How do I determine what God requires of me?

[McCulloch]

I have posted what I think is the single most important issue to debate.

To me, the second most important issue is this. If there is a God, how do I determine what God requires of me? If your answer involves something that is from human agency, a book or an organization, then the question remains, "How do I know that the book's authors or the organization's leaders authoritatively speak for God?"

How do I determine what God requires of me?

[Zzyzx]

.
Mr. Fisherking,

You seem to have taken a position opposed to “Thinking Theists” – those members of this forum (particularly) who present reasoned and rational positions and/or debate. I encourage you to identify those terrible people and to condemn them as they deserve. What right have they to think AND to agree with a <shudder> Non-Theist? It is good to know that there are still some self-righteous Non-Thinking Theists to defend the faith.

The theist that agree with the non-theist on almost every issue are certainly to be accepted by non-theists. The motive of many of the "thinking" theists (those that agree with the non-theists) are to appease the non-theist.

Are you POSITIVE that you know the motives of “the Thinking Theists”? Such statements expose a lack of credibility.

I don't think that everything that happens in your life is divine will.

We agree

If one agrees enough, they will be accepted into the "thinking theist" group.

Does Thinking Theism threaten the more traditional (Non-Thinking?) Theism and beliefs?

Perhaps a new usergroup for Non-Thinking Theism would appeal to several members of this forum.

You can choose to “believe in” any of the thousands of gods, or some of them, or all of them, or none of them. There is NO EVIDENCE to support any such decision.

Sure there is,

Kindly bring forth the evidence that you claim exists. Which gods will it support?

Will you accept as true other gods that are supported by evidence similar to what you present for your favorite gods? Books and testimonials favoring one god should be just as acceptable as books and testimonials supporting any other god.

but for many no evidence is needed.

Yes, and used car salesmen and preachers appreciate their business. In polite society those who believe whatever they are told are not referred to as “suckers” but are given more euphemistic titles.

Perhaps there are those who believe whatever they are told in church but use judgment and discernment outside church?

The non-theist also only has opinion and conjecture to rely upon because there is "NO EVIDENCE" to support such a belief, correct?

There is NO SUCH BELIEF as Non-Theism. Notice carefully that it is NON-belief. One must be really scraping for “arguments” if they insist that Non-Belief is Belief – but then that position probably fits with Alice in Wonderland thinking.

I realize this is a very difficult concept for Non-Thinking-Theists; however, I trust that Thinking Readers have no difficulty understanding that non-belief is not belief.

Does one require evidence to NOT believe in Santa Claus? As a child I realized that the claims that Santa existed were not likely to be true. I simply did not believe claims that reindeer could fly or that the fat man went down chimneys. I didn’t need to prove that Santa didn’t exist. Those who claimed he did had the burden of proof. I understood that as a child. Many adults seem to have difficulty with the concept.

I also did not believe claims (presented with no evidence) that a dead body came back to life, that the Earth was flooded to the tops of mountains, that wise men followed a star, that a virgin gave to a godman, that a person lived for three days in the belly of a fish, that someone walked on water, etc.

It is the LACK of evidence that any of these stories are true that causes me to not believe them – NOT a “belief in non-belief” as a Non-Thinking-Theist might suggest.

Experiencing God is very real to those that have experienced God. If someone cannot demonstrate to others that their experience with God is real, it in no way negates the truth of their experience. Are you aware of any evidence (not opinion or conjecture) that divine guidance is not real?

A personal experience with “gods” is PERSONAL and individual. Such personal experiences are very difficult or impossible to convey convincingly to others. So, what is the point in trying to convince others of personal “god experiences”?

In sixty-eight years of active and varied life I can honestly say that I have never received any “guidance from god” (though many have attempted to convince me that “god works in mysterious ways” and has secretly influenced me).

If "you believe in...... none of them"[god's], how can you honestly say that you have never recieved any "guidance from god", when you say "there is NO EVIDENCE to support any such decision"?

I can honestly say that I have received no guidance from any of the “gods” BECAUSE I have lived in this body for sixty-eight years. I AM qualified to say whether or not I have been influenced by gods.

Are you claiming that one must “believe” in order to be influenced by gods?

Or, do you take the position that only those who claim to HAVE been influenced by gods are qualified to speak honestly? If you can say you have been influenced, how can you deny the same right to others? More important, how can you demonstrate to others that such influence occurred?

All children are indoctrinated by their parents (non-theist indoctrinate theirs too).

Kindly document the claim that ALL non-theist parents indoctrinate their children or acknowledge that it is a false statement.

Credibility? If one makes false statements about simple things, they are likely to make false statements about other things.

But, there is NO assurance that “whatever happens” is influenced by invisible super beings. Those who preach such things CANNOT demonstrate that gods interfere with human lives. No matter how intelligent, wise and thoughtful the person, they CANNOT demonstrate that ANYTHING that happens in life is influenced by gods. The very best they can do is to make the claim “goddidit” and demand that others “prove my theories wrong”. Goddidit works in religious thinking or in church but does not work in debate with those who do not accept the same beliefs.

Of course it doesn't and is a big reason why there aren't alot of "converts" here. If we are debating someone who is convinced beforehand that things (invisible super beings) CANNOT be demonstrated to exist or interfere in human lives, regardless of "how intelligent, wise and thoughtful the person" (or their argument possibly?), the evidence will be waved away and disregarded as conjecture. Its really nothing new.

That is an EXCUSE for not supplying evidence to support claims that gods exist. Simply saying, “you won’t believe me anyway so I won’t show you my invisible friend” (or whatever), is NOT a valid argument.

Bring out the secret evidence and convince people.

You are NOT likely to convince me, but you can present a case that might appeal to those who read these threads searching for answers to their personal questions regarding spirituality.

If you have a credible message, present it to those who are here in search of answers. Presenting a weak and defensive “prove me wrong” position is not likely to be convincing to any but the choir.

I address the thinking reader – and couldn’t care less what you choose to believe or defend.

Those who wish to address their comments to non-thinking-readers, perhaps with hopes to convert them to Non-Thinking-Theists, are certainly welcome to present their case. I will continue to point out the lack of evidence to support claims.

In other words, a person should not tell me “goddidit” unless they are prepared to verify the existence and actions of gods.

One shouldn't tell anyone "goddidntdoit" unless they are sure "goddidntdoit".

Absolutely correct. It works both ways.

Notice that I do NOT say “goddidntdoit” -- but DO say that NO evidence has been provided to suggest that any of the thousands of “gods” worshiped, feared and/or loved by humans can be shown to have DONE anything.

Claims are common. Evidence is missing.

Anyone is entitled to think that gods did whatever – but they are NOT entitled to claim that as a fact (or, in my opinion, to ethically claim “goddidit” with certainty to another person).

How about claiming "goddidntdoit" as a fact?

When you encounter that stated as a fact you should challenge the statement – just as I challenge “goddidit”.

I maintain that looking at ANY event as a “message from god” PREVENTS us from searching for the real significance of the event and its causative or influencing factors AND its real effects.

Are you now publicly claiming "goddidntdoit" as a fact or is this merely an opinion?

I do not and have not made any such claims, fact or opinion.

When people state that their favorite gods did something, I simply ask them publicly to show that what they say is true. They stammer and stutter, quote scripture, offer excuses, give opinions and supply NO evidence. Asking for indication of truth is evidently not allowed in Non-Thinking-Theology.

That approach has never failed. NO evidence has ever been supplied – only hearsay and conjecture.

Lack of evidence is enough to convince many people that gods are imaginary creations “in the image of man”, used to “explain” the unknown and to assuage fear of death (and to provide income and influence for self-appointed “god representatives”).

For a “common sense” discussion of what happens to a body after death, see my recent post in the Head to Head sub-forum thread regarding the “resurrection”

I also would direct everyone to this thread. It show why it is important to establish a consistent methodology in studying ancient history, to rid us or expose the bias we my knowingly or unknowingly bring with us to a debate.

If one intends to study ancient history I encourage them to do exactly that STUDY HISTORY.

When one attempts to USE history to support a religious belief, they are NOT “studying history”, they are promoting theology.

It is no different from the theological “argument” against geology or biology or archeology, etc. Theological study is NOT study of any of the natural sciences OR history and a theology degree does NOT equip one to understand science or history.

[Fisherking]

You seem to have taken a position opposed to “Thinking Theists” – those members of this forum (particularly) who present reasoned and rational positions and/or debate.

Thinking Theist-- Theists that agrees with non-theists. The non-theist believes every statement that supports their non-theist posistion is reasoned and rational statement........

I encourage you to identify those terrible people and to condemn them as they deserve.

Why would you encourage such a thing? That doesn't seem like a noble encouragement.

What right have they to think AND to agree with a <shudder> Non-Theist? It is good to know that there are still some self-righteous Non-Thinking Theists to defend the faith.

This is a great example of a non-theist defining a "thinking theist" as I have above. The non-thinking theist is the theist that disagrees with you....isn't that interesting.

The theist that agree with the non-theist on almost every issue are certainly to be accepted by non-theists. The motive of many of the "thinking" theists (those that agree with the non-theists) are to appease the non-theist.

Are you POSITIVE that you know the motives of “the Thinking Theists”? Such statements expose a lack of credibility.

I am positive that I know the motives of many theist you consider "thinking" (because they agree with your posistions). I fail to see how this statement would expose some lack of credibility on my part (wishful thinking maybe?).

Does Thinking Theism threaten the more traditional (Non-Thinking?) Theism and beliefs?

If you are asking if we should mix Christian philosophy with atheism, my answer would be no.

Will you accept as true other gods that are supported by evidence similar to what you present for your favorite gods? Books and testimonials favoring one god should be just as acceptable as books and testimonials supporting any other god.

That would depend on the testimonials, books, and authors (and ultimately the god).

The non-theist also only has opinion and conjecture to rely upon because there is "NO EVIDENCE" to support such a belief, correct?

There is NO SUCH BELIEF as Non-Theism. Notice carefully that it is NON-belief. One must be really scraping for “arguments” if they insist that Non-Belief is Belief – but then that position probably fits with Alice in Wonderland thinking.

