What have we accomplished?

So why must you go and test everybody? Cant you be around a person long enough to make subjective evaluations of their character? And I'm talking of the ones whom you know personally--not the church-at-large.

In the case of this spaghetti monster of whence you speak, there is nothing to it except a cause for humor. C'mon Percy...you cant assume that that is the idea of God that I have embraced?

So we need to define rationality before we assume that rationality is the default, which I will admit is the most unbiased and logical way to proceed within a scientific context. I wont make the mistake of denying the science, though based on a worldview that allows for a spiritual war, one could do so. I'm not going to argue this point. You are correct in that it is the only unbiased standard that we have that is closest to objectivity. Well...yes, I can admit and indeed concede the point that any of us can frame the issue any way that we like. But my point is that you cant simply dismiss my argument without you yourself representing this hypothetical voice of reason which you talk about. It would be as if I dismissed experiences that you had in your life simply because I found them illogical or unbelievable according to my own personal standards. In other words, why can you equate the concept of reason with your own world view yet dismiss it within the framework of my world view? Thats the basic question at this point in our discussion. Because there are many false and misleading spirits. Because it is a very human reaction.Then on to ringo... OK, I'll give you that. But I could say that your INTERPRETATION of what we have as evidence could be at worst wrong and at best inconclusive. So are you saying that all rational people by definition are atheists? Gotta look this one up! verisimilitude Interesting.You guys are right that all I have in this argument is beliefs (unevidenced beliefs at that!) I would also argue that you have this whole default notion that any one belief is no closer to truth than any other belief. And I disagree.

This would be a true statement if there were many Gods. (This is good practice for me in reconstructing a hypothetical debate viewing it from more than one world view)

One mans strawman is another mans world view.

One side sees Gods as simple creations of the human mind and thus belief is totally relative and inclusive.

One side insists that God as they describe Him is exclusive,monotheistic(or tri-theistic(same thing)and revealed rather than invented.

​

And what makes these debates complicated is that none of this can be absolutely tested.

​

Edited by Phat, : fixed quote

---

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.- Francis A. Schaeffer

​

The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.
- Criss Jami, Killosophy

I'll have to concede this point. One question would be this:

Is it easier for one guy to be deceived or is it easier for entire sub cultures to be deceived? Open for discussion.

​

I think a lot depends on confirmation bias and the source of ones information.

​

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

---

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.- Francis A. Schaeffer

​

The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.
- Criss Jami, Killosophy

Not quite.
My belief is contingent on several personal experiences I have had.
I know that perhaps millions have had epiphanies in the context of their belief.
By no means am I suggesting that I can know who is and is not deluded without closer investigation...perhaps not even then.
Where I differ from you is that you wrote off all beliefs and subjective experiences as delusional. I have not.

The answer thbat comes to mind is "Because their gods are different."You will then ask how I know mine is not.

Perhaps I will slow down and think about it. I am, to be honest, unlikely to change my belief simply because your arguments seem more logical on the surface. I believe that we live in some interesting times---supernatural times, even. I have always believed the stuff that I have and you have always called me out on it. I predict that times will get worse before they get better and that a time will come when there are enough of what you call "nutters" spreading what you call a false ideology that your side will actually oppose them and seek to shut them up as a public health nuisance.Of course you will claim that "my side" has a collective martyr complex and that we preach doom and gloom. But allow me to stop and think as you suggest and fully understand this concept of "deflecting"...shall I? Yes, I can accept that.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Honestly, I DO think that the beliefs that I have chosen to accept are quite irrational. (From the standpoint of a rational secularist). To begin with, (and looking at it from your point of view and not mine) God Himself existing is a bit irrational. You argue that God is a simple creation of the human mind, but I disagree and agree both. The God Who is is the Creator of all seen and unseen...including our human mind. That being said, humans can and do make up numerous gods all day every day. Just look at RPG games and some of the Sci-Fi creations on there!If we get past all of that and accept that a Creator of all seen and unseen could possibly exist and being that Jesus as Gods relational character for humanity is accepted, the irrationality again starts with several questions.
1) Why do humans have to be forgiven? Why was rebellion and autonomy the default condition of the human heart? And I would argue that it was.
2) Why is the world going to "end"? (At least the world as we now know it...the global community of humans)
3) Why do so few people actually accept this? And why do so few people actually accept the reality of Jesus Christ?4) And why does the Euro-Centric God(and Jesus) of Western Christianity predominate over the Eastern concepts of Karma, Mindfulness, and passive acceptance?5) jar once brought up one: Why must God sacrifice His Son? If God is going to forgive, why not just blanket-forgive every human? Why do we need to surrender or give up a part of our intrinsic nature in order for this whole plot scenario to work?As far as self-serving, I claim no special status. In fact, this is the one thing I dislike about Christianity---that I am called to serve rather than be served and that I am called to suffer and that indeed there may never be any special rewards for doing so.

A fact is a fact until an exception is found. The next 20 years will be an exception. The spiritual will come out of the closet. Here is some evidence I have:
Climate change isn't our only existential threat Were I still a betting man, I would take you up on it. I would define the "bet" as follows. Within the next 20 years (specifically) the world as we know it will not only have changed beyond familiar recognition but in fact we collectively will see and hear of supernatural manifestations....deliverance, healing, and a massive revival. We also will see attempts by a global consensus-at-large to maintain rationality, optimism, and denial of ancient religions.One possible scenario which I cannot dismiss is the idea that global change will happen, tolerance and a consensual resolve to eliminate ancient "myths" from being pushed onto the impressionable young will be enforced, and yet God will not have rescued the Christians as we thought He would. At that point, my flesh and my inner indignation at the sheer audacity of a world determined to go right around us and ignore us will rise up within me and I will be hard pressed at that point not to appear self-serving.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

What will you do when they do? Im already predicting that the science minded skeptics will attempt to explain all of them away since, in their esteemed world view, such things simply do not happen.

Great question. And the answer which I have found(a scripture which many use to validate the Rapture) actually supports your point that Christianity is about what we do.This scripture is: Now to be fair, I read the rest of Thessalonians(both of them) and began to get a context of what was expected and endured by Christians of that time. This supports you and ringos arguments that being Christians(or even good secular humanists who claim no title) involves what ringo calls blood, toil,tears,sweat and spare change. I need to be honest with what I find in scripture, even if it chalks up points for your arguments. Basically, 2 Thessalonians does not so much support the concept of a Rapture so much as it supports the idea that true Christians have a love for each other, are willing to suffer for it, and endure in collective hope for Gods eventual vindication.Thus in answer to your question as to what possible behavior would differentiate some supernatural event from a delusion, the answer would appear to be the sacrificial love shown by the believers to everyone else.
Perhaps the lie is not so much the believers "fantasies vs the rational world so much as it is the very lie that they will escape the hard work of saving the other victims of the collapsed society and world of that time. This sobers me up....i'm not sure if an old man like me is ready for a bunch of hard work at this late time in my life. Pastor Isaiah speaks of the excitement of being alive during what he calls supernatural times and a season of deliverance, healing, and revival...but while not disagreeing with him, I think that the sacrifice that the Christians will have to endure may cause the love of many to grow cold. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

you always accuse all of them of being conmen...only because they do not follow your logic...which i will say is uninspired and itself a possible con.
one thing is evident....you disagree with and dislike their message yet have no more evidence that it is false than you have that yours will prove more true.

What I meant was that it is evident to me that jar has no evidence that his interpretation of the plain reading of the Bible coupled with his judgement of the message of mainstream apologetics is any more likely to be the way that life will ultimately play out. And lets be fair here. Both of you claim that Jesus is simply a character in a book rather than an actual living presence that we can know. Yet you defend your message as to what Christianity should\ be about (a secular humanist do-gooders club) and vilify what you think it is (a carny huckster group of con men selling a false ideology to the gullible masses) That's what I see. Evidence for what? That Jesus is real? There is as of yet no objective evidence available. Subjectively, many have experienced His touch...yet you scoff at these people. It makes one wonder why you are so spiteful towards Biblical Christians. Is it simply the politics? The aura of exclusivity? Or is it something more. The despising of authority? The intrinsic dislike of the God we market?Lets go with that last one. If God was actually like the God that the apologists market, would you obey Him or would you oppose Him? Why or why not?