I used to believe that believing in Christ was the same as believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  But through studying, debating, arguing, etc I have come to the decision that it is very logical indeed.  

That's another misconception "blind faith".  Anyone that believes they should "blindly" follow Christ is incorrect.  You are supposed to study and ask questions, sort things out.  I have never had a pastor tell me "Because the Bible says so!" (Although I'm sure there are some that do).  Yes we base our decisions on the Bible, but there is always a reason behind the commandment.  

At one time, atheists probably did care less, but after the "Why believe in a god?" billboards, it seems that atheism itself has become a religion.  

To me, if you don't want to believe, that is your God-given choice.  My heart aches for you, and I'll continue to pray for you, but in the end, you alone have to choose whether to accept Jesus or not.  

This is my question: what exactly is it that atheists want?


----------



## gtparts (Feb 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Most Atheists could care less what a person believes at the end of the day.  But they will discuss the emptyness of blind faith versus sound logic anytime.  And they rarely get emotional about it.  It is usually the religious belief system follower that does.  That's just how it is.  Atheists are most often prepared for that.



One can not begin to discuss true faith from a position of total ignorance. They neither have experienced it nor understand it. So why do they kick against faith, of which they have no comprehension? Is that a rational thing to argue against?


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> It's convenient (but true) for the atheist that the burden of proof in every single thread and discussion in here is on the Christian (assuming we're talking about Christian discussion...I know this is a "religious" forum).
> 
> All the atheist has to say in response to anything is "I don't buy it" or "prove it" and they've done their job.  It just something that I've been thinking about.  You guys don't really have to support anything.  I agree, the burden of proof is on us.  The thing that makes folks want to give up, I think, is that we're in a vicious cycle.
> 
> ...



It boils down to the faith versus sound logic argument.  Most Atheists do not try to convince others of anything.  It is the follower of a belief system that feels they have the "comission" to convince others.  That's fine too.

Even a "staunch" Atheist is open to sound logic and proofs.  That's why they are always seeking with an open mind.  They rarely find that certain thing that lets them open up to the idea of blind faith in something that is not tangible.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

gtparts said:


> One can not begin to discuss true faith from a position of total ignorance. They neither have experienced it nor understand it. So why do they kick against faith, of which they have no comprehension? Is that a rational thing to argue against?



That's a slippery slope.  To make the inference that an Atheist does not have knowledge is not sound.  Many of them know scripture and other religious writings better than those who TEACH and MINISTER to active congregations.

Atheists want to tell people they can live their lives without the fear and opression of a religious belief system.  And they do not want one belief system to become the controlling factor in everyday life, government rule or any forced compliance.  They want total freedom for anyone to believe whatever they wish without the overbearing exclusivity found within certain systems.


----------



## RThomas (Feb 19, 2009)

> I can just as easily say to you prove He is not self evident.



You wrote a lot of words, but the above is basically what your argument boils down to.

The burden of proof is on you.  If one makes a claim, it is not the responsibility of another to disprove that claim.  Being unable to disprove something, doesn't therefore mean that it exists.
You can no more prove your god's existence then you can any other gods, or mythical creatures.  Just because one can't disprove them, doesn't mean they exist.
I suggest you start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof


> Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, either positive or negative, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven (see negative proof).


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

Then, it moves into Pascal's Wager.
Believe in something just because it MIGHT exist.
A true omnipotent, omnicient and omnipresent God sees right through that.  Right?


----------



## boxofrox (Feb 19, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Anyway, back to the thread.  You guys need to remember that the OP was talking about an atheist who is ALREADY thinking about accepting it...implying that they have already been convinced that they may need to consider believing.
> 
> We're not talking about convincing a staunch atheist.




Well in response to the OP, I would say that they need to keep digging and to have an open mind and ask questions.  Listen for the whispers of the Holy Spirit and allow Christ to do a work in them.  

It took a long time for me to accept Christ. I always jokingly tell people that He "dragged me kicking and screaming down the aisle."  However, He made Himself evident in my life to the point that I could no longer ignore Him.  A decision was required, and thankfully I made one towards Him.

Humans don't want to be held accountable.  They don't want to have to answer to a higher power.  That is why people have such a hard time with Christ.  He shows you all of your sins, and you realize that you aren't nearly that "good person" that you thought you were.  But the beautiful thing is that He doesn't just leave it at that.  He takes those sins upon Himself for you.  All He asks is that after He does that that you try to do better.  Will we still sin? Of course!  But should we try not to? Yep.  That is the reason for church fellowship.  Not to give money or to be in a "special little club that looks down on others".  It's to walk with other Christians and to study together and lift each other up and encourage each other.

Someone was railing on tithing earlier.  Tithing is not demanded of you.  God wants us to give with a cheerful heart, therefore if it's not in your heart to give, don't.  It also doesn't have to be monetary.  My preacher always says "if you can't give of your money, give of your time."  God doesn't NEED our money, we are simply giving Him back a portion of what He blessed us with so He can use it through the churches to bless others.  My husband and I rarely ever make the 10% guideline, but we do as much as we can with our time working with the youth and going out in the community and helping to meet the needs of those less fortunate.  

I would say to someone who was considering Christianity: forget everything you have ever heard about the church and Christ, all the assumptions, and just listen.  Be still and listen.  If you are earnestly seeking, God will speak to you.  Read the Bible, study it, find someone who is well grounded in their faith and ask questions.  Pray for God to reveal Himself to you.  Remember, He's been there all along, patiently waiting on you.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> That's a slippery slope.  To make the inference that an Atheist does not have knowledge is not sound.  Many of them know scripture and other religious writings better than those who TEACH and MINISTER to active congregations.
> 
> Atheists want to tell people they can live their lives without the fear and opression of a religious belief system.  And they do not want one belief system to become the controlling factor in everyday life, government rule or any forced compliance.  They want total freedom for anyone to believe whatever they wish without the overbearing exclusivity found within certain systems.



What arrogance here!!! 

You want neutrality but you can't have it. You want to live according to the principles of freedom but who is going to define those principles? You have no problem shoving your doctrine and religion down the throats of Christians. Admit this please, you want freedom as you define it, plain and simple. 

You don't think you are not controlled by your atheism??? Wake up. Please this absurd here. There is no neutrality in this universe. Nothing is going to change this fact. Everything has consequences, every thought, word or action bears fruit. But why is this true? I can't wait to read your answer.


----------



## boxofrox (Feb 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> That's a slippery slope.  To make the inference that an Atheist does not have knowledge is not sound.  Many of them know scripture and other religious writings better than those who TEACH and MINISTER to active congregations.
> 
> Atheists want to tell people they can live their lives without the fear and opression of a religious belief system.  And they do not want one belief system to become the controlling factor in everyday life, government rule or any forced compliance.  They want total freedom for anyone to believe whatever they wish without the overbearing exclusivity found within certain systems.




So if I understand this correctly: Atheists want people to live without religion?  I mean ideally?


----------



## RThomas (Feb 19, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> It's convenient (but true) for the atheist that the burden of proof in every single thread and discussion in here is on the Christian (assuming we're talking about Christian discussion...I know this is a "religious" forum).
> 
> All the atheist has to say in response to anything is "I don't buy it" or "prove it" and they've done their job.  It just something that I've been thinking about.  You guys don't really have to support anything.  I agree, the burden of proof is on us.  The thing that makes folks want to give up, I think, is that we're in a vicious cycle.
> 
> ...



I agree with a lot of what you say.  But it isn't just in religion that the burden of proof falls on the believer, it applies to anyone who makes an assertion.  It doesn't fall on anyone else to disprove that assertion.

I don't think it is necessarily true that atheists haven't experienced the same things as Christians (or other faiths).  I think if you read atheist testimonies, that many of them were devout Christians.

I believe that god(s) is unprovable. However, I accept that many believe based on faith.  

And yes, the conversation has veered away from the original question. But, isn't that kinda the norm here?


----------



## gtparts (Feb 19, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> It's convenient (but true) for the atheist that the burden of proof in every single thread and discussion in here is on the Christian (assuming we're talking about Christian discussion...I know this is a "religious" forum).
> 
> All the atheist has to say in response to anything is "I don't buy it" or "prove it" and they've done their job.  It just something that I've been thinking about.  You guys don't really have to support anything.  I agree, the burden of proof is on us.  The thing that makes folks want to give up, I think, is that we're in a vicious cycle.
> 
> ...



The original premise is flawed in that the soon-to-be former atheists is at the point of repudiating atheism before he has a position on which to stand. Atheists do not abandon that position before they have been drawn to a particular theist position. Deism / theism are very generic concepts which include poly- and mono- and all degrees of involvement of the subject god(s) with humanity. 

What is described in the original post is what the auto trade refers to as tire-kickers, one who has never ridden in, driven, or owned a car. Ha! Let me show you my collection of horse feathers.

 Imagine a vegan who has sworn against ever eating meat going into a restaurant and saying, " Just bring me some kind of animal flesh and some silverware."

The proposition is just silly, imo.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 19, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Hey, we have something in common I too hate santa cluse and the easter bunny. SO!
> 
> Thanks for the tip but I don't need it. You rail against something you don't think exists??? That might be insane.
> I don't believe in santa clause nor do I crusade against it. The fact he doesn't exist is self evident and everything that is false is self defeating.
> ...



Pnome do you mind if I borrow something from you? No? Ok thanks.


----------



## RThomas (Feb 19, 2009)

boxofrox said:


> So if I understand this correctly: Atheists want people to live without religion?  I mean ideally?



box, you didn't ask me, but I'll give you my answer: 
No.  Well, generally most atheists don't care what another believes. Though, they certainly may care how those beliefs affect them.   I _think_ this is what WT was implying.
Now, of course, there are some who are anti-theist. However, that is not synonymous with atheist.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> That's a slippery slope.  To make the inference that an Atheist does not have knowledge is not sound.  Many of them know scripture and other religious writings better than those who TEACH and MINISTER to active congregations.
> 
> Atheists want to tell people they can live their lives without the fear and opression of a religious belief system.  And they do not want one belief system to become the controlling factor in everyday life, government rule or any forced compliance.  They want total freedom for anyone to believe whatever they wish without the overbearing exclusivity found within certain systems.



Scripture and other religious writings are not faith. True faith in Jesus is liberating; there is freedom the atheists will never comprehend.

Yeah, I understand what they want. They want to be the gods of their own lives. And that is an option. God-for-finite period of time OR worshiper of the living God for eternity. They would stand a better chance flipping a coin.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> What arrogance here!!!
> 
> You want neutrality but you can't have it. You want to live according to the principles of freedom but who is going to define those principles? You have no problem shoving your doctrine and religion down the throats of Christians. Admit this please, you want freedom as you define it, plain and simple.
> 
> You don't think you are not controlled by your atheism??? Wake up. Please this absurd here. There is no neutrality in this universe. Nothing is going to change this fact. Everything has consequences, every thought, word or action bears fruit. But why is this true? I can't wait to read your answer.



Hmmmm. Can I offer you a cup of coffee?
In no way have I attempted to insult you.  I am stating what I have found through research.  Nothing is being "shoved" towards anyone.
Yes, freedom gets defined by the particular group that is living in harmony together.  Japan, China, USA, Canada, they all see things differently and act accordingly.

Are you psychic?  Can you determine what I personally believe without even knowing me?  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you do not know I post mostly speaking of my understanding of research and education, not from what I personally believe.  It helps keep the discussion moving and brings valid points to the discussion.

I'll only ask you control emotions so that I do not feel any agression while we discuss.  I constantly strive to do the same.

(Root beer if you don't drink!)


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

RThomas said:


> No.  Well, generally most atheists don't care what another believes. Though, they certainly may care how those beliefs affect them.   I _think_ this is what WT was implying.



Spot on.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Scripture and other religious writings are not faith. True faith in Jesus is liberating; there is freedom the atheists will never comprehend.
> 
> Yeah, I understand what they want. They want to be the gods of their own lives. And that is an option. God-for-finite period of time OR worshiper of the living God for eternity. They would stand a better chance flipping a coin.



That is great!  Each to their own, and happiness is an individual thing.

Each person has their own definitions of happiness, faith and belief.  Kinda like we have to accept the sky is "blue" when we have no idea just what someone else sees.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> That is great!  Each to their own, and happiness is an individual thing.
> 
> Each person has their own definitions of happiness, faith and belief.  Kinda like we have to accept the sky is "blue" when we have no idea just what someone else sees.



Maybe  we are making some progress.

Now, since you have the inside track on the atheist/anti-theist mindset, please answer my earlier post reprinted below.


"One can not begin to discuss true faith from a position of total ignorance. They neither have experienced it nor understand it. So why do they kick against faith, of which they have no comprehension? Is that a rational thing to argue against?"


----------



## pnome (Feb 19, 2009)

gtparts said:


> "One can not begin to discuss true faith from a position of total ignorance.



True faith is a position of willful ignorance.   

True faith is essentially saying: "I don't care what the facts are, I'm going to believe what I believe and ignore (or be willfully ignorant of) any evidence to the contrary. 

Atheists are not ignorant of faith.  We know exactly what it means.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Maybe  we are making some progress.
> 
> Now, since you have the inside track on the atheist/anti-theist mindset, please answer my earlier post reprinted below.
> 
> ...



You might be seeing progress.  I see the same thing as yesterday and the day before.  Open discussion of a clearly individually interpreted subject.
I have always promoted total freedom in religious belief.  And will continue to do so.

To answer your question, which is a little vague, the definition of faith is as individual as the definition of happiness, the definition of love or the description of the color green.
As I have read and understand, faith can be faked, faith can be created, faith can be tested, faith can be rejected but faith can not be defined.  Yes, I know the Bible has a definition for it.  But it is such an abstract concept it has to be individualized, just like the words infinity or eternity. 

Just because two people do not share the same definition of the word "faith" does not mean one is ignorant and the other is enlightened.

I have faith in my chair, as it has proven to me just yesterday it can keep gravity from taking my carcass to the floor!  I can clearly relate to your faith in your chair as well, even if it is not a sturdy chair.
How individuals hold faith in the unknown is totally up to them.  I do not believe in aliens.  You might.  I will not be able to comprehend how you could possibly believe in them.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 19, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Pnome do you mind if I borrow something from you? No? Ok thanks.



Truly funny. 

The very fact you can reason needs explanation. If you can reason that there is no or may not be a God then the search begins with how can I even consider such things. 

Again, I am not expecting you to roll over and agree at all. All I'm am saying is you cannot account for not believing in God. Give an account for life and whatever. Life is more than materialism or collectivism. 

Ultimately reason is your god and your final authority and Christ is mine. Reason is not ultimate for me it's only a tool, a gift given by God to think through His revelation. 

We have to answer the "precondition of intelligibility" question. Your naturalism and my supernaturalism are never ever going to meet. 

So the best we can do is compare worldviews. We can answer the question of "preconditions of intelligibility" why we hold to what we hold to. 

And to the other fellow on here, no root beer only the real thing. Thank you.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 19, 2009)

pnome said:


> True faith is a position of willful ignorance.
> 
> True faith is essentially saying: "I don't care what the facts are, I'm going to believe what I believe and ignore (or be willfully ignorant of) any evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Atheists are not ignorant of faith.  We know exactly what it means.



It doesn't look like it.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 19, 2009)

boxofrox said:
			
		

> So if I understand this correctly: Atheists want people to live without religion? I mean ideally?



Ideally? Sure. I think it would be great to have a world full of non-religious people. Realistically? Obviously I don't think this will occur anytime soon, if ever. Therefore I'm much more hopeful for people moving towards deism. I see this happening in America today, I just don't think people realize that they are shifting towards a more liberal, universalism-type stance. Christians seem to be becoming much more liberal. Look at Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, and all of these mega-churches. Look at the changes internationally. The UK is becoming much more secular, as is Japan.

If religion didn't affect me, then I really wouldn't care if people wanted to believe in their flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn, or Yahweh. I think 9/11 changed all of that. Remember what Sam Harris said about his book: The End of Faith? He said the morning after 9/11 he sat down and started writing the book that he should have wrote a long time ago. I personally think New Atheism owes its very existence to radical Islam and George Bush. 

I'm rambling, sorry. My point is that radical Islam has changed the perception of religion. I think the problem with Christianity and Islam is that individuals are left to interpret scripture for themselves. Moderates keep preaching this, "You have no right to tell the fundamentalists they're wrong! If they think that verse means to kill all gays and abortion clinic doctors, then they have the right to believe that!" Are the moderates correct? In a politically correct sense, I would say yes. In a practical sense, I would say no. I think that's what New Atheism is all about. New Atheism is not politically correct. It's about practical change. It's about finally saying what atheists have thought all along but have usually kept to themselves: "You are wrong, you're making this world worse because of it, and we're here to convince you to drop your ancient beliefs and adopt a purely naturalistic worldview."

Of course, there are plenty of atheists out there that are not part of this New Atheism movement.

Sorry for the long post.


----------



## pnome (Feb 19, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> It doesn't look like it.



Oh?  Why don't you tell me what you think "true faith" means?

To me, it's willful ignorance, but I want your take on it.


----------



## RThomas (Feb 19, 2009)

gtparts said:


> "One can not begin to discuss true faith from a position of total ignorance. They neither have experienced it nor understand it. So why do they kick against faith, of which they have no comprehension? Is that a rational thing to argue against?"



