Archbishop of Canterbury admits he has doubts about God

[Thumpalumpacus]

Looking for evidence would seem to be a lack of faith.

The evidence is often what brings us to faith.

That's illogical, given the definition of faith, as provided in the Bible you claim to abide.

There is no evidence for your god, anyway. By your reasoning, your faith is vapid.

[Lek]

What others accept or reject doesn't effect my decision to be a christian, Mini.

Of course, why else do you think your position has been categorically dismissed?

Yeah, by you and a few atheists.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Of course, why else do you think your position has been categorically dismissed?

Yeah, by you and a few atheists.

... not to mention another five billion adherents of other faiths, who believe their dogma just as surely as you believe yours.

[Lek]

Yeah, by you and a few atheists.

... not to mention another five billion adherents of other faiths, who believe their dogma just as surely as you believe yours.

Touche. But most of them have faith and believe in a higher power. I believe christianity is the truth, but I think God doesn't turn away those who are truly seeking him. A good thing is that I don't think there are any places in the world today where one is forced to claim christianity, as it may have been in the past.

[Thumpalumpacus]

... not to mention another five billion adherents of other faiths, who believe their dogma just as surely as you believe yours.

Touche. But most of them have faith and believe in a higher power. I believe christianity is the truth, but I think God doesn't turn away those who are truly seeking him. A good thing is that I don't think there are any places in the world today where one is forced to claim christianity, as it may have been in the past.

Of course they have faith, that's why they're called adherents. They have exactly as much evidence for their claims as you do, zero, and yet are just as convinced as you are.

What does that say to you about your own conviction that you are in possession of the Truth?

Also, if you believe that Christianity is the truth, how do you reconcile your belief in your god's acceptance of sincere searching with the idea that unless an adherent accepts Christ they are damned? If they've never heard the Word preached and testified, can they be punished? And if they can still get into heaven, doesn't that diminish Christ's role in the theology?

[Lek]

Of course they have faith, that's why they're called adherents. They have exactly as much evidence for their claims as you do, zero, and yet are just as convinced as you are.

What does that say to you about your own conviction that you are in possession of the Truth?

Also, if you believe that Christianity is the truth, how do you reconcile your belief in your god's acceptance of sincere searching with the idea that unless an adherent accepts Christ they are damned? If they've never heard the Word preached and testified, can they be punished? And if they can still get into heaven, doesn't that diminish Christ's role in the theology?

Christ is the savior. Anyone who is saved is saved through him. If someone is seeking the truth, then he is seeking him. They may not have heard of him, but he is still the one by whom they are saved.

[robvalue]

I know that the god as described by most christians (omnipotent, omniscient and entirely good) cannot exist, because it is self contradictory. It's an absolutely ludicrous concept. In relations to claims such as that, I'd go further to say I am a gnostic atheist. (Gnostic in this case excluding the ever present but useless concept of solipsism.)

Atheist don't need saving, because they do not impose upon themself the idea are full of sin, like christians do. Sin is a religious concept only, religion causes the sickness then offers the cure. As Dan Barker said in a marvelous video I watched last night, if religion is the cure, atheism is the prevention. And anyhow, you're being saved from god, the guy is offering to save you from himself, his wrath and disgusting need to torture people because they disagree or don't believe in him.

This is a hilarious clip from that video, which shows just how ridiculous the idea of sin and "being saved" is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=854J4ffKDww

[Lek]

I know that the god as described by most christians (omnipotent, omniscient and entirely good) cannot exist, because it is self contradictory. It's an absolutely ludicrous concept. In relations to claims such as that, I'd go further to say I am a gnostic atheist. (Gnostic in this case excluding the ever present but useless concept of solipsism.)

Atheist don't need saving, because they do not impose upon themself the idea are full of sin, like christians do. Sin is a religious concept only, religion causes the sickness then offers the cure. As Dan Barker said in a marvelous video I watched last night, if religion is the cure, atheism is the prevention. And anyhow, you're being saved from god, the guy is offering to save you from himself, his wrath and disgusting need to torture people because they disagree or don't believe in him.

This is a hilarious clip from that video, which shows just how ridiculous the idea of sin and "being saved" is:

I don't think the video is hilarious. I think it's stupid. If hell exists, you can't avoid it just by not believing in it. I'm your king and you break one of the laws I have established for my kingdom. I sentence you to execution, but decide to have mercy on you and execute my son in your place. Did I save you from execution or not? It doesn't matter who made the law or built the execution chamber. I saved you from a just punishment.

[Minimalist]

Anyone who is saved is saved through him.

Evidence?


Didn't think so.

[Lek]

Anyone who is saved is saved through him.

Evidence?


Didn't think so.

Scripture is my evidence. One can choose to believe it or not.