What’re you looking at me for? Was my answer in that thread not clear?
Well, Lord Ashtar was saying:
Luke 4:12
Jesus answered, "It says: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test
But that seems horribly out of context for the question of that thread. It appears an admonishment against “just testing” God to physically protect you even though God did promise to physically protect you (Psalm 91:11,12).
Yeah, except the things I (and other non-schizophrenic atheists) believe exist can be proven to exist. Even things that we can’t see or hear or touch (subatomic particles) can be observed with the right equipment. You’re starting from a premise that basically sounds insane to anyone familiar with science and logic, and saying you know it to be true, which is impossible. You believe it, but you can’t possibly know it.
But, see, there is a substantive difference between reading & studying the text to try to figure out what it all means, and giving God some kind of test to prove He exists. As I said a post or two back, atheists can’t prove non-existance, believers can’t prove existance. I don’t see the Bible as a tool to GET you to believe. I think it was pretty much written for people who already assumed the existence of God, and is more of a tool to help know & have an understanding of the nature of God.
In all fairness, anybody debating Star Wars vs. Star Trek deserves to be mocked. And a virgin.
Oh, now I get it. Christians are people whose minds are completely open to the merits of atheism, and I’m mistaking their expressed pleasure in my burning for eternity before Lord Jesus for mocking and gloating.
I also think you’ve confused “Great Debates” with “Great Dithering.”
“I’m interested in discussing whether or not God exists, and my position is I think he does, except sometimes when I’m full of doubts about the Bible, but then my faith comes back superstrong, and I’m certain once again until those nasty doubts creep up and trouble me. Would anyone care to debate this point? Thanks so much.”
OK, but you can’t possibly know that he doesn’t exist. How do you know that everything that is possible to see & touch has been discovered? What did people believe about subatomic particles before there was the technology to discover them?
Can you KNOW that you typed those words just now? Maybe it was all a bad dream, Sarahfeena? Do you know that you are you? How?
Well, if you define “civil” and “respectful” as “don’t question the plausibility of it even though I can’t provide a single iota of proof,” you’re not going to be seen as an honest debater. If you don’t apply the same logic to religion that you apply in the rest of your life, you will most likely be questioned about it.
Honest questions have been asked about how you determine what is truth and what is bullshit in the bible. You were asked by a calm rational poster (in additon to that BadChad boy). I’m interested in knowing if you came up with those distinctions on your own, if they’re taught in religion classes, or what. Why is that process so hard to discuss?
Yes, I know there’s a substansive difference. That’s why I said Lord Ashtar’s reference was horribly out of context.
And the reason atheists generally can’t prove God’s non-existence is because the answers to “So what is God?” are always so nebulous that there isn’t anything to prove at all. How can I prove the non-existance of something that doesn’t manifest itself in any way, shape or form other than in your head?
Sorry about the name mis-spelling earlier.
I’m sorry…I didn’t have time to read that entire thread.
You can’t, and I wouldn’t expect you to. When I said that I “know” that God exists, this comes from inside me. If you say you “know” God doesn’t exist, I believe that comes from inside you. I would never try to convert a non-believer except maybe by example (I had luck with that once). It’s futile. There is no logic to it either way, IMO. The belief one way or another just IS.
No problem.
No, that’s NOT what I said. sigh
What it boils down to is this: I don’t give a shit WHAT side you’re arguing on. Just be civil about it.
And no, not ALL Christians are like the ones you describe. Some are, some aren’t. Same with atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, WHATEVER.
I’m not interested in debating religious beliefs here. I’m more interested in talking about various posters’ BEHAVIOR. No matter what their beliefs are.
Not fucked, just annoyed. I haven’t seen anything from you that would lead me to believe someone debating you would be fucked. Just thoroughly and completely annoyed.
But you never knew any other way than from bible teachings through your parents and church, if I recall correctly. You were indoctrinated at a very young age so that the story became second nature to you. You never had a chance to experience independent study without the seed of THAT brand of religion planted in your innocent mind. That’s the reason the church wants you to promise to raise the kids catholic. That’s the reason they get very few adult newbies.
Those are mighty big “ifs”, and once again are based on your own assumptions and personal baggage as opposed to anything I’ve posted or said.
I’ve already posted the honest answer to this.
I hold no thought that the Bible is God’s literal word, I have said that before, so let me take a stab at this one…
It’s not hard to discuss as much as it hard to explain, at least on a message board. Probably be easier in person, but in any case…
When I was young I was taught the Catholic way of life. As I got older I began to think that all those rules and ceremonies were silly. I mean, what would an all-loving, all-seeing, all-powerful God need me to bow and worship him for? He has everything, what need He of that? And then why spend all that time in the OT talking to people, trying to get them to see the light, only to stop suddenly for the past 2000+ years? And I couldn’t buy that God wouldn’t want woman to hold positions of authority in His church, seemed un-Godly to me. To add insult to injury in my 7th grade year I learned about the Crusades, and don’t even get me started on children with cancer!
Needless to say the whole God thing just wasn’t doing it for me, it didn’t make sense. But here is the thing, no matter what I thought of the “establishment” I could never lose the feeling of praying and feeling someone listening to me. Of feeling part of something so much larger than myself. I look at a sunrise and I “feel” God, not the world turning. I see joy, happiness, love, and see God, not complex chemical reactions.
Is it silly? Probably. I’m a grown, thinking adult and I know my belief is irrational, but trying to deny my belief would be even more irrational to me. I can’t pretend I don’t believe, I just can’t. I believe, plain and simple, and this is crucial and what Badchad and others don’t get, I don’t just believe it, I know it… to my soul. So when you call my belief stupid, you are calling me stupid because you cant seperate the idea from the person in something like this. I don’t mind debating God and Atheism, it’s due to debate that I discarded the trappings of established religion, but don’t insult and don’t belittle.
FWIW I also believe in evolution, not creationism. Science, not magic. I don’t think we were created, as much as “raised” above others.
I’m not an atheist nor am I any longer a Christian. However, the things that I changed my views on (IE: from pro-life to pro-choice, homophobic to pro gay rights, a much broader stance on spirituality and the belief that there could be no higher power/a different version(s)/or something random, etc.) has all been due to civilized discourse. I’ll listen to anyone who has respect for a person, no matter how wrong-headed they feel them to be, as long as attempts are made to honestly care about the debate at hand. There are structures sometimes for a reason. I’d be more than happy to talk about why that is. 
I can’t leave this one without a comment.
You have a very limited understanding of what debate means if you think proving your opponent wrong is what one is all about.
I think many bystanders here will see a debater trying to score easy points as a sign of that debaters lack of maturity. It does nothing to enhance or advance the debaters own stance, and at worst causes their opponent to get defensive and stop participating fully and rationally.
A debate is a little like a boxing match, when someone tries to hit below the belt they are not debating they are being a jerk.
Please point to that answer.
Not all Christians expressed such pleasure; that was just FriarTed. And given that not a few of us expresed disbelief in a literal or physical Lake of Fire to which unbelievers are condemned automatically, it can reasonably be assumed that those skeptics of Hell don’t feel such pleasure privately, either.