Epic Debate Over God's Existance

[Coolhand]

 

[Coolhand]

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 6/30/2020 at 10:38 AM, Coolhand said:

 

 

 

 

That was a tedious three hours.  Insisting on absolute morality.  Telling Atheists what they really believe.  

 

Which part did you find "epic"?  

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

I finally finished both videos.  They had much in common.

 

The side insisting on the reality of God is Christian.  The God that they were defending is the Christian God.  Not as such -- "God".  In the first video, the Christians went further.  That they were not Charismatics.  That they were Scripturalists.  I find this problematic.  At this time, there are more Muslims in the world than Christians.  Not a word about the reality of Allah?  The Christians in the first video went on at great length about the Trinity.  That means it is a minority view of God being presented.

 

In Both videos, the Christians spent a great deal of effort, insisting on Absolute/Objective morality as an argument for their God.  The short version is that morals prove that God exists.  That without God, we have no morals.  At least, no objective morals.

 

I think this very much misses the point.  We might want objective morality from God.  Even need objective morals from God.  Unless God actually exists, none of that counts for anything.  Ignored was the fact that Christian Scripture, hence God, has no problem with slavery.  That by itself, makes objective morality from God into a dubious proposition.  There was also no mention of all the slaughter and genocide commanded by God.  No Objective Morality is a miserable argument for God.

 

It also remains to be said:  The scriptures were created by people.  The people of their time.  We can pretend that these Scriptures came from God.  Or we can face the fact that men wrote those Scriptures.  Whether we believe in God or not -- our ethics and morality come from Humanity.

 

In the first video, the Christian panel kept insisting, that the Atheists actually --  really -- do believe in God.  That the Atheists were in denial about their own actual beliefs.  The Atheists kept insisting that, no, they did not believe in God.  In the second video, William Lain Craig kept telling Christopher Hitchens the "correct" meaning of "Atheism".  When Christopher Hitchens insisted on his understanding of Atheism, it was ignored.  I've been in such discussions as the Atheist.  To say that it's irritating is an understatement.  There is something so unspeakably smug, about Christians insisting on what it means to be an Atheist.  It's the kind of thing that poisons discussion.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

William Lain Craig kept telling Christopher Hitchens the "correct" meaning of "Atheism".  When Christopher Hitchens insisted on his understanding of Atheism, it was ignored.

 

I can relate to that ..... The simple remedy is a dictionary, but Atheist don't seem to like that definition.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

44 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

I can relate to that ..... The simple remedy is a dictionary, but Atheist don't seem to like that definition.

 

You "relate" to the Christians, who think they know more about Atheism, than Atheists.  Seriously, your attitude -- and theirs -- poisons conversation.

 

You are incapable of understanding any point of view, that you don't share.

 

Dictionaries change, depending on cultural dominance.  In time, you will come to understand that.  The Wheel turns.  The Pendulum swings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

The simple remedy usually is a dictionary, you are right.  Yet, every time you argue something and decide the meaning of a word is different than everyone else, you refuse to acknowledge the dictionary definitions yourself Dan.  Do you know what that means, in dictionary terms?  Either double standard, or hypocrite.  Take your choice.  

 

Double standard:  A set of principles that apply differently to one group than to another.

Hypocrite:  a person who acts in contradiction to stated beliefs.

 

I pick option two, for you...you have stated a belief, yet act in contradiction to it.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Mormon argues with Protestant (Durbin).

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

 

Refuting Atheism          

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

 

Refuting -- Refuting Atheism:  An Atheist Responds     

 

 

[Dan56]

On 7/3/2020 at 1:24 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

You are incapable of understanding any point of view, that you don't share.

Dictionaries change, depending on cultural dominance.  In time, you will come to understand that.  The Wheel turns.  The Pendulum swings.

 

The dictionary isn't a point of view, it factually defines words. Atheist, noun meaning "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods".

Your essentially implying that in time, the definition will change and 'Atheist' will not mean, "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods"?

Nonsense... But just for fun, what do you think 'atheist' will mean 100 years from now?

 

On 7/3/2020 at 4:25 PM, cuchulain said:

The simple remedy usually is a dictionary, you are right.  Yet, every time you argue something and decide the meaning of a word is different than everyone else, you refuse to acknowledge the dictionary definitions yourself Dan.  Do you know what that means, in dictionary terms?  Either double standard, or hypocrite.  Take your choice.  

 

Double standard:  A set of principles that apply differently to one group than to another.

Hypocrite:  a person who acts in contradiction to stated beliefs.

 

I pick option two, for you...you have stated a belief, yet act in contradiction to it.  

 

I do not argue with the dictionary. The only time I generally argue the meaning of a word is in relation to the correct translation of a word, i.e; Hebrew to English or Greek to English.

Example; "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26 NKJV).

"Hate" is a bad translation, the Greek is 'miseo', better translated as 'love less' in English.

 

How in the world am I arguing that the meaning of 'Atheist' is anything other than what Websters describes it as meaning? If you choose to spin it to mean something different than the dictionary definition, then its not me who's applying a double standard! And give a direct example of how I contradict my stated belief? Just more nonsense, because its never happened.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

The dictionary isn't a point of view, it factually defines words. Atheist, noun meaning "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods".

Your essentially implying that in time, the definition will change and 'Atheist' will not mean, "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods"?

Nonsense... But just for fun, what do you think 'atheist' will mean 100 years from now?

 

 

I do not argue with the dictionary. The only time I generally argue the meaning of a word is in relation to the correct translation of a word, i.e; Hebrew to English or Greek to English.

Example; "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26 NKJV).

"Hate" is a bad translation, the Greek is 'miseo', better translated as 'love less' in English.

 

How in the world am I arguing that the meaning of 'Atheist' is anything other than what Websters describes it as meaning? If you choose to spin it to mean something different than the dictionary definition, then its not me who's applying a double standard! And give a direct example of how I contradict my stated belief? Just more nonsense, because its never happened.

 

 

This definition is accurate.          Congratulations.          

 

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

The dictionary isn't a point of view, it factually defines words. Atheist, noun meaning "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods".

Your essentially implying that in time, the definition will change and 'Atheist' will not mean, "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods"?

Nonsense... But just for fun, what do you think 'atheist' will mean 100 years from now?

 

 

I do not argue with the dictionary. The only time I generally argue the meaning of a word is in relation to the correct translation of a word, i.e; Hebrew to English or Greek to English.

Example; "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26 NKJV).

"Hate" is a bad translation, the Greek is 'miseo', better translated as 'love less' in English.

 

How in the world am I arguing that the meaning of 'Atheist' is anything other than what Websters describes it as meaning? If you choose to spin it to mean something different than the dictionary definition, then its not me who's applying a double standard! And give a direct example of how I contradict my stated belief? Just more nonsense, because its never happened.

You have stated previously that in god we trust supports the majority view so should be accepted by atheists.  Also, you recently said christians should be allowed to discriminate despite the majority view.

Yes you.

Contradicting a previous statement of belief.

Because you lack consistency and integrity .

[Dan56]

2 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

This definition is accurate.          Congratulations.        

 

I've posted that same definition before, so its nothing new.

 

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

You have stated previously that in god we trust supports the majority view so should be accepted by atheists.  Also, you recently said christians should be allowed to discriminate despite the majority view.

Yes you.

Contradicting a previous statement of belief.

Because you lack consistency and integrity .

 

Most Americans do support that inscription.

And I believe any exclusive group should be allowed to choose people who are compatible and aligned with their groups interest..  Its not prejudicial because I'd also support a Gay club or Atheist organization who refused to accept Christian members or volunteers. When we are denied the comradery and familiarity of freely associating with like-minded people, its the majority discriminating against individuality.

I don't think my opinion has waivered on that? Right or wrong, I may be the most consistent person here!

[Key]

13 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I've posted that same definition before, so its nothing new.

 

 

Most Americans do support that inscription.

And I believe any exclusive group should be allowed to choose people who are compatible and aligned with their groups interest..  Its not prejudicial because I'd also support a Gay club or Atheist organization who refused to accept Christian members or volunteers. When we are denied the comradery and familiarity of freely associating with like-minded people, its the majority discriminating against individuality.

I don't think my opinion has waivered on that? Right or wrong, I may be the most consistent person here!

Put that in the context of a temporary, and voluntary field hospital. If it was meant to truly save lives and was looking for people with a similar goal to do the same, then, yes, your statement is contradictory, in my view, when it places religion above their intended goal.

Also, it's most Americans for now. Think about why that is. Then know it is becoming less as certain groups are becoming more associated as hypocrites, sorry to say.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Key
more thought

[Dan56]

19 hours ago, Key said:

Put that in the context of a temporary, and voluntary field hospital. If it was meant to truly save lives and was looking for people with a similar goal to do the same, then, yes, your statement is contradictory, in my view, when it places religion above their intended goal.

Also, it's most Americans for now. Think about why that is. Then know it is becoming less as certain groups are becoming more associated as hypocrites, sorry to say.

 

Many, or at least some Christians, place nothing above God.. So in that sense, yes its discriminatory because God gets priority. Graham doesn't differentiate between the mission and God. Its purpose was in His name, which supersedes the objective.  That's considered faith, not hypocrisy. The greatest commandment comes before the second greatest commandment (Matthew 22:36-40).  

[cuchulain]

3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Many, or at least some Christians, place nothing above God.. So in that sense, yes its discriminatory because God gets priority. Graham doesn't differentiate between the mission and God. Its purpose was in His name, which supersedes the objective.  That's considered faith, not hypocrisy. The greatest commandment comes before the second greatest commandment (Matthew 22:36-40).  

Wasn't there something in there saying of faith hope and love the greatest is love?  Guess you pick a different order

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Many, or at least some Christians, place nothing above God.. So in that sense, yes its discriminatory because God gets priority. Graham doesn't differentiate between the mission and God. Its purpose was in His name, which supersedes the objective.  That's considered faith, not hypocrisy. The greatest commandment comes before the second greatest commandment (Matthew 22:36-40).  

 

Is that really an issue?  Placing nothing above God?

 

Taking the Gospels at face value -- Jesus was criticized for associating with "sinners".  Even dinning with them.

 

You did say that Jesus was the example for Humanity.

 

If Franklin Graham had been there -- he would have been one of the harshest of those critics.  He would have lead the critics.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2020 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Key]

8 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Many, or at least some Christians, place nothing above God.. So in that sense, yes its discriminatory because God gets priority. Graham doesn't differentiate between the mission and God. Its purpose was in His name, which supersedes the objective.  That's considered faith, not hypocrisy. The greatest commandment comes before the second greatest commandment (Matthew 22:36-40).  

"What you do for the least, you do also for me." Thus, He is the objective. Not using all possible resources to assist in the objective is a form of denying Him, then. That along with the Samaritan parable demonstrates the hypocrisy of certain "Christians".

It is also why there are many factions. Interpretation and faith, which interfere in the relation of doing works to save lives. Focus, initiative, and full use of knowledge and skill are better options to achieve intended goals when it comes to medicine, as we've seen through the ages time and time again.