Not much different than what Wierwille did. Instead of using scripture to give it a perceived credibility, they are invoking the name of science and philosophy. It's an appeal to authority, a devise that is used quite frequently when flawed logic is being presented.
What credible assurance or authority do you hold on to that the reality you perceive is correct, or complete?
What credible assurance or authority do you hold on to that the reality you perceive is correct, or complete?
And, there's the rabbit hole. I'm not talking about a philosophical reality or a meta physical reality. I'm talking about things that simply exist. For example, a spoon is a spoon is a spoon. My perception or attitude toward it does not change it's physical presence. You can't bend a spoon with your thoughts alone, nor can you guarantee your child will die in a horrific accident because you had fearful thoughts. That's the reality of the physical world we live in, regardless of my perception or philosophical take on the matter.
And, there's the rabbit hole. I'm not talking about a philosophical reality or a meta physical reality. I'm talking about things that simply exist. For example, a spoon is a spoon is a spoon. My perception or attitude toward it does not change it's physical presence. You can't bend a spoon with your thoughts alone, nor can you guarantee your child will die in a horrific accident because you had fearful thoughts. That's the reality of the physical world we live in, regardless of my perception or philosophical take on the matter.
But whatever reality we perceive (regardless of its cause, or its deficiencies) is what shapes our thoughts and actions, and that reality can be altered by what is believed. Hence, the effect of believing is real.
Yeah, like the guy (Dan B.?) who thought the law of believing would keep him safe as he hitchhiked to L.E.A.D. Unfortunately, when he stepped in front of a moving semi, as he attempted to cross the road, the situation became much too "real".
Yeah, like the guy (Dan B.?) who thought the law of believing would keep him safe as he hitchhiked to L.E.A.D. Unfortunately, when he stepped in front of a moving semi, as he attempted to cross the road, the situation became much too "real".
No, that's Ken you're alluding to. He evidently was distracted and simply didn't see or think about the truck, but honestly speaking we really don't know what he was or wasn't thinking... and it makes no sense whatsoever for you to say what Ken (who you don't know beans about) did or didn't believe. So thoughtful of you to bring up such painful memories.
No, that's Ken you're alluding to. He evidently was distracted and simply didn't see or think about the truck, but honestly speaking we really don't know what he was or wasn't thinking... and it makes no sense whatsoever for you to say what Ken (who you don't know beans about) did or didn't believe. So thoughtful of you to bring up such painful memories.
No, we don't know what was going through his mind at that very moment. What we do know is that he counted on the bogus law of believing to keep him safe or he wouldn't have been hitching in the first place. Is it painful to rehash these memories? Yes, it is. There are plenty more where that came from regarding the L.E.A.D. experience and many other ventures undertaken by The Way. Part of what we do here is bring those memories out from under the carpet where they were swept and kept for much too long.
But whatever reality we perceive (regardless of its cause, or its deficiencies) is what shapes our thoughts and actions, and that reality can be altered by what is believed. Hence, the effect of believing is real.
What's not addressed (and seems to be easily missed) in this, is what can and can't be believed.
If you think you can just makes chit up, focus your mind on it, and all of a sudden "believe it"...
well, good luck with that. (because you'll need it.)
Do any other atheists out here experience a deeper sense of sadness now at terrorist events/world catastrophes now that mythical deities are not to blame?
Back when I was chugging the Kool-aid of popular mythology, it was easy to dismiss any quackery with "Well, the Devil is the god of this world and has control." or "God would NEVER let that happen to us believers." Example. Example.
Now that I don't attribute these terrible things to myths, I cannot easily sweep them away ("they must have not been believers. They HAD a chance to believe") and I have a profound sadness that humans can use these myths to disregard real human tragedy. Tell me I'm not the only one. I was in a foundational class on 9/11. I kept on hearing that it was the devil that caused it because of Adam and nothing would ever happen to us believers. How dismissive to trivialize the killing in the name of a slightly different god, and the lives lost by saying it will never be you. I was in a Mexican restaurant when the Paris attacks occurred, and the shock of others eating away while the punch-to-the-gut realism on the small TV screen in the corner hit me that this was done in the name of a religion. Same for Charlie Hebdo. I cried for the first time in years at how sad that truly is, striped of the lens/filter of religion.
Anyone else (who has no need for myths) feel this kind of reaction now?
Since shedding my belief in God, I find that I am more troubled by acts of violence in general, especially when innocent children are the victims. And my heart absolutely breaks when thinking of natural disasters.
No, we don't know what was going through his mind at that very moment. What we do know is that he counted on the bogus law of believing to keep him safe or he wouldn't have been hitching in the first place.
Well, I don't buy that either. We were kids that hitched because we were asked to and it was part of the program we had signed on for. And quite frankly, in those days hitching just wasn't recognized as being as perilous as it is nowadays, so not as much thought or care was given to it. I'm not saying it was right, or that more care and thought shouldn't have been given to it. It obviously should have. When young (and somewhat foolish) you tend to do a lot of things without giving it as much thought or attention as you (realize later in hindsight) probably should have. So, it appears very artificial to attribute all of it to counting on the "law of believing" (or however else you want to say it), when it was really little more than participating in some new (for many) and challenging (but inadvertently dangerous) activity.
Since shedding my belief in God, I find that I am more troubled by acts of violence in general, especially when innocent children are the victims. And my heart absolutely breaks when thinking of natural disasters.
There's no rationalizing to some alternate reality to deflect or mitigate the pain of loss (grief) and the awareness that this is ultimately what will happen to you too.
Well, I don't buy that either. We were kids that hitched because we were asked to and it was part of the program we had signed on for. And quite frankly, in those days hitching just wasn't recognized as being as perilous as it is nowadays, so not as much thought or care was given to it. I'm not saying it was right, or that more care and thought shouldn't have been given to it. It obviously should have. When young (and somewhat foolish) you tend to do a lot of things without giving it as much thought or attention as you (realize later in hindsight) probably should have. So, it appears very artificial to attribute all of it to counting on the "law of believing" (or however else you want to say it), when it was really little more than participating in some new (for many) and challenging (but inadvertently dangerous) activity.
The focal point of L.E.A.D. was to prove, not only that the law of believing was true, but to demonstrate that you knew how to operate it. Believe for rides to get there. Believe to get there on time. Believe to get there safely. Believe to come back with the same amount of money you left with.... and so on.
The Way knew there were serious dangers involved with the program. Women were raped, people were robbed, people suffered debilitating frostbite and other life changing injuries, people died. Did they cancel it or make adjustments to make it safer? Nope. If you don't succeed, it's your own fault for not "believing". How convenient.
It's probably about time to take a fresh look at THIS old thread.
Guys, let's stay on topic and move this worthwhile conversation to another thread. Not that I have a problem with the digression, but it is an interesting conversation and no one would ever know to look for it on a thread called Atheist FAQ.
Guys, let's stay on topic and move this worthwhile conversation to another thread. Not that I have a problem with the digression, but it is an interesting conversation and no one would ever know to look for it on a thread called Atheist FAQ.
The focal point of L.E.A.D. was to prove, not only that the law of believing was true, but to demonstrate that you knew how to operate it. Believe for rides to get there. Believe to get there on time. Believe to get there safely. Believe to come back with the same amount of money you left with.... and so on.
Well, that may well be how it was presented and/or what it grew into. However, from a personal perspective, it's just not how I saw it. Maybe I'm an odd duck, and didn't think or look at a lot of things the way many or most others did. (It's probable, but I can't say for sure.) But my perspective on this, like (most) other stuff in residence, I thought of and approached as experiential training... not some specific or particular kind of testing, or proving. In a certain sense, the outcome of it didn't even matter all that much to me. (Oh, I surely did like to "win"... but it was as much or more a "for fun" competition against myself than it was anyone else.) And, as stated somewhere already on GSC, I've long held to the belief that my real teacher wasn't merely the people around me.
The Way knew there were serious dangers involved with the program. Women were raped, people were robbed, people suffered debilitating frostbite and other life changing injuries, people died. Did they cancel it or make adjustments to make it safer? Nope. If you don't succeed, it's your own fault for not "believing". How convenient.
Yes, there's no denying that terrible things happened, and in hindsight, certain programs were so inherently dangerous they probably never should have been initiated. The Rodeo program in Gunnison? (was scary just to watch, I'll say that...) And I won't even bother to mention the entire WC program itself. Just look around here at GSC.
Let's set the record straight once and for all re: the origins and purpose of LEAD. Let's get back to the psychological and ideological roots as laid out verbally to the first 4 corpses........the roots of lead which was John somerville's Total Fitness Institute, (TFI), and dictor's desire to prove to the world that his corpses were as tough and prepared for battle as Somerville's Marine Corps Recon Rangers. They were part of the roots of The Navy Seals program. Dr. John Somerville was a marine corps officer. He volunteered for 3 13 month tours of duty in Viet Nam. Vic used to brag that "My son-in-law put his money where his mouth was. He went to test out the revelation and impartation manifestations. He came back a hero all three times!".
The story of TFI is somewhere around here isn't it??
Raf although I did not read this whole thread I can't help but think atheism itself is a cult of its own. I don't mean that in an offensive way what I mean is that like those in the way who had all these go to lines, phrases, standard responses like your valhalla comment when talking about what you would say to jesus at the bema it doesn't seem to me that atheists think for themselves. It is clearly true many christians spout out lines as ridiculous as what you said about what you would say to jesus, but my goodness come up with your own material and belief about the nature of reality and God. Spewing out what the christopher hitchens,sam harris, richard dawkins, etc say doesn't really make what you say very convincing. We hear the type of things you say in this thread all the time from atheists, my question is why do we? And is it not just the result of following the same pattern those who were in the way did? Spewing out lines that aren't your own but things you were fed and something you ended up believing to be true. I just find that comment about what you would say to Jesus not only unoriginal but it seems unauthentic as if there are a cult of atheists being taught these things and just instantly going to them without really thinking about the reasonableness of what they are actually saying.
The more and more I listen to atheists speak about why they don't believe the more and more convinced I am God exists. The alternative to believing in God isn't very convincing. I am not going to knock what you believe, but the logic behind it is mind boggling to me. I've been guilty of just lazily quoting other christian leaders or sayings but the fact is you will not win an argument that way and it is better to come up with a more original response from the heart than some rote response of I would say the same thing to thor? I just find that response if you really would give that response comical. Although I don't believe in hell if it did exist I think such a response is so funny God would be like yo this dude is too funny to give the second death lets keep him around a little longer. It just can't be real for one to believe when they are asked what they would say to jesus thats the first thing that comes to mind?
I get it, thinking for ourselves and coming up with our own reasoning is difficult. But I think we are better off saying nothing than to say something like that in response to a reasonable question. This is why I can't really take atheists serious because they reply things like that. Instead of responding what you did why not give an answer that can't be found in popular atheist books and instead give an answer from your heart. You do still have a heart right? I think I have gone on long enough about your response but I hope you would think deeper next time if you really were in that situation. Instead of repeating common atheist jargon that does not help people really understand what you think and why you think it. Instead of replying what you did why not say I would tell jesus if he existed I made a mistake etc or something like that. Thats not only more real but is something we can work with and have a discussion about. But just constantly repeating atheist jargon does nothing to further the discussion. Theres no discussion to be had when someone is just repeating what they read from the God delusion or whatever book is popular now.
Constantly being accused of mindlessly repeating jargon, coming from a Christian, strikes me as mildly ironic.
Look, Pascal's Wager is ONE argument. There are only so many counterarguments, and to be expected to come up with something that no one has ever articulated before is not horribly realistic.
If you want an original answer from me, then ask a f-ing original question. Not "what would you say if you came face to face with Jesus?" That's a dumb question to ask someone who thinks Jesus is dead, has been for about 2000 years now, give or take a dozen or two. And it WOULD be like me asking you what you would tell Thor at Valhalla.
You want an answer from my heart? There it is: that's a stupid question, and one that Christians would never think in a billion years to ask of someone who doesn't believe in fairies, leprechauns or Bigfoot.
Constantly being accused of mindlessly repeating jargon, coming from a Christian, strikes me as mildly ironic.
Look, Pascal's Wager is ONE argument. There are only so many counterarguments, and to be expected to come up with something that no one has ever articulated before is not horribly realistic.
If you want an original answer from me, then ask a f-ing original question. Not "what would you say if you came face to face with Jesus?" That's a dumb question to ask someone who thinks Jesus is dead, has been for about 2000 years now, give or take a dozen or two. And it WOULD be like me asking you what you would tell Thor at Valhalla.
You want an answer from my heart? There it is: that's a stupid question, and one that Christians would never think in a billion years to ask of someone who doesn't believe in fairies, leprechauns or Bigfoot.
But isn't there more evidence the christian God exists than fairies of pagan gods? Like if we had to compare every pagan God to the christian God it seems not just based on consensus in the world but on mere practicality more probable. It's why when atheists bring up fairies when we are trying to have a serious discussion about God it seems unreasonable and there has to be a better analogy to God than fairies. It seems there is nothing that can be compared to God but if there is something, fairies can't be a good one.
Honestly, from my standpoint, gods and fairies have equal evidence. Not just the Christian God, ALL gods. There's not "more evidence" for the Christian God than there is for Allah. Or fairies. We have an honest disagreement there.
Now, you may get away with the argument that there's more evidence for a "deist" type of God than any other, but that's self-defining. That is, the deist God is defined by his lack of involvement (and therefore his lack of testability). A deist God would have created the universe according to natural laws and then gone fishin. There is simply no way whatsoever to establish that any such God does or does not exist -- and no consequence whatseoever to believing either proposition.
But once you start pinning down particular claims, your God becomes testable. And the more specific you make that test, the easier it is to determine whether your God passes it.
SIT is a language. Ok, let's test it.
Well, it's an unknown language. Ok, but unknown to the speaker doesn't mean unknown to linguists or anyone else on earth.
Well, it IS unknown to anyone else on earth. Ok, so you're saying it's a dead language.
Right! A dead language. Ok, but we actually know a lot about even dead languages.
It's the tongues of angels.
Â
Â
You know, people make testable claims about their gods and then go into retreat mode whenever people take em up on it.
Â
My God's got LOTS of evidence?
Sure he does. Well then, I'm here and looking. Bring me back into the fold.
Honestly, from my standpoint, gods and fairies have equal evidence. Not just the Christian God, ALL gods. There's not "more evidence" for the Christian God than there is for Allah. Or fairies. We have an honest disagreement there.
Now, you may get away with the argument that there's more evidence for a "deist" type of God than any other, but that's self-defining. That is, the deist God is defined by his lack of involvement (and therefore his lack of testability). A deist God would have created the universe according to natural laws and then gone fishin. There is simply no way whatsoever to establish that any such God does or does not exist -- and no consequence whatseoever to believing either proposition.
But once you start pinning down particular claims, your God becomes testable. And the more specific you make that test, the easier it is to determine whether your God passes it.
SIT is a language. Ok, let's test it.
Well, it's an unknown language. Ok, but unknown to the speaker doesn't mean unknown to linguists or anyone else on earth.
Well, it IS unknown to anyone else on earth. Ok, so you're saying it's a dead language.
Right! A dead language. Ok, but we actually know a lot about even dead languages.
It's the tongues of angels.
Â
Â
You know, people make testable claims about their gods and then go into retreat mode whenever people take em up on it.
Â
My God's got LOTS of evidence?
Sure he does. Well then, I'm here and looking. Bring me back into the fold.
Well, he doesn't like to be tested.
WELL ISN'T THAT CONVENIENT!?
Â
I'll be right here.
Â
Well I think when we see the fulfillment of the old testament in the new testament through Jesus Christ that be default is more convincing than fairies or the thors or zeuses. The Jewish people have a long rich and recorded history. So to see the prophecy of jesus being fulfilled in the new testament is something that at least exists and we can dissect that but its something tangible. Unlike fairies etc. Sure there are books with fairies in them but they aren't written about in the same way the old and new testament were written. One is written by people who believe what they wrote the other is by people who don't believe fairies actually exist but trying to tell a story.
A long, rich, recorded, made up history, in large measure.
"Out of Egypt I have called my son" is not a Messianic prophecy in its original setting, but Matthew makes it one... and to see its fulfillment, he concocts a tragedy that never happened (the Slaughter of the Innocents) to get Jesus to flee from his home in Bethlehem to Egypt (even though Luke has Jesus living in Nazareth at the time), just so God can call his son out of Egypt to fulfill the not-prophecy, then he comes back to Israel but instead of going to Judea (where, according to Luke, he did not live) he goes to Nazareth for the first time according to Matthew (where he already lived before according to Luke).
Umm. That's not a fulfilled prophecy. And you'll find that most of them are not.
And as you examine each prophecy, you will find TONS of similar inconsistencies. Some piddling, some utterly baffling.
Seeing the prophecy of Jesus being fulfilled in the Bible is not that different from seeing the prophecy of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone fulfilled in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Fiction has a way of working like that.
Yes, I know, different authors. But the principle is the same: a story that never happened is malleable. You can shape it to meet whatever criteria you'd like, including the criteria of fulfilled prophecies.
Look at the Left Behind series. It fulfills all those prophecies of the New Testament. The rapture. The antiChrist, the earthquakes, the plagues, the return of Christ. All of them, fulfilled. "Yeah," you'll say, "But Left Behind is a work of fiction!"
Exactly.
I'm not saying Jesus' existence is fiction. But the fulfilled prophecies? They were written to fulfill the prophecies (many of which are not prophecies at all), not to record history.
Do you REALLY think, in the most amazingly astonishingly astounding coincidence of all time, that Pilate gave the people a choice between Jesus and Barabbas, and the people chose Barabbas? Never mind that this was NEVER a custom of Pilate. Put that aside for a second. Imagine the coincidence of Pilate giving the people a choice between Jesus, the Son of the Father, and a man whose NAME is "Jesus, Son of the Father." You CAN make that up!
The "evidence" of fulfilled prophecy is not evidence at all.
There is simply no way whatsoever to establish that any such God does or does not exist -- and no consequence whatseoever to believing either proposition.
Given what is written in Romans 8:16, I disagree. However, aside from (or previous to) that experience (of Rom.8:16), I may have been inclined to think otherwise.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
53
16
24
21
Popular Days
Mar 14
16
Mar 29
16
Mar 16
14
Mar 17
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 53 posts
waysider 16 posts
Bolshevik 24 posts
TLC 21 posts
Popular Days
Mar 14 2017
16 posts
Mar 29 2016
16 posts
Mar 16 2017
14 posts
Mar 17 2017
14 posts
Popular Posts
Rocky
Just over two years ago (Feb 28, - March 2, 2015), I witnessed some big time arguing -- my first time sitting in on oral arguments at the Supreme Court in Washington. It was a thrill. On Feb 28, I tou
Rocky
May I suggest that some participants in this thread (esp. TLC) could benefit tremendously from this MOOC on the subject of understanding arguments. Think Again: How to Reason and Argue Reasoning
TLC
What credible assurance or authority do you hold on to that the reality you perceive is correct, or complete?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
And, there's the rabbit hole. I'm not talking about a philosophical reality or a meta physical reality. I'm talking about things that simply exist. For example, a spoon is a spoon is a spoon. My perception or attitude toward it does not change it's physical presence. You can't bend a spoon with your thoughts alone, nor can you guarantee your child will die in a horrific accident because you had fearful thoughts. That's the reality of the physical world we live in, regardless of my perception or philosophical take on the matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
But whatever reality we perceive (regardless of its cause, or its deficiencies) is what shapes our thoughts and actions, and that reality can be altered by what is believed. Hence, the effect of believing is real.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yeah, like the guy (Dan B.?) who thought the law of believing would keep him safe as he hitchhiked to L.E.A.D. Unfortunately, when he stepped in front of a moving semi, as he attempted to cross the road, the situation became much too "real".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
No, that's Ken you're alluding to. He evidently was distracted and simply didn't see or think about the truck, but honestly speaking we really don't know what he was or wasn't thinking... and it makes no sense whatsoever for you to say what Ken (who you don't know beans about) did or didn't believe. So thoughtful of you to bring up such painful memories.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
No, we don't know what was going through his mind at that very moment. What we do know is that he counted on the bogus law of believing to keep him safe or he wouldn't have been hitching in the first place. Is it painful to rehash these memories? Yes, it is. There are plenty more where that came from regarding the L.E.A.D. experience and many other ventures undertaken by The Way. Part of what we do here is bring those memories out from under the carpet where they were swept and kept for much too long.
Sorry I got the name wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
What's not addressed (and seems to be easily missed) in this, is what can and can't be believed.
If you think you can just makes chit up, focus your mind on it, and all of a sudden "believe it"...
well, good luck with that. (because you'll need it.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Since shedding my belief in God, I find that I am more troubled by acts of violence in general, especially when innocent children are the victims. And my heart absolutely breaks when thinking of natural disasters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, I don't buy that either. We were kids that hitched because we were asked to and it was part of the program we had signed on for. And quite frankly, in those days hitching just wasn't recognized as being as perilous as it is nowadays, so not as much thought or care was given to it. I'm not saying it was right, or that more care and thought shouldn't have been given to it. It obviously should have. When young (and somewhat foolish) you tend to do a lot of things without giving it as much thought or attention as you (realize later in hindsight) probably should have. So, it appears very artificial to attribute all of it to counting on the "law of believing" (or however else you want to say it), when it was really little more than participating in some new (for many) and challenging (but inadvertently dangerous) activity.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
There's no rationalizing to some alternate reality to deflect or mitigate the pain of loss (grief) and the awareness that this is ultimately what will happen to you too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The focal point of L.E.A.D. was to prove, not only that the law of believing was true, but to demonstrate that you knew how to operate it. Believe for rides to get there. Believe to get there on time. Believe to get there safely. Believe to come back with the same amount of money you left with.... and so on.
The Way knew there were serious dangers involved with the program. Women were raped, people were robbed, people suffered debilitating frostbite and other life changing injuries, people died. Did they cancel it or make adjustments to make it safer? Nope. If you don't succeed, it's your own fault for not "believing". How convenient.
It's probably about time to take a fresh look at THIS old thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Guys, let's stay on topic and move this worthwhile conversation to another thread. Not that I have a problem with the digression, but it is an interesting conversation and no one would ever know to look for it on a thread called Atheist FAQ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Thanks, Raf. Your point is well taken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Sure, move it where ever you'd like.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, that may well be how it was presented and/or what it grew into. However, from a personal perspective, it's just not how I saw it. Maybe I'm an odd duck, and didn't think or look at a lot of things the way many or most others did. (It's probable, but I can't say for sure.) But my perspective on this, like (most) other stuff in residence, I thought of and approached as experiential training... not some specific or particular kind of testing, or proving. In a certain sense, the outcome of it didn't even matter all that much to me. (Oh, I surely did like to "win"... but it was as much or more a "for fun" competition against myself than it was anyone else.) And, as stated somewhere already on GSC, I've long held to the belief that my real teacher wasn't merely the people around me.
Yes, there's no denying that terrible things happened, and in hindsight, certain programs were so inherently dangerous they probably never should have been initiated. The Rodeo program in Gunnison? (was scary just to watch, I'll say that...) And I won't even bother to mention the entire WC program itself. Just look around here at GSC.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
So where is it please??
Let's set the record straight once and for all re: the origins and purpose of LEAD. Let's get back to the psychological and ideological roots as laid out verbally to the first 4 corpses........the roots of lead which was John somerville's Total Fitness Institute, (TFI), and dictor's desire to prove to the world that his corpses were as tough and prepared for battle as Somerville's Marine Corps Recon Rangers. They were part of the roots of The Navy Seals program. Dr. John Somerville was a marine corps officer. He volunteered for 3 13 month tours of duty in Viet Nam. Vic used to brag that "My son-in-law put his money where his mouth was. He went to test out the revelation and impartation manifestations. He came back a hero all three times!".
The story of TFI is somewhere around here isn't it??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImLikeSoConfused
Raf although I did not read this whole thread I can't help but think atheism itself is a cult of its own. I don't mean that in an offensive way what I mean is that like those in the way who had all these go to lines, phrases, standard responses like your valhalla comment when talking about what you would say to jesus at the bema it doesn't seem to me that atheists think for themselves. It is clearly true many christians spout out lines as ridiculous as what you said about what you would say to jesus, but my goodness come up with your own material and belief about the nature of reality and God. Spewing out what the christopher hitchens,sam harris, richard dawkins, etc say doesn't really make what you say very convincing. We hear the type of things you say in this thread all the time from atheists, my question is why do we? And is it not just the result of following the same pattern those who were in the way did? Spewing out lines that aren't your own but things you were fed and something you ended up believing to be true. I just find that comment about what you would say to Jesus not only unoriginal but it seems unauthentic as if there are a cult of atheists being taught these things and just instantly going to them without really thinking about the reasonableness of what they are actually saying.
The more and more I listen to atheists speak about why they don't believe the more and more convinced I am God exists. The alternative to believing in God isn't very convincing. I am not going to knock what you believe, but the logic behind it is mind boggling to me. I've been guilty of just lazily quoting other christian leaders or sayings but the fact is you will not win an argument that way and it is better to come up with a more original response from the heart than some rote response of I would say the same thing to thor? I just find that response if you really would give that response comical. Although I don't believe in hell if it did exist I think such a response is so funny God would be like yo this dude is too funny to give the second death lets keep him around a little longer. It just can't be real for one to believe when they are asked what they would say to jesus thats the first thing that comes to mind?
I get it, thinking for ourselves and coming up with our own reasoning is difficult. But I think we are better off saying nothing than to say something like that in response to a reasonable question. This is why I can't really take atheists serious because they reply things like that. Instead of responding what you did why not give an answer that can't be found in popular atheist books and instead give an answer from your heart. You do still have a heart right? I think I have gone on long enough about your response but I hope you would think deeper next time if you really were in that situation. Instead of repeating common atheist jargon that does not help people really understand what you think and why you think it. Instead of replying what you did why not say I would tell jesus if he existed I made a mistake etc or something like that. Thats not only more real but is something we can work with and have a discussion about. But just constantly repeating atheist jargon does nothing to further the discussion. Theres no discussion to be had when someone is just repeating what they read from the God delusion or whatever book is popular now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Constantly being accused of mindlessly repeating jargon, coming from a Christian, strikes me as mildly ironic.
Look, Pascal's Wager is ONE argument. There are only so many counterarguments, and to be expected to come up with something that no one has ever articulated before is not horribly realistic.
If you want an original answer from me, then ask a f-ing original question. Not "what would you say if you came face to face with Jesus?" That's a dumb question to ask someone who thinks Jesus is dead, has been for about 2000 years now, give or take a dozen or two. And it WOULD be like me asking you what you would tell Thor at Valhalla.
You want an answer from my heart? There it is: that's a stupid question, and one that Christians would never think in a billion years to ask of someone who doesn't believe in fairies, leprechauns or Bigfoot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImLikeSoConfused
But isn't there more evidence the christian God exists than fairies of pagan gods? Like if we had to compare every pagan God to the christian God it seems not just based on consensus in the world but on mere practicality more probable. It's why when atheists bring up fairies when we are trying to have a serious discussion about God it seems unreasonable and there has to be a better analogy to God than fairies. It seems there is nothing that can be compared to God but if there is something, fairies can't be a good one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Name it, though.
