Why are there atheists?
Dave Haas
If God really wants everybody to believe in him and worship him then
why doesn't he see to it that we all believe? You may say. We have
free will. But again why is it important to God that we have free
will. God wants us to think for ourselves. Maybe life is a test.
Maybe he set everything up to "look" like he doesn't exist for a
reason.
Now, just suppose that God has a limited amount of space in heaven or
for some other unknown reason doesn't want us all there. How could he
regulate the numbers so that everybody didn't go? It's simple. He
only wants people who can think for themselves. He will only accept
those who have figured out his puzzle......
He doesn't really exist!
D. Haas
Chani
Dave Haas wrote in message <355DDB4C...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net>...
We knew that! Now if only the theist would figure this out and stop
flooding the world with their particular brand of bull puckey, life would be
wonderful (I also think the world would be a better place.).
(Why did you cross post this to so many groups?)
Chani
Atheist #1118; c.ov...@worldnet.att.net
The atheist map is located at
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/Loreleis/index.html
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/h/a/chanileslie.htm
*****************************************************
"We dance round in a ring and suppose,
But the Secret sits in the middle and knows."
- Robert Frost
*****************************************************
>
>D. Haas
Andy Spring
In article <355DDB4C...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net>, Dave Haas
<dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>If God really wants everybody to believe in him and worship him then
>why doesn't he see to it that we all believe?
SOMEone has to abuse the fundamentalists.
--
...computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh
only 1/2 tons. -- Popular Mechanics, March 1949
++++ PGP Public Key URL ++++++
<http://swissnet.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x78068A41>
matab
On Sat, 16 May 1998 12:10:51 -0700, " Chani" <ath...@thereisnogod.com> wrote:
>
>Dave Haas wrote in message <355DDB4C...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net>...
.........
>>Now, just suppose that God has a limited amount of space in heaven or
>>for some other unknown reason doesn't want us all there. How could he
>>regulate the numbers so that everybody didn't go? It's simple. He
>>only wants people who can think for themselves. He will only accept
>>those who have figured out his puzzle......
Chani, now:
>
>We knew that! Now if only the theist would figure this out and stop
>flooding the world with their particular brand of bull puckey, life would be
>wonderful (I also think the world would be a better place.).
But heaven would be a hell of a crowded place!
Manlio
matab WA #926
luree
On Sat, 16 May 1998 22:31:56 GMT, Ranger <rang...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Life would be wonderful? A world with no 'morals'? Wonder what
>that would be like? Not too many people are still religous today..
>which is why the world is falling apart. If u hadn't noticed....
> We've survived countless centuries and soon it will end because of a
>lack of religion, not because of it.
>
Why on earth do good people need scare tactics for them to be good. A
mature person is quite capable of doing right on their own. Religion
doesn't encourage people to think on their own, therefore religious
people only do good out of fear of retribution. What a wonderful
world it would be if people were good to their fellow man because they
respect the race, religion, sexual identity, personal property, etc.
of others. Too bad that many people need a big daddy figure to scare
them into being good.
In the eyes of Christianity, people are sinful and helpless in the
face of God, and are potential fuel for the flames of hell. And those
flames, the belief in eternal torment, still subscribed to by
fundamentalist Christian denominations, undoubtedly ranks as the most
vicious and reprehensible doctrine of classical Christianity. The
threat of punishment for disbelief is the crowning touch of Christian
misology. Believe in Jesus, regardless of evidence or justification,
or be subjected to agonizing torture. With this theme reverberating
throughout the New Testament, we have intellectual intimidation,
transcendental black-mail, in its purest form. Threats replace
argumentation, and irrationality gains the edge over reason through
an appeal to brute force. A person's ability to think and question
becomes his most dangerous liability, and the intellectually
frightened, docile, unquestioning believer is presented as the
exemplification of moral perfection.
----
Check out my newest and most controversial book:
Cyber Warrior - The Ultimate Manifesto For Profit
And Enjoyment On The Internet.
http://www.islandnet.com/~luree/book/book.htm
Dan Kellner
>>If God really wants everybody to believe in him and worship him then
>>why doesn't he see to it that we all believe?
If you are serious about wanting an answer to this question, read below:
Jesus has given us many letters recently through a locutionist/visionary in
the
Cincinnati, Ohio area and this is what He has to say in response to your
question.
Title: Do God's Will--Surrender
Received: February 7, 1994 8:30 a.m.
Before Funeral Mass at St. Philip
Visionary: Surrender all through the Passion! Surrender!
Tied to a pole, beaten, led away, He sat without any
comment and they put a dirty robe on Him. He sat
in surrender while they hammered the crown of
thorns onto His head. Surrender--while they taunted Him and
laughed at Him. Surrender--gave Him a cross, hit Him, kicked
Him, spat on Him, struck Him with a stick to make Him get up, treated Him so
awfully.
Surrender--they led Him away, with Him totally complying to His death on the
cross. How
He hung there in total surrender!
Jesus: When they persecute you for My sake, great will be your reward! Stand
your trials.
I was as the innocent lamb led to the slaughter. In the act of total
submission to the will of
The Father, I gave My life for His will. Say the Our Father. Thy will be
done, Father. This,
doing His will, is worth more than a thousand prayers. This pleases Me, The
Father and the
Holy Spirit.
Surrender your lives. Make your lives an act of total submission to God. Be
as the little
lamb being led to the slaughter. You will suffer persecution for My sake. My
way is not to
take up the sword. My way is in submission.
Do you see Me hanging in the act of total submission? Follow Me. This is My
way for you.
You want your own way. Follow My will. This weighs far more than any
mortification. This
pleases Me. I call you to total surrender. See Me dying on the cross in
compliance with The
Father's will. You surrender your lives to The Father's will. This is your
guide: your inner
promptings on what tells you His will.
You must be before Me in the tabernacle. In a million years you will not
acquire the
knowledge you obtain there. I am God, My chosen ones, I want to guide you.
You cannot
find your way without the silence daily in front of Me. All will work when
you obey Me now
and listen to Me and spend time with Me in silence. Do not read prayers and
say prayers
only. This is not sitting with Me in union! You need to be in front of Me
and not busy. This
is how you will acquire your knowledge.
Visionary: I love You, Jesus.
There are as many hearts as personalities. The more I love God, the more I
am able to love.
He is all love. All love is rooted in Him.
If I am mortifying myself and praying and doing the sacrifices I want, but
God is telling me
to do something else, I am not doing His will. I am picking and choosing and
deciding I
must do this prayer, that one. I am not doing His will.
He is calling you in front of the tabernacle, "Can you not wait one hour
with Me?" No. I
want to do this sacrifice. I am doing my will, my good acts. Performing good
acts is not
necessarily doing God's will.
****************************************************************************
*************************
In short, God loves us so much that He does not control us. He allows us to
choose for
ourselves. He is an all loving God. Alleluia. Alleluia.
If you are interested in reading more letters from Jesus, there is a book
on-line at:
http://www.Shepherds-of-Christ.org/BLUEBKII/bb2_vii.htm
Your brother in Jesus Christ,
Dan
LDK - Vangelis Kritikos
Dan Kellner wrote:
>
> >>If God really wants everybody to believe in him and worship him then
> >>why doesn't he see to it that we all believe?
>
> If you are serious about wanting an answer to this question, read below:
>
> Jesus has given us many letters recently through a locutionist/visionary in
> the
> Cincinnati, Ohio area and this is what He has to say in response to your
> question.
Quite an answer I would say :->>
Wuff
In <6jsr64$5mb$1...@malgudi.oar.net> "Dan Kellner" <dkel...@carsinfo.com> writes:
<snip useless waffle>
>Your brother in Jesus Christ,
>Dan
Hey, he posted this to alt.atheism.satire...
Maybe he's not as stupid as he looks :-)
Vin
Earle Jones
>Dan Kellner wrote:
>>
>> >>If God really wants everybody to believe in him and worship him then
>> >>why doesn't he see to it that we all believe?
>>
>> If you are serious about wanting an answer to this question, read below:
>>
>> Jesus has given us many letters recently through a locutionist/visionary in
>> the
>> Cincinnati, Ohio area and this is...
--
Cincinnati? You're kidding!
Cincinnati is a unique town.
Unique: From "Unus", meaning "one" and "Equus", meaning "horse".
earle
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
"He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions,
and that is the heart of science."
--Carl Sagan on Johannes Kepler in "Cosmos"
charles duncan
Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>If God really wants everybody to believe in him and worship him then
>why doesn't he see to it that we all believe? You may say. We have
>free will. But again why is it important to God that we have free
>will. God wants us to think for ourselves. Maybe life is a test.
>Maybe he set everything up to "look" like he doesn't exist for a
>reason.
>
>Now, just suppose that God has a limited amount of space in heaven or
>for some other unknown reason doesn't want us all there. How could he
>regulate the numbers so that everybody didn't go? It's simple. He
>only wants people who can think for themselves. He will only accept
>those who have figured out his puzzle......
>
>He doesn't really exist!
Your question is a real puzzle for me. You are telling me that
something which you say doesn't exist is asking me to figure out
his puzzle.
I'll have to think about this.
C. Duncan
L P
On Sat, 16 May 1998 14:30:36 -0400, Dave Haas
<dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>If God really wants everybody to believe in him and worship him then
>why doesn't he see to it that we all believe?
I think a better question would be.. Why are there theist?
And I think the guy that wrote this book, at this web page, has the
answer:
Dave Haas
Shawn wrote:
>
> : In article <355DDB4C...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net>, Dave Haas
> : <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>
> : >If God really wants everybody to believe in him and worship him then
> : >why doesn't he see to it that we all believe?
>
Well, Duhh to you. This was adressed to theists. Have you
deconverted?
D. Haas
James Penrose
Chani (ath...@thereisnogod.com) wrote:
: Dave Haas wrote in message <355DDB4C...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net>...
: >If God really wants everybody to believe in him and worship him then
: >why doesn't he see to it that we all believe? You may say. We have
: >free will. But again why is it important to God that we have free
: >will. God wants us to think for ourselves. Maybe life is a test.
: >Maybe he set everything up to "look" like he doesn't exist for a
: >reason.
: >
: >Now, just suppose that God has a limited amount of space in heaven or
: >for some other unknown reason doesn't want us all there. How could he
: >regulate the numbers so that everybody didn't go? It's simple. He
: >only wants people who can think for themselves. He will only accept
: >those who have figured out his puzzle......
: >
: >He doesn't really exist!
: We knew that! Now if only the theist would figure this out and stop
: flooding the world with their particular brand of bull puckey, life would be
: wonderful (I also think the world would be a better place.).
kkk
Actually there *is* limited space in heaven..grin..read Revelations, I
think it gives the measurements..something like 7 miles on a side or some
such..that'd be 49 square miles, which'd be pretty dang crwoded with a
million people let alone the hundreds of millions they expect. ;)
Even if we assume it's a buve 7 miles high, that's still gonna be
horib
ly crowded when they get to 10,000,000.
Today's ponder; Heaven has several gates...why? Where do they go? And
do you need a passport to go outside?
Andrew Lias
In article <jpenroseE...@netcom.com>,
James Penrose <jpen...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Today's ponder; Heaven has several gates...why? Where do they go? And
>do you need a passport to go outside?
You're missing the point. It's to keep the inmates from getting out once
they realize exactly how horrific it is to contemplate an eternity of
singing hossanahs to the ultimate ego. That's also why the road up there
is so straight and narrow -- it's easier for the guards to track down any
escapees.
--
To reply, just replace "@shell." with "@hotmail.com" | Siste viator
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is
deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
http://www.wco.com/~anrwlias
James
> >why doesn't he see to it that we all believe?
>
Maybe it's because we have "free will?"
walksalone
On Sat, 23 May 1998 07:02:57 -0500, James <fos...@flash.net> wrote:
%L P wrote:
%>
%> On Sat, 16 May 1998 14:30:36 -0400, Dave Haas
%> <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
%>
%> >If God really wants everybody to believe in him and worship him
then
%> >why doesn't he see to it that we all believe?
%>
%
%
%Maybe it's because we have "free will?"
free will = religion/god. a conflict of terms, not?
"it is believed by everyone that when he was in heaven he was stern, hard,
resentful, jealous and cruel, but that when he came down to earth, he
became the opposite... sweet, gentle merciful, forgiving. He was a
thousand billion times crueler than ever he was in the Old Testament...
Meek and gentle? By and by we will examine that popular sarcasm by the
light of the hell which he invented."
[Mark Twain, on Jesus Christ, in "Letters from the Earth"]
Dave Haas
James wrote:
>
> L P wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 16 May 1998 14:30:36 -0400, Dave Haas
> > <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
> >
> > >If God really wants everybody to believe in him and worship him then
> >
>
>
You mean he is playing games with us? If you believe I'll let you go
to heaven but if you don't I'll send you to hell? You have free will
so you may believe anything you wish, however, if you pick the wrong
God you blew it Jack! Ha Ha you go to hell. Let's see how many Gods
are available with subjective evidence to support their existence.
Pick one from the list:
Allah, Aphrodite, Ares, Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Babaluaye, Baccus,
Baldur, Bast, Bellona, Brigid, Ceres, Cupid, Ceres, Cerridwen,
Demeter, Diana, Dione, Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Eleggua, Eshu, Ereshkigal,
Frigga, Frey, Freya, Gaea, Hades, Hebe, Hera, Helios, Hel, Hephaestus,
Hermes, Hestia, Horus, Ibeji, Ifa, Inanna, Ishtar, Isis, Janus, Juno,
Jehovah, Jove, Jupiter, Krishna Kronos, Loki, Lugh, Mars, Mercury,
Minerva, Mercurius, Morrigan, Nephthys, Neptune, Obatala, Odin, Ogun,
Oshosi, Oshun, Osiris, Oya, Orunmila, Olokun, Olodumare, Pluto,
Persephone, Poseidon, Proserpina, Ra, Rhea, Saturn, Set, Selene,
Shango, Tammuz, Thor, Tir, Tiw, Uranus, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Wotan,
Yemaya, Zeus
There are more.
D. Haas
charles duncan
Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>> Maybe it's because we have "free will?"
>
>You mean he is playing games with us? If you believe I'll let you go
>to heaven but if you don't I'll send you to hell? You have free will
>so you may believe anything you wish, however, if you pick the wrong
>God you blew it Jack! Ha Ha you go to hell. Let's see how many Gods
>are available with subjective evidence to support their existence.
>Pick one from the list:
>
> Allah, Aphrodite, Ares, Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Babaluaye, Baccus,
>Baldur, Bast, Bellona, Brigid, Ceres, Cupid, Ceres, Cerridwen,
>Demeter, Diana, Dione, Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Eleggua, Eshu, Ereshkigal,
>Frigga, Frey, Freya, Gaea, Hades, Hebe, Hera, Helios, Hel, Hephaestus,
>Hermes, Hestia, Horus, Ibeji, Ifa, Inanna, Ishtar, Isis, Janus, Juno,
>Jehovah, Jove, Jupiter, Krishna Kronos, Loki, Lugh, Mars, Mercury,
>Minerva, Mercurius, Morrigan, Nephthys, Neptune, Obatala, Odin, Ogun,
>Oshosi, Oshun, Osiris, Oya, Orunmila, Olokun, Olodumare, Pluto,
>Persephone, Poseidon, Proserpina, Ra, Rhea, Saturn, Set, Selene,
>Shango, Tammuz, Thor, Tir, Tiw, Uranus, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Wotan,
>Yemaya, Zeus
>
>There are more.
That's one of the attractions of the idea of rebirth or reincarnation.
You have your free will and all the time you need to go through your
alphabetical list.
I am not a theologian by any stretch and I will defer to an expert's
view, but I am under the impression that reincarnation was a part of
early Christianity. Is this true or am I mistaken on this point?
C. Duncan
Peter Kirby
charles duncan wrote:
> [snip]
>
> I am not a theologian by any stretch and I will defer to an expert's
> view, but I am under the impression that reincarnation was a part of
> early Christianity. Is this true or am I mistaken on this point?
If your theory is correct, somehow all of the earliest known Christian
writers mysteriously forgot to mention reincarnation.
Paul, the earliest epistle writer, says that believers "sleep" and at the end
of the world will join Jesus in the clouds forever (1Th 4:17).
--
Peter Kirby <ki...@earthlink.net>
XTIANITY list owner, alt.atheism atheist #16
Home page: http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/ (updated 5/14/98)
Adam Knight
matab <manl...@virgin.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 1998 07:02:57 -0500, James <fos...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Maybe it's because we have "free will?"
>
> You are free to do whatever you want, provided you do
> whatever is god's will.
>
> This is in short the expression of the idiotic christian "free will"
Actually, free will has no restrictions in and of itself, it is a
seperate idea in Christianity that requires its followers to follow
their God. It is a seperate desite that is supposed to cultivate to the
point that one wants to do God's will, but there is by no means a forced
application of God's will imposed.
It is in that that James is correct, from a Christian point of view.
=)
From another point of view it is reasonable to assume that there are
atheists because just as theists "need something to believe in,
something that is bigger than themselves and wthat will tell them how to
live their lives," atheists "do not want to believe in anything, do not
want to be subservient to a higher power, and therefore do not believe."
It's a matter of authority, mostly. People can rationalize it down
to not believing in what one cannot see, or to likening modern theistic
beliefs to ancient myths, but the end result is the same: atheists do
not want to be subservient, they want to be masters of their own life
for they see no reason not to be. A convinient opposition to the
theistic view of desiring to be subsurvient to a higher power, for they
see no wany of being able to live their lives without one. A crutch, if
you will.
Walking on crutches,
<ducks>
<quack><quack>
--
Adam Knight
Computer Science, 2001 -- Baylor University, Waco, TX
Mail me at funkyboy at swbell dot net
Peter Kirby
Adam Knight wrote:
>
> From another point of view it is reasonable to assume that there are
> atheists because just as theists "need something to believe in,
> something that is bigger than themselves and wthat will tell them how to
> live their lives," atheists "do not want to believe in anything, do not
> want to be subservient to a higher power, and therefore do not believe."
Um, some people at least try to analyze the truth of the matter, independent
of what they would like to be the case. Yes, some theists too. (Although
apparently not you!)
Peter Kirby
charles duncan wrote:
>
> Peter Kirby <ki...@SPAM.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >charles duncan wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> I am not a theologian by any stretch and I will defer to an expert's
> >> view, but I am under the impression that reincarnation was a part of
> >> early Christianity. Is this true or am I mistaken on this point?
> >
> >If your theory is correct, somehow all of the earliest known Christian
> >writers mysteriously forgot to mention reincarnation.
>
> >
> >Paul, the earliest epistle writer, says that believers "sleep" and at the end
> >of the world will join Jesus in the clouds forever (1Th 4:17).
>
So do I!
> I am not really making a theory,
> but I recall hearing the theory that reincarnation was suppressed
> by the powers that be in the early church.
In addition to the complete silence of the written record, you would have to
explain how this idea arose in a 1st c. Jewish Palestinian context.
> I'm just putting the
> statement out here to see if anyone has ever heard this or knows
> anything about it. I don't pretend to know.
I've heard a lot of crazy statements about early Christianity, but this one
is new to me.
matab
On Sat, 23 May 1998 07:02:57 -0500, James <fos...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>Maybe it's because we have "free will?"
You are free to do whatever you want, provided you do
whatever is god's will.
This is in short the expression of the idiotic christian "free will"
Manlio
matab WA #926
matab
On Sat, 23 May 1998 22:12:37 GMT, art...@mindspring.com (charles duncan) wrote:
>... I am under the impression that reincarnation was a part of
>early Christianity. Is this true or am I mistaken on this point?
Christianity has gone through all the stages:
Superstition, Magic, Reincarnation, Prophecies, Asthrology,
Whitch hunt, Paganism, Polytheism, Spiritism, Voodoo, and so on.
Last and least stage is Fundamentalism, the last resource of the
desperate.
Manlio
matab WA #926
charles duncan
Peter Kirby <ki...@SPAM.earthlink.net> wrote:
>In addition to the complete silence of the written record, you would have to
>explain how this idea arose in a 1st c. Jewish Palestinian context.
>
>> I'm just putting the
>> statement out here to see if anyone has ever heard this or knows
>> anything about it. I don't pretend to know.
>
>I've heard a lot of crazy statements about early Christianity, but this one
>is new to me.
I was trying to jog my memory about this and it occurred to me to
head to a search engine. I typed in "reincarnation Christianity"
and several references were listed. I can't vouch for the scholarship
but apparently there are several writers who are putting forth that
theory.
According to one writer the debate raged until about the 4th century
when Emperor Justinian squashed it. There is a reference to a
Christian theologian, Origen of Alexandria.
If you are curious head to Infoseek, or your favorite search engine.
C. Duncan
DCD
In article <356784...@earthlink.net>, Peter Kirby
<ki...@SPAM.earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I am not really making a theory,
>> but I recall hearing the theory that reincarnation was suppressed
>> by the powers that be in the early church.
Reincarnation, as an idea, has been around for a long time. In Jesus'
time, the Pharisees believed in reincarnation. Early Christianity probably
did carry some elements of reincarnatory theory; if you know something of
mystical/gnostic Christianity, you know this is the case. Gnosticism was
stapmed out by the early Church fathers, Iraneus of Lyon, etc, as they
believed it to be heretical.
Sean
Paul Andrew King
In article <3566BA...@flash.net>,
James <fos...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>L P wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 16 May 1998 14:30:36 -0400, Dave Haas
>> <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>>
>> >If God really wants everybody to believe in him and worship him then
>> >why doesn't he see to it that we all believe?
>>
>
>
>Maybe it's because we have "free will?"
Odd answer. If we knew God existed we could make a free choice to worship
Him or not. What's free will got to do with why we don't believe ?
--
"Hullo clouds, hullo sky, hullo pile of severed human heads," said Major
Basil Fotherington-Thomas.
(Eugene Byrne & Kim Newman "Teddy-Bear's Picnic")
Replace "nospam" with "morat" to reply
Paul K.
Mr. Minkfoot
In article <35675E...@earthlink.net>, Peter Kirby
<ki...@SPAM.earthlink.net> wrote:
}charles duncan wrote:
}> [snip]
}>
}> I am not a theologian by any stretch and I will defer to an expert's
}> view, but I am under the impression that reincarnation was a part of
}> early Christianity. Is this true or am I mistaken on this point?
}
}If your theory is correct, somehow all of the earliest known Christian
}writers mysteriously forgot to mention reincarnation.
Incorrect. Reincarnation is mentioned in the Gospels, albeit in passing
and as an example of what was in the public Jewish mind at the time.
People asked of both John the Baptist and of Jesus if they were Elias or
some other ancient noteworthy reborn. However, there *is* a strong
suggestion that John *was* Elias come back.
---Weasel Tracks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Entropy isn't what it used to be."
Adam Knight
Peter Kirby <ki...@SPAM.earthlink.net> wrote:
> Adam Knight wrote:
> >
> > From another point of view it is reasonable to assume that there are
> > atheists because just as theists "need something to believe in,
> > something that is bigger than themselves and wthat will tell them how to
> > live their lives," atheists "do not want to believe in anything, do not
> > want to be subservient to a higher power, and therefore do not believe."
>
> Um, some people at least try to analyze the truth of the matter, independent
> of what they would like to be the case. Yes, some theists too. (Although
> apparently not you!)
Oh, I made no mention of investigation or struggle to get to the
point one reaches. Yes, some do, some don't. Same goes for the other
side of the fence as well.
As for myself, I was an atheist for 16 years. I fought, and because
Christian of my own accord, and then Catholic of my own accord.
Ask before you accuse. =p
tony...@post6.tele.dk
On Sun, 24 May 1998 11:03:04 -0500, now...@hell.edu (Adam Knight)
wrote:
You said: atheists "do not want to believe in anything, do not
want to be subservient to a higher power, and therefore do not
believe."
How do you know what atheists want to believe in? Don't you think
that it is a pretty big assumption to make? I want to believe that my
father is Ted Turner and that he will soon share his wealth with me.
I want to believe it, but I don't. It would be wonderful if I
believed what the priests and nuns taught me, but I don't. Wishful
thinking may be fun, but it is not productive or adult.
Thomas P.
Sarah Ettritch
Adam Knight wrote ...
>matab wrote ...
>> You are free to do whatever you want, provided you do
>> whatever is god's will.
>>
>> This is in short the expression of the idiotic christian "free will"
>
> Actually, free will has no restrictions in and of itself, it is a
>seperate idea in Christianity that requires its followers to follow
>their God. It is a seperate desite that is supposed to cultivate to the
>point that one wants to do God's will, but there is by no means a forced
>application of God's will imposed.
Sure there is. According to *Orthodox* Christianity, if you don't choose
what He wants you to choose, you get fried. I'd say that's someone imposing
his will.
Sarah.
Earle Jones
In article <1d9i3rt.1vq...@ppp-208-21-128-188.crchtx.swbell.net>,
now...@hell.edu (Adam Knight) wrote:
>Peter Kirby <ki...@SPAM.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Adam Knight wrote:
>> >
[...]
> As for myself, I was an atheist for 16 years. I fought, and because
>Christian of my own accord, and then Catholic of my own accord.
--
Adam: With some effort, you could still be saved.
earle
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
"There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who
cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths.
Almost inevitably, some part of him is aware that they are myths, and
that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dares not
face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his
opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed."
--Bertrand Russell
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
--Thomas Jefferson
Al Klein
On Sat, 23 May 1998 19:24:14 -0700, Peter Kirby
<ki...@SPAM.earthlink.net> wrote:
>charles duncan wrote:
>> Peter Kirby <ki...@SPAM.earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >charles duncan wrote:
>> >> [snip]
>> >> I am not a theologian by any stretch and I will defer to an expert's
>> >> view, but I am under the impression that reincarnation was a part of
>> >> early Christianity. Is this true or am I mistaken on this point?
>> >If your theory is correct, somehow all of the earliest known Christian
>> >writers mysteriously forgot to mention reincarnation.
>> >Paul, the earliest epistle writer, says that believers "sleep" and at the end
>> >of the world will join Jesus in the clouds forever (1Th 4:17).
>> I disagree with Paul on that point.
>So do I!
>> I am not really making a theory,
>> but I recall hearing the theory that reincarnation was suppressed
>> by the powers that be in the early church.
>In addition to the complete silence of the written record, you would have to
>explain how this idea arose in a 1st c. Jewish Palestinian context.
It would be more of a Tasian context, since Saul developed
Christianity mainly in Tarsus.
--
Al - aklein at villagenet dot com
L P
>Peter Kirby <ki...@SPAM.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Adam Knight wrote:
>> >
>> > From another point of view it is reasonable to assume that there are
>> > atheists because just as theists "need something to believe in,
>> > something that is bigger than themselves and wthat will tell them how to
>> > live their lives," atheists "do not want to believe in anything, do not
>> > want to be subservient to a higher power, and therefore do not believe."
>>
>> Um, some people at least try to analyze the truth of the matter, independent
>> of what they would like to be the case. Yes, some theists too. (Although
>> apparently not you!)
>
> Oh, I made no mention of investigation or struggle to get to the
>point one reaches. Yes, some do, some don't. Same goes for the other
>side of the fence as well.
>
> As for myself, I was an atheist for 16 years. I fought, and because
>Christian of my own accord, and then Catholic of my own accord.
>
Just curious....
What _evidence_ changed you from being an atheist to theist?
Or was atheism just to scary for you?
See....
http://www.godpart.com/
L P
>In article <3566BA...@flash.net>,
>James <fos...@flash.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>L P wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 16 May 1998 14:30:36 -0400, Dave Haas
>>> <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >If God really wants everybody to believe in him and worship him then
>>> >why doesn't he see to it that we all believe?
>>>
>>
>>
>>Maybe it's because we have "free will?"
>
>Odd answer. If we knew God existed we could make a free choice to worship
>Him or not. What's free will got to do with why we don't believe ?
Good point!
Adam Knight
L P <lporter...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
I'm a smart fish; I've survived this long. That's some bait I will
not bite. Suffice it to say it was enough to convert me, but of a
nature that it would only convert *me.* I'm not getting into an
atheist/theist debate. Those go nowhere and take forever. You will
believe what you will believe and I shall believe what I shall believe.
If you are still curious, reply again, but I will not respond to any
request or question that I feel will start another pointless debate. We
are what we are because we feel there is reason to be, and neither side
will buckle because of one word spoken/typed/spewed on these newsgroups
(who the heck cross-posted this into the Gnostic group???? I mean I'm
in a.r.c, but ... oh well).
--
Adam Knight
Sarah Ettritch <ettr...@idirect.com> wrote:
> Adam Knight wrote ...
>
> > Actually, free will has no restrictions in and of itself, it is a
> >seperate idea in Christianity that requires its followers to follow
> >their God. It is a seperate desite that is supposed to cultivate to the
> >point that one wants to do God's will, but there is by no means a forced
> >application of God's will imposed.
>
> Sure there is. According to *Orthodox* Christianity, if you don't choose
> what He wants you to choose, you get fried. I'd say that's someone imposing
> his will.
You missed the entire point of my post. Go read it again.
I'm saying that ther eis no force in the world making you every move
conform to God's wishes; we are not stringed puppets. There is free
will are we can do what we want. There is simply a reason why we would
NOT want to do what WE want and rather do what God wants of us. That
reason is what atheists do not believe in: loving a Crator they cannot
see, and therefore cannot believe in (seeing not being the eyes, but all
senses [no miracles, no apparations in their bedrooms, no Jesus asking
you to feel His woulds and tell Him that He's not real]).
Adam Knight
<tony...@post6.tele.dk> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 1998 11:03:04 -0500, now...@hell.edu (Adam Knight)
> wrote:
>
> > Oh, I made no mention of investigation or struggle to get to the
> >point one reaches. Yes, some do, some don't. Same goes for the other
> >side of the fence as well.
> >
> > As for myself, I was an atheist for 16 years. I fought, and because
> >Christian of my own accord, and then Catholic of my own accord.
> >
> > Ask before you accuse. =p
>
> You said: atheists "do not want to believe in anything, do not
> want to be subservient to a higher power, and therefore do not
> believe."
>
> How do you know what atheists want to believe in? Don't you think
> that it is a pretty big assumption to make? I want to believe that my
> father is Ted Turner and that he will soon share his wealth with me.
> I want to believe it, but I don't. It would be wonderful if I
> believed what the priests and nuns taught me, but I don't. Wishful
> thinking may be fun, but it is not productive or adult.
And to you, it really is as far-fetched as you make it. But to me,
obviously, it is not. I find it the most beautiful thing in the world
to believe. I'd go into detail, but you'd not care to hear it.
As for "how would [I] know?" I was atheist before, and I've talked
to many an atheist (you're not exactly a minority these days, you know)
and I've asked them. Many give me that answer, or give me sufficient
reason to assume that answer as the underlying cause ("No one's running
MY sex life!"). I think that if you take offense to it, then you need
to think about why you don't believe more closely. Is it all too
far-fetched to be real, or do you just not want to have to hand over
your life and your decisions to a God you cannot communicate with in a
way you already know how? Do you not want to have to feel "weak" enough
to buckle to a God that people you know do not believe in?
Adam Knight
Earle Jones <ejon...@concentric.net> wrote:
> In article <1d9i3rt.1vq...@ppp-208-21-128-188.crchtx.swbell.net>,
> now...@hell.edu (Adam Knight) wrote:
>
> > As for myself, I was an atheist for 16 years. I fought, and because
> >Christian of my own accord, and then Catholic of my own accord.
>
> Adam: With some effort, you could still be saved.
And with some help you could regain what wit you lost thinking up
that post. <g> <g> <g> ;-)
I'm just kidding. The fact is, I'm happy being who I am, and
believing what I do. That you feel fine being atheist, that's your
life. I feel it better to believe in what I feel is reality, but I'm
sure you feel the smae for me. Let's just live our lives for whatever
ultimate goal we might have.
Adam Knight
Paul Andrew King <pa...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <3566BA...@flash.net>,
> James <fos...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> >Maybe it's because we have "free will?"
>
> Odd answer. If we knew God existed we could make a free choice to worship
> Him or not. What's free will got to do with why we don't believe ?
In each of us, that is each of us that looks inward long enough and
close enough, there is proof of God's existance. Proof enought hat we
have been given the chance to choose God, and proof enough that free
will has something to do with it.
Dave Haas
Adam Knight wrote:
>
> Paul Andrew King <pa...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <3566BA...@flash.net>,
> > James <fos...@flash.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Maybe it's because we have "free will?"
> >
> > Odd answer. If we knew God existed we could make a free choice to worship
> > Him or not. What's free will got to do with why we don't believe ?
>
> In each of us, that is each of us that looks inward long enough and
> close enough, there is proof of God's existance. Proof enought hat we
> have been given the chance to choose God, and proof enough that free
> will has something to do with it.
> --
In other words, if we want to believe in God we must convince
ourselves he exists. There is a name for this kind of mental
aberration its called self delusion. With out any outside objective
evidence we look inward for evidence - voices which tell us that God
exists. This is great.
Do you know how many nuts are locked up because they see and believe
in things the rest of us don't? I hope your God does not tell you to
hurt anyone. Where do you live. I want to avoid the area.
D. Haas
Nicolas P. Demers
Adam Knight wrote:
>
> In each of us, that is each of us that looks inward long enough and
> close enough, there is proof of God's existance.
Precisely. And if you look inward long enough and close enough, you'll
find proof of the IPU's existence, too. Or Odin. Or the Goddess. Or
whatever other deity you were expecting.
So, taking your post literally, if I don't look inward "long enough" and
"close enough", then there is no proof of God's existence inside me?
Cool. Now, who was it that said, "Reality is that which, when you stop
believeing in it, doesn't go away"?
--
Nicolas P. Demers n...@cs.sfu.ca
http://www.cs.sfu.ca/~npd/personal/index.html
Would you like my mask?
Would you like my mirror?
tony...@post6.tele.dk
On Mon, 25 May 1998 14:39:02 -0500, now...@hell.edu (Adam Knight)
wrote:
><tony...@post6.tele.dk> wrote:
>
>> You said: atheists "do not want to believe in anything, do not
>> want to be subservient to a higher power, and therefore do not
>> believe."
>>
>> How do you know what atheists want to believe in? Don't you think
>> that it is a pretty big assumption to make? I want to believe that my
>> father is Ted Turner and that he will soon share his wealth with me.
>> I want to believe it, but I don't. It would be wonderful if I
>> believed what the priests and nuns taught me, but I don't. Wishful
>> thinking may be fun, but it is not productive or adult.
>
> And to you, it really is as far-fetched as you make it. But to me,
>obviously, it is not. I find it the most beautiful thing in the world
>to believe. I'd go into detail, but you'd not care to hear it.
>
> As for "how would [I] know?" I was atheist before, and I've talked
>to many an atheist (you're not exactly a minority these days, you know)
>and I've asked them. Many give me that answer, or give me sufficient
>reason to assume that answer as the underlying cause ("No one's running
>MY sex life!"). I think that if you take offense to it, then you need
>to think about why you don't believe more closely. Is it all too
>far-fetched to be real, or do you just not want to have to hand over
>your life and your decisions to a God you cannot communicate with in a
>way you already know how? Do you not want to have to feel "weak" enough
>to buckle to a God that people you know do not believe in?
>--
>Adam Knight
>Computer Science, 2001 -- Baylor University, Waco, TX
>Mail me at funkyboy at swbell dot net
So you have talked to a few atheists, and now you know what I think
and what the majority of atheists think. I, an atheist, don't know
what other atheists think. I only know what I think. Consider the
possibility that your strawman does not apply to everyone out there.
It is even possible that you are not talking about the majority. One
thing is certain; you have no objective basis for your assertion.
Thomas P.
tony...@post6.tele.dk
On Mon, 25 May 1998 14:38:58 -0500, now...@hell.edu (Adam Knight)
wrote:
>L P <lporter...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
snip
>> Just curious....
>> What _evidence_ changed you from being an atheist to theist?
>> Or was atheism just to scary for you?
>
> I'm a smart fish; I've survived this long. That's some bait I will
>not bite. Suffice it to say it was enough to convert me, but of a
>nature that it would only convert *me.* I'm not getting into an
>atheist/theist debate. Those go nowhere and take forever. You will
>believe what you will believe and I shall believe what I shall believe.
>
> If you are still curious, reply again, but I will not respond to any
>request or question that I feel will start another pointless debate. We
>are what we are because we feel there is reason to be, and neither side
>will buckle because of one word spoken/typed/spewed on these newsgroups
>(who the heck cross-posted this into the Gnostic group???? I mean I'm
>in a.r.c, but ... oh well).
>--
>Adam Knight
>Computer Science, 2001 -- Baylor University, Waco, TX
>Mail me at funkyboy at swbell dot net
It would not be a pointless debate if you actually had something to
offer in the way of evidence. The debates go on forever over just
that point. The theist will not admit that he has no evidence, or, as
in your case, he says there is no point in discussing it. The bottom
line is that you have no argument beyond "it feels good".
You say there is no point in discussing it, but that does not stop you
from claiming intimate knowledge of the thought processes of atheists.
If you do not want to discuss it, don't.
Thomas P.
tony...@post6.tele.dk
On Mon, 25 May 1998 14:39:05 -0500, now...@hell.edu (Adam Knight)
wrote:
>Paul Andrew King <pa...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <3566BA...@flash.net>,
>> James <fos...@flash.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Maybe it's because we have "free will?"
>>
>> Odd answer. If we knew God existed we could make a free choice to worship
>> Him or not. What's free will got to do with why we don't believe ?
>
In each of us, that is each of us that looks inward long enough
and
>close enough, there is proof of God's existance. Proof enought hat we
>have been given the chance to choose God, and proof enough that free
>will has something to do with it.
>--
>Adam Knight
>Computer Science, 2001 -- Baylor University, Waco, TX
>Mail me at funkyboy at swbell dot net
There you go again. You have no right to claim knowledge of what is
in me. You are not able to give your evidence of it's existence, and
yet you insist that this evidence eixists in me. You have no evidence
for any of these assertions. It is all just words - very arrogant
words.
Thomas P.
Nick Matthewsen
On Sat, 23 May 1998 07:02:57 -0500, James <fos...@flash.net> wrote:
>L P wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 16 May 1998 14:30:36 -0400, Dave Haas
>> <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>>
>> >If God really wants everybody to believe in him and worship him then
>> >why doesn't he see to it that we all believe?
>
Since this is crossposted to alt.religion.christian, I'll hope that
somebody can answer my question:
Some people claimed that God exists, but does not currently reveal
himself (unambiguously) to humanity because of our "free will." I
argue that, if Christianity (or nearly any theistic religions) is
true, this cannot be the case, because according to those religions,
God _has_ revealed himself to people in the past -- some of whom did
not previously believe in him.
If God exists, and has revealed himself unambiguously in the past, did
the people to whom he revealed himself lose their free will? If not,
I wonder, why would God's revealing himself unambiguously _today_ take
our free will away?
Yours,
--
\\ Nick Matthewsen // Akronas: Science is only a means -- one of many.
|| aa 1011011011 || Crow: (There's also FAN DANCING!)
// Qni...@mit.edu \\ - MST3K, "Cave Dwellers"
( Remove Q's to reply. Unsolicited commercial email unwelcome.)
Mattheq
In article <3567224D...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net>, Dave Haas
<dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
> There are more.
Not to mention which fringe sect you choose.
mattheq
--
"And then, one Thursday nearly two thousand years after one man had been
nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a
change..." http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/9079/ Drop in!
IA i^8 His Holiness, Pope Mattheq I
Earle Jones
In article <1d9kfq7.1f0...@ppp-208-21-128-188.crchtx.swbell.net>,
now...@hell.edu (Adam Knight) wrote:
[...]
Is it all too
>far-fetched to be real, or do you just not want to have to hand over
>your life and your decisions to a God you cannot communicate with in a
>way you already know how?
--
If you talk to God, you have faith.
If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia.
earle
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or
Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify
and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
--Thomas Paine
Dave Haas
Nick Matthewsen wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 May 1998 07:02:57 -0500, James <fos...@flash.net> wrote:
> >L P wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 16 May 1998 14:30:36 -0400, Dave Haas
> >> <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If God really wants everybody to believe in him and worship him then
> >> >why doesn't he see to it that we all believe?
> >
> >Maybe it's because we have "free will?"
>
> Since this is crossposted to alt.religion.christian, I'll hope that
> somebody can answer my question:
>
> Some people claimed that God exists, but does not currently reveal
> himself (unambiguously) to humanity because of our "free will." I
> argue that, if Christianity (or nearly any theistic religions) is
> true, this cannot be the case, because according to those religions,
> God _has_ revealed himself to people in the past -- some of whom did
> not previously believe in him.
>
> If God exists, and has revealed himself unambiguously in the past, did
> the people to whom he revealed himself lose their free will? If not,
> I wonder, why would God's revealing himself unambiguously _today_ take
> our free will away?
>
Or.... God didn't REALLY reveal himself in the past people just
thought he did like some people do today. In those days people would
believe almost anything. What has changed in 2000 years? People
still believe in God in addition to UFO's, ghosts, astrology,
reincarnation, numerology, seances, black magic, Elvis, OJ's
innocence, and Clinton's word. Go figure.
D. Haas
Sarah Ettritch
Nick Matthewsen wrote ...
>Since this is crossposted to alt.religion.christian, I'll hope that
>somebody can answer my question:
>
>Some people claimed that God exists, but does not currently reveal
>himself (unambiguously) to humanity because of our "free will." I
>argue that, if Christianity (or nearly any theistic religions) is
>true, this cannot be the case, because according to those religions,
>God _has_ revealed himself to people in the past -- some of whom did
>not previously believe in him.
Did He reveal Himself unambiguously, though? There is an element of faith
involved in Christianity. Faith wouldn't be necessary if God revealed
Himself unambiguously. These people who did not believe in Him and then did
believe in Him had an experience that caused them to have faith in God.
Something happened that made the possibility that God exists very real to
them, and there was enough in what happened for them to take a leap of faith
and say, "I believe in God".
I personally think that the argument of "God doesn't reveal Himself because
of free will" is false. That's only a valid explanation, IMO, if whether
you believe in God or not is important. If it's not important in the sense
that your future doesn't hinge on making that decision, then there is no
need for Him to reveal Himself unambiguously, and He has chosen not to do
so for reasons that we can only guess at.
>If God exists, and has revealed himself unambiguously in the past, did
>the people to whom he revealed himself lose their free will? If not,
>I wonder, why would God's revealing himself unambiguously _today_ take
>our free will away?
It wouldn't. I think that when people are talking about free will in the
context of your question, they mean that it would take away the free will to
decide whether one believes He exists or not. If He revealed Himself
unambigously to us as the God that Christians believe in, for example, there
obviously wouldn't be a decision to made on that point, and since much of
Orthodox Christianity revolves around making THE CHOICE, that would kind of
ruin the party.
Sarah.
r h
If god(s) truly wanted us to save our souls by believing in them, they
could simply prove their existence by appearing in front of us in a form
that we all could see and touch. Very, very simple, and certianly within
the powers of omnipotent gods. But they can't, and won't, because gods
are made by man, and self-proclaimed prophets are the only ones who
claim to have a direct line to the gods.. Those of us who believe them ,
are gullible.
Raise 100 children on an island from birth and they will invent gods.
When they invent two, they will fight over which is right. All animals
play DOMINANCE GAMES, and that's all religions are----"My god is better
than your god "
"I'm smarter than you because god talk to me and not to you." " I'm
going to heaven and you aren't ."
A few of us have risen above the animal dominance warfare, and as we
matured, we left the games of childhood behind, and began to figure out
things for ourselves. We are called ATHEISTS, and we proudly wear this
title, and apologize to no man for our ability to think for ourselves,
free of superstition, magig, and beliefs in supernatural things. We are
connected to reality, and have no need for fantasy or wishful thinking.
Thank you.
r h
There are atheists because there are some perfectly capable of thimking
for themselves.
charles duncan
Dave Haas <dh...@uncfsu.campus.mci.net> wrote:
>Do you know how many nuts are locked up because they see and believe
>in things the rest of us don't?
I may have mentioned this quote before but it's a good one and
your statement reminds me of it.
Albert Einstein had an office across the street from a mental
institution, and he told a visitor that the only differnce
between him and the people across the street was that he knew
physics.
So,maybe there were some people across the street who had dreams
about standing on beams of light or that space is curved,
but they didn't have the discipline, perseverance, and intelligence
that Einstein had.
What I am saying is that if intellectual leaders were intimidated
by seeing or believing something that others don't then there would
never be progress. The important thing is to learn how to put it
into an accepted framework.
C. Duncan
Sarah Ettritch
Adam Knight wrote ...
>Sarah Ettritch wrote:
>> Sure there is. According to *Orthodox* Christianity, if you don't choose
>> what He wants you to choose, you get fried. I'd say that's someone
imposing
>> his will.
>
> You missed the entire point of my post. Go read it again.
I didn't miss your point. I just don't agree with it.
> I'm saying that ther eis no force in the world making you every move
>conform to God's wishes; we are not stringed puppets. There is free
>will are we can do what we want.
Can a person who does not believe in God or who does not believe in Orthodox
Christianity's view of God/Jesus decide the following for him/herself?
"I am not going to be eternally punished".
If we cannot, of our own free will, make the above decision and have it
respected by God, then ultimately there is no free will. In other words,
you are incorrect in saying that we can do whatever we want. According to
Orthodox Christianity, one thing we CANNOT do is reject the Orthodox
Christian view of God AND avoid eternal damnation. As long as we can't do
that, free will doesn't exist.
Also consider that we may only think we are able to do what we want. If we
decide to do something that would go against God's wishes, is it not
possible that He might intervene without our knowledge? Can you say with
absolute certainty that God has not intervened in your life at all? This
isn't the same as asking whether He has. I'm asking whether you can state
with absolute certainly that He hasn't. So, for example, if your car broke
down on your way to wherever, who's to say it wasn't an act of divine
intervention, to thwart your choice of going wherever it was you were
planning to go?
>There is simply a reason why we would
>NOT want to do what WE want and rather do what God wants of us.
Which is a separate issue from whether free will exists or not. You make
choices based on what you think God wants you to do. Others make their
choices for different reasons. This addresses why we make the choices we
do, and has no bearing on whether free will actually exists or not.
>That
>reason is what atheists do not believe in: loving a Crator they cannot
>see, and therefore cannot believe in (seeing not being the eyes, but all
>senses [no miracles, no apparations in their bedrooms, no Jesus asking
>you to feel His woulds and tell Him that He's not real]).
I'm not an atheist, but if I was, I'd be really ticked off about you telling
me why I don't believe. Try listening to the atheists who choose to
dialogue with us (theists) instead of talking at them. You might learn
something.
Sarah.
Paul Andrew King
In article <1d9kg8h.fy...@ppp-208-21-128-188.crchtx.swbell.net>,
now...@hell.edu (Adam Knight) wrote:
>
>Paul Andrew King <pa...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <3566BA...@flash.net>,
>> James <fos...@flash.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Maybe it's because we have "free will?"
>>
>> Odd answer. If we knew God existed we could make a free choice to worship
>> Him or not. What's free will got to do with why we don't believe ?
>
> In each of us, that is each of us that looks inward long enough and
>close enough, there is proof of God's existance.
And how exactly would you know this ?
Proof enought hat we
>have been given the chance to choose God, and proof enough that free
>will has something to do with it.
An unsupported - and likely false - assertion, which is also a
thinly-vieled ad hominem, is hardly proof of anything.
--
"Hullo clouds, hullo sky, hullo pile of severed human heads," said Major
Basil Fotherington-Thomas.
(Eugene Byrne & Kim Newman "Teddy-Bear's Picnic")
Replace "nospam" with "morat" to reply
Paul K.
William
On 25 May 1998 21:05:47 GMT, Qni...@mit.edu (Nick Matthewsen) wrote:
>>Maybe it's because we have "free will?"
>
>Since this is crossposted to alt.religion.christian, I'll hope that
>somebody can answer my question:
>
>Some people claimed that God exists, but does not currently reveal
>himself (unambiguously) to humanity because of our "free will." I
>argue that, if Christianity (or nearly any theistic religions) is
>true, this cannot be the case, because according to those religions,
>God _has_ revealed himself to people in the past -- some of whom did
>not previously believe in him.
>
>If God exists, and has revealed himself unambiguously in the past, did
>the people to whom he revealed himself lose their free will? If not,
>I wonder, why would God's revealing himself unambiguously _today_ take
>our free will away?
It wouldn't of course. True free-will requires an fully informed
choice. But for God to reveal himself today he would have to actually
exist, and not just be believed to exist.
William
Oldguyteck
William <ta...@mail.clara.net> wrote in article
<356a9b50...@news.clara.net>...
> On 25 May 1998 21:05:47 GMT, Qni...@mit.edu (Nick Matthewsen) wrote:
>
> >>Maybe it's because we have "free will?"
> >
> >Since this is crossposted to alt.religion.christian, I'll hope that
> >somebody can answer my question:
> >
> >Some people claimed that God exists, but does not currently reveal
> >himself (unambiguously) to humanity because of our "free will." I
> >argue that, if Christianity (or nearly any theistic religions) is
> >true, this cannot be the case, because according to those religions,
> >God _has_ revealed himself to people in the past -- some of whom did
> >not previously believe in him.
> >
Well do not think for a moment, because He has not revealed Himself to you
in the physical, (which apparently is the only thing you might believe) as
did doubting Thomas, that he does not continue to reveal His truths to the
elect, because He in fact does and does so spiritually, and supernaturally,
something your particular mind doesn't seem to be able to grasp. This in
itself is a shortcoming on your part. You are missing something, and you
can have knowledge and logic but we have that also, but with an additional
(unmerited grace) free gift. However it is there if and when you decide to
look earnestly for it.
Ed................................................(Oldguyteck) †
> >If God exists, and has revealed himself unambiguously in the past, did
> >the people to whom he revealed himself lose their free will? If not,
> >I wonder, why would God's revealing himself unambiguously _today_ take
> >our free will away?
>
> It wouldn't of course. True free-will requires an fully informed
> choice. But for God to reveal himself today he would have to actually
> exist, and not just be believed to exist.
>
Try and realize , just because you dont believe something exist, is not
proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that it does not exist, this just
indicates YOU haven't been made aware of the existence yet! Maybe because
you are TOO focused on yourself, or maybe you are afraid to admit this
could be, or for many other reasons which you may or may not have. But to
say without a doubt! Something doesn't exist just because I dont have a
grip on it, doesn't cut it, now does it!
Ed..............................................(Oldguyteck) †
> William
>
William
"Sarah Ettritch" <ettr...@idirect.com> wrote:
>Did He reveal Himself unambiguously, though? There is an element of faith
>involved in Christianity. Faith wouldn't be necessary if God revealed
>Himself unambiguously.
But you are talking about faith in his existence. Using faith to
decide whether something exists or not has to be an inappropriate use
of faith. And since there is no objective evidence for the existence
of God then the faith element in deciding whether he exists or not is
the main factor.
Faith for faith's sake cannot be a virtue - it is too close to wishful
thinking. Just think about where else in your life do you consider
that this kind of faith has value over unambiguous evidence? You
wouldn't consider it better to to cross the road with your eyes closed
just so that you can excercise more faith.
When, for example, you put your faith in a friend it is because you
know them well - their existence is not in doubt. In fact, if you had
to make a leap of faith about their existence then it would rather
devalue your faith in them as a real person.
>These people who did not believe in Him and then did
>believe in Him had an experience that caused them to have faith in God.
Having an experience is a subjective activity. You will know as well
as I do that faith based on subjective experiences can justify a whole
lot of dangerous cult beliefs.
>Something happened that made the possibility that God exists very real to
>them, and there was enough in what happened for them to take a leap of faith
>and say, "I believe in God".
You are still talking about subjectivity and using faith to decide
God's existence
>I personally think that the argument of "God doesn't reveal Himself because
>of free will" is false.
I do agree with you there
>That's only a valid explanation, IMO, if whether
>you believe in God or not is important. If it's not important in the sense
>that your future doesn't hinge on making that decision, then there is no
>need for Him to reveal Himself unambiguously, and He has chosen not to do
>so for reasons that we can only guess at.
If it's important then it seems to me all the more reason to get your
facts staight and not decide that he exists on the basis of making a
leap of faith and saying he exists.
William
Peter Gordon
Oldguyteck wrote:
>
> William <ta...@mail.clara.net> wrote in article
> <356a9b50...@news.clara.net>...
> > On 25 May 1998 21:05:47 GMT, Qni...@mit.edu (Nick Matthewsen) wrote:
> >
> > >>Maybe it's because we have "free will?"
> > >
<snip>
>
> > >If God exists, and has revealed himself unambiguously in the past, did
> > >the people to whom he revealed himself lose their free will? If not,
> > >I wonder, why would God's revealing himself unambiguously _today_ take
> > >our free will away?
> >
> > It wouldn't of course. True free-will requires an fully informed
> > choice. But for God to reveal himself today he would have to actually
> > exist, and not just be believed to exist.
> >
> Try and realize , just because you dont believe something exist, is not
> proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that it does not exist, this just
> indicates YOU haven't been made aware of the existence yet! Maybe because
> you are TOO focused on yourself, or maybe you are afraid to admit this
> could be, or for many other reasons which you may or may not have. But to
> say without a doubt! Something doesn't exist just because I dont have a
> grip on it, doesn't cut it, now does it!
>
Or, from the other angle,
Assuming that one has free will, does that not mean that you could
choose to belive in either God existing / not-exisitng, regardless of
whether or not God exists. Therefore the existence of God is of no
relevance to whether one belives He exists.
Theres plenty of things out there that do exist but are not believed in
by various individuals because their belief system says that they don't
exist. Examples: human descent from apes, greenhouse effects, problems
with the capitalist and democratic systems, (gods ??).
Pete
Oldguyteck
Peter Gordon <peter...@earthling.net> wrote in article
<356AA8...@earthling.net>...
> I could add here, I believe strawmen should not play with matches.
Ed..........................(Oldguyteck) †
Mats Andtbacka
Adam Knight, in <1d9kfdx.uz...@ppp-208-21-128-188.crchtx.swbell.net>:
[on what converted him to theism:]
>Suffice it to say it was enough to convert me, but of a
>nature that it would only convert *me.*
you mean it was purely subjective, and that you *realize such things are
useless to other people*?
wow. if i had a hat i'd lift it to you, sir. usually people convert for
purely subjective reasons then come over here to preach them at us and
try to convert the rest of the world as well.
the purely subjective reasons are, of course, the one class of evidence
that cannot be attacked or questioned. in a case like yours - only all
too rare - it is also the one reason for theism i don't see much need to
attack.
..well, if you really insist i might take a shot at the value of the
purely subjective when trying to determine objective truth (factuality),
but it'd be a long one, as i've not given the topic much thought.
(note my followups.)
--
...sometimes you're the windshield
sometimes you're the bug...
tony...@post6.tele.dk
The most important thing is to reject it after failing to discover any
objective corroboration.
Thomas P.
Paul Andrew King
In article <356a4...@nemo.idirect.com>,
"Sarah Ettritch" <ettr...@idirect.com> wrote:
>It wouldn't. I think that when people are talking about free will in the
>context of your question, they mean that it would take away the free will to
>decide whether one believes He exists or not.
In other words their definition of "free will" is "guessing". It's a pretty
stuipid idea, isn't it. I am *not* free to decide that God exists any more
than I am free to believe that there is a pink elephant tap-dancing in the
street.
If He revealed Himself
>unambigously to us as the God that Christians believe in, for example, there
>obviously wouldn't be a decision to made on that point, and since much of
>Orthodox Christianity revolves around making THE CHOICE, that would kind of
>ruin the party.
OSo Christianitry is about makin THE GUESS in the Great God Lottery. Guess
right and you have a chance of winning Big Prizes !. Guess wrong and you
get tortured for eternity. Does this actually sound *reasonable* to you ?
Adam Knight
<tony...@post6.tele.dk> wrote:
> There you go again. You have no right to claim knowledge of what is
> in me. You are not able to give your evidence of it's existence, and
> yet you insist that this evidence eixists in me. You have no evidence
> for any of these assertions. It is all just words - very arrogant
> words.
Why so offended that I make a generalization? Sheesh. This is a
crowd of VERY touchy people. Of course, if you don't want Christians
talking to you, stay out of the Christian groups (check your headers,
you're in a Christian group). =)
Earle Jones
In article <356a9f61...@news.clara.net>, ta...@mail.clara.net (William)
wrote:
>"Sarah Ettritch" <ettr...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
>>Did He reveal Himself unambiguously, though? There is an element of faith
>>involved in Christianity. Faith wouldn't be necessary if God revealed
>>Himself unambiguously.
--
The problem, Sarah, is this:
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."
--Delo McKown
earle
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones -- post-christian humanist
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of
Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all
places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the
laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
--James Madison
Nick Matthewsen
On Mon, 25 May 1998 23:54:19 -0400, Sarah Ettritch <ettr...@idirect.com> wrote:
>Nick Matthewsen wrote ...
>
>>Since this is crossposted to alt.religion.christian, I'll hope that
>>somebody can answer my question:
>>
>>Some people claimed that God exists, but does not currently reveal
>>himself (unambiguously) to humanity because of our "free will." I
>>argue that, if Christianity (or nearly any theistic religions) is
>>true, this cannot be the case, because according to those religions,
>>God _has_ revealed himself to people in the past -- some of whom did
>>not previously believe in him.
>
>involved in Christianity. Faith wouldn't be necessary if God revealed
>Himself unambiguously.
But according to the Bible, God provided very unambiguous revelations
in the past. Consider the burning bush -- if I encountered a talking
bush which burned without being consumed, for example, 'faith' would
be pretty unnecessary. Or suppose that I saw a preacher who could
speak in such a way that everybody -- no matter what language they
spoke -- could understand him. In cases like these, it wouldn't take
very much faith to realize that _something_ was going on...
...and since the Bible teaches that God made revelations this
unambiguous in the past, I cannot agree with the argument that God (if
he exists) does not reveal himself today because he does not want to
remove our faith.
>I personally think that the argument of "God doesn't reveal Himself because
>of free will" is false. That's only a valid explanation, IMO, if whether
>you believe in God or not is important. If it's not important in the sense
>that your future doesn't hinge on making that decision, then there is no
>need for Him to reveal Himself unambiguously, and He has chosen not to do
>so for reasons that we can only guess at.
Perhaps I'm wrong here, but doesn't orthodox Christianity teach that
_everybody's_ future 'hinges on making that decision'? After all, if
nobody reaches heaven except through Jesus, it would seem that whether
or not some given person believes in God is [within the framework of
Christianity] _very_ important to his/her future.
tony...@post6.tele.dk
On Tue, 26 May 1998 13:26:34 -0500, now...@hell.edu (Adam Knight)
wrote:
><tony...@post6.tele.dk> wrote:
It is a generalization that is insulting and has no basis in fact. I
was pointing that out. A useful discussion should try to eliminate
such assertions. For example: Most Christians are racist,
self-seeking hypocrites. That is a generalization. Do you think it
contributes much?
I am not in a Christian group. I read your post in
alt.atheism.satire and answered it. If you don't think I should
answer remove alt.atheism.satire and alt.atheism, and I won't see your
post; since I never even read Christian newsgroups.
Thomas P.
Chris Brown
Oldguyteck <edward....@the-spa.com> wrote in article
<01bd8873$232b51a0$a97129cf@default>...
>
> Well do not think for a moment, because He has not revealed Himself to
you
> in the physical, (which apparently is the only thing you might believe)
as
> did doubting Thomas, that he does not continue to reveal His truths to
the
> elect, because He in fact does and does so spiritually, and
supernaturally,
> something your particular mind doesn't seem to be able to grasp.
Yeah, i get strange feelings sometimes too. You know the sort of thing,
*knowing* beforehand which way a coin will land when tossed, *knowing* that
you have to avoid a particular road because you'll have an accident,
*knowing* that someone is watching you.
Unlike you, however, I try and put these things in perspective as the
unwanted side effects of a brain that works very hard at trying to build a
sensible worldview out of a lot of asynchronous sensory feedback,
heuristics and previous experiences, and sometimes gets it slightly wrong.
Consider Deja Vu, for example. We all get it, and one way of regarding it
is to think that it's some kind of supernatural abilityu to tell the
future, or some higher power communicating special knowledge to you.
Another way to regard it is that it's yhe brain getting its event
sequencing wrong. Which is more likely to be the correct explanation, Ed?
> Try and realize , just because you dont believe something exist, is not
> proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that it does not exist, this just
> indicates YOU haven't been made aware of the existence yet! Maybe
because
> you are TOO focused on yourself, or maybe you are afraid to admit this
> could be, or for many other reasons which you may or may not have.
No, I think that's wrong. I'm suggesting to you that we all have
experiences similar to the ones that you attribute to the supernatural.
It's just that some of us are satisfied by more mundane explanations from
the fields of neurology and biology. There's no attempt to hide from
anything, no attempt at denial, we just like questioning things, including
our own gut feelings a lot of the time. Maybe you do too, and have come to
a different answer. Whatever, I won't try to deny you your worldview. Just
try to understand that not everyone shares it.
Sarah Ettritch
Earle Jones wrote ...
>>"Sarah Ettritch" <ettr...@idirect.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Did He reveal Himself unambiguously, though? There is an element of
faith
>>>involved in Christianity. Faith wouldn't be necessary if God revealed
>>>Himself unambiguously.
>
>The problem, Sarah, is this:
>
> "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."
>
> --Delo McKown
Yes, but aren't the same.
Sarah.
Sarah Ettritch
Nick Matthewsen wrote ...
>On Mon, 25 May 1998 23:54:19 -0400, Sarah Ettritch <ettr...@idirect.com>
wrote:
>>Did He reveal Himself unambiguously, though? There is an element of faith
>>involved in Christianity. Faith wouldn't be necessary if God revealed
>>Himself unambiguously.
> [snip]
>
>But according to the Bible, God provided very unambiguous revelations
>in the past. Consider the burning bush -- if I encountered a talking
>bush which burned without being consumed, for example, 'faith' would
>be pretty unnecessary. Or suppose that I saw a preacher who could
>speak in such a way that everybody -- no matter what language they
>spoke -- could understand him. In cases like these, it wouldn't take
>very much faith to realize that _something_ was going on...
Not all Christians take the bible literally, Nick. And yes, you might think
something was going on, but you wouldn't necessarily jump into the air and
shout, "Hallelujah! It's God!!"
>...and since the Bible teaches that God made revelations this
>unambiguous in the past, I cannot agree with the argument that God (if
>he exists) does not reveal himself today because he does not want to
>remove our faith.
And not all Christians believe something just because the bible says it's
so.
(I don't agree with the argument either, but for different reasons).
>>I personally think that the argument of "God doesn't reveal Himself
because
>>of free will" is false. That's only a valid explanation, IMO, if whether
>>you believe in God or not is important. If it's not important in the
sense
>>that your future doesn't hinge on making that decision, then there is no
>>need for Him to reveal Himself unambiguously, and He has chosen not to do
>>so for reasons that we can only guess at.
>
>Perhaps I'm wrong here, but doesn't orthodox Christianity teach that
>_everybody's_ future 'hinges on making that decision'? After all, if
>nobody reaches heaven except through Jesus, it would seem that whether
>or not some given person believes in God is [within the framework of
>Christianity] _very_ important to his/her future.
You're not wrong, you're right, which is why I said that they have come up
with the "free will" explanation as to why God doesn't just reveal Himself.
Because if He did, that removes THE CHOICE.
I'm a Christian, but not an Orthodox Christian, so just because Orthodox
Christianity says something doesn't mean I will support it or agree with it.
I attempted to answer your question by explaining to you why Orthodox
Christianity says God doesn't reveal Himself. However, as I made clear in
my post, that is not my own personal belief as to why He doesn't reveal
Himself.
Sarah.
Sarah Ettritch
William wrote ...
>Sarah Ettritch wrote:
>>Did He reveal Himself unambiguously, though? There is an element of faith
>>involved in Christianity. Faith wouldn't be necessary if God revealed
>>Himself unambiguously.
>But you are talking about faith in his existence.
I'm talking about there being an element of faith in the belief that He
exists.
>Using faith to
>decide whether something exists or not has to be an inappropriate use
>of faith.
It's not using faith to decide something exists. Faith is what bridges the
gap between believing something is possible and being certain about
something. If you believe something in the absence of objective evidence,
then you 'have faith'. This is not the same as saying that faith is WHY you
believe. It means, as I originally said, that there is an element of faith
to your belief.
>And since there is no objective evidence for the existence
>of God then the faith element in deciding whether he exists or not is
>the main factor.
Not necessarily. There can be plenty of subjective evidence. The size of
everyone's 'faith bridge' is different.
>Faith for faith's sake cannot be a virtue - it is too close to wishful
>thinking. Just think about where else in your life do you consider
>that this kind of faith has value over unambiguous evidence? You
>wouldn't consider it better to to cross the road with your eyes closed
>just so that you can excercise more faith.
I don't see anywhere in my post where I stated that having faith is a virtue
or that deciding something based on faith is better than deciding something
based on
objective evidence. I simply stated that most people's belief in God
involves an element of faith, without making any judgements about it. So
I'm not sure why you're putting forth the arguments that you are.
>When, for example, you put your faith in a friend it is because you
>know them well - their existence is not in doubt. In fact, if you had
>to make a leap of faith about their existence then it would rather
>devalue your faith in them as a real person.
Yes, but since you have objective evidence that your friend exists, there
is no room for faith. There is only room for faith where there can also be
doubt. You are discussing apples and oranges.
>>These people who did not believe in Him and then did
>>believe in Him had an experience that caused them to have faith in God.
>Having an experience is a subjective activity. You will know as well
>as I do that faith based on subjective experiences can justify a whole
>lot of dangerous cult beliefs.
Sure. Doesn't mean faith is in and of itself a bad thing. As usual, it's
what you do with it that can be good or bad.
>>Something happened that made the possibility that God exists very real to
>>them, and there was enough in what happened for them to take a leap of
faith
>>and say, "I believe in God".
>You are still talking about subjectivity and using faith to decide
>God's existence
Subjective experience is all most people who believe in God have to go on.
Just because it's not a good enough criteria for you to decide that God
exists doesn't
mean you should impose that view on everyone. Just as you may not like to
be told that based on subjective evidence you *should* believe that God
exists, I don't like to be told that based on subjective evidence I
shouldn't. I'm willing to respect however you reach your conclusion about
whether God exists or not. Please do the same for me.
As for using faith to decide God's existence, see my earlier comments.
>>That's only a valid explanation, IMO, if whether
>>you believe in God or not is important. If it's not important in the
sense
>>that your future doesn't hinge on making that decision, then there is no
>>need for Him to reveal Himself unambiguously, and He has chosen not to do
>>so for reasons that we can only guess at.
>If it's important then it seems to me all the more reason to get your
>facts staight and not decide that he exists on the basis of making a
>leap of faith and saying he exists.
Which is why I've concluded that it's not important. As a theist who
believes in a loving God, I have to conclude that since God has not revealed
Himself unambiguously, belief in Him is not important to one's future.
Getting back to what you said, since there is no objective evidence and He
has not revealed Himself unambiguously, which I think most of us would agree
on, then one only has subjective evidence and faith on which to base the
statement "God exists". If it bothers you that some people make that leap
of faith when examining
the evidence and say "God exists", whereas you don't, tough luck.
Sarah.
Sarah Ettritch
Paul Andrew King wrote...
>"Sarah Ettritch" <ettr...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
>>It wouldn't. I think that when people are talking about free will in the
>>context of your question, they mean that it would take away the free will
to
>>decide whether one believes He exists or not.
>
>In other words their definition of "free will" is "guessing". It's a pretty
>stuipid idea, isn't it. I am *not* free to decide that God exists any more
>than I am free to believe that there is a pink elephant tap-dancing in the
>street.
What they are saying is that if God revealed Himself unambiguously then
there would be no choice to make in terms of deciding whether one believes
He exists or not. Since it is very important in Orthodox Christianity that
one make that choice without 'seeing' Him ("blessed are those who believe
and have not seen"), if He was to reveal Himself it would put a considerable
damper on things, as I said in my post.
"Free will" is probably not a good term to use in this context as it doesn't
quite capture what they're saying.
>>If He revealed Himself
>>unambigously to us as the God that Christians believe in, for example,
there
>>obviously wouldn't be a decision to made on that point, and since much of
>>Orthodox Christianity revolves around making THE CHOICE, that would kind
of
>>ruin the party.
>
>OSo Christianitry is about makin THE GUESS in the Great God Lottery. Guess
>right and you have a chance of winning Big Prizes !. Guess wrong and you
>get tortured for eternity. Does this actually sound *reasonable* to you ?
No, it doesn't. I was stating the teaching of Orthodox Christianity and not
my own personal belief.
Sarah.
Guy Marsh
Because there are mysticits, you, well, idiot!
Persevere.
Guy
Socialist Labor Party of America (SLP)
Member-at-large
http://www.slp.org
__________
Remember the U.S.S. Liberty
06-08-67
http://www.halcyon.com/jim/ussliberty
_______
Former member
Republican & Democratic
Parties
Joris van Dorp
r h wrote:
> If god(s) truly wanted us to save our souls by believing in them, they
> could simply prove their existence by appearing in front of us in a form
> that we all could see and touch. Very, very simple, and certianly within
> the powers of omnipotent gods. But they can't, and won't, because gods
> are made by man, and self-proclaimed prophets are the only ones who
> claim to have a direct line to the gods.. Those of us who believe them ,
> are gullible.
Gullible is not the right word. One can be gullible only by believing in
something which is demonstrably false. Belief in God is not among those
beliefs which are demonstrably false.
Also, so-called prophets claiming to be the only ones having a direct
line to the gods are arguably false prophets, which you will readily agree
to(?). Instead, it's the prophets who can be _seen_ to have a direct link to
the gods which are the ones worth bothering about.
Finally, in what way could God prove his existence? In no way other than
by granting you divine vision, hearing, mind, etc. so that you could be able
to see God. The real question is: Why don't we have perfect vision, hearing
or mind? Because we are not God.
> Raise 100 children on an island from birth and they will invent gods.
And they'll invent how to have sex, defecate, eat, communicate, etc. If
anything, the above statement suggests that minding God is a natural
instinct not forced on the individual by society.
> When they invent two, they will fight over which is right. All animals
> play DOMINANCE GAMES, and that's all religions are----"My god is better
> than your god "
> "I'm smarter than you because god talk to me and not to you." " I'm
> going to heaven and you aren't ."
How about the atheist variation "I'm smarter than you because I _don't_
believe in Gods" The point is, DOMINANCE GAMES can be played in any
situation with any means, including a (false) sense of spiritual
superiority. It does not follow that religion is nothing _but_ a form of
DOMINANCE GAMING.
> A few of us have risen above the animal dominance warfare, and as we
> matured, we left the games of childhood behind, and began to figure out
> things for ourselves.
Quite right.
> We are called ATHEISTS,
No, we are called intellectuals. No doubt many atheists are intellectuals,
but so are many theists.
> and we proudly wear this
> title, and apologize to no man for our ability to think for ourselves,
> free of superstition, magig, and beliefs in supernatural things. We are
> connected to reality, and have no need for fantasy or wishful thinking.
> Thank you.
Being connected to reality in the sense you suggest is a rather large claim.
It's nothing short of claiming to have absolute knowledge. This sounds
rather superstitious, magical and supernatural to me, not to mention it
being fantastical and certainly the product of wishful thinking.Thank you
right back.
Frank O Wustner
: > >If God really wants everybody to believe in him and worship him then
: > >why doesn't he see to it that we all believe?
: Maybe it's because we have "free will?"
BFD. If this god is really as good as he is made out to be, then that
wouldn't stop him from giving us irrefutable evidence of his existance.
The Deadly Nightshade
|-----------------------------------|
|"I, too, believe in fate... |
|the fate a man makes for himself." |
|Lord Soth |
|-----------------------------------|
|"Quoth the raven, 'Eat my shorts!'"|
|Edgar Allan Bart |
|-----------------------------------|
|"Ack. Thpppbt." Bill the Cat |
|-----------------------------------|
| Atheist #119 |
| BAAWA! |
|-----------------------------------|
Frank O Wustner
Adam Knight (now...@hell.edu) wrote:
: In each of us, that is each of us that looks inward long enough and
: close enough, there is proof of God's existance. Proof enought hat we
: have been given the chance to choose God, and proof enough that free
: will has something to do with it.
What's up with this, Adam? You claimed before that you didn't want to get
into one of these rediculous flame wars, and yet here you are now just
begging for one. You know that this is the kind of purile garbage that is
guaranteed to get us riled up.
Frank O Wustner
Adam Knight (now...@hell.edu) wrote:
: L P <lporter...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
: > now...@hell.edu (Adam Knight) wrote:
: > > As for myself, I was an atheist for 16 years. I fought, and because
: > >Christian of my own accord, and then Catholic of my own accord.
: > Just curious....
: > What _evidence_ changed you from being an atheist to theist?
: > Or was atheism just to scary for you?
: I'm a smart fish; I've survived this long. That's some bait I will
: not bite. Suffice it to say it was enough to convert me, but of a
: nature that it would only convert *me.* I'm not getting into an
: atheist/theist debate. Those go nowhere and take forever. You will
: believe what you will believe and I shall believe what I shall believe.
Most refreshing. And I mean that seriously. By all means, please keep it
to yourself. The last thing we need around here is another one of those
rediculous flamewars.
Frank O Wustner
: > There you go again. You have no right to claim knowledge of what is
: > in me. You are not able to give your evidence of it's existence, and
: > yet you insist that this evidence eixists in me. You have no evidence
: > for any of these assertions. It is all just words - very arrogant
: > words.
: Why so offended that I make a generalization? Sheesh. This is a
: crowd of VERY touchy people. Of course, if you don't want Christians
: talking to you, stay out of the Christian groups (check your headers,
: you're in a Christian group). =)
Check *your* headers, *you're* in an atheist group. And I can confidently
tell you that the cross-post was started by a Christian, not an atheist.
The reason we are so touchy is because we have theists invading *.atheism
all the time to preach a non-ending stream of garbage at us and who then
have the gall to get annoyed when we ask them to stop invading *our* news
group.
Frank O Wustner
Sarah Ettritch (ettr...@idirect.com) wrote:
: Earle Jones wrote ...
: >The problem, Sarah, is this:
: >
: > "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."
: > --Delo McKown
: Yes, but aren't the same.
Allow me to adjust the saying slightly to make it more accurate.
"The undetectable and the non-existant are so similar as to be
completely indistinguishable."
--Frank Wustner
Sterling Crowe
Sarah Ettritch wrote in message <356b6...@nemo.idirect.com>...
>Nick Matthewsen wrote ...
>
>>On Mon, 25 May 1998 23:54:19 -0400, Sarah Ettritch <ettr...@idirect.com>
>
>>>Did He reveal Himself unambiguously, though? There is an element of
faith
>>>involved in Christianity. Faith wouldn't be necessary if God revealed
>>>Himself unambiguously.
>>
>>But according to the Bible, God provided very unambiguous revelations
>>in the past. Consider the burning bush -- if I encountered a talking
>>bush which burned without being consumed, for example, 'faith' would
>>be pretty unnecessary. Or suppose that I saw a preacher who could
>>speak in such a way that everybody -- no matter what language they
>>spoke -- could understand him. In cases like these, it wouldn't take
>>very much faith to realize that _something_ was going on...
>
>Not all Christians take the bible literally, Nick. And yes, you might
think
>something was going on, but you wouldn't necessarily jump into the air and
>shout, "Hallelujah! It's God!!"
I would have to say that this is correct. Confronted with the bush, I might
think "hologram" or look for the sound system the booming voice is coming
from. Confronted with the teacher who is understood by all comers, I would
suspect shills and the only people who were the marks would be those who
spoke whatever language the preacher was really speaking.
However, this God person is supposed to be even smarter than I am (perish
the thought! :) ), so I doubt that He would be stymied by the idea of
providing me with clear, unambiguous proof of His existence.
>>...and since the Bible teaches that God made revelations this
>>unambiguous in the past, I cannot agree with the argument that God (if
>>he exists) does not reveal himself today because he does not want to
>>remove our faith.
>
>And not all Christians believe something just because the bible says it's
>so.
I find that most Christians I come into contact with pick and choose what
they want to believe out of the Bible. This is not to be insulting to you,
it is just an observation that few are willing to follow *all* of the
teachings of the Bible.
Fer instance, I have yet to meet a Christian who can explain to me,
Biblically, why they think that the Mosaic Law applies to Gentiles as well,
when the OT makes it quite clear that it applies only to those who accept
the Covenant.
>(I don't agree with the argument either, but for different reasons).
What reasons would those be, if you don't mind me asking?
>>>I personally think that the argument of "God doesn't reveal Himself
>because
>>>of free will" is false. That's only a valid explanation, IMO, if whether
>>>you believe in God or not is important. If it's not important in the
>sense
>>>that your future doesn't hinge on making that decision, then there is no
>>>need for Him to reveal Himself unambiguously, and He has chosen not to do
>>>so for reasons that we can only guess at.
>>
>>Perhaps I'm wrong here, but doesn't orthodox Christianity teach that
>>_everybody's_ future 'hinges on making that decision'? After all, if
>>nobody reaches heaven except through Jesus, it would seem that whether
>>or not some given person believes in God is [within the framework of
>>Christianity] _very_ important to his/her future.
>
>You're not wrong, you're right, which is why I said that they have come up
>with the "free will" explanation as to why God doesn't just reveal Himself.
>Because if He did, that removes THE CHOICE.
It would only remove the choice of believing in His existence. It would not
remove the choice of whether to worship Him or not (and if you do not think
that there are those who would not choose to worship the Biblical God,
should proof of His existence be provided, then I would suggest that you
meet more people).
Thomas did not believe in the risen Jesus, according to the story, until he
had proof which satisfied him presented. Judas, having traveled with Jesus
and witnessed many of his miracles, still betrayed him. Again, according to
the story.
Even those who had no trouble believing in Jesus as the Messiah still had
problems trusting in him. One of them (Peter, I think), still sank into the
water.
When Jesus speaks of faith in the NT, it does not seem to me that he is
speaking of faith in the mere existence of God, but faith in the idea of
that God keeping His promises.
>I'm a Christian, but not an Orthodox Christian, so just because Orthodox
>Christianity says something doesn't mean I will support it or agree with
it.
>I attempted to answer your question by explaining to you why Orthodox
>Christianity says God doesn't reveal Himself. However, as I made clear in
>my post, that is not my own personal belief as to why He doesn't reveal
>Himself.
Well, as you may note, many of us here think that the theology of Orthodox
Christianity is seriously flawed (and not just because we do not believe in
the existence of the central figure of that theology).
Do you mind if I ask, even if I am repeating a question you may have
answered already, what are your views on Heaven and Hell?
The only possible reason I can think of for those who believe in "Orthodox"
Christianity to think that God does not reveal Himself in order that people
would accept His existence "on faith" is that, knowing that God, as
described in the Bible, exists, one would believe in Him simply to avoid
Hell.
Even then, I know several people who would not worship God under such
extortion. Not only because of pride, mind you, but because Heaven would
hold no joy for these people if they knew that their loved ones were burning
in Hell.
It still doesn't remove the element of faith or choice (after all, if one
accepts the existence of a Biblical God, one must still get around the idea
that that God may decide to make a little bet with Satan to test one's faith
(a la Job)).
--Sterling Crowe
"Don't appeal to mercy to God the Father up in the sky, little man, because
he's not at home and never was at home, and couldn't care less. What you do
with yourself, whether you are happy or unhappy-- live or die-- is strictly
your business and the universe doesn't care. In fact you may be the universe
and the only cause of all your troubles. But, at best, the most you can hope
for is comradeship with comrades no more divine (or just as divine) as you
are. So quit sniveling and face up to it-- 'Thou art God!'"
-Robert A. Heinlein Oct. 21, 1960
Having warned you of all that, I feel like a tremendous weight
has been lifted off my chest, off my "evil pillows," if you will.
-Anne` Ferguson
Sarah Ettritch
Frank O Wustner wrote ...
>Sarah Ettritch (ettr...@idirect.com) wrote:
>: Earle Jones wrote ...
>
>: >The problem, Sarah, is this:
>: >
>: > "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."
>: > --Delo McKown
>
>: Yes, but aren't the same.
>
>Allow me to adjust the saying slightly to make it more accurate.
>
> "The undetectable and the non-existant are so similar as to be
> completely indistinguishable."
>
> --Frank Wustner
Yes, the adjustment is much better.
I can't see the mites crawling all over my skin at the moment and I can't
feel them, but I know they exist because I've seen pictures of them (from
electron microscope, I think). Before the invention of a microscope
powerful enough to see them, if someone had claimed that they had mites
crawling all over them, the above quote would have applied and they might
have been viewed as crazy, but all it meant was that no means existed for
detecting the mites.
Personally I don't find God undetectable, which probably goes a long way to
explaining why I'm a theist :). If you do not detect Him, then it's
completely understandable that you may not be a theist. However, the fact
that you find Him undetectable does not mean that nobody can detect Him. It
simply means that you can't.
Sarah.
Peter Gordon
Sarah Ettritch wrote:
>
> Frank O Wustner wrote ...
>
> >Sarah Ettritch (ettr...@idirect.com) wrote:
> >: Earle Jones wrote ...
> >
> >: >The problem, Sarah, is this:
> >: >
> >
> > "The undetectable and the non-existant are so similar as to be
> > completely indistinguishable."
> >
> > --Frank Wustner
>
>
>
> feel them, but I know they exist because I've seen pictures of them (from
> electron microscope, I think). Before the invention of a microscope
> powerful enough to see them, if someone had claimed that they had mites
> crawling all over them, the above quote would have applied and they might
> have been viewed as crazy, but all it meant was that no means existed for
> detecting the mites.
>
> Personally I don't find God undetectable, which probably goes a long way to
> explaining why I'm a theist :). If you do not detect Him, then it's
> completely understandable that you may not be a theist. However, the fact
> that you find Him undetectable does not mean that nobody can detect Him. It
> simply means that you can't.
>
If you can't detect Him then (to you) God's existence is based solely on
the reports of those who can detect him. There is no other evidence. And
why should anyone belive the word of other people regarding such an
important matter. Especially when those who say they can detect the
existance of God could be trying to pull something on you.
Pete
William
On Tue, 26 May 1998 11:00:12 GMT, "Oldguyteck"
<edward....@the-spa.com> wrote:
>Try and realize , just because you dont believe something exist, is not
>proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that it does not exist, this just
>indicates YOU haven't been made aware of the existence yet! Maybe because
>you are TOO focused on yourself, or maybe you are afraid to admit this
>say without a doubt! Something doesn't exist just because I dont have a
>grip on it, doesn't cut it, now does it!
To say something doesn't exist because I have no evidence for it's
existence doesn't cut, I agree. But there are an infinite number of
possible existences that I have no evidence for, so saying anything at
all about these things - either their existence or non-existence -
doesn't cut, now does it?
William
walksalone
%
%
%William <ta...@mail.clara.net> wrote in article
%<356a9b50...@news.clara.net>...
%> On 25 May 1998 21:05:47 GMT, Qni...@mit.edu (Nick Matthewsen)
wrote:
%>
%> >>Maybe it's because we have "free will?"
%> >
%> >Since this is crossposted to alt.religion.christian, I'll hope
that
%> >somebody can answer my question:
%> >
%> >Some people claimed that God exists, but does not currently reveal
%> >himself (unambiguously) to humanity because of our "free will." I
%> >argue that, if Christianity (or nearly any theistic religions) is
%> >true, this cannot be the case, because according to those
sniped for brevity
%>
%> It wouldn't of course. True free-will requires an fully informed
%> choice. But for God to reveal himself today he would have to
actually
%> exist, and not just be believed to exist.
%>
%Try and realize , just because you dont believe something exist, is
not
%proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that it does not exist, this just
%indicates YOU haven't been made aware of the existence yet! Maybe
because
%you are TOO focused on yourself, or maybe you are afraid to admit
this
%could be, or for many other reasons which you may or may not have.
But to
two way street. you accept that you have been whatevered. to you
your reasons are proofs. to any one else they may well be the ravings
of a stark raving lunatic. the proofs work for you, but in an
identical manner, no one else. there may well be similarities, but
they won't line by line be the same, your claim will go along the
lines of "well we are all different". what makes that acceptable for
those who deluded themselves as being among the elite. & those who are
not interested, could care less, or say god properly. god, what kind
of a pet is that? i know you can't keep your sermonizing to yourself,
but your posts have improved some in manner of delivery, who knows, i
mighht look forward to reading them some day. wouldn't count on it,
but it could happen.
%say without a doubt! Something doesn't exist just because I dont have
a
%grip on it, doesn't cut it, now does it!
%
the same is said for those who claim without a doubt something exists
& can't reasonable prove it.
testomonials=no proof
miricles=no proof
get on band wagon=no proof
evangalizing=no proof
convincing born followers=no proof
stopping here, could go way to long in that vein.
take care & strive to be happy, you to ed.
%Ed..............................................(Oldguyteck) ?
%> William
%>
Such is the human race. Often it does seem such a pity that Noah...
didn't miss the boat.
Mark Twain
William
"Sarah Ettritch" <ettr...@idirect.com> wrote:
>I'm talking about there being an element of faith in the belief that He
>exists.
>
>>Using faith to decide whether something exists or not has to
>>be an inappropriate use of faith.
>
>It's not using faith to decide something exists. Faith is what bridges the
>gap between believing something is possible and being certain about
>something. If you believe something in the absence of objective evidence,
>then you 'have faith'. This is not the same as saying that faith is WHY you
>believe. It means, as I originally said, that there is an element of faith
>to your belief.
You have accepted (correctly) that there is an absence of objective
evidence for the existence of God. So you have an option to either
believe God exists - without objective evidence, or to remain as an 'I
don't know' - In the absence of objective evidence, your 'faith' is
the deciding factor. I'm afraid I still maintain that this is an
inappropriate use of faith. Using it in this way you can pursuade
yourself to believe in the existence of anything so long as it is
beyond the reach of objective evidence. Is that really where you are?
>>And since there is no objective evidence for the existence
>>of God then the faith element in deciding whether he exists or not is
>>the main factor.
>
>Not necessarily. There can be plenty of subjective evidence. The size of
>everyone's 'faith bridge' is different.
Subjective evidence, that is not confirmed objectively, can be a
dangerous loose cannon. People can feel they know all kinds of truths,
ranging from the existence of fairies to their believed future on the
tail of a comet (Heaven's Gate cult). Yes, everyone's 'faith bridge'
is different - but for those relying subjectivity the bridge can lead
anywhere.
>>Faith for faith's sake cannot be a virtue - it is too close to wishful
>>thinking. Just think about where else in your life do you consider
>>that this kind of faith has value over unambiguous evidence? You
>>wouldn't consider it better to to cross the road with your eyes closed
>>just so that you can excercise more faith.
>
>I don't see anywhere in my post where I stated that having faith is a virtue
>or that deciding something based on faith is better than deciding something
>based on objective evidence. I simply stated that most people's
>belief in God involves an element of faith, without making any
>judgements about it. So I'm not sure why you're putting forth
>the arguments that you are.
I accept that. You didn't use the words, but I inferred that by your
saying that if God revealed himself unambiguously there would be no
need for faith, that there must be an intrinsic value in faith itself.
>>When, for example, you put your faith in a friend it is because you
>>know them well - their existence is not in doubt. In fact, if you had
>>to make a leap of faith about their existence then it would rather
>>devalue your faith in them as a real person.
>
>Yes, but since you have objective evidence that your friend exists, there
>is no room for faith. There is only room for faith where there can also be
>doubt. You are discussing apples and oranges.
And that is the point, of course. If, however, you are saying that
faith is just a practical tool for filling in the gaps where we lack
evidence then I tend to agree. If it has no virtue in itself, we will
be much better off not having to use it, or using it only when we have
to. With sufficient evidence for something's existence, the faith
element can be pretty well zero - allowing us to get on and decide
what we do about this thing we know exists.
But one has then to ask the original question of why does God not
reveal himself unambiguously?
>>>These people who did not believe in Him and then did
>>>believe in Him had an experience that caused them to have faith in God.
>
>>Having an experience is a subjective activity. You will know as well
>>as I do that faith based on subjective experiences can justify a whole
>>lot of dangerous cult beliefs.
>
>Sure. Doesn't mean faith is in and of itself a bad thing. As usual, it's
>what you do with it that can be good or bad.
I didn't think that is where we were going. I thought we were talking
about whether something we believe to exist, on the basis of our faith
in it's existence, actually exists. If we are talking about whether
the outcome of the faith is good or bad then that is something very
different. Having faith that something exists could have a beneficial
outcome (to the person with the faith) whether or not the thing
actually exists.
>>>Something happened that made the possibility that God
>>>exists very real to them, and there was enough in what
>>>happened for them to take a leap of faith and say, "I believe in God".
>
>>You are still talking about subjectivity and using faith to decide
>>God's existence
>
>Subjective experience is all most people who believe in God have to go on.
That's what was bothering me. But if it's the case, then I have no
argument with believers in God - any God, or astrology or any other
belief that relies on subjective experiences for it's validity. It
just rules me, and millions of others, out of that kind of belief
system.
>Just because it's not a good enough criteria for you to decide that God
>exists doesn't mean you should impose that view on everyone.
>Just as you may not like to be told that based on subjective evidence
>you *should* believe that God exists, I don't like to be told that
>based on subjective evidence I shouldn't.
>I'm willing to respect however you reach your conclusion about
>whether God exists or not. Please do the same for me.
Ok, I'll accept that.
William
Dave Haas
William wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 May 1998 11:00:12 GMT, "Oldguyteck"
> <edward....@the-spa.com> wrote:
>
> >Try and realize , just because you dont believe something exist, is not
>
> existence doesn't cut, I agree. But there are an infinite number of
> possible existences that I have no evidence for, so saying anything at
> all about these things - either their existence or non-existence -
> doesn't cut, now does it?
>
Why believe in things which have no real evidence to support them when
we have all sorts of weird things THAT have evidence to support their
existence Like: Witches, astrology, sorcerers, UFO's, A living
Elvis, (people have seen him you know) a truthful president, OJ's
not guilty, ghosts, gremlins, werewolves, vampires, santa, nessi,
yeti, and even superman.
Then there are all the other Gods. Like: Allah, Aphrodite, Ares,
Athena, Apollo, Artemis, Babaluaye, Baccus, Baldur, Bast, Bellona,
Brigid, Ceres, Cupid, Ceres, Cerridwen, Demeter, Diana, Dione,
Dionysus, Eris, Eos, Eleggua, Eshu, Ereshkigal, Frigga, Frey, Freya,
Gaea, Hades, Hebe, Hera, Helios, Hel, Hephaestus, Hermes, Hestia,
Horus, Ibeji, Ifa, Inanna, Ishtar, Isis, Janus, Juno, Jehovah, Jove,
Jupiter, Krishna Kronos, Loki, Lugh, Mars, Mercury, Minerva,
Mercurius, Morrigan, Nephthys, Neptune, Obatala, Odin, Ogun, Oshosi,
Oshun, Osiris, Oya, Orunmila, Olokun, Olodumare, Pluto, Persephone,
Poseidon, Proserpina, Ra, Rhea, Saturn, Set, Selene, Shango, Tammuz,
Thor, Tir, Tiw, Uranus, Venus, Vesta, Vulcan, Wotan, Yemaya, Zeus, to
name a few.
D. Haas
Fredric Rice
>>>If God really wants everybody to believe in him and worship him then
>>>why doesn't he see to it that we all believe?
>If you are serious about wanting an answer to this question, read below:
>Jesus has given us many letters recently through a locutionist/visionary in
>the Cincinnati, Ohio area and this is what He has to say in response to your
>question.
Well, that's the uneducated opinion. In actual fact everyone is born an
atheist and, after one is dead, everyone resumes being an atheist.
Atheism is the default state. One must be indoctrinated into a deity-
oriented occultism.
The real question isn't why there are atheists but why some people
manage to believe in deities constructs while others manage to remain
dedicated to reason.
Dave Haas
But I WANNA believe!!!!! It's easier to believe in things which are
all soft and fuzzy and good and can replace my daddy. Who want's NOT
to believe in something that can forgive all my boo boo's, give me
everlasting life, and love me! It's a wonder that EVERYONE doesn't
ignore the lack of objective evidence and BELIEVE. An awful lot of
people do just that. It really is a sad comment on the state of human
enlightenment.
D. Haas
Dave Haas
Frank O Wustner wrote:
>
> Adam Knight (now...@hell.edu) wrote:
>
> : In each of us, that is each of us that looks inward long enough and
> : close enough, there is proof of God's existance. Proof enought hat we
> : have been given the chance to choose God, and proof enough that free
> : will has something to do with it.
>
> What's up with this, Adam? You claimed before that you didn't want to get
> into one of these rediculous flame wars, and yet here you are now just
> begging for one. You know that this is the kind of purile garbage that is
> guaranteed to get us riled up.
>
thousands of them out there and they all sound the same. Not a new
idea in the bunch. Its really sad.
D. Haas
Sarah J.
Adam Knight posted the following to alt.atheism:
<snip>
> As for "how would [I] know?" I was atheist before, and I've talked
> to many an atheist (you're not exactly a minority these days, you know)
> and I've asked them.
In your own words: "I fought, and because Christian of my own accord, and then
Catholic of my own accord." Some atheist indeed. Are you deliberately trying to
perpetuate the xtian myth (or rather, lie) that atheist are xtians in denial?
> Many give me that answer, or give me sufficient
> reason to assume that answer as the underlying cause ("No one's running
> MY sex life!"). I think that if you take offense to it, then you need
> to think about why you don't believe more closely.
Priceless. Turn on your hearing aid, boy: We are atheists because there is NO
EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to support a religious belief. Is that so hard to grasp?
After making a blunder like that, do you still claim to have been an atheist
yourself, or do you want to retract that statement?
Your subjective superstitions are of no importance to us, and if theists stopped
trying to force their beliefs down our throats, religion would never be an issue
to us. If you are truly interested in understanding atheists, you have to
understand that your belief system is no more valid than any of the thousands of
religions there are and have been, or than a child's belief in Santa or the
Easter Bunny. Stop making false assumptions and half-veiled accusations about
atheism. It is behavior like this, and not the favourite xtian claim that we
feel a need to "deny" something, that we take offense at.
> Is it all too far-fetched to be real,
Now you're talking. If only you meant it.
> or do you just not want to have to hand over
> your life and your decisions to a God you cannot communicate with in a
> way you already know how? Do you not want to have to feel "weak" enough
> to buckle to a God that people you know do not believe in?
What a load of christo-centric crap. By the same token, I might ask you if you
don't want to appear "unmanly" by worshipping Kali. Constructing straw mans is a
surefire way to lose your integrity and intellectual credibility.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Sarah
Atheist #1102
"Don't let the people who live on fear and hate govern how you live."
- Melissa Etheridge
"The best thing I ever did was to come out."
- k.d.lang
(Replace "firedancer" with "Biologie.Uni-Bielefeld" to reply by mail.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
craigmont
>On Mon, 25 May 1998 14:39:02 -0500, now...@hell.edu (Adam Knight)
>wrote:
>
>> As for "how would [I] know?" I was atheist before, and I've talked
>>to many an atheist (you're not exactly a minority these days, you know)
>>and I've asked them. Many give me that answer, or give me sufficient
>>reason to assume that answer as the underlying cause ("No one's running
>>MY sex life!"). I think that if you take offense to it, then you need
>>to think about why you don't believe more closely.
But if you stopped being an Atheist it must mean you were never truly an
atheist to begin with, because if you truly were an atheist you would never
have become a christian. (or some semblance of this argument).
I scoff at you, I scoff in your general direction, I scoff at your whole
family and the common ancestors of yours that were related to the apes of
today.
Christopher A. Lee
In article <6khpea$pok$1...@news.us.world.net> "craigmont" <cmon...@pcez.com> writes:
>
>>On Mon, 25 May 1998 14:39:02 -0500, now...@hell.edu (Adam Knight)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> As for "how would [I] know?" I was atheist before, and I've talked
>>>to many an atheist (you're not exactly a minority these days, you know)
>>>and I've asked them. Many give me that answer, or give me sufficient
>>>reason to assume that answer as the underlying cause ("No one's running
>>>MY sex life!"). I think that if you take offense to it, then you need
>>>to think about why you don't believe more closely.
>
>But if you stopped being an Atheist it must mean you were never truly an
>atheist to begin with, because if you truly were an atheist you would never
>have become a christian. (or some semblance of this argument).
No. Most claimed ex-atheists who became Christians were usually some
kind of luke-warm apathetic theist, and this is evident from the
arguments they claim convinced them - based on doctrinal Christian
presumptions that atheists don't share, eg something they read in
the Bible.
I think the reason for this is that they don't actually have a word for
what they used to be, and they use Christian to describe their now
born-again state. Which (to them) is so far removed from what they
used to be that from their new perspective they may as well have been
atheists.
>I scoff at you, I scoff in your general direction, I scoff at your whole
>family and the common ancestors of yours that were related to the apes of
>today.
That's your problem. Try not to make it ours.
William
Exactly. Basically, once the 'evidence' threshold is dropped to near
zero then anything goes. Any wild belief is as valid as any other.
William
Jim Sarbeck
In article <01bd89a9$2e0379e0$LocalHost@narcissus>, "Chris Brown"
<cpbrown@no_uce_please.netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>Fredric Rice <fr...@spam-remove.linkline.com> wrote in article
>
>> Well, that's the uneducated opinion. In actual fact everyone is born an
>> atheist and, after one is dead, everyone resumes being an atheist.
>
>I'd take issue with the second part of that. What does it mean for one to
>be neutral on some subject if one does not even exist?
It means Fredric believes in life after death, but you have to be an
atheist. Poetic justice, I suppose.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
charles duncan
uwus...@mcl.ucsb.edu (Frank O Wustner) wrote:
>Check *your* headers, *you're* in an atheist group. And I can confidently
>tell you that the cross-post was started by a Christian, not an atheist.
Dave Haas was trying to tell me he is an atheist.
C. Duncan
Jim Humphreys
Fredric Rice wrote:
> Well, that's the uneducated opinion. In actual fact everyone is born an
> atheist and, after one is dead, everyone resumes being an atheist.
This claim is based on the (questionable) definition of atheism
as "lack of belief in a God or Gods". Many atheists find this
unsatisfactory as a definition of atheism.
> Atheism is the default state. One must be indoctrinated into a deity-
> oriented occultism.
> The real question isn't why there are atheists but why some people
> manage to believe in deities constructs while others manage to remain
> dedicated to reason.
I disagree that it is irrational to believe
in a deity - this is a wild claim which I do not believe you
can support.
Jim Humphreys
Jim Humphreys
Chris Brown wrote:
> Sarah Ettritch <ettr...@idirect.com> wrote in article
> > Personally I don't find God undetectable, which probably goes a long way
> >to explaining why I'm a theist :). If you do not detect Him, then it's
> > completely understandable that you may not be a theist. However, the
> >fact that you find Him undetectable does not mean that nobody can detect Him.
> >It simply means that you can't.
> Or that maybe the rest of us have similar experiences, and choose to
> attribute them to side effects of the way the brain works, rather than
> magic pixies?
What is your basis for asserting that you (and others)have had a similar
experience to the one described?
Jim Humphreys
Sarah Ettritch
Sterling Crowe wrote ...
>Sarah Ettritch wrote in message <356b6...@nemo.idirect.com>...
>>Not all Christians take the bible literally, Nick. And yes, you might
>think
>>something was going on, but you wouldn't necessarily jump into the air and
>>shout, "Hallelujah! It's God!!"
>
>
>I would have to say that this is correct. Confronted with the bush, I might
>think "hologram" or look for the sound system the booming voice is coming
>from.
Or look around for Charlton Heston or whoever it was that usually played
Moses in those Cecil B. de Mill epics. The hologram idea is cool... I never
would have thought of that.
>Confronted with the teacher who is understood by all comers, I would
>suspect shills and the only people who were the marks would be those who
>spoke whatever language the preacher was really speaking.
I would probably take him to the nearest hospital because I'd think he was
babbling and perhaps had a stroke or something.
>However, this God person is supposed to be even smarter than I am (perish
>the thought! :) ), so I doubt that He would be stymied by the idea of
>providing me with clear, unambiguous proof of His existence.
If He thought it was important to reveal Himself, I'm sure He'd do it. The
fact that He hasn't says to me, a theist (I know you'd say it's because He
doesn't exist), that it's not important that we know He exists beyond a
doubt.
>I find that most Christians I come into contact with pick and choose what
>they want to believe out of the Bible. This is not to be insulting to you,
>it is just an observation that few are willing to follow *all* of the
>teachings of the Bible.
That's true. I think that's ok if those of us who do choose to ignore or
re-interpret certain things can explain why we've chosen to do so within a
coherent theology or worldview. But unfortunately most people can't do
that.
>Fer instance, I have yet to meet a Christian who can explain to me,
>Biblically, why they think that the Mosaic Law applies to Gentiles as well,
>when the OT makes it quite clear that it applies only to those who accept
>the Covenant.
What do you mean by Mosaic Law? The 10 commandments?
>>(I don't agree with the argument either, but for different reasons).
>
>
>What reasons would those be, if you don't mind me asking?
Well if, for a moment, we pretend that Orthodox Christianity is *completely*
right and that we are going to be judged and either be eternally rewarded or
eternally punished based on whether we accept the Christian message, then I
have to believe that a loving God would not leave our decision so much up to
chance by not even giving us any concrete evidence of His existence, because
obviously the decision would be the most important decision we'd ever make.
By concrete I mean completely conclusive beyond a doubt. So the explanation
that He hasn't revealed Himself so that we have to choose Him as an act of
faith doesn't make sense to me. Therefore, I have to conclude that "free
will" isn't the reason He hasn't revealed Himself. This is why I reject
this argument coming from the Orthodoxy.
(I am, as I said, pretending, and am fully aware of the blatant
contradiction between "loving God" and eternal judgement).
My own view is that He has not revealed Himself because it's not important
that we know He exist beyond a doubt. Once one removes the assumption that
we are living this life for the sole purpose of choosing to believe or not
(and according to xtianity, choosing Jesus or not), the question of why He
isn't revealing Himself becomes much less important.
>>You're not wrong, you're right, which is why I said that they have come up
>>with the "free will" explanation as to why God doesn't just reveal
Himself.
>>Because if He did, that removes THE CHOICE.
>
>
>It would only remove the choice of believing in His existence. It would not
>remove the choice of whether to worship Him or not (and if you do not think
>that there are those who would not choose to worship the Biblical God,
>should proof of His existence be provided, then I would suggest that you
>meet more people).
Yes, I agree with you, however I was representing the teaching of Orthodox
Christianity, and Orthodox Christians do believe that if the Biblical God
were to reveal Himself, we would all fall at His feet without hesitation. I
also agree that they need to think a little more about the image of God that
they have built and worship.
>Thomas did not believe in the risen Jesus, according to the story, until he
>had proof which satisfied him presented. Judas, having traveled with Jesus
>and witnessed many of his miracles, still betrayed him. Again, according to
>the story.
>Even those who had no trouble believing in Jesus as the Messiah still had
>problems trusting in him. One of them (Peter, I think), still sank into the
>water.
>When Jesus speaks of faith in the NT, it does not seem to me that he is
>speaking of faith in the mere existence of God, but faith in the idea of
>that God keeping His promises.
Yes, I'd say you're right.
>Well, as you may note, many of us here think that the theology of Orthodox
>Christianity is seriously flawed (and not just because we do not believe in
>the existence of the central figure of that theology).
I've noticed. :) And I'd like to say that I am participating in this
thread because it was crossposted to alt.religion.gnostic (I would
categorize myself as a non-Orthodox Christian with a strong Gnostic bent).
I didn't realize in the beginning that most of the others participating were
coming from one of the atheist newsgroups. I apologize if I appeared to
crash your group, as that wasn't my intention.
>Do you mind if I ask, even if I am repeating a question you may have
>answered already, what are your views on Heaven and Hell?
I don't believe in the biblical representation of either one of them. I
can't believe in hell because a loving God wouldn't do such a thing as
condemn someone to eternal punishment based on what they do or believe
within one physical lifespan. As for heaven, where it's supposed to be
singing praises for eternity or living in bliss and harmony with no
challenges, no struggles, no potential for growth, I see that as a very
childish expectation that hasn't been thought through. I cannot imagine the
God I know expecting us to live in that environment. My hope is that when
we die, we simply move on to another phase in our existence that will be as
challenging and as filled with ups and downs as our current existence is.
That's the only thing that would make sense to me, and our Creator, knowing
us so well, is certainly not going to put us somewhere or expect something
of us that would wilt even the most pious of human souls.
>The only possible reason I can think of for those who believe in "Orthodox"
>Christianity to think that God does not reveal Himself in order that people
>would accept His existence "on faith" is that, knowing that God, as
>described in the Bible, exists, one would believe in Him simply to avoid
>Hell.
But not every Orthodox Christian has really understood what it is they're
saying they believe in, which I know is sad. Also, many people who label
themselves Orthodox Christians don't believe in hell. Strictly speaking,
they should then remove the "Orthodox" from the label, but they don't. It's
rare, apart from the fundamentalists, that a Christian does accept
*everything*, or at least that's what I've found in my experience.
>Even then, I know several people who would not worship God under such
>extortion. Not only because of pride, mind you, but because Heaven would
>hold no joy for these people if they knew that their loved ones were
burning
>in Hell.
I completely agree. That's what's so bizarre about the whole thing. That
on earth, according to Orthodox Christianity, you are to strive to "love
your neighbor", but hey, if your neighbor doesn't choose Jesus, it'll be
perfectly a-okay once you're up on the big cloud to be completely content
while you know your neighbor is in excruciating pain. As I said, many
Christians who preach this stuff should really sit down and think it
through.
>It still doesn't remove the element of faith or choice (after all, if one
>accepts the existence of a Biblical God, one must still get around the idea
>that that God may decide to make a little bet with Satan to test one's
faith
>(a la Job)).
Actually, I read an interesting book by Elaine Pagels called _The Origin of
Satan_, which I recommend to theist and atheist alike as it's an interesting
read, that shows how Satan evolved from the beginning of the OT to the end
of the NT from someone who is on God's side and acts *for* God, to someone
who is *against* God. It also shows how Christianity is one of the few (if
not the only) religion which has the tendency to demonize its opponents,
which has led to oppression, persections, etc. Personally, I don't have a
problem with God throwing a few obstacles in our way here and there if it's
for our own good in the end.
Sarah.
Sarah Ettritch
Peter Gordon wrote ...
>Sarah Ettritch wrote:
>> Personally I don't find God undetectable, which probably goes a long way
to
>> explaining why I'm a theist :). If you do not detect Him, then it's
>> completely understandable that you may not be a theist. However, the
fact
>> that you find Him undetectable does not mean that nobody can detect Him.
It
>> simply means that you can't.
>>
>
>If you can't detect Him then (to you) God's existence is based solely on
>the reports of those who can detect him. There is no other evidence. And
>why should anyone belive the word of other people regarding such an
>important matter. Especially when those who say they can detect the
>existance of God could be trying to pull something on you.
I agree with you. On such an important matter, you really need to make up
your own mind. I won't take your word for it that He doesn't exist, so I
certainly wouldn't expect you to take my word for it that He does. ;)
Sarah.