How can a Christian convert me from Atheism?

[w_jennings1977@live.com]

Hello,

I was raised as a Christian, and spent the first sixteen years of my
life as a Christian. It's a common misconception that we turn to
Atheism because of some tragic event in which we are angry at God. In
truth, it's Christianity which turns most of us away from it rather
than it being some outside influence. Typically, we live very happy,
loving and fulfilling lives which contradicts many stereotypical
opinions of us.

Well, I've been watching videos, reading forum discussions and blogs
trying to find the latest Christian arguement which attempts to debunk
Atheism. I think the most viable question which warrants serious
discussion from Atheists is actually not our responsibility since the
burden of proof is not on the skeptics (Atheists), but it is an
interesting method considering the constant ranting and bantering you
see in most public channels.

"What would it require for you to believe in God?"

I have pondered this quite a bit, and I have come up with my answer:
If you can prove to me that God is necessary in order for everything
to be as it is today then I will gladly convert.

You cannot use the Bible as a source since it has not been proven as
fact, and you cannot suggest faith until it has been proven. Good
luck!

[Trance Gemini]

Welcome to AvC WJ.

Nice starting post. I look forward to the responses from Christians :-)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
"Love is friendship on fire" --Anonymous

"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers" --Panama Floyd, aa#2015

[lawrey]

w_jennings,

Nice one and welcome.

On Apr 13, 12:00 pm, "w_jennings1...@live.com"

[Brock]

On Apr 13, 7:00 am, "w_jennings1...@live.com"

<w_jennings1...@live.com> wrote:
> I was raised as a Christian, and spent the first sixteen years of my
> life as a Christian.  

Welcome to the forum, but consider that self-identification is not
necessarily genuine.

> It's a common misconception that we turn to
> Atheism because of some tragic event in which we are angry at God.  In
> truth, it's Christianity which turns most of us away from it rather
> than it being some outside influence.  Typically, we live very happy,
> loving and fulfilling lives which contradicts many stereotypical
> opinions of us.

The issue that is so terrible concerns the peril of sin:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp

> Well, I've been watching videos, reading forum discussions and blogs
> trying to find the latest Christian arguement which attempts to debunk
> Atheism.  I think the most viable question which warrants serious
> discussion from Atheists is actually not our responsibility since the
> burden of proof is not on the skeptics (Atheists),

I consider that each human does bear a specific and significant
responsibility:

:The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His
commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring
every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good
or evil."

http://nasb.scripturetext.com/ecclesiastes/12.htm

> but it is an
> interesting method considering the constant ranting and bantering you
> see in most public channels.
>
> "What would it require for you to believe in God?"
>
> I have pondered this quite a bit, and I have come up with my answer:
> If you can prove to me that God is necessary in order for everything
> to be as it is today then I will gladly convert.

Why? Is the objective truth of the Bible dependent upon your
perception and/or understanding of it?

Of course, I don't think your statement gets an epistemological pass.
Smokers, for example, know the specific and terrible consequences of
smoking, yet often continue their habit. Why should we take your
assertion ("that you would gladly convert") at face value? Consider
instead that the bondage of sin is so terrible and strong that even if
you were convinced of the truth of the gospel you might not repent.

> You cannot use the Bible as a source since it has not been proven as
> fact, and you cannot suggest faith until it has been proven.  Good
> luck!

And of course, comparison against such a model is not an adequate
epistemology. As Bertrand Russell (no Christian he!) said:

"Another conclusion which was forced upon me was that not only
science, but a great deal that no one sincerely doubts to be
knowledge, is impossible if we only know what can be experienced and
verified."

http://www.basicincome.com/bp/ireturnedto.htm

Regards,

Brock

[w_jennings1977@live.com]

Brock,

You blatently side-stepped my arguement, and attempted to attack my
character and provide philosophical opinions on a scientific matter.
In my opinion the philosophical aspects of Christianity is what
initially persuaded me to seek other options. I will gladly explain
why I feel this way in another discussion, but that is not the point
of this discussion.

I would expect to debate the common ID hypothesis or even Pascal's
Threat (oops, Wager?), before resorting to this type of discussion.
Try stepping out of the box, and bring your own scientific ideas or
even argueing previously discussed points and ideas. I have a very
open mind, and I'm familiar with your religion. Save the semantics
that would work on the ill-informed, and bring something new and fresh
to the table.

Thank you

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 5:47 PM, w_jenni...@live.com
<w_jenni...@live.com> wrote:
> Brock,
>
> You blatently side-stepped my arguement, and attempted to attack my
> character and provide philosophical opinions on a scientific matter.

I disagree, its not an attack on your character to consider that
humankind has a miserable sin nature that makes your statements appear
overly simplistic:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0085/0085_01.asp

Regards,

Brock

[w_jennings1977@live.com]

> I disagree, its not an attack on your character to consider that
> humankind has a miserable sin nature that makes your statements appear
> overly simplistic:

No, I seen your arguement here the first time, and I dismissed it as
irrelevant considering my arguement. It is a philisophical and
psychological opinion which you interpret as conclusion or fact. This
arguement is for another discussion! The character attacks I was
referring to was you trying to dissect that the statements I made
regarding my past weren't genuine. It's funny that you doubt the
genuinity of my words, but you have such faith in a book of words
simply because you chose to?

For this arguement I will simply entertain your logic with some of my
own. If I had never asserted my position, and got on this forum and
posted scripture and making claims that God is the only way would you
assume that I am a Christian? Now, imagine if I did do this
considering what you have learned about me, Would you think that my
points were sarcastic or satirical? The answer to both of these
questions are YES due to inductuve reasoning. This is our problem
with the Bible!

Thanks

[Walt]

Or, in other words, to become a Christian you must be a pants-wetting
coward, groveling in panic and self-loathing when threatened, unable
to notice that there is no reasonable indication the threat is real.

[Trance Gemini]

Well put WJ. I agree completely.

This is what Christians and other theists appear to be unable to see.

[watts]

The possibility of converting me, as an atheist, to Christianity, or
any religion/dogma, is so low that it is not worth considering it as
an option.

I do not seek proof from that which has none.

On Apr 13, 7:00 am, "w_jennings1...@live.com"
<w_jennings1...@live.com> wrote:

[thea]

I would not dare try to convert you to anything.  It is not my place to convert you to anything.

God says that HE converts them that are HIS to HIMself.  God does all of the work for those whom HE deems to be the ideal candidates for HIMSELF.

Most Christian are not taught that God chose them - so wallow around in self-pity with pity parties galore, because they think they are not worthy.

WE have all been chosen to believe that God did it for us (John 3:16), it is us who turns our back on this God of Israel who sent His Son Jesus -- that makes or breaks whether or no we are Christians.

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:21 PM, w_jenni...@live.com
<w_jenni...@live.com> wrote:
>

>> I disagree, its not an attack on your character to consider that
>> humankind has a miserable sin nature that makes your statements appear
>> overly simplistic:
>
> No, I seen your arguement here the first time, and I dismissed it as
> irrelevant considering my arguement.  It is a philisophical and
> psychological opinion which you interpret as conclusion or fact.  This
> arguement is for another discussion! The character attacks I was
> referring to was you trying to dissect that the statements I made
> regarding my past weren't genuine.

I simply noted the limitations of your statement:

> If you can prove to me that God is necessary in order for everything
> to be as it is today then I will gladly convert.

in light of the terrible bondage that sin has over humankind.

> It's funny that you doubt the
> genuinity of my words, but you have such faith in a book of words
> simply because you chose to?

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp

> For this arguement I will simply entertain your logic with some of my
> own.  If I had never asserted my position, and got on this forum and
> posted scripture and making claims that God is the only way would you
> assume that I am a Christian?

I would simply note that humankind faces a terrible peril regarding
sin that makes such claims worthy of examination:

"The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are by nature not
inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and
strength, but rather all are inclined by nature to serve their own
will and desires and to reject the rule of God. ...
Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as
possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may
intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its
implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities
that can correct this condition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity

> Now, imagine if I did do this
> considering what you have learned about me,  Would you think that my
> points were sarcastic or satirical?  The answer to both of these
> questions are YES due to inductuve reasoning.  This is our problem
> with the Bible!

Or it could be a problem with your reasoning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Or, in other words, to become a Christian you must be a pants-wetting
> coward, groveling in panic and self-loathing when threatened, unable
> to notice that there is no reasonable indication the threat is real.

Or not. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Treebeard]

On Apr 13, 7:00 am, "w_jennings1...@live.com"
<w_jennings1...@live.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I was raised as a Christian, and spent the first sixteen years of my
> life as a Christian.  It's a common misconception that we turn to
> Atheism because of some tragic event in which we are angry at God.  In
> truth, it's Christianity which turns most of us away from it rather
> than it being some outside influence.  Typically, we live very happy,
> loving and fulfilling lives which contradicts many stereotypical
> opinions of us.
>
> Well, I've been watching videos, reading forum discussions and blogs
> trying to find the latest Christian arguement which attempts to debunk
> Atheism.  I think the most viable question which warrants serious
> discussion from Atheists is actually not our responsibility since the
> burden of proof is not on the skeptics (Atheists), but it is an
> interesting method considering the constant ranting and bantering you
> see in most public channels.
>
> "What would it require for you to believe in God?"

If you say "Show me some evidence before I'll believe", I do think it
credible for them to ask you what you're expecting. My experience has
been that many atheists expect more evidence than can reasonably
required before it would be rational for anyone to believe, and then
try to claim that not only do they not believe, but that no one else
should either.

>
> I have pondered this quite a bit, and I have come up with my answer:
> If you can prove to me that God is necessary in order for everything
> to be as it is today then I will gladly convert.

Why do you expect more evidence than science can provide for
anything? Science, being inductive, has no such necessity claim.
There are always other theories that could be true, but science picks
one and runs with it.

Do you also deny the external world, because it is not required for
there to really be other people and things for things to be as they
are? (See: solipsism).

Even knowledge does not require necessity or certainty. So I could,
in theory, KNOW that God exists and have proven it scientifically, and
that would not meet your criteria.

Seems like a useless criteria to me.

>
> You cannot use the Bible as a source since it has not been proven as
> fact, and you cannot suggest faith until it has been proven.  Good
> luck!

Um, this last comment is bizarre, since faith is all about things not
being proven. I don't expect that to convince you, but to exclude it
in its natural state is just incredibly strange.

[Walt]

Or not see what is obvious.

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Brock Organ]

Consider that the objective nature of reality is not held hostage to
personal aesthetic.

Regards,

Brock

[Answer_42]

On Apr 14, 12:40 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> <w_jennings1...@live.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
>
> > I was raised as a Christian, and spent the first sixteen years of my
> > life as a Christian.  It's a common misconception that we turn to
> > Atheism because of some tragic event in which we are angry at God.  In
> > truth, it's Christianity which turns most of us away from it rather
> > than it being some outside influence.  Typically, we live very happy,
> > loving and fulfilling lives which contradicts many stereotypical
> > opinions of us.
>
> > Well, I've been watching videos, reading forum discussions and blogs
> > trying to find the latest Christian arguement which attempts to debunk
> > Atheism.  I think the most viable question which warrants serious
> > discussion from Atheists is actually not our responsibility since the
> > burden of proof is not on the skeptics (Atheists), but it is an
> > interesting method considering the constant ranting and bantering you
> > see in most public channels.
>
> > "What would it require for you to believe in God?"
>
> If you say "Show me some evidence before I'll believe", I do think it
> credible for them to ask you what you're expecting.  My experience has
> been that many atheists expect more evidence than can reasonably
> required

Such as?

> before it would be rational for anyone to believe, and then
> try to claim that not only do they not believe, but that no one else
> should either.
>
>
>
> > I have pondered this quite a bit, and I have come up with my answer:
> > If you can prove to me that God is necessary in order for everything
> > to be as it is today then I will gladly convert.
>
> Why do you expect more evidence than science can provide for
> anything?  Science, being inductive, has no such necessity claim.
> There are always other theories that could be true, but science picks
> one and runs with it.

Sure, but give us at least ONE such claim.
How is god logically necessary to explain anything at all?

> Do you also deny the external world, because it is not required for
> there to really be other people and things for things to be as they
> are?  (See: solipsism).
>
> Even knowledge does not require necessity or certainty.  So I could,
> in theory, KNOW that God exists and have proven it scientifically, and
> that would not meet your criteria.

philobabble...
How can a bare assertion be a scientific claim?
____________________________________________
If oxen and horses and lions could draw and paint, they would
delineate the gods in their own image.
-- Xenophanes

[Treebeard]

On Apr 14, 2:38 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 12:40 pm, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <w_jennings1...@live.com> wrote:
> > > Hello,
>
> > > I was raised as a Christian, and spent the first sixteen years of my
> > > life as a Christian.  It's a common misconception that we turn to
> > > Atheism because of some tragic event in which we are angry at God.  In
> > > truth, it's Christianity which turns most of us away from it rather
> > > than it being some outside influence.  Typically, we live very happy,
> > > loving and fulfilling lives which contradicts many stereotypical
> > > opinions of us.
>
> > > Well, I've been watching videos, reading forum discussions and blogs
> > > trying to find the latest Christian arguement which attempts to debunk
> > > Atheism.  I think the most viable question which warrants serious
> > > discussion from Atheists is actually not our responsibility since the
> > > burden of proof is not on the skeptics (Atheists), but it is an
> > > interesting method considering the constant ranting and bantering you
> > > see in most public channels.
>
> > > "What would it require for you to believe in God?"
>
> > If you say "Show me some evidence before I'll believe", I do think it
> > credible for them to ask you what you're expecting.  My experience has
> > been that many atheists expect more evidence than can reasonably
> > required
>
> Such as?

Logical necessity, stated here.

Things that they wouldn't require for anything else, such as an
insistence that recorded ancient texts are completely invalid for gods
but allowed for philosophers.

>
> > before it would be rational for anyone to believe, and then
> > try to claim that not only do they not believe, but that no one else
> > should either.
>
> > > I have pondered this quite a bit, and I have come up with my answer:
> > > If you can prove to me that God is necessary in order for everything
> > > to be as it is today then I will gladly convert.
>
> > Why do you expect more evidence than science can provide for
> > anything?  Science, being inductive, has no such necessity claim.
> > There are always other theories that could be true, but science picks
> > one and runs with it.
>
> Sure, but give us at least ONE such claim.
> How is god logically necessary to explain anything at all?

How is ANYTHING logically necessary to explain anything at all?

>
> > Do you also deny the external world, because it is not required for
> > there to really be other people and things for things to be as they
> > are?  (See: solipsism).
>
> > Even knowledge does not require necessity or certainty.  So I could,
> > in theory, KNOW that God exists and have proven it scientifically, and
> > that would not meet your criteria.
>
> philobabble...
> How can a bare assertion be a scientific claim?

I never claimed it was. I claimed that by his STATED criteria, I
could have that and he STILL wouldn't accept it.

See, this is why I get so frustrated. I'm not sure how to fix you
simply not getting half the things I say. Should you slow down? Do I
need to break it down more for you? Or what?

[GT]

On Apr 13, 9:00 pm, "w_jennings1...@live.com"

My guess is what your really asking is for someone to prove you
wrong,
after all It’s only logical for all of us to want to believe that
there is a God.
Someone to watch over us from our birth until our passing.

Hello I’m GT (God Theory), this is my first post, and I thank you for
this
invitation to enlighten yourself and the other heretics present.

Now, my first problem with your challenge is that it is all too easy
to answer.
second problem is that there is a valid answer regardless of whether
or not God exists.

Therefore based on the self evident nature of the answer, I’m wont be
holding you to your promise to convert.

It will take more than a simple rephrasing to get your question to
a point
where it’s answering requires a valid God.

Please re-ponder and repost.

[Trance Gemini]

Welcome to AvC GT.

--
"Love is friendship on fire" --Anonymous

"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers" --Panama Floyd, aa#2015

[thea]

Welcome to AvC GT - I too will say welcome!!

You want to be converted to Christianity -- No one here can convert you to anything.  The Bible says that the Holy Spirit (the third person of the Triune Godhead) does the work of converting people to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

I was reared in a parsonage, and learned after studying the Bible for some years on my own - that my father had been brainwashed by the denominational church in which he had pastored over 40 years.

 

If you decide to *study to show yourself approved by God* - you will go from one extreme to the other before finding that all it takes to be a Christian is to *Thanking the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ* continually -- as God *lives, resides in, the praises of His People.*

[qbert]

If you can prove to me that God is necessary in order for everything
to be as it is today then I will gladly convert.

Good Morning


First let me say that your conversion or lack thereof is of no concern
whatever to me. You have a free will and are entitled to be as you
wish.

I will take up your challenge to scientifically prove to you that God
does indeed exist and that "everything to be as it is today" depends
of the existence of a creator God.

In fact you yourself are part of the proof.

Cause and effect; everything that happens is caused to happen and is
an effect of that cause and in turn is the cause for the effects made
by it happening. If ever there were nothing and nothing ever caused
anything to happen then there would still be nothing. Since your
being here is evidence that there was a primal cause that caused the
first effect that caused all the effects leading to your being here,
you are proof of the primal cause.

I submit to you that the primal cause is the creator God and further,
scientifically of course, he is eternal. The primal cause can not be
the effect of any other cause or that is the primal cause. Similarly
the primal cause has to be eternal if not then there is a beginning
and then there must be a cause for it to begin.

Permit me please this slight departure from science to further state
that it is my belief that the creator God or primal cause cannot have
created anything or caused anything to be created that is greater than
the primal cause or that controls it.


On Apr 13, 6:00 am, "w_jennings1...@live.com"

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:32 AM, qbert <qber...@yahoo.com> wrote:

If you can prove to me that God is necessary in order for everything
to be as it is today then I will gladly convert.

Good Morning

Welcome to AvC QBert.
 

--
"Love is friendship on fire" --Anonymous

"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers" --Panama Floyd, aa#2015

[Neil Kelsey]

On Apr 16, 7:32 am, qbert <qbert1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If you can prove to me that God is necessary in order for everything
> to be as it is today then I will gladly convert.
>
> Good Morning
>
> First let me say that your conversion or lack thereof is of no concern
> whatever to me.  You have a free will and are entitled to be as you
> wish.
>
> I will take up your challenge to scientifically prove to you that God
> does indeed exist and that "everything to be as it is today" depends
> of the existence of a creator God.

So then his conversion is of concern to you, since you are trying to
convert him.

> In fact you yourself are part of the proof.
>
> Cause and effect; everything that happens is caused to happen and is
> an effect of that cause and in turn is the cause for the effects made
> by it happening.  If ever there were nothing and nothing ever caused
> anything to happen then there would still be nothing.  Since your
> being here is evidence that there was a primal cause that caused the
> first effect that caused all the effects leading to your being here,
> you are proof of the primal cause.
>
> I submit to you that the primal cause is the creator God and further,
> scientifically of course, he is eternal.

You give no reason to think that the "primal cause" is a being/deity
(I will continue to think that the Big Bang is a natural occurance, an
inevitability of physics), and you need to cite the scientific
experiments that prove that God is eternal. Better yet, please cite
the scientific experiments that prove that God even exists.

> The primal cause can not be
> the effect of any other cause or that is the primal cause.

That sentence makes no sense.

>  Similarly
> the primal cause has to be eternal if not then there is a beginning
> and then there must be a cause for it to begin.

I see no reason to think that the primal cause is eternal. If the
primal cause is vacuum fluctuation, and the energy that went into that
event produced our universe, there may not be enough energy left in
the vacuum field to produce another Big Bang. In other words, the
cause is not eternal, if this is what happened (and it is much more
plausible than your scenario involving a super duper being - and while
we're at it, what caused God?)

> Permit me please this slight departure from science to further state
> that it is my belief that the creator God or primal cause cannot have
> created anything or caused anything to be created that is greater than
> the primal cause or that controls it.

And how, exactly, do you measure greatness? Is a planet orbiting
around some distant star greater than a mole burrowing in your garden?
Is Harry Potter greater than Britany Spears?

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[GT]

On Apr 16, 9:44 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Welcome to AvC GT.
>

Hello Trance

Thanks for the welcome,

This group that you are so much apart of, is one of the things that
most
motivates me in life. No hour of the day goes by without me
considering
something posted, or worth posting here.

In particular your post on the 1st anniversary of your brothers death
has stuck with me. A very sad experience for anyone regardless of
their beliefs.

You may believe that there is nothing a theist could say or do to
make
someone such as yourself, who has suffered such a sudden loss feel any
better.
The potential being only to worsen their grief by offering false
hope, and
directing them down a road to disappointment..


This would be mostly right of course if there were no god.


I had been cursing the fact that I had got the layout wrong in my
first post
wondering why this had happened to me, when others seem to get it
right
first up. Now of course, I know why. Thanks for the help.

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit­y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> --
> "Love is friendship on fire" --Anonymous
>
> "Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to
> skyscrapers" --Panama Floyd, aa#2015
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Trance Gemini]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:55 PM, GT <greg....@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 16, 9:44 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Welcome to AvC GT.
>

Hello Trance

Thanks for the welcome,

This group that you are so much apart of, is one of the things that
most
motivates me in life. No hour of the day goes by without me
considering
something posted, or worth posting here.

Well I'm happy to see you posting here :-)
 

In particular your post on the 1st anniversary of your brothers death
has stuck with me.  A very sad experience for anyone regardless of
their beliefs.

You may believe that there is nothing a theist could say or do to
make
someone such as yourself, who has suffered such a sudden loss feel any
better.
The potential being only to worsen their grief by offering  false
hope, and
directing them down a road to disappointment..

Thank you. I appreciate your comments.

I'm working through it. We're coming to the 2d anniversary now and I'm beginning to accept it.

My siblings in Vancouver had a memorial for him on his birthday which I'm sure he would have appreciated.

So, we're all getting there albeit slowly.

 

This would be mostly right of course if there were no god.

Well I guess he'll be the one who could answer that question ;-)
 

I  had been cursing the fact that I had got the layout wrong in my
first post
wondering why this had happened to me, when others seem to get it
right
first up.   Now of course,  I know why.  Thanks for the help.

No worries, GT.

It takes a little practice sometimes and no-one is going to hold that against you since a lot of people's posts turn out that way.

[Answer_42]

Phliosphers are people, gods are not.
Unless you are now wanting to claim that they are...

Show us that gods, as a class of being, are real, then we might accept
ancient texts about particular gods.


So, for the same reasons, we might accept a text about lions, but not
one about dragons - unless non-textual evidence exists for dragons.

> > > before it would be rational for anyone to believe, and then
> > > try to claim that not only do they not believe, but that no one else
> > > should either.
>
> > > > I have pondered this quite a bit, and I have come up with my answer:
> > > > If you can prove to me that God is necessary in order for everything
> > > > to be as it is today then I will gladly convert.
>
> > > Why do you expect more evidence than science can provide for
> > > anything?  Science, being inductive, has no such necessity claim.
> > > There are always other theories that could be true, but science picks
> > > one and runs with it.
>
> > Sure, but give us at least ONE such claim.
> > How is god logically necessary to explain anything at all?
>
> How is ANYTHING logically necessary to explain anything at all?

I see, so dodge the issue and take refuge in phlisosphy then.
Whatever.

<snip>
______________________________________________
Some people do not eat cow meat. I do so, provided it's tender.
-- Yajnavalkya

[Walt]

Hopefully there is a God, so at least someone will know how your
response is in any way relevant.

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > Or, in other words, to become a Christian you must be a pants-wetting
>> >> > coward, groveling in panic and self-loathing when threatened, unable
>> >> > to notice that there is no reasonable indication the threat is real.
>>
>> >> Or not. :)
>>
>> > Or not see what is obvious.
>>
>> Consider that the objective nature of reality is not held hostage to
>> personal aesthetic.
>
> Hopefully there is a God, so at least someone will know how your
> response is in any way relevant.

In noting the false equivalence some would hold "in other words" to, I
consider my response clear and precise.

[chazwin]

On Apr 13, 12:00 pm, "w_jennings1...@live.com"
<w_jennings1...@live.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>

> I was raised as a Christian, and spent the first sixteen years of my
> life as a Christian.  It's a common misconception that we turn to
> Atheism because of some tragic event in which we are angry at God.  In
> truth, it's Christianity which turns most of us away from it rather
> than it being some outside influence.  Typically, we live very happy,
> loving and fulfilling lives which contradicts many stereotypical
> opinions of us.
>
> Well, I've been watching videos, reading forum discussions and blogs
> trying to find the latest Christian arguement which attempts to debunk
> Atheism.  I think the most viable question which warrants serious
> discussion from Atheists is actually not our responsibility since the
> burden of proof is not on the skeptics (Atheists), but it is an
> interesting method considering the constant ranting and bantering you
> see in most public channels.
>
> "What would it require for you to believe in God?"
>

> I have pondered this quite a bit, and I have come up with my answer:
> If you can prove to me that God is necessary in order for everything
> to be as it is today then I will gladly convert.

The Christians would respond by saying that everything is as it is
because of the necessity
of god. This is there point of departure a priori. It is this upon
which they deduce the world in
which they live. It is not a question for them; it is what they
assume.
In response the atheist can tale them at their own game on reverse
engineer. By induction they
build a picture of a 'necessary ' god by attributing to gad all the
characteristics that the world
possesses. God comes out of it looking pretty shitty; either a evil
sadistic pig; a childish freak
in need of worship; a bungling idiot who could not design his way out
of a paper bag; a
chauvinist; schizophrenic

>
> You cannot use the Bible as a source since it has not been proven as
> fact, and you cannot suggest faith until it has been proven.  Good
> luck!

[chazwin]

On Apr 13, 10:56 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 5:47 PM, w_jennings1...@live.com

>
> <w_jennings1...@live.com> wrote:
> > Brock,
>
> > You blatently side-stepped my arguement, and attempted to attack my
> > character and provide philosophical opinions on a scientific matter.
>
> I disagree, its not an attack on your character to consider that
> humankind has a miserable sin nature that makes your statements appear
> overly simplistic:

If that is the case why not try to answer the question. It ought to be
easy for you.


>
> http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0085/0085_01.asp
>
> Regards,
>
> Brock

[chazwin]

So why aren't you answering the question?


On Apr 14, 5:39 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:21 PM, w_jennings1...@live.com

[chazwin]

Harsh but amusing

[chazwin]

On Apr 14, 2:53 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would not dare try to convert you to anything.  It is not my place to
> convert you to anything.
> God says that HE converts them that are HIS to HIMself.

WRONG. Calvin says that god says "hE converts them that are hIS to
hIMself.

If you believe that arrogant piece of self-serving nonsense then you
are truly lost.

 God does all of the
> work for those whom HE deems to be the ideal candidates for HIMSELF.
> Most Christian are not taught that God chose them - so wallow around in
> self-pity with pity parties galore, because they think they are not worthy.
> WE have all been chosen to believe that God did it for us (John 3:16), it is
> us who turns our back on this God of Israel who sent His Son Jesus -- that
> makes or breaks whether or no we are Christians.

Do you have any evidence for that view, or did you just make it up on
the spot?

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > .

[chazwin]

All that means is that theists swallow a belief for a thing for which
there is no real evidence.
What a sad indictment of your creed.

>
>
>
> > I have pondered this quite a bit, and I have come up with my answer:
> > If you can prove to me that God is necessary in order for everything
> > to be as it is today then I will gladly convert.
>
> Why do you expect more evidence than science can provide for
> anything?  Science, being inductive, has no such necessity claim.
> There are always other theories that could be true, but science picks
> one and runs with it.

And none of those are god.

>
> Do you also deny the external world, because it is not required for
> there to really be other people and things for things to be as they
> are?  (See: solipsism).
>
> Even knowledge does not require necessity or certainty.  So I could,
> in theory, KNOW that God exists and have proven it scientifically, and
> that would not meet your criteria.

No such proof exists.

>
> Seems like a useless criteria to me.
>
>
>
> > You cannot use the Bible as a source since it has not been proven as
> > fact, and you cannot suggest faith until it has been proven.  Good
> > luck!
>
> Um, this last comment is bizarre, since faith is all about things not
> being proven.  I don't expect that to convince you, but to exclude it
> in its natural state is just incredibly strange.

Babies have faith in Santa Claus then they grow up. You need to
follow.

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 6:34 AM, chazwin <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 13, 10:56 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 5:47 PM, w_jennings1...@live.com
>>
>> <w_jennings1...@live.com> wrote:
>> > Brock,
>>
>> > You blatently side-stepped my arguement, and attempted to attack my
>> > character and provide philosophical opinions on a scientific matter.
>>
>> I disagree, its not an attack on your character to consider that
>> humankind has a miserable sin nature that makes your statements appear
>> overly simplistic:
>
> If that is the case why not try to answer the question. It ought to be
> easy for you.

It was:

http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/eeb3e67a8308b230

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 6:35 AM, chazwin <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So why aren't you answering the question?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 6:41 AM, chazwin <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> All that means is that theists swallow a belief for a thing for which
> there is no real evidence.

Evidence available here:

http://bible.cc

Regards,

Brock

[flying gorilla]

Circular logic. The bible is not evidence for what it says in the
bible.



On Apr 29, 1:17 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 4:02 PM, flying gorilla <ryan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Circular logic. The bible is not evidence for what it says in the
> bible.

Your accusation is neither true nor accurate, chazwin asserted:

>> > theists swallow a belief for a thing for which
>> > there is no real evidence.

And I non-circularly noted his assessment was incorrect by saying:

[chazwin]

On Apr 29, 9:02 pm, flying gorilla <ryan.kle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Circular logic. The bible is not evidence for what it says in the
> bible.

This is a problem that theologians have failed to grasp for 2000
years.

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:41 PM, chazwin <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 9:02 pm, flying gorilla <ryan.kle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Circular logic. The bible is not evidence for what it says in the
>> bible.
>
> This is a problem that theologians have failed to grasp for 2000
> years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

[Answer_42]

On Apr 30, 11:25 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Circular logic. The bible is not evidence for what it says in the
> >> bible.
>
> > This is a problem that theologians have failed to grasp for 2000
> > years.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

You clearly have no idea what a straw man is.

How can one offering a statement which represents what he thinks be a
straw man?
Oh, I forgot, the holy ghost must have whispered in your ear that
chazwin was actually thinking something else while he was writing his
statement.

And you claim that you know the "business end of a theorem"?
How can you if you demonstrate regularly that you have no idea what
various fallacies actually are?
_______________________________________________
Any view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be
seen as fundamentally deficient.
-- William Dembski

[Walt]

On Apr 30, 2:19 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 11:25 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Circular logic. The bible is not evidence for what it says in the
> > >> bible.
>
> > > This is a problem that theologians have failed to grasp for 2000
> > > years.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
>
> You clearly have no idea what a straw man is.

I think his point is that the statement "the bible is not evidence for
what it says in the bible" does not accurately represent his position,
and is thus a straw man. I think Brock's position is that it's
axiomatically true that the Bible is the direct word of God. I think
he considers this to be innate knowledge, and the denial of it is the
result of depraved self-deception.

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 30, 2:19 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 11:25 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> Circular logic. The bible is not evidence for what it says in the
>> > >> bible.
>>
>> > > This is a problem that theologians have failed to grasp for 2000
>> > > years.
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
>>
>> You clearly have no idea what a straw man is.
>
> I think his point is that the statement "the bible is not evidence for
> what it says in the bible" does not accurately represent his position,
> and is thus a straw man.

Well said.

> I think Brock's position is that it's
> axiomatically true that the Bible is the direct word of God.  I think
> he considers this to be innate knowledge, and the denial of it is the
> result of depraved self-deception.

Certainly I consider that this truth is not demonstrable by humanistic
standards, not because it isn't true, but because humanistic standards
are not an adequate measure, nor are all truths demonstrable.

Regards,

Brock

[chazwin]

The idiot Brock uses the bible as evidence for the voracity of the
bible.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Circular%20Reasoning

On Apr 30, 4:25 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:41 PM, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 9:02 pm, flying gorilla <ryan.kle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Circular logic. The bible is not evidence for what it says in the
> >> bible.
>
> > This is a problem that theologians have failed to grasp for 2000
> > years.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#Circular%20Reasoning

[Answer_42]

On Apr 30, 3:12 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > >> Circular logic. The bible is not evidence for what it says in the
> > > >> bible.
>
> > > > This is a problem that theologians have failed to grasp for 2000
> > > > years.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
>
> > You clearly have no idea what a straw man is.
>
> I think his point is that the statement "the bible is not evidence for
> what it says in the bible" does not accurately represent his position,

Except that Chazwin did not imply in any ways that this was Brock's
position. In fact, I am fairly certain that Chazwin knows for a fact
that this is not Brock's position.

So, when Chazwin wrote:
"
This is a problem that theologians have failed to grasp for 2000
years.
"

in reply to Flying Gorilla's statement, which was:

"
Circular logic. The bible is not evidence for what it says in the
bible.
"

it is very obvious that neither Flying Gorilla nor Chazwin were
writing about Brock's position. They were not misrepresenting what
Brock thinks, one was writing about a logical fallacy and the other
concurred.

Brock may have countered that Flying Gorilla's claim of circular logic
was wrong (it is not), but still, it would not be a straw man.

So, clearly, Brock has no idea what a straw man is, and and neither do
you, it seems. When facing statements he cannot refute, he tries to
pass them off as fallacies, ever though they are not. This way, he
avoids actually trying to demonstrate how the statements are wrong,
according to him. So, instead of debating the validity of the
statement, the conversation gets side tracked into arguments regarding
fallacies or semantics. In the end, the original statement maybe
forgotten.

He is intellectually lazy and stuck in is biased dogmatic world.

This is why I keep pointing out that he is a dishonest biased prick so
that newcomers won't be fooled by his polite tone, which in fact
camouflages the highest level of passive aggressiveness I have yet to
see on the interweb. Meanwhile, I have no idea why regulars actually
try to engage him.... "try" is necessary here because so far no one as
successfully "engaged" Brock... all those regulars are still trying
to, without any success at all. He should be getting the same cold
shoulder treatment e-space or omprem gets.

> and is thus a straw man.  I think Brock's position is that it's
> axiomatically true that the Bible is the direct word of God.  I think
> he considers this to be innate knowledge, and the denial of it is the
> result of depraved self-deception.

Brock is an ass.

His constant statement that
2) The objective truth of the bible is independent of my beliefs
is as valid as:
2) Brock's objective stupidity is independent of my beliefs.
yet he cannot see that.
_______________________________________________
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of
those who need such a mode of treatment.
-- Eusebius

[Answer_42]

On Apr 30, 3:19 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> > >> Circular logic. The bible is not evidence for what it says in the
> >> > >> bible.
>
> >> > > This is a problem that theologians have failed to grasp for 2000
> >> > > years.
>
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
>
> >> You clearly have no idea what a straw man is.
>
> > I think his point is that the statement "the bible is not evidence for
> > what it says in the bible" does not accurately represent his position,
> > and is thus a straw man.
>
> Well said.

Pot, meet Kettle.
It is no surprise that you would concur with one who also failed to
notice that your were flat out wrong with your straw man accusations.

> > I think Brock's position is that it's
> > axiomatically true that the Bible is the direct word of God.  I think
> > he considers this to be innate knowledge, and the denial of it is the
> > result of depraved self-deception.
>
> Certainly I consider that this truth is not demonstrable by humanistic
> standards, not because it isn't true, but because humanistic standards
> are not an adequate measure, nor are all truths demonstrable.

You "argument" is perfectly valid for the following statement as well:

2) Brock's objective stupidity is independent of my beliefs.

I notice that you are still looking for your balls, you won't even
reply to me directly...
I guess you have realized that I was dead on with my assessment of the
fact that you are a dishonest biased prick and you think it is better
to leave me alone, in case I demonstrate, again, for the umpteenth
time, that is is 100% true...

Regards,

_______________________________________________
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of
those who need such a mode of treatment.
-- Eusebius

[chazwin]

Thanks 42.
The simple fact is that Brock's stupidity is not objectively
independent. It is subjectively related to my reception of it, and by
extension your own.
It is defined and recognised in a dialectical relationship with my own
sensibilities.
Brock's stupidity, his relationship to god, and god relationship to
Brock is all based on his own 'peculiar' subjective relationship to
his
own thoughts.
When we compare his notions with shared facts that we all understand
in the world - only then can we make assertions as to their
objectivity.
Clearly as Brock rarely consults the world around him - let alone
facts within that world that others can agree with - little his says
can be characterised as
objective.
But even when he consults the bible (what he claims to be the word of
the living god) - his conclusions about the nature of god are not
consonant with his conclusions.
So even here - where others might be willing to agree with some
objectively agreeable findings we find inconsistencies.

[Brock Organ]

On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 5:40 AM, chazwin <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The idiot Brock uses the bible as evidence for the voracity of the
> bible.

Or not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

[flying gorilla]

Why should I believe you that the bible is evidence of anything?

Now, if you are going to tell me that the objective truth of the bible
is independent of humanistic principles or beliefs or whatever you
usually say, don't you see that doesn't solve the problem? It doesn't
matter whether the bible is true or not, what matters is how one comes
to KNOW that it is true. Simply reading the bible does not convince me
that it is true. And listening to your silly arguments actually
convince me that the bible couldn't possibly be true. Reading the
slippery way to deny the scientific truths that conflict with a
literal read of the bible exposes your complete lack of credibility.

On Apr 29, 4:27 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[chazwin]

Confused?

On May 3, 5:44 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Brock Organ]

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:08 PM, flying gorilla <ryan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why should I believe you that the bible is evidence of anything?

Rather, its objective truth is independent of your belief.

> Now, if you are going to tell me that the objective truth of the bible
> is independent of humanistic principles or beliefs or whatever you
> usually say, don't you see that doesn't solve the problem?

I don't agree. Consider instead that its a rigged game (or a kangaroo
court) if one would measure God's existence or properties by using
methods and processes that are inappropriate. I would offer its like
using a thermometer to measure the radioactivity of a sample, and
concluding that there is no radiation simply because the thermometer
invalidly indicated no measurement.

So if, for example, you handed me a thermometer (humanistic reasoning)
and asked me to measure radioactivity (God's existence) with it,
instead of trying to pretend the measuring device was adequate, I
would note what I have been clear about noting: You would be using
the wrong tool for the job, and the first step away from conclusions
using that error is to stop using the faulty standard.

> It doesn't
> matter whether the bible is true or not, what matters is how one comes
> to KNOW that it is true.

Actually, that is not accurate. The objective truth of reality is
independent of your knowledge of it.

> Simply reading the bible does not convince me
> that it is true.

Then check the standard by which you so evaluate for tenability.

> And listening to your silly arguments actually
> convince me that the bible couldn't possibly be true.

The objective nature of reality is not limited by your assessment of silly.

[Brock Organ]

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 2:14 PM, chazwin <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On May 3, 5:44 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 5:40 AM, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > The idiot Brock uses the bible as evidence for the voracity of the
>> > bible.
>>
>> Or not:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
>

> Confused?

Or characterized inaccurately.

[flying gorilla]

how does one know which tool to use? You say the bible is evidence for
the truth of Christianity. Muslims say the Koran is evidence that
Islam is true. Why should I believe you over them? Even if the bible
IS objectively true, how am I supposed to know it? If the bible is
objectively true and people don't KNOW it, then won't they still go to
hell? Being saved doesn't depend on the objective truth of the bible,
being saved depends on people KNOWING the objective truth of the
bible.

On May 3, 3:23 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:42 PM, flying gorilla <ryan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> how does one know which tool to use?

I don't believe there is a tool that is adequate to measure or
evaluate what is instead the personal activity of God's Holy Spirit.

> You say the bible is evidence for
> the truth of Christianity.

So clearly a claim that there is "no evidence for God's existence"
would be objectively inaccurate.

> Muslims say the Koran is evidence that
> Islam is true. Why should I believe you over them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_religion

> Even if the bible
> IS objectively true, how am I supposed to know it?

It's objective truth is independent of your knowledge of it.

> If the bible is
> objectively true and people don't KNOW it, then won't they still go to
> hell? Being saved doesn't depend on the objective truth of the bible,
> being saved depends on people KNOWING the objective truth of the
> bible.

I think your assessment is not complete, consider instead notitia,
assensus and fiducia:

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/01/the_kind_of_faith_that_saves_by_pastor_john_samson.php

[flying gorilla]

You make Christianity look bad with your refusal to be honest.

On May 4, 4:04 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:42 PM, flying gorilla <ryan.kle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > how does one know which tool to use?
>
> I don't believe there is a tool that is adequate to measure or
> evaluate what is instead the personal activity of God's Holy Spirit.
>
> > You say the bible is evidence for
> > the truth of Christianity.
>
> So clearly a claim that there is "no evidence for God's existence"
> would be objectively inaccurate.
>
> > Muslims say the Koran is evidence that
> > Islam is true. Why should I believe you over them?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_religion
>
> > Even if the bible
> > IS objectively true, how am I supposed to know it?
>
> It's objective truth is independent of your knowledge of it.
>
> > If the bible is
> > objectively true and people don't KNOW it, then won't they still go to
> > hell? Being saved doesn't depend on the objective truth of the bible,
> > being saved depends on people KNOWING the objective truth of the
> > bible.
>
> I think your assessment is not complete, consider instead notitia,
> assensus and fiducia:
>

> http://www.reformationtheology.com/2006/01/the_kind_of_faith_that_sav...

[TRUECRISTIANBorn Again Fundamentalist Christianity ]]

I do not understand these posts - which 'stranger' are we talking of
here?? Except for the first poster on this thread, I think all here
have been encountered previously and are not strangers to these
boards.



Sinner, TURN from your sins or BURN for your sins!



Atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, and false prophets sure do have
some big words against the God of the Bible, the true God. A lot of
them come to this site and even link to us with derogatory remarks
which is fine--they know they need Jesus, that's why they keep coming
here. They know that hell is not a fairy tale.

Atheists say, "There is no god," like they know what exists in every
speck of the universe. The Bible says, "The FOOL hath said in his
heart, 'There is no God'." In actuality, there is no such thing as a
"real atheist". Here's an illustration which can be used on any
atheist.

1. Ask him if he knows every single fact about every manmade system
just on this earth--criminal law, civil law, heart surgery, biology,
teaching, being a garbage man, computer programming, ants,
engineering, woodcutting, business, every person's social security
number by heart, etc. He will have to tell you no, he doesn't know
every single fact.

2. Ask him what percentage he knows of all the knowledge to be
known in the entire known universe like what is happening in the core
of Mars--right now. What is the temperature of that star that hubble
is about to approach, etc. He'll have to tell you he knows practically
0% of the knowledge to be known in the entire universe. I then say,
"So in other words you know practically nothing." The answer must be
yes.

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:11 PM, flying gorilla <ryan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> You make Christianity look bad with your refusal to be honest.

Nothing dishonest in noting:

>> I don't believe there is a tool that is adequate to measure or
>> evaluate what is instead the personal activity of God's Holy Spirit.

[ynot]

On May 3, 6:21 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks 42.
> The simple fact is that Brock's stupidity is not objectively
> independent. It is subjectively related to my reception of it, and by
> extension your own.
> It is defined and recognised in a dialectical relationship with my own
> sensibilities.
> Brock's stupidity, his relationship to god, and god relationship to
> Brock is all based on his own 'peculiar' subjective relationship to
> his
> own thoughts.
> When we compare his notions with shared facts that we all understand
> in the world - only then can we make assertions as to their
> objectivity.
> Clearly as Brock rarely consults the world around him - let alone
> facts within that world that others can agree with - little his says
> can be characterised as
> objective.
> But even when he consults the bible (what he claims to be the word of
> the living god) - his conclusions about the nature of god are not
> consonant with his conclusions.
> So even here - where  others might be willing to agree with some
> objectively agreeable findings we find inconsistencies.
>

Let all of us atheists pray for him by using his own book: Psalm 109:8

DISCLAIMER for the ones without any sense of humour:
This is just a joke; by no means I'm taking the verse literally; I
which Brock a very long life (although misguided, ill advised,
delusional, etc.)

Tony

[ynot]

On May 4, 10:04 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't believe there is a tool that is adequate to measure or
> evaluate what is instead the personal activity of God's Holy Spirit.

That for sure excludes our logic, reasoning, intelligence, critical
thought, in short, the all brain. What's left then?

Tony

[Bob T.]

On May 7, 7:25 am, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 10:04 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't believe there is a tool that is adequate to measure or
> > evaluate what is instead the personal activity of God's Holy Spirit.
>
> That for sure excludes our logic, reasoning, intelligence, critical
> thought, in short, the all brain. What's left then?

Wishful thinking and gullibility, the same tools that people have
always used for perceiving deities.

- Bob T

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 10:25 AM, ynot <ynot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 4, 10:04 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't believe there is a tool that is adequate to measure or
>> evaluate what is instead the personal activity of God's Holy Spirit.
>
> That for sure excludes our logic, reasoning, intelligence, critical
> thought, in short, the all brain. What's left then?

It simply makes clear:

Humankind is not the measure of all things.

The quote is in reference to Protagoras famous statement:

"His most famous saying is: "Man is the measure of all things: of
things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that
they are not" ... Plato ascribes relativism to Protagoras and uses
his predecessor's teachings as a foil for his own commitment to
objective and transcendent realities and values. Plato also ascribes
to Protagoras an early form of phenomenology, in which what is or
appears for a single individual is true or real for that individual.
... Protagoras was a proponent of agnosticism. In his lost work, On
the Gods, he wrote: "Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing
whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the
obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras

Such represents yet another argument from ignorance passed off as
"rationalism" or humanism. Look at the intellectual bankruptcy of the
argument, the author starts from a position of ignorance:

"Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or
not or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the
subject, and the brevity of human life"

and then from his position of ignorance concludes:

"Man is the measure of all things"

It would be a willful humanistic mistake to conclude as Protagoras.
With regard to epistemological first principles, I like how Aristotle
has famously articulated:

"Metaphysics involves intuitive knowledge of unprovable
starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
what follows from them."

So there are first principles in metaphysics that act as unprovable
starting points. Aristotle articulates "intuitive knowledge" as a
justification or basis for these unprovable starting points. I
disagree, since "intuitive knowledge" is highly existential and
subjective. So my point is that the first principles should rely upon
divine revelation and not intuitive knowledge, which is a profoundly
non-solipsistic and non-humanistic argument. So a modification to his
position, that I believe is better (though of course, it isn't
Aristotle's):

* Metaphysics involves divinely revealed knowledge of unprovable
starting-points (concepts and truth) and demonstrative knowledge of
what follows from them.

My position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word
of God", is the source of knowledge for first principles that
humankind should use to make value judgements.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Bob T. <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> On May 7, 7:25 am, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 4, 10:04 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > I don't believe there is a tool that is adequate to measure or
>> > evaluate what is instead the personal activity of God's Holy Spirit.
>>
>> That for sure excludes our logic, reasoning, intelligence, critical
>> thought, in short, the all brain. What's left then?
>
> Wishful thinking and gullibility

Or non-humanistic epistemologies.

Regards,

Brock

[ynot]

On May 11, 9:55 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That for sure excludes our logic, reasoning, intelligence, critical
> > thought, in short, the all brain. What's left then?


> It simply makes clear:

So, that's how you do it. It really makes it clear and simple to
evaluate god by removing our "logic, reasoning, intelligence, critical
thought, in short, the all brain". We all here knew it, but it's nice
to get it from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Without a brain, I am
sure that you have a clear picture of your god.

> My position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word
> of God", is the source of knowledge for first principles that
> humankind should use to make value judgements.
>

And the proof that the bible is the word of god is...............
Next time that you buy a car, buy a BMW. It is the best car in the
world. Proof here:
www.bmw.com

Tony

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 4:32 PM, ynot <ynot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 9:55 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > That for sure excludes our logic, reasoning, intelligence, critical
>> > thought, in short, the all brain. What's left then?
>
>
>> It simply makes clear:
>
> So, that's how you do it. It really makes it clear and simple to
> evaluate god by removing our "logic, reasoning, intelligence, critical
> thought, in short, the all brain". We all here knew it, but it's nice
> to get it from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Except that its not a statement I made, in context I indicated:

>>> That for sure excludes our logic, reasoning, intelligence, critical
>>> thought, in short, the all brain. What's left then?
>>

>> Wishful thinking and gullibility
>
> Or non-humanistic epistemologies.

So in answer to the question, I noted that non-humanistic
epistemologies were left in the absence of an untenable humanism.

>> My position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word
>> of God", is the source of knowledge for first principles that
>> humankind should use to make value judgements.
>>
> And the proof that the bible is the word of god is...............

beyond humanistic demonstration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle

Regards,

Brock

[flying gorilla]

Fact: The Koran is the absolute word of god.

Sorry to break the news to you, but its true. Hey, don't blame me, I
don't make the rules. The truth of the Koran is independent of my (and
yours) belief in it. Too bad you've wasted your life.

On May 11, 4:52 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[ynot]

On May 13, 6:51 pm, flying gorilla <ryan.kle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fact: The Koran is the absolute word of god.
>

Furthermore, the proof that the koran is the word of god is beyond
humanistic demonstration:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle

Tony

[ynot]

On May 13, 6:51 pm, flying gorilla <ryan.kle...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Fact: The Koran is the absolute word of god.
>

Sorry, I forgot:

Or not :)

Tony

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:51 PM, flying gorilla <ryan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fact: The Koran is the absolute word of god.

Not my testimony. :)

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:01 PM, ynot <ynot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 6:51 pm, flying gorilla <ryan.kle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Fact: The Koran is the absolute word of god.
>>
>
> Furthermore, the proof that the koran is the word of god is beyond
> humanistic demonstration:

Consider that humanistic demonstration is specifically and
note-worthily inadequate as an epistemological standard of measure.

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

On May 11, 1:52 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 4:32 PM, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 11, 9:55 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > That for sure excludes our logic, reasoning, intelligence, critical
> >> > thought, in short, the all brain. What's left then?
>
> >> It simply makes clear:
>
> > So, that's how you do it. It really makes it clear and simple to
> > evaluate god by removing our "logic, reasoning, intelligence, critical
> > thought, in short, the all brain". We all here knew it, but it's nice
> > to get it from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
>
> Except that its not a statement I made, in context I indicated:
>
> >>> That for sure excludes our logic, reasoning, intelligence, critical
> >>> thought, in short, the all brain. What's left then?
>
> >> Wishful thinking and gullibility
>
> > Or non-humanistic epistemologies.
>
> So in answer to the question, I noted that non-humanistic
> epistemologies were left in the absence of an untenable humanism.

Right, and I named your two favorite non-humanistic epistemlogies.

>
> >> My position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word
> >> of God", is the source of knowledge for first principles that
> >> humankind should use to make value judgements.
>
> > And the proof that the bible is the word of god is...............
>
> beyond humanistic demonstration:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle

The objective truth of The Hobbit is also beyond humanistic
demonstration.

Ooh! I combined two of Brock's favorite aphorisms into one! It's
magical, almost like the combination of guliibility and wishful
thinking.

- Bob T

[Bob T.]

On May 13, 1:58 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:01 PM, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 13, 6:51 pm, flying gorilla <ryan.kle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Fact: The Koran is the absolute word of god.
>
> > Furthermore, the proof that the koran is the word of god is beyond
> > humanistic demonstration:
>
> Consider that humanistic demonstration is specifically and
> note-worthily inadequate as an epistemological standard of measure.

But it beats the hell out of wishful thinking and gullibility as a
method for comprehending reality.

- Bob T

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Bob T. <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>> >> My position is that the propositional truths of the Bible, the "Word
>> >> of God", is the source of knowledge for first principles that
>> >> humankind should use to make value judgements.
>>
>> > And the proof that the bible is the word of god is...............
>>
>> beyond humanistic demonstration:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle
>
> The objective truth of The Hobbit is also beyond humanistic
> demonstration.
>
> Ooh!  I combined two of Brock's favorite aphorisms into one!

Or simply noted, by specific example, the severe limitations of
humanistic demonstration.

> It's
> magical, almost like the combination of guliibility and wishful
> thinking.

No need to belittle non-believers. I don't.

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Bob T. <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> But it beats the hell out of wishful thinking and gullibility as a
> method for comprehending reality.

Its perhaps profitable to consider that the objective nature of
reality is not limited by human-centred assessments of "wishful
thinking" and "gullibility" ...

[Bob T.]

On May 14, 10:39 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Bob T. <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> > But it beats the hell out of wishful thinking and gullibility as a
> > method for comprehending reality.
>
> Its perhaps profitable to consider that the objective nature of
> reality is not limited by human-centred assessments of "wishful
> thinking" and "gullibility" ...

It's perhaps profitable to consider that the objective nature of
reality includes neither the Garden of Eden nor a Noachian Floode.

- Bob T

[flying gorilla]

The Koran is not a humanistic demonstration. It is the word of god.

On May 13, 4:58 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[ynot]

On May 11, 10:52 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > And the proof that the bible is the word of god is...............
>
> beyond humanistic demonstration:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle
>

Consider that humanistic demonstration is specifically and
note-worthily inadequate as an epistemological standard of measure.

Tony

[Brock Organ]

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Bob T. <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
>
> On May 14, 10:39 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Bob T. <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>> > But it beats the hell out of wishful thinking and gullibility as a
>> > method for comprehending reality.
>>
>> Its perhaps profitable to consider that the objective nature of
>> reality is not limited by human-centred assessments of "wishful
>> thinking" and "gullibility" ...
>
> It's perhaps profitable to consider that the objective nature of
> reality includes neither the Garden of Eden nor a Noachian Floode.

Certainly the epistemological standard you mentioned fails to so subscribe ...

[Brock Organ]

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 12:13 PM, flying gorilla <ryan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 4:58 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:01 PM, ynot <ynota...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On May 13, 6:51 pm, flying gorilla <ryan.kle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Fact: The Koran is the absolute word of god.
>>
>> > Furthermore, the proof that the koran is the word of god is beyond
>> > humanistic demonstration:
>>
>> Consider that humanistic demonstration is specifically and
>> note-worthily inadequate as an epistemological standard of measure.
>>
>

> The Koran is not a humanistic demonstration.

Humanistic demonstration certainly is not a tenable standard of measure.

[Eris]

On Apr 14, 12:39 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:21 PM, w_jennings1...@live.com
>
> <w_jennings1...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >> I disagree, its not an attack on your character to consider that
> >> humankind has a miserable sin nature that makes your statements appear
> >> overly simplistic:
>
> > No, I seen your arguement here the first time, and I dismissed it as
> > irrelevant considering my arguement.  It is a philisophical and
> > psychological opinion which you interpret as conclusion or fact.  This
> > arguement is for another discussion! The character attacks I was
> > referring to was you trying to dissect that the statements I made
> > regarding my past weren't genuine.
>
> I simply noted the limitations of your statement:
>

An opinion of yours based on wet dreams?

> > If you can prove to me that God is necessary in order for everything
> > to be as it is today then I will gladly convert.
>
> in light of the terrible bondage that sin has over humankind.
>
> > It's funny that you doubt the
> > genuinity of my words, but you have such faith in a book of words
> > simply because you chose to?
>
> http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp
>
> > For this arguement I will simply entertain your logic with some of my
> > own.  If I had never asserted my position, and got on this forum and
> > posted scripture and making claims that God is the only way would you
> > assume that I am a Christian?
>
> I would simply note that humankind faces a terrible peril regarding
> sin that makes such claims worthy of examination:
>

This is why you are approaching middle age unmarried?


> "The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are by nature not
> inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and
> strength, but rather all are inclined by nature to serve their own
> will and desires and to reject the rule of God. ...
> Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as
> possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may
> intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its
> implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities
> that can correct this condition."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity
>
> > Now, imagine if I did do this
> > considering what you have learned about me,  Would you think that my
> > points were sarcastic or satirical?  The answer to both of these
> > questions are YES due to inductuve reasoning.  This is our problem
> > with the Bible!
>
> Or it could be a problem with your reasoning:
>

Or not :-)

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

[Eris]

Yeah Brock, right back at ya.

On Apr 14, 2:14 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 14, 12:40 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > Or, in other words, to become a Christian you must be a pants-wetting
> >> > coward, groveling in panic and self-loathing when threatened, unable
> >> > to notice that there is no reasonable indication the threat is real.
>
> >> Or not. :)
>
> > Or not see what is obvious.
>
> Consider that the objective nature of reality is not held hostage to
> personal aesthetic.

[Eris]

Isn't that a classic symptom of dementia?

On Apr 21, 2:59 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Or, in other words, to become a Christian you must be a pants-wetting
> >> >> > coward, groveling in panic and self-loathing when threatened, unable
> >> >> > to notice that there is no reasonable indication the threat is real.
>
> >> >> Or not. :)
>
> >> > Or not see what is obvious.
>
> >> Consider that the objective nature of reality is not held hostage to
> >> personal aesthetic.
>

> > Hopefully there is a God, so at least someone will know how your
> > response is in any way relevant.
>
> In noting the false equivalence some would hold "in other words" to, I
> consider my response clear and precise.

[Remzi]

Pardon me if this post was already replied and discussed on, but it
caught my attention...

So thea, basically you are saying that God and only God can convert a
person if he chooses to,
Since i am not converted (assume for the time being i will never be) I
am not chosen by him.
Since he created me, he created a being he will not choose.
Since he did not choose me, I will go to hell to rot and get tortured
for eternity...
So he created me so that I could get tortured for eternity...

What am i missing?

On Apr 14, 4:53 pm, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would not dare try to convert you to anything.  It is not my place to
> convert you to anything.
> God says that HE converts them that are HIS to HIMself.  God does all of the
> work for those whom HE deems to be the ideal candidates for HIMSELF.
> Most Christian are not taught that God chose them - so wallow around in
> self-pity with pity parties galore, because they think they are not worthy.
> WE have all been chosen to believe that God did it for us (John 3:16), it is
> us who turns our back on this God of Israel who sent His Son Jesus -- that
> makes or breaks whether or no we are Christians.
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:34 PM, watts <watts....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The possibility of converting me, as an atheist, to Christianity, or
> > any religion/dogma, is so low that it is not worth considering it as
> > an option.
>
> > I do not seek proof from that which has none.
>
> > On Apr 13, 7:00 am, "w_jennings1...@live.com"
> > <w_jennings1...@live.com> wrote:
> > > Hello,
>
> > > I was raised as a Christian, and spent the first sixteen years of my
> > > life as a Christian.  It's a common misconception that we turn to
> > > Atheism because of some tragic event in which we are angry at God.  In
> > > truth, it's Christianity which turns most of us away from it rather
> > > than it being some outside influence.  Typically, we live very happy,
> > > loving and fulfilling lives which contradicts many stereotypical
> > > opinions of us.
>
> > > Well, I've been watching videos, reading forum discussions and blogs
> > > trying to find the latest Christian arguement which attempts to debunk
> > > Atheism.  I think the most viable question which warrants serious
> > > discussion from Atheists is actually not our responsibility since the
> > > burden of proof is not on the skeptics (Atheists), but it is an
> > > interesting method considering the constant ranting and bantering you
> > > see in most public channels.
>
> > > "What would it require for you to believe in God?"
>
> > > I have pondered this quite a bit, and I have come up with my answer:

> > > If you can prove to me that God is necessary in order for everything
> > > to be as it is today then I will gladly convert.
>

> > > You cannot use the Bible as a source since it has not been proven as
> > > fact, and you cannot suggest faith until it has been proven.  Good
> > > luck!

>
> >  --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

[JTB]

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Remzi <remzi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Pardon me if this post was already replied and discussed on, but it
caught my attention...

So thea, basically you are saying that God and only God can convert a
person if he chooses to,
Since i am not converted (assume for the time being i will never be) I
am not chosen by him.
Since he created me, he created a being he will not choose.
Since he did not choose me, I will go to hell to rot and get tortured
for eternity...
So he created me so that I could get tortured for eternity...

What am i missing?

You're missing the part about him loving you...
 

[Rupert]

On Apr 14, 6:09 am, Brock <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 7:00 am, "w_jennings1...@live.com"
>
> <w_jennings1...@live.com> wrote:
> > I was raised as a Christian, and spent the first sixteen years of my
> > life as a Christian.  
>

> Welcome to the forum, but consider that self-identification is not
> necessarily genuine.

>
> > It's a common misconception that we turn to
> > Atheism because of some tragic event in which we are angry at God.  In
> > truth, it's Christianity which turns most of us away from it rather
> > than it being some outside influence.  Typically, we live very happy,
> > loving and fulfilling lives which contradicts many stereotypical
> > opinions of us.
>

> The issue that is so terrible concerns the peril of sin:
>
> http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp

>
> > Well, I've been watching videos, reading forum discussions and blogs
> > trying to find the latest Christian arguement which attempts to debunk
> > Atheism.  I think the most viable question which warrants serious
> > discussion from Atheists is actually not our responsibility since the
> > burden of proof is not on the skeptics (Atheists),
>

> I consider that each human does bear a specific and significant
> responsibility:
>
> :The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His
> commandments, because this applies to every person. For God will bring
> every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good
> or evil."
>
> http://nasb.scripturetext.com/ecclesiastes/12.htm

>
> > but it is an
> > interesting method considering the constant ranting and bantering you
> > see in most public channels.
>
> > "What would it require for you to believe in God?"
>
> > I have pondered this quite a bit, and I have come up with my answer:
> > If you can prove to me that God is necessary in order for everything
> > to be as it is today then I will gladly convert.
>

> Why?  Is the objective truth of the Bible dependent upon your
> perception and/or understanding of it?
>

He is asking to be offered *reasons* to think that the Bible is
objectively true. That is what comes first.

> Of course, I don't think your statement gets an epistemological pass.

Why does it not get an epistemological pass? Because he asked you to
offer reasons in support of your position?

> Smokers, for example, know the specific and terrible consequences of
> smoking, yet often continue their habit.  Why should we take your
> assertion ("that you would gladly convert") at face value?  Consider
> instead that the bondage of sin is so terrible and strong that even if
> you were convinced of the truth of the gospel you might not repent.
>

That seems very unlikely to me.

[Remzi]

On May 20, 5:48 am, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Remzi <remzi.ya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Pardon me if this post was already replied and discussed on, but it
> > caught my attention...
>
> > So thea, basically you are saying that God and only God can convert a
> > person if he chooses to,
> > Since i am not converted (assume for the time being i will never be) I
> > am not chosen by him.
> > Since he created me, he created a being he will not choose.
> > Since he did not choose me, I will go to hell to rot and get tortured
> > for eternity...
> > So he created me so that I could get tortured for eternity...
>
> > What am i missing?
>
> You're missing the part about him loving you...
>

So he loves me but he created me so that I could get tortured for
eternity... I do not want this love for sure....

[Eris]

He leadeth me to sexual perverts to be sexually abused and fleeced.

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Eris <vit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 14, 12:39 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:21 PM, w_jennings1...@live.com
>>
>> <w_jennings1...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I disagree, its not an attack on your character to consider that
>> >> humankind has a miserable sin nature that makes your statements appear
>> >> overly simplistic:
>>
>> > No, I seen your arguement here the first time, and I dismissed it as
>> > irrelevant considering my arguement.  It is a philisophical and
>> > psychological opinion which you interpret as conclusion or fact.  This
>> > arguement is for another discussion! The character attacks I was
>> > referring to was you trying to dissect that the statements I made
>> > regarding my past weren't genuine.
>>
>> I simply noted the limitations of your statement:
>
> An opinion of yours based on wet dreams?

Discord noted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_%28mythology%29

>> > For this arguement I will simply entertain your logic with some of my
>> > own.  If I had never asserted my position, and got on this forum and
>> > posted scripture and making claims that God is the only way would you
>> > assume that I am a Christian?
>>
>> I would simply note that humankind faces a terrible peril regarding
>> sin that makes such claims worthy of examination:
>
> This is why you are approaching middle age unmarried?

That's possibly overly simplistic.

>> > Now, imagine if I did do this
>> > considering what you have learned about me,  Would you think that my
>> > points were sarcastic or satirical?  The answer to both of these
>> > questions are YES due to inductuve reasoning.  This is our problem
>> > with the Bible!
>>
>> Or it could be a problem with your reasoning:
>
> Or not :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning#Criticism_of_inductive_reasoning

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Eris <vit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Or, in other words, to become a Christian you must be a pants-wetting
>> >> > coward, groveling in panic and self-loathing when threatened, unable
>> >> > to notice that there is no reasonable indication the threat is real.
>>
>> >> Or not. :)
>>
>> > Or not see what is obvious.
>>
>> Consider that the objective nature of reality is not held hostage to
>> personal aesthetic.
>

> Yeah Brock, right back at ya.

I've certainly been consistent:

2) the objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Eris <vit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2:59 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > Or, in other words, to become a Christian you must be a pants-wetting
>> >> >> > coward, groveling in panic and self-loathing when threatened, unable
>> >> >> > to notice that there is no reasonable indication the threat is real.
>>
>> >> >> Or not. :)
>>
>> >> > Or not see what is obvious.
>>
>> >> Consider that the objective nature of reality is not held hostage to
>> >> personal aesthetic.
>>
>> > Hopefully there is a God, so at least someone will know how your
>> > response is in any way relevant.
>>
>> In noting the false equivalence some would hold "in other words" to, I
>> consider my response clear and precise.
>
> Isn't that a classic symptom of dementia?

I consider clarity and precision of position a virtue generally worth
striving for.

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > "What would it require for you to believe in God?"
>>
>> > I have pondered this quite a bit, and I have come up with my answer:
>> > If you can prove to me that God is necessary in order for everything
>> > to be as it is today then I will gladly convert.
>>
>> Why?  Is the objective truth of the Bible dependent upon your
>> perception and/or understanding of it?
>>
>
> He is asking to be offered *reasons* to think that the Bible is
> objectively true. That is what comes first.

But consider instead that it also depends upon the nature of the
principles by which an evaluation is made. And an untenable
epistemology fails:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_In,_Garbage_Out

>> Of course, I don't think your statement gets an epistemological pass.
>
> Why does it not get an epistemological pass? Because he asked you to
> offer reasons in support of your position?

As I noted, smokers, for example, know the specific and terrible

consequences of smoking, yet often continue their habit. Why should

we take the earlier assertion ("that you would gladly convert") at

face value? Consider instead that the bondage of sin is so terrible

and strong that even if one were convinced of the truth of the gospel
one might not repent.

>> Consider
>> instead that the bondage of sin is so terrible and strong that even if
>> you were convinced of the truth of the gospel you might not repent.
>
> That seems very unlikely to me.

Why?

http://www.saved.com/truth/rrr13.htm

Regards,

Brock

[Bob T.]

On May 20, 10:12 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Or, in other words, to become a Christian you must be a pants-wetting
> >> >> > coward, groveling in panic and self-loathing when threatened, unable
> >> >> > to notice that there is no reasonable indication the threat is real.
>
> >> >> Or not. :)
>
> >> > Or not see what is obvious.
>
> >> Consider that the objective nature of reality is not held hostage to
> >> personal aesthetic.
>
> > Yeah Brock, right back at ya.
>
> I've certainly been consistent:
>
> 2) the objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs

And we have been consistent right back at you: that statement is
utterly trite and meaningless. The objective truth of Deep Throat is
also independent of your beliefs.

Hmm... come to think of it, Deep Throat is a lot more believeable.

- Bob T

[JFG]

Nothing at all can come from nothing at all.

QED.

On Apr 13, 7:00 am, "w_jennings1...@live.com"
<w_jennings1...@live.com> wrote:

> Hello,

>
> I was raised as a Christian, and spent the first sixteen years of my

> life as a Christian.  It's a common misconception that we turn to

> Atheism because of some tragic event in which we are angry at God.  In
> truth, it's Christianity which turns most of us away from it rather
> than it being some outside influence.  Typically, we live very happy,
> loving and fulfilling lives which contradicts many stereotypical
> opinions of us.
>

> Well, I've been watching videos, reading forum discussions and blogs
> trying to find the latest Christian arguement which attempts to debunk
> Atheism.  I think the most viable question which warrants serious
> discussion from Atheists is actually not our responsibility since the

> burden of proof is not on the skeptics (Atheists), but it is an

> interesting method considering the constant ranting and bantering you
> see in most public channels.
>

> "What would it require for you to believe in God?"
>
> I have pondered this quite a bit, and I have come up with my answer:
> If you can prove to me that God is necessary in order for everything
> to be as it is today then I will gladly convert.
>

> You cannot use the Bible as a source since it has not been proven as
> fact, and you cannot suggest faith until it has been proven.  Good
> luck!

[JTB]

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 4:36 AM, Remzi <remzi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On May 20, 5:48 am, JTB <jel...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Remzi <remzi.ya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Pardon me if this post was already replied and discussed on, but it
> > caught my attention...
>
> > So thea, basically you are saying that God and only God can convert a
> > person if he chooses to,
> > Since i am not converted (assume for the time being i will never be) I
> > am not chosen by him.
> > Since he created me, he created a being he will not choose.
> > Since he did not choose me, I will go to hell to rot and get tortured
> > for eternity...
> > So he created me so that I could get tortured for eternity...
>
> > What am i missing?
>
> You're missing the part about him loving you...
>

So he loves me but he created me so that I could get tortured for
eternity... I do not want this love for sure....

Of course...that makes perfect sense...who wouldn't want a world full of little beings that they could torture for things of which they were largely ignorant (or at least misinformed)? Especially fun is watching them all run around in confusion contradicting each other so that some who were going to be *saved* are confused into being tortured and some who should be tortured are *saved* by accident. It must while away the hours of otherwise uneventful bliss...
 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Bob T. <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
>
> On May 20, 10:12 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > Or, in other words, to become a Christian you must be a pants-wetting
>> >> >> > coward, groveling in panic and self-loathing when threatened, unable
>> >> >> > to notice that there is no reasonable indication the threat is real.
>>
>> >> >> Or not. :)
>>
>> >> > Or not see what is obvious.
>>
>> >> Consider that the objective nature of reality is not held hostage to
>> >> personal aesthetic.
>>
>> > Yeah Brock, right back at ya.
>>
>> I've certainly been consistent:
>>
>> 2) the objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
> And we have been consistent right back at you: that statement is
> utterly trite and meaningless.

Or it indicates that I don't articulate a humanistic position. :)

[Rupert]

On May 21, 3:23 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > "What would it require for you to believe in God?"
>
> >> > I have pondered this quite a bit, and I have come up with my answer:
> >> > If you can prove to me that God is necessary in order for everything
> >> > to be as it is today then I will gladly convert.
>
> >> Why?  Is the objective truth of the Bible dependent upon your
> >> perception and/or understanding of it?
>
> > He is asking to be offered *reasons* to think that the Bible is
> > objectively true. That is what comes first.
>
> But consider instead that it also depends upon the nature of the
> principles by which an evaluation is made.  And an untenable
> epistemology fails:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_In,_Garbage_Out
>

If his epistemology is untenable then you should offer him *reasons*
for thinking so.

You really can't get past this, I'm afraid. Everyone who wants to
defend a position is required to offer reasons in its support.

> >> Of course, I don't think your statement gets an epistemological pass.
>
> > Why does it not get an epistemological pass? Because he asked you to
> > offer reasons in support of your position?
>
> As I noted, smokers, for example, know the specific and terrible
> consequences of smoking, yet often continue their habit.  

That's because they're addicted.

> Why should
> we take the earlier assertion ("that you would gladly convert") at
> face value?  Consider instead that the bondage of sin is so terrible
> and strong that even if one were convinced of the truth of the gospel
> one might not repent.
>

Do you know anyone like that?

> >> Consider
> >> instead that the bondage of sin is so terrible and strong that even if
> >> you were convinced of the truth of the gospel you might not repent.
>
> > That seems very unlikely to me.
>
> Why?
>

Seems too obvious to me to require much discussion, really.

[Bob T.]

On May 20, 2:01 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Bob T. <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 20, 10:12 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Eris <vith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Or, in other words, to become a Christian you must be a pants-wetting
> >> >> >> > coward, groveling in panic and self-loathing when threatened, unable
> >> >> >> > to notice that there is no reasonable indication the threat is real.
>
> >> >> >> Or not. :)
>
> >> >> > Or not see what is obvious.
>
> >> >> Consider that the objective nature of reality is not held hostage to
> >> >> personal aesthetic.
>
> >> > Yeah Brock, right back at ya.
>
> >> I've certainly been consistent:
>
> >> 2) the objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>
> > And we have been consistent right back at you: that statement is
> > utterly trite and meaningless.
>
> Or it indicates that I don't articulate a humanistic position. :)

Nor do you advocate a rational position*.

- Bob T

* I thought about a Deep Throat / positions tie-in, but decided to
spare you ;-}

>
> Regards,
>
> Brock
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> On May 21, 3:23 am, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > "What would it require for you to believe in God?"
>>
>> >> > I have pondered this quite a bit, and I have come up with my answer:
>> >> > If you can prove to me that God is necessary in order for everything
>> >> > to be as it is today then I will gladly convert.
>>
>> >> Why?  Is the objective truth of the Bible dependent upon your
>> >> perception and/or understanding of it?
>>
>> > He is asking to be offered *reasons* to think that the Bible is
>> > objectively true. That is what comes first.
>>
>> But consider instead that it also depends upon the nature of the
>> principles by which an evaluation is made.  And an untenable
>> epistemology fails:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_In,_Garbage_Out
>
> If his epistemology is untenable then you should offer him *reasons*
> for thinking so.

My thoughts exactly. :)

>> >> Of course, I don't think your statement gets an epistemological pass.
>>
>> > Why does it not get an epistemological pass? Because he asked you to
>> > offer reasons in support of your position?
>>
>> As I noted, smokers, for example, know the specific and terrible
>> consequences of smoking, yet often continue their habit.
>
> That's because they're addicted.

The bondage of sin is every so much more terrible than smoking's addiction.

>> Why should
>> we take the earlier assertion ("that you would gladly convert") at
>> face value?  Consider instead that the bondage of sin is so terrible
>> and strong that even if one were convinced of the truth of the gospel
>> one might not repent.
>>
>
> Do you know anyone like that?

I consider that all of humankind, except for Jesus Christ, has such a nature.

"The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are by nature not
inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and
strength, but rather all are inclined by nature to serve their own
will and desires and to reject the rule of God. ... Total depravity
does not mean, however, that people are as evil as possible. Rather,
it means that even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its
premise, false in its motive, and weak in its implementation; and
there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct
this condition."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity

>> >> Consider
>> >> instead that the bondage of sin is so terrible and strong that even if
>> >> you were convinced of the truth of the gospel you might not repent.
>>
>> > That seems very unlikely to me.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Seems too obvious to me to require much discussion, really.

Self-evidence and $1.50 might get you coffee at a coffee shop.

[Brock Organ]

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Bob T. <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > Or not see what is obvious.
>>
>> >> >> Consider that the objective nature of reality is not held hostage to
>> >> >> personal aesthetic.
>>
>> >> > Yeah Brock, right back at ya.
>>
>> >> I've certainly been consistent:
>>
>> >> 2) the objective truth of the Bible is independent of my beliefs
>>
>> > And we have been consistent right back at you: that statement is
>> > utterly trite and meaningless.
>>
>> Or it indicates that I don't articulate a humanistic position. :)
>
> Nor do you advocate a rational position*.

As Shakespeare didn't say:

"A humanistic position by any other name might fail to smell so sweet"

> * I thought about a Deep Throat / positions tie-in, but decided to
> spare you ;-}

Thank you, I appreciate your courtesy.