God says this, and God says that

quote:

---

How many times do you want this answer repeated?

---

When you give a logical answer instead of snippy remarks, once will be fine.Or alternatively you could just go ahead and admit you are arguing from a faith-based position. That would be a step in the right direction.

quote:

---

as it serves to derail the argument and deflect the debate to one concerning my character and not the issues

---

Your character is one of the chief issues. The subject of the debate is why God doesn't seem to talk to some people. Well I think it's quite obvious. All I need to see is your website why God isn't talking to you.

quote:

---

All you know of me are the parts I chose to reveal.

---

And they are definately adequate for my purposes in this thread.

quote:

---

Guess what, gene? If I believe in Atlantis prior to finding evidence, I could find such evidence everywhere I look.

---

If this premise were true, all of science would be undermined. For example, all the "findings" scientists would discover would be colored by their prior notions. In fact this is exactly what the YECs are claiming. Are you trying to give credence to their arguments?

quote:

---

Only if I first believe your assertions about God.

---

You only must accept the possibility and make a sincere effort to find God. That includes cleaning up your life.

quote:

---

When did this change happen?

---

I am not sure. I suspect you never really were looking for God. You say you spent 20 years looking for God. Then you say you spent 20 years successfully arguing with Christians. Which was it?

quote:

---

Are you saying that one can find evidence without first believing? Now we are getting somewhere!!! Though is contradicts most of what you've posted, tell me how is this done?

---

Praying, studying the scriptures, going to church, living a clean life...oh wait that's too much to ask you without believing first. As I have said, the problem is not that you don't believe, the problem is laziness. Remember the analogy about finding the road?

quote:

---

object to your insistence that I haven't thought about these things.

---

No, you would had to have "thought" about it to argue with "stupid", "evil" Christians for twenty years. I just don't think you ever made a sincere effort.

quote:

---

I claim that there is no reason to believe.

---

Do you have enough evidence against God to justify your vendetta against Christianity? And if not, why do you expect Christians to have evidence before they believe?

quote:

---

I haven't said anything about you personally

---

Not here, you only implied it when you called my beliefs insane. However I am a Christian and according to your website, "Christians are evil".It's quite simple:Christians are evil
Gene is a Christian.
Gene is evil.You are speaking of me personally, do not pretend that you aren't.

quote:

---

Why not, if God were my daddy and all loving?

---

Because you don't listen. Whatever God tries to tell you is buried by your rebellion. If you would stop rejecting everything God values maybe you could hear.Also God has a tendency to assist those that believe in Him. Don't you remember that you have to earn faith?

quote:

---

I haven't said anything about you personally, but about ideas and concepts. You have directly attacked me. It is worse to attack a generalization than an individual?

---

Yes. By far. Saying "Christians are evil" is no less offensive, provocative, and wrong than saying "Muslims are terrorists".

quote:

---

The problem is your lies about me.

---

Lies? My source is quite reliable.Of course, I'm not fond of your lies about me.And as long as the topic of discussion is "why God doesn't talk to you", what we know of your character is valid evidence.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-11-2002]

quote:

---

Very substantial. Thank you for that illustration of proper behavior.

---

Thank you for your contribution to the illustration.

quote:

---

What you posted was nothing but a preformatted knee-jerk answer I have heard a thousand times.

---

How many times have you acted on it?

quote:

---

I am not going to waste time on the equivalent

---

Point ducking?

quote:

---

Its funny that you chose the same things to misrepresent that nos chose.

---

This should make you suspect that perhaps it isn't actually a misrepresentation.

quote:

---

What you wrote is what, a third again as long? Hardly a damning comparison.

---

But a vast difference in quality. Mine actually said something useful. It didn't duck whole points with things like "Cute" and "Better than getting it out of a book".

quote:

---

That earning faith strikes me as oxymoronic.

---

I thought you were avoiding the issue. Perhaps you could detail how and why "earning faith" is an oxymoron? I know lots of atheists like to believe that faith is something you either have or do not have (because it helps them escape Pascal's Wager) but perhaps you could defend that, if that is your perspective. Or otherwise elaborate?

quote:

---

works for any religion you plug into the appropriate blank.

---

Can you prove that? Or at least elaborate on it? Have you actually tried that for any religion? Or are you speculating?

quote:

---

That I have no idea what this means: "You earn what you work for just as the believers do."

---

You earn your faith by diligently following God. You don't follow God therefore you will never develop any faith.The process actually is a vicious circle, either way: toward or against God.

quote:

---

But feel quite comfy posting numerous statements to the effect that my site contains porn?

---

I'm retracting that actually.

quote:

---

What boils my blood is not that The House and the APA oppose the rape of children-- I'm ok with that, but that both orginizations are placing public policy above the results of the scientific study." Do you notice that I approve of the opposition to the RAPE OF CHILDREN.

---

Most people would find this disturbing, but since I've come to expect this from you, it is kind of amusing. You do not have a problem with people who oppose child rape. Well good for you, but it's not the same as you yourself opposing child rape. But then you say you're angry at the House because they ignored the claim that children having sex doesn't do any harm. In other words, you seem to be pro-underage sex. And since sex before age of consent is rape, you are actually supporting child rape.Just out of curiousity, what did you think people would think of your article when you entitled it, "The Emancipation Proclamation for Pedophiles"?[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-11-2002]

quote:

---

Good thing it isn't my reasoning, eh?

---

You said that prior bias always causes spurious "evidence" to be found, ie, if you believe something you always start seeing evidence for it. As I said, that's a notion very common in Creationism, that evolution bias in the science is generating spurious evidence. Are you supporting their assertion? Or, "since it isn't your reasoning," are you retracting?

quote:

---

That isn't my argument.

---

Then state your argument.

quote:

---

Defined as such, everything is faith based

---

Then you admit that atheism is faith-based, just as my religion is faith-based? Or do you seek a redefinition?

quote:

---

You claim that people do the work associated with Santa and that this is evidence that Santa is not real. I applied the same reasoning to your religion.

---

Bad analogy. Santa Claus is supposed to generate a physical, tangible result: presents under the tree. Therefore if there are no presents, there is no Santa. However, God is not supposed to place presents under the tree, or to miraculously build anything. That's not a part of our model of God, like it is a part of the Santa myth.Kids expect Santa to do something tangible every Christmas eve. God's believers generally have no such expectation. Nobody expects a brand new building to appear miraculously. If they did they wouldn't donate money for it. Also, in the faulty Santa analogy, the presents are delivered covertly to decieve children into believing Claus was there. That's not happening in Christianity, the expectation of a miracle isn't there anyway.

quote:

---

Surely you know that. I bet you don't like that, but you know it.

---

Curious you insist on using an analogy I have already demonstrated to be faulty.

quote:

---

But lets just suppose we use your reasoning in the sciences?

---

But we do use my reasoning in the sciences. In the sciences, we normally don't *disbelieve* a new idea or concept before testing it. We certainly do not use our personal incredulity as an excuse to wave it away. If science reasoned the way you do, progress would never be made because no new hypotheses would ever be tested.Besides, if you have no evidence that there is no God, what room do you have to chide us for no evidence for our belief that there is indeed a God. (And it is possible to prove a negative, by the way. Would you like an example exercise?)

quote:

---

But Santa's workshop is invisible to our technology

---

If I were a believer in Santa Claus, and you were too, we could have a theological debate of sorts, because that has nothing at all to do with the version of the myth I was taught. The way I see it, since you realized the first version of your analogy failed, you are actually trying to alter the myth to make your analogy better.But the "present" argument still kills the analogy. Santa Claus is expected to leave a physical imprint, God is not. However, you have attempted to create a strawman of Christianity, in which we believe God does our construction work for us. I don't know of any sect that believes that.

quote:

---

God, by definition, does do stuff. This stuff ought to be identifiable.

---

This is interesting. You're trying to disprove my theology by telling me what I believe. That's not a very honest way to go, but since I'm curious I will ask: what "stuff" does God do and how might we identify it? Further, are you now claiming that belief in God is falsifiable? And that, by extension, Intelligent Design is a viable science? Besides if we can test God and we can test God's influence in our universe why not test God's influence on biology? And if it is testable, it must allow us to make predictions, and be falsifiable--therefore it is a science, regardless of whether or not God is real.You opened this door, not me.

quote:

---

You have even told me not to expect anything distinguishable from coincidence.

---

If you had enough such "coincidences" perhaps you would believe. However I have the feeling that you will rationalize away just about anything as a coincidence, no matter how extraordinary. That is why I made that comment in the first place.

quote:

---

Why would God not leave physical evidence? This you've asserted but never explained? God heals the sick? hmm.... there ought to be evidence. You reduce your God to no more than a phantom.

---

To you, God is a phantom because God works according to your faith. And even if God did heal a sick person right in front of you, what is to stop you from attributing it to "natural" causes? In fact, in a universe with "natural" causes everywhere but an omnipotent and omniscient God present, how do you know anything that happens is "natural"? That's my problem with your beliefs, they are every bit as unfalsifiable and self-fulfilling as you claim mine are. A "miracle"? No only a disease naturally going into remission, just as it would have done without prayer. You pray for three things and get all those things? Only coincidence!The self-fulfilling beliefs of the atheist are exactly like what they claim to be the self-fulfilling beliefs of the theist.

quote:

---

God ought to leave evidence.

