Total Posts:201|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why should mere unbelief be a 'sin'?

JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:26:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The deity, if it exists, makes its presence a matter of belief without providing any verifiable evidence to substantiate it. Therefore consigning people to hell for unbelief is unreasonable to say the very least! How can theists think this is the act of a good, and just deity?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:35:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:26:48 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity, if it exists, makes its presence a matter of belief without providing any verifiable evidence to substantiate it. Therefore consigning people to hell for unbelief is unreasonable to say the very least! How can theists think this is the act of a good, and just deity?

How does that song go again? Oh, yes..."The Bible tells me so."
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 8:36:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:35:13 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:26:48 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity, if it exists, makes its presence a matter of belief without providing any verifiable evidence to substantiate it. Therefore consigning people to hell for unbelief is unreasonable to say the very least! How can theists think this is the act of a good, and just deity?

How does that song go again? Oh, yes..."The Bible tells me so."

Yes funny that , lol!
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 10:50:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:26:48 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity, if it exists, makes its presence a matter of belief without providing any verifiable evidence to substantiate it. Therefore consigning people to hell for unbelief is unreasonable to say the very least! How can theists think this is the act of a good, and just deity?

Because every man has to believe something regarding the origin of human life and other weighty matters, and I presume that each person believes that his belief is based upon evidence of some sort. Atheists have a very definite belief system in which they go to great extremes, even given their speculations on the Bible, in defense of the system. Thus, it would hardly be styled "mere unbelief."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 10:58:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 10:50:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:26:48 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity, if it exists, makes its presence a matter of belief without providing any verifiable evidence to substantiate it. Therefore consigning people to hell for unbelief is unreasonable to say the very least! How can theists think this is the act of a good, and just deity?

Because every man has to believe something regarding the origin of human life and other weighty matters, and I presume that each person believes that his belief is based upon evidence of some sort. Atheists have a very definite belief system in which they go to great extremes, even given their speculations on the Bible, in defense of the system. Thus, it would hardly be styled "mere unbelief."

That statement is OTT where the majority of unbelievers are concerned, imo!
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 11:00:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 10:58:29 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:50:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:26:48 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity, if it exists, makes its presence a matter of belief without providing any verifiable evidence to substantiate it. Therefore consigning people to hell for unbelief is unreasonable to say the very least! How can theists think this is the act of a good, and just deity?

Because every man has to believe something regarding the origin of human life and other weighty matters, and I presume that each person believes that his belief is based upon evidence of some sort. Atheists have a very definite belief system in which they go to great extremes, even given their speculations on the Bible, in defense of the system. Thus, it would hardly be styled "mere unbelief."

That statement is OTT where the majority of unbelievers are concerned, imo!

True, but you are talking about the scrubs.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 11:08:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 11:00:14 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:58:29 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:50:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:26:48 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity, if it exists, makes its presence a matter of belief without providing any verifiable evidence to substantiate it. Therefore consigning people to hell for unbelief is unreasonable to say the very least! How can theists think this is the act of a good, and just deity?

Because every man has to believe something regarding the origin of human life and other weighty matters, and I presume that each person believes that his belief is based upon evidence of some sort. Atheists have a very definite belief system in which they go to great extremes, even given their speculations on the Bible, in defense of the system. Thus, it would hardly be styled "mere unbelief."

That statement is OTT where the majority of unbelievers are concerned, imo!

True, but you are talking about the scrubs.

What are scrubs?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 11:14:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 10:50:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:26:48 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity, if it exists, makes its presence a matter of belief without providing any verifiable evidence to substantiate it. Therefore consigning people to hell for unbelief is unreasonable to say the very least! How can theists think this is the act of a good, and just deity?

Because every man has to believe something regarding the origin of human life and other weighty matters, and I presume that each person believes that his belief is based upon evidence of some sort. Atheists have a very definite belief system in which they go to great extremes, even given their speculations on the Bible, in defense of the system. Thus, it would hardly be styled "mere unbelief."

