Happy Atheist Forum

Would you consider Jesus your boss?

I have a somewhat similar question:

Why should someone like me, who never really did care what my parents said or thought, care about something someone unrelated and unknown to me said or thought a long, long time ago?

Which also inflicts the question: How do you know that your god is still alive at all? Ok, suppose a god can not suffer a natural death, but accidents do happen... As do black holes and a whole bunch of other disasters.

I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of Christians consider Jesus to be their sort of spiritual ski-instructor and they're paying for their lessons by believing in him.

We often use the Biblical reference of Jesus being Lord of Lords and King of Kings thus as one of the persons of God who is one being in three persons I would say we have a strong basis upon which to make Jesus the Boss of all Bosses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL_30anaO7U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL_30anaO7U)

Yet we are to be pitied if we are wrong as hope would be lost and all should properly despair.

Quote from: "Asmodean"I have a somewhat similar question:

Why should someone like me, who never really did care what my parents said or thought, care about something someone unrelated and unknown to me said or thought a long, long time ago?

Which also inflicts the question....

Think for a moment about history and how there has been an effort to kill off Christianity for close to two thousand years.  Should not a lie or a delusion be easy enough to stop or redirect?  If mankind creates a religion then does it last all that long?  Could not a better god come along and replace Marduk with Apollo or Loki with Arther Dent?  If the age of a truth fails because it is old would that not be like a strawman? RE: The wisdom of Diogenes is from so long, long ago I should not care or seek to learn what he said...

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.

Quote from: "Asmodean"I have a somewhat similar question:

Why should someone like me, who never really did care what my parents said or thought, care about something someone unrelated and unknown to me said or thought a long, long time ago?

Because those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.  This has nothing to do with God, but do you care about the things said by people like Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, George Washington, etc...?  Of course these aren't in the far past, but you get the point.

I guess what I'm saying is, just because something is old doesn't mean it can't be valuable.  Although I still think the Bible is the Christian equivalent of Greek mythology.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "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.

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.

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 as a religion of peace   is held together by the sword of slavery to Alah (the first pillar) thus I think would not survive long if you did not suffer the threat of death if you leave it.  Yet there are those brave kuffar who commit their hearts to Jesus and convert even at the risk of death.

I grant the Christianity is under attack but has survived in a free and open marketplace of ideas where there is no sword to compel anyone.  I grant that if biblical prophecy continues to be as accurate as it has been in the past then you have a Church body that is lukewarm and ripe for the schisms of the last days.  That free marketplace will close.  False Christians will stand against true Christians in the last days as the numbers of faithful will be under constant attack and death for standing with Christ.  You can see some of this now in places like North Korea and China (the emerging atheist superpower).  In America the ability of the true Christian to practice their faith will become ever harder.

Finally you can see that if there is a God then God is powerful enough to preserve and protect the truth and the true faith.  Also if there is a God then we should naturally seek God and can be routed to false Gods as Satan must also exist.  The properly basic belief in God is within us all but that does not mean we don't have the free will to either make ourselves gods or be tricked by Satan's efforts against God.

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

Quote from: "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.

Firstly thank you so much for a direct answer to a direct question, it's such a pleasure to meet somebody prepared to engage rather than just spit vitriol, derision or apathy, if you can do such a thing a spit apathy   maybe one would just dribble it?

Quote from: "freeservant"{snip}

Think for a moment about history and how there has been an effort to kill off Christianity for close to two thousand years.

While all the time Christianity was trying to kill off other faiths, literally in some cases. So in this case as all parties are motivated by religion and so the individual religions can be discounted, they cancel each other out. So what one is actually observing is nothing more than a massively amplified tribal war where blood alliance is replaced by the appropriate religious alliance.

Quote from: "freeservant"Should not a lie or a delusion be easy enough to stop or redirect?

You'd think so wouldn't you. However very few humans have the capability and intelligence to think critically, to be able to hold a concept at arms length and be reasonably objective about it. If you take religion out of the equation and consider most people are gullible than a suitably motivated, single minded, charismatic individual can get people eating out of their hands, Hitler, Pol Pot, John F Kennedy, Winston Churchill, Mohamed et al. People like to belong, they need to feel validated and valued. There is nothing more validating to the human ego than being in the 'best gang!'

