(March 23, 2013 at 12:32 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 22, 2013 at 2:41 am)Esquilax Wrote: ...atheism is only a position about the existence of god, not the refusal to worship him...

The evidence proves otherwise, especially in your case. There's a little bit of both. You hear it all the time, "Even if you had evidence for your f*cking genecidal c*nt god, I still wouldn't worship the a**hole." You can pretend that you're just a level headed and fair minded judge, but in the end its just posturing. You don't want there to be a god. At least Thomas Nagel was honest when he said,

Quote:I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.

Yes. I fully accept that even if your god, as depicted literally in your bible, was incontrovertibly true, I would not worship him. He would not be worthy of worship.

But, Chad, could you try looking at my post in the context it was written?

Radorth was attempting to prove that the atheist position is based not on reason and facts but on faith, and the way he did that was with a hypothetical: "If Jesus returned and performed a worldwide miracle, would you worship him?"

And no, I wouldn't. But that doesn't mean I'd deny he existed. It's not an irrational position; he would exist, that would be a fact. But mere existence doesn't entitle any being to worship. Why would it?

(March 23, 2013 at 6:28 am)Esquilax Wrote: ...mere existence doesn't entitle any being to worship. Why would it?

Depends of the nature of the being. In the case of God, we presumably have a being that in its essence is both maximally good and maximally wise.

Every single argument I've read on this topic is either mind-numbing bullshit or it could be applicable to any other religion.

Come on, people! Give me more!

(March 23, 2013 at 12:14 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: In the case of God, we presumably have a being that in its essence is both maximally good and maximally wise.

You obviously have not read the Bible, or else you would not have made that erroneous statement. Though in your defense, you did use the word presumably.

(March 21, 2013 at 11:32 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: I would like for once to see an actual argument that would attempt to prove specifically Christianity and not just basic theism...Have fun.

Bach wrote music. Therefore, the Christian God exists.

For some people that works... As a specific revelation, though, Christianity rests on the reliability of the Scriptures and the Gospel accounts. That topic has been discussed elsewhere to exhaustion.

---

(March 23, 2013 at 12:36 pm)Mr Infidel Wrote: You obviously have not read the Bible, or else you would not have made that erroneous statement.

Have I committed some logical fallacy or are you just speaking from your shallow and misguided understanding of the Scriptures?

On Christian forums, I can paraphrase an argument I heard from one of it's members and put into simple syllogism form.


God is of ultimate grace and love.
The greatest gift a human can be given, is accepting God's greatest possible charity/grace, which would make him love the divine in best way possible (ultimate possible thankfulness to divine).
The greatest possible charity of God that can be manifested is in sacrifice of his son/himself, in which redemption and closeness to God is offered as charity.
Christianity therefore is true (1, 2, 3).


Premise 1 doesn't need to be debated since it's going from general theism to specific theism.

Premise 2 is debatable, but for those who think our purpose is to glorify God, it arguably is possibly true.

Premise 3 is even more debatable, but seems true to Christians.

The conclusion follows from there.


Note: I don't believe in this argument myself, just thought I would make things interesting.

(March 23, 2013 at 12:53 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: understanding of the Scriptures?

http://titen-sxull.hubpages.com/hub/God-is-NOT-Love

God is impatient, unkind, envious, God is boastful and prideful, He is easily angered, He delights in evil. Simply stated, God fails at love.

(March 23, 2013 at 1:40 pm)Mr Infidel Wrote: God is impatient, unkind, envious, God is boastful and prideful, He is easily angered, He delights in evil.

Have it your way. If you can only read the bible literally, then you don't have any greater insight than the fundamentalist Christians you criticize.

(March 21, 2013 at 11:54 pm)Drich Wrote: The proof of Christianity is in God, not in some arguement. Maybe that is why none of you have found Him. Your looking to you ablity to reason and understand God, when God said you can only be given this ablity to reason through the Holy Spirit. And if you want a measure of the HS and you have to do is A/S/K as outlined in Luke 11. Which none of you will do because it is all appearently too simple.

Proof for God = God. Damn that's brilliant! Wish I had thought of that!

Seriously though, I and many other former believers have genuinely asked for the Holy Spirit to come as in Luke 11. Many, many times on many nights as a believer. I mean, why do you think so many former believers exist in the first place? We have sought and did not find. So, either your Holy Spirit is selective, even among genuine believers, or he isn't there. Take your pick. He way, he doesn't come out looking very good.

All you need to do to disprove Christianity is read the Bible itself. Really read it. It kills itself quite well. This is why no Christian has ever read the whole thing, those who do stop being Christian before they reach the end.