Spirituality
07 May 16
28 May 16
Originally posted by moonbus
Theists think they do have evidence, and Christians often cite the Bible as evidence (of events of the past, such as miraculous healings). Of course, they have rather different criteria what counts as good and reliable evidence, compared to accepted criteria in historical (not specifically Biblical) research generally. Not to mention what counts as good and ...[text shortened]... lots of Jews and pagans witnessed alleged miracles by Jesus and his Apostles were not converted.
Still, at some point, there is bound to be a gap between evidence and faith, and that gap can only be 'leaped', not filled in by completely adequate evidence. Even witnessing a miracle (or what one takes to be one) does not by itself guarantee conversion; lots of Jews and pagans witnessed alleged miracles by Jesus and his Apostles were not converted.
And how exactly do you know that "lots of Jews and pagans witnessed alleged miracles by Jesus and his Apostles"?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have many times started threads asking for a definition or explanation of the 'soul' invariably no theist wants to give one. Perhaps you could give it a go. Every definition I know is not separate from the brain.
I have many times started threads asking for a definition or explanation of the 'soul' invariably no theist wants to give one. Perhaps you could give it a go. Every definition I know is not separate from the brain.
[b]What makes you think that your understanding of what a loving God should desire is the correct one?
The word 'loving'.
Not i ...[text shortened]... there is. But you need to try and understand that difference so that your questions make sense.
I think a lot of people would agree that the mind and the soul are separate entities.
http://www.ukapologetics.net/07/mindandbody.htm
The word 'loving'.
I disagree, I think you can be loving and allow someone to suffer if it is for their greater good.
But no, free will is not the cause of most suffering
You know this how?
, so it doesn't work even if the whole 'God wan'ts us to have free will' claim made any sense (it doesn't).
Care to explain why it doesn't make sense to you?
The ones that study history.
Duh. More specifically please?
That the exodus almost certainly didn't happen.
Please verify your source.
I am sure is not possible. Call it belief if you like.
So you know everything there is to know?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI am sure a lot of people believe all sorts of stupid things.
I think a lot of people would agree that the mind and the soul are separate entities.
http://www.ukapologetics.net/07/mindandbody.htm
And I not that the article you link to says the mind and brain are separate and not that the mind and soul are separate. And it is noted that you have not given a definition for 'soul'.
We can discuss this in more detail if you like, but it appears you are only interested in repeating over and over 'a lot of people believe otherwise'. Yes. I know that. But I am not impressed by argumentum ad populum.
I disagree, I think you can be loving and allow someone to suffer if it is for their greater good.
I agree with that. I disagree that such a greater good exists.
You know this how?
Its kind of obvious.
Care to explain why it doesn't make sense to you?
Why would God want us to have free will, yet not actually give us a whole lot of it, and allow us to suffer as a consequence. What is so important about free will that suffering is acceptable? And what is 'free will' anyway?
Duh. More specifically please?
That is specific. Look up any source you like on what the consensus is amongst historians on the matter. And I do mean historians, not creationists.
Please verify your source.
Historians.
So you know everything there is to know?
No, I never said that. What gave you that ridiculous idea?
29 May 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd it is noted that you have not given a definition for 'soul'.
I am sure a lot of people believe all sorts of stupid things.
And I not that the article you link to says the mind and brain are separate and not that the mind and soul are separate. And it is noted that you have not given a definition for 'soul'.
We can discuss this in more detail if you like, but it appears you are only interested in repeating over ...[text shortened]... now everything there is to know?
No, I never said that. What gave you that ridiculous idea?[/b]
Do you disagree with the dictionary definition?
noun
1.
the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being, regarded as immortal.
Its kind of obvious.
Then it shouldn't be too hard to explain.
Why would God want us to have free will, yet not actually give us a whole lot of it, and allow us to suffer as a consequence. What is so important about free will that suffering is acceptable? And what is 'free will' anyway?
Without free will we would be puppets on a string. Instead of creating machines or robots, God created people. And He gave us free will—the ability to think, reason and make our own choices.
That is specific. Look up any source you like on what the consensus is amongst historians on the matter. And I do mean historians, not creationists.
So you can't even provide me with the name or a source of the historian you are referring to?
From the Wikipedia article on "the Exodus:"
The historicity of the exodus continues to attract popular attention, but most histories of ancient Israel no longer consider information about it recoverable or even relevant to the story of Israel's emergence.[4] The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[5] and most archaeologists have therefore abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit".[6] The opinion of the overwhelming majority of modern biblical scholars is that the exodus story was shaped into its final present form in the post-Exilic period,[7] although the traditions behind it are older and can be traced in the writings of the 8th century BCE prophets.[8] How far beyond that the tradition might stretch cannot be told: "Presumably an original Exodus story lies hidden somewhere inside all the later revisions and alterations, but centuries of transmission have long obscured its presence, and its substance, accuracy and date are now difficult to determine."[3]
(sources given in the article)
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI don't agree or disagree, I just want a definition to work with. The dictionary definition is too vague to be useful. Is your consciousness part of your soul? When you make a decision, or think, is that your soul or your brain or some combination of both?
Do you disagree with the dictionary definition?
Then it shouldn't be too hard to explain.
Look around you. Look at the suffering in the world. Disease, natural disasters and even to some extent poverty, are not a result of free will, and even war and such are not a necessary result of free will.
Without free will we would be puppets on a string. Instead of creating machines or robots, God created people. And He gave us free will—the ability to think, reason and make our own choices.
Except a significant percentage of people granted this 'free will' die in childhood before they are even able to really exercise it.
And what is so great about heaven if there is no free will there?
So you can't even provide me with the name or a source of the historian you are referring to?
That is because I am not referring to a particular source or a historian. I see KazetNagorra has provided you with a link to and quote from Wikipedia. Always a good place to start. I could find your more sources, but you you could just as easily Google it for yourself. It really isn't that hard.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
29 May 16
If anyone is interested there was an excellent thread... [well the OP was excellent] dealing
with the problem of evil and why it's a very convincing argument as to why there cannot be a
loving omnipotent god which I will link to.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/an-inductive-argument-from-evil.158939
That would be a good starting point to read if you are interested in that argument.
Originally posted by FMFNo, that's even worse, because it's doubly incorrect, as well as nonsensical.
Would you settle instead for: "What made me change my mind was simply a realisation, in my mind, that the whole Christianity thing didn't make sense"?
It's like saying, "What made me change my mind is that I changed my mind."
That sounds like something you would say. Oh, I guess you did.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
29 May 16
Originally posted by SuzianneYou can only claim it to be incorrect if you claim to be able to mind read the person
No, that's even worse, because it's doubly incorrect.
saying that and know that what they are claiming to think does not match with what
they actually think.
Furthermore, your objection does not stand up as it's perfectly possible to 'realise' something
that isn't true. There is no problem linguistically or psychologically with having a false realisation.
Which means that even if you were correct that your version of god did exist, you would not be
correct insisting that people could not 'realise' that it didn't.
All of which is moot, because your god does not exist, which means it's possible to realise that
fact even on your own terms.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
29 May 16
Originally posted by SuzianneYou really should give this 'logical thinking' thing a try, it would make your life so very
No, that's even worse, because it's doubly incorrect, as well as nonsensical.
It's like saying, "What made me change my mind is that I changed my mind."
That sounds like something you would say. Oh, I guess you did.
much easier.
No it's not at all like saying ""What made me change my mind is that I changed my mind.""
It's saying "I realised this claim didn't make sense, therefore I stopped believing it"
Which is entirely different.
29 May 16
Originally posted by googlefudgeOh, please. 99% of that thread was mental masturbation. And the other 1% was when I tried to point that out.
If anyone is interested there was an excellent thread... [well the OP was excellent] dealing
with the problem of evil and why it's a very convincing argument as to why there cannot be a
loving omnipotent god which I will link to.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/an-inductive-argument-from-evil.158939
That would be a good starting point to read if you are interested in that argument.
29 May 16
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo. There is no "realization". He just decided it wasn't true. No "realization" involved.
You really should give this 'logical thinking' thing a try, it would make your life so very
much easier.
No it's not at all like saying ""What made me change my mind is that I changed my mind.""
It's saying "I realised this claim didn't make sense, therefore I stopped believing it"
Which is entirely different.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
29 May 16
Originally posted by SuzianneNo, that is simply your prejudice against logic and reason.
Oh, please. 99% of that thread was mental masturbation. And the other 1% was when I tried to point that out.
I am sorry that you have ruled out all logical discourse as being invalid because you
refuse to put the effort in to understand it I really am.
But in doing so you render pretty much all of your opinions on the topic invalid.
For any argument to actually demonstrate the point it is making it MUST be logically
sound [as well as based on accepted premises] and thus any argument that is not
logically sound by definition does not prove the point it is trying to make.
You, [along with everyone else] has a choice, make logically sound arguments,
or forever fail to prove any of the points you wish to make.
See page 43 on this thread for more should you have missed the responses.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/why-are-you-are-an-atheist.168681/page-43