Genuine Question To Theists Part 2 :)

[c0de]

Um, I intended to, but thanks for the endorsement....

'It' will be made very apparent to me, will it?

You talking about the appearance and existance of god, right?

And you know this for sure, do you?

How?

'Cause the bible told you so?

Or has god actually spoken to you?

The Quran actually. But its all the same to you, I am sure...
And who told you that you shouldn't be expecting this meeting?
What is the source of your belief? And it is that, a belief.
Just like a theist, you have FAITH in your paradigm. So go ahead,
post your evidence. Start a thread and question the existence of
God from the point of view of LOGIC, Science, mathematics, whatever
you wish. Show us all what your paradigm is based on. Instead of making
quip remarks against the theists here in which you are basically just
ridiculing their beliefs, step up and make an actual argument to back
up your own.

Consider this an open challenge.

 

[enlightenment]

The Quran actually.

Bible/Koran/Book of Mormon, whatever.

This is all a theist can bring to the table.

A blind faith, based on the word of man, written a long time ago, when many things were not understood, in a culture which would be alien to us today.

Not a watertight source, is it...

 

[c0de]

Bible/Koran/Book of Mormon, whatever.

This is all a theist can bring to the table.

A blind faith, based on the word of man, written a long time ago, when many things were not understood, in a culture which would be alien to us today.

Not a watertight source, is it...

I notice you completely ignored the challenge.

Why is that? Are you not confident in your own views?

 

[Nick_A]

I am always open minded enough to take on board new evidence, as long as it is tested again and again, and peer reviewed. Then I will be inclined to accept it as factual.

But I am not so open minded that my brain falls out, lol!

If you tell me that you were abducted by aliens, and went to their planet, I would be an utter fool to believe you, based on just your testimony.

Odds are that you would be lying or deluded, or both.

If you told me that same story, and were able to prove it in some way, perhaps by showing an artifact which could only have been made by another life form, not humans, then I might start to give your claim for respect.

Same with religion.

Stories of men walking on water, parting the sea, making the blind see, etc, they remain just that, stories, until such a time that someone can prove to me that such things are possible, without the use of props or science.

Thanks

We seem to be referring to two different things. You are referring to facts verified by your intellect and I am referring to human "perspective." We know that knowledge varies in its quality as in math for example. Some understand it better than others. But we don't know what creates a human perspective and how it also varies in quality. Though we easily define intellectual knowledge and can prove whether it is correct or not, We don't know what emotional knowledge is and how it also varies in quality. The essence of religion, before the experts get a hold of it, is a means for acquiring a realistic human perspective as opposed to what we call normal defined by secular standards.

You want to know what to believe and I am more interested in how better to become able to "understand." This seems to be our difference.

 

[Dondi]

So.

You could say that both heaven and hell (sic) are the domain of god, right?

All I meant by that is there is no hierarchal order in hell.

Ya know, it would take a pretty sick mind to create some sort of cosmic torture chamber.

Again, you've misread what I've said. For people who do not wish to be in His Presence, God is accomodating them. Descriptive words such as 'outer darkness', 'fire never quenched', 'worm never dies' can have symbolic meaning. The outer darkness is the absence of light, in other words, they are not in the Presence of God's light, where they don't want to be in the first place, which leads me to believe that hell is a lonely place. Fire that is never quenched is living with the sins of your past and never receiving forgiveness that is freely available from God, so there are the fires of constant guilt and shame, and the worm that never dies is the bitterness that sets in while coiled in the sinful state you remain in as long as you resist and resent God. These things remain and become your hell. The torture is the result of the state you are in.

I once asked a Christian women if a good man could go to heaven, after death, to which she replied in the negative.

Apparently, no matter what good deeds you do here, you have a pass for hell, when you die.

Your crime?

You were a lovely fella, but refused to bow to the idea of a supernatural creator, and believe in some words in various books.

In order to achieve the fullest measure of the human spirit, one must be imparted with the divine Spirit that will enable one to experience the fullest measure of love and compassion. This is something that one cannot accomplish on one's own.

