Creating God in one's own image.

[Philawallafox]

thanks for M Theory lol I saw a video on that. Why would you not say God is in the 10th dimension? (assuming the multiverse... I reckon there's only one Universe because that falls in line with what I believe but I'm not gonna argue about how many universes there are.)

As you said this is the only universe that matters to you, there is no need to place him in the 10th spacial dimesion. The 7th would be the lowest dimesion to achieve what is needed out of the said hypothesis .

cool. cheers!

Secondly Why do you think God made a mistake when he allowed Satan to mess with Humanity?

He allowed an entity with capabilities far beyond man to roam free. He supposedly is able to fool the very same senses humans use to make decisions about the known reality. If any human faulters because of his middling that person is condemned to hell, hardly fair or loving. Granted he is supposed to be in hell, but he seems to be able to do what he wants.

well, not really.
Satan is a spirit yes. however spirits are not made in the image of God. The bible tells us that man will be superior to the Angels.

I'm not sure what you mean by fooling the senses, but he is very good at convinving us that what we do isn't actually wrong or that God is mistreating us. Human's don't faulter because of him as we are responsible for our actions. He just puts us close to the edge and tells us to jump. We actually jump.

God ought to punish us all for what we do wrong but some he chooses to save because he is gracious. Satan isn't supposed to be in hell at the moment. He's still the prince of this realm. He'll get semt there at the judgement.

the logical step is the question "why?".

That's not a logical step, that's a reason, but not a logical result.

sure whatever lol. It's still the link between the statements. The statements are to be read as a unity though.

That's our own fault. Humans are responsible for their actions. When we introduced sin into the world it didn't just affect our own natures.

God introduce sin; he is "omnipresent" remember. He knew what was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it, worse yet before he even created man he knew. If he knew that billions were going to suffer in hell, he had two choices A) Not create us B) Prevent "sin"; but no he went C) Create them and then judge them for being human. 

 
God let sin happen. He created man with a free will. He made people responsible for their actions as soon as he gave us free will. We rejected God and as a result we deserve his punishment. He knew we would reject him so he ordained to send Jesus to come and atone for our sins with his death.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
 - Epicurus

To say God is loving and everywhere all the time, and all powerful and knows everything isn't to divine the will of God. I know those are attributes of his character.

Ok, let put this a little more simply. You say he is loving; that is a state of mind. You claim to know the mind of God. He if indeed exists maybe completely indifferent.

It'd be like me saying that Stephen Hawking is really smart and is fairly weak and only ever in one place at one time and a nice guy. Doesn't mean I know his mind.

There is a difference between the two. Stephen Hawking is manifested, your God is not.

He did but that's beside the point. Manifest or not if he exists then the difference is moot.

Yes he has, hasn't he? The OT is riddled with his nastiness.

Have you ever heard of the website godhatesfags.com? If you believe that god it perfect, than perfection need not change. According to the OT homosexuals are abominations and should be destroyed.

references

Granted I don't recall Jesus saying anything at all about homosexuals, but we're not talking about Jesus. God is perfect. 

Jesus condemned Sexual immorality and adultery which Homosexuakity fell under. however back then Homosexuality was less about love than it was an orgasm. Homosexual people have only emerged recently. (please let's not start a flame war about homosexuality ok?)

That's not exactly relevant.

How is it not relevent? If he is indeed the same perfect god of the OT then he is not worthy of any worship. He is a tyrant.

again with the lack of references

Well thanks for telling me that but it didn't answer the question.

I fail to see how it does not answer your question? You asked "What do you worship?". {/quote]

And you told me what you don't worship. It didn't answer my question.

Actually I know that's exactly what they state. Once there was nothing then BOOM a universe. Then some blobs coagulated and BOOM intelligence. Then more blobs came out of the water and BOOM mammalian life. Then mammals start to proceate and some are hairy and some aren't and somehow the non hairy ones jump to the top of the pile and BOOM Homo sapiens sapiens.

Educated yourself on the subjects, you have a long way too go. :facepalm

Point out precisely where i'm wrong.

