It's not my problem that other people can't accept the root meaning of a word.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...theism-704129/

Arguing against a position which you create specifically to be easy to argue against, rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view.

it should be stressed again that the OP isn't actually asking
a question (lol at everyone in this thread trying to answer it).

he's simply pointing out an obvious and very simple logical flaw with fundamentalist christian tenets.

1. god desires all humans accept christianity

2. god is responsible for and freely manipulates human environment and temperment

3. most humans reject christianity BASED on their environment and/or temperment (easily demonstrated by cultural and intellectual demographics)

that absolutely is evidence that fundamentalist christianity is false

If you look at dictionary definitions of the word atheism it has a little different meaning than the simple construction in your post below. It is not worth arguing, but you must realize that your opinion is not definitive.



http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...theism-704129/



Arguing against a position which you create specifically to be easy to argue against, rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view.[/QUOTE]

Ah, okay. That is a little different than the usage I was used to. I see your intent now.

agruments like this keep cults in business

Have you read this entire thread? I made a post that assumed OP was trying to demonstrate a logical flaw and he got pretty hostile as a result. When I asked what his point was, he then posted this:

which puts emphasis on the questions. He denied the logical argument and posed the questions twice, so I answered them. How is that unreasonable?

yup. you misinterpreted or failed to understand the argument. the OP is arguing that the evidence concerning god does not match christian tenets about god, not making a logical argument that god in any general sense doesn't exist.

No i agree it takes more faith now (given the miracles and stories are true).

Im just asking if the people in the bible who knew Jesus/God had faith in him/them? If faith is a requirement for salvation and meeting God gets in the way of that somehow then the question is could the apostates and others who knew Jesus/God go to heaven or are they sol because they had no faith?

That could be fair, although OP did not specify fundamentalist Christian doctrine. You did and for what its worth I somewhat agree. I am not a fan of fundamentalist Christian doctrine. If it had been clear that was what was intended I would never have jumped into this thread. If one simply says Christian doctrine that is too broad for the argument to apply imo.

Whenever I say the word god on here I am talking about in the christian sense unless otherwise noted

Look, here's the thing...we're ALL atheists. Over the course of human history, mankind has believed in thousands and thousands of gods. Does anyone believe ALL of those gods exist? Of course not. Therefore, those of you who believe in ANY god are atheistic towards all of the other gods. And some of us simply take it one God further.

"When you begin to understand why you dismiss all of the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."
[Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615, during the trial of Galileo]

So because I believe in One God instead of many, I'm an atheist? Slightly confused.

Isn't this like saying someone is anti government because they don't believe in communism?

you're an atheist in regards to all the god's humanity has ever believed in, except 1. generally, the reasons you don't believe in the other gods, are the same reasons we don't believe in your god.

Yes, you are confused. You are an atheist because you do not believe in all of the other gods that humanity has worshipped throughout time. You have an atheistic view of the ancient Egyptian gods, and also of the gods of the ancient Greeks.

Your analogy to government does not make sense. Someone who doesn't subscribe to the communist ideology is not necessarily anti-government, they're just anti-communist. Someone who is anti-government is an anarchist. (i.e. Ronald Reagan didn't believe in communism, but he wasn't an anarchist.)

I guess I'm looking at the terms - atheist means I don't believe in any god and I'm saying I'm not 'atheist in terms of their god' but I do disbelieve in their god. Anyway, just semantics.

I have reasons and faith to believe in God. Many other people have reasons and faith to believe in their god, and many atheists have reasons and/or lack of faith for disbelieving. One of us is right and I'm just following what I believe to be right.

In your version analogy I am anti-Muslim, anti-Hinduism, etc. But not atheist, which is defined as the lack of belief in any God whatsoever, not just a particular God. I am not an atheist Christian.

Your definition of atheist is the problem here. So you admit you do not believe in the Hindu gods, correct? Therefore, you have an atheistic view towards Hinduism, but you are a believer in Christianity. Just like the Hindus do not recognize your god. And no one seems to believe in Zeus and Apollo anymore, nor do I hear much about Ra and Anubis.

Don't you get it? You and all the others who believe in this god or that god...you're all the same! You think your beliefs are right, and others who believe differently are wrong.

Please...take the time to read "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. In it, Dawkins explains the scientific evidence behind evolution with great clarity. If you truly understand evolution, religion starts to look silly.

"There are only two kinds of men in this world; intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence."

Cause he doesn't need to and it might have been his intention that non believers exist (How else could they exist?). It is the non believer who needs to believe.

"cuz he doesn't need to"

thanks for the fulfilling and wholly supported and reasoned answer. i'd like to sign up for your newsletter

tbh i used to fully agree that all theists were atheists towards every other god, but what jerok is saying is making some sense. a theist is someone who believes in a god, and and atheist does not. sort of hard to be an atheist if your are a theist, no? i dunno, i just woke up outta nowhere and this is sort of confusing me right now. certainly willing to hear more thoughts on it. i understand the idea of being "atheistic" towards a certain god, but i dont know if that is the proper term to use. a christian lacks belief in all other gods except there's, but we can't call them an atheist because they are a theist. hmmmmm, something for me to think about.

from OP:

Well, Satan along with 1/3 of God's angels have/had an exceedingly great knowledge of God and His power and obv knew he existed, yet they all turned against Him and were cast down from Heaven.

So, even if God came down and made a big announcement to everyone in this world do you think that 6.7billion out of 6.7billion would INSTA turn to obey Him and follow Him?

yes, because the bible is made up so stories of men witnessing miracles and still denying god are fake. its keenly added to the bible to make believers feel better.

yes. it would be extremely stupid not to

not much of a choice is it? do as god wants for about 70 years and live forever in paradise or do as you want for 70 odd years and burn in hell.

This maybe technically true - its really a semantic question and depends on definitions. The whole point of putting it that way is simply to make the point that was made above: that the reason we don't accept your god is the same reason that you don't accept every other god. Whether its technically correct, the phrase makes a valid point.

OP's point really goes to whether this god is all-loving, not whether he exists. But this really depends, IMO, on what happens to people who are not saved. If they get eternally damned, with torture, and fire, and all that jazz (or any other variation) then such a God first, should never allow that. But if he is going to allow that then if he is all loving he should do everything in his considerable power to get his creations on a path that avoids that fate. Free will is no benefit at all if it results in >100 years of freedom, and an eternity of torture.

Now, if all that happens to non-believers is that we poof out of existence entirely, then we have a different story. I don't have a problem with most of us having no consciousness after death and a few who devote their lives to God getting a bonus of everlasting happiness.

However, everlasting torture wil always be a pretty serious hit against the concept of an all-loving God. This may be an argument from ignorance, but I can't think of any human activity that could ever warrant such a fate. Not even for the worst and heinous people in human history. I could go for some finite type of punishment - but eternity can never, IMO, be justified.