Not a fan of islam but op didn't mention islam, did he, prison murse? I'm leaning more Jew these days, just fyi. I like getting drunk at seders.
Not a fan of islam but op didn't mention islam, did he, prison murse? I'm leaning more Jew these days, just fyi. I like getting drunk at seders.
You are another christian who doesn't even understand your own god forsaken religion.
With a all the alleged deep thought in this thread, I'm amused that it was all started by an inquiring/inspiring mind like Beau's.
The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.
~Isaiah 11:6
With all due respect, Cru, you don't have the first clue about the Bible or Christianity in terms of history. If you really want to learn more (which you don't based on your response to Pascal's Wager), there are a ton of books out there which discuss the errors and contradictions in the Bible. I would start with Bart Ehrman's books if you are interested. Don't take this the wrong way, but if you want to get in an argument, you should at least have a clue about what you are talking about. You may want to just say, "I believe what I believe because I do." and leave it at that. Natural is owning you in this thread and you don't even know it.
If you, John, rape Mary in this life, just know that you will be reborn as Mary at some point in eternity.
So if you think you'd rather not be raped in another life, you might want to reconsider your urges to rape in this life. Or to be vicious or cruel in any other way.
This is just as reasonable and much more pragmatically moral than most religions. It's not merely the Golden Rule, it's the Golden Rule with built-in enforcement.
Will Mary be born as John with the urge to rape so that she can learn what the urge is like? After all, rape is supported in the Bible, maybe John was acting on God's plan and Mary just needs to get over it.
Does time loop in this theory, or does society progress? Like if you were John in 500BC, rape might be your biblical right as a man. If you do it today in Iowa, you can sue for custody rights, but in another time and place you might get the dead. Does each person receive not just the same life, but the same circumstances as well?
Each of the godlike beings in our universe will theoretically inhabit each human in each period of history. If you do the math that means that at the moment your Atman (to borrow the Hindu term) has placed a bit of his atman (soul stuff) in your jiva (body) as well as in thousands of other jivas.
You, as naturalmwa, are just one window your Atman looks through at this point in time. Since time is no impediment to those at that plane of existence, the Atman from which you are derived will eventually occupy every jiva in every epoch.
Sorry at4...but I think you are the one being "owned" here. You could just say "I'm holding this opinion that you are stupid & being 'owned' because I agree with natural & don't agree with you". You'd still be ditzy but at least you'd be intellectually honest. You could begin to correct your errors by doing some homework yourself.
I'm not the one who said this: "I am not aware of the thing to which you are referring. I doubt I would waste the time to become aware of it because it's irrelevant. I would rather have a really good understanding of God's Word than some human construct feebly attempting to discredit it. The world according to Pascal's Wager? Good luck hanging your hat on that."
Do you remember that one? If not, it was said by you earlier in this thread, you can look it up. Pascal's Wager, by the way is not trying to discredit God's word. In fact it is just the opposite of that. It's EXACTLY what YOU are hanging your hat on. Seriously , you should look it up. You also said that "it held water" and then said a few posts later that you had no idea what you were talking about. I never said you were stupid. I don't even fault you for your beliefs. It's just that you are getting into a debate that you don't have the first clue about. Please point out how I am being intellectually dishonest. I'd like to see that.
I'm not the one who said this: "I am not aware of the thing to which you are referring. I doubt I would waste the time to become aware of it because it's irrelevant. I would rather have a really good understanding of God's Word than some human construct feebly attempting to discredit it. The world according to Pascal's Wager? Good luck hanging your hat on that."
Do you remember that one? If not, it was said by you earlier in this thread, you can look it up. Pascal's Wager, by the way is not trying to discredit God's word. In fact it is just the opposite of that. It's EXACTLY what YOU are hanging your hat on. Seriously , you should look it up. You also said that "it held water" and then said a few posts later that you had no idea what you were talking about. I never said you were stupid. I don't even fault you for your beliefs. It's just that you are getting into a debate that you don't have the first clue about. Please point out how I am being intellectually dishonest. I'd like to see that.
You seem to want to keep going back to the "well" of "you don't know what you're talking about" without really saying why you think that. You aren't backing it up with anything substantive. If you must know--and this is not terribly relevant, but since you like to talk about book "knowledge"--I did study quite a bit of history in college, with an emphasis on ancient & medieval history. My main area of study was health science with majors in biology and chemistry, but I minored in history and English as a diversion from the science. And I continue to study to this day. So saying that I am out of my depth in a discussion about the historical backdrop of the Bible is laughably uninformed at best. My interest & knowledge of ancient history certainly helps my appreciation for what God is saying in His Word, but I would never study it for the purposes of feeling superior, and never for the purposes of lording it over someone. Knowing all about the Bible is not the same as knowing the Bible, and knowing "all about God" doesn't necessarily mean you know God. In fact, in my experience, one is often at odds with the other, and in my belief, the eternal destinations of the two are not necessarily the same. Two serious questions for you, and ones that will really put this discussion in perspective--if not end it altogether--for me: 1) are you a believer, or 2) are you curious about becoming one? And a "yes" or "no" response is all that's necessary here. Your response will determine my next response--or if I'll even have one.
Thanx
Cru,
I will address the body of your post first and then answer your questions. Early in this thread you said, "Well....I would rather be "naïve" now than find out later that I was wrong about this...when it's too late to change my mind. Look at it this way: if you're right & Christians are wrong, then when we die, it's over. We're dead, gone, finis. Nothing to lose.
But if they're right & you're wrong, well........"
THAT argument is EXACTLY Pascal's wager. Pascal basically said that the weight of being wrong about NOT believing in a God is so heavy and the greatness of being right about believing in God is so great that everyone should believe in God. My response to you was that Pascal's Wager (i.e. what you wrote) is full of holes and doesn't really hold water. There are lengthy books written precisely about this line of thinking. I had assumed, since you presented the argument and responded to my post that "yes, it does hold water", that you actually knew about Pascal's Wager. We could debate Pascal's Wager for years and, indeed that debate has gone on for hundreds of years, but you have no interest in learning about it (per your post).
You also stated in this thread that the Bible was the word of God. However, you are not really able to explain the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the Bible. I suggested reading books by Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus is a good one), to learn more about this if you were interested. I could debate this issue for years, too. I find it fascinating. I have actually done a lot of studying about the Bible. There are a lot of errors there. You said that any errors are errors in interpretation. However, there are clearly passages in the Bible that say two completely opposite things or are just flat out factually wrong. How can that be if the Bible was the word of God? Something has to give.
I do NOT think you are stupid, nor did I ever say you were. I just don't feel like you have any understanding of Pascal's Wager (which you fully admitted to) and I don't think you have really studied the Bible in a critical thinking sense. Those were my points and I didn't suggest anything more than that. Unfortunately, most strongly religious people get very defensive when you disagree with them or tell them something they believe in may have some holes in it. They instantly feel like "this guy thinks I'm stupid". It sounds like you were/are pretty bright, but you have just chosen to not deeply explore some things about the Bible or the philosophy behind what you believe. That's OK. My point is that you shouldn't try to argue things that you admittedly don't understand.
To answer your questions: 1) No, I don't believe in God. 2) Yes, I would love for there to be a God and until about 20 years ago, I was 100% convinced that there was one. I went to church every Sunday until I was in my mid-twenties. I took religion classes in college, but have studied religion far more over the last 15 years than I ever did growing up. It was when I really started challenging myself about why I believed what I believed and really starting asking tough questions that I led myself on a journey that ended up with me being an atheist. I still find religion fascinating and it is a great interest to me to understand why people believe in things that can't be proven with such great conviction. It is very eye opening to view the church and religion from the other side of the stained glass so to speak.
Your story sounds a little like mine--at least the early part of it. I will tell you that, during my college years, studying the sciences, I was exposed to opportunities to go either way with my faith. I had a very good friend--one that I still occasionally talk to, when I see him--who was an atheist and in the same major I was in. My path was in the health sciences as a part of a pre professional program, whereas his was in evolutionary biology with an emphasis in avian (bird) studies. During those years, my faith in God never wavered, but I wasn't walking with God consistently, and I was "on the fence", so to speak, about a number of things. Obviously, our paths went in opposite directions after college. Indeed, I had a reaffirming of my faith-- some years later at a business meeting of all places. Today I study historical works that I know will help me grow in & deepen my faith. As a believer in Christ, I read my Bible & talk to others about it, and one of my goals is to get stronger, not weaker or less certain. I consider taking the time to delve into material that would have me go in a different direction to be a waste of time--not to mention disobedient. If wanted to become a successful doctor, I would study the things that successful doctors study, and not something that someone who didn't go to medical school--and may even have a chip on their shoulder about the medical profession--would study. If I wanted to become a successful pilot, I wouldn't listen to or study material from someone who is afraid of heights and thinks humans should stay on the ground--as otherwise intelligent, educated, and sincere as they may be. If you are a sincere seeker, we may be able to exchange email addresses--you as well, natural. I would be happy to discuss it with you further.
Last edited:
My first hurdle is I see no evidence of the supernatural, can you help prove magic exists in the world? It seems to me, if you don't accept magic, none of the God concepts I'm aware of work. After that I have more specific problems with the Yahweh mythology and biblical accuracy, but I'm not sure any of that matters if I can't get past this magic issue. Thanks in advance for any advise you might have.
If you are dumb enough to believe in imaginary beings you're dumb enough to follow the teachings proclaimed to them
I have seen the supernatural and magic and ufos and possibly aliens or bigfoot, ghosts, and maybe jesus or some alien himself, so one cannot unsee what one has seen
of course most of it may be attributable to : drinking, dreams, our usa military doing excercises in upstate NY when I lived there, iowa being a freaky place and in particular, Ottumwa.
so what I saw could or could not be real.
In that case it might make sense for you to believe. But it seems from my perspective your own faith is sort of all over the place with a mix of ancient alien, new age Esotericism and evangelical Christianity tossed about as you see fit. So if a man who has seen Jesus can't commit to a biblical world view, I'm not sure there is much hope for a magical virgin like me.
Last edited:
Cru, I was once a devout member of the flock, THEN I became a sincere seeker. When I started seeking instead of blindly accepting what my parents and priests were telling me, it was then that the lights turned on so to speak. I remember as a child that I had some doubts mainly around the question, "why am I right and every other religion is wrong?" I just went along with what my parents believed because I trusted them and knew they loved me. Over time, I started to ask myself ever more difficult questions and found myself "believing" just so I wouldn't rock the boat, not because I actually believed any longer. When we had kids, I had to make a very hard decision about religion and what I wanted to teach my children. Both of my kids were baptized in the Catholic church, mainly to please my parents since I was pretty much an atheist at the point my second child was born.
So, it was about 11 years ago now that I decided to read and study as much as I possibly could about religion, god, faith and the Bible. I read books by Christian apologists, I read Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris, Dinesh D'Souza, Dan Barker, Bart Ehrman, etc. I watched lectures by William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, Lee Strobel, etc. I tried to cover every base and have an open mind. I firmly believe that you must be open to all possibilities if you really want to explore any question.
I find it interesting that you accused me of being intellectually dishonest. However, you clearly stated that you have no interest in reading anything that doesn't agree with your line of thinking. That, my friend, is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. It is bias in it's purest form. It would be like doing a scientific experiment and having the outcome predetermined (which is exactly what young earth believers do). Honestly, it sounds like you are afraid of something. Maybe afraid of confronting your own doubts or of creating some doubt. You are not a sincere seeker.
Finally, I don't know why you want to talk to me privately. Are you trying to evangelize or do you really want to have a frank discussion? As I mentioned, I have read extensively on both sides of the religion/god question. You have already said that you are not open to any material that might take you in a different direction. Seems like it would be a pretty one sided conversation. It's hard to show the light to someone who won't open their eyes. Please don't take that the wrong way because there is no reason you have to open your eyes. If you are happier in your life with blind, unquestioning faith, then good for you. I'm quite content with where I am in my beliefs as well.
I love me some Lee Strobel, I'm going to check out some of the rest on your list. I hope NaturalBornHawk finds this thread, he can quote Stroble chapter and verse.
I'd recommend John Lennox. He seems like a pretty good guy and is easy to listen to. There is a good debate out there with Richard Dawkins and John Lennox that's very worthwhile. If you want to watch a guy that is a master in circular reasoning, watch William Lane Craig. I saw him give a lecture about the bible and it boiled down to this: God is perfect and doesn't make mistakes. The Bible was written by God. Therefore, the Bible is perfect and there are no mistakes. He spent over an hour essentially saying the same thing in a few different ways. He answered every audience question the same way. If you can get by Ravi Zacharias and the way he holds on to the S a little too long for effect, he's not bad either.
I have Craig on in the background at the moment. I'll switch channels to get a taste of the others, thanks.
Strobel had a tv show for a second. I saw it once and he and another guy were challenging an atheist radio show host. Since they had him outnumbered they were a bit condescending, until the DJ asked, "what about retarded children" in response to something thing 1 and thing 2 said (Strobel and the other guy) . . . it was hilarious. They weren't prepared for that response. Their tongues got thick; they looked to each other, stuttered, and changed the subject.
Craig is not at all shy about just making stuff up to fit his beliefs. He has said that Richard Dawkins rejects Intelligent Design because he is an atheist. That is complete BS. Richard Dawkins is one of the most respected authorities on evolution living today. He rejects Intelligent Design because it is completely without scientific merit. Craig tries to sell ID as a non-religious, logically sound scientific theory. He ignores the fact that the only people who believe in ID are religious people who are tying to make ID fit with their beliefs.
He is arguing now in a segment that its OK to form a young earth theory on theological grounds then make the science fit. He goes on to argue that where the science appears to contradict, its just because we lack the mental ability to understand the real truth. Basically any time he has a problem, he just says god is mysterious, we aren't yet worthy of the details, but the Bible shows us the ultimate answer.
While I agree with Dawkins on ID, I don't find him impressive debater for the atheist side. In his book he uses philosophical, biblical, and theological arguments against God. LOL. Like you said, the guy is an expert in his field but he's swimming in way over his head in both those field of studies. I've always thought Hitchens was a much more serious opponent and better spokesperson for the atheist position. Dawkins? No offense, but I find his book is as insightful as the crap the Intelligent Design people put forth. If he was the best the atheist have/had then I'd say you're in trouble.
Well, Daniel Dennet is a philosopher, Bart Ehrman is a Princeton trained theologian and Bible scholar and Richard Dawkins is one of the foremost authorities on evolution and biology. Dan Barker was a Christian preacher. Christopher Hitchens was just a fantastic thinker and writer. I think the atheists have the bases covered.
I do not agree that Richard Dawkins can't comment on philosophical and Biblical arguments or is in way over his head in those fields. Just because he doesn't have phd's in those subjects doesn't mean he hasn't spent a ton of time researching those fields. He's a pretty smart guy capable of deep thinking. He knows how to do the proper research.
Which book of Dawkins did you read? I'd love to discuss the God Delusion with you, especially if there are particular points that you feel Dawkins floundered in. Can you point to where you feel his statements are not backed by very sound reasoning? I've read several of his books and he's pretty darn good. The one problem I have with Richard Dawkins is that he can be condescending and I don't think that's really necessary. I've seen him speak in person and I thought he was very impressive and a great speaker. He was also quite fair to the religious side. However, when you have religious people writing you insulting letters and telling you daily that you are going to burn in hell, it's got to become a little irritating. I know that comes out in his writing.
I know you aren't actively looking for "better" atheists, but the other guys I mentioned above are all very good writers and have interesting books. Believe me, there aren't many (any?) holes left in the argument. It boils down to faith and religious people are willing to believe and live their life with faith in the face of reason and logic. You really can't argue with the person who thinks that way because the answer to every question boils down to something that, although extremely unlikely, you can't disprove.
I didn't say Dawkins couldn't comment on philosophical and Biblical arguments. Oh, he's absolutely in way over his head in those fields.
I don't have the time or energy to get into this debate with you. We've went down this road before and I've found it a fruitless exercise since neither of us is changing the opinion of the other. Sorry, I'm not impressed with Dawkins, nor do I think he is fair to the religious side, but to each his own. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. All of these guys are brilliant people but that doesn't mean Dawkins is brilliant outside of his field of study. The same with Dennet and Ehrman. The other side also has brilliant people arguing their case.
If you don't believe in God, fine. It's your right and I'm not saying you (or they) aren't smart people or lack critical thinking skills for holding such a position. I had my own period of doubt in my lifetime but come to a more firm belief through things I've read and experiences I've had. Keynes was a brilliant economist but that doesn't mean he was always right (I believe his Keynesian economic theory is flawed). Einstein was wrong about things and he was as brilliant as anyone.
"It boils down to faith and religious people are willing to believe and live their life with faith in the face of reason and logic."
This is the thing that irritates me the most about atheists. Yes, faith is a key element for those who believe, but it's not a blind faith, it's not absent of reason and logic. Like I said, I'd rather not get into a lengthy discussion on the subject for it won't change minds. I just think both sides could do a better job of showing humility, and treating the other side with respect. Some of the language used by those of faith is unchristian toward atheists and some of the language used by atheists against believers has also been uncharitable. I actually liked Hitchens as a commentator, but some of his comments (like against Mother Theresa) are downright nasty and mean. He was a bomb thrower. It's actually kind of funny, his brother, Peter Hitchens (also brilliant), was an atheist and became a Christian later in life. He was the conservative to Christopher's liberalism.
Fair enough. I understand why you don't want to get into a lengthy discussion. I also don't disagree with both sides showing more humility and I'll certainly own up to being edgy in some of my conversations on here. By the way, I should be clear that I'm not trying to convert anyone to becoming an atheist. I'll argue my side all day long, though. (Obviously!). In regards to Hitchens, I really admired him as a writer and thinker. It would have been interesting to see him debate his brother and I bet there were some lengthy discussions around a few bottles of bourbon on the subject of religion. We will have to disagree about whether faith is based on reason and logic. From my perspective, the belief in god and religion (and walking on water, virgin births, rising from the dead, talking snakes, people living for 800 years, etc.) is just devoid of reason and logic. Anyway, I appreciate your comments and wish you a wonderful day.
Thanks, you too. BTW, I'm not saying virgin birth, walking on water, aren't matters of faith. I'm talking more about the general belief of God (higher intelligent being who started all of this "insanity"
, as being something one can come to believing using logic and reason. I would have paid money to sit at the dinner table and listen to those two. It would have been fascinating discussions. I just read Peter Hitchens review of Christopher's book, "God is not Great" and it's pretty good and informative. Most interestingly, to me, is that Peter, the conservative, was against the Iraq war, while Christopher, the liberal, was strongly in favor of it. Maybe they needed a sister to act as referee when they were discussing issues. I often disagreed with C. Hitchens but I did enjoy reading his articles. It was like reading William F. Buckley, in that the man could really write incredibly well, knew how to turn a clever phrase and use humor (even if I found that humor offensive at times) in his writings. It's too bad the brothers didn't have a PBS series (or something like it), where they would debate various issues. I think that would have been fun and informative to watch.
I don't think logic and reason can take you to a concept of God that requires and rewards worship. It seems to me reason could get you a creator force, but by the time you add intelligence, will, ego, etc. you are dealing with faith and hope and that's before we add in any of the mythology of any specific religion. Reason makes up such a small part of religion that at4's statement on faith is true.Thanks, you too. BTW, I'm not saying virgin birth, walking on water, aren't matters of faith. I'm talking more about the general belief of God (higher intelligent being who started all of this "insanity"
I disagree and we've been down this road before. If you accept we can use logic/reason to conclude there's a "God", then it's not a giant leap to one who requires worship. IMO you're once again picking nits. No need to rehash though. We aren't changing each others minds.
Sounds like you pretty well have your mind made up--about me as well as the Christian faith. I would disagree with your assessments of both. I actually am a very sincere seeker---as, apparently, are you. We're just seeking two very different; no, quite opposite, things. You are correct about one thing...it's hard to show the light to someone who won't open their eyes. But I'd say that it's you--not me--who's living in fear. I do thank you for your interest...and for talking. And, of course, wish you the best.
Last edited:
I find it impossible to believe that Lee Strobel would have any trouble with that question.
