Do Christians really think...

[That Dude]

Because God, by definition, is a supernatural entity, and science is about the study of nature and natural phenomena. Therefore, God cannot be tested for by science because no amount of naturalistic examination or evidence could falsify him since he is, by definition, supernatural.

I can accept that explanation. It's a good one.

Also, when did "science" come into this? You just brought science up out of nowhere. We were discussing atheism.

It came into it when I tried to get around the idea that evidence alone dictates the need to be part of a religion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yet, you acted like you completely missed why I would have been insulted in the first place. Do me a favor. Tell your friends and family that are Christian what you've said here. See the look on their face and pretend you didn't know you were going to insult them after being a Christian yourself for 15 years.
I don't believe in leprechauns for the same reason you don't. (I don't have a reason to) But I do have a reason to believe in God, I've met him and unlike someone who was raised with Christian beliefs I wasnt and didn't become one until I was in my 30's and probably wouldn't be one had I not known for a fact that God exist.

Okay then. Let's say I know someone who believes in leprechauns and claims to have met them. Are their beliefs less true than yours, or just as true?

If the former, then by what standard do you judge certain beliefs to be more true or more accurate than others. If the latter, how is it insulting to compare belief in God to belief in leprechauns?

It came into it when I tried to get around the idea that evidence alone dictates the need to be part of a religion.

Neither of us said anything like that. That's not related to what we were discussing at all.

 

[That Dude]

Okay then. Let's say I know someone who believes in leprechauns and claims to have met them. Are their beliefs less true than yours, or just as true?

If the former, then by what standard do you judge certain beliefs to be more true or more accurate than others. If the latter, how is it insulting to compare belief in God to belief in leprechauns?

Depends on who you're talking to. If you're talking to a Christian then you insult them with the leprechaun analogy. If you didn't understand this, you wouldn't have asked the question I quoted above.

I'm not saying that you don't have reasons for not believing, but to make the assumption that I don't think you do is insulting my intelligence. Why bother to go into the detail of explaining the leprechaun if you don't think I understand?

My argument isn't that you don't need a reason to believe in God. My argument is that you need a reason to hold the belief that you currently have.
Reasons that aren't based on logic and reason alone but rather influenced by how you feel.

 

[That Dude]

Just because God means something to you doesn't mean it means anything to anyone else. You're just as guilty for insulting us by inferring God.

Do you think we should be allowed to be insulted by your beliefs just as you are by ours?

Difference is, I stepped into this thread to defend my beliefs.
Show me where I started a thread that forced you to do the same.
Then show me where I made assumptions about your motives. Like you have mine.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Depends on who you're talking to. If you're talking to a Christian then you insult them with the leprechaun analogy. If you didn't understand this, you wouldn't have asked the question I quoted above.

I'm not saying that you don't have reasons for not believing, but to make the assumption that I don't think you do is insulting my intelligence. Why bother to go into the detail of explaining the leprechaun if you don't think I understand?

My argument isn't that you don't need a reason to believe in God. My argument is that you need a reason to hold the belief that you currently have.
Reasons that aren't based on logic and reason alone but rather influenced by how you feel.

If that's the case, then how is it insulting to compare belief in leprechauns to belief in God? If someone feels strongly about leprechauns existing, they have just as much justification for their belief in leprechauns as you do for your belief in God. That's the point of the analogy. As an atheist, I see no difference between a strong and profound belief in God and a strong and profound belief in leprechauns. The fact that you find this insulting only indicates to me that you are willing to be selective in what beliefs you consider genuine and what beliefs you consider ridiculous, while refusing to acknowledge that belief in God and belief in leprechauns are largely indistinguishable.

Sorry if you think that's an insult, but unless you demonstrate that your belief is either more rational or more truthful than belief in leprechauns, the analogy is accurate and the fact that you are insulted by it only indicates a certain degree of hypocrisy on your part.

 

[That Dude]

If that's the case, then how is it insulting to compare belief in leprechauns to belief in God? If someone feels strongly about leprechauns existing, they have just as much justification for their belief in leprechauns as you do for your belief in God. That's the point of the analogy. As an atheist, I see no difference between a strong and profound belief in God and a strong and profound belief in leprechauns.

You didn't read what I said.
I understood this already. The "fact" that you automatically assume that I dont (even after I've explained once already) understand this, is insulting.
The fact that you need to explain this in and of itself is insulting my intelligence. lol
While I do find God being compared to a leprechaun insulting, that isn't what I was saying.
What I was saying, is, the very idea that you came into a conversation with me thinking that you needed to use the leprechaun analogy to begin with, means that you were making uneducated guesses at what I did and did not understand.

Sorry if you think that's an insult, but unless you demonstrate that your belief is either more rational or more truthful than belief in leprechauns, the analogy is accurate and the fact that you are insulted by it only indicates a certain degree of hypocrisy on your part.

O.K. but had you actually read my last post, you would have seen why I was insulted.
And after seeing this post, I think I know who the hypocritical one is here.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You didn't read what I said.
I understood this already. The "fact" that you automatically assume that I dont (even after I've explained once already) understand this, is insulting.
The fact that you need to explain this in and of itself is insulting my intelligence. lol
While I do find God being compared to a leprechaun insulting, that isn't what I was saying.
What I was saying, is, the very idea that you came into a conversation with me thinking that you needed to use the leprechaun analogy to begin with, means that you were making uneducated guesses at what I did and did not understand.

I'm actually asking you to define what differentiates belief in God with belief in leprechauns. It's all well and good stating that you understand the analogy, but have you actually got a response to it?

O.K. but had you actually read my last post, you would have seen why I was insulted.
And after seeing this post, I think I know who the hypocritical one is here.

Again, I'm sorry if you're insulted, but I've asked you the same question about two or three times now and all you've done is tell me how insulted you are by me asking it. Can you actually answer it?

 

[That Dude]

I'm actually asking you to define what differentiates belief in God with belief in leprechauns. It's all well and good stating that you understand the analogy, but have you actually got a response to it?

I explained that.
To you there is none. But to me there is.

Again, I'm sorry if you're insulted, but I've asked you the same question about two or three times now and all you've done is tell me how insulted you are by me asking it. Can you actually answer it?

No actually, you said I was a hypocrite because I favored my own beliefs more then someone else' belief in a leprechaun.

the analogy is accurate and the fact that you are insulted by it only indicates a certain degree of hypocrisy on your part.

But I guess I should ask why you felt I had a degree of hypocrisy, when my answer didn't have anything to do with my choice to believe in God and someone else' choice to believe in a leprechaun.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I explained that.
To you there is none. But to me there is.

And what is that difference?

No actually, you said I was a hypocrite because I favored my own beliefs more then someone else' belief in a leprechaun.

I said it was hypocritical to consider another person's beliefs, regardless of their own justification and how they feel, being compared to your own is somehow personally insulting. To you, the idea of believing in leprechauns is so unreal and absurd that you find it insulting to have such a belief compared to your own beliefs, and yet you hold beliefs that are no more rational or realistic (from my point of view). That indicates, to me, a certain degree of hypocrisy because you're willing to say that it's okay to believe what you believe for what ever reason, but not okay for someone with the same reasons to believe something you don't believe.

But I guess I should ask why you felt I had a degree of hypocrisy, when my answer didn't have anything to do with my choice to believe in God and someone else' choice to believe in a leprechaun.

It was to do with what you said earlier about being insulted by the comparison, because you felt your beliefs were more justified than theirs. I think that's a hypocritical stance to take considering you later went on to say that you justify your beliefs based on personal experiences and feelings, whereas the same justification applied to something you would otherwise find absurd elicits a strong negative response from you.

 

[Josnic]

Atheism is just an odd belief in and of itself.

 

[Hawkins]

That God is going to reveal himself to us just in time to send us to hell?

What I mean by this is apparently God remains an invisible being all of our lives and then when we die.... BAM, "Hey God, Did I believe in you hard enough to go to heaven?" Of course God answers that no, an atheist didn't believe hard enough to go to heaven and then proceeds to backhand us into hell, which he didn't want to send us too, but somehow we end up their without his permission? Or something?

Do Christians really believe this? Doesn't that seem rather...... silly?

Your own understanding of Christianity is rather shallow. Thus base off your limited understanding to draw the conclusion is a strawman argument.


By the current covenant in effect, you need faith to be saved. That is, if God show up in front of you, you can no longer be saved as you'll fail to deliver your faith as required by the covenant.

Christianity is almost exclusively about Law.

You break the law you'll be sent to jail. You break God's Law you'll be sent to hell. Jesus Christ made a self-sacrifice and now even after you breaking His law, you only need to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved as specified by the New Covenant.

That's what Christianity is trying to save. Whether you choose to believe or not is out of my concern. Just try to point out that your understanding is simply incorrect.

 

[That Dude]

And what is that difference?

First off, let me start at the beginning, it might have been lost in all this confusion.
I said, you need to be sincere about God and not hold a belief in him before you get proof he exist.
You say, "you need evidence, or proof that God exist"
I say, "you only need to be sincere for the briefest of moments to get proof"

My argument is that it's impossible for you to be sincere because of what you believe and that you only believe what you do because of how you feel.
So the difference is in how we've each been influenced. If you say, "you're only influenced by evidence"
I call foul because you became influenced to only need evidence in the first place over how you feel.

I said it was hypocritical to consider another person's beliefs, regardless of their own justification and how they feel, being compared to your own is somehow personally insulting. To you, the idea of believing in leprechauns is so unreal and absurd that you find it insulting to have such a belief compared to your own beliefs, and yet you hold beliefs that are no more rational or realistic (from my point of view). That indicates, to me, a certain degree of hypocrisy because you're willing to say that it's okay to believe what you believe for what ever reason, but not okay for someone with the same reasons to believe something you don't believe.

Yeah and for the 3rd time now, that's not the explanation I gave for being insulted. lol
Your understanding of why I said I was insulted is incorrect.

It was to do with what you said earlier about being insulted by the comparison, because you felt your beliefs were more justified than theirs.

False! Wrong! Incorrect! I call foul SIR!!!
That is NOT WHY I SAID I WAS INSULTED. haha
Did you see it that time? lol

I think that's a hypocritical stance to take considering you later went on to say that you justify your beliefs based on personal experiences and feelings, whereas the same justification applied to something you would otherwise find absurd elicits a strong negative response from you.

Last time.
I admit that I find comparing God to a leprechaun is insulting.
BUT!!! I DID NOT say that was why I said I was insulted.
I said, you misjudged my ability to understand that you need proof or evidence in the first place and by default used the leprechaun analogy before even trying a different method that would suggest I was capable of understanding an analogy that met with a higher standard of intelligence.

 

[Sweetvoice]

Your own understanding of Christianity is rather shallow. Thus base off your limited understanding to draw the conclusion is a strawman argument.


By the current covenant in effect, you need faith to be saved. That is, if God show up in front of you, you can no longer be saved as you'll fail to deliver your faith as required by the covenant.

Christianity is almost exclusively about Law.

You break the law you'll be sent to jail. You break God's Law you'll be sent to hell. Jesus Christ made a self-sacrifice and now even after you breaking His law, you only need to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved as specified by the New Covenant.

That's what Christianity is trying to save. Whether you choose to believe or not is out of my concern. Just try to point out that your understanding is simply incorrect.

By this "current convenant," would you then agreed that the old testatment is invalid, and maybe even its teachings were all incorrect?
The current convenant only requires one to believe in Jesus Christ (him or what of him?) will ensure a place in heaven, regardless of one's moral actions in life. Sounds like a too easy deal - must be a catch here.

 

[Hawkins]

By this "current convenant," would you then agreed that the old testatment is invalid, and maybe even its teachings were all incorrect?
The current convenant only requires one to believe in Jesus Christ (him or what of him?) will ensure a place in heaven, regardless of one's moral actions in life. Sounds like a too easy deal - must be a catch here.

Again, this is yet another total misunderstanding of what a covenent is.

A covenant is to frame a scope of Law for humans to obey or to follow. The main part of the older covenant just specifies that the Jews need to follow the Mosaic Law. The mosaic Law itself will remain valid till the judgment day where the Jews will be judged in accordance to the Mosaic Law as the Jews are under the older covenant.

 

[Sweetvoice]

Again, this is yet another total misunderstanding of what a covenent is.

A covenant is to frame a scope of Law for humans to obey or to follow. The main part of the older covenant just specifies that the Jews need to follow the Mosaic Law. The mosaic Law itself will remain valid till the judgment day where the Jews will be judged in accordance to the Mosaic Law as the Jews are under the older covenant.

Will the present day jews be subject only to the mosaic law, and all other humans on earth be subject to the NT laws?

 

[Hawkins]

Will the present day jews be subject only to the mosaic law, and all other humans on earth be subject to the NT laws?

The Jews (perhaps Gentiles also) can be beneficial to whatever best protect them in the final judgment. If the Mosaic Law can best protect a Jew, then he's under the Mosaic Law. If he chooses to give up Mosaic Law, he's under the Law in heart. In the end, if he chooses to believe in Jesus Christ, he will be protected by the New Covenant.

 

[Blackdog22]

Your own understanding of Christianity is rather shallow. Thus base off your limited understanding to draw the conclusion is a strawman argument.


By the current covenant in effect, you need faith to be saved. That is, if God show up in front of you, you can no longer be saved as you'll fail to deliver your faith as required by the covenant.

Christianity is almost exclusively about Law.

You break the law you'll be sent to jail. You break God's Law you'll be sent to hell. Jesus Christ made a self-sacrifice and now even after you breaking His law, you only need to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved as specified by the New Covenant.

That's what Christianity is trying to save. Whether you choose to believe or not is out of my concern. Just try to point out that your understanding is simply incorrect.

So how was what I said wrong again? It sounds like you restated my original position to the T. God remains invisible to us, because he requires faith, and then when you actually see God it is considered too late ,and now that you can make an informed decision about his existence, you are sent to hell. I don't see the difference in what you posted and what I posted. Perhaps you could make it clearer?

I also have a question that I can't ignore. You say that once God shows up to us we can no longer give him the satisfaction of faith thus we are not saved and go to hell. If my understanding is correct then do you assume the disciples, aaron, moses, noah, David, etc all went to hell? If seeing is a death sentence because faith is the only thing God cares about (why does he care if we believe something unprovable anyways?) then these people would have been sent to hell, but they weren't according to the Bible. How do you rationalize this?

Also, do you send people to be tortured based on whether they believe in you? For example, you write a letter to someone in Spain. You claim you are divine and this person must believe you. You eventually go to Spain and ask the man whether he thought you were divine. The man responds he had forgotten about you over the years and didn't know whether he thought you were divine or not. In this scenerio is it justifiable to murder the man? If you choose to spare the mans life then does that prove you are more moral than God? If it doesn't then why not?

 

[Hawkins]

So how was what I said wrong again? It sounds like you restated my original position to the T. God remains invisible to us, because he requires faith, and then when you actually see God it is considered too late ,and now that you can make an informed decision about his existence, you are sent to hell. I don't see the difference in what you posted and what I posted. Perhaps you could make it clearer?

You don't seem to get the point that you go to hell because you break His Law. Faith is just required as a Grace. You have faith in Christ then you are entitled to such a gift out of grace. Else you are subject to the FAIR Law's judgment.

I also have a question that I can't ignore. You say that once God shows up to us we can no longer give him the satisfaction of faith thus we are not saved and go to hell. If my understanding is correct then do you assume the disciples, aaron, moses, noah, David, etc all went to hell? If seeing is a death sentence because faith is the only thing God cares about (why does he care if we believe something unprovable anyways?) then these people would have been sent to hell, but they weren't according to the Bible. How do you rationalize this?

How do you know that they broke the Law? It's only up to God to judge.

 

[waitasec]

If seeing is a death sentence because faith is the only thing God cares about (why does he care if we believe something unprovable anyways?) then these people would have been sent to hell, but they weren't according to the Bible. How do you rationalize this?

god has favorites...

 

[Blackdog22]

False! Wrong! Incorrect! I call foul SIR!!!
That is NOT WHY I SAID I WAS INSULTED. haha
Did you see it that time? lol

Okay, you claimed that just the demonstration of the leprechaun analogy insulted your intelligence? Is that correct? If so then am I not allowed to explain analogies, for my own sake of argument, without you being offended? Exactly what analogy would I need to post, that wouldn't offend you, that involves unprovable beings? If just speaking of the analogy offends you then please try not to be so offended. We are merely discussing things and no one here thinks your an idiot.