Why no straight answers?

[Zzyzx]

.
After eight years debating here I have YET to encounter a defender of fundamentalism / literalism / traditionalism (or the Bible in general) who will openly, accurately, honestly answer fundamental questions about Christian beliefs " including the following (with truthful answers in bold font)

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that:

Jesus was anything more than human? None

Humans possess a soul? None

An afterlife exists? None

Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred? None

Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described? None

God intercedes in human affairs or life events? None

Bible writers were actually inspired by God? None



Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting the basic beliefs of Christianity must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it" and that doing so is not a rational basis for making decisions on matters of importance?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 409 by Erexsaur]

It is obvious that massive deviation from Gods original purpose for man is prevalent around us. Is there any other way to describe human nature other than as fallen?

When arguing with an atheist skeptic, the most useless thing you can say to him is to say that some core point of your theology is "obvious".
No it is not obvious that we have 'deviated from God's original purpose". At least not to me. There are plenty of ways to describe human nature without having to presuppose your theology.

If my theology happens to be true, why not believe it?

It's not enough for me for something is 'true'. It has to be SHOWN to be true. There has to be evidence showing it. What if the answer to the math problem is 65? Okay...what math problem? What sum am I talking about? How do I know the answer is 65? What reason do you have to believe me that the answer is 65? It's not enough for me to say it's obvious the answer is 65, I have to show you the sum and show you how I arrived at the answer of 65.

I speak not from conclusions of myself or of mere men, but from what was revealed

Why should I believe that that 2nd Peter quote is anything BUT the conclusion of a mere man? Here's a quote from Bovine Leavings Chapter 2 Verse 6 - "Everything in this book is true, you have to take our word for it, yes even that bit where we say that God appeared as a naked woman and had her way with her followers."
You've literally just used the Bible as evidence for what the Bible claims. Instead of showing from some other piece of evidence that the Bible authors did see what they wrote, you just used what the Bible authors wrote and that alone.

One cannot be hoodwinked into a restored relationship with the One that gave us our rights.

Note that this line can be said by any person about any figure they claim to be God. This line is not the monopoly of Christians. This line can be said about any other figure claimed to be god and it would still make as much sense.

I only know that God gave us life and breath. Is there anyone known thats able to do better? Why doubt that God is faithful? Dont you want to know Him as such? Im certainly glad I do!

I'm seeing the problem here. You're taking things as foregone obvious conclusions and can't actually show them to be true. You lack that ability. You're reduced to berating those of us who don't believe.

What false dichotomy or logical fallacy? Arent you familiar with the DOI? God is real and theres no other! Is it possible for there to be more than one creator of the order around us that gave us life and liberty? Is there any other giver of natural and moral law? Have you even expressed any other?

Even when I outline what the fallacy is that you are committing...you still try to pretend that there is none?

The Russian general I spoke of is General Vycheslav Borisov that commanded 100,000 troops during Russias war with Afghanistan. A summary of the story I spoke of is on the following link:

Holy! Some actual data to go on! The Russian general is named! A link is given! I...I have to sit down, this is completely unexpected.
As I expected, no evidence is actually given to show that a god of whatever name was actually involved in saving Borisov. Of course, the problem of why God apparently intervent with Borisov and not everyone else is not addressed. Nor of course do you think about all the other stories where someone survives an accident or a disaster but praises some other god. What about a Hindu who survives something and praises Shiva or Ganesha and walks around in public praising them?

But you must first walk on the beam trusting the wind as I suggested.

That's funny, I don't recall making any claims of being able to walk 50 stories up on a steel beam and trusting only the wind. No, such an action is stupid and dangerous. If ever I was to be up so high, I'd use plenty of safety equipment. I do recall you however, making a similar claim except saying you trust God versus the wind.

One has to lie or steal only once to find an example of himself in the Bible.

Nope.

Are you saying that you never lied or stole? Are you sure you fully understand the story behind the events in the Bible that cause you to criticize it?

Are you equating lying and theft with massacres? That's what you did before. As for understanding the stories...yes I understand the stories. Do you?

If God revealed your little secrets to another, the other would have to be a minister to warn you about something you need to straighten out

What reason has God to reveal it to me?

Because I am, in your eyes, an atheist skeptic who has lost his way and needs to get back to God. God showing himself by doing something that only a supernatural agent could do would get me started on that.

Even though sure Im talking to a person by talking to you, maybe I should choose to believe that Im not talking to a person but instead a robot!

Here you get started on an analogy that quite simply does not work. To this day, robots lack the ability to engage in discussions like this. You obviously have never been given any indication that robots possess this ability. The only agents that you know and believe to possess this ability are humans, so by default you must think I'm a human.

Will you please give me $10,000 so that I would have reason to fear having a sense of accountability toward you and refuse?

Again your analogy fails. Why would I, should I prove to be a human, automatically have $10,000 lying about and be willing to give it to you? Whereas, should you actually be in communication with an all knowing God, that God would HAVE to, by definition, know what is on my sheet of paper.
I don't have $10,000. I have never once claimed to have that kind of money (in seriousness anyway, there have been a couple occassions where I have said so but only to make a point). You on the other hand claim to have an all knowing God at your back.

[KenRU]

[Replying to KenRU]

Guys, please forgive me for the long absence.

For you, Zzyxz

But you know now that Jesus died for you simply because it was declared to you. Take it or leave it. Is anyone of us too smart to hear His message of magnificent hope because of the baseness of its sound?

Thank you for the dictionary definition of the word, skeptic that's more complete than the one I shared (while laughing within).

You said,
A person who has developed ability to use reasoning, judgment, discernment decides what information to accept. Such people realize that not all offers of "new knowledge" (or information) are accurate and truthful.

Thank you. Your speech is in line with the warnings of Jude 4 and 10, 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21, 1 John 4:1. Also remember Thomas in St. John 20:26-29.
I trust that you know what and what not to accept.

I also trust that you are thinking on the things I shared with you. As Jesus said to Peter, I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers (Luke 22:32). But please include me also. I will be more than happy to hear your increased wisdom because of your age seniority. I'm 72.


For you, Rikuoamero and KenRU

Is your desire for proof sufficient to allow God to prove Himself?

I assume this is rhetorical, or will you believe me when I tell you my desire to believe was very real for a quite a while.

He awaits you.

So you say, despite being unable to offer proof of his existence.

I thought that one example of evidence is simply a word passed to you. I listened to a Russian general that once hated Christians speak in person about the time that found himself asking God to prove Himself (God) after finding himself (the general) a passenger in a falling helicopter. The fact that he survived is itself a miracle. We are informed of the commandment to trust and believe the words of Jesus.

Any reason to believe those words, and not those of any other religion?

Even though biblically given details of Jesus' natural life is minimal, isn't the important things we know of Him is His unique supernatural contributions to humanity that no other human is capable of?

As are the stories told in all other holy books. Should I give them equal credence? If not, why?

Don't you remember John 1:1-18? Please particularly note verse 14. What about the scriptures that tell us that the natural mind cannot receive things of the spiritual mind (1 Corinthians 2:14)? Didn't Jesus tell Nicodemus, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:1-21).

How convenient. You either can't fully comprehend, or you have to believe in order to believe.

I'm not a fan of circular logic.

Perhaps the reason that God is so often seen as a myth is that it's so easy to see Him in a way that badly distorts His true character.

How am I distorting his true character when I point out that only a vile villain would flood the entire earth and kill every living thing (innocent and guilty - including kittens, puppies and babies)?

No distortion necessary. The action speaks for itself.

I too am happy that God according to such views doesn't exists!

Perhaps a more critical eye is required before you can say this?

God is not a hard taskmaster that loves to threaten with hell. He is instead our friend that knows that we are all broken and imperfect and is thus merciful, compassionate, and inviting in character.

Except when he throws a temper tantrum and kills 99.9% of all living things. That is, of course, if you believe the OT.

You may have heard this a thousand times but I yet say it again. I remember times when I saw Him the way I saw people that were supposedly holy but instead obnoxious. Even though God promises that seekers of Him will find, who would want to seek Him as if obnoxious?

Or if he were prone to destroy life in a fit of rage. Oh wait, he did that, and a whole host of other atrocious things.

You said,
As for your point about God wasting our lives...how many times have we been told, by you and others, that this God wants to have a relationship with us, to know us and to talk to us, and to guide us? Well...that hasn't happened in my case. Nor in Z's case. I can't remember if Z said he was a believer, but I was for years. I asked and begged and pleaded, but nothing ever happened.

This wasn't said by me, but I was a believer for 20+ years.

I know nothing of what hindered you. I only know that once whatever obatacle is laid aside and confessed, He will speak. I had my struggles and still have them. I know of too many that are still believers of which I tend to doubt whether or not they know God according to His true character. .

Again, how convenient. Quite frankly, you have no basis (aside from the need to conveniently explain the contradiction) to say that I (or anyone else for that matter) had a fault or obstacle that prevented me/us from hearing or feeling god.

You can either accept my word that I was an honest believer or not. But no obstacle originated from me.

As for who you followed and how you went about in your effort to seek and serve God I cannot say. But may I please personally assure you that there's never a single reason for anyone to give up on God or the gospel?

One can only knock on a door for so long before you MUST come to the conclusion that nobody is home.

Was God seen and known according to impressions of people or according His pure character of abundant grace and mercy? Let's never think in our heart that God broke His promises to the seeker.

I did not say that I don't want to talk to skeptics. But what's wrong with my complimenting you by saying that I trust you as a hearer? I thought that a view of you as trustworthy is honorable. Isn't it?

