SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Articles and Sermons : 7 Arguments Atheists Can't Use by Eli Brayley

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Yes, recorded history is also another way to get to know someone. Would you at last agree then that much can be known about someone without ever meeting them?

OJ

 2011/5/9 10:11









 perfect personality.

" I am compassionate, companionable, approachable, empathic, honest, reliable, playful, disciplined, a staunch ally and accomplice, attentive, supportive and accepting, a true friend and close confidant often valued in how, with patience, attention, kindness and abiding respect."

My local Chinese restaurant, "The Half Moon House"...prophesied the exact same thing to me in a little curled up cookie. It sounded great, but when I began to go down the list, with honesty about myself....I threw it away. I ended up condemned and depressed...but I'm glad to see someone's made it to the top.

 2011/5/9 11:27
AaronAgassi
Member



Joined: 2011/4/11
Posts: 118


 Re: perfect personality.

Forgive me ginnyrose, I was sarcastic. I knew better and couldn't help myself. But I have already addressed at some length the various problems with the suggestion that I myself pray in outreach to God, if you care to discuss that seriously. You'd be the first to take me up.

Yes Old_Joe, I agree that one can gain acquaintance with people and things, indirectly, without personal contact at all, much less dace to face. And since this holds true no less of long dead historical figures and even fictional characters, only plausibility at all may pertain. Ontology and therefore Epistemology are separate matter. Indeed, I can say that I am at all acquainted with the mythic figure of God, perhaps even different variants as a character or personality and also as a concept or life form. -especially as appears in the Torah, among other literature and in the minds of different thinkers.

Brothertom, thanks for comparing my bio to a fortune cookie. This is why dating forums and the like so aggravate me! Although, since you mention it, and not to pry, but dare may I ask what great self doubt so oppresses you?

 2011/5/9 13:29Profile
Veronica226
Member



Joined: 2010/2/3
Posts: 144
Montana

 Re:

Aaron,

You said:

Quote:
if there is any known way for a phenomenon to occur and thus to exist, that might tend to at least to point the way towards a testable hypothesis.



So I am assuming that you think there is no "known way" for God or mystical experiences to occur, therefore rendering them untestable. Correct?
IF this is correct, then you must also throw out all of history. If I asked you to reproduce the Holocaust with the ORIGINAL people, you would think I was nuts. You can't bring Hitler back from the dead. But since that isn't repeatable, it's not testable. And since it's not testable it must not be real. We must then question every history text! We must not believe anything anyone says about anything in the past that cannot be repeated and tested.
I have come to the conclusion that you believe in Scientism. (Forgive me if I am assuming or wrong.)

I have a bro-in-law like you. I don't even debate him anymore because he is so arrogant and hard-hearted. I will pray for him and I will pray for you. Which thankfully, as an atheist, you cannot ask me not to do. Otherwise it may imply you fear that something may actually happen when I pray, which would be admitting the possibility of a deity. I also think that your refusal to pray even a one sentence prayer proves you are not really an atheist. You could just say, "Fine. I will placate these silly religious people and pray that stupid one line prayer. Then I will never have to hear about it again!" And then tell us you did so. Or even post your "prayer" on here. (Perhaps a "God, if there is a God, save my soul, if I have a soul.") But since you refuse, it makes me wonder if you fear that something will actually happen.
If you don't fear any so-called deity, then prove it and pray that.

*Edited for some spelling errors.


_________________
Veronica

 2011/5/9 16:33Profile









 Re: 7 Arguments Atheists Can't Use by Eli Brayley

Hi Aaron,

Thanks for your full reply. Please bear with me while I beat this sentence a bit smaller to try to be sure I've understood it.

Quote:
Although I have argued how falibilism which accurately describes the human condition from which the investigation of science proceeds along with human progress, also does thereby inspire and address the heart cries of autonomy. But you balk.

Please could you clarify 'heart cries of autonomy'? (I know what a heartcry is, and I know what autonomy means, but... joined together like that? I'm baffled. Help!)
Quote:
falibilism ... accurately describes the human condition from which the investigation of science proceeds

Is 'science', here, a general term for any kind of investigation as to substance, structure, behaviour, (etc) of parts of the universe, however large or small?
Quote:
along with human progress

Are you suggesting here, that HUMANS are progressing, or, did you mean to imply that the ever-encroaching march of scientific discovery, (description, definition, manipulation and so on) is how 'human progress' is (or ought to be) measured?
Additionally, in what way have humans changed irrevocably, during their progressing down the centuries?


EDIT: Sorry I haven't addressed more of your post to me. I will in the next days.

I just want to add - or repeat - that you continue to use the word 'faith' as a definition of what is believed in any and all religions. This is a secular use of the word which seeks to ease out of the common consciousness, any idea that there is a God whose words are radically original, most especially when applied to oneself.

The faiths to which you alluse, are based on previously spoken words (dogma), previously carved idols, and previously identified spirits who give animation to inanimate objects. The previously identified God of Christianity who created the universe is alive in great power and majesty, and he has devised a way whereby people can be animated by his Spirit, if certain metaphysical conditions are met. That's a massive difference which I hope you are tossing around in your mind occasionally.

 2011/5/9 19:55
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7534
Mississippi

 Re:

Quote:
with the suggestion that I myself pray in outreach to God, if you care to discuss that seriously.



Perhaps you have touched on this subject and I missed it in your posts...however...

As I recall there are others who were in a similar situation who did pray as I suggested and they got an answer, and it was not imaginary. Since you are not interested in doing so, I do wonder about two things. One: if faith in a supreme being is a waste why do you spend so much time fighting, debating something that does not exist?

Two. Here is a quote by Ravi Zacharias:“Is it possible that somewhere in the deepest recesses of the human heart, we are really not battling intellectual ideas as much we fighting for the right for our own sexual proclivities and our passionate indulgences?” Perhaps Ravi is right in your situation?


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2011/5/9 20:18Profile









 Re:

Aaron

Yes, there are many ways that one can be acquainted with another, some obviously fallible, others a little more accurate. So far in acquainting ourselves with each other all we have had was the testimony of each other's words, which if left to themselves would not necessarily be enough for us to get to know each other. For that we might also need personal testimonies of people who really knew us, and possibly some reference to things that we have done, or maybe even some historical facts. In combining these things we would be closer to having an accurate picture of each other, enough at least to say that we know each other; but that is still left short of what is possible in a relationship of someone who you KNOW. To go further there must be be a sharing of things that you don't want to share, an opening up of the inside, a heart rending; this is where the bond of friendship is made. It is possible to go further than this even, by assuming your problems to be mine, and mine to be yours, in this the bond of friendship is sealed.

Now as you mentioned before, you are not terribly fond of the Bible, and with good reason, it condemns ALL of mankind. No man has ever written a book that condemns ALL of mankind including himself, yet here we have a book that condemns ALL of mankind, including you and me. I have read a lot of books in my life, but have yet to come across one that does such a thing as this. Even if all the world besides is condemned, men left untouched by God will at least proclaim their own goodness, but the Bible doesn't do this, it condemns us ALL. Find me another book that condemns all of mankind with such severity, and I will say that yes, the Bible is a production of men, but such a book does not exist! Granted, men do not like this book and many have taken great pains to distort it over the years, but they have not taken away this part, man is condemned!

You mention that man is fallible, indeed he is, terribly fallible in fact. Who then among us has a right to condemn all of us? None save He alone who is infallible. It is left to God alone to condemn all mankind. However even as the book itself declares, evil men have taken much that is in it to use against the ignorant or unsuspecting. Yet that does not mean that the Bible is not good, what it proves is that men are evil.

Neither has there been a book written to and about condemned men that has offered mercy to those very same condemned men. Man demands justice, and it is outside of man to offer mercy in such a manner as the Bible offers mercy. As evidenced in this world, man would invent a religion where self-effort, money, status or personal benefit of some kind must be transferred from one to another for absolution of sin or wrong, but the Bible doesn’t do this, in fact these things are condemned. Were internal evidence all that was required, one should see that this book can be no production of men, but the fact remains that the book itself is just one piece of evidence.

There is the testimony of creation, which if you have ever built anything should be obvious that the order you see around you doesn’t just happen by accident in a vacuum. I build large oil and gas plants for a living, and we have some of the smartest minds in the world involved in such things, and even with years of engineering, stuff still goes boom. We have never been able to make a plant that can deal perfectly with the elements that are thrown at us, yet all of these elements have been in existence for thousands of years without causing havoc to the ground we walk on, who engineered that?

Then there is the testimony of countries changed. Countries formerly in darkness, when once the gospel was proclaimed, went from bondage to freedom, and countries where the gospel has been set aside or discarded have gone from freedom back to bondage.

Then there is the individual testimony of lives changed. Many have been bound up in religion only to turn back, but none who have been washed in the blood of the Lamb have ever wanted to return to life without Him. A problem that many atheists have is that they have met too many of the former, and not enough of the latter.

Then there is the testimony of history, and prophesy, and, and, and….which if any of these things were looked at in isolation a skeptic can discard one at a time, but when taken as a whole the evidence is so overwhelming that God Himself saw no need to prove He existed, the Bible takes it as fact, and spends no time proving the existence of God.

Now Aaron, I believe I have dealt with you freely and fairly, to set before you things of great value, I hope that you take these things of great value and use them to the profit of your own soul. “Christ died for the ungodly” this is us, “He was raised again for OUR justification”, that “Whosoever (you and/or I) believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life”. That is the gift of God, nothing like it is to be found of men!

OJ

 2011/5/9 21:27
AaronAgassi
Member



Joined: 2011/4/11
Posts: 118


 Re:

There is no known way for God to exist in the first place, no Chemical Theo-Physics or Structural Theo-mechanics, if you will. If there were anything so concrete then we might be closer to any testable hypothesis. Whereas, the possibility and feasibility of the holocaust, in many different aspects, might indeed be deemed testable, and has indeed been subject of research and experimentation and indeed corroborated. Therefore, the actual events are left to historical investigation. God, by contrast, remains impossible. Therefore seeking God by historical investigation seems a waste of time. But that doesn't mean it can't be tried. Thus far, nothing persuasive has arisen. Nothing that can stand without special pleadings.

And if you want me to go through the motions of prayer, Veronica226, ginnyrose, then you should be willing to discuss with me the problems I have already raised repeatedly with that proposal, instead of just jumping the gun: Old_Joe has asked me if I ever you ever wonder why I am not called of God. Not really, I replied. First of all, one cannot actually be called by anything or anyone that does not first really exist. And furthermore, clearly I am too skeptical. It only ever works for anyone already giving any credence to Theism to begin with. And honestly, I do not believe in God. I could only go through the ritualistic motions of inviting God, without the requisite sincerity usually considered intrinsic to the appeal. But perhaps the greatest sticking point, as yet unaddressed, would be as to the very validity of the proposed inconclusive experiment, which I question. -Precisely BECAUSE of the vividness and confidence of the sought for altered state of consciousness if successful, nevertheless and no less entirely subjective. -Not to mention that there are no standards of refutation. What you propose is at best a Psychological experiment, with no bearing upon external reality. Indeed, there seems no standards for competing and contradicting experiences of seeming equal intensity characteristic of different people and different religious traditions, or sometimes even of the same person on different occasions. Wary of wishful thinking, rational people do not strive to cultivate personal certainty for its own blissful sake, but instead seek truth and value honest opinion of one's own, to be challenged by Empirical investigation of reality not subverted by brainwash and autosuggestion. In science, doubt is not an enemy to be overcome. Rather, systematic doubt is the guide of Scientific Method. Moreover, none of the above so coy, is anything I'd ever ask of a God with the power to manifest unambiguously before the entire world to perform miracles under laboratory conditions.

ginnyrose, Ravi Zacharias sais nothing that Freud hasn't. Yet the oppressive role of sexual repression goes to motivation which remains entirely a separate question, however important. Clearly people and cultures less sexually repressed are happier and healthier.

Alive-to-God, I take a heartcry to mean a subjective outpouring, or more generally a yearning. Or do I misunderstand? And science is defined by the Scientific Method, systematic doubt, all in the quest for truth, truth being correspondence to reality, where scientific hypotheses are such as are testable with conceivable conditions of refutation. The scope of investigation of science includes anything testable and refutable. There are no other exclusions. There are laboratory experiments, but also field research and historical investigation. For example, a refutation of Evolution might be the discovery of a fossil rabbit from the Cretaceous. As to the measure of human progress, surely we can include not only science and technology, but democracy, standards of living, cavil society, literacy, peace, human rights and many other values held dear. And again, other religions hold the God they worship to be authentic, and others such as yours to be figments of prior dogma propped up by malign deceiving spirits. Therefore, yet again, no, I do not see substantive difference, only arbitrariness.

Old_Joe, all acquaintance is as conjectural and fallible as any other thought and perception, even no matter how uncomfortably close. We learn about others both their sympathetic and unsympathetic characteristics. And that goes also for societies and the literature they produce. Appreciation thereof can be uplifting. But anecdotal evidence as of religious experiences remains both common to all religions and the least reliable kind of evidence of all. In the New Testament it is suggested God has good reason to see no need to prove His existence, specifi9cally that corroboration of the existence of God would not help to improve moral conduct. And as you know, I would tend to agree. As to the value of my soul, again here you allow the mythically miraculous to obscure the metaphor and the moral. What I value and you exhort me to abandon, is my integrity.

 2011/5/10 1:34Profile









 Re:

Quote:
What I value and you exhort me to abandon, is my integrity.


OK, far be it from me then to keep you from dying with your integrity intact.

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."


OJ

 2011/5/10 8:43
AaronAgassi
Member



Joined: 2011/4/11
Posts: 118


 Re:

Rationalizing anti-intellectual put downs are not unique to Christianity amongst religions. Is not your God supposed to despise such vice as hypocrisy? If instead He despises even unto damnation, integrity, then is He not thereby instead a devil? Then again, is every folly out of your mouth indeed the voice of the Lord? Or is it merely the proselytizing intolerant who devalue integrity? This may be a text book case of how heteronymous religion fails to improve morality which is a function of autonomy. What need be there of deceiving spirits? You do it to yourselves.

 2011/5/10 13:59Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy