For those who take offense at calling unbelief "irrational"

B00ger said:
Well, the concept of "going into the light" is in no way a Christian one. There is no mention of any "light" or however people describe in their experiences. I side with science on that one as they say it's the brain shutting down. Christians believe that to be absent from the body means being present with the Lord. There is no long transition period of people wandering around trying to decide where they are going to go. To a Christian, that decision is made prior to passing.

So, yes, we would disagree to the point that I don't believe that there is any form of post death choice that will be made. And while the Bible does describe hell as a lake of fire, it could just as easy be describing the torment of eternity outside the presence of God.
Click to expand...

noway2 said:
You just reminded me of something... @tanstaafl72555 will probably complain that we're getting interesting here and want a cold beverage :p

Many cultures in one way or another refer to "the light" and going into this light and it is something that we've heard about from those with near death experiences, etc. Assuming this is true, and I have no idea if it is or not, I have come to believe that it is the individual who will decide if they enter or not, not that they will be judged by an external force (this may be an area we agree based upon your previous post) and that deciding not to and being outside of this light would be what the definition of hell is.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with @B00ger , but I think that @noway2 has a very compelling analogy. Protestant Christian theology states that the decision to "choose to go into the light" is made on "this side" of the "light". In "this life", as it were, while some other faiths state that you can be prayed into heaven after death. Roman Catholicism, and Mormonism being two that I am aware of. And I'm not equating those two, as they are very different, but I do believe they share that belief.
 
Last edited:
fieldgrade said:
Why do you even post in this section of the forum? I don't understand it. You obviously aren't interested in civil discourse. There are others who are not "believers" here yet they seem to be able to conduct themselves with civility and engage in an intellectual dialog, which I know for a fact the OP very much welcomes.

It's like me posting in the reloading section of the forum about how stupid it is for people to reload, just because I decided to spend my time differently.
Click to expand...

I'm an asshole. Simple as that.

Reloading is stupid.
 
fieldgrade said:
I don't disagree with @B00ger , but I think that @noway2 has a very compelling analogy. Protestant Christian theology states that the decision to "choose to go into the light" is made on "this side" of the "light". In "this life", as it were, while some other faiths state that you can be prayed into heaven after death. Roman Catholicism, and Mormonism being two that I am aware of. And I'm not equating those two, as they are very different, but I do believe they share that belief.
Click to expand...

Agreed, some faiths, even branches of Christianity, believe in form of purgatory. I haven't studied up on their scriptural basis for this and have never read anywhere in the Bible that mentions a half way point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
B00ger said:
Agreed, some faiths, even branches of Christianity, believe in form of purgatory. I haven't studied up on their scriptural basis for this and have never read anywhere in the Bible that mentions a half way point.
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that Mormons held this belief, which I think explains much of their energies spent on genealogical research to pray their long passed loved ones into heaven. I think they are responsible for ancestry.com as I recall.

I was somewhat unaware of this in modern Roman Catholicism (that you could pray someone into heaven after death) until I attended a Catholic funeral recently.

I'm uncertain whether the Catholic basis for this theology is found in the Apocrypha, or not.
 
Last edited:
My MIL committed suicide a few years ago, nobody is certain as to why, but I have my suspicions. She married into a catholic family and per their beliefs one can't go to heaven if they kill themselves. Furthermore her body hadn't been released pending an autopsy (looking for clues as to why) before the funeral and it was essentially an empty (closed) casket event. Very few of us, only the directly immediate family, knew this. It was almost comical watching some of the extended family members rituals in front of an empty casket, but we let them believe she was in there as it made them feel better. It is a secret that is kept quiet and the actual burial which was of a small urn was conducted without the extended family and only those in the know attended.
 
noway2 said:
My MIL committed suicide a few years ago, nobody is certain as to why, but I have my suspicions. She married into a catholic family and per their beliefs one can't go to heaven if they kill themselves. Furthermore her body hadn't been released pending an autopsy (looking for clues as to why) before the funeral and it was essentially an empty (closed) casket event. Very few of us, only the directly immediate family, knew this. It was almost comical watching some of the extended family members rituals in front of an empty casket, but we let them believe she was in there as it made them feel better. It is a secret that is kept quiet and the actual burial which was of a small urn was conducted without the extended family and only those in the know attended.
Click to expand...

Very sorry for your families loss. And yes, many believe that a suicide is a sin (thou shall not kill) and being ones last action there is no time for atonement. Personally, I don't take that hard a line on the matter as it is no mans place to say what goes on in ones mind or what their relationship with God is at that final moment.

Regardless, it's a tragedy and no benefit comes from anyone making the family feel worse about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
rogue said:
Assuming you "believe" in the devil, which I don't. No religion can survive without a "boogie man".

If there really was a "god", there would be no need for a "devil". Clearly an invention of man.

Let that roll around for a minute.
Click to expand...

Just because you don't "believe" in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Let THAT roll around for a minute.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It's not honest to insist athiesm is a belief system. It's projecting your own way of understanding onto someone else with no attempt to understand their point of view.
These statements are not the same:
"I don't believe in God". (atheism)
"I believe there is no God". ( A popular understanding of atheism)

An atheist just doesn't care
 
Last edited:
Catfish said:
It's not honest to insist athiesm is a belief system. It's projecting your own way of understanding onto someone else with no attempt to understand their point of view.
These statements are not the same:
"I don't believe in God". (atheism)
"I believe there is no God". ( A popular understanding of atheism)

An atheist just doesn't care
Click to expand...

Then why participate in a discussion about God?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Catfish said:
It's not honest to insist athiesm is a belief system. It's projecting your own way of understanding onto someone else with no attempt to understand their point of view.
These statements are not the same:
"I don't believe in God". (atheism)
"I believe there is no God". ( A popular understanding of atheism)

An atheist just doesn't care
Click to expand...

Unbelief is the antithesis of belief and cannot conceptually exist without it, therefore the discussion of atheism is by extension relevant to the expression of a belief, in an antithetical sense at the very least.
 
B00ger said:
While I don't completely disagree, we have to remember that if just one seed is planted in even one persons heart or mind to go do the research themselves then a discussion like this anywhere, no matter how insignificant it may be, has just become invaluable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I was converted as a result of a conversation like this. Not all of us are turned on by the warm and fuzzies.
 
But to think about atheism as a belief in opposition to faith in a deity is incorrect. I've been called out on just this point by athiest who take offense to that notion.

I'm a football athiest. I don't want to argue which team is better, who has a better strategy or what's the meaning of all this talk. I'm doing something else and if football stopped I would only notice because other people are upset about it.

It's like that but with religion.
 
rogue said:
There is nothing to debate.

"Belief" cannot be debated.

There are no facts available to debate with.
Click to expand...

Are you for real, or are you like one of those closet theists who impersonate an atheist just to make them look dumb?

"Belief" is precisely what is debated. there is nothing else TO debate..... unless you are one of those frightfully stupid people who are too dim to recognize the fallacy of the "I have facts and you have faith" crowd. I am starting to wonder. Usually that bunch is untouchable in their utter ignorance, blabbering on about "facts" being empirical claims, and literally too stupid to recognize, much less acknowledge, the faith underlying all of empiricism. If it seems that I have little patience with this crowd, award yourself a star, and be thankful no one ever made you actually READ anything (rolls eyes).

If you ever get around to thinking about it, you will discover that there is no such thing as objective "fact" that is available to finite creatures. Every thing a self congratulatory gearhead skeptic pronounces as "fact" is in fact a belief in a set of empirical axioms that cannot be proven, and is thus a "belief."
 
Catfish said:
But to think about atheism as a belief in opposition to faith in a deity is incorrect. I've been called out on just this point by athiest who take offense to that notion.

I'm a football athiest. I don't want to argue which team is better, who has a better strategy or what's the meaning of all this talk. I'm doing something else and if football stopped I would only notice because other people are upset about it.

It's like that but with religion.
Click to expand...
Not so. Atheism is a BELIEF that all of the universe is material. Atheists (of the slower sort) claim that starting with unaided human reason and TRUSTING in our perceptions is a "simpler" model for epistemology (how we know what we know. They will then inoke "Occam's Razor" and claim "simplest is best," claiming "God" is an unnecessary appendage that is better whacked off for the simplest and best explanation of things.

They are (usually unknowingly) breezing right past the fact that there is NO REASON one should begin with an impersonal and/or material set of presuppositions and treat God as something "additional" for which one should provide "evidence." It is just as valid a starting point to assume a personal universe which is ordered, logical, coherent and populated by persons whose personality is a mirror of something bigger...., and examine the cosmos to see if that is a better match.

People who bellow on about "no evidence" for God are usually of that sort. Not very bright, actually, but it IS a belief system. It is just a belief system about where we should start in examining the universe.
 
Catfish said:
Because the OP called out unbelievers in the thread title?
Click to expand...

what I "called out" is the frightfully silly insistence that one can simultaneously insist that the universe is material and impersonal, and that our minds are products of the blind impersonal and random activity in that dead universe, and at the same time demand that this chance collocation of neural synapses be acknowledged as the arbiter of what is (and at times, what is possible. This is just stupid on a logarithmic scale.


Catfish said:
And, I'm not an atheist.
Click to expand...
I recognize that you were not talking to me in this thread. However, I never called you an atheist nor an unbeliever. I have no idea what your epistemic system is.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
fieldgrade said:
Roman Catholicism, and Mormonism being two that I am aware of. And I'm not equating those two, as they are very different, but I do believe they share that belief.
Click to expand...

As an RC, that's news to me!
 
noway2 said:
You just reminded me of something... @tanstaafl72555 will probably complain that we're getting interesting here and want a cold beverage

Many cultures in one way or another refer to "the light" and going into this light and it is something that we've heard about from those with near death experiences, etc. Assuming this is true, and I have no idea if it is or not, I have come to believe that it is the individual who will decide if they enter or not, not that they will be judged by an external force (this may be an area we agree based upon your previous post) and that deciding not to and being outside of this light would be what the definition of hell is.
Click to expand...
Slacker said:
The all knowing magic sky wizard is a hard pill for many to swallow.

I do think the 10 commandments are good rules and I try to abide by them....but not from fear of repercussions by a vengeful sky wizard.
Click to expand...

Sloppy. If there is no one back there to make the rules "good" then by definition they can not be "good" as no such concept can exist. "GOOD" and "BAD" are dependent on personality, and if there is no personality to validate those concepts, then they are-by definition- arbitrary and capricious and meaningless. Philosophy 101 here.
 
JohnFreeman said:
As an RC, that's news to me!
Click to expand...

About praying someone into heaven after death? I hadn't actually heard it put that way either until I went to a very large funeral at St Andrews in Apex NC a few months ago. I was listening pretty closely since I hadn't been to a Catholic service in about forty years. I'm not sure what I might have mistaken it for, but I'm just going on what I heard. I guess the question could better be asked, how does the RC say one can get out of purgatory. And this is not a challenge, just a question, so I can better understand.

Edit: I should add that I don't want to get too caught up in the weeds of the OP's bigger picture discussion here. For that I apologize. I was just replying to a post up thread when I got into some of that theology.
 
Last edited:
tanstaafl72555 said:
Sloppy. If there is no one back there to make the rules "good" then by definition they can not be "good" as no such concept can exist. "GOOD" and "BAD" are dependent on personality, and if there is no personality to validate those concepts, then they are-by definition- arbitrary and capricious and meaningless. Philosophy 101 here.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, Bruce Schneier makes a rather compelling argument about the development of good / bad in how it relates to the development of society in Liars and Outliers.
 
tanstaafl72555 said:
Are you for real, or are you like one of those closet theists who impersonate an atheist just to make them look dumb?

"Belief" is precisely what is debated. there is nothing else TO debate..... unless you are one of those frightfully stupid people who are too dim to recognize the fallacy of the "I have facts and you have faith" crowd. I am starting to wonder. Usually that bunch is untouchable in their utter ignorance, blabbering on about "facts" being empirical claims, and literally too stupid to recognize, much less acknowledge, the faith underlying all of empiricism. If it seems that I have little patience with this crowd, award yourself a star, and be thankful no one ever made you actually READ anything (rolls eyes).
Click to expand...

So, you have no actual facts to debate with so you resort to name calling and assumptions? Name calling is not a debate tactic. It's a tactic of someone that has already lost.

I have been down this road before with so called "biblical scholars" that I broke down in the same manner.

If there was one shred of evidence of god, and I mean one shred, theists would jump all over it. They would have an actual fact to use.

Sadly, there is none so we have to "pontificate" on and on about nothing. I'm used to it because it is the ONLY thing you have.

The fact that you believe atheism is a religion and/or a belief system disqualifies you from this entire conversation. You simply do not understand.
 
rogue said:
There is nothing to debate.

"Belief" cannot be debated.

There are no facts available to debate with.
Click to expand...

Since there are "no facts" available to debate with, perhaps you will lay out for us your "no facts" refutation of the classical "proofs" of God. Note that I put proofs in quotes as I do not acknowledge them as proofs, but they do refute your frightfully stupid assertion that there is no EVIDENCE for God. For centuries these have been relied on by some of the most brilliant minds as QED types of proofs.... and they were NOT relied on as "faith" arguments, either. Thomas Aquinas, one of the most brilliant minds in western history, held that man's rational faculties were relatively "unfallen" (I know I am not being fair, but I can't write a book on Thomistic theology here) and one could RELY ON REASON ALONE to demonstrate God as a rational concept.

So, just to remind you of why you have no idea what you are talking about, why don't you refute for us, in a sentence or two, all the classical proofs, Cosmological, Axiological, Teleological, Ontological, and for good measure, the Transcendent argument. All claim to be proofs, though only TAG seems compelling to me as something without a real refutation.

Hint: You don't have a clue, and will have to google the arguments to find out what they are. The reason why is you are ignorant. No one who has read any history of Western Civ deeper than a comic book would make such a stupid statement that there "is no evidence" for God. It may or may not be COMPELLING evidence,and may be arguable (I believe it is), but only an idiot whose understanding of thought approximates Spicolli in Fast Times would make such an idiotic claim that there is "no evidence." My experience is that such persons are little better than imbeciles and truly believe that "facts" refer exclusively to something they can stick a probe into, measure, and observe. The poor dweebs really have no idea how unfounded on anything but raw faith this view is, and are content to remain in blissful ignorance.

What is worse, is the insistence of half witted ciphers making stupid claims about religion being a mental illness who have never even BOTHERED to check and see if their deep and judicious understanding of thought, religion and history might be based in stupid prejudice alone.

But go ahead. Lets hear your refutation of the classical proofs, and then you can show us how they are "not evidence"... since of course, there is none.
 
noway2 said:
Not necessarily, Bruce Schneier makes a rather compelling argument about the development of good / bad in how it relates to the development of society in Liars and Outliers.
Click to expand...
Give me the Cliff Notes version. What are the qualifiers for good and evil?
 
rogue said:
If there was one shred of evidence of god, and I mean one shred, theists would jump all over it. They would have an actual fact to use.
Click to expand...

You exist, therefore God exists. That's it. There's your proof.
God in this case is any higher power than humanity - specifics and dogma are not relevant.
Or, you exist as a result of random chance on a cosmic scale. Which is harder to believe?
 
Last edited:
Catfish said:
You exist, therefore God exists. That's it. There's your proof.
God in this case is any higher power than humanity - specifics and dogma are not relevant.
Or, you exist as a result of random chance on a cosmic scale. Which is harder to believe?
Click to expand...

I understand why they believe. Belief is easy.

Look ma, hard questions in life. Don't worry child, "god did it" is all you have to say....
 
rogue said:
So, you have no actual facts to debate with so you resort to name calling and assumptions? Name calling is not a debate tactic. It's a tactic of someone that has already lost.
Click to expand...

I gave you several facts to debate below. They are the classical arguments for God.

rogue said:
I have been down this road before with so called "biblical scholars" that I broke down in the same manner.
Click to expand...

I don't know who you talked to, but if you silenced them with the dreck you have puked out in this thread, they weren't very bright. If you thought they were convincing arguments yourself..... well.... anyway.

rogue said:
If there was one shred of evidence of god, and I mean one shred, theists would jump all over it. They would have an actual fact to use. .
Click to expand...

You have no idea of what you would accept as "evidence" in the first place.

Here let me help you..

You are referring to "evidence" as something you can count, measure, analyze, observe or otherwise control in a scientific experiment.

You have no idea how utterly stupid this insistence is, though, as "GOD" if such a being exists, is BY DEFINITION IMMATERIAL. That is, He would by the very definition of God NOT be subject to empirical laws of "evidence."

But go ahead and bawl out some more how there is "no evidence." You don't even know what you are asking for, and aren't bright enough to see you are asking for the exit which is an entrance, or the up escalator that goes down.

Think hard, (but don't hurt yourself), and try to grasp that "an immaterial being is not subject to material evidentialism. The evidence for his existence would BY DEFINTION have to be rational and deductive.


rogue said:
The fact that you believe atheism is a religion and/or a belief system disqualifies you from this entire conversation. You simply do not understand
Click to expand...

A religion is a belief which explains the cosmos and is not subject to empirical evidences. You do not understand your own belief system or its implications. You aren't the first.

By the way, I am not always this savage with people who don't share my own belief system. I just don't have much patience with people who make such absurd and nonsensical claims with your panache.
 
rogue said:
That's it! You win the debate! Congratulations.
Click to expand...

Good job Really. Just frightful stupidity, attacking caricatures, and a REFUSAL to actually interact on anything but "faith is simplistic and you have no evidence." Now go run away like the brave skeptic who likes to upset the apple cart of normal opinion. pfffft.

Look Clyde, I GAVE YOU EIGHT (maybe nine, if you consider TAG) CLEAR AND LOGICALLY SOUND EVIDENCES FOR GOD. Not all of them are Christian, by the way, the "unmoved mover" (cosmological argument) goes all the way back to Aristotle. You are simply ignorant, and rather than admit "you know, I might not have examined all the claims for evidence out there" you pull a sardonic little quip. You have no idea what you are talking about.

When I say that I enjoy pretentious and pseudointellectual snot nosed posers who know about a tenth as much as they pose, guess whose picture I have in my head? You would be wrong if you said "me." I have met a million just like you.

Again, I don't like to just savage poseurs for the sake of it. There are, though, people who are like I once was, wondering "is there intellectual validity to the Christian faith, or is it just something people talk themselves into believing." I ran into a buzz saw once who demolished the idiotic nonsense trying to bluff its way through by topping off insubstantial argument with scorn.

I saw it as the crap pile it is. It was step on my own road to faith. It is why I am here.
 
Catfish said:
You exist, therefore God exists. That's it. There's your proof.
God in this case is any higher power than humanity - specifics and dogma are not relevant.
Or, you exist as a result of random chance on a cosmic scale. Which is harder to believe?
Click to expand...

There is a LOT to be said for this. Especially if "you" includes the concept of "mind" or personality. How does the impersonal give birth to the personal?
 
There's "Good" and "Evil" in the world. It's always existed as long as humans have walked on this Earth. This "Good" and "Evil" thing I speak of doesn't exist among other life forms that reside on our planet. That's a different subject known as survival. It's not evil when an 800lb. Siberian Tiger tears another animal into shreds and devours it. It's not evil when a Great White shark bites a surfer in half. It's not even evil when a dog, regardless of breed, mauls a person to death. That's natural instinct and nature at work.

However, it is evil when human beings exterminate millions of other human beings because of their beliefs. It is evil when human beings commit absolutely disgusting acts of cruelty against their fellow man such as the Japanese did in China during WWII.

It took the "Good" to stop the "Evil". That's all I need for proof. We have proof of evil more than ever today in this world and country we reside on and in. It's right there for all to see.

Good vs. Evil. Think about it. Sorry I have no big intellectual words or bible scriptures to post. That last statement is absolutely not an attack on the OP or anyone else. It's just the truth about me. I'm simple and that's how my thought processes work and how I live day to day. I try and keep things simple.

Anyway, what I posted above is all the proof I need to believe in God.
 
Qball said:
There's "Good" and "Evil" in the world. It's always existed as long as humans have walked on this Earth. This "Good" and "Evil" thing I speak of doesn't exist among other life forms that reside on our planet. That's a different subject known as survival. It's not evil when an 800lb. Siberian Tiger tears another animal into shreds and devours it. It's not evil when a Great White shark bites a surfer in half. It's not even evil when a dog, regardless of breed, mauls a person to death. That's natural instinct and nature at work.

However, it is evil when human beings exterminate millions of other human beings because of their beliefs. It is evil when human beings commit absolutely disgusting acts of cruelty against their fellow man such as the Japanese did in China during WWII.

It took the "Good" to stop the "Evil". That's all I need for proof. We have proof of evil more than ever today in this world and country we reside on and in. It's right there for all to see.

Good vs. Evil. Think about it. Sorry I have no big intellectual words or bible scriptures to post. That last statement is absolutely not an attack on the OP or anyone else. It's just the truth about me. I'm simple and that's how my thought processes work and how I live day to day. I try and keep things simple.

Anyway, what I posted above is all the proof I need to believe in God.
Click to expand...

The fact that ALL humans are "hardwired" to believe in the concept of good and evil is one of the most powerful arguments for God.... though not the one I cited above. If you ever read the little tract by CS Lewis "Mere Christianity" (and if you have not, you would love it, no matter what your religious beliefs), you know that argument is one of his foundational points in WHY one should believe in a God.
 
rogue said:
I understand why they believe. Belief is easy.

Look ma, hard questions in life. Don't worry child, "god did it" is all you have to say....
Click to expand...

And this is again where you keep missing the mark. There are many of us who have actually researched God and the Bible and found truth.

The issue with asking for "proof" of God is that it is the same as us asking "prove to us that you love your wife." It isn't like saying "Prove that you have a wife" because God is not of this world in physical form. As the Bible states God is love and a spirit. So, just as you cannot >prove< that you love your wife, we cannot "prove" that God exists. What we both >can< do is provide a preponderance of evidence based upon eye witness testimony (Gospels), personal testimony (our witness), corroborating evidence (ancient texts from other non-biblical writers), physical evidence in the form of archeological findings, as well as historic evidence based on the society at the time of the writing of the Bible that can experience lain the societal and cultural reasons for certain behaviors.

Those questions are specifically what I was pointing to when discussing observable facts and evidence in the discussion of God and Faith. Points of evidence that some choose to ignore and rely on "he r jus a sky wizzerd " based blabber.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
B00ger said:
And this is again where you keep missing the mark. There are many of us who have actually researched God and the Bible and found truth.

The issue with asking for "proof" of God is that it is the same as us asking "prove to us that you love your wife."
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, noone makes political decisions, judgement on people's behaviour or goes to war over whether you love your wife or not.

They do for your intangible belief.

The belief in a God/Gods of some sort has been the cause of the vast majority of humanities strife, so I think some proof of the being or being all this blood is getting shed for seems pretty reasonable. Ymmv.

As for eyewitness testimony, people also claimed to see dragons and elves and goblins.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom