Author Topic: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?  (Read 33857 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #812 on: July 13, 2013, 10:33:04 AM »
Left up to strict religious folks, we would not even be trying to detect life elsewhere in the universe. They don't want to know. 

That's a valid hypotheses to examine based on my own experiences as well.
Let us know how your research turns out.  Your results should be interesting to read.

Sure, we'll get right on that...after you demonstrate your deity. Let's see that "research" you claim to have done!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6204
  • Darwins +782/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #813 on: July 14, 2013, 04:23:09 PM »
Atheists are not trying to prevent scientific research that might lead to more knowledge of the world we live in. You tend to see various religious groups objecting to scientific research that they believe threatens their worldview, or their god. We atheists realize that humans have the power to improve or ruin the planet. No supernatural force is going to fix things that are wrong. At the same time we realize that no supernatural force is at work making things bad, either.

If a person firmly believes that evil spirits make people sick, and that praying makes them well, they probably won't be crazy about research that proves them wrong. Likewise, if a person thinks that god made the earth specifically for human beings, they probably won't be happy with research that suggests that there are lots of earth-like planets out there that could support life.

Is that not a valid observation, SW?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline DT

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 55
  • Darwins +1/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #814 on: July 15, 2013, 07:49:21 AM »
Quote
The language is just really confusing I suppose.  At least in normal parlance, "fulfilling the requirements of the law" would imply that some set of conditions had been established that can enable the law to take effect.  At least that's what words like "requirement" seem to imply.  But clearly that's not what's being talked about here.  If I understand you correctly, what was 'fulfilled' was the intent of the laws - the laws were established to make man righteous before god, but an alternative way (Christ's sacrifice) of fulfilling the intent of the laws was used.  Which is still kinda confusing for a couple o' reasons:
1) It makes the original laws seem rather pointless then.  Which maybe isn't really an issue.
2) Did Christ's sacrifice work?

You are correct in the statement of fulfilling the intent of the law. Your first point of the original law being pointless is correct to a degree. In this forum the issue of ego was mentioned. God in a sense was saying ok, you guys think you can do it yourselves, then keep all these requirements. The law was to show them their weaknesses and limitations and to set a standard they would need to keep in-order to be righteous before God. However they failed time and time again. Your second point did Christ's sacrifice work? Yes, but the next question is how? God now looks at Christ for the fulfilling of the law and it's requirements and not sinful man.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1846
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #815 on: July 15, 2013, 10:58:38 AM »
You are correct in the statement of fulfilling the intent of the law. Your first point of the original law being pointless is correct to a degree. In this forum the issue of ego was mentioned. God in a sense was saying ok, you guys think you can do it yourselves, then keep all these requirements. The law was to show them their weaknesses and limitations and to set a standard they would need to keep in-order to be righteous before God. However they failed time and time again. Your second point did Christ's sacrifice work? Yes, but the next question is how? God now looks at Christ for the fulfilling of the law and it's requirements and not sinful man.
First of all, could we stop with the phrase 'fulfilling of the law' or 'fulfill the law' or any such permutation as such?  So far as I can tell it only serves to confuse the conversation.  Let's just go with 'fulfilling the intent of the law' so that we can ensure we're on the same page here.

Reworded:
"God now looks at Christ for the fulfilling the intent of the law and it's requirements and not sinful man."

The whole 'sacrifice' thing is now extra-confusing in this case.  It just sounds like the sacrifice...didn't...fulfill the intent of making man righteous before god.  Man's still sinful after all, as per your admission.  Christ's sacrifice didn't really fulfill the intent of making man righteous before god.  If being righteous means being able to abide by the old laws, and Christ made a sacrifice to make man righteous, it stands to reason that man should be able to follow the old laws now, yes?  If not, did the terms of 'righteous before god' change?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline El Guapo

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Darwins +3/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #816 on: July 16, 2013, 12:48:38 PM »
My atheist view. It would require something that removes both "belief" and "faith" from the equation. Only fake religions should need those components.

I would want to know, unequivocally. If there is a god, like rev45 said, he knows how to do that.

By the way, knowing that he exists and worshipping him are two different things. Just knowing he exists does not guarantee I will become a follower. He's gonna have to earn my respect. He can't demand it. if he exists, he didn't give me the genetic ability to operate any other way.

Agree with PP. 

Whatever event/evidence that I would hypothetically experience/realize would need to remove any subsequent requirements to express my acknowledgement of god(s) using the terms like "belief" or "faith".  Much like others members on the site, I need some hard, tangible evidence. 

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #817 on: July 22, 2013, 11:44:10 AM »

You are correct in the statement of fulfilling the intent of the law. Your first point of the original law being pointless is correct to a degree. In this forum the issue of ego was mentioned. God in a sense was saying ok, you guys think you can do it yourselves, then keep all these requirements. The law was to show them their weaknesses and limitations and to set a standard they would need to keep in-order to be righteous before God. However they failed time and time again. Your second point did Christ's sacrifice work? Yes, but the next question is how? God now looks at Christ for the fulfilling of the law and it's requirements and not sinful man.

Animal sacrifice, killing homosexuals, stoning unruly children, kicking out sick people, and curing lepers with birds blood is "righteous"?? NO...just no.

Second, how does killing something (a man or animal etc) make the "sins" of another forgiven? This simply makes no sense at all (no different from just another ridiculous superstition). You can't go to jail to "pay" for your son's crimes. More importantly, even if a dude named Jesus did die on a cross (which I don't for a second think happened), in the story he came back to life! So he didn't sacrifice anything.

The whole thing is completely absurd - just as much as all the other absurd man-made religions of old.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2013, 11:48:34 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #818 on: July 22, 2013, 12:30:27 PM »
Second, how does killing something (a man or animal etc) make the "sins" of another forgiven? This simply makes no sense at all (no different from just another ridiculous superstition). You can't go to jail to "pay" for your son's crimes.

Yes, anyone can enter a guilty plea for any crime with no trial.
Anyone may post bail for another or pay all their fines.
Many legal systems throughout history do allow for standing in
for another persons crimes even after a trial.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #819 on: July 22, 2013, 12:38:41 PM »
First of all, could we stop with the phrase 'fulfilling of the law' or 'fulfill the law' or any such permutation as such?  So far as I can tell it only serves to confuse the conversation.  Let's just go with 'fulfilling the intent of the law' so that we can ensure we're on the same page here.

Can't do that.  Paying a speeding ticket does not slow people down nor does it erase the event.
Paying the fine does not have any effect on the intent.

"Fulfilling the law"  means that the law requires payment or "just result" for breaking the law.
The law requires that people found guilty of speeding pay a fine.  The law allows for anyone to pay the fine.  Just as the law allows for anyone to plead guilty for a murder with no trial.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6195
  • Darwins +407/-4
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #820 on: July 23, 2013, 02:37:44 AM »
First of all, could we stop with the phrase 'fulfilling of the law' or 'fulfill the law' or any such permutation as such?  So far as I can tell it only serves to confuse the conversation.  Let's just go with 'fulfilling the intent of the law' so that we can ensure we're on the same page here.

Can't do that.  Paying a speeding ticket does not slow people down nor does it erase the event.
Paying the fine does not have any effect on the intent.

"Fulfilling the law"  means that the law requires payment or "just result" for breaking the law.

So....all of the laws of the OT continue forward, as in force as they were before?  Because nothing you've said could be taken as eradicating those laws.  So "do not kill" and "stone disobedient children" presumably carry forward with the same weight?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #821 on: July 23, 2013, 10:54:49 AM »
Second, how does killing something (a man or animal etc) make the "sins" of another forgiven? This simply makes no sense at all (no different from just another ridiculous superstition). You can't go to jail to "pay" for your son's crimes.

Yes, anyone can enter a guilty plea for any crime with no trial.
Anyone may post bail for another or pay all their fines.
Many legal systems throughout history do allow for standing in
for another persons crimes even after a trial.

You are missing the point entirely. Vicarious redemption is what we're talking about here. This idea that someone can pay the price for one person's atrocities against another is absurd (legal fees are a red herring). For one, VR implies that people do not have to be responsible (or held accountable) for their own actions. It would be completely asinine, worthless, and immoral if the father of a convicted murdering child molester (such as John Gardner III) was allowed to serve his son's sentence (Hence, letting the monster go free). Responsibility simply doesn't work that way. Secondly, the consequences of this idea 1) allows those who do atrocities to get away with murder (and eternally so!), and 2) is also quite selective under Christianity because your god only chooses a select few to "be forgiven" and "enter into life". The whole thing is an absurdity of epic proportions. A divine deity who supposedly created everything and knew what would happen in advance allowed imperfection and "sin" into the world (via some serpent named Satan) to mess up his creation (causing him to create everyone with sin?), then causing the majority to suffer, die, and go to eternal torture forever. What an absurd and disgusting plan. Do you know what it sounds more like? Men writing fiction to try and control other men.

And you wonder why we think you are credulous...



p.s - I know you may want to argue that "We are all monsters b/c we have all sinned" but that argument is another assumption based upon your ASSUMING your theology in advance. Just because your bible/theology says something doesn't make it true. You need to demonstrate how you know it's true. How many bad deeds does it take to make someone a monster? How many good deeds does it take to make a good person? This bible standard you have accepted a priori is in error, for one because you didn't evaluate it first (you assumed it was true - and based on that assumption you can't evaluate it due to your "sin nature" - which disallows you from knowing if it's morally correct), and two because it sets up an immoral system of 'redemption' (one where those who vehemently violate the well being of conscious human beings can do so for a lifetime and then live a life in paradise after death by being "saved").
« Last Edit: July 23, 2013, 11:06:58 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #822 on: July 23, 2013, 11:17:23 AM »

Can't do that.  Paying a speeding ticket does not slow people down nor does it erase the event.
Paying the fine does not have any effect on the intent.


HA! It's not surprising to me that you can't see the outright contradiction in your logic here, but it is funny. In your response to me you tried to argue that one person can actually pay the debt (i.e. - serve the time) for another person's atrocities. But now in this post you say the opposite (paying a speeding ticket does not erase the event). To that I say, exactly! So this idea that Jesus' blood will somehow erase your sins from God is absurd. You cannot "do the time" (or "stand in") for someone else' crime b/c that would mean the criminal gets away with his atrocities (i.e. - gets to live in paradise).

Now, if you think that a small child being molested, raped, and brutally murdered is JUST as "evil" before your God as the rapist then you are just as immoral as your bible.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1846
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #823 on: July 23, 2013, 11:23:02 AM »
Can't do that.  Paying a speeding ticket does not slow people down nor does it erase the event.
Paying the fine does not have any effect on the intent.

"Fulfilling the law"  means that the law requires payment or "just result" for breaking the law.
The law requires that people found guilty of speeding pay a fine.  The law allows for anyone to pay the fine.  Just as the law allows for anyone to plead guilty for a murder with no trial.
Perhaps you and DT can hash out what the phrase 'fulfill the law' means exactly.

By-the-by...the law doesn't allow for anyone to plead guilty for a murder with no trial.  The methods of enforcement of the law do so.

...which has given me another thought.  I've been focusing on the phrase 'fulfill the law', and in particular, the word 'fulfill'.  But maybe that's not where the discrepancy in understanding is.

Sky and/or DT...what does 'law' refer to in this case?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #824 on: July 25, 2013, 08:09:43 AM »
This idea that someone can pay the price for one person's atrocities against another is absurd

It's a fact. It's been a fact throughout history. Your approval is not required.
Anyone can confess to a crime or plead guilty in your stead.


Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #826 on: July 25, 2013, 08:18:34 AM »
HA! It's not surprising to me that you can't see the outright contradiction in your logic here, but it is funny.

My logic has no influence over how our legal system works or over God's laws for man.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #827 on: July 25, 2013, 08:29:36 AM »
This bible standard you have accepted a priori is in error, for one because you didn't evaluate it first (you assumed it was true - and based on that assumption you can't evaluate it due to your "sin nature" - which disallows you from knowing if it's morally correct),

Yes I did.  You just weren't watching me as I evaluated Christianity for 30 years
before being born again.



Quote
and two because it sets up an immoral system of 'redemption' (one where those who vehemently violate the well being of conscious human beings can do so for a lifetime and then live a life in paradise after death by being "saved").

Heaven is not exactly paradise as you imply.  Part of the forgiving process is having all your sins exposed.    Imagine every single thought you've had,  written down and your mother gets to read it as you watch.    Closer to that.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #828 on: August 02, 2013, 12:33:05 AM »
This idea that someone can pay the price for one person's atrocities against another is absurd

It's a fact. It's been a fact throughout history. Your approval is not required.
Anyone can confess to a crime or plead guilty in your stead.

Your equivocation doesn't make your claim anymore true - regardless of how many times you repeat it. Merely CLAIMING you are standing in for someone's crimes doesn't mean you actually are making recompence for the real culprits crimes. I thought it was interesting how you completely skipped over my previous example. So perhaps you should go back and read it again and then address it. Confessing to a crime that you didn't commit does absolutely nothing to address the issue we are discussing (more irrational reasoning - a red herring - by you).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #829 on: August 02, 2013, 12:36:07 AM »
Sky and/or DT...what does 'law' refer to in this case?

My examples are the US legal system largely modeled from Judeo/Christian
history grounded in Gods laws.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=define+law++&oq=define+law++&gs_l=hp.12..0l4.551980.563316.0.564796.12.10.0.0.0.1.713.2702.1j3j1j4j6-1.10.0....0.0..1c.1.20.psy-ab.I1aVhb2-j8c&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.49784469%2Cd.aWc%2Cpv.xjs.s.en_US.MpiVkF51mpA.O&fp=630f4a7851d9cf72&ion=1&biw=1163&bih=817

No, only a small part of these laws are grounded in an ancient book that you call "grounded in Gods laws" - for which you haven't demonstrated is the case (just like Muslims haven't demonstrated that some of their absurd laws are from an "Allah" in the sky).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #830 on: August 02, 2013, 12:41:25 AM »

My logic has no influence over how our legal system works or over God's laws for man.

You just completely ignored the point I made regarding this comment - that you just contradicted yourself. Please go back and read it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #831 on: August 02, 2013, 01:09:13 AM »

Yes I did.  You just weren't watching me as I evaluated Christianity for 30 years
before being born again.

Wow, really now? So for 30 years you carefully, critically, and honestly evaluated Christianity (and it's claims) in a disinterested fashion (like you would a salesman at your door) and somehow came to the conclusion that it's miraculous claims are true? This is a fascinating claim because you have yet to provide any of these evidences/good reasons that supposedly convinced you of these claims. Please do provide them.

And if all you have to offer (at the end of the day) is "Well, it's just my personal experience" (as Bill Craig tries to argue) then you aren't being honest about what you supposedly "evaluated". Would you say this about a salesman at the door who makes irrational arguments, factual errors, and blatant contradictions?


Heaven is not exactly paradise as you imply.  Part of the forgiving process is having all your sins exposed.    Imagine every single thought you've had,  written down and your mother gets to read it as you watch.    Closer to that.

WRONG. You haven't demonstrated how you know any of this. Still, it is just more hear-say, based upon your assumed interpretation of the bible (one in which you are ignoring passages that are inconvenient to your theology). But making up your own version of Christianity is what every professing Christian does, b/c the bible isn't consistent (nor is it sufficient for proving a 'miracle' happened - anymore than any other claimed holy book).

Revelation 21:4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.

Revelation 22:5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.
.
So (supposedly) there will be no more death, pain, or despair (real embarrassing right!). Christians will "reign forever" as "Kings and priests" where there are "many mansions" and streets of gold (Rev 21). I'm sorry but you are simply in error. It's called Confirmation Bias and you are practicing it in full effect - not a reliable way to separate fact from fiction.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2013, 01:15:37 AM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Anfauglir

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6195
  • Darwins +407/-4
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #832 on: August 02, 2013, 02:48:18 AM »
Heaven is not exactly paradise as you imply.  Part of the forgiving process is having all your sins exposed.    Imagine every single thought you've had,  written down and your mother gets to read it as you watch.    Closer to that.

This is exactly why I contend there is nobody (or very, very few people) who REALLY believe.

This god chappie, apparently, knows EVERYTHING.  There's no hiding, no chance of "getting one past him".  EVERYTHING.  He is everywhere, sees everything, knows everything.  He is the equivalent of a policeman constantly looking over your left shoulder, and your mother constantly looking over your right.

But if that is truly the case.....how does a believer ever actually sin in the first place?  By thought, maybe, sometimes you can't help it, but in deed?  Nope.  If someone TRULY believed that god was seeing everything they did, sin would simply be impossible for them.

The only other thing I can conclude if a "believer" does something bad is if, for those few seconds, they somehow "forgot" that god exists.  And that, I find even harder to buy into.  This "god" is - we are told - the most magical and wonderful and fantastic thing ever to some into their lives, so they say.  A fulfilling and constant relationship that buoys and helps them.  So how do you "forget" that and go off and sin?

Nope.  Makes no sense whatsoever.  Anyone who TRULY believes in a god would not sin.  Ever.  Which means that we will NEVER see a True Christian on this website, given the clear exhortation to shake the dust from their feet and head straight away from people like us.

If you're still here and reading this, Sky.....why do you deliberately defy your god?  Why do you constantly sin by coming back here?  Or, if you like, why don't you truly believe he exists?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1800
  • Darwins +191/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #833 on: August 02, 2013, 10:54:30 AM »
^^^ "Because I have a sin nature that I was born with. I just can't help sinning, but God forgives and loves me anyway."

Yes, I can play the stand in Christian apologist when necessary :)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6204
  • Darwins +782/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #834 on: August 02, 2013, 02:48:14 PM »
^^^ "Because I have a sin nature that I was born with. I just can't help sinning, but God forgives and loves me anyway."

Yes, I can play the stand in Christian apologist when necessary :)

But somehow, this same helpless sinner who sins right in god's face, manages to refrain from breaking human laws when a human authority figure is watching. They would never run a red light with a cop sitting in the intersection, have sex with a prostitute if their spouse was watching, or shoplift in front of a security guard. That's why I don't think these big shot preachers who get caught secretly molesting kids, stealing money, doing drugs and banging male hookers really believe in any god.

It would take a pretty blatant psycho to commit a serious crime in the full view of other people, but lots of normal folks manage to commit sins in front of an all-powerful god?  Right.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline jynnan tonnix

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1725
  • Darwins +81/-1
  • Gender: Female
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #835 on: August 02, 2013, 07:30:43 PM »
Very good point. But, to be fair, there are a lot of Christians out there who probably don't go around breaking the sorts of laws that you are talking about.

That's the whole problem with such lists of "sins"... They encompass not only the sins of the mind, which, as has been pointed out, are something which no one can have total control over, but also all the little faults like getting angry, being too lazy to go mow the lawn, eating way too much of a delicious dinner, buying that useless trinket which was just too hard to resist...almost anything which doesn't directly involve praising god seems to be perceived as a sin by some of the fundies, and all those are things which, no matter your intentions, or how much you believe, you are just going to slip up on. And then it plays right into the notion that we are all sinners and can't help it.

We are not necessarily talking about acts where the laws need to be considered, then deliberately broken. I do believe that lots of Christians out there get along quite well without straying into that territory (as do atheists), but in their world, just the process of enjoying life in any material way seems to count as one of those things which makes them unworthy of salvation, yet still blessed enough (assuming born-again status) to be given a pass for when they falter.

That's where it gets really get difficult, because they have been indoctrinated to believe that simply living life as anything but 100% mindful of god in every second of every day is sinful, and no matter their intentions, that's simply not achievable.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1846
  • Darwins +320/-6
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #836 on: August 05, 2013, 12:45:32 PM »
The only other thing I can conclude if a "believer" does something bad is if, for those few seconds, they somehow "forgot" that god exists.  And that, I find even harder to buy into.  This "god" is - we are told - the most magical and wonderful and fantastic thing ever to some into their lives, so they say.  A fulfilling and constant relationship that buoys and helps them.  So how do you "forget" that and go off and sin?
I don't see why that is so hard to buy.  If we accept that this 'god' entity they have is a figment of someone's imagination and nothing more (i.e. doesn't actually exist), then it's quite easy to see how they can periodically forget about that entity's existence - or, alternateively, it's quite easy to see how they can periodically forget/change aspects about the particular whims of this entity.  This entity's existence is entirely dependent upon the believer's mind.  There is no referent in reality to compare to; to test against; to validate - let alone to enforce, clarify, explain, or otherwise provide any sort of actual feedback as to how one's behavior is actually evaluated by this entity.  There is no 'actually' in this case.  So they can just...make it up on a case-by-case basis.

Your argument doesn't show that many believers don't actually hold the beliefs that they purport to have; what it does show is that many believer's beliefs are intentionally vague and without basis in reality.  For some, they sinned because they're 'weak' and/or 'Satan made them do it'.  For others, they sinned because the sin itself is minor and will be forgiven.  For others still it is simply compartmentalization; at the time of the 'sin' their brains simply didn't engage in reference to god's all-watching eye.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline pianodwarf

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4350
  • Darwins +206/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #837 on: August 05, 2013, 12:49:23 PM »
I had a roommate once, serious bible-thumper, who believed that belief was all that was required for salvation -- no acts were required for you to be saved, and conversely, there were also no acts you could perform that would condemn you.  Your entire final judgment was based solely on whether you believed in Yahweh.  So in his case, at least, I can see how it would work.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6204
  • Darwins +782/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #838 on: August 05, 2013, 03:56:07 PM »
You would think that religious people would see a bit of a problem here. Everyone is making up their own religion out of their heads and calling it Christianity or Islam or Scientology or whatever.

I'll bet that if we could do a Vulcan mind meld on 100 Christians, we would end up with 100 different versions of what the religion is all about, with specific variations on what god is like, who Jesus was, what he said, what you have to do to go to heaven, who will be there, what heaven or hell is like, how or why you should pray, what happens to people of other faiths, and so on. If it was perfectly clear and obviously true, there would only be one religion and only one denomination.

Just as an example, ask a group of, say Mormons or Southern Baptist Christians, a simple question:"Do animals have souls?"

Do germs, worms, iguanas, birds, horses and elephants get judged and sent to heaven or hell for all eternity? (God killed them all in the flood once; wasn't that a judgment?) If not, what happens to their beloved pets after they die?  Will being in god's presence along with all the people from church be enough to overcome missing Buster? Will they remember Fluffy at all? If not, how much of their human earth personality will be left intact?

Will heaven be a wonderful paradise if they show up to find that Fluffy and Buster aren't there, but their devoutly annoying MIL and Christian-lite Rick Warren[1] are floating around next cloud over--forever?

I am willing to bet that you will get every answer under the rainbow. It will all be based on imagination and feelings. And not one has any factual evidence one way or another--as far as science can tell us, all living things go to the same place when we die, and it ain't heaven.

The bible does not specify what will happen to Buster and Fluffy, because it was written by people who did not care that much about pets. It was a different cultural landscape. But the bible is good for all times and places, right? So, what about little Fluffy?

And it is the same thing with pretty much anything, even the stuff discussed at length in the sacred book. Was the passage meant as metaphor or should it be taken literally? If it was a metaphor or parable, what exactly did it mean? Did it refer to only the people of that era or is it still in effect today?  :?
 1. That Purpose Driven Life preacher guy
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #839 on: August 05, 2013, 06:14:51 PM »
You would think that religious people would see a bit of a problem here. Everyone is making up their own religion out of their heads and calling it Christianity or Islam or Scientology or whatever.

I'll bet that if we could do a Vulcan mind meld on 100 Christians, we would end up with 100 different versions of what the religion is all about, with specific variations on what god is like, who Jesus was, what he said, what you have to do to go to heaven, who will be there, what heaven or hell is like, how or why you should pray, what happens to people of other faiths, and so on. If it was perfectly clear and obviously true, there would only be one religion and only one denomination.

Just as an example, ask a group of, say Mormons or Southern Baptist Christians, a simple question:"Do animals have souls?"

Do germs, worms, iguanas, birds, horses and elephants get judged and sent to heaven or hell for all eternity? (God killed them all in the flood once; wasn't that a judgment?) If not, what happens to their beloved pets after they die?  Will being in god's presence along with all the people from church be enough to overcome missing Buster? Will they remember Fluffy at all? If not, how much of their human earth personality will be left intact?

Will heaven be a wonderful paradise if they show up to find that Fluffy and Buster aren't there, but their devoutly annoying MIL and Christian-lite Rick Warren[1] are floating around next cloud over--forever?

I am willing to bet that you will get every answer under the rainbow. It will all be based on imagination and feelings. And not one has any factual evidence one way or another--as far as science can tell us, all living things go to the same place when we die, and it ain't heaven.

The bible does not specify what will happen to Buster and Fluffy, because it was written by people who did not care that much about pets. It was a different cultural landscape. But the bible is good for all times and places, right? So, what about little Fluffy?

And it is the same thing with pretty much anything, even the stuff discussed at length in the sacred book. Was the passage meant as metaphor or should it be taken literally? If it was a metaphor or parable, what exactly did it mean? Did it refer to only the people of that era or is it still in effect today?  :?
 1. That Purpose Driven Life preacher guy

Exactly.  Who gets into heaven?  Aborted fetuses?  Damn good argument in favor of abortion.  Straight line to heaven with no chance to sin.  Two year olds who die of dysentery?  9 year old rape victims?  9 year old prostitutes?  22 year old prostitutes who almost died of dysentery when they were two?   Gay men who are really really really sorry about having sex?  Enron executives who are active members of their church and really nice to their neighbors? 

And does god reward us in this life?  If we pray really hard, and really believe, will he give us the winning lotto numbers?  Or does god want us to give away our possessions and live in poverty in this life in order to merit our celestial afterlife? 

And what about Fido and Bessie (who gave us our McDonald's hamburgers) and those innocent little bacteria that we killed with the antibiotics the doctor gave us?   

Nope.  Couldn't get Christians to agree about these HUGE questions. 

Online nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6204
  • Darwins +782/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: What Would It Take For You To Change Your View?
« Reply #840 on: August 05, 2013, 11:50:40 PM »
Who gets into heaven? Nobody knows. How do you get into heaven? Nobody knows. Is there a heaven? Nobody knows. But religious people want to tell us atheists how to live our lives.....because they know that if we are not religious, we will not go to heaven. :?

Atheism looks better and better. :P
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.