The only commonality in atheists is the lack of belief in any god or gods. Everything else is up for grabs so please don't go making sweeping generalizations.

Second, it's not a sin or unreasonable to say 'I don't know, I'm waiting for more information' to such a profound question as the origin of life. You 'presume' too much when you attribute your own mental outlook to others. As usual, the theist cannot conceive of anyone who does not need the illusion of absolute certainty that their religion provides.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 11:15:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 11:08:12 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:00:14 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:58:29 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:50:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:26:48 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity, if it exists, makes its presence a matter of belief without providing any verifiable evidence to substantiate it. Therefore consigning people to hell for unbelief is unreasonable to say the very least! How can theists think this is the act of a good, and just deity?

Because every man has to believe something regarding the origin of human life and other weighty matters, and I presume that each person believes that his belief is based upon evidence of some sort. Atheists have a very definite belief system in which they go to great extremes, even given their speculations on the Bible, in defense of the system. Thus, it would hardly be styled "mere unbelief."

That statement is OTT where the majority of unbelievers are concerned, imo!

True, but you are talking about the scrubs.

What are scrubs?

In this case, people who are purposely ignorant due to lack of thought and study. For example, atheists must concoct an entirely different authorship/dating scheme for the books of the NT, else their whole system would crumble.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 11:17:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 11:14:46 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:50:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:26:48 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity, if it exists, makes its presence a matter of belief without providing any verifiable evidence to substantiate it. Therefore consigning people to hell for unbelief is unreasonable to say the very least! How can theists think this is the act of a good, and just deity?

Because every man has to believe something regarding the origin of human life and other weighty matters, and I presume that each person believes that his belief is based upon evidence of some sort. Atheists have a very definite belief system in which they go to great extremes, even given their speculations on the Bible, in defense of the system. Thus, it would hardly be styled "mere unbelief."

The only commonality in atheists is the lack of belief in any god or gods. Everything else is up for grabs so please don't go making sweeping generalizations.

I'd say the commonality is a belief that there is/are no God or gods.

Second, it's not a sin or unreasonable to say 'I don't know, I'm waiting for more information' to such a profound question as the origin of life. You 'presume' too much when you attribute your own mental outlook to others. As usual, the theist cannot conceive of anyone who does not need the illusion of absolute certainty that their religion provide

You describe an agnostic. I have no problem with someone saying, :"There could be a God or gods - or maybe there isn't. I simply do not know, and do not maintain a position on the matter." That, however, hardly describes an atheist.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 11:24:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 11:17:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:14:46 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:50:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:26:48 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity, if it exists, makes its presence a matter of belief without providing any verifiable evidence to substantiate it. Therefore consigning people to hell for unbelief is unreasonable to say the very least! How can theists think this is the act of a good, and just deity?

Because every man has to believe something regarding the origin of human life and other weighty matters, and I presume that each person believes that his belief is based upon evidence of some sort. Atheists have a very definite belief system in which they go to great extremes, even given their speculations on the Bible, in defense of the system. Thus, it would hardly be styled "mere unbelief."

The only commonality in atheists is the lack of belief in any god or gods. Everything else is up for grabs so please don't go making sweeping generalizations.

I'd say the commonality is a belief that there is/are no God or gods.

Second, it's not a sin or unreasonable to say 'I don't know, I'm waiting for more information' to such a profound question as the origin of life. You 'presume' too much when you attribute your own mental outlook to others. As usual, the theist cannot conceive of anyone who does not need the illusion of absolute certainty that their religion provide

You describe an agnostic. I have no problem with someone saying, :"There could be a God or gods - or maybe there isn't. I simply do not know, and do not maintain a position on the matter." That, however, hardly describes an atheist.

When no evidence is presented, the null hypothesis that the assertion is not valid is the default. It's similar to our court system where the prosecution has to prove that the individual is guilty while the defendant has no burden of proof. If the prosecution cannot prove the individual guilty then he or she is deemed not guilty. If you assert that a god or gods exist and provide no evidence, then they are deemed to not exist until evidence is provided. That is where I stand, deeming supernatural beings to not exist until some evidence is provided to support the assertion. I have the same attitude toward fairies, unicorns, elves, gnomes, hobbits, and wizards.
Tminusfour20
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 11:25:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If he creates Hell and the standards by which people are judged and sent to hell then the whole system is flawed and there is no good in this God.
Where did you come from? Where did you go?

-Cotton Eye Joe-
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 11:36:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 11:24:49 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:17:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:14:46 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:50:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:26:48 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity, if it exists, makes its presence a matter of belief without providing any verifiable evidence to substantiate it. Therefore consigning people to hell for unbelief is unreasonable to say the very least! How can theists think this is the act of a good, and just deity?

Because every man has to believe something regarding the origin of human life and other weighty matters, and I presume that each person believes that his belief is based upon evidence of some sort. Atheists have a very definite belief system in which they go to great extremes, even given their speculations on the Bible, in defense of the system. Thus, it would hardly be styled "mere unbelief."

The only commonality in atheists is the lack of belief in any god or gods. Everything else is up for grabs so please don't go making sweeping generalizations.

I'd say the commonality is a belief that there is/are no God or gods.

Second, it's not a sin or unreasonable to say 'I don't know, I'm waiting for more information' to such a profound question as the origin of life. You 'presume' too much when you attribute your own mental outlook to others. As usual, the theist cannot conceive of anyone who does not need the illusion of absolute certainty that their religion provide

You describe an agnostic. I have no problem with someone saying, :"There could be a God or gods - or maybe there isn't. I simply do not know, and do not maintain a position on the matter." That, however, hardly describes an atheist.

When no evidence is presented, the null hypothesis that the assertion is not valid is the default. It's similar to our court system where the prosecution has to prove that the individual is guilty while the defendant has no burden of proof. If the prosecution cannot prove the individual guilty then he or she is deemed not guilty. If you assert that a god or gods exist and provide no evidence, then they are deemed to not exist until evidence is provided. That is where I stand, deeming supernatural beings to not exist until some evidence is provided to support the assertion. I have the same attitude toward fairies, unicorns, elves, gnomes, hobbits, and wizards.

Then if you would kindly do me the favor of explaining how Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem/destruction of the temple many years before the fact, with such astounding accuracy that the "evidence" would point toward some sort of supernatural revelation. Nobody could predict that future destruction of a city and a certain structure within such a narrow time frame.

All I'd ask is that you do not resort to some sort of belief system relating to the authorship or dating of the NT books. We'll merely follow the tradition scheme.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 11:44:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 11:15:43 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:08:12 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:00:14 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:58:29 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:50:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:26:48 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity, if it exists, makes its presence a matter of belief without providing any verifiable evidence to substantiate it. Therefore consigning people to hell for unbelief is unreasonable to say the very least! How can theists think this is the act of a good, and just deity?

Because every man has to believe something regarding the origin of human life and other weighty matters, and I presume that each person believes that his belief is based upon evidence of some sort. Atheists have a very definite belief system in which they go to great extremes, even given their speculations on the Bible, in defense of the system. Thus, it would hardly be styled "mere unbelief."

That statement is OTT where the majority of unbelievers are concerned, imo!

True, but you are talking about the scrubs.

What are scrubs?

In this case, people who are purposely ignorant due to lack of thought and study. For example, atheists must concoct an entirely different authorship/dating scheme for the books of the NT, else their whole system would crumble.

Atheism is not the result of ignorance. In fact, here's all the evidence I (personally) need to dismiss theism:

most of the world is inhospitable without it being the result of human activity.
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 11:48:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 8:26:48 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity, if it exists, makes its presence a matter of belief without providing any verifiable evidence to substantiate it. Therefore consigning people to hell for unbelief is unreasonable to say the very least! How can theists think this is the act of a good, and just deity?

