Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Well, you've probably debated with me for long enough by now to have gained a vague idea of what my opinion of faith is. You tell me that I should just have faith in God because you do - why should I choose Christianity over Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, that Unicorn thing or some invisible god? They're all just as easy to have unjustified faith in.



Oh? Sorry about that. When?



Well, if we're going to be like that, I hope you enjoy wasting your life under the delusion that an utterly impossible deity will save you from your primal fear of oblivion after death and condemn all those who disagree with you to an absurdly terrible fate.



What about atheists who have "touched my life"? When a Christian does something remarkably benevolent it's a miracle of faith. When an infidel does it, it doesn't count because it doesn't help your argument. Correct?



Is that not essentially what I said?



Okay, say I'm not a church-going Christian (and most are, in my experience). There are still rules of the religion I'd have to adhere to which could spoil my enjoyment of life. For example, say I'm gay (which I'm not, but some people are). If I was to turn to Jesus, I would never be allowed to have sex in my life; if I remained atheist, I would not be denied that pleasure.

Also, I note you disregarded the bit about "integrity". Do you think I'd feel good about lying to everyone about what I believed throughout my life? About as good as you'd feel telling everyone you were a Satanist. Whereas I'd be much more comfortable being able to express my true views.



Don't want to believe in him? Look, if I was given the choice between oblivion and eternal bliss, which do you think I'd choose? But I can't believe in something as fundamentally nonsensical as Christian doctrine. I have to face the truth: it ain't real. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to get a slice of that eternal bliss stuff.

Can you believe in round triangles? No? Then don't go telling me I can believe in whatever I like.

Oh, and I don't believe there's anything in the past to forget about. It's what he intends to do to me in the future that worries me.



Not to put too fine a point on it, but yes, I do find the concept of faith absurd. It runs essentially thus: there might be a deity who will reward us if we believe in him. There is virtually no evidence at all for this being's existence and a condemning case against it. But who cares, let's have faith!

And if objecting to that train of thought earns me a ticket to Hell, there's something fundamentally wrong with the way the universe is run.



Ironic, isn't it?



Exactly that which I have been presenting throughout the topic. To clarify, here it is in logical steps:

1. Christianity is true. (Assumption.)
2. God exists. (From 1.)
3. God can do anything that is not a contradiction (like devising a task he can't do). (From 1.)
4. God loves every single one of us and would do anything to keep us from Hell. (From 1.)
5. This god sends all who do not believe in him to Hell. (From 1.)
6. God does not like the fact that infidels are going to Hell and would prevent it if he could. (From 4.)
7. God does not prevent this. (From 5.)
8. Therefore, God cannot prevent this. (From 4 and 5.)

Contradiction between 3 and 8. Therefore, premise 1 must be false.

Basically, it's the problem of evil, only with Hell instead.



By 'refutable' I presume you mean 'irrefutable'? If so, look one quote above.

Also, you only mention existing beliefs on Earth, which only brings the total to a finite (though large) amount. If you take into account all theological possibilities for unacknowledged gods, we have a literally infinite number of boats.



What, you mean cite one instance of a Christian who died but would have been converted if he hadn't died? I'm no psychic, you know.

If you mean an example