tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post840510811820728561..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: People Can't Choose To Believe, Therefore Christianity is False.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26701457272569471832008-01-21T03:48:00.000-05:002008-01-21T03:48:00.000-05:004)Heaven is a gift from God and we are saved by gr...4)<B>Heaven is a gift from God and we are saved by grace. Therefore the rules are different. For a start would people who aren't Christians want to go the heaven and spend eternity with God? Secondly nobody has been short changed, everyone gets, at a minimum, what they deserve. You have failed to give a single reason why God can't give gifts to some people and not others. Thus heaven and salvation is fair.</B><BR/><BR/>It is confusing for you to say that God gives us what we deserve, when you also say that we deserve hell, and yet through God's grace we are allowed into heaven. According to you, we do not deserve heaven but receive it anyway. So no, we do not receive what we deserve. And I fail to see why a lifetime of sin deserves eternal punishment. The punishment does not fit the crime. The notion that God is merciful and graceful as well is a contradiction. What is so impressive about a creature that makes rules it does not always have to follow?the dankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01408656614920945401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75264557143817656642008-01-20T20:48:00.000-05:002008-01-20T20:48:00.000-05:00Well O.K, I suppose this is end of the thread then...Well O.K, I suppose this is end of the thread then.<BR/><BR/>This is my conclusion:<BR/>1)Even if we were only held accountable for our actions God would have a long list of reasons to send us to Hell. Hell is a fair punishment for our sins (and sins include actions)<BR/>2)Nonetheless I can see no reason to assume we aren't responsible for more than our actions. Simply because our beliefs and personality develop over a long period of time is not a reason to let us off the hook and deny responsibility for who we are. Also just because a choice is obvious does not stop it being a choice. Therefore things like racist thoughts, greed, jealously etc etc are all sins. You also seem a bit vague as to what the scientific evidence for your views on this matter is.<BR/>3)We therefore don't deserve to go to heaven and you have done nothing to prove otherwise. There are many things we have done wrong which God could send us to hell for. Thus Hell is fair.<BR/>4)Heaven is a gift from God and we are saved by grace. Therefore the rules are different. For a start would people who aren't Christians want to go the heaven and spend eternity with God? Secondly nobody has been short changed, everyone gets, at a minimum, what they deserve. You have failed to give a single reason why God can't give gifts to some people and not others. Thus heaven and salvation is fair.<BR/>5)When Christians talk about belief they mean more than just believing God exists. Christians are allowed to have doubts as well.<BR/>6)You seem very out of touch with what the historical evidence for Jesus is.<BR/>7) When you claimed to have been Christians you had some weird view that assumed God wrapped us up in bubble wrap and never let us die.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935690081044510024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-87087171220615855122008-01-20T02:06:00.000-05:002008-01-20T02:06:00.000-05:00lee said:I apologize for things that aren't my fau...lee said:I apologize for things that aren't my fault. I apologized the other day when my partner had a bad day. I said "I'm sorry you had a bad day".<BR/><B><I>apologising is normally more than saying sorry. Saying 'I'm sorry to hear you had a bad day' is not apologising. Saying 'I'm genuinely sorry that I was angry at you last night' is. To me it seems a bit meaningless if apologising simply becomes using the word sorry as a figure of speech.</B></I><BR/>you are redifining apologizing. When i feel empathetic to someone and I say that I am sorry this or that happened, or if I say something terrible in a flash of anger and then apologize I feel empathetic as well, in addition to feeling stupid. The root is empathy. <BR/><BR/><B><I>My point is that you don't live as if you hold no responsibility for who you are.</B></I><BR/>I hope this is rhetorical, beacause if its not, I'd like to point out that don't know me very well, so hold off judging me. Now, If I had bi-polar disorder, I would be different person, If my memories were wiped out in a stroke or through alzheimers, i'd be a different person. Biology plays a big part in who you are, whether you admit it or not. I hear the evidence every day in cognitive science podcasts.<BR/><BR/><BR/><B><I>lee said:Belief, you must admit, is above all "a feeling" about the truth of something.<BR/>Why does that stop you having responsibility for it? Surely you have responsibility to look at the evidence fairly? You have a responsibility to not jump to conclusions. You have a responsibility to not let your prejudices shape what you believe to be true. etc etc</B></I><BR/>okay, so show me how you go about choosing to believe in god, or go about choosing to believe that you will burn your hand on your stove, or how you go about choosing not to be afraid of something please. Maybe then you will get a grip on the fact that emotions are a spontaneous result of stimulus. One thing I hate about me is that sometimes I'll get teary eyed in a movie. I just watched "the bucket list" and I got teary eyed. I hate that so can you give me a clue of how to stop it please?<BR/><BR/><B><I>You still seem to be assuming that Christian belief is simply about thinking god exists despite me and other pointing out otherwise and despite offering no arguments to backup such an idea.</B></I><BR/>no, no, no, (finger wagging at you) I know what your arguments are, and I know you think they are good ones, but I don't think they are good ones anymore, and your belief that you can choose to believe in something is contrary to the evidence as is most of your arguments. <BR/><BR/><B><I>You go in assuming God doesn't exist. I bet a Christian gives you some evidence and your first thought is 'how can I disprove it'. That argument would be like someone saying 'I know there is good evidence for evolution, but you have to assume that evolution is true in order to accept the evidence.' The aim is to go in open-minded and I was arguing that if you treat the Bible as a collection of historical sources (just like any other collection of historical sources) you end up with Christianity being true. You don't need to be a Christian to treat the Bible as a historical source.</B></I><BR/>James, pay attention, I WAS A CHRISTIAN, I made the assumption too. Its just that the evidence to the contrary did not support the belief. <BR/>Heres a few show stoppers in my mind.<BR/>* You have to assume god exists to get him into a position to write the bible<BR/>* There is not principle of rehabilitation in eternal reward and punishment<BR/>* Life on earth, or some call it the Problem of Evil, causes us harmful stress that sends some of us into a negative feedback loop of decisions and consequences that god doesn't get you out of. Read my latest article for my some of my anecdotes on this. In a family of christians three were suicidal. there are genetic markers that can predict liklihood for mental illness, I suppose that based on this the liklihood for suicide runs in my family. In fact I remember that as a teenager, the only reason that I didn't commit suicide is that I didn't have any way to prevent it from hurting. Does suicide run in your family? If you don't buy my suicide-in-the-family scenario how bout schizophrenia? I have links to research on that one.<BR/>* God will let you into no-win situations such as having to choose how you will die. The last act of your life is suicide? Suicide is a sin right?<BR/>* Logically An omniscient God prevents free will. Look up the omniscient paradox for more info on this.<BR/>* An omnipotent god is impossible because he doesn't have the ability to change his mind because of his omniscience, again google this paradox, you can find both in wikipedia.<BR/>* The israelites came from the canaanites so why is the israelite religion valid and the canaanite religion not? <BR/>* Why do some of the passages in the bible turn up in other near eastern cultures mythology? <BR/>* Why is there no evidence of the Exodus, but there is plenty of evidence of other roaming tribes in that time period, <BR/>* Christians can't decide on what it means to be a christian. Isn't that stupid?<BR/>* It is necessary to figure out exceptions to biblical principles to explain how, for example, a perfectly Just god can order that the stomachs of pregnant women get split open, or that women are ordered to be taken as the spoils of war. Doesn't that just smack of human thinking?<BR/><BR/>I could go on, but you get the picture. By analogy, you tell me you are plumbing expert, and then I hire you and you completely botch up the job, I come to believe you are not a plumbing expert.<BR/><BR/><B><I>Lee said:they probably are, but on a level that we have rational control over them.<BR/>You can't have it both ways - if our brains run on purely electrical signals and chemical reactions then we can't have control over anything. electricity flows, and chemical reactions happen, in predictable ways. You seem to want to accept that all our thoughts etc are no more than electrical signals, use that when attacking Christianity but refuse to follow it to the logical conclusion when it doesn't suit you and would refute your own worldview.</B></I><BR/>I hate to tell you this but the evidence is on my side. The next time you get angry, or afraid, or teary eyed, ask yourself why you chose to do that.<BR/><BR/><B><I>Lee said:and you discount any evidence to the contrary in order to maintain the good feeling you get as a result of believing in god.<BR/>I've started to come to the conclusion that atheists hope that if they talk about how important evidence is enough nobody will notice that they don't actually have any.</B></I><BR/>Sorry to tell you this too, weakening a positive claim by showing that the evidence doesn't support it is fundamental reasoning. I used it on my fictional plumber above, You did it to get over santa clause, and the easter bunny, and maybe ghosts but I don't know you that well.<BR/><BR/>James, I've made my case, I'm going to move on now. I'll see you in another thread.<BR/>take care.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-62531486930427650322008-01-19T17:32:00.000-05:002008-01-19T17:32:00.000-05:00the-dude said:No, I addressed it directly. Anger "...the-dude said:<I>No, I addressed it directly. Anger "management" isn't designed to teach someone to CHOOSE a different emotion (they can't do this anyway), it's simply learning to MANAGE the action that is the result of the emotion. </I><BR/>No it isn't necessarily.(for example <A HREF="http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=1890§ionId=137" REL="nofollow">here</A>, and <A HREF="http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/conditions/mental_health/coping_angermanagement2.shtml" REL="nofollow">here)</A><BR/><BR/>People's personalities can also change over time (if you ever meet someone who you haven't seen for a long time this is obvious). If they can change (even if it takes time) surely we must have some control over it (unless you can give evidence to the contrary). <BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I>Everywhere I've seen or heard or had explained to me interprets god's requirement of FULL BLOWN FAITH AND BELIEF as 100% or nothing. </I><BR/>That's clearly not true - you only need to scroll up and read what me, gordonblood and others have said to see you have not always had it explained to you in this way.<BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I>NO, I said that you've yet to prove that because witness testimony is in a book, a book that has been prone to tampering over the years, it is fact and unmovable.</I><BR/>a)I pointed out that virtually all new testament critics agree that (due to the vast number of extant manuscripts) we can remove most tampering (about 99% of the NT is the same as in the autographs-original copies-)<BR/>b) your belief that the modern new testament bears no resemblance to the original is based on ignorance not evidence (as you didn't even know what textual criticism is)<BR/>c) this is an attack on the historical method - your argument could be used to dismiss any historical event within ancient history.<BR/><BR/>lee said:<I>I apologize for things that aren't my fault. I apologized the other day when my partner had a bad day. I said "I'm sorry you had a bad day".</I><BR/>apologising is normally more than saying sorry. Saying 'I'm sorry to hear you had a bad day' is not apologising. Saying 'I'm genuinely sorry that I was angry at you last night' is. To me it seems a bit meaningless if apologising simply becomes using the word sorry as a figure of speech. <BR/><BR/>My point is that you don't live as if you hold no responsibility for who you are.<BR/><BR/>lee said:<I>Belief, you must admit, is above all "a feeling" about the truth of something.</I><BR/>Why does that stop you having responsibility for it? Surely you have responsibility to look at the evidence fairly? You have a responsibility to not jump to conclusions. You have a responsibility to not let your prejudices shape what you believe to be true. etc etc<BR/><BR/>You still seem to be assuming that Christian belief is simply about thinking god exists despite me and other pointing out otherwise and despite offering no arguments to backup such an idea.<BR/><BR/>Lee said:<I>At least the dudes beliefs are not built on an assumption. you, on the other hand, must necessarily ASSUME that god exists to get him into a position to write the bible, and then believe its true because you don't want to live in a world in which its not true, right?</I><BR/>You go in assuming God doesn't exist. I bet a Christian gives you some evidence and your first thought is 'how can I disprove it'. That argument would be like someone saying 'I know there is good evidence for evolution, but you have to assume that evolution is true in order to accept the evidence.' The aim is to go in open-minded and I was arguing that if you treat the Bible as a collection of historical sources (just like any other collection of historical sources) you end up with Christianity being true. You don't need to be a Christian to treat the Bible as a historical source.<BR/><BR/>lee said:<I>If people don't have to push someone onto the tracks to save the five, then they usually will take some action to save them. In most cases people personally causing the death of another is a show stopper.</I><BR/>whilst this is interesting I can't see how it is meant to support atheism and your view. You might as well point out that if you asked a lot of people to jump off a cliff they would all say 'no' That doesn't mean that we are not responsible for our actions, it simply means that jumping off a cliff is a bad action and so we all choose to come to the same conclusion. <BR/><BR/>Lee said:<I>they probably are, but on a level that we have rational control over them.</I><BR/>You can't have it both ways - if our brains run on purely electrical signals and chemical reactions then we can't have control over anything. electricity flows, and chemical reactions happen, in predictable ways. You seem to want to accept that all our thoughts etc are no more than electrical signals, use that when attacking Christianity but refuse to follow it to the logical conclusion when it doesn't suit you and would refute your own worldview.<BR/><BR/>Lee said:<I>and you discount any evidence to the contrary in order to maintain the good feeling you get as a result of believing in god.</I><BR/>I've started to come to the conclusion that atheists hope that if they talk about how important evidence is enough nobody will notice that they don't actually have any.<BR/><BR/>Lee said:<I>think about that. If you choose not to believe us then you must think that our arguments have enough merit to possibly be true. In that case you have to decide to be personally dishonest and discount information that you believe to be worthy of consideration.</I><BR/>Suppose there was a 40m wide raging river you had to cross. Next to you was a bridge going across it. You think for a bit and see three obvious (or not so obvious:p) possibilities:<BR/>1)You could walk over the bridge<BR/>2)You could try and swim across<BR/>3)You could take a run up and attempt to jump across.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure we all realise that number 1 is the best option however does this mean it wasn't our decision or did we choose and the choice was obvious? If someone went for option 3 would we be entitled to say it is their fault for being so stupid (and thus hold them accountable?)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935690081044510024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36645108228320910452008-01-19T02:39:00.000-05:002008-01-19T02:39:00.000-05:00JL,think about that. If you choose not to believe...JL,<BR/>think about that. If you choose not to believe us then you must think that our arguments have enough merit to possibly be true. In that case you have to decide to be personally dishonest and discount information that you believe to be worthy of consideration. <BR/><BR/>In any case, you must be joking, or have shown yourself to be intellectually dishonest.<BR/><BR/>in anycase, I don't believe you choose not to believe us. I don't think you have a choice, except in the case of doubt, in which case, more information one way or the other will tip that balance.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26137331323677055732008-01-19T02:33:00.000-05:002008-01-19T02:33:00.000-05:00Hi James,I apologize, no seriously, because I miss...Hi James,<BR/>I apologize, no seriously, because I missed some of your replies to me, not because I wanted to, I just didn't see them when I came back to the thread,<BR/>anyway...<BR/><B><I>But then you could argue that Einstein didn't choose to be intelligent and thus shouldn't take credit for his work or that Bin Laden didn't choose to be a Muslim and thus can't take responsibility for his life.</B></I><BR/>lets see if I can do a flow chart here and analyze where our disagreement is.<BR/>1. information presented.<BR/>2. receiver starts getting a feeling of whether they 'get it'<BR/>3. receiver starts getting a feeling of whether they get it and 'feel' like its right.<BR/>4. receiver starts modifying behavior based on this 'feeling' <BR/><BR/>I am on items number 2 and 3, and I think you are stuck on item number 4.<BR/><BR/>I say, we don't choose to 'get it', and we don't choose 'to feel like its right'. These seem to be handled in the emotional areas. The brain is an organ made up of smaller organized system, it is unique in the body. It has areas that compete with each other and two of those areas are the rational and emotional areas. If you look into economic neuroscience, and game theory, you will see that they are trying to determine why people typically may irrational decisions in certain situations. It has to do with emotional responses to the stimuli. In mark housers moral sense test at Harvard University, he has several test set up to save people on a train track (google it and you can take it yourself). If people don't have to push someone onto the tracks to save the five, then they usually will take some action to save them. In most cases people personally causing the death of another is a show stopper.<BR/><BR/>Einstein was brilliant. This was a natural occurrence. He did the work, he gets the credit. I am quite confident there have been Einsteins born that didn't have the luck or infrastructure to allow them to do the work that would have gotten them famous. I am quite sure some einsteins have suffered genius crippling malnutrition or died in their mothers arms or were stillborn.<BR/><BR/>So Bin Laden is not responsible for his beliefs, but he is responsible for his resulting actions, and should be contained until such time as he is not an unacceptable risk to society.<BR/><BR/><B><I>How do you know our actions aren't the result of chemical reactions in our brain if our beliefs are? </B></I><BR/>they probably are, but on a level that we have rational control over them.<BR/><BR/><B><I>Maybe (although I personally don't agree with this) freewill is just an illusion . Many people advocate such an idea. Would you then claim, if this turned out to be the case, we held no responsibility for our actions or would you suggest that all we've discovered is an interesting paradox?</B></I><BR/>No, I think free will is mostly an illusion. I think we are 'slaves to our passions' but not to our actions. They are separate. So sauteed mushroom make me nauseous, so I don't eat them. I want the latest ipod, but choose not to steal it. etc.<BR/><BR/><B><I>Indeed, so shouldn't we remain open on the issue until all the evidence is in? </B></I><BR/>This is RICH! To support your belief in god you must ASSUME that God exists to get him into a position to write the bible, then you accept ambiguous evidence in support of God, and you discount any evidence to the contrary in order to maintain the good feeling you get as a result of believing in god. I suppose you believe creation is the evidence of God? I can't say that enough, it just rolls off the fingers.....Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15511577673359954452008-01-19T01:40:00.000-05:002008-01-19T01:40:00.000-05:00Hi James,a couple of things you directed toward th...Hi James,<BR/>a couple of things you directed toward the dude that I'd like to address,<BR/><BR/><B><I>No - you completely ignored my point and instead repeated your original argument. If you were unnecessarily angry towards someone should you later (once you've calmed down) apologise to them. If you would then you must be responsible for being angry as otherwise you'd be apologising for something which isn't your fault.</B></I><BR/>I apologize for things that aren't my fault. I apologized the other day when my partner had a bad day. I said "I'm sorry you had a bad day". Not because I thought it was my fault but out of empathy. If I say somehting I regret out of anger, and I apologize, i am apologizing because it was probably not warranted.<BR/><BR/><B><I>You have also ignored my point about people who do anger management courses and learn to stop being angry.</B></I><BR/>anger management is management just as the dude said. People can also be trained to get over a fear of spiders (for example). But this is done by introducing the individual to more information, which is used by the belief to support itself. When there is enough information about an idea, the 'belief balance' will react accordingly. Belief, you must admit, is above all "a feeling" about the truth of something.<BR/><BR/>One last thing before I move on to other comments<BR/><B><I>the-dude said:One's beliefs JUST DON'T MAKE IT TRUE.<BR/>Don't forget - you need to show all three statements are false - not just one of them. My second 2 statements I gave show why they are true.</B></I><BR/>At least the dudes beliefs are not built on an assumption. you, on the other hand, must necessarily ASSUME that god exists to get him into a position to write the bible, and then believe its true because you don't want to live in a world in which its not true, right? You don't choose to beleive, you just do because the lack of god tips your belief balance to his side.<BR/><BR/>the atheist or agnostic has the logical upper hand because we don't make positive claims, generally, unless it is to weaken a positive claim about god. We don't believe there is a god because don't make the assumption and then we haven't seen any evidence that is not ambiguous.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10714403097099062812008-01-18T18:33:00.000-05:002008-01-18T18:33:00.000-05:00James said:the-dude said:Once again, you're missin...James said:<BR/><BR/><I>the-dude said:Once again, you're missing my point<BR/>No - you completely ignored my point and instead repeated your original argument. If you were unnecessarily angry towards someone should you later (once you've calmed down) apologise to them. If you would then you must be responsible for being angry as otherwise you'd be apologising for something which isn't your fault.</I><BR/><BR/><B>I ignored the apologizing part because it wasn't pertinent to my original argument.</B><BR/><BR/>James said:<BR/><BR/><I>You have also ignored my point about people who do anger management courses and learn to stop being angry.</I><BR/><BR/><B>No, I addressed it directly. Anger "management" isn't designed to teach someone to CHOOSE a different emotion (they can't do this anyway), it's simply learning to MANAGE the action that is the result of the emotion. The phrase itself is misleading - "anger management" isn't really managing the emotion of anger, it's managing the knee-jerk reaction TO the emotion. You're managing the ACTION, not the EMOTION. </B><BR/><BR/>James said:<BR/><BR/><I>the-dude says:I need all other possibilities to be 100%, without a doubt, ruled out.<BR/>So are you saying that even if you're 99% certain Christianity is true you should remain an atheist. Surely being certain beyond reasonable doubt is good enough.</I><BR/><BR/><B>Well, I don't make the rules, the god of the bible does. Everywhere I've seen or heard or had explained to me interprets god's requirement of FULL BLOWN FAITH AND BELIEF as 100% or nothing. So my answer to your question is partially "yes" - if you're 1% in doubt, you're by all definitions I've heard not a "real" Christian (although you might label yourself this).</B><BR/><BR/>James said:<BR/><BR/><I>the-dude said (slightly earlier):You knew what I meant - witnesses in a book that has been manipulated, translated, retranslated an uncountable number of times, are not good sources for proving anything<BR/>In other words I refuted your original objection to the historical evidence for Jesus and my argument did what I intended it to.</I><BR/><BR/><B>"In other words?" Now you're dropping to putting words in my mouth? NO, I said that you've yet to prove that because witness testimony is in a book, a book that has been prone to tampering over the years, it is fact and unmovable.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/>I can't address the rest now due to being at work, and I'm not even sure I want to take the time...the rest look more like jabs and attempts to push buttons - not solid debate replies...perhaps more later....The Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10951969586329333405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-56024351661275789612008-01-18T15:07:00.000-05:002008-01-18T15:07:00.000-05:00the-dude said:Once again, you're missing my pointN...the-dude said:<I>Once again, you're missing my point</I><BR/>No - you completely ignored my point and instead repeated your original argument. If you were unnecessarily angry towards someone should you later (once you've calmed down) apologise to them. If you would then you must be responsible for being angry as otherwise you'd be apologising for something which isn't your fault.<BR/><BR/>You have also ignored my point about people who do anger management courses and learn to stop being angry. <BR/><BR/>the-dude says:<I>I need all other possibilities to be 100%, without a doubt, ruled out.</I><BR/>So are you saying that even if you're 99% certain Christianity is true you should remain an atheist. Surely being certain beyond reasonable doubt is good enough.<BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I>You know clearly that I was responding to YOU using something in your argument that YOU YOURSELF argue against! For you, if it fits your contextual argument, you will use it.</I><BR/>I have never argued against the dating of fossils (I'm not a young earth creationist) <BR/><BR/>the dude says:<I>As I stated before, this type of textual analysis only verifies that the text was original and written by specific people.</I><BR/><BR/>the-dude said (slightly earlier):<I>You knew what I meant - witnesses in a book that has been manipulated, translated, retranslated an uncountable number of times, are not good sources for proving anything</I><BR/>In other words I refuted your original objection to the historical evidence for Jesus and my argument did what I intended it to. <BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I>Roughly? Why not exactly? And let's say it is true that this was what first gen. Christians believed. </I><BR/>It's possible to explain how (from a historical point of view) the odd bit of secondary detail etc in the Bible is not true and hence I said 'roughly'. Thus I do not need to show that the Bible is infalliable to show this statement is true. <BR/><BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I>One's beliefs JUST DON'T MAKE IT TRUE.</I><BR/>Don't forget - you need to show all three statements are false - not just one of them. My second 2 statements I gave show why they are true.<BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I>How do you know this? Because it was written?</I><BR/>No. The Christians were persecuted (and many even died) for their beliefs. They devote their lives to spreading the Christian message and this proves that their beliefs were sincere. <BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I>Again, no one knows if they were coerced to LIE and say they saw these things</I><BR/>The authorities etc were against Christianity, Christians had no power, they didn't try and make money out it. There would be no reason for some cunning mastermind who forced the disiples etc to lie.<BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I>Ok, let's quantify this for the sake of argument, because you're still not getting the point:</I><BR/>Repeating the argument is not an alternative for addressing my response to it.<BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I>Slow to anger, huh? What about the story where a few kids run up and start calling another kid "baldhead, baldhead!!", and the kid asks god to help him, and god immediately summons two female lions from the woods to maul and kill all of the kids that yelled "baldhead, baldhead!!". He did it right on the spot, and for something as ridiculous as namecalling!! </I><BR/>Firstly, the Hebrew wording of the passage in question implies they were young men - not kids. In fact a gang of young men. Secondly - they were not simply calling another kid bauldhead, they were threatening the prophet Elisha and in doing so happened to use the word baldhead. So it would be like you walking along a quite street when a gang of youths walk up to you and shout, in a menacing manor, 'oi, you'. Completly different. Finally it was bears and they only mauled them - nobody got killed.<BR/><BR/>Read the story for yourself: From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths (2 Kings2:23-25)<BR/><BR/>As you can see, you and many other atheists, retell the story in a highly biased and misleading way to make God look bad.<BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I> You are clearly missing the glaring contradiction</I><BR/>In which case you can look at my argument and point out this glaringly obvious contradiction.<BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I>And, perhaps the bible doesn't say verbatim the word "infinitely patient". However, I did a google search on the topic of god and "infinitely patient" with "bible" and found an uncountable number of Christian sites</I><BR/>If I don't believe it, and it isn't in the Bible, then you're creating a straw man argument. <BR/><BR/>the dudes said:<I>(Psalm 23)</I><BR/>psalm 23 says nothing about God being infinitely patient and forgiving. <BR/><BR/>the dude said:<I> yet punishing others for something for which they had no control over (not sins, but the ability to be "saved" by CHOOSING TO BELIEVE) is the exact definition of UNFAIR.</I><BR/>That's like saying people are in prison because they got caught and so it is unfair. We go to hell for our sins.<BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I>Also, what makes you capable of understanding this abstract definition of "omniscient" over anyone else?</I><BR/>I'm not - I'm saying neither of us can really understand how omniscience works.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935690081044510024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37633291326469081502008-01-18T13:07:00.000-05:002008-01-18T13:07:00.000-05:00Lee et al:Good PDF article on belief being involun...Lee et al:<BR/><BR/>Good PDF article on belief being involuntary or voluntary. <BR/><BR/>http://disputatio.com/articles/022-3.pdfThe Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10951969586329333405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39536047615174554802008-01-18T11:20:00.000-05:002008-01-18T11:20:00.000-05:00Hi The Dude, my critique of the following article....Hi The Dude, <BR/>my critique of the following article.<BR/><BR/>http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/wecannotchooseourbeliefs.html <BR/><BR/><B><I>We are able, for instance, to exercise control over the kinds of evidence to which we are exposed. We can choose to associate with people who believe in God; we can choose to read books by noted apologists; we can choose to act is if we believe and see what happens. Each of these choices would increase the likelihood of our coming to believe in God. If Pascal’s Wager is correct in saying that we ought to exercise what control we can over our beliefs in an attempt to induce in ourselves a belief in God, therefore, then we ought to do each of these things.</B></I><BR/>what the author is suggesting is a persuasion technique similar to brainwashing.<BR/><BR/><B><I>Using the techniques of hyponosis it is possible to induce beliefs in a subject without any regard for evidence at all.</B></I><BR/>this is not true of all people, and the author demonstrates an unfamiliarity with hypnosis.<BR/><BR/><B><I>If Pascal’s Wager is to be resisted, therefore, then this must be done on some other ground than that we cannot choose our beliefs.</B></I><BR/>this is false because he concedes that we cannot control our beliefs and must use something similar to brainwashing to bring ourselves to belief. This type of belief must be actively maintained and managed or it fails in the long run. Any belief that is not naturally supported by day to day evidence and is not actively maintained and managed will be weak.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89202602466390375912008-01-18T10:16:00.000-05:002008-01-18T10:16:00.000-05:00Lee:The links I post are not directing to the corr...Lee:<BR/><BR/>The links I post are not directing to the correct location. What gives? Here is the site I'm trying to link to: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/<BR/>wecannotchooseourbeliefs.htmlThe Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10951969586329333405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-52438578981637190492008-01-18T10:15:00.000-05:002008-01-18T10:15:00.000-05:00My apologies...wrong link entered...Lee, could you...My apologies...wrong link entered...Lee, could you edit my previous comment with <A HREF: HTTP://WWW.PHILOSOPHYOFRELIGION.INFO/WECANNOTCHOOSEOURBELIEFS.HTML HREF="" REL="nofollow">this link</A>? Delete this one if you wish after editing.The Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10951969586329333405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50723031540442564982008-01-18T10:13:00.000-05:002008-01-18T10:13:00.000-05:00Lee said:Hi The Dude,I'm a-googling! There is no e...Lee said:<BR/><BR/><I>Hi The Dude,<BR/>I'm a-googling! There is no entry for it in wikipedia :-(</I><BR/><BR/><B>Lee:<BR/><BR/>I didn't find it there either, but I found plenty of discussion and several papers I plan to order on the subject. Doxastic voluntarism actually refers to the idea that beliefs ARE voluntary, and the articles that I've found are those stating that doxastic voluntarism is not possible. If I may post a link, <A HREF: HTTP://WWW.PHILOSOPHYOFRELIGION.INFO/WECANNOTCHOOSEOURBELIEFS.HTML HREF="" REL="nofollow">here's one</A>.</B>The Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10951969586329333405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88352310710283127062008-01-18T03:45:00.000-05:002008-01-18T03:45:00.000-05:00Hi The Dude,I'm a-googling! There is no entry for...Hi The Dude,<BR/>I'm a-googling! There is no entry for it in wikipedia :-(Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19006439834911161212008-01-18T01:53:00.000-05:002008-01-18T01:53:00.000-05:00Hi akakiwibear,The real question therefore is “is ...Hi akakiwibear,<BR/><B><I>The real question therefore is “is there choice in beliefs?”. You have yet to show evidence that we are constrained in our beliefs. Yes there may be arguments for or against a belief, the arguments may be good or not, but you need to show that independent of the quality of the argument etc our choice is predetermined – that is we are constrained from making a free choice based on inputs and data.</B></I><BR/>I submit to you evidence! The Dude, sent this to me in email for another reason. <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_behavioral_therapy" REL="nofollow">Cognitive behavioral therapy</A><BR/>In a nutshell, using the introduction of new information, behavior and beliefs are modified. The beliefs, like fear of spiders, are a response to external stimulus that triggers an internal emotional response. By getting the patient to learn and become familiar, this emotional response can be minimized. This shows that a belief is dependent on information stored in memory. It is consistent in describing me, in that until I figured out that God has to be assumed to put him in a position to write the bible, among other logical problems, and the inconsistency in the bible, and the history of the Near East, I was a christian. Granted, people jumping from the towers and the problem of facing burning-to-death versus the sin-of-suicide had a lot to do with motivating me to do a serious academic study of diverse disciplines to see where the evidence converged.<BR/><BR/>so we don't choose to believe. We seem to have little belief scale that can be tipped with enough information converging on an idea. Try this, start your stove, and will yourself to believe that you won't get burned and then try to touch the burner. I bet you can't.<BR/><BR/><B><I>You argue that people should be “contained” to prevent them from doing more harm – OK but why not kill them? After all your position is that we are only bio-computers and some appear to be malfunctioning, so “recall’ them!</B></I><BR/>another misrepresentation.<BR/>here i'll do it to you, "I can't believe that you believe in capital punishment! You bad person you! Its the inevitable outcome of your dogma!".<BR/>seriously though,<BR/>capital punishment is not a good option as long there as there are so many human variables. The book "mistakes were made, but not by me" covers some of this. There are persuasive influences in communities and cultures that can affect the outcome of a trial resulting with an innocent person on death row. <BR/>p1. If the law makers kill the wrong person, <BR/>p2. they become murderers, <BR/>c. then they should be killed. <BR/><BR/>In my mind its a show-stopping paradox. In a rash moment I would say that for some people, like dahmer, killing is justified, but the process that kills him, could accidentally kill someone else.<BR/><BR/>I used to support the death penalty until I saw a video with a moral philosopher discussing its problems. My belief balance tipped. My gut feeling, emotional response to child murderers is that that they should be killed immediately, but thats not a very well thought out position, so I'm not sure my belief has changed as much as I know I can't justify it rationally.<BR/><BR/><B><I>well Dude I got it from both you “Freewill pertains only to actions, as actions are the only things with which we humans actually have a CHOICE.”<BR/>and Lee “people can't choose to believe, but they can choose to act” Now I know you are pushing a weak point but denying your own argument just because it is flawed is really scraping the bottom of the barrel! Be bold, concede to an indefensible position, or just deny you said it – your call!</B></I><BR/>What are you saying? what is your point? please spell it out rather than cutting and pasting some comments and crowing about 'CONCEDE, CONCEDE' like your 'inquisitive' bretheren. ;-)<BR/><BR/>You are ignoring a bunch of qualifiers and rushing to a conclusion, but I can't blame you since that is so christian of you. ;-) you seem to be oversimplifying this to make it fit your viewpoint.<BR/><BR/>in the context of freewill, <BR/>if god is omniscient, freewill does not exist.<BR/>any perception of freewill we have comes from the fact that we do not know the future.<BR/>so within this context, if there is a god, and freewill is not possible, we act as if we do have it. so we make what we think are choices. <BR/><BR/>I don't think there is a god, and I think that free will is contingent on biological processes. I can choose not to eat suteed mushrooms but I can't choose not to feel nauseous when I smell them. My behavior has a biological basis.<BR/><BR/>If I get slapped in the back of the head by a playful friend, I feel a flash of anger and desire for retribution. Can you blame me?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353286859864448748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13941884399280940242008-01-17T22:14:00.000-05:002008-01-17T22:14:00.000-05:00Dude, in your comment: Where do you get this? Onc...Dude, in your comment: <I> <B>Where do you get this? Once again it's appearing that a few people here are simply not reading the volumes of text myself and Lee have written in this comments section. You are not responsible for your EMOTIONS - emotions like sadness, belief, trust, faith, happiness, anger, fear, etc. These are not ACTIONS! </B> </I> <BR/><BR/>well Dude I got it from both you <I> “Freewill pertains only to actions, as actions are the only things with which we humans actually have a CHOICE.” </I> <BR/>and Lee <I> “people can't choose to believe, but they can choose to act” </I> Now I know you are pushing a weak point but denying your own argument just because it is flawed is really scraping the bottom of the barrel! Be bold, concede to an indefensible position, or just deny you said it – your call!<BR/><BR/>Peaceakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15123983652945430342008-01-17T22:13:00.000-05:002008-01-17T22:13:00.000-05:00Lee: should be that no one be held accountable for...Lee: <I><B>should be that no one be held accountable for their actions.</B><BR/>this is a total misrepresentation.<BR/>no one ever said that and it does not follow logically because harm and uncertainty come into play . Even if I stipulate for the sake of argument they are not responsible because they don't have freewill, they still need to be contained to prevent them from doing more harm</I> <BR/><BR/>No you did not say it, but it is the logical outcome of your position. <BR/><BR/>You argue that people should be “contained” to prevent them from doing more harm – OK but why not kill them? After all your position is that we are only bio-computers and some appear to be malfunctioning, so “recall’ them! <BR/><BR/>Your position leads inevitably to an interesting ethic. If you do not endorse the ethic then you need to rethink its driver. Once you start down the road you can’t turn back! Think it through to its conclusion and fault the logic if you can.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Sala kahle - peaceakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20863707555704467162008-01-17T22:10:00.000-05:002008-01-17T22:10:00.000-05:00Lee et al: “anyway this is a distraction because t...Lee et al: <I>“anyway this is a distraction because the argument is that people can't choose to believe, but they can choose to act.” </I><BR/><BR/>Having read the screeds above I have yet to see how you justify this position – it defies logic, which is obvious in the atheist replies to the theist comment. <BR/><BR/>Let me try once again to state the obvious. <BR/>1) all our elective actions are the result of a cognitive process (going to the toilet as against relieving oneself whenever and wherever is elective behaviour)<BR/>2) elective behaviour is open to choice<BR/>So the question is what is our elective behaviour based on? Is it Pavlovian behaviour– could be, but is the basis of Pavlov’s work not the conditioned BELIEF of reward or punishment associated with behaviour. Or is our behaviour based on decisions – if so what are our decisions based on? Psychology teaching tells us that behaviour is based on values which are in turn based on beliefs. That is why it is difficult to change behaviour, we first have to change the beliefs. So at this point in the argument, I see actions as being determined by beliefs and hence actions are not subject to choice other than within our belief system.<BR/><BR/>You can’t have your cake and eat it – either there is freedom of choice or there is not. It would appear that there is little if any choice in actions that is not determined by beliefs. <BR/><BR/>The real question therefore is “is there choice in beliefs?”. You have yet to show evidence that we are constrained in our beliefs. Yes there may be arguments for or against a belief, the arguments may be good or not, but you need to show that independent of the quality of the argument etc our choice is predetermined – that is we are constrained from making a free choice based on inputs and data. <BR/><BR/>To support your case I would expect you to produce research that demonstrates a specific causal link outside of reason/logic/evidence (inputs/data if you like) to people holding a specific belief – you need to demonstrate preselection of belief across population groups – but if you had it I guess we would have seen it!<BR/><BR/>Peaceakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27264730007195101692008-01-17T20:07:00.000-05:002008-01-17T20:07:00.000-05:00Found out that the topic of involuntary belief is ...Found out that the topic of involuntary belief is one of pretty high significance in the philosophical circle. In fact, they've given it a "name": doxastic voluntarism. Tons of information and books out there on this subject, and of the articles I've read this evening (3), all mention the Christian salvation belief requirement. Google it and enjoy!The Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10951969586329333405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36798348537899301122008-01-17T18:41:00.000-05:002008-01-17T18:41:00.000-05:00James said:the-dude said:anger resulting in instan...James said:<BR/><BR/><I>the-dude said:anger resulting in instant physical violence with no thought given about the choice at hand, sadness resulting in instant crying, and happiness resulting in a smile.<BR/>If I get unnecessarily angry at someone (even if I just shout at them) I still feel it is my responsibility and, at least in theory, would apologise to them afterwards. We can control our emotions if we try. That's why you get anger management courses etc</I><BR/><BR/><B>Once again, you're missing my point. We cannot control our emotions. It is not possible. We don't have a choice. You're telling me that you can learn to MANAGE it, and "manage" doesn't mean "control". What you're claiming here is that we can make ourselves NOT get mad, AT ALL! That we can listen to something that used to make us mad and instantly, at will, consciously change that to some other emotion. It is not possible. <BR/><BR/>However, what you CAN do is control the type of evidence you let in. For example...you get emails from some guy you think is a jackass. Things he sends you regularly make you very angry, angry enough that you have thoughts of choosing to hit a wall! Then, one day, you see yet another email from this same guy, but because you don't want to be angry (let's say it's a good day and you don't want it "ruined"), you CHOOSE to not open that email, which means you're CHOOSING to not allow that information to enter your mind, and in turn not make you angry. You aren't controlling the emotion, you're controlling the input that results in the emotion based on previously learning that, no matter what, every word this guy says results (involuntarily) in anger, and you dislike this feeling. I don't know how I can make this much more clear.</B><BR/><BR/><I>the-dude said:I'm saying how do we know they weren't forced/coerced to say something ELSE about what they witnessed, rather than what they REALLY saw?<BR/>Why on earth do you think there could have been some mafia type person going around making people lie about Jesus? What would their motive have been? Moreover there are enough differences in the gospels to suggest that the authors hadn't completely colluded (which you would expect if they were repeating some story a gang master had forced them to give) Do you seriously think this is a credible alternative to suggesting Christianity is true?</I><BR/><BR/><B>Is it POSSIBLE that someone was forced to write and falsify witness testimony in the bible? I'm stating that all other possibilities haven't been ruled out - this being one major possibility. It is well-known that suppression and persecution was common during the biblical age (hell, it's even common now!). Therefore, I argue not that there's evidence that there was someone forcing them to write these things, but that it is POSSIBLE, therefore, the entire bible cannot be proven to be TRUE TO ME. That is what I need, personally, to form a belief - I need all other possibilities to be 100%, without a doubt, ruled out.</B><BR/><BR/>James said:<BR/><BR/><I>the-dude said: Religious people regularly say that dating techniques used for determining the age of ancient dinosaur bones can't be PROVEN (to them) to be accurate (in fact, any one announcement of error causes an uproar in the religious community!).<BR/>So your suggesting atheists should lower themselves to the same standards? I bet you're the first to complain when Christians present that kind of argument and so you shouldn't mind if I complain when you do likewise.</I><BR/><BR/><B>No, and you know that's not what I'm saying. You know clearly that I was responding to YOU using something in your argument that YOU YOURSELF argue against! For you, if it fits your contextual argument, you will use it. You are now cutting and pasting my comments completely out of context by leaving out the rest of the paragraph.</B><BR/><BR/>James said:<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>the-dude said:I think you mean textual analysis, not criticism, by the way<BR/>No - textual criticism is recognised terminology(and should not be confused with slagging off the Bible!). The fact you haven't even heard of this recognised academic discipline suggests that you're not the best person to be offering an opinion on its validity. Indeed, this proves that your statements on this issue are based on anything but evidence (as you can't have even read a book on the subject be even the most sceptical scholars in this field)</I><BR/><BR/><B>As for textual criticism, it's not even a science. And the link you provided gave this information about "textual criticism":<BR/><BR/><I>"It is the task of textual criticism to collect and study these various writings in which a text has been preserved, determine the changes that have occurred in the wording and arrangement of the text, assess the significance of such changes, and restore, if possible, the original wording or form of the text. If this is not possible, one must decide on the best or most reliable wording and try to account for the historical process through which the text has been changed. In every case, textual criticism seeks to establish a reliable text that can serve as the basis for serious study and reflection."</I><BR/><BR/>As I stated before, this type of textual analysis only verifies that the text was original and written by specific people. It does nothing to validate that the actual stories were true stories and not fabrications (coerced or otherwise).</B><BR/><BR/>James said:<BR/><BR/><I>the-dude said:Also, perhaps they can recover the original text, but this still doesn't mean that the TEXT or writings about witnesses is TRUE!<BR/>Maybe, but as I was responding to an objection you raised that's not the point.</I><BR/><BR/><B>Of course it's the point, this was a series of objections - my point was that nothing about textual criticism makes the stories from witnesses any more true than my scenario about being forced to write down false information on the drug dealer in the alley.</B><BR/><BR/><I>What it does do is form part of an argument. If we can show the following three facts are likely to be true then it logically follows that Christianity (in its core beliefs) is true:<BR/><BR/>1)The New Testament roughly represents what the first generation Christians believed</I><BR/><BR/><B>Roughly? Why not exactly? And let's say it is true that this was what first gen. Christians believed. One's beliefs JUST DON'T MAKE IT TRUE. Again, why should what others believed centuries ago equate to undeniable fact? It doesn't.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/><I>2)The first generation of Christians were sincere in their beliefs</I><BR/><BR/><B>How do you know this? Because it was written? And, seriously believing something still doesn't make it true. You could tell me until you're blue in the face that YOU BELIEVE 2+2=5, but it will never be FACT. And how do "textual critics" gauge sincerity from texts that are so old? This is impossible!</B><BR/><BR/><I>3) At least some of the first Christians were in a position to know if the beliefs were true (e.g were disciples of Jesus, claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected for themself, had met Jesus when he was alive, lived in Jerusalem and knew what people were saying about Jesus and could verify basic facts etc)</I><BR/><BR/><B>Again, no one knows if they were coerced to LIE and say they saw these things. The possibility exists that these writings were 1) coerced, 2) falsified without coercion, 3) changed over time through editing or translational errors.</B><BR/><BR/>James said:<BR/><BR/><I>the-dude said:You're the Christian with the exclusivity to moral values and what's "good" and "bad". Do you think it's perfectly OK to just wipe everyone out in a population because of a few bad apples?!?<BR/>this has already been explained - there was a lot more than a few bad apples and this objection could be used against any war.</I><BR/><BR/><B>Ok, let's quantify this for the sake of argument, because you're still not getting the point:<BR/><BR/>1000 people of a civilization that God in the Old Testament has declared "bad". Of these 1000, 745 of them have committed the "bad" things that really pissed off God. The other 255 people disagree with the 745 "bad" ones, but can't get out because these "bad" people are suppressing them (a common occurrence in the biblical days). God wipes them all out, regardless of the 255 people with differing viewpoints than the 745 - in other words, one bad apple spoils the bunch. <BR/><BR/>These events contradict a the biblical caricature of an infinitely good, loving, patient, and forgiving god. And when we compare this to current wars, there's no comparison - GOD is killing in the bible and he's the one telling humans to NOT KILL. He's being a hypocrite, clearly.</B><BR/><BR/>James said:<BR/><BR/><I>the-dude said:The bible, all parts, say that god is GOOD, LOVING, INFINITELY PATIENT, INFINITELY FORGIVING, ALL-KNOWING, ALL-POWERFUL.<BR/>But what is good? would a good God, for example, let his people be kept as slaves and bullied by the Egyptians? Or would God rescue his people even if it means killing some of the Egyptian army etc (i'm sure your average Egyptian soldier did what they were told without any say in the matter and so were innocent in that respect)</I><BR/><BR/><B>Now you're simply creating a justification for the murderous god of the OT not being able to just pick out the bad people and spare the good. You are clearly missing the glaring contradiction with what god is supposed to be standing for and what his actions prove otherwise.</B><BR/><BR/><I>The Bible says God is slow to anger (e.g Numbers 14:18) - I'm so confident that it doesn't say He is infinitely patient and forgiving that I challenge you to find a passage which supports this. </I><BR/><BR/><B>Slow to anger, huh? What about the story where a few kids run up and start calling another kid "baldhead, baldhead!!", and the kid asks god to help him, and god immediately summons two female lions from the woods to maul and kill all of the kids that yelled "baldhead, baldhead!!". He did it right on the spot, and for something as ridiculous as namecalling!! <BR/><BR/>And, perhaps the bible doesn't say verbatim the word "infinitely patient". However, I did a google search on the topic of god and "infinitely patient" with "bible" and found an uncountable number of Christian sites going on and on about his "infinite patience". Apparently, even though the bible doesn't say "infinitely patient", there is plenty to imply this from the bible:<BR/><BR/><I>"The book of the Psalms contains one hundred and fifty songs to and poems about the Lord. They are the prayers of the people. Sometimes they are pure praise or thanksgiving, sometimes entreaty, sometimes they reveal honest anger at circumstances and at God. But in all cases, the various psalmists come back to one point: God is good. Though he is rightfully angry at those who hate him, he is infinitely patient and forgiving with every man and woman who seeks him. Nor does he content himself with “only” being patient and forgiving: he is our constant Shepherd, and the Guardian of our souls. He actively watches over us, protecting our well-being, nurturing us, defending us, and leading us on to a joyful eternity with him. (Psalm 23)"</I></B><BR/><BR/>James said: <BR/><BR/><I><BR/>the-dude said:And your LOTTERY analogy is wrong.<BR/>No - it shows that it is fair for someone to miss out on something they didn't deserve even if whoever got whatever it was didn't deserve it either. You admit that we are accountable for at least some of our sins (for example murder) and so Hell is not unfair. The dispute is over salvation, which is a gift from God. I can give a gift to whoever I choose and so can God.</I><BR/><BR/><B>But you can't "CHOOSE" to believe in god, you just do. So apparently it's definitely a "gift", therefore god's offering of a reward for those that are lucky enough to get this "gift", yet punishing others for something for which they had no control over (not sins, but the ability to be "saved" by CHOOSING TO BELIEVE) is the exact definition of UNFAIR.<BR/><BR/>Again, your lottery analogy is a poor one. If you can't admit this, then I'd rather not continue discussing it. According to the bible, god controls the "lottery" of life. He knows the "numbers" (metaphor for "gift of salvation") before they're "drawn". Therefore, the outcome is his responsibility, not humans, and whomever he "gifts" salvation to (the ability to "believe") is the lottery winner. The rest of the others that had no say (or didn't even PLAY the "god lottery") are doomed and had no choice. UNFAIR. No one picks the actual LOTTERY NUMBERS. They might grab balls out of a vacuum machine, but they don't control the random number selection. Thereby you cannot apply "fair/unfair" to the lottery without someone that can be held accountable for the number selection.</B><BR/><BR/>James said:<BR/><BR/><I>the-dude said:he knows events and actions before they even happen<BR/>God exists outside of time and space and so you have the wrong understanding of how God's omniscience works. </I><BR/><BR/><B>So god has a different definition for "omniscience"? Sounds yet again like you're conveniently changing the definition of words to fit your argument. Also, what makes you capable of understanding this abstract definition of "omniscient" over anyone else?<BR/><BR/>Fact remains, the entire purpose for an omniscient god creating something for which he already knows the outcome, yet still getting pleasure from these events, is non-existent. No one has yet to present a PURPOSE for a being creating events for which he already knows the outcome. It's like watching reruns of comedy shows over and over - jokes get less and less funny (e.g., pleasurable) when you already know the punchline.</B><BR/><BR/>James said:<BR/><BR/><I>the-dude said:Therefore, if he chooses to send people to hell for violating a requirement for which they had no choice in to begin with, the word UNFAIR can most definitely be applied.!<BR/>Again, you're confusing condemnation (going to hell for our wrong doings) with salvation (being forgiven and saved from hell)</I><BR/><BR/><B>You're not really serious here, are you? I'm not confusing anything, and it's CLEAR that I'm not. I'm very blatantly speaking about the requirement of "choosing to believe in god" in order to be saved. I'm saying NOTHING about actions (sins), and everything about the inability to choose to believe.</B>The Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10951969586329333405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55133634514567021052008-01-17T17:40:00.000-05:002008-01-17T17:40:00.000-05:00the-dude said:anger resulting in instant physical ...the-dude said:<I>anger resulting in instant physical violence with no thought given about the choice at hand, sadness resulting in instant crying, and happiness resulting in a smile.