Total Posts:195|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Fair or not? Rejecting human claims on gods

NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 2:37:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
My question, is this a fair position to hold? I reject all human claims regarding gods.

Basically I don't care what any human has to say concerning claims about a god or gods. I live in a world where there are literally tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of different god claims being made by humans. We can even increase this number if we consider nuanced beliefs within each individual. In this sense there are probably millions if not billions of nuanced god beliefs or claims being made.
What I've decided to do is reject them all as a standard position. The logical conclusion to this is to also reject scriptural claims regarding gods. It is universally agreed that humans wrote the scriptures, pen to paper. So I reject all scriptural claims since they are ultimately claims made by humans.
What I'm left with is this. All human claims are universally rejected. If a god or gods exists, and these gods wish me to know it, they must validate their existence to me directly. This is their responsibility as far as I'm concerned. They can accept it or reject it, but that is their choice.
I would like to know if this is a fair and reasonable position to hold? Reject all human claims regarding gods, including scriptures. Place the responsibility on god/gods to validate their existence to me directly.
Is it fair? Is it reasonable?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 2:49:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 2:37:29 PM, NoMagic wrote:
My question, is this a fair position to hold? I reject all human claims regarding gods.

Basically I don't care what any human has to say concerning claims about a god or gods. I live in a world where there are literally tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of different god claims being made by humans. We can even increase this number if we consider nuanced beliefs within each individual. In this sense there are probably millions if not billions of nuanced god beliefs or claims being made.
What I've decided to do is reject them all as a standard position. The logical conclusion to this is to also reject scriptural claims regarding gods. It is universally agreed that humans wrote the scriptures, pen to paper. So I reject all scriptural claims since they are ultimately claims made by humans.
What I'm left with is this. All human claims are universally rejected. If a god or gods exists, and these gods wish me to know it, they must validate their existence to me directly. This is their responsibility as far as I'm concerned. They can accept it or reject it, but that is their choice.
I would like to know if this is a fair and reasonable position to hold? Reject all human claims regarding gods, including scriptures. Place the responsibility on god/gods to validate their existence to me directly.
Is it fair? Is it reasonable?

Yes, it's fair and reasonable. Of course, you'll get the standard complaints from theists who will accuse you of questioning their god, that it's not your place to make demands of an omnipotent being, that they have 100% proof the holy spirit dwells within them and you are but Satan's flotsam in the toilet bowl of life.

Other than that, it's all good.
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
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 3:08:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 2:37:29 PM, NoMagic wrote:
My question, is this a fair position to hold? I reject all human claims regarding gods.

Basically I don't care what any human has to say concerning claims about a god or gods. I live in a world where there are literally tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of different god claims being made by humans. We can even increase this number if we consider nuanced beliefs within each individual. In this sense there are probably millions if not billions of nuanced god beliefs or claims being made.
What I've decided to do is reject them all as a standard position. The logical conclusion to this is to also reject scriptural claims regarding gods. It is universally agreed that humans wrote the scriptures, pen to paper. So I reject all scriptural claims since they are ultimately claims made by humans.
What I'm left with is this. All human claims are universally rejected. If a god or gods exists, and these gods wish me to know it, they must validate their existence to me directly. This is their responsibility as far as I'm concerned. They can accept it or reject it, but that is their choice.
I would like to know if this is a fair and reasonable position to hold? Reject all human claims regarding gods, including scriptures. Place the responsibility on god/gods to validate their existence to me directly.
Is it fair? Is it reasonable?

Why does this line of reasoning only apply to theism? Why not political beliefs, or social beliefs, or ethical beliefs or....
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 3:19:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 2:37:29 PM, NoMagic wrote:
My question, is this a fair position to hold? I reject all human claims regarding gods.

It's not only fair; I think it's insightful, for the following reasons:

Human belief in magic is universal, and systematically debunkable. So belief in gods already has a psychological explanation.

Moreover, any claims made about gods tend to be circular and/or poorly-defined: gods made everything, but nobody can explain how gods appeared, or what it even means to exist without time or space. Gods performed miracles, but the historical record shows that the events attributed didn't occur.

Moreover, even for people who believe in one faith have to reject the claims of all the others. So even the religious generally agree that most people are ignorant, deluded and don't diligently check their claims for being reasonable before advancing them.

So we have a strong basis for setting the bar for consideration. Your religious claims should not be considered until and unless they:

* Are not circular;
* Are clear in what they mean;
* Explain everything we already know at least as well as we can presently explain it; and
* Routinely offer specific and testable insights and predictions that are consistently accurate.

If not, then the claims aren't propositions but raving, and when people are raving there's no need for disproof.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 4:34:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 3:19:50 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 2/28/2015 2:37:29 PM, NoMagic wrote:
My question, is this a fair position to hold? I reject all human claims regarding gods.

It's not only fair; I think it's insightful, for the following reasons:

Human belief in magic is universal, and systematically debunkable. So belief in gods already has a psychological explanation.

Moreover, any claims made about gods tend to be circular and/or poorly-defined: gods made everything, but nobody can explain how gods appeared, or what it even means to exist without time or space. Gods performed miracles, but the historical record shows that the events attributed didn't occur.

Moreover, even for people who believe in one faith have to reject the claims of all the others. So even the religious generally agree that most people are ignorant, deluded and don't diligently check their claims for being reasonable before advancing them.

So we have a strong basis for setting the bar for consideration. Your religious claims should not be considered until and unless they:

* Are not circular;
* Are clear in what they mean;
* Explain everything we already know at least as well as we can presently explain it; and
* Routinely offer specific and testable insights and predictions that are consistently accurate.

If not, then the claims aren't propositions but raving, and when people are raving there's no need for disproof.

It seems to me, that even if we were to grant that one religious claims was valid and correct, that would imply the vast majority of them are wrong. If the vast majority are wrong, then it seems fair to hold all with a high degree of skepticism. This seems to me to lead to the most rational position is to simply consider all human claims to be false until validated by a god directly.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 4:39:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 3:08:39 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/28/2015 2:37:29 PM, NoMagic wrote:
My question, is this a fair position to hold? I reject all human claims regarding gods.

Basically I don't care what any human has to say concerning claims about a god or gods. I live in a world where there are literally tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of different god claims being made by humans. We can even increase this number if we consider nuanced beliefs within each individual. In this sense there are probably millions if not billions of nuanced god beliefs or claims being made.
What I've decided to do is reject them all as a standard position. The logical conclusion to this is to also reject scriptural claims regarding gods. It is universally agreed that humans wrote the scriptures, pen to paper. So I reject all scriptural claims since they are ultimately claims made by humans.
What I'm left with is this. All human claims are universally rejected. If a god or gods exists, and these gods wish me to know it, they must validate their existence to me directly. This is their responsibility as far as I'm concerned. They can accept it or reject it, but that is their choice.
I would like to know if this is a fair and reasonable position to hold? Reject all human claims regarding gods, including scriptures. Place the responsibility on god/gods to validate their existence to me directly.
Is it fair? Is it reasonable?

Why does this line of reasoning only apply to theism? Why not political beliefs, or social beliefs, or ethical beliefs or....

I'll answer that question, but I will ask you to answer the one I asked first. Since I asked it first. Do you think it is a reasonable or fair position of me to hold?
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 4:49:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 2:49:22 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 2/28/2015 2:37:29 PM, NoMagic wrote:
My question, is this a fair position to hold? I reject all human claims regarding gods.

Basically I don't care what any human has to say concerning claims about a god or gods. I live in a world where there are literally tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of different god claims being made by humans. We can even increase this number if we consider nuanced beliefs within each individual. In this sense there are probably millions if not billions of nuanced god beliefs or claims being made.
What I've decided to do is reject them all as a standard position. The logical conclusion to this is to also reject scriptural claims regarding gods. It is universally agreed that humans wrote the scriptures, pen to paper. So I reject all scriptural claims since they are ultimately claims made by humans.
What I'm left with is this. All human claims are universally rejected. If a god or gods exists, and these gods wish me to know it, they must validate their existence to me directly. This is their responsibility as far as I'm concerned. They can accept it or reject it, but that is their choice.
I would like to know if this is a fair and reasonable position to hold? Reject all human claims regarding gods, including scriptures. Place the responsibility on god/gods to validate their existence to me directly.
Is it fair? Is it reasonable?

Yes, it's fair and reasonable. Of course, you'll get the standard complaints from theists who will accuse you of questioning their god, that it's not your place to make demands of an omnipotent being, that they have 100% proof the holy spirit dwells within them and you are but Satan's flotsam in the toilet bowl of life.

Other than that, it's all good.

And my response to them would be, "I'm not questioning your god. I"m rejecting what you claim regarding a god." Even if they claim, "well I know a god exists." My response is, "I reject your claim that a god exists. As I said, I reject all god claims that come from humans." They must argue that I should listen to them. I'm going to argue that I don't trust humans and their god claims. Not sure how someone can argue I should trust the humans when they are in such disagreement on the subject. Or even why should I trust humans in a general sense anyway.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 5:55:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 2:37:29 PM, NoMagic wrote:
My question, is this a fair position to hold? I reject all human claims regarding gods.

Basically I don't care what any human has to say concerning claims about a god or gods. I live in a world where there are literally tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of different god claims being made by humans. We can even increase this number if we consider nuanced beliefs within each individual. In this sense there are probably millions if not billions of nuanced god beliefs or claims being made.
What I've decided to do is reject them all as a standard position. The logical conclusion to this is to also reject scriptural claims regarding gods. It is universally agreed that humans wrote the scriptures, pen to paper. So I reject all scriptural claims since they are ultimately claims made by humans.
What I'm left with is this. All human claims are universally rejected. If a god or gods exists, and these gods wish me to know it, they must validate their existence to me directly. This is their responsibility as far as I'm concerned. They can accept it or reject it, but that is their choice.
I would like to know if this is a fair and reasonable position to hold? Reject all human claims regarding gods, including scriptures. Place the responsibility on god/gods to validate their existence to me directly.
Is it fair? Is it reasonable?

It's reasonable but the fact is you don't need to directly experience a thing to believe it exists.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 7:12:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 5:55:15 PM, Iredia wrote:
At 2/28/2015 2:37:29 PM, NoMagic wrote:
My question, is this a fair position to hold? I reject all human claims regarding gods.

Basically I don't care what any human has to say concerning claims about a god or gods. I live in a world where there are literally tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of different god claims being made by humans. We can even increase this number if we consider nuanced beliefs within each individual. In this sense there are probably millions if not billions of nuanced god beliefs or claims being made.
What I've decided to do is reject them all as a standard position. The logical conclusion to this is to also reject scriptural claims regarding gods. It is universally agreed that humans wrote the scriptures, pen to paper. So I reject all scriptural claims since they are ultimately claims made by humans.
What I'm left with is this. All human claims are universally rejected. If a god or gods exists, and these gods wish me to know it, they must validate their existence to me directly. This is their responsibility as far as I'm concerned. They can accept it or reject it, but that is their choice.
I would like to know if this is a fair and reasonable position to hold? Reject all human claims regarding gods, including scriptures. Place the responsibility on god/gods to validate their existence to me directly.
Is it fair? Is it reasonable?

It's reasonable but the fact is you don't need to directly experience a thing to believe it exists.

True. Really you don't need anything to believe whatever you want. Belief doesn't necessarily hinge on evidence, reason, or logic. I could simply believe anything I wanted regardless of what it is. I could believe square circles exist. That is the nature of belief, at least in my opinion.
On this topic, I think rejecting all human claims on god is fair and probably the most justifiable position. Not sure how a god could claim I need to listen to anyone in particular especially when that god isn't going to tell me which one. So I will take the position that a god must demonstrate his existence to me if he wishes me to believe he exists. I think this is a fair approach. I guess the question would be, if this is fair and reasonable, would punishment for unbelief be unjust?
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 8:08:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Not ONE of you people in this thread are sharing any knowledge. All you do is cut down other people who share thoughts in this forum and pat yourselves on your backs. You sound like a religious group talking about their false deities. Don't any of you have some unique thoughts to share in this forum? Most people have to Google knowledge to share in this forum. Did you know that is called plagiarizing other people's thoughts?
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 8:56:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 2:37:29 PM, NoMagic wrote:
My question, is this a fair position to hold? I reject all human claims regarding gods.

Basically I don't care what any human has to say concerning claims about a god or gods. I live in a world where there are literally tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of different god claims being made by humans. We can even increase this number if we consider nuanced beliefs within each individual. In this sense there are probably millions if not billions of nuanced god beliefs or claims being made.
What I've decided to do is reject them all as a standard position. The logical conclusion to this is to also reject scriptural claims regarding gods. It is universally agreed that humans wrote the scriptures, pen to paper. So I reject all scriptural claims since they are ultimately claims made by humans.
What I'm left with is this. All human claims are universally rejected. If a god or gods exists, and these gods wish me to know it, they must validate their existence to me directly. This is their responsibility as far as I'm concerned. They can accept it or reject it, but that is their choice.
I would like to know if this is a fair and reasonable position to hold? Reject all human claims regarding gods, including scriptures. Place the responsibility on god/gods to validate their existence to me directly.
Is it fair? Is it reasonable?

Why do you atheists keep parading your FATAL FLAW in atheist ideology which is assuming that because you haven't ever experienced spiritual consciousness that nobody else can either. Why not grow up and realize you atheists are not able to participate in spiritual consciousness and are quite jealous of those who can and do. Only jealousy would be a strong enough emotion to propel atheists onto religious discussions in order to grab some public attention that religionists get. Agnostics wouldn't bother as they do follow a rational philosophy of inquiry but not atheists who have made up their minds on too little data and expect others to agree with their lack of knowledge of the subject matter they are so insanely angered by, insane enough to post OCD style against religionists everyday even though not a one of them has any knowledge of spiritual consciousness but thinks that doesn't matter in spirituality discussions. These people are out to lunch in the rational dept as much as their fundamentalist religious brethren, both groups unable to move mentally beyond blind faith in failed theology and ideology.
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 9:09:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
For the record, here's why atheism is an irrational belief system: Atheists make the same illogical error as do Muhammadan idolators which is attempting to freeze all human knowledge at one point in time. Muhammadans freeze it at the 7th Century and atheists freeze it at their current times, both fundamentalist believer groups trying to tell the world knowledge stops with either Muhammad or the atheist critic. Well, knowledge never stops being accumulated in the human community and it grows and grows each year and adds amazing things to our understanding of our universe and our lives in it.

Knowledge does not stand still for any man and the atheist attempt to claim no one can prove God's existence is not valid because all knowledge is not known at all by human beings, and we learn new stuff all the time. Like learning how "nature" has evolved spiritual consciousness ability in human brains and please, no efforts by atheists to deny this as I can prove it's truth with examples showing even PHYSICAL signs of spiritual movement through a human being as well as the telltale spiritual visions and revelations that accompany grand spiritual reception in a human mind. In short, you atheists have nothing but egos to defend your atheist beliefs--no experience with spiritual consciousness rules you out of the religious criticism game by exposing your lack of knowledge of the subject matter and pretending that that doesn't make any difference. Well, it does. No spiritual consciousness experience, no ability to tell anyone about it rationally. Atheism falls on its face as a logical philosophy.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2015 9:51:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 2:37:29 PM, NoMagic wrote:
My question, is this a fair position to hold? I reject all human claims regarding gods.

Basically I don't care what any human has to say concerning claims about a god or gods. I live in a world where there are literally tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of different god claims being made by humans. We can even increase this number if we consider nuanced beliefs within each individual. In this sense there are probably millions if not billions of nuanced god beliefs or claims being made.
What I've decided to do is reject them all as a standard position. The logical conclusion to this is to also reject scriptural claims regarding gods. It is universally agreed that humans wrote the scriptures, pen to paper. So I reject all scriptural claims since they are ultimately claims made by humans.

nothing logical about it. humans write down their reasons for believing something as true. And scripture is believed by those writing it to be inspired from God. not written by God.

All the papers written about the nature of the universe are written humans. none of them have perception clear enough to discern the underlining prescriptive laws of the universe so by logic you should reject science as well.

What I'm left with is this. All human claims are universally rejected. If a god or gods exists, and these gods wish me to know it, they must validate their existence to me directly. This is their responsibility as far as I'm concerned. They can accept it or reject it, but that is their choice.

Quantum effects are not discerned directly. If you were intellectual honest you would reject any positions asserting models of reality imperceptible by direct measurement.

I would like to know if this is a fair and reasonable position to hold? Reject all human claims regarding gods, including scriptures. Place the responsibility on god/gods to validate their existence to me directly.

God/s having wills of their own you are assuming that they would even want to talk to you. I suspect you would seek medical attention, because you would say the experience was a hallucination.

This must be the wait and see method. What makes the wait and see method logical or reasonable in regards to entities with volition.

Is it fair? Is it reasonable?

Reject all claims about anything being truthful from humans then.

Reasonable? I don't think so but Atheist claim to be rational intellectual champions all the time. Last I checked Doubt has never confirmed or affirmed the validity of anything.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 10:09:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 4:39:02 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 2/28/2015 3:08:39 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/28/2015 2:37:29 PM, NoMagic wrote:
My question, is this a fair position to hold? I reject all human claims regarding gods.

Basically I don't care what any human has to say concerning claims about a god or gods. I live in a world where there are literally tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of different god claims being made by humans. We can even increase this number if we consider nuanced beliefs within each individual. In this sense there are probably millions if not billions of nuanced god beliefs or claims being made.
What I've decided to do is reject them all as a standard position. The logical conclusion to this is to also reject scriptural claims regarding gods. It is universally agreed that humans wrote the scriptures, pen to paper. So I reject all scriptural claims since they are ultimately claims made by humans.
What I'm left with is this. All human claims are universally rejected. If a god or gods exists, and these gods wish me to know it, they must validate their existence to me directly. This is their responsibility as far as I'm concerned. They can accept it or reject it, but that is their choice.
I would like to know if this is a fair and reasonable position to hold? Reject all human claims regarding gods, including scriptures. Place the responsibility on god/gods to validate their existence to me directly.
Is it fair? Is it reasonable?

Why does this line of reasoning only apply to theism? Why not political beliefs, or social beliefs, or ethical beliefs or....

I'll answer that question, but I will ask you to answer the one I asked first. Since I asked it first. Do you think it is a reasonable or fair position of me to hold?

Not if you're incosistent in your reasons for this rejection. It doesn't seem to me to that you can restrict this skepticism to JUST theism which is why I asked the question.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
missmedic
Posts: 387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 11:21:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 2:37:29 PM, NoMagic wrote:
My question, is this a fair position to hold? I reject all human claims regarding gods.

Basically I don't care what any human has to say concerning claims about a god or gods. I live in a world where there are literally tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of different god claims being made by humans. We can even increase this number if we consider nuanced beliefs within each individual. In this sense there are probably millions if not billions of nuanced god beliefs or claims being made.
What I've decided to do is reject them all as a standard position. The logical conclusion to this is to also reject scriptural claims regarding gods. It is universally agreed that humans wrote the scriptures, pen to paper. So I reject all scriptural claims since they are ultimately claims made by humans.
What I'm left with is this. All human claims are universally rejected. If a god or gods exists, and these gods wish me to know it, they must validate their existence to me directly. This is their responsibility as far as I'm concerned. They can accept it or reject it, but that is their choice.
I would like to know if this is a fair and reasonable position to hold? Reject all human claims regarding gods, including scriptures. Place the responsibility on god/gods to validate their existence to me directly.
Is it fair? Is it reasonable?

When you base a position through understanding and logic on reason , it is reasonable. The only thing we all share is five senses to reason out our natural world. Faith is used to explain belief in the supernatural world and that reason can't explain. Knowledge, understanding, logic and reason are not needed for faith only belief. Reason is one of the best tools we have to find the true answers. Reason is not used to explain Faith, the supernatural world or religious certainty.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 11:26:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 8:56:44 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:

Why do you atheists keep parading your FATAL FLAW in atheist ideology which is assuming that because you haven't ever experienced spiritual consciousness that nobody else can either.

Sorry, are you actually claiming that YOU are special in that you can experience spiritual consciousness and atheists cannot? What makes you special? What is it that is so different in you that disconnects atheists from God. If God is so important to us, why would atheists not be able to experience the same thing as you?

Why not grow up and realize you atheists are not able to participate in spiritual consciousness and are quite jealous of those who can and do.

Why can you participate and atheists can't? Explain this phenomena.

And, please don't use lame excuses that atheists choose not to participate.

Only jealousy would be a strong enough emotion to propel atheists onto religious discussions in order to grab some public attention that religionists get. Agnostics wouldn't bother as they do follow a rational philosophy of inquiry but not atheists who have made up their minds on too little data and expect others to agree with their lack of knowledge of the subject matter they are so insanely angered by, insane enough to post OCD style against religionists everyday even though not a one of them has any knowledge of spiritual consciousness but thinks that doesn't matter in spirituality discussions. These people are out to lunch in the rational dept as much as their fundamentalist religious brethren, both groups unable to move mentally beyond blind faith in failed theology and ideology.

Can you show me that your so-called spiritual experiences are not based on blind faith or are not mental disorders?
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
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 11:41:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 2:37:29 PM, NoMagic wrote:
My question, is this a fair position to hold? I reject all human claims regarding gods.

Basically I don't care what any human has to say concerning claims about a god or gods. I live in a world where there are literally tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of different god claims being made by humans. We can even increase this number if we consider nuanced beliefs within each individual. In this sense there are probably millions if not billions of nuanced god beliefs or claims being made.
What I've decided to do is reject them all as a standard position. The logical conclusion to this is to also reject scriptural claims regarding gods. It is universally agreed that humans wrote the scriptures, pen to paper. So I reject all scriptural claims since they are ultimately claims made by humans.
What I'm left with is this. All human claims are universally rejected. If a god or gods exists, and these gods wish me to know it, they must validate their existence to me directly. This is their responsibility as far as I'm concerned. They can accept it or reject it, but that is their choice.
I would like to know if this is a fair and reasonable position to hold? Reject all human claims regarding gods, including scriptures. Place the responsibility on god/gods to validate their existence to me directly.
Is it fair? Is it reasonable?
I would say it's fair. It's not unfair to anyone else. You rejecting God/god/gods is certainly not unfair to me.

As far as biblical scripture goes, you are simply making a choice. What you choose is entirely up to you.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 1:03:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is one of those things that the fundamentalists (people like MCB) never grasp. Few things are as irritating as the question "why do you reject God?". Like you pointed out, if you're making the claim that God exists then I don't reject God, I reject you.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 1:04:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 9:09:25 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
For the record, here's why atheism is an irrational belief system: Atheists make the same illogical error as do Muhammadan idolators which is attempting to freeze all human knowledge at one point in time. Muhammadans freeze it at the 7th Century and atheists freeze it at their current times, both fundamentalist believer groups trying to tell the world knowledge stops with either Muhammad or the atheist critic. Well, knowledge never stops being accumulated in the human community and it grows and grows each year and adds amazing things to our understanding of our universe and our lives in it.

Knowledge does not stand still for any man and the atheist attempt to claim no one can prove God's existence is not valid because all knowledge is not known at all by human beings, and we learn new stuff all the time. Like learning how "nature" has evolved spiritual consciousness ability in human brains and please, no efforts by atheists to deny this as I can prove it's truth with examples showing even PHYSICAL signs of spiritual movement through a human being as well as the telltale spiritual visions and revelations that accompany grand spiritual reception in a human mind. In short, you atheists have nothing but egos to defend your atheist beliefs--no experience with spiritual consciousness rules you out of the religious criticism game by exposing your lack of knowledge of the subject matter and pretending that that doesn't make any difference. Well, it does. No spiritual consciousness experience, no ability to tell anyone about it rationally. Atheism falls on its face as a logical philosophy.

Atheism is not a belief nor is it a logical philosophy. At least learn what it is before going on a rant about it.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 1:08:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 11:41:54 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
I would say it's fair. It's not unfair to anyone else. You rejecting God/god/gods is certainly not unfair to me.

As far as biblical scripture goes, you are simply making a choice. What you choose is entirely up to you.

At 3/1/2015 1:03:13 PM, Double_R wrote:
This is one of those things that the fundamentalists (people like MCB) never grasp. Few things are as irritating as the question "why do you reject God?". Like you pointed out, if you're making the claim that God exists then I don't reject God, I reject you.

Exactly. And, we can even see that RoderickSpode did not refer to God when he said the choice was to reject God, but instead, "biblical scripture".

So, no, RoderickSpode, we are not rejecting any gods, we are rejecting biblical scriptures that make claims of God, just as we reject your claims of God.
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
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 3:18:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 9:51:06 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/28/2015 2:37:29 PM, NoMagic wrote:
My question, is this a fair position to hold? I reject all human claims regarding gods.

Basically I don't care what any human has to say concerning claims about a god or gods. I live in a world where there are literally tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of different god claims being made by humans. We can even increase this number if we consider nuanced beliefs within each individual. In this sense there are probably millions if not billions of nuanced god beliefs or claims being made.
What I've decided to do is reject them all as a standard position. The logical conclusion to this is to also reject scriptural claims regarding gods. It is universally agreed that humans wrote the scriptures, pen to paper. So I reject all scriptural claims since they are ultimately claims made by humans.

nothing logical about it. humans write down their reasons for believing something as true. And scripture is believed by those writing it to be inspired from God. not written by God.

Humans write down things. This is true. Whether the humans who wrote the scriptures believed what they were writing isn't something you can know. Did the authors of the Noah story really believe it? I have no idea. And whether they believed is a valid point. They may have believed it and it still could be completely false, not a sound objection. What I'm doing is rejecting all human claims regarding gods. I'm placing that burden on the gods themselves to validate their existence. Do you think it is a fair position for me to simply say, "If a god wants me to know they exist, that is their responsibility to demonstrate their existence."
What isn't logical to say I'm not going to believe humans regarding gods?

All the papers written about the nature of the universe are written humans. none of them have perception clear enough to discern the underlining prescriptive laws of the universe so by logic you should reject science as well

I know nature exists. This is different from god claims. Also the humans that write nature related papers than don't tell me nature wants me to act or behave in a certain way. I can't place the burden on nature to tell me things. In theory a god could tell me things. I'm removing human claims, and allowing this god or gods to validate their own existence. With nature, I know it exists. With nature, nature cannot tell me things directly. Not equal comparisons, so the objection isn't valid.

What I'm left with is this. All human claims are universally rejected. If a god or gods exists, and these gods wish me to know it, they must validate their existence to me directly. This is their responsibility as far as I'm concerned. They can accept it or reject it, but that is their choice.

Quantum effects are not discerned directly. If you were intellectual honest you would reject any positions asserting models of reality imperceptible by direct measurement.

Quantum mechanics is the most validated of all scientific theories. It has been verified millions of times. Principles of QM are found in design of electronics. Even then, I'm not concerned if I should apply this to other aspects of human claims. The question is this a fair position regarding god claims. If it is, maybe then one could argue to what degree I should apply it to other things. But god claims are fundamentally different from natural claims.

I would like to know if this is a fair and reasonable position to hold? Reject all human claims regarding gods, including scriptures. Place the responsibility on god/gods to validate their existence to me directly.

God/s having wills of their own you are assuming that they would even want to talk to you. I suspect you would seek medical attention, because you would say the experience was a hallucination.

I'm not assuming they would want to talk to me. I really don't care if they would or not. My position is I'm placing that responsibility on them. What they do with it is their decision. If they don't demonstrate their existence to me, I'm completely justified in dismissing human claims, and therefore justified in not believing in them.

I don't know what I would do or react if a god presented themselves to me. But this god, if he is say the Christian god, could make it to were I believed without question. None the less, I think I can place this burden on the gods and make an argument that that is justified by simply saying humans aren't trust worthy on this issue.

This must be the wait and see method. What makes the wait and see method logical or reasonable in regards to entities with volition.

Is it fair? Is it reasonable?

Reject all claims about anything being truthful from humans then.

Reasonable? I don't think so but Atheist claim to be rational intellectual champions all the time. Last I checked Doubt has never confirmed or affirmed the validity of anything.

We should begin from a position of doubt, probably concerning all things. Doubt is a logically justified until there is good reasons to remove the doubt. I doubt human claims on this issue. One must argue this doubt on this issue, regarding humans isn't justified. Once again, I'm placing responsibility on the gods to demonstrate their existence. Why should they be free from this responsibility?
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 3:31:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 8:56:44 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
At 2/28/2015 2:37:29 PM, NoMagic wrote:
My question, is this a fair position to hold? I reject all human claims regarding gods.

Basically I don't care what any human has to say concerning claims about a god or gods. I live in a world where there are literally tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of different god claims being made by humans. We can even increase this number if we consider nuanced beliefs within each individual. In this sense there are probably millions if not billions of nuanced god beliefs or claims being made.
What I've decided to do is reject them all as a standard position. The logical conclusion to this is to also reject scriptural claims regarding gods. It is universally agreed that humans wrote the scriptures, pen to paper. So I reject all scriptural claims since they are ultimately claims made by humans.
What I'm left with is this. All human claims are universally rejected. If a god or gods exists, and these gods wish me to know it, they must validate their existence to me directly. This is their responsibility as far as I'm concerned. They can accept it or reject it, but that is their choice.
I would like to know if this is a fair and reasonable position to hold? Reject all human claims regarding gods, including scriptures. Place the responsibility on god/gods to validate their existence to me directly.
Is it fair? Is it reasonable?

Why do you atheists keep parading your FATAL FLAW in atheist ideology which is assuming that because you haven't ever experienced spiritual consciousness that nobody else can either.
Is that the position I have presented here? No. BornOfGod told me yesterday in a form he received direct instruction from "our creator." True or not isn't really my point. My position is that I reject all human claims regarding gods and place the responsibility with them in validating their own existence.

Why not grow up and realize you atheists are not able to participate in spiritual consciousness and are quite jealous of those who can and do.

You seem a bit upset. Why?

Only jealousy would be a strong enough emotion to propel atheists onto religious discussions in order to grab some public attention that religionists get. Agnostics wouldn't bother as they do follow a rational philosophy of inquiry but not atheists who have made up their minds on too little data and expect others to agree with their lack of knowledge of the subject matter they are so insanely angered by, insane enough to post OCD style against religionists everyday even though not a one of them has any knowledge of spiritual consciousness but thinks that doesn't matter in spirituality discussions. These people are out to lunch in the rational dept as much as their fundamentalist religious brethren, both groups unable to move mentally beyond blind faith in failed theology and ideology.

You went on a little rant their that really isn't related to the subject I've presented. I would like to know if you find the position as a fair and reasonable position. I suspect based on the rant you don't. But I would like to know why you don't. If this position isn't fair, I think you are effectively saying I shouldn't place the responsibility of demonstrating god existence in god's own lap and leave it to humans to claim a god exists. Effectively, believe humans on god claims. Why should I do this? Why isn't my position more reasonable then just accepting human hearsay?
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 5:05:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 10:09:02 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/28/2015 4:39:02 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 2/28/2015 3:08:39 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/28/2015 2:37:29 PM, NoMagic wrote:
My question, is this a fair position to hold? I reject all human claims regarding gods.

Basically I don't care what any human has to say concerning claims about a god or gods. I live in a world where there are literally tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of different god claims being made by humans. We can even increase this number if we consider nuanced beliefs within each individual. In this sense there are probably millions if not billions of nuanced god beliefs or claims being made.
What I've decided to do is reject them all as a standard position. The logical conclusion to this is to also reject scriptural claims regarding gods. It is universally agreed that humans wrote the scriptures, pen to paper. So I reject all scriptural claims since they are ultimately claims made by humans.
What I'm left with is this. All human claims are universally rejected. If a god or gods exists, and these gods wish me to know it, they must validate their existence to me directly. This is their responsibility as far as I'm concerned. They can accept it or reject it, but that is their choice.
I would like to know if this is a fair and reasonable position to hold? Reject all human claims regarding gods, including scriptures. Place the responsibility on god/gods to validate their existence to me directly.
Is it fair? Is it reasonable?

Why does this line of reasoning only apply to theism? Why not political beliefs, or social beliefs, or ethical beliefs or....

I'll answer that question, but I will ask you to answer the one I asked first. Since I asked it first. Do you think it is a reasonable or fair position of me to hold?

Not if you're incosistent in your reasons for this rejection. It doesn't seem to me to that you can restrict this skepticism to JUST theism which is why I asked the question.

I think there is a flaw in your objection. You seem to be claiming that theistic claims are fundamentally similar to political claims. If this was true, I think you might have a point. But, theistic claims aren't the same as political claims. The structure of this theistic model is that humans claim a god exist. They then claim this god wants particular behaviors or practices. They then claim you should follow them. All of this is done without god representing himself in these human claims. That cannot be said for politics. I see politicians speak. I see my ballot in the mailbox. Politicians themselves present themselves and argue for their policies. This isn't the same dynamic concerning god claims. God has never presented himself to me. God has never argued for policies to me. I cannot write to god like I can my Congressman and voice my opinion and get a response.
The difference in the theistic model is humans claim to represent a god a market the ideas themselves and claim it is from god. No one knocks on my door and says "George W. Bush has sent me, and he wishes you to give all your money to his rich friends. George W. Bush is in a position of authority and you must follow his directives or you will be imprisoned." In addition to the statement, we would have to also acknowledge that there would be no direct evidence that George W. Bush existed in this analogy. We have a clear difference between the dynamics of theistic claims and political facts.
Since it is intellectually fair to separate theistic claims from our established and clearly visibly political world, I will ask the question again to you. Is it fair to dismiss all human claims regarding gods and place the responsibility of establishing their existence in their own laps?
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 5:12:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 11:41:54 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/28/2015 2:37:29 PM, NoMagic wrote:
My question, is this a fair position to hold? I reject all human claims regarding gods.

Basically I don't care what any human has to say concerning claims about a god or gods. I live in a world where there are literally tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of different god claims being made by humans. We can even increase this number if we consider nuanced beliefs within each individual. In this sense there are probably millions if not billions of nuanced god beliefs or claims being made.
What I've decided to do is reject them all as a standard position. The logical conclusion to this is to also reject scriptural claims regarding gods. It is universally agreed that humans wrote the scriptures, pen to paper. So I reject all scriptural claims since they are ultimately claims made by humans.
What I'm left with is this. All human claims are universally rejected. If a god or gods exists, and these gods wish me to know it, they must validate their existence to me directly. This is their responsibility as far as I'm concerned. They can accept it or reject it, but that is their choice.
I would like to know if this is a fair and reasonable position to hold? Reject all human claims regarding gods, including scriptures. Place the responsibility on god/gods to validate their existence to me directly.
Is it fair? Is it reasonable?
I would say it's fair. It's not unfair to anyone else. You rejecting God/god/gods is certainly not unfair to me.

Just to be clear, I'm not rejection "God/god/gods." I'm rejecting HUMAN claims of God/god/gods. There is a very important difference.

As far as biblical scripture goes, you are simply making a choice. What you choose is entirely up to you.
I don't know your religious position so I will just ask a general question directed at what would be a Christian perspective. Let's say it is fair and reasonable for me to reject human claims concerning gods. You say it is fair. I think it is fair. Several other think it is fair. Now lets say I end up standing there in some for of judgment position. If I'm only presented with human claims of gods, and I fairly and reasonable reject them all, and I'm never presented with any god directly validating his existence, would it be just to punish my unbelief?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 6:32:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 2:37:29 PM, NoMagic wrote:
My question, is this a fair position to hold? I reject all human claims regarding gods.

Basically I don't care what any human has to say concerning claims about a god or gods. I live in a world where there are literally tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of different god claims being made by humans. We can even increase this number if we consider nuanced beliefs within each individual. In this sense there are probably millions if not billions of nuanced god beliefs or claims being made.
What I've decided to do is reject them all as a standard position. The logical conclusion to this is to also reject scriptural claims regarding gods. It is universally agreed that humans wrote the scriptures, pen to paper. So I reject all scriptural claims since they are ultimately claims made by humans.
What I'm left with is this. All human claims are universally rejected. If a god or gods exists, and these gods wish me to know it, they must validate their existence to me directly. This is their responsibility as far as I'm concerned. They can accept it or reject it, but that is their choice.
I would like to know if this is a fair and reasonable position to hold? Reject all human claims regarding gods, including scriptures. Place the responsibility on god/gods to validate their existence to me directly.
Is it fair? Is it reasonable?

It is both fair and reasonable. People who make claims of divine intervention like to think their experiences are unique and they are somehow privileged. Like in the sinking of the titanic only the few survivors claimed it was a miracle. God either forgot those that died or punished those that died, suggesting God plays favourites. The scriptures are full of Gods chosen favourites. You offer a fair and rational solution to end this absurdity.
As for the other institutions of man. They were created as human endeavours and swore no allegiance to God or the devil. Decisions are made by humans elected to positions because of their natural abilities and not their special connection to God.
That we are all not born equal is a fact of nature and not because of some divine design.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 6:42:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/28/2015 2:37:29 PM, NoMagic wrote:
My question, is this a fair position to hold? I reject all human claims regarding gods.

Basically I don't care what any human has to say concerning claims about a god or gods. I live in a world where there are literally tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of different god claims being made by humans. We can even increase this number if we consider nuanced beliefs within each individual. In this sense there are probably millions if not billions of nuanced god beliefs or claims being made.
What I've decided to do is reject them all as a standard position. The logical conclusion to this is to also reject scriptural claims regarding gods. It is universally agreed that humans wrote the scriptures, pen to paper. So I reject all scriptural claims since they are ultimately claims made by humans.
What I'm left with is this. All human claims are universally rejected. If a god or gods exists, and these gods wish me to know it, they must validate their existence to me directly. This is their responsibility as far as I'm concerned. They can accept it or reject it, but that is their choice.
I would like to know if this is a fair and reasonable position to hold? Reject all human claims regarding gods, including scriptures. Place the responsibility on god/gods to validate their existence to me directly.
Is it fair? Is it reasonable?

Quite simply alot of religion is a bare assertion fallacy.

And that's the double standard, a religious person doesn't have much problem rejecting the bare assertions claims about the other guys God claim yet (a certain type) demand you accept their owns beliefs as God given truth.

And if you don't it's because your just being evil.

You also touched upon a divine silence issue. God neither confirms or denies when our fellow humans (idiots) go around making such divine claims, eg God sent that earthquakes to punish gays !!!

Suffice to say religion is a testament of humanity (well some humans) exploiting this fact of the world.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
celestialtorahteacher
Posts: 1,369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 9:16:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 1:04:53 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/28/2015 9:09:25 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
For the record, here's why atheism is an irrational belief system: Atheists make the same illogical error as do Muhammadan idolators which is attempting to freeze all human knowledge at one point in time. Muhammadans freeze it at the 7th Century and atheists freeze it at their current times, both fundamentalist believer groups trying to tell the world knowledge stops with either Muhammad or the atheist critic. Well, knowledge never stops being accumulated in the human community and it grows and grows each year and adds amazing things to our understanding of our universe and our lives in it.

Knowledge does not stand still for any man and the atheist attempt to claim no one can prove God's existence is not valid because all knowledge is not known at all by human beings, and we learn new stuff all the time. Like learning how "nature" has evolved spiritual consciousness ability in human brains and please, no efforts by atheists to deny this as I can prove it's truth with examples showing even PHYSICAL signs of spiritual movement through a human being as well as the telltale spiritual visions and revelations that accompany grand spiritual reception in a human mind. In short, you atheists have nothing but egos to defend your atheist beliefs--no experience with spiritual consciousness rules you out of the religious criticism game by exposing your lack of knowledge of the subject matter and pretending that that doesn't make any difference. Well, it does. No spiritual consciousness experience, no ability to tell anyone about it rationally. Atheism falls on its face as a logical philosophy.

Atheism is not a belief nor is it a logical philosophy. At least learn what it is before going on a rant about it.

Atheism is so a belief and a fundamentalist held one at that. There is zero proof of the atheist core position as no one yet has been able to disprove God's existence and obviously, billions of human beings still believe quite seriously in God. Atheists are in the tiny minority and that includes most scientists too because both groups seem to have poor mental access to their right-brain hemispheres where spiritual cognition seems more at home. Atheists and scientists are people whose left-brain hemispheres are dominating their worldviews and it looks like that blocks out spiritual reception. It looks like, because atheists are always in the tiny minority except when atheists get state power behind them and force everyone to be atheists, but throughout the world and throughout history atheists are a small minority group, and that leads me to suspect atheism is in reality a mental disability. If atheism were true to reality evolution would have put the atheist left-brain dominancy that seems to filter out spiritual reception ability into everyone but that's never been the case.

Some poster above challenged me to prove my religious visions weren't mental disorders and I can easily do: Do the leading priests of Nazareth, Israel's Melkite and Greek Orthodox have mental disorders because they honored my spiritual vision. So did over 500 members of their congregations. Does the Archbishop of the Holy Land Dioceses have mental disorders because he invited me to have tea with him in honor of my spiritual vision. Does the former president of the Oglala Lakota Nation and members of the Oglala tribal government have mental disorders or members of the Northern Cheyenne Nation who not only honor my spiritual vision but have, like the priest in Nazareth, become Keepers of my spiritual vision. Here on the West Coast my vision included the spiritual leader of the Bear River tribe so all in all I don't lie when I say hundreds of people have accepted my spiritual visions as authentic to God. And some of these are the top leaders in their communities that you are making the very foolish accusation of being mentally ill. I'd like to see you say such things to their faces, as it's so easy to disrespect people when you can remain anonymous.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 9:22:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 5:12:54 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 3/1/2015 11:41:54 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 2/28/2015 2:37:29 PM, NoMagic wrote:
My question, is this a fair position to hold? I reject all human claims regarding gods.

Basically I don't care what any human has to say concerning claims about a god or gods. I live in a world where there are literally tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of different god claims being made by humans. We can even increase this number if we consider nuanced beliefs within each individual. In this sense there are probably millions if not billions of nuanced god beliefs or claims being made.
What I've decided to do is reject them all as a standard position. The logical conclusion to this is to also reject scriptural claims regarding gods. It is universally agreed that humans wrote the scriptures, pen to paper. So I reject all scriptural claims since they are ultimately claims made by humans.
What I'm left with is this. All human claims are universally rejected. If a god or gods exists, and these gods wish me to know it, they must validate their existence to me directly. This is their responsibility as far as I'm concerned. They can accept it or reject it, but that is their choice.
I would like to know if this is a fair and reasonable position to hold? Reject all human claims regarding gods, including scriptures. Place the responsibility on god/gods to validate their existence to me directly.
Is it fair? Is it reasonable?
I would say it's fair. It's not unfair to anyone else. You rejecting God/god/gods is certainly not unfair to me.

Just to be clear, I'm not rejection "God/god/gods." I'm rejecting HUMAN claims of God/god/gods. There is a very important difference.

I understand. And yes, the rejecting human claims of God/god/gods is fair.

As far as biblical scripture goes, you are simply making a choice. What you choose is entirely up to you.
I don't know your religious position so I will just ask a general question directed at what would be a Christian perspective. Let's say it is fair and reasonable for me to reject human claims concerning gods. You say it is fair. I think it is fair. Several other think it is fair. Now lets say I end up standing there in some for of judgment position. If I'm only presented with human claims of gods, and I fairly and reasonable reject them all, and I'm never presented with any god directly validating his existence, would it be just to punish my unbelief?
My religious position is that of a Christian.

I guess what you're asking now is, would God be fair to judge you for not believing.

Since we're talking about a Christian perspective, this is what scripture indicates. No man is without excuse. The issue here, from a Christian perspective, is a one-on-one situation between you and the Creator of the Universe. Debate.org is now out of the equation.

The Bible makes some bold claims. One of the claims is that if one seeks God, they will find Him. Since there is an action suggested there, it can be tested. Your claim is that God is apparently responsible to reveal Himself to you before you accept any claim of His in any literary context (if I understood you correctly). The question is, would you really want to find Him?

At the same time scripture strongly encourages seeking God, there's also the issue of taking strong consideration on what you're doing. Passages that refer to counting the cost suggest there being a price to pay. Obviously the acceptance/belief in the Creator (from a Christian perspective) is not the equivalent of accepting proof that some dinosaurs had stripes on their skin (apparently this is an actual argument). Submitting to, or believing that some dinosaurs had stripes is probably not going to impact your life much. You can pretty much go on business as usual. You might be out a couple hundred bucks if you placed a bet (about dinosaur stripes, or the lack thereof), but that's about it. From a Christian perspective, belief in the Creator of the Universe will impact your life one way or another. Your life, for the most part, will not be business as usual.

So is it fair? If the avenue has been presented to you, the course you must take to prevent that judgment position, isn't that fair enough?
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2015 9:26:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 9:16:35 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
At 3/1/2015 1:04:53 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/28/2015 9:09:25 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
For the record, here's why atheism is an irrational belief system: Atheists make the same illogical error as do Muhammadan idolators which is attempting to freeze all human knowledge at one point in time. Muhammadans freeze it at the 7th Century and atheists freeze it at their current times, both fundamentalist believer groups trying to tell the world knowledge stops with either Muhammad or the atheist critic. Well, knowledge never stops being accumulated in the human community and it grows and grows each year and adds amazing things to our understanding of our universe and our lives in it.

Knowledge does not stand still for any man and the atheist attempt to claim no one can prove God's existence is not valid because all knowledge is not known at all by human beings, and we learn new stuff all the time. Like learning how "nature" has evolved spiritual consciousness ability in human brains and please, no efforts by atheists to deny this as I can prove it's truth with examples showing even PHYSICAL signs of spiritual movement through a human being as well as the telltale spiritual visions and revelations that accompany grand spiritual reception in a human mind. In short, you atheists have nothing but egos to defend your atheist beliefs--no experience with spiritual consciousness rules you out of the religious criticism game by exposing your lack of knowledge of the subject matter and pretending that that doesn't make any difference. Well, it does. No spiritual consciousness experience, no ability to tell anyone about it rationally. Atheism falls on its face as a logical philosophy.

Atheism is not a belief nor is it a logical philosophy. At least learn what it is before going on a rant about it.

Atheism is so a belief and a fundamentalist held one at that. There is zero proof of the atheist core position as no one yet has been able to disprove God's existence and obviously, billions of human beings still believe quite seriously in God. Atheists are in the tiny minority and that includes most scientists too because both groups seem to have poor mental access to their right-brain hemispheres where spiritual cognition seems more at home. Atheists and scientists are people whose left-brain hemispheres are dominating their worldviews and it looks like that blocks out spiritual reception. It looks like, because atheists are always in the tiny minority except when atheists get state power behind them and force everyone to be atheists, but throughout the world and throughout history atheists are a small minority group, and that leads me to suspect atheism is in reality a mental disability. If atheism were true to reality evolution would have put the atheist left-brain dominancy that seems to filter out spiritual reception ability into everyone but that's never been the case.

Some poster above challenged me to prove my religious visions weren't mental disorders and I can easily do: Do the leading priests of Nazareth, Israel's Melkite and Greek Orthodox have mental disorders because they honored my spiritual vision. So did over 500 members of their congregations. Does the Archbishop of the Holy Land Dioceses have mental disorders because he invited me to have tea with him in honor of my spiritual vision. Does the former president of the Oglala Lakota Nation and members of the Oglala tribal government have mental disorders or members of the Northern Cheyenne Nation who not only honor my spiritual vision but have, like the priest in Nazareth, become Keepers of my spiritual vision. Here on the West Coast my vision included the spiritual leader of the Bear River tribe so all in all I don't lie when I say hundreds of people have accepted my spiritual visions as authentic to God. And some of these are the top leaders in their communities that you are making the very foolish accusation of being mentally ill. I'd like to see you say such things to their faces, as it's so easy to disrespect people when you can remain anonymous.

I totally understand how God can give His people visions and dreams like you had since He taught me many things by using visions and dreams, also. He's had me write many books worth of writings and speak millions of words this past six years to teach me everything He wanted me to know about the past, present delusion we're living in, how this age will end, how He created everything and how we'll be experiencing life in the New Heaven and Earth that He had prophesied through His prophets and other saints.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 7:14:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/1/2015 9:16:35 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
At 3/1/2015 1:04:53 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/28/2015 9:09:25 PM, celestialtorahteacher wrote:
For the record, here's why atheism is an irrational belief system: Atheists make the same illogical error as do Muhammadan idolators which is attempting to freeze all human knowledge at one point in time. Muhammadans freeze it at the 7th Century and atheists freeze it at their current times, both fundamentalist believer groups trying to tell the world knowledge stops with either Muhammad or the atheist critic. Well, knowledge never stops being accumulated in the human community and it grows and grows each year and adds amazing things to our understanding of our universe and our lives in it.

Knowledge does not stand still for any man and the atheist attempt to claim no one can prove God's existence is not valid because all knowledge is not known at all by human beings, and we learn new stuff all the time. Like learning how "nature" has evolved spiritual consciousness ability in human brains and please, no efforts by atheists to deny this as I can prove it's truth with examples showing even PHYSICAL signs of spiritual movement through a human being as well as the telltale spiritual visions and revelations that accompany grand spiritual reception in a human mind. In short, you atheists have nothing but egos to defend your atheist beliefs--no experience with spiritual consciousness rules you out of the religious criticism game by exposing your lack of knowledge of the subject matter and pretending that that doesn't make any difference. Well, it does. No spiritual consciousness experience, no ability to tell anyone about it rationally. Atheism falls on its face as a logical philosophy.

Atheism is not a belief nor is it a logical philosophy. At least learn what it is before going on a rant about it.

Atheism is so a belief and a fundamentalist held one at that. There is zero proof of the atheist core position as no one yet has been able to disprove God's existence and obviously, billions of human beings still believe quite seriously in God. Atheists are in the tiny minority and that includes most scientists too because both groups seem to have poor mental access to their right-brain hemispheres where spiritual cognition seems more at home. Atheists and scientists are people whose left-brain hemispheres are dominating their worldviews and it looks like that blocks out spiritual reception. It looks like, because atheists are always in the tiny minority except when atheists get state power behind them and force everyone to be atheists, but throughout the world and throughout history atheists are a small minority group, and that leads me to suspect atheism is in reality a mental disability. If atheism were true to reality evolution would have put the atheist left-brain dominancy that seems to filter out spiritual reception ability into everyone but that's never been the case.

Some poster above challenged me to prove my religious visions weren't mental disorders and I can easily do: Do the leading priests of Nazareth, Israel's Melkite and Greek Orthodox have mental disorders because they honored my spiritual vision. So did over 500 members of their congregations. Does the Archbishop of the Holy Land Dioceses have mental disorders because he invited me to have tea with him in honor of my spiritual vision. Does the former president of the Oglala Lakota Nation and members of the Oglala tribal government have mental disorders or members of the Northern Cheyenne Nation who not only honor my spiritual vision but have, like the priest in Nazareth, become Keepers of my spiritual vision. Here on the West Coast my vision included the spiritual leader of the Bear River tribe so all in all I don't lie when I say hundreds of people have accepted my spiritual visions as authentic to God. And some of these are the top leaders in their communities that you are making the very foolish accusation of being mentally ill. I'd like to see you say such things to their faces, as it's so easy to disrespect people when you can remain anonymous.

I don't recall claiming that anyone is mentally ill in this thread or any other, the only thing I stated to you is that atheism is not a belief nor a philosophy. If you have a rational response to challenge that then you should share it, but it seems your only interest is to assert our position so you can comfort yourself by attacking the strawman. When you are instead interested in a productive discussion let me know. Have a good day.