an American Atheist Professor Carl Stecher and English Philosopher Peter S. Williams in 2001-2002.
They discuss the question that always comes up about God. Follow the link below so that you can read exchanges on:
• Introduction
• Morality and the Biblical God
• The Problem of Evil
• Cosmological and Design Arguments
• Some Questions about Jesus
• Desire & Religious Experience
• Heaven and Hell
God Questions: An Atheist & Christian Dialogue - Apologetics 315
What are atheists trying to do with all this questioning? So their belief is unbelief, ok. Most that I dialog with are too angry to see sense.
ReplyDeleteThe sinful mind is hostile to God cannot subject itself to God (Romans 8:5-8)
ReplyDeleteSee the desperation and lengths they have to go to here: Dawkins admission Notice the use of the word, "probably" as this "highly evolved" creature attempts to tell us how it "probably" happened.
ReplyDeleteIt seems obvious to me, that unless you have a blinding agenda or are under the age of twelve, that clip shows Richard Dawkins honestly speculating about the origins of life and Ben Stein dishonestly trying to misrepresent him.
ReplyDeleteHugh, I thought well of you when we first started talking some posts back, but then I sensed a dishonestly. Now that I see you've posted a clip from "Expelled", I think I've got your number. I think you are older than twelve, so I'll go with blinded by an agenda.
Those are just statements though, no anger there.
Hi Ryan, I see you're back with the same - what are you again, you never quite said?
ReplyDeleteDawkins said in The God Delusion. "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down."[p.5]
Was Flew being misrepresented? Oh, I forget, you can't bring yourself to watch it.
If Ryan watched it, he might actually catch a clue and think. I did see "Expelled" and I've seen Dawkins make much the same comments as he did in "Expelled". I'd like to know in what way was Richard Dawkins misrepresented? If you mean he was made to look foolish, trust he doesn't need the help.
ReplyDeleteOh in case there is a question - yes, there is anger there.
I do not see how Stein was "trying to misrepresent him." If a question is asked of someone and you want to be clear on what they're saying, it's only right you ask them to be as candid as can be.
ReplyDeleteSeems Ryan doesn't like these people coming under scrutiny. Wonder why. I guess if you've built people up to be your role model you wouldn't want to hear a bad word said about them.
Hugh; I told you in great deal what I believe. Why be dishoest about it.
ReplyDeleteI don't mind anyone being under honest scrutiny but if you watch that clip and honestly believe that Richard Dawkins believes that it's a fact that aliens intelligently designed humans, then you are not worth talking to.
I guess if you've built people up to be your role model...
I do like Christopher Hitchens (But so does Marcus), but I've never read a word of his or Dawkins. So not sure why you'd assert that.
Oh wait, I'm pretty sure I know exactly why you'd assert that, you aren't honest.
ReplyDelete@Ryan
ReplyDeleteI don't mind anyone being under honest scrutiny but if you watch that clip and honestly believe that Richard Dawkins believes that it's a fact that aliens intelligently designed humans, then you are not worth talking to.
When I saw the clip, I did not think that Richard Dawkins believed that aliens intelligently designed humans only that he would rather think that it was a more likely possibility than God creating the universe. I don't think the movie suggested more than that. Foolish to say such a thing? Yup.
I don't think that Hugh thinks that Dawkins thinks that. I like Christopher Hitchens because he is at least honest that he hates God instead of hiding behind rhetoric and arguments that he's convinced himself are logical.
...only that he would rather think that it was a more likely possibility than God creating the universe.
ReplyDeleteYou are conflating apples and oranges here I think. God creating the universe and life on earth being intelligently designed are two separate issues.
"It seems obvious to me, that unless you have a blinding agenda..."
ReplyDeleteIs it "obvious" or not? Your obvious was canceled by your "unless!"
"Hugh, I thought well of you when we first started talking some posts back, but then I sensed a dishonestly. Now that I see you've posted a clip from "Expelled", I think I've got your number."
Care to run it by me? I can't see why you say I'm being dishonest.
Dawkins said in The God Delusion. "If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down."[p.5]
Bear this in mind as you watch the clip. Dawkins wants to de-theise people theists, yet he uses the word "probably" a number of times when asked about how we got here. How can he be then say it's a delusion to believe in God? Had he said; 'probably there is no God,' that's would be another matter. No, he had to come right out and say it's a delusion! Now you try to make out the likes of Stein and I are misrepresenting or being dishonest about Dawkins.
"I don't mind anyone being under honest scrutiny but if you watch that clip and honestly believe that Richard Dawkins believes that it's a fact that aliens intelligently designed humans, then you are not worth talking to."
So in other words: 'Hugh, I'm going to presume I know what you're getting at here, and I don't like it. Now I'm offended, not by what you said, no. I'm offended by what I presume you're saying!!!' That cover it?
"When I saw the clip, I did not think that Richard Dawkins believed that aliens intelligently designed humans only that he would rather think that it was a more likely possibility than God creating the universe. I don't think the movie suggested more than that."
Me too!
Can't you see it Ryan? You go by what you think I'm saying the video is saying, when I go by what it says. You are conflating apples and oranges here I think.
Care to answer this?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"I don't mind anyone being under honest scrutiny but if you watch that clip and honestly believe that Richard Dawkins believes that it's a fact that aliens intelligently designed humans, then you are not worth talking to."
ReplyDeleteSo in other words: 'Hugh, I'm going to presume I know what you're getting at here, and I don't like it. Now I'm offended, not by what you said, no. I'm offended by what I presume you're saying!!!' That cover it?
"When I saw the clip, I did not think that Richard Dawkins believed that aliens intelligently designed humans only that he would rather think that it was a more likely possibility than God creating the universe. I don't think the movie suggested more than that."
Me too!
Can't you see it Ryan? You go by what you think I'm saying the video is saying, when I go by what it says. You are conflating apples and oranges here I think.
Care to answer this?
Hugh quoting me "It seems obvious to me, that unless you have a blinding agenda..." then says "Is it "obvious" or not? Your obvious was canceled by your "unless!"
ReplyDeleteThe middle part of the sentence qualifies the beginning and end. It makes sense in the original, but not in the truncated version you quoted. More dishonesty... but seriously, why do you think that if you don't say something with 100% absolute certainty, you haven't said anything at all? Seems like that's either a flaw on your part or just a dishonest debate tactic on your part.
Care to run it by me?
Marcus still have that post up, go look it up for yourself. You'll need to scroll down to the bottom of the main page, and then select the "older posts" option.
he would rather think that it was a more likely possibility than God creating the universe.
"Rather" is probably not the right word. I would imagine that he is forced to think that aliens primogentiors are more likely than "special creation" based on the evidence. Desire doesn't really play into belief, at least for me. Probably for him.
Why does the word "probably" wig you out?
I'm going to presume I know what you're getting at here,
What else can one do when reading someone else's words. If you don't like how I took your comment, try to be more clear.
Oh, also, I'm not going to respond to a youtube rap video, but would be happy to if you give me a synopsis.
ReplyDelete"It seems obvious to me, that unless you have a blinding agenda or are under the age of twelve, that clip shows Richard Dawkins honestly speculating about the origins of life and Ben Stein dishonestly trying to misrepresent him."
ReplyDeleteFirstly, he was not "honestly speculating about the origins of life." Consider just the quote I gave from The God Delusion[TGD] p.5. Dawkins is anything but speculating. He's already ruled out the possibility of there being a God, and would rather take the easy option by 'speculating' about aliens. Anyone fool can do that. read p.5 quote again. See what his agenda is?
Stein posed a question. Quote the part where you say he was misrepresenting Dawkins.
I put the clip up and highlighted Dawkins use of "probably." I made it clear. Well, I thought I had. The only thing obvious is what I highlighted.
I'm not saying you have to say something with 100% accuracy, but be fair when you quote me.
"Rather" is probably not the right word. I would imagine that he is forced to think that aliens primogentiors are more likely than "special creation" based on the evidence. Desire doesn't really play into belief, at least for me. Probably for him."
What evidence? Dawkins has an agenda. Read his stuff!
"Why does the word "probably" wig you out?"
Watch the clip, it seems clear to me.
"Oh, also, I'm not going to respond to a youtube rap video, but would be happy to if you give me a synopsis."
Afraid? Btw, you said you're an "agnostic" and an "atheist." Which Ryan am I dialoging with now?
Afraid?
ReplyDeleteDon't be a fool. Annoyed by the format.
Also, I am an agnostic atheist. For a more detailed look at that, reread the post where we had our previous conversation. I think it was the one on Noah.
What's the problem with the format? It's just a short clip, not too unlike the Flew one.
