Hi, Warrick here!
Offline Hi guys,
I'm Warrick - I love Jesus because He first loved me.
I'm visiting this forum for several reasons. Most importantly I pray that Jesus use these forums and discussions to reveal the truth to all those who doubt and bring them to a place where they know without a doubt that the God of Israel, the creator of the universe, loves them and nothing can separate them from that love.
Another reason I'm here is because I find discussions with free thinkers revitalising. I'm intent on learning the Word of God and understanding it as best I possibly can and I find discussions with atheists a very challenging and effective way to learn. Mostly because really zealous atheists know more of the Word and seem to spend more time in it than your average Christian. Interesting.
I'm excited by open, honest frank discussion since there is no other way to get to the truth. And Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.
No matter what is said in these discussions, Jesus loves each one of us. No doubt, blasphemy (even against the Holy Spirit) or profanity can change that. Thank you Jesus. In fact Jesus will leave the 99 sheep to find the one that is lost - so all you lost sheep Jesus is looking for you - knocking at the door of your heart waiting for you to let Him in.
God is not a respecter of men. He is the same yesterday, today and forever, And He loves you.
- Login to post comments
Is that it? What about all the metaphor vs literal stuff. You have nothing more to offer? You make your decision to reject the entire canon of scripture based on the fact that there is no "peer reviewed" medical evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead.
Is that free thinking? Really. I thought there was more to it. Where's the meat to your objection? Where's the real reason you object?
You don't object because of a lack of evidence. When you can honestly say why you object I'm keen to hear it. Anything else is just debating for the sake of it.
By the way - you face the consequences of your dicisions. Don't make them lightly. Be sure you have thought them through.
Jesus loves you.
Hey jce - what's your reason for objection? Have you also got an armoury of atheist dogma or have you actually thought about this and rejected it based on solid reasons?
You cant replicate the death of Jesus as discribed by the bible and falsify it with control groups. I'd say that is damned good reason to reject the claim. Muslims cant magically caugh up 72 virgins in heaven. I'd say that is damn good reason for you to reject that claim. Dont you?
Is that some sort of veiled threat? Spare me the tough love psycobabble and get back to me when you can reconstitute 3 day old dead flesh.
Your invisable daddy isnt going to kick my ass any more than Darth Vader is going to kidnap you.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Well not really. There is other evidence. This is one item of evidence that you say cannot be presented. Fair enough. What about the others? You keep coming back to this one item let's move on.
Maybe not, but He will kick mine if I presume to threaten you on His behalf. That is not a threat at all, veiled or otherwise. Do you disagree with the statement? Do you not agree that we face the consequences of our decisions? It's an appeal to put some effort into making a decision. The consequences will always be yours. That's not a threat, it's just a fact.
You are asking for something you know for a fact is not going to happen. That's not reasonabl. I am saying we have eye witness accounts of Jesus being raised from the dead. Where is your reasonable rebuttal to that? I accept and acknowledge there is no three day old flesh to show you. Where's your reasonable rebuttal to the fact we have eye witness accounts? That's my first item in evidence.
I did so in an earlier post, please scroll up.
I am not reciting dogma, atheism has no dogma. I trust you understand atheism solely refers to the lack of belief in a god. What I am giving you is my thoughts, my perspective, and my arguments I think you are making a hasty generalization regarding this. Because you disagree with my statements they become dogma? That is fallacious resoning.
What pisses me off about religion? A lot.
Oh, that is just a few.
Right now, the one I absolutely hate is PROSTYLITIZING!! Please drop, the jesus loves me effort. I could really not care less about how much you think your magic friend loves me.
(Now I am agitated, typing that list really irked me more and more with every point I came up with.)
Not so fast. It is irrational to make claims that you clearly admit to having no evidence for. It is reasonable and rational for me to reject that which has no evidence.
You admited you could not do that.
What consiquences do I have to fear or be weary of? Please do tell. Please do tell.
Most certainly is reasonable. Human flesh has never surivived 3 days of death.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Atheism, like every other orgasnisation (and it is an organisation) has it's tenets and doctrines. Every atheist I speak to recites the same old stuff. I've seen these definitions of appealing to emotion and appealing to tradition before. I've heard all these "your god is dead" things many times. Those are all tenets, and they are recited as dogma by all atheists.
Excellent. None of these things is advocated by any verse of the Bible. All of these things may be practiced by people who use the Bible to justify what they are doing. That does not mean the Bible is nonsense. Don't chuck the baby out with the bath water. The Bible does not repres sex or sex education. The Bible speaks specifically of the dangers of pride. It speaks against all acts if anger and hatred. So none of these justifies your rejection of the Bible.
You may be quite right in rejecxting the people that exercise such things. Jesus didn't. So the premise for your objection is bad. I say you object to thereligious organisations and some of hte individuals and acts within those churhes. Your objection is not against Christ or God.
Now we are getting somewhere. All this talk about evidence and fallacy and myth is not at the heart of your objection.
You say you absolutely hate PROSELYTIZING. So you don't go about attempting to convince people there is no god? What's one of the clever RRS slogans: "Believe in God? We can fix that." - What's that if not a recruitment slogan?
Anyway I'd say that PROSELYTIZING doesnot describe my mission or activity. I'm just witnessing to you about who Jesus is. I'm not recruting you into any organisation. You make up your mind.
I'll shut up if you convince me you have valid reasons for rejecting Christ. I'm telling you you don't. You are objecting to the people and organisations, not God, not Jesus.
You can continue your passionate objections to all those things and love Jesus. In fact, you'll be a more effective activist when you submit to Christ.
Good and bad consequences of all your decisions. Every decision you make results in consequences. You have to live with them. Simple common sense.
You are looking for corroborating evidence to support your claim that the eye witness accounts are not true. That means you do not have evidence to prove that the accounts are false. So you cannot reasonably reject the accounts as false. You have to say that they could be false but you cannot say that they definitely are false. If you say that show me your evidence, better yet fin d the evidence to support you decision so that you can truly say it is an intellectual choice. At the moment it is not.
I wouldn't go to Josephus because it is too easily dismissed.The fact of the matter is that it is there but people just dismiss it anyway so we'll ignore it.
The fact though is that people did die for the faith in Christ. Roman history records that. So there is no denying that a large number of people were persecuted for their convictions about Christ. This was not a commercial enterprise. These people had nothing to gain from lying or "sexing" up any story. So why did they go to their death, just to fool everybody? Such a large number of people did that for a hoax?
People died horrible deaths defending the gospel. Their motives had to have been something other than exaggeration or warm fuzzy feelings. Please explain your understanding of this.
Pardon me? Um, this was not an objection. I was simply agreeing with BGH. Defensive much?
As has been stated by others, Atheism has no dogma so by default my answer is that I have thought about it and rejected it based on solid reasons. Thus far you not provided any evidence or solid reason for your belief so I do not feel that I need to waste my time providing either to you for my non-belief.
Atheism is strictly lack of belief in a god. Because you encounter similar arguments from other atheists does not mean there is a dogma. If you encounter similar points of view from bald men, does not mean bald mean belong to an organization or follow a bald man dogma. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, from there atheists can believe anything they want. They can be good people, bad people, straight, gay, communist, republican, rich, poor, educated, drop outs.....
- Implied or direct subjucation of women.
This is in the bible, please read your text.- Implied or direct persecution of homosexuals.
This is in the bible, please read your text.- Efforts to hinder scientific advancement.
Not in the bible but churches propagate this.- Efforts to legislate morality.
This is in the bible, please read your text.- Efforts to gain favored status with politicians.
Not in the bible but churches propagate this.- Efforts to restrict women's health rights.
Not in the bible but churches propagate this.- Efforts to restrict knowledge and critical thinking.
Not in the bible but churches propagate this.- Prostylitizing.
This is in the bible, please read your text.- Church tax exempt status.
Not in the bible but churches propagate this.- Prideful 'believers'.
There are many of these and you are quickly becoming a shining example.- Efforts to create automatons by indoctrination of the young.
Not in the bible but churches propagate this.- Priestly sex scandals and eventual cover ups.
Not in the bible but churches propagate this.- The inquisistion.
Not in the bible but churches propagate this.- Suicide bombers.
Not in the bible but churches propagate this.- The salem witch trials.
Not in the bible but churches propagate this.- The holocaust.
Not in the bible but churches propagate this.- September 11, 2001.
This was done in the name of Allah.- Abortion clinic bombings.
This is done in the name of belief.- The burning of the library at Alexandria.
This was done in the name of the religion.- The murder of Hypatia.
This was done in the name of religion.- Mental manipulation of believers.
Not in the bible but churches propagate this.- Repression of sex.
This is in the bible, please read your text.Not in the bible but churches propagate this.
Please see above.
No, I cannot reject what isn't there. Again, I do not hold any of this to be true.
You misunderstand the definition of prostyltizing. I did not seek you out to tell you the atheism message. You visited this website of your own volition. You came here to profess your mesage, you in fact are the one prostyltizing.
I have.
I will not submit to the non-existant.
I have very valid reasons for rejecting your belief system. You are deluded and hold your beliefs because they make you 'feel' good. I do not feel this is an effective way to structure my life. I will not live in hopes of a magic sky daddy existing, I will not live my life regarding it as temporary in hopes of something eternal.
I called it a few posts ago, we will NEVER see eye to eye.
Try your conversion methods elsewhere.
And yet you ignore the physical absurdities of the Christian God. He is somehow beyond physics in a realm beyond physics which you would supposedly use to show us why God is unmeasurable, but then he answers prayers in the physical world and yet no force can be detected with which he answers prayers, there is no stream of energy coming out of mens' heads as they pray. That is except the heat and carbon dioxide that are emitted by all warm blooded vertebrates. If I were to pray that the glass of water on my desk were to fall off, and lets say it did, would I be able to measure a cosmic force behind it?
God is entirely supernatural and yet able to partake in natural events and yet we can't measure his force? Hmm, there's a physical problem methinks. Of course it could be the case that maybe he actually doesn't exist. Oooh, controversial!
The Greek Gods are probably more believable (I don't believe in them) and of course they're way cooler!
Atheist Books
Isnt it funny how an ancient claim of surviving rigor mortis is possible, but this all powerfull being who claims he can do anything refused to stop 3,000 people from being incenerated in NY.
Should be a simple parlor trick to make the terrorists simply "Poof" dissapear, or have the planes float to the ground safely. I am so glad he didnt stop the terrorists(SARCASIM!)
I would have prefured those people not be murdered, but what the hell would a bloodthirsty kitten barbquer, goat sacraficing, cootie spreading heathing like me know?
Funny how we never see decapitated human heads gro back today, but back then surviving rigor mortis was just fine and dandy.
It is the sam as Harry Potter or Peter Pan or Santa, just a myth.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Woa. Hang on. It was just a simple question. Not defensiveness intended. I was just saying hi and asking for you reasons of objection. Seems maybe the aggression is coming from you not me.
Quite clearly atheism is as full of dogma as any other institution. To deny that is to exhibit your blatant disregard of the obvious.
I have provided evidence which has been rejected. This is the issue with atheism. You are all quick to ask for evidence and then reject it but you offer none of your own.
Of course you are free to reject the Bible, Christ, God anddo whatever else you please. And I can just like it or lump it. However this organisation, RRS, makes itself very public and by so doing you invite attention. So here it is.
If you have no valuable contribution then silence is probably better.
Maybe, but active atheists, like those that support the tenets of the RRS, make it their mission to discredit the beliefs of others. So now we have moved from lack of belief in a god to actively attempting to move others away from their belief in God. Again I refer to your tee shirt slogan.
The bald man comparison is entirely irrelevant. Bald men do not necessarily all have a common tenet or belief. Atheists do. Many atheists argue points by using the points made by others. Very few actually apply original, individual, independent thought to the argument. They base their argument on tenets (there is no god) and on authoritative doctrine (there is no god because...). This is dogma. Let's put this one to bed. It is obvious that there is dogma in all organisations - Christians and atheists alike have dogma.
Please refer me to a specific text.
No it isn't. Persecution of anybody goes directly against all biblical teaching. Homosexuality is not acceptable to God. Persecution of the homosexual is not acceptable to God.
Please refer me to a specific text.
No it is not. Witnessing about the truth of Christ is not a recruitment activity.
Show me where I exhibit pride. Show me where you don't.
Nothing to do with Christ then.
Not advocated by the Bible or Christ.
Not advocated by the Bible or Christ.
All of the "Not in the bible but propogated by chuches is irrelevant to our discussion. I am, not asking you to join a church. I am asking you to consider the possibility the Christ is real.
The RRS is quite clearly on a mission to recruit. By having a public web site you are advertising yourself. It is hypocrisy to say that you can act in this way but churches should shut up.
Good. But you can still submit to Christ. Becuase He does exist.
We do see eye to eye in one very important way. We both want to know the truth. I am seeking the truth. Show me what the truth is. We have established that your inference that the Bible is myth is subject to error - so it is possible the Bible is true and accurate - you do not have conclusive evidence to the contrary.
I am teachable. I am open to discussion. If you do not want to discuss openly then I challenge your claim to being a free thinker. I definitely challenge your adamant belief that the Bible is nonsense. You do not have evidence of that. I have presented evidence and you reject it by inference mostly. You do not have contradicting evidence.
You are basing your decision on dogma. How can you deny that?
It is perfectly logical and reasonable to say that the cause of the physical usniverse had to be non-physical. No? If you say no to this please provide a reasonable alternative.
He created the physical world, it is reasonable to accept that He can act in it as well. If God is not physical how can you detect Him using physical techniques? Again, I refer to the fact that it is pefectly logical and reasoanble to say that God is not phyiscal.
If a glass falls off your desk you will be able to measure the force behind it. You may not understand the cause of the force however. Physics does not have all the answers. It'll be interesting to see you defend a denial of that fact.
No physical problem. If God acts in the physical world you will be able to measure the force of His actions.
Maybe, but you have no proof to support such an assertion.
God is cool. Give Him a chance.You will like Him.
Who said He refused? Who said He couldn't? One thing is for sure He didn't. Your assumption that He refusedis just that, an assumption.
Have you ever done anything bad in your life. Maybe not a terrorist act I concede but just slightly bad. Maybe you diresepcted your parents somewhere along the way, maybe you did some other dodgy things. One thing is for certian, you, like the rest of us on this planet, have done things that are not acceptable to God. Why didn't He make you just "poof" disappear? Because He is merciful. Why did those 3000 "innocent" people die? I don't have an answer but your argument is adhoc and inconsistent. Please take a bigger view of all of this. You get tied up in some specific thing that offends you and suddenly God is bad. Maybe you just don't understand what is going on. Is that possible? (and don;t intend to insult you, it's just a question)
This belies an underlying issue you have where you obviously believe that everybody that calls himself a Christian thinks you are some sort of useless sinning heathe. The Bible teaches that we are all hopeless sinners and God does not favour one man over another. He loves you with the same passion as He loves any faithful Christian. Any Christian that disrespects you is not representing God to you. God loves you unconditionally.
What has decapitated human heads got to do with it?
Proof please. I keep seeing this assertion made (which is dogma, c'mon now) and yet I see no conclusive proof.
Again you side step the entire arument and respond with something entirely irrelevant and pointless.
I am not appealing to any emotion. I am telling you to think for yourself. The spiderman story is old and boring. It proves nothing. It's not clever. It's not original. It's pointless
It does not demonstrate free thinking or independence. It does not demonstrate intelligence.
Can we have a reasonable discussion please. I want to know the truth. I don't want to follow Jesus ifHe is mythical. No-one here is given one shred of useful information to show that Jesus is not real.
You revert back to the same old stuff time and again, side stepping all the real questions. I want to have a decent discussion with real free thinkers. Where are they?
Tell me, once and for all, why you reject the gospel of Jesus Christ. Don't revert to the dogma that He is fallacy without a good reason. Most certainly you have made no effort to find the answers for yourself. You have read a bunch of smart Alecs making humurous comments, been offended by some guy that calls himself a Christian, never seen the power of God to change a life and bring joy where there was none and so you make some assumption that it is all not true.
It is not a sufficient answer to say you have not seen any proof. There is plenty of proof. The Bible is evidence. You cannot discredit it and if you can give me clear, concise, logical reasoning on how you do so. The old atheist dogma about Peter Pan, and references to the Pantheon are of no value in a real free thinkers discussion.
Have you thought this out for yourself? Clearly not, because you have no original, personal answer to give. That's dismal from an apparent free thinker.
Come on now. Let's talk. I am open to reasonable discussion. You guys are supposed to be fixing me since I believe in God.
I am telling you that Jesus is alive and He wants a relationship with you. I have the Bible as evidence. I have Roman history to corroborate much of that. Greek Septuagint stenghthens my argument. There are other secular writings to further corroborate. I have personal experience to further corroborate. There are millions of testimonies to further corroborate. The world is evidence that God is alive. And the Bible has not changed in hundreds if not thousands of years. It is consistent and will remain so.
On every point I get an adhoc, ill considered, dogma response.
Is it impossible that Jesus is alive? If you make such an assertion please prove it. This is a reasonable request. The old atheist dogma response - it's up to the Christian to prove his stance. Well I have lots of evidence, none of which can be contradicted because you have no evidence.
