I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done. I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
However this nullifies a frequently used argument coming from many christians, that we are supposed to feel His presence, since they say he's omnipresent.
I was hoping to deal with objections along this line when I considered objections to (1) above, but I hadn't considered the thought that we are genuinely supposed to feel His presence. My line of argument suggests that this claim is false, however. We could run a very similar argument here to the one I presented in defence of (1). Feeling His presence (whatever that amounts to) simply might not be a sufficient cause for forming beliefs about God. Or perhaps they do try to work out these feelings, but get things wrong. I could see this latter thought used to explain religious diversity.
But we must also keep in mind that, for a religion to be true/correct, the claims on offer must involve more than the mere existence of God. Many of the issues that the major religions deal with revolve around the question of the nature of God and our relationship with Him. These are truths to which we clearly lack access. Only by reading and understanding His Word can we come to know these things. So again, we have a fairly consistent explanation for why people don't reach these truths independently. And this seems to be the crucial question.
It seems to me like a very poor choice. Observations made by uneducated rustic folk would be the primary source of superstitious nonsense such as luck, clairvoyance, and various legends which are easily discredited. Sophistication does not necessarily preclude faith, so what merit could there be for a factual deity to exclude these people?
Well put. I completely agree with you here - the choice seems... well... not typical of an omniscient being. I'm wondering if this is one of those cases where I could legitimately play the 'We don't always understand God's ways' card.
But whether or not I could play this card, that's a pretty cheap move and doesn't get us anywhere. What I'm wondering is whether your objection undermines my main argument. I was looking at nicho's question and thought that a similar line of argument could be used there. But are these arguments separate, or do they subtly swing together? I have a feeling that you objection might - at the very least - put some pressure on my main argument.
Forum Posts on a Game Forum of a GAMING WEBSITE: like 5, at best. Forum Posts for the Atheism vs. Theism Argument on a GAMING WEBSITE: like 450 pages of argumentation. And it will ensue. Atheists will never stop trying to remove the "irrational" belief in God or a god from the world, and as it is a core doctrinal teaching of most religions, Theists will never stop shouting the good news. I just hope that neither side starts flinging insults, as it ruins the theistic image and makes people think us as stupid lemmings who will follow whatever the pope says blindly, and i personally hate when , and it does pain me,an atheist, instead of using logic to present a point, just says, and I quote, "No any idea of God is a stupid delusion began by some insane terrorist nut job who wanted to see the world burn." So although i think there is a better time and place for this, please be polite.
So although i think there is a better time and place for this, please be polite.
Why? You certainly haven't. You've intruded upon a simple philosophical discussion and tossed in what amounts to an insult via guilt by association. Worse still, you're perpetuating a groundless and irrational stereotype which portrays the lemming as a mindless automaton, something I cannot forgive.
You guys are Making Christianity the representator of other religions including Islam. You guys dont believe that the Bible was a Book made by Allah because unlike the Holy Quran , All of the other Holy Books have been corrupted by Humans and that is why Muslims are instructed to take guidance only from the Quran as it hasnt been edited in any way
Let me ask you guys a question, Have any of you read the Holy Quran? You guys should read it in translated english since its more easier
I've had the great pleasure of reading the text whilst listening to the recitation. It's simply beautiful. But your point isn't relevant here at all. I think the argument I had set up on the previous page applies just as well to Islam - at least, that was my intention. So take a look at my previous argument in response to Mage's question. This is the issue on offer. If my response isn't applicable, then I would appreciate clarification on this point.
You guys should read it in translated english since its more easier
I did. When I pointed out inconsistencies I was then told that no English translation will ever convey the true righteous meaning and that I'd need to study old Arabic.
You guys are Making Christianity the representator of other religions including Islam.
No; some of these guys might be doing so, but Christianity was not the topic of recent discussion.
You guys dont believe that the Bible was a Book made by Allah because unlike the Holy Quran , All of the other Holy Books have been corrupted by Humans
No; I don't believe that the Bible was a Book made by Allah because it was not a book made by Allah. I do not need to invoke the Quran. It is irrelevant to the discussion.
and that is why Muslims are instructed to take guidance only from the Quran as it hasnt been edited in any way
You guys should read it in translated english since its more easier
I assume you are aware that the translation of a text is an editorial process, and the most likely source of error for a written work. Why then should I read an english translation if it is almost certainly not intact and unchanged? How confident are you that your own understanding of the text is no different from its original meaning?
[quote]Why? You certainly haven't. You've intruded upon a simple philosophical discussion and tossed in what amounts to an insult via guilt by association. Worse still, you're perpetuating a groundless and irrational stereotype which portrays the lemming as a mindless automaton, something I cannot forgive.
Not really insult, that seems to be what I was AGAINST. And as for the lemming stereotype, well it's a common expression, and no lemmings were harmed in the making of my comment. Also, unlike most stereotypes, this one actually has some basis of truth.
when [...] an atheist, instead of using logic to present a point, just says, and I quote, "No any idea of God is a stupid delusion began by some insane terrorist nut job who wanted to see the world burn."
By associating this individual with atheists in general, you are implying that this is a common practice for atheists, which is a grievous insult.
Also, unlike most stereotypes, this one actually has some basis of truth.
Would this be the "truth" expounded by the explorers who claimed they were spontaneously generated in rain clouds, or the "truth" fabricated by Disney in the '50s? There is no true account of the behaviour that is the basis of the stereotype. There never was. It arose due to ignorance, academic dishonesty, and an unquestioning credulity more fitting of the stereotype than any lemming could be.
I said I hate it when Atheists say this, it has happened before, it was not a generalization and I do understand many atheists are reasonable people with an ability to debate without fuming.
I will further research the lemmings, but you are right they do not commit mass suicides. I do not see why you are so offended by it, are you a lemming-rights activist?
