A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[thedoc]

The point of this thread is not whether people are good or bad, but what reason do they have to be one way or the other. It seems that a lot of members are trying to justify their own position by claiming that they are good people, and this is beside the point, it doesn't matter.

And that has been answered brilliantly. Theists are incapable of understanding the answers of non-theists. No surprise there.

And you think that non-theists understand the answers and comments of theists, you are in some kind of fantasy world.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

''...only one major translation of the Bible, the King James Version, contains the word "hell" in the Old Testament.''

Yes the other translations replaced the word Hell with Sheol, so they did not abandon the concept, just changed to another word. Nice try though.

'Sheol' does not mean hell, not even close to it.

[thedoc]

Christians are not required to impose their beliefs on anyone, but there are other religions that believe they are required to do so. Christians are only required to state their beliefs to others, then it is up to God to influence that other person, and even then it is not imposing the belief, only stating what is believed. You have a rather distorted view of Christianity.

Do I? Aren't there parts of Christianity that are distorted -- even amongst Christians themselves? Are you unable to see how much Christianity is imposed on our culture and our world? It's WAY beyond simply "stating" what is believed.

Please consider this: Do you find it annoying when Bob repeatedly states what he believes over and over and over? How is that appropriate and necessary for him to do? If nobody is asking... and it has already been stated... and anyone can go find more information if they want it. What if a U.S. president being sworn in had to place his hand on Bob's Ouzo manuscript? Or what if U.S. currency was imprinted with "In Ouzo We Trust"? Would you think that a belief system you didn't share was being imposed on you? Would you urge the end of such madness?

Why should one belief system continually "talk over" other perspectives?

If your point was not to ask if I was annoyed at his point, then what was it? Can you state it plainly without obscuring it with other comments?

[thedoc]

''...only one major translation of the Bible, the King James Version, contains the word "hell" in the Old Testament.''

Yes the other translations replaced the word Hell with Sheol, so they did not abandon the concept, just changed to another word. Nice try though.

'Sheol' does not mean hell, not even close to it.

Sheol in Hebrew, was translated into Hades in Greek, and then into Hell in English, so they all mean the same place.

[Lacewing]

And that has been answered brilliantly. Theists are incapable of understanding the answers of non-theists. No surprise there.

And you think that non-theists understand the answers and comments of theists, you are in some kind of fantasy world.

The challenge was to atheists, correct? So the atheists were supposed to answer. The theists rejected and lacked understanding of the non-theist answers.

Now how about a new question aimed at theists to see whether non-theists understand the answers of theists? Here's the question: Why isn't everything of god?

[thedoc]

And that has been answered brilliantly. Theists are incapable of understanding the answers of non-theists. No surprise there.

And you think that non-theists understand the answers and comments of theists, you are in some kind of fantasy world.

The challenge was to atheists, correct? So the atheists were supposed to answer. The theists rejected and lacked understanding of the non-theist answers.

Now how about a new question aimed at theists to see whether non-theists understand the answers of theists? Here's the question: Why isn't everything of god?

You seem to confuse misunderstanding with not agreeing. Theists don't always agree with a Non-theists answer, but that does not indicate not understanding.

But everything is "of God" just because we don't understand it doesn't make it one way or the other. Humans don't see things the same way that God might, so your question is meaningless.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Yes the other translations replaced the word Hell with Sheol, so they did not abandon the concept, just changed to another word. Nice try though.

'Sheol' does not mean hell, not even close to it.

Sheol in Hebrew, was translated into Hades in Greek, and then into Hell in English, so they all mean the same place.

No they don't. 'Sheol' roughly translates as 'grave'. There's no punishment aspect. Anyway, you should be pleased. Now you don't have to worry yourself about burning and being tortured forever.

[Lacewing]

If your point was not to ask if I was annoyed at his point, then what was it? Can you state it plainly without obscuring it with other comments?

Here you go...

> Do you find it annoying when Bob repeatedly states what he believes over and over and over?

You answered NO, because you can ignore his posts. Okay, since you're zeroing in on this in a very literal way, to the exclusion of all else, we can skip this question rather than asking you to consider this in the larger context that's being presented.

To put this back into context, you said that Christians are only "stating" their beliefs, whereas I think theist beliefs are imposed much more broadly. So my questions were meant to give you an example of what YOU might experience if Bob's beliefs replaced theists beliefs. Since you seem unable to acknowledge that theism is imposed on non-theists, I was hoping to give you an example you could relate to by using Bob's bizarre beliefs. Thus, the following questions...

> How is that appropriate and necessary for Bob to repeatedly state what he believes over and over -- if nobody is asking... and it has already been stated... and anyone can go find more information if they want it?

> What if a U.S. president being sworn in had to place his hand on Bob's Ouzo manuscript? Or what if U.S. currency was imprinted with "In Ouzo We Trust"? Would you think that a belief system you didn't share was being imposed on you?

> Would you urge the end of such madness?

> Why should one belief system continually "talk over" other perspectives?

Okay... go ahead and misunderstand and slink around these questions too... or surprise me!

[Lacewing]

Theists don't always agree with a Non-theists answer, but that does not indicate not understanding.

Don't you think a non-theist can tell when there's a lack of understanding by a theist who is not "getting it" in the way the non-theist intends it?

But everything is "of God" just because we don't understand it doesn't make it one way or the other. Humans don't see things the same way that God might, so your question is meaningless.

My question is not meaningless. I'm asking of the theist: WHY in the theist belief system, everything isn't of God? Clearly there are many things that theists judge and condemn as being wrong and evil. Why aren't THOSE things of God? Why are theists seeing so much that is NOT of God?

[Dubious]

Christian theism vs atheism or agnosticism is likely doomed to becoming a moot point. Eventually theism of the Islamic variety will be dominant in the Western Sphere which will be equally displeasing to atheists, agnostics and Christian theists. The Eastern Orthodox version of Christianity is likely to be less affected. These kind of conversations, in short, may no-longer be considered Halal in the future.

[Lacewing]

Christian theism vs atheism or agnosticism is likely doomed to becoming a moot point. Eventually theism of the Islamic variety will be dominant in the Western Sphere which will be equally displeasing to atheists, agnostics and Christian theists. The Eastern Orthodox version of Christianity is likely to be less affected. These kind of conversations, in short, may no-longer be considered Halal in the future.

I was thinking along these lines earlier today. At some point, Christian theists are likely going to experience what it's like to have a particular brand of theism (other than their own) unpleasantly imposed on them.

[surreptitious57]

there are a lot of people who call themselves Atheists

There are atheists but there are no Atheists. Atheism is not a proper noun. There may be atheists who call themselves Atheists
but they are still only atheist like all atheists. This may be because of so called New Atheism but it is still atheism not Atheism
All atheists are atheists. That and nothing else. So terms such as Atheism and New Atheism are both misplaced and superfluous

So you are complaining about capitalizing the word because you dont believe that its a proper noun. If that is what you choose
to believe its OK with me just dont try to cram your beliefs down my throat isnt that what you accuse Christians of trying to do

Where exactly have I tried to cram my beliefs down your throat? You are free to accept or reject anything I say
I have no jurisdiction over that at all. But it is interesting how you think that that is what I am trying to do here

[Dubious]

Christian theism vs atheism or agnosticism is likely doomed to becoming a moot point. Eventually theism of the Islamic variety will be dominant in the Western Sphere which will be equally displeasing to atheists, agnostics and Christian theists. The Eastern Orthodox version of Christianity is likely to be less affected. These kind of conversations, in short, may no-longer be considered Halal in the future.

I was thinking along these lines earlier today. At some point, Christian theists are likely going to experience what it's like to have a particular brand of theism (other than their own) unpleasantly imposed on them.

Not only that but there is no separation of Church and State in the Muslim world. This alone will have monumental consequences. I heard that in the UK and no doubt in some major European centers Mullahs are already calling for the implementation of Sharia law. If this is allowed to begin at some incipient level, we will know that most of our Western values are fated to crumble or morph into something unexpected not in the least desirable to us in the here and now. Ironically, those Westerners most able to recognize or even acknowledge these changes would be us 500 years ago.

Politically correct or not the the result of an Islamic exodus to Western lands can best be described as a New Age or resurgent Medievalism. If the West succumbs it can only be through collusion without the will to stop or reverse the process. If that should come to pass, the West deserves everything that's coming to it including the eradication of its culture which I'm sure most educated Muslims wouldn't allow to happen.

[uwot]

... but you, yourself, do not provide the "minimum reply" that non-theists deserve to their questions/points made of you.

You can look back at the various conversations I've had on this forum, and see that many times I've gone over such evidence. But you will also see something else, if you track those conversations: that Atheists simply claim that any evidence is not evidence.

I'll save you the bother, Lacewing.
This is how Mr Can introduced himself three years ago:

Male, fifties; by training, a philosopher and theologian both.

Socrates said he knew nothing. I am sure, therefore, that my own wisdom is strictly limited. I cannot account for most of what goes on in the universe...

But Immanuel can.

Since that ime, Mr Can has made several attempts to persuade us that Jesus Christ will burn unbelievers in hell, based on his version of the cosmological and teleological arguments. Each time it has been pointed out that the cosmological argument is not sound, and that the evidence he moans about us not accepting as evidence is as compelling as the Christmas presents under the tree being evidence for Santa. Which is what he's whinging about again here:

And ultimately, there is actually nothing you can show to someone that will cause them to believe if they are just bound and determined not to regard any of it.

Generally, dismantling his arguments has shut up him for a while, only for him to come back six to eight weeks later, to repeat the same old rubbish as if the previous episodes hadn't happened. There was a development last time round: ArisingUK had pretty much wiped the floor with his silly arguments and Mr Can knew it. Instead of conceding with some sort of honour intact, Mr Can whimpered that Arising should read the bible for three months to see if he could find God in it. Bizarrely, Mr Can knows he is talking nonsense, but refuses to accept it:

There's an old saying: "There are none so blind as those who will not see." (John Heywood, 1546)

You said it, Mr Can.

[thedoc]

Theists don't always agree with a Non-theists answer, but that does not indicate not understanding.

Don't you think a non-theist can tell when there's a lack of understanding by a theist who is not "getting it" in the way the non-theist intends it?

Too many times one member will read another's post with their own biases, and in their reply answer a completely different question, there have been many times I will make a post saying one thing and the other member will come back claiming that I am stating something else. This thread is no exception there have been places where one member changes the meaning of another's post. Usually it's the non-theist accusing a theist of a position or belief that the theist did not state in the first place.