I am not trying to piss anyone off here. I just want to get into a decent discussion where all points, made by both sides, are given fair consideration and are discussed to some reasonable conclusion. Is that possible?
I am basing my lack of belief on everything I have derived from religion, the bible, pastors, priests, believers, my own studies, my own introspection, and my experience of reality. I find not a shred of truth in god, jesus, or the holy spirit.
When I was a 'believer' I hated when other tried to push their religion, or faith on others. Stop trying to convert me, you are working me towards a full fledged hate directed at you. I need not justify anything to you.
You on the other hand need to start justifying why you believe in magic, and mythology.
The thing is we have established that your reason for disbelieving the Bible is that you infer it is myth. We've established that could be erroneous. So there is a possibility, no matter how improbable, using your justification, that the Bible is true. You've conceded as much.
None of the items in the list of objections you provided justify an objection of Jesus, God or the Bible. So again all I am saying is that you may have valid objections but they are not against Jesus, God or the Bible.
This much I believe we agree on.
OK. Hang on. I really am not wanting to go down that path. I don't mean to stir up anger. I am not pushing any belief on you. I am challenging your very public statements that Jesus is a fallacy when I know He is not. You challenge my statements and I challenge yours.
This is going back to old dogma again. You have as much as conceded that it may be possible that the Bible is true since by your system of inference some error could have been made.
This is my claim -
1. You have valid objections agains religious institutions and against those that commit atrocities and justify those atrocities using the Bible.
2. None of the atrocities you object to are advocated or taught by Christ or the Bible.
3. There may be scant evidence (in your view) to support the claims made in the Bible but you do not have conclusive evidence to disprove them while there is at least scant evidence to support the claims of the Bible.
4. Jesus is not the one that you are objecting to. That is chucking the baby out with the bath water. All I ask is that you consider this for a while. He is not the one that pisses you off. I might, He won't.
5. Give Jesus a chance. Speak to Him openly. You cannot shock God. Nothing is taboo with Him. You cannot cause Him to reject you. You on the other hand can reject Him.
6. Professing faith in Christ does not mean you are joining a church organisation. It does not mean you are sacrificing your individuality or independent free thought.
Sorry to jump in where I may not be welcome, but Warrick you have not provided any evidence for your beliefs. You have been prostlytizing and I am sorry to let you know, but this will not work here. Others have tried and failed.
Many of us were believers at one time or another and have rejected a belief in any god - the reasons for the rejection are as unique as each individual here. Atheism has no dogma. No matter how many times you say it does, the fact remains that it doesn't. Atheism is a non-belief in a supernatural being. That is all. If you feel there is dogma, your feelings are wrong.
If you have a valid, reasonable argument to present please do so. So far all you have provided is opinion so it is small wonder that people get frustrated by this. In your OP you stated that your reason for coming here was to pray that Jesus reveal the truth to us. You either need to pray harder or start doing some research to produce verifiable facts. If that does not work, then BGH was right - you two (and me and a few others at least) will never see eye to eye.
No, we do not. As much as you would like to assert I might be wrong about the bible, you sir may also be just as wrong. The difference is I am using the evidence I have at my disposal to formulate my disbelief. You are making naked assertations without substantial reasoning.
Yes, my lack of belief is in god, jesus, the holy spirit and the bible.
The bible has much more evidence for reasoning that it is primitive mythology than it does proving it is fact. The supernatural claims, miracles and god-men are what fiction is made of, not a factual historical document.
I do not believe in the supernatural, i.e. gods, spirits, ghosts, miracles, precognition or any other supernatural claim now or in the past. You have not a shred of evidence to prove any of these things and because someone in a 2000yr old book claims them to be true does not make them true, no matter how much you wish or pray.
I am not angry; I am losing any respect for you or your arguments. I can handle challenging each other’s arguments, but you are being dishonest in your methods. I have stated the reasons I lack belief, these are valid reasons and have evidence to back them up. You on the other hand hold a belief in a magic friend for which you have presented no evidence except for a book that very well appears to be mythology.
Again, you on the other hand need to start justifying why you believe in magic, supernatural, miracles, god/men and mythology.
The responsibility does not lie with me to prove why I do not believe in fantastical claims, the burden of proof for these claims lies with you. You are making the positive claim that your supernatural world is real, you then need to provide positive evidence.
I have conceded there are parts of the bible based in reality, but I assert ALL of the mystical supernatural claims are false.
And you justify belief in magic using the bible, who is making the more fantastical claim?
There are many atrocities taught and advocated by the bible, you refuse to see them.
Again, there is zero evidence for any of the supernatural elements of the bible.
Yes, he is the one I am objecting to, I do not believe in god/men.
(This is a good example of prostyltizing.)
I do not reject him, I do not believe in him. Rejecting something requires that one hold it might be true, then willfully turning away from it. I do not, AT ALL, believe your god, nor your god/man is real. Basically they are, non-existent.
Good, not going to happen. I am not going to profess faith in christ nor join a church.
Finally this argument is done; these things you ask are not going to happen.
Now, let’s hear your proof. No arguments from wonder, no arguments from emotion, no arguments from consequences, no arguments from populum…. just plain simple empirical facts.
Can you do that?
But jce I have. You of course can reject that evidence but I'd say in rejecting evidence you of course, being reasonable and logical, will present reasons for your rejection. I then look at those reasons challenge them and present corroborating evidence. And so the process goes. In this way we work toward agreement based on evidence and reasoning.
What is happening here is I present evidence (the Bible contains eye witness accounts) and I get a rejection (the Bible is myth - notice no reasons), I challenge that (no need for corroborating evidence at this stage sincewe need to establish the reasoning behind the assertion that the Bible is myth). Finally we get some reasoning (BGH uses inference). We firmly establish and agree that inference is subject to error meaning that the Bible could in fact be true (w've established a possibility that needs to be explored - if you say no then you are beginning to become unreasonable).
So we move on I say even if inference were correct myth like the Pantheon is clearly myth. You need not go further than the Protogenoi to establish the Pantheon as myth. You have no such conculsiveness with the Bible (if you do present it - no-one here has presented any conclusive reasoning to establish the Bible as myth). Let me say as well that I am open to listening and evn being swayed by such reasoning, there just sin't any. If you disgree then point out the reasoning to me clearly - don't run back to the old superman, spiderman, and I have my reasons nonsense. (I'm burning to mentioning something about dogma but let's not get distracted now).
So further corroborating evidence is presented (regardless of the fact that the atheist argument has now got no basis since no reasoning has been presented), Roman history, Greek Septuagint, other secular writings that all firmly establish dates, times, consistency, etc. If you disagree present your reasoning. I have not heard any.The atheist argument quickly declines into claims of prostlytizing, ridiculour spiderman stories and talk about appeals to emotion and tradition. Always the same arguments from the athesits.
Clearly I believe that Jesus Christ is alive and so I am here to say so. I have presented evidence which has been quite unreasonably rejected (no reasoning presented) - there is no appeal to emotion, no appeal to tradition, just plain facts.
Do you see how unreasonable your statemens can be? Watch this one "If you feel there is dogma you are wrong". What? Did you look at my reasoning for stating that atheism has dogma? If you disgree with my reasoning please quote what I say and state your reasoning for rejecting it. You are making assertions without any reasonable premises. That is foolishness I'm afraid to say.
Now, you do not have to justify yourself to me or anyone else. You never have to accept Christ but don't tell me you have good reason not to and then run for the hills when asked to explain yourself. Rather say you just don't want to - because that's what it amounts to.
Now, please provide reasoning. I'm not here to debate aimlessly. Convince me that you are right. I am willing to listen and I'll even be swayed if you show me good reasoning. The fact is you can't becuase Jesus Christ is in fact alive and the Bible is true. Please take that as a challenge to formulate a reasonable argument and respond. This entire paragraph you presented is devoid of understanding and reason.
BGH, please. I have presented evidence which you have not reasonable disputed. Point to the evidence you have presented.
You said you were devloping a hatred toward me. That sounds a bit more angry than just a lack of respect.
How am I being dishonest? You see you make statements like this and actually believe them but you have no basis. Tell me where I am dishonest. Think about what you are saying.
We have looked at your reasons and discussed them. I don't recall any evidence being presented and if it was how did I respond to it. Please quote the paragrpahs where we covered this.
There are other texts that backup the book. Tacitus' account of Christian persecution shows that there was a large body of people willing to die horrible deaths becuase of their faith in Christ. This was very close to the time Jesus is claimed to have lived. Why were they so willing to die if it was just a hoax or a joke? This is further evidence (which can be disputed of course) that Jesus lived and it can go toward an dargument that He rose from the dead.
Now the issue here is consistency. There are many texts that show the consistency of the Bible. The contrary arguments are ad-hoc. If you disagree please present your reasoning.
Doesn't this make the Muslim faith and the Koran more real because they are blowing themselves up for their god? They are not even waiting for someone to persecute them, they a taking their own lives in the name of allah. This means the muslims have it correct, right?
Well the muslims believe he lived but that he was not god, nor was he resurrected. So like I said before since they are blowing themselves up for their faith this means their argument that he was not god is more real, right?
IS THERE ANY PROOF THE SUPERNATURAL EVENTS IN THE BIBLE TOOK PLACE?
Really... can we recreate any of these events? If not then the bible is just a story about a guy who claimed to be a god/man. Maybe he was not different than the men that are in mental institutions today making the same claim.
Warrick, your bible makes too many outlandish and supernatural claims, that is why I call it mythology. I have a problem with the 'magic' in the text. Just because it references actual historical figures or events does not make the whole text true. I can write an essay about orange and blue squigyidoos who excrete golden bricks, reference real events and and real people but it does not make the fantastical claims any truer.
Pleas give up trying to profess the validity of the bible to me. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN MAGIC GOD/MEN.
Fair enough.
OK. But some of it might be true?
This defeats the purpose of dicussion surely. How about this for a compromise? I'll stop with the "recruitment" efforts and we can just talk facts.
Can you say with absolute certainty that Jesus did not do what the Bible says He did? I realise you are asking me to show you evidence and claim it cannot be done today. That's fine. The question is, can you say absolutely, without a doubt, that Jesus did not do what the Bible says He did?
No, I cannot say for certain, but I can say with reasonable expectation that the most likely answer is he did not.
Can you say for certain that he did, though there is not any evidence? Realize here that extrordinary claims require extrordinairy evidence.
Can you?
I am not making that claim. I stated I do not believe it and for good reason. Too much magic makes me skeptical.
And again, I turn the question back to you. Can you claim positively that he did?
Maybe, but doesn't a reasonable man then continue to look until he has certainty? Also, and this is just a question, all the RRS tee shirts and statements that are made seem to suggest there is certainty about the matter. That then becomes patently false, since there is no certainty.
I do say that He certainly did but, I concede I do not have the evidence you may be looking for. There is evidence though which has satisfied me.
I can claim that He positively did, for my own purposes. I understand that is not sufficient for you and that is why we discuss this stuff isn't it. You discuss in the hope that I will come to my senses and see your point. And I do the same.
So out of this exchange would you agree it is fair to say there is no certainty surrounding the matter?
Well, yes. That is why I look for the truth on a daily basis and keep my mind open. Having said that, from my experience thus far in my life, my default posistion is lack of belief. At this point I can state with as much certainty I use to ecpect the sun will rise in the east and set in the west as I can that there is not a god and and that if jesus existed he was not god/man.
I did not design the shirts and I do not see the relevence to this discussion.
Well, we agree on this point. Your requirement of evidence is not the same as mine.
Yes.
Not nessacarily. You have said you were certain twice in this post. So as I see it you are making the positive claim. I merely am stating that with evidence presented thus far in my life, I can assertain a non-existance of the christian god or the god of the bible, whichever term you like.
Someone who honestly values the truth cannot state with 100% certainty any claim, this is one of the hallmarks of science. A good scientist or rational thinker always leaves room for new evidence. I prefer to learn about the world through naturalistic methods, where evidence lies.
There are many theists, I am not saying you are one, who claim to know things positively without a doubt. This type of thinking displays to me a closed mind and dogmatic thinker.
I thought the relevance would be that you seem to be fairly tightly associated with the RRS, from that I infer you support their beliefs. The RRS have published statements and otgher promotional material that states that there is no god. That is an unsubstantiated affirmative statement. It would be more correct to say that they do not believe there is a god and that they do not see any evidence to support the claim there is one. So the statement, unless I misunderstand, are similar to a theist making claims he is not willing to discuss - i.e. dogma.
OK.
Well, this is a technicality but I believe it important to mention, you cannot ascertain anything unless you are certian. So the best you can say is that you do not believe it and you have not seen any evidence to support the claim.
OK. What I'm saying is that maybe science has it's limits - hence the lack of certianty I suppose. So if we are relying entirely on science we may be missing something.
Fair enough. I agree. I'd rather discuss openly with you and find where my thinking is flawed.
So how about this then. Is it reasonable and logical to say that the cause of the physical universe had to have been non-physical?
very interesting thread...
In light with what happened recently on the nightline thing and what nots, and it started dawning on me two things...
- Nightline was a mistake. One thing I really want everyone to know, understand, and accept (atheists and theists) - not one person on this planet can prove God exists. No possible proof can be offered to another individual to believe. God makes himself known to every person on an individual basis. Until you are called, you will remain in a state of disbelief, which is OK too because just as those in the time of Jesus that did not believe, there are those who were meant to believe and others who aren't. Once we all accept this, understanding that I cannot convert you, and you cannot de-convert me, we'll all live much more happy, co-existing lives (I'm posting this point on that new alert for "new theist members".
- I've actually begun wondering, and this thread got me thinking...what exactly is an atheist. In some cases that I've seen from individuals on this forum, treating theists as you do, it seems to me that, as a group, you've almost become your own religion. wzedi made a really good point on this - you recruit, you advertise, so now what.
I'm hoping someone can give me a definition for number two, something real, and something that isn't based on retoric. Holding true to what you believe, whether it be for or against the concept of God, does not make you closed minded but rather someone who does stick to their convictions. I know I don't care what you believe so why does it make such a difference to you that I do? Being open minded should be more about dialog, understanding, and knowing that there will be a point in which we will have to agree to disagree.What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Yes, this is clearly correct. There is no proof one way or the other. We can still have civil conversation and learn from each other though. What's the old addage - if we had proof why the need for faith?
I suppose as a theist, taking part in these forums, I am definitely open to discussion on any topic and hope to remain open minded throughout. Having a bias though inevitable breaks through but still that's what discussion is about.
On point 2, I agree whole heartedly. I was thinking just this today that atheism is definitely a type of religion, going by the definition of religion. Interesting.
We went through this whole discussion for you to present with a 'first cause/prime mover argument'? Really? I argue that your faith or belief will show evidence much less substantial than what science can present.
No, I do not think the prime mover was supernatural. You must understand something about the term 'supernatural', it refers to something outside of nature, outside of the natural world. This is by definition undefineable and unmeasureable, at this point we can plug anything into the equation. Science can measure conditions in the universe to a few attoseconds (10-35) after the big bang. This does not mean god is the first cause, it simply means no one knows. Here is a general overview of the science which greatly outweighs the evidence for a prime mover.
Here is a LINK to the website.
Brief History of the Universe
On a related note I just noticed the bible quote in your sig, which is another glaring exampe of flawed logic.
YOUR SIG
This verse says that God will do the work, not humans. If I undersand it correctly.
So why are you trying to do his job for him. Why would a perfect being "need" anything, especially a falable human to do his bidding.
If your claim is that it is his job, it seems to me by your action of trying to convince me of his existance only two things are possible.
1. He exists but is not perfect.
2. He doesnt exist so to compensate for that you delude yourself into thinking it is your job but lie and say that is not what you are doing.
If he is using you, then you are merely his pawn to get to me. But why would a perfect being need a middle man?
Remember, I am adressing the flaws I see in your claim. I dont believe a word of anything in that sig. I think you like what you believe so you commit mental gymnastics in your mind to justify clinging to flawed logic.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Razorphreak and Warrick,
I have a question, you both have asked the question, "what does it matter what I believe?". I must point out, you both came to this website and engaged in conversations defending your faith. We did not seek you out, and we did not send you mailers or invitiations. You came here of your own volition and under your own power and decided to discuss why you have faith. If we end up agreeing to disagree that is fine, but I want there to be no mistake who sought who out.
As far as the claim that atheism is a religion, I feel that is a mistake. There is no atheistic doctrine, no dogma to follow. An atheist can believe whatever he/she wants, but the only thing that binds all atheists is a lack of belief in a god. There are no rituals or iconoclastic system. Atheists can love Dawkins, or hate Dawkins, be pro-life or pro-choice, be spiritualists or naturalists, believe in aliens or not, eat meat on fridays in lent or never eat meat, celebrate christmas(solstice) or not.... atheists can feel however they want about any issue except ONE.
Razor, theist or not you and I agree on many things. Sitting at work today, I was thinking the same thing! Unfortunately, any answer I give is purely personal. I am a spokesperson for one. Atheist share one thing and one thing only in common - disbelief in a god/supernatural being. How each of us came to be atheists is unique to the person.