Quote from: "freeservant"If mankind creates a religion then does it last all that long?

Depends on the ideas that underpin the religion. The key to the lure of most religions is eternal life in some guise or another. The packaging changes, Judaism, Christianity, Islam but the contents are essentially the same the bribe of eternal life vs the natural human fear of death.

Quote from: "freeservant"Could not a better god come along and replace Marduk with Apollo or Loki with Arther Dent?

Well the current flavour of the millennium is Allah so yes Gods do fall out of fashion, we see it all the time.

Quote from: "freeservant"If the age of a truth fails because it is old would that not be like a strawman? RE: The wisdom of Diogenes is from so long, long ago I should not care or seek to learn what he said...

Not sure I follow this bit.

Quote from: "freeservant"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.

Religions were and are used to fill the gap in understanding humans are faced with when trying to come to terms with reality. They provide ego boosting affirmation of values to the individuals that adhere to a given religion. They provide the comfort needed when things go wrong. They offer safety in numbers and the security of group membership. They are the ultimate seductive fantasy as they offer a way to avoid death. What's not to like about religion once you're wrapped up in the comfort blanket of your choice?

The real world is a brutal, uncaring place that cares not if any creature lives, dies or prospers. The only meaning a person has is that which they are prepared to take responsibility for and how much work they are prepared to put in. I would think for many religion is inherited, cultural and just the way the world is. It's the 'no brainer' option.

Not believing in God is way harder than believing in God. I would love there to be a God, I really, really would. Because then I can lay back and relax knowing that nothing I did was my fault. I could cast off any responsibility for my actions as I would know that all I am is ultimately a chess piece for the amusement of something I could never hope to understand. I would be no more responsible than a pet or an animal in a zoo. But not believing in God makes me ultimately responsible for EVERYTHING I do or say. Each time I use the tumble dryer rather than hang my washing out it's ME who chooses to add that little bit of damage to the world with the carbon dioxide I generate. Each time I drive to the shops rather than walk. Each time I don't give to a charity that knocks on my door, each time I say something spiteful, mean or nasty, the times I don't clean up after myself knowing full well that my wife has a lower mess tolerance than I and she'll end up doing the washing up after I've gone to bed. All these little things are my responsibility and born of my selfishness. There is no redemption either. I just can't kneel down, talk to myself and make it all better.

Quote from: "freeservant"We often use the Biblical reference of Jesus being Lord of Lords and King of Kings thus as one of the persons of God who is one being in three persons I would say we have a strong basis upon which to make Jesus the Boss of all Bosses.

Very well...

QuoteA 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.

I am going to assume that you fit the above requirement and ask you one question.
I am asking you to give me 10% of your annual net income (just this year only) as per:
Matthew 5: 42: 'Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.'"
Because the way I see it, your Boss decrees that you do so.

And...

If you are disinclined to acquiesce to my request, you cannot be a True Christian. Or, if you are a True Christian, you are at odds with your boss and would seem to need a change of vocation...*chucklin*

Quote from: "freeservant"Yet we are to be pitied if we are wrong as hope would be lost and all should properly despair.

To start...mayhaps an observation of your screen name? "Freeservant"? I am assuming this has something to do with your worship of the Bible God? If so, I wager you are not free at all; a believer of the bible god. Correct me if I am under the wrong assumption?

QuoteYet we are to be pitied if we are wrong as hope would be lost and all should properly despair.

This is somewhat confusing. Do you mean that other non-believers would pity you if you were wrong? Or do you mean something else entirely?
At any road, I would think that you would be quite embarrassed if you were wrong, however. I mean, if you were wrong, what's to despair over? If you found out you were wrong and your hopes had been dashed upon the jagged rocks below, well, it makes no sense to be despairing.

I wouldn't pity you if you were wrong about your beliefs. More than likely I would just look you in the face and say something like..."'Bout frakkin time! Now you can throw away the chains of dogma, think critically and live life as humans are supposed to live"
But the next bit of stuff you write...well, it makes me pity you now.

QuoteThink for a moment about history and how there has been an effort to kill off Christianity for close to two thousand years.

First, you haven't really backed this up well. And Tank brought up a very good point:

Quote from: "Tank"While all the time Christianity was trying to kill off other faiths, literally in some cases.

Quote from: "you"Should not a lie or a delusion be easy enough to stop or redirect?

Yes, but you have to recognise it as such. Not live it.

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

Others have commented. But I'll add that there are many gods out there. Round 2700 of them. All man made. Some cannot or will not last long at all. But thanks to Constantine and subsequent early Catholics, the fear of the one and only true loving god was pummeled down the throats of the people. Christianity did not last long at all during Constantines' time. Why do you think there have been 34,000 different types of Christianity since then? And all man made too. And that brings me to your next line of Christian diluted critical thinking, so I'll ask the same thing:

QuoteCould not a better god come along and replace Marduk with Apollo or Loki with Arther Dent?

Why do you think there have been 34,000 different types of Christianity since then? Do you play sports? If so, do you move the goalposts around much? Perhaps not, but you do here.

QuoteI grant the Christianity is under attack but has survived in a free and open marketplace of ideas where there is no sword to compel anyone.

I could go off on this one statement for quite a few pages. But I won't. I'll just say that your awesome and loving god has a very poor track record when it comes to using swords. Read the Old Testament lately (I so hate using that term)? Your god these days doesn't need a sword. He has a hell to threaten people who will not worship him.

QuoteIf the age of a truth fails because it is old would that not be like a strawman? RE: The wisdom of Diogenes is from so long, long ago I should not care or seek to learn what he said...

This statement is a strawman in itself.

QuoteGod 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.

Unsubstantiated assertions. Give us some evidence for these please.

QuoteI grant that if biblical prophecy continues to be as accurate as it has been in the past...

Please support this assertion.

Quote...then you have a Church body that is lukewarm and ripe for the schisms of the last days.

It's been the "last days" for the last 1700 years. As I said above; 34,000 different cults of Christianity. How many more schisms does your god need to be the REAL last days?

QuoteFalse Christians will stand against true Christians in the last days as the numbers of faithful will be under constant attack and death for standing with Christ.

Jeeeez....
How in the world will all the different Christian cults know who is/are the real cult? Will the Cumberland Presbyterians attack the Church of God. Maybe all the Presbyterians will get together and attack all the Methodists. Options...options...Holy crap dude, the logistics involved in your statement defy credulity.

QuoteYou can see some of this now in places like North Korea and China (the emerging atheist superpower).

China is the fastest growing state in Christianity.

QuoteIn America the ability of the true Christian to practice their faith will become ever harder.

Apparently you know not of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

QuoteFinally you can see that if there is a God then God is powerful enough to preserve and protect the truth and the true faith.

34,000 Christian cults....remember?

QuoteAlso if there is a God then we should naturally seek God...

No...I think you have that backwards. He should be seeking us. At any road, he remains invisible to all I really wish you would trot out this god of yours. I have some questions for him that Christians simply cannot seem to answer.

Quote...and can be routed to false Gods as Satan must also exist.

Man, you're full of logical fallacies today. This one is called a "Slippery Slope".

QuoteThe properly basic belief in God is within us all

What is the proper basic belief in your god?

Quote...but that does not mean we don't have the free will...

You have no free will anyway if you believe in the bible god

Quoteto either make ourselves gods

No...perhaps not. But it would make us "Sons of Gods". Romans 8:14. Of course, one must have the Holy Spirit come into them first.

ooops

Quote from: "freeservant"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

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "freeservant"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.
 

(sorry for lousy use of quotes, having some issues with doing this on a mobile account right now)

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"?

Quote from: "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"?

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.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "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"?

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.

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "freeservant"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.
 :D

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "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"?

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.

Quote from: "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?

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "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...

Quote from: "freeservant"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.

Quote from: "freeservant"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.

Quote from: "freeservant"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...

Quote from: "Squid"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.

