Oh, so you don't believe in Hell then? Or what do you believe exactly in regards to this issue?

It would seem either way your beliefs are not in accordance with the Bible.

Before commenting on what I want to comment on, rize's last post is uncalled for and Im flagging it for removal.

Jib, the reason for the list I posted and why im gonna ask you again where you stand with regards to it is that it is possible to handle categories of arguments instead of giving an example and being unsatified with it for some reason, which keeps us locked up in the particulars of a certain example within a category. If we can understand what categories of arguments are convincing to you, we can understand what type of argument might be convincing.

Are we talking poker gods, cause the bloody %@#$&% screw me around all the time!

How old is this guy?

jib? like mid 20's afaik.

Ok, the last line indeed does go over the top. However, I think it reflects something that I have felt as well. Many theists ask when atheists express anger at "God" for allowing evil how can we be angry at a god that doesn't exist. But I realized as I was writing my post yesterday that the anger is not really aimed at a fictitious god, but rather the fact that so many theists seem to think that all the misery in the world is, on the balance, a positive thing, and part of "god's plan". This is, I believe, what offends many atheists and results in some frustration and anger to erupt.

I'm sure I could flesh this out more with a bit of thought, but that's the general idea.

I have never said anything like what you are attributing to me. Just admit that it is bull**** when someone says "well if it was just a little better then I would be ok with it". Admit it, it is complete bull****.

I can understand that. Give me some time today and I will respond to that post.

My post was addressed at theists in general. But am I wrong that you believe that God has legitimate - and loving - reasons for not intervening more actively in the world to prevent the level of suffering going on?

Do you believe that it is impossible for there to be a legit reason? Or that it is impossible that the ends justify the means?

I thought Jib was like 40

no. 29

I dislike using the word impossible - except with regard to logical impossibilities. I see no logical impossibility with there being a good and justified reason. However, in an all-powerful God, I would need some pretty convincing reasons to go along with it. Humans sometimes need to learn things the hard way in order for them to sink in. But an all-powerful God could snap his metaphorical fingers and instantly imbue us with any lessons he wanted us to know. Without all the suffering.

Now, if God is not all-powerful - and cannot, in fact, alleviate this suffering, then the conversation changes entirely.

Nah, you didn't. See my post at #54.

The arguments I am presenting to you are both historical and experiential. That is because these seem like the strongest and most common arguments in favor of Christianity. I am not trying to convince you to be an atheist, but taking the existence of God as a given and then showing the lack of evidence to go beyond the God of the philosophers.

As I structured the argument, in order to rationally accept Christianity you have to be justified in accepting that certain forms of special revelation are trustworthy. My argument is meant to show that they are not. You agreed with almost all of my conclusions, except regarding the historicity and reliability of the NT.

However, you only asserted that the NT is reliable--you didn't show how my argument failed. My argument, based on the fact that except for Paul we don't know who the authors are, that it was not written by anyone with first-hand experience of Jesus, that the authors of the gospels are theologically motivated in their presentation, etc. is basically ignored. Neither of us are historians, so of course there is going to be a amateurish cast to our conversation, but you seem to be completely relying on authority in your response--and in my view that is a mistake.
Actually, I grew up a Christian. After finishing high school, I decided that in order to be intellectually mature I needed to realize the intellectual bases for my own core beliefs--especially Christianity. So I spent a year of intensive study on the evidences for Christianity, with a special focus on the historicity of the NT. At the end of that year, I had become convinced that the historical evidence in favor of Christianity was not strong enough to support its conclusions, and so ceased believing. So yeah, I think this is central to your beliefs. However, I think it is only a necessary, not sufficient reason to become a Christian (at least of a certain kind of Christian). So while you do have to prove it to be rationally justified in your beliefs, I don't have to believe it is false.

Don't poke the mod. Poking is not an approved use of your moderators.

Actually I'm genuinely interested in how Jib would respond to my question. If there's a solid argument for Christianity I'd love to hear it.

Unfortunately music lyrics don't really cut it Gunth.

Nobody said anything about music lyrics here but you.

Are you serious? Why hasn't this supposed "evidence" which only supports (your version of) Christianity caused it to distinguish itself from all the other false beliefs? Why does the pattern of belief look exactly like we would expect if Christianity were cultural myth like all the other religions?

The excuse that everyone is ignoring the evidence for emotional reasons is implausible to the point of being silly. The heliocentric model of the solar system, when it was first proposed, was rejected by many due to emotional reasons. And yet that idea has nevertheless become widely accepted because the evidence is compelling.

Where is the compelling evidence for Christianity? And why are so many people ignoring it? All sorts of initially unpopular ideas are now accepted, and yet something as important as the evidence which validates God's word is still being denied. Weird.

But that's my point. For the most part, everyone did fall in line, despite the fact that an old Earth profoundly disturbed the religious masses. Now only a small, discredited minority clings to a young Earth, because the evidence is too compelling to deny.

Yes, and your posts demonstrate that perfectly.

Wat? Beliefs which can be rationally validated by evidence do in fact eventually distinguish themselves, despite cultural biases. Why hasn't this happened at all for for Christianity?

More importantly, why can't you (or anyone) produce evidence that differs from the "evidence" which supports all other religions?

no hope then

Jib care to answer?

Probably not a good thread for this, he's gone into detail about it in the past and I think it would be a massive derailment. Basically he is an annihilationist, which means he thinks people that don't go to heaven just cease to exist.

No, I do not believe that there is some form of eternal torment that people are forced to endure.

As far as my belief being in accordance with the bible, I feel that it is the only rational view that one can come to when looking at the bible as a whole. It is significantly more supported than the eternal torment theory.

if its significantly more supported then why isn't it the view of the overwhelming majority of christians?

I think that there are two major reasons.

1. A lot of people are completely unaware of this positions. (personally I did not know until a year or so ago)

2. Have you ever listened to the objections of random joe christian why they don't hold this belief? It makes me sad to say, but I think that a lot of people like the eternal torment view better. It adds some sort of "vindication" for them.

This doesn't sum up everyone, but I feel that it is a large part of the reason.