I'm not opposed to the idea that somewhere along the line a person can 'find' the Presence of the Spirit, even if that person didn't happen to belong to the Christian religion. The Apostle Paul in the book of Acts of the fact that God places us where we are and when we live:

"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:" - Acts 17:26-27

This leads me to believe that the Spirit and Presence of God can be found by one regardless of background or culture. C.S. Lewis describes these as 'anonymous Christians' (or maybe a better term would be 'incidental Christians', my coin), because even though they might not have the knowledge of Jesus Christ, they are seeking after that "Something" (Paul in the above passage refers to the Unknown God) and living the spiritual life that is standard to the kind of thing Jesus taught.

Meantime, it is feasible that if a man killed several times, but repented and 'found god', that HE would be spared the same fate, and might even have the chance to enter heaven.

Huh?

I don't think Christians get an automatic pass on the consequences of their actions. We are all going to be judged by God one day. We may go through a 'purging' process of similar intensity. I Corinthians 3:14-15 teached that, "If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." Certainly we will know the fire of shame and guilt for not living up to the will of God, but nevertheless the difference is that we desire to be in the Presence of God and seek forgiveness, recognizing that God is Merciful.

Perhaps part of that judgement may come in the form of facing those whom we've done wrong, or in the case you've stated, even murdered. And maybe some sort of reconciliation process mediated by the Lord and seeing the victim forgiving his own murderer.

Incidently, there have been cases where the mother of a murdered victim has come face to face with the murderer in sessions at the prison and over time come to forgive the murderer. In some cases have come to love and 'adopted' the inmate as if they were her own son. This tells me that healing and reconcilliation is possible even here on earth.

I am amazed that more theists do not use their critical thinking skills to determine just how illogical and unfair that sounds, then reject it, for that is the only thing it is worth, imo.

You will find I'm a bit more tolerant in regards to the subject of the afterlife than most Christians. For one, coming to a site such as Interfaith.org has opened up a lot of things for me. I actually came here because I was seeking answers that made since, because I had a hard time believing that God would send people to hell on the technicality of never hearing about Christ.

I also learned that the point of 'salvation' is not merely to gain some kind of 'fire insurance' and get a free pass into heaven. Rather that God is looking to conform us into the kind of people He intended us to become. The whole of the 'Law' is summed up in two commandments: "Love God and love thy neighbor as yourself".

If there is going to be a 'heaven' then their must be harmony. As long as we fight amongst ourselves and seek after selfish things, we are never going to find that peace. Peace is only going to come when their is harmony. If we can only live according to the two commandments, we will find that peace.

 

[Marsh]

Isn't it obvious?

Hey, god is all powerful, right?

And he 'brought these two people together', as per the line, right?

And commands that no thing shall tear them apart.

And yet for all his apparent 'might', Christians divorce at the same rate as non Christians.

The logical conclusion to that is they divorce in equal measure, because there is no god.

God also said that we are to go forth and multiply. Thus, God doesn't exist unless we all have at least four kids-- SO LOG OUT AND GET CRACKIN'!

 

[enlightenment]

God also said that we are to go forth and multiply. Thus, God doesn't exist unless we all have at least four kids-- SO LOG OUT AND GET CRACKIN'!

Lol.

I've had two.

I will just practice from now on.

 

[enlightenment]

If we can only live according to the two commandments, we will find that peace.

Two?

What of the other eight?

 

[c0de]

I notice you completely ignored the challenge.

Why is that? Are you not confident in your own views?

^^


Hey Enlightenment... I am still waiting

 

[wil]

Two?

What of the other eight?

Surely you mean the other 614. You'll not like the two, as that that you almost 100% you don't believe is involved in the first one, and loving the believers (and non believers) is involved in the second.

 

[Nick_A]

but you're just repeating the same incorrect assumption you made earlier. only *universalist*, *exclusivist*, *contradictory* truth-propositions cannot all be right at once. why does my truth mean your truth is untrue? why don't you give a proper example, so we can discuss that? or are you just making sweeping, reductionist, poorly-evidenced generalisations to fit your prejudice? because it's not like you do that very often, do you? i thought you were in favour of evidence?


nick, i consciously live *my*religion. you're in no position to evaluate me. what-evaaaah.

b'shalom

bananabrain

If you did live your religion consciously you would not get the satisfactions you do from all your negative expressions and attitudes. You use words without understanding their meaning.

 

[Dream]

A lot of interesting posts! This will be one of the more boring ones.

I think any atheist ought to consider becoming a humanist, and I think a good humanist ought to support free thought. The world has a tendency towards religion, so naturally a humanist atheist should hope to see free thinking furthered. It is alarming to read comments about nuking the Bible belt, not that I take such comments seriously but that such perfectly undermine the 'humanism belt.' Elimination of all dissenters? That's just borg. Above all, a humanist ought to express hope in people having differences of opinion! Anything can become hard coded and elevated, for example Aristotle's scientific findings. That is the natural tendency which you're supposed to be fighting, Mr. Atheist. Long term, maybe consider instilling the concept of choice in the next generation. If you go around telling people what to think, then you really should not expect free choice to prevail at all. What is the point, then?

 

[enlightenment]

Surely you mean the other 614. You'll not like the two, as that that you almost 100% you don't believe is involved in the first one, and loving the believers (and non believers) is involved in the second.

Ten commandments.

I thought it was ten.

Not two.

Or over 600.

Please elaborate.


Thanks

 

[Resigned]

A lot of interesting posts! This will be one of the more boring ones.

I think any atheist ought to consider becoming a humanist, and I think a good humanist ought to support free thought. The world has a tendency towards religion, so naturally a humanist atheist should hope to see free thinking furthered. It is alarming to read comments about nuking the Bible belt, not that I take such comments seriously but that such perfectly undermine the 'humanism belt.' Elimination of all dissenters? That's just borg. Above all, a humanist ought to express hope in people having differences of opinion! Anything can become hard coded and elevated, for example Aristotle's scientific findings. That is the natural tendency which you're supposed to be fighting, Mr. Atheist. Long term, maybe consider instilling the concept of choice in the next generation. If you go around telling people what to think, then you really should not expect free choice to prevail at all. What is the point, then?

I’m not sure where you get these perceptions from. From my perspective, it’s the religious entities that tend to be exclusive of those who are part of the out-group. Just try being a Jew or Christian in any Arab nation. How many Christian Churches are there in the KSA? That’s a rhetorical question, BTW.

Let's be honest. Religions don’t coerce their adherents via promises of free thinking and individualistic expression, they use fear. I have no reason to believe I’m going to hell for not obeying a religious doctrine. The concept only derives from various religious texts and tales and fables. These tales are derived to invoke fear. Fear is a powerful motivational tool. What better way for an elite ruling class to coerce conformance from the toiling masses than to threaten them with such things as burning flesh, eternal damnation and eternal pain.

That's why many religions use this form of mind control to gain and keep their members. The Abrahamic religions use heaven and hell, the concept of sin, a corrupted nature no one can escape, the requirement of a savior as a means to coerce behavior supportive of the religion. The religion cloaks itself under dynamics which affects behavior (teaching the doctrine of the religion is inerrant even in the face of overwhelming proof contrary to the religious doctrine), and psychological (gods with a vested interest in the behaviors of men, who can see their sins, who are able to mete out justice -- all of these are severe and inescapable mental leveragings that dictate human behavior-- i.e., psychologies.

Have you ever had Atheists knock on your door and hand out pamphlets and literature describing their… well…. Lack of any religious doctrine to invite you to?

 

[Saltmeister]

Ten commandments.

I thought it was ten.

Not two.

Or over 600.

Please elaborate.

Thanks

There's the basic Ten Commandments, but also the 613 rules/guidelines in the Jewish tradition.

There's also the two commandments of "loving thy neighbour and God" and finally the Seven Noahide Laws which isn't for Jews but non-Jews.

10, 613, 2 and 7

Ok, I'll be naughty: 10 + 613 + 2 + 7 = 632

 

[Saltmeister]

Let's be honest. Religions don’t coerce their adherents via promises of free thinking and individualistic expression, they use fear. I have no reason to believe I’m going to hell for not obeying a religious doctrine. These tales are derived to invoke fear. Fear is a powerful motivational tool. What better way for an elite ruling class to coerce conformance from the toiling masses than to threaten them with such things as burning flesh, eternal damnation and eternal pain.

What you say isn't true of all religions, and not even of all flavours of the Abrahamic faiths, whether it's Judaism, Christianity or Islam. People seem to think you have to be a fundamentalist or have strong opinions/beliefs to be a "true believer." I just don't agree.

There is room for individuality in the Abrahamic faiths if you can find the right congregations/communities. The Abrahamic faiths aren't necessarily so heavily dependent on conformity in their communities as you might think. There is variety and diversity within their respective collectives.

The concept of hell is largely a Christian and Muslim concern and I am not so sure what concept Judaism has of "hell." Again, people think that just because Christianity and Islam derive from Judaism that Judaism must also have a concept of hell.

But even within Christianity, you can't say everyone is obsessed with some notion of hell. It's not true of every Christian community.

That's why many religions use this form of mind control to gain and keep their members. The Abrahamic religions use heaven and hell, the concept of sin, a corrupted nature no one can escape, the requirement of a savior as a means to coerce behavior supportive of the religion. The religion cloaks itself under dynamics which affects behavior (teaching the doctrine of the religion is inerrant even in the face of overwhelming proof contrary to the religious doctrine), and psychological (gods with a vested interest in the behaviors of men, who can see their sins, who are able to mete out justice -- all of these are severe and inescapable mental leveragings that dictate human behavior-- i.e., psychologies.

You're talking about fundamentalist Christianity. It's not true of all of Christianity, and even less likely of Judaism and Islam. What about Catholics and Orthodox Christians? Have you asked them how they see Christianity?

 

[iBrian]

If you had to keep believing in god or let go of your kids and partner, which would you do.

I remember putting a similar questions to Buddhists, as Guatama left his wife and children to seek enlightenment, and the response was that this was a perfectly decent thing to do.

 

[enlightenment]

There's the basic Ten Commandments, but also the 613 rules/guidelines in the Jewish tradition.

There's also the two commandments of "loving thy neighbour and God" and finally the Seven Noahide Laws which isn't for Jews but non-Jews.

10, 613, 2 and 7

Ok, I'll be naughty: 10 + 613 + 2 + 7 = 632

Lol, all these commandments and rules, each different for each religion.

Perhaps theists could cover all their bases, and follow all religions at once!



On a more serious note, what is so hard about formulating your own rules to live by?

As long as they incorporate that which is written in law, of course.

 

[iBrian]

Let's be honest. Religions don’t coerce their adherents via promises of free thinking and individualistic expression, they use fear. I have no reason to believe I’m going to hell for not obeying a religious doctrine. The concept only derives from various religious texts and tales and fables. These tales are derived to invoke fear. Fear is a powerful motivational tool. What better way for an elite ruling class to coerce conformance from the toiling masses than to threaten them with such things as burning flesh, eternal damnation and eternal pain.

Trouble is, how many major secularists movements are any different?

The bottom line is that wherever you have a significantly large social group, social politics will become an integral part of its actions. The more politically useful such a group is, the more likely politics will become a defining part of it.

Communism and Fascism both integrated fear into their doctrines, and we can see modern secularism has decided that it is better to move towards a "protective" Big Brother state than promote rationalism. Long live the new god: Consumerism!

Therefore I think you're argument is far too narrow in its remit, because you are specifically excluding secularism which in itself is perfectly guilty of the same accusations.

Heck, whatever charges are laid at the doorstep of world religions, it's worth comparing them to the history of the 20th century - Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and the extensive secular genocides of two World Wars and a raft of smaller wars which occurred under the remit of the Cold War, a global conflict that threatened global annihilation, which was firmly rooted in the clash of secular ideals.

 

[farhan]

Just try being a Jew or Christian in any Arab nation. How many Christian Churches are there in the KSA?

What rubbish. You have never ever seen churches in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon or Egypt, or Jews in Yemen?

(Hint: You'll have to open your eyes in order to see)

Let's be honest. Religions don’t coerce their adherents via promises of free thinking and individualistic expression, they use fear.

OK, lets be honest........ Religions use good news to teach people morality. They assure people that their good deeds &/or theor suffering in the hands of oppressors arnt going in vain. They are all recorded, to be rewarded quite generously. Religion isnt against free thinking or individualistic expression either. Its men who do it, whether theists or atheists.

For the sake of argument, even if its all absolute fairytale, it still helps keeping society clean. What has atheism achieved? Rationale/Science has nothing to do with atheism. A man can be "man of faith" & "man of science" at the same time.