703 replies to this topic

[octopuppy]

As you can see, you interpretted my previous statement much differently than I intended it. I suppose that is in part due to the limitation of our language and the confines of our computer screens, but also to our to our enlightenment to the character of God (ie: those who have experienced him intimately, and those who have not.)

Yes, I put that there with you in mind. There are better examples of people thinking atheists are angry at God but I was too lazy to trawl for them! It would be quite a stretch to imply that you have a reciprocal approach to belief (for example you might just think other people do, and you might be right at that).

What I intended by "ignoring him" is that many athiests have somehow, someway allowed themselves to be taught/convinced/misled/respressed the existance of God...and that they are happy to exist without Him.

That's pretty similar to what I was talking about, though maybe a less conscious version of the same thing. To me such people are still essentially religious, because there is an underlying belief that is being denied (likely to be motivated by hurt or a sense of betrayal). Actually I think that kind of thing deepens religious belief because you think you lost the belief but you never did, so when you regain it, it is stronger than ever (like some underlying "truth" that surfaces in the end). Being brought up in a deeply religious society can create the kind of atmosphere where you would no more question God for real than you would question the existence of the air that you breathe. But the deepness of that conviction is not the same as truth.

On the other hand, many athiests and thiests alike have at some point attempted to ignore God (although their heart tells them differently) because they are afraid that believing in God means not having any fun, or changing too much of their lifestyle...which is also silly btw, because God is the God of all good things = peace, love, joy, goodness, kindness, patience, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23) God only want to protect you from harm and to lavish all good things on you (Ephesians 1:7-8).

Forming a belief based on consequences would be a bad idea in any case. Truth is truth, regardless of the rewards on offer.

I know many of you do not accept the use of scripture as a valid argument for the Christian point of view...

Actually I had a go at bringing that up as an issue for debate a few posts back. Anyone interested?

...but I use it not because it is necessary to convince myself (I know God's characteristics because of how he speaks to my heart...and would know him the same with or without the Bible) but to confirm that my belief also corresponds with the written word of God.

What would you do if there was a conflict? Go with the Bible or your heart?

I like you Octopuppy. I think you are intelligent and funny and a creative writer.

Thanks. The feeling is mutual!

I certainly do not mean to offend you or any other non-thiests with my comments.

You've said nothing offensive that I'm aware of. And it's a debate, you don't have to agree with me!

If I had discovered a recipe for a doughnut that was not only full of flavor but fat-free, raised your IQ by 5 points increased your standard of living and caused you to have multiple orgasms I would gladly share that recipe with you as well.

I've got a recipe for gnocchi that does that. Will I share it? Hmm...

[puzzlegirl]

Forming a belief based on consequences would be a bad idea in any case. Truth is truth, regardless of the rewards on offer.

well said.

[ADParker]

Just for clarification; when I tried that, ! was technically an atheist. Shortly after finding that my beliefs had been unfounded, and thus no longer believing, but still wanting to (as the religion taught us to desire.)

I read that post when he first wrote it, and again just now and it is hard for me to believe that someone who could speak with such insensitivity, such harsh words, such a mocking tone, would be someone who sincerely sought after God.

Interesting; I usually get a positive mention in this regard - Theists complain that "the atheists are all being mean to me; except for ADParker (and sometiumes one or two others)."
I bit over sensitive there perhaps?

I cannot speak for God, but my guess is that he sought God for selfish reasons...for what he could get out of the deal. At least that's what I glean about his character from the way he writes his posts.

Shouldn't this be "I can't speak for ADParker"?!
No, I assure you, at that time I sought the reclamation of my belief, it was a real internal battle between Faith and Reason. Fortunately (in my "older and wiser now" opinion) reason won out.

But wait didn't you say this:

I double-dog dare you to accept this challenge: Each day for 3 weeks, read one chapter of the book of John (1-21) and before you read say this prayer (no matter how sarcastic your tone) "God, if you exist, reveal yourself to me."

So according to your own words, that I (as you wrongly assume with ZERO evidence) "sought God for selfish reasons" should not have mattered. No?!

If someone wants to present a thoughtful arguement, with respect in their heart and with a hope that mankind might be bettered by the truth, then I am glad to listen whole-heartedly to what they have to say. I will chose to love those who are hateful, but nastines will never earn my respect.

Hmm, exactly how I argue.
At least I think so, anyone else disagree?

[dnae]

I agree

[dnae]

Just typing something b/c as a Theist, I don't want to be the "666" reply...

[ADParker]

Just typing something b/c as a Theist, I don't want to be the "666" reply...

Heh, I was the 666 reply
And I don't mind a bit:
1. It's just a number.
2. It's not like I believe in that stuff anyway.
3. You do realise that "666" is a mistranslation that got itself replicated because it read better? Originaly it was"661"
(Frost was 661 by the way )

[Duh Puck]

I was going to comment on the inconsistency of puzzlegirl's citing of scripture to support her beliefs, but yeah, it's off topic, so I'll ignore that ...

Regarding the tone of atheist posts ... for the most part, I've found the atheists on this site to be quite reasonable. Stubborn, perhaps, but so is almost everyone that feels strongly enough about this topic that they choose to participate. One distinguishing quality, however, is the difference between those who argue for the purpose of winning an argument and those who genuinely want to convince others (and of course there are those who just express their opinions without making any arguments, which is fine but not particularly helpful). As unreality once mentioned, an open debate thread is probably not the best place to persuade people, and naturally tends to result in trying to win the debate, which, naturally, is hard to determine. What qualifies as winning? If one side rebuts an argument but the other side doesn't accept the rebuttal, the argument stops and ... who won?

In any case, in regard to ADParker specifically, even though I've found his arguments to be frustrating, and occasionally his tone a bit sarcastic, I've been impressed that he takes the time to genuinely think about and respond to opposing points. Even if he might think that there is an overriding principle or line of reasoning which could be used to simply dismiss an opposing view, he doesn't just mindlessly invoke that when he knows it won't be accepted. This is a key to reasoning and convincing. You have to try to understand why the other person thinks what they do, and not carelessly dismiss them as irrational. AD doesn't do that, and puts a great deal of energy into trying to explain why the thinking of others is irrational, and whether or not I agree with his evaluation, I have to respect that.

[Frost]

Heh, I was the 666 reply
And I don't mind a bit:
1. It's just a number.
2. It's not like I believe in that stuff anyway.
3. You do realise that "666" is a mistranslation that got itself replicated because it read better? Originaly it was"661"
(Frost was 661 by the way )

Oh, ouch. Well, it's just a number anyway, like pi, and I like numbers.

I agree with Duh Puck in that this isn't so much an argument, as there is no winner, it's more of a discussion for the benefit of the reader. It's just a bunch of intelligent people sharing and discussing their opinions on religion(specifically God).

[Scraff]

this isn't so much an argument, as there is no winner, it's more of a discussion for the benefit of the reader.

Sure there's an argument. The argument is between theists that claim there is sufficient evidence to conclude there's a god and atheists that claim that evidence is non-existent. If you don't think a side won that argument, you may want to read through this thread again.

[Frost]

Sure there's an argument. The argument is between theists that claim there is sufficient evidence to conclude there's a god and atheists that claim that evidence is non-existent. If you don't think a side won that argument, you may want to read through this thread again.

I know what you mean, and I've already read through the whole debate. The only way to truly win an argument is to convince the other side of your opinion, and I don't see that happening anytime soon...
Also, if you already won, why is this thread still going?

Edited by Frost, 03 July 2008 - 03:31 AM.