Religious debate (split from main board)

[turambar85]

Faith depends on exactly what you believe. Are you basing your lack of believing because of science?

I, to be honest, have no clue what you're talking about. How does faith depend on what you believe? Faith is a way of orienting yourself towards propositions and a way of orienting oneself towards propositions is not dependent on the propositions to be held - that is circular and nonsensical.

And what do you mean by asking what I base my lack of belief on? Do you mean to ask about the origin of my atheism? That has multiple reasons and multiple stages, all of which are contained on my long post a few pages ago where I posted a letter I gave to my parents. It would be instructive to read that if you care about my opinions and their origins.

 

[Oldvol75]

The problem now becomes that people cannot (rationally) say about any given inquiry "you cannot know god" or "god is unknowable" or "it is a mystery" without some further argument justifying this. To say that god is in some ways knowable, and then to respond to a question with "we can't know god" is inadequate. What we need, then, is a further explanation stating why the particular question is referencing an actually unknowable part of god. And this is hard to do.

Thats truly the part that someone without faith cannot understand. That a Christian can know God. There is something that a Christian under goes called being born again. The endwelling of the Holy Spirit. Until this is experienced you know not what the experience feels like. It is truly unexplainable but is truly felt. You see its spiritual and on a level that can not possibly be understood by anyone that hasn't gone through it.

As to one of your other post, I did not grow up in church. Father was an alcoholic and abusive. But in my 20's I came to know Christ. I know what my life was like before. I knew the things that I was into. I know what happened the day I invited Jesus into my heart. I know how my life changed. Until you experience what the Holy Spirit can do, your missing out on alot.

If you are searching for God and expect some sort of giant sign, you may look forever. Its a small still voice. Until you experience something in your life or loved ones life that medical science cannot explain, you will not understand. Does God grant us everything that we ask, No. But He does give us what we need. I've been on both sides of this fence, and I LOVE the side I'm on now.

 

[Oldvol75]

I, to be honest, have no clue what you're talking about. How does faith depend on what you believe? Faith is a way of orienting yourself towards propositions and a way of orienting oneself towards propositions is not dependent on the propositions to be held - that is circular and nonsensical.

And what do you mean by asking what I base my lack of belief on? Do you mean to ask about the origin of my atheism? That has multiple reasons and multiple stages, all of which are contained on my long post a few pages ago where I posted a letter I gave to my parents. It would be instructive to read that if you care about my opinions and their origins.

The reason I said what I said was because of the amount of science that you brought up eariler. If this is one of the reasons that you have based your non-belief,there is more faith involved in what man has stated.

BTW I went back and looked for the page about your letter, I only went back about 10 pages and could not find it. If you know the page I would like to read it, Thanks.

 

[BeecherVol]

Thats truly the part that someone without faith cannot understand. That a Christian can know God. There is something that a Christian under goes called being born again. The endwelling of the Holy Spirit. Until this is experienced you know not what the experience feels like. It is truly unexplainable but is truly felt. You see its spiritual and on a level that can not possibly be understood by anyone that hasn't gone through it.

As to one of your other post, I did not grow up in church. Father was an alcoholic and abusive. But in my 20's I came to know Christ. I know what my life was like before. I knew the things that I was into. I know what happened the day I invited Jesus into my heart. I know how my life changed. Until you experience what the Holy Spirit can do, your missing out on alot.

If you are searching for God and expect some sort of giant sign, you may look forever. Its a small still voice. Until you experience something in your life or loved ones life that medical science cannot explain, you will not understand. Does God grant us everything that we ask, No. But He does give us what we need. I've been on both sides of this fence, and I LOVE the side I'm on now.

Praise God for that gift.
Many christians overlook this important part.

 

[turambar85]

The reason I said what I said was because of the amount of science that you brought up eariler. If this is one of the reasons that you have based your non-belief,there is more faith involved in what man has stated.

BTW I went back and looked for the page about your letter, I only went back about 10 pages and could not find it. If you know the page I would like to read it, Thanks.

page 30, my apologies.

 

[Oldvol75]

page 30, my apologies.

Well that was interesting.From what I gathered and assumed about your post was that you are gaging everything from a scientific point of view.

I found it interesting that you grew up in church. You seemed to have had the expierience of the guy that sat in church every time the doors were opened for 30 years. This same guy thought that would make him a Christian. With that same logic, he could have just as well sat in his garage for the same time and become a cadillac.

You mentioned there being changes made in the Bible over time and inconsistencies. Have you not looked at the original greek and hebrew text? Have you not studied the translations or used a greek/hebrew dictionary? I have looked at what others see as inconsistencies and careful studies of them can be revealing. Just off the top of my head was one about Abraham and the crossing of Mt. Horeb. It is discussed in two different places, in one it says Mt. Horeb and the other another name. This was once pointed out that the Bible was inacurate. With carefull study, one only had to study the mountain to realize that the second place listed was actually the name of a mountain pass on Mt. Horeb.

You seem to be someone who only looked for God with their head, not with their heart. Man has always searched for God. As to someone that goes to hell because they didnot know God. Can you list the countries that haven't heard of the name of Jesus? Even Muslim countries know his name. It is a gospel that is spread around the world. Why do Muslims kill even members of their on familes that convert to Christianity?

You seem to think there isn't a concept of evil in the world? I just can't see that.

 

[turambar85]

Well that was interesting.From what I gathered and assumed about your post was that you are gaging everything from a scientific point of view.

I found it interesting that you grew up in church. You seemed to have had the expierience of the guy that sat in church every time the doors were opened for 30 years. This same guy thought that would make him a Christian. With that same logic, he could have just as well sat in his garage for the same time and become a cadillac.

You mentioned there being changes made in the Bible over time and inconsistencies. Have you not looked at the original greek and hebrew text? Have you not studied the translations or used a greek/hebrew dictionary? I have looked at what others see as inconsistencies and careful studies of them can be revealing. Just off the top of my head was one about Abraham and the crossing of Mt. Horeb. It is discussed in two different places, in one it says Mt. Horeb and the other another name. This was once pointed out that the Bible was inacurate. With carefull study, one only had to study the mountain to realize that the second place listed was actually the name of a mountain pass on Mt. Horeb.

You seem to be someone who only looked for God with their head, not with their heart. Man has always searched for God. As to someone that goes to hell because they didnot know God. Can you list the countries that haven't heard of the name of Jesus? Even Muslim countries know his name. It is a gospel that is spread around the world. Why do Muslims kill even members of their on familes that convert to Christianity?

You seem to think there isn't a concept of evil in the world? I just can't see that.

Well, my immediate reaction is that I don't appreciate your portrayal of my religious past. I wasn't the guy that just sat in the back biding his time. I was fervent in my belief, and was serious about my faith. I felt strong stirrings in church, and when younger (10-13) even had tears of happiness while experiencing what I called a connection with Christ. I had plans for a while of becoming a pastor and taking over what was my great-grandfathers church. So, again, I don't appreciate you jumping to conclusions and presuming so much about my past, even if it is a past I don't wish to repeat.

 

[turambar85]

Another thing is that, as I addressed in the letter and in this thread, your birthplace and the beliefs of your parents give you an immense psychological predisposition to one faith over another. You don't need any further arguments to prove this, just look at geography. Why is it so easy to raise a Christian in Knoxville, but so rarely do you find one born and raised in tibet or Iran? It may be possible to convert somebody, but it is very rare, very difficult, and you often have to isolate them from their previous associations. Birth does give a huge advantage to the believer, and if Christianity is true, then birth also gives you a much greater chance at salvation.

Its similar to football allegiances, though much more psychologically penetrating. It's pretty easy to make a florida kid a gator fan, but I might have a hard time convincing you.

 

[jamesd1628]

Open-minded does not mean that one doesn't have a position. It doesn't even mean that one isn't confident. It does mean, however, that the person would, if presented with a good argument or valid piece of evidence, give it sufficiently good consideration. I have, on that basis, met many open-minded Christians and atheists. I consider myself one, as well (heavy talk doesn't equal a lack of consideration). I actively seek out conversation with people I disagree with for two reasons: 1) I might learn something from them, and 2) I might learn something from myself. Convincing somebody else is last on my list; I'm not a proselytizer.

So then you're not really sure about your position - i.e., the Christians just might be right, and there might just be a God after all?

 

[IPorange]

I keep seeing it said that it takes more faith to believe "what man has said" than Christianity. That's crap. I've met men. I have never met a god.

 

[jamesd1628]

. . . .
You cannot prove that Bertrand Russel's Celestial Teapot doesn't exist. You cannot prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist.
. . . .

. . . .
there are some reasons to believe that there is not a god.
. . . .
We believe, perhaps without 100% evidence (though evidence there is), that there is no god.
. . . .

On the one hand you say that God is like Russell's celestial teapot and thus cannot be disproven. On the other hand, you say that you have good evidence indicating that there is no God. First, I'm not sure those positions are consistent. Second, what exactly is the evidence of the non-existence of God?

 

[turambar85]

On the one hand you say that God is like Russell's celestial teapot and thus cannot be disproven. On the other hand, you say that you have good evidence indicating that there is no God. First, I'm not sure those positions are consistent. Second, what exactly is the evidence of the non-existence of God?

Give the logic a second thought and it will become clear. Look at unicorns. We have plenty of evidence that unicorns do not exist. However, we can't logically prove, 100%, that they don't.

Look at the brain in a vat skeptical hypothesis. We have plenty of evidence that we aren't brains in vats, and nobody believes that we are, but we cannot prove 100% that we aren't. Evidence does not equal complete proof.

Evidence philosophically would be related to the legitimacy of the concept, and the fact that the infamous "boeing 747 argument" against evolution works even better against God. There is also the weaker argument from evil. Then you have all of the things people would say against the existence of unicorns. Furthermore, if you operate within a particular conception of God (i.e., Christian or Muslim) then it becomes easier.

 

[turambar85]

So then you're not really sure about your position - i.e., the Christians just might be right, and there might just be a God after all?

Really? I'm not entirely sure how you got that I wasn't sure from the fact that I would consider evidence if I received it.

I am confident that there is no god, sure. However, I also realize that I am fallible. Furthermore, I see that the best way to orient oneself to propositions and the world is receptively. You can confidently hold positions, but always be aware of possible evidence to the contrary that can arise.

 

[jamesd1628]

Really? I'm not entirely sure how you got that I wasn't sure from the fact that I would consider evidence if I received it.

I am confident that there is no god, sure. However, I also realize that I am fallible. Furthermore, I see that the best way to orient oneself to propositions and the world is receptively. You can confidently hold positions, but always be aware of possible evidence to the contrary that can arise.

So some evidence of Christianity might arise that might convince you. Thus the Christians might be right.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[turambar85]

So some evidence of Christianity might arise that might convince you. Thus the Christians might be right.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

As, technically, could the ancient greeks, the flying spaghetti monster followers, and any number of believers of highly unlikely hypotheses.

 

[Oldvol75]

Well, my immediate reaction is that I don't appreciate your portrayal of my religious past. I wasn't the guy that just sat in the back biding his time. I was fervent in my belief, and was serious about my faith. I felt strong stirrings in church, and when younger (10-13) even had tears of happiness while experiencing what I called a connection with Christ. I had plans for a while of becoming a pastor and taking over what was my great-grandfathers church. So, again, I don't appreciate you jumping to conclusions and presuming so much about my past, even if it is a past I don't wish to repeat.

Turambar, what this tells me is that you never really experienced Christ. You never gave yourself over to salvation. In other words you never completely gave your life to Christ. You stated you had strong feelings? I have had strong feelings before and ended up with the flu.

You state that You had plans, it doesn't work that way. I didn't choose what God had planned for me. If I would have made a list if the top 1000 jobs for the future when I was a kid, preacher wasn't on the list.

In the next post you mentioned that it is rare to convert someone to Christianity in different countries. You need to really look at whats going on in the Africian nations at the amount of Muslims that are converting to Christianity. About Iran, do you not see how many Christians are killed in that country annually?

From later post, you seem to be having second thoughts. Just by reading your posts with James.

 

[turambar85]

Turambar, what this tells me is that you never really experienced Christ. You never gave yourself over to salvation. In other words you never completely gave your life to Christ. You stated you had strong feelings? I have had strong feelings before and ended up with the flu.

You state that You had plans, it doesn't work that way. I didn't choose what God had planned for me. If I would have made a list if the top 1000 jobs for the future when I was a kid, preacher wasn't on the list.

In the next post you mentioned that it is rare to convert someone to Christianity in different countries. You need to really look at whats going on in the Africian nations at the amount of Muslims that are converting to Christianity. About Iran, do you not see how many Christians are killed in that country annually?

From later post, you seem to be having second thoughts. Just by reading your posts with James.

OV, you are a great thread-killer. This will be ignored, and unless you start to gain some sort of understanding for what it means to discuss, let alone 'debate' issues with other human beings, I have no interest in responding to you any further. You are narrow-minded and condescending. Your attempts to cast doubt on the sincerity of my previous religious experiences is insulting, presumptuous and lame. You can no more say that my past religious experiences weren't real or sincere than I could say that your marriage (if you are married) is a sham meant to cover up your hidden homosexuality - this is not an insult, but an example.

 

[seanofthedead86]

I'm going to add something to this discussion: Of all the religions that have been practiced on this earth, who is to say that L. Ron Hubbard may not have been wrong after all.

 

[turambar85]

I'm going to add something to this discussion: Of all the religions that have been practiced on this earth, who is to say that L. Ron Hubbard may not have been wrong after all.

Right, and I don't know if this is your intention or not, but you lead to a good point.

Either god is knowable by human reason and religion and its theories can be criticized as a regular inhabitant of the marketplace of ideas, or god is not knowable by human reason, and religious people cannot criticize, laugh at, or chide other religious groups or people. Instead, they can only say something wooded like "your faith is different than my own. We have a fundamental disagreement. Good day!"

Neither option looks entirely pleasant to the religionists. Option 1 saves them their ability to eliminate rival religions by exposing their falsehoods, but it also leaves their religion in the same light and facing the same threats. Also, it demands one know so much about one's faith. Option 2 saves them their ability to practice religion simply and without the use of natural theology, complicated exegesis, and argumentation. However, it leaves their religion as valuable only as a manifestation of faith - something shared by many others in like fashion.

 

[BeecherVol]

Right, and I don't know if this is your intention or not, but you lead to a good point.

Either god is knowable by human reason and religion and its theories can be criticized as a regular inhabitant of the marketplace of ideas, or god is not knowable by human reason, and religious people cannot criticize, laugh at, or chide other religious groups or people. Instead, they can only say something wooded like "your faith is different than my own. We have a fundamental disagreement. Good day!"

Neither option looks entirely pleasant to the religionists. Option 1 saves them their ability to eliminate rival religions by exposing their falsehoods, but it also leaves their religion in the same light and facing the same threats. Also, it demands one know so much about one's faith. Option 2 saves them their ability to practice religion simply and without the use of natural theology, complicated exegesis, and argumentation. However, it leaves their religion as valuable only as a manifestation of faith - something shared by many others in like fashion.

What is your definition of, "knowable by human reason"?
I think this is a key to understanding.

 

[turambar85]

What is your definition of, "knowable by human reason"?
I think this is a key to understanding.

Well, instead of a definition I will say this: what I mean by "knowable by human reason" is simply that we could approach problems in religion an theology with a rational eye. We could say something like "such and such behaviors are incompatible with the notion of god" or "Christianity or Islam must be false because their conceptions of god or heaven is clearly false." Something like that is what I mean. In other words, if someone said to me, after I criticized some element of their theology, "human reason is completely impotent in this realm, so you might as well give up", then they would not have a knowable god - at least not rationally knowable.

 

[BeecherVol]

To try and understand, if God is knowable,
I think first off, you would have to decide, if God is approachable.

The Bible explains it this way.

"The Lord is near to all who call on Him, to all who call on him in truth."
Psalms 145:18

- the interesting part of that verse, is the last part. This shows seperation. It seperates the beleivers, from the "if there is a God" crowd.

If you have decided to believe that he is God. The Bible says.

"Let us therefore approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may recieve mercy, and find grace in a time of need."
Hebrews 4:16

Where some get confused here, "is a time of need." Which goes into a different subject.

Does that totally explain every question about knowing God's intentions or motives? Probably not. But he has also said not expect to understand everything, I chose to accept that.

 

[turambar85]

To try and understand, if God is knowable,
I think first off, you would have to decide, if God is approachable.

The Bible explains it this way.

"The Lord is near to all who call on Him, to all who call on him in truth."
Psalms 145:18

- the interesting part of that verse, is the last part. This shows seperation. It seperates the beleivers, from the "if there is a God" crowd.

If you have decided to believe that he is God. The Bible says.

"Let us therefore approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may recieve mercy, and find grace in a time of need."
Hebrews 4:16

Where some get confused here, "is a time of need." Which goes into a different subject.

Does that totally explain every question about knowing God's intentions or motives? Probably not. But he has also said not expect to understand everything, I chose to accept that.

The problem is that scripture, and its validity, presuppose a theory on the knowability of god. To use scripture as an authoritative argumentative tool is to believe that scripture is divinely inspired, not sullied by human hands, and accurately reflects not what god wants us to believe, but what is the truth. Now, you can't use scripture to defend an interpretation of the knowability of god as it pertains to scripture, as you would have jumped into a vicious circle; you would be using the thing in question to address issues with the thing in question.

You can say "scripture is a legitimate tool to argue for theological points" but this is only if you already have arguments for the belief that there is a god, the belief that god is knowable, and the belief that god would not allow the bible to exist unless it were a true account of the nature of things. This is a problematic step.

 

[seanofthedead86]

Right, and I don't know if this is your intention or not, but you lead to a good point.

Either god is knowable by human reason and religion and its theories can be criticized as a regular inhabitant of the marketplace of ideas, or god is not knowable by human reason, and religious people cannot criticize, laugh at, or chide other religious groups or people. Instead, they can only say something wooded like "your faith is different than my own. We have a fundamental disagreement. Good day!"

Neither option looks entirely pleasant to the religionists. Option 1 saves them their ability to eliminate rival religions by exposing their falsehoods, but it also leaves their religion in the same light and facing the same threats. Also, it demands one know so much about one's faith. Option 2 saves them their ability to practice religion simply and without the use of natural theology, complicated exegesis, and argumentation. However, it leaves their religion as valuable only as a manifestation of faith - something shared by many others in like fashion.

'Twas my intention, sir. My argument for my lack of religious beliefs is that their are so many religions, past and present, I cant justify one containing the ultimate truth. Just because one may see a Scientologist as wacky or crazy, that same Scientologist may find a Christian/Muslim/Jew wacky or crazy. It's all perception.

 

[BeecherVol]

The problem is that scripture, and its validity, presuppose a theory on the knowability of god. To use scripture as an authoritative argumentative tool is to believe that scripture is divinely inspired, not sullied by human hands, and accurately reflects not what god wants us to believe, but what is the truth. Now, you can't use scripture to defend an interpretation of the knowability of god as it pertains to scripture, as you would have jumped into a vicious circle; you would be using the thing in question to address issues with the thing in question.

You can say "scripture is a legitimate tool to argue for theological points" but this is only if you already have arguments for the belief that there is a god, the belief that god is knowable, and the belief that god would not allow the bible to exist unless it were a true account of the nature of things. This is a problematic step.

I am explaining what the Bible says about knowing God (which is from my understanding), to understand that, you must know, to what ablility you can. This is the part where human nature raises the "red flag", and even some believers struggle with. Not having a total understanding.

But it goes back to a question,(you kinda discounted in a way, a while back). And to me is very important.

"What do you expect out of God?"

As for what it will take for some to believe, the second coming itself, in some cases.