13 Questions

[Angrboda]

[Anymouse]

Remember, I am a Reformed Christian, so my views on the reasons why people do and do not believe are going to be way different than yours and we will most likely miss one another.

However, I do not agree with your premise that babies are "atheists" just because they lack a belief in God. The dog turd I saw "sun bathing" on the sidewalk on my way to work this morning also lacks a belief in God, is it an atheist? This is why I think that atheism is more accurately defined by several encyclopedias of philosophy as a positive belief in the non-existence of God or gods.

I am afraid your agreement is not required in this. An atheist is one who does not believe. "Why" is not part of the definition.

A Christian is either inculcated in that religion as a child, or adopts it later themselves. So too a Muslim, a Hindu, a Wiccan. Before that, a baby does not believe; that is the definition of atheism. Age is not a requirement. Agnostics are also atheists by definition: they do not believe, either.

Babies are atheists until inculcated with religion. If the baby is born in the USA, it will likely become a Christian through rote learning. If the same baby were born in Yemen, that would not be the case.

Christianity (or any other religion) is not inherent in a baby's makeup.

[Violet]

We do not have the authority to accuse someone of having committed the unpardonable sin. To do so would be to condemn the person as forever lost, without hope of redemption. Christians do not have the knowledge or authority to make such pronouncements. Only God and the person knows who has committed the unpardonable sin. Remorse is a sign of conviction. Sufficient remorse would indicate presence of the Holy Spirit.

Larry wasn't the only one who knew 'the person' who has committed the unpardonable sin. I know too

... Only one thing could kill Larry, and that one thing is the same one thing that can kill me. There's a reason I know that, y'know

And no, I don't feel remorse. Infact, I wish I had done it sooner.

[downbeatplumb]

You are contradicting yourself though, you say that nobody would come up with the concept of Yahweh independently, but then you say that the Israelites came up with Him independently and forced Him on other people they conquered.
I would argue that a monotheistic God is a very logical conclusion just by examining Creation itself. I think people could come up with a single, eternal, all powerful, all knowing God on their own which is exactly what scripture says (Romans 1).
I am sorry but atheism is not a consistent position at all, atheists contradict their positions all the time (i.e. Dawkins).

Right I did not say that no one could come up with the idea of jahweh, I was saying that people would not come up with THE SAME IDEA TWICE, I actually explained this in what i thought was simple language, but obviously not simple enough.

I'm thinking of something now.

Now you think of something.

Bet its not exactly the same thing.

Religions are like that.

There are lots of them and they are all different.

If they were all based on a universal truth then they would be the same.

Do you get it now, do you, do you get it now, do you..........

[Statler Waldorf]