Quote from: "Tanker"

Quote from: "Squid"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.

 

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "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?

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "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

Quote from: "KebertX"

Quote from: "freeservant"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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza#Panentheist.2C_pantheist.2C_or_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 (http://www.rzim.org/usa/usfv/tabid/436/articleid/9989/cbmoduleid/1045/default.aspx)

Quote from: "KebertX"

Quote from: "freeservant"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 (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html)

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

Quote from: "KebertX"

Quote from: "freeservant"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.

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.

Quote from: "freeservant"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?

Quote from: "freeservant"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.

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...

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "freeservant"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 (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?

Quote from: "The Black Jester"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.

Quote from: "The Black Jester"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).

Quote from: "The Black Jester"

Quote from: "freeservant"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:

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

http://rubyurl.com/30xj (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.

Quote from: "freeservant"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.

Not that there's a chance to get the thread back on track...but...are none of you Christians going to give me 10% of you annual income? I mean, after all, Jesus is your boss and he tells you not to ignore this request. Too ignore this request would mean disobeying an order from the Boss. Most bosses I know would get you in trouble or worse for not obeying.
I can't even get a reply from you, let alone the money. What's your excuse?

QuoteWould 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...

It's funny that you know all these high-falutin' words but don't seem to know that the Roman Catholic church pretty much ruled Europe, through puppet monarchies, for 1500 or so years.

You need to study more history and less philosophy.  Much less.

Quote from: "TheBlackJester"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.

Quote from: "freeservant"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?

But the ontological argument ISN'T deductively sound, not by a long shot.  It's a circular argument that commits a bare assertion fallacy by assuming God's existence without providing outside evidence.  This is one of the major reason's why Descartes' argument in the Meditations falls flat.  I find it hard to believe that you didn't already know this, given all the other philosophical points you've brought up.  Of all the proofs for the existence of God, the ontological one is perhaps the least convincing.  Perhaps you have inductive and deductive reasoning confused, but the ontological argument is in no way a good example of deductive reasoning.  I'd recommend reading a little David Hume-he has quite a bit to say about debunking the ontological argument.

Quote from: "freeservant"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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKv9rMlzfkw)

Apologies, I am not able to watch youtube videos at present.  I do note, however, that the summary of the content provided on the page seems to indicate that this is a rebuttal of Social Contract Theory. So is this a rebuttal of a specific non-theistic attempt to establish "objective" morality?  Setting aside the fact that I am not a believer in SCT, nor did I make any claims about SCT, this reply bears no relation to the flaw I pointed out.  You made the following claim:

Quote from: "freeservant"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.

I pointed out that you are assuming the existence of "objective" good.  I am not doing so.  It is you that must establish this existence to make your claim work.

Quote from: "freeservant"Also do you have a system and outside objective means to value things?

Do I believe that there are "objective facts" about the universe?  I have never heard a compelling argument to convince me that morality is to be found as an objective fact in the universe.   So, no, I do not.  I believe there are behaviors that are practically advantageous for the flourishing of the species, and thereby of the individual, but I do not make any claim that these behaviors have intrinsic good in and of themselves.

Quote from: "freeservant"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.

You seem to presume that you can simply terminate the regression of moral authority in god.  Why?  Where does he get his morals from?  Is some action moral merely because god claims it is, or is it moral because of the properties or effects of the action itself?  If the former, then god's morality is merely arbitrary.  If the latter, there is a standard beyond god that must be appealed to in order to claim that god's sanctions are moral.

Quote from: "freeservant"Remember that we too often conflate moral ambiguity with the idea that there are no objective morals.

I could just as easily reply that we too often conflate the accident of moral regularity with intentional, objective moral sanction.  It could easily be the case that many groups across cultures have found similar behaviors efficacious for group survival.  And there is as much diversity in the character of moral sanctions as there is similarity.  Why does the diversity of character not take precedent and argue for the idea that there is no moral objectivity?

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "the black jester"Secondly, conceptual existence, or existence in the imagination, does not entail actual existence.

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?

Not sure what you're getting at here.  Did I use my imagination to develop a concept?  Yes.  Was it based on my observations about what relationships hold in the actual world?  Also, yes.  Do I believe thoughts have a material explanation?  On the evidence of Neurobiology, absolutely.  Do I believe that the sentence has an objective existence outside of my very material imagination?  No, that would be absurd.  The sentence itself is only a thing insofar as it is a collection of neurological impulses.  That does not prevent it from bearing a truthful relation to reality.  But that reality is not true because I imagined it.  My imagination can be used to reflect reality, but what actually exists is independant of my imaginings.  I can also imagine a unicorn.  That doesn't in any way mean one exists.  I could also imagine the most perfectly smelly being that ever existed.  That does not mean that this pinnacle of odiferousness exists.  Part of the fallacy of the Ontological Argument is that it presumes existence=perfection.  That is confused.  There are other problems, but philosoraptor has responded to these.

Quote from: "freeservant"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).

Yes, I have a moral compass.  It was instilled in me by my parents and my culture.  There are several works describing how such things could have originated from an evolutionary standpoint.  Marc Hauser's "Moral Minds" is a great one.  Again, I do not see any reason to believe that moral values exist intrinsically in the universe.  The universe is indifferent to us, by all indications.  Also, why is the existence of some moral overlap with other cultures proof of the Christian god?  Why is it not proof of Allah?  Or any of the other gods that have been posited?  

Quote from: "freeservant"I do like when the null hypothesis is mentioned.

Smug much?

Quote from: "freeservant"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.

Excuse me?  This paradox you have presented is irrelevant.  I am not moving the null hypothesis outside of science, you are trying to do so with this statement.  That is not it's proper purview.  The null hypothesis is not a piece of deductive reasoning, it is a practice that has been found to be extrememly effective in testing other hypotheses.  It is a method, not a logical law.  It is useful, because otherwise you can simply adopt whatever positive hypothesis you want, before there is any evidence to do so.  I only brought this up because of your attempt below to shift the burden of proof:

Quote from: "freeservant"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 would encourage you to read your statement above, which I have highlighted in bold, again.  What I'm telling you is that we, or certainly I, made no such assertion.  You are entering the conversation asserting the existence of these entities, and then throwing around claims about who should be providing evidence.  I was just gently reminding you that this is not, in fact, how science proceeds.  If you want to enter science's purview and speak of evidence, you must understand that it is you that is positing the hypothesis, and you have the burden of testing it yourself.  Until such time as you have proved your assertions via the scientific method, the null hypothesis stands for the rest of us.  If, as you go on to argue, you are claiming special treatment for your beliefs because they are somehow privileged or unassailable by science, then it still seems to me that it is you committing the fallacy of Special Pleading.\

Quote from: "freeservant"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?

Acutally, yes, I think it would, particularly if your "existential realities" are anecdotal and entirely unverifiable.

Quote from: "freeservant"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...

Thoroughly agree.  I just do not agree that this knowledge still to be revealed has already effectively been revealed in a particular holy book.

Quote from: "freeservant"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. (emphasis mine)

What "irreducibly different forms of explanation and verification" exist and how do you demonstrate them, and by what standard do you measure their truth?  Also, if you have a problem with the null hypothesis as a stance in terms of atheism (the non-existence of divine beings until such time as existence is proved), then how on earth can you doubt the existence of Allah, or Zeus, or any other god?  Do you believe in them as well?

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "freeservant"We often use the Biblical reference of Jesus being Lord of Lords and King of Kings thus as one of the persons of God who is one being in three persons I would say we have a strong basis upon which to make Jesus the Boss of all Bosses.

Very well...

QuoteA 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.

I am going to assume that you fit the above requirement and ask you one question.
I am asking you to give me 10% of your annual net income (just this year only) as per:
Matthew 5: 42: 'Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.'"
Because the way I see it, your Boss decrees that you do so.

And...

If you are disinclined to acquiesce to my request, you cannot be a True Christian. Or, if you are a True Christian, you are at odds with your boss and would seem to need a change of vocation...*chucklin*

.


Let me present you with this answer: http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=326 (http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=326)

QuoteSo if the point is the radical and selfless service that characterizes the citizens of his kingdom, this bears on how I responsibly apply Matthew 5:42. When I am giving and lending, am I really serving the person who is in need? Am I acting in their best interest? I would not really be serving them if I just let them indulge their greed or escape the consequences of irresponsible and unrighteous behavior by giving them what is mine.

But whether or not I give financially (which I think this passage calls us to do much more liberally than is our practice), Matthew 5:42 calls me to recognize that I have been made a citizen of heaven and should act with the values of that kingdom as I give myself to others as Jesus gave himself for me.

Now to give you a little TMI: I am currently loosing my contract security post at the end of the month.  I am in a financial crisis already when as a pedestrian was struck by a car 12-14-09 and due to the severe traumatic brain injury I was in the hospital for almost a month. (the bill is around 118k)  If not for the selfless help of members of my Church and my parents I would be homeless.  I may still get to be homeless as Stank of America does not have record of those payments my parents made by phone.

So I have much in my life right now that needs a Higher Power to lead me in the correct ways to manage the above problems not to mention my wife and the Granddaughter we are having to raise.  I am living in Garland, Texas and am willing to help you in some way that does not entail money right now.  I could give of my time and help you with a bible study or some other way that would help you find a path to the Love of the Boss and Savior I have found in Jesus Christ.

Given I should be dead I have a greater reason then ever to selflessly give of my self so let me know how I can help.

Oh and I think I am going to start a new thread to also try and give of my time with an attempt to answer some of the other topics that have arisen in this thread.

QuoteSo I have much in my life right now that needs a Higher Power to lead me in the correct ways to manage the above problems not to mention my wife and the Granddaughter we are having to raise.

Necessity, the Mother of Invention.

I'm sorry for your misfortunes, and hope things get better for you.

First, let me say you are the first Orthodox Presbyterian I've talked with in debating Christianity in the last 7 or so years online. What makes that special is that I grew up Orthodox Presbyterian. There are no Presby churches here like the type you and I have experience in. Most are Cumberland Presby.

Secondly, I would like to thank you for responding.

Thirdly, I am sorry to hear of your troubles.

Now to the meat of the subject. I was fine until this part of the source you gave me:

QuoteJesus is speaking about a request for either a gift ("the one who begs") or a loan ("the one who borrows"). In either case, without discriminating, Jesus says that we should give and not refuse the one asking of us. Whether we expect to get paid back or whether we have no hope of being repaid we are to give to those who need.

We must not miss that Jesus is describing radically selfless behavior, the kind that is unnatural to sinners and incomprehensible to the world. The person who lives this way isn't governed by self-interest or self-protection and doesn't plead his legal or personal rights. His life is characterized by lovingly serving others.

This is where it helps to remember the context of Matthew 5:42, the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is setting before his disciples the ethic of the kingdom of heaven. Just as Jesus has not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, those who by his grace become the true subjects of this kingdom offer up a "greater righteousness" that fulfills anything required under the Mosaic law.

There is so much wrong here.
1) Jesus is speaking about a request for either a gift ("the one who begs") or a loan ("the one who borrows"). In either case, without discriminating, Jesus says that we should give and not refuse the one asking of us. Whether we expect to get paid back or whether we have no hope of being repaid we are to give to those who need. Ok. I'm reading this quite fine. No worries.
2) We must not miss that Jesus is describing radically selfless behavior, the kind that is unnatural to sinners and incomprehensible to the world. This, I submit, is a bald faced lie. I can name quite a few instances of "radically selfless behavior" done by people not of your particular flavour and therefore IS comprehensible to the world. The statement above just sickens me.
3) The person who lives this way isn't governed by self-interest or self-protection and doesn't plead his legal or personal rights. His life is characterized by lovingly serving others. Quite the contrary, the person who DOES live this way, the way Jesus says in Matt 5:42, does indeed live a selfish life, looking out for his/her self-protection and does not lovingly serve others, but himself and an invisible 1/3 part of a god. They live this way because they are self centered and selfish BECAUSE of the chance for an immortal life in heaven with J.
4) Just as Jesus has not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, those who by his grace become the true subjects of this kingdom offer up a "greater righteousness" that fulfills anything required under the Mosaic law. Wrong. If you wish and in another thread (that you may start), I'll show you how this thinking is defective.

Quote...am willing to help you in some way that does not entail money right now.

I didn't ask for anything other than money. Now...and this will sound awful to just about everyone here....but despite your current financial and physical handicaps, Jesus did not say to give to those who ask unless you're financially destitute, homeless or injured. There are no conditions here simply because "those who by his grace become the true subjects of this kingdom offer up a "greater righteousness" "
Do you agree?
At any rate, I appreciate your offer.

QuoteSo I have much in my life right now that needs a Higher Power to lead me in the correct ways to manage the above problems

Well, that's what doctors and lawyers and children and critical thinking are for. Of course, I know that if you manage fix fix any of your problems, the kudos go to god. Those problems that aren't fix right away or not at all are shoved off in the "God has plans that I don't know of" bin.

QuoteI could give of my time and help you with a bible study...

Thank you for the offer here as well. But my time is quite spread out and proportioned in just that. However, I do not study the bible to get a take on what Jesus or Paul may have said or what ambiguous statement means what. Much of my time is devoted to critical biblical study and history.

Quote..find a path to the Love of the Boss and Savior I have found in Jesus Christ.

Been there...done that. But it just didn't work out. I have to have a boss that will at least pick up the phone and talk to me...ala Charlies Angels. At least I can put a voice to my boss.

Quote...Love of the Boss and Savior I have found in Jesus Christ.

Once again, if you wish to start a thread, I will show you how Jesus simply cannot be a Boss or a Saviour.

QuoteOh and I think I am going to start a new thread to also try and give of my time with an attempt to answer some of the other topics that have arisen in this thread.

Excellent idea.

Quote from: "Gawen"First, let me say you are the first Orthodox Presbyterian I've talked with in debating Christianity in the last 7 or so years online. What makes that special is that I grew up Orthodox Presbyterian. There are no Presby churches here like the type you and I have experience in. Most are Cumberland Presby.

Secondly, I would like to thank you for responding.

Thirdly, I am sorry to hear of your troubles.

 :devil:

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuoteSo I have much in my life right now that needs a Higher Power to lead me in the correct ways to manage the above problems

Well, that's what doctors and lawyers and children and critical thinking are for. Of course, I know that if you manage fix fix any of your problems, the kudos go to god. Those problems that aren't fix right away or not at all are shoved off in the "God has plans that I don't know of" bin.

Simple ridicule may be a simple way for you to think you have it all down and know it's all a trick. But unless your are drop dead certain it may be the evidence of a trickster (Satan and his minions) giving you the blank ammunition you think is live.  Good luck with that...

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuoteI could give of my time and help you with a bible study...

Thank you for the offer here as well. But my time is quite spread out and proportioned in just that. However, I do not study the bible to get a take on what Jesus or Paul may have said or what ambiguous statement means what. Much of my time is devoted to critical biblical study and history.

Ah the intellectual honesty comes thru loud and clear.  You are being honest in that you want all the biblical ammo you can find to shred the bible with the bible.  Good luck with that as well and how good a job do you think Professor Bart Ehrman is doing?  My criteria of an effective attack on scripture would be when the Theological Seminaries start to close down in droves.  Not to mention the Churches and all the Church based Hospitals and Charities...

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote..find a path to the Love of the Boss and Savior I have found in Jesus Christ.

Been there...done that. But it just didn't work out. I have to have a boss that will at least pick up the phone and talk to me...ala Charlies Angels. At least I can put a voice to my boss.

This would imply that you have some defeaters that lead you to your current position.  Or is your atheism an act of faith that you are sure you have enough information now.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote...Love of the Boss and Savior I have found in Jesus Christ.

Once again, if you wish to start a thread, I will show you how Jesus simply cannot be a Boss or a Savior.

Actualy that is the subject of the original post.  So what are your clues and bits of evidence that gives you assurance that Jesus is not the boss?  I think that would best fit in this current thread.

Quote from: "Gawen"

QuoteOh and I think I am going to start a new thread to also try and give of my time with an attempt to answer some of the other topics that have arisen in this thread.

Excellent idea.

I was more thinking about the Ontological argument and the Moral argument but now I am not sure.  I fear bringing this up but this may be a place for an atheist echo chamber that does not really value anything I have to say other than to tear it down.  In other-words do the members of this happy forum have an atheism that can't be falsified or are your minds still open the the loving and nurturing possibilities?

Here is a good example of the problem I am talking of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY1gEXYhfIM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY1gEXYhfIM)

and a more clear part two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhX4bYPJcsQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhX4bYPJcsQ)

I would put forward that no action is ever selfless as the root reason for choosing to act in a seemingly selfless manner is always selfish...that does not however take away from the positive effect those actions have on the world around us.  For instance, I do good because it makes me feel good...that's selfish but it's also beneficial to others.

Of course a christian would have selfish reasons for wanting to avoid hell and even to help others avoid hell...or at least I would hope so.  A christian who ultimately wouldn't personally feel horrible if they thought they could help someone avoid hell but didn't would be a bad person (it would be like thinking you could stop a stray from walking into oncoming traffic yet did nothing).  It just so happens that christian attempts to ferry non-believers away from hell can really annoy the non-believers as there is no oncoming traffic and the nonbelievers see that they are being pushed for no reason  

Quote from: "freeservant":devil:

So say my wife...*chucklin*

QuoteSimple ridicule may be a simple way for you to think you have it all down and know it's all a trick. But unless your are drop dead certain it may be the evidence of a trickster (Satan and his minions) giving you the blank ammunition you think is live.  Good luck with that...

I am not drop dead certain of anything. Proof is for mathematics and liquor. All I require is some sort of evidence of any religion's supernaturalism. We can leave superfluous entities out of the equation for now. Show me your god and I may have to change my world view.

QuoteAh the intellectual honesty comes thru loud and clear.

Thanks

QuoteYou are being honest in that you want all the biblical ammo you can find to shred the bible with the bible.

All the ammo I need is right there in your manual of life. The biggest problem is getting Christians to read there bibles.

QuoteGood luck with that as well and how good a job do you think Professor Bart Ehrman is doing?

Ehrman can hold his own. Quite better than the likes of Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson or Plantinga.

QuoteMy criteria of an effective attack on scripture would be when the Theological Seminaries start to close down in droves.  Not to mention the Churches and all the Church based Hospitals and Charities...

As long as people wish to be deceived, be self-deceived or remain in some sort of religious delusion, this will never happen.

QuoteThis would imply that you have some defeaters that lead you to your current position.  Or is your atheism an act of faith that you are sure you have enough information now.

Naw...I was born an atheist...just like you. I've never been through the deconversion process as so many here have. For the second part of your quote, I have no faith whatsoever. I don't believe, I think. I think that there is so little evidence (.000000000000000001) of your position that it renders a wanton belief of that position moot.

QuoteActualy that is the subject of the original post.  So what are your clues and bits of evidence that gives you assurance that Jesus is not the boss?  I think that would best fit in this current thread.

I'll start another soon to devote to it.

QuoteI was more thinking about the Ontological argument and the Moral argument but now I am not sure.  I fear bringing this up but this may be a place for an atheist echo chamber that does not really value anything I have to say other than to tear it down.

That would be true. Both of those arguments have been refuted many times over.  

QuoteIn other-words do the members of this happy forum have an atheism that can't be falsified or are your minds still open the the loving and nurturing possibilities?

Atheism is neither true or false. It is simply a position that a person lacks a belief in god/s

Believe it or not, I, and others here will show you how you have erred...using the bible.

Quote from: "Whitney"I would put forward that no action is ever selfless as the root reason for choosing to act in a seemingly selfless manner is always selfish...that does not however take away from the positive effect those actions have on the world around us.  For instance, I do good because it makes me feel good...that's selfish but it's also beneficial to others.

Yes. As do I. And neither of us do it for that elusive train ticket to Heaven.