Seems legit.

Man that was bad..

@shinyblurry

So is this an accurate description? Or is your version of god more/less "just".

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@shinyblurry
So is this an accurate description? Or is your version of god more/less "just".


This video is short on theology and big on popular atheist misconceptions about Christianity and the bible.

This is the justice of God:

Psalm 89:14

Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face

The foundation of Gods throne is righteousness. Most people like to think of themselves as good people, because in comparison to others, they are more compassionate, do more good works, etc. They think of themselves as having good intentions, even if their conduct has been imperfect.

Gods standard of good is much higher than ours; moral perfection. He doesn't consider moral imperfection with good intentions to be good; He considers it to be evil. He has also ordained that the wages of our sin is death. Because we have all sinned and fallen short, we are all guilty and headed for punishment.

God, however, doesn't want to punish anyone. He is longsuffering towards us and desires that all would come to repentance. On one hand, His justice requires that the law be enforced, but on the other He desires to be merciful to us and forgive us. What is God to do?

To solve this conflict between justice and mercy, God sent His only Son to Earth, to act as our substitute and take the punishment that we deserve for our sins. He lived a perfect life, without sin, and was qualified to atone for the sins of the world. He paid the price for all sin on the cross, and made the way of reconciliation with God. Therefore, all who repent of their sins and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ, will have their sins forgiven, and also obtain eternal life.

Those who refuse to repent and change their ways will be punished. Hell was not created for human beings, but those who wish to follow the ways of the devil instead of God will be eternally punished along with him in hell.

To say that someone would end up in hell for a lack of evidence is incorrect. God makes it plain to everyone what He requires of us, and if He hasn't made it plain to you yet, He will. You are only held accountable to the amount of revelation you have received. People do not go to hell because of a lack of evidence, they go to hell because they love their sin more than the truth and refuse to repent.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@shinyblurry
So is this an accurate description? Or is your version of god more/less "just".

This video is short on theology and big on popular atheist misconceptions about Christianity and the bible.
This is the justice of God:
Psalm 89:14
Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face
The foundation of Gods throne is righteousness. Most people like to think of themselves as good people, because in comparison to others, they are more compassionate, do more good works, etc. They think of themselves as having good intentions, even if their conduct has been imperfect.
Gods standard of good is much higher than ours; moral perfection. He doesn't consider moral imperfection with good intentions to be good; He considers it to be evil. He has also ordained that the wages of our sin is death. Because we have all sinned and fallen short, we are all guilty and headed for punishment.
God, however, doesn't want to punish anyone. He is longsuffering towards us and desires that all would come to repentance. On one hand, His justice requires that the law be enforced, but on the other He desires to be merciful to us and forgive us. What is God to do?
To solve this conflict between justice and mercy, God sent His only Son to Earth, to act as our substitute and take the punishment that we deserve for our sins. He lived a perfect life, without sin, and was qualified to atone for the sins of the world. He paid the price for all sin on the cross, and made the way of reconciliation with God. Therefore, all who repent of their sins and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ, will have their sins forgiven, and also obtain eternal life.
Those who refuse to repent and change their ways will be punished. Hell was not created for human beings, but those who wish to follow the ways of the devil instead of God will be eternally punished along with him in hell.
To say that someone would end up in hell for a lack of evidence is incorrect. God makes it plain to everyone what He requires of us, and if He hasn't made it plain to you yet, He will. You are only held accountable to the amount of revelation you have received. People do not go to hell because of a lack of evidence, they go to hell because they love their sin more than the truth and refuse to repent.

I leave it to others to read your diatribe and see for themselves that you actually concur with the video. Suffice to say; "Believe in me, and be saved. Or, reject me, and burn in hell for eternity." Why anyone would choose to be a slave to such a sick concept is beyond rational, free thinking, educated, 21st century humans. Here is another sick concept; A person can be good all his life but still damned for eternity for not accepting god. Yet a murderer, rapist etc, will be accepted into heaven if he repents and takes god as his saviour. God/gods are man made, if you cannot see that, you are a lazy thinker who does not deserve the brain nature bestowed on you.

She has the voice and the attitude of a dominatrix....not that I know about that kinda stuff.

>> ^A10anis:
I leave it to others to read your diatribe and see for themselves that you actually concur with the video. Suffice to say; "Believe in me, and be saved. Or, reject me, and burn in hell for eternity." Why anyone would choose to be a slave to such a sick concept is beyond rational, free thinking, educated, 21st century humans. Here is another sick concept; A person can be good all his life but still damned for eternity for not accepting god. Yet a murderer, rapist etc, will be accepted into heaven if he repents and takes god as his saviour. God/gods are man made, if you cannot see that, you are a lazy thinker who does not deserve the brain nature bestowed on you.


If you could remove the blinders you have on then you would see that what I said is quite different than what the video maintains. I'll leave it to those who are interested in the truth to see what that difference is. You are actually the perfect example of what I was talking about; someone who has been given revelation but refuses to repent. You had an out of body experience and you know you have a spirit, yet you irrationally remain an atheist because you don't want to face the music. You know in your heart there is a God, but you deny Him because you don't want to change.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^A10anis:
I leave it to others to read your diatribe and see for themselves that you actually concur with the video. Suffice to say; "Believe in me, and be saved. Or, reject me, and burn in hell for eternity." Why anyone would choose to be a slave to such a sick concept is beyond rational, free thinking, educated, 21st century humans. Here is another sick concept; A person can be good all his life but still damned for eternity for not accepting god. Yet a murderer, rapist etc, will be accepted into heaven if he repents and takes god as his saviour. God/gods are man made, if you cannot see that, you are a lazy thinker who does not deserve the brain nature bestowed on you.

If you could remove the blinders you have on then you would see that what I said is quite different than what the video maintains. I'll leave it to those who are interested in the truth to see what that difference is. You are actually the perfect example of what I was talking about; someone who has been given revelation but refuses to repent. You had an out of body experience and you know you have a spirit, yet you irrationally remain an atheist because you don't want to face the music. You know in your heart there is a God, but you deny Him because you don't want to change.

The video points out; "believe or go to hell." Your own words say; "repent or be eternally punished." Sorry, I don't have "blinders" on, they ARE the same sentiment. As for truth; faith is NOT truth, it is blind hope and has no basis. No, I have not had a revelation, nor do I need to repent. I think of myself as a caring, decent, thoughtful human, and that is ALL one can try to be. Your assumption that atheists are irrational is amusing considering that ALL faiths are based upon irrational, illogical, contradictory myth from the bronze age. Finally, I don't deny god because I don't want change. I deny god because I live in the real world where thoughts of a psychotic deity, who wants nothing but praise for eternity, are childish. Please, feel free to be a brainwashed slave in private, but leave the rest of us, including politics and schools, out of it.

The video points out; "believe or go to hell." Your own words say; "repent or be eternally punished." Sorry, I don't have "blinders" on, they ARE the same sentiment.

No, they are not. The sentiment of the video is that you go to hell because you didn't believe in something that had insufficient evidence. What scripture says is that everyone is given sufficient evidence and that the people who refuse to stop doing evil are the ones who are punished. Much like the criminal who hits the third strike on the three strikes and you're out law. It also says that you are not held accountable to revelation you did not receive. It is not a lack of belief that is the problem, is a deliberate denial.

As for truth; faith is NOT truth, it is blind hope and has no basis.

You are very confused about the definition of faith. For instance, you have faith that the physical world is real and that there are other minds than your own; can you prove either of those with empirical evidence? Faith is not "blind" hope; faith is based on evidence, but not absolute proof. God has made promises which haven't happened yet; so they cannot be absolutely proven. I have faith that they will come to pass. You don't need absolute proof to believe something, or someone. If you are married, while you might not have absolute proof of your wifes fidelity, you have faith that she will not cheat on you. In the same way, I trust that Gods words are true.


No, I have not had a revelation, nor do I need to repent.

You have already admitted you have had a revelation; you know you have a spirit, that there is a spiritual reality, and that logically God gave you that spirit. You are in denial. You have a choice to repent, but you will face judgment for your sins.

I think of myself as a caring, decent, thoughtful human, and that is ALL one can try to be.

How many times would you say you've broken the 10 commandments? In the low thousands? Trying to be good doesn't make you good.

Your assumption that atheists are irrational is amusing considering that ALL faiths are based upon irrational, illogical, contradictory myth from the bronze age.

What I said is irrational is to deny the evidence you have been given in favor of continuing to live as you please. You prefer your personal autonomy to the truth.

Finally, I don't deny god because I don't want change. I deny god because I live in the real world where thoughts of a psychotic deity, who wants nothing but praise for eternity, are childish. Please, feel free to be a brainwashed slave in private, but leave the rest of us, including politics and schools, out of it.

God is worthy of our praise, but that isn't all God wants from us. God desires relationship with us, and for you to know His love. You have no idea how deeply God loves you, or even why you're here. You've said it yourself: you deny God, and that is irrational. You support your denial with this mischaracterization you have of God in your mind, supported by fallacious ideas from other atheists such as from this video, one that is convenient for your denial and has prevented you from actually learning the truth about God.

Let me ask you this question. If God is undeniably perfect as I claim, would you repent from your sins and turn your life over to Him?

>> ^A10anis:
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^A10anis:
I leave it to others to read your diatribe and see for themselves that you actually concur with the video. Suffice to say; "Believe in me, and be saved. Or, reject me, and burn in hell for eternity." Why anyone would choose to be a slave to such a sick concept is beyond rational, free thinking, educated, 21st century humans. Here is another sick concept; A person can be good all his life but still damned for eternity for not accepting god. Yet a murderer, rapist etc, will be accepted into heaven if he repents and takes god as his saviour. God/gods are man made, if you cannot see that, you are a lazy thinker who does not deserve the brain nature bestowed on you.

If you could remove the blinders you have on then you would see that what I said is quite different than what the video maintains. I'll leave it to those who are interested in the truth to see what that difference is. You are actually the perfect example of what I was talking about; someone who has been given revelation but refuses to repent. You had an out of body experience and you know you have a spirit, yet you irrationally remain an atheist because you don't want to face the music. You know in your heart there is a God, but you deny Him because you don't want to change.

The video points out; "believe or go to hell." Your own words say; "repent or be eternally punished." Sorry, I don't have "blinders" on, they ARE the same sentiment. As for truth; faith is NOT truth, it is blind hope and has no basis. No, I have not had a revelation, nor do I need to repent. I think of myself as a caring, decent, thoughtful human, and that is ALL one can try to be. Your assumption that atheists are irrational is amusing considering that ALL faiths are based upon irrational, illogical, contradictory myth from the bronze age. Finally, I don't deny god because I don't want change. I deny god because I live in the real world where thoughts of a psychotic deity, who wants nothing but praise for eternity, are childish. Please, feel free to be a brainwashed slave in private, but leave the rest of us, including politics and schools, out of it.

If God can't figure out a better way to explain shit and get people into heaven than this clusterfuck, then he's an idiot.

Re the vid, that man took those flames pretty well.. they merely made him darker. I'll sign up to hell for a nice tan, that and the music will be better.

Re a point @shinyblurry made in conversation with @A10anis


Faith isn't based on evidence, it's based on a reason to believe.

A reason to believe does not require evidence and in these cases, these beliefs are called assumptions.

An assumption is based on either a reason to believe (or not to believe), or alternatively based on no reason to believe (or no reason not to believe in the cases of "the physical world is real" or "there are other minds than your own").

Assumptions are incredibly important to humans to help us more quickly navigate our way through situations where perfectly reliable understandings are not currently available due to a lack of evidence.

Humans make 10,000's of prominent assumptions a day about the most basic things in life.

Example: When you sit on a seat in your house, you do not know if someone had sneaked in and placed a bomb under it when you weren't watching. At the time when you go to sit, you are taking the assumption that the seat is safe to sit on. In this case the likely reason to either believe in safety or not believe in danger is likely either based on the comfort of feeling your home is secure or not feeling someone wanting to harm you. You do not gain evidence to support the belief/assumption of the seat being safe until after you have sat down, whereby you would then gain additional reason to believe.. reason based on evidence and no longer being a faith/assumption.

A belief in a God or Gods is an assumption. If it were anything but, then reasons for said belief would be definable and to a reliably testable degree and could therefore be acknowledged by the scientific community as a whole.
To date, the only reliably testable definition of a positive reason to believe in God or Gods is comfort.

The amount of how much someone personally believes/assumes the seat is safe (or God exists) based on no actual/reliable (as in testable) evidence, is of no relevance. The belief is an assumption. Calling an unsubstantiated belief 'faith' in an attempt to define it as having some additional degree of value beyond a common assumption, is a disingenuous tactic used to persuade people of there being a stability to the belief that simply doesn't exist.

In cases where someone has received some personal 'evidence' (in this statement I'm entertaining the idea of an actual evidence, i.e. such as God physically hanging out with you whereby no one was there to witness it), this is equivalent to my asking you "is that seat safe to sit in" whereby you reply "yeah, I sat in it". I may now have additional reason to assume the seat to be safe, but still no actual evidence.. and on this basis, to think that i should then have safe feeling or willingness to sit, would be missing my overall point. i.e. Stories further building on assumptions/faith are not necessarily reliable points to change ones belief on.

Also A10anis's comment re 'blind hope' holds much greater and defensible substance than referring to biblical writings as 'truth' or pushing the concept that 'faith' (being an assumption) is a grand thing that should be respected or valued. Although I'd rephrase 'blind hope' as 'unsubstantiated belief'. I used to call it 'blind hope' because it made the point pretty well in short discussions, but when speaking to someone who'll actually engage in longer discussions it's better to use more defensible terms.

>> ^shinyblurry:
Faith is not "blind" hope; faith is based on evidence, but not absolute proof.

^ Faith is an assumption.

>> ^A10anis:
As for truth; faith is NOT truth, it is blind hope and has no basis.

^ Spot on.

I've always thought of the time element when I hear of eternal life or damnation. It just doesn't seem fair that you have, say, 100 years of life on this earth to make up your mind. Make a statement that will impact you for an infinite length of time.

I think I see. So, the issue you have is not that the Bible says, "believe or burn". It is that you have "faith", or you want to believe, what scripture tells you, in respect to everyone receiving evidence for God. Furthermore, you believe that you have received this evidence, whatever it may be, and it was/is real and sufficient enough for you to accept it as truth. Therefore, it confirms your belief in what the scripture tells you. Perhaps you received what you perceive as the evidence first, which led to revelation, I don't know. Of course, you seem to accept that if you had rejected the evidence you were supposedly given, then you would burn in Hell. Which really is just restating what the video said, except that you are placing the blame on people for rejecting what you see, and the bible states, as clear evidence, and not placing the blame on the actual rule-set given for accepting this so-called evidence for revelation. I think it is the rule-set that people have a problem with, but from your perspective, the rules are divine and infallible, and so any eternal punishment is the fault of those who deny and disobey the rules.

I do not know what you consider to be this "evidence", and I'm sure there are many other 80 post threads about it, but I respectfully(?) disagree that anyone receives any credible "evidence" that is sufficient enough to warrant giving one's life over to a religion without there being some amount of willful self-delusion, and desire for it to be true (faith). And there's certainly not enough to justify religious folk requiring the rest of us to conform to religious rules. From our perspective, without evidence, there is no reason for us to believe that these rules are divine and good. As they are written they are just base and ugly. This, I think, is where we differ.

Sometimes I really enjoy atheist make poor points about something they don't understand. Those things being the Christian God, Chrisitianity as a whole, and pretty much anything Chrisitian. Man I'll tell you for a group that doesn't believe in something they sure spend alot of time trying to prove to others that it doesn't exsist. Wouldn't simply ignoring all of us Christians make a better point. Keep trying though...Maybe next time you'll convence everyone. =)

Lol @shinyblurry

So..

Yahweh punished Jesus the only person not deserving punishment..
..in order to avoid punishing all sinners.. who actually deserve punishment..

..unless of course you don't believe/accept Jesus was punished for your sins.. in that case, Yahweh will punish you regardless?!

..all because Yahweh really doesn't want to punish anyone? [but himself who is jesus?] o_O?!

Yeeeah, because that makes sense. Oh, but i guess "moral" sense is much different than rational sense.

*cough cough* batshit crazy *cough*

@jncross

Um.. it's "christians" who are always interjecting themselves and their cultist beliefs into the lives of non-religious folks.

I'd love to ignore you crazy bastards but:

You're the ones always ringin' my doorbell at 8 am on a saturday handing me flyers about how i'm a sinner.

You're the ones always forcing your cultist beliefs into public education and scientific discussions.

You're the ones always insisting that christianity be the one and only cult recognized by government.


It's pretty difficult to ignore someone or something that constantly in your business telling you how shitty a person you are for not believing their crazy backwardass mythology.

>> ^jncross:

Sometimes I really enjoy atheist make poor points about something they don't understand. Those things being the Christian God, Chrisitianity as a whole, and pretty much anything Chrisitian. Man I'll tell you for a group that doesn't believe in something they sure spend alot of time trying to prove to others that it doesn't exsist. Wouldn't simply ignoring all of us Christians make a better point. Keep trying though...Maybe next time you'll convence everyone. =)


I'm pretty sure that I, nor anyone else can't prove God that doesn't exist any more than you can't prove to me the unicorns, leprechauns, or fairies don't exist.

This is a tired old argument that theists use over and over again. Find something new for science's sake!

Absolutely not, why would a person do that?
First off, He isn't real so your question makes no sense to a sane person.
Second, If some entity showed up on our doorstep and fulfilled the definition of perfect, I'd congratulate him on his/her perfectness. (what a sad life that would be).Then I would berate said person for bragging and rubbing it in everyone's face. Then I would continue on with my life.
Why would I change who I am or give anything of myself to he who may already have it all (as is claimed).

I will forever wonder at the concept of worship. Why some people need to lay themselves at someone else's feet like undeserving dogs is beyond me.
>> ^shinyblurry:

Let me ask you this question. If God is undeniably perfect as I claim, would you repent from your sins and turn your life over to Him?

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^jncross:
Sometimes I really enjoy atheist make poor points about something they don't understand. Those things being the Christian God, Chrisitianity as a whole, and pretty much anything Chrisitian. Man I'll tell you for a group that doesn't believe in something they sure spend alot of time trying to prove to others that it doesn't exsist. Wouldn't simply ignoring all of us Christians make a better point. Keep trying though...Maybe next time you'll convence everyone. =)

I'm pretty sure that I, nor anyone else can't prove God that doesn't exist any more than you can't prove to me the unicorns, leprechauns, or fairies don't exist.
This is a tired old argument that theists use over and over again. Find something new for science's sake!


The point I was making was not to prove anything, but simply show how stupid this video was. As far as I'm concerned I could careless if you believe in my God. The point is I do, and this was offensive and stupid. Someone went out of their way to make a complete joke out of Christianity. There is no point in showing ignorance other than just to be ignorant. By the way you speak of science as if they have all the answers yet I ask this question. Could what we call science infact be God's way of giving humanity a peak into the world around us so that we aren't all just walking around like cavemen still?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@jncross
Um.. it's "christians" who are always interjecting themselves and their cultist beliefs into the lives of non-religious folks.
I'd love to ignore you crazy bastards but:
You're the ones always ringin' my doorbell at 8 am on a saturday handing me flyers about how i'm a sinner.
You're the ones always forcing your cultist beliefs into public education and scientific discussions.
You're the ones always insisting that christianity be the one and only cult recognized by government.

It's pretty difficult to ignore someone or something that constantly in your business telling you how shitty a person you are for not believing their crazy backwardass mythology.


I'm sure it's easy for non Christians to say that we are always the one picking the fight. Just as a couple of brothers would point at each other and say "HE STARTED IT!" All I can say is I believe in God and if that doesn't suit you...Fine, but that doesn't change the fact that this video is nothing but people mocking God because they felt like it. I'm sure some Christians have done wrong in the past and they are way over doing things. Yet all I can say is that we are not all like that and some if not most of us are more willing to live and let live if both extreme sides would knock it off. You don't have to believe what I believe all I ask is that you let me practice that belief in any setting I want. One thing I notice is the people that don't understand Chrisitianity are also the people that lump us all in one group. Every group, minority, or religion has a few nuts and Christians are no exception. Once again though I don't care if you believe in what I believe in I just wanted to say that the people that made this video are basically no better than the same people that call you a sinner, or force Christiantiy in your face, and insist the Christian way of life is the only way. My point was simple all you have to do is turn and walk away and don't give them another thought. That would make a better point than trying to tell us that we are wrong. Because frankly we don't care if you think we are wrong because we think the same about you. So we are in a forever tug of war and trust me neither of us will ever win until our last days and the proof is in front of us. Either you are right and nothing happens when we die or we are right and we are judged by God.

>> ^jncross:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^jncross:
Sometimes I really enjoy atheist make poor points about something they don't understand. Those things being the Christian God, Chrisitianity as a whole, and pretty much anything Chrisitian. Man I'll tell you for a group that doesn't believe in something they sure spend alot of time trying to prove to others that it doesn't exsist. Wouldn't simply ignoring all of us Christians make a better point. Keep trying though...Maybe next time you'll convence everyone. =)

I'm pretty sure that I, nor anyone else can't prove God that doesn't exist any more than you can't prove to me the unicorns, leprechauns, or fairies don't exist.
This is a tired old argument that theists use over and over again. Find something new for science's sake!

The point I was making was not to prove anything, but simply show how stupid this video was. As far as I'm concerned I could careless if you believe in my God. The point is I do, and this was offensive and stupid. Someone went out of their way to make a complete joke out of Christianity. There is no point in showing ignorance other than just to be ignorant. By the way you speak of science as if they have all the answers yet I ask this question. Could what we call science infact be God's way of giving humanity a peak into the world around us so that we aren't all just walking around like cavemen still?


You knew coming in it would be offensive to you. So how about you take some of your own advice and simply walk away, and/or just not watch these types of videos at all. Then you won't be offended by them. And as far as being offended goes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tn2EhGK5ok

By the way, where in my comment did I speak of science having all the answers? Please point that out to me.

Jeebus freaks and their beliefs crack me up.

Faith isn't based on evidence, it's based on a reason to believe.

Which is your assumption, based on your presupposition that there is no God. You assume that there is no God to provide any evidence, therefore you cannot believe that anyone has any legitimate reason for believing in God, but rather they cling to it because it comforts them and thus are prone to delusion. Does this sum up your position?

This is the biblical definition of faith:

Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen

If you can admit, theoretically, that if God exists, He can provide undeniable evidence to anyone He chooses, then you can understand that a Christian is not basing His faith on an assumption:

2 Corinthians 1:22-23

Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come

Every born again Christian receives the Holy Spirit, which is an infallible proof of Gods truth and future promises. I do not base my faith on something I read in the bible; I base my faith on the real experience I have with God, and through that, comes my faith in the word of God as being absolute truth. An example:

Hebrews 11:3

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear

Meaning, we have faith that there is an unseen eternal realm in which God dwells, from which He created everything that currently exists. There is no empirical test which can prove this is true. It is something that could only be known by faith, a faith which I have because God has supernaturally transformed my life.

A belief in a God or Gods is an assumption. If it were anything but, then reasons for said belief would be definable and to a reliably testable degree and could therefore be acknowledged by the scientific community as a whole.

And that's your assumption, based on your philosophical presupposition of naturalistic materialism. It's really kind of an absurd idea to believe that you could point some instruments at God and validate His existence. Do you think science can force Gods hand to act? Or does not God control every atom and the minds of those doing the experiments?

To date, the only reliably testable definition of a positive reason to believe in God or Gods is comfort.

What test did you use to validate that these tests are reliable in the first place?

The amount of how much someone personally believes/assumes the seat is safe (or God exists) based on no actual/reliable (as in testable) evidence, is of no relevance. The belief is an assumption. Calling an unsubstantiated belief 'faith' in an attempt to define it as having some additional degree of value beyond a common assumption, is a disingenuous tactic used to persuade people of there being a stability to the belief that simply doesn't exist.

It's your assumption that faith is an unsubstantiated belief, based on your unsubstantiated belief that there is no God.

In cases where someone has received some personal 'evidence' (in this statement I'm entertaining the idea of an actual evidence, i.e. such as God physically hanging out with you whereby no one was there to witness it), this is equivalent to my asking you "is that seat safe to sit in" whereby you reply "yeah, I sat in it". I may now have additional reason to assume the seat to be safe, but still no actual evidence.. and on this basis, to think that i should then have safe feeling or willingness to sit, would be missing my overall point. i.e. Stories further building on assumptions/faith are not necessarily reliable points to change ones belief on.

No one can be argued into faith. Typically, someone trying to "prove" or "disprove" God is already miles away from the intellectual honesty required to understand the limitations of their own knowledge, and how their subjective biases color everything they believe. Only God can reveal Himself to someone; it is up to the individual to answer His call.

Also A10anis's comment re 'blind hope' holds much greater and defensible substance than referring to biblical writings as 'truth' or pushing the concept that 'faith' (being an assumption) is a grand thing that should be respected or valued. Although I'd rephrase 'blind hope' as 'unsubstantiated belief'. I used to call it 'blind hope' because it made the point pretty well in short discussions, but when speaking to someone who'll actually engage in longer discussions it's better to use more defensible terms.

According to you. Do you see how you are acting no different with your assumptions than what you say about the theist?

Just to note, I wouldn't believe in a "blind hope". I am not interested in what comforts me, I am interested in the truth. God claims that if you give your life to His Son, He will reveal Himself to you with undeniable evidence. I have found that claim to be true. I would also note that a theist could just as easily make the argument that atheists have blind faith there isn't a God because it comforts them that they will never have to face God on judgment day and account for the the things they have done.

>> ^Sepacore:>

>> ^oOPonyOo:

I've always thought of the time element when I hear of eternal life or damnation. It just doesn't seem fair that you have, say, 100 years of life on this earth to make up your mind. Make a statement that will impact you for an infinite length of time.


Why wouldn't it be enough time?

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. What scripture says that is everyone receives some kind of evidence that would lead that person to conclude that there is a God, or at the very least, push them enough in that direction to be led to Jesus Christ. It also says that rather than acknowledge it, some people suppress the truth God has revealed them because of sin. It is all too common that humans suppress the truth naturally and effortlessly when it reveals something which causes them discomfort.

Having received (supernatural) evidence that sufficiently proves to me that not only is there a God, but that His name is Jesus Christ, I have faith that all of this is true. I don't believe God is going to hold anyone accountable for revelation they did not receive. I have also spoken with many people who have been given such evidence, such as @A10anis, who was shown supernaturally that God spared Him in a car wreck, but still denies God and refuses to repent.

As far as the rules go, no Christian expects the unbeliever to obey them. We expect that you hate Gods rules and would avoid following them whenever possible, except where they match up with the general morality of the culture. The point isn't really about following the rules, when it comes to why you should accept Jesus Christ. The point is that everyone has broken these rules, and that come judgment day, God will find you guilty for breaking them unless you have repented and turned to the Savior for forgiveness. Jesus Christ came to bring reconciliation with God, and forgiveness for our sins, so we could have a meaningful and loving relationship with God. It is our sins that separate us from Him.

>> ^Sketch:

I think I see. So, the issue you have is not that the Bible says, "believe or burn". It is that you have "faith", or you want to believe, what scripture tells you, in respect to everyone receiving evidence for God. Furthermore, you believe that you have received this evidence, whatever it may be, and it was/is real and sufficient enough for you to accept it as truth. Therefore, it confirms your belief in what the scripture tells you. Perhaps you received what you perceive as the evidence first, which led to revelation, I don't know. Of course, you seem to accept that if you had rejected the evidence you were supposedly given, then you would burn in Hell. Which really is just restating what the video said, except that you are placing the blame on people for rejecting what you see, and the bible states, as clear evidence, and not placing the blame on the actual rule-set given for accepting this so-called evidence for revelation. I think it is the rule-set that people have a problem with, but from your perspective, the rules are divine and infallible, and so any eternal punishment is the fault of those who deny and disobey the rules.
I do not know what you consider to be this "evidence", and I'm sure there are many other 80 post threads about it, but I respectfully(?) disagree that anyone receives any credible "evidence" that is sufficient enough to warrant giving one's life over to a religion without there being some amount of willful self-delusion, and desire for it to be true (faith). And there's certainly not enough to justify religious folk requiring the rest of us to conform to religious rules. From our perspective, without evidence, there is no reason for us to believe that these rules are divine and good. As they are written they are just base and ugly. This, I think, is where we differ.

If God is perfect, then He is the source of the highest good, and He is perfect love. If the wonderful Creator of this Universe, the one who gave you life, who knows your entire life from start to finish, your most intimate thoughts and deeds, better than you do in fact, came to your door, you think you would have the superficial reaction that you have described? You think, with all you have done in life laid bare before Him, you would engage in some cynical dialogue with Him? If you're going to engage in a hypothetical then how about some realism? It's also irrational to say you wouldn't serve God if He revealed Himself to you.

What God wants for you is to repent of your sins, which means turn away from them, and believe in His Son. Through that comes love and forgiveness, as well as eternal life. God loves you anyway, but He wants you to know Him personally. You say, you have no idea why anyone would want to worship God, yet you have seen the glory of the Heavens He has created; if some being did create them, did in fact design this entire Universe, He certainly would be worthy of praise. Praise is something that comes natural to human beings, and we give it all the time for even trivial things. Why you wouldn't be grateful for what God has done and does do for you each and every day is the mystery. We are all built to worship, and it comes out in a myriad of ways if not directed towards our Creator. People worship money, power, celebrity, drugs, technology, themselves, etc. You have alters in your life that you make sacrifices to. What God wants is to adopt you into His family, as a son. God has a plentitude of being. God has no *need* of our worship. He has ordained it not just because He deserves it, but because worship is a natural expression of the joy, love, and gratitude we feel towards God, for the great things He has done and continues to do in our lives.

>> ^Sagemind:

Absolutely not, why would a person do that?
First off, He isn't real so your question makes no sense to a sane person.
Second, If some entity showed up on our doorstep and fulfilled the definition of perfect, I'd congratulate him on his/her perfectness. (what a sad life that would be).Then I would berate said person for bragging and rubbing it in everyone's face. Then I would continue on with my life.
Why would I change who I am or give anything of myself to he who may already have it all (as is claimed).
I will forever wonder at the concept of worship. Why some people need to lay themselves at someone else's feet like undeserving dogs is beyond me.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Let me ask you this question. If God is undeniably perfect as I claim, would you repent from your sins and turn your life over to Him?

@shinyblurry

Does this sum up your position?

^ No. I think you're getting lost in the gap between the types of evidences.

The twists and turns we make around 'evidence' can be clearly defined as either,
1. 'personal evidence' which is subjective and thus not subject to testing validity, and
2. 'scientific evidence' which is objective and thus is subject to testing validity.

You stand on a trump card that no one can ever take away if you simply refuse to let it be taken. I'm not going to argue whether or not you (or any Religious) genuinely feel/experience what you say you feel/experience whereby it provides you with subjective evidence, and I will instead take the assumption you do as i have little objective reason to state otherwise.. but at the same time I'm not going to give your provability-weak definition of 'evidence' (i.e. subjective) the same credit as i give to what i consider to be actual/public evidence, i.e. objective.

Note: when I speak about evidence without a specific definition on type of evidence, I'm speaking about the type that you can give to another human (usually a scientists within a relevant field) whereby they would, after a review, conclude that your evidence is supportable or not based on the results of predictions made in tests. I'll rarely include 'subjective evidences' in my term of the word 'evidence' as i would more likely refer to these as 'subjective experience'.

If you reread my post, taking into account that when i say evidence i refer only to public evidences, not personal ones that can't be substantiated by the public, i.e. me, then i think my points might become clearer as to why i say faith is an assumption. This is not including personal evidences and felt that I covered that sufficiently enough near the base of my previous post. The basic gist is: if you have personally experienced God, this is in no way a defensible evidence in a discussion requiring objective evidence.

Hence, you have a trump card, one that is only truly valued by yourself and easily discarded by others.


What test did you use to validate that these tests are reliable in the first place?

^ My statement is in relation to what is actually measurable, in this case stress level's is the better property to measure. How do i know if stress is being measured properly? The ability to predict the outcome prior to a test based on knowledge gained from previous tests relating to human behavior and chemical reactions giving clear indication that the results of the tests are based on something reliably true.


It's your assumption that faith is an unsubstantiated belief, based on your unsubstantiated belief that there is no God.

^ No, it's not.
It's my knowledge that the faith-claim or God-claim has been unsubstantiated to myself personally as well as others (based on hearing their testimonies and reasons for it being unsubstantiated for them). This is not an assumption on my behalf, you or other religious folk haven't proven anything to me, this I know.

Additionally I do not believe that 'there IS NO God' as a true Atheist, i claim to be an Atheist because it's easier to define my position quickly as I'm a pin prick away from being one. I very strongly doubt there is an intelligent-entity that cares about us based on biological and psychological survival drives such as the delusional properties of 'hope' and the chemical reactions that can occur in extreme scenarios having incredible benefits to over power paralytic levels of fear and keep us moving forward when logical-processing would hold us back or tell us to give up (these are live or die situations with extreme level's of emotion) combined with my thoughts of the statistical probability being unlikely due to both the sheer size of the universe compared to how small God's favorite pet is and that science can explain reasonable theories on how stars and planetary bodies formed.. among many other psychology based reasons.

I know nothing as to whether God definitively exists or not, to claim otherwise would be an intellectual failure as one wouldn't be taking into consideration that they may be so delusional to the point of not realizing they could be delusional. To which both extreme's are something to ridicule as there is a trump card for both sides.
Theist trump card: God never shows him/her/itself, so can not be disproved.
Atheist trump card: One's so delusional that they can't comprehend that they're suffering from a delusion.

PS: good on you for responding to all those posts, i like reading other peoples discussions about religion.

EDIT: comment on your reply to Sagemind "If God is perfect, then He is the source of the highest good, and He is perfect love", ok, but by that logic he is also the source of the highest bad, and He is perfect hate.
God stories involve good things yes, but they also involve bad things. To disregard all the bad because of some good is to review the subject lopsidedly. It is the combination of good and bad that would lead me to reply to God on my door step "Ok, now i believe you exist, but you're still a sociopath and i don't respect that given your incredible capability, why not be a humanitarian?.. and why give humans intelligence then condemn them for using it when they ask for reliably testable proof? ..please don't hurt me. Also if humans are made in your likeness, can you confirm to Christians that you do in fact have homosexual tendencies?".. naturally God would then proceed to kick my ass with his perfect love/hate.

If you reread my post, taking into account that when i say evidence i refer only to public evidences, not personal ones that can't be substantiated by the public, i.e. me, then i think my points might become clearer as to why i say faith is an assumption. This is not including personal evidences and felt that I covered that sufficiently enough near the base of my previous post. The basic gist is: if you have personally experienced God, this is in no way a defensible evidence in a discussion requiring objective evidence.

Hence, you have a trump card, one that is only truly valued by yourself and easily discarded by others.

Actually, no. The evidence I have (the internal witness of the Holy Spirit) is the result of a test of the validity of the claim that Jesus has risen from the dead. Jesus promised that after He had been raised from the dead that He would ascend to Heaven and send the Holy Spirit from the right hand of power to everyone who believes in Him. To receive the promised Holy Spirit is objective evidence of the validity of the claim of the resurrection, and Jesus' claim to be the Savior of the world. I cannot prove to you that this has happened to me, but it is something you can test on your own:

Which leads me to this:

It's my knowledge that the faith-claim or God-claim has been unsubstantiated to myself personally as well as others (based on hearing their testimonies and reasons for it being unsubstantiated for them). This is not an assumption on my behalf, you or other religious folk haven't proven anything to me, this I know.

What Jesus said is this:

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me

Jesus said there was no other way to know anything about God except through Him. So far, your experience precisely matches His claim. You have no seen no evidence of God what so ever. Therefore, if Jesus' claim is true, you shouldn't be surprised to find a lack of evidence of Gods existence; it is in fact exactly what you would expect to see. Yet, you erroneously use this as evidence to rule out Jesus' claims, when He Himself claimed this would be the case if you tried to know God by any other means except through Him. So therefore, you fail to do the one thing that would provide you evidence, not understanding that the lack of evidence you have encountered actually validates His claim.

Additionally I do not believe that 'there IS NO God' as a true Atheist, i claim to be an Atheist because it's easier to define my position quickly as I'm a pin prick away from being one.

I know nothing as to whether God definitively exists or not, to claim otherwise would be an intellectual failure as one wouldn't be taking into consideration that they may be so delusional to the point of not realizing they could be delusional. To which both extreme's are something to ridicule as there is a trump card for both sides.
Theist trump card: God never shows him/her/itself, so can not be disproved.
Atheist trump card: One's so delusional that they can't comprehend that they're suffering from a delusion.

If you are that close to being an atheist, what is the practical difference? To maintain a hairbreadth of uncertainty so as to hold the "intellectual honesty" card is actually intellectually dishonest I think, no offense. I don't think being certain and being a hairsbreadth away from certainty is really much different. Where is the genuine humility about the limited capacity of mans ability to reason and his subjective and biased experiences? If you think you are merely matter, why would you trust the chemicals in your brain to be able to rationally determine that? Have you pondered that everything is equally unlikely? How would you know you were looking at a Universe that wasn't designed?

I very strongly doubt there is an intelligent-entity that cares about us based on biological and psychological survival drives such as the delusional properties of 'hope' and the chemical reactions that can occur in extreme scenarios having incredible benefits to over power paralytic levels of fear and keep us moving forward when logical-processing would hold us back or tell us to give up (these are live or die situations with extreme level's of emotion)

This is the standard reply of the atheist (the theist is too scared to face the big bad universe so he makes up an invisible friend to comfort him) but it doesn't apply to me. I grew up without religion and was agnostic until I came to believe in God. I wasn't afraid of death (I was resigned to it happening at some point)..I came to God because I wanted to know what the truth is. I was prepared to die even after finding God.

combined with my thoughts of the statistical probability being unlikely due to both the sheer size of the universe compared to how small God's favorite pet is and that science can explain reasonable theories on how stars and planetary bodies formed.. among many other psychology based reasons.

The medulla oblongata is a relatively small part of the body but you could not live without it. The size of the Universe has nothing to do with the relative importance of Earth. Scripture never says either way whether there is life elsewhere, either.

If you've read up on big bang theory then you would understand that there are some gigantic fudge factors in it (such as cosmic inflation), and understanding of stellar evolution is actually very primitive. Even if scientists understood this perfectly, what does that actually prove? The question, as it relates to God is, why is it in existence in the first place?

Did you know that scientists must make fundamental assumptions, such as a uniformity in nature, to even do science? Can you answer why there is a uniformity in nature?

PS: good on you for responding to all those posts, i like reading other peoples discussions about religion.

I enjoy talking with you guys..I am interested in your POV. Most of all, I want you to know the love of God.

EDIT: comment on your reply to Sagemind "If God is perfect, then He is the source of the highest good, and He is perfect love", ok, but by that logic he is also the source of the highest bad, and He is perfect hate.

Scripture says differently:

1 John 1:5

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

It would be less perfect for God to be a mixture of good and evil versus being perfectly good.

God stories involve good things yes, but they also involve bad things. To disregard all the bad because of some good is to review the subject lopsidedly.

I'm aware that some like to pluck things out of context from the bible and call some of Gods judgments evil. An atheist calling God evil is par for the course, but the real question is, were His judgments just? Some atheists seem unable to think past a superficial level about the nature of God, and His role in creation.

For instance, God is the giver of life. He gives everyone a body and soul, air to breathe, water to drink, and He even upholds the atoms that comprise your being. Life is only possible because of what God is doing for you in this very moment, and every moment.

So, if this is true, why is it wrong for God to take it away, at the time of His choosing?

Let's say someone is doing something terribly evil, and causing many people to greatly suffer. The evil he is doing is going to cause many people to miss the boat on what God had planned for them. Is God wrong for judging this person and taking away his life to serve the greater good? Now lets say this is a nation, which is causing many other nations to suffer in the same way. Is God wrong for judging that nation? Wouldn't God actually be evil for ignoring it and allowing people to suffer needlessly? How about if the entire world becomes corrupt? Wouldn't God be evil for allowing it to continue that way?

It is the combination of good and bad that would lead me to reply to God on my door step "Ok, now i believe you exist, but you're still a sociopath and i don't respect that given your incredible capability, why not be a humanitarian?.. and why give humans intelligence then condemn them for using it when they ask for reliably testable proof? ..please don't hurt me. Also if humans are made in your likeness, can you confirm to Christians that you do in fact have homosexual tendencies?".. naturally God would then proceed to kick my ass with his perfect love/hate

I think you are suffering from a lack of imagination. Here is the being that has created everything you have ever loved, appreciated, been in awe of, who is intimately familiar with your comings and goings, all of your thoughts and feelings. He gave you your family, your friends, your talents, your purposes. He understands you better than you understand yourself. All you can do is think to insult Him? I might call this evidence of a pathology in your thought process.




>> ^Sepacore:

shinyblurry:If the wonderful Creator of this Universe, the one who gave you life, who knows your entire life from start to finish, your most intimate thoughts and deeds, better than you do in fact, came to your door, you think you would have the superficial reaction that you have described? You think, with all you have done in life laid bare before Him, you would engage in some cynical dialogue with Him? If you're going to engage in a hypothetical then how about some realism? It's also irrational to say you wouldn't serve God if He revealed Himself to you.

Me: Think on this. If a god made me, then any response I make would be the expected response. Going out of my way to reflect a response that is contradictory to my character would in turn be a slap in the face. I will reply in character. I cannot foresee any reason why I wouldn't respond as I've described. Who are you to tell me how I would act. It is NOT irrational to say I wouldn't "Serve" a god that reviled it self to me. It is not in my chemical makeup to be controlled by any such hierarchy. I will not bow to any deity for any reason. That is my chemical makeup.


shinyblurry:You say, you have no idea why anyone would want to worship God, yet you have seen the glory of the Heavens He has created; if some being did create them, did in fact design this entire Universe, He certainly would be worthy of praise.

Me: Why? Because you said?
I expect if there was a God and he created this thing we call existence, I doubt it was a big deal to create it. It's not like much time was put into it. It has so many flaws. It is the most un-perfect thing ever created so it wouldn't garner any praise at all. In fact, I imagine that our existence is much like a drawing from kindergarten that hangs on the fridge compared to what perfection could possibly be. So no, no praise at all.

shinyblurry:Praise is something that comes natural to human beings, and we give it all the time for even trivial things.

Me: Um, no it's not!

shinyblurry:We are all built to worship, and it comes out in a myriad of ways if not directed towards our Creator.

Me: Um, no we're not!

shinyblurry:People worship money, power, celebrity, drugs, technology, themselves, etc.

Me: I don't worship ANYTHING, I don't think you truly know what worship means. To give stock in something isn't worship. It's a means to an end. tools of our existence, and fruits of our labors.
If I like something, it isn't "worship" to engage in it. It's a learned experience given to us through a continued release of dopamine to the pleasure center of our brain. It's a chemical response. It is EXACTLY what we are supposed to be feeling according to the makeup of our own personal existence.

shinyblurry:God has no *need* of our worship. He has ordained it not just because He deserves it, but because worship is a natural expression of the joy, love, and gratitude we feel towards God, for the great things He has done and continues to do in our lives.


Me: What? That doesn't even make any sense. Do you listen to yourself?
"He doesn't need it, therefor he ordains it because he feels he deserves it."
That is one big contradiction.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'thethinkingatheist, thinking, atheist, Tabitha, Steele, christian, God, Jesus' to 'thethinkingatheist, thinking, atheist, Tabitha Steele, christian, God, Jesus' - edited by xxovercastxx

@shinyblurry

I cannot prove to you that this has happened to me

My point exactly.
Therefore to call it 'evidence' rather than 'subjective experience' is an at best misleading if not false claim, as the term 'evidence' used in conversation with others generally refers to something provable to others.
To say something like "I had a subjective experience that is evidence to me" would be fine, as it has a buffer around the term to denote that 'evidence' in this case is in no way substantial or transferable to others, i.e. not evidence to others and can be discarded.. and any line of poetic words can not change this.

If you understand the above point (one you made yourself), then you may agree that those who 'require evidence' (regardless of what some guy poetically said), can not genuinely accept your use of the word 'evidence' as having the same value as what now has to be refereed to as 'actual evidence' for clarity after the term has been devalued to host a non-transferable personal experience (i.e. not evidence to others), and therefore swapping out this term for a personal 'reason to believe' is not only required for more clearly followable terminology within a conversation but is more accurate in general discourse of 2 opposing views.

Re Jesus said, Jesus said etc

The notion that one would give another great tools/resources like logical processing, rational thought and critical thinking and then put forward a reward of 'subjective experience based evidence' only achievable by those that disregarded such 'gifts' enough so as to have a chance of achieving this form of evidence is absurd.
For this irony to be the foundation to salvation, God would have to be a smartass of an asshole. This is not a sane, righteous or respectable approach given that most humans adopt their parents religious beliefs and are therefore largely disqualified given the amount of pressure some religious people put on family to remain loyal to that which they were born into.

A point that they still have a chance of finding your God has truth to it despite whether your God is actually real as we can't discount the subjective realness of delusions, but to make such a claim is to discount the difficulties and almost impossibilities in some cases due to lack of legitimate opportunity.


If you are that close to being an atheist, what is the practical difference? To maintain a hairbreadth of uncertainty so as to hold the "intellectual honesty" card is actually intellectually dishonest I think, no offense. I don't think being certain and being a hairsbreadth away from certainty is really much different.

No offense taken as you've missed the point. Firstly there is a difference as i do not claim to 'know' that God doesn't exist. I claim to have 'reasons to believe' that it is unlikely. Knowledge of mental deficiencies, emotions, subjective experiences, experience recognition mental softwares and the way humans make mass assumptions to quickly gain degrees of understandings of any/every situation alone take me right up to that hairsbreadth away point. Whereby it can take time and effort explaining to people the difference between agnostic (don't know/care), agnostic-atheist (don't know, doubt it) and atheist (believe not), I'm happy to wear the tag as a generality in non-specific and non-in-depth discussions.

However I'm aware that a God identical to your claims 'could' be hiding in the shadows just outside of human detection and actual evidence as the religious coincidentally claim to those who request proof (yet then in the same breath can state 'but I have personal evidence'.. yes, seems convenient and unlikely).
Just like I'm aware that there 'could' be a 700 story tall pink dragon that farts rainbows named Trevor that simultaneously exists and doesn't exist inside both of my kidneys without being split into 2 parts..
Or someone 'could' prefer their beliefs enough to unknowingly and automatically do mental acrobats around anything that would disrupt them including acknowledging that their position is unsubstantiated outside of a mind that wants to believe (this is in fact what can occur when someone suffers from a delusion).
Debating possibilities is a waste of time, whereas debating probabilities is where you might actually get some results or at least supportable reason to belive.


understanding of stellar evolution is actually very primitive

The arguments relating to 'we don't know everything yet' is not a basis in which to claim 'X is just as, if not more so, likely to be true'. Claims require their own 'evidences' to support them. Pushing ideas onto people requires 'transferable evidence' and just because there is a question mark at a stage whereby most other aspects of a theory hold true enough to be accurately predicted during tests, does not reflect on another theory being more likely but may indeed reflect on another theory as being less likely.


Even if scientists understood this perfectly, what does that actually prove?

I won't reply much to this as it merely shows that you're already geared to ignore actual evidences that would support the idea of the universe not requiring a God (note that this readiness to disregard facts is what occurs within delusions so as to keep degrees of stability withing fantasized worlds).
Although we haven't figured everything out yet, we've only had about 400 years worth of good studying and scientific thinking on the matter of a 13.7 billion year old case... how much can you honestly expect us to know definitively when so much of our combined time goes towards supporting notions that can't actually be proved?


Did you know that scientists must make fundamental assumptions, such as a uniformity in nature, to even do science? Can you answer why there is a uniformity in nature?

Yes I know that humans must make assumptions so as to figure things out, in fact it was one of the if not THE main focus of my previous post.
Could you ask your question if their wasn't uniformity in nature? No. The fact that there is, is what allows for those that can question it to arise. Our mere being here says nothing as to whether there is a God, in fact nothing in science thus far (to my knowledge) says anything as to whether there IS a God, however some things do say as to whether or not a God is required.


Scripture says differently

Scripture (your one and others) say a lot of things, some things vaguely, somethings specifically, and some things contradictorily (Google 'bible contradictions' for examples), but most of all, it says things poetically somewhat like a manipulating salesman whose product you're not allowed to touch, until you've handed over the money. Scripture also doesn't say things as well as some writers over the years could have, but hey it's only the word of God.. I'm interested in things outside of scripture, things that are testable, things that are comparable to an alternate source than where they came from.


For instance, God is the giver of life. He gives everyone a body and soul, air to breathe, water to drink, and He even upholds the atoms that comprise your being. Life is only possible because of what God is doing for you in this very moment, and every moment.

So, if this is true, why is it wrong for God to take it away, at the time of His choosing?

Cheap shot: proof please. I require it in order to respond to the statement & question.
Na just kidding I don't expect any proof for these claims, just like I can't provide you any proof about Trevor.. * whispers: because Trever doesn't actually exists *. In these cases we'll just dismiss each others unsubstantiated claims until the other provides either evidence or acceptable reason to believe said claims.


Let's say someone is doing something terribly evil, and causing many people to greatly suffer. The evil he is doing is going to cause many people to miss the boat on what God had planned for them. Is God wrong for judging this person and taking away his life to serve the greater good? Now lets say this is a nation, which is causing many other nations to suffer in the same way. Is God wrong for judging that nation? Wouldn't God actually be evil for ignoring it and allowing people to suffer needlessly? How about if the entire world becomes corrupt? Wouldn't God be evil for allowing it to continue that way?

Conflict.

Christian claim: God gave humans free will and allows them to use it whereby they will be judged in the afterlife.
Christian claim: God may affect the world in your benefit if you pray (or as your hypothetical, affect the world against you if you're naughty).
Christian claim: God exists outside of detection.
Christian claim: God can do anything.
Christian claim: God.
Christian claim: God is mysterious / we can not understand the will of God
Christian claim: God likes X, God doesn't like Y.

Or to summarize: God exists outside of known existence and has the ability to create and destroy anything without exception.
This is the result of human intelligence evolving to the point of getting one of our psychological survival drives (hope) to an indisputable peak of performance.

My point is that believers over time have given themselves so much wiggle room, when we start talking about 'why God X, why not Y, can God Z' etc, then we enter the realm of imaginative flexibility where the desperate and delusional can simply change the variables of what they want to use regardless of the conflicts, and ignore any logical positions by getting caught up on their preferred ideological technicalities while rejecting other physical or metal technicalities or proofs.


I think you are suffering from a lack of imagination. Here is the being that has created everything you have ever loved, appreciated, been in awe of, who is intimately familiar with your comings and goings, all of your thoughts and feelings. He gave you your family, your friends, your talents, your purposes. He understands you better than you understand yourself.

I have to say 'proof please' again. The words of 1 source (the Bible) are not good enough, evidence requires testability and multiple sources of confirmation. Too much imagination and you can slip away from reality.

Would have replied sooner, but was busy and then D3 launched =D

You've done some nice cherry picking here. Sepacore, my hope in this conversation is that you will be intellectually honest to address the substance of the arguments, rather than trying to find some angle to make your point so you can *avoid* addressing the substance. I don't think that is too much to ask.

My point exactly.
Therefore to call it 'evidence' rather than 'subjective experience' is an at best misleading if not false claim, as the term 'evidence' used in conversation with others generally refers to something provable to others.

To say something like "I had a subjective experience that is evidence to me" would be fine, as it has a buffer around the term to denote that 'evidence' in this case is in no way substantial or transferable to others, i.e. not evidence to others and can be discarded.. and any line of poetic words can not change this.

Jesus made a claim, that if I put my faith in Him, He would send me the Holy Spirit to supernaturally transform me, and live within me. If that happens, it is objective evidence that His claim is true. You may have other theories as to why it happened to me, or that it happened at all and I am simply deluding myself, but something has happened, and I have changed. Whether it is subjectively experienced, it can be objectively observed in my life. I am a different person, and those in my immediate family and circle of friends have certainly noticed it.

Let's look at the definition of evidence:

ev·i·dence
   [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing.
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3.
Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

As you can see, not all evidence can be empirically tested. Personal testimony is sufficient to send people to the electric chair in our court system. My personal testimony, and the testimony of billions of others, does count as evidence. This is all beside the point:

If you understand the above point (one you made yourself), then you may agree that those who 'require evidence' (regardless of what some guy poetically said), can not genuinely accept your use of the word 'evidence' as having the same value as what now has to be refereed to as 'actual evidence' for clarity after the term has been devalued to host a non-transferable personal experience (i.e. not evidence to others), and therefore swapping out this term for a personal 'reason to believe' is not only required for more clearly followable terminology within a conversation but is more accurate in general discourse of 2 opposing views.

You have completely ignored the entire point of my argument, and it seem you deliberately left out the key part of what I was saying:

"but it is something you can test on your own"

I am not telling you, I experienced God so believe in God on that basis. I am telling you that Jesus made a claim which you can empirically test. You have constantly objected that there is no empirical evidence for God, yet you have failed to validate whether this is true. You have merely assumed it is true, through many other lines of reasoning, except the one that would, if the claim was true, produce any results. Again, Jesus said directly that you would have no experience of God outside of going through Him, and your experience directly matches His claim; No have no experience of God. You assume its because there isn't a God, which is natural to assume, but Jesus said it is because there is no way to even approach God or know anything about Him except through Jesus.


Re Jesus said, Jesus said etc

The notion that one would give another great tools/resources like logical processing, rational thought and critical thinking and then put forward a reward of 'subjective experience based evidence' only achievable by those that disregarded such 'gifts' enough so as to have a chance of achieving this form of evidence is absurd.

If there is a God, then you are using none of these tools correctly. If you've ever read the book "flatland", then you can understand how two dimensional creatures would consider the possibility of a 3D world illogical and irrational. Thus, so does a materialist consider the spiritual reality to be illogical and irrational. This is why I say atheism is a religion for people who have no experience of God.

The bible anticipates your argument and your skepticism:

1 Corinthians 1:18-22

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Men have always taken great pride in their intellectual accomplishments, yet none of them have ever given even one shred of revelation about Almighty God. The wisdom behind the cross is much higher than this worldly wisdom, and it in fact proves it all to be vanity and foolishness, but the world cannot see that, because it is wise in its own eyes:

Romans 1:22

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

No offense taken as you've missed the point. Firstly there is a difference as i do not claim to 'know' that God doesn't exist. I claim to have 'reasons to believe' that it is unlikely. Knowledge of mental deficiencies, emotions, subjective experiences, experience recognition mental softwares and the way humans make mass assumptions to quickly gain degrees of understandings of any/every situation alone take me right up to that hairsbreadth away point. Whereby it can take time and effort explaining to people the difference between agnostic (don't know/care), agnostic-atheist (don't know, doubt it) and atheist (believe not), I'm happy to wear the tag as a generality in non-specific and non-in-depth discussions.

However I'm aware that a God identical to your claims 'could' be hiding in the shadows just outside of human detection and actual evidence as the religious coincidentally claim to those who request proof (yet then in the same breath can state 'but I have personal evidence'.. yes, seems convenient and unlikely).
Just like I'm aware that there 'could' be a 700 story tall pink dragon that farts rainbows named Trevor that simultaneously exists and doesn't exist inside both of my kidneys without being split into 2 parts..
Or someone 'could' prefer their beliefs enough to unknowingly and automatically do mental acrobats around anything that would disrupt them including acknowledging that their position is unsubstantiated outside of a mind that wants to believe (this is in fact what can occur when someone suffers from a delusion).
Debating possibilities is a waste of time, whereas debating probabilities is where you might actually get some results or at least supportable reason to belive.

I'm not talking about probabilities. Jesus was a real person, and He made claims. These claims can be tested.

As far as the difference between God and trevor goes, one has explanatory power and one doesn't. Neither does anyone believe in trevor; he isn't plausible. He isn't even logically coherent. No one believes in flying tea pots, and flying tea pots don't explain anything. God does explain something, and in many cases, is a better explanation for the evidence, such as information in DNA and the fine tuning of our physical laws. Asking whether the Universe was intelligently designed is a perfectly rational question and there is evidence to support this conclusion. Do you know that 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians believe in a personal God? I am not appealing to an authority here, but I think this statistic shows that people trained in science do believe that the evidence points towards God.

understanding of stellar evolution is actually very primitive

The arguments relating to 'we don't know everything yet' is not a basis in which to claim 'X is just as, if not more so, likely to be true'. Claims require their own 'evidences' to support them. Pushing ideas onto people requires 'transferable evidence' and just because there is a question mark at a stage whereby most other aspects of a theory hold true enough to be accurately predicted during tests, does not reflect on another theory being more likely but may indeed reflect on another theory as being less likely.

Again, this is just cherry picking and I think you have lost track of the thread, or you don't want to follow it. You said that part of your skepticism about God creating the Universe was that we understood things about stellar evolution, which is to say we don't need to invoke God as an explanation. I pointed out that not only is our understanding primitive, but even if it were perfect, how does that rule out a Creator? You are confusing mechanism for agency. The stars didn't create themselves, the laws that govern the cosmos caused them to form, and ultimately the laws that caused them to form also had an origin. You have to explain the agency before you can say you don't need God to explain something.

I won't reply much to this as it merely shows that you're already geared to ignore actual evidences that would support the idea of the universe not requiring a God (note that this readiness to disregard facts is what occurs within delusions so as to keep degrees of stability withing fantasized worlds).

I can just as easily say this:

And I won't reply much to this as it merely shows that you're already geared to ignore actual evidences that would support the idea of the universe requiring a God (note that this readiness to disregard facts is what occurs within delusions so as to keep degrees of stability withing fantasized worlds)

Although we haven't figured everything out yet, we've only had about 400 years worth of good studying and scientific thinking on the matter of a 13.7 billion year old case... how much can you honestly expect us to know definitively when so much of our combined time goes towards supporting notions that can't actually be proved?

I don't, and therefore, I wouldn't expect you to say that what has been described actually proves anything one way or the other.

Yes I know that humans must make assumptions so as to figure things out, in fact it was one of the if not THE main focus of my previous post.
Could you ask your question if their wasn't uniformity in nature? No. The fact that there is, is what allows for those that can question it to arise. Our mere being here says nothing as to whether there is a God, in fact nothing in science thus far (to my knowledge) says anything as to whether there IS a God, however some things do say as to whether or not a God is required.

So what is the experiment that proves science is the best method for obtaining truth if you have to assume things you cannot prove to even do science?

Our being here doesn't prove there is a God, necessarily, but we should be surprised to find ourselves in a Universe that is so finely tuned for life.

Scripture (your one and others) say a lot of things, some things vaguely, somethings specifically, and some things contradictorily (Google 'bible contradictions' for examples), but most of all, it says things poetically somewhat like a manipulating salesman whose product you're not allowed to touch, until you've handed over the money. Scripture also doesn't say things as well as some writers over the years could have, but hey it's only the word of God.. I'm interested in things outside of scripture, things that are testable, things that are comparable to an alternate source than where they came from.

You're cherry picking, and dodging the substance, and now even the point of the argument. You were agreeing with Sageminds contention that if God is perfect, then He is also perfectly evil. I pointed out that scripture describes God different, and I also gave you a logical argument outside of scripture for it:

It would be less perfect for God to be a mixture of good and evil versus being perfectly good.

Do you have a response to that argument?

Cheap shot: proof please. I require it in order to respond to the statement & question.
Na just kidding I don't expect any proof for these claims, just like I can't provide you any proof about Trevor.. * whispers: because Trever doesn't actually exists *. In these cases we'll just dismiss each others unsubstantiated claims until the other provides either evidence or acceptable reason to believe said claims.

It's your claim that God does evil in the bible, and so I am asking you why, hypothetically, is it wrong for God to take a life? Since we're talking about the God of the bible, He is the creator of all things, and so has ultimate responsibility over His creation. He is responsible for every aspect of your life, and has the say over your continued existence. Therefore, what makes it wrong for Him to take life just as He gives and maintains life?

Conflict.

Christian claim: God gave humans free will and allows them to use it whereby they will be judged in the afterlife.
Christian claim: God may affect the world in your benefit if you pray (or as your hypothetical, affect the world against you if you're naughty).
Christian claim: God exists outside of detection.
Christian claim: God can do anything.
Christian claim: God.
Christian claim: God is mysterious / we can not understand the will of God
Christian claim: God likes X, God doesn't like Y.

Or to summarize: God exists outside of known existence and has the ability to create and destroy anything without exception.
This is the result of human intelligence evolving to the point of getting one of our psychological survival drives (hope) to an indisputable peak of performance.

My point is that believers over time have given themselves so much wiggle room, when we start talking about 'why God X, why not Y, can God Z' etc, then we enter the realm of imaginative flexibility where the desperate and delusional can simply change the variables of what they want to use regardless of the conflicts, and ignore any logical positions by getting caught up on their preferred ideological technicalities while rejecting other physical or metal technicalities or proofs.

Again, this is a hypothetical scenario involving the God of the bible. It's your claim that God has done evil, so you can back it up with a logical argument? I've outlined a few scenarios and asked you if God would be evil for doing any of those things. I am not talking about mysterious ways, I am talking about specifics.

I have to say 'proof please' again. The words of 1 source (the Bible) are not good enough, evidence requires testability and multiple sources of confirmation. Too much imagination and you can slip away from reality.

Again, we are speaking hypothetically of a scenario you engaged in; "how would you react if the God of the bible showed up at your door". You said you would react in such and such way, which is unrealistic considering how the God of the bible is described, which is what I pointed out to. Based on your modified understanding of the God of the bible, do you think you would react the same way?

Would have replied sooner, but was busy and then D3 launched =D

No problemo..take your time? How is D3?

>> ^Sepacore

A short post for @shinyblurry:

Argumentum ad populum. A logical fallacy. It doesn't matter if billions of people believe a thing, it does NOT make it truth. Examples: people thought that the sun was a/the god, or people thought that rats spontaneously spawned from grain silos.

The definition for "evidence" that you used for your argument is only the definition as it relates to law (thus where it says "law"). Testimony is useful to us in order to piece together what happens for the purposes of trial law, but even then is highly faulty and is subject to the whims, mental health and capacity, subjective or erroneous observations, and other such mistakes or lies by those giving testimony. That is how people end up wrongfully jailed, and is also why you need much more evidence than just testimony in order to make a solid case against a defendant. Such testimonial evidence in a scientific context, or in a logical argument context, is immediately dismissible.

Similarly, the fact that our laws state that a person is innocent until proven guilty (ideally, in the U.S., at least) is an example of how the burden of proof MUST lie with the parties making the claim for guilt. Much in the same way that you MUST provide real, tangible evidence for the claims that you, and the Bible make. Your personal experiences, or the fact that a billion people agree with you is NOT evidence of anything. Example: The entire country was certain of the guilt of Casey Anthony, but lawyers were not able to build a case solid enough to convince a jury. Likewise for the Duke Lacrosse team rape trial. Thankfully, we require more than the incessant bellowing of Nancy Grace to convict a person.

I, frankly, am not interested in arguing anything that the Bible says that God/Jesus supposedly said, unless you can first prove to me that it is the definite, infallible word of a god, and not a bunch of stories written and compiled by men who knew nothing of the universe beyond what they could misinterpret from their eyes and imagination, or who wanted to be able to control a populace by introducing divine rules. Which, of course, is something you cannot do without using circular arguments to refer back to how the Bible tells us that the Bible is true, or by referring to emotional pleas, personal experiences, offshoots of Pascal's Wager, or many other logical fallacies which fall apart as relevant proof of anything at their very inception. This, I believe, is what we are trying to get across to you.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/home

Argumentum ad populum. A logical fallacy. It doesn't matter if billions of people believe a thing, it does NOT make it truth. Examples: people thought that the sun was a/the god, or people thought that rats spontaneously spawned from grain silos.

Did I ever say that because over 2 billion people are Christians, that makes it true? Though you could make a logical argument that, if God has revealed Himself to the world, and people are more inclined to follow truth than lies, that His religion would be the largest on Earth at any given time.


The definition for "evidence" that you used for your argument is only the definition as it relates to law (thus where it says "law"). Testimony is useful to us in order to piece together what happens for the purposes of trial law, but even then is highly faulty and is subject to the whims, mental health and capacity, subjective or erroneous observations, and other such mistakes or lies by those giving testimony. That is how people end up wrongfully jailed, and is also why you need much more evidence than just testimony in order to make a solid case against a defendant. Such testimonial evidence in a scientific context, or in a logical argument context, is immediately dismissible.

Are you really going to try to argue that personal testimony isn't evidence, or couldn't convince you of something? If you were in a building, and someone came running in screaming that there was a bomb in the basement and everyone needs to evacuate immediately, would you demand that he take you to the location of the bomb so you could empirically verify his claim before you would leave? No, you would consider his personal testimony to be sufficient and leave the area.

The definition you're looking for is anecdotal evidence, and believe it or not, it can qualify as scientific evidence. Read any medical journal and you will find anecdotal evidence printed very routinely. Anecdotal evidence doesn't qualify as proof, but I never said my personal testimony would prove anything to you. What I did say is that it qualifies as evidence, which it does, both in a legal and scientific sense. In the scientific sense, weakly, but that doesn't diminish its veracity, except perhaps in the eyes of those whose worldview is married to the idea that empirical verification is the only means of acquiring truth, a claim in itself which, ironically, cannot be empirically verified.

Similarly, the fact that our laws state that a person is innocent until proven guilty (ideally, in the U.S., at least) is an example of how the burden of proof MUST lie with the parties making the claim for guilt. Much in the same way that you MUST provide real, tangible evidence for the claims that you, and the Bible make. Your personal experiences, or the fact that a billion people agree with you is NOT evidence of anything. Example: The entire country was certain of the guilt of Casey Anthony, but lawyers were not able to build a case solid enough to convince a jury. Likewise for the Duke Lacrosse team rape trial. Thankfully, we require more than the incessant bellowing of Nancy Grace to convict a person.

What would you consider to be real, tangible evidence? I've never heard an atheist actually define what this would be. I assume it would be a personal encounter with Jesus Christ. Well, that is what I am telling you in the first place, that you can know Him personally. That Jesus will reveal Himself to you if you seek Him out and give your life to Him. A simple question: If Jesus is God, would you serve Him?

I, frankly, am not interested in arguing anything that the Bible says that God/Jesus supposedly said, unless you can first prove to me that it is the definite, infallible word of a god, and not a bunch of stories written and compiled by men who knew nothing of the universe beyond what they could misinterpret from their eyes and imagination, or who wanted to be able to control a populace by introducing divine rules. Which, of course, is something you cannot do without using circular arguments to refer back to how the Bible tells us that the Bible is true, or by referring to emotional pleas, personal experiences, offshoots of Pascal's Wager, or many other logical fallacies which fall apart as relevant proof of anything at their very inception. This, I believe, is what we are trying to get across to you.

The main point scripture makes about non-believers is this:

That you already know there is a God, and who He is, but you're suppressing the truth in wickedness. That God has made it plain to you, to the extent that when you are standing before Him on judgment day, you won't have any excuse. It's not my responsibility to prove anything to you, because you already know. My job is to tell you the gospel and pray that God would have mercy on you and open your eyes.

There is one thing I can prove to you, which is that without God you can't prove anything. I'll demonstrate this to you if you can answer a few questions:

1. Is it impossible that God exists?
2. Could God reveal Himself to someone so that they could know it for certain?
3. Could you be wrong about everything you know?

>> ^Sketch: