Philosophy Now Forum

David Handeye wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

David Handeye wrote:Who told you? All the saints of catholic church are the ancient gods.
One saint, one god.

The world is a big place, and Catholicism has only been around for a very short time.

What about the millions of other people following the wrong god? What happens to them?
Why does god seem impotent about their salvation?

In fact. But this is the hypocrisys, or in any correct way it should be written, of religions.

Indeed, that is exactly the point of the OP.

But we would also have to conclude that the story religions tell is inconsistent with the picture of God they offer.

thedoc wrote:I believe it is the teaching that those who do not know Christ are viewed as an innocents, and will not be condemmed.

Read closely, OP speaks of ancient civs, and Christianity isn't excatly ancient.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote: I believe it is the teaching that those who do not know Christ are viewed as an innocents, and will not be condemmed.

What does "not condemned" mean? Surely that makes a mockery of the whole system.
And as I am an atheist but what happens to me, having rejected god?

Since you know about God and have rejected God, you would be condemmed, and you can interpret Condemm however you like. In the end it will not be your decision, or perhaps it will.

HexHammer wrote:

thedoc wrote:I believe it is the teaching that those who do not know Christ are viewed as an innocents, and will not be condemmed.

Read closely, OP speaks of ancient civs, and Christianity isn't excatly ancient.

It is the teaching of Christianity that Christ was God from the beginning, so to know God is to know Christ.

private wrote:how does the fact that thousands-millions of gods have faded into obscurity not ring with the religious?
i seriously cant understand how you could ignore it
it is not complicated
insight?

private

You assume wrongly that believers believe. They mostly do not. They are just following culture and tradition and daddies God and that is all. That is why they profess to believe the garbage they do. They have never really put much thought into it. These are basically dumb sheep don't forget.

Regards
DL

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote: I believe it is the teaching that those who do not know Christ are viewed as an innocents, and will not be condemmed.

What does "not condemned" mean? Surely that makes a mockery of the whole system.
And as I am an atheist but what happens to me, having rejected god?

Since you know about God and have rejected God, you would be condemmed, and you can interpret Condemm however you like. In the end it will not be your decision, or perhaps it will.

All I know about is a god that makes no sense. I am so made as to be skeptical of bullshit.

The point about ancient civilisations are no different. Their experience and information led them to a conclusion different from the Christian one.
For me the point is as valid. I see a plethora of gods and religions and see no reason to chose one over the other. Am I to be condemned for applying (god given) reason?

thedoc wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

thedoc wrote:I believe it is the teaching that those who do not know Christ are viewed as an innocents, and will not be condemmed.

Read closely, OP speaks of ancient civs, and Christianity isn't excatly ancient.

It is the teaching of Christianity that Christ was God from the beginning, so to know God is to know Christ.

That's just your opinion based on nothing.
Islam says something else, so does Judaism. There are many other religions to choose from; all seem as incoherent as the next.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: That's just your opinion based on nothing.
.

Yes, my belief is based on nothing that you would accept.

Your disbelief is also based on nothing that I accept.

There is no difference, since both beliefs are based on nothing tangible.

I know there are Christians who believe they must convince everyone of their point of view, I'm not one of them. I am willing to accept your decision about what you believe, I only ask the same in return. When I post, the purpose is not to convince you to believe as I do, it's only to inform you, what I believe.

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: That's just your opinion based on nothing.
.

Yes, my belief is based on nothing that you would accept.

Your disbelief is also based on nothing that I accept.

There is no difference, since both beliefs are based on nothing tangible.

I know there are Christians who believe they must convince everyone of their point of view, I'm not one of them. I am willing to accept your decision about what you believe, I only ask the same in return. When I post, the purpose is not to convince you to believe as I do, it's only to inform you, what I believe.

My disbelief is based on reason and evidence. It's a shame that you cannot accept what for all other things you find reasonable.
You are not in a position to accept 'what i believe' as I do not belief in any thing. And no you cannot expect me to accept anything you believe.
When a person is wrong , it is my duty to say so.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: That's just your opinion based on nothing.
.

Yes, my belief is based on nothing that you would accept.

Your disbelief is also based on nothing that I accept.

There is no difference, since both beliefs are based on nothing tangible.

I know there are Christians who believe they must convince everyone of their point of view, I'm not one of them. I am willing to accept your decision about what you believe, I only ask the same in return. When I post, the purpose is not to convince you to believe as I do, it's only to inform you, what I believe.

My disbelief is based on reason and evidence. It's a shame that you cannot accept what for all other things you find reasonable.
You are not in a position to accept 'what i believe' as I do not belief in any thing. And no you cannot expect me to accept anything you believe.
When a person is wrong , it is my duty to say so.

I have read many claims that God does not exist and so far none of the claimed evidence has held up to my reasoning. I don't claim to have seen all of it so if you have something new and compelling I'll look at it. FYI, I do not ascribe to "The God of the Gaps" as proof or disproof of God, in fact I do not exclude God from any aspect of the Universe. I would say that science is discovering and describing what God has done, our ability to explain some aspect of the world does not exclude God. Also I do not attempt to place limits on God, I just don't know all that God is capable of and I do not feel qualified to say what God cannot do, or must do.

thedoc wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote: Yes, my belief is based on nothing that you would accept.

Your disbelief is also based on nothing that I accept.

There is no difference, since both beliefs are based on nothing tangible.

I know there are Christians who believe they must convince everyone of their point of view, I'm not one of them. I am willing to accept your decision about what you believe, I only ask the same in return. When I post, the purpose is not to convince you to believe as I do, it's only to inform you, what I believe.

My disbelief is based on reason and evidence. It's a shame that you cannot accept what for all other things you find reasonable.
You are not in a position to accept 'what i believe' as I do not belief in any thing. And no you cannot expect me to accept anything you believe.
When a person is wrong , it is my duty to say so.

I have read many claims that God does not exist and so far none of the claimed evidence has held up to my reasoning. .

That's backwards thinking. There is no burden to prove a negative. The burden is to prove god exists.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:There is no burden to prove a negative.

Absolutely incorrect. If you say the Sun does not exist and expect anyone to assent, the burden is absolutely on you to prove it. Insofar as you take it as your duty to say when a person is wrong, it is absolutely your duty to show how. If you say to someone who has good reason to believe in God that are wrong to do so, you shoulder the burden of proving your point. otherwise, the most reasonable option for them is continue believing as they do. That you do not understand just adds more evidence to the case for your ignorance. Given that you cannot do this (as you demonstrate time and time again), you are little more than Don Quixote: tilting at windmills.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:The burden is to prove god exists.

As with the Sun, the burden exists only if you expect others to assent. Thedoc has made it fairly clear that he does not expect you to assent, so he's under no such burden. That he's asked for some sort of mutual respect for particular belief systems is just what civilized people try to do upon reaching an impasse. Then again, it's the Internet, so civilized discourse may not apply here.


Doc, I'm pretty sure you're engaged in an exercise in futility here. Hobbes has decided he knows what theists, generally, and Christians, specifically, actually think and believe, and that he's exempt from having to show how. Assertion is his forté, with demonstration being a casualty of his ignorance. That he has appropriated Hobbes' good name should be mildly scandalous. I'm sure Hobbes himself would disapprove.

ReliStuPhD wrote: Doc, I'm pretty sure you're engaged in an exercise in futility here. Hobbes has decided he knows what theists, generally, and Christians, specifically, actually think and believe, and that he's exempt from having to show how. Assertion is his forté, with demonstration being a casualty of his ignorance. That he has appropriated Hobbes' good name should be mildly scandalous. I'm sure Hobbes himself would disapprove.

Wouldn't be the first time, both on forums and in face to face situations. It usually doesn't take long for me to just walk away, actually and figuratively. I'm just too tired to fight anymore. All I'm looking for is a civil exchange of ideas and others to accept that what I say I believe is actually what I believe. I will say that I get onto forums so that I can express my thoughts and if someone tears them apart and hands them back to me, I can reassemble them better the next time. That has been a great help over the years on various forums.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

thedoc wrote: I have read many claims that God does not exist and so far none of the claimed evidence has held up to my reasoning. .

That's backwards thinking. There is no burden to prove a negative. The burden is to prove god exists.

How can I offer proof when I don't believe that there is any proof? Belief in God is based on faith that is not based on proof. Your demand, is a fool's errand.

If there is no burden to prove a negative, then stop stating it. A negative without proof, is nothing.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:[q

That's just your opinion based on nothing.
Islam says something else, so does Judaism. There are many other religions to choose from; all seem as incoherent as the next.

I think Gnostic Christianity the exception to that rule.

Regards
DL