Wondering how to respond to free will argument.

RedGiant
Posts: 1
Joined: 2010-04-28
User is offlineOffline
Wondering how to respond to free will argument.

 Hi, I'm a 19 year old from Fort Worth, Texas. I'm currently involved in an email debate with a Christian. I was trying to make the point to him that if God knows the future we cannot have free will because we must follow what he knows will happen or else he will be wrong. He is arguing that God doesn't know the future, he just knows what decisions we will make so he is merely a "witness" to our decisions we have already made. He is saying that we have already made every decision for the rest of our lives already and God has just watched them happen. He compared it to humans watching a sports game from the future, saying that we are not making the decisions for the players we just know what will happen when that game comes to present day. I was wondering how I can respond to this? Thank you.

 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:robj101

Fortunate_S wrote:

robj101 wrote:

With every "interpretation" you make, your god seems more and more like a petty 2000 year old man.

It's not an interpretation.  I'm going by exactly what scripture says.  It is atheists who are interpreting it.  Romans 9 never says anything about free will and Prozac somehow makes the inference that it is.

By any chance, have you done your homework in these areas?  Have you ever read an apologetics book?  Or are you just another atheist who criticizes things that he knows very little about?

Yea I'm the latter, for your benefit. But when you you have explained what a phrase in scripture means, and then accuse me of interpreting it wrong I have to fukin LOL.

You said it ass, your god HATES SINNERS. Hate would be a very petty thing for a all knowing all powerful being in my little book of rational.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

No. The agnostic doesn't know whether or not the the world can be accounted for without God belief. It is not presupposing anything. 

It is presupposing something.  If an agnostic does not believe in God, then s/he is acknowledging that the non-existence of God is possible.  Otherwise, s/he would believe in God.  This is entirely contrary to presuppositionalism.  If you believe it is possible that God does not exist, then you automatically believe that the world can be accounted for without God.  Otherwise, you would believe that it's possible that God does not exist and that the world cannot be accounted for, even though the world exists.

Quote:
Well, I was just using the agnostic as the example of what is unbiased.

You either believe in God or you do not.  Both lend themselves to personal biases.  There is no way around it and I've already explained how this is the case.   

Quote:
I think God, or at least the God of Christianity, almost certainly does not exist, so I'm not an agnostic in the sense that I was using. However, I don't presume that world makes perfect sense without God; I've simply observed that everything already makes sense, without requiring any supernatural deity to explain it. 

Which means that you do presume tha the world makes perfect sense without God.  Anyway, I would like you to start a new thread proving that the Christian God is false.

Quote:
I still don't see why he does this though. I mean, he seems to be getting discouraged or losing interest quite easily; if I knew people were going to hell, I would give them as much evidence as I possibly could to save them. The potential for "condescending" them would seem to be a completely insignificant consideration. I would continuously point out empirical evidence for everyone and show them what a great guy I am. The way he does things doesn't make sense to me.

Guess what?  You are not God.  Your standards are not God's standards.

Quote:
If the exact situation was replicated, would a person ever make a different choice? If he actually always only makes one of the choices, then it doesn't seem any different from not having free will at all. In that case, it doesn't seem like free will has any practical value, even if you may argue that it has intrinsic value. 

No.  He would make the same choice if the exact situation was replicated.  That does not make the choice any less free.

Quote:
Then, how does everything in the world progress according to his plan if he doesn't control it?

It is not necessary for God to "control" the world in order for it operate how he wants it to operate, anymore than it is necessary for me to control my TV set when I watch a movie on my DVD player.  I press play and the machinery does all the work for me, while I just sit back and watch everything go according to plan.

Quote:
When I say, "intentionally producing," I do mean that the creator of the stock market intentionally caused the activity of the stock market. 

Let's assume that he did.  Did he also cause the choices that the stockholders made?  No.  He did not.

Quote:
Is everything that happens what God wanted to happen? Does anything ever happen that God didn't want to happen?

Yes and no.  God has a permissive will where he allows things to happen even though he does not like them, such as murders, rape, child molestation, etc.  So ultimately, no. 

Quote:
I don't see how that contradicts what I said. If God has the ability to make choices, and he created us in his likeness, then he created our ability to make choices. He just made sure that our ability to make choices was like his.


No.  That's a fallacy of division.  That's like saying that if I made a car, then it must be true that I made the car's ability to move.  The car is not equal to it's ability to move and our ability to make choices is not equal to us, it is a property that we have. 

Quote:
Okay. So, you're using a more rigorous definition of necessary than me. What is necessary is what is true regardless of what values you assign to the premises. If I stand on the Earth and drop a ball, I should say that the ball falling towards the Earth is contingent on me dropping it while standing on Earth. I should not say that the ball necessarily falls towards the Earth because this is an improper use of the term "necessary?" If it was necessary for the ball to fall towards the Earth, then it would travel in the direction of the Earth regardless of where I dropped it and whether I dropped it or not. 

"Necessary" means always true.  If it necessary that there is a cloud when it rains, then it means that it is always true that there is a cloud when it rains.  "Contingent" means that something can be either true or false.  My point was that probability is relative to knowledge and an omniscient being, God or otherwise, will have 100% of everything, contingent or otherwise.  Daniel Dennett, a prominent atheist, actually agrees with this and many of your views seem similar to his.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:God's

Fortunate_S wrote:


God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

God's sovereign will includes the choices people make.

 

  Vigorous debate is not a bad thing FS but did you just throw a temper tantrum ?

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


chndlrjhnsn
chndlrjhnsn's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2010-03-28
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:I would

Fortunate_S wrote:

I would like you to start a new thread proving that the Christian God is false.

I would like you to start a new thread proving that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is false.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
He could start a thread

He could start a thread about proving the fact that I am god false.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
That's just pathetic FS

 

Fortunate_S wrote:

God only reveals himself to those who seek him with an open heart, rather than people who are going to patronize and mock him if he does not adhere to their arbitrary standards of evidence.

First of all, you have to believe he exists.  If you do not, then you already have presuppositions about reality which will close yourself off from him.

Then you have to genuinely seek a personal relationship with him, which requires you to not so much rationalize what will have to happen in order for him to be made real, but to simply allow itself to occur in whatever way it should manifest.  I really cannot explain it.  It is something that has to be experienced. 

 

We find god when we believe in him. Oh, it's doctrinally accurate, but what sort of a brain is operating in your skull that allows you to dish this rubbish up to us? Arbitrary standards of evidence. Riiiiight. Is there anything else for which there is no evidence whatsoever you'd like to encourage us to believe under threat?

Underneath all FS' maunderings there lurks the typical theist bastard who thinks we deserve to die, that our inability to accept the stupid arguments of the bible is based on our moral decisions. FS is in love with his own narcissitic me-god and what a vomitous sight it is.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Fortunate_S wrote:

God only reveals himself to those who seek him with an open heart, rather than people who are going to patronize and mock him if he does not adhere to their arbitrary standards of evidence.

First of all, you have to believe he exists.  If you do not, then you already have presuppositions about reality which will close yourself off from him.

Then you have to genuinely seek a personal relationship with him, which requires you to not so much rationalize what will have to happen in order for him to be made real, but to simply allow itself to occur in whatever way it should manifest.  I really cannot explain it.  It is something that has to be experienced. 

 

We find god when we believe in him. Oh, it's doctrinally accurate, but what sort of a brain is operating in your skull that allows you to dish this rubbish up to us? Arbitrary standards of evidence. Riiiiight. Is there anything else for which there is no evidence whatsoever you'd like to encourage us to believe under threat?

Underneath all FS' maunderings there lurks the typical theist bastard who thinks we deserve to die, that our inability to accept the stupid arguments of the bible is based on our moral decisions. FS is in love with his own narcissitic me-god and what a vomitous sight it is.

 

Believing in santa clause and the tooth fairy do not make them true, nor zeus nor mithra nor innumerable other gods. What makes yours so special? Oh, thats just the one YOU believe in.

Sorry extremist, just wanted to add to your comment.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:It's not

Fortunate_S wrote:

It's not an interpretation.  I'm going by exactly what scripture says.  

 

     That's a pretty weak statement as every Christian denomination that rejects  Calvinism / Reformed Theology also does so on the basis what scripture "says".

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
RedGiant wrote: Hi, I'm a

RedGiant wrote:

 Hi, I'm a 19 year old from Fort Worth, Texas. I'm currently involved in an email debate with a Christian.

 I was trying to make the point to him that if God knows the future we cannot have free will because we must follow what he knows will happen or else he will be wrong. He is arguing that God doesn't know the future, he just knows what decisions we will make so he is merely a "witness" to our decisions we have already made. He is saying that we have already made every decision for the rest of our lives already and God has just watched them happen. He compared it to humans watching a sports game from the future, saying that we are not making the decisions for the players we just know what will happen when that game comes to present day. I was wondering how I can respond to this? Thank you.

 

 

 

This is so great!  First of all, to me it sounds like your friend's God is an extravagant sadist.  

Give your friend a gift. Send him this book "The Gospel according to Jesus Christ".  If he really reads and understands this book, than he might very well get so upset about Christianity that he leaves religion altogether. Smiling 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 Dear Fortunate_S, I

 Dear Fortunate_S,

 

I understand how difficult and miserable you may feel on this forum.  I feel really sorry about this.

I am curious about your beliefs though.  Could you please help me and answer some questions that I have for Christians whose faith is so strong as yours.

 

Please can you continue the following sentence:

"I believe in God, and I am a Christian, but not Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, etc.  BECAUSE .... "

 

Thank you.

 

With all my atheistic love,

 

100%


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

 Dear Fortunate_S,

 

I understand how difficult and miserable you may feel on this forum.  I feel really sorry about this.

I am curious about your beliefs though.  Could you please help me and answer some questions that I have for Christians whose faith is so strong as yours.

 

Please can you continue the following sentence:

"I believe in God, and I am a Christian, but not Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, etc.  BECAUSE .... "

Christianity is true and all of the other religions are false.

Why would I join a false religion?

 


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Fortunate_S wrote:

It's not an interpretation.  I'm going by exactly what scripture says.  

 

     That's a pretty weak statement as every Christian denomination that rejects  Calvinism / Reformed Theology also does so on the basis what scripture "says".

We are talking about predestination.  Which Christian denomination rejects predestination? 

As far as what you've stated, do you have any examples? Let's see: 

--The JWs believe that the Bible has been corrupted over the centuries and they only go by the New World Translation, which is not used by any other religion.

--The Roman Catholics believe that scripture is subordinated to tradition.

--The Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is superior to the Bible.

 

So I'm curious, which religions reject Calvinism on the grounds that it is unbiblical?


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S

Fortunate_S wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

 Dear Fortunate_S,

 

I understand how difficult and miserable you may feel on this forum.  I feel really sorry about this.

I am curious about your beliefs though.  Could you please help me and answer some questions that I have for Christians whose faith is so strong as yours.

 

Please can you continue the following sentence:

"I believe in God, and I am a Christian, but not Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, etc.  BECAUSE .... "

Christianity is true and all of the other religions are false.

Why would I join a false religion? 

 

Why are those flase faiths more false than your faith FS, a faith you insist we have to just accept verbatim in order to believe? Why not admit your faith is based on nothing more than your subjective opinion?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Why

Atheistextremist wrote:

Why are those flase faiths more false than your faith FS, a faith you insist we have to just accept verbatim in order to believe? Why not admit your faith is based on nothing more than your subjective opinion?

I only gravitate towards the truth and the truth is, Jesus Christ lived 2,000 years ago and was God in flesh. 

Buddha, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Confucius, Laozi, the various founders of Hinduism, Charles Taze Russell, Moses, etc. were all regular people.  This is not my opinion; Not a single one of these individuals are claimed to be God.  The Bible clearly states that Jesus Christ isn't just a messenger of God, but is God himself.

Why would I follow regular people instead of God?


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S

Fortunate_S wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Why are those flase faiths more false than your faith FS, a faith you insist we have to just accept verbatim in order to believe? Why not admit your faith is based on nothing more than your subjective opinion?

I only gravitate towards the truth and the truth is, Jesus Christ lived 2,000 years ago and was God in flesh. 

Buddha, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Confucius, Laozi, the various founders of Hinduism, Charles Taze Russell, Moses, etc. were all regular people.  This is not my opinion; Not a single one of these individuals are claimed to be God.  The Bible clearly states that Jesus Christ isn't just a messenger of God, but is God himself.

Why would I follow regular people instead of God?

Who told you this man was god?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S

Fortunate_S wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Why are those flase faiths more false than your faith FS, a faith you insist we have to just accept verbatim in order to believe? Why not admit your faith is based on nothing more than your subjective opinion?

I only gravitate towards the truth and the truth is, Jesus Christ lived 2,000 years ago and was God in flesh. 

Buddha, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Confucius, Laozi, the various founders of Hinduism, Charles Taze Russell, Moses, etc. were all regular people.  This is not my opinion; Not a single one of these individuals are claimed to be God.  The Bible clearly states that Jesus Christ isn't just a messenger of God, but is God himself.

Why would I follow regular people instead of God?

 

I am sure, it would be quite stupid (pardon me) to choose a false religion or follow some strangers instead of God.  So I am completely on your side on this. 

I happened to know almost nothing about your God and your religion.  I didn't have to choose not to believe because I was born in USSR.  


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S

Fortunate_S wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Why are those flase faiths more false than your faith FS, a faith you insist we have to just accept verbatim in order to believe? Why not admit your faith is based on nothing more than your subjective opinion?

I only gravitate towards the truth and the truth is, Jesus Christ lived 2,000 years ago and was God in flesh. 

Buddha, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, Confucius, Laozi, the various founders of Hinduism, Charles Taze Russell, Moses, etc. were all regular people.  This is not my opinion; Not a single one of these individuals are claimed to be God.  The Bible clearly states that Jesus Christ isn't just a messenger of God, but is God himself.

Why would I follow regular people instead of God?

So your method to determine truth is to go with the most extreme claim, by default?

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The passage you've

Quote:
The passage you've cited actually reveals something really compelling:  God hates someone.  Most people believe that God loves everybody and he just hates sin.  This is actually not true.  He hates sinners.  It is not comforting, but think about how much you hate someone like Adolf Hitler or Charles Manson.  We base our hate on the gravity of an offense that someone commits, but to God, any sin is as offensive to him as the actions of Adolf Hitler are offensive to you.  You have offended God so much, that he has hatred towards you.  God's love is not unconditional.  Now you may be thinking that this contradicts the Sermon on the Mount, but it does not.  Notice that Jesus never uses the word "hate".  It uses the word anger.  Here is a good article on hatred in the Bible:  http://www.gotquestions.org/love-sinner-hate-sin.html

This part of the passage illustrates predestination in action.  God, without any reference to Esau and Jacob's behavior, mentioned that one was among the elect while the other was not.  That's not to say that God makes this determination without any preconditions, as he knew he would eventually develop a personal relationship with Jacob and Esau would fall away from him.  But God's sovereign will included the free choices that he knew both of them would make and his plan included his love for Jacob and his hatred of Esau.  This says nothing about free will, nor does it say anything about the lack of free will.  It just attests to predestination, which I've already agreed is in the bible.  Throughout the course of this thread, I have been explaining how this is consistent with free will and your citation of this passage does nothing to refute anything I've said.  I've admitted that everything is preordained by God.

...How is this 'compelling'? It should be patently obvious that Yahweh is brimming with hatred & malice; it's not exactly an act of love or kindness to annihilate whole cities with fire from the sky. 

It's strange to hear a Christian making this point, though. You don't find it a little warped to be in worship of a being who, by your own admission, has such tremendous flaws of character? Are you saying your worship is strictly based on the power you perceive your deity has, then? 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote: So I'm

Fortunate_S wrote:

 

 

So I'm curious, which religions reject Calvinism on the grounds that it is unbiblical?

  I'm sorry I'm leaving for work so I only have a moment but briefly....

 As a general clue,  those Christian denominations that also reject the calvinist doctrine of "once saved, always saved".  That rejection would be an indicator that calvinist doctrine is not accepted.  The Methodist church would be an example.  Pentacostals, etc.  That said, new sects are always being created and christian theology has never been "static".  There are even charismatic Episcopalians.

  I'm finding out that even calvinist theologins don't completely agree among themselves and that they have sliced calvinist doctrine in to competing factions so that calvinism now comes with interesting prefixes to show how their beliefs differ from one another.

  Uniformity of belief is not an aspect of Christian theology whether in regards to calvinism or any other cherished doctrines.

  Gotta go.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote: ...How

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

...How is this 'compelling'?  It should be patently obvious that Yahweh is brimming with hatred & malice; it's not exactly an act of love or kindness to annihilate whole cities with fire from the sky. 

It's strange to hear a Christian making this point, though. You don't find it a little warped to be in worship of a being who, by your own admission, has such tremendous flaws of character? Are you saying your worship is strictly based on the power you perceive your deity has, then? 

He does not have any character flaws.  I made it clear that hatred towards another person is not sinful if appropriately directed. 

Of course it is strange to you to hear a Christian make the point.  You are no doubt under the false impression that Christianity is about postulating a nice God who loves everybody.  Obviously, it would be convenient for atheists if that was Christianity, as that could easily be refuted by a number of passages where God is hateful.  Unfortunately for atheists, there are Christians out there who actually do read the Bible, know what it says, and will have an answer for any Old Testament passage that you want to copy from your favorite atheist book or website.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Hello again FS,   I

  Hello again FS,   I Googled using the search term "refuting calvinism" and found 966 hits.  I haven't examined all 966 but I will assume Christians ( not atheists ) are the vast bulk of the persons that are refuting predestination .  For example:

     http://www.youtube.com/user/RefutingCalvinism

     also, an anti-calvinist website that reveals what a sordid dictator that Calvin became while residing over Geneva.  To dissent meant a death sentence for the unfortunate victim.  Calvin really got into the practice of "burnt offerings"  and Michael Servetus was only one of many victims.   

     http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htm

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Hello again FS,   I Googled using the search term "refuting calvinism" and found 966 hits.  I haven't examined all 966 but I will assume Christians ( not atheists ) are the vast bulk of the persons that are refuting predestination .  For example:

     http://www.youtube.com/user/RefutingCalvinism

     also, an anti-calvinist website that reveals what a sordid dictator that Calvin became while residing over Geneva.  To dissent meant a death sentence for the unfortunate victim.  Calvin really got into the practice of "burnt offerings"  and Michael Servetus was only one of many victims.   

     http://www.biblelife.org/calvinism.htm

I want the doctrines or tenets of an actual denomination.  In other words, find me in the Vatican Council where they cite a Bible verse which outright denies predestination.

Remember, this is what you said:  That's a pretty weak statement as every Christian denomination that rejects  Calvinism / Reformed Theology also does so on the basis what scripture "says".  Therefore, it is important for you to cite to me what biblical support these other denominations use in order to defend their position.  I can think of one off the top of my head.

And let's assume that every religion was in agreement with one another.  Is that all it would take to make you into a believer?  If that's your standard, then no wonder you've adopted the most irrational position possible (i.e. atheism).

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:He does not have any

 

Quote:
He does not have any character flaws.  I made it clear that hatred towards another person is not sinful if appropriately directed. 

Of course it is strange to you to hear a Christian make the point.  You are no doubt under the false impression that Christianity is about postulating a nice God who loves everybody.  Obviously, it would be convenient for atheists if that was Christianity, as that could easily be refuted by a number of passages where God is hateful.  Unfortunately for atheists, there are Christians out there who actually do read the Bible, know what it says, and will have an answer for any Old Testament passage that you want to copy from your favorite atheist book or website.

Alright, so let me understand this: You acknowledge that Yahweh is hateful & vindictive, not omnibenevolent, and does not love everyone. I mean, those last two statement completely contradict what most theists will claim of their deity, but whatever - we'll put that on the back burner for now.

...And you're also claiming that it is not a character flaw for someone to lose their cool and annihilate entire cities full of people they don't like? 

 

Explain to me why your deity is worthy of your worship & respect, then. I mean, if he's not absolutely benevolent, he certainly can't be absolutely just; it suggests that he has a temper as frail as any mortal's and can just as easily fall victim to bias. So, why worship such a thing? Clearly it wouldn't be above you in any real sense - simply much more powerful. 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote::   

Fortunate_S wrote:
:


 

 

  Therefore, it is important for you to cite to me what biblical support these other denominations use in order to defend their position.

 

 

  I just gave you almost a thousand web-sites containing opposing viewpoint from Christians who do not accept your cherished doctrine of "predestination".   

   I even gave you two links that you could have immediately accessed that you obviously have ignored and as you have failed to even address a single point regarding their publicly made arguments I suspect that you will never respond.  If you want to know what verses they use to counter your pov then go to the source and, as you like to say "DO YOUR HOMEWORK"   I'm not your freaking secretary.  Sheesh.

 

   

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Alright,

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Alright, so let me understand this: You acknowledge that Yahweh is hateful & vindictive, not omnibenevolent, and does not love everyone. I mean, those last two statement completely contradict what most theists will claim of their deity, but whatever - we'll put that on the back burner for now.

Define "omnibenevolent".

Quote:
...And you're also claiming that it is not a character flaw for someone to lose their cool and annihilate entire cities full of people they don't like?

It depends on the context.  If it is true that we are under the law of God and that we violate that law, then God has the right to punish us.

Quote:
Explain to me why your deity is worthy of your worship & respect, then.

Because he created us and gave us the opportunity to have eternal life when, according to his legal system, we should have been eradicated.

Quote:
I mean, if he's not absolutely benevolent, he certainly can't be absolutely just

Define "just" and "absolute benevolence". 

Would a person be absolutely benevolent if s/he walked by a woman being raped in the alley and did nothing because it is in his nature to show kindness?  After all, it would not be too kind to the rapist if he actually stopped him from doing what he wanted to do.

Quote:
it suggests that he has a temper as frail as any mortal's and can just as easily fall victim to bias.

What do you mean "fall victim to bias"?  You need to define your terms.

 


Quote:
So, why worship such a thing? Clearly it wouldn't be above you in any real sense - simply much more powerful.

According to whose standard?  Yours?  Mine?  Why do you get to decide who is "above" who?  I'm just curious.
 


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  I

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  I just gave you almost a thousand web-sites containing opposing viewpoint from Christians who do not accept your cherished doctrine of "predestination".   

   I even gave you two links that you could have immediately accessed that you obviously have ignored and as you have failed to even address a single point regarding their publicly made arguments I suspect that you will never respond.  If you want to know what verses they use to counter your pov then go to the source and, as you like to say "DO YOUR HOMEWORK"   I'm not your freaking secretary.  Sheesh.

I was testing you.  You made the mistake of citing what some Christians believe, but did not cite the tenets of particular denominations, which is what you were making the claim about.

All you had to do was locate a website like this:

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/denominations_beliefs.htm

Anyway, do you agree that simply because people have disagreements does not mean that there is no truth?

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
....This is why I usually

....This is why I usually avoid these philosophical circle jerks.

 

Suddenly I apparently need to define what terms lime 'omnibenevolence', 'victim' and 'bias' mean. Here:

http://www.dictionary.com

Figure it out. 

 

It's worth mentioning, of course, that omnibenevolence isn't a coherent concept (as you seem to understand, from the scenario you gave), so at least you're a step ahead by acknowledging that it's not something your deity possesses. Your excuse for worship makes me quirk an eyebrow, though: according to North Korean law, citizens have no rights aside from the right to praise Kim Jong-Il - yet the most gracious Dear Chairman has still afforded many of them life, in spite of there being no law protecting it. Do you see the despot of North Korea as a worthy patron as well, then? 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yahweh is a Warrior

Fortunate_S wrote:

Obviously, it would be convenient for atheists if that was Christianity, as that could easily be refuted by a number of passages where God is hateful.  Unfortunately for atheists, there are Christians out there who actually do read the Bible, know what it says, and will have an answer for any Old Testament passage that you want to copy from your favorite atheist book or website.

 

Personally I think god is a consortium of earlier canaanite gods drawn from the collective elohim - somewhere in the bible El gives the Israelites to Yahweh (the war god) as his own possession. I don't recall where in the OT this takes place.

Last night I was intrigued, while READING THE BIBLE with my preacher brother-in-law, to find this passage in Exodus 15:3: "Yahweh is a warrior, Yahweh is his name."

What does this mean FS? Bro in law didn't have a particularly plausible answer for this one.

Do you agree that Yahweh was the canaanite war god who was originally adopted by the Israelites but then gradually came to take on the universal powers of El as the jews adopted a more homogenous less violent lifestyle, but that the lexicon of judaism continues to reflect the evolution of the faith, including the initial worship of the necessarily pugnacious war god Yahweh?

What do you think, FS? Is there some other less literal meaning I should be reading into the polytheism of the OT? Did satan put those references to the canaanite pantheon into the OT in order to blind me to the truth?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Oh, and FS, before you reply

Fortunate_S wrote:

It's not an interpretation.  I'm going by exactly what scripture says.

 

Please read your rules....

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Suddenly

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Suddenly I apparently need to define what terms lime 'omnibenevolence', 'victim' and 'bias' mean. Here:

If you use fuzzy terms in fuzzy contexts, then I'm going to call you on it. 

Quote:
It's worth mentioning, of course, that omnibenevolence isn't a coherent concept (as you seem to understand, from the scenario you gave), so at least you're a step ahead by acknowledging that it's not something your deity possesses.

I've only heard atheists use the term "omnibenevolent".  Would you be able to cite any Christians who use the term and have clearly defined it? 

Quote:
Your excuse for worship makes me quirk an eyebrow, though: according to North Korean law, citizens have no rights aside from the right to praise Kim Jong-Il - yet the most gracious Dear Chairman has still afforded many of them life, in spite of there being no law protecting it. Do you see the despot of North Korea as a worthy patron as well, then? 

Kim Jong Il did not create the world ex nihilo.

Kim Jong Il is not the ultimate source of logic, morality, and existence.

Kim Jong Il did not create us in his image.

Kim Jong Il cannot offer us eternal life.

Kim Jong Il is only the arbiter of contingent man-made laws and not of eternal moral laws.

Kim Jong Il is going to die someday.

Kim Jong Il has never gratuitously paid a fine for all of humanity.

 

Please find a better analogy.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:Kim Jong

Fortunate_S wrote:

Kim Jong Il did not create the world ex nihilo.

Kim Jong Il is not the ultimate source of logic, morality, and existence.

Kim Jong Il did not create us in his image.

Kim Jong Il cannot offer us eternal life.

Kim Jong Il is only the arbiter of contingent man-made laws and not of eternal moral laws.

Kim Jong Il is going to die someday.

Kim Jong Il has never gratuitously paid a fine for all of humanity.

 Please find a better analogy.

 

But how do you know?  

Would it be correct to say that here you used a simple logic that the God sent us Jesus with the message that He the God created everything and that there is the only one true God? 

Best,

100%


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate Son for all his pontificating

Fortunate_S wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Suddenly I apparently need to define what terms lime 'omnibenevolence', 'victim' and 'bias' mean. Here:

If you use fuzzy terms in fuzzy contexts, then I'm going to call you on it. 

Quote:
It's worth mentioning, of course, that omnibenevolence isn't a coherent concept (as you seem to understand, from the scenario you gave), so at least you're a step ahead by acknowledging that it's not something your deity possesses.

I've only heard atheists use the term "omnibenevolent".  Would you be able to cite any Christians who use the term and have clearly defined it? 

Quote:
Your excuse for worship makes me quirk an eyebrow, though: according to North Korean law, citizens have no rights aside from the right to praise Kim Jong-Il - yet the most gracious Dear Chairman has still afforded many of them life, in spite of there being no law protecting it. Do you see the despot of North Korea as a worthy patron as well, then? 

Kim Jong Il did not create the world ex nihilo.

Kim Jong Il is not the ultimate source of logic, morality, and existence.

Kim Jong Il did not create us in his image.

Kim Jong Il cannot offer us eternal life.

Kim Jong Il is only the arbiter of contingent man-made laws and not of eternal moral laws.

Kim Jong Il is going to die someday.

Kim Jong Il has never gratuitously paid a fine for all of humanity.

 

Please find a better analogy.

 

About logic and wanking on about fuzzy definitions like 'victim' yet fails to understand the meaning of the word 'assertion'.

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist wrote:But

100percentAtheist wrote:

But how do you know?  

Would it be correct to say that here you used a simple logic that the God sent us Jesus with the message that He the God created everything and that there is the only one true God? 

Best,

100%

I know God created the world ex nihilo because (1) the Bible says he did (Hebrews 11:3), and (2) if God had used preexisting matter to create the world, then the world would have already existed in some form.  If God *creates* the world, then the world cannot exist in any sort of form.  Kim Jong Il could not have done this because he came into existence after the world had already been created.

I know God is the ultimate source of logic and morality because the logical and moral principles are eternal and conceptual, which makes them ontologically dependent upon an eternal substance who is intelligent.  Kim Jong Il cannot be the source of this because these things existed before he did.

I know God is the ultimate source of existence because God is a self-existent being and the principle of sufficient reason dictates that all beings whose existence is not accounted for by their nature (which includes everything we perceive with our five senses) must have their existence accounted for in some other being.  Since an infinite regression is impossible, it must stop at a being who is self-existent and that is an eternal substance.  Kim Jong Il started to exist less than 100 years ago.

I know that God created us in his image because the Bible says so.  We are not created in Kim Jong Il's image, as this can be observed.

I know that God offers us eternal life because the Bible says so.  Kim Jong Il never made this claim, as far as I know.

I know that God is the arbiter of eternal moral laws because such laws require an eternal being and we know in our hearts that right and wrong is not relative.  Anyone who truly believes this is saying that the morality of the rapist is not objectively any better or any worse than the morality of the philanthropist, but anyone who truly believes that is wicked.  Kim Jong Il enforces man-made laws, which is a claim that can be historically validated.

Kim Jong Il is going to die someday.  This is strictly inductive but we have good reason to believe that he will.  God is eternal and can never die.

I know that God paid the fine for all of humanity because the Bible says he did.  Kim Jong Il's son is not without sin and therefore cannot atone for our sins.

 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S,I found your

Fortunate_S,

I found your logic sharp, and your arguments are very strong.

Please could you comment a bit more on this statement of yours:

Fortunate_S wrote:

I know that God created us in his image because the Bible says so.  We are not created in Kim Jong Il's image, as this can be observed.

Is it possible to assume there is another god who created Kim Jong Il and people alike in his image?

Would it be possible to consider Kim Jong Il as a god's messiah to that group of people?

Thank you.

100%

 


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist wrote:Is

100percentAtheist wrote:

Is it possible to assume there is another god who created Kim Jong Il and people alike in his image?

Would it be possible to consider Kim Jong Il as a god's messiah to that group of people?

Thank you.

100%

"Created in God's image" means that our nature is fundamentally immaterial and that we are rational beings with a free will.  It means that we are similar but not greater than or equal to God.

There cannot be another God who created Kim Jong Il because (a) there can only be one God, and (b) Kim Jong Il is also in God's image.

There can only be one God because as Kurt Godel demonstrated, the "God" property necessitates that a being have all positive predicates.  If another being shared the same "God-likeness", then it would just be identical to God, since, as Leibniz demonstrated, any two things which have the same properties are actually one thing.  Therefore, there could not have been another God to create Kim Jong Il in his image because there could not have been another God to begin with.

Kim Jong Il is in God's image because he is substantially immaterial and capable of making choices.  However, God, as far as we know, created all other sentients with an imperfect will.  Even angels were capable of making bad choices.  In the case of original sin, the first humans violated God's law and, as a result, our universe became tainted with sin.  As a result, the sin virus is passed through the generations and we all inherit it so long as we are the result of the fusion of sperm and egg.  Therefore, evil dictators such as Kim Jong Il come into being.

 

 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S

Fortunate_S wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

Is it possible to assume there is another god who created Kim Jong Il and people alike in his image?

Would it be possible to consider Kim Jong Il as a god's messiah to that group of people?

Thank you.

100%

"Created in God's image" means that our nature is fundamentally immaterial and that we are rational beings with a free will.  It means that we are similar but not greater than or equal to God.

There cannot be another God who created Kim Jong Il because (a) there can only be one God, and (b) Kim Jong Il is also in God's image.

There can only be one God because as Kurt Godel demonstrated, the "God" property necessitates that a being have all positive predicates.  If another being shared the same "God-likeness", then it would just be identical to God, since, as Leibniz demonstrated, any two things which have the same properties are actually one thing.  Therefore, there could not have been another God to create Kim Jong Il in his image because there could not have been another God to begin with.

Kim Jong Il is in God's image because he is substantially immaterial and capable of making choices.  However, God, as far as we know, created all other sentients with an imperfect will.  Even angels were capable of making bad choices.  In the case of original sin, the first humans violated God's law and, as a result, our universe became tainted with sin.  As a result, the sin virus is passed through the generations and we all inherit it so long as we are the result of the fusion of sperm and egg.  Therefore, evil dictators such as Kim Jong Il come into being.

 

 

How do you explain the existence of multiple religions in the world?  Many of them are older then Christianity.  If I understand you right, if I pray to other gods, then I am a sinner in the eyes of the God.  But how could people know the God before Jesus?  Where they sinners or not?

Thanks.

100%

 


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist wrote:How

100percentAtheist wrote:

How do you explain the existence of multiple religions in the world?  Many of them are older then Christianity.  If I understand you right, if I pray to other gods, then I am a sinner in the eyes of the God.  But how could people know the God before Jesus?  Where they sinners or not?

Multiple religions exist because people are capable of making mistakes.  Religion can be loosely characterized characterized as a body of doctrines and practices based upon a set of beliefs regarding the ultimate meaning of our existence.  It all starts with the presumption that things ought to be better than they are.  We recognize that we exist in an imperfect world, so we constantly find ways to make it more tolerable.  Religion is the attempt to find an absolute answer to that very question; How can we ascend to a mode of existence where everything is as it should be and things could not possibly be better?  As such, the goal is to build your existence in the here and now around the answer to that question.  Buddhists believe the answer is to relinquish the self... Taoists believe the answer is to reconcile humanity with nature.... Hindus believe the answer is to become one with Brahman... Jews and Muslims believe the answer is in performing certain works... atheists believe the answer is to live in the here and now and just enjoy an imperfect existence as best as you can, etc.  Since this is a difficult question, it can be easy to understand why so many people would make mistakes.  Yet today, Christianity is the largest religion in the world and makes the other religions look weak by comparison.  Evidently, there is some force behind the idea that only through the power of God can we attain that mode of being, where everything is as it should be.  Beyond that, Christianity is by far the most consistent, pragmatic, and historically viable religion that we know of. 