I don't follow you here. Please explain what you mean.

All the best,

(and sorry for the long delay in my response)

As for you, KenRU. is it not possible for many to falsely claim the Bible untrue? For me, they are too late.

Sure, just as it is possible for people to falsely claim the bible is true. Let's let the evidence prove which is which.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

Hello Rikuoamero,

You said,

"When arguing with an atheist skeptic, the most useless thing you can say to him is to say that some core point of your theology is "obvious".
No it is not obvious that we have 'deviated from God's original purpose". At least not to me. There are plenty of ways to describe human nature without having to presuppose your theology. "

I spoke neither of "my" theology nor of any of yours or anyone's, but of the theology that's settled by the Source of our human rights that you and I appreciate. We do at least know that the chaos around us is obvious. Whether or not we believe Biblical authority or not does not determine its reality, but instead directs or misdirects our major decisions. Skepticism makes truth appear untrue only to the skeptic, not to reality. It is thus essential to the individual that he trusts the Word of God as final authority because it is the final authority. No other religion has a savior. Scripture itself warns us of the danger of falling for false (or "alternative") doctrines and false gods.

If I had left out Biblical references from my statement about human nature, I would have told you nothing and would have done you a great disservice. Truth (that is the real truth) should never be held back. Personal proof of God's truth is only attainable by the individual for himself in his quest for fellowship with God. No one can do it for him. Neither can he be fished into believing that God is real. Only God is able to fill the personal vacuum in each of us if we only accept Him.

I cannot and will not see you as a skeptic as I speak to you because I trust you as a hearer of knowledge, not a rejecter of it. What's the need for my trying to appease anyone by holding back knowledge? Go ahead and kick.

If you are disillusioned with the unique Foundation of Biblical morality, your ally that yet remains waiting for you is persistence. Quitters never win and winners never quit.

You know that I can only assure you that all that I shared with you is proven fact beyond mere theology and that I have no intention to mislead you. Whether you trust and believe or not is up to you. You have discernment to separate good from bad.

Concerning your answer-of-65 example: If I gave you answers that require a search for how they were arrived at, info is available for you if you want it. .

The only favor I ask of you is to please be at peace. God's call to us is heard only in the quietness of peace. I have for you below scripture that I will give you only because I refuse see you as a skeptic. You are not a person that makes it impossible for himself to be comforted:

"And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus (Titus 4:7)."

Won't you at least accept my humor? Even though robots were never proven intelligent, that does not mean that I can't use them as a silly excuse for not wanting to believe that you are a person as in my example. Besides, I persists in begging for $10,000 from you! Gimmie! Gimmie! Gimmie! Some underground figure will make you cough it up.

Earl

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 412 by Erexsaur]

but of the theology that's settled by the Source of our human rights that you and I appreciate.

I don't accept this. Please do not say what it is I do and do not accept, or believe.

We do at least know that the chaos around us is obvious.

Do not include me in this. I cannot agree with this statement because you have not defined the word chaos. I have a meaning for that word, but I'm not sure you share that meaning.

Skepticism makes truth appear untrue only to the skeptic, not to reality.

Skepticism, at it's most basic, merely means wanting to make sure of a claim. I'd love to know how being careful of accepting someone's claim somehow makes truth appear untrue.

It is thus essential to the individual that he trusts the Word of God as final authority because it is the final authority.

Mere assertion, with no evidence to back this up, so I'm going to ignore it.

No other religion has a savior.

So what? Religions don't need saviours to be true. I also challenge you to prove this statement. Investigate every other religion and I do mean all of them, and then tell me whether or not none of them have saviours.
You did just make the claim. You could have worded it like "to my knowledge, only Christianity has a saviour", but no, you made the distinct claim that NO OTHER religion does. So I challenge the claim. Provide evidence.

Scripture itself warns us of the danger of falling for false (or "alternative") doctrines and false gods.

Yeah, it also warns us that these false gods and false prophets will do the exact same things as the 'real' god. So go figure.

Personal proof of God's truth is only attainable by the individual for himself in his quest for fellowship with God. No one can do it for him. Neither can he be fished into believing that God is real. Only God is able to fill the personal vacuum in each of us if we only accept Him.

Given that I sought God for years, and had in fact accepted him (or thought I had), and given that in all the time that I had sought God there was no filling of a vacuum...I have to call bovine faeces on this. Either there is no god or there is and he just doesn't want anything to do with me. I prefer to go with the no god option, it fits in with Occam's Razor.

I cannot and will not see you as a skeptic as I speak to you because I trust you as a hearer of knowledge, not a rejecter of it.

Skeptics do not reject knowledge. Skeptics are careful people, who don't rush headlong in to believing any claim that anyone makes. I am being careful, so therefore I am a skeptic. If you don't want to think of me as such, then fine. Not like I can force you. I'll just say you're wrong for doing so.