Honestly, from my standpoint, gods and fairies have equal evidence. Not just the Christian God, ALL gods. There's not "more evidence" for the Christian God than there is for Allah. Or fairies. We have an honest disagreement there.
Now, you may get away with the argument that there's more evidence for a "deist" type of God than any other, but that's self-defining. That is, the deist God is defined by his lack of involvement (and therefore his lack of testability). A deist God would have created the universe according to natural laws and then gone fishin. There is simply no way whatsoever to establish that any such God does or does not exist -- and no consequence whatseoever to believing either proposition.
But once you start pinning down particular claims, your God becomes testable. And the more specific you make that test, the easier it is to determine whether your God passes it.
SIT is a language. Ok, let's test it.
Well, it's an unknown language. Ok, but unknown to the speaker doesn't mean unknown to linguists or anyone else on earth.
Well, it IS unknown to anyone else on earth. Ok, so you're saying it's a dead language.
Right! A dead language. Ok, but we actually know a lot about even dead languages.
It's the tongues of angels.
Â
Â
You know, people make testable claims about their gods and then go into retreat mode whenever people take em up on it.
Â
My God's got LOTS of evidence?
Sure he does. Well then, I'm here and looking. Bring me back into the fold.
Well, he doesn't like to be tested.
WELL ISN'T THAT CONVENIENT!?
Â
I'll be right here.
Â
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImLikeSoConfused
Well I think when we see the fulfillment of the old testament in the new testament through Jesus Christ that be default is more convincing than fairies or the thors or zeuses. The Jewish people have a long rich and recorded history. So to see the prophecy of jesus being fulfilled in the new testament is something that at least exists and we can dissect that but its something tangible. Unlike fairies etc. Sure there are books with fairies in them but they aren't written about in the same way the old and new testament were written. One is written by people who believe what they wrote the other is by people who don't believe fairies actually exist but trying to tell a story.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
A long, rich, recorded, made up history, in large measure.
"Out of Egypt I have called my son" is not a Messianic prophecy in its original setting, but Matthew makes it one... and to see its fulfillment, he concocts a tragedy that never happened (the Slaughter of the Innocents) to get Jesus to flee from his home in Bethlehem to Egypt (even though Luke has Jesus living in Nazareth at the time), just so God can call his son out of Egypt to fulfill the not-prophecy, then he comes back to Israel but instead of going to Judea (where, according to Luke, he did not live) he goes to Nazareth for the first time according to Matthew (where he already lived before according to Luke).
Umm. That's not a fulfilled prophecy. And you'll find that most of them are not.
And as you examine each prophecy, you will find TONS of similar inconsistencies. Some piddling, some utterly baffling.
Seeing the prophecy of Jesus being fulfilled in the Bible is not that different from seeing the prophecy of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone fulfilled in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Fiction has a way of working like that.
Yes, I know, different authors. But the principle is the same: a story that never happened is malleable. You can shape it to meet whatever criteria you'd like, including the criteria of fulfilled prophecies.
Look at the Left Behind series. It fulfills all those prophecies of the New Testament. The rapture. The antiChrist, the earthquakes, the plagues, the return of Christ. All of them, fulfilled. "Yeah," you'll say, "But Left Behind is a work of fiction!"
Exactly.
I'm not saying Jesus' existence is fiction. But the fulfilled prophecies? They were written to fulfill the prophecies (many of which are not prophecies at all), not to record history.
Do you REALLY think, in the most amazingly astonishingly astounding coincidence of all time, that Pilate gave the people a choice between Jesus and Barabbas, and the people chose Barabbas? Never mind that this was NEVER a custom of Pilate. Put that aside for a second. Imagine the coincidence of Pilate giving the people a choice between Jesus, the Son of the Father, and a man whose NAME is "Jesus, Son of the Father." You CAN make that up!
The "evidence" of fulfilled prophecy is not evidence at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Given what is written in Romans 8:16, I disagree. However, aside from (or previous to) that experience (of Rom.8:16), I may have been inclined to think otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Would it have been too hard to quote the verse?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.