For Nathan and Ned (& any other Christians out ...a question

[Asmodean]

Hahah! My points are being made by others, I see... I just love discussion boards!  

Thank you for your answers!

Personally, I do see why I might want to examine what the people of old said or did, but the question, if hastily formed, was more directed towards following the teachings of said people. As in "Why should I do as (for example) Jesus or Muhammed allegedly said"?

[The Black Jester]

Hahah! My points are being made by others, I see... I just love discussion boards!  

Thank you for your answers!

Personally, I do see why I might want to examine what the people of old said or did, but the question, if hastily formed, was more directed towards following the teachings of said people. As in "Why should I do as (for example) Jesus or Muhammed allegedly said"?

As you hint with your restatement, I'm of the opinion that it is always the  quality of the statement that is of primary importance, not the source of the statement.  Something is true because it matches reality, not because some well-regarded person said it.

[McQ]

Hahah! My points are being made by others, I see... I just love discussion boards!  

Thank you for your answers!

Personally, I do see why I might want to examine what the people of old said or did, but the question, if hastily formed, was more directed towards following the teachings of said people. As in "Why should I do as (for example) Jesus or Muhammed allegedly said"?

As you hint with your restatement, I'm of the opinion that it is always the  quality of the statement that is of primary importance, not the source of the statement.  Something is true because it matches reality, not because some well-regarded person said it.

+1.
Absolutely agree.

[Tank]

God has communicated with us sufficiently in the past and changes the hearts and minds of Christians to this day.  A living God for the people who are alive today.

This is simply preaching. Please don't do this. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing, Ultimately futile and it annoys the pig ie me.

In fairness, and as one fairly learned in Christian apologetics, I have to suggest that this is not preaching at all, but a very important part of explaining Christian belief and mindset. We wouldn't be able to have a good discussion of this topic without such information.

The judges will allow it to stand.
 

[Tank]

Hahah! My points are being made by others, I see... I just love discussion boards!  

Thank you for your answers!

Personally, I do see why I might want to examine what the people of old said or did, but the question, if hastily formed, was more directed towards following the teachings of said people. As in "Why should I do as (for example) Jesus or Muhammed allegedly said"?

As you hint with your restatement, I'm of the opinion that it is always the  quality of the statement that is of primary importance, not the source of the statement.  Something is true because it matches reality, not because some well-regarded person said it.

Damn right! Having been vicariously on the receiving end of Richard Dawkins non-existent managerial skills I can say I have the utmost respect for him as a scientist but I wouldn't let him be a manager, even if my life depended on it!

EDIT. I have added TBJs truism to my signature.

[The Black Jester]

Damn right! Having been vicariously on the receiving end of Richard Dawkins non-existent managerial skills I can say I have the utmost respect for him as a scientist but I wouldn't let him be a manager, even if my life depended on it!

Do spill!

How have you been negatively impacted by his managerial ineptitude?

[Tank]

Damn right! Having been vicariously on the receiving end of Richard Dawkins non-existent managerial skills I can say I have the utmost respect for him as a scientist but I wouldn't let him be a manager, even if my life depended on it!

Do spill!

How have you been negatively impacted by his managerial ineptitude?

Answered via PM so as not to derail the thread.

[KebertX]

If mankind creates a religion then does it last all that long? .

Hinduism and Buddhism are still going strong and Islam very well might outgrow Christianity in our life time. So, being that they can't all be correct, I can be more than confident in saying a religion made up by men can last a long time.

Your entire response was a problem...

My understanding of Hinduism and Buddhism leads me to believe that both can easily accommodate Atheism as nondulist in nature you can understand that no god or all is god can tend to bring it down to the subjective zeitgeist of the culture at the time.  And it is also my understanding that for Hinduism as far as the predominate sect goes one must be born to Hindu parents to get in.

This whole thing is a problem.  Buddhism is an atheistic religion, but Hinduism can never accomodate Atheism.  No matter how you slice it, Hinduism has Brahman, which is a god (not in the western sense of being an invisible man in the sky, rather "The big everything.") Aside from that, Hinduism has millions of Gods, which are more like invisible people in the sky: Shiva, Krishna, Vishnu, Lakshmi, Ganesh, Parvathi, Kali, etc...  Also, you don't have to be born a Hindu to be a Hindu.  You just have to believe in the concept to some degree.  Hinduism is the 3rd largest religion in the world, right after Islam and Christianity.

I agree that Islam is in the ascendancy by birthrate alone. It stands to march over Europe in the next 60 years as the Churches liberalize and European culture turns away from the Christian ethic.  But we both know that Mohammed blended a lunar god worship with Judaism and if you think this religion of salvation by works would continue in a free and open marketplace of ideas that would be a good topic to debate.

Islam isn't growing in numbers because the have too many kids, and threaten you with violence if you leave.  By that logic, Catholicism should be on a major upswing.  I hate to break it to you, but the Qu'ran makes way more sense than the Bible (As far as fairy tales go...).  Islam isn't growing in numbers because of violence.  When I say "Muslim" people always think of those pissed of Arabs in the middle east.  About 20% of the world's Muslim population is actually Arab, ant the other 80% is tired of being represented by that particular group of overly conservative people.

Islam as a religion of peace  :bananacolor:   You are trying to prove that your religion is true, but it's a bullshit proof, because it applies to any religion.

You seem to have a sincere misunderstanding of all religions, including your own.  A church is not a good place to learn the truth about religions, take some college courses...

[Tanker]

Out of curiosity, what is the difference between a "true Christian" and a "false Christian"?

The Polyorthadox First Church of Christ Trans-Lutheranist Polybaptisterinism, 3rd Reformation Presbacalvinsim. Vs everyone else



Duh. Heathen.

[karadan]

Out of curiosity, what is the difference between a "true Christian" and a "false Christian"?

The Polyorthadox First Church of Christ Trans-Lutheranist Polybaptisterinism, 3rd Reformation Presbacalvinsim. Vs everyone else



Duh. Heathen.

 

[Squid]

Out of curiosity, what is the difference between a "true Christian" and a "false Christian"?

A true Christian would necessary need to have a true relationship with the true God of scripture and have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as helper and guide to the truth.  A study of the bible and how false teachings and the assumption of godlike power to change laws and times (like the inerrant Pope) will give you a good means to tell the difference.  This will even be possible for those who have hardened their heart against God.  As Satan wants to be worshiped in the last days it may be hard to resist the powerful delusions that Satan will perform.  I personally see that there may be need for Atheism in the last days but I am only speculating about that.

What constitutes an "indwelling of the Holy Spirit" and how can an actual "indwelling" be distinguished from spiritual malingering?

[freeservant]

If mankind creates a religion then does it last all that long? .

Hinduism and Buddhism are still going strong and Islam very well might outgrow Christianity in our life time. So, being that they can't all be correct, I can be more than confident in saying a religion made up by men can last a long time.

Your entire response was a problem...

I don't have time for a long response but I think if you research it you may find there is no problem

My understanding of Hinduism and Buddhism leads me to believe that both can easily accommodate Atheism as nondulist in nature you can understand that no god or all is god can tend to bring it down to the subjective zeitgeist of the culture at the time.  And it is also my understanding that for Hinduism as far as the predominate sect goes one must be born to Hindu parents to get in.

This whole thing is a problem.  Buddhism is an atheistic religion, but Hinduism can never accommodate Atheism.  No matter how you slice it, Hinduism has Brahman, which is a god (not in the western sense of being an invisible man in the sky, rather "The big everything.") Aside from that, Hinduism has millions of Gods, which are more like invisible people in the sky: Shiva, Krishna, Vishnu, Lakshmi, Ganesh, Parvathi, Kali, etc...  Also, you don't have to be born a Hindu to be a Hindu.  You just have to believe in the concept to some degree.  Hinduism is the 3rd largest religion in the world, right after Islam and Christianity.

Think some on what this person has to say:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spi ... atheist.3F

Naturally I do not agree with Spinoza but you have a means to see here that if all is god then nothing is god so one can be an atheistic Hindu but shy away from the a-word. Ravi Zacharias has some good things to say on this.  http://www.rzim.org/usa/usfv/tabid/436/ ... fault.aspx

I agree that Islam is in the ascendancy by birthrate alone. It stands to march over Europe in the next 60 years as the Churches liberalize and European culture turns away from the Christian ethic.  But we both know that Mohammed blended a lunar god worship with Judaism and if you think this religion of salvation by works would continue in a free and open marketplace of ideas that would be a good topic to debate.

Islam isn't growing in numbers because the have too many kids, and threaten you with violence if you leave.  By that logic, Catholicism should be on a major upswing.  I hate to break it to you, but the Qu'ran makes way more sense than the Bible (As far as fairy tales go...).  Islam isn't growing in numbers because of violence.  When I say "Muslim" people always think of those pissed of Arabs in the middle east.  About 20% of the world's Muslim population is actually Arab, ant the other 80% is tired of being represented by that particular group of overly conservative people.

I agree that most Muslims are not Arab but that does not mean that there is not evidence that Islam is not growing faster by birthrate.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 7rank.html

I think you will see the facts in the above link...

Islam as a religion of peace  :bananacolor:   You are trying to prove that your religion is true, but it's a bullshit proof, because it applies to any religion.

You seem to have a sincere misunderstanding of all religions, including your own.  A church is not a good place to learn the truth about religions, take some college courses...

Well I may have been overly long but am out of time to respond to this fully other then to say that you should look critically at your statements and bald assertions to see if you have your own proofs and clues to establish what you are saying.  For instance do you understand that ridicule and satire do not tend to firmly establish an objective truth?  If anything it tends to act as a strawman and is thus guarantied to be fallacious.

also a note about my writing style:  I apologize in advance if I sometimes seem hard to understand.  I have had to live all my life with dyslexia and this does cause some issues when I want to put my thinking down to text.  Not to mention my recent severe traumatic brain injury may also be a factor.

[The Black Jester]

freeservant: I am not presently able to engage in a point-by-point debate refuting, or at least arguing against, each of your statements, but there are some assertions of yours to which I would like to respond.

This is covered in the Moral Argument for God. If there is objective good then there is also objective evil and Satan is real and why we are in the reality we experience all around us in a fallen world.

For this to follow, firstly, you have to establish that there is an objective good, and you have not done so.  

Secondly, conceptual existence, or existence in the imagination, does not entail actual existence.  The Ontological Proof of god's existence is not sound.  Just because we can conceive of the existence of a thing, does not mean its existence is actual.  Similarly, our possessing an idea of a code of good or morality does not mean, automatically, that the code has a reality external to us.  We could just as easily have imagined it.

Thirdly, even if there is an "objective good" - that does not necessarily mean the source of that good is the Christian god.  Without establishing the details of that "objective morality" you cannot determine the character of the god from which this morality proceeds.  How do you propose to establish, beyond question, what that morality is?  Even if you think the only way to establish an objective morality is by the existence of a deity, which is debatable, the existence of said morality in no way establishes by itself that it is the Christian god that is the source of that morality, unless you presume what you seek to prove, which is that it is the Christian code of morality which is the objective good.  It could be a deity of a very different character than the traditional Abrahamic Yahweh.  Similarly with evil.  Who says, even if there is an "objective evil" that it's source is Satan?  Why could it not be another "evil" being?  Or man himself?

If as you assert that Satan and Hell are made up then you have a burden to try and prove this. At-least there should be clues and evidence around that gives you a rational reason to establish this. I wonder if you are familiar with the logical fallacy of special pleading.

This is not how science proceeds.  You begin with the null hypothesis, positing nothing.  It is you who are making the positive assertion, positing the existence of Satan, Hell, God and Heaven, and all of the details of the Christian religion.  Stating that one does not believe in such things because the evidence has not established them is not making a positive assertion, it is standing with the null hypothesis.  If you truly wished to proceed scientifically, since you have asserted these positive hypotheses, you would need, yourself, to try to falsify the hypotheses experimentally, and to the extent that you failed to do so, the hypotheses would stand as verified by the experimental evidence. Otherwise, it is you that are making bald assertions, and if you invoke faith to exempt you from having to present evidence, it is you that is guilty of Special Pleading.

[freeservant]

First of all let me say that it is somewhat difficult to answer everybody as there is only so much time I can spend here.  I want to reply to tank next...

freeservant: I am not presently able to engage in a point-by-point debate refuting, or at least arguing against, each of your statements, but there are some assertions of yours to which I would like to respond.

This is covered in the Moral Argument for God. If there is objective good then there is also objective evil and Satan is real and why we are in the reality we experience all around us in a fallen world.

For this to follow, firstly, you have to establish that there is an objective good, and you have not done so.

In a quick way I will let this youtube video be a partial reply to the sorites of arguments establishing objective good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKv9rMlzfkw

Also do you have a system and outside objective means to value things?  Part of the properly basic belief in God comes out when you have a moral compass and act as if you have any standing to make any moral judgments no matter how clouded by personal subjective opinion.  Remember that we too often conflate moral ambiguity with the idea that there are no objective morals.  

Secondly, conceptual existence, or existence in the imagination, does not entail actual existence.[/quote]  
let me try to unpack your statements with questions that may imply a means to think for yourself what the answer might be.... Or at least what my answer might be.

Did you come to this conclusion conceptually by using your imagination to construct that sentence?  Or is there a way to flesh this out in a materialistic paradigm?

The Ontological Proof of god's existence is not sound.  Just because we can conceive of the existence of a thing, does not mean its existence is actual.  Similarly, our possessing an idea of a code of good or morality does not mean, automatically, that the code has a reality external to us.  We could just as easily have imagined it.

Are there Aristotelian first principles of logic?  If the Ontological argument is clear and deductively sound in all ways according to logic then you don't have a sound way to establish your premise in a blanket sense do you?

Also look up Godel's Incompleteness Theorems and think on Who that higher meta-validation ultimately has to stop at.

Thirdly, even if there is an "objective good" - that does not necessarily mean the source of that good is the Christian god.  Without establishing the details of that "objective morality" you cannot determine the character of the god from which this morality proceeds.  How do you propose to establish, beyond question, what that morality is?  Even if you think the only way to establish an objective morality is by the existence of a deity, which is debatable, the existence of said morality in no way establishes by itself that it is the Christian god that is the source of that morality, unless you presume what you seek to prove, which is that it is the Christian code of morality which is the objective good.  It could be a deity of a very different character than the traditional Abrahamic Yahweh.  Similarly with evil.  Who says, even if there is an "objective evil" that it's source is Satan?  Why could it not be another "evil" being?  Or man himself?  

I can not reply fully here but some food for thought would be to ask if you feel you have a moral compass.  Do you have a sense of values and what aught to be or a sense of what is just and an injustice.  Now proceed to think if your senses are invalid and fully subjective?  Meaning do you have some core values and sense of justice that happens to be the same as most everybody else's.  More broadly do you recognize that there are certain universal goal posts here?  These goal posts do not move but can be discovered or refined over time as we gain more knowledge of God's character and how that character of the person of God is necessarily fleshed out in The Bible (one of the ways God communicates with us).

If as you assert that Satan and Hell are made up then you have a burden to try and prove this. At-least there should be clues and evidence around that gives you a rational reason to establish this. I wonder if you are familiar with the logical fallacy of special pleading.

This is not how science proceeds.  You begin with the null hypothesis, positing nothing.  It is you who are making the positive assertion, positing the existence of Satan, Hell, God and Heaven, and all of the details of the Christian religion.  Stating that one does not believe in such things because the evidence has not established them is not making a positive assertion, it is standing with the null hypothesis.  If you truly wished to proceed scientifically, since you have asserted these positive hypotheses, you would need, yourself, to try to falsify the hypotheses experimentally, and to the extent that you failed to do so, the hypotheses would stand as verified by the experimental evidence. Otherwise, it is you that are making bald assertions, and if you invoke faith to exempt you from having to present evidence, it is you that is guilty of Special Pleading.

I do like when the null hypothesis is mentioned.     Let me ask you if I take the null hypothesis outside of strict methodological science and use it in philosophy to make the null hypothesis null by using the null hypothesis?  It seems that I can or at least you commit a composition fallacy if you try to take it 'outside' as it where.

Do you know the limitations of science?

I share the views in this lecture:

Are there any limits to scientific explanation? Are there irreducibly different forms of explanation?

http://rubyurl.com/30xj


Would it be special pleading if I invoke the faith that my worldview reveals existential realities of how the way I experience how things work matches my worldview in profound and phenomenologically immanent ways?   Remember that we are all on a epistemic journey that in an axiomatic way imply's:  the more that we learn, the more we find the less that we know...  I can't get too puffed up on my knowledge as there is always more to be revealed...

Again there are irreducibly different forms of explanation and verification outside of science and a well reasoned and rational individual knows that there even has to be a way to prove or rationally defend atheism if it is to be considered rational.

[Ellainix]

This is covered in the Moral Argument for God.  If there is objective good then there is also objective evil and Satan is real and why we are in the reality we experience all around us in a fallen world.  If as you assert that Satan and Hell are made up then you have a burden to try and prove this.  At-least there should be clues and evidence around that gives you a rational reason to establish this.  I wonder if you are familiar with the logical fallacy of special pleading.

I believe there is a objective value of beer. Venders who price beer differently will go straight to hell, along with those who willingly purchase beer at non-kosher prices. The objective value of beer is set and commanded by a powerful monotheistic God, whom other characteristics are mostly unknown. God is a loving and caring God, if you want to buy beer at morally righteous prices, first you must submit your loyalty to him and he will gladly tell you everything you need to know to live your life as a good, honest person.

Prove my beliefs wrong.