Originally posted by HalitoseAren't you shifting the burden of proof?
Aren't you shifting the burden of proof? But even so. If you believe that sufficient proof has not been given for the existance of God, then surely everybody is free to do what they think good, to the best of their personal interpretation of "good". Then Stalin who said the death of one is a tragedy while the death of millions is a statistic, was possibl ...[text shortened]... It just doesn't take too much imagination (and a bit of Marx) to get to his degulagisation.
No, not at all. The burden of proof lies entirely on the shoulders of the theist. They are the ones making the claim that there is a god. If they cannot provide any convincing evidence for their claim, then I have no choice but to doubt it.
And since the theist has failed completely and consistently to provide any such evidence, I do doubt it very much. Of course, the theist claims all the time that he has provided evidence but that the atheist just won't accept it. Well, I'm sorry, but your supposed evidence has to do more than just pander to people who are already predisposed to believe the claim. It has to be able to convince people who are not already in agreement.
So, once again, the burden of proof lies entirely with you. It is up to you to prove to me that your god exists. If you cannot do so then I will continue to doubt your claim.
Originally posted by David COkay. Sorry. Maybe I should rephrase that. I thought it was glaringly obvious.
Just had a second glance at it. Yup, the irony is still there!
As an atheist there is no higher authority to appeal to other than human reason. Natural law is a product of human reason, no? Speculative Ethics?
As, and I emphasise As a Christian there is a higher authority to appeal to i.e. God and His moral law revealed in the Bible. Revelatory Ethics.
Originally posted by Joe FistThis thread has digressed into every other thumper thread. The very idea of "I am the lord thy God. Thou shall have no other false gods before me" does not allow for the existence of any other.
This thread has digressed into every other thumper thread. The very idea of "I am the lord thy God. Thou shall have no other false gods before me" does not allow for the existence of any other. I don't know of any verses of what you spoke of but do you deny that millions of people have been slaughtered in the name of Christ?
You are not getting it. ...[text shortened]... it will most likely never happen to the people here who remain open minded and question things.
But Joe, being open minded, you must allow for the one main possibility that this verse you quoted suggests, and then work from there. Namely, that there is only one God, and that if people put false gods before Him, it turns out badly for them. (They waste their lives worshipping a lie.) At some point my kids had to understand that I was their one Father. Other Dads might look like me, and even direct them sometimes, but they must not put other Dad's before me. I didn't even 'allow for the existence of any other' Dad, because ...there is only one.
I don't know of any verses of what you spoke of but do you deny that millions of people have been slaughtered in the name of Christ?
I think we were talking about the idea that men wrote the Bible without God, but, oh well...........
I thinkit was in this thread yesterday that I talked about the great badness of many christians. The actions of such people do not represent Christ. And they have already been judged for their murder.
Here's what I said yesterday: As far as the crusades go, they have long been repented of. Yes, many many people have done many horrible things in the name of Christ. According to Jesus Himself, these are not true believers; they do not represent Christ, as beleivers are called upon to do. I expect these verses below have already been applied to many crusaders when they died.
Mathew 7: 21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
You are not getting it. I DO NOT HATE THE BIBLE OR YOUR KIND BUT YOU ARE COMPELLED TO MAKE ME BELIEVE AS YOU DO.
Yes, I am compelled, to share with you the great joy I have found in knowing and trusting in Jesus. I can't make you believe, but I can certainly make a case for why you should sincerely consider what I have to share with you. If I found a great pizza place downtown and came by to tell you about it so you could go there, would you get angry and say "YOU ARE COMPELLING ME TO GO EAT GOOD PIZZA!" Or if I found out your flight was leaving earlier than you thought and called you so you would head to the airport on time, you would be grateful, and not charge me with trying to control your life. Same idea here.
This will never happen as it will most likely never happen to the people here who remain open minded and question things.
Does this statement demonstrate the open-mindedness you claim? Wouldn't an open minded person say that they may find that Christianity is true after all? As some here have said.
Originally posted by chinking58Yes, I am compelled, to share with you the great joy I have found in knowing and trusting in Jesus. I can't make you believe, but I can certainly make a case for why you should sincerely consider what I have to share with you. If I found a great pizza place downtown and came by to tell you about it so you could go there, would you get angry and say "YOU ARE COMPELLING ME TO GO EAT GOOD PIZZA!"
[b]This thread has digressed into every other thumper thread. The very idea of "I am the lord thy God. Thou shall have no other false gods before me" does not allow for the existence of any other.
But Joe, being open minded, you must allow for the one main possibility that this verse you quoted suggests, and then work from there. Namely, that ...[text shortened]... person say that they may find that Christianity is true after all? As some here have said.
[/b]
Your pizza analogy is inexact. It would play out more like the following:
chinking58 (ch): I found this great pizza place downtown. You should go there and try it. You'll love it.
rwingett (rw): Oh really? I was just downtown and I didn't see any pizza place. Besides, I don't like pizza, it isn't good for you.
ch: Yes, it's there. You just need to look a little harder. Just try it, trust me, you'll love it.
rw: I tell you, I looked all around and didn't see any "pizza place." I wouldn't want it anyway, it isn't good for you.
ch: You can't see it unless you believe it's there. If you would just try it, you'd see it's so delicious, yum yum!
rw: I don't want it! Won't you just leave me alone?
ch: Try it! Just one piece! It's my life's mission to shove that pizza down your gullet, whether you want it or not. Just try it!
rw: No! I don't want it. Leave me alone, you maniac! Back, you fiend! Help, police, help!
The actors quickly exit stage right, with chinking58 rabidly extolling the virtues of his imaginary pizza and rwingett trying vainly to outpace him.
Originally posted by rwingett]Yes, I am compelled, to share with you the great joy I have found in knowing and trusting in Jesus. I can't make you believe, but I can certainly make a case for why you should sincerely consider what I have to share with you. If I found a great pizza place downtown and came by to tell you about it so you could go there, would you get angry and say "YOU ARE COMPELLING ME TO GO EAT GOOD PIZZA!"
[b]Yes, I am compelled, to share with you the great joy I have found in knowing and trusting in Jesus. I can't make you believe, but I can certainly make a case for why you should sincerely consider what I have to share with you. If I found a great pizza place downtown and came by to tell you about it so you could go there, would you get angry and say "YO ...[text shortened]... y extolling the virtues of his imaginary pizza and rwingett trying vainly to outpace him.
Your pizza analogy is inexact. It would play out more like the following:
chinking58 (ch): I found this great pizza place downtown. You should go there and try it. You'll love it.
rwingett (rw): Oh really? I was just downtown and I didn't see any pizza place. Besides, I don't like pizza, it isn't good for you.
ch: Yes, it's there. You just need to look a little harder. Just try it, trust me, you'll love it.
rw: I tell you, I looked all around and didn't see any "pizza place." I wouldn't want it anyway, it isn't good for you.
ch: You can't see it unless you believe it's there. If you would just try it, you'd see it's so delicious, yum yum!
rw: I don't want it! Won't you just leave me alone?
ch: Try it! Just one piece! It's my life's mission to shove that pizza down your gullet, whether you want it or not. Just try it!
rw: No! I don't want it. Leave me alone, you maniac! Back, you fiend! Help, police, help!
The actors quickly exit stage right, with chinking58 rabidly extolling the virtues of his imaginary pizza and rwingett trying vainly to outpace him. [/b]
Very clever! But I hope I don't come across like that. What if I change it to a water fountain in the desert?
Jesus told His disciples that if the people of a certain town don't receive them, to leave and shake the dust of the town off their feet as a sign against them. Leaving the town would be the sign of respect for their free will. Shaking the dust off would be the sign that acknowledges their error. But how does that relate to a spirituality forum? Are not all views welcome here? Should not all viewholders continue to express the same view until it changes? And if it changes, should they not continue to express the new understanding?
By the way.......the Pizza is REAL!
Originally posted by chinking58Debate is welcome. Proselytization is not.
][b]Yes, I am compelled, to share with you the great joy I have found in knowing and trusting in Jesus. I can't make you believe, but I can certainly make a case for why you should sincerely consider what I have to share with you. If I found a great pizza place downtown and came by to tell you about it so you could go there, would you get angry and say ...[text shortened]... uld they not continue to express the new understanding?
By the way.......the Pizza is REAL!
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingett[/b]9/10 for humour. I agree with Chinking that the analogy needs some polishing.
[b]Yes, I am compelled, to share with you the great joy I have found in knowing and trusting in Jesus. I can't make you believe, but I can certainly make a case for why you should sincerely consider what I have to share with you. If I fou ...[text shortened]... imaginary pizza and rwingett trying vainly to outpace him.
Originally posted by rwingettOutside of high school, debate is for a purpose. Maybe the only reason for an athiest to win such a debate is to justify himself, and feel safe from judgement, so he isn't moved to 'convert' anybody. But the believer is motivated by love. Therefore, 'winning' the arguement really matters to him.
Debate is welcome. Proselytization is not.
Originally posted by rwingettYou are quite right. It would only be a shifting of the burden of proof if you were already predisposed to a theistic belief.
[b]Aren't you shifting the burden of proof?
No, not at all. The burden of proof lies entirely on the shoulders of the theist. They are the ones making the claim that there is a god. If they cannot provide any convincing evidence for their claim, then I have no choice but to doubt it.
And since the theist has failed completely and consistently to ...[text shortened]... prove to me that your god exists. If you cannot do so then I will continue to doubt your claim. [/b]
What are your criteria for me to conclusive prove God? I'd say this would differ from person to person. If all one believes in is the physical, then only physical, tangable proof would do. If one is already predisposed, as you said, to the metaphysical, proof of a less tangable nature would surfice.
Originally posted by HalitoseWhat are your criteria for me to conclusive prove God?
You are quite right. It would only be a shifting of the burden of proof if you were already predisposed to a theistic belief.
What are your criteria for me to conclusive prove God? I'd say this would differ from person to person. If all one believes in is the physical, then only physical, tangable proof would do. If one is already predisposed, as you said, to the metaphysical, proof of a less tangable nature would surfice.
I don't know. But everything the theists have pulled out of their hat so far has been unconvincing. Unless you can come up with some new, compelling line of reasoning, then I doubt you'll be able to convince me.
Of course, god himself would be able to convince me of his existence. Surely it would be an easy matter for an omnipotent being to accomplish. But he does not do so because either (A)he chooses not to do so, or (B)he is unable to do so. Most likely because he doesn't acually exist. God's continued silence on the matter inclines me toward B.
Originally posted by rwingettBut what if your vision of what God would or wouldn't do is wrong? As it would most likely be, given the differences between what any god worthy of the name God would be, and what man is.
[b]What are your criteria for me to conclusive prove God?
I don't know. But everything the theists have pulled out of their hat so far has been unconvincing. Unless you can come up with some new, compelling line of reasoning, then I doubt you'll be able to convince me.
Of course, god himself would be able to convince me of his existence. Surely ...[text shortened]... because he doesn't acually exist. God's continued silence on the matter inclines me toward B. [/b]
Considering the proposition that we are made with a free will, then God would not force proof of Himself on us. That would essentially negate our ability to choose Him, which is what He wants. Like a beautiful woman who would not be satisfied if she had to kidnap her man; she wants to be chosen freely for her attributes.
Believing that God exists is only the first step. ( James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder) Deciding to live in accordance with God's instructions, deciding to trust Him--is the more important step.
Originally posted by chinking58For god to prove his own existence would not in any way violate our free will. It might violate our free will if god subsequently forced us to choose him. But proving his own existence and allowing us to make a choice based on something more substantive would not violate our free will in any way.
But what if your vision of what God would or wouldn't do is wrong? As it would most likely be, given the differences between what any god worthy of the name God would be, and what man is.
Considering the proposition that we are made with a free will, then God would not force proof of Himself on us. That would essentially negate our ability to choose ...[text shortened]... live in accordance with God's instructions, deciding to trust Him--is the more important step.
In fact, this game of hide-and-seek that you seem to think god is so fond of playing is rather childish for someone in his position. Look at all the strife it has caused over time. If god has the power to put the matter at rest, but prefers to have us argue and fight amonst one another, then even if he did exist I'm not so sure he'd be worthy of worship.
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseI'm not going to keep posting in this forum, but Natural Law is no more a PRODUCT of human reason than the law of gravity is. It is astonishing to me that theists are so lacking in basic philosophical knowledge that they can't understand this very simple point, but they over and over assert this rubbish. What the natural law is and its existence can be discovered by human reason, but it exists whether human beings in an individual or collective capacity realize it. The way reality is IS whether we have "reasoned" about it or not. Natural law as regards human beings is a product of their nature, not their reason.
Okay. Sorry. Maybe I should rephrase that. I thought it was glaringly obvious.
As an atheist there is no higher authority to appeal to other than human reason. Natural law is a product of human reason, no? Speculative Ethics?
As, and ...[text shortened]... d and His moral law revealed in the Bible. Revelatory Ethics.
Originally posted by no1marauderMay I point out that the Theory of Gravity falls in the branch of Science. It can be tested ad nausium. They even have an equation to explain it. Natural Law is more of a philosophical and psychological exercise and is not quite so easily proven or disproven. Equating these two to each other is a bit of a simplification.
I'm not going to keep posting in this forum, but Natural Law is no more a PRODUCT of human reason than the law of gravity is. It is astonishing to me that theists are so lacking in basic philosophical knowledge that they can't understand this very simple point, but they over and over assert this rubbish. What the natural law is and its existen ...[text shortened]... t it or not. Natural law as regards human beings is a product of their nature, not their reason.