A bit of an assumption, I think.  Besides, who's arguing against faith.  Obviously, a great many people have it.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 19, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> The very fact you can reason needs explanation. If you can reason that there is no or may not be a God then the search begins with how can I even consider such things.



I cannot comprehend that.



> Again, I am not expecting you to roll over and agree at all. All I'm am saying is you cannot account for not believing in God. Give an account for life and whatever. Life is more than materialism or collectivism.



I honestly do not know what  you're saying. "Give an account for life and whatever."......

What is that even supposed to mean?


----------



## gtparts (Feb 19, 2009)

pnome said:


> True faith is a position of willful ignorance.
> 
> True faith is essentially saying: "I don't care what the facts are, I'm going to believe what I believe and ignore (or be willfully ignorant of) any evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Atheists are not ignorant of faith.  We know exactly what it means.



So, what does it mean? According to you, "True faith is a position of willful ignorance." You have stated your proposition clearly.... now, prove it.   


You know nothing of what you speak. An atheist is hardly an authority on spiritual things, things he thinks do not exist. 

Faith is to the spiritual as scientific knowledge is to the physical world.

Where is your spiritual evidence? Well, spit it out, son. Here's you big chance to show everybody what you know of spiritual things and back it up with proof.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 19, 2009)

Both the atheist and christian approach the question "origin of life" from a position of faith. 

Since no one was there we both take what we believe about the origin of life on faith. 

True or false


----------



## RThomas (Feb 19, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Both the atheist and christian approach the question "origin of life" from a position of faith.
> 
> Since no one was there we both take what we believe about the origin of life on faith.
> 
> True or false



Now you're getting WAY off topic. Maybe a new thread is in order? I'd rather not get into a discussion about abiogenesis here.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 19, 2009)

RThomas said:


> Now you're getting WAY off topic. Maybe a new thread is in order? I'd rather not get into a discussion about abiogenesis here.



That's fine. My point is not to discuss the origin of life per se only that we both begin with faith. So is that off topic?


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> And to the other fellow on here, no root beer only the real thing. Thank you.




I'd buy you one any day!


----------



## pnome (Feb 19, 2009)

gtparts said:


> So, what does it mean? According to you, "True faith is a position of willful ignorance." You have stated your proposition clearly.... now, prove it.
> 
> 
> You know nothing of what you speak. An atheist is hardly an authority on spiritual things, things he thinks do not exist.
> ...



First, I would argue that there is nothing to "know" about spiritual things.  Things lacking any observable evidence are not "known" they are "believed"  There is no proof of the spiritual, so I cannot provide you with any.

On to "true faith" as willful ignorance....

Do you believe in the bible?  Every word of it?  What do you do when you come across some evidence that would seem to contradict it?  Do you adjust your hypothesis to account for the new evidence?  Or do you just ignore it?  

Is the bible, in any way, falsifiable to you?

If not, then your true faith is simply willful ignorance of contradictory evidence.


----------



## pnome (Feb 19, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Both the atheist and christian approach the question "origin of life" from a position of faith.
> 
> Since no one was there we both take what we believe about the origin of life on faith.
> 
> True or false



False.  I take a position of "I don't know"  Which is a long way from "faith".


----------



## footjunior (Feb 19, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Both the atheist and christian approach the question "origin of life" from a position of faith.
> 
> Since no one was there we both take what we believe about the origin of life on faith.
> 
> True or false



False. Just because no one was there doesn't mean we don't have evidence for it. (How was that triple negative?)

Have you ever been to Australia? How do you know it exists? Did anyone actually see the asteroid as it hit the Yucatan Peninsula 65 million years ago? No. Does that mean that an asteroid did not hit the Yucatan Peninsula 65 million years ago? No. There is a huge crater that gives evidence.

Abiogenesis has theories which can describe it. These theories are falsifiable. Theists have theories about the origin of life, these theories are not falsifiable, at least to the believer. That is the difference. I think this is going to come down to another discussion of semantics when using the word, "Faith".


----------



## pnome (Feb 19, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I think this is going to come down to another discussion of semantics when using the word, "Faith".



Too late!


----------



## RThomas (Feb 19, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> That's fine. My point is not to discuss the origin of life per se only that we both begin with faith. So is that off topic?



Fine, I'll bite.  False.

I don't think most atheists would claim to *know* the origins of life.  There could be any number of theories, or one could just as well say, "I don't know".  We accept something as probable or not based on the evidence. I have no sure idea how life began.  Not knowing is not a position of faith. But, it also doesn't mean "god did it".

The christian on the other hand takes a stance of absolute knowledge- regardless of the evidence, or lack thereof.


----------



## RThomas (Feb 19, 2009)

pnome said:


> False.  I take a position of "I don't know"  Which is a long way from "faith".



Looks like pnome answered while I was still typing my reply.  And we agree.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 19, 2009)

rthomas said:


> i don't think most atheists would claim to *know* the origins of life.  There could be any number of theories, or one could just as well say, "i don't know".  We accept something as probable or not based on the evidence. I have no sure idea how life began.  Not knowing is not a position of faith. But, it also doesn't mean "god did it".
> 
> The christian on the other hand takes a stance of absolute knowledge- regardless of the evidence, or lack thereof.



qft


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 19, 2009)

Thanks for the spirited and civil discussion.   But back to the question at hand (that Reformed Pastor  has been the only one to remotely address):  "Why not Ganesh, Osiris, The tree in my back yard?......."


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Thanks for the spirited and civil discussion.   But back to the question at hand (that Reformed Pastor  has been the only one to remotely address):  "Why not Ganesh, Osiris, The tree in my back yard?......."




Because humans over time find the holes in the particular system of the day.  Belief in Ra, the sun god, would be somewhat easier to convince others to believe because it can be seen and physically felt.  That which has to be believed by faith is much more difficult.  Why do we not worship the sun?
I know.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 19, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Ok, here is where I am coming from. I presuppose God. I do this because the bible never assumes the position of proving God. It opens with "God is." I interpret life as defined from the bible.



What if you presuppose: " its Ganesh"?  Where does that line of reasoning lead you?


----------



## pnome (Feb 19, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Thanks for the spirited and civil discussion.   But back to the question at hand (that Reformed Pastor  has been the only one to remotely address):  "Why not Ganesh, Osiris, The tree in my back yard?......."



Umm... http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=3215200&postcount=19

Or does my answer not count?


----------



## RThomas (Feb 19, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Thanks for the spirited and civil discussion.   But back to the question at hand (that Reformed Pastor  has been the only one to remotely address):  "Why not Ganesh, Osiris, The tree in my back yard?......."



Hey, I answered, like, six pages ago


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 19, 2009)

pnome said:


> Umm... http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=3215200&postcount=19
> 
> Or does my answer not count?



very practical...I was hoping for something......more theological


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 19, 2009)

RThomas said:


> Hey, I answered, like, six pages ago



yes, I remember, thank you.  I am digging up statistics to counter (for the sake of argument, of course).  For example I've found the Netherlands, mostly agnostic or atheist to be enjoying quite a happy lifestyle.... I'm still digging.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> I'd buy you one any day!



I look forward to it.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 19, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> What if you presuppose: " its Ganesh"?  Where does that line of reasoning lead you?



Ok, great question. It should lead us to examine each others worldview, expression of culture, economics, jurisprudence ....etc.. 

We have to account for our beliefs, this is called the "precondition of intelligibility." 

This is why culture is a critical part of this discussion. Ever society religious or non expresses some view of life, faith, family ......etc. That why culture is the outward expression of ones faith or religion or lack thereof. 

Does this help?


----------



## boxofrox (Feb 19, 2009)

Argh I'm back, trying to find my place! LOL (had to take the pup to the vets for his first shots)

Anyways, I have a question, and it may be off topic, but I don't want to lose the folks in this discussion by starting a new topic 

As an atheist, are you 100% sure that there is no God?  Sure enough that you are willing to convince others of it?  I'm not saying belief yourself, and this kind of ties into my question about ideally what it is that atheists want, but would you want to convince me to NOT believe in God if I was on the verge of making a decision?  

My reason for asking is this: If I was to witness to you and through that you became a Christian (with the work of the Holy Spirit of course) and say I was wrong, then you would just be dead. So really no consequence.  But if you were to convince me to not accept Christ if I was about to, and then find out that you were wrong, well, I don't know about you but I'd feel really crappy if it ended up I convinced people the wrong way and they went to h.e.l.l. for it.  

Just something I've been pondering.  

Also, whoever mentioned Joel Osteen and the like, YUCK!  That's the sorriest excuse for a money making scheme I have ever seen!  

Jesus never promised us we'd be rich, or that we'd have a life full of blessing on Earth. As a matter of fact, quite the opposite.  That's why it's so important for people to study the Bible in it's entirety, so when someone tries to rise up as a "leader" and pick and choose verses to support their message you can say "wait, that's not the context that verse was used in!" 

I've always looked at messages, sermons, etc this way:  If the sermon uses a few verses and a lot of their expounding upon, you need to pay careful attention to what they are really saying.  If they have a lot of contextual verses and use a few scenarios to help the listener have a better understanding, well I think that's more appropriate.  After all, they can't teach anything that Christ didn't teach first. 

Has anyone seen the "allow me to reintroduce the Christ" video?  She makes some very good points.  No wonder so few people today are attracted to Christ, He's been made into something that He's not, put in a neat little box and packaged for use.  It's really quite disgusting.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 19, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> This is why culture is a critical part of this discussion. Ever society religious or non expresses some view of life, faith, family ......etc. That why culture is the outward expression of ones faith or religion or lack thereof.
> 
> Does this help?



Culture is much more than an outward expression of one's faith. Another element of culture could be traditions handed down from ancestors that could have nothing to do with religion whatsoever.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Culture is much more than an outward expression of one's faith. Another element of culture could be traditions handed down from ancestors that could have nothing to do with religion whatsoever.



Or, it can be solely based on complete indoctrination of a religious belief system or meme.

It would really suck to be born a blonde haired, blue eyed female into a culture that openly sacrifices blonde haired blue eyed females!


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 19, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Culture is much more than an outward expression of one's faith. Another element of culture could be traditions handed down from ancestors that could have nothing to do with religion whatsoever.



I never said it is only that but that it is that. It can encompass much more and does. Do you disagree with it being an expression of faith? 


An example that expresses my frustration over the movement of this nation. I was watching MSNBC's special report about sex slaves in america. It was sickening. Young girls being taken right off the streets in their on neighborhoods and prostituted out for money. 

They said its a billion dollar business and there aren't enough officers to track it all. They did catch one guy and he got a whole 8 years for drugging and prostituting three girls 15 and under. 

What standard of justice is fair for this guy?


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

Hard to get 8 years for an eye-witness cold blooded murderer.
I do know how you feel.
At least we are a culture that does not see that type of activity as being OK.  There are some cultures that do.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 19, 2009)

boxofrox said:


> As an atheist, are you 100% sure that there is no God?



No. There very well could be a God. Or gods. Or a Goddess. Or goddesses.



> Sure enough that you are willing to convince others of it?



Yes.



> I'm not saying belief yourself, and this kind of ties into my question about ideally what it is that atheists want, but would you want to convince me to NOT believe in God if I was on the verge of making a decision?



Yes. I would definitely want to convince you that there probably is no God.



> My reason for asking is this: If I was to witness to you and through that you became a Christian (with the work of the Holy Spirit of course) and say I was wrong, then you would just be dead. So really no consequence.  But if you were to convince me to not accept Christ if I was about to, and then find out that you were wrong, well, I don't know about you but I'd feel really crappy if it ended up I convinced people the wrong way and they went to h.e.l.l. for it.



This is a variation of Pascal's Wager.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager

You are correct. If atheists are wrong, then they go to He11. If theists are wrong, they just rot and don't go anywhere after death.

The problem for theists trying to use this to convert atheists/agnostics is that the atheist must actually be convinced that a specific God exists, right? As an atheist, I can sit here and say, "Well obviously I need to be a believer since if I'm wrong, I'm going to go to He11," but I still have to be convinced. If I say I believe in a God without actually really being convinced that he exists, then I am a hypocrite: I'm simply saying I believe so that I can not go to He11 if I'm wrong. Most religions teach that God is omniscient, therefore he can see right through my wishful thinking and know that I don't really believe he exists.

Another problem is that which God do you believe? You have to actually be convinced of a specific God. Going from atheism to pure deism isn't accomplishing much as far as Pascal's Wager is concerned, seeing that a purely supernatural creator (with no other attributes) does not have a Heaven or He11 for punishment, and therefore makes Pascal's Wager empty. As far as game theory (which is really all Pascal's Wager is) is concerned, the believer would want to pick the religion that has the worst possible outcome for not believing and the best possible outcome for believing. I haven't really analyzed all of the major religions to find which would be the best one to believe in if only considering what happens after death.

Another problem is that, instead of a God rewarding those with faith, what if the true God(s) rewards those who have used reason to conclude that there is no God. If that is the case, then all those with faith would be punished, while those skeptics would be rewarded.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 19, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> I never said it is only that but that it is that. It can encompass much more and does. Do you disagree with it being an expression of faith?



Well... you said,



			
				reformedpastor said:
			
		

> That why culture is the outward expression of ones faith or religion or lack thereof.



Obviously, looking back in history, religion has played a critical role in defining cultures. My point is that even the cultures where religion played a dominant role had parts of their culture that had nothing to do with religion.



> An example that expresses my frustration over the movement of this nation. I was watching MSNBC's special report about sex slaves in america. It was sickening. Young girls being taken right off the streets in their on neighborhoods and prostituted out for money.
> 
> They said its a billion dollar business and there aren't enough officers to track it all. They did catch one guy and he got a whole 8 years for drugging and prostituting three girls 15 and under.
> 
> What standard of justice is fair for this guy?



Ya it's terrible. The punishment is just a matter of opinion. Death? Life in jail? Community service? Castration, torture, burning his entrails in the city square followed up by being drawn and quartered? Which one is right?

Using your religion as an absolute, what do you consider proper punishment for this guy?


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 19, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Well... you said,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have to understand, from my perspective all we do expresses a position, tradition, faith, allegiance, fear...etc. 

Remember as a creationist life began with God. But man decided to choose for himself right and wrong instead of God choosing for him. 

So since I believe life began this way its not hard for me to hold to all of life expresses faith or not. Also not all faith is a saving faith. So when I use that term it can be comprehensive. 

I asked those reading what they think ought to done and why. I thought this would be a good place to discuss how our beliefs affect how we live and how it affects our society.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 19, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> By the way D.D. I'm not surprised at your opinion. In fact, I expected as much. Your last statement clearly exposes your bias against truth and your hatred towards God, and our humbleness certainly amuses me. I have serious doubts about that, IMHO. All one has to do is read some of your posts and then they would plainly see how you love to toss your opinions around with no accountability. Even your comment listing your location oozes your arrogance. You mock something that will be a day of terror for you and others like you.




Well for starters, I don't hate God.  In fact I believe in God, just not the same way that you do.

As far as my comment listing my location, why shouldn't I put that there? I get told it at least a dozen times a week on here... 

And I don't think I know what you mean about tossing comments around with no accountability.  My comments are my opinions, who am I accountable to for them?

And thanks for reinforcing my understanding, since you couldn't refute anything I posted about the treatment of women, etc. you instead turned to attacking me personally.  Seems par for the course with some of you Christians.



reformedpastor said:


> Seriously, aren't you guilty of lumping all christians together? AS a pastor I have major problems with many of their arguments on here but I also believe they are well meaning and are doing their best.



Apparently you lump all non-believers together, so the concept shouldn't be foreign to you.



gtparts said:


> Scripture and other religious writings are not faith. True faith in Jesus is liberating; there is freedom the atheists will never comprehend.




I never felt as free and liberated as the day I let go of my burden of 'faith' in Christianity.  That's a fact.


----------



## boxofrox (Feb 19, 2009)

footjunior said:


> No. There very well could be a God. Or gods. Or a Goddess. Or goddesses.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





I understand about Pascal's wager, which is why I wasn't asking about convincing you, but about you convincing someone ELSE there is no God.  Are you sure enough that you would risk SOMEONE ELSES eternity on it?


----------



## footjunior (Feb 19, 2009)

boxofrox said:


> I understand about Pascal's wager, which is why I wasn't asking about convincing you, but about you convincing someone ELSE there is no God.  Are you sure enough that you would risk SOMEONE ELSES eternity on it?



Yes. Since I don't believe in an afterlife, eternal or otherwise, there would be no reason for me to worry about someone's (non)experience after his or her death.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 19, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Yes. Since I don't believe in an afterlife, eternal or otherwise, there would be no reason for me to worry about someone's (non)experience after his or her death.



Pretty selfish and revealing out look.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Pretty selfish and revealing out look.



How is it selfish?

Think about it. If I wasn't confident enough to convince someone to be an atheist because I believed his eternal soul would be endangered by me doing so, would I be an atheist? Obviously not.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 19, 2009)

It's all based on you.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> It's all based on you.



How so? Where is the substance of your argument?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 19, 2009)

footjunior said:


> How so? Where is the substance of your argument?



You don't believe so you don't care if your ideas affect others. Selfish and self centered. The argument FJ is self apparent if you could pull your head up and look at it.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> You don't believe so you don't care if your ideas affect others.





My point is that I don't believe my ideas will affect their eternal destiny. Do you understand what I'm saying? If I believed my ideas would send people to He11, would I be an atheist? No.

What would I have to believe in to believe that my ideas would send people to He11? I would have to believe in He11. Now if I believed in He11, would I be an atheist? No. See it wasn't that hard.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 19, 2009)

footjunior said:


> My point is that I don't believe my ideas will affect their eternal destiny. Do you understand what I'm saying? If I believed my ideas would send people to He11, would I be an atheist? No.



Like I said you are self absorbed. Only your world makes sense and can accept no others.

I understand EXACTLY what you are saying. Just embrace your self centeredness and move on. But don't expect it to not be called out when you say stuff like that.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Just embrace your self centeredness and move on. But don't expect it to not be called out when you say stuff like that.



Get your head out of the sand. Your obvious ego problem is self-apparent.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 19, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Get your head out of the sand. Your obvious ego problem is self-apparent.



Well good to see you can't discuss anything.

Your ideas are so pure and altruistic I guess I should have known better than to EVER question YOU. 

My ego has nothing to do with your arrogant and self righteous outlook. You must be right. 

What harm does it do for someone to go thru life believing there is a God who loves and cares for them? If they are wrong what harm has it done? And no that is not pascals wager. Not everything in life lines up with that no matter how many times YOU swear it does.

Not everyone can look at a world like ours and turn a blind eye to Creation as you have done.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 19, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Get your head out of the sand. Your obvious ego problem is self-apparent.



I don't think its an "ego" problem, per say.  Its more of a self righteousness issue, and believe me when I say that I mean "self righteousness" in the most objective and non offensive way:  

((from webster):  convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others : narrow-mindedly moralistic).

Its just that the thing you believe in compels you to be self righteous.  You MUST know that you are right or else your belief system falls apart.  I guess it goes the same for true, hard line Atheists as well.   

It may be an "ego" issue, in the clinical sense. I don't know.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Well good to see you can't discuss anything.



You're the one posting articles with no commentary from yourself. Do you ever have an original thought? You worship Hugh Ross.



> Your ideas are so pure and altruistic I guess I should have known better than to EVER question YOU.
> 
> My ego has nothing to do with your arrogant and self righteous outlook. You must be right.



You are arrogant and self-righteous. You must be right. No one could ever convince you of anything.



> What harm does it do for someone to go thru life believing there is a God who loves and cares for them? If they are wrong what harm has it done? And no that is not pascals wager. Not everything in life lines up with that no matter how many times YOU swear it does.



Where did I ever say it does? Quote me... oh that's right... you are incapable of doing so. 



> Not everyone can look at a world like ours and turn a blind eye to Creation as you have done.



Not everyone can look at a world like ours and turn a blind eye to evolution, both macro and micro, as you have done.

You are arrogant. You assume too much. You accuse people of saying something, and then are unable to back it up with quotes.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

Come on, you both are much more knowledgeable and educated than to sink to a level of personal innuendo and insult.
I'm not a mod, but try to keep the points under control with reasoning, evidence, backing documentation and free from personal attack.

Let's act like Mom is watching us play in the sandbox!  No need for any "time-outs!"


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> What harm does it do for someone to go thru life believing there is a God who loves and cares for them? If they are wrong what harm has it done?




None.
It's only when someone wants their beliefs to affect the lives of others that it begins to be a problem.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 19, 2009)

footjunior said:


> You're the one posting articles with no commentary from yourself. Do you ever have an original thought? You worship Hugh Ross.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Foot your posts do the quoting for me. If you would have no problem taking on the responsibility of turning someone away from eternal life. It says itself. 

I post PLENTY of original stuff. I tend to post stuff like articles with no commentary because I (unlike you) want to know what others think. I do not worship Hugh Ross. However I would like to see your alter to Darwin one day and the little bust of Dawkins. And the silver spoon that your professors use to feed you all this with. Must all be quite nice.

You have provided no argument for ANYTHING. Just theories. Why should I change my mind. The ramblings of a college student regurgitating his classes have no bearing to anything I believe. Nor have proven thru life experience.

And I back up what I need to. You do the rest though. And arguing with you is getting really old because you are always the first to scream that someone knows what you are thinking. Of course we do. Most of us have read Darwin and Dawkins. We know what you think.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 19, 2009)

Now I am going back to not bothering with you. It's pointless. You are not really interested in this. You just want to preach.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Well good to see you can't discuss anything.
> 
> Your ideas are so pure and altruistic I guess I should have known better than to EVER question YOU.
> 
> ...



See our fallen comrade Bigtenpoint for that answer.   

Honestly,  most intelligent Christians I know make fine neighbors and citizens, I still have a problem with them voting on certain things based on their religion as opposed to reason, but those issues are few and far between.   As a matter of fact, I tend to think that they might have been fine people without religion, anyway.

The ones I worry about, that do the real damage are the ones that replace reason and critical thinking with dogma.  Very, very, very dangerous.

I asked an atheist once if they thought that for some people, say, someone less inclined to critical thinking or for someone with an addiction, if they were able to become better citizens by adopting a religion would religion in that case be positive.  This was their response:

" Not really. Religion causes more moral problems than it solves. Faith didn't stop Catholic preachers from molesting alter boys. Faith did not keep Ted Haggard away from drugs and prostitutes.

It is possible to teach good morals and ethics without the need to rely on anything supernatural.

here is a good read on the subject: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/cohen02.htm"

I'm not sure about the part where he said "it causes more problems than it solves."  I say, if going Christian can stop some people from hitting their kids or drinkin' and druggin' and the worst thing that they do is put a nativity on the City Hall lawn, then it was a good trade off.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Now I am going back to not bothering with you. It's pointless. You are not really interested in this. You just want to preach.




Common ground is not the goal.  Just an open discussion of beliefs and thoughts.  We can not control how others will act and react, but every contribution to a discussion is valuable.  Especially from someone as well read and steadfast in their beliefs as you are, Celt.

Funny, it is most often the religious belief system supporter that gets defnesive/emotional.  Rarely do you see an Atheist get worked up.  Anything on your mind today, footjunior?  I'm willing to listen!


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Not everyone can look at a world like ours and turn a blind eye to Creation as you have done.



I marvel at nature all the time, but saying that Jesus made it is a non-necessity.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> It's only when someone wants their beliefs to affect the lives of others that it begins to be a problem.



Well said, Dixie!


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Common ground is not the goal.  Just an open discussion of beliefs and thoughts.  We can not control how others will act and react, but every contribution to a discussion is valuable.  Especially from someone as well read and steadfast in their beliefs as you are, Celt.
> 
> Funny, it is most often the religious belief system supporter that gets defnesive/emotional.  Rarely do you see an Atheist get worked up.  Anything on your mind today, footjunior?  I'm willing to listen!



Thank you.

You are welcome down here in our fish camp anytime you want to make it!!! 

BTW- It's still unfrozen water down here...


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> If you would have no problem taking on the responsibility of turning someone away from eternal life. It says itself.



Wouldn't you feel bad if you got to the pearly gates and Ganesh answered the door and told you and all the people that you converted to enjoy your next go around as a cow?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 19, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> I marvel at nature all the time, but saying that Jesus made it is a non-necessity.



You are right. But you seem open to admitting you haven't figured it all out yet. Just like me. I don't understand it. we just have two different views on how it got started. Not that it's not beautiful.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 19, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Wouldn't you feel bad if you got to the pearly gates and Ganesh answered the door and told you and all the people that you converted to enjoy your next go around as a cow?



Yep. But not as bad as if I said there was NO God. At least I was only partly wrong...


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> BTW- It's still unfrozen water down here...



Keep on rubbin' it in!  I'll send you a block of ice to sit on!


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 19, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> None.
> It's only when someone wants their beliefs to affect the lives of others that it begins to be a problem.



To late for that.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Keep on rubbin' it in!  I'll send you a block of ice to sit on!



Would have felt good after running rabbits in 65 degree weather last saturday!!!


----------



## footjunior (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Foot your posts do the quoting for me. If you would have no problem taking on the responsibility of turning someone away from eternal life. It says itself.



Yet again unable to quote. "It says itself"? 



> I post PLENTY of original stuff. I tend to post stuff like articles with no commentary because I (unlike you) want to know what others think. I do not worship Hugh Ross. However I would like to see your alter to Darwin one day and the little bust of Dawkins. And the silver spoon that your professors use to feed you all this with. Must all be quite nice.



I would love to see your alter set up for Hugh Ross (who supposedly has creationist articles in peer-reviewed journals, yet you unsurprisingly cannot provides links to any  ). I'd like to see that little bust of yourself. I'd like to see those silver spoons that those few old-earth creationists used to feed you all this with. Must all be quite nice.



> You have provided no argument for ANYTHING. Just theories.



This shows more than anything a lack of understanding when it comes to science. As if we needed anything else from you to show this.



> Why should I change my mind.



Please don't. You'd be an embarrassment to whatever you changed your mind to. I like you as a creationist.



> The ramblings of a college student regurgitating his classes have no bearing to anything I believe. Nor have proven thru life experience.



I think you have Alzheimers. I would reiterate the fact that almost none of the content we discuss on these boards has ever been talked about by my professors, but it would do no good. You would bring it up again on the next post, so sure that those darned professors be done messed with ol' FJ's mind. Such indoctrination! The tragedy! 



> We know what you think.



That's hilarious. Weren't you claiming that I was arrogant?



> Now I am going back to not bothering with you. It's pointless. You are not really interested in this. You just want to preach.



K


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Would have felt good after running rabbits in 65 degree weather last saturday!!!



That was LOW.  I have not chased beagles since 1996 in Walton County.  Suddenly, I don't feel so good.......

Yep, it snowed again last night.  3" on my mountain.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Funny, it is most often the religious belief system supporter that gets defnesive/emotional.  Rarely do you see an Atheist get worked up.  Anything on your mind today, footjunior?  I'm willing to listen!



I'm not being defensive nor emotional. If the tone of my words could be heard across the internet, you would understand. I've thoroughly enjoyed this discussion with Celt.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

footjunior,

Do you believe it is possible for an Atheist to change their thoughts and beliefs and believe in a deity?

And if it is the Christian God Yahweh they are looking to begin a belief in, care to discuss the "big lie" Athiests see found in Genesis regarding taking of the fruit of good and evil?  What would a reforming Atheist do to offset that?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> You are right. _But you seem open to admitting you haven't figured it all out yet._ Just like me. I don't understand it. we just have two different views on how it got started. Not that it's not beautiful.



You can probably tell that its the ones that have it "figured out" that worry me.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> That was LOW.  I have not chased beagles since 1996 in Walton County.  Suddenly, I don't feel so good.......
> 
> Yep, it snowed again last night.  3" on my mountain.



we run them almost every weekend.






6 rabbits last sunday including 1 huge buck rabbit.




9 that day.





4 that day. Including 2 big buck rabbits.

We have had a good year. And that's just the days we remember to take pics.

I'm the bearded guy...The 6' tall bearded guy that is...


----------



## footjunior (Feb 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> footjunior,
> 
> Do you believe it is possible for an Atheist to change their thoughts and beliefs and believe in a deity?



Yes of course. People claim to do it all the time.



> And if it is the Christian God Yahweh they are looking to begin a belief in, care to discuss the "big lie" atheists see found in Genesis regarding taking of the fruit of good and evil?  What would a reforming Atheist do to offset that?



Big lie? You mean the Bible? What about it?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 19, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> You can probably tell that its the ones that have it "figured out" that worry me.





There's plenty I ain't got figured out yet... That's why I still work for a living. I'm waiting on the day I can pick the right loto numbers...


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> footjunior,
> 
> Do you believe it is possible for an Atheist to change their thoughts and beliefs and believe in a deity?
> 
> And if it is the Christian God Yahweh they are looking to begin a belief in, care to discuss the "big lie" Athiests see found in Genesis regarding taking of the fruit of good and evil?  What would a reforming Atheist do to offset that?



Sorry for butting in....but, at this point, I can't imagine how an atheist could ever reconcile any of the fanciful parts of any religious text with their intellect, unless they do like I've seen many progressive Christians do, and interpret all that "magical" stuff as metaphor.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> To late for that.



 I know, that's why atheists and non-believers are so 'snippy' with religious folk


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> we run them almost every weekend.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



HOOOOOOOOOOO WEEEEE!!!! that looks like fun!!!!


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Big lie? You mean the Bible? What about it?



No.  The fact that God told Adam and Eve if they ate of the fruit of the tree, they would "surely die."  Not true.  That's not what happened.  What happened was what Satan told Eve would happen, they would become "enlightened."
Satan was honest.  God was not, or changed His mind.

Do reforming Atheists trip over this on their way to believing in God?


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Sorry for butting in....but, at this point, I can't imagine how an atheist could ever reconcile any of the fanciful parts of any religious text with their intellect, unless they do like I've seen many progressive Christians do, and interpret all that "magical" stuff as metaphor.



Spot on with my thesis!


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 19, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I know, that's why atheists and non-believers are so 'snippy' with religious folk



Well we will let you thank us for the MagnaCarta and Constitution later then...


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> No.  The fact that God told Adam and Eve if they ate of the fruit of the tree, they would "surely die."  Not true.  That's not what happened.  What happened was what Satan told Eve would happen, they would become "enlightened."
> Satan was honest.  God was not, or changed His mind.
> 
> Do reforming Atheists trip over this on their way to believing in God?



I've heard it explained to me that before they ate it, they were immortal.  But that was someones interpretation I guess.   I have my own interpretation, but it wouldn't be correct because you have to be given the gift of discernment in order to make interpretations.  Go figure.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> No.  The fact that God told Adam and Eve if they ate of the fruit of the tree, they would "surely die."  Not true.  That's not what happened.  What happened was what Satan told Eve would happen, they would become "enlightened."
> Satan was honest.  God was not, or changed His mind.
> 
> Do reforming Atheists trip over this on their way to believing in God?



God doesn't say literally like he poisoned the watermelon or something. If I am not mistaken the hebrew original is more along the lines of perish or a slow death. Which is what happened. Sin is the root of our pain and suffering and all death in our world. Disease and everything was unleashed by that act of disobedience.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

Hey Celt, that young man looks serious about his huntin!
Good on you for getting out there with him and teaching the enjoyment of nature!
And on a Sunday, no less!  You can't be Baptist!  

I bet that little fella would just LOVE to put a sneak on a moose!


----------



## footjunior (Feb 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> No.  The fact that God told Adam and Eve if they ate of the fruit of the tree, they would "surely die."  Not true.  That's not what happened.  What happened was what Satan told Eve would happen, they would become "enlightened."
> Satan was honest.  God was not, or changed His mind.
> 
> Do reforming Atheists trip over this on their way to believing in God?



I would imagine that it would for only a few. I think that could be easily summed up as a metaphor for the original sin. By "surely die," God could have been talking about humanity and its downfall (due to sin) if they ate the fruit. God was honest in both cases: If you interpret it literally, it is true. Adam and Eve both died eventually. Metaphorically it is also true: Humanity became corrupted by sin and "died" spiritually.

Obviously I'm playing the role of an atheist on the verge of believing. Personally I think it's nonsense. The creation myths of Judaism are just as ridiculous as most of the others.

I think a better example would be how God created humans knowing the outcome, yet in the story of Noah's flood he clearly regrets making humans. Can an omnipotent and omniscient God regret something? This has been argued on another thread.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Hey Celt, that young man looks serious about his huntin!
> Good on you for getting out there with him and teaching the enjoyment of nature!
> And on a Sunday, no less!  You can't be Baptist!
> 
> I bet that little fella would just LOVE to put a sneak on a moose!



I mistyped... Backwater (the older man in the photos) would shoot me if I told anyone he hunted on a sunday... He is Baptist...) It was Saturday. I hunt on Sunday's if it's the only day I can get away to do it. Fish too. And you might find a bottle of something in my tackle bag to ward off snake bite... So nope... Not baptist... I'm a mutt stuck inbetween a PCA and Methodist Church right now. Not many choices where I live.

Yeah Shoalieboy can lay the smack down on dem rabbits!!! He shot one last week running with that little 410. And busted him in the HEAD!!!


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> I mistyped... Backwater (the older man in the photos) would shoot me if I told anyone he hunted on a sunday... He is Baptist...) It was Saturday. I hunt on Sunday's if it's the only day I can get away to do it. Fish too. And you might find a bottle of something in my tackle bag to ward off snake bite... So nope... Not baptist... I'm a mutt stuck inbetween a PCA and Methodist Church right now. Not many choices where I live.
> 
> Yeah Shoalieboy can lay the smack down on dem rabbits!!! He shot one last week running with that little 410. And busted him in the HEAD!!!



Nice!  My fondest memories are hunting with my grandpa and his old Western Auto .410 bolt.  I have it now.

I was just funnin about the Sunday thing.  Shhhh.  I won't tell.  I'm good at secrets!

Sorry for the derail, folks!


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 19, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I would imagine that it would for only a few. I think that could be easily summed up as a metaphor for the original sin. By "surely die," God could have been talking about humanity and its downfall (due to sin) if they ate the fruit. God was honest in both cases: If you interpret it literally, it is true. Adam and Eve both died eventually. Metaphorically it is also true: Humanity became corrupted by sin and "died" spiritually.
> 
> Obviously I'm playing the role of an atheist on the verge of believing. Personally I think it's nonsense. The creation myths of Judaism are just as ridiculous as most of the others.
> 
> I think a better example would be how God created humans knowing the outcome, yet in the story of Noah's flood he clearly regrets making humans. Can an omnipotent and omniscient God regret something? This has been argued on another thread.



After many discussions with Atheists and even a few Agnostics, I think the tenent of "original sin" is much harder to overcome.  The Ark tale is too easy to make a decision on.  It's the concept of being "born with sin" because of a wilful act of disobedience that is the toughest.

A deity like God (Yahweh) as described, WOW! how could Adam or Eve ever disobey?  I don't care if Satan was masterful in his deception, the fear of such a deity would prevent questioning anything.  And why did God place such a fruit at their disposal.  He is omnicient, omnipresent and omnipotent.  He knew what would happen, and let it?  Then got disgusted and kicked them out, leveling curses and a few generations later drowning everyone but a few?

True Atheists have major issues here.  That's why I think they would have major issues converting to a deity belief, especially the Christian God.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> After many discussions with Atheists and even a few Agnostics, I think the tenent of "original sin" is much harder to overcome.  The Ark tale is too easy to make a decision on.  It's the concept of being "born with sin" because of a wilful act of disobedience that is the toughest.
> 
> A deity like God (Yahweh) as described, WOW! how could Adam or Eve ever disobey?  I don't care if Satan was masterful in his deception, the fear of such a deity would prevent questioning anything.  And why did God place such a fruit at their disposal.  He is omnicient, omnipresent and omnipotent.  He knew what would happen, and let it?  Then got disgusted and kicked them out, leveling curses and a few generations later drowning everyone but a few?
> 
> True Atheists have major issues here.  That's why I think they would have major issues converting to a deity belief, especially the Christian God.



Its all just such a stretch....Why even bother?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Well we will let you thank us for the MagnaCarta and Constitution later then...



Who should I thank?  

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian.  So was Benjamin Franklin.  

I'm not sure how to work the Magna Carta in here, but ok....


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 19, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Who should I thank?
> 
> Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian.  So was Benjamin Franklin.
> 
> I'm not sure how to work the Magna Carta in here, but ok....



Deists- Not Atheists. And both studied the bible intensely. 

And the Magna Carta is easy. it came from religious revolution and ideas. The equal rights of all men comes from religious thought.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Yep. But not as bad as if I said there was NO God. At least I was only partly wrong...



What if someone went around saying: "God doesn't make sense to me. I'm not going to believe in something that doesn't make sense.  You do whatever you want."  How complicit would they be?


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Deists- Not Atheists. And both studied the bible intensely.
> 
> And the Magna Carta is easy. it came from religious revolution and ideas. The equal rights of all men comes from religious thought.



I would argue that religious thought comes from some phenomena associated with our psyche.  I'll not debate on where that phenomena comes from...


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Deists- Not Atheists. And both studied the bible intensely.



And yet both rejected any sort of formal religious belief 
And you're right about the deist part, I never meant to imply they were atheists (although some of Jefferson's later letters/quotes could be borderline), I forgot what thread we were arguing in...    



> And the Magna Carta is easy. it came from religious revolution and ideas. The equal rights of all men comes from religious thought.



Religious thought?  I don't know if I would go that far.  It may come from a desire to be able to practice their own religious thought without persecution.  But I wouldn't say it was based on the premise of required belief in God.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 19, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> And yet both rejected any sort of formal religious belief
> And you're right about the deist part, I never meant to imply they were atheists (although some of Jefferson's later letters/quotes could be borderline), I forgot what thread we were arguing in...
> 
> 
> ...



Jefferson also kept a book of all Jesus' quotes with him at all times and read from the all the time.

Without people like Tynsdale and Wycliffe the Magna Carta never happens. Christianity is the basis for the beliefs of princesses not being greater than us and priests being held to the same law as us. (Yes I said Priests).


----------



## footjunior (Feb 19, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> A deity like God (Yahweh) as described, WOW! how could Adam or Eve ever disobey?  I don't care if Satan was masterful in his deception, the fear of such a deity would prevent questioning anything.  And why did God place such a fruit at their disposal.  He is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.  He knew what would happen, and let it? Then got disgusted and kicked them out, leveling curses and a few generations later drowning everyone but a few?



I agree, sounds ridiculous right? But some of these things we're talking about have come up on these forums, and I've seen people dismiss them by using the "God works in mysterious ways" card as well as the usual "We will never understand God, but he is perfect" stuff. An atheist on the verge of believing could perhaps be in the state of mind to accept such things without much thought.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 19, 2009)

WOW! Y'all have been busy. I leave to go teach a class and come back completely lost in topic. I'll have to catch up.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Jefferson also kept a book of all Jesus' quotes with him at all times and read from the all the time.



Source?



> Christianity is the basis for the beliefs of princesses not being greater than us and priests being held to the same law as us. (Yes I said Priests).



I disagree with that.  You can track all men being under the same law right back to the Torah.  Sorry


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 20, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I agree, sounds ridiculous right? But some of these things we're talking about have come up on these forums, and I've seen people dismiss them by using the "God works in mysterious ways" card as well as the usual "We will never understand God, but he is perfect" stuff. An atheist on the verge of believing could perhaps be_ in the state of mind_ to accept such things without much thought.



Desperation?   Witness to a "miracle" or "curse"?   Metaphysical dilemma?   Ennui?   Fear of mortality?


----------



## gtparts (Feb 20, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Well for starters, I don't hate God.  In fact I believe in God, just not the same way that you do.
> 
> As far as my comment listing my location, why shouldn't I put that there? I get told it at least a dozen times a week on here...
> 
> ...



If it was a burden, you had it mistagged , 'cause it sure wasn't faith. But, you possibly will  never admit that it was counterfeit.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 20, 2009)

footjunior said:


> My point is that I don't believe my ideas will affect their eternal destiny.



Then why bother taking the time to try to convince that person they are wrong, FJ?

Why cause a crisis of belief if both believing and not result in the same end?  Why bring a belief system that someone has based their entire life of crashing down?

If, by acting; by convincing that person there is no God, you accomplish nothing in terms of the eternal...why bother?

So you can be "right"?  So they don't live their life ignorant?  What's the harm in belief aside from, maybe giving part of your income to a church.  

If money is the issue and God doesn't exist, then the church is no different than a club...which you pay dues to.  The benefits are community, frliendships, support, etc.

Why would you bother if there is no eternal difference between belief and non-belief?


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 20, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> And why did God place such a fruit at their disposal.  He is omnicient, omnipresent and omnipotent.



Choice...otherwise we'd be robots and you'd be a believer too! 

Would you rather force someone to love you or simply be loved because....?

None of those words you listed means "all controlling".


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 20, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> Source?
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with that.  You can track all men being under the same law right back to the Torah.  Sorry



Source- Monticello. Been there and have lots of resources about Jefferson as well. It is a very very very very well documented fact.

Actually no you can't. Only Jews were held under the torah. God's chosen people. Christians like Paul and later Augustine and Aquinas said that God's moral law was for all mankind and meant that Jew and Gentile were to live by them.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 20, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> yes, I remember, thank you.  I am digging up statistics to counter (for the sake of argument, of course).  For example I've found the Netherlands, mostly agnostic or atheist to be enjoying quite a happy lifestyle.... I'm still digging.



AS you do your social study, the Netherlands like America had a concentrated number of christians (reformers and puritans)  fleeing England, Scotland and Ireland for their lives. Many ended up in the Netherlands before coming to finally to America. Obviously, many decided to stay. Abraham Kuyper was a positive influence as a christian parliamentarian until his death.  

look forward to your report. 

If you study the influence on Calvinism on a society you might find it interesting. This group produced the best of what christianity has to offer- freedom due to their view of authority; economically because of their views on work and wealth---A story here, A friend of mine was running for congress who is a pastor and a strong Calvinist. One of his best supporters was a staunch atheist who said publicly she was campaigning for him because he would fight for her personal wealth and protect what was hers. Education they were the first to start schools and colleges like Harvard and Princeton in America, which both have apostatized, nevertheless they were founded by Calvinists.


Are we going to talk about atheism's influence on culture? Did anyone answer my question about the penalty the man should have received for kidnapping, drugging a minor, prostituting a minor. 

Lets hear everyone's opinion as to why this or that should be done and the benefits it will produce for the good of humankind. This is as real as its gets.We can argue all we want about "faith" or "no faith" yet we all have to live!!!! We all have to we in a group where our beliefs affect the other person. So lets hear it. 

Personally I am not interested in empty chatter or as it been put "semantic discussion" let take this situation and flesh out what is right, just and fair, but what ever standard you may have.


I think one of the problems is that many Christians think atheism has a unified monolithic approach to life. This is not true atheist are as diverse as any group. The one thing they do hold in common is that God or gods can not enter into the equation. Anything but God. Space aliens, crystals, big bang, million, billion , trillion, this changes so what ever...........


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 20, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> AS you do your social study, the Netherlands like America had a concentrated number of christians (reformers and puritans)  fleeing England, Scotland and Ireland for their lives. Many ended up in the Netherlands before coming to finally to America. Obviously, many decided to stay. Abraham Kuyper was a positive influence as a christian parliamentarian until his death.
> 
> If you study the influence on Calvinism on a society you might find it interesting. This group produced the best of what christianity has to offer- freedom due to their view of authority; economically because of their views on work and wealth---A story here, A friend of mine was running for congress who is a pastor and a strong Calvinist. One of his best supporters was a staunch atheist who said publicly she was campaigning for him because he would fight for her personal wealth and protect what was hers. Education they were the first to start schools and colleges like Harvard and Princeton in America, which both have apostatized, nevertheless they were founded by Calvinists.
> 
> ...



How true. 

Without a universal standard that ALL men can be held to what gives anyone the right to make a law? What gives the state the right to execute a convicted murderer? An ultimate Moral Authority. 

And my personal favorite atheistic theory is panspermia!!!


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Then why bother taking the time to try to convince that person they are wrong, FJ?



Because it can change their life (their only life) on this earth.



> Why cause a crisis of belief if both believing and not result in the same end?  Why bring a belief system that someone has based their entire life of crashing down?



Because their life on this earth matters, not some wishful thinking (Heaven) afterlife.



> If, by acting; by convincing that person there is no God, you accomplish nothing in terms of the eternal...why bother?



I don't believe in the eternal, so there is no way that I could even factor that in.



> So you can be "right"?  So they don't live their life ignorant?  What's the harm in belief aside from, maybe giving part of your income to a church.



It's definitely not so I can be "right". This has been discussed before, even within this thread by Dixie Dawg. It's the entire reason why New Atheism is here. Religion affects the world in a negative way. Obviously a lot of good comes out of religion, but I believe it does not outweigh the bad.



> If money is the issue and God doesn't exist, then the church is no different than a club...which you pay dues to.  The benefits are community, frliendships, support, etc.



Money is definitely not the issue. Atheism is about life here and now. You seem to think that only eternal life matters, which I can understand. If I believed in eternal destiny, I would care much more about my eternal destiny than my short life on this earth. Being an atheist, I have one life to live. That's it. I don't sit around, "Please lord I'm weary of this life. Please take me home to be with you lord." It's about action while you have the chance. We have the power to change the direction of humanity. New Atheism believes that religion must be disposed of for humanity to continue successfully.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 20, 2009)

> Because it can change their life (their only life) on this earth.



In what way?  They are already happy, living joyfully, peacefully, patiently, etc.  In what way would convincing them that God doesn't exist make their life better?  I know you said it could "change" their life.  But I assume you're implying that it would, somehow make it better.





> Because their life on this earth matters, not some wishful thinking (Heaven) afterlife.



To the Christian (I'm sure you know this), this life DOES matter.  We are not simply waiting around to die...so that we can go on living.  So that argument doesn't hold.  If there is no afterlife, then the Christian living the life the Bible describes (even though it is a false faith) is one lived loving others, serving others and generally doing good for humanity.  You saying that you feel that should change?

We're not talking about someone who says "I'm a Christian".  We're talking about someone who truly is living "for Christ", whether he's real or not.





> I don't believe in the eternal, so there is no way that I could even factor that in.



Come on man, that's just a huge cop out.  

Again, then what does it matter whether the Christian believes what you believe or not?  If you do not believe in the eternal, then we are all just going to die and rot.  As long as that person is living a "good life"...what does it matter what they believe?





> It's definitely not so I can be "right". This has been discussed before, even within this thread by Dixie Dawg. It's the entire reason why New Atheism is here. Religion affects the world in a negative way. Obviously a lot of good comes out of religion, but I believe it does not outweigh the bad.



You ask for proof all the time rather than wild generalization.  So I'll put that burden back on you.  Show me.  Religion is not what's on trial here.  Show me how people who truly follow a particular deity and what is written about it have a negative impact on the world.

Muslims that truly follow their religion (not the radicals who skew their religion) are peaceful, loving people who make those around them better.  True followers of Christ?  Same thing.  True followers of other religions are the same. If God doesn't exist, then the New Testament is simply a VERY strong moral code and one that most folks, I think, would think is pretty dang positive.

I agree with you.  What religion has become can often be bad.  But there is a major difference between those who ascribe to a religion and those who really follow the tenets of that faith.




> Money is definitely not the issue. Atheism is about life here and now. You seem to think that only eternal life matters, which I can understand. If I believed in eternal destiny, I would care much more about my eternal destiny than my short life on this earth. Being an atheist, I have one life to live. That's it. I don't sit around, "Please lord I'm weary of this life. Please take me home to be with you lord." It's about action while you have the chance. We have the power to change the direction of humanity. New Atheism believes that religion must be disposed of for humanity to continue successfully.



"Please lord I'm weary of this life. Please take me home to be with you lord."  That is the silliest thing you've posted.  You obviously do not hang around with Christians much.  Either that, or again, you're posting something to suit your purpose.  Not a single Christian that I've ever met lives their life like this.  God only gives us one mortal life.  What we do with it is ENTIRELY important.

Again, I'll put your requirements back on you.  Show me where I've said the afterlife is the only thing that matters.  I'm trying to approach the Christian life as if there WAS no afterlife in this discussion.  I'm asking you the question....let's assume there is no afterlife.  People who are following "Christ" and living their lives according to the Bible...what would you want to change about the way they live their lives?  They are joyful.  They love others.  They encourage others and the help others.  What would you accomplish by changing their minds?


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 20, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Source- Monticello. Been there and have lots of resources about Jefferson as well. It is a very very very very well documented fact.



I guess we'll see what Google comes up with? 



> Actually no you can't. Only Jews were held under the torah. God's chosen people. Christians like Paul and later Augustine and Aquinas said that God's moral law was for all mankind and meant that Jew and Gentile were to live by them.



You're splitting hairs here.  You stated that Christianity was the basis for the belief that all are under the same law.  That is not so.  The Torah is the basis for the belief.  That doesn't mean that others didn't capitalize on it.

It's no different than you using the Magna Carta as the foundation/predecessor for the Declaration of Independence.  The Magna Carta was written for a monarchy.  Certainly not a democracy.  It was adapted later for a different type of governing body using the same basic principles.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 20, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> I guess we'll see what Google comes up with?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Go for it. I am sure even the fundamentalists on here will back that one up... 

Not splitting hairs. You are ignoring the concept of history and society building upon itself. And no again the Torah is just for the jews... Not sure how else to say that. The New Covenant is for all Creation.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 20, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> We are not simply waiting around to die...so that we can go on living.  So that argument doesn't hold.



You don't speak for all.  I have seen many times, even on this forum, people who say they can't wait to die so that they can be with Jesus.




> Again, then what does it matter whether the Christian believes what you believe or not?  If you do not believe in the eternal, then we are all just going to die and rot.  As long as that person is living a "good life"...what does it matter what they believe?
> 
> Show me how people who truly follow a particular deity and what is written about it have a negative impact on the world.
> 
> People who are following "Christ" and living their lives according to the Bible...what would you want to change about the way they live their lives?  They are joyful.  They love others.  They encourage others and the help others.  What would you accomplish by changing their minds?



Perhaps you should ask that question to a homosexual couple who have been in a loving, monogamous relationship for 20+ years but can't get married because of someone else's religious beliefs.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 20, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> You don't speak for all.  I have seen many times, even on this forum, people who say they can't wait to die so that they can be with Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I will never hurry or wish for my death. Doesn't seem right.

As for gay marriage... Why do they need the right to marry? Also why chisel away at a foundation of western culture?


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 20, 2009)

> You don't speak for all.  I have seen many times, even on this forum, people who say they can't wait to die so that they can be with Jesus.



More often than not?  Let's see if that bears out.  I'll start a poll.  You may be right.  It would be a sad statement.  But you may be.

I would question whether they are living as Jesus would have them then.  We are not to waste this life or to wish it away.  Yes, death, for us is not the end and is, ultimately the better option.  But we are not to waste the mortal life that has been given us.




> Perhaps you should ask that question to a homosexual couple who have been in a loving, monogamous relationship for 20+ years but can't get married because of someone else's religious beliefs.



Good point.  However, I would say that there are many of us who don't CARE what you do in the privacy of your home.  Also, the question is, if I become an atheist, will my moral code automatically change?  Will I, all of a sudden, be "pro-gay"?  Doubtful.

There are many people who are not Christian who also oppose gay marriage.  So you're stretching a bit to say that it's "religion's fault" that homosexual marriage isn't being allowed.  For goodness sake!  Stinking California banned it!  You think it was JUST Christians that voted that way?  There aren't enough Christians in that STATE to accomplish such a thing.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Feb 20, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> I will never hurry or wish for my death. Doesn't seem right.
> 
> As for gay marriage... Why do they need the right to marry? Also why chisel away at a foundation of western culture?



This is going way   but...   Why not?  Why have marriage at all then?  Why shouldn't two people who are in love with each other and have made a commitment to each other be able to marry just like everyone else?  The only reason is because religion says it's 'an abomination'.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 20, 2009)

I honestly don't understand why I need the state's permission to marry anyway.  God joins us together....not man.  But, the flip side to your question is why can't homosexuals just live as a committed couple?  Why do they need to be recognized by the state?  Because of the tax and other benefits.  It's got nothing to do with how much they may or may not love each other.

but you're right....way off topic.  Perhaps another thread to discuss.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 20, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> This is going way   but...   Why not?  Why have marriage at all then?  Why shouldn't two people who are in love with each other and have made a commitment to each other be able to marry just like everyone else?  The only reason is because religion says it's 'an abomination'.



I would advocate the elimination of civil or secular marriage if it were not for the legal issues such as property rights and inheritance. Why not just rewrite the laws to read "civil union". Everybody gets the legal benefits At the same time confirm the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman (at a time). That way, my wife and I could have a marriage and a civil union with the legal benefits and Randy and Ralph can have a civil union with all the legal benefits.

Or is there more at issue here?


----------



## gtparts (Feb 20, 2009)

Back on track, I would really like someone to articulate a logical and statistically supported argument for no religion in the world being a better situation in the whole than having religions. What New Atheism puts forth should reasonably regarded as a hate crime, at least as voiced in this quote:


> New Atheism believes that religion must be disposed of for humanity to continue successfully.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 20, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Choice...otherwise we'd be robots and you'd be a believer too!



Another psychic!  Wow!  How rare it that?  Multiple psychics on the same website!


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 20, 2009)

Not a psychic.  You asked why God put the tree there, I answered you.  Did you not expect an answer, or are you saying I'm psychic because you got an answer other than what you think you know?  He put it there to give them the choice of obeying....

You didn't address my statement about the fact that none of those words means "all controlling".  There is nothing in the Bible that says God controls everything.  It's not there.  Could he?  Yes.  That's part of being omnipotent.  But he chooses not to as is evidenced by many things...including that tree.

The part you underlined was a joke bud.  If we didn't have choice, then we'd all be followers of God (assuming he exists).


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 20, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> The part you underlined was a joke bud.



Did not know that.  I always thought it was pretty serious and important business.  Thanks.

I'll be done with this one.  Interesting subject for sure.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 20, 2009)

I was just making a logical conclusion based on the conversation we were having.

Let me connect the dots for you....


Assumption 1:  God exists.
Assumption 2:  He wants us to obey him and follow what he says.
Assumption 3:  He does not give us choice in anything (or, rather, he controls everything)

Conclusion:  We will all obey him and follow what he says because he exists, he wants us to and he does not give us a choice.

Easier to follow?  If he exists and didn't give you a choice, you'd be a believer too.  Follow me?


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> In what way?  They are already happy, living joyfully, peacefully, patiently, etc.  In what way would convincing them that God doesn't exist make their life better?  I know you said it could "change" their life.  But I assume you're implying that it would, somehow make it better.



I agree with you. Most Christians are happy. My point is that you don't need to believe in fairy tales to be happy. Atheists are happy. You can be happy, joyful, peaceful, and patient without believing that Jesus is your savior or that you'll get 72 virgins if you die as a martyr. Yes you are correct again, I am implying that naturalism would make their life better. Atheism has made my life better. Freethinking has made my life better.



> To the Christian (I'm sure you know this), this life DOES matter.  We are not simply waiting around to die...so that we can go on living.  So that argument doesn't hold.  If there is no afterlife, then the Christian living the life the Bible describes (even though it is a false faith) is one lived loving others, serving others and generally doing good for humanity.  You saying that you feel that should change?



Obviously not. There are plenty of secular philanthropic organizations out there. Scientists (religious or otherwise), operating under practical atheism do plenty of good to humanity. Again, you don't need religion to be a good person, or to be charitable. Last semester I saw a girls GT ID card laying on the ground at Yellow Jacket park. Never met her in my life. I picked it up, found her on Facebook, and called her so that we could meet up somewhere. I drove to her residence hall and gave her the card. She said I was a life-saver and that she was worried to death about it. Why did I do this? What did I have to gain by doing this? If I were a selfish person, would I have done it? It was because as a human being, I have an innate altruistic desire. It is evolutionary in nature. We all share this trait, whether we are religious or not.



> Come on man, that's just a huge cop out.
> 
> Again, then what does it matter whether the Christian believes what you believe or not?  If you do not believe in the eternal, then we are all just going to die and rot.  As long as that person is living a "good life"...what does it matter what they believe?



As I have said above, and as Dixie Dawg has said above, religions impact everyone. That's what matters. Obviously, I'm sure some religious think that people who hold purely naturalistic worldviews affect religious people, and they would be correct. All I'm saying is that the negative impacts of religion do not overcome it's benefits to humanity. Most of the benefits of religion could/would exist without it.



> You ask for proof all the time rather than wild generalization.  So I'll put that burden back on you.  Show me.  Religion is not what's on trial here.  Show me how people who truly follow a particular deity and what is written about it have a negative impact on the world.
> 
> Muslims that truly follow their religion (not the radicals who skew their religion) are peaceful, loving people who make those around them better.



This is the mistake that moderates have been making ever since 9/11. Everyone thinks their particular brand of religion is right. The Islamic radicals are perfectly justified in their beliefs. Young-earth creationists are perfectly justified in their beliefs. Why are they justified? It's because the individual can interpret scripture as he/she sees fit. Why are there so many denominations? It's partly due to different interpretations. Wouldn't  you agree? Radical Muslims interpret the Quran differently than moderate Muslims. Who claims to have the authority to know which interpretation is correct? When people agree to disagree on different interpretations of the same scripture, you end up with slightly different brands of religion.

Would there have been a 9/11 without religion? Obviously not. Will bad things still happen in the world if religion doesn't exist? Obviously yes.



> If God doesn't exist, then the New Testament is simply a VERY strong moral code and one that most folks, I think, would think is pretty dang positive.



I agree. 



> I agree with you.  What religion has become can often be bad.  But there is a major difference between those who ascribe to a religion and those who really follow the tenets of that faith.



Again, who can claim the authority to decide which tenets are correct and which ones are not? Some would say, well the apostles or some past wise Muslim cleric. The problem is that if a sect of religious people do not recognize that persons authority, then what good does it do?



> "Please lord I'm weary of this life. Please take me home to be with you lord."  That is the silliest thing you've posted.  You obviously do not hang around with Christians much.  Either that, or again, you're posting something to suit your purpose.  Not a single Christian that I've ever met lives their life like this.  God only gives us one mortal life.  What we do with it is ENTIRELY important.



I heard this non-stop from people at my church, that I went to for 17 years straight. I've heard this when I've visited churches. My point was that your previous post mentioned nothing of the person's mortal life, it was all about their eternal destiny. I was trying to show that what I care about is that person's life on earth.



> Again, I'll put your requirements back on you.  Show me where I've said the afterlife is the only thing that matters.  I'm trying to approach the Christian life as if there WAS no afterlife in this discussion.  I'm asking you the question....let's assume there is no afterlife.  People who are following "Christ" and living their lives according to the Bible...what would you want to change about the way they live their lives?  They are joyful.  They love others.  They encourage others and the help others.  What would you accomplish by changing their minds?



Dixie Dawg has already touched on a few points. Look at what was in the other thread a few days ago:

"I want to force my morals on this country."

How much more clearer can it get? People believe they are so right that they want to force us to act like their particular interpretation of scripture tells us to act. If they can't do it, they consider seceding from the country to form their own little Puritan-esque outpost. 

I think the most accessible thing for people to see in this modern era is gay marriage. I'm not gay myself, but being in ATL and on a campus, I end up around gay people. You can't deny that the love between gay couples is real. Who would have the authority to tell people they don't love each other other than the people themselves? Now obviously I think if Christians view the Bible as infallible and view scripture in a literal sense, I couldn't see how they could condone same-sex relationships. In both the OT and NT there is scripture referring to the sin of homosexuality. Would same-sex marriage be legal if it wasn't for religious fundamentalists? I think we could both agree yes.

Obviously that's just one example.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 20, 2009)

I have made the comment that atheism is a self defeating system. Here is what I mean by making this statement and wish to discuss rationally and calmly. 

I am proposing that atheism defeats itself because it cannot account for the reason it believes what it believes. Most atheist will shout from the roof tops its only a material world and nothing else. All we have is the here and now. The new atheism promotes this which make me laugh because this isn't new at all. But they can call it what ever makes them feel intelligent. 

But how can atheism account for the rule of logic? You can't see them or touch them. What about reason itself? Can you see it or touch it? What about an idea or philosophic axiom? The problem of evil or the problem of authority?

Plus I am still waiting for an answer to a cultural issue of civil punishment. I am waiting for the atheist on here to offer their enlightened opinion and I will compare it my dogmatism so we can in a scientific way discuss whats best and why. This should be hard since atheism has the answer to a fulfilled and satisfying existence. Being a little facetious but I think I have made my point. 

From my worldview atheism cannot deal with or handle such situations thus ultimately reduces to anarchy.

Let the fun begin.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 20, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I agree with you. Most Christians are happy. My point is that you don't need to believe in fairy tales to be happy. Atheists are happy. You can be happy, joyful, peaceful, and patient without believing that Jesus is your savior or that you'll get 72 virgins if you die as a martyr. Yes you are correct again, I am implying that naturalism would make their life better. Atheism has made my life better. Freethinking has made my life better.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





This really isn't the argument. I know atheist can do decent and good things as we know them culturally. But I want you to account for the goodness you express. From your worldview logically and rationally account for goodness.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> This really isn't the argument. I know atheist can do decent and good things as we know them culturally. But I want you to account for the goodness you express. From your worldview logically and rationally account for goodness.



This has been discussed on previous threads. I really do not want to repeat myself.

In a nutshell:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

I'm also having a hard time understanding what you're saying Reformedpastor.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 20, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Are we going to talk about atheism's influence on culture? Did anyone answer my question about the penalty the man should have received for kidnapping, drugging a minor, prostituting a minor.
> 
> Lets hear everyone's opinion as to why this or that should be done and the benefits it will produce for the good of humankind. This is as real as its gets.We can argue all we want about "faith" or "no faith" yet we all have to live!!!! We all have to we in a group where our beliefs affect the other person. So lets hear it.



I don't think you need a universal right and wrong in order to maintain order or mete out punishment. 

I always imagine the dawn of man (some 4000 years ago, for the creationists). Some homonids are sitting around the camp fire and realize that they have a better chance of surviving if they work together.  Some of them realize that if you don't get caught doing "wrong" (a fledgling concept), you can gain without penalty from the rest of the group.   

Maybe the Chief or the Shaman comes up with this idea that if you can convince people that if they do "wrong"  that they will get hit by lightning or trampled by a mastodon,  perhaps it actually happened and now they have a cautionary tale to tell the little ones.   Later one of them realizes that they can hide from the lightning or kill the mastodon, so the Shaman makes up the "boogie man".   Now, where do you hide from the boogie man?   He makes and controls the lightning and the mastodon.  See where I'm going?

That's where i think religion came from.  A practical solution they may be outdated.   Why shouldn't you do things that are "wrong" (not beneficial to society)?  Because they're not beneficial to society.   Voting on an issue because of fear of the boogie man may or may not beneficial to society.  I think there's a better way to determine right and wrong.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> But how can atheism account for the rule of logic? You can't see them or touch them. What about reason itself? Can you see it or touch it? What about an idea or philosophic axiom? The problem of evil or the problem of authority?



My brain just exploded. None of this makes sense. I don't think atheists pretend to "account for the rule of logic", whatever the heck that means.



> Plus I am still waiting for an answer to a cultural issue of civil punishment. I am waiting for the atheist on here to offer their enlightened opinion and I will compare it my dogmatism so we can in a scientific way discuss whats best and why. This should be hard since atheism has the answer to a fulfilled and satisfying existence. Being a little facetious but I think I have made my point.
> 
> From my worldview atheism cannot deal with or handle such situations thus ultimately reduces to anarchy.



I would say that I don't have the expertise or statistics to  make an informed decision about what should happen to the prisoner. People who study the behavior during jail time, statistics, psychology, behavior after release, etc. of criminals should make the decisions.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 20, 2009)

footjunior said:


> This has been discussed on previous threads. I really do not want to repeat myself.
> 
> In a nutshell:
> 
> ...



I will have to check the link out later and I will try to be clearer.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 20, 2009)

> You can be happy, joyful, peaceful, and patient without believing that Jesus is your savior



As I said before, I don't deny that.  But you're not answering my question.  Why would you try to convince someone who is ALREADY all of these things BECAUSE of what they believe, to believe something different?  So that someone who is happy....can be happy?




> I have an innate altruistic desire. It is evolutionary in nature. We all share this trait, whether we are religious or not.



It's evolutionary?  So I suppose that's why all other species are so altruistic?  Come on!  It's, at worst, cultural.  At best, it's the impact of Christ.





> All I'm saying is that the negative impacts of religion do not overcome it's benefits to humanity. Most of the benefits of religion could/would exist without it.



I think you meant this the other way around, since you said earlier that, essentially, the bad outweighs the good.  But I get what you're saying.

If you look back over, say, the last 100 years or so, when religion was more impactful on soceity and it's values...would you say that things are morally worse or better now (under the assumption that clearly religion is being pushed aside by society these days)?





> The Islamic radicals are perfectly justified in their beliefs.



I hope you don't really believe that.  You actually scare me more for our future than I already was it that's the case.  Please don't go into politics.




> Would there have been a 9/11 without religion?



YES!  It's called jealousy.  They don't just hate us because of our religion.  They hate us because we are wealthy and they are not.




> I heard this non-stop from people at my church, that I went to for 17 years straight. I've heard this when I've visited churches. My point was that your previous post mentioned nothing of the person's mortal life, it was all about their eternal destiny.



Then I would humbly submit that you needed to find a different church for those 17 years.  You will not hear that at my church and you will not hear that ONLY your eternal destination matters either.  




> Who would have the authority to tell people they don't love each other other than the people themselves?



Nobody ever proposed a bill to tell people they can't love each other.



> Would same-sex marriage be legal if it wasn't for religious fundamentalists?



Honestly?  I think it probably would be NOW.  But it definitely would not have been for most of the history of this country.  There was no need.  People understood that a man and a woman were married....

You can claim that it was simply because of perceived religious persecution if you want.  But either way, there were very few men openly asking to marry other men 50 years ago.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 20, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> I don't think you need a universal right and wrong in order to maintain order or mete out punishment.
> 
> I always imagine the dawn of man (some 4000 years ago, for the creationists). Some homonids are sitting around the camp fire and realize that they have a better chance of surviving if they work together.  Some of them realize that if you don't get caught doing "wrong" (a fledgling concept), you can gain without penalty from the rest of the group.
> 
> ...




Ok. So is this your position or is this a collective atheist position? If it is your personally how do you personally determine that this is the way to go? As we compare worldviews how can you expect me to give up mine which has a more universal acceptance? It seems I would be giving that up for a more narrow view? Help me with this.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 20, 2009)

footjunior said:


> My brain just exploded. None of this makes sense. I don't think atheists pretend to "account for the rule of logic", whatever the heck that means.
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that I don't have the expertise or statistics to  make an informed decision about what should happen to the prisoner. People who study the behavior during jail time, statistics, psychology, behavior after release, etc. of criminals should make the decisions.



Think about what you are saying? You pride ourselves in reason yet we deny that are rules? Not being funny here but have you ever had a class on logic or critical thinking? 

Maybe some of the others enlightened atheist on here can suggest a just form of punishment that would be good for humankind since your atheistic worldview doesn't allow the non-professional to make such difficult decisions.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> As I said before, I don't deny that.  But you're not answering my question.  Why would you try to convince someone who is ALREADY all of these things BECAUSE of what they believe, to believe something different?  So that someone who is happy....can be happy?



I've answered this question no less than 3 times. I think religions impact people (religious and irreligious) in negative ways. Therefore I'm going to try to convince people to become atheists. It's really that simple.



> It's evolutionary?  So I suppose that's why all other species are so altruistic?



If the environment selects altruistic genes, then that species will become more altruistic. There are plenty of species that are altruistic. Chimpanzees come to mind. If the environment does not select genes that promote altruism, then that species will not become more altruistic.



> If you look back over, say, the last 100 years or so, when religion was more impactful on soceity and it's values...would you say that things are morally worse or better now (under the assumption that clearly religion is being pushed aside by society these days)?



I think we live in a morally better world. Women can vote. Blacks are equal citizens. Gays can openly live in many countries without fear of death, etc. Just my opinion. What do you think?



> I hope you don't really believe that.  You actually scare me more for our future than I already was it that's the case.  Please don't go into politics.



Who am I to say they aren't justified? Obviously I do not think they are right for doing so, but I can't tell them that their interpretation of the Quran is wrong.



> YES!  It's called jealousy.  They don't just hate us because of our religion.  They hate us because we are wealthy and they are not.



Jealousy? Jealously of wealth made middle-class, very well educated Muslims slam into buildings at 400 mph? I'm going to quote you on this one:



> Please don't go into politics.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 20, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Ok. So is this your position or is this a collective atheist position?
> 
> Mine, as far as I know.  I'm not an atheist, I don't know what their position is
> 
> ...



Actually I see my as a more inclusive world view.   Everybody knows how to reason.  I don't require you to give up your word view unless it impacts others.   I like what this guy said in the political forum:

1. can you separate moral views from political views?
"I can when I feel it is appropriate to do so. For example, I am fairly certain that homosexuality is not a behavior condoned by God. However, homosexuals who wish to marry do no harm to my family or others, ergo my political views on gay marriage differ from my personal moral standards."


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Think about what you are saying? You pride ourselves in reason yet we deny that are rules?



Where did I deny that there are rules? Please quote. There are laws which govern the universe. They are absolute. We attempt to explain them with theories based on observations.



> Not being funny here but have you ever had a class on logic or critical thinking?



Good thing you weren't trying to be funny.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 20, 2009)

> I've answered this question no less than 3 times. I think religions impact people (religious and irreligious) in negative ways. Therefore I'm going to try to convince people to become atheists. It's really that simple.



But you keep contradicting yourself.  That's why I keep asking.  You agreed earlier that Christians are happy, help others, etc.  Which is it?




> There are plenty of species that are altruistic. Chimpanzees come to mind.



You mean like the one that just chewed that lady's face off? 

I'm just kidding.  But you did set yourself up for that one.  




> I think we live in a morally better world. Women can vote. Blacks are equal citizens. Gays can openly live in many countries without fear of death, etc. Just my opinion. What do you think?



Gays can live openly, but Christians cannot.  Murder rates have doubled and trippled, teen pregnancy is off the charts, violent crime in general is up and people don't seem to think that they should have to live up to their contractual obligations (i.e. mortages) anymore.  So, no, I do not think that we are more moral now.   All of those things you listed are issues of equality IMO...not of morality.




> Who am I to say they aren't justified? Obviously I do not think they are right for doing so, but I can't tell them that their interpretation of the Quran is wrong.



So, in your world, there are no absolutes at all?  



> Jealousy? Jealously of wealth made middle-class, very well educated Muslims slam into buildings at 400 mph? I'm going to quote you on this one.



Go right ahead.  Most countries that hate the United States do not hate us because of Christianity.  They veil it with religion.  But that is not the reason.  Have we made a big push to get Christianity into the middle east?  No, they don't hate us because we are sending missionaries.  They hate us because we are "greedy" and "wealthy".  

Here are just a few quotes from the mastermind of the event you keep bringing up.  Sound like religious reasons to you...or "iniquity"?



_"We believe that the biggest thieves in the world are Americans and the biggest terrorists on earth are the Americans."

"I say to you, as Allah is my witness: We had not considered attacking the towers, but things reached the breaking point when we witnessed the *iniquity* and tyranny of the American-Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon – then I got this idea."

"That day I became convinced that *iniquity* and the premeditated murder of innocent children and women is an established American principle, and that terror is [the real meaning of] 'freedom' and 'democracy,' while they call the resistance 'terrorism' and 'reaction.' 

*"America stands for iniquity and for imposing sanctions on millions of people"*_


Osama bin Laden


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> But you keep contradicting yourself.  That's why I keep asking.  You agreed earlier that Christians are happy, help others, etc.  Which is it?



My goodness. I didn't think this was necessary.

People can be happy, help others, etc. and yet still cause negative impacts on others.



> Gays can live openly, but Christians cannot.



This is an exaggeration. Where can Christians not live openly as Christians? Obviously there are places where they cannot, and there are places where gays cannot live openly.



> All of those things you listed are issues of equality IMO...not of morality.



Equality has no roots in morality? Treating blacks as equals is not a moral issue?



> So, in your world, there are no absolutes at all?



If you're talking about morality, then no, there is no absolute morality. Religions provides supposed absolute morality, but it depends upon the subjective interpretation of the individual.



> Go right ahead.  Most countries that hate the United States do not hate us because of Christianity.  They veil it with religion.  But that is not the reason.  They hate us because we are "greedy" and "wealthy".  Here are just a few quotes from the mastermind of the even you keep bringing up.  Sound like religious reasons to you...or "iniquity"?
> 
> _"We believe that the biggest thieves in the world are Americans and the biggest terrorists on earth are the Americans."
> 
> ...



Uhh... 

Could you point out the greed in those quotes? I see stuff against the backing of Israel, abortion, and sanctions.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 20, 2009)

I will answer footjunior and ambush together broadly for time sake. 

footjunior

I don't think atheists pretend to "account for the rule of logic", whatever the heck that means.

I took this as you balking at the idea. Hopefully you can see why? 

Ambush

I find it very hard to separate actions from some moral standard. I find folks, like the one you quote, to be very inconsistent. Many christians are guilty of "practical atheism" by confessing to believe in God and yet their actions deny His existence. 

Does everybody reason the same way? How can everybody know how to reason if this diverse (instead of universe which is christian concept anyway)? How do you account for this? 

I account for it by man being made in God's image. Problem solved. Waiting to hear how you account for universal reason. Excuse me diversal reason.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 20, 2009)

> This is an exaggeration. Where can Christians not live openly as Christians? Obviously there are places where they cannot, and there are places where gays cannot live openly.



You just answered your own question???  



> If you're talking about morality, then no, there is no absolute morality. Religions provides supposed absolute morality, but it depends upon the subjective interpretation of the individual.



Again, I pray that this is not the norm in the generations that are coming up behind me to lead the world.  




> Could you point out the greed in those quotes? I see stuff against the backing of Israel, abortion, and sanctions



Could you point out the religion in those quotes?  Iniquity: synonyms....unfairness, injustice.  My point being, like many liberals in our country, they are saying that "It's not FAAAAAIIIIIR (insert whiny voice here)".

I'll keep going with you all day.  I'm actually enjoying the back and forth.  But, it's pretty clear that you are what you despise....closed minded.  You've figured it all out.  That makes me sad for your future.  I know...I know...."Don't be sad for me!"  

I'm just sayin'


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 20, 2009)

I think everyone reading this needs to understand that footjunior does not believe in any absolute moral standard. This kind of reasoning when taken to its fullest logic reduces to absurdity. Maybe he think its the collective group that defines behavior? Therefore Hitler was not wrong morally but socially. Or the Cannibal is wrong socially which we don't have an issue with unless we pan on visiting the rain forest on vacation, then it might be. 

In a christian worldview I can account for universal wrongs and rights. The atheist cannot. But he can enjoy and even participate in the world God made even while in denial.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> I will answer footjunior and ambush together broadly for time sake.
> 
> footjunior
> 
> ...



I'm still not understanding you. Universal reason? Rule of logic? Could you explain your question in greater detail? What do you want us to explain?

Does everyone reason the same way? At a low-level, yes. Neurons fire through my brain like they do in everyone else's brain. Again I'm confused on your question.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> I think everyone reading this needs to understand that footjunior does not believe in any absolute moral standard. This kind of reasoning when taken to its fullest logic reduces to absurdity.



I would love to see the full logic linking absurdity to subjective morality.



> Maybe he think its the collective group that defines behavior? Therefore Hitler was not wrong morally but socially. Or the Cannibal is wrong socially which we don't have an issue with unless we pan on visiting the rain forest on vacation, then it might be.



"Wrong socially"? What does that even mean?


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Could you point out the religion in those quotes?



I didn't post the quotes claiming there was religion in them.



> Iniquity: synonyms....unfairness, injustice.  My point being, like many liberals in our country, they are saying that "It's not FAAAAAIIIIIR (insert whiny voice here)".



I still see nothing about greed or wealth. I still see sanctions, abortion, and Israel as the focus of those quotes.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 20, 2009)

> I didn't post the quotes claiming there was religion in them.



No, but you did say this impyling that religion was the reason for the attacks.  



> Would there have been a 9/11 without religion? Obviously not.



You continually take the tact that if you did not directly say "THIS is a chicken"...then you didn't say it....even if you did say "This hatched from a chicken egg".  You use the "I didn't say that" defense too often.

reformed is right about one thing for sure.  You said that the terrorists of 9/11 were morally right in their own eyes because of their subjective interpretation.

The same MUST hold true for people like Hitler.  But since there are NO moral absolutes, you and I are not ina position to say that Hitler was wrong.  That...is absurd.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> You continually take the tact that if you did not directly say "THIS is a chicken"...then you didn't say it....even if you did say "This hatched from a chicken egg".  You use the "I didn't say that" defense too often.



No. You asked me to take three quotes which you provided and point out religion in them. That is much different than if you had asked me to point out religion in Islam's war against the West.



> reformed is right about one thing for sure.  You said that the terrorists of 9/11 were morally right in their own eyes because of their subjective interpretation.
> 
> The same MUST hold true for people like Hitler.  But since there are NO moral absolutes, you and I are not ina position to say that Hitler was wrong.  That...is absurd.



How is it absurd? I keep hearing that its ridiculous, its absurd, but no one seems to be able to say, "Ok Footjunior, this is why it's absurd: (insert reason), (insert reason), etc.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 20, 2009)

> No. You asked me to take three quotes which you provided and point out religion in them. That is much different than if you had asked me to point out religion in Islam's war against the West.



Ok, let me slow this down a bit for you.  

You said:  





> Would there have been a 9/11 without religion? Obviously not.



I responded by saying that it was not about religion, but about jealousy.  I tried to point out some quotes from a terrorist involved in the 9/11 attacks and you said you didn't see jealousy in there.

SO....I responded by asking you to show me where the religion was since your assertion is that it was driven by religion....





> Would there have been a 9/11 without religion? Obviously not.







> How is it absurd? I keep hearing that its ridiculous, its absurd, but no one seems to be able to say, "Ok Footjunior, this is why it's absurd: (insert reason), (insert reason), etc



Ok Footjunior, this is why it's absurd....



> no, there is no absolute morality...



Was Hitler moral or not?  He thought that he was doing the right thing.  He thought that he was moral.  Was he right or was he wrong?

You have said....





> Who am I to say they aren't justified?


...about the terrorists.

So you MUST apply that same reasoning to people like Hitler.  Who are YOU to tell him he's not justified?  Seriously?  You don't find that absurd?  

You'll just stand by and not pass moral judgment on a mass-murderer because "who am I to say they aren't justified?"

That, my friend, is ridiculously unreasonable...or absurd.  Footjunior, there ARE things in life that ARE morally absolutely right and absolutely wrong.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 20, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I would love to see the full logic linking absurdity to subjective morality.
> 
> 
> 
> "Wrong socially"? What does that even mean?



This is my point. You just assume reason and logic. You can't explain it, you just take it granted. I don't! We are made in the image of God which leads to the ability to reason and think and exercise critical thinking skills because this is what it means to be made in His image. Is this going to bowl you over and cause you to give up? Not hardly. But you say that our brains work the same way by firing off electrons.......yada, yada, yada. But does that happen in every human? Why does it??? 
This interest me since you hold to chaos theory maybe?? I don't know. What I do know by using my reason is that it doesn't make sense. Order from chaos? Order from disorder? Good behavior but no real standard of good?  

You do reason, you do good things, yet ultimately you can't get angry at the child molester, or the racist, or christians since the really is no absolute moral standard. I guess you know that absolutely. 

How would I define social wrong. 

I would define it from a moral absolute position, God's law. Such as adultery. Take adultery for example, it is absolutely wrong in every case without exception. It breaks down the family and harms your neighbor. It affects two homes. It has social consequences because it affects women who work it greatly affects the children involved, their social life, school..........etc. Economically money that could be spent otherwise is spent on child support which barley covers the real costs of the child many times not always. It erodes societies basic fundamental need to trust one another. If I make you a promise you want me to keep it? If you are not expected to keep your marriage vows then everything is vulnerable.  

In my world view this is wrong. Its wrong because God said its wrong and I trust what He says. I have already pointed out social reasons too. 

Where do you stand? Whats the best you have here? Do you need a profession to tell its wrong before you will accept adultery is wrong? Help me out here.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 20, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Ok, let me slow this down a bit for you.
> 
> You said:
> 
> ...




Huntinfool,

Since footjunior isn't willing to say some one like Hitler is wrong, probably isn't qualified to make that assessment,  its makes wonder about his ability to reason??? 

Not to mention his usefulness as a neighbor 

Man think about the struggle he would have if he saw someone break in your house and rap your wife. Should I stop it or not. Yikes. This was what I was referring to when I said, "atheism is a self destructive system of belief," excuse me non belief.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Ok, let me slow this down a bit for you.
> 
> You said:
> 
> ...



Well technically you wanted me to point out religion in those specific quotes...

Here ya go. Would Theo van Gogh have died if it wasn't for Islam? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3tgY_eI_P0

Would 9/11 have occurred if it wasn't for Islam?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHRkMcVrt2w

Religion provides a reason to hate, as well as love.



> Ok Footjunior, this is why it's absurd....
> 
> Was Hitler moral or not?  He thought that he was doing the right thing.  He thought that he was moral.  Was he right or was he wrong?



I think he was wrong for what he did. That does not mean that there is some objective, absolute morality domain where I could place his actions into.



> You have said.......about the terrorists.
> 
> So you MUST apply that same reasoning to people like Hitler.  Who are YOU to tell him he's not justified?  Seriously?  You don't find that absurd?



I think you are misunderstanding me. I can say, "Hitler, I think you are wrong for what you are doing." I am passing judgment using my subjective morality. I am not pointing to a book or some other source of supposed absolute morality and saying, "You are wrong because what you're doing does not fit within the confines of what this book says is morally right."

Hitler was morally right in a local sense. From our local perspectives, Hitler was wrong. No one has the authority to claim what is and is not absolute morality. They can claim what they think is moral, and those morals are absolute... to them.



> You'll just stand by and not pass moral judgment on a mass-murderer because "who am I to say they aren't justified?"



Where did I ever say that I would stand by and not pass moral judgment? This is a big jump.



> That, my friend, is ridiculously unreasonable...or absurd.  Footjunior, there ARE things in life that ARE morally absolutely right and absolutely wrong.



In your local sense, yes.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 20, 2009)

footjunior is right, not all religions are good, some are in fact dangerous to society. This proves what I have said before, "all ideas and presuppositions have consequences."


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 20, 2009)

I just don't know what to say.  I'm not sure that I've ever heard someone say these words...



> Hitler was morally right...



Whether in a local or long-distance sense....Hitler was in no way morally right.

You are scaring me.  I'm just praying that I'm right that you are the exception in your generation and not the rule.

Have a good weekend my man.  I gotta go home and play with my kids.  I'll have to recover from the devistation of the realization that there are actually people like you out there over the weekend.  I know you insist that it's not an age thing.  But I seriously wish I could fast forward 15 years and ask you these same questions.  

But I'll be back to play on Monday.  Look forward to it.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> This is my point. You just assume reason and logic. You can't explain it, you just take it granted. I don't! We are made in the image of God which leads to the ability to reason and think and exercise critical thinking skills because this is what it means to be made in His image.



Well now that I somewhat understand your question, I will answer. I can explain human's ability to reason: evolution. Much the same way chimps can reason. Evolution has selected traits which give us the ability to reason.

I think this is another semantic issue. If you're talking about the same definition that I think of when I say the word, "Logic," then you'll understand that logic has no material origin. It is not material. A = A. It simply is.



> Is this going to bowl you over and cause you to give up? Not hardly. But you say that our brains work the same way by firing off electrons.......yada, yada, yada. But does that happen in every human? Why does it??? This interest me since you hold to chaos theory maybe?? I don't know. What I do know by using my reason is that it doesn't make sense. Order from chaos? Order from disorder? Good behavior but no real standard of good?



What does the chaos theory have anything to do with this? The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems.



> You do reason, you do good things, yet ultimately you can't get angry at the child molester, or the racist, or christians since the really is no absolute moral standard. I guess you know that absolutely.



 This is another misunderstanding. There is objective morality IN THE LOCAL SENSE. I would most definitely get angry at a child molester because his actions fit within the domain of "bad" in my local morality. But I have no right to claim that his actions are "bad" in an absolute sense. In order to do so, there must be a domain of bad to place his actions in. There is no such domain WHEN SPEAKING IN ABSOLUTES. We create local domains for ourselves. Some of us (theists) claim these domains are absolute because they come from a supposed absolute source: The Bible.



> How would I define social wrong.
> 
> I would define it from a moral absolute position, God's law. Such as adultery. Take adultery for example, it is absolutely wrong in every case without exception. It breaks down the family and harms your neighbor. It affects two homes. It has social consequences because it affects women who work it greatly affects the children involved, their social life, school..........etc. Economically money that could be spent otherwise is spent on child support which barley covers the real costs of the child many times not always. It erodes societies basic fundamental need to trust one another. If I make you a promise you want me to keep it? If you are not expected to keep your marriage vows then everything is vulnerable.
> 
> ...



Obviously I think adultery is wrong. Your analogy with the profession is absurd. The other topic was punishment for a specific crime, not whether I thought that crime was wrong or right.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Whether in a local or long-distance sense....Hitler was in no way morally right.



Long-distance? You are scaring me. I'm just praying that I'm right that you are the exception in your generation and not the rule.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 20, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Long-distance? You are scaring me.



It was a joke goober.  You said "local" morality.  I said "local or long distance".  I know that doesn't make sense in the age of cell phones.

It's an old school term.  We used to actually have to pay more for phone calls that were outside of our area code.



> I'm just praying that I'm right that you are the exception in your generation and not the rule.



At least I've got you praying....that's progress.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 20, 2009)

footjunior, 

one question how can a materialist (evolutionist) explain the immaterial nature of anything when all you have is the material universe?


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> It was a joke goober.  You said "local" morality.  I said "local or long distance".  I know that doesn't make sense in the age of cell phones.
> 
> It's an old school term.  We used to actually have to pay more for phone calls that were outside of our area code.



I know it was a joke, but my point is that do you understand what I mean when I say that I think Hitler was wrong in local sense but not in an absolute sense?


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> footjunior,
> 
> one question how can a materialist (evolutionist) explain the immaterial nature of anything when all you have in the material universe?



I don't understand what the sentence is saying.


----------



## Huntinfool (Feb 20, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I know it was a joke, but my point is that do you understand what I mean when I say that I think Hitler was wrong in local sense but not in an absolute sense?



Hitler was wrong in every sense of the word.  For you to suggest that there is any possibility that he was right in ANY sense....


...is absurd.  



Ok, now I'm done for the week.  I'll see y'all monday.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 20, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I don't understand what the sentence is saying.



Laws of logic are not scientifically deduced. How does a materialist account for this?


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Laws of logic are not scientifically deduced. How does a materialist account for this?



Materialists don't "account" for this. Why would someone attempt to "account" for the laws of logic? What does account mean in your question? Could you give me an example of an answer you would like? Like in the format you would like?


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 20, 2009)

do you want me to answer it for you?????? All I'm asking you to do is explain? 

Hey, your post script- does it refer all religions or some?


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> do you want me to answer it for you?????? All I'm asking you to do is explain?



I'm asking you to explain what you're asking. Can you elaborate on what you're asking or not? It's hard to give an answer if you don't know what the question is.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 20, 2009)

I understand. 

How does someone who has a materialist worldview explain a non material universal law? Everybody uses logic and reason. 

I assume you know how I would account for them and I know how other atheists like George Smith accounts for them but how do you? 

Does this help? 


About your post script?


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> I understand.
> 
> How does someone who has a materialist worldview explain a non material universal law? Everybody uses logic and reason.



I somewhat understand your question, but I'm still a little sketchy on the specifics. I'm just going to take a shot at it, and if it's not what you're looking for just let me know.

A non-material universal law simply is. We create concepts of that law which help us understand the universal laws. We give these concepts names and then develop theories for predicting the effects of these laws.

For example, many consider the attraction between two bodies of mass to be a universal law. We observe it's effects under different circumstances. Humans have created a name for it: gravity. We have also created theories which attempt to predict its results. Newton's theory in Classical Mechanics, as well as more modern theories which are more precise.

Gravity is a concept and therefore immaterial. Gravity's effects can be observed in the material realm. That is how I explain non-material universal laws.



> I assume you know how I would account for them and I know how other atheists like George Smith accounts for them but how do you?



I don't know how you nor George Smith accounts for them. Me claiming that I know what you think of such things would be an unwarranted assumption on my part. I don't assume such things about people until they give me reason to do so.



> About your post script?



Oh I see. Sorry. Ya my signature refers to most religions. I don't really know of one that it doesn't apply to, but there might be one out there.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 20, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I somewhat understand your question, but I'm still a little sketchy on the specifics. I'm just going to take a shot at it, and if it's not what you're looking for just let me know.
> 
> A non-material universal law simply is. We create concepts of that law which help us understand the universal laws. We give these concepts names and then develop theories for predicting the effects of these laws.
> 
> ...





Basically, you except them because they are? I accept them because God is. I explain them because God does reason and think. He is the Logical. As the Triune God He is the philosophical one and the many. One in three and three in one.  

Have you ever heard of that term? See, I could never just argue for god or the concept of god but for the only God which is the Christian God, a Trinity. I accept God therefore I can observe His works in this material world. 


I'll have to finish later................


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Basically, you except them because they are? I accept them because God is.



I don't "accept" them, I recognize them. Gravity is an observable phenomenon. Would it make sense to "accept" gravity?



> I explain them because God does reason and think.



You explain them because God reasons? How does this make sense?



> He is the Logical.



Or this?



> As the Triune God He is the philosophical one and the many. One in three and three in one.
> 
> Have you ever heard of that term?



Yes. Many, many, many times unfortunately.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 20, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> Huntinfool,
> 
> Since footjunior isn't willing to say some one like Hitler is wrong, probably isn't qualified to make that assessment,  its makes wonder about his ability to reason???
> 
> Not to mention his usefulness as a neighbor



What if he was right and Jews were a scourge on the face of the Earth?   You can hold his assertion up to the light of reason and determine that it is flawed and you don't need a Bible to do it.   What religion allows you is the ability to make a judgment about the righteousness of an action REGARDLESS of how it stands up to the light of reason.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 20, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> What if he was right and Jews were a scourge on the face of the Earth?   You can hold his assertion up to the light of reason and determine that it is flawed and you don't need a Bible to do it.   What religion allows you is the ability to make a judgment about the righteousness of an action REGARDLESS of how it stands the light of reason.



I can't see how anything but the enlightenment and eugenics can be responsible for that. Which both are coming from an atheistic world view. You remove an ultimate moral authority and we end up making these decisions to kill millions.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> I can't see how anything but the enlightenment and eugenics can be responsible for that. Which both are coming from an atheistic world view.



Eugenics originated from a man who held an atheistic worldview, but eugenics did not originate from atheism. Eugenics does not depend on atheism. Was Hitler an atheist? Correlation does not equal causation. Look at the early 20th century social darwinists. Were they all atheists? It's possible to be a proponent of eugenics and be a theist.

Eugenics arose (mainly) from thoughts on the practical use of Darwin's theory of natural selection, which in and of itself is not an atheistic theory.



> You remove an ultimate moral authority and we end up making these decisions to kill millions.



More like people who think they have an ultimate moral authority use their self-righteousness to kill millions.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 20, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Eugenics originated from a man who held an atheistic worldview, but eugenics did not originate from atheism. Eugenics does not depend on atheism. Was Hitler an atheist? Correlation does not equal causation. Look at the early 20th century social darwinists. Were they all atheists? It's possible to be a proponent of eugenics and be a theist.
> 
> Eugenics arose (mainly) from thoughts on the practical use of Darwin's theory of natural selection, which in and of itself is not an atheistic theory.
> 
> ...



2 questions-

1- How is darwin not an atheistic theory. He believed it was.
2- Why was someone wrong to want to kill millions to fit their goal?


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> 1- How is darwin not an atheistic theory. He believed it was.



I assume you're talking about the theory of evolution via natural selection. I'm saying that his theory and theism are not mutually exclusive. Look at all the theists who also realize the theory is correct. If someone accepts the theory of evolution via natural selection, he or she does not automatically become an atheist at that very instant.

I think what Darwin was saying (and what Dawkins says and I also agree with) is that accepting the theory of evolution via natural selection as true tends to lead towards atheism. Obviously, as said before, this is not always true, it's just an observation of a correlation.



> 2- Why was someone wrong to want to kill millions to fit their goal?



In my eyes he was wrong. In most other people's eyes he was wrong. In his eyes and others, he was right. I can only explain why he was wrong from my local perspective. I cannot explain in an absolute sense why he was wrong because I don't believe there is an absolute morality.

If 99.99999% of the people in the world think that punching Koala bears in the face is morally wrong, it does not mean that punching Koala bears in the face is absolutely morally wrong (in an objective sense). It means that 99.99999% of the people in the world share a local morality value that punching Koala bears in the face is morally wrong.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 20, 2009)

footjunior said:


> I assume you're talking about the theory of evolution via natural selection. I'm saying that his theory and theism are not mutually exclusive. Look at all the theists who also realize the theory is correct. If someone accepts the theory of evolution via natural selection, he or she does not automatically become an atheist at that very instant.
> 
> I think what Darwin was saying (and what Dawkins says and I also agree with) is that accepting the theory of evolution via natural selection as true tends to lead towards atheism. Obviously, as said before, this is not always true, it's just an observation of a correlation.
> 
> ...



OK- I can follow you on Darwin. I understand what you mean. Just don't use words like the theory is correct. If it was correct it would be the law of evolution.

2- If you can't recognize immoral acts and evil we do have an issue (not being demeaning but just emphasizing this) on this. There really is good and evil. That's self evident.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 20, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> If you can't recognize immoral acts and evil we do have an issue (not being demeaning but just emphasizing this) on this. There really is good and evil. That's self evident.



Well it's not self-evident to me. I guess I'm an idiot.

I can recognize acts that I believe are immoral, but that does not make these acts absolutely immoral. It makes them immoral to me.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 21, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> I can't see how anything but the enlightenment and eugenics can be responsible for that. Which both are coming from an atheistic world view. You remove an ultimate moral authority and we end up making these decisions to kill millions.



Or at very least, tens of thousands.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 21, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> 2- If you can't recognize immoral acts and evil we do have an issue (not being demeaning but just emphasizing this) on this. There really is good and evil. That's self evident.



Do you think that everyone, everywhere  at every time could agree on an immoral act?  Think of the most dubious act imaginable and try to come up with a reason why it might be acceptable; some condition or circumstance or perhaps from another cultural perspective.


----------



## boxofrox (Feb 21, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think that everyone, everywhere  at every time could agree on an immoral act?  Think of the most dubious act imaginable and try to come up with a reason why it might be acceptable; some condition or circumstance or perhaps from another cultural perspective.



Well I had to run off for awhile but I guess I'll start here.

The raping of a newborn baby.  Where could that ever be justified?


footjunior, I'm really not understanding how you can say that there are no moral absolutes?  So if we woke up tomorrow and the majority of the U.S. thought it was okay to kill your neighbor for a cup of milk, then morally it would be okay "locally"?  Not being a smart aleck, just trying to understand what you mean by "local".  

I think that there has been a consistent decline in moral values.  Yes, we have made some advances in areas like equality, but there are things that have become "acceptable" now that weren't even 10, 20 years ago.  When I was 13 years old, I was just beginning to understand what sex was (I'm 22 now).  I most definitely wasn't having sex! Now there is a 13 year old daddy? (http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/World/Story/STIStory_337952.html)

That's just one example.  What about the 9 year old that killed those two men?  When my age group was 9 years old we were concerned with who could climb the highest tree!  4-year-olds can tell you where babies REALLY come from (hint: not a stork anymore!).  School shootings are rampant, contracts are meaningless, and every other person you meet will try to swindle you for a dollar.  There is no sense of working for what you want anymore, it's all how much you are "owed".  

I can't say "absolutely" that, at least in this nation, that Christianity was keeping us from moral decline, but there is no denying a correlation in the very least between the violence in schools and the removal of prayer.  

The problem with not having absolutes is that there is no accountability.  It becomes "what can I do and not get caught?" 

I hope I didn't ramble to much....


----------



## footjunior (Feb 21, 2009)

boxofrox said:


> footjunior, I'm really not understanding how you can say that there are no moral absolutes?  So if we woke up tomorrow and the majority of the U.S. thought it was okay to kill your neighbor for a cup of milk, then morally it would be okay "locally"?  Not being a smart aleck, just trying to understand what you mean by "local".



By local I mean confined to within one person. We all have local morality. A lot of humanity shares the same basic local morality values, but that does not make those values absolute, it just means that many people happen to share local morality values. Why does it seem that we share the same core morality? That would be a huge discussion. In short: nature and nurture.

Yes. It would be locally moral for each individual who believed it was morally ok. For those who don't think it's ok, we could say that those individuals have a local moral value which states that it is not ok to kill your neighbor for a cup of milk.

Objectively, neither side is right since there is no absolute morality. HOWEVER, if you walked up to a person and asked for their opinion, you would receive their subjective, local moral value on the issue. Some would even state that they have an ancient book which tells them that killing neighbors for milk is morally bad, therefore they would believe that there is a moral absolute which states that killing neighbors for milk is bad. Others would point to their ancient book which tells them that it is ok to kill neighbors for milk. Both sides would believe in two separate absolutes, creating two local moral values.

When I talk about absolute morality, I'm not saying that if 100% of the people on the world believed something was wrong that would mean that there is an absolute morality which states that that action is immoral. It's in a much more abstract sense, not based on how many people believe one way or another on issues.

Is there an objective, absolute morality domain which states which acts are immoral or moral? Or are there subjective, local domains which state which acts are immoral or moral? I say the latter.



> I think that there has been a consistent decline in moral values.  Yes, we have made some advances in areas like equality, but there are things that have become "acceptable" now that weren't even 10, 20 years ago.  When I was 13 years old, I was just beginning to understand what sex was (I'm 22 now).  I most definitely wasn't having sex! Now there is a 13 year old daddy? (http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/World/Story/STIStory_337952.html)
> 
> That's just one example.  What about the 9 year old that killed those two men?  When my age group was 9 years old we were concerned with who could climb the highest tree!  4-year-olds can tell you where babies REALLY come from (hint: not a stork anymore!).  School shootings are rampant, contracts are meaningless, and every other person you meet will try to swindle you for a dollar.  There is no sense of working for what you want anymore, it's all how much you are "owed".



This is all anecdotal evidence. I think it would be better to use statistics, as they back up what you're saying but with more certainty. Yes, crime rates are up among other terrible things, but can we assume that this is caused by shift toward secular thinking? No. I have a feeling that the true cause of these things is much more complex than just one variable.



> I can't say "absolutely" that, at least in this nation, that Christianity was keeping us from moral decline, but there is no denying a correlation in the very least between the violence in schools and the removal of prayer.



There may or may not be a correlation between school shootings and the removal of prayer in schools, but that does not equal causation. The rise in global temperatures can be correlated to the decrease in pirates that inhabit the world, but I have my doubts about any causality between the two variables.



> The problem with not having absolutes is that there is no accountability.  It becomes "what can I do and not get caught?"



Bad people do bad stuff whether they feel they're accountable or not. Yes, religion can give people a reason to do good things. Religion can also give people a reason to do bad things. I think that you don't need religion to be a good person. The negative impacts of religion to the world have greatly outweighed the positive, in my opinion.


----------



## gordon 2 (Feb 21, 2009)

Quote: "The negative impacts of religion to the world have greatly outweighed the positive, in my opinion." 

This is true from your point of view as you say, but my point of view is that an Atheist plays baseball in a basket ball court and thinks that from that point of view there is nothin to home runs --until they play in a farmer's pasture.


One could easily say the negative impacts of the will to live, and the will to power, in all its forms ,( Shaupenhouer, Nietche) to the world have - greatly outweighed the positive, in one's opinion.


----------



## boxofrox (Feb 21, 2009)

footjunior said:


> Bad people do bad stuff whether they feel they're accountable or not. Yes, religion can give people a reason to do good things. Religion can also give people a reason to do bad things. I think that you don't need religion to be a good person. The negative impacts of religion to the world have greatly outweighed the positive, in my opinion.




I agree that religion has negative effects.  Because religion is human, and therefore the ability to err is prevalent.  

Just as you ask us to differentiate between atheists, agnostics, theists, etc., I have to ask that you differentiate between the religious and the faithful.  

I don't care for denominations, I never have.  I always tell people that I'm "southern baptist by marriage" 

I feel that through hermeneutics, exegesis and studying, there is a correct understanding of the Bible.  Unfortunately, there are many people out there who claim to be Christians who are no better than Pharisees, proclaiming their religion on one hand and twisting it to suit their purpose on the other.  If they never once feel conviction, they aren't getting out of the Bible what they should.  That is why people like Osteen have so many followers.  They preach prosperity and happiness, but they don't preach blood and tribulation.  They don't condemn sin, and they just want to give them a "feel-good" religion.  

You know, it's funny.  All the arguments that you give are the same ones I gave before I became a Christian.  I didn't blindly fall into this faith, and I still to this day question anything I don't understand.  

One other question: do you believe Jesus Christ existed at all? Or when you say "fairy-tale" do you think He's completely made up?


----------



## boxofrox (Feb 21, 2009)

Oh, and when you say "bad people" what makes them bad?  Why are they considered bad if there is no absolute?  If we are the "good" people, are we considered the "bad" people by them?  Because A must equal A, right? I can't be good and bad.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 21, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Do you think that everyone, everywhere  at every time could agree on an immoral act?  Think of the most dubious act imaginable and try to come up with a reason why it might be acceptable; some condition or circumstance or perhaps from another cultural perspective.



Murder. Not killing. Murder. Not state sanctioned, not self defense, not in war, but stabbing your neighbor in the neck for instance to steal his lawnmower. 

Cutting a baby in half. Raping a 1 yr old.


----------



## JohnK3 (Feb 22, 2009)

footjunior said:


> The negative impacts of religion to the world have greatly outweighed the positive, in my opinion.



First, you are confusing the acts of individuals with religion.  Second, one could make a similar argument against Atheism.

Let's look at some facts, shall we?

Between 1900 and 1999, we find the following acts of genocide performed in the name of Atheism or Atheistic regimes:

Bolshevik Pogroms - an estimated 70,000 to 250,000 civilian Jews killed during the Revolution of 1917 and the ensuing Russian Civil War, as an official policy of atheist Communism

The Holocaust - 6 million Jews, 5,000 to 15,000 homosexual men, 220,000 to 1,500,000 Romani (gypsies), 3.3 million to 3.5 million Soviet prisoners of war, over 2 million ethnic Poles, 70,273 disabled or "incurably ill" persons, all killed by an Atheist government

Guatemalan Civil War  - 200,000 people died at the hands of leftist, Atheistic government

Cambodia - The Khmer Rouge killed an estimated 1.7 million in the name of Atheistic Communism

Now, one may reasonably argue that it was factors other than Atheism that spurred the genocides, but one can also make the same arguments about religion, that it was not religion that spurred the atrocities, but politics.  However, even an Atheist cannot deny the role that Christianity, particularly the form practiced in the British Colonies in the latter part of the 18th Century, heavily influenced our modern conception of what constitutes a moral, ethical government and the right and proper role of said government in daily life.

Yes, there have been some truly horrendous atrocities performed in the name of religion.  However, it is not always the religion to blame, but more often the individuals who practice that religion improperly use religion as their excuse for their behavior.


----------



## ambush80 (Feb 22, 2009)

boxofrox said:


> The raping of a newborn baby.  Where could that ever be justified?





celticfisherman said:


> Murder. Not killing. Murder. Not state sanctioned, not self defense, not in war, but stabbing your neighbor in the neck for instance to steal his lawnmower.
> 
> Cutting a baby in half. Raping a 1 yr old.



As part of a religious ceremony


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 22, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> As part of a religious ceremony



Wow.  That's a really good answer.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 22, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> As part of a religious ceremony



Where is that done?


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 22, 2009)

Past human history reflects such activities.  Law has improved over the generations.
Even the thought of human sacrifice strikes me as totally stupid.  No matter what "god" did the commanding.

I did not mean "good" as in "wholesome or acceptable" at all.
I meant "good" as thought provoking and historically factual.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 22, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Past human history reflects such activities.  Law has improved over the generations.
> Even the thought of human sacrifice strikes me as totally stupid.  No matter what "god" did the commanding.
> 
> I did not mean "good" as in "wholesome or acceptable" at all.
> I meant "good" as thought provoking and historically factual.



Wonder why they stopped???


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 22, 2009)

In time people can figure out what is fiction.  So, something else has to become en vogue.

http://www.godisimaginary.com/index.htm


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 22, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> In time people can figure out what is fiction.  So, something else has to become en vogue.
> 
> http://www.godisimaginary.com/index.htm



Usually there is a reason.

Mayan human sacrifice stopped when they were defeated by the Spanish. South Pacific human sacrifice stopped when they were evangelized by the dutch, english, and spanish. 

Yes new things become en-vogue when alternatives and reasoning are presented to them. Rational complete alternatives.

The story of the Jews in the Bible and God leading them from polytheism to monotheism away from human sacrifice and then away from animal sacrifice.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 22, 2009)

True, Egyptians and Aztecs did stop their practices for a reason.

I'll have to say the alternative presented was somewhat more rational, but far from being complete.
God (Yahweh) has at various times demanded human sacrifices.  Supposedly, not anymore as Jesus was the answer as to why to stop.
Why the change from a deity that is the "same yesterday, today and forever?" 
Why wasn't a Jesus sacrificed before the millions that were forced to lay on an alter or be thrown in a volcano?  They would have really appreciated not having to be a part of that, I'm sure.
And, if we follow the Christian belief system, those victims of sacrifice are not in "Heaven."  Anyone else see how unfair that seems on its face?  "God" has no problem with that?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 22, 2009)

From the time of God speaking to Abraham he has moved his people away from Human sacrifice and inflicted punishment on those that did participate in it. Even when it was His people. God never changed he had to teach mankind. 

Jesus was sent here at the perfect time to enact God's plan. The perfect time to affect change.

Now if you mean all people who lived before Christ if they believed in the coming Christ and the fulfillment of God's promises then they are there. If not well no different than today.


----------



## boxofrox (Feb 22, 2009)

I think Ravi Zacharias put it in a good way...(I'm paraphrasing)

You can get away from the fact of evil by saying that it's a "local morality"

You can get away from the face of evil by saying what's evil for me isn't evil for you

but you can never get away from the feeling of evil.  No matter how you try to rationalize it, if someone killed a newborn baby right in front of you, you wouldn't like it. No one in their sane mind would.


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 22, 2009)

boxofrox said:


> I think Ravi Zacharias put it in a good way...(I'm paraphrasing)
> 
> You can get away from the fact of evil by saying that it's a "local morality"
> 
> ...



I love it when he uses that example. It's so plain and simple. So effective and disturbing.


----------



## boxofrox (Feb 22, 2009)

I really enjoy his works.  He's good at breaking things down and answering questions.  

footjunior, I have one other question.  How sure are you that there is no god and that there is nothing after this life?  If you had to put a percentage on it?


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 22, 2009)

boxofrox said:


> ...but you can never get away from the feeling of evil.  No matter how you try to rationalize it, if someone killed a newborn baby right in front of you, you wouldn't like it. No one in their sane mind would.



Including those who saw the angel of death take their firstborn......


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 22, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Including those who saw the angel of death take their firstborn......



Yep. Sometimes Justice is harsh. God gave them a whole bunch of warnings before doing that...


----------



## boxofrox (Feb 22, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Including those who saw the angel of death take their firstborn......



He giveth and He taketh away.  

They had plenty of warning.  God is a God of love, but he is also a God of judgment and wrath.  He is not held to the laws of man.  I can't think of a time in the Bible (correct me if I'm wrong) when God did not give people ample warning and chances at repentance before bringing judgment on them.  

He threatened punishment and He followed through.  If you are a parent, and you threaten your child with grounding if they skip school, and they do it again, do you ground them? Or do you let them get away with it.  If you let them get away with it, especially after many warnings, well that's not very good parenting.


----------



## footjunior (Feb 23, 2009)

boxofrox said:


> One other question: do you believe Jesus Christ existed at all? Or when you say "fairy-tale" do you think He's completely made up?



I have seen enough evidence to say that I believe he existed. It's a possibility that he didn't, but I think that he did.



> Oh, and when you say "bad people" what makes them bad? Why are they considered bad if there is no absolute? If we are the "good" people, are we considered the "bad" people by them? Because A must equal A, right? I can't be good and bad.



They're bad because I think they're bad. This does not mean that they fit into an absolute domain of bad, it means that they fit into my local domain of bad. If I thought they were good, then they would be good, locally. I'm about to give up on this subject. People keep asking the same things over and over.



> First, you are confusing the acts of individuals with religion.



Obviously the acts are committed by individuals. But what motivates these individuals? When a suicide bomber is so confident that he will get 72 virgins in Heaven if he dies as a martyr, and he yells "Allah Akbar!" right before blows himself up, isn't it safe to conclude that he was at least partly was motivated by his religious beliefs?



> Second, one could make a similar argument against Atheism.
> 
> Let's look at some facts, shall we?
> 
> ...



I think the question is, "Would the atrocities have occurred if it wasn't for the individuals religious beliefs?"

Would 9/11 have happened if the hijackers had not believed that when they die they will go to Heaven?

You say it's the individuals, yet you list (highlighted red in the quote above) government policies as the cause of the atrocities. Could you describe how the supposed atheism in these governments directly led to the atrocities which you described? Remember that many of these acts themselves were carried out by individuals who were religious. Nazism promoted Christianity within its platform. Many Nazis were Christians who viewed the Jews as "God-killers." While that obviously wasn't the only reason they hated the Jews, it's just one more instance of religion fueling the flames of hate.



> However, even an Atheist cannot deny the role that Christianity, particularly the form practiced in the British Colonies in the latter part of the 18th Century, heavily influenced our modern conception of what constitutes a moral, ethical government and the right and proper role of said government in daily life.



I agree somewhat, but I would extend it to all of history. Religion has always played a huge role in civilizations. Just look at the Middle East and especially Iran and Turkey. Their governments are formed around religion. I think religion has been playing less of a role in the modern era. Most countries are moving towards secularism.



> Yes, there have been some truly horrendous atrocities performed in the name of religion. However, it is not always the religion to blame, but more often the individuals who practice that religion improperly use religion as their excuse for their behavior.



This has been discussed before, within this thread. "Individuals who practice that religion improperly." Who's to say they're right and moderate mainstream is wrong? If they use their religion as justification to do wrong, then it matters not whether you think they're practicing the wrong way or not, they're still motivated by religion.



> footjunior, I have one other question. How sure are you that there is no god and that there is nothing after this life? If you had to put a percentage on it?



I'm sure enough that I'm an atheist.  

In reality I'm not sure, if speaking of absolute certainty. There may very well be a god or gods. I admit in the beginning I wasn't sure. The more I learn about people and psychology, the more certain I am. Dealing with death very close has also taught me a lot about religion, it's benefits and it's possible origins with homo sapiens.


----------



## boxofrox (Feb 23, 2009)

It just makes me uneasy that you are willing to try to convince others to drop their faith if you aren't 100% sure that there is no God.  

I think our biggest problem is that as vehemently as I state that Christ does exist, that you just as much believe that He doesn't  But only one of us can be right.  I reckon we'll find out one day! (I hope I've got another 70 or so years to go though, can't let my husband off the hook that easy!  )

I've enjoyed talking with you footjunior.  The more questions you ask, the more I dig deeper and the more I learn.  So thanks for making my faith stronger!  hehe


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 23, 2009)

It's interesting to me how footjunior believes in the "laws of logic" which he can't see or touch but nevertheless accepts because????????? 

I hope everyone can see this is a double standard. This is what I referred to as atheism being a self defeating system. It erodes from within because its self contradicting. 

The best we can do is try to get atheist to be consistent within their frame work of belief. Ultimately, the even the simplest of minds can recognize their problem really isn't an intellectual problem but a authority problem.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 23, 2009)

boxofrox said:


> It just makes me uneasy that you are willing to try to convince others to drop their faith if you aren't 100% sure that there is no God.




No reason to be uneasy.  Believe in what you wish.  That is a freedom we have here in America!

But here are some points to ponder.....
http://www.godisimaginary.com/index.htm


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 23, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> No reason to be uneasy.  Believe in what you wish.  That is a freedom we have here in America!
> 
> But here are some points to ponder.....
> http://www.godisimaginary.com/index.htm





It may be America, but if we are just a pile of matter resulting in chemical responses that is determined by various stimuli outside of us are we really free???? 

This seems to be another contradiction. Sorry couldn't resist, I had to respond to electrical impulses and I can't be held responsible.


----------



## boxofrox (Feb 23, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> It may be America, but if we are just a pile of matter resulting in chemical responses that is determined by various stimuli outside of us are we really free????
> 
> This seems to be another contradiction. Sorry couldn't resist, I had to respond to electrical impulses and I can't be held responsible.



Have you ever read Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict? It's a really good read if you haven't.

I only read a couple of points, but to me it's just more God bashing than anything.  It won't change what I know in my heart to be true.

If I know 2+2=4, you can tell me till your blue in the face that it's 5, but I'll always hold that its 4.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 23, 2009)

Free from what, pastor?  America currently allows freedom of choice in religious beliefs.

Yes, we are a pile of matter, chemicals that are working in concert to sustain life.  Look at what's left when its over.

Is accepting that this life on earth is secondary to some unknown or unproven eternal one, or living in fear of an unproven eternal judgement living totally free?


----------



## celticfisherman (Feb 23, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Is accepting that this life on earth is secondary to some unknown or unproven eternal one, or living in fear of an unproven eternal judgement living totally free?



No. It is living in Freedom.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 23, 2009)

boxofrox said:


> Have you ever read Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict? It's a really good read if you haven't.
> 
> I only read a couple of points, but to me it's just more God bashing than anything.  It won't change what I know in my heart to be true.
> 
> If I know 2+2=4, you can tell me till your blue in the face that it's 5, but I'll always hold that its 4.



That's your choice.  I'm happy you have made it and are standing by it.

I've read McDowell.  He supports the story as an apologetic and pushes for blind faith like many other supportive belief system authors.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 23, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> No. It is living in Freedom.




Atheism is argued as being even more free.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 23, 2009)

WTM45

I am checking out your the link you provided. A couple of things in response to the video "the bible is repulsive" :

1. It is easy in our day to point out hypocrisy in American christianity. What does this prove? 

If christinas are living like atheist, which is called practical atheism, why are they judged as though they were solid christins? Atheist do this because they are easy to defeat and pose little to no opposition to their absurdity. 

2. There is no way 98% of Americans believe in the 10 commandments! So the video proves that America is not a christian nation. Nothing new!

3. It's been historically known by atheist of old such as Voltaire, who was a murdering pervert,  who knew to do away with the Christian Sabbath would be to do away with Christianity. Nothing new! 

4. To say that God is repulsive because He requires the death penalty for breaking certain commandments is laughable. Though this is easily explained how can an atheist find mass murder repulsive???? How can an atheist account for this???? Please!!! How many unborn babies will be murdered today!!!!! Where is the atheist out cry???? Oh, wait, that isn't repulsive to the atheist, its merciful. SO, how many people in the bible was executed for breaking the Sabbath verses abortions????? 

 Just another hypocritical contradiction.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 23, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Free from what, pastor?  America currently allows freedom of choice in religious beliefs.
> 
> Yes, we are a pile of matter, chemicals that are working in concert to sustain life.  Look at what's left when its over.
> 
> Is accepting that this life on earth is secondary to some unknown or unproven eternal one, or living in fear of an unproven eternal judgement living totally free?





My point again- if we are just a pile of matter that is responding to various outside stimuli then are we acctually free? 

The is answer is no, we are not free at all! If you are wired to respond to the electrical impulse caused by outside stimuli, and can do none other,  then you are nothing more than a puppet to your environment. Nothing else.


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 23, 2009)

Hypocritical?  If "God" has a plan for everyone, then why is his plan inclusive of abortion?
There are atheists who are pro-life.  Of that I can be positive.

Murder is most repulsive to the victim.  Fact.

We can tick-tack back and forth point by point.  It will not be very productive nor stimulating/interesting.

Folks, believe what you wish.  Believing in a god does help some with their day to day.  That's well and good.

Thankfully, we do not have to human sacrifice to Ra or one of the Greek ones!


----------



## boxofrox (Feb 23, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> That's your choice.  I'm happy you have made it and are standing by it.
> 
> I've read McDowell.  He supports the story as an apologetic and pushes for blind faith like many other supportive belief system authors.




Can you explain what you mean by "blind faith"?  As in never questioning?  Because that's simply not true.  If he supported blind faith, his book would have one page "BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO"


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 23, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> ...then you are nothing more than a puppet to your environment. Nothing else.



A puppet that has changed, evolved and survived through natural selection and tenacity.

I'm gonna take a break for a while.  It's been interesting and insightful conversation.  I care not for the last word, so folks carry on!


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 23, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> That's your choice.  I'm happy you have made it and are standing by it.
> 
> I've read McDowell.  He supports the story as an apologetic and pushes for blind faith like many other supportive belief system authors.



As a christian I think evidential apologetic is more for the christian instead of the atheist. You can never produce enough evidence to make the atheist say "uncle."


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 23, 2009)

boxofrox said:


> Can you explain what you mean by "blind faith"?  As in never questioning?  Because that's simply not true.  If he supported blind faith, his book would have one page "BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO"



That central statement is the premise of the entire book.  That is the basis of the belief.
Have a great day!


----------



## boxofrox (Feb 23, 2009)

LAST WORD!!!


Sorry, had to.  :-D

Reformedpastor, I guess that takes us back to the beginning.  We can witness, testify, and answer what questions we can, but in the end, it's the Holy Spirit that's got to do the work in someone.  

Oh well, this was fun! I enjoy having people make my brain hurt! Hehe


----------



## WTM45 (Feb 23, 2009)

reformedpastor said:


> You can never produce enough evidence to make the atheist say "uncle."




The original post is answered.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 23, 2009)

boxofrox said:


> Can you explain what you mean by "blind faith"?  As in never questioning?  Because that's simply not true.  If he supported blind faith, his book would have one page "BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO"




He can only make this statement by presupposing God doesn't exist. His own reason and prejudice is his starting point. 

Of course, Christians can be guilty of blind faith. Such as having faith in faith instead of faith in Christ.


----------



## reformedpastor (Feb 23, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> A puppet that has changed, evolved and survived through natural selection and tenacity.
> 
> I'm gonna take a break for a while.  It's been interesting and insightful conversation.  I care not for the last word, so folks carry on!



A puppet that has changed? Changed itself? How can this be? Talk about faith!!!!!!!!


Come back when able, this is fun.


----------



## gtparts (Feb 23, 2009)

If I am a puppet, I love my Puppeteer!

Thank you, Jesus!

Pull my string, Stringmeister.


----------