---

Actually I spent quite a bit of time explaining how God is different from all your analogies, and how they would leave evidence and God would not.Please try to introduce new information, rather than merely repeating yourself.

quote:

---

If it were the dominant religion?

---

This is interesting. Are you saying that Christians are "stupid", "evil", and "dishonest" because they are the dominant religion? Do you spend all your time fighting Christians instead of Wiccans, Muslims, and Hare Krishnas simply because the Christians are the biggest target?Hardly philosophically sound motivation.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-11-2002]

quote:

---

That's the logic of a 4 year old johnny. It's a stereotype. It's wrong.

---

Here, here.

quote:

---

Just wanted to pop in and say something about "faith". I am reminded of Paul (from the NT) who actively pursued and persecuted the church. Did he earn faith? I don't think so.

---

Paul had a work to do. He's one of the exceptions, and I don't envy him because the he was *given* faith that others have to earn. I suspect the bar will be higher for him in the last days than it might have been otherwise.See Luke 12:48 and John 20:29.As for faith being increased, do you not agree that studying the Scriptures, praying, and trying to be like Christ will increase your faith?

quote:

---

Seems to me that god is supposed to generate a physical tangible result-- everything.

---

Yeah, John...God is ultimately behind *everything*. Have you thought about that yet? How do you empirically test God if God is doing everything

quote:

---

It is reasonable to argue based on what we've got, not on what we don't have

---

The argument is invalid because it assumes that there are no "things" outside of our sensory experience. There is no basis for such an assumption.

quote:

---

if you are happy with it... fine

---

Good, you're coming to terms with your own faith. Maybe now you won't ridicule faith so much.

quote:

---

you are still trying to slip past the idea that you don't BELIEVE either, without testing.

---

You don't necessarily have to believe before testing. At some point there is a transition from non-believer to believer after the open-minded inquiry begins. You do have to refrain from rejecting it though. I contend that is not the same as believing.

quote:

---

My beliefs are based on evidence, not the lack of it.

---

So you actually do claim to have evidence "that there is no God". And that evidence is markedly different from a lack of evidence that "there is a God". Well I hope you will elaborate because (1) I don't believe such evidence is possible and (2) I see no difference between the two.

quote:

---

That you assert something does not mean I have to buy it.

---

Argument from personal incredulity.

quote:

---

But God, an active God anyway, should leave imprints.

---

Then, you are claiming that, by extension, Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design are both legitimate sciences? After all, it is your claim that God's influence on the world is testable.

quote:

---

No. My beliefs are quite falsifiable.

---

Not necessarily. I have only your assurance that "if a leg grew back" you would believe. But how could it be proven that God made the leg grow back? I can't think of any way to prove it. (But then again, I'm not the one claiming that God's influence can even be detected).

quote:

---

That could theoretically be detected doesn't lead directly to this conclusion, but it would help.

---

I contend that allowing God's influence to "theoretically be detectable" does make ID a science, with or without a positive test result. Lots of theories and hypotheses have been discarded by science over the years, but that does not mean that the theories were not legitimate science at the time, in that they were subjected to the scientific method and ultimately discarded.But remember, it is not my opinion that God is testable in such a way.

quote:

---

But you load the dice with the idea that God permiates everything and that it all could be God's work. That is unfalsifiable. Even in theory.

---

That's exactly my point. God is unfalsifiable. How then can you possibly claim that you have falsified God if the notion is falsifiable?

quote:

---

But you load the dice with the idea that God permiates everything and that it all could be God's work. That is unfalsifiable. Even in theory.

---

Well then you can design the tests if you insist that the notion of a god is testable.

quote:

---

Please try to understand that I do not take what you say as gospel.

---

I don't expect you to. In fact you're supposed to disagree with me. But I do expect that we both will do our best to keep the hand-waving to a minimum and produce rebuttals to the best of our abilities. I don't claim to have done perfectly but I feel like I'm making a valid effort.

quote:

---

You criticise me for voicing my opinion of your religion.

---

I criticize you for what appears to be religious intolerance.

quote:

---

If the situation were reversed, what would you do?

---

Move.I can symptathize with to you a certain extent. The Constitution is supposed to keep religion away from the state but it doesn't do a very good job. But *I* am not the one hanging the Ten Commandments in courtrooms. Just because somebody else is makes me (as a Christian) "evil", "stupid", and "dishonest"? Just because certain groups are "intruding" into your society does not give you license to brand all of Christianity on their behalf. That is stereotyping, bigotry, and intolerance.Secondly you might as well realize that you live in Baptistland just like I do and that's the cultural affiliation of the place. If you went to Japan, would you be offended by the Taoist shrines? If you went to Mediterranean Europe would you be offended by the cathedrals? There will always be televangelists on Southern television and radio, there will always be giant wooden crosses on our interstate highways and there will always be Jesus billboards. None of these are particularly tasteful but they are a part of the dominant culture. You'll have to get used to it as long as you live here. If not there are other parts of the country where it isn't so bad. And there are lot of foreign countries with no "problems" like this at all...most of Europe for example.

quote:

---

The concept becomes unfalsifiable.

---

That's my point.

quote:

---

The question becomes "Which God?" Again, and unanswerable question.

---

No, the question is not, "which God", the question is, "which model of God (religion) is most correct"? Jews, Muslims, and Christians all believe in a "God" with comparable abilities. We differ on the means of salvation and the proper name of that God. These could be considered different Gods or they could be considered different models of the the same God.

quote:

---

Assume that you construct an argument with five premises-- the only ones you've got. You don't have to assume that no other premises exist.

---

You do have to assume no falsifying premises exist, or else the argument is faulty. The sticker is if it is "reasonable" to postulate falsifying premises. You will assume it is not reasonable, I assume in this case that it is. We're both making assumptions.

quote:

---

I have repeatedly stated my position and you have repeatedly made the same misrepresentation.

---

I don't see any misrepresentation.This is your argument: You are turning that into positive evidence that there is no God. Your claim is clearly invalid. How often will I have to repeat that?

quote:

---

You can't, so far as I know, bootstrap your way out of this pit and into an firm knowledge of any kind.

---

We claim to be able to reach firm knowledge. See James 1:5.

quote:

---

we ought to be able to infer something like a God. For example, one could infer the Hebrew God by demonstrating the earth to be 6000 years old, or by demonstrating the Global Flood, or by demonstrating that slaughtering a dove cures leprosy.

---

Your beliefs are still unfalsifiable. If we could cure leprosy by slaugtering a dove, you would seek out some medical explanation. Then, you would rationalize that the Hebrews knew about it from simple observation of the world, so that there was no need for a God to tell them. An analogy is the kosher food laws, which ban shellfish. Shellfish can be quite lethal, especially if you have no refrigeration or if they absorb some bad diatoms before you harvest them. The Jews knew to avoid them. But we can easily rationalize this away without God: the Jews ate them, they got sick, they didn't eat them any more. Same with attempting to prevent contagion by banning lepers or controlling mildew by destroying infected materials.Because disbelief in God is unfalsifiable, there is no "miracle" that cannot be rationalized away.

quote:

---

I tolerate.

---

I disagree. If I put "Jews are evil" and "Jews are dishonest" on my personal website, would you conclude that I am a tolerant person?

quote:

---

This means I must not protest?

---

You can protest laws you don't like but you can't protest the religion itself because they have as much a right to be there as you do. Probably more so because they go back further. And intolerance such as you have demonstrated is not the same as a legitimate protest.

quote:

---

No, it doesn't. But I don't judge individuals and don't form opinions about people until I know them.

---

That may be true, but it doesn't change what you have said about Christianity. Nor does it change the fact that you are stereotyping all of Christianity, in a very negative, very hostile, manner.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-12-2002]

quote:

---

here's the thing... if faith is required for salvation (it is) and if we can earn or deserve any aspect of our salvation (we can't), then what need of Jesus did we have?

---

You need the Atonement so that your sins may be forgiven (assuming you have developed, ie, earned, faith) and you need the Resurrection so that you may come forth from the grave in the day of Judgement. I'm not implying that you don't need the Saviour.We do each have a certain amount of tendency toward faith but I believe we can supplement our faith through diligent study, through prayer, by magnifying our callings, and striving to be more Christ-like. This concept is similar to the parable of the ten talents, in Matthew 25. (I am perplexed that all of you disagree because it seems like an axiom to me).

quote:

---

It is your point that belief in God is unfalsifiable? Fine. How does this help?

---

It means that if belief in God is unfalsifiable, and you claim to know there is no God, then, by definition, you have deceived yourself.In order to justify atheism, you must demonstrate that God is falsifiable, and that God has been falsified. Have you falsified God? And if not, how do you justify the active opposition of religion?I don't understand why you haven't confronted this. Mostly, you've just claimed that "it isn't your argument". Well what is your argument? You stated it a short time ago, state it again. If you are arguing that religion is bunk, how can this not be your argument?

quote:

---

The conclusion follows from the premises, or it doesn't. But ASSUMING that the ARGUMENT IS CORRECT

---

Fine. If I can remember why it matters I'll come back to it.

quote:

---

I know that was a joke. That just has to be a joke.

---

You've become WORSE than Nos. At least Nos had a better sense of humor. If I'm going to have to tolerate offensive and ridiculous comments from you that duck the points and contribute nothing to the debate, please at least make them amusing to read.

quote:

---

Don't you mean that the other way around?

---

It works both ways. You were the one that brought up that argument, next time make sure that the argument only works one way.

quote:

---

At any rate, I disagree.

---

Then I suppose you disagree based upon your own fantasies. After all, you provide no more supporting argument.

quote:

---

Religion is a concept, a philosophy, whether you like it or not.

---

I agree. Just like atheism is a philosophy -- a religious philosophy, in fact. Most of the arguments in favor of either philosophy work both ways. We both claim knowledge, and neither of us can really claim empirical evidence. Therefore one is no more unreasonable than the other. Do you claim otherwise?

quote:

---

Intolerance as I have demonstrated? Have I assulted anyone on the street? Censored any books? Burned any churches?

---

Nope. You do what the KKK does. Hate-speech. Intolerance transcends merely physical actions. Heck, there's a certain Senator who is learning about that right now.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-13-2002]

If the word "earn" offends you then I won't use it. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words anyway. But I believe that we can grow our faith (regardless of the ultimate source of that faith) by doing as we are supposed to do.Where was the Bible quote from?'by grace are we saved through faith - and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God - not of works lest any man should boast'It sounds somewhat like a verse from Galatians in the KJV.

quote:

---

Religion is a human endeavor, or can be considered such.

---

Only if you presuppose there is no God. Otherwise a religion might be the handiwork of God.

quote:

---

You cited the Bible. That is fallacious and irrelevant on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

---

No, I merely responded to your point:

quote:

---

You can't, so far as I know, bootstrap your way out of this pit and into an firm knowledge of any kind.

---

By referencing the Bible I merely pointed out that I disagree.

quote:

---

The argument isn't reversable.

---

It is, as it is valid to claim that theism and atheism are equally faith-based, as neither has any evidence. Do you disagree, as you are consistently claiming it is not your argument?

quote:

---

duh.... obviously!!!

---

Then there is more to your argument than merely, "there is no evidence for God", no matter how much you want to claim that I'm building strawmen when I point out that your claim is that there is no God. I agree with you, it is obvious that you are claiming more than merely a lack of evidence. Now you have two options: (1) concede that your belief in no God is faith-based, just as theism is because you have no evidence or (2) claim some kind of evidence that you are correct in claiming that there is no God or (3) concede that you don't know if my religion is correct or not.

quote:

---

Gee, speech is bad ?????

---

I'm not advocating any kind of censorship here.I'm calling you a bigot, and pointing out your lack of religious tolerance. This is yet another example:

quote:

---

I happen to think christianity is every bit as horrible. (as the KKK)

---

And likewise, you represent every negative stereotype of the atheist I know of.

quote:

---

By the way, you seem to have no problem stereotyping when it comes to the KKK.

---

LOL!!![This message has been edited by gene90, 12-13-2002]

But that was 2,000 years ago. Is it your opinion that revelation has ended with Jesus' ministry? I'm not contending, only curious.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-13-2002]

quote:

---

I can work with what is known, unlike you, who must assume something that isn't known.

---

Then you claim that there is evidence that there is no God?Or will you concede that you have no evidence either way and are operating from a faith based position? Or are you willing to concede that I may be right? Which is it?

quote:

---

I HAVE NO REASON FOR A BELIEF IN GOD.

---

Then do you have reason to believe in no-God? Or are you running on faith? Or do you not know if I am right or wrong? Which is it?

quote:

---

Again you object to speech.

---

I don't object to your freedom of speech, I just think you're a bigot (and other things). In fact I think your freedom to say offensive things only supports my opinions of your character.

quote:

---

It is about Gene not liking his religion criticised.

---

More like Gene not liking being called, "evil", "dishonest", "stupid", and other things simply for being a Christian. You said yourself that I should not have called you a bigot and a pedophile because I don't know you. How do you like it?And besides, your website supports my claims on your character. You have nothing but this board to assert that I personally am "evil", "stupid", "dishonest", etc. and you have absolutely nothing to assert that all my fellow Christians are those things.You are inconsistent.If you don't want to be called nasty things you should (1) not have given credence to support being called those things and (2) not have called other people nasty things.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-13-2002]

Revelation being any information from God.