WANTED: GOD DEAD-OR-ALIVE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEXGKzH0F9c

Call it narcissism if you want, but I won’t adapt others’ perspectives just because it worked for them.

I’m sorry if I offended you.

However - by your last sentence in #49 - it did seem like you were saying the only proof you would accept would only be through subjective experience - meaning that you are the ultimate proof of God’s existence.

Is that right? Wrong? I’m trying to see what exactly it is you’re trying to say here.

You cannot simply base your premises on text that was promoted by his very religion. The bible is the brochure that comes with the christian product so it’s not a reliable basis for his consistency as a person. of course he is going be be shown in a favorable light.

I agree and disagree. It’s true that it is “biased” in the sense that the epistles frame Jesus in a positive light, but that isn’t necessarily 100% true on the part of the Gospels. For instance, Jesus was recorded as being unable to do miracles in Mark 6:5. Similarly, events following the crucifixion, such as the total abandonment of the apostles and mockery of Jesus would have probably been left out if it were mythologized.

I think your definition for objective empiricism is a tad too fallacious.

Again, what is “fallacious” about this definition?

It is still the prerogative of an individual to assess whether the individual who observed it has adequate perceptive and cognitive skills.

Right. This is called “trust”.

We are so not on the same page when it comes to IMPETUS. That hope is not impetus, that is a mere abstract incentive that doesn’t really provide a concrete answer to the onus of proof. Convenience and peace of mind, imho, are not sufficient enough to be considered impetus.

Sorry, but I don’t have an absolute morality for the sake of convenience, and nowhere in my responses do I imply that I believe for convenience, either.

Only moral relativists believe for the sake of convenience; those who believe in moral absolutes believe for absolute reasons.

Furthermore, without sugarcoating it, your remarks regarding impetus are non sequitur. I’ve done a lot more, through the course of these posts, than specify how hope is an impetus for believing in God for the hopeless.

Justice is hardly an abstract incentive (look, for example, at your latest post). A change of heart for permanent pursuit of the good is hardly an abstract incentive. No suffering, no fear of death, no work, no worries - and most of all, no guilt - are hardly abstract incentives.

It’s partially my fault for not stating more of those initially. What do you think of them? Still too abstract/insufficient an impetus?

I think your definition for objective empiricism is a tad too fallacious. It is still the prerogative of an individual to assess whether the individual who observed it has adequate perceptive and cognitive skills.

Call it narcissism if you want, but I won’t adapt others’ perspectives just because it worked for them.

We are so not on the same page when it comes to IMPETUS. That hope is not impetus, that is a mere abstract incentive that doesn’t really provide a concrete answer to the onus of proof. Convenience and peace of mind, imho, are not sufficient enough to be considered impetus.

Point A is riddled with one too many logical leaps. He’s a great moral teacher so he’s not hypocrite. There’s too much assumptions done on that paragraph alone. He died for his own lie - his own ego.

You say “riddled”. I quoted (sorry, it should have been the other way around):

a) [ed: referring to b)] if nothing else, Christ was a great moral teacher, but if he were a great moral teacher how could he also be a hypocrite at the same time? McDowell concludes that for this case to be true, Jesus would have to be a “deliberate liar,� and this does not coincide with his life teachings. Furthermore, why would he, or any man die for a lie?

So you have a couple correlations: Jesus was a teacher, but not a hypocrite. If he was a con man, he would have had to be deliberately lying. This does not coincide with his teachings. He died for his teachings.

Can you explain to me which of these are logical (rational) leaps, please?

As far as dying for his own ego is concerned, Jesus repeatedly says that he is there to accomplish the will of his Father, not to bring glory to himself. So this is just a false assertion.

To recap: wouldn’t you say the biggest problem with Christians today is their inability to walk the walk? Jesus did that and more.

Point B, well, go use that argument for the person who started Hinduism, Buddhism and all the other major religions. Those millions can’t be all wrong, right?

You don’t directly respond to the rebuttal, but that’s fine. You bring up the point of absolute truth claims vs. pantheism, which claims that all religions offer routes to salvation/heaven (ref: princeton definition at the bottom).The important point is to know that each religion has its own claim to absolute truth. The fact of the matter is, few meet the criteria of scientific, rational, and/or social criticism.

Again, there’s no impetus for the non-optimistic and empricist.

Non-optimistic and empiricist? Do you mean to say you’re a pessimist and subjective empiricist? (I’m actually a pessimist of sorts as well. But it’s with with regards to humans, not life in general). If so, to address the first point - pessimism - I think the opposite logic applies. Oftentimes, the case is usually that the pessimist who takes their philosophy to its logical conclusion (i.e. suicide) will usually find impetus in the form of hope in Jesus, and in faith.

As for subjective empiricism, this is in truth a euphemism for narcissism.

Objective empiricism (which I will define as trusting/using other people’s experiences as validation of your own) is an improvement to gaining an understanding of truth as far as its helps to avoid narcissism.

This is a great question that was addressed in More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell. It talks about the trichotomy of Lord, liar or lunatic (obviously, I recommend it for reading).

To address your points, though:

a) if nothing else, Christ was a great moral teacher, but if he were a great moral teacher how could he also be a hypocrite at the same time? McDowell concludes that for this case to be true, Jesus would have to be a “deliberate liar,� and this does not coincide with his life teachings. Furthermore, why would he, or any man die for a lie?

b) On the other hand, if Christ were a lunatic, “then couldn’t he actually have thought himself to be God, but been mistaken. For a man to have done this in such a fiercely monotheistic culture (Judaism) as that which existed during Christ’s life, would be “no slight flight of fancy (going crazy)�. Yet, how could the instructions of an insane man liberate so “many individuals in mental bondage� (dogmaticism/Pharisaical teaching)?

Point A is riddled with one too many logical leaps. He’s a great moral teacher so he’s not hypocrite. There’s too much assumptions done on that paragraph alone. He died for his own lie - his own ego.

Point B, well, go use that argument for the person who started Hinduism, Buddhism and all the other major religions. Those millions can’t be all wrong, right?

—

Again, there’s no impetus for the non-optimistic and empricist.

Why are you then discounting the possibility that christ could have been just a) mentally disturbed and b) a con man who continues to deceive more than a billion people all over world?

This is a great question that was addressed in More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell. It talks about the trichotomy of Lord, liar or lunatic (obviously, I recommend it for reading).

To address your points, though:

a) if nothing else, Christ was a great moral teacher, but if he were a great moral teacher how could he also be a hypocrite at the same time? McDowell concludes that for this case to be true, Jesus would have to be a “deliberate liar,” and this does not coincide with his life teachings. Furthermore, why would he, or any man die for a lie?

b) On the other hand, if Christ were a lunatic, “then couldn’t he actually have thought himself to be God, but been mistaken. For a man to have done this in such a fiercely monotheistic culture (Judaism) as that which existed during Christ’s life, would be “no slight flight of fancy (going crazy)”. Yet, how could the instructions of an insane man liberate so “many individuals in mental bondage” (dogmaticism/Pharisaical teaching)?

Again… Impetus. There is no impetus to believe and the christian setup in general is a self-serving one with the trappings of meritocracy.

I hope you’re not concluding that in a summation response to my posts.

There is free choice, but is almost non existent due to the gravity of the supposed benefits and punishments.

Free choice definitely does have heavy costs/benefits, but it’s not a wash. The fact that you are still able to retain choice even after “making it” is a testament to the precise degree of your autonomy.

THAT setup was meant to make the weak minded ones submit into the fledgling religion.

This is, in plain words, wrong. Referencing Acts and specifically Paul, many were liberated from “practicing religion” (dogmaticism/legalism), which lead to the revolutionizing of Rome and eventual conversion of Constantine (would you call him “weak minded”?) in 312.

Again… Impetus. There is no impetus to believe and the christian setup in general is a self-serving one with the trappings of meritocracy. There is free choice, but is almost non existent due to the gravity of the supposed benefits and punishments. THAT setup was meant to make the weak minded ones submit into the fledgling religion.

I would never be overcome by something that abstract. And yes, that was a sincere question.

You say “I would never be overcome…”, but the mindset is actually one of coming to an understanding about yourself in a very real, concrete way.

Interesting, huh? Read it again: the mindset is actually one of coming to an understanding about yourself, not regressing to child-like thinking.

I appreciate your moderate stance, but your arguments will hardly convince any atheists - at least not the ones that i know. The impetus to change is again, very subjective. It’s probably something that the creators of the religion injected into the philosophy to create a false stimuli for people to acknowledge the christian god.

My stance isn’t moderate at all. There’s no (and should never be) politicising of religion - especially in Christianity. I think it is an orthodox position, meaning there’s a paradigm shift in order - that is from politics to philosophy :).

With regards to your second comment, the actual genesis of Christianity started post-Resurrection when more than 500 witnesses saw, touched, ate with, and spoke to Jesus. As a result of the testimony of these first-century Christians, Rome underwent a sea-change (confirmed by Josephus, et. al).

Only over time has it become more subjective - as instances of the power of God in miracles and tongues has markedly decreased in most areas.

Again, the threat of eternal damnation is nothing but an unbelievably sadistic setup promulgated by the unanalytical inventors of the christian religion. They probably thought that such blackmail tactic would be enough to scare people into joining their congregation. Its a good thing that a lot of people probe a lot deeper than those mere threats.

… to say that there were “inventors” of “the christian religion” is a fallacy. Let me say it again: Jesus was the sole “inventor” and “promulgator” of Christianity.

I appreciate your moderate stance, but your arguments will hardly convince any atheists - at least not the ones that i know. The impetus to change is again, very subjective. It’s probably something that the creators of the religion injected into the philosophy to create a false stimuli for people to acknowledge the christian god.

Again, the threat of eternal damnation is nothing but an unbelievably sadistic setup promulgated by the unanalytical inventors of the christian religion. They probably thought that such blackmail tactic would be enough to scare people into joining their congregation. Its a good thing that a lot of people probe a lot deeper than those mere threats.

Let me into your head. Why do you believe?

Are you asking this rhetorically? Or is it a sincere question?

I’m pretty sure that your reasons will not be compelling enough for a lot of atheists. Atheism more often than not arises from an inability to believe/ inability to see the impetus in believing in something.

Yes, it may sound a bit bordering on predestination, but the mere fact that the CHANCE to sin and the CHANCE to judge is present does present it like pure blackmail. Sin and Judgment didn’t need to be formulated into the equation at all.

Well, that’s why it’s called free will/self-determinism. If we didn’t know what it was like to be away from God, what benefit would we have being with him? We blackmail ourselves.

SIN and SALVATION were inserted to the setup to make him/her/it more relevant and less prone to the ambivalence of ’slaves’. Total blackmail, really.

Ambivalence, or total rebellion?

Part of the answer to your first question is that I know I am sinful. Whether I’m not lusting, swearing carelessly, or simply disregarding others to serve myself - all these I recognize as my sinfulness.

This pattern was especially apparent during my high school years, where despite going to church every Sunday, I turned around and indulged in every kind of lust and individualism. I was a narcissist and I didn’t realize it: because my parents held me up as their trophy, I saw myself in the same light.

And it was then that I saw that I couldn’t stop myself, either. This is when I realized I needed to be saved.

This is how my journey of faith began - very subjectively. Since then, as you’ve partially seen, I’ve been gathering all kinds of information regarding the life sciences, philosophy (especially epistemology and ontology), anthropology, etc… and they’ve all served as further evidence that Jesus was who he said he was.

So, I probably debate with you ad infinitum, but that doesn’t usually make a difference. Real change comes from the heart, and comes to affect everything - especially the head.