RE: My Escatological Vision
January 19, 2011 at 9:57 am
(This post was last modified: January 19, 2011 at 10:15 am by dqualk.)
@Rayaan I will continue to use the term atheist until a better term is presented to me. I understand that not all atheists are materialists, but for the sake of my point I am using a different defintion of atheists, one whic his commonly used.
@Only Natural
Not necessarily. If you consistently reject the Truth of God you will go to hell. However, it is possible that you have not recieved the gift of faith, as faith is a gift of God, and if this is the case then such a sin will not necessarily be held against you as you are not responsible for that sin. However, if there were a time where you were certain that God exists but you insisted upon blaspheming Him by continuing to say He doesn't exist even though you know He does, then you would go to hell. So if you genuinely do not believe that God exists, becuase of your decision to seek out Truth in charity, I do not hold that against you and I do not believe God does either.
However, I would compel you to always be open to the idea that God exists, in case something happens that convinces you of the Truth of God, like say He came down from heaven or something crazy, at that point you should be ready to accept the Truth and reject your former false assumption. And I hope just about anybody would.
I was not being sarcastic, I was explaing why I think it does not make sense to say you actually exist within atheism (or whatever you want to call it, dialectical materialism or whatever).
I understand that great minds have come to the decision that atheism is reality, like Bertrand Russel, and David Hume. I just recepectfully disagree with their assumptions and rationale.
@padraic, I don't know if you cannot read or if you just did not read, but it clearly points out "(a) presumed to be true" this is using properly basic, or a priori assumptions to build upon, like I exist, right and wrong exist, intrinsic value exists, etc. Also, "An important distinction in the field of evidence is that between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence" curcumstancial evidence is still evidence, it may not sufficiently fulfill the burden of proof but it can strengthen an argument to the point of rational assent, for example, scientist have strengthened their myth of the big bang to such a degree that I have given it rational assent and a I now believe it.
ALSO lol " "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges." The FACT is that man has ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE believed in God. Atheists are a NEW phenomenon, and therefore in my opinion the burden of proof lies upon YOU sir. There are very few examples of atheists in history, and they are always a novelty, they always reject the mainstream. I would say the earliest argueable athiests appeared in ancient Greece, many were called Sophists, and they were considered novel. After Plato and Aristotle sufficiently destroyed there arguments, they would not reemerge until the enlightenment for the most part. Therefore the burden of proof is on you. Also, I assume you were a Christian before you became an atheist, or at least most are, and therefore you gave up your beautiful tradition handed down to you by your daddy's daddy, all the way back, and you rejected it without proof, that is you rejected the notion that God exists, that intrinsic value exists, and that right and wrong exists.
@Jaysyn, I have read the Bible more than you have googled it lol. I know everything the Bible says about slavery as I have studied the particular issue for quite some time. The fact is many historians beleive that slavery only finally died because of Christianity. This is because the first person in history to call for its complete end was St. Gregory of Nyssa. Also, when Americans capture prisoners of war we put them into prison. Why is this not slavery? We are taking away their rights and we are commanding them what they can and cannot do. The Jews did something similar. Slavery is this, when a man is believed to become property in a basic sense. Christiantiy teaches that it is impossible to make a man into property, and so does the OT. Yes indentured servants were in the OT, and yes people had to work hard for their food, and the times were cruel, but the Bible teaches against slavery, as it has a universal mesage that we are all created in the image of God, and this implies that we all are equal in dignity.
Of course Jesus believed in the OT, and so do I. I also believe that WW II happened, this does not mean that I agree with the vile murder of Jews etc. And once again Jesus superceded the OT, by hitting at the spirit of God's laws.
@Only Natural
Quote: And yet, if I do good in this world and live a life of charity, but I still reject the idea of a god, I'm going to hell anyway, right?
Not necessarily. If you consistently reject the Truth of God you will go to hell. However, it is possible that you have not recieved the gift of faith, as faith is a gift of God, and if this is the case then such a sin will not necessarily be held against you as you are not responsible for that sin. However, if there were a time where you were certain that God exists but you insisted upon blaspheming Him by continuing to say He doesn't exist even though you know He does, then you would go to hell. So if you genuinely do not believe that God exists, becuase of your decision to seek out Truth in charity, I do not hold that against you and I do not believe God does either.
However, I would compel you to always be open to the idea that God exists, in case something happens that convinces you of the Truth of God, like say He came down from heaven or something crazy, at that point you should be ready to accept the Truth and reject your former false assumption. And I hope just about anybody would.
Quote:No. You can believe your fairy tale all you want, but don't come in here and foist it upon others.I apologize I do not mean to force my belief on anybody. I am only telling you what I believe. I do not expect you to suddenly agree with me, and I can understand why you would not, as I believe this is a very difficult issue, and its not all that surprising that you ended up on the other side of a most difficult question.
Quote:You got that right! Oh wait, you were being sarcastic...
I was not being sarcastic, I was explaing why I think it does not make sense to say you actually exist within atheism (or whatever you want to call it, dialectical materialism or whatever).
Quote:Apparently not. 'Reasonable' is not how I'd describe anything you've said. If anything, you're only trusting your emotions because it just 'feels' right to you.I hope you do not really believe that, becuase that would be sad. I am willing to reason with you, its uncomfortable for you to accept the validity of my beliefs. Its uncomfortable for me to accept the validity of a Muslims beliefs but I do. I do not believe a Muslim is right, likewise I do not believe an atheist is right, but I accept the validity of their beliefs. The fact is one must draw the line somewhere, as you what beliefs are properly basic (a-priori) and which are not. I sincerely believe that belief in God can be properly basic, especially as a rational explanation for intrinsic value, and existance in general. Many of the greatest minds of all time have come to the conclusion, like Leibniz, Decarts, Aristotle, Aquinas, et al.
I don't know why I even bother. You come in here with your a priori assumptions, insisting that nothing and no one will ever change your mind. What a waste of time. *sigh* 'If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people,' so damn true...
I understand that great minds have come to the decision that atheism is reality, like Bertrand Russel, and David Hume. I just recepectfully disagree with their assumptions and rationale.
@padraic, I don't know if you cannot read or if you just did not read, but it clearly points out "(a) presumed to be true" this is using properly basic, or a priori assumptions to build upon, like I exist, right and wrong exist, intrinsic value exists, etc. Also, "An important distinction in the field of evidence is that between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence" curcumstancial evidence is still evidence, it may not sufficiently fulfill the burden of proof but it can strengthen an argument to the point of rational assent, for example, scientist have strengthened their myth of the big bang to such a degree that I have given it rational assent and a I now believe it.
ALSO lol " "the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges." The FACT is that man has ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE believed in God. Atheists are a NEW phenomenon, and therefore in my opinion the burden of proof lies upon YOU sir. There are very few examples of atheists in history, and they are always a novelty, they always reject the mainstream. I would say the earliest argueable athiests appeared in ancient Greece, many were called Sophists, and they were considered novel. After Plato and Aristotle sufficiently destroyed there arguments, they would not reemerge until the enlightenment for the most part. Therefore the burden of proof is on you. Also, I assume you were a Christian before you became an atheist, or at least most are, and therefore you gave up your beautiful tradition handed down to you by your daddy's daddy, all the way back, and you rejected it without proof, that is you rejected the notion that God exists, that intrinsic value exists, and that right and wrong exists.
@Jaysyn, I have read the Bible more than you have googled it lol. I know everything the Bible says about slavery as I have studied the particular issue for quite some time. The fact is many historians beleive that slavery only finally died because of Christianity. This is because the first person in history to call for its complete end was St. Gregory of Nyssa. Also, when Americans capture prisoners of war we put them into prison. Why is this not slavery? We are taking away their rights and we are commanding them what they can and cannot do. The Jews did something similar. Slavery is this, when a man is believed to become property in a basic sense. Christiantiy teaches that it is impossible to make a man into property, and so does the OT. Yes indentured servants were in the OT, and yes people had to work hard for their food, and the times were cruel, but the Bible teaches against slavery, as it has a universal mesage that we are all created in the image of God, and this implies that we all are equal in dignity.
Of course Jesus believed in the OT, and so do I. I also believe that WW II happened, this does not mean that I agree with the vile murder of Jews etc. And once again Jesus superceded the OT, by hitting at the spirit of God's laws.