I think I understand the misconception of atheism being confused with being a religion, but it is not. Perhaps I am not the best person to explain this, but the best answer I have is that there is no dogma or doctrine with atheism. Science, religious studies, politics have played a part in many of our lives, and in some instances led us to examine our faith (for those that were believers) but for others they play a part only to the same extent that they do in yours.
You could accuse this site of providing the same fellowship offered by a church or religious organization and you would not be entirely wrong. I enjoy discussing these issues with people and learning as much as I can. However, there are atheists that do not view this site in the same manner and there are atheists that attend church to fulfill that need. The primary difference is that there is no one book, no doctrine, no dogma that binds us here. I do not have to agree with the people that organize this site and I am free to leave at any time. Even if I do, I am still an atheist. This site offers me a place to express my views and it encourages learning but there are other sites and with or without out any of them I am still free to do these things.
Being an atheist has not fundamentally changed who I am at all. I am still a moral person, reasonably intelligent, a dutiful daughter, a conscientious employee, a loving mother and an overall decent human being. I care about the world around me and the people and animals in it. I have a curious mind and will never, ever stop asking 'why?'.
I care why others believe because I am curious and I am concerned to the extent that it infringes on my life in the form of telling me what to think. As you know, I rebel against any attempt to mix government with religion and always have. Other than that I simply enjoy discussing other viewpoints. I cannot say that any of you are wrong per se, but I will challenge anyone who claims to hold their belief as sacred and then makes no effort to examine it or defend it. Any time it is discovered that I am an atheist outside of this forum, I am immediately put under the spotlight and grilled so if I am forced to defend my non-belief then theists should be prepared to defend their belief.
But I speak only for myself. I hope this made some sense as an answer and I hope others provide answers as well.
I don't understand what you are saying here. What am I doing?
That's where I have to stop you, and since the rest of your post is based on this false assumption, it's irrelevant. If you understood that I can't convince you of God, how are you turning that around and saying that I'm trying to do that?
And if it wasn't for the outspoken actions of the GROUP, to which I consider anyone who uses that badge as a member of it, I would have NEVER known of your existence. So I came because of the fact that I saw this group misusing the bible to make a false point. I've stayed because it continues...it has nothing to do with conversion as Brian seemed to imply.
Then why speak AGAINST anything theism?
And the one issue should result in passive dismissals. You read the posts here and they are far from. Calling someone delusional or that I require "mental gymnastics" is not someone who does not believe in nothing but rather someone who has a belief in disbelief as it were and is out to prove his or her disbelief. In that process, it's a matter of converting others to your belief, hence the slogan "Believe in God? We can fix that." That is not the motto of a group that has a lack of belief in anything but rather a hostile stance against one following of faith because it conflicts with your own belief.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
I do not have to agree with the people that run any Christian church and I do not have to attend church to be a Christian. I am not Christian by virtue of the fact that I attend a church - however your point that all Christians fundamentally agree on the Bible is true.
Any time it is discovered I am a Christian outside of this forum I am immediately put under the spotlight. So we are all prepared to defend our point of view in thsi forum. Let's talk.
Without attempting to convert you please tell me your individual reasons for dismissing the Bible as myth and objecting to religion.
Personal or not, have you ever thought why that is? My opinion on that is that we talk, discuss, and retain an open mind to understand the other person's stance on the topic at hand. I am not accusing you of being evil for not believing and you have not accused me of being delusional for believing. You don't have to believe as I do and I don't as you do and that's a GOOD thing as you and I relate to each other as people.
As you said, that actually is true for some, false for others. Sapient is here with a specific doctrine and has a specific agenda, dogma if you will, which brought about this forum. If he didn't, my first question would have been why the blasphemy challenge? My second, why pose ANY challenge to a theist.
I too am asking "why", not to be condescending but rather I want to know why someone felt that approach was necessary.
You know something dawned on me with that...even if you don't believe in the bible, God, or whatever...if I can defend my faith using with what I believe, I don't understand the need to insult me for that. Disagree with my belief but understand it is what it comes down to...and I don't feel that from quite a number of people.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Interesting. Very good. I do understand the term supernatural. My question is this since everything physical and natural must be in the physical and natural universe the cause for these things had to have been something other than physical or natural.
That is just a logical statement. I make no assumptions in that statement. I am not asking you to acknowledge that God is the cause (yet
. I am asking if that statement is logical and reasonable.
By advertising and promoting you are by definition seeking people out. I may have come here of my own volition and others might also do so but based on your promotional materials. You are seeking people to join you. No mistake there.
There may not be any official manual or documen. But the same old quotes and concepts are used by all atheists. You could just as well put them in a document. There may be an element of individuality to each atheist (as there is to each theist) but in general that have a lot in common. In essence this is dogma, by definition, this is dogma. You don't dictate what another atheist says but almost all of you agree to a large extent on how you defend your stance - that is dogma.
In most points same with theists. We are bound together by what the Bible teaches - so that may exclude some points but in others we are the same. I know Christians that don't eat meat, I know others that'll eat anyhting just about. Their choice. So to some extent there are similarities.
I will try to respond to both you and Warrick with this post as it is late and I desperately need sleep. Certainly I will discuss any issues at any time and offer my personal view. They will not be an "atheists" view because there are none. Many of the theists that come here do not have an open-mind and do not look for understanding. They will instead spout bible passages to a group that mostly considers that book to be fiction. I do not have any issue with someone defending their belief with the bible but the bible is too controversial to be used as the only defense. I look for more just as I look for more within myself to explain why I do not believe.
Razor, you and I have discussed a few bible passages in the past and from I have enjoyed those discussions. I still have trouble not accusing you of interpretation but that is perhaps something I should work on - lol
Anytime either of you want to open a discussion I would be happy to participate.
From Merriam-Webster,
When I use the term 'dogma', as it is commonly used is the second definition here:
dogma
One entry found for dogma.Main Entry: dog·ma ">
Pronunciation: 'dog-m&, 'däg-
/-m&-t&/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural dogmas also dog·ma·ta ">
Etymology: Latin dogmat-, dogma, from Greek, from dokein to seem -- more at DECENT
1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma> c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
The first still does not reflect atheism, there are no authorative tenets. Just lack of belief.
You know YOU might not but others by their post show otherwise. By todagnst calling me delusional shows he had no intention of listening to me from the onset so his "established opinion" is that all theists are delusional. You see where I'm coming from?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
I haven't been following this thread beyond the first post. But I wanted to mention I wouldn't be bothered if posting glassy-eyed telemarketer proselytization resulted in an automatic ban.
I understand what you are saying and that is not what I am referring to when I reference 'dogma'. Maybe from now on I need to use the term 'doctrine' just to be clear.
On an earlier point I need to say something and this is a point Warrick also referenced, I would love to "just let others believe what they want", I really, really would. The reason I joined this site, and maybe this is true for some other members, is because I do not like the effects of some these beliefs have on society, my personal rights and personal freedoms. We need to coalesce into a group and stand up for what we believe(or not believe).
There is much propagated in this country and around the world in the name of religion and the name of god. I am going to fight against these things because my personal beliefs are my own and I do not feel I need to follow catholic teaching, protestant teaching, mormon teaching, muslim teaching or any other religious doctrine that I do not subscribe to myself. I do not think religious beliefs should be legislated no matter how many people adhere to the teachings.
For the first time I believe, you and I are in total agreement.
I'm right there with you in that. I am ashamed of the history of some who call themselves Christians but those seem to be the one's that both history and, with modern times, media like to focus on. It is the one's that you don't hear from that much, like that little woman in India, or the guy who went to North Korea to help another Christian with their faith but got caught by the government and was killed, or about a group that helped 40 families that got flooded out of their homes by bringing them mops, buckets, sheet rock, tile, can foods, bunson burners to cook since their ovens were dead, etc....it is those groups that you can't just mold into some kind of scottsman fallacy. My point here is that while I agree that there should be no forcing of a system of beliefs (which is why I posted a comment about what I want - now on this thread) I also believe that battling theists for the sake of battling theists is judgemental, reversed to being the same way some theists have been to you. This is what I want to see stopped...from both sides.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Interjecting one more personal comment before picking this up in the other thread - I love it when two people whose opinions I respect set aside differences to work to create an environment in which those differences can thrive and result in productive change.
Thanks!
OK. Looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree here. I just want to make one last point on the dogma argument and keen to see your views.
I would argue that the first definition does, at the very least, closely reflect the behaviour of atheists. My argument is based on the fact that evry discussion I have with an atheist results in the standard responses, i.e.
1. there is no god
1.1 this is stated by every atheist and is therefore established opinion
1.2 it is authoritative in that if you do not make this statement you cannot be an atheist
1.3 It is without adequate grounds because you cannot prove conclusively that there is no god.
2. Jesus is a fallacy
2.1 this is stated by every atheist and is therefore established opinion
2.2 it is authoritative in that if you do not make this statement you cannot be an atheist
2.3 It is without adequate grounds because you cannot prove conclusively that Jesus is a fallacy
Even more importantly I think the following point needs to be made about dogma. The frustrating thing about dealing with a dogmatic person in a discussion is that they will fall back on some statement that is either irrelevant or unsubstantiated (as you claim Bible verses are) and you cannot move them past that dogma with reason.
My argument as that atheists (in general, there may be exception but I haven't seen one yet) do exactly the same. One makes a statement, or asks a question, which challenges the fundamental atheist stance and the atheist reverts to His standard (dogmatic) responses.
So here's my challenge to all the free, independent thinkers:
1. There are no grounds for you to say there is no god. You can say that you do not believe it and you have seen no proof but the fact is, you don;t know for sure. So the statement is in fact false.
2. There are no grounds to claim that Jesus, or his supernatural acts, are fallacy. You do not have conclusive proof to show this to be the case. So you can claim to not believe it but to state without qualification that Jesus is a fallacy is false.
3. I have still not seen any asnwer to the question about the non-physical cause of the physical universe. I've had a side step from BGH (this is dogmatic behaviour) with an explanation of what happened from some nano-second after the big bang. I'm talking about what happened before. The cause had to be non-physical. To make any other statement is surely not reasonable. If you disagree please give grounds for your disagreement. Without making any assumption that the non-physical cause is the God of the Bible, is the statement reasonable?
Let's reason this out.
I considered not bothering responding to your post since it hardly seems condusive to reasonable discussion. Are you a free thinker that is open to reasonable discussion? Do you claim to know every fact about the universe? Do you know for a fact that God did no create the Universe? If so show me. If you can prove it I will have to rethink my stance and I will. I'm telling you you can't.
So to make a dogmatic stance against the existence of God is in fact unreasonable.
On the proselytization thing, we've covered this. Atheists, and RRS in particular, are guilty of this very behaviour. You want to ban theists from expressing their opinion and exercising the commands of the God they believe in (His command was to go out into the world and tell everyone about Him) that seems fascist and unreasonable.
You try to force your lack of belief on me (Don't say yuou aren't - RRS is aggressively making a point that God does not exist and claiming they can sway people away from their faith). I am just sharing what I know to be true. You are welcome to challenge.
By the way, the comment about telemarketer comment shows you lack of independent free thought. This is an example of dogmatic atheist behaviour and bravado. Whose telemarketing? If you have any reasonable independent thoughts to offer let's hear them. Nothing about Jesus being a fallacy, or the Bible being myth. Let's start with your reasons for not believing. I guarantee you they are not valid reasons. You can stick to your lack of belief. That's your privilege. But you cannot reasonably substantiate it. Show me that I am wrong.