OP
Hell, if that was my understanding of the bible, I would not believe it either.
I am a bit surprised at no mentions of Grandaddy in the sky or Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Last edited:
For those who take offense at calling unbelief "irrational"
- Thread starter tanstaafl72555
- Start date
- Replies 603
- Views 20,956
Hell, if that was my understanding of the bible, I would not believe it either.
I am a bit surprised at no mentions of Grandaddy in the sky or Flying Spaghetti Monster.
T
trcubed
Guest
God said "bang," and it happened.
OP
In an attempt to answer the above, though: God COULD HAVE made man as a little wind up doll only able to repeat "I LOVE YOU.... I LOVE YOU." But the greater of these is to create a being who can CHOOSE to love him in return. There are other facets here, but that is the core.
As for God creating hell, it states specifically it was not created "FOR" man, but for another class of beings for whom we have very little data. It is a place of isolation from God. Men don't want Him, and he gives them their choice.
What exactly would you have Him DO in a situation like that? Make us wind up dolls? Forgive all our rebellion and offer the way into complete and glorious fellowship despite our hatred? That is exactly what He has done, while maintaining our choice to take it. Would you have him banish evil forever, sealed off in a soundproof exclusion chamber where those choosing evil can bite and gnash and hate and wallow in self pity and lie to themselves in a state of eternal cosmic decay that it is HIS fault they have chosen misery? Again, this is EXACTLY what he has done.
Again, what exactly are you insisting the biblical God "should" do which he has not already done?
As for God creating hell, it states specifically it was not created "FOR" man, but for another class of beings for whom we have very little data. It is a place of isolation from God. Men don't want Him, and he gives them their choice.
What exactly would you have Him DO in a situation like that? Make us wind up dolls? Forgive all our rebellion and offer the way into complete and glorious fellowship despite our hatred? That is exactly what He has done, while maintaining our choice to take it. Would you have him banish evil forever, sealed off in a soundproof exclusion chamber where those choosing evil can bite and gnash and hate and wallow in self pity and lie to themselves in a state of eternal cosmic decay that it is HIS fault they have chosen misery? Again, this is EXACTLY what he has done.
Again, what exactly are you insisting the biblical God "should" do which he has not already done?
Last edited:
OP
I have to admit that I am really clueless in this area of Einsteinian physics regarding "time." To me time is just sequential events, yet I understand that definition is itself circular. I have read the stuff about time bending and slowing down, but frankly they are just words I repeat. I really have no conceptual grid into which I may place them.
I know a few atheists, and I know several former atheists. All of them are good people, love their families, and are hard working people. About half of them are either active duty or former military.
After knowing them anywhere from 6 months to many years, the difference is the ones who still are atheists have not had their "Godsmack" yet. Some may live their entire lives without it, and die as an atheist. That's their choice. It's called "free will" and it is a blessing and a curse at the same time.
Others have said this, and I agree...
"I'd much rather believe in God and be wrong than to NOT believe and be wrong".
Rogue's belief or non-belief is his prerogative, and after 47 pages of this it's pretty clear that he doesn't believe....
2 Thessalonians 3:13-15
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
After knowing them anywhere from 6 months to many years, the difference is the ones who still are atheists have not had their "Godsmack" yet. Some may live their entire lives without it, and die as an atheist. That's their choice. It's called "free will" and it is a blessing and a curse at the same time.
Others have said this, and I agree...
"I'd much rather believe in God and be wrong than to NOT believe and be wrong".
Rogue's belief or non-belief is his prerogative, and after 47 pages of this it's pretty clear that he doesn't believe....
2 Thessalonians 3:13-15
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
OP
I have NO issue with his unbelief, nor his statement of that fact. One of my very best long time friends is an atheist and I have had good friendships with a number of men and women who do not believe in God, or who do and categorically reject Xty. My issues with this particular poster are of a different sort, but like any behavioral pattern, we can always restart.
OP
Don't stop with him! lol
OP
I wish you showed evidence of intellectual maturity that progressed past that point in here. Really. Your postings are so amazingly childish and then you run off and whine about people being mean to you. If all you do is make childish and stupid insults, and have not figured out that this brings contempt, you are a VERY slow learner.
T
trcubed
Guest
Tans, I've read all 12 pages of this thread and genuinely impressed by the breadth and depth of knowledge shown here. What I can't come to grips with is whether or not rogue is sincere in his position, or if he's just baiting you and others for the sake of argument. He tends to disappear when cogent points are presented, then launches another dart when the argument slows.
I believe I agree with your 'childish' assessment.
I believe I agree with your 'childish' assessment.
Last edited:
fieldgrade
waiting...
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
I'm just perplexed why someone would tell the "believers" here to "grow up, it's 2017" when by his own account he basically clings to a conclusion and notion of God that he arrived at when he was pre-adolescent.
Last edited:
OP
Post 43.
I pray for him. As I do myself and everyone. But at a point you realize that you are playing chess with a pigeon that only intends to poop on the board and fly off as if it has won.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OP
This thread reminds me of a favorite maxim:
"It is very difficult to win an argument with an intelligent man.
It is damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid man."
Sums it up, best I can tell.
"It is very difficult to win an argument with an intelligent man.
It is damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid man."
Sums it up, best I can tell.
That, I think, is the problem most of us have. We try to understand things we CAN'T understand (at this point in time) because we have no frame of reference.
Einstein in an interview stated "I'm absolutely not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not understand how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."
He also had many other things to say about "the music of the spheres" and why he believed in a Supreme Creator or Prime Mover.
T
trcubed
Guest
I'm confused by your pointing to post 43...are you saying you think he's in purgatory?
OP
"you hypocrites... you sons of snakes... you fool.... how will you escape the damnation of hell? blind guides leading their hearers into a ditch. like whiney children who first won't play one game and then won't play another.... you are liars like your father, who is the father of lies..."
Those kinds of nice things, or others?
T
trcubed
Guest
That makes a heck of a lot more sense, and is one of the posts that makes me think he's just yankin' chains.
@tanstaafl72555 Sorry man, I went on vacation out of town and missed where this went. Unfortunately, I am too lazy to catch up. My apologies.
However, I was working on a point. I will finish that point. It was related to the title of the thread.
You have no proof of an existence of any magical, all-powerful being, much less the particular flavor you believe. Zero. None. If you did, we wouldn't be having this conversation and you would be without faith.
Because Faith is the main principle in your religion. Because you don't have proof. Faith is the strong belief in a "God", with the absence of proof.
So, therefore, you are saying (in your post title and post) that someone can be "irrational" for not believing that which can not be proven. In fact, it is the opposite that is true. Perfectly rational to question any of these religious beliefs. It's irrational to believe in magic and monsters, no matter what you call them, and no matter who taught you to believe it. One only has to be honest and honestly read the definition of the word "irrational" to see that this is true.
It is completely rational to say "I have faith the Sun will come up tomorrow", because we have proof the Sun exists, and it has come up an untold number of times. Conversely, it's irrational to say "tomorrow, I have faith a Magical Pink Elephant in a Giant Magic Teacup will destroy the Universe and only save those that believe in Him". Even if you have read many stories about Magic Pink Elephants, and no matter how old those stories are, or how many times they have been told, it would still be completely irrational to believe it.
However, I was working on a point. I will finish that point. It was related to the title of the thread.
You have no proof of an existence of any magical, all-powerful being, much less the particular flavor you believe. Zero. None. If you did, we wouldn't be having this conversation and you would be without faith.
Because Faith is the main principle in your religion. Because you don't have proof. Faith is the strong belief in a "God", with the absence of proof.
So, therefore, you are saying (in your post title and post) that someone can be "irrational" for not believing that which can not be proven. In fact, it is the opposite that is true. Perfectly rational to question any of these religious beliefs. It's irrational to believe in magic and monsters, no matter what you call them, and no matter who taught you to believe it. One only has to be honest and honestly read the definition of the word "irrational" to see that this is true.
It is completely rational to say "I have faith the Sun will come up tomorrow", because we have proof the Sun exists, and it has come up an untold number of times. Conversely, it's irrational to say "tomorrow, I have faith a Magical Pink Elephant in a Giant Magic Teacup will destroy the Universe and only save those that believe in Him". Even if you have read many stories about Magic Pink Elephants, and no matter how old those stories are, or how many times they have been told, it would still be completely irrational to believe it.
Part of the discussion has to begin with "Who dictates what is reasonable and what isn't? Who dictates what constitutes proof for one person, but not another?"
Reminds me of people saying "You don't >need< a gun to protect your family." Or "It's unreasonable to have an AR for home defense."
The >reason< that this debate has gone on for as long as it has is because it's far more complicated than "will the sun come up" at its core. The arbiter of truth varies from individual to individual.
Now, where I am slightly different than Tans is that I, even as a staunch Christian, acknowledge the fact fact someone can reason themselves into non-belief.
Look at Rogue and Me. Faced with same evidence we can both come to completely different destinations. I feel I am right, and he feels he is right. We both can make our case and we can both decide where to lay our faith.
Each discussion is like presenting evidence to a jury. Depending on the make up of the jury and how well the evidence is presented people will make their choices.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reminds me of people saying "You don't >need< a gun to protect your family." Or "It's unreasonable to have an AR for home defense."
The >reason< that this debate has gone on for as long as it has is because it's far more complicated than "will the sun come up" at its core. The arbiter of truth varies from individual to individual.
Now, where I am slightly different than Tans is that I, even as a staunch Christian, acknowledge the fact fact someone can reason themselves into non-belief.
Look at Rogue and Me. Faced with same evidence we can both come to completely different destinations. I feel I am right, and he feels he is right. We both can make our case and we can both decide where to lay our faith.
Each discussion is like presenting evidence to a jury. Depending on the make up of the jury and how well the evidence is presented people will make their choices.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Suppose I asked you to prove this statement in order to believe it? Since you are boldly stating it as a fact, where's the proof?
I ask this because skeptics love to apply critical thinking skills to everything except their critical thinking, and I'm curious as to when a skeptic admits the practicality of evidence vs. proof.
Last edited:
Followers of various religions, with the exception of a few individuals, are followers because they were taught to follow whichever religion they follow. Just as I was taught to believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus, I was taught to believe in Jesus, and taught all for the same reason: to behave.
I'm not a student of religion so I've limited knowledge of most doctrines and therefore I'll not speak of any other than Christianity. Here is where most people who have heard/read the Bible and refuse it are lost to its teachings: being expected to believe all of the following:
God is all knowing
God created man
God punishes man in an eternal lake of fire for being what He created
God chooses a few to save from this fire
There is a reason preachers dance around those facts: wallets.
I'm not a student of religion so I've limited knowledge of most doctrines and therefore I'll not speak of any other than Christianity. Here is where most people who have heard/read the Bible and refuse it are lost to its teachings: being expected to believe all of the following:
God is all knowing
God created man
God punishes man in an eternal lake of fire for being what He created
God chooses a few to save from this fire
There is a reason preachers dance around those facts: wallets.
OP
Thank you for your response. I truly enjoy your posts. Sorry for the delay in responding. I was out fixing a cabinet till 9.30 last night and am about to go out and install a dishwasher.
Without doing my trademark torrent of verbiage, let me try to STATE (not demonstrate, that takes longer) my response.
When you start with a materialistic basis for knowledge, you destroy your INTELLECTUAL BASIS FOR CONFIDENCE in your knowledge itself. If you don't just take the heading of the OP, but actually look at the quote, you will see that this is exactly what is claimed. Not that an unbeliever is irrational altogether. This would be just as stupid of me to claim as saying a pagan cannot love, or perceive purpose, etc etc. Rather, what I am claiming (with a historical retinue of folks) is that the RATIONAL BASIS for these things is removed. Your illustration of the sun coming up is based on a whole gaggle of ASSUMPTIONS about the relation of our rational faculties to the cosmos. Those assumptions have the guts cut out of them when you take a step back and realize you are assuming they arose accidentally, by nothing but mere chance.
More later. Thanks again for the response. I hope your vacation was pleasant.
OP
... you are assuming this position is morally deficient, I see. On what moral absolute do you depend to make such a judgment? (not that I agree with the way you state it, but just for the sake of understanding how deficient it is).
I won't disagree that there is a mercantile interest in many preachers. That issue has always been around and will always be around. Saying that the underlying issues are poisoned by the moral rot in men is not the brightest thinking possible, though. You are smarter than that.
OP
wow! x ring
My point is simply that when faced with those facts, many who would claim to be Christians would leave the Church they attend, along with their wallets. Few Churches today teach the truth of the Word and many of those which do, teach little more than the Gospel, solely for the purpose of attracting and retaining paying members.
