Okay, Let's Cut To The Chase!

[POI]

Dear Christians of all flavor(s),

I trust it is no surprise there exists a populous here, which lay claim to 'atheism', 'deism', or maybe other... In a nutshell, for me, this ultimately means I do not believe any such claimed Christian God exists - trying though as I might.... Which-is-to-mean, I was raised in a Christian house hold. However, after much study, I cannot get myself to belief such a claimed agent actually exists. Chalk it up, ultimately, to the topic of 'divine hiddenness' I guess...?

It is also evident there exists devout 'Christians' in this arena, of all flavors, who may feel they are 'fighting the good fight'; by defending their belief(s)/faith/rationale in the assertion of the existence to the "Christian God".

That being said, I am laying down the gauntlet, so-to-speak... Some here, as well as outside of here, are as sure as anything, that not only does God exist, but the Christian God! Well, I politely disagree. Meaning, I don't believe the "Christian based" assertion/claim.

I can't imagine this request will be anything new. Nor, can I imagine that I will encounter any new sort of enlightenment. But, being this is a rather large and important topic; I will continue to search, optimistically, that there exists some sort of 'concrete evidence(s)' to demonstrate that not only a God exists ---> but also the Christian God.

For Debate:

Please demonstrate the mere existence of the Christian God?

[brunumb]

Well the nature of the Christian God calls for faith to believe.

The nature of Tinkerbell and other fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, the supernatural and so on all call for faith to believe.

If Christianity is true then it is true that some will not believe, for the Christian God says some will not believe (like in the parable of the sower).

If Tinkerbell and other fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, the supernatural and so on are true, then it is true that some will not believe, regardless of who said it.

If So the fact that some dont believe supports Christianity being true...

The fact that some don't believe Tinkerbell and other fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, the supernatural and so on are true supports them being true....

Can't help but laugh about the last bit.

Can you provide evidence for this statement "The nature of Tinkerbell and other fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, the supernatural and so on all call for faith to believe."

That leprechauns call for faith to believe? Where does it call for faith to believe in Ghosts? Or tinkerbell?

Tinkerbell is from a fictional story. Fairies and leprechauns are fables, and ghost might be unexplainable phenomenon. I assume faith has nothing to do with any of them.

Bible God is from a fictional story too. You can have as much faith as you like, but that doesn't make the existence of God any more true than fairies or whatever.

[Shem Yoshi]

Well the nature of the Christian God calls for faith to believe.

The nature of Tinkerbell and other fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, the supernatural and so on all call for faith to believe.

If Christianity is true then it is true that some will not believe, for the Christian God says some will not believe (like in the parable of the sower).

If Tinkerbell and other fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, the supernatural and so on are true, then it is true that some will not believe, regardless of who said it.

If So the fact that some dont believe supports Christianity being true...

The fact that some don't believe Tinkerbell and other fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, the supernatural and so on are true supports them being true....

Can't help but laugh about the last bit.

Can you provide evidence for this statement "The nature of Tinkerbell and other fairies, leprechauns, ghosts, the supernatural and so on all call for faith to believe."

That leprechauns call for faith to believe? Where does it call for faith to believe in Ghosts? Or tinkerbell?

Tinkerbell is from a fictional story. Fairies and leprechauns are fables, and ghost might be unexplainable phenomenon. I assume faith has nothing to do with any of them.

Bible God is from a fictional story too. You can have as much faith as you like, but that doesn't make the existence of God any more true than fairies or whatever.

Some people think the earth is flat. You are entitled to your opinion.

[brunumb]

Some people think the earth is flat. You are entitled to your opinion.

Earth is demonstrably not flat. Some people think God is real. You are entitled to your opinion.

[Diagoras]

I firmly believe that God IS pure love. I believe that our task in this physical world is to learn to love selflessly so that we can be one with Him in a perfect love.

<snip>

I believe that it is only when we truly learn to selflessly love others that we are ready to encounter God whom I see as perfect love.

Seems there have been more than a few instances of people linking the concepts of love and divinity throughout history:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... st_deities

Feeling loved is found on the third level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Humans have evolved to be highly social creatures, so that’s no surprise. And when you talk of ‘selfless love’, it’s true that there are different types of love: the first crush is different from the altruistic love offered to a relative in palliative care for instance.

Pick any desirable human quality you like: power, good judgement, love, wisdom. People throughout history have ascribed these qualities to gods because of a belief that only a god can be ‘most powerful’, or most loving, etc. I’d argue that it’s a pattern of behaviour that doesn’t necessarily suggest any greater ‘maturity’ in thinking.

[JoeyKnothead]

By its very nature love must be shared, hence His reason to create. Love is best when it is shared so, yes, He would want us to return that love. But how could we learn to love while in the presence of God?

The same way you grow to love anyone while in their presence. Loving an absent God is like a teenager falling in love with a pop star through the poster on their wall. As intense as it might feel, it's not real love. It's infatuation based on wishful thinking.

It's still real to me, dang it!

[JoeyKnothead]

...
it might be that a spherical earth is the best explanation of the evidence, it might be that Jesus Resurrection is the best explanation of the evidence.

It might be that I'm Teddy Roosevelt.

"It might be" is a poor means of establishing truth.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #574]

Diagiras:"Seems there have been more than a few instances of people linking the concepts of love and divinity throughout history:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... st_deities

Feeling loved is found on the third level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Humans have evolved to be highly social creatures, so that’s no surprise. And when you talk of ‘selfless love’, it’s true that there are different types of love: the first crush is different from the altruistic love offered to a relative in palliative care for instance.

Pick any desirable human quality you like: power, good judgement, love, wisdom. People throughout history have ascribed these qualities to gods because of a belief that only a god can be ‘most powerful’, or most loving, etc. I’d argue that it’s a pattern of behaviour that doesn’t necessarily suggest any greater ‘maturity’ in thinking."

Obviously there are many different levels of love, and unfortunately what most people to mean when they talk about love is the lowest form of "love" which is sex which is most often essentially self love. It is unfortunate that many people enter a sexual relationship not thinking really at all about the other but just thinking about themselves. I talk about "pure selfless love" and then you link it to a site about lust gods. Sure it is true that you can pick any negative desire and you can find a ancient god linked to it. But we do not live in those places and times, do we? And we are not talking about ancient gods which few if any worship today but rather the one true God and the properties that He has been shown to possess. And this I know from my own personal experiences which, of course, means nothing to you. What you apparently fail to see is that NONE of those so-called gods are worshipped today except by people which we might call "depraved". Most of those thousands and thousands of god-centered religions that people worshipped in the past are gone and in their place remain mainly just Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism. All of which are centered on God as pure love. Why are these the only ones left? Because through time when people have found greater truth in a different religion than their own they switch. And that development through time is the "maturity of thinking" you should be talking about, not trying to compare modern religions to ancient ones..

[JoeyKnothead]

...
And we are not talking about ancient gods which few if any worship today but rather the one true God and the properties that He has been shown to possess. And this I know from my own personal experiences which, of course, means nothing to you. What you apparently fail to see is that NONE of those so-called gods are worshipped today except by people which we might call "depraved".

Maybe if those believers weren't wiped out by those who consider themselves believers in "The One True God(tm)", they'd be around today.

I find it quite insulting, intellectually and morally, when one bunch of religious zealots calls another bunch of religious zealots "depraved", when can't none in neither bunch put one iota of truth to their god claims.

Instead we get the typical insults and slanders, and threats of condemnation simply cause someone doesn't worship the same Tooth Fairy.

Your comment here is what is most depraved, that you think only you know "The One True God(tm)".

Your comment on the depravity of others sits there, steaming in the cold November air. It's just a shame we can't rub your nose in it.

...
Most of those thousands and thousands of god-centered religions that people worshipped in the past are gone and in their place remain mainly just Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism. All of which are centered on God as pure love. Why are these the only ones left? Because through time when people have found greater truth in a different religion than their own they switch. And that development through time is the "maturity of thinking" you should be talking about, not trying to compare modern religions to ancient ones..[/color]

So, have you stoned you a homosexual today? Have you sold everything you own in service to others? Have you lifted one finger, today to feed and shelter the less fortunate?

Or have you sat on your fourth point of contact, pontificating on the depravity of other religions that were most likely wiped out in wars of religious aggression, or through laws and such that prevented believers their right to believe?

"Depraved" is the idiot thinking he ain't guilty of the charge he so libelously tosses out against others.

Go sit on a turkey carcass.

[Diagoras]

Obviously there are many different levels of love, and unfortunately what most people to mean when they talk about love is the lowest form of "love" which is sex which is most often essentially self love.

<bolding mine>

Got a cite for that ‘most’?

It is unfortunate that many people enter a sexual relationship not thinking really at all about the other but just thinking about themselves.

I agree.

I talk about "pure selfless love" and then you link it to a site about lust gods.

Could this be a ‘no true love god’-type fallacy, I wonder…?

Sure it is true that you can pick any negative desire and you can find a (sic) ancient god linked to it.

You’ll be thrilled to hear I’m in agreement with you here.

But we do not live in those places and times, do we?

No, we don’t.

And we are not talking about ancient gods which few if any worship today but rather the one true God and the properties that He has been shown to possess.

<bolding mine>

Just highlighting the parts where you got a teensy bit ahead of providing any evidence for your claims.

And this I know from my own personal experiences which, of course, means nothing to you.

Well, I haven’t been given any details, so it’s kinda hard to find any meaning in such a vague statement.

What you apparently fail to see is that NONE of those so-called gods are worshipped today

Oh, I do see - and approve of the general declining belief in gods around the world.

except by people which we might call "depraved".

I suggest such broad-brush derogatory labelling is unproductive.

Most of those thousands and thousands of god-centered religions that people worshipped in the past are gone

We share the same level of unbelief in thousands and thousands of gods, then.

and in their place remain mainly just Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism. All of which are centered on God as pure love.

I’d like to see a case made for the Hindu pantheon as ‘centred on pure love’. You may be over-reaching again.

Why are these the only ones left?

Actually a great question, and worthy of its own debate. I don’t have a particular view at the moment but suspect there’s a lot of geopolitical factors in play.

Because through time when people have found greater truth in a different religion than their own they switch.

Isn’t there a possibility of accidentally switching to a ‘lesser truth’ - like, say, from Christianity to Islam?

And that development through time is the "maturity of thinking" you should be talking about, not trying to compare modern religions to ancient ones.

But Christianity is an ancient religion. It’s two thousand years old. Wouldn’t Mormonism therefore be ‘more mature’ in its thinking?

[Clownboat]

Wow. Well I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. I reject your notion that it is "indoctrination"; you reject my notion that it is "education".

I do not reject your notion. I showed it to be false.

Education shows us that horses don't fly. Indoctrinating children is what fosters such a belief. This is why you are wrong and I cannot therefore agree to disagree.
Look, nothing about talking donkeys, snakes, living in a fish for 3 days, sorcering up fishes and loaves of bread, walking on water or liquified corpses returning to life! Just a flying horse.
So you can call teaching children that horses can fly an education, but you will still be wrong.

Can you not refute my words? Is pretending to be a victim the best you can do?
Why is it to educate our children when Muslims tell them that a horse flew? Why is that not indoctrination? Would you argue that the children are accepting this belief critically? What about a belief that we should stone homosexuals? Do Muslims educate their children into such a belief?

in·doc·tri·na·tion
/inˌdäktrəˈnāSHən/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

ed·u·ca·tion
/ˌejəˈkāSH(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university.

Your close-mindedness leaves no room for the talking about the Divine whatsoever.

You still a victim? Tell me more about my close-mindedness and what that means for me please.

I also believe that this is the second or third time you have worked in an insult into your statements to me. That has no place in any forum that is supposed to be an intelligent discussion.

Pot, meet kettle... I cannot learn from you if you are going to pretend to be a victim and not debate how you feel it is Muslims providing an education and not indoctrination into believing in the flying horse or the stoning of homosexuals.

You also have brought up things from the Bible such as talking donkeys, and a person living in a fish which I have never mentioned.