</I><BR/>If I get unnecessarily angry at someone (even if I just shout at them) I still feel it is my responsibility and, at least in theory, would apologise to them afterwards. We can control our emotions if we try. That's why you get anger management courses etc<BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I> Religious people regularly say that dating techniques used for determining the age of ancient dinosaur bones can't be PROVEN (to them) to be accurate (in fact, any one announcement of error causes an uproar in the religious community!).</I><BR/>So your suggesting atheists should lower themselves to the same standards? I bet you're the first to complain when Christians present that kind of argument and so you shouldn't mind if I complain when you do likewise. <BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I>I think you mean textual analysis, not criticism, by the way</I><BR/>No - <A HREF="http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=1ac&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=define%3Atextual+criticism&spell=1" REL="nofollow">textual criticism</A> is recognised terminology(and should not be confused with slagging off the Bible!). The fact you haven't even heard of this recognised academic discipline suggests that you're not the best person to be offering an opinion on its validity. Indeed, this proves that your statements on this issue are based on anything but evidence (as you can't have even read a book on the subject be even the most sceptical scholars in this field)<BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I>Also, perhaps they can recover the original text, but this still doesn't mean that the TEXT or writings about witnesses is TRUE!</I><BR/>Maybe, but as I was responding to an objection you raised that's not the point. <BR/><BR/>What it does do is form part of an argument. If we can show the following three facts are likely to be true then it logically follows that Christianity (in its core beliefs) is true: <BR/><BR/>1)The New Testament roughly represents what the first generation Christians believed<BR/>2)The first generation of Christians were sincere in their beliefs<BR/>3) At least some of the first Christians were in a position to know if the beliefs were true (e.g were disciples of Jesus, claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected for themself, had met Jesus when he was alive, lived in Jerusalem and knew what people were saying about Jesus and could verify basic facts etc) <BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I>I'm saying how do we know they weren't forced/coerced to say something ELSE about what they witnessed, rather than what they REALLY saw?</I><BR/>Why on earth do you think there could have been some mafia type person going around making people lie about Jesus? What would their motive have been? Moreover there are enough differences in the gospels to suggest that the authors hadn't completely colluded (which you would expect if they were repeating some story a gang master had forced them to give) Do you seriously think this is a credible alternative to suggesting Christianity is true? <BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I>Now we're back to witness testimony in an old book</I><BR/>Are you disputing the validity of the historical method or Christianity? <BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I>You're the Christian with the exclusivity to moral values and what's "good" and "bad". Do you think it's perfectly OK to just wipe everyone out in a population because of a few bad apples?!?</I><BR/>this has already been explained - there was a lot more than a few bad apples and this objection could be used against any war.<BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I>The bible, all parts, say that god is GOOD, LOVING, INFINITELY PATIENT, INFINITELY FORGIVING, ALL-KNOWING, ALL-POWERFUL. </I><BR/>But what is good? would a good God, for example, let his people be kept as slaves and bullied by the Egyptians? Or would God rescue his people even if it means killing some of the Egyptian army etc (i'm sure your average Egyptian soldier did what they were told without any say in the matter and so were innocent in that respect)<BR/><BR/>The Bible says God is <B>slow</B> to anger (e.g Numbers 14:18) - I'm so confident that it doesn't say He is <B>infinitely</B> patient and forgiving that I challenge you to find a passage which supports this. <BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I>And your LOTTERY analogy is wrong.</I><BR/>No - it shows that it is fair for someone to miss out on something they didn't deserve even if whoever got whatever it was didn't deserve it either. You admit that we are accountable for at least some of our sins (for example murder) and so Hell is not unfair. The dispute is over salvation, which is a gift from God. I can give a gift to whoever I choose and so can God.<BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I>he knows events and actions before they even happen</I><BR/>God exists outside of time and space and so you have the wrong understanding of how God's omniscience works. <BR/><BR/>the-dude said:<I>Therefore, if he chooses to send people to hell for violating a requirement for which they had no choice in to begin with, the word UNFAIR can most definitely be applied.!</I><BR/>Again, you're confusing condemnation (going to hell for our wrong doings) with salvation (being forgiven and saved from hell)<BR/><BR/>Lee said:<I>if we don't have free will, we don't know what the outcome will be so we have to act as if we don't and try to the reasonable thing.</I><BR/>That sentence contradicts itself - 'we don't have free will' contradicts 'we will have to act as if' because without free will we can't act as if.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935690081044510024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65114037051174528052008-01-17T15:12:00.000-05:002008-01-17T15:12:00.000-05:00Lee thanks for the link – I missed a good one, but...Lee thanks for the link – I missed a good one, but not sorry I took the time out. That said, having read the discussion I am staggered that you saw it as a conclusive win – I think the atheist case came across as weak, still we each have our own opinions!<BR/><BR/>Without rehashing the debate I think JWL summed it up well in an early comment with <I> “As you know the POE only affects certain types of theologies and it doesn't show that some kind of God still might exist. But I think Lee is taking aim at theologies that grant the premises.” </I>.<BR/><BR/>In this case John sees atheists seeking to narrow the scope of their argument as it gets defeated. What struck me about this was that John sees similar behaviour in theists as tantamount to an omission of error.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Sala kahle - peaceakakiwibearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18324950054939335251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14685377827653654792008-01-17T14:00:00.000-05:002008-01-17T14:00:00.000-05:00I wrote: "3) “But if the woman is married, it's us...I wrote: "3) “But if the woman is married, it's usually a bad idea..”<BR/><BR/>Sorry, I wasn't very clear on this point. <BR/><BR/>I believe that sex between men and women is Ok. But having sex with another man's wife usually requires deception and poses a risk of becoming emotionally involved with that person. This, in turn, could jeopardize relationships, marriages, families, etc. Therefore, it's quite unlikely I'll have sex with a another man's wife.<BR/><BR/><I>“our actions are based on our beliefs. If not, what are they based on – perhaps I missed the point,</I><BR/><BR/>I was responding to Jason's claim that people who think murder is ok will go around killing people. <BR/><BR/>Our actions are 'filtered' by our a complex system of morals and cultural rules. What I want to do and what I think I should do are two separate things. <BR/><BR/>I've been physically attracted to women who are married to other men, but have not acted on this attraction. <BR/><BR/>Hypothetically, I may want to kill someone, but would not because it's against the law and morally wrong. Or I might not want to kill someone, but still think it's OK for others to do so. <BR/><BR/>Clearly, these are two very separate things.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64771613932299496122008-01-17T13:57:00.000-05:002008-01-17T13:57:00.000-05:00Lee,Email sent...let me know what you have to say....Lee,<BR/><BR/>Email sent...let me know what you have to say.The Dudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10951969586329333405noreply@blogger.com