Quote:You were a devout Pentecostal who read the King James Version of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, but you could not understand it.

I wasn't aware ANYONE understood that obscurist drivel. I have of course run across lot of arrogant pricks who claim THEY do.


Being brought up Catholic,we were slightly embarrassed by the Book Of Revelations, and couldn't really understand how it found its way into the canon. We pretty much ignored it,considering it be be within the purview of mystics and the crackpot fringe of Christendom.EG Evangelicals,JW's, Adventists,etc. Of course Mormons were beyond the pale.

One needs to understand what the Pope and other Catholics actually mean when they use the term 'ecuminical': The hope that all other Christian churches will finally realise they are in error and recognise the Catholic church as the one true church.

(August 15, 2012 at 3:24 pm)spockrates Wrote: Not sure I understand. Why is it necessary that God predetermines every choice you, or I will make (if such a God were to exist, I mean). Am I misunderstanding what you wrote? Please clarify.

No, you got it. Here's why I think that this would have to be the case in a world with a God whose attributes included omnipotence and the power to create:
If this creator has the power to make any world he wants, then it follows that he necessarily takes free will from the equation. Reason being, if it is the case that he can make any world, he chose a world where events played out a certain way. If he chose a world where events played out a certain way, then all the events of that world are subject to his will. If all events are subject to his will, then nothing that occurs in that world is against his will (unless he is too stupid to make a world where everything matched his will) and all choices you could possibly make are null. Choices are nullified because the your will is really the will of that God, having chose the universe where you would make the decisions you are making and not different decisions. To rephrase, you aren't the arbiter of your own choice, the omniscient God chose the world where you would choose as you do. True free will isn't subject to a God's choice of a world.

---

If you want the reason most people on this site became atheists, try looking to prove God.
If you find something that you think proves a God exists, bring it to me to deconstruct and obliterate. The chances I haven't heard that argument are a million to one.

(August 15, 2012 at 4:25 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(August 15, 2012 at 4:09 pm)spockrates Wrote: Private pastimes aside, it seems to me the no proof debate is a wash. Christians say atheists have no proof there is no God; atheists say Christians have no proof there is a God. I think there might be reasonable reasons to believe there is a God, just as there are reasonable reasons to believer there is not. But it's possible neither side meets the other side's burden of proof, I think. What do you think?

I say there is a god, he hates the very act of worship above all else and will send all christians to a specially created level hell worse than all other levels for this reason. Prove me wrong.

OK, I'm up for the challenge! But first I need to find out something: Did this God in whom you believe create the human race, or is he, she, or it only out to steal, kill and destroy?

---

(August 15, 2012 at 4:27 pm)MountOlympus Wrote: Spock, what you are talking about is highly metaphysical in nature, and as such, delves into uncertain uncertainties. Science just does not have the answer yet, but we're working on it. (Or, at least I am.)

Sweet! Dude, are you a physicist? Or are you searchin for the answer to the question from a different scientific approach?

---

(August 15, 2012 at 4:27 pm)Tobie Wrote: You seem to think that atheism is a belief that there is no god, whereas it is the lack of belief in a god.

Fascinating! Do you have a lack of belief in the idea that there is no God because you know the idea is true, or because you don't know the idea is true, or because you simply don't care whether the idea is true?

---

(August 15, 2012 at 4:31 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(August 15, 2012 at 4:24 pm)spockrates Wrote: Yes, but is it not also irrational to believe they don't? Since there is also no reason to believe souls don't exist? I'm thinking both beliefs are without reason, and so unreasonable. Perhaps the most reasonable position to take is to say that one does not know?

It is irrational not to doubt to the point of dismissal anything that has not been soundly demonstrated to be required to exist. This flows directly from the fact that the collection of equally plausible alternatives to that thing that exclude the said thing out number and out weigh the thing in question by an factor of infinity to one.

Yes, I agree. I'm just thinking doubt that a proposition is true is in no way proof that the proposition is false.

---

(August 15, 2012 at 4:42 pm)Tobie Wrote:

(August 15, 2012 at 4:37 pm)spockrates Wrote: And how do we handle the eyewitness accounts of those who have had near-death experiences, or those who claim to have seen, heard, or spoken to ghosts? Do we scoff at the idea simply because our experiences are not similar?

No, we scoff at the idea because it cannot be verified. Anecdotes are not evidence. If I told you that the almighty god Geoff appeared to me in a dream and told me to spread his word, would you believe me? No. I'm not giving babble coming out of the mouths of various cretins the same credibility as science.

If that is true, then a great many people are in prison (even on death row) for lack of any evidence. For in your view, isn't an eyewitness testimony no evidence at all? I'm not sure a jury of you peers would buy that one!

---

(August 15, 2012 at 5:00 pm)cato123 Wrote:

(August 15, 2012 at 3:12 pm)spockrates Wrote: OK. I used to be Evangelical, have considered becoming Catholic, but am investigating atheism before I make up my mind. Does that help?

This reply has the potential of being lenghy. Your statement above makes clearer your line of questioning in this and other threads. I don't understand the limitations you place on your quest.

Atheism is simply the rejection of all god claims. That's it, so I don't understand the Catholic or atheist choice. Are you simply wrestling with the existence of a god? This should be settled before deciding on a brand of religion.

If you decide on the idea of a god as the creator of the universe, how do you then limit your choice to just one of tens of thousands of Christian sects? What happened to all the other creation myths and associated religions? Why wouldn't a desitic position be acceptable if you choose to believe in a god creator?

This is where religion comes in. It's purpose is to tell you how to think about god, what creeds you must maintain for membership, how to treat fellow humans, how to interpret ancient testimony (ancient doesn't apply to Mormons or Scientologists, among others), how to vote (in many cases), what clothes are acceptable, what foods can be consumed, the list goes on. There are varying degrees amongst religions regarding this mind control.

I have difficulty understanding how educated adults can read The Bible or other ancient texts and not immediately dismiss them. To believe that these books are the inspired word of god takes a frightening level of credulity in the 21st century. There is then the argument that they aren't the inspired word of God and there are some good lessons to be learned. This requires an extrabiblical standard of good and bad, so then what need do I have of the Bible for morality if it is not the standard? It may contain excellent expositions of what we might call good, but it is not its source. Joining a particular Christian sect just shifts the standard to the person reading the text from a raised platform at the front of the room. I choose not to abdicate thinking about my existence to anyone, let alone someone that invokes books claimed to be inspired by god that were actually written by scientifically ignorant blood thirsty ancients.

I reject all god claims due to the lack of evidence. With god out of the way I reject all religions due to their lack of authority in matters of truth. I will consider specific religious tenants based on their adherence to reality. If someone can present evidence for god I will consider it. Even if god's existence were proved, assigning authorship of the Bible to this entity would be a herculean task.

Thanks for the advice, Cato. Please tell me: What evidence for the existence of God have you considered already?

---

(August 15, 2012 at 5:01 pm)MountOlympus Wrote: Coincidences are coincidences for a reason.

If I said, "someone is going to die today", that would be a factual statement based around knowledge that a large amount of people die every day. If I then went further to say, "someone will die today, but it will be because of war", it could turn out to be true or false, because war is fought all around the world, but in that one day not a single death could be caused because of it.

Spacecraft used to be incredibly high-risk flying containers. If I said, "someone is going to die in that particular spacecraft", there would be a high chance of that actually happening. But just because it might happen or does happen, doesn't mean anything metaphysical interfered to make it happen.

Yes, it might be a coincidence. But please consider the evidence: This was the first shuttle disaster. It took the NASA engineers who designed it completely by surprise. There were many safe missions flown prior to the disaster. My wife has lived 40 years. For all of the years prior to the disaster and all of the years after it, she has had no other experience of having a feeling of dreadful certainty that someone she did not know would die and when she would die and how she would die.

What are the odds that this experience that has happened only once in her life is a mere coincidence? Personally, I think it would take more faith for me to believe it was a coincidence than to believe it was not. And this is not a religious bias, for predicting the future is frowned upon by many Christians. Just using it as an example of why I don't automatically dismiss any occurance that is out if the ordinary. The character and state of mind of the person having the experience should be considered, as well as the circumstances surrounding that experience.

---

(August 15, 2012 at 5:15 pm)LastPoet Wrote:

(August 15, 2012 at 4:37 pm)spockrates Wrote: And how do we handle the eyewitness accounts of those who have had near-death experiences, or those who claim to have seen, heard, or spoken to ghosts? Do we scoff at the idea simply because our experiences are not similar?

Do we take into account of diagnosed shizophrenics about voices speaking to their heads telling them to hurt themselves and sometimes others? If no, why should we take into account a person that due to trauma, the brain is not working properly? Its not scoffing, its knowing the human mind, the little we know.

As to ghosts, when I was a kid, I was walking through an old abandoned house, reputed as being haunted, a flash of light from a window scared the shit out of me. I truly believed at that time it was a ghost of somekind, yet, I wasn't satisfied. The next day I repeated my path, and saw the phenomena repeated itself. Hmmm. I gained entrance to the house and discovered a mirror that was in such an angle that reflected a street light at the distance (those times they were white) when I was passing by.

I used science, and it works bitches!

Yes, but see my post about my wife's experience and my recent reply to MO regarding the same.

---

(August 15, 2012 at 5:18 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(August 15, 2012 at 4:09 pm)spockrates Wrote: Private pastimes aside, it seems to me the no proof debate is a wash. Christians say atheists have no proof there is no God; atheists say Christians have no proof there is a God. I think there might be reasonable reasons to believe there is a God, just as there are reasonable reasons to believer there is not. But it's possible neither side meets the other side's burden of proof, I think. What do you think?

I think you do not understand burden of proof, despite it being explained to you numerous times in several threads (including this one).

For one who claims to love logic, you should know this.

Please see my post about the informal logical fallacy of making an inference from ignorance and explain how it does not apply.

---

(August 15, 2012 at 5:44 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(August 15, 2012 at 4:48 pm)spockrates Wrote: Let's put it this way: My wife is the most skeptical and logical person I know. She never talks about the paranormal. Yet, the day she watched a news program about the first teacher to take a ride in to space in the space shuttle, she turned to her mother and said, "Mom, I know she is going to die." That shuttle exploded on take off.

Too bad you and she did not take it serously then. if you had made an effort you might have saved the lives of seven people...or at least have it on record that you tried. Have you heard of the Jeane Dixon effect? It refers to Jeane Dixon's many failed predictions being ignored while her few correct ones made her the world's most famous psychic.

People sometimes get premonitions, a strong feeling about a future event. They are usually wrong, but some of them will occasionally be right. Based on a single incident, there's nothing mysterious about your wife's experience: she had a premonition that turned out to be correct. It's not like the odds of a rocket crashing are a million-to-one. And note that your wife didn't predict THAT. If the teacher had died in a car crash or had a stroke or was shot, you would still take the prediction as fulfilled. The less specific the prediction, the more likely it is to be fulfilled by chance.

If premonitions turned out to be true 25% of the time, I would take them seriously. It isn't nearly that close.

(August 15, 2012 at 4:48 pm)spockrates Wrote: So what does this mean? Was she crazy? No, the proof was in the tragedy. Was she lying? She is actually the most honest person I know (I should know, because I've been married to her for many years). She has a type A personality, and would rather confront someone and die, than tell a lie. So how did she know? I don't know. I just know she did, and I cannot deny the evidence.

How does lying enter into it? You give the impression that you were there at the time, so you would be in a position to know firsthand what your wife said, and the only way she could be lying is if she believed the teacher wouldn't die and said she would anyway. Now if Christa McAuliffe were alive today, you would probably have forgotten the incident by now and certainly wouln't bring it up. No lying or craziness, just a very human tendency to count the hits and ignore the misses.

(August 15, 2012 at 4:48 pm)spockrates Wrote: Does this prove there are ghosts? No. But it does prove to me that there are experiences others have that I have never had that cannot be denied as genuine.

Genuine in the sense that all involved were sincere, or genuine in that it was genuinely paranormal? I have had strange experiences myself, including two 'ghostly ones', but I tend to examine such things closely: one was an accidentally-formed illusion, the other fits the profile of a night terror.

(August 15, 2012 at 4:48 pm)spockrates Wrote: So when someone talks about an experience he has had which seems remarkable to me, and I know that person to be sincere and sane, I hesitate to brush off what he says.

When my aunt tells me not to touch the stove because it's hot, I don't touch it. She is sincere and sane, and I hesitate to brush off what she says...and she is in a position to know if the stove is hot. But if she told me not to touch it because it contained a spirit which would destroy my soul, I would (perhaps cautiously, given her previous reliability) have to verify it for myself, starting by finding out why she believes that. Sincere and sane people can be fooled, misperceive, or have strange beliefs. One hallucination doesn't mean you're insane. People have been investigating these things scientifically--the only reliable tool we have to find out if a phenomena is real or not--for over a hundred years without being able to verify a single case that is what it appeared at first to be.

Next to hearsay, eyewitness testimony is the worst kind: a dozen people at a scene will give you a dozen versions of what happened. We miss things, we misinterpret things, we make mistakes; and we are more likely to do all three when frightened. We're wired to be more likely to attribute agency to events than to think they're random because even though people likely to dismiss a rustle in the grass as the breeze will be right more often than people who are more likely to think it's a dangerous predator, the person who is usually right is still more likely to get eaten, 'cause they only have to be wrong once.

Knowing that people have hallucinations, knowing that people sometimes think they're awake when they're still dreaming, knowing that our eyes can play tricks on us, knowing that other people can play tricks on us, knowing that many times it has been shown that something that at first seemed supernatural turned out to be mundane, knowing that everyone who has tried to prove the reality of paranormal phenomena has failed...is it really that reasonable to accept someone's account of an incident that would be at odds with what we already know about the natural world (like how we can know things) at face value?

Think about the implications. If your wife had stopped McAuliffe from boarding the shuttle: Her prediction would have been wrong (assuming you didn't get one of those twist endings where she falls into a wood chipper or something to fulfill the prophecy, since your wife didn't say how McAuliffe would die). However, there was nothing really your wife could have done, so the information was useless, except as a story to tell later, I suppose. But if her information really came from the future, you and she were affected by something that hadn't happened yet. You seem to think that something like God is needed as a terminus for an otherwise infinite chain of cause-and-effect, but you don't even believe that causes must precede effects because you believe in a case where the effect (the premonition) preceded the cause (the crash). If effects can precede causes, the chain of causality can start that way: an effect that preceded a cause, making an ultimate cause unnecessary.

I'm not going to go down those rabbit holes based on anecdotal evidence.

Please see my reply to MO regarding my wife.

---

(August 15, 2012 at 5:51 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(August 15, 2012 at 4:48 pm)spockrates Wrote: Let's put it this way: My wife is the most skeptical and logical person I know. She never talks about the paranormal. Yet, the day she watched a news program about the first teacher to take a ride in to space in the space shuttle, she turned to her mother and said, "Mom, I know she is going to die." That shuttle exploded on take off.

So what does this mean? Was she crazy? No, the proof was in the tragedy. Was she lying? She is actually the most honest person I know (I should know, because I've been married to her for many years). She has a type A personality, and would rather confront someone and die, than tell a lie. So how did she know? I don't know. I just know she did, and I cannot deny the evidence.

Does this prove there are ghosts? No. But it does prove to me that there are experiences others have that I have never had that cannot be denied as genuine. So when someone talks about an experience he has had which seems remarkable to me, and I know that person to be sincere and sane, I hesitate to brush off what he says.

Coincidence.

Let me tell YOU a little story. I'm an avid poker player. One time, I found myself in a hand heads up with a friend. The game was no-limit Texas hold'em and we were all-in on the flop with two cards to come.

(If you are not familiar with the game, we each had two hole cards, and there were three exposed community cards on the board. The combination of one's hole cards and the community cards make your hand. As we were all-in (all of the money was in the pot), no further betting would occur).

We turn over our hands, and I see that I am WAY ahead - the only way that my opponent can win is if the two cards to come are either the two remaining nines in the deck, or two spades.

I do not often do this, but this particular time, I called for the dealer to deal the worst possible card for my hand (i.e. the one card that would give my opponent the best chance of beating me, even though the odds would still be slim): the nine of spades. All in the interest of keeping things interesting.

The nine of spades came on the next card. So the sensible thing to do is to call for the least likely card that could beat me: the nine of hearts. Which, by the way, also came.

Improbable things happen, and absent any kind of corroborating evidence that there's something supernatural occuring, I see no reason to chalk such happenings up to anything other than coincidence.

Please see my reply to MO regarding this.

---

(August 15, 2012 at 5:58 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(August 15, 2012 at 5:10 pm)spockrates Wrote: You were a devout Pentecostal who read the King James Version of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, but you could not understand it.

Very uncharitable of you and arrogant, too. I hoped I did not understand it. Turns out I understood it fine. Not looking good.

(August 15, 2012 at 4:48 pm)spockrates Wrote: So you tried reading a more modern version. You then became what you call an agnostic theist, but (for reasons not explained) could no longer believe the Bible was inspired. You were gullible and interested in all things fantastic--UFOs, Nessie, hauntings, Yettie and the like. Then you became more skeptical and open minded. A teacher of your made a fool of himself trying to defend his liberal, Orthodox Christian beliefs. So you decided a closed mind was more rational.

I hoped I was misunderstanding you, too, but again I was wrong. You are just a troll. Yawn. Really though, it's a compliment. It means I don't think you're really stupid enough to sincerely conclude that I decided a closed mind was more rational. You're just baiting me.

(August 15, 2012 at 4:48 pm)spockrates Wrote: The proper application of the burden of proof that you learned in a class on logic was also helpful. The class taught you that you should believe nothing until it meets that burden of proof. You then made up your mind to not even provisionally consider God as a possibility.

I really didn't expect you to give up the game so early. On the off chance that you're really this dense, I still consider God as a possibility. If that's what you really think, so much for your reading comprehension.

(August 15, 2012 at 4:48 pm)spockrates Wrote: The whole trip took you 20 years without the aid of the Internet.

Does that pretty much sum it up?

In a way that demonstrates you're wasting both your time and mine, I suppose. Good to know. B'bye.

Please go back and read you first post to me and explain how I misquoted you. If I have misunderstood you, then I owe you a sincere apology for misunderstanding.

---

Thank you everyone for replying. It will take some time to respond to every one, but I hope to do so soon. What I'm hearing are three main reasons for me to quit Christianity, which are ( in order of popular vote):

1. There's no reason to restrict my behavior
2. There is no God
3. There is no soul that survives the body after death, and so, no judgement for one's behavior

(August 16, 2012 at 6:43 am)spockrates Wrote: Thank you everyone for replying. It will take some time to respond to every one, but I hope to do so soon. What I'm hearing are three main reasons for me to quit Christianity, which are ( in order of popular vote):

1. There's no reason to restrict my behavior
2. There is no God
3. There is no soul that survives the body after death, and so, no judgement for one's behavior

You forgot to mention my reason... To bring about the "New Covenent"

"Christianity" has been used and abused by those in power to control the masses for centuries.

Hell is used to scare the populace into conformity.
Tithing is used to bilk the populace out of their money.
"Brotherhood" has been used to exclude people of different faiths and customs.

I would love to see the wealthiest organization in the world use their money to end world hunger, wouldn't you?

Hi spock,

(August 14, 2012 at 10:24 pm)spockrates Wrote:

(August 14, 2012 at 4:01 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: How about the main one: there is no evidence to support the proposition that the Abrahamic God exists.

...or the follow-up: all reputable, valid studies of claims which support the proposition that the Abrahamic God exists have falsified the proposition.

...or the follow-up to that: all reputable, valid studies of claims that any supernatural proposition exists have falsified those propositions.

If the Abrahamic God existed, how should he demonstrate his existence?

Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that the definitions of the attributes of the Abrahamic God are confused, contradictory and in some cases, impossible... assuming that he exists as defined (sic) by the bible, he could do something testable, something that leaves tangible, physical evidence which cannot be explained by anything other than his action. According to the bible, he used to do this all the time.

(August 16, 2012 at 8:47 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Hi spock,

(August 14, 2012 at 10:24 pm)spockrates Wrote: If the Abrahamic God existed, how should he demonstrate his existence?

Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that the definitions of the attributes of the Abrahamic God are confused, contradictory and in some cases, impossible... assuming that he exists as defined (sic) by the bible, he could do something testable, something that leaves tangible, physical evidence which cannot be explained by anything other than his action. According to the bible, he used to do this all the time.

Thanks BD. What about the test of his existence spelled out through Moses?

17 The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.”

21 You may say to yourselves, “How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the Lord?” 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

(Deuteronomy 18)

---

(August 16, 2012 at 1:06 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

spockrates Wrote:Yes, but if the newcomer is asking, rather than telling, would the same be true? If I ask you why someone believes there is no God, is it up to me to answer my own question?

I guess that's a good point, which reflects reality better.

Thanks.

Quote:I guess from the word 'go' I would start wondering how many different versions of god I need to disprove before 'GOD' is disproved altogether. We can talk about why omnipotence, omni-benevolence and omniscience don't work together but then you can just bring up the next variation to that ad infinitum. This world is concerned with the things that exist and not non-existent things. So I would think that it's logical for you to show me why god is a possibility as opposed to me showing the endless list of possible gods to be non-existent.

I just wrote a thread about this actually: http://atheistforums.org/thread-14314.html

Well, I suppose it would save me a lot of time if I could determine that it is impossible for any being to be perfectly and completely powerful, and at the same time perfectly and completely loving, and at the same time perfectly and completely wise. That feat would fell a full house of God concepts! Please explain how you know these three attributes to be incompatible. Or would you like to talk with me about it in the other discussion thread?

Quote:

(August 15, 2012 at 12:52 pm)spockrates Wrote: If Jesus' disciple Matthew penned his gospel after Mark, why is this evidence he did not write the gospel?

Because that gives rise to the possibility that he used Mark as the basis for his work, which it seems like he did. The Synoptics are best understood with a Markan priority type approach. That helps to explain why Mark is so short compared to the other two, why it misses out on important things like a birth narrative and witness accounts of a resurrected Christ, and why Matthew + Luke are more incredible sounding (because Mark toning down the miracles wouldn't really make much sense.. at least to me).

Not sure I understand. Seems to me that all this suggests is that Matthew might have plagiarized Mark. It does not appear to demonstrate Matthew never not wrote the gospel bearing his name. Am I missing something, or have I correctly state the point you are trying to make?

Quote:

Quote:From what I understand, John was the youngest disciple who outlived the others. He spent his last days exiled on an island and had many visitors and even his own disciples. If I were a Christian at the time who visited John in exile, I'd ask him to tell me something Jesus said, or did that I did not already know from the previous gospels. It makes sense to me that John, near the end of his life, would write a gospel with people like these in mind.

Being younger than others that lived through the same events as you does not equate to gathering better sounding evidence for something. I'm not too sure what logic that is....

John and Matthew supposedly saw the same things but somehow John came out with a Gospel that exceeds the Synoptics in lots of ways. Age has nothing to do with this.

Never said John's evidence was more substantial; just tried to make the point that John's information is additional. He added details of Jesus' life the others left out of their gospels. We see the same today, don't we? Some journalist writes a biography of some president. It sells a lot of copies, and the public becomes interested. A former member of the president's administration writes another biography, with details not found in the previous one. People buy that one, too--not because the new biography rehashes the same old details of the man's life, but because the new biography has additional information not presented in the previous biography. See what I mean?

---

(August 16, 2012 at 2:05 am)padraic Wrote:

Quote:You were a devout Pentecostal who read the King James Version of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, but you could not understand it.

I wasn't aware ANYONE understood that obscurist drivel. I have of course run across lot of arrogant pricks who claim THEY do.

It's kind of like reading, or listening to Shakespeare. After awhile the meaning of the words start to make sense to you. I prefer more modern translations, as they require less of a mental workout to interpret.

Quote:Being brought up Catholic,we were slightly embarrassed by the Book Of Revelations, and couldn't really understand how it found its way into the canon. We pretty much ignored it,considering it be be within the purview of mystics and the crackpot fringe of Christendom.EG Evangelicals,JW's, Adventists,etc. Of course Mormons were beyond the pale.

One needs to understand what the Pope and other Catholics actually mean when they use the term 'ecuminical': The hope that all other Christian churches will finally realise they are in error and recognise the Catholic church as the one true church.

Yes, that sounds like what Catholics tell me. They say Protestants are Christians, too, who only have part of the truth about the true church.

---

(August 16, 2012 at 5:59 am)Skepsis Wrote:

(August 15, 2012 at 3:24 pm)spockrates Wrote: Not sure I understand. Why is it necessary that God predetermines every choice you, or I will make (if such a God were to exist, I mean). Am I misunderstanding what you wrote? Please clarify.

No, you got it. Here's why I think that this would have to be the case in a world with a God whose attributes included omnipotence and the power to create:
If this creator has the power to make any world he wants, then it follows that he necessarily takes free will from the equation. Reason being, if it is the case that he can make any world, he chose a world where events played out a certain way. If he chose a world where events played out a certain way, then all the events of that world are subject to his will. If all events are subject to his will, then nothing that occurs in that world is against his will (unless he is too stupid to make a world where everything matched his will) and all choices you could possibly make are null. Choices are nullified because the your will is really the will of that God, having chose the universe where you would make the decisions you are making and not different decisions. To rephrase, you aren't the arbiter of your own choice, the omniscient God chose the world where you would choose as you do. True free will isn't subject to a God's choice of a world.

---

If you want the reason most people on this site became atheists, try looking to prove God.
If you find something that you think proves a God exists, bring it to me to deconstruct and obliterate. The chances I haven't heard that argument are a million to one.

Sounds much like Reformed Theology to me. Calvin would be proud!



The difficulty I have with the Reformed view is this:

1. It does not fit with certain passages of the Bible that contradict it. Seems to me a Christian should adopt a position that is consistent with the books they profess to be divine in origin.

2. The goal of God according to most Christian views is to promote love among people for each other and for him. It seems to me love is impossible without freedom of will.

I would not expect you to defend (1), so let's consider (2). Please explain how a person could freely love God without the freedom to choose to not love him.

---

(August 16, 2012 at 8:19 am)catfish Wrote:

(August 16, 2012 at 6:43 am)spockrates Wrote: Thank you everyone for replying. It will take some time to respond to every one, but I hope to do so soon. What I'm hearing are three main reasons for me to quit Christianity, which are ( in order of popular vote):

1. There's no reason to restrict my behavior
2. There is no God
3. There is no soul that survives the body after death, and so, no judgement for one's behavior

You forgot to mention my reason... To bring about the "New Covenent"

"Christianity" has been used and abused by those in power to control the masses for centuries.

Hell is used to scare the populace into conformity.
Tithing is used to bilk the populace out of their money.
"Brotherhood" has been used to exclude people of different faiths and customs.

I would love to see the wealthiest organization in the world use their money to end world hunger, wouldn't you?

I would say that your answer falls under one (or perhaps all three) of these categories. Wouldn't you?

---

Hey all:

I think I've responded to everyone. Please let me know if I missed one of your posts. When you have the time, I'd like to know what you think of my responses.

---

I should amend my previous statement. The answers given so far fall under four main categories:

1. There's no reason to restrict my behavior
2. There is no God
3. There is no soul that survives the body after death, and so, no judgement for one's behavior
4. The Bible is not a reliable, historical document

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:A_to_...JAQing_off

(August 16, 2012 at 11:02 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:A_to_...JAQing_off

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

(August 16, 2012 at 1:58 pm)spockrates Wrote:

(August 16, 2012 at 11:02 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:A_to_...JAQing_off

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You should probably read those things before you post them. Insulting you isn't an ad hominem.

You're wrong and you're hair is funny: insult.

You're wrong because your hair is funny: ad hominem.

I don't think you're sincere. I don't think you're open to changing your view on atheism, as you claim. I think you're just here to lead us around in circles.

Furthermore, I'd rather you didn't change your view on atheism before you change your views on what constitutes rational thought and honest discourse. I'd rather have you on 'the other side'. That's out of my control of course, we don't get to choose who agrees with us.

None of that makes you wrong about your views on atheism. It doesn't make you a bad person, either...lots of people don't put their best foot forward on the internet. It's a very anonymous environment and for all I know you're 12 and just having us on or 80 and breaking the tedium between cancer treatments. I'm in no position to judge you personally. Your internet persona, on the other hand, is a different matter. I don't see the point of continuing to engage you on this topic in this thread. I'm not going to put you on ignore or anything, your behavior in other threads or on other days might be a different story.

Best of luck with everything.

(August 16, 2012 at 2:22 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(August 16, 2012 at 1:58 pm)spockrates Wrote: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You should probably read those things before you post them. Insulting you isn't an ad hominem.

You're wrong and you're hair is funny: insult.

You're wrong because your hair is funny: ad hominem.

I don't think you're sincere. I don't think you're open to changing your view on atheism, as you claim. I think you're just here to lead us around in circles.

Furthermore, I'd rather you didn't change your view on atheism before you change your views on what constitutes rational thought and honest discourse. I'd rather have you on 'the other side'. That's out of my control of course, we don't get to choose who agrees with us.

None of that makes you wrong about your views on atheism. It doesn't make you a bad person, either...lots of people don't put their best foot forward on the internet. It's a very anonymous environment and for all I know you're 12 and just having us on or 80 and breaking the tedium between cancer treatments. I'm in no position to judge you personally. Your internet persona, on the other hand, is a different matter. I don't see the point of continuing to engage you on this topic in this thread. I'm not going to put you on ignore or anything, your behavior in other threads or on other days might be a different story.

Best of luck with everything.

Fair enough. It was not an ad hominem attack, because I believe I have not made any assertion to attack. I stand corrected, and please accept my apology.

What I don't understand, Mister is why you think I have a view on atheism, since I have not expressed one! What I have done is to ask questions about the reasons others have given why they are atheists. I'm not sure why you believe asking questions about why someone believes is the same as denying what someone believes. (However, I'd love to ask you why, if only you would care to answer!) I don't think I have said that anything anyone has told me was not true--though I should make an exception in your case and say it is untrue that I'm insincere about seeking the the truth.

It seems to me your opinion of me is like that of the critics of Socrates saying he denied the pagan gods were wise simply because he asked the pious Euthyphro some questions about why he believed they were. Asking Euthyphro how he knew the gods were wise (given that the gods disagreed and fought among themselves about what was wise and what was foolish) was not the same as denying they were wise, regardless of Euthyphro's inability to answer the question. At best, the only thing Socrates' questions proved was that Eutyphro didn't know, which is quite different from asserting that what Euthyphro thought he knew was untrue.

Best of luck to you, too. (BTW, I still like your avatar's costume!)