If you are disillusioned with the unique Foundation of Biblical morality,

The Bible and its morality is hardly unique.

You know that I can only assure you that all that I shared with you is proven fact beyond mere theology and that I have no intention to mislead you.

I agree with this sentence but not for the same reasons as you. I know that you only want to assure me of something, but I do not agree that that thing is true.

The only favor I ask of you is to please be at peace. God's call to us is heard only in the quietness of peace.

Have to remind you yet again, I've been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt. No results indicating a god. No dial tone when I ring the phone number. No reply when I sent the email. Have I used enough analogies to help you understand?

Won't you at least accept my humor?

That's an odd question. Do you mean to ask whether I think you're funny? If so, no, I don't.

Even though robots were never proven intelligent, that does not mean that I can't use them as a silly excuse for not wanting to believe that you are a person as in my example.

At least you admit it was silly and not actually germane to our discussion.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

Hello KenRu and Rikuoamero,

Both or you have communicated that after years of life as a believer, you are discouraged to the point of total loss of confidence in God. Is that really true? I will play my part as a skeptic here. Are you happy now that I am speaking skepticism? If God really failed you why are you still breathing?

To Riku:
It's up to you to trust or dismiss the claims of the gospel. Choices have consequences. I'm in the "Nuff said" position now. Go your way and remember that Mr. Reality's eyes are on you and is holding your hand. Argue with him!


To Ken:

About Weinberg's remark,

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg

Weinberg failed to distinguish between good and bad religion. The subject of religion is very broad to the point that everyone lives by some form of it or the other. Even he that claims to have no religion lives by the religion of no religion. Atheists supposedly do good things in their eyes as they are influenced by the religion of atheism. The same is true with humanism.

Even good religion has its share of bad actors. Jesus was crucified by the religious leaders of his day even though Jesus warned them that if they truly conformed to the Law of Moses, they would have known Him instead of wanting to kill Him. Does the definition of religion suggest insult to humanity? I would prefer to say that people do evil things because of the tangent of religious error. If all religion is bad, does that make irreligion good?

How did you expect Jesus to prove Himself? I only know that He has overwhelmingly proven Himself to me speedily and in a timely fashion and I'm glad I didn't depend of fallible man for that proof. But we must first come to His terms. Have you? If yes who or what drew you away?

You said,
"Except when he throws a temper tantrum and kills 99.9% of all living things. That is, of course, if you believe the OT. "

Why didn't "tantrum prone" God knock you and me out of the picture? Here is the implication I receive from your statement: If someone murders your dearest loved one, you would think that God would have a temper tantrum and that you would become angry at "tantrum prone" God because the murderer was punished.

If you painstakingly build a machine and if I tore it up, you would become angry because I did you evil and that you would have me running for fear of your temper tantrum. But if you tore up the machine you built because it didn't meet your expectations, should you be counted as evil? It was your machine, wasn't it? Should God be judged as evil because He judged evil?

Jesus said to the woman at the well, "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him (John 4:23)." By what spirit and what "truth" did you came to the conclusion that God is evil when He judged the world that was saturated with evil behavior? Weren't they warned and given a lot of time? I thought that temper tantrums occur suddenly without warning.

Where did you find wisdom even to judge God as evil? If you don't believe the OT, how is it possible to believe the NT that's based on the OT? Where else do you find divine assurance that evil is punished? Is the abundance of wisdom found in the OT worthy to be discarded? Where did good come from if God is bad? Please answer according to your many years familiarity with the Bible.

To Both of you:
Who or what enticed you out of the Door during the many years you say you spent as a believer? How much time have you spent with the Person (Christ) Himself on top of the religion? Have you known Him? You wouldn't have arrived at your bad conclusions about God if you truly knew Him.

God out of His goodness invested much good unique potential in you that awaits development. But He also tries patience. The moments of greatest discouragement are those that determine ones true colors. Quitters never win. God may by choice be seen either as the One He claims to be or as 100% fake. Choices have consequences.

You guys may call yourselves turned off with God as you make it appear but neither God nor I have given you up. Yall ain't giving up the gospel! Are you angry at my telling yall what and what not? There are times in my life that I wish someone had done the same before I made certain decisions of which I later became sorry. Only the deceived is easily talked into giving up a 100 caret well-polished diamond for nothing.

Take care,
Earl

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 414 by Erexsaur]

Is that really true? I will play my part as a skeptic here.

Why is it you think you have to ask? Is it because of Romans 1? Either way, I'll say it plainly.
I do not believe a god exists. I have never encountered good enough evidence to make me think a god exists. The best I have come across are various people throughout history making claims about gods, demons, spirits, the supernatural, but never with any consistency, and oftentimes contradicting one another.
I ask why is it you only act as a skeptic in regards to my stance on the god issue, but not on your own stance on the god issue?

Are you happy now that I am speaking skepticism?

