The New York Times Just Tried to Disprove God — Here’s the Fatal Flaw in Their Case
By: Sye Ten Bruggencate
God is real. He is the author and creator of logic and science. All rely on God to make whatever argument they choose to make. Atheists are simply deniers of reality.
This week, the New York Times published an article by Peter Atterton, a Professor of Philosophy at San Diego State University, titled: “A God Problem,” with the byline: “ Perfect. All-powerful. All-knowing. The idea of the deity most Westerners accept is actually not coherent.” Sadly, the people responding to Atterton’s article have taken his bait. They have defended belief in a “god” that is subject to the laws of logic, rather than THE God that is Lord of them.
In Romans 11:36 we read that from God, through God and to God are all things. What do all things include? Logic, truth, science, morality, and in fact, ALL things! Since all of these things belong to God, it is not a stretch to conclude that they don’t belong to anyone else.
Imagine a nation that owned all of the weapons and ammunition that existed. Then, another nation with no weapons at all wanted to challenge them to war. When would they be able to start the war? It would begin when the nation with the weapons and ammunition gave some to the nation with none. It might be kind to hand over some ammunition, but I suspect it would be considered an act of treason.
What is Atterton’s main objection? “The concept of God is not coherent.” He is assuming a standard of rationality that God apparently does not meet, but where does he, as an Atheist, get that standard?
According to any Atheistic worldview, man is but the advanced by-product of primordial soup. In that worldview, our brains are highly evolved meat machines, and our thoughts are merely the results of time and chance acting on matter. As Doug Wilson writes:
If this is true then the difference between your thoughts (the atheist’s) and mine (the Christian’s) correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically.
My question to Atterton would be: “Where do you get the absolute laws of logic by which you call anything ‘not coherent’ when, according to your view, our thoughts amount to nothing more than brain barf?”
Of course, that’s a rhetorical question – we know exactly where he gets logic from – God.
It ought to be sufficient to know that logic comes from God by His declaration in Scripture. I am loath to expand on that as all too often, people take the explanation as the reason for this truth rather than on God’s own Word, nevertheless, I will.
The laws of logic are understood to be universal (apply to all people at all times everywhere), immaterial (not made of matter), and invariant (do not change). God in His Word is known to be universal (Psalm 139:7-10), immaterial (John 4:24), and invariant (Malachi 3:6). Now I am not saying that God IS logic, but indeed He is logical — and we, as Christians, have a worldview in which universal, immaterial, invariant things can and do exist. Logic in the Christian worldview is a reflection of the thinking of God.
How does evolved pond scum know anything to be universal? How does evolved pond scum account for any immaterial entity? On what basis does evolved pond scum expect anything to not change?
It is not logically incoherent for an all-good God to exist and for evil to exist. Indeed, the Atheist would have to prove that God could not have a morally justifiable reason for evil — something they simply cannot do. The point, however, is that of the two of us, the Christian is the only one who could have a problem with incoherence as we are the only ones with a worldview that justifies the laws of logic by which we call anything incoherent. I’m not going to give the Atheist the tools that God has given us, to argue against the Lord that I adore. I am not going to hand over weapons and ammunition so he can attack my worldview. I simply will not do it.
Atheists often claim that the burden is on the Christian to defend the existence of God, yet they borrow the foundations for the rationality of their objections from the very God they are objecting. They claim that Atheism is merely a lack of belief, and they have no burden of proof since they are not making any positive claim. Linguistic revision on the definition of atheism aside, their lack of belief carries with it the positive claim that they can have rationality without God. Prove that positive claim, Mr. Atheist.
Back to Atterton’s article in the New York Times: “The concept of God is incoherent.”
What is the typical response? “Oh ya, well let me show you that God is in fact coherent!”
Granted, some Christians may have difficulty reconciling certain attributes of God, and some responses to Atterton have (in most cases poorly) addressed them (I even bring it up on the streets on occasion).
But those are questions more suited for a Bible study, not reasons for handing our weapons to the unarmed.
When someone brings an objection to God’s existence, we want to take that objection at face value and refute it on merit. I believe the desire to do so is sincere but ends up defending belief in a “god” that I don’t believe in and, hopefully, the person offering the defense does not believe in either. We make God subject to the objection of the Atheist, rather than Lord of all.
Earlier I said that my response to Mr. Atterton would be: “Where do you get the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic from that you appeal to when you call the concept of God “not coherent?” I have been engaging unbelievers for a number of years, and have asked that question on many occasions. One can see by their responses why Scripture describes them as “fools,” not in a name-calling sense to insult their intelligence, but in the sense of their willful rejection of the God they know exists. The more I do this though, the more I see that giving such a response is also to be fooled by them; wasting our time to philosophically prove to them the God that Romans 1 tells us they already know exists.
Brothers and Sisters, we need to stop wasting our time – myself included — and simply point them to Jesus. The argument is already won. Refutations don’t save souls. Ask them if they want to know how to be made right with God before they die. If they don’t, move on.
—
Sye Ten Bruggencate is a Christian Apologist in Ontario, Canada. He has taught apologetics throughout North America and in the U.K. and engages non-Christians in formal debates and on the streets. His documentary films include “How To Answer the Fool” and “Debating Dillahunty.” Sye can be reached via his website www.proofthatgodexists.org
“Where do you get the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic from that you appeal to when you call the concept of God “not coherent?” I have been engaging unbelievers for a number of years, and have asked that question on many occasions. One can see by their responses why Scripture describes them as “fools,” not in a name-calling sense to insult their intelligence, but in the sense of their willful rejection of the God they know exists. The more I do this though, the more I see that giving such a response is also to be fooled by them; wasting our time to philosophically prove to them the God that Romans 1 tells us they already know exists.
Brothers and Sisters, we need to stop wasting our time – myself included — and simply point them to Jesus. The argument is already won.
Even your link to "proof that god exists" doesn't prove god exists. All it does is quote the bible which was not written by god or jesus.
So where is the proof of God? Sorry but asking someone to prove something doesn't exist is as dumb as it gets.
"Prove God DOESN'T exist!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Fine..
"Prove Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, Tinkerbell, Bigfoot, 6 foot tall invisible flying pink elephants etc... don't exist.."
*crickets*
Refutations don’t save souls. Ask them if they want to know how to be made right with God before they die. If they don’t, move on.
A government minister representing India’s minority communities has assured the United States his country is doing everything it can to protect the most vulnerable in society. The problem is, though, he was lying.
In a recent meeting with U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Samuel Brownback, India’s Minister for Minority Affairs Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi boasted his country was “an example of unity in diversity for the entire world” and “a heaven for minorities.”
But it’s hell for many Christians. Since Narendra Damodardas Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) took power back in 2014, attacks against believers have skyrocketed. In the year of Modi’s election, 147 violent attacks were recorded against followers of Jesus. In 2018, after four years of his reign, there were 325.
Want evidence? Check out a few of Faithwire’s stories below:
The situation for Christians in India is serious. Indeed, the sustained violence against believers at the hands of nationalist radicals has earned the country the no. 10 spot on Open Doors USA’s World Watch List.
“This increase in anti-Christian violence unfortunately follows a predictable cycle,” International Christian Concern’s William Stark told Faitwire previously. “First, BJP politicians and Hindu nationalist leader use religiously divisive rhetoric and policies for political gain. In their speeches, these leaders and politicians single out Christians and Muslims as followers of ‘foreign faiths,’ individuals who are ‘anti-national’ and deserving of suspicion.”
Stark said this poisonous rhetoric “incites anti-minority violence perpetrated by radical Hindu nationalist groups, such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Bajrang Dal, or Hindu Munnani.”
“Following these incidents of violence, local authorities do little to help the victimized minority communities,” he continued, adding the constant “cycle of incitement and impunity is essentially what is driving the increased anti-Christian violence in India.” https://www.faithwire.com/2019/11/01/minister-says-india-is-heaven-for-minorities-despite-brutal-christian-persecution/
If what we have isn’t real, if our victory wasn’t already assured, people would not sacrifice like this in order to preserve it.
Congratulations. You've just proved Islam to be a true religion. After all, if it's not real, nobody would crash a plane in to a building for it, would they?
Different countries have different rules. Don't like it, don't go there. Do they have a "freedom of religion" clause in their constitution?
So don't go there. Not a difficult concept and you have yet to prove god exists. We'll wait.
I knew you’d bring that up. The difference is that we are willing to passively stand for our beliefs and even give up our lives if need be to stay true to our faith come what may no matter the degree of persecution against us. We don’t kill ourselves in order to believe or coerce others into believing nor do we do mass killings of large groups of people shouting “god is great” in Arabic in the process. Our sacrifice is of self and since the reformation we don’t kill people to convert them. Radical Islamic fascism like that we cut the head off of last week does all that. Those believers in India and China below are not hurting or killing anyone to maintain their beliefs in the face of the opposition of their governments.
They have been there in some form since one of Jesus disciples went there and spread it until he was martyred for our faith. They are indigenous populations of people and there was no problem with the prior Indian government. Religion is not something we can have an election over to determine who has to change their beliefs.
That's a joke, right?
Why is it that theists so often invent strawman arguments?
Atheism is indeed the lack of belief. There is no burden of proof to not being convinced there is a god. Simple.
The author (Sye) invented the claim that rationality can only exist with its God and immediately tries to shift the burden of proof. Sorry Sye (the notable presuppositionalist) you do not have the authority to assign the inverse of your claims to others. Now if you hold that rationality can only exist with your God (i.e. this is foundational to your beliefs) then it is up to you to support your claim.
Here’s some support: A Christian community in the Chinese province of Hebei has occupied their church building in a bid to stop the Chinese authorities from tearing it down.
The Catholic church of Wu Gao Zhang was notified of the impending demolition November 1 after failed attempts by parish priests to negotiate with the authorities and save their place of worship. According to Asia News, the destruction was ordered on account of the church not possessing all the correct permits and in spite of it being government-approved.
The government has been ordering the destruction of several churches in recent weeks. Earlier this month, a 3,000-member church in Anhui province was bulldozed as congregants worshipped. Another church was flattened in Henan province.
“Beijing has been targeting official and unofficial church buildings without all the permits in order, leaving no room for a pardon solution,” persecution watchdog International Christian Concern (ICC) noted in a report. “But even if the churches have permit and are state-sanctioned, they could still be subject to demolition, as President Xi Jinping tightens his grip on religion.”
The organization noted that a secret deal signed between the Chinese government and the Vatican last year “does nothing to protect these churches.”
“According to several local Catholics, the agreement actually grants more power to the government authorities, which claim that “the Vatican supports us” and keeps silence on these episodes,” ICC added. “According to parishioners of the diocese of Handang, the government has decreed the destruction of 40 other churches.”
Please continue to pray for all those persecuted for their faith across the globe.
That C&P was in no way related to TiG's comment. It does not refute his comment, nor does it support your position. It would be best as a stand-alone article. In the context in which you used it, it is meaningless.
The people of China who would rather give up their freedom or even their very earthly lives than give up their beliefs and faith are proof enough that they know they have already ultimately won, the debate is over, and it’s all up to us to pick a side. People who hold to such logic and it’s source can not be shaken from it.
The laws of logic are understood to be universal (apply to all people at all times everywhere), immaterial (not made of matter), and invariant (do not change). God in His Word is known to be universal (Psalm 139:7-10), immaterial (John 4:24), and invariant (Malachi 3:6). Now I am not saying that God IS logic, but indeed He is logical — and we, as Christians, have a worldview in which universal, immaterial, invariant things can and do exist. Logic in the Christian worldview is a reflection of the thinking of God.
How does evolved pond scum know anything to be universal? How does evolved pond scum account for any immaterial entity? On what basis does evolved pond scum expect anything to not change?
It is not logically incoherent for an all-good God to exist and for evil to exist. Indeed, the Atheist would have to prove that God could not have a morally justifiable reason for evil — something they simply cannot do. The point, however, is that of the two of us, the Christian is the only one who could have a problem with incoherence as we are the only ones with a worldview that justifies the laws of logic by which we call anything incoherent....Atheists often claim that the burden is on the Christian to defend the existence of God, yet they borrow the foundations for the rationality of their objections from the very God they are objecting. They claim that Atheism is merely a lack of belief, and they have no burden of proof since they are not making any positive claim. Linguistic revision on the definition of atheism aside, their lack of belief carries with it the positive claim that they can have rationality without God....
You (all of us) should use the quote tool when quoting the words of others. The idea is to distinguish other people's words so that it does not appear as though these words came from you. Attaching a link does not accomplish this.
In effect, Sye argues that the notion of true vs. false would not be possible without the Christian God. See, if human beings can distinguish true from false then human beings can derive a formal system based on true and false with rules that we have learned actually work. There is no need for a god to develop a formal system of logic.
Sye basically holds that nothing is possible without the Christian God. That is his presupposition. All of his argument are based on that presupposition. Thing is, his presupposition is unproved and unprovable.
In simple terms, when you peel away the layers of bullshit from all of Sye's arguments you will discover that they all merely claim 'God did it'.
It is true that without the Christian God as you call Him there would be absolutely nothing. He is the source of all that there is the universe.
That is just your claim, HA. When you claim something is true you bear the burden of proof. Anyone can claim anything. It matters not what you can claim, only what you can support with evidence and reason. I see none of that from you.
And using others to argue for you is only as good as the surrogate. Sye is a known joke. He has the same basic approach which he uses over and over. It is as real as a magic act. Pick a better surrogate (or, imagine this, make your own argument).
I don’t have to prove anything. The Universe and it’s creator are what they are and people will believe it or not. It’s their free will choice. I only have to ask if people have heard the message and are they right with God? If they are not interested, simply move on to the next person until all know and answer the bottom line question as they see fit. As the author says, it’s unproductive to saving the lost to engage the willful disbeliever in prove it games. The last couple of paragraphs in the seeded article says it all and that’s how I’m going to deal with willful disbelief.
You’ve made your choice and I’ve made mine. We are at an impasse between us but you and I aren’t the only ones who read discussions here.
Of course you don't. But when you repeatedly claim that you or someone on your side of the argument has proven something, when you haven't, your position appears weak. Then you engage in ad hom, and your position looks weaker yet.
You must be using an interesting definition of "blindly".
I only have to ask if people have heard the message and are they right with God?
You have to ask ? Do you often do this ? With strangers ?
Neither of your questions are any of your business.
I understand it to be not the accepted definition, much as "proof" and "logic" as used by some here fall ludicrously short of their accepted definitions.
Anyone with a working knowledge of logic and the English language would say otherwise.
You made the affirmative claim, so you bear the burden of proving it! Otherwise, it's just an empty, baseless claim with no merit and you lack credibility.
[Discuss seeded content]
I know. But that doesn't mean their BS should pass unchallenged.
Agreed. That idiocy needs to be nipped in the bud whenever feasible.
Now, near the end of my life cycle, don't push as hard as I used to.
I hear an echo echo echo chamber chamber chamber.....
You should just stop wasting your time talking about God to people who don't believe.
Nothing you can ever say will sway them, and if God Himself presented Himself to them, they would still be doubters.
Just be happy knowing the truth as you see it and don;t worry about what they think.
Makes life much simpler.
And enjoyable.
This shows you have zero understanding of the agnostic atheist.
The argument for God thus far have been made by men (and women). Claims of truth by ordinary people (who, by the way, fail to evidence said claims) does not compare to a claim made by an entity that has demonstrated the means to create the cosmos.
And your comment shows you have no understanding of what I wrote.
Platitude. I explained my comment. You give the equivalent of 'nuh uh'.
Evidence that you "know the truth"?
When you and others make such declarations, expect to be asked for evidence, or have your declarations dismissed as merely the effect of indoctrination.
See, you think I give a damn what your opinion of God or people who believe in Him is.
I don't.
I have no need to prove anything to you, and that is why I don't preach.
Believe what you want. I won't stoop to your level of belittling you for your beliefs.
You just don't like my post.
I'll try not to lose any sleep over it.
Nobody's belittling you for your beliefs. They're dismissing the beliefs themselves as indoctrination. Same as Christians who don't automatically accept the beliefs of other religions as "the truth". Are you belittling those folks by not accepting their beliefs as "the truth"?
I'm just applying the same standards of evidence to your beliefs as to any other beliefs, and they come up just as lacking.
Your comments do not say anything: no insight, no explanation, no logic. Just witless platitudes.
it isn't my responsibility to understand things for you.
Figure it out on your own, or not.
I don't care.
Odd how some cannot seem to realize that agnostic atheists are not convinced that any god exists. It is not just the Christian God but also Allah, Brahma, Zeus, etc. And it is not rebellion or hatred or anything emotional. It is very simple: there is no evidence supporting the belief. Should convincing evidence arise for a particular god then I would expect plenty of agnostic atheists will ipso facto be theists believing in this god.
Why do some find this so difficult to understand?
see @3.2.29
That is bullshit.
Read through the comments on here.
Kind of hard to claim that the believers on here have not been called illogical, emotional, indoctrinated, idiots, zealots, fanatics, that their thoughts are baseless, without merit, lack credibility, etc., etc., etc..
Indoctrination. They've been told they'll be persecuted, and lacking real persecution, they find it in the lack of participation in their belief. Which would logically make them persecutors of the followers of other beliefs, if standards were applied equally.
See 3.2.30
That was the point of the seed. To present our message to those who haven’t heard or otherwise don’t know and to simply ignore and walk away from the prove it deniers gang. From this point on, I will say what I say and not in any way further respond to the prove it deniers. One can’t say what needs to be said to other believers and to the not yet decided observer when derailed by the militant God deniers. So whether I use the new ignore feature on the militant atheists or simply mentally ignore them, ignore them I will.
I think it is also a method for resolving cognitive dissonance. They demonstrably cannot address challenges with facts and reason thus they resort to tactics such as deflection, projection, cherry-picking, etc. and ultimately with the declaration of 'I just believe' sometimes with the added 'and you should too or else'.
They have consistently refused or failed to provide reasons for their beliefs other than emotion and indoctrination, yet some insist on frequently insulting those who don't share those unfounded beliefs.
Do you accept without question everything you're told? Do you think it's wise to do so? Do you think it's honest to say it's logical to do so, or to twist logic to say your beliefs are supported by logic?
I can accept "I just believe". It's honest, and it makes no demands on me.
"I know the truth" and "you should too or else" - those will and should always lead to objection.
Who would those be? Or are you deliberately misstating our position again?
the fact is that there will be no direct literal proof until the second coming and then it will be too late. People will believe by faith or they won’t believe at all. It is that simple. The irony is that the deceiver will in fact provide the “proof” himself by counterfeiting Jesus himself making appearances and showing the very signs and wonders agnostic atheists seek after and many will follow after him, sorely persecuting Christians who know better.
Of which occurrence you can provide no evidence. It's the monster hiding under the bed. Vague, never seen by anyone at all, but dangled over the heads of believers and potential believers to keep them afraid of not believing.
Some folks do that, it isn't right to me. But neither is belittling people for their faith.
Of course not, don't be ridiculous.
Live and let live. I don't belittle people who don't believe, and don't expect to be belittled by non-believers.
I am secure enough in my faith to not let what others think bother me. I have no agenda, I am not pushing religion or belief in a Higher Power on anyone.
just wish others on both sides could HONESTLY make the same claim.
You mean "To present our unproven claims to those who haven’t heard or otherwise don’t know and to simply ignore and walk away from the prove it deniers gang".
You present a definitive, gnostic theist belief claiming that what you believe in is true regardless of any facts that dispute it or its lack of any empirical evidence in support. I don't see any non-believers here claiming there definitely isn't a God, likely because those sane folks know it would be impossible to prove a negative. So, on one side we have a medium sized group of gnostic believers proclaiming their faith is absolutely true regardless of their inability to prove anything, whether they be Christian or Muslim or any other flavor of unproven faith, then a huge group in the middle who are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists who aren't sure one way or the other and are waiting to be convinced with facts and evidence, then a teeny tiny group of gnostic atheists who we apparently have none of here in NT who proclaim to definitely know that no God exists despite their inability to prove it. To me, the negatives, the problems, the issues always seem to arise from the groups on the ends, though due to its size, the gnostic theists tend to stir the pot far more often.
Where are the militant atheists you speak of? Where is anyone telling you there's definitely no God? All anyone here is asking you to do is present some evidence of your God if you're going to tell everyone to believe in him and obey. That's not being a "militant atheist", it's simply choosing not to be a gullible rube and just believe whatever the rabid religious extremists down the street tell you. If asking you for evidence of your God is an "attack" from "militant atheists", it can only be seen as an attack because it exposes your lack of anything of substance. It's merely pointing out that your "God" gun you keep pointing at us telling us we'd better comply or else is nothing but your finger-gun in our backs.
You have a 50-50 chance of being right or wrong to believe. Some people would rather not take that chance.
I don't belittle people for their faith. Their faith itself is fair game. Same as their political beliefs, which it seems that some here have no problem belittling.
Great. Neither do I. Why do you object to me saying so? Why do you defend those who do, and object to me saying the same to them? This article was basically one logical fallacy after another, and it's being called out as such. You don't object to the logical fallacies, but you object to the logical fallacies being pointed out?
No, you merely proclaim yourself and fellow believers to be in possession of "the truth", leaving nonbelievers, of course, not in possession of "the truth". Not because you have any rational reason to do so, but merely because it's what you've been told.
Better addressed to those twisting logic to make it seem as if their claims possess any, and I'd believe the "both sides" portion if your support weren't always on one side of the question.
Pascal's wager, easily refuted. Your math is wrong. What if you need to believe in one of the thousands of other gods, or in the multiple gods of a polytheistic religion?
Good luck picking the right one(s).
What makes you think all of those Gods are not working in conjunction with each other and judge based on faith one way or the other?
Are you proposing that we worship all gods and goddesses?
The Christian one doesn't like that.
Nice, if true.
Looks exactly like proof your prior statement isn't true.
Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort.
This is what I actually wrote:
Feel free to interpret any old way you want, but most would not do it in that manner.
Again, don't put words in my mouth. Argue what I write--not what you wanted me to write.
Sorry, my mistake. I assumed most adults know what "both sides" means. I believe in God. You don't. I am cool with that. That is why I don't try and convince you that you are wrong. What you believe is not my business.
Really? But what if Mormons have it right, or Hindus, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Shinto, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Bahai, or any of the thousands of ancient religions or African tribal religions or the billions of different concepts of what or who God is or isn't? Is it really just a choice between two things? Christianity vs atheism? That seems to be what you and Pascal are claiming, which is a pretty haughty prideful position, simply dismissing all other faiths throughout history with nothing but an upturned nose. The fact that so many Christians are blind to this glaring flaw in their logic is what surprises me most. When I was first presented with Pascals wager by a peer when I was very young my first thought was "But what if there is no hell? Can't you believe in God without believing in hell?" for which I was soundly reprimanded for even suggesting such a ludicrous idea of there not being an eternal place of torment where a supposedly loving God would torture human souls, maybe even baby souls, with unimaginable pain and suffering for their few moments of life they lived that didn't completely align with Gods wishes or hadn't happened to be baptized fast enough.
They believe because they find that to be a safe bet?
If there is a god, does it not seem likely that this god would know when people are faking belief based on the odds? And what if they 'believe' in the wrong god? What if Allah is the true god? (see DP @3.2.51 since he already laid this out)
Why should beliefs not be criticized? Are beliefs people? Does such protection extend to political beliefs? Will we no longer see any criticism from you about the beliefs of those who disagree with you politically?
I won't hold my breath waiting for you to adhere to the standards you would impose on others.
These were your words:
I know what "both sides" means. And I know when someone is pretending to be impartial, but has only ever taken one side of an argument.
What about the gods that demanded human sacrifice? Should we be worshipping them, too?
Seems like a bad idea to me.
Evidently you and DP missed this..............
"What makes you think all of those Gods are not working in conjunction with each other and judge based on faith one way or the other?"
And yes he/she would know............without a doubt as people do now with their fellow man.
It is the truth for HIM.
Is that really so hard to understand?
Live and let live. I don't belittle people who don't believe, and don't expect to be belittled by non-believers.
I am secure enough in my faith to not let what others think bother me. I have no agenda, I am not pushing religion or belief in a Higher Power on anyone.
just wish others on both sides could HONESTLY make the same claim.
Hedging your bets is more a lack of faith, IMO.
Truth is truth, no matter who one is. If there is a god, then that god exists for everyone. Believing there is one does not make it true.
Beliefs are not immune to criticism, religious or otherwise.
I read this in your other post @3.2.48 but decided to not comment since Sandy already handled it @3.2.49
This odd view presumes that there are many gods all working together. It is quite different from the notion of a single god with a bunch of non-gods and having someone believe in the wrong god (a non-god instead of the singular true god).
So how does this god networking concept work with your hedging of bets? Also do you actually believe there are many gods networking with each other?
This is about claims of truth, challenges to these claims and the replies to the challenges. The replies rarely address the challenges.
If one is not interested in discussing / debating one's claim then maybe it would be best to not make the claim in a public forum.
For examples of gnostic claims made in a public forum see HA's comment history.
It's also a Pascal's Wager
That's irony for ya.
How do you know...........................
With several claiming to be the one true god?
How do we reconcile those?
Some guy I never met, who may or may not have lived thousands of years ago, said so on a stone tablet nobody can find.
Apparently, he was pissed that his worshippers made themselves another god.
Are we going to be repeating the "hyperbole" thing again?
Truth is not based on personal desire or belief. It's based on facts or evidence that can be demonstrated. People can believe whatever they want. But when they attempt to pass off the belief as fact or truth, then it can & should be challenged.
Of course you can. When does TiG shit on anybody? How often does HA shit on "liberal secular progressives" and "godless scientists"? Direct your statement where it's needed.
How is that fact when you can't provide a shred of evidence to support it? That's merely your belief and nothing more. Calling it fact when it's not established as such is as good as lying.
true enough. I have never claimed otherwise.
Never claimed otherwise.
Exactly what are you attempting to argue with me?
And challenging your BS claims we will too, regardless if you choose to ignore or not. Your disingenuous BS is not free from scrutiny or challenge. And who here isn't aware of Christianity or what it talks about?
Indoctrination or delusion. Possibly both.
Then the "truth as he knows it" is either true or not. If it's not true, then he doesn't "know" it to be true. "As he knows it" is a phrase that makes "truth" anything one wants it to be.
Nobody is claiming to be smarter than anyone else. The seeder continually seeds articles making proclamations he can't support and attacking those who don't share his beliefs. If he can't support them, that is his own fault, and nobody is required to coddle him
Do you want an echo chamber? How boring.
I know. These kinds of articles always boil down to nothing more than "prove it".
Which is why I rarely participate in them.
I don't care what anyone else believes. If you notice, I never tell anyone that they are illogical for not believing in God, or that they are wrong not to, or that they are going to hell for non-belief. It simply isn't my business.
For some, I suppose, it makes them feel better and all-knowing to state with a certainty that someone is illogical, indoctrinated, mind-controlled, emotional, etc.
But I also wish people would stop trying to convince them that their way is the only way.
live and let live.
Since God can not be proven or disproven, I would say that the truth for him regarding God is exactly that--his truth, whether anyone likes it or not. Just like the truth for you is either disbelief in God or not sure because it can't be proven to you makes that your truth.
The emotional overreactions claiming others are acting emotionally are the best.
It's amazing to me how obsessed some are with what others believe.
That is a fair statement, and can be applied to all sides here.
A god that is omnipotent should, logically, be able to prove his own existence. Since he does not, we are left to conclude that he either exists but chooses not to prove himself, or does not exist.
So, he "knows" no "truth". He's accepting somebody else's conjecture.
You are contradicting yourself.
Now you claim that his truth is based on his beliefs.
Correct. And one can also deal with a rebuttal without pretending that it is personal.
If you can prove him wrong, do so. Otherwise, it is just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Go!
The Christian God is defined by the Bible. Note what God says about other gods.
It's a discussion forum, MUVA. Discussing ideas with which one disagrees is a large portion of its purpose. Should you be required to refrain from responding to people here with whom you disagree, or would that be silly?
Now that is just being way dumb downed, Jim.
Logical fallacy - shifting the burden of proof.
I think we're done here.
You simply seem unable to let people believe as they wish about God. You act and post as if it bothers you that some do.
Good luck to you.
Of course I can let people believe what they want about God. How am I to stop them?
You seem unable to deal with me using standard English definitions for "truth" and "know". Sorry that vocabulary elicits such a negative emotional response for you.
Have a good day.
Why don't you use your fantastic vocabulary and your standard English definitions to figure out what "I think we're done here" means?
Now, THAT would be really useful and cool.
I wasn't aware that I was in control of your keyboard. If you're done, maybe you should stop posting.
would have sufficed nicely.
Isn't it, though? C4P constantly posts preachy crap trying to pretend he has proof for his beliefs, and dominionist crap intended to gather support for forcing his beliefs onto others. It truly is an obsession.
Were you complaining about people being belittled?
More irony.
Were you claiming to not participate in belittling others for their beliefs?
freaking hilarious!
Perhaps you should reread what I wrote! Maybe more slowly this time!
I'm not belittling anybody for their beliefs. I'm objecting to those beliefs being put forward as "truth" that we "know". I object to your characterization of me as unable to "let" people believe (I note you finally figured out that "believe" is not synonymous with "know") what they want, because it's absurd, and meant as a personal insult. If you don't like my objections, don't insult me. And if you don't like for me to point out that you're belittling while complaining about belittling, don't belittle. You're getting what you dish out. This isn't complicated.
And don't expect me to stop commenting on your say-so.
You certainly got that exactly right.
I expect nothing from you. And in that, I am never disappointed.
So true. It's a common practice among Christians, and not only have they been brow beating and belittling non-believers for centuries, they often tell the non-believers that they will die and suffer in agony for eternity if they don't start believing as the Christian does, and at times some have even forced conversions at the point of a sword. Talk about sanctimony and undeserved self righteousness.
Sanctimony: noun - the action or practice of acting as if one were morally superior to other people.
I have yet to hear a single non-believer claim they are morally superior to anyone else, so I can only assume you directed that comment at believers who do it all the time.
You think that everyone who reads NewsTalkers is aware of Christianity and what we believe?
You're just upset that I've quoted you contradicting yourself. Painted yourself right into a corner, all in black and white where we can all read it, followed up with a logical fallacy, then tried to end the conversation because it wasn't going your way.
Sounds like secular progressives to me...
No one is stopping you from believing whatever it takes for you to feel good about yourself.
Here, I'll let you have the last word.
Adios!
Perhaps there is a tribesman in the middle of the Amazon who recently gained internet access but otherwise has never been exposed to the outside world who just logged in to NT in the last day, but otherwise, yes, everyone who reads NT is aware of Christianity and what you believe. Every day or two you post another "Christians under attack!" article so I can't imagine anyone here has missed your frequently proclaimed beliefs.
In the first place, there are 33,000 Christian sects - you guys don't even believe the same things. I seriously doubt you know what all the other Christian sects believe. And I'm sure you don't give other religions the same consideration you expect people to give your beliefs, much less having bothered to learn anything about them. But somehow it's OK for you to dismiss them, but it's not OK for people to dismiss your delusions.
And yes, pretty much everyone in the country if not the entire world is aware of Christianity and its basic tenets. The God-botherers and bible babblers have made sure of that. Many of us have taken the time to learn about other religions too, though, not being as closed minded as those who need religion as a crutch and whose faith isn't strong enough to withstand their actually thinking.
What Christ-like behavior.
I am neither a dominionist nor a fundamentalist. I am an evangelical Christian. My posting forces no one to believe anything. The last thing I’d ever advocate for is forcing anyone to believe the way I do. The other last thing I would ever do is to stop talking about what I believe either about political or religious issues.
Mega dittos!!!
More Christ-like behavior.
He does love you very much.
Texan is right on in what he said in every way, shape, and form. I and most conservatives agree with him 100%.
WWJD?
Would he condone insulting people?
Do you think childish insults further your cause? Show a religion that helps one to be a better person?
From the outside looking in, it looks like you're justifying childish insults. It's not a pretty sight.
Then why do you seed so much bullshit from dominionist sites, who have avowed manifestos outlining their strategies to force their Christian Sharia law on everyone?
Sorry, but I don't believe you. Your posts prove otherwise.
He? So you claim your god is a male? Why would it need a penis? Or an appendix, or a duodenum ...
Nobody's triggered. Well, maybe some, but I'm not one of them. We just recognize bad logic when we see it, and some people can't handle having that pointed out. They resort to petty insults when they get caught in errors of logic, like above, then hide their behavior behind their religion. Your silence on that behavior, BTW, speaks volumes. To me, resorting to insults when one can't debate rationally seems more like being triggered.
Are articles on religion to be safe spaces, then, not to be entered by nonbelievers? Are beliefs not to be questioned? It seems you do want an echo chamber.
You have been here engaging in childish rants and insults against those who are believers for believing and for presuming to dare to express said beliefs. I happen to agree with Texan that such behavior is like expecting nothing from another person.
I have yet to seed a single article from an actual dominionist site. You conflating evangelicals with dominionists doesn’t make it so.
Then make a topical argument rather than fabricate personal meta.
You think he wasn’t a human male when the Romans nailed Him to the cross?
Asking you for evidence and pointing out that you haven't (and are unable to) provide it is not a childish rant against anyone. You can't support your beliefs, and yet you insult those who don't share them, and back up insults tossed around by others. That's playground bully sidekick behavior, not Christ-like at all.
See, I have a higher opinion of Christians than you apparently have, and expect better behavior from them. I expect them to walk the talk.
Respond to the topical challenges. Falsely accusing people of rants, etc. is a common dishonest tactic of deflection. Going personal when you have nothing else to offer accomplishes nothing good.
Since the article was seeded from We the People you should abide by the rules of that group. “For those who still believe in the Constitution and American Sovereignty.
While we shall try and tolerate robust debate, gratuitous name calling and smearing are prohibited.”
I have been engaging unbelievers for a number of years, and have asked that question on many occasions. One can see by their responses why Scripture describes them as “fools,” not in a name-calling sense to insult their intelligence, but in the sense of their willful rejection of the God they know exists. The more I do this though, the more I see that giving such a response is also to be fooled by them; wasting our time to philosophically prove to them the God that Romans 1 tells us they already know exists.
Brothers and Sisters, we need to stop wasting our time – myself included — and simply point them to Jesus. The argument is already won. Refutations don’t save souls. Ask them if they want to know how to be made right with God before they die. If they don’t, move on.
I’m collapsing this thread on screen.
[Removed]
And?
You know that anybody can still read and respond to it, yes?
An example of what someone should not do. This is (I assume) an attempt to trigger people with a witless generalization:
In what way does not being convinced a god exists provide an excuse for genocide?
An example of what someone should not do. This is (I assume) an attempt to trigger people with a witless generalization: “It's just an excuse to hide behind genocide.” In what way does being convinced God exists provide an excuse for genocide?
Christianity is one of the world's major religions and is mentioned in some form or another on a daily basis. So yes, it can be a safe assumption that the majority on Newstalkers is aware of Christianity and it's beliefs. Especially in this day and age where information is easily accessible. I have yet to see anyone on NT, or anywhere else for that matter, ask "what is Christianity" or "what does it believe?"
Sounds like your understanding of secular progressives is as limited as your understanding of science.
Deflection. You claimed that atheism in general is an excuse to hide behind genocide. Why do you make comments like that? Similarly you routinely deem the science of evolution to be pseudoscience and a worldwide conspiracy. And you declare that those who do not believe in your God (in the right way per you) will pay the price in the end.
What is the point of making such profoundly wrong generalized claims?
Perhaps you should look at the context of what you are replying to:
It's just an excuse to hide behind genocide.
Are you going to get on her case for saying that about believers?
If God would Present himself it would answer some questions and maybe God could answer the other and new questions that would come up
You are still deflecting. You oft state that you stand by your words.
You claimed that atheism in general is an excuse to hide behind genocide. Why do you make comments like that? Similarly you routinely deem the science of evolution to be pseudoscience and a worldwide conspiracy. And you declare that those who do not believe in your God (in the right way per you) will pay the price in the end.
What is the point of making such profoundly wrong generalized claims?
Notice the hypocrisy of ignoring a post made by a fellow traveler making a sweeping generalization about Christianity and genocide and then when said comment had its flag disallowed I turn the comment around on atheists, the objection to my comment and only my comment in reply is objected to. Where’s the logic in that?
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and numerous others make my comment actually true.
Deflection. Take ownership of your own words or state that you did not mean what you wrote.
Your comment stated that all atheism is an excuse to hide behind genocide. Direct, specific and without qualification:
You have not retracted this so I can only assume that this is your intent. And that would be consistent with other absurd statements from you such as the science of evolution to be pseudoscience and a worldwide conspiracy. And you declare that those who do not believe in your God (in the right way per you) will pay the price in the end.
Hitler was raised Catholic and made a deal with the Vatican during his time in office. Stalin studied to be a priest. Pol Pot was a Buddhist.
But let's just go with the notion that these men were atheists when they were murdering people. The fact that atheists have been in power and committed horrendous acts of genocide does not in any measure of reason mean that:
Given you are doubling down and standing by your words means then that you actually mean what you wrote.
I see. Anyone who ever attended a church cannot be an atheist. Great point.
That is ridiculous Sean
Apparently not. You can read better than that. Read my entire response; comprehend it as a single point.
I mean it as much as Robin meant what I responded to. Just because people were born into a belief or were as a young person doesn’t mean that the acts of their adult life reflect that. Hitler supplanted religion with himself and his 1000 year Reich ideology and openly spoke often against democracy, capitalism, and Christianity. The others went all in with state mandated atheism and religion being the opiate of the masses mantra. Atheism = genocide too much of the time.
Just posting this nonsense to illustrate yet another one of your positions which lead to your being challenged.
No one can prove God exists. No one can prove God doesnt exist.
People should believe whatever they want to about it.
Yes, it is baseless (and thus absurd) for someone to claim knowledge of a god or to claim that no god could possibly exist.
I completely disagree.
If you think people should not be able to believe or not believe whatever they want freely and openly then we have nothing more to say to each other on the issue. All humanity has a free will right to believe as one sees fit according to their conscience.
I'm not sure what there is to disagree about. If it cannot be proven either way then people should believe in their own conclusions.
I will explain my comment.
You said that people should believe whatever they want about god(s). I disagree. People should not believe what they want about any topic. What they should do is try to believe what is correct (true). Pursue the truth (as best one can) based on objective reasoning and sound evidence and avoid believing based on mere desire.
For example, many people believe that Trump is 'Making America Great Again'. If I said to you that people should believe that because they want to, you would (appropriately) disagree. The reason for your disagreement would be that they are believing a falsehood that they want to be true instead of digging deeper to find the truth.
Excellent analogy.
You should reread my comment (carefully this time).
Trump has made America great again and we are going to Keep America Great! America is an awesome country and will stay so as long as we the people don’t totally abandon God, the source of our rights, our founding, and all the blessings of the last 2.5 centuries.
America has ALWAYS been great, Crooked donnie had NOTHING to do with America being great
NOT everyone believes in your God or any God. God has NOTHING to do with America
God has everything to do with America.
No, he/she does not.
yes it is, i just hope John can agree
We can prove that Donald Trump is a lying idiot. We cannot prove that there is no God.
I dont object to people thinking that Trump has created a good economy, or is ending wars in the middle east, or is trying to control immigration. I object to people thinking that someone who has lied thousands of times, and is a KNOWN crook, liar, bigot and moron is fit to hold the office of president of the United States.
Not in the slightest.
Sorry, it's not a good analogy.
The point I made is that people should not believe anything because they want to but rather believe what is correct (true). I offered the example of:
(Note that you changed this to 'lying idiot'; let's not change what I wrote.) So if someone wants Trump to be 'Making America Great Again' would you say that they should believe that? (After all, one cannot prove that Trump is not making America Great Again given the claim is vague and subjective.)
Indeed, our own HA has offered this very belief:
Should HA believe this because he wants to? (We all know you would answer this 'no'.) So clearly people should not believe things merely because they want to (even if the belief cannot be proven wrong).
People believe the Bible is the divine word of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent god. One can demonstrate that the Bible is errant and contradictory yet to most believers this demonstration is not proof (it is rejected via confirmation bias). One cannot prove (to believers) that the Bible is not the divine word of a perfect God even though it can be shown to be imperfect as a conclusion of basic logic.
So should people believe the Bible is the divine word of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent god because they want to? Should they then believe that homosexuality is an abomination, that slavery is not immoral, that the entire planet was engulfed in a flood wiping out all forms of life except that floating on a wooden ark, that all human beings are descendants of a directly created Adam and Eve? Just because they want to? After all, no way to prove to them these words from God are not true.
Or should people try to believe what is true (as best as we can determine truth) rather than what they want?
I SAID
I dont object to people believing Trump is making america great again based on poilicies, if that is what they believe. I object to people who say he is fit to hold the office when there is over whelming evidence that he is not, unless you think a known liar crook bigot and moron is fit to hold the office.
Which has nothing to do with the point I made and deflects from the question I asked.
Do you think they should believe Trump is making America great again merely because they want that to be the truth??
Should people try to believe what is true (as best as we can determine truth) rather than what they want?
If everyone's approval of Trump was based only on his policies I would not disagree with their right to that opinion or what they SHOULD believe.
But using Trump as an example just throws another element into it, and it is not analogous to believing in God. Many people believe in Trump based on notions that are provably false.
We will have to agree to disagree about this.
John, obviously, one should believe what is true over what one wants.
The problem is, people tend to believe because they want to (or are indoctrinated to) or because it's emotionally appealing. They tend to not care about what is factual or actually true. It's willful ignorance and/or intellectual dishonesty.
He was elected by the people to the office thus he is fit to serve because we put him there.
Because secular progressives know it all...
Thus Trump is a great American who credits God for what America is, an exceptional nation.
Nice of to finally admit that. Although, I dont know anyone to have made such a claim. I'd say actually knowing something is better than merely believing.
A human descendant of pond scum would have no idea of logic compared to a God who has power beyond our known physical space.
You offer only assertions, with no evidence.
No surprise to anyone.
To the point of this being both boring and sad. Not only is this an admission of a complete lack of understanding of evolution but it illustrates that there is zero interest in actually learning about the science. It is disheartening to see individuals in the USA with all of our resources and availability of quality education engage in willful ignorance.
I have, in the past, even provided a Christian website (biologos.org) which is run by scientists who are Christian and who offer excellent instruction to Christians on science (in particular, evolution). Why would someone willfully ignore this? This site was founded by Dr. Francis Collins — one of the most famous geneticists of modern times (and a devout Christian).
For example, here is biologos' introductory series on evolution . And here is the first video on evolution . Very well done and scientifically accurate.
So odd.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This...
Well said Gordy.
[Removed]
Thank you.
A well reasoned faith is the key to eternal life. Secular progressive “exclusive of religion logic” is not.
You realize that if I seeded anything from biologos that our secular progressive moderators would lock it as Dave Van Zandt at MBFC views them to be a pro intelligent design apologist pseudoscience site as according to MBFC only random chance pond scum human origins is pro science.
A faith based on no evidence is not well-reasoned, including belief in eternal life.
"Reasoned faith" is an oxymoron, especially since there's no evidence to substantiate it or support any claims based on nothing but faith!
I'd call that downright delusional. Certainly illogical and irrational at the very least.
Then if it turns out that those who believe in eternal life based on faith got it and those who denied it will happen due to lack of logic don’t get it, it would be a fair and just result, right?
Does faith consist of belief without any evidence? Lots of people think so – Christians and non-Christians. I have heard many Christians speak of faith and reason as polar opposites. And I have also heard many atheists and agnostics brush aside the concept of faith as mere superstition.
Further, there are certain Scriptures that seem to support the notion that belief is simply a “blind leap of faith,” a decision to commit to Christ without any kind of evidence. After all, didn’t Jesus say to doubting Thomas, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29)? And didn’t the apostle Paul declare that “we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7)? And didn’t the writer of the Book of Hebrews define faith as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1)?
I want to take a look at these verses in context to understand more clearly what the Bible means when it speaks of faith. But first, let’s take a quick peek at the dictionary. It is true that one of the definitions for faithin Webster’s is “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.” However, the primary definition is “allegiance to a duty or a person.” And a later definition is especially helpful: “complete trust.”
Trust is really the key word to think of when you encounter the word faithin Scripture. If you look up its Greek counterpart (πίστις, pistis) in a lexicon, you will see definitions like these: “that which evokes trust and faith…state of believing on the basis of the reliability of the one trusted” (A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature). Notice that this definition revolves around trust, and that this trust is not blind or unthinking, but is based on evidence – “the reliability of the one trusted.”
What then should we make of the passages that seem to suggest that faith is a decision void of reason or evidence? Let’s take a closer look at each of those Scriptures.
Blessed Are Those Who Have Not Seen And Yet Have Believed
Jesus did indeed say, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29). But the context of this statement has to do with the refusal of Thomas to believe in the testimony of the disciples. They had seen the risen Jesus on an earlier occasion when Thomas was absent (John 20:19-23). When he returned to their gathering, the rest of the apostles told Thomas about what they had seen with their own eyes, but he refused to accept this testimony. “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe” (John 20:25). On the heels of this expression of disbelief Jesus once again appeared in the place where the disciples were gathered, this time with Thomas in attendance.
Jesus replied to this astonishing confession with a question and a blessing: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29). Thomas believed because of his personal, eyewitness encounter with Jesus, but not everyone would be able to have such an experience. But they could nevertheless believe that Jesus rose from the dead. How? The testimony of the eyewitnesses.
This is exactly what John goes on to say in the next two verses:
According to this text, faith is not a blind leap into irrationality. It is the decision to trust in Jesus as the Messiah based on the eyewitness testimony of the apostles. Thomas did not believe their testimony, but many people through the centuries have. And those people “who have not seen and yet have believed” are blessed according to Jesus.
We Walk By Faith Not By Sight
The second text that suggests that faith is a groundless plunge into belief is Second Corinthians 5:7, “for we walk by faith, not by sight.” But blind faith is not at all what Paul is talking about here. One of the key themes of Second Corinthians is Paul’s weakness and suffering. And in the fourth chapter, Paul expresses his great hope in the resurrection, “knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence” (2 Corinthians 4:14). Notice that Paul’s belief in his own resurrection is based squarely on reason – God raised Jesus from the dead, so he can raise me as well.
It is that hope of future glory that Paul continues to discuss through the remainder of chapter four on into chapter five.
What should be clear by now is that Paul’s faith in this context is his trust in God’s promise to raise him from the dead in a glorified body. And since that event is yet future, it is unseen by natural vision, but it is seen by the spiritual vision of faith.
Though he could not see the Lord or see his future glorified existence, Paul continued to walk in trust that God would keep his promise to bring him into glory. And remember, Paul’s hope here is not groundless – it is grounded upon the fact of the resurrection of Jesus. On the basis of that trust in the reliability of God, Paul confidently walked in the hope of his future life with God, even though at the moment he was immersed in suffering. That is what Paul means when he says he walks by faith rather than sight.
The Conviction of Things Unseen
This aspect of faith as trust in a future reward lies behind the statement in Hebrews 11:1 that “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Indeed, this verse virtually spells out the nuance of faith as trust regarding the future by its parallel structure. The “things hoped for” are equivalent to the “things not seen.”
And as you continue through the eleventh chapter, the writer emphasizes this trust in God’s promises regarding unseen future realities. Some examples:
You get the idea. The “things not seen,” in the words of one commentator, are “those yet unseen because they belong to the eschatological future” (Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Hebrews, p. 400). Each of the heroes of faith in Hebrews 11 demonstrated profound trust in God as they looked to the future He promised them. And that is what faith means for us as well, trust that God “rewards those who seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).
This trust is not blind and irrational. It is based on the objective realities of God’s power displayed in the natural order, His mighty works in history, and most of all, in the resurrection of His Son. And on the basis of our confidence in God, we can trust in His promises regarding the future.
I think it is silly to think that the mods would lock an educational article / video from biologos.org It is a very credible site. If you do seed from it, I recommend seeding a scientific article.
But I was not suggesting you seed from the site, rather that you learn from the site. Get an infusion of actual science rather than the crap sources that feed you cynical slogans such as: 'random chance pond scum'.
Life started off as single cell organisms (best we can tell). So yes primordial life will be tiny and primitive with humble beginnings. Now learn about how evolution works given an extant form of life.
What if it turns out that only those who worship Zeus will go to the Elysian Fields, and everyone else goes to Hades?
Fair enough?
Do you find atheists wishing you harm? Ever read what you write? You apparently believe that God would condemn atheists to eternal damnation (infinite punishment for finite offenses) and you cavalierly deem it to be fair. Fair? You cannot deliver a shred of evidence supporting the existence of the God of the Bible yet this God, per you, would inflict the most unspeakable horrors on people who are not convinced (due to the total absence of evidence) that this God exists.
Nice. The Christians I know (my friends and family) are decent people who would never deem such a fate as 'fair'.
The Greeks were pantheistic so one would not have to have picked Zeus in their counterfeit system. But if in your scenario there is a one true God and only those He judges saved are, then I’m fine with that.
It was an analogy, not a treatise on mythology. And you have no evidence that yours is any less counterfeit than theirs.
I never brought up Hell here. At any rate hell is not burning forever. People along with Satan and his angels are destroyed and consumed and then the fire ends. The eternal is no life and separation from God forever. Then the new earth will be created upon the ashes of the lost like it was in the beginning except that the New Jerusalem will remain on earth 🌍 for ever. So, while there are Christians who believe that people are burned and tortured for all eternity for the sins of a life time, I’m not one of them. They bought a deception of the evil one that promotes resentment and anger at God for the “injustice” of it in non believers.
You consider this fair treatment for not being convinced (given no evidence) that the Christian God exists?
[Discuss the seeded content not members of this site please]
Like most believers I am confident HA thinks his views are correct and that differing views are flawed. In Christianity alone there are thousands of different views on what God is, wants, intends, etc. Every distinct view arrogantly holds that it is truth. It is amazing (to me) that people cannot recognize that the profound disagreement on even what the Bible says illustrates that nobody can claim they have the truth (and that the Bible itself is not divine).
Faith, belief, whatever is nothing more than wishful thinking, based on emotion, irrationality, or just outright delusion. There is no objective evidence for any god. Beliefs are based off the assumption there is one. But nothing logical, rational, or objective.
It's just an excuse to hide behind genocide.
There's a part of me that feels sorry for these people actually. To be so brainwashed they want to weaponize and harm others. What a warped placed to be. Wrapped up in Jesus concepts only to defy them consistently.
I cannot express what real freedom is when you set mythology aside, see it for what it truly is. I'm so happy that is long behind me with that confusion. And the cool thing is, I still walk away with a Jesus conciousness. It's a survival mechanism. Do good, be good. Do no harm.
What happens to this New Jerusalem when our Sun turns into a red dwarf and destroys the earth?
I don't know why these people even want eternal life. Eventually it would get extremely boring - especially since you'd only consist of energy and wouldn't be able to do much.
Atheism; it’s just an excuse to hide behind genocide.
It won’t. It will be a part of the new creation as it was in the original creation and last forever as well.
Another biblically based denial of modern science?
So now you think that modern science as we understand it places limits on what the all powerful God of the universe can create?
Modern science certainly contradicts certain religious/biblical claims. If the bible is the work of god (it's not), then any contradiction is a limitation on god.
What a very strange way to twist what I wrote.
Here is how you should have understood my point:
On one hand we have modern science and the undeniable evidence that it works (and works well).
On the other hand we have an ancient book that is replete with contradictions and errors.
I suggest that those who take their reading of the Bible over well established science (such as evolution, cosmological dating, genetics, geology, physics, etc.) are not thinking critically.
If there is a God then God (as in creator of the known universe) most definitely would preempt science. The Bible, however, is not God nor is the God character defined by the Bible God. It is at the very best a character imagined by ancient men with pens. This is evidenced by the fact that they defined this God as perfect, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent, eternal and the arbiter of objective morality and then proceed to contradict these attributes routinely in the included stories. One thing we can hold true with logic is that a contradiction means falsehood. The Bible cannot both be imperfect and the perfect word of God; the Bible is not divine. Given the Bible is not divine, it has no credibility as the source of information on what would be the grandest possible entity.
If a creator of the universe does exist, it remains unknown. People can pretend to know (and even have a relationship with) such a grand entity but the evidence (over centuries now) indicates that they are just kidding themselves. So when people like you or Ham deny well established science because it clashes with your biblically based beliefs I see wishful arrogance that (amazingly) denies modern knowledge so as to cling to a comforting and entirely unevidenced belief.
So, no, I am not at all saying that modern science limits the creator of everything. I am saying that the Bible (and all of its inventions) are man-made and extremely dated and cannot hold a candle to science in terms of explaining reality.
Very well said, as usual TiG.
Unfortunately, your eloquence will most likely be lost on those who prefer mere belief over actual logic. I suspect any reply to you will essentially be the intellectual equivalent of "nuh-uh."
My comment will not even be read.
You and I are complete opposites and have virtually nothing in common regarding religion, economics, and politics. We are a 180 and have virtually no belief , viewpoint, or world view in common. Nonetheless I will on all three topics express what I identify with freely on all three categories no matter how many posts you put up to advance your own viewpoint opposed to mine. I am an evangelical Christian and my economics, political, religious, and origins ideals are informed by that perspective in all things.
Oh and here’s some evidence that our beliefs are not going to be fading away anytime ever.
No doubt.
I never said beliefs would be going away. Some people are firmly attached to their delusions. So what's your point? How about evidence for your god's existence, which you repeatedly fail to provide!
I think so.
Not so sure about economics and politics, but regarding religion we are quite far apart.
Yes, I am aware of that.
That is it? You announce that you are going to continue to post? I think we all know that so what is the point of making such an obvious declaration?
Yes, I doubt anyone is unaware of that.
Yup
What a wonderful comment.
My father was both a Believer and a man of science. He found a happy medium between the two that worked for him.
He was a talented aerospace engineer who spent his life giving God the credit for his intelligence. But when asked about topics like evolution, he always said, "It's difficult to argue with the fossil record." He knew the difference between faith and facts, and helped others find their own happy medium.
They have made it their mission to always have the last word and to never let a pro or positive seed regarding Christianity and belief go unchallenged.
How can anyone have the last word when you constantly resurrect your dead articles. Most articles have a natural life span with an implicit DNR but you insist on bringing them back to life.
Result: Zombie articles.
It's perverse.
it certainly does seem like the thumper claptrap gets resurrected every 3 days here
Cry me a river! he posts disingenuous BS, makes claims as fact without any supporting evidence, then deflects or ignores any rebuttal to his BS. Some of us merely call him out on it and challenge his claims. That's not harassment!
Feel free to log a complaint with the mods then.
When you try to pass off a belief as fact and/or ignore anything which contradicts it, that invites challenge! And rightfully so.
That would mean that about one out of every six articles I seed here might have some religious and or social conservative content.
Simple FW. When unfounded claims are made they will be challenged. If the claims are not made, the challenges to said claims would not exist. See?
Fine with me if you keep your speculations to yourself.
I do not speculate on HA's beliefs; I respond to his stated claims. Pay attention.
That's merely your opinion.
He certainly lacks any other kind of credibility, considering he continuously makes spurious or unsubstantiated claims and fails to respond to challenges against them.
I really don't care what you do.
What speculation? Be specific! TiG and others are simply responding to HA's claims.
Clearly you just think you know. Your comments prove otherwise.
Thanks for hanging in there. I was watching football and dealing with the attempted coup against our President here with my seeds and taking over one of Johns about Nikki Haley. I’d have locked this a 100 posts ago but since I seeded it via a group I no longer have any control over the seed. No edit ability, no ability to fix a bad link, no ability to lock or delete it. Thanks again for being here and taking secularist abuse for us believers today. Great job!
Still just an opinion all the same.
Exactly. Everyone should have the information to make such a choice and no one should stand in front of another to prevent the expression of information on all sides to try to prevent another from expressing their beliefs to another on any side.
How did that work for the millions that were slaughtered by christians?
they're holding off on that version of xtianity until some guy named gabe blows their horns
And being it's a PERSONAL belief, it should be kept PERSONAL.
Should we keep our sports teams preferences personal? How about our political beliefs? Most Christians believe we are mandated to get our message out to all the world. Keeping it personal would preclude that. Getting the message out so that everyone knows about it is not the same as coercing anyone to decide one way or the other. That limit on ones free will is anathema to God. He wants people to believe and have faith in Him willingly by their own choice, not coerced by other humans. Secularists should not conflate the mere expression of a view point with being compelled to actually act on it one way or another.
Yes.
Absolutely!
Such sanctimonious arrogance!
Good!
It's equally annoying and pretentious!
The existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god itself automatically limits free will.
Then let him (or you) actually prove he exists! That will go a long way towards establishing a belief. Any "message" otherwise is not only unconvincing, it's just BS!
Or maybe secularists just mind their own business and not get in peoples faces about religious beliefs! Perhaps certain theists should try that too!
Has your sports team resulted in the slaughter of millions?
I'm pretty sure it didn't mean by the sword. Seems Islam is following in the steps of Christianity.
The way your "message" is spread does that as well.
And I have read is book and find him to be judgmental, malevolent and childish. Not worth worship.
Then don't get upset when a Secularist denounces your belief and terrorist threats.
Really? So you think that most of us who helped you elect Reagan and Trump and get the military strength, judiciary, and tax cuts they brought to be terrorists?
Please point out to me where you personally are accusing me personally of making a terrorist threat against anyone.
If your "beleif" is worship this god or you will burn in hell then, yes, it's a terrorist threat.
So you want to spend all eternity living with a God you either deny exists or are miso theistic toward along with all us believers you can’t stand? What would all the haters and deniers do there for all eternity living among those who did believe by faith in this life time? Or are all the deniers looking to be able to deny and still have some form of fire insurance?
Your specific beliefs are a minority on the planet. Logically most everyone on the planet (now and in the past) are in Hell per your beliefs. That alone should give you pause (although I know it will not).
I didn't say he doesn't exist. I said he is the equivalent of a spoiled child that will (and already has) destroy his "creation" if he doesn't get his way. I also implied that this "gods" followers are on the same level as ISIS with the terrorist threats of "worship or face eternal damnation".
Your "insurance" is from a book that has more edits than a hollywood movie script. Not to mention that a significant amount of the content of this book has been taken from older religions.
It's a worldview based on observable evidence. Genetics isn't a conspiracy theory, you know.
Unless he has changed his mind, HA has claimed (in the past) that evolution is pseudoscience and is a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists.
Ugh.....
It's literally the, "everyone else is wrong, I am right" argument. SMH.
There was no macro evolution from one species to another. Just minor changes to promote adaptability to an environment. The idea we all came from primordial soup and all the steps between that and man is pure pseudoscience speculation and nothing more.
What makes you smarter than worldwide biological science?
See, here's the thing... we know that isn't true.
Minor changes add up to major differences over time. We can literally look at DNA these days. We can literally observe the genetic blueprints for organisms and compare them with others. We can literally see shared, inherited ancestry across various species. It's not speculation, it's fact. Denying it at this point is deranged and perverse.
DNA sequencing has been a game changer. For example, it used to be thought that pigs were the closest relatives of hippos, but genetic analysis showed that the closest living relatives of hippos are, in fact, the cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises). It showed that they all diverged and descended from a common ancestor about 50 million years ago -- a placental mammal that was almost certainly semi-aquatic. Their genetic relation to pigs is older and thus more distant.
Hippos spend most of their time in water. They can even give birth and nurse their young in water, just like whales do. They only leave the water at night to feed on nearby grass, which is probably why they still look like land animals (legs are much more useful for them than flippers would be).
Cetacean DNA and hippo DNA show close common ancestry and descent with modification -- literally the definition of biological evolution -- and in this case is a glowing example of "macro" evolution.
Now we sit back and observe the confirmation bias infused response.
One cannot reason with an individual who thinks evolution is a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists.
Keep showing off your ignroance regarding evolution and science in general, especially since the general scientific community disagrees with you and has actual empirical evidence to support evolution. What do you have to discredit evolution? More empty claims?
A case of believing what one wants to be true rather than objectively following the evidence to wherever it leads.
People tend to ignore evidence in favor of belief, or erroneously equate belief with evidence. It's a sad mentality.
It does seem pointless. It's just hard sometimes to let such blatant nonsense stand unchallenged, especially when it's about a physical, material, real-world thing like biology that truly can be observed, studied, and understood.
Nonsense should never pass unchallenged, especially when actualooking facts or evidence (or just plain logical reasoning) contradicts it.
I think we should always challenge nonsense.
Logic and science without God is the definition of nonsense.
Who told you that?
After all, that presumes the existence of God and then goes on to presume logic and science are impossible without this presumed God. You have uttered a grandiose claim and have offered absolutely nothing in support of this claim.
Without God there is nothing. He is the source of all that is. We are the product of intelligent design not of random chance.
What credible evidence do you have of that? Because, there are shitloads and shitloads of real verified credible evidence to the contrary proving that the creation myths in the Bible are all children's fairytales!
Claims without supporting evidence are simply jaw flapping. When one makes claims and is challenged to back up said claims and then returns to simply repeat the claims, the claimer's credibility drops (if possible).
Unfortunately, some people don't seem to care about logic, facts, or their own credibility. They just spew the same nonsense over & over. Like a chat version of a robo caller.
His comments sort of remind me of the Daleks from Dr. Who...
Dalek: Our greatest enemies, the atheists, liberals and Democrats, have left the planet Xeros. They are once again in time and space. Dalek Supreme: They cannot escape! Our time machine will soon follow them! They will be exterminated! Exterminated! Exterminated!Dalek 1: Align and Advance! Dalek 2: Advance and Attack! Dalek 3: Attack and Destroy! All Daleks: Destroy and Rejoice! All Daleks: Our God is Real! Our God is Real! Destroy and Rejoice!
But God is a myth, science is fact based. We can prove, with science, many things but God is not one of them.
Believing that is fine, you are free to believe whatever the hell you want, but don't try to pass it off as fact.
Intelligent design was created because even the most devout Christians could no longer deny that the life on the this planet is the result of billions of years of evolution. It's their effort to admit they're wrong, without admitting they're wrong, (regarding evolution).
You want some proof of evolution? I know you won't watch it because it would blow a hole in your belief system...
But....
Not only sad, but dangerous.
I love his continuing education of Carl Sagan's Cosmos. This is what the search for truth and logic has brought us. Facts. No mythological fairytales need apply. How damn exciting to unravel these genetic code mysteries.
This is true, and something history has time and again proven.
And exactly why we can't let that ugly history repeat itself. It's a dead end road for everyone.
It's amazing isn't it!
Unfortunately, that is a realism.
wasting our time to philosophically prove to them the God that Romans 1 tells us they already know exists.
Brothers and Sisters, we need to stop wasting our time – myself included — and simply point them to Jesus. The argument is already won. Refutations don’t save souls. Ask them if they want to know how to be made right with God before they die. If they don’t, move on.
Yes, it probably is a waste of your time to try to do that which you have repeatedly shown yourself unable to do.
[Removed]
[Removed]
The argument and battle have already been won and now it’s just a matter of people making their own free will choices until the end of the age.
So have you changed your mind on the worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists part? You still hold that evolution is pseudoscience. Is it still a conspiracy too?
Which argument? Which battle?
He's just making more throwaway statements, not meant to further meaningful discussion.
If you had actually bothered to read the seeded article, you’d know full well exactly what it was that I was referring to.
Your comment was vague. There are any number of arguments / battles that one could have in mind given this topic. Typically I have found that vague responses are used when the author knows a specific comment could not survive a challenge.
Where has been God been? There are reports of him in the old testament, but we have not heard from him in a long time
God ruled Israel directly and then through prophets, then kings. In the post crucifixion era, His new chosen people are to follow Him by faith with prayer and the Bible alone. “Blessed are they that not seeing, believe” is what Jesus told Thomas when he didn’t believe. That’s the way it’s going to be right up until the 2nd coming. People will either believe by faith upon hearing the good news or they won’t believe at all. Those who never heard of old covenant Israel or new covenant spiritual Israel (the church and gospel) will be saved based on their living by the best light shown them as God looks upon the heart of each human being.
All I know is I'm going to be thankful for the life I live and for the lives others live and pray all goes well or gets better for all those who live on this earth and I'm going to pray until the day I die to a power that I feel is greater than I am, or, for that matter, is greater than any other power that exist today or has every existed for all time.
I'm going to try to live my life to best of my ability according to the 10 commandments as I see them to not be commandments, but a pretty good way to live this life I have been granted here on this earth. If it all turns out I have something when I pass away, I consider that a real benefit. I'm not a religious person who attends church every Sunday or even that often, but I believe those who have faith in God and live accordingly without prejudice toward others are blessed during their lives in the here and now. I don't believe in hell. So you can say, "You're not a very good Christian". I never said I was. I just said I'm not all that is and I believe there is a power much greater than all of us.
I've never been much for debating ones faith or non-faith in a God. I am just me and when I leave this world I will be gone. I hope those left behind realize I had faith in a power that I can't explain or prove, but I feel this power has pulled me through some pretty rough times in my life as I've seen it do for others.
You know, whatever gets you through the night. Whether it's a belief in divinity or a bottle of Jack Daniel's. Just don't harm others with it and we're good!