I realize this is a very difficult concept for Non-Thinking-Theists; however, I trust that Thinking Readers have no difficulty understanding that non-belief is not belief.

You can choose to “believe in” any of the thousands of gods, or some of them, or all of them, or none of them. There is NO EVIDENCE to support any such decision.

I am merely asking you if you actually believe what you said. Feel free to retract this statement if you do not believe it.

Does one require evidence to NOT believe in Santa Claus? As a child I realized that the claims that Santa existed were not likely to be true. I simply did not believe claims that reindeer could fly or that the fat man went down chimneys. I didn’t need to prove that Santa didn’t exist. Those who claimed he did had the burden of proof. I understood that as a child. Many adults seem to have difficulty with the concept.

I don't know of any adults that believe in Santa Clause, do you?

I also did not believe claims (presented with no evidence) that a dead body came back to life, that the Earth was flooded to the tops of mountains, that wise men followed a star, that a virgin gave to a godman, that a person lived for three days in the belly of a fish, that someone walked on water, etc.

It is the LACK of evidence that any of these stories are true ...

Nah, it would be a refusal to acknowledge the evidence for these things. Most non-believers like to conveniently fall back to "there is no evidence". It reminds me of a toddler turning his face away from the mashed peas he doesn't like the taste of. The peas are still there whether one likes the taste of them or not.

Experiencing God is very real to those that have experienced God. If someone cannot demonstrate to others that their experience with God is real, it in no way negates the truth of their experience. Are you aware of any evidence (not opinion or conjecture) that divine guidance is not real?

A personal experience with “gods” is PERSONAL and individual. Such personal experiences are very difficult or impossible to convey convincingly to others. So, what is the point in trying to convince others of personal “god experiences”?

The motive to convince others varies from person to person I'm sure. For me personally, I am not here to convince someone who has never experienced God(I agree it is probably impossible). I tend to defend and support those that have claimed to experience God from the attacks of those that have not experienced God. Someone's God experience is "personal" until they tell someone, then it isn't. Everything is personal until we make it public. I am not aware of a law against it (in the US) yet.

Are you claiming that one must “believe” in order to be influenced by gods?

If God is omniscient, omnipotent, ect. (which I believe Him to be) one cannot escape his influence.

Or, do you take the position that only those who claim to HAVE been influenced by gods are qualified to speak honestly?

I think everyone is influenced by God and I think everyone is qualified to speak honestly (if they so choose).

If you can say you have been influenced, how can you deny the same right to others?

I didn't know I had.

More important, how can you demonstrate to others that such influence occurred?

One would have to see the "before picture" and compare it to the "after picture".

All children are indoctrinated by their parents (non-theist indoctrinate theirs too).

Kindly document the claim that ALL non-theist parents indoctrinate their children or acknowledge that it is a false statement.
Credibility? If one makes false statements about simple things, they are likely to make false statements about other things

I would suggest reading the sentence again. I'm sure it was an honest mistake on your part.

But, there is NO assurance that “whatever happens” is influenced by invisible super beings. Those who preach such things CANNOT demonstrate that gods interfere with human lives. No matter how intelligent, wise and thoughtful the person, they CANNOT demonstrate that ANYTHING that happens in life is influenced by gods. The very best they can do is to make the claim “goddidit” and demand that others “prove my theories wrong”. Goddidit works in religious thinking or in church but does not work in debate with those who do not accept the same beliefs.

That is an EXCUSE for not supplying evidence to support claims that gods exist.

It was simple a statement of fact. The evidence and facts are everywhere and do not cease to exist because they do not fit into our worldview. Saying they do not exist is delusional.

Simply saying, “you won’t believe me anyway so I won’t show you my invisible friend” (or whatever), is NOT a valid argument.

How would I be able to "show you" something that is invisible?

You are NOT likely to convince me, but you can present a case that might appeal to those who read these threads searching for answers to their personal questions regarding spirituality.

Fair enough.

Notice that I do NOT say “goddidntdoit” -- but DO say that NO evidence has been provided to suggest that any of the thousands of “gods” worshiped, feared and/or loved by humans can be shown to have DONE anything.

Claims are common. Evidence is missing.

I think the magic trick has been thouroughly exposed for what it is by now. The evidence isn't missing --- it is ignored.

[Zzyzx]

.

Notice that I do NOT say “goddidntdoit” -- but DO say that NO evidence has been provided to suggest that any of the thousands of “gods” worshiped, feared and/or loved by humans can be shown to have DONE anything.

Claims are common. Evidence is missing.

I think the magic trick has been thouroughly exposed for what it is by now. The evidence isn't missing --- it is ignored.

Present the evidence for all to consider.

[Confused]

I have posted what I think is the single most important issue to debate.

To me, the second most important issue is this. If there is a God, how do I determine what God requires of me? If your answer involves something that is from human agency, a book or an organization, then the question remains, "How do I know that the book's authors or the organization's leaders authoritatively speak for God?"

How do I determine what God requires of me?

There are some things that can only between man and his maker. -Ghandi

If you search deep enough, perhaps it can be made clear to you.