ReplyDeleteWould an "agnostic atheist" reason then that: 'I'm not certain if there's a God or not, but God doesn't exist?'
Would an "agnostic atheist" reason then that: 'I'm not certain if there's a God or not, but God doesn't exist?'
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I've answered this already for you. What's your problem?
@Ryan
ReplyDeleteYou are conflating apples and oranges here I think. God creating the universe and life on earth being intelligently designed are two separate issues.
I disagree. If you have an intelligent god creating the universe then you are also saying that life on earth is intelligently designed. Can you name a single example of someone making something and it not being intelligently designed (meaning made with a goal or purpose in mind)?
I disagree.
ReplyDeleteOf course you do, you always do.
If you have an intelligent god creating the universe then you are also saying that life on earth is intelligently designed.
No.
Can you name a single example of someone making something and it not being intelligently designed
You've missed the point.
Ryan you either have no point or failed to articulate it. Either way an example of creation without intelligent design would help make your point if there is one.
ReplyDeleteProblem is the use of the two conjoined philosophy's. A theist clearly believes in some sort of creator. An atheist believes the opposite. An agnostic doesn't know what they believe. An agnostic atheist...well, that's more confusion.
ReplyDeleteSo Ryan, why do you bother with, anything?
Ryan you either have no point or failed to articulate it.
ReplyDeleteIt's possible. My point is a god could have created the universe, intelligently or not, and not created life. A god could have created the universe and we could still be the result of random chemistry and evolution.
Or, like Dawkins suggested, it's possible that the universe arose naturally, and we were intelligently designed by a life form that arose as the result of random chemistry and evolution long ago.
Using your ingenius Noah/Pangea defense, you can't say that didn't happen...
Like I said, you've conflated apples and oranges.
Hugh; I addressed that in our previous conversation and since the points you are now making have nothing to do with what I previously said, I will assume you either didn't read it or forgot what I said.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, Marcus still has that post up.
You could have used the same word as Dawkins in your post to Marcus, "probably."
ReplyDeleteWhen children are taught that they are really worthless creatures who have no ultimate purpose for being, that's a dangerous thing. Stalin, Mao and Hitler and their ilk follow[ed] this way of thinking. It's destructive to the human mind to reason in such an unreasonable way.
You moved from a theist, someone who, though you may not have seen the full purpose of life - 100% - to someone who sees no real point to life. How meaningless. To wake up each day without a reason to live, man. I'm not having a go at you Ryan, but I'd like to share something here. I left school some years ago when, can you believe, there was a recession. I never worked in a real job for 8 years. I know what it's like to just exist. I wasn't a Christian then. Years later, I'm out of work again but this time I have Christ. This will make no sense to you, but I gotta say, there's a world of difference between then and now. See, my question to you is based not only upon my personal life's experience, but from what I hear others say also. I'd hate to be in the place of 'No Point!'
I'm not trying to be dishonest when I ask questions, it's just that I can't see how you can claim to have known Christ and then talk like you do, hence my questioning your "conversion."
@Ryan. You wrote:
ReplyDeleteIt's possible. My point is a god could have created the universe, intelligently or not, and not created life. A god could have created the universe and we could still be the result of random chemistry and evolution.
You have a problem. You are making a straw man point. You said that the universe could have been created but life not be intelligently designed but that is not my point. If something is intelligently designed (ie the universe) there is no reason to think that things in that universe is not intelligently designed. If there is something in that creation not intelligently designed than the whole can't be intelligently designed.
Hugh; it is interesting that you would project your failings and feelings of worth on me. You don't actually have the first clue about where I find meaning in life. Just because you can't conceive of meaning without some ultimate meaning giver, doesn't mean that I also can't.
ReplyDeleteMarcus said "If something is intelligently designed (ie the universe) there is no reason to think that things in that universe is not intelligently designed."
My father-in-law never drives his truck, they always take my mother-in-law's sedan. His truck has a fine layer of mildew growing on the roof, hood and bed. Take that for what it's worth.
If there is something in that creation not intelligently designed than the whole can't be intelligently designed.
This statement is untrue.
it's just that I can't see how you can claim to have known Christ and then talk like you do, hence my questioning your "conversion."
ReplyDeleteHugh, as an agnostic or atheist, it's obvious that I don't actually believe I ever knew Christ (or that a Christ exists). I thought I knew Christ.
That doesn't change the fact that my subjective experience closely corresponded to others who still think they know Christ.
I highly suspect you and Marcus (and everyone else) also only think you know Christ.
Anyone else having trouble with their connection?
ReplyDeleteMarcus' blogspot page is overloaded with images and extraneous content. It's makes posting very slow and tedious.
ReplyDeleteYou reckon that's what it is, for real?
ReplyDeleteMarcus, do you have some explaining to do?
@Ryan said
ReplyDeleteMy father-in-law never drives his truck, they always take my mother-in-law's sedan. His truck has a fine layer of mildew growing on the roof, hood and bed. Take that for what it's worth.
Romans 8 explains that. Then Ryan Quotes me:
If there is something in that creation not intelligently designed than the whole can't be intelligently designed.
then he answered:
This statement is untrue.
Ryan,. can you give me an example? Show why the statement is wrong. then you said to Hugh
Hugh, as an agnostic or atheist, it's obvious that I don't actually believe I ever knew Christ (or that a Christ exists). I thought I knew Christ.
That doesn't change the fact that my subjective experience closely corresponded to others who still think they know Christ.
I highly suspect you and Marcus (and everyone else) also only think you know Christ.
I have know Christians my whole life including apostates. Your experiences that you have shared don't correspond to any one I know who has been a committed Christian - born-again and blood bought - for any length of time. I know people who have been following Christ for over 50 years. Your experience do not match my experiences either.
Marcus' blogspot page is overloaded with images and extraneous content. It's makes posting very slow and tedious.
ReplyDeleteSpoken by someone who doesn't know the design of the site. Who are you to say something is extraneous on a website you don't own?
"Hugh; it is interesting that you would project your failings and feelings of worth on me. You don't actually have the first clue about where I find meaning in life. Just because you can't conceive of meaning without some ultimate meaning giver, doesn't mean that I also can't."
ReplyDeleteGo on then. Tell me how meaningful and purposeful life is without having an ultimate raison d'être?
I've seen story's of people who have not known their parents, given up or abandoned at birth. they all say a similar thing: 'I don't know who I am.' They want answers to who they are and why they're here, and what their whole life is about. Don't tell me you're any different from the rest of us. You know full well there's more to life than just cramming in all the flesh can muster then dying.
So, what's your raison d'être?
Your experiences that you have shared don't correspond to any one I know who has been a committed Christian
ReplyDeleteProbably because we didn't belong to the same sect. I was Methodist then non-denominational and have known many Baptists and Catholics. Except for some Baptist sects, the folks I know couldn't be further from the few COGIC people I've met.
Your experience do not match my experiences either.
Funny, I thought they did when you described yours to me.
"Probably because we didn't belong to the same sect."
ReplyDeleteThere we have it. It's about the "sect" not Christ!
@Ryan
ReplyDeleteYour experience do not match my experiences either.
Funny, I thought they did when you described yours to me.
You said that prayer does not work and God did nothing to change your life or mind. How are things supposed to be same again?
Hugh Tell me how meaningful and purposeful life is without having an ultimate raison d'être?
ReplyDeleteYou changed the question here. Life would be meaningless with a "reason for being", wouldn't it?
I originally said "just because you can't conceive of meaning without some ultimate meaning giver, doesn't mean that I also can't."
My point being I don't need a divine meaning giver to have meaning in my life. My wife and daughter (especially my wife and daughter), my family, friends, work, running, boat building, beer brewing and woodworking give my life meaning.
So I have a few raisons d'êtres, none of which are supernatural.
Hugh There we have it. It's about the "sect" not Christ!
ReplyDeleteIn hindsight, yes. It can't be about something that doesn't exist. The sect exists, Christ does not.
Marcus You said that prayer does not work and God did nothing to change your life or mind. How are things supposed to be same again?
ReplyDeleteI think you are saying here that because I am an atheist now and because you belong to the COGIS now, we cannot have had similar experiences 25 years ago (or however long ago you were born again).
So when you were a child these people gave your life meaning?
ReplyDeleteYou say Christ does not exist! That's an absolute statement, bud. Now, prove your case.
So when you were a child these people gave your life meaning?
ReplyDeleteNo, my parents did then. To quote you "I've seen story's of people who have not known their parents, given up or abandoned at birth. they all say a similar thing: 'I don't know who I am.'"
You say Christ does not exist! That's an absolute statement, bud. Now, prove your case.
Ha! I knew you'd say that. I obviously can't. Not any more than I can say there weren't Slug-Overlords or Noah on Pangea or Aliens who seeded earth with life.
"My point being I don't need a divine meaning giver to have meaning in my life. My wife and daughter (especially my wife and daughter), my family, friends, work, running, boat building, beer brewing and woodworking give my life meaning."
ReplyDeleteEr...these give you meaning for the here and now. What about the Hereafter? A little child knows from the off, they need someone. Why? If they could cry 'mama, papa' from day one they would. When you begin growing up you now start looking up and saying: 'I'm not the least bit curious about anything out there, it's what's here and now that matters.' Yeah? Right!
Ever see an atheist turn away at a funeral and say; 'Ah well, he's stopped existing now?' If that were so, why bother crying?
You said "Christ does not exist," then you say:
"Ha! I knew you'd say that. I obviously can't."
Ryan, you make a definite claim, then you say, "I obviously can't!!!" What is this? This is why I ask, which Ryan am I dialoging with now? The agnostic who says, 'I can't prove it either way.' Or, the atheist who says, 'God does not exist?"
Hugh What about the Hereafter?
ReplyDeleteSeriously???
A little child knows from the off, they need someone. Why?
Probably because they were in a womb for 9 months.
...why bother crying?
Because you'll never see them again.
Ryan, you make a definite claim, then you say, "I obviously can't!!!" What is this?
There are degrees of certainty and language is imprecise.
The agnostic who says, 'I can't prove it either way.' Or, the atheist who says, 'God does not exist?"
You've got it backwards, it's the agnostic who says, "I can't prove a god doesn't exist".' and the atheist who says, 'The Christian God does not exist?"
I don't see how those statements are necessarily in conflict.
@Ryan
ReplyDeleteI think you are saying here that because I am an atheist now and because you belong to the COGIS now, we cannot have had similar experiences 25 years ago (or however long ago you were born again).
It's COGIC, by the way. And yes, 25 years ago your experiences could not be the same as mine. I was a Christian 25 years ago and now I am even better than I was then. And I'm still seeing God being just as real today as he was then.
Hugh; just out of curiosity, where are you from? I don't need the city, just the region/country. You have some interesting turns of speech I'm not familiar with, "...from the off" for example. Just curious where that originates.
ReplyDeleteMarcus And yes, 25 years ago your experiences could not be the same as mine. I was a Christian 25 years ago
I think you missed the point again. I didn't mean that 25 years ago, to the day, we had a similar experience, I meant when you were "born again" and when I was "born again", whenever that happened to be, we had similar experiences. Don't deny it, you've already explained to me what you felt that day and, as far as I could tell from the written word, it was the exact same thing I felt.
"Hugh There we have it. It's about the "sect" not Christ!
ReplyDeleteIn hindsight, yes. It can't be about something that doesn't exist. The sect exists, Christ does not."
You've proven a point here. I ref'd Matt.7:21ff where Jesus said: "I never knew you." You see, you went to a "sect" not Christ, by your own admission. Where does the Bible say being born again is of the mind? You went to church, but not to Christ!
That cry is because you are/were connected to someone that you've bonded with. I've heard amputees say they can still feel their hand/foot even when it's gone. Point being, there's something more than the physical.
I felt for those people killed in Tuscan. I don't know any of them, their religious backgrounds or not. Why should I care? I could just say: 'Ah well...' No, there's something inside that connects us as a species. I wouldn't say that's just the way we are.
1 John 2:18 Dear children, we are living in the last days. You have heard that the great enemy of Christ is coming. But even now many enemies of Christ have already come. That's how we know that these are the last days.
19 The enemies left our group. They didn't really belong to us. If they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But by leaving they showed that none of them belonged to us.
20 You have received the Spirit from the Holy One. And all of you know the truth. 21 I'm not writing to you because you don't know the truth but because you do know it. I'm writing to you because no lie comes from the truth.
"There are degrees of certainty and language is imprecise."
ReplyDeleteYou did not use imprecise language when you said God/Christ does not exist! Neither did you use imprecise language when you contradicted yourself.
"You've got it backwards, it's the agnostic who says, "I can't prove a god doesn't exist".' and the atheist who says, 'The Christian God does not exist?"
I don't see how those statements are necessarily in conflict."
Save me the effort of posting from a dictionary, will you. The confusion is on your part.
I could tell you where I'm from, but then I'd have to...☺☻
Hugh; you'd have to kill me if I knew the region you live in? OK.
ReplyDeleteAs for the rest of your post, I really can't find much to respond to. I obviously wasn't part of a "sect" when I was a believer. But in retrospect, I see that methodists have different doctrines than COGIC folks (talk about a sect!!!). You can speculate all you want on my experiences and come to your predetermined conclusion given what scant information you have, but that's what believers do with most things, so it's ok.
As for Jesus never knowing me, of course he didn't, he died in the early first century. I'll leave you with John 15:4, which, presupposing your myths are true, seems to be saying the exact opposite of what you assert of "false converts".
This exchange is mildly amusing. Hugh leaps to an unwarrented conclusion based on very little information...
ReplyDeleteMarcus: Your experiences that you have shared don't correspond to any one I know who has been a committed Christian.
Ryan: Probably because we didn't belong to the same sect...
Huge: There we have it. It's about the "sect" not Christ.
I think you missed the point again. I didn't mean that 25 years ago, to the day, we had a similar experience, I meant when you were "born again" and when I was "born again", whenever that happened to be, we had similar experiences. Don't deny it, you've already explained to me what you felt that day and, as far as I could tell from the written word, it was the exact same thing I felt.
ReplyDeleteRyan, if you don't know what "born again" means, how do you know you were born again? You said you were nit sure what it means. That is why I don't think you know anything about my experience or relationship with God. The truth is I know that many Christians who are born again experiences matches mine across denominational lines.
Of course I know what born again means.
ReplyDeleteThe what is it?
ReplyDeleteWhat's the deal with you two wanting me to repeat myself today?
ReplyDeleteMarcus said "Romans 8 explains [mildew that's unrelated to the design process of a truck existing on said designed truck]"
ReplyDeleteJust reread Romans 8, not seeing it. Care to explain?
Marcus said "Romans 8 explains [mildew that's unrelated to the design process of a truck existing on said designed truck]"
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that if Mildew is to the truck as sin is to the created universe, Romans 8 explains the existence of both.
Romans 8:22-25
Nope, you missed the point entirely.
ReplyDeleteGuys, I'm having strange things happening on my computer. I may have to pick this up some other time, but this looks serious.
ReplyDeleteSpeak soon, hopefully.
Ryan, I go by what info' you volunteer. That being so, how do you say I'm speculating, when you admit you never went to Christ!!!?
ReplyDelete"You can speculate all you want on my experiences and come to your predetermined conclusion given what scant information you have, but that's what believers do with most things, so it's ok."
!!!
"As for Jesus never knowing me, of course he didn't, he died in the early first century."
Told you you're confused. Now you say Jesus - who never existed[!] - died in the 1st century. A feat more miraculous than any other.
As for your "myths" comment; and you still say you were a Christian? Wow!
Hi Hugh; Not confused. Read more carefully, I say "Christ" never existed, "Christ" is the magical version of a 1st century historical figure that very likely did exist. Jesus ≠ Christ.
ReplyDeleteAs for only going off the info I volunteer, understand we are working in a limited format and even if we were chatting in a bar, you'd still have limited information as to my personal subjective experiences. So I believe that the best you can be is agnostic to what I have or have not experienced.
As for your "myths" comment; and you still say you were a Christian? Wow!
ReplyDeleteYes.
Given what you say about Him being "a myth." Will you now explain your experience that you said was so real to you?
ReplyDeleteBtw, since you're not sure about the difference between an agnostic and atheist, how can you say with such certainty that you were a Christian? You seem more sure of that than your now found, whatever.
It'd be interesting if you started telling us why your ism is so believable. Up until now you've said nothing. Constant denials of Christianity do not support your cause. So, Let's see what you got. If I'm right, you'll not want to go down that road. Prove us wrong.
Up until now you've said nothing.
ReplyDeleteWow, if thinking you're right is more important than being honest, then ok. I've "been down that road" multiple times, multiple time with you even!
If you want to know specifics, fire away, but I'm not repeating myself (again...).
Given what you say about Him being "a myth." Will you now explain your experience that you said was so real to you? Don't evade the question Ryan. If Christ was never real, what say you of your experience? If it was real, explain. If not, explain.