Speaking skepticism? It's not a language one learns. It's simply not believing a claim on its face. I see you still have a lot to learn.

If God really failed you why are you still breathing?

This is a malformed question, in that you assume that in order for me to breathe, I somehow need this God thing. I don't, not as far as I'm able to determine. Plenty of people are able to breathe without once thinking about your god. If I ask how your heart is able to continue beating while you don't honour Ganesh, you'd think that a ridiculous question to be asked (at least I'd hope you would).
The same applies here.

It's up to you to trust or dismiss the claims of the gospel.

To which I respond, it's up to those who promote the claims of the gospel to provide the evidence in support of said claims. To date, that has never happened.
It's not enough that I read the gospels. I need evidence to support their various claims, such as a body three days dead suddenly getting up, walking out of a tomb and then flying away.

Choices have consequences.

Is this a lame attempt at Pascal's Wager?

I'm in the "Nuff said" position now.

So you have nothing to offer to support the claims of the gospel? Colour me surprised.

Go your way and remember that Mr. Reality's eyes are on you and is holding your hand.

Who is Mr. Reality? Your pet name for God?

Argue with him!

How? Look at it from my perspective. I don't believe your god exists. You might as well have told me to argue with your imaginary friend, which is something impossible to do. That's what it looks like in my eyes.

Even he that claims to have no religion lives by the religion of no religion.

If I don't play any sports, am I still an athlete/sportsman? If yes, you sir quite frankly are an idiot. If no, then this means that your claim of no religion still being a religion falls apart.

Atheists supposedly do good things in their eyes as they are influenced by the religion of atheism.

Tell us about this religion of atheism, its creeds, dogmas, ranks of clergy if any. I'd like to know about such things, being an atheist. Who is the Pope of atheism?
Note that I ask these things knowing that you will fail, because atheism is not a religion. It is nothing like Christianity, Islam or Buddhism. At its most simplest, it is a response to a claim.
-Do you believe in a god or gods?
-No
-Congratulations, you're an atheist.

esus was crucified by the religious leaders of his day even though Jesus warned them that if they truly conformed to the Law of Moses, they would have known Him instead of wanting to kill Him.

I thought the crucifixion was an integral component of your god's plan, that it was necessary to accomplish some greater good. If so, why the warning, this exhortation to the religious leaders not to do it?

How did you expect Jesus to prove Himself?

I honestly haven't got a friggin' clue, but if he really is divine, if he really does know and understand infinitely better than I, a mere human, he'd know how to do it. And more importantly, he'd have done it already.

I only know that He has overwhelmingly proven Himself to me speedily and in a timely fashion and I'm glad I didn't depend of fallible man for that proof.

Congratu-well-done. I don't believe this claim, because you don't provide evidence to support it.

But we must first come to His terms.

The ones making the big claims must always provide the evidence to support them. There are no exceptions to this.

If yes who or what drew you away?

Malformed question. This presupposes that I accept there is a Jesus there and that we simply 'broke up'.
No, I didn't get drawn away, because there is nothing to draw me away from. This question is like asking "Why did you leave Atlantis?" It's a stupid question because Atlantis is a made up place. I couldn't have left it.

Why didn't "tantrum prone" God knock you and me out of the picture?

Ask the authors of the Noah's flood story. Ask them why their story doesn't make a lick of sense.

If you painstakingly build a machine and if I tore it up, you would become angry because I did you evil and that you would have me running for fear of your temper tantrum. But if you tore up the machine you built because it didn't meet your expectations, should you be counted as evil? It was your machine, wasn't it? Should God be judged as evil because He judged evil?

It's a good thing isn't it, that you are trying to compare living breathing thinking humans...to machines that someone builds. Your analogy fails completely.

Weren't they warned and given a lot of time? I thought that temper tantrums occur suddenly without warning.

Sounds like a certain someone is very unfamiliar with his own holy texts. I remember plenty of times in the OT where God lashes out suddenly, without warning and kills thousands. The Noah's Flood story for one does not list at all any kind of warning by God to the people who are about to be drowned.

Where did you find wisdom even to judge God as evil?

When I realized I was able to think and I learned that actions that cause harm with no benefit are evil. That those who kill many people simply for no real reason at all are evil. When I realized that evil people are those who don't want to be judged on their actions.

If you don't believe the OT, how is it possible to believe the NT that's based on the OT?

I don't believe Lord of the Rings is true either, yet I do believe that it is based on the earlier work The Hobbit.

Where else do you find divine assurance that evil is punished?

Other stories, other religions, they all by and large mention this. Do I believe it to be a thing that is true? Nope.

Is the abundance of wisdom found in the OT worthy to be discarded?

You'd have to give me an example of said wisdom, not just simply declare it to be there. Even if you give me some, why does it HAVE to be of divine origin?

Where did good come from if God is bad?

I don't know, and that is a very valid response.

Who or what enticed you out of the Door during the many years you say you spent as a believer?

There were many little things that all added up to me no longer being a believer, but by and large, the clearest thing was me at my confirmation, the bishop saying something along the lines of "you are all now filled with the Holy Spirit"...and me not feeling any different at all. That was the first time I truly began to question the religion.

How much time have you spent with the Person (Christ) Himself on top of the religion?

Since I don't believe that there is such a person at all, the obvious answer would have to be zero. It'd be like asking how long did I, a person born in the late 80's, spend with Elvis; obviously none, even if I had at one point believed I had.

Have you known Him?

See above

You wouldn't have arrived at your bad conclusions about God if you truly knew Him.

I like this smug self-assurance, as if you could not possibly be wrong.

God out of His goodness invested much good unique potential in you that awaits development.

So you claim, I don't believe you.

But He also tries patience.

So you claim, I don't believe you.

The moments of greatest discouragement are those that determine ones true colors.

I agree.

Quitters never win.

Not strictly true. Rather, they never did anything to ensure their victory.

God may by choice be seen either as the One He claims to be or as 100% fake. Choices have consequences.

This isn't strictly speaking a choice for me. It's where the evidence lies. I can't choose to believe in your god, when I don't have the evidence to support it.

You guys may call yourselves turned off with God as you make it appear

Do you honestly think I'm lying?

but neither God nor I have given you up.

So you claim, but I don't believe you.

Yall ain't giving up the gospel!

Now this is calling me a liar to my face. I demand an apology.

Are you angry at my telling yall what and what not?

I'm annoyed that you think you can simply declare what it is I believe and don't believe, as if I don't get a say in the matter, and here I thought you were promoting choice, what with you saying "choices have consequences"?
Are you going to take me at my word, when I say what it is I do and do not believe? Or is this a conversation between you and a made up version of me, one where I am obviously not needed?

[KenRU]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

Hello KenRu and Rikuoamero,

Both or you have communicated that after years of life as a believer, you are discouraged to the point of total loss of confidence in God.

I cant and wont speak for Rikuoamero. But no. A big fat honking no.

I cant lose confidence in a being I dont believe exists. Have you lost confidence in Santa Claus? Same thing for me and the god of the bible.

Is that really true? I will play my part as a skeptic here. Are you happy now that I am speaking skepticism?

Pretty sure skepticism is not a language, so Im not sure where you are going here.

If God really failed you why are you still breathing?

Non-existent creatures cant fail. Theyre non-existent.

To Ken:

About Weinberg's remark,

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg

Weinberg failed to distinguish between good and bad religion. The subject of religion is very broad to the point that everyone lives by some form of it or the other. Even he that claims to have no religion lives by the religion of no religion.

Please dont equate atheism and religion. They are not the same. Not in definition, not in practice and certainly not in any belief in a deity.

Atheists supposedly do good things in their eyes as they are influenced by the religion of atheism.

Holy cow, no. I do good things by CHOICE. For reasons anywhere from wanting to be treated the same way by others to empathy, compassion and benevolence. Why do you do good things?

Does the definition of religion suggest insult to humanity?

No, but the propensity is there with the practice of religion, as the quote suggests.

I would prefer to say that people do evil things because of the tangent of religious error.

Right, the bible doesnt say anything about stoning homosexuals. Because if it did, then it wouldnt be a tangent of religious error.

Oh wait, the bible does say that.

If all religion is bad, does that make irreligion good?

Irreligion? You are going to have to define your use of the word here for me.

But, no, it does not mean that atheism is automatically good. Nope, I dont believe that. But the absence of religion does remove many causes for man to hate man.

How did you expect Jesus to prove Himself? I only know that He has overwhelmingly proven Himself to me speedily and in a timely fashion and I'm glad I didn't depend of fallible man for that proof.

I assume you had some personal experience that causes you to believe in god and Christ. That personal experience never happened for me. The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike, as the saying goes.

But we must first come to His terms. Have you? If yes who or what drew you away?

I was brought up Catholic, I went to church, made my sacraments, and was a believer. But as I grew older, things made less and less sense. No personal revelation, and as I sought answers, I found them, but not in the bible. Through education and knowledge.

God became less and less necessary for the answers I sought.

You said,
"Except when he throws a temper tantrum and kills 99.9% of all living things. That is, of course, if you believe the OT. "

Why didn't "tantrum prone" God knock you and me out of the picture?

Nice dodging of my point. If you believe in the god of the bible, then you believe that god threw a temper tantrum of global proportions and wiped out 99% of all life.

That is the work of a fictional villain. Not a benevolent deity.

And to answer your question, it is because he doesnt exist.

Here is the implication I receive from your statement: If someone murders your dearest loved one, you would think that God would have a temper tantrum and that you would become angry at "tantrum prone" God because the murderer was punished.

Fail. That is not the implication I was making at all. My point is that the god of the OT is not a benevolent one. Far from it.

If you painstakingly build a machine and if I tore it up, you would become angry because I did you evil and that you would have me running for fear of your temper tantrum.

But I wouldnt kill your family, nor would I kill puppies, babies and kittens.

Am I more moral than your god?

But if you tore up the machine you built because it didn't meet your expectations, should you be counted as evil?

I dont consider life on earth to be the equivalent of machine parts. Parts to be tossed aside and discarded when no longer needed.

Am I more moral than your god?

It was your machine, wasn't it? Should God be judged as evil because He judged evil?

If he destroyed the working ones as well as the non-working parts, he would at best be considered a poor mechanic, correct?

Not to mention the laughable analogy of equating machine parts to living people who suffer.

Really? God sees man as nothing more that cogs in a wheel?

Seems you are describing god just as villainous as I am.

Jesus said to the woman at the well, "But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him (John 4:23)." By what spirit and what "truth" did you came to the conclusion that God is evil when He judged the world that was saturated with evil behavior?

You still misunderstand. I dont think there is a god. However, the god portrayed in the bible, especially the OT, is absolutely villainous. If the OT were titled Harry Potter and you replaced the word god with Voldemort, my point is clearly made.

Weren't they warned and given a lot of time?

God warned the whole world? Where does it say that in the bible?

I thought that temper tantrums occur suddenly without warning.

So, it would be ok for god to kill all life on earth (babies, the innocents and even the adorable puppies and kittens) if he warned them?

I see this as wrong. Do you?

Where did you find wisdom even to judge God as evil?

My empathy for my fellow humans and my ability to read. Where do you find this wisdom?

If you don't believe the OT, how is it possible to believe the NT that's based on the OT?

Exactly! You are starting to see my point : )

Where else do you find divine assurance that evil is punished?

I would not look to find divine anything anywhere.

Is the abundance of wisdom found in the OT worthy to be discarded?

Wisdom can be found in many fictional books.

Where did good come from if God is bad?

Good and evil are subjective terms defined by man.

Please answer according to your many years familiarity with the Bible.

No, I will not be bound by your biblical definitions and philosophy. Sorry. Those are your handcuffs, not mine.

To Both of you:
Who or what enticed you out of the Door during the many years you say you spent as a believer?

Reason, empathy, knowledge, and the obvious intolerance religion has for science.

How much time have you spent with the Person (Christ) Himself on top of the religion?

20+ years

Have you known Him?

I was taught about him. I believed he was the son of god. I wore his necklace. Does that answer your question?

You wouldn't have arrived at your bad conclusions about God if you truly knew Him.

It is impossible to truly know a fictional character. If, as you say is true, that god exists, than it is up to you to explain why a believer such as myself, never had that personal revelation. I drew my own conclusion based upon all information available to me.

God out of His goodness invested much good unique potential in you that awaits development.

So you say.

But He also tries patience.

So you say.

The moments of greatest discouragement are those that determine ones true colors.

Agreed. Adversity builds character.

Quitters never win.

Agreed.

God may by choice be seen either as the One He claims to be or as 100% fake. Choices have consequences.

Agreed. I believe I won, having broken free of the shackles of superstition.

Choices do indeed have consequences.

You guys may call yourselves turned off with God as you make it appear but neither God nor I have given you up.

Is this a veiled assertion that I am not being honest? Please take me at my word. It doesnt appear any way at all. I do not believe in any god/magic/supernaturalism etc.

I am no more turned off by god than I am by Voldemort or Hans Gruber.

Yall ain't giving up the gospel! Are you angry at my telling yall what and what not?

Lol, no, this denial does not anger me. Does my disbelief anger you?

There are times in my life that I wish someone had done the same before I made certain decisions of which I later became sorry. Only the deceived is easily talked into giving up a 100 caret well-polished diamond for nothing.

And only a fool buys a 100 karat diamond without verifying its authenticity first.

I verify first when making big decisions (and even many small ones). Why dont you?


-all the best

[Masamune]

.
After eight years debating here I have YET to encounter a defender of fundamentalism / literalism / traditionalism (or the Bible in general) who will openly, accurately, honestly answer fundamental questions about Christian beliefs " including the following (with truthful answers in bold font)

What verifiable evidence exists (beyond Bible tales and claims, opinions, testimonials and speculation) to substantiate that:

Jesus was anything more than human? None

Humans possess a soul? None

An afterlife exists? None

Miracles described in Bible tales actually occurred? None

Any of the claimed events such as floods, earthquakes, darkening sky, star stopping, Earth ceasing rotation, etc occurred as described? None

God intercedes in human affairs or life events? None

Bible writers were actually inspired by God? None



Why no answers? Could it be refusal to admit that in the absence of verifiable information, accepting the basic beliefs of Christianity must be based on "Take my (or his) word for it" and that doing so is not a rational basis for making decisions on matters of importance?

I don't wish to ignore tons of pages of debate, but I want to answer the original post. I can give you a straight answer. The idea of religion argues that there are two ways to come to "truth". One is primarily through empiricism. This is science. The other is through emotion. This is religion. My view is that a person must possess a faith in both of these to be a balanced individual and that both have value in this world.

I CANNOT prove this, nor do I have any desire to. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove any aspect of religion. That is the straight answer you seek. The part where we differ is that I think the very fact that religion is unproven and yet people still have faith in it, is valuable, enriching and desirable. I can't prove this because my faith in Christianity is based on personal experience that you would find no value in, but that is quite significant to me. Religion is individual, just as our ultimate fates are.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 417 by Masamune]

Thank you for the straight-forward answer and reasoned discussion.

I don't wish to ignore tons of pages of debate, but I want to answer the original post. I can give you a straight answer. The idea of religion argues that there are two ways to come to "truth". One is primarily through empiricism. This is science. The other is through emotion. This is religion. My view is that a person must possess a faith in both of these to be a balanced individual and that both have value in this world.

I CANNOT prove this, nor do I have any desire to. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove any aspect of religion. That is the straight answer you seek. The part where we differ is that I think the very fact that religion is unproven and yet people still have faith in it, is valuable, enriching and desirable. I can't prove this because my faith in Christianity is based on personal experience that you would find no value in, but that is quite significant to me. Religion is individual, just as our ultimate fates are.

I do not disagree with or challenge what you say (except the "ultimate fate" bit).

Yes, religion is emotion, individual and not provable. It is desirable for some people (and not for others). Unfortunately, many who find religion desirable for them seem to be convinced that it is so (or should be) for others.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

Hello Rikuoamero,

Only one of our opposing views of the existence of God may be true. Knowledge (not personal opinion) reveals God to be true and puts opinions to rest. Don't you have standards to weigh people's claims?

By reading your post, I tend to wonder who mentored you in the gospel through the years you spent, and what kind of environment you were in.

Biblical doctrine properly expounded will never lead to adverse conclusions against God unless the hearer erroneously forces himself to them. I myself have too many times heard the gospel expounded in such a way that tend to distort it, rob it of its potency, rob people of their use of common sense and good judgment, rob them of the power of the cross, and thus drive people every which way including the way of atheism. I too have been adversely affected by such teachings.

If that happens to be your case, there's someone somewhere able to expound gospel truth in its proper context. I pray that you will find the right person or group. Please don't lose your trust. Not only should care be taken in expounding the gospel, but in presenting it in the right spirit (In peace and without grudges). The Bible warns us to turn away from false teachings that mislead.

Is the Biblical gospel similar to other religions? Is it any better? Unlike other religions laden only with insatiable demands, the Biblical gospel only demands trust and includes grace to empower the hearer to be at peace with God. He that's not familiar with the grace of God has never fully known the gospel.

You say, "It's not enough that (you) read the gospels?" You are correct! It needs your trust and must be properly understood and correctly acted upon. Proof of God's pure word follows your trust. Otherwise it shall come someday some way or the other. Only make sure it doesn't come too late to be acted upon.

The dictionary definition of religion is, "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience." Example: "to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

The above includes atheism. Even if not a deity, all religions have a god to serve. A god that's not a deity may be deified self, the deified state, or a "great, great" human leader that's deified.

Although the crucifixion was part of God's plan, it was to be carried out by sinful man that Jesus died for in His quest to conquer sin for us.

As for whatever you were waiting for from God and not having received after the years you spent as a believer, only you know. But what about things of value already given you that you may share with others in need? God graciously shows Himself in moments such as these. I have blessed others only to find God blessing me likewise even though I didn't realize my own need for it. God is not a person that threatens with hostility until appeased. That's not His nature. The cross appeased once and for all. Continue to look upon God as evil and rob yourself of rest only possible with Him and of appreciation of all that's good. Go ahead!

Aren't you aware of the power of the spoken word given you? That's power! You have the "say-so" to determine your or another's fate and are careful not to abuse it! That's why I rebuke you so strongly about your calling yourself a skeptic. Is skepticism the legacy you want to leave?

Be angry at my staying on your back. Although wise to filter what you hear, you're not over-wise to filter what you need to hear. Don't look upon me as a monkey on your back, but as a big ol ape instead!

If you want to refute everything I say, you must first show me a document that shows your official declaration that you are God. Then I well know that your refutations are correct because you know everything.

But go ahead and continue contradicting all I say and continue bragging about you claim of unbelief until you wear yourself out. Go ahead!


Oh! One more thing! Since you said that you don't know who Mr. Reality is, who shall I ask to introduce him to you? Maybe it's better to have a third party to do so before Mr. Reality introduces himself very, very rudely! Who shall I ask?

Take care,
Earl

I'll get to you later, Ken.