God revealed himself in the Bible long before Jesus was born.  Most scholars agree that God allowed people into Heaven based on the revelation he had given up to that point, since the death of Jesus redeemed mankind for all of eternity, not just for the time that followed.

 

 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S

Fortunate_S wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

How do you explain the existence of multiple religions in the world?  Many of them are older then Christianity.  If I understand you right, if I pray to other gods, then I am a sinner in the eyes of the God.  But how could people know the God before Jesus?  Where they sinners or not?

Multiple religions exist because people are capable of making mistakes.  Religion can be loosely characterized characterized as a body of doctrines and practices based upon a set of beliefs regarding the ultimate meaning of our existence.  It all starts with the presumption that things ought to be better than they are.  We recognize that we exist in an imperfect world, so we constantly find ways to make it more tolerable.  Religion is the attempt to find an absolute answer to that very question; How can we ascend to a mode of existence where everything is as it should be and things could not possibly be better?  As such, the goal is to build your existence in the here and now around the answer to that question.  Buddhists believe the answer is to relinquish the self... Taoists believe the answer is to reconcile humanity with nature.... Hindus believe the answer is to become one with Brahman... Jews and Muslims believe the answer is in performing certain works... atheists believe the answer is to live in the here and now and just enjoy an imperfect existence as best as you can, etc.  Since this is a difficult question, it can be easy to understand why so many people would make mistakes.  Yet today, Christianity is the largest religion in the world and makes the other religions look weak by comparison.  Evidently, there is some force behind the idea that only through the power of God can we attain that mode of being, where everything is as it should be.  Beyond that, Christianity is by far the most consistent, pragmatic, and historically viable religion that we know of. 

God revealed himself in the Bible long before Jesus was born.  Most scholars agree that God allowed people into Heaven based on the revelation he had given up to that point, since the death of Jesus redeemed mankind for all of eternity, not just for the time that followed.

So what you are saying, is that you completely base your religion on "the bible", the "place" where god revealed himself.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


chndlrjhnsn
chndlrjhnsn's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2010-03-28
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:Multiple

Fortunate_S wrote:

Multiple religions exist because people are capable of making mistakes.   

Should I burn in Hell for all eternity just for making a mistake?


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
chndlrjhnsn

chndlrjhnsn wrote:

Fortunate_S wrote:

Multiple religions exist because people are capable of making mistakes.   

Should I burn in Hell for all eternity just for making a mistake?

Yes.

"I just lacked belief in you because the evidence was insufficient" isn't going to save you from Hell. 

 


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Fortunate_S

robj101 wrote:

Fortunate_S wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

How do you explain the existence of multiple religions in the world?  Many of them are older then Christianity.  If I understand you right, if I pray to other gods, then I am a sinner in the eyes of the God.  But how could people know the God before Jesus?  Where they sinners or not?

Multiple religions exist because people are capable of making mistakes.  Religion can be loosely characterized characterized as a body of doctrines and practices based upon a set of beliefs regarding the ultimate meaning of our existence.  It all starts with the presumption that things ought to be better than they are.  We recognize that we exist in an imperfect world, so we constantly find ways to make it more tolerable.  Religion is the attempt to find an absolute answer to that very question; How can we ascend to a mode of existence where everything is as it should be and things could not possibly be better?  As such, the goal is to build your existence in the here and now around the answer to that question.  Buddhists believe the answer is to relinquish the self... Taoists believe the answer is to reconcile humanity with nature.... Hindus believe the answer is to become one with Brahman... Jews and Muslims believe the answer is in performing certain works... atheists believe the answer is to live in the here and now and just enjoy an imperfect existence as best as you can, etc.  Since this is a difficult question, it can be easy to understand why so many people would make mistakes.  Yet today, Christianity is the largest religion in the world and makes the other religions look weak by comparison.  Evidently, there is some force behind the idea that only through the power of God can we attain that mode of being, where everything is as it should be.  Beyond that, Christianity is by far the most consistent, pragmatic, and historically viable religion that we know of. 

God revealed himself in the Bible long before Jesus was born.  Most scholars agree that God allowed people into Heaven based on the revelation he had given up to that point, since the death of Jesus redeemed mankind for all of eternity, not just for the time that followed.

So what you are saying, is that you completely base your religion on "the bible", the "place" where god revealed himself.

No, I base my religion on the historical events that are documented in the Bible.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:Multiple

Fortunate_S wrote:

Multiple religions exist because people are capable of making mistakes.  Religion can be loosely characterized characterized as a body of doctrines and practices based upon a set of beliefs regarding the ultimate meaning of our existence.  It all starts with the presumption that things ought to be better than they are.  We recognize that we exist in an imperfect world, so we constantly find ways to make it more tolerable.  Religion is the attempt to find an absolute answer to that very question; How can we ascend to a mode of existence where everything is as it should be and things could not possibly be better?  As such, the goal is to build your existence in the here and now around the answer to that question.  Buddhists believe the answer is to relinquish the self... Taoists believe the answer is to reconcile humanity with nature.... Hindus believe the answer is to become one with Brahman... Jews and Muslims believe the answer is in performing certain works... atheists believe the answer is to live in the here and now and just enjoy an imperfect existence as best as you can, etc.  Since this is a difficult question, it can be easy to understand why so many people would make mistakes.  Yet today, Christianity is the largest religion in the world and makes the other religions look weak by comparison.  Evidently, there is some force behind the idea that only through the power of God can we attain that mode of being, where everything is as it should be.  Beyond that, Christianity is by far the most consistent, pragmatic, and historically viable religion that we know of. 

God revealed himself in the Bible long before Jesus was born.  Most scholars agree that God allowed people into Heaven based on the revelation he had given up to that point, since the death of Jesus redeemed mankind for all of eternity, not just for the time that followed. 

 

Fortunate_S,

You made several interesting statements.  I assume here that most Christians will agree with you.  

I am not sure however that the believers representing other religions will immediately admit that they have made a mistake by choosing a false religion solely on your argument that "Christianity is the largest religion in the world and makes the other religions look weak by comparison."  I think you may admit two facts: 1) Islam has almost the same number of followers as Christianity, and together with Hinduism these two religions have many more followers than Christian believers. 2) Except Islam, most of major religions have been founded thousands years prior to Christianity.  

Also, would you admit that "Christianity is by far the most consistent, pragmatic, and historically viable religion that we know of " applies only to those who grew up in Christian culture.  Remember that there are no absolute moral principles especially based on religious beliefs.  Even being a Protestant can be a sin according to Roman Catholic moral. 

That said, do you have any better arguments that the God is the only existing (or ever existed God)?  Not all other gods need to have the same powers as the God, and I agree with you that the God should be the most powerful one.  But was this always the case?  Could there be other gods, sons, angels, etc. who at some time (before Christ) might have more power than they have now?  

 

Thanks.

 

100%

 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Jesus did not meet the

Jesus did not meet the requirements of the prophecies to be the son of god, or "the first comming". The jews believe he has yet to make an appearance. I would have to agree with their assesment based on what I have read. So christianity, is a weaker religion, yet is the dominant one, why would that be? Well I would guess because Jesus brought a bit of love and patience with the new testament. He brought hell too, but who's counting. The old testament god is completely irrational, cruel and vindictive. Not to mention jealous and unforgiving at times..much..like a person..a bad person.

There is no evidence that the jesus figure was a son of any god. There have been charlatans throughout history along with miracles and blind faith. I think of pocket change, new nikes, and spaceship rides, well that's my favorite anyway =)

Keeping in mind that anyone who speaks to god, or any such nonsense nowdays is deemed to be crazy, here are three of my more recent favorite messiah types:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Applewhite

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh

 

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:
I am not sure however that the believers representing other religions will immediately admit that they have made a mistake by choosing a false religion solely on your argument that "Christianity is the largest religion in the world and makes the other religions look weak by comparison."  I think you may admit two facts: 1) Islam has almost the same number of followers as Christianity, and together with Hinduism these two religions have many more followers than Christian believers. 2) Except Islam, most of major religions have been founded thousands years prior to Christianity.  

As of 2007, Christians outnumbered Muslims by about 5 billion.  That's not really that close.  At that time, Hinduism had about 1 billion adherents, so even adding that to Islam would not put it above Christianity.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Christianity is based on the entire biblical canon, which itself predates the time when Christianity was founded.  But the religion itself is based upon all of the events in the Bible leading up to the resurrection of Christ.  So in a way, Christianity really originated at the time of Moses, albeit indirectly.  It was a progressive revelation that took over thousands of years and Christianity was the culmination.  But this really has nothing to do with which religion is true anymore than do the number of adherents.

Quote:
Also, would you admit that "Christianity is by far the most consistent, pragmatic, and historically viable religion that we know of " applies only to those who grew up in Christian culture.

Of course not.  Logic, historicity, and pragmaticism is not relative to culture.

Quote:
Remember that there are no absolute moral principles especially based on religious beliefs.

Of course there are.  Raping a child for your own personal pleasure is always wrong.  It is absolute. 

Quote:
That said, do you have any better arguments that the God is the only existing (or ever existed God)?

I gave you a good one.  There can only be one being who is infinite in perfection.  Call it "God", "Bob", "Joseph Smith", whatever.

Quote:
 Not all other gods need to have the same powers as the God, and I agree with you that the God should be the most powerful one.
 

I'm only speaking of a being with all positive properties.  There can only be one. 

Quote:
But was this always the case?  Could there be other gods, sons, angels, etc. who at some time (before Christ) might have more power than they have now?  

God could have created an anthropomorphic super hero like Zeus and gave him all different kinds of powers.  But Zeus would still be a created being and his existence would have to be accounted for in something other than himself.  Therefore, he could not be classified in the same manner as the Christian God.  The Christian God is self-existent, uncreated, uncaused, eternal, infinite in perfection, morally perfect, etc. 


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Jesus did not

robj101 wrote:

Jesus did not meet the requirements of the prophecies to be the son of god, or "the first comming".

What were the requirements and how did Jesus not meet them?

-->
Fulfilled Messianic ProphecyOld Testament ScriptureNew Testament
Born in BethlehemMicah 5:2Matthew 2:5-6
His pre-existenceMicah 5:2John 1:1, 14
Born of the seed of a womanGenesis 3:15Matthew 1:18
Of the seed of AbrahamGenesis 12:3Matthew 1:1-16
All nations blessed by Abraham's seedGenesis 12:3Matthew 8:5, 10
God would provide Himself a Lamb as an offeringGenesis 22:8John 1:29
From the tribe of JudahGenesis 49:10Matthew 1:1-3
Heir to the throne of DavidIsaiah 9:6-7Matthew 1:1
Called "The mighty God, The everlasting Father"Isaiah 9:6Matthew 1:23
Born in BethlehemMicah 5:2Matthew 2:1
Born of a virginIsaiah 7:14Matthew 1:18
His name called Immanuel, "God with us"Isaiah 7:14Matthew 1:23
Declared to be the Son of GodPsalm 2:7Matthew 3:17
His messenger before Him in spirit of ElijahMalachi 4:5-6Luke 1:17
Preceded by a messenger to prepare His wayMalachi 3:1Matthew 11:7-11
Messenger crying "Prepare ye the way of the Lord"Isaiah 40:3Matthew 3:3
Would be a Prophet of the children of IsraelDeuteronomy 18:15Matthew 2:15
Called out of EgyptHosea 11:1Matthew 2:15
Slaughter of the childrenJeremiah 31:15Matthew2:18
Would be a Nazarene  Matthew 2:23
Brought light to Zabulon & Nephthalm, Galilee of the GentilesIsaiah 9:1-2Matthew 4:15
Presented with giftsPsalm 72:10Matthew 2:1, 11
Rejected by His ownIsaiah 53:3Matthew 21:42; Mark 8:31, 12:10; Luke 9:22, 17:25
He is the stone which the builders rejected which became the headstonePsalm 118:22-23; Isaiah 28:16Matthew 21:42; I Peter 2:7
A stone of stumbling to IsraelIsaiah 8:14-15I Peter 2:8
He entered Jerusalem as a king
riding on an ass
Zechariah 9:9Matthew 21:5
Betrayed by a friendPsalms 41:9John 13:21
Sold for 30 pieces of silverZechariah 11:12Matthew 26:15; Luke 22:5
The 30 pieces of silver given for the potter's fieldZechariah 11:12Matthew 27:9-10
The 30 pieces of silver thrown in the templeZechariah 11:13Matthew 27:5
Forsaken by His disciplesZechariah 13:7Matthew 26:56
Accused by false witnessesPsalm 35:11Matthew 26:60
Silent to accusationsIsaiah 53:7Matthew 27:14
Heal blind/deaf/lame/dumbIsaiah 35:5-6; Isaiah 29:18Matthew 11:5
Preached to the poor/brokenhearted/captivesIsaiah 61:1Matthew 11:5
Came to bring a sword, not peaceMicah 7:6Matthew 10:34-35
He bore our sicknessIsaiah 53:4Matthew 8:16-17
Spat upon, smitten and scourgedIsaiah 50:6, 53:5Matthew 27:26, 30
Smitten on the cheekMicah 5:1Matthew 27:30
Hated without a causePsalm 35:19Matthew 27:23
The sacrificial lambIsaiah 53:5John 1:29
Given for a covenantIsaiah 42:6; Jeremiah 31:31-34Romans 11:27/Galatians 3:17, 4:24/Hebrews 8:6, 8, 10; 10:16, 29; 12:24; 13:20
Would not strive or cryIsaiah 42:2-3Mark 7:36
People would hear not and see notIsaiah 6:9-10Matthew 13:14-15
People trust in traditions of menIsaiah 29:13Matthew 15:9
People give God lip serviceIsaiah 29:13Matthew 15:8
God delights in HimIsaiah 42:1Matthew 3:17, 17:5
Wounded for our sinsIsaiah 53:5John 6:51
He bore the sins of manyIsaiah 53:10-12Mark 10:45
Messiah not killed for HimselfDaniel 9:26Matthew 20:28
Gentiles flock to HimIsaiah 55:5, 60:3, 65:1; Malachi 1:11;
II Samuel 22:44-45; Psalm 2:7-8
Matthew 8:10
Crucified with criminalsIsaiah 53:12Matthew 27:35
His body was piercedZechariah 12:10; Ps. 22:16John 20:25, 27
Thirsty during executionPsalm 22:16John 19:28
Given vinegar and gall for thirstPsalm 69:21Matthew 27:34
Soldiers gambled for his garmentPsalm 22:18Matthew 27:35
People mocked, "He trusted in God, let Him deliver him!"Psalm 22:7-8Matthew 27:43
People sat there looking at HimPsalm 22:17Matthew 27:36
Cried, "My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?"Psalm 22:1Matthew 27:46
Darkness over the landAmos 8:9Matthew 27:45
No bones brokenPsalm 34:20, Numbers 9:12John 19:33-36
Side piercedZechariah 12:10John 19:34
Buried with the richIsaiah 53:9Matthew 27:57, 60
Resurrected from the deadPsalm 16:10-11; 49:15Mark 16:6
Priest after the order of MelchizedekPsalm 110:4Hebrews 5:5-6; 6:20; 7:15-17
Ascended to right hand of GodPsalm 68:18Luke 24:51
LORD said unto Him, "Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstoolPsalm 110:1Matt 22:44; Mark 12:36;, 16:19; Luke 20:42-43; Acts 2:34-35; Hebrews 1:13
His coming gloryMalachi 3:2-3Luke 3:17

 

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/messiah.htm

 

Quote:
The jews believe he has yet to make an appearance.

No, you don't say? 

Quote:
Well I would guess because Jesus brought a bit of love and patience with the new testament. He brought hell too, but who's counting. The old testament god is completely irrational, cruel and vindictive. Not to mention jealous and unforgiving at times..much..like a person..a bad person.

The Old Testament is part of the biblical canon that Christianity accepts as God's Word.  What patience and love was brought by Jesus?  The patience he displayed when he destroyed the temple?  Or when he said that he came with a sword? 

Quote:
There is no evidence that the jesus figure was a son of any god.

Let's see;  the fulfilled prophecies, the miracles, the resurrection, the virgin birth?  If we assume that those things actually happened, would you be convinced?

Quote:
There have been charlatans throughout history along with miracles and blind faith. I think of pocket change, new nikes, and spaceship rides, well that's my favorite anyway =)

There have been many scientific laws accepted by the majority which turned out to be wrong.  Therefore, I'm going to reject all of science.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Ask a Jew about Jesus and

Ask a Jew about Jesus and the prophecies, or better yet, do some research. The bible actually tells you about one instance where it was purposefully falsified.

You are using the bible to qualify your theory on Jesus. Who wrote said bible ? Do you have any evidence that it was writen by a supreme being? Is there any insight in the text that could truly validate it as being written by anything other than men with a plan, much like all the other religions? Are you aware that "Matthew" and "Luke" were names taken out of context and used to give credit to the true completely unknown authors? Why was the bible written many years after the fact, some parts much later than others, even within the new testament? Why were some books deemed not worthy to keep and others retranslated to suit the newest publishers?

I own two different bibles, and I am not totally ignorant on the subject. Information is but a click away after all.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:There have

Fortunate_S wrote:

There have been many scientific laws accepted by the majority which turned out to be wrong.  Therefore, I'm going to reject all of science.

 

Then why the hell are you on the internet, using a computer, and electricity, and I'll bet you are cooking a dinner you bought from a store and didn't raise yourself.  And if you did raise it yourself, you used shovels and trowels and rakes and other equipment you also bought at a store.  ALL OF THIS STUFF IN YOUR LIFE IS BROUGHT TO YOU COURTESY OF SCIENCE.  Without science, you'd be sitting on your butt around a campfire freezing half to death while you seared a root you grubbed out of the ground with your hands.  You must be getting desperate in your arguments if you are going this route.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Fortunate_S

cj wrote:

Fortunate_S wrote:

There have been many scientific laws accepted by the majority which turned out to be wrong.  Therefore, I'm going to reject all of science.

 

Then why the hell are you on the internet, using a computer, and electricity, and I'll bet you are cooking a dinner you bought from a store and didn't raise yourself.  And if you did raise it yourself, you used shovels and trowels and rakes and other equipment you also bought at a store.  ALL OF THIS STUFF IN YOUR LIFE IS BROUGHT TO YOU COURTESY OF SCIENCE.  Without science, you'd be sitting on your butt around a campfire freezing half to death while you seared a root you grubbed out of the ground with your hands.  You must be getting desperate in your arguments if you are going this route.

 

cj,

 

I think this is just his way to demonstrate by logic that the fact that there have been charlatans falsifying miracles, this is a logically miserable argument to rule out the possibility of miracles at all.

There is another thing that is more important that we need to clarify right away ... in my next post

100% 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S, Our posts are

Fortunate_S,

 

Our posts are getting more and more loaded.  For sure, I agree with some of your arguments, disagree with others, and have more questions.  Let me think for a while to sort out the pile of arguments and comments.  

But let me first clarify your stand on the number of believers.

Fortunate_S wrote:

As of 2007, Christians outnumbered Muslims by about 5 billion.  That's not really that close.  At that time, Hinduism had about 1 billion adherents, so even adding that to Islam would not put it above Christianity.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

In your reference, I could only find the difference of 0.6 billion between the numbers of Christians and Muslims.  Needless to say that the difference in 5 billion believers sounds unrealistic in view of the total human population, but it is different from your source by  833%.  Is this just an accidental mistake? Do you have another source? Thank you for clarification. 100%


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Fortunate_S

cj wrote:

Fortunate_S wrote:

There have been many scientific laws accepted by the majority which turned out to be wrong.  Therefore, I'm going to reject all of science.

 

Then why the hell are you on the internet, using a computer, and electricity, and I'll bet you are cooking a dinner you bought from a store and didn't raise yourself.  And if you did raise it yourself, you used shovels and trowels and rakes and other equipment you also bought at a store.  ALL OF THIS STUFF IN YOUR LIFE IS BROUGHT TO YOU COURTESY OF SCIENCE.  Without science, you'd be sitting on your butt around a campfire freezing half to death while you seared a root you grubbed out of the ground with your hands.  You must be getting desperate in your arguments if you are going this route.

You forgot to add, "there have been many other religions that have been accepted by a majority and have proven false, therefore I am rejecting all of them."

I think that may be the card he wants you to play.

I wonder if he would step out on a highway and see if a truck, developed by science, will hit him.

It is funny they totally ignore the fact that they use science every day. They don't even consider the rammifications of such, they grew up with it so they don't even consider it as anything but the way it is.

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin