This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe (page 49)

John_Mann

Many scholars disagree but even so, predicting that the Roman's patience would soon run out with the Jews is not impressive at all. When we read those prophecies in detail it is clear you have to cherry-pick a couple of phrases to get anything useful for your case. That is always the case with bible prophecy.

Actually was very impressive.

BTW there are some paranormal events in the Temple after the Cruxification until the destruction. Jewish priests documented such events.

What statistics are you referring to? I am making a simple observation that if god revealed anything through the bible it is reasonable to expect some evidence of that when you read the book. There is none.

This your subjective opinion.

Statistics can be used to compare excludent subjective opinions. The majority of subjective opinions is there's evidence of Divine revelation in the Bible.

Personally I would have hinted at germ theory of disease. Or mentioned the fact that the earth and other planets revolve around the sun. Something simple but interesting and way ahead of its time.

The purpose of the Bible is the salvation of the soul.

I was going to carry on but you get the picture.
All your work is ahead of you. This is a thread where I am very happy with the OP and very disappointed with the quality of the conversation that followed.

Just your opinion (again).

Nobody - absolutely nobody - cares about you Roman Catholic dogma. It is totally irrelevant to challenge.

So the position of the largest monotheistic religion in human history is totally irrelevant in a discussion about God.

Your reasoning is very strange...

John_Mann

The only theological assumptions I am making is that there is a god who made all things, who is the epitome of love and goodness, who is active in the world and who desires a relationship with humans.

Metaphysically active.

Physically actions or interventions from God are miracles and they are quite rare.

cofty

John I can't imagine there is anything useful to say that you haven't said a dozen times already.

Everything you have written makes the nine points in my OP even more convincing.

"God is not a magician" is perhaps the most amazing thing I have ever read in this forum.

John_Mann

"God is not a magician" is perhaps the most amazing thing I have ever read in this forum.

I know you think God is a magician.

But magicians are bound by nothing.

That's why magicians are just fiction.

It's very easy to be an Atheist with such silly and flawed concepts of God.

John_Mann

Nietzsche was the most intelligent and sincere Atheist in human history.

He knew Atheism is not a logical conclusion but an axiom or a starting point.

His axiom is quite intriguing (God is dead instead of the usual there's no God).

His personal justification of his axiom is just a sensation of joy (Gay Science) from this axiom, or the joyful knowledge of knowing God is dead.

Also it's very interesting his unique concept of oblivion (logical conclusion of Atheism).

His oblivion is the eternal recurrence/return (his greatest idea according to himself).

This idea says that all things will repeat itself in the same way forever. But there's no awareness of this repetition, maybe only to a few lucky (like him).

Those who are aware of the eternal return must decide if it's heaven or hell. Nietzsche said he decided to chose heaven. He said yes to the eternal return.

This is defined as metaphysical Atheism.

Recently we have a New Atheism proposed by the "Four Horsemen" (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens).

The New Atheism's axiom (PROBABLY there's no God) is justified by Scientism and logical refutation of Sola Scriptura.

Many people give intellectual and volitional value to a normal (but temporary) doubt about the existence of God. This situation is described by the St. John of the Cross as the "dark night of the soul", and he explained this is a necessary purification to the soul.

cofty

Atheism = I find the claims that Christians make about the world to be unconvincing. In the OP I described 9 examples of my reasons.

Nobody speaks for atheism. Least of all Neitzsche.

John_Mann

Nobody speaks for atheism.

Yes.

Because Atheism it's not a logical conclusion but one single article of personal faith.

Nietzsche is just the most famous Atheist.

Every atheist has a different metaphysical justification to the axiom of Atheism.

The nearest point of consensus in justification of Atheism is from the "Four Horsemen".

Atheism is a philosophical mess.

Atheism = I find the claims that Christians make about the world to be unconvincing.

Thank you for your justification of Atheism.

But I don't agree with your justification of faith.

Do you mean all Christians as individuals? If so, how did you get to personally know 1/3 of the world population?

Do you mean all Christian denominations? I think your knowledge of Catholicism is very poor.

Did you ever considered Agnosticism?

Agnosticism is a very logical position.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_justification

punkofnice

JM - Atheism is a philosophical mess.

Says a believer in god! Oh, the irony!

'Atheist' (at least for me), is simply a label for not believing in a deitybecause there is no evidence.

There is no philosophy involved. With respect, JM, I think you're getting confused here. Dawkins, neiz...neets...nietz.....yeah, that German bloke. are not spokes persons for something you seem to think is a belief system.

In fact I'd go as far as to say that the term 'atheist' needn't even exist. That way there won't be people asserting what it is and getting it wrong.

John_Mann

There is no philosophy involved.

If you really think this you're against all academic knowledge in human history.

Atheism is a metaphysical claim.

Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy.

It's that simple.

Be very careful of the those who try to prevent you from philosophy.

Philosophy is the universal headlight of human understanding.

punkofnice

JM - If you really think this you're against all academic knowledge in human history.
Atheism is a metaphysical claim. blah blah rhubarb blah.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. whatever.

I really do think you're having us on though, JM. You do give me a laugh, you are a card.

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

Share this