ReplyDeleteAll I've seen from you so far are denials of Biblical Texts or God. Other than that, you've not said much by way of expounding upon your ism. I've seen this before. When people can't defend their own position, in desperation they try to switch to attacking the opposing view. Your little comments aren't helping you and instead just show you to be someone who has nothing much to say about what you profess to believe. Maybe this is why you refuse to watch the clips I post.
Hugh; you and I talked about my experience in specific detail in a previous post, I am not evading but am annoyed by what seems to be your unwillingness to listen. What do you want to know? I will say I was absolutely certain it was real at the time, I was wrong, I'm perfectly comfortable admitting that. I am now aware it was a complex mix of guilt, existential terror, peer pressure, cultural conditioning and finally relief. That's how I see it now. At the time I saw myself as being humbled before Jesus Christ and receiving his grace to atone for my sins, which was something I couldn’t do myself. That was all in my mind though.
ReplyDeleteWith all that said, my experience, very closely conforms with the "born again" experience that every other Christian (excepting the most liberal ones) who shared their experiences with me. Marcus included. This lead me a reasonable conclusion that we all had the same source of our experience. To me that means no one (I've interacted with) has had a supernatural Christian experience. Or, if your myths are true, then I did know Christ and left.
Take that for what it's worth.
Ok. Now I see someone who insists he was a Christian, but now admits: "That was all in my mind though." Can't you see this makes no sense? Let me put it this way. A person goes to the dentist to have a tooth pulled. The tooth is pulled. Was it really pulled, or just a figment of the imagination?
ReplyDeleteJust where did you get this idea that all "born again" experiences are like yours? I'm pretty ok with dentists, but not everyone is like me. Should I conclude that they never really had their tooth pulled?
Still, you haven't given anything about your ism. Come on Ryan, don't you have anything to offer? Do you only have a few swipes to take against Christianity?
Can't you see this makes no sense?
ReplyDeleteFrom your perspective, yes, I can absolutely see it makes no sense. Makes perfect sense to me, now. I think the fault is yours here though, but I could be wrong.
Just where did you get this idea that all "born again" experiences are like yours?
Conversations. Also I never said all, I said all I am aware of. Feel free to share yours and I'll let you know how I think it compares.
Still, you haven't given anything about your ism. Come on Ryan, don't you have anything to offer? Do you only have a few swipes to take against Christianity?
Did typing this make you feel better? To me it seems like a worthless comment.
@Ryan
ReplyDeleteWith all that said, my experience, very closely conforms with the "born again" experience that every other Christian (excepting the most liberal ones) who shared their experiences with me. Marcus included. This lead me a reasonable conclusion that we all had the same source of our experience. To me that means no one (I've interacted with) has had a supernatural Christian experience. Or, if your myths are true, then I did know Christ and left.
Ryan, if the Bible is true these two things is true:
1. You never knew Jesus the Christ because you left
2. A born-again believer can't become unborn-again anymore than a butterfly can turn back into caterpillar.
Let's go back to first things.
1. Do you know what sin is? Define it.
2. Are you a sinner? If you apply the Biblical standard and honesty you know you have to say you are a sinner, You cannot even keep the moral standard you have set for yourself.
3. If you are a sinner what do you give God as Propitiation? What about when fail your family and friends? If you are accountable how do y0ou make up your mistakes when you don't do what you are supposed to do?
4. As a "Christian" if you were walking around feeling guilt and pain over your past or present or future, you were definitely doing it wrong.
5. If you now say that prayer does not work and when you were "saved" for 25 yrs you only thought it worked, I've got to say given points 1-4 maybe God just ignored your prayers. That's not saying that God doesn't hear prayers from non-Christians because he does and can choose to grant them what they pray for, but God ignoring you or just outright saying "No" might explain your experience.
6. If you were saved it would mean having a relationship with God. Not just a "feeling" but a back and forth relationship. You claim that you didn't. That flies against my experience and every born-again Christian I have ever known.
7. Head Knowledge is not enough. Necessary but in no way sufficient.
Right, because the bible isn't true, at least not about the supernatural stuff.
ReplyDeleteI'll answer these later tonight, and I'll answer from the perspective of a believer because apparently you can't quite get your arms around the notion that my beliefs now do not reflect my beliefs from a past period.
But, if I go to the trouble of answering these questions for you, I'll expect a description of your "born again" experience. Fair's fair.
OK, here you go. Also I have no doubt that some minor deviation from how your particular sect would answer some of these will give you license to yell "False Convert!!!"
ReplyDelete1. Tough to define, there are the obvious ones like lusting in your heart or hating, but I came to think of it more as deviation from godliness or the difference between what you actually do and what you should do (or what god would do).
2. You answered this one for me, but of course as a Christian, I believe I, and everyone else was a sinner and was born that way, that's how they scare you into needing the cure.
3. As a Christian, nothing, except faith in Christ. If you fell short, you were to "go forth and sin no more" or at least try. Maybe I misunderstood what you were asking.
4. This was more of a statement than a question. I felt a lot of guilt prior to being born again, and then not after.
5. Again, not so much a question. But I will say my prayers were sometimes "answered" and sometimes not. At the time, I was amazing when they were "answered", more likely I was simply counting the hits and dismissing the misses.
6. Please describe in detail some of the examples of reciprocation in your "back-and-forth" relationship with god and explain how those instances could not possibly have a natural explanation. I suspect, like I said before, you are merely counting the hits and dismissing the misses.
7. Again, not really a question, but on one hand you say it's not enough to "feel", on the other, head knowledge isn't enough. Is this one of the mysteries of your cult?
To repeat, since I went to the trouble of answering those questions for you, I'll expect a description of your "born again" experience. Fair's fair.
ReplyDeleteA full Response is posted here
ReplyDeleteRyan, why does atheism make sense to you?
ReplyDeleteHugh; In short because atheism or naturalism should be the default position due to the fact that without evidence, any supernatural claim has the same merit as the next supernatural claim.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem saying something probably caused the big bang (although "caused" is not the right word in respect to time as we know it...) and that something might fit the rough description of what you would call a god, but the hoops you guys go through to justify some of your doctrines are beyond silly to me at this point.
"Hugh; In short because atheism or naturalism should be the default position due to the fact that without evidence, any supernatural claim has the same merit as the next supernatural claim."
ReplyDelete2 things. Explain what you mean by naturalism. Secondly, how does atheism or naturalism get to become the default position?
Your next paragraph was similar to what Dawkins said. Flew grappled with that one too until he came to the most likely and sensible conclusion; but having not been bold enough to watch his video I guess you wouldn't want to comment on that.
Explain what you mean by naturalism.
ReplyDeleteThat the universe or natural world is all there is. i.e. no supernatural.
how does atheism or naturalism get to become the default position?
Historically, we've had "supernatural" explainations for most of the things we don't understand. The sun and stars, pregnancy, lightning, germs, etc... etc... etc... It seems to me know that all we are left with is the big bang, and I don't know if it's even possible to discover what "caused" it, but if we do, I think it's probable that it will be yet another natural solution.
Or think of it this way, you walk into an empty room and there is a couch againt one wall. Do you presuppose that there is a monkey behind the couch? That's why naturalism should be the default position.
It seems to me Jesus' ressurection rest upon the presupposition of the existance of God (and the presupposition of the innerrance of the bible, not nevermind that), and the existance of God rest upon the presupposition that the supernatural exists. So what positive evidence do you have for the supernatural? This question really should preceed all discussions like this.
Help me out with something here Ryan. I've been looking up the definition of "naturalism."
ReplyDelete"philosophy: a scientific account of the world in terms of causes and natural forces that rejects all spiritual, supernatural, or teleological explanations."
I then looked up "natural." Now there's a number of definitions, so which one applies to naturalism?
"arising easily or spontaneously: a natural courtesy to strangers?"
"in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional?"
"happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, etc?"
"as is normal or to be expected; ordinary or logical: the natural course of events?"
"not supernatural or strange: natural phenomena?"
If none of the above, do give the one you hold to.
"Or think of it this way, you walk into an empty room and there is a couch againt one wall. Do you presuppose that there is a monkey behind the couch? That's why naturalism should be the default position."
Let's use this then.
You walk into a room and you see a couch. Do you: a) Not think how it could've gotten there? or: b) Say, it got there by itself?
I would assume the couch arrived via natural process, such as a moving company. But that's getting away from the point of the analogy.
ReplyDeleteWhy presuppose a monkey behind the couch?
Any reason why you never addressed my post, except for that lame comment at the end?
ReplyDeleteA moving company involves life moving non-life, just in case you missed that.
A moving company involves life moving non-life
ReplyDelete????
Again, why presuppose a monkey behind the couch?
ReplyDelete