Israel as a witness to God and intercessor between him and the rest of the world.
Then they failed that job so he gave it to Christians.

This leads me back to the China quip. It's awfully dumb to make your messiah appear in such an illiterate part of the world. Should have been China at least in China they were more advanced.

Illiterate? You're calling the Egyptians, Persians, Israelites, Greeks, Romans and Arabs Illiterate? learn your history mate.

secondly. The bigger the disadvantage you have (miltarily, economically, politically) the more God is glorified in his victory.

I'd like to contest that claim. I'm very sure it's in it's original form. God inspired the men's writing. There were woman who wrote songs and poems which were included in the bible but (as far as i know) it was written by males.

Original form eh? Is that why there are so many varitions?

are you talking about the different translations? We still have the manuscripts in the original Greek and Hebrew. They're more accurately copied than any of their contemporary texts so yeah. Original form.

I'm going to say the bible

Circular reason. 

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God and is historically accurate."

See the problem?

Fixed the last statement.

and again I'm going to request proof.

Proof that it doesn't agree with itself?
MAT 1:16
LUK 3:23

https://christianity.about.com/od/biblefactsandlists/a/jesusgenealogy.htm
The genealogies trace different aspects.

Mine is older and from a more reliable source. Trumps always wins. Besides I know you didn't create it. You're too young and stupid. (Not saying you're stupid. just not smart enough to create a universe, i'm pretty sure you wouldn't have been able to design even a human)

How is your source more reliable? It was written over 2000 years ago by people you have never met. You don't know my abilities; how do you know I'm not God talking to you online?

parts of it were written before that but they haven't changed since then.

The newer parts (under 2000 years still) are just plain historically accurate.

On the note of creation myths. The Bible actually places itself in History unlike Atheism.

What does this even mean? What does the bible having been created have to do with anything? Why does the bible being in history have anything to do in comparison with lack of a belief?
Really don't know what you are saying here?

I'm saying that The bible places itself in history for historical scrutiny. Atheism's doctrines can't. After(or before as the case may be) a certain point they're just hypotheses.

good point. now while the whole site is valid
https://desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/gods-passion-for-the-supremacy-of-god
this might be a good place to start. After that go back to the topical index.

I will listen to this, but not tonight. It is going to 2am here, so I'll have to listen another day.

cool

...cool

Indeed.

Actually I know that's exactly what they state. Once there was nothing then BOOM a universe. Then some blobs coagulated and BOOM intelligence. Then more blobs came out of the water and BOOM mammalian life. Then mammals start to proceate and some are hairy and some aren't and somehow the non hairy ones jump to the top of the pile and BOOM Homo sapiens sapiens.

 

This is actually better than the previous post.

Thankyou, thankyou, I'm here until thursday. Remember to tip your waitresses

I really don't think he's laughing with you...

I think he's laughing because he has a sense of humour. I think he's laughing because I made a funny joke. He doesn't have to be a christian to see that what I said was funny.

[Philawallafox]

We could go over so-called contradictions all day, but I want to address the one that El JoNNo brought up, because it's really simple.  Joseph is the son of Heli by marriage.  He was not "begotten" of Heli--that's physical.

By the way, John....refrain from posting as long as you can.  Having a post count of 1111 is quite epic. 

Fair enough, I will admit in my haste and not really feeling like looking up the specific verses in each book I copied and pasted a google search.

Here
Exodus 34:6
Numbers 25:4

Exodus 20:3-5

[hefdaddy42]

I really, really wish you guys were more focused in what you are discussing and replying to.  The vast majority of these posts are tl;dr for me.  I don't have the time or inclination to read a novel every time you post.

[Philawallafox]

I really, really wish you guys were more focused in what you are discussing and replying to.  The vast majority of these posts are tl;dr for me.  I don't have the time or inclination to read a novel every time you post.

i'm starting to feel the same way but if he's going to keep replying i'm going to respect him enough to reply. I like it. It gets me investigating and thinking.

[kaelvin]

Actually I know that's exactly what they state. Once there was nothing then BOOM a universe. Then some blobs coagulated and BOOM intelligence. Then more blobs came out of the water and BOOM mammalian life. Then mammals start to proceate and some are hairy and some aren't and somehow the non hairy ones jump to the top of the pile and BOOM Homo sapiens sapiens.

 

This is actually better than the previous post.

Thankyou, thankyou, I'm here until thursday. Remember to tip your waitresses

I really don't think he's laughing with you...

I think he's laughing because he has a sense of humour. I think he's laughing because I made a funny joke. He doesn't have to be a christian to see that what I said was funny.

Phil, I think he was laughing because you tried to make it sound like a joke, but it really is (well sorta, some parts could be worded better) the current accepted idea and its just going over your head. Unlike your previous post which claimed we had no idea how it happened, this one showed you at least know what the current ideas are. Yet, you still asserted that its 'so complex that we dont understand'.

At least, that's what I picked up.

[Philawallafox]

Actually I know that's exactly what they state. Once there was nothing then BOOM a universe. Then some blobs coagulated and BOOM intelligence. Then more blobs came out of the water and BOOM mammalian life. Then mammals start to proceate and some are hairy and some aren't and somehow the non hairy ones jump to the top of the pile and BOOM Homo sapiens sapiens.

 

This is actually better than the previous post.

Thankyou, thankyou, I'm here until thursday. Remember to tip your waitresses

I really don't think he's laughing with you...

I think he's laughing because he has a sense of humour. I think he's laughing because I made a funny joke. He doesn't have to be a christian to see that what I said was funny.

Phil, I think he was laughing because you tried to make it sound like a joke, but it really is (well sorta, some parts could be worded better) the current accepted idea and its just going over your head. Unlike your previous post which claimed we had no idea how it happened, this one showed you at least know what the current ideas are. Yet, you still asserted that its 'so complex that we dont understand'.

At least, that's what I picked up.

I'm actually saying that Science doesn't know how the universe began. They have theories but none of them a able to be recreated. They can replicate conditions very close to just AFTER the Big bang but not replicate a big bang.

Sure I'll accept a premise that a cosmic egg could have exploded after the universe before it imploded. However from my understanding of Rutherford (matter is not destroyed, simply transferred) and E=mc^2 and gravity; for the universe previous to have imploded it would have needed alot of energy to turn into matter (to contract into the cosmic egg) and then in it's collision spontaneously change back into energy before it exploded again. All this despite the fact that it can't be an eternal process. There would be too much decay and the quality of the universe would decrease every time until it just didn't work again. If it's finite at one end it can't be infinite at the other.

This brings us back to Nothing exploding and creating a universe and lucking out with the position of earth to the sun.

[GuineaPig]

You're applying a historical bias to it.  You see humans as the logical end-point of cosmic and biological evolution, when we're not.  Given the sheer amount of stars and planets in just our region of the galaxy, the evolution of intelligent life is inevitable.

[Philawallafox]

You're applying a historical bias to it.  You see humans as the logical end-point of cosmic and biological evolution, when we're not.  Given the sheer amount of stars and planets in just our region of the galaxy, the evolution of intelligent life is inevitable.

what?

do you know the odds against that statement being true? in fact the size of the of the odds against it is so large that the only word possible to use reflects the topic: Astronomical. there is literally more chance that everyone on earth will die in the next 24 hours than there are that chance brought intelligent life around.

[GuineaPig]

You're applying a historical bias to it.  You see humans as the logical end-point of cosmic and biological evolution, when we're not.  Given the sheer amount of stars and planets in just our region of the galaxy, the evolution of intelligent life is inevitable.

what?

do you know the odds against that statement being true? in fact the size of the of the odds against it is so large that the only word possible to use reflects the topic: Astronomical. there is literally more chance that everyone on earth will die in the next 24 hours than there are that chance brought intelligent life around.

I don't think you understand how large the universe is.

Let's consult the Guide: "Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen..."

[Vivace]

I suppose to someone like you that holds it as a theological fact it would seem that way. But to me (an outsider/non-believer) I would think that God is capable of doing anything he wants at any given time and thus could simply change who he is. Otherwise to me it suggests that something bounds God to do whatever and then he isn't omnipotent if that is the case.

Something else I heard from my metaphysics teacher today. I hope I get it right.

"You can only understand that which does not change. For if an object changes then you would have to spend additional time in order for you to understand its new form. If we apply such an idea of change to first principles and causes then there can never be a "true" knowledge of these principles. And since the highest form of knowledge are the first principles for which all other principles below it are subject to, then these first principles must remain "true", unchanging or else we can never know that which these first principles cause, for if the first principles are to change then they must also change that which is subject to them".

[Vivace]

I don't think you understand how large the universe is.

Let's consult the Guide: "Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen..."

Well actually, according the Gospel of Shatner, Space is the Final Frontier and who are we to question the wisdom that is William Shatner? 

[hefdaddy42]

I don't think you understand how large the universe is.

Let's consult the Guide: "Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen..."

Well actually, according the Gospel of Shatner, Space is the Final Frontier and who are we to question the wisdom that is William Shatner? 

Adams trumps Shatner.

[kaelvin]

My astronomy is horrid, but...I can try.

I'm actually saying that Science doesn't know how the universe began

Are you hoping for 100% certainty? Because that is something that science will never achieve. There are hard facts that support the falsifiable big bang theory, and it has predicted many things like finding certain patterns of radiation in certain places.(exact details escape me at the moment, sorry.)

In that sense, we only 'know' about the big bang as much as we know about other abstract physical objects, like electrons. The existence of said electrons is similarly a falsifiable theory, yet we do not see very many people who say that they 'don't 100% know how it works, therefore a mysterious unknown force/holy power/etc(depending on your choice of faith) instead is the one lighting up my TV'.

I'm not so sure I get what you're saying but I suppose the jist of it is that the logic doesn't add up? I won't pretend to understand the theories that try to explain how we oscillate between universes every big bang or stuff like that, but

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Philawallafox]

My astronomy is horrid, but...I can try.

I'm actually saying that Science doesn't know how the universe began

Are you hoping for 100% certainty? Because that is something that science will never achieve. There are hard facts that support the falsifiable big bang theory, and it has predicted many things like finding certain patterns of radiation in certain places.(exact details escape me at the moment, sorry.)

In that sense, we only 'know' about the big bang as much as we know about other abstract physical objects, like electrons. The existence of said electrons is similarly a falsifiable theory, yet we do not see very many people who say that they 'don't 100% know how it works, therefore a mysterious unknown force/holy power/etc(depending on your choice of faith) instead is the one lighting up my TV'.

I'm not so sure I get what you're saying but I suppose the jist of it is that the logic doesn't add up? I won't pretend to understand the theories that try to explain how we oscillate between universes every big bang or stuff like that, but

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

wait. We don't know about electrons?













You just blew my mind.

[kaelvin]

We 'know' its there alright. But please tell me what it looks like? The lack of this information does not mean that something else powers our lightbulbs.

[Vivace]

We 'know' its there alright. But please tell me what it looks like? The lack of this information does not mean that something else powers our lightbulbs.

remember this quote. Remember it well for it states that our senses are not necessarily required to "know" about something.

[Ħ]

What an amazing insight, kaelvin.  That truly is something that we can all grasp--no matter what we think, believe, or claim to know doesn't make it so...If you ask a scientist a question he cannot answer, that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about the things he does know.  For all the people that believe in God...many people ask philosophical or scientific questions, seeking to "prove" that God doesn't exist simply because you don't know the answer.  If scientists aren't held accountable for what they don't know, why are God's followers placed on a higher standard?

[Seventh Son]

What an amazing insight, kaelvin.  That truly is something that we can all grasp--no matter what we think, believe, or claim to know doesn't make it so...If you ask a scientist a question he cannot answer, that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about the things he does know.  For all the people that believe in God...many people ask philosophical or scientific questions, seeking to "prove" that God doesn't exist simply because you don't know the answer.  If scientists aren't held accountable for what they don't know, why are God's followers placed on a higher standard?

I think its when someone tries to justify pushing it down another's throat. Like for instance, if someone off the street started preaching to me all of a sudden. He believes it, that's fine. But I'm not convinced and I'm not in the mood to hear it when it hasn't even been proven. Basically if you're going to parade it as fact, you need to prove it as fact.

That being said, I don't hold everyone like that. After all, if you believe it but don't push it down my throat then you're free to believe as you please, proof or no proof. I won't say anything about it, that's your belief. But when you cross that threshold and start preaching it to me as literal fact in my face that's when I think you need proof to justify doing so.

I hope that clears it up 

[Vivace]

What an amazing insight, kaelvin.  That truly is something that we can all grasp--no matter what we think, believe, or claim to know doesn't make it so...If you ask a scientist a question he cannot answer, that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about the things he does know.  For all the people that believe in God...many people ask philosophical or scientific questions, seeking to "prove" that God doesn't exist simply because you don't know the answer.  If scientists aren't held accountable for what they don't know, why are God's followers placed on a higher standard?

Many many philosophers have asked this question. For example Dawkins was once probed about a scientific question, I can't remember about what, but his response was, "just because it hasn't been proven yet doesn't mean it can't exist". This was said about something scientific, but if you were to ask him if such a statement could be used in theological setting he would outright refuse, balking that science and theology must remain separate. If theology can learn from science, why can't science learn from theology? Many outspoken people again theology balk on how theologians act bias towards science when in the end, scientists can be just as biased. There is a middle ground and that middle ground should be the reality, but right now, there is a very large gap in between science and theology.

[Vivace]

What an amazing insight, kaelvin.  That truly is something that we can all grasp--no matter what we think, believe, or claim to know doesn't make it so...If you ask a scientist a question he cannot answer, that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about the things he does know.  For all the people that believe in God...many people ask philosophical or scientific questions, seeking to "prove" that God doesn't exist simply because you don't know the answer.  If scientists aren't held accountable for what they don't know, why are God's followers placed on a higher standard?

I think its when someone tries to justify pushing it down another's throat. Like for instance, if someone off the street started preaching to me all of a sudden. He believes it, that's fine. But I'm not convinced and I'm not in the mood to hear it when it hasn't even been proven. Basically if you're going to parade it as fact, you need to prove it as fact.

That being said, I don't hold everyone like that. After all, if you believe it but don't push it down my throat then you're free to believe as you please, proof or no proof. I won't say anything about it, that's your belief. But when you cross that threshold and start preaching it to me as literal fact in my face that's when I think you need proof to justify doing so.

I hope that clears it up 

This works both ways btw. 

[Seventh Son]

What an amazing insight, kaelvin.  That truly is something that we can all grasp--no matter what we think, believe, or claim to know doesn't make it so...If you ask a scientist a question he cannot answer, that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about the things he does know.  For all the people that believe in God...many people ask philosophical or scientific questions, seeking to "prove" that God doesn't exist simply because you don't know the answer.  If scientists aren't held accountable for what they don't know, why are God's followers placed on a higher standard?

I think its when someone tries to justify pushing it down another's throat. Like for instance, if someone off the street started preaching to me all of a sudden. He believes it, that's fine. But I'm not convinced and I'm not in the mood to hear it when it hasn't even been proven. Basically if you're going to parade it as fact, you need to prove it as fact.

That being said, I don't hold everyone like that. After all, if you believe it but don't push it down my throat then you're free to believe as you please, proof or no proof. I won't say anything about it, that's your belief. But when you cross that threshold and start preaching it to me as literal fact in my face that's when I think you need proof to justify doing so.

I hope that clears it up 

This works both ways btw. 

I'm well aware of that, but I don't specifically remember shoving my beliefs down anyone's throats either. Not saying any of you guys do that as well, just saying.

[Vivace]

What an amazing insight, kaelvin.  That truly is something that we can all grasp--no matter what we think, believe, or claim to know doesn't make it so...If you ask a scientist a question he cannot answer, that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about the things he does know.  For all the people that believe in God...many people ask philosophical or scientific questions, seeking to "prove" that God doesn't exist simply because you don't know the answer.  If scientists aren't held accountable for what they don't know, why are God's followers placed on a higher standard?

I think its when someone tries to justify pushing it down another's throat. Like for instance, if someone off the street started preaching to me all of a sudden. He believes it, that's fine. But I'm not convinced and I'm not in the mood to hear it when it hasn't even been proven. Basically if you're going to parade it as fact, you need to prove it as fact.

That being said, I don't hold everyone like that. After all, if you believe it but don't push it down my throat then you're free to believe as you please, proof or no proof. I won't say anything about it, that's your belief. But when you cross that threshold and start preaching it to me as literal fact in my face that's when I think you need proof to justify doing so.

I hope that clears it up 

This works both ways btw. 

I'm well aware of that, but I don't specifically remember shoving my beliefs down anyone's throats either. Not saying any of you guys do that as well, just saying.

I'm also aware of that. I get just as pissed when I see atheists calling people like myself idiots or delusional for believing in a God and pushing down my throat why God can't exist.

[Ħ]

SS, just as a personal comment, people usually don't mean any harm by pressing you.  Usually their motivation is one of two things: 1) to "earn points" toward their own afterlife reward, etc. or 2) because they genuinely care about you and whoever else they talk to (even if they are ultimately wrong about what they think).  Usually you can tell which of the two it is if they talk to you....but I wouldn't write an individual off as if they were just a part of the "machine."  You know what I'm saying?

[Seventh Son]

What an amazing insight, kaelvin.  That truly is something that we can all grasp--no matter what we think, believe, or claim to know doesn't make it so...If you ask a scientist a question he cannot answer, that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong about the things he does know.  For all the people that believe in God...many people ask philosophical or scientific questions, seeking to "prove" that God doesn't exist simply because you don't know the answer.  If scientists aren't held accountable for what they don't know, why are God's followers placed on a higher standard?

I think its when someone tries to justify pushing it down another's throat. Like for instance, if someone off the street started preaching to me all of a sudden. He believes it, that's fine. But I'm not convinced and I'm not in the mood to hear it when it hasn't even been proven. Basically if you're going to parade it as fact, you need to prove it as fact.

That being said, I don't hold everyone like that. After all, if you believe it but don't push it down my throat then you're free to believe as you please, proof or no proof. I won't say anything about it, that's your belief. But when you cross that threshold and start preaching it to me as literal fact in my face that's when I think you need proof to justify doing so.

I hope that clears it up 

This works both ways btw. 

I'm well aware of that, but I don't specifically remember shoving my beliefs down anyone's throats either. Not saying any of you guys do that as well, just saying.

I'm also aware of that. I get just as pissed when I see atheists calling people like myself idiots or delusional for believing in a God and pushing down my throat why God can't exist.

Militant Atheism is no better and no worse than Militant Christianity if that means anything to you.

SS, just as a personal comment, people usually don't mean any harm by pressing you.  Usually their motivation is one of two things: 1) to "earn points" toward their own afterlife reward, etc. or 2) because they genuinely care about you and whoever else they talk to (even if they are ultimately wrong about what they think).  Usually you can tell which of the two it is if they talk to you....but I wouldn't write an individual off as if they were just a part of the "machine."  You know what I'm saying?

I'm sure some of them have good intentions. I'm just at the point where I look at it and know I don't believe the same thing and get chastised over and over when I share no interest in converting to Christianity. And I don't think of it as a "Machine". If you believe it, you believe it. Good for you! I just know deep down I look at Christianity, shake my head because I know I don't really feel it and know that I don't, so its rather frustrating to have people yell at you when you refuse to convert.

However as for your first comment, I can elaborate more on that privately, if you wish and don't mind.

[Vivace]

Militant Atheism is no better and no worse than Militant Christianity if that means anything to you.

I know exactly what it means. No reason to get angry. 

[Seventh Son]

Militant Atheism is no better and no worse than Militant Christianity if that means anything to you.

I know exactly what it means. No reason to get angry. 

I'm not angry though. 

[GuineaPig]

There's militant atheism?  I had no idea.

[ClairvoyantCat]

There's militant atheism?  I had no idea.

On a much smaller scale, maybe...

[SixDegrees]

.

[Vivace]

There's militant atheism?  I had no idea.

On a much smaller scale, maybe...

Umm... no. You need not look any further than Dawkins, Fry and Hitchens and his followers to find Miltant Atheism.

[SixDegrees]

.

[GuineaPig]

mil·i·tant

–adjective
1.
vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers.
2.
engaged in warfare; fighting.


I wouldn't call any of those you named "militant".

[ClairvoyantCat]

Yes.  If Dawkins is militant just for being so close minded, you have to call any Christian who preaches their beliefs with conviction to be militant.  Do I believe this?  No!  There is a fine line between pronouncing one's beliefs and being aggressive against others'.  I don't think there is much argument against the notion that Christians have, in various denominations and forms, been incredibly agressive and inconsiderate towards other's beliefs.  There might have been some Atheists who were violent to Christian groups here and there, but when was the last time you heard of an organized "militant atheist" group being truly aggressive?

[Vivace]

SS, just as a personal comment, people usually don't mean any harm by pressing you.  Usually their motivation is one of two things: 1) to "earn points" toward their own afterlife reward, etc...

I've always seen this as a failing on the part of God. It doesn't give Christians a chance to be good or evil on their own, because everything a true believer does will be coloured by their beliefs. If a person helps someone else in order to gain heaven points, or whatever, then that's a selfish act. Surely only an atheist can act in a genuinely good way, untempered by expectation of reward, and so shouldn't only (good) atheists go to heaven? Of course, here I run into the question of what "good" means, so I'll refer you to Moore (not Kevin) and throw in the towel on that score.

Um, no an atheist can and has been known to act in a selfish way by taking away religion on the basis that it is evil and delusional. Exactly who is the most discoloured by their beliefs in this regard. I'd say the deck is evenly shuffled here.

On a separate note, I'd also question the assertion above that because some events in the Bible can be historically validated, it's all accurate. I read a Stephen King short story a while back that was set in New York and was about 9/11. NY exists and 9/11 happened, but obviously the other events in the story didn't. Claiming that X in the Bible can be proven historically, so Y and Z which cannot be proven are therefore accurate by association, smacks of someone finding a copy of Just After Sunset in two thousand years and claiming that, because NY existed (e.g. from archaeological evidence) and 9/11 is documented as having occurred (e.g. historical records), that the other (fictional) events described in the story are also accurate.

I don't think anyone is claiming that if one event is historically accurate all events must be. I do know that the idea of if one event is not accurate then the all events are probably if not definitely false. However basing your faith on historical accuracies on the Bible does not lead you to faith in God. Believe in the Word of God found in the Bible does. Also a belief that along the way we learned more things and were able to clear things up and made sure those places in the Bible were "enhanced" to clear up confusing as a means to discredit the whole thing is a bit irrational.

I don't think the Bible can be claimed as evidence for God. But if you accept that, then where is the evidence that there is a God at all? Personally I lost my faith years ago, despite honestly trying to find a reason to keep believing, because I couldn't find one.

Try researching Aristotle and Aquinas about the idea of First Principles. Nothing new in this field. Gotta love the Greeks and Scholastic Philosophy.

[Vivace]

mil·i·tant

–adjective
1.
vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers.
2.
engaged in warfare; fighting.


I wouldn't call any of those you named "militant".

I'm not talking about Al-Queda or Hamas militant, I'm about the "general" usage of the term that means an "overly agressive" attitude in either a violent or non violent. In no way will I or anyone equate Dawkins with Bin Laden. Two COMPLETELY different ideas there. Dawkins is not a sociopath. But I will equate him with groups like that of Terry Jones and partially with the Westboro Baptist Church in that they equate religion and religious people as "evil". I don't know, I think that's kind of agressive in my mind. Cause if we are going split hairs on the usage of Militant then we better stop calling most Christians militant because I don't know many groups out there Christian-wise that are using overly violent means and warfare other than Al Queda and Hamas (who aren't christian) unless the News has completely decided to not report this stuff.