What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?

[median]

You can certainly hold that opinion, and it's one I can sympathise with because I, like you, am only able to understand crime and punishment within the context of this world.

I am certain that the problem lies with our inability to understand God and His absolute right to judge His creation.

"The problem is Santa Claus is the ultimate judge of who gets presents. You just can't understand that little Tommy." See how you sound? You haven't demonstrated any evidence (or sound reasoning) for thinking this alleged "Yahweh" is real - only that you've assumed your theology (interpretation of the bible) in advance. Yet, anyone can just assume anything (including some alleged "personal experience" which all religions ultimately fall back on when they have nothing to show). But that doesn't make it true and only demonstrates a willingness toward confirmation bias and personal credulity.

And as always, God's salvation is ignored. Hell awaits all who have refused God's salvation.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate...

Imagine standing at the edge of an abyss, with the ground around you giving way. You need to cross that abyss. There is only one way, a very narrow bridge. Why this stupid narrow bridge?, you think. Why isn't there a gold plated travelator? Why does this abyss even exist? Stuff it. I'd rather go into the abyss, content in my own superior reasoning.

Imagine only one pink unicorn that can take you to the other end of the magic invisible eternal-life rainbow, and save you from eternal torment in the bog of eternal rotten maggot marshmellow stench. Why won't you take it! The great and powerful pink flying spaghetti monster is your creator but eternal stench awaits!

Again, see how you sound?

You might have a whole list of reasons why you think God is wrong and you are right, but you won't get much comfort from them. In fact, I believe you'll get no comfort from them, because when the time comes you'll know you were wrong.

Oh no, you are totally wrong. I had a personal non-communicable experience with the god Shriva-Vishnu-Schmorgenborg and hesheit (as was directed to me) told me you are wrong and that I will live forever in bliss if I just believe in myself, follow the path of reason, and reject all religious authority. It's very sophisticated, in-depth, and intricate but there's just nothing you could say to change my mind. I know my experience was true!

Bottom line: you firmly believe that the things you do which you know are wrong do not need to be accounted for. You have been told, repeatedly, that they do need to be accounted for, and will be. With Jesus, they have been. You reject that. That is your choice. It's my choice to heed that, because I know in my heart that God exists, and He has the right to punish wrongdoing as He pleases. Non-communicable, yes. (my belief). But I've said that over and over.

You cannot "know" anything "in your heart" and the fact that you have made this claim shows that you have (in fact) ASSUMED your bible as true from the outset. The heart does no thinking. It pumps blood and often produces FEELING and EMOTION (upon which ultimately your belief is based).

You are wrong to claim that it is our "choice" to reject your claims. Accepting a proposition as true is NOT a choice. Could you accept that 2+2=5? Belief is not a choice. One must be convinced. Your claim of non-communicability (like others here) is no different from any other religion on the planet. It's a defense mechanism designed to protect your belief system from falsification. It's the ultimate backup plan. "I know my beliefs sounds irrational...but I had an experience which I can't communicate to you. I believe!!!!" How sad that you are willing to practice such credulity in such hypocrisy. Mere "personal experience" is insufficient. It isn't anywhere near extraordinary evidence and the fact that you have nothing but it as a foundation to rest your entire life upon is sufficient reason to seriously doubt that you have any idea what you're talking about.

What you are demonstrating here is fundamentally no different from plain old superstition. 

[median]

But what's a broken record argument against the existence of the Christian God on the forum? That suffering is allowed to occur. That He allows people to live as they please.

Wrong. That isn't my argument at all. As it pertains to this forum's topic (WWGHA) my argument is that the fact that this alleged deity sits back with indifference as billions of people suffer and die (including billions of children before the age of 5) demonstrates that this deity is 1) NOT LOVING, and 2) (and even more importantly) MYTHICAL AND MAN-MADE!

The facts simply don't square up to your presupposition/pre-commitment.

Yeah, see my point above. You want freedom, but not if it has negative consequences. This reasoning essentially translates to a stubborn belief that, if you can't see a purpose for something, a purpose cannot exist. It's the partial God problem, again and again. God has power, he can stop the pain. That you get on baord with, to make a point. God knows more than you, and there is a reason for this pain. What? Know more than me? Preposterous!

You do realize that you sound just like a credulous 8 year old who says he has an invisible friend named Fred and will argue ad nauseum that Fred is real, right? But there is more to the alleged story than you are letting on. This Yahweh deity thing is supposed to be "all loving". But when we point out clear instances (indeed counter-examples) of how this isn't true you just start spinning/rationalizing. And this is all because you don't just have a presupposition. You have a PRE-COMMITMENT to your belief in the bible and your theology which blocks you from considering any other interpretation of the facts.

Again, merely CLAIMING "God knows more" means nothing because you haven't demonstrated that this alleged thing exists. You just keep saying it over and over (like the 8 year old). I'm sorry if this is offensive but it's exactly how you sound. You've bought into a belief system BEFORE ever doing any investigation, research, critical thinking, or analysis. And you're frustrated why we won't accept your presumed theology. Yet, in one form or another, every religion tries to do what you are doing, and it's irrational, credulous, and arrogant. You cannot assume your position is the correct one. You need to demonstrate it.


median

p.s. - I'll take my freedom with consequences from reality, not superstition. Thank you.

[epidemic]

personally I would not reject god if i believed the xyz bible.

My rejection is not of god as a being/entity,  my rejection is not self serving, I reject religion because I simply do not believe that as described god exists.

Were god to prove his existance through global miracle or simply communicating with me directly in a way as to not make me believe I was insane and he explained to me that he created the universe, the king james bible was the book i was to follow ...

Dude I would be all in.  I would begin spreading the word myself if he asked.

I have not seen any evidence in my life of magic, spiritual guidance... everything I see leads me down the same path.  Man created religion and god, not the other way around.

[Greenandwhite]

Again, following Christ isn't for you - it seems to me that in the gospels when a miracle of Jesus is described with more than just a passing remark, the person's faith precedes the event and not visa versa - miracles were done in response to faith (Mt8:2, Mt9:28) and not to generate faith. 

Not true. There are plenty of counterexamples to this - one of them being Thomas - but even if your claim about 'belief before site' were true here you've already admitted that even if you were shown that your theology was completely bunk, and/or all of your arguments for Yahweh failed, you would still believe based upon your alleged 'non-communicable' experience. Now why should we even waste our time having a discussion with you when you suffer from such closed-mindedness? You've basically been exposed as a troll here - in that there isn't anything that could change your view. Your mind is cemented-in to this supposed experience you think you've had and, clearly, no one can convince you otherwise (even in spite of all counter-examples, contrary evidence, and contradiction). How dishonest!

     I thought it was interesting that above you used the phrase 'belief before site' when in my original post what I actually said was that "faith precedes the event and not visa versa" - I think this is a significant change because I do not consider 'belief' and 'faith' to be synonymous.  You also claimed that "even if were shown that [my] theology was completely bunk, and/or all of [my] arguments for Yahweh failed, would still believe based upon [my] alleged 'non-communicable' experience".  If you look at my original post (#48) what I actually said was that, "I could conceivably give up every single one of the theist arguments and so long as I still was experiencing Christ it wouldn’t matter."  Theist arguments, as I also explained earlier in post #48, refer to generic arguments like the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments and not to any evaluations of specific Christian claims (e.g. the resurrection) - it would be a different story if my belief in the resurrection or the logical coherence of the Christian concept of God were challenged - those I did not say I could give up. 
     As for your claim that my actions on this forum exhibit 'trollishness', dishonesty, and closemindedness; I suggest that you report me to one of the moderators (of which you are not one), and if they object to my behavior then I would be willing to politely leave.  Incidentally, in post #75 I already responded to your accusation that I am closed minded and argued that even if I am closed minded it could actually add to the discussion we are having - you never responded.  Also, I wonder if you have even bothered to read the WWGHA website; specifically I am referring to the last entry under 'resources' labeled "are you a devoted, unwavering Christian?"  In this section you will find the following quotes: "If you are a devoted, unwavering Christian, you know that God is real because you have seen him work in your own life...Think of your testimony as a missionary activity. Let your light shine and be a fisher of men by helping others to understand what faith in God really means.  Thank you for visiting today -- We look forward to hearing from you." I'm just wondering what on earth makes you think that that statement is looking to attract 'open-minded', wavering Christians??

[Greenandwhite]

     It [reading the IEP article I suggested] would be pointless as you could only ever gage another opinion. And whether it is their opinion that personal experience can constitute evidence makes it a moot point. You’re simply using one opinion to justify another opinion! Which is merely an appeal to authority, a huge fail.  Personal experiences cannot be counted as evidence unless they can be or were able to be observed by others. "feelings" aren't evidence. To say that an anecdote or a series of cases or personal experiences may constitute evidence for something, is not necessarily the same as to say it constitutes conclusive proof. It is ok to hear it, but not ok to take it as verbatim.

     I find it interesting that you would balk at reading the article that I suggested (an article on a reputable website written by a competent author) by claiming that I am just referring you to 'another opinion' and that I am using an 'appeal to authority'.  First of all, if you think that my suggestion is an illegitimate appeal to authority then I suggest you visit the Nizkor project where under the heading 'fallacy: appeal to authority' there is a list of six criteria that must be met for an appeal to an authority to be justified - simply point out which of the six criteria my source fails to meet.  Second, I find it massively ironic that after accusing me of appealing to an authority, you yourself later in your post cite Wikipedia?? in an attempt to justify your claim that the personal experience that millions of Christians claim to have is anecdotal.  If ever there was a case of someone 'using one opinion to justify another opinion'...this is it.

Humanity's capacity for self-delusion is limitless.

     I don't know if you read it, but in post#67 I did attempt to respond to a similar objection. 

     And also ‘Quirkology’ by Richard Wiseman is another way of explaining why personal experience fails. From Quirkology "20 people were asked to persuade a relative to participate in a study about childhood memories. The recruiters were asked to supply a photograph of the person as a child, and three other photographs of the person as a child participating in events. The first photograph was manipulated to produce a false photograph of a trip in a hot air balloon. The participants were then shown the three real photographs and one false one and asked to describe the events in the photos. About one third “remembered” the event in the hot air balloon. By the third interview, half of the participants were able to “remember” and describe in great detail their trip in the hot air balloon. Because the people thought they should remember the event, their brains helpfully supplied them with a vivid and detailed memory. "

     I really do appreciate the link that you gave me here; Mr. Wiseman is very entertaining and makes some good points as well - my favorite video was "The Prediction" (I know how he does it, but I still had to participate twice).  Regarding his memory experiment, I think it is important to note that Mr. Wiseman was able to 'plant' a memory into the minds of his recruits, not an experience - at the end of the experiment his subjects 'remembered' being in a hot air balloon; they didn't think they were actually in a hot air balloon at that very moment.  An experience with Christ is about more than just remembering what you felt when you were 'converted'.  I do wonder, however, If you have completely explored his website, because anyone who has knows that most of videos (e.g. color changing card trick, the psychological card trick, the mirror, etc...) question our ability to make accurate empirical observations rather than questioning the reliability of rational introspection - don't the conclusions of his videos worry you a bit?

[DVZ3]

This has been quite an interesting thread... 

It's intereting to hear from people like the ole bloke FaithKilometers or MagicMillimeters or whatever his name is because it isn't him that I care about anymore.  All I can start to think/dream about now is this jesus fellow and everything that people like #WeDon'tAcceptRealityorRationality are saying about that magic guy, miles away in the sky.  It all sounds so intriguing I can't help but become emotional and ignore everything else...

Maybe atheists are the delusional ones. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bkhQLt1vbWU

I guess it does make sense to have a totally opposite view.  After all, the toielts flush in an entirely different rotational vortex in his neck of the woods.

[bertatberts]

     It [reading the IEP article I suggested] would be pointless as you could only ever gauge another opinion. And whether it is their opinion that personal experience can constitute evidence makes it a moot point. You’re simply using one opinion to justify another opinion! Which is merely an appeal to authority, a huge fail.  Personal experiences cannot be counted as evidence unless they can be or were able to be observed by others. "feelings" aren't evidence. To say that an anecdote or a series of cases or personal experiences may constitute evidence for something, is not necessarily the same as to say it constitutes conclusive proof. It is ok to hear it, but not ok to take it as verbatim.

I find it interesting that you would balk at reading the article that I suggested (an article on a reputable website written by a competent author) by claiming that I am just referring you to 'another opinion' and that I am using an 'appeal to authority'.

I'm not unwilling to accept an idea if it is something tangible, and not merely your opinion from a different source. All you did was supply a more authoritarian version of your opinion hence the appeal to authority. You need to understand that.

First of all, if you think that my suggestion is an illegitimate appeal to authority then I suggest you visit the Nizkor project where under the heading 'fallacy: appeal to authority' there is a list of six criteria that must be met for an appeal to an authority to be justified - simply point out which of the six criteria my source fails to meet.

Whether it's someone, be they alleged expert or not, they can only give an opinion, (and yet you site them as a back up source), I'm sorry that is an appeal to authority. As they cannot possibly be an expert on the imaginary/supernatural, because the supernatural would have to be proven before there could be any expert on it.

Second, I find it massively ironic that after accusing me of appealing to an authority, you yourself later in your post cite Wikipedia?? in an attempt to justify your claim that the personal experience that millions of Christians claim to have is anecdotal.  If ever there was a case of someone 'using one opinion to justify another opinion'...this is it.

Lol, but was it the only source supplied, or did I supply several sources to show how personal experiences fails.
Also can you show that it is anything other than anecdotal, I would very much like to see it. It would be a first. A story is just a story until there is sufficient evidence to verify the claims in the story.

Humanity's capacity for self-delusion is limitless.

I don't know if you read it, but in post#67 I did attempt to respond to a similar objection.

Not an objection a statement of fact. Four fifths of the planet are religious after all and not to mention celebrity, lunacy, etc...

And also ‘Quirkology’ by Richard Wiseman is another way of explaining why personal experience fails. From Quirkology "20 people were asked to persuade a relative to participate in a study about childhood memories. The recruiters were asked to supply a photograph of the person as a child, and three other photographs of the person as a child participating in events. The first photograph was manipulated to produce a false photograph of a trip in a hot air balloon. The participants were then shown the three real photographs and one false one and asked to describe the events in the photos. About one third “remembered” the event in the hot air balloon. By the third interview, half of the participants were able to “remember” and describe in great detail their trip in the hot air balloon. Because the people thought they should remember the event, their brains helpfully supplied them with a vivid and detailed memory. "

I really do appreciate the link that you gave me here; Mr. Wiseman is very entertaining and makes some good points as well - my favorite video was "The Prediction" (I know how he does it, but I still had to participate twice).  Regarding his memory experiment, I think it is important to note that Mr. Wiseman was able to 'plant' a memory into the minds of his recruits, not an experience

And yours is different how! Where does yours interact with reality. All your experience is; Is a self-implanted memory. How do you think memories are formed? He implanted a memory that there minds accepted as an experience. If they were never told it was bogus they would still believe it happened now, and would argue till they were blue in the face, that they experienced it.

at the end of the experiment his subjects 'remembered' being in a hot air balloon; they didn't think they were actually in a hot air balloon at that very moment.

You're clutching at straws. No they didn't, sorry you're wrong. It wasn't until they were told it was bogus, did they at all feel that they hadn't experienced it.

  An experience with Christ is about more than just remembering what you felt when you were 'converted'.  I do wonder, however, If you have completely explored his website, because anyone who has knows that most of videos (e.g. color changing card trick, the psychological card trick, the mirror, etc...) question our ability to make accurate empirical observations rather than questioning the reliability of rational introspection - don't the conclusions of his videos worry you a bit?

No! Why would they?

[Greenandwhite]

     If this god is unlimited in power and this truth is the most important truth ever, shouldn't it be easily accessible to every individual? (Just to clarify here - I don't consider having to sift through an incoherent, rambling, inconsistent collection of books in order to find the most important message to be even remotely easy.)... If there is a god that wants me to acknowledge it's existence or it will torture me - that's pretty damn important to know. At the very least, I expect that god (assuming that it is the tiniest bit fair) to give me some definitive and meaningful insight into it's existence. Is that really too much to expect from an all-powerful being?

Just wondering if you would agree that the following accurately describes your view of God, hell, and the scriptures:
1. if hell exists (a place of unspeakable, eternal torture) and:
2. if a God exists who possesses the attributes of power, love, and knowledge to a maximal degree and:
3. if humans are truly free in their actions (which would make a warning of an eternal hell relevant), then:
4. God would desire to present the clearest possible warning to us of such a place
5. We do not have a clear warning, therefore:
6. the Being described in (2) does not exist

[bertatberts]

Just wondering if you would agree that the following accurately describes your view of God, hell, and the scriptures:

It doesn't and it is a loaded question. This is why:
1. if hell exists (a place of unspeakable, eternal torture) and:
2. if a god exists who possesses the attributes of power, love, and knowledge to a maximal degree and:
3. if humans are truly free in their actions (which would make a warning of an eternal hell relevant) Why?, then:
4. God would desire to present the clearest possible warning to us of such a place Again why?
5.We do not have a clear warning, therefore: Doesn't apply, reasoning not forthcoming.
6. the Being described in (2) does not exist Also doesn't apply, a creature so full of love to a maximal degree would not have the propensity to do anything bad. thus would not create such a place, only a creature that isn't full of love to a maximal degree, a malevolent creature would create such a place.

And loaded because you are trying to suggest that, all humans are malevolent too. If we were, the species would have died out a long time ago.

[Greenandwhite]

Just wondering if you would agree that the following accurately describes your view of God, hell, and the scriptures:

It doesn't and it is a loaded question. This is why:
1. if hell exists (a place of unspeakable, eternal torture) and:
2. if a god exists who possesses the attributes of power, love, and knowledge to a maximal degree and:
3. if humans are truly free in their actions (which would make a warning of an eternal hell relevant) Why?, then:
4. God would desire to present the clearest possible warning to us of such a place Again why?
5.We do not have a clear warning, therefore: Doesn't apply, reasoning not forthcoming.
6. the Being described in (2) does not exist Also doesn't apply, a creature so full of love to a maximal degree would not have the propensity to do anything bad. thus would not create such a place, only a creature that isn't full of love to a maximal degree, a malevolent creature would create such a place.

And loaded because you are trying to suggest that, all humans are malevolent too. If we were, the species would have died out a long time ago.

     I think that in a debate every question is a loaded question; after all, if one asks a question but does not have in mind a point to be made, then what's the point of asking the question in the first place? 
     I wrote this post in response to post #371 in which I felt that jtk73 was taking several assumptions of Christianity and arguing that accepting all of them leads to an inconsistency.  I was just trying to make sure that I was accurately recognizing the implicit and explicit assumptions that jtk73 was making.  If you don't feel that this was the best way of going about things then I can accept your opinion; how about if I phrase things differently and attempt to cut to the chase right away. 
     It seems to me that jtk73 was assuming a place of 'torture' and, for the sake of argument, an all-powerful, 'fair' being who is described in an 'incoherent, rambling, inconsistent collection of books'.  From my reading on this forum, it seems to be a common sentiment that the Bible is incoherent, rambling, and inconsistent; it has also been stated on numerous occasions that hell is a place of unspeakable, eternal torture for those who do not accept the message found in God's incoherent books about himself.  What I am wondering is how the members of this forum can categorically state that the Bible is practically bursting at its seams with contradictions and impossible to understand passages, and yet at the same time be so certain that the description of hell found within the same book is so crystal clear.  I have never seen anyone say "maybe God is loving and we have just misunderstood the significance of the descriptions of hell offered in the Bible.  That kind of an approach would seem to be much more sensible considering the paltry handful of references to hell when compared to the number of passages that talk about God's nature and person.   

[Azdgari]

I for one am more concerned by the judgment of my fellow human beings that I deserve to endure extreme and everlasting torture.  That kind of hatred can be hazardous.

[Greenandwhite]

     I find it interesting that you would balk at reading the article that I suggested (an article on a reputable website written by a competent author) by claiming that I am just referring you to 'another opinion' and that I am using an 'appeal to authority'.

     I'm not unwilling to accept an idea if it is something tangible, and not merely your opinion from a different source. All you did was supply a more authoritarian version of your opinion hence the appeal to authority. You need to understand that.

     I am just wondering, can you explain to me the difference between legitimate and illegitimate appeals to authority?

As they cannot possibly be an expert on the imaginary/supernatural, because the supernatural would have to be proven before there could be any expert on it.

     You know, this is an interesting concept that you have just introduced - one cannot be an expert about something until it is proven.  Albert Einstein died in 1955, but before he died he did a tremendous amount of work in the field of general relativity.  In fact, he proposed a test whereby the validity of his theory could be proven: measure the precession of the perihelion of mercury and if the measurements obtained match those predicted by his theory, general relativity would be 'proven'. The interesting thing is that as time has gone on scientists have developed more and more accurate means of making this measurement, meaning that today the theory of general relativity is proven with greater certainty than it was in 1955.  And now we see the true genius of Einstein, despite the fact that he has been dead for more than 60 years he has found a way to continue to increase his expertise even from the grave - and he has you to thank. 

     I do wonder, however, If you have completely explored his website, because anyone who has knows that most of videos (e.g. color changing card trick, the psychological card trick, the mirror, etc...) question our ability to make accurate empirical observations rather than questioning the reliability of rational introspection - don't the conclusions of his videos worry you a bit?

No! Why would they?

     They should worry you because they directly illustrate how people can easily be mistaken in the empirical observations that they make thereby undercutting the supposed reliability of the scientific method which I am assuming you think is the only way to actually gain knowledge.  In fact, I'll bet it took less effort for Mr. Wiseman to fool his subjects in his card trick experiment than it did in his memory experiment. 

[Greenandwhite]

I for one am more concerned by the judgment of my fellow human beings that I deserve to endure extreme and everlasting torture.  That kind of hatred can be hazardous.

     First, I think that those Christians who characterize hell as a place of 'everlasting torture' do so in a universal sense (e.g. it is the 'place' we are all headed absent some kind of a divine intervention), so the 'hatred' would be self directed as well. 
     Second, just wondering what exactly you mean be the phrase 'that kind of hatred can be hazardous', because it seems to me that Christians who believe in hell are the ones most likely to put themselves in harms way in an effort to prevent others from going there. 
     Third, whether a person is an atheist or a Christian I would be willing to oppose them if they think that the Biblical descriptions of hell should be understood in a hyperliteral sense.  If I do not win the debate the consequences for me could be unpleasant; you see, if one interprets the Biblical descriptions of hell hyperliterally, then it would only make sense to do the same with the descriptions of heaven.  The literal descriptions of heaven found in the Bible seem absurd and even worse, boring; after a couple thousand years I might be inclined to leave heaven and join the unfortunate in hell. 

[Azdgari]

1. Assuming they don't expect to go there themselves, they must feel that their works (including belief behavior) has merited salvation from that fate.  Ie., they don't really deserve that fate anymore.  If they did, and their god didn't send them there, then their god would be violating its own sense of justice.
  Even if it is self-directed for the person in question, I don't particularly care how (s)he feels about his or her self.  A self-hating person who hates you, still hates you.

2. That sort of action only makes sense for people who don't believe that others deserve to go to hell.  "Turn or burn" is a more common attitude, in my experience.

3. Glad to hear it.  Though I doubt that such people are really drawing from the Bible for most of their hell-beliefs.  More likely they got it from their pastor or whoever.

[bertatberts]

Just wondering if you would agree that the following accurately describes your view of God, hell, and the scriptures:

It doesn't and it is a loaded question. This is why:
1. if hell exists (a place of unspeakable, eternal torture) and:
2. if a god exists who possesses the attributes of power, love, and knowledge to a maximal degree and:
3. if humans are truly free in their actions (which would make a warning of an eternal hell relevant) Why?, then:
4. God would desire to present the clearest possible warning to us of such a place Again why?
5.We do not have a clear warning, therefore: Doesn't apply, reasoning not forthcoming.
6. the Being described in (2) does not exist Also doesn't apply, a creature so full of love to a maximal degree would not have the propensity to do anything bad. thus would not create such a place, only a creature that isn't full of love to a maximal degree, a malevolent creature would create such a place.

And loaded because you are trying to suggest that, all humans are malevolent too. If we were, the species would have died out a long time ago.

I think that in a debate every question is a loaded question;

Well this one certainly has and thanks for the concession.

after all, if one asks a question but does not have in mind a point to be made, then what's the point of asking the question in the first place?

Probably to get at the truth. 

I wrote this post in response to post #371 in which I felt that jtk73 was taking several assumptions of Christianity and arguing that accepting all of them leads to an inconsistency.  I was just trying to make sure that I was accurately recognizing the implicit and explicit assumptions that jtk73 was making.  If you don't feel that this was the best way of going about things then I can accept your opinion; how about if I phrase things differently and attempt to cut to the chase right away. 
It seems to me that jtk73 was assuming a place of 'torture' and, for the sake of argument, an all-powerful, 'fair' being who is described in an 'incoherent, rambling, inconsistent collection of books'.  From my reading on this forum, it seems to be a common sentiment that the Bible is incoherent, rambling, and inconsistent; it has also been stated on numerous occasions that hell is a place of unspeakable, eternal torture for those who do not accept the message found in God's incoherent books about himself.  What I am wondering is how the members of this forum can categorically state that the Bible is practically bursting at its seams with contradictions and impossible to understand passages, and yet at the same time be so certain that the description of hell found within the same book is so crystal clear.  I have never seen anyone say "maybe God is loving and we have just misunderstood the significance of the descriptions of hell offered in the Bible.  That kind of an approach would seem to be much more sensible considering the paltry handful of references to hell when compared to the number of passages that talk about God's nature and person.

Well all I can state is a paraphrase of - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, The god of the bible is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Because of the way this God character is portraited in the bible, it infers to all that hell will be the most nastiest place imaginable. Also most of the scriptures in regard to hell also infer the same. I.E.
    Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”
    Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
    Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”
    Revelation 14:11 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night”
    Revelation 20:14 “This is the second death, the lake of fire”
    Revelation 20:15 “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”
To name just a few.

Oh and when you are discussing a book of fiction, (which some like you think is true) it matters not to those who consider it fiction to state on the one hand it is full of contradictions and on the other state what hell is like, it is all imaginary to them anyway. They are just trying to understand your mentality, in that regard.

[bertatberts]

I find it interesting that you would balk at reading the article that I suggested (an article on a reputable website written by a competent author) by claiming that I am just referring you to 'another opinion' and that I am using an 'appeal to authority'.

I'm not unwilling to accept an idea if it is something tangible, and not merely your opinion from a different source. All you did was supply a more authoritarian version of your opinion hence the appeal to authority. You need to understand that.

First of all, if you think that my suggestion is an illegitimate appeal to authority then I suggest you visit the Nizkor project where under the heading 'fallacy: appeal to authority' there is a list of six criteria that must be met for an appeal to an authority to be justified - simply point out which of the six criteria my source fails to meet.

Whether it's someone, be they alleged expert or not, they can only give an opinion, (and yet you site them as a back up source), I'm sorry that is an appeal to authority.

I am just wondering, can you explain to me the difference between legitimate and illegitimate appeals to authority?

The person you choose to link too wasn't an authority as he could not possibly be as already stated in  my previous post. Thus he failed on all six of your nizkor criteria. Unless you can show how he passed that is.

As they cannot possibly be an expert on the imaginary/supernatural, because the supernatural would have to be proven before there could be any expert on it.

You know, this is an interesting concept that you have just introduced - one cannot be an expert about something until it is proven. Albert Einstein died in 1955, but before he died he did a tremendous amount of work in the field of general relativity.  In fact, he proposed a test whereby the validity of his theory could be proven: measure the precession of the perihelion of mercury and if the measurements obtained match those predicted by his theory, general relativity would be 'proven'. The interesting thing is that as time has gone on scientists have developed more and more accurate means of making this measurement, meaning that today the theory of general relativity is proven with greater certainty than it was in 1955.  And now we see the true genius of Einstein, despite the fact that he has been dead for more than 60 years he has found a way to continue to increase his expertise even from the grave

Strawman, didn't say one cannot be an expert about something until it is proven. What I said was one cannot possibly be an expert on the imaginary/supernatural, because the supernatural would have to be proven before there could be any expert on it. Where can a person find facts about the supernatural to base a theory on? 

I do wonder, however, If you have completely explored his website, because anyone who has knows that most of videos (e.g. color changing card trick, the psychological card trick, the mirror, etc...) question our ability to make accurate empirical observations rather than questioning the reliability of rational introspection - don't the conclusions of his videos worry you a bit?

No! Why would they?

They should worry you because they directly illustrate how people can easily be mistaken in the empirical observations that they make thereby undercutting the supposed reliability of the scientific method which I am assuming you think is the only way to actually gain knowledge.

No it doesn't bother me, as I and anybody who wishes to know the truth will seek several sources, and would Filch proof it, I or they would never only rely on there own perception. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_guide_to_critical_thinking/ You should have realized that, when you were talking about Einsteins theory.  Science is empirical, nobody can be an expert until they can empirically prove there assertions, which Einstein could.

[Greenandwhite]

Because of the way this God character is portraited in the bible, it infers to all that hell will be the most nastiest place imaginable. Also most of the scriptures in regard to hell also infer the same. I.E.
    Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”
    Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
    Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”
    Revelation 14:11 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night”
    Revelation 20:14 “This is the second death, the lake of fire”
    Revelation 20:15 “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”
To name just a few.

Oh and when you are discussing a book of fiction, (which some like you think is true) it matters not to those who consider it fiction to state on the one hand it is full of contradictions and on the other state what hell is like, it is all imaginary to them anyway. They are just trying to understand your mentality, in that regard.

     My mentality would be that these verses are not meant to be literal descriptions of 'hell'.

[Greenandwhite]

     They should worry you because they directly illustrate how people can easily be mistaken in the empirical observations that they make thereby undercutting the supposed reliability of the scientific method which I am assuming you think is the only way to actually gain knowledge.

     No it doesn't bother me, as I and anybody who wishes to know the truth will seek several sources, and would Filch proof it, I or they would never only rely on there own perception. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_guide_to_critical_thinking/ You should have realized that, when you were talking about Einsteins theory.  Science is empirical, nobody can be an expert until they can empirically prove there assertions, which Einstein could.

     Wishing to know the truth you would seek 'several sources'...sources that would be susceptible to the same perceptual pitfalls as yourself?  I have no doubt that the 'Filch proof' method works well in assessing claims so long as it is fed reliable data - unfortunately, before you can use the Filch proof you must collect the data with your senses; senses that have been shown by Mr Wiseman to be fallible.  Now I don't believe for a minute (nor do you) that the results of Mr Wiseman's experiments cast significant doubt on what we as humans have learned through the scientific method, so is it fair to say that to render a method of acquiring knowledge unreliable one has to do more than simply point to a possible scenario where that method could produce false results?

[median]

     I thought it was interesting that above you used the phrase 'belief before site' when in my original post what I actually said was that "faith precedes the event and not visa versa" - I think this is a significant change because I do not consider 'belief' and 'faith' to be synonymous.  You also claimed that "even if were shown that [my] theology was completely bunk, and/or all of [my] arguments for Yahweh failed,  would still believe based upon [my] alleged 'non-communicable' experience".  If you look at my original post (#48) what I actually said was that, "I could conceivably give up every single one of the theist arguments and so long as I still was experiencing Christ it wouldn’t matter."  Theist arguments, as I also explained earlier in post #48, refer to generic arguments like the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments and not to any evaluations of specific Christian claims (e.g. the resurrection) - it would be a different story if my belief in the resurrection or the logical coherence of the Christian concept of God were challenged - those I did not say I could give up. 

   

Huh? The "logical coherence"??? There is no logical coherence is this alleged Yahweh being. Had you not ASSUMED the bible was "the word of God" at the outset you would have realized that. This is why when we non-believers start pointing out how irrational the supposed traits of this deity are, you apologists start rationalizing/spinning the data to make it fit into your pre-commitment. And somehow, you'd be willing to let all the "generic" theist arguments go and still hold on to this "faith" thing, which you somehow claim is different than belief? Can you even hear yourself thinking this stuff up?

Besides that, what does the resurrection prove? Unlikely events happen all the time! Where is your critical thinking? What method are you using in which to separate fact from fiction (especially when it pertains to your assumed religion)? We could agree the resurrection happened (but I don't) and still you'd have all of your work ahead of you b/c that wouldn't make it supernatural! Again, you are practicing credulity.

Here's an even more important question: What if you didn't think that any of those supernatural claims in the bible were true? Would you still interpret that your alleged "experience" was from Yahweh?? So far, I think I can speak for many of us here when I say that there is good reason to doubt that your alleged experience with Yahweh was actual. It is far more likely that you are simply interpreting an emotional response as such based upon your pre-commitment to your interpretation of the bible. Did you ever consider that? B/c that's what this OP is all about (examining your beliefs).

 As for your claim that my actions on this forum exhibit 'trollishness', dishonesty, and closemindedness; I suggest that you report me to one of the moderators (of which you are not one), and if they object to my behavior then I would be willing to politely leave.  Incidentally, in post #75 I already responded to your accusation that I am closed minded and argued that even if I am closed minded it could actually add to the discussion we are having - you never responded.  Also, I wonder if you have even bothered to read the WWGHA website; specifically I am referring to the last entry under 'resources' labeled "are you a devoted, unwavering Christian?"  In this section you will find the following quotes: "If you are a devoted, unwavering Christian, you know that God is real because you have seen him work in your own life...Think of your testimony as a missionary activity. Let your light shine and be a fisher of men by helping others to understand what faith in God really means.  Thank you for visiting today -- We look forward to hearing from you." I'm just wondering what on earth makes you think that that statement is looking to attract 'open-minded', wavering Christians??

I never claimed the terms open-minded and "unwavering" were synonymous. That is your claim (of which I reject). So the closed-mindedness argument stands. I was an "unwavering" Christian once as well (for nearly 20 years) - attempting to defend it just as you are, but with an open mind not a closed one. I don't really give two shits if you are "unwavering". Great! Be unwavering! That still doesn't change the fact that you haven't demonstrated one single shred of openness to the possibility that your interpretation of your alleged "non-communicable" experience is wrong or in error. Lots of religions claim "personal relationship"/"personal experience" but I got news for you. MOMMY ISN'T ALWAYS RIGHT!!

What you are doing here is demonstrating that you aren't open-minded. You displayed this quite clearly in your first post by claiming some unfalsifiable non-communicable "experience" (indeed you made the ASSUMPTION that your interpretation was accurate - which is self diagnoses) which your mom psychologically prepped you for when you were at a very impressionable age. You bought it (just as most kids do all over the world) and now you're unwilling to question it's very foundation.

So you came to this thread to make a statement that only LOOKS LIKE a potentiality for falsification (i.e. - "lose my experieice with Christ") but really is not at all. What a troll! How can one "lose" an experience? It is your very interpretation of  this alleged experience that I am driving at, and putting under question. I am fully aware that nearly every Christian claims to have "an experience with Christ" (I used to make the same arguments!) but they are mistaken - and as my OP alludes to - I am asking you religionists to practice a little bit more open-mindedness (and critical thinking). So, how about trying it a second time huh? What would it REALLY take for you to change your view (i.e. - reverse it)? And please be specific.

And just because I'm feeling charitable, here's mine in three words: OVERWHELMING DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE.

[median]

     Wishing to know the truth you would seek 'several sources'...sources that would be susceptible to the same perceptual pitfalls as yourself?  I have no doubt that the 'Filch proof' method works well in assessing claims so long as it is fed reliable data - unfortunately, before you can use the Filch proof you must collect the data with your senses; senses that have been shown by Mr Wiseman to be fallible.  Now I don't believe for a minute (nor do you) that the results of Mr Wiseman's experiments cast significant doubt on what we as humans have learned through the scientific method, so is it fair to say that to render a method of acquiring knowledge unreliable one has to do more than simply point to a possible scenario where that method could produce false results?

And somehow I get the impression that you think the bible is not subject to these "perceptual pitfalls"?? What good is an alleged holy book that anyone can choose to interpret in any fashion they please (at any time) - based upon the general theological presumptions from which their environment raised them? Who gets the final say on what interpretation is the correct one? More importantly, why are you interpreting the bible favorably (as if it's supernatural claims are facts) instead of doing critical examination while suspending judgment? Again, these claims you are making are indistinguishable from superstition.

[Anfauglir]

     Third, whether a person is an atheist or a Christian I would be willing to oppose them if they think that the Biblical descriptions of hell should be understood in a hyperliteral sense.  If I do not win the debate the consequences for me could be unpleasant; you see, if one interprets the Biblical descriptions of hell hyperliterally, then it would only make sense to do the same with the descriptions of heaven.  The literal descriptions of heaven found in the Bible seem absurd and even worse, boring; after a couple thousand years I might be inclined to leave heaven and join the unfortunate in hell.

    Revelation 20:14 “This is the second death, the lake of fire” (etc)
.

     My mentality would be that these verses are not meant to be literal descriptions of 'hell'.

I think at this stage then, the appropriate questions are "so what ARE heaven and hell like"? 

Assuming that I will be spending eternity in one or other, I think it is the most vital question there is to answer - more so even than whether god's character is good or bad or whatever.  When I choose a holiday, I read brochures, look on the web, search pictures, ask others for their experiences....I try to get the best idea I can of where I am going.....for somewhere I will only be for two weeks.  So for eternity?  I want to know exactly what I will be getting myself into, so that I can make an informed choice.

But now you are telling me that the Bible - the single source we have on what these two places are like - does NOT give a literal depiction of either?  So what ARE they like - really?  And how do we know?

[nogodsforme]

What parts of the bible give us a literal or factual description? If the bible is not giving a literal or factual description of heaven or hell, should we take heaven or hell seriously? (Possible answer: we should not take that stuff seriously, but we should be wary of the people who do.)

What is the bible, then, if the most important things in it --say, descriptions of heaven or hell--are not factual? (Possible answer: the bible is a work of historical fiction, ie  set in some real places with some references to real people, not as well-written or as interesting as a Harry Potter book but much longer.)

[bertatberts]

My mentality would be that these verses are not meant to be literal descriptions of 'hell'.

Then you need to define for us, which verses are literal and which are not, and also you need to show us how your definitions are the correct ones, Can you do that?

[bertatberts]

They should worry you because they directly illustrate how people can easily be mistaken in the empirical observations that they make thereby undercutting the supposed reliability of the scientific method which I am assuming you think is the only way to actually gain knowledge.

No it doesn't bother me, as I and anybody who wishes to know the truth will seek several sources, and would Filch proof it, I or they would never only rely on there own perception. http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_guide_to_critical_thinking/ You should have realized that, when you were talking about Einsteins theory.  Science is empirical, nobody can be an expert until they can empirically prove there assertions, which Einstein could.

Wishing to know the truth you would seek 'several sources'...sources that would be susceptible to the same perceptual pitfalls as yourself?

Are you a solopsist? The reason we test things is to avoid such problems, to bring those errors out.

I have no doubt that the 'Filch proof' method works well in assessing claims so long as it is fed reliable data - unfortunately, before you can use the Filch proof you must collect the data with your senses; senses that have been shown by Mr Wiseman to be fallible.  Now I don't believe for a minute (nor do you) that the results of Mr Wiseman's experiments cast significant doubt on what we as humans have learned through the scientific method, so is it fair to say that to render a method of acquiring knowledge unreliable one has to do more than simply point to a possible scenario where that method could produce false results?

No! That is all the science method requires, It does not require anything more.
If a thing fails it fails, looking for more reasons to fail it, is redundant.

If we are constantly looking for reasons to fail a thing we would never move forward.

We test a thing if the thing fails, we try a different approach, or go back to the drawing board.

[Greenandwhite]

     Besides that, what does the resurrection prove? Unlikely events happen all the time! Where is your critical thinking? What method are you using in which to separate fact from fiction (especially when it pertains to your assumed religion)? We could agree the resurrection happened (but I don't) and still you'd have all of your work ahead of you b/c that wouldn't make it supernatural! Again, you are practicing credulity....And just because I'm feeling charitable, here's mine [what it would take to change my view] in three words: OVERWHELMING DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE.

     Unlikely events happen all the time??  I guess you would know if the nature of God is incoherent because you are pretty good at making logically incoherent statements yourself.  If a man rising from the dead three days after being crucified would not constitute overwhelming demonstrable evidence even if it were true, then there is no such thing as overwhelming demonstrable evidence - that sure sounds like closed-mindedness to me. 

[Greenandwhite]

I have no doubt that the 'Filch proof' method works well in assessing claims so long as it is fed reliable data - unfortunately, before you can use the Filch proof you must collect the data with your senses; senses that have been shown by Mr Wiseman to be fallible.  Now I don't believe for a minute (nor do you) that the results of Mr Wiseman's experiments cast significant doubt on what we as humans have learned through the scientific method, so is it fair to say that to render a method of acquiring knowledge unreliable one has to do more than simply point to a possible scenario where that method could produce false results?

No! That is all the science method requires, It does not require anything more.
If a thing fails it fails, looking for more reasons to fail it, is redundant.

If we are constantly looking for reasons to fail a thing we would never move forward.

We test a thing if the thing fails, we try a different approach, or go back to the drawing board.

     There is a big difference between saying that a thing fails and saying there are certain circumstances under which a thing fails.  The fact that young earth creationists regularly point to possible situations where radiometric dating would be invalid in no way casts doubt on all the dates that have been assigned through the radiometric method. 

[Greenandwhite]

My mentality would be that these verses are not meant to be literal descriptions of 'hell'.

Then you need to define for us, which verses are literal and which are not, and also you need to show us how your definitions are the correct ones, Can you do that?

     I think I made a start in my last post did I not? 

[Azdgari]

     Unlikely events happen all the time??  I guess you would know if the nature of God is incoherent because you are pretty good at making logically incoherent statements yourself.

There is nothing wrong with his statement that unlikely events happen all the time.  They do.  The specific event is unlikely, the only likely thing is that something will happen that the odds were against.

A typical example is shuffling a deck of cards.  The specific arrangement in that deck that results from the shuffling is astronomically unlikely.  However, it happens all the time.

Another example is a lightning strike.  Any particular object getting hit by lightning[1] is very unlikely.  Yet lightning strikes happen all the time.

If a man rising from the dead three days after being crucified would not constitute overwhelming demonstrable evidence even if it were true, then there is no such thing as overwhelming demonstrable evidence - that sure sounds like closed-mindedness to me.

Evidence of the supernatural, or evidence of something natural that we don't understand yet?  That, I think, is median's point.

Supernaturalism is itself incoherent, GaW.  For a god to exist in a definite state, it would have to be natural.  Anything that operates in a coherent fashion is natural.  If something truly supernatural existed, then its effects would be completely boundless and the universe as we know it would be destroyed.  If it had bounds, if it had a definite manner of operation, then it would not be supernatural.

1.	Lightning rods aside...

[Greenandwhite]

What parts of the bible give us a literal or factual description? If the bible is not giving a literal or factual description of heaven or hell, should we take heaven or hell seriously? (Possible answer: we should not take that stuff seriously, but we should be wary of the people who do.)

What is the bible, then, if the most important things in it --say, descriptions of heaven or hell--are not factual? (Possible answer: the bible is a work of historical fiction, ie  set in some real places with some references to real people, not as well-written or as interesting as a Harry Potter book but much longer.)

     The verses describing hell should not be taken as literal descriptions, but that does not mean they are not to be taken seriously.  I think that the essence of hell is final and mutual separation from God whereas heaven would be the opposite.