They can think this because they are willing to sacrifice their minds, bodies, money, even their very being just to hear the superstition they want to hear instead of scientific and logical realities they don't want to hear.
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 11:49:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 11:44:59 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:15:43 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:08:12 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:00:14 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:58:29 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:50:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:26:48 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity, if it exists, makes its presence a matter of belief without providing any verifiable evidence to substantiate it. Therefore consigning people to hell for unbelief is unreasonable to say the very least! How can theists think this is the act of a good, and just deity?

Because every man has to believe something regarding the origin of human life and other weighty matters, and I presume that each person believes that his belief is based upon evidence of some sort. Atheists have a very definite belief system in which they go to great extremes, even given their speculations on the Bible, in defense of the system. Thus, it would hardly be styled "mere unbelief."

That statement is OTT where the majority of unbelievers are concerned, imo!

True, but you are talking about the scrubs.

What are scrubs?

In this case, people who are purposely ignorant due to lack of thought and study. For example, atheists must concoct an entirely different authorship/dating scheme for the books of the NT, else their whole system would crumble.

Atheism is not the result of ignorance. In fact, here's all the evidence I (personally) need to dismiss theism:


most of the world is inhospitable without it being the result of human activity.

That makes no sense.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 11:51:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 11:49:33 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:44:59 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:15:43 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:08:12 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:00:14 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:58:29 AM, JJ50 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:50:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:26:48 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity, if it exists, makes its presence a matter of belief without providing any verifiable evidence to substantiate it. Therefore consigning people to hell for unbelief is unreasonable to say the very least! How can theists think this is the act of a good, and just deity?

Because every man has to believe something regarding the origin of human life and other weighty matters, and I presume that each person believes that his belief is based upon evidence of some sort. Atheists have a very definite belief system in which they go to great extremes, even given their speculations on the Bible, in defense of the system. Thus, it would hardly be styled "mere unbelief."

That statement is OTT where the majority of unbelievers are concerned, imo!

True, but you are talking about the scrubs.

What are scrubs?

In this case, people who are purposely ignorant due to lack of thought and study. For example, atheists must concoct an entirely different authorship/dating scheme for the books of the NT, else their whole system would crumble.

Atheism is not the result of ignorance. In fact, here's all the evidence I (personally) need to dismiss theism:


most of the world is inhospitable without it being the result of human activity.

That makes no sense.

Yes it does. An omnibenevolent god would make the whole world inhabitable to humans.
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:01:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 11:36:02 AM, annanicole wrote:
Then if you would kindly do me the favor of explaining how Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem/destruction of the temple many years before the fact, with such astounding accuracy that the "evidence" would point toward some sort of supernatural revelation. Nobody could predict that future destruction of a city and a certain structure within such a narrow time frame.

All I'd ask is that you do not resort to some sort of belief system relating to the authorship or dating of the NT books. We'll merely follow the tradition scheme.

You do realise you've just asked someone to give an alternative explanation, so long as they promise not to use an alternative explanation, right?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:02:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Actually the Jews did not hold the Gentiles accountable for not believing or following Gods commandments because it was given to them to obey and not to the Gentiles. The jews believed they were Gods chosen people and after their own salvation they would then save the Gentiles.
That noble thought was all but lost when they rejected Jesus as their messiah and crucified him. So their own salvation remains unfulfilled.
But the Romans made Christianity their state religion in 325AD and brought it to the Gentiles the world over.
So not only were the Jews wrong, they were also betrayed by their God for sending such an unconvincing messenger in Jesus.
Were the Gentiles right in accepting Christianity? It got them total forgiveness from sins they knew nothing about and eternal life to continue into the next world their sinning ways. After all they are not bound to the Jewish laws that God gave the Jews through Moses. Jesus was not kidding when he said heaven would be full of sinners, Christians I might add.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:04:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 11:51:31 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:

Yes it does. An omnibenevolent god would make the whole world inhabitable to humans.

Not only that, an omnibenevolent god would make the whole universe inhabitable to humans, allowing us to easily venture from one galaxy/planet to another without having to travel many light years to get there. Space would be full of the oxygen we require to breathe.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:06:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:02:06 PM, Harikrish wrote:
Actually the Jews did not hold the Gentiles accountable for not believing or following Gods commandments because it was given to them to obey and not to the Gentiles. The jews believed they were Gods chosen people and after their own salvation they would then save the Gentiles.
That noble thought was all but lost when they rejected Jesus as their messiah and crucified him. So their own salvation remains unfulfilled.

Their salvation can be easily fulfilled through obedience to the gospel.

But the Romans made Christianity their state religion in 325AD and brought it to the Gentiles the world over.

Christianity, of course, was brought to the Gentiles with the conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10.

So not only were the Jews wrong, they were also betrayed by their God for sending such an unconvincing messenger in Jesus.
Were the Gentiles right in accepting Christianity? It got them total forgiveness from sins they knew nothing about and eternal life to continue into the next world their sinning ways. After all they are not bound to the Jewish laws that God gave the Jews through Moses. Jesus was not kidding when he said heaven would be full of sinners, Christians I might add.

Well, Christians are still bound to the Law of Christ. And I do not recall Jesus saying that heaven will be "full of sinners."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
GamrDeb8rBbrH8r
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:08:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:04:11 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:51:31 AM, GamrDeb8rBbrH8r wrote:

Yes it does. An omnibenevolent god would make the whole world inhabitable to humans.

Not only that, an omnibenevolent god would make the whole universe inhabitable to humans, allowing us to easily venture from one galaxy/planet to another without having to travel many light years to get there. Space would be full of the oxygen we require to breathe.

Definitely. Less than %000000000000000000000000000000000000 (insert large exponent here) is inhabitable. What's the point of making all that space if it's uninhabitable? Perfect example of omnipotent but not omnibenevolent.
"There's no diversity because we're burning in the melting pot."

-Immortal Technique

Rap battle VS Truth_Seeker: http://www.debate.org...
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:11:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 11:36:02 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:24:49 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:17:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:14:46 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:50:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:26:48 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity, if it exists, makes its presence a matter of belief without providing any verifiable evidence to substantiate it. Therefore consigning people to hell for unbelief is unreasonable to say the very least! How can theists think this is the act of a good, and just deity?

Because every man has to believe something regarding the origin of human life and other weighty matters, and I presume that each person believes that his belief is based upon evidence of some sort. Atheists have a very definite belief system in which they go to great extremes, even given their speculations on the Bible, in defense of the system. Thus, it would hardly be styled "mere unbelief."

The only commonality in atheists is the lack of belief in any god or gods. Everything else is up for grabs so please don't go making sweeping generalizations.

I'd say the commonality is a belief that there is/are no God or gods.

Second, it's not a sin or unreasonable to say 'I don't know, I'm waiting for more information' to such a profound question as the origin of life. You 'presume' too much when you attribute your own mental outlook to others. As usual, the theist cannot conceive of anyone who does not need the illusion of absolute certainty that their religion provide

You describe an agnostic. I have no problem with someone saying, :"There could be a God or gods - or maybe there isn't. I simply do not know, and do not maintain a position on the matter." That, however, hardly describes an atheist.

When no evidence is presented, the null hypothesis that the assertion is not valid is the default. It's similar to our court system where the prosecution has to prove that the individual is guilty while the defendant has no burden of proof. If the prosecution cannot prove the individual guilty then he or she is deemed not guilty. If you assert that a god or gods exist and provide no evidence, then they are deemed to not exist until evidence is provided. That is where I stand, deeming supernatural beings to not exist until some evidence is provided to support the assertion. I have the same attitude toward fairies, unicorns, elves, gnomes, hobbits, and wizards.

Then if you would kindly do me the favor of explaining how Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem/destruction of the temple many years before the fact, with such astounding accuracy that the "evidence" would point toward some sort of supernatural revelation. Nobody could predict that future destruction of a city and a certain structure within such a narrow time frame.

All I'd ask is that you do not resort to some sort of belief system relating to the authorship or dating of the NT books. We'll merely follow the tradition scheme.

If you are going to exclude evidence that you find inconvenient then I cannot have a reasoned discussion.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:17:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:11:23 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:36:02 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:24:49 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:17:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:14:46 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:50:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:26:48 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity, if it exists, makes its presence a matter of belief without providing any verifiable evidence to substantiate it. Therefore consigning people to hell for unbelief is unreasonable to say the very least! How can theists think this is the act of a good, and just deity?

Because every man has to believe something regarding the origin of human life and other weighty matters, and I presume that each person believes that his belief is based upon evidence of some sort. Atheists have a very definite belief system in which they go to great extremes, even given their speculations on the Bible, in defense of the system. Thus, it would hardly be styled "mere unbelief."

The only commonality in atheists is the lack of belief in any god or gods. Everything else is up for grabs so please don't go making sweeping generalizations.

I'd say the commonality is a belief that there is/are no God or gods.

Second, it's not a sin or unreasonable to say 'I don't know, I'm waiting for more information' to such a profound question as the origin of life. You 'presume' too much when you attribute your own mental outlook to others. As usual, the theist cannot conceive of anyone who does not need the illusion of absolute certainty that their religion provide

You describe an agnostic. I have no problem with someone saying, :"There could be a God or gods - or maybe there isn't. I simply do not know, and do not maintain a position on the matter." That, however, hardly describes an atheist.

When no evidence is presented, the null hypothesis that the assertion is not valid is the default. It's similar to our court system where the prosecution has to prove that the individual is guilty while the defendant has no burden of proof. If the prosecution cannot prove the individual guilty then he or she is deemed not guilty. If you assert that a god or gods exist and provide no evidence, then they are deemed to not exist until evidence is provided. That is where I stand, deeming supernatural beings to not exist until some evidence is provided to support the assertion. I have the same attitude toward fairies, unicorns, elves, gnomes, hobbits, and wizards.

Then if you would kindly do me the favor of explaining how Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem/destruction of the temple many years before the fact, with such astounding accuracy that the "evidence" would point toward some sort of supernatural revelation. Nobody could predict that future destruction of a city and a certain structure within such a narrow time frame.

All I'd ask is that you do not resort to some sort of belief system relating to the authorship or dating of the NT books. We'll merely follow the tradition scheme.

If you are going to exclude evidence that you find inconvenient then I cannot have a reasoned discussion.

No, I am excluding you from having a belief system concerning the dating/authorship of the NT books - an entire belief system to which you absolutely MUST subscribe. Other than that, everything else is free game.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
seeu46
Posts: 578
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:20:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 11:24:49 AM, dhardage wrote:

That is where I stand, deeming supernatural beings to not exist until some evidence is provided to support the assertion. I have the same attitude toward fairies, unicorns, elves, gnomes, hobbits, and wizards.

Odd?..... If you declare God does not exist to you. Then you are not Agnostic and are Atheist. Why not change your profile from Agnostic to Atheist?

Now if you were to say God is unknown to me, until some evidence. Then you are Agnostic, because then you are not answering nor declaring anything on God. But saying God does not exist makes you an Atheist.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:24:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:20:37 PM, seeu46 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:24:49 AM, dhardage wrote:

That is where I stand, deeming supernatural beings to not exist until some evidence is provided to support the assertion. I have the same attitude toward fairies, unicorns, elves, gnomes, hobbits, and wizards.

Odd?..... If you declare God does not exist to you. Then you are not Agnostic and are Atheist. Why not change your profile from Agnostic to Atheist?

Now if you were to say God is unknown to me, until some evidence. Then you are Agnostic, because then you are not answering nor declaring anything on God. But saying God does not exist makes you an Atheist.

Still beating this idiotic drum? If you don't actively believe that god exists, you are an atheist. There's no such thing as 'just agnostic'. But don't let pesky facts get in the way of parroting your dogmatic nonsense.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:25:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:17:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:11:23 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:36:02 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:24:49 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:17:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:14:46 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:50:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:26:48 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity, if it exists, makes its presence a matter of belief without providing any verifiable evidence to substantiate it. Therefore consigning people to hell for unbelief is unreasonable to say the very least! How can theists think this is the act of a good, and just deity?

Because every man has to believe something regarding the origin of human life and other weighty matters, and I presume that each person believes that his belief is based upon evidence of some sort. Atheists have a very definite belief system in which they go to great extremes, even given their speculations on the Bible, in defense of the system. Thus, it would hardly be styled "mere unbelief."

The only commonality in atheists is the lack of belief in any god or gods. Everything else is up for grabs so please don't go making sweeping generalizations.

I'd say the commonality is a belief that there is/are no God or gods.

Second, it's not a sin or unreasonable to say 'I don't know, I'm waiting for more information' to such a profound question as the origin of life. You 'presume' too much when you attribute your own mental outlook to others. As usual, the theist cannot conceive of anyone who does not need the illusion of absolute certainty that their religion provide

You describe an agnostic. I have no problem with someone saying, :"There could be a God or gods - or maybe there isn't. I simply do not know, and do not maintain a position on the matter." That, however, hardly describes an atheist.

When no evidence is presented, the null hypothesis that the assertion is not valid is the default. It's similar to our court system where the prosecution has to prove that the individual is guilty while the defendant has no burden of proof. If the prosecution cannot prove the individual guilty then he or she is deemed not guilty. If you assert that a god or gods exist and provide no evidence, then they are deemed to not exist until evidence is provided. That is where I stand, deeming supernatural beings to not exist until some evidence is provided to support the assertion. I have the same attitude toward fairies, unicorns, elves, gnomes, hobbits, and wizards.

Then if you would kindly do me the favor of explaining how Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem/destruction of the temple many years before the fact, with such astounding accuracy that the "evidence" would point toward some sort of supernatural revelation. Nobody could predict that future destruction of a city and a certain structure within such a narrow time frame.

All I'd ask is that you do not resort to some sort of belief system relating to the authorship or dating of the NT books. We'll merely follow the tradition scheme.

If you are going to exclude evidence that you find inconvenient then I cannot have a reasoned discussion.

No, I am excluding you from having a belief system concerning the dating/authorship of the NT books - an entire belief system to which you absolutely MUST subscribe. Other than that, everything else is free game.

Please tell me how agreeing with the vast majority of scholarly opinion is somehow a belief system? I tend to go with what a doctor says when I am not feeling well since he or she has gone through much schooling and training to do the job. Is that a belief system too?

You are simply trying to pre-empt any argument that could refute your assertion and I will not engage with someone who cannot at least be honest.
seeu46
Posts: 578
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:28:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:24:57 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:20:37 PM, seeu46 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:24:49 AM, dhardage wrote:

That is where I stand, deeming supernatural beings to not exist until some evidence is provided to support the assertion. I have the same attitude toward fairies, unicorns, elves, gnomes, hobbits, and wizards.

Odd?..... If you declare God does not exist to you. Then you are not Agnostic and are Atheist. Why not change your profile from Agnostic to Atheist?

Now if you were to say God is unknown to me, until some evidence. Then you are Agnostic, because then you are not answering nor declaring anything on God. But saying God does not exist makes you an Atheist.

Still beating this idiotic drum? If you don't actively believe that god exists, you are an atheist. There's no such thing as 'just agnostic'. But don't let pesky facts get in the way of parroting your dogmatic nonsense.

You have not convinced me. Not answering the question gives "nothing". You believe a non-answer is an answer or a declaration. This is illogical so yes, your understanding seems without logic. Not trying to belittle. But I call it how I see it.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:30:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:28:23 PM, seeu46 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:24:57 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:20:37 PM, seeu46 wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:24:49 AM, dhardage wrote:

That is where I stand, deeming supernatural beings to not exist until some evidence is provided to support the assertion. I have the same attitude toward fairies, unicorns, elves, gnomes, hobbits, and wizards.

Odd?..... If you declare God does not exist to you. Then you are not Agnostic and are Atheist. Why not change your profile from Agnostic to Atheist?

Now if you were to say God is unknown to me, until some evidence. Then you are Agnostic, because then you are not answering nor declaring anything on God. But saying God does not exist makes you an Atheist.

Still beating this idiotic drum? If you don't actively believe that god exists, you are an atheist. There's no such thing as 'just agnostic'. But don't let pesky facts get in the way of parroting your dogmatic nonsense.

You have not convinced me. Not answering the question gives "nothing". You believe a non-answer is an answer or a declaration. This is illogical so yes, your understanding seems without logic. Not trying to belittle. But I call it how I see it.

Right, and if the answer is "nothing" then it isn't "I believe in god" and the person is therefore an atheist. This is because "nothing" means "no belief in god" - by definition - which is atheism. Not trying to belittle, but you're an idiot if you can't grasp this very simple logical requirement.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 12:31:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 12:25:26 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:17:50 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 12:11:23 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:36:02 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:24:49 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:17:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 11:14:46 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 2/10/2015 10:50:35 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/10/2015 8:26:48 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The deity, if it exists, makes its presence a matter of belief without providing any verifiable evidence to substantiate it. Therefore consigning people to hell for unbelief is unreasonable to say the very least! How can theists think this is the act of a good, and just deity?

Because every man has to believe something regarding the origin of human life and other weighty matters, and I presume that each person believes that his belief is based upon evidence of some sort. Atheists have a very definite belief system in which they go to great extremes, even given their speculations on the Bible, in defense of the system. Thus, it would hardly be styled "mere unbelief."

The only commonality in atheists is the lack of belief in any god or gods. Everything else is up for grabs so please don't go making sweeping generalizations.

I'd say the commonality is a belief that there is/are no God or gods.

Second, it's not a sin or unreasonable to say 'I don't know, I'm waiting for more information' to such a profound question as the origin of life. You 'presume' too much when you attribute your own mental outlook to others. As usual, the theist cannot conceive of anyone who does not need the illusion of absolute certainty that their religion provide

You describe an agnostic. I have no problem with someone saying, :"There could be a God or gods - or maybe there isn't. I simply do not know, and do not maintain a position on the matter." That, however, hardly describes an atheist.

When no evidence is presented, the null hypothesis that the assertion is not valid is the default. It's similar to our court system where the prosecution has to prove that the individual is guilty while the defendant has no burden of proof. If the prosecution cannot prove the individual guilty then he or she is deemed not guilty. If you assert that a god or gods exist and provide no evidence, then they are deemed to not exist until evidence is provided. That is where I stand, deeming supernatural beings to not exist until some evidence is provided to support the assertion. I have the same attitude toward fairies, unicorns, elves, gnomes, hobbits, and wizards.

Then if you would kindly do me the favor of explaining how Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem/destruction of the temple many years before the fact, with such astounding accuracy that the "evidence" would point toward some sort of supernatural revelation. Nobody could predict that future destruction of a city and a certain structure within such a narrow time frame.

All I'd ask is that you do not resort to some sort of belief system relating to the authorship or dating of the NT books. We'll merely follow the tradition scheme.

If you are going to exclude evidence that you find inconvenient then I cannot have a reasoned discussion.

No, I am excluding you from having a belief system concerning the dating/authorship of the NT books - an entire belief system to which you absolutely MUST subscribe. Other than that, everything else is free game.

Please tell me how agreeing with the vast majority of scholarly opinion is somehow a belief system? I tend to go with what a doctor says when I am not feeling well since he or she has gone through much schooling and training to do the job. Is that a belief system too?

You are simply trying to pre-empt any argument that could refute your assertion and I will not engage with someone who cannot at least be honest.

I'm being very honest ... very much so. There is no such thing as "the vast majority of scholarly opinion". Who did the study? Which scholars did they consult? You can feel free to cite your "vast majority of scholars" just so long as you are not citing infidels who deny the miracles of Christ in the first place. Otherwise, you'd be citing "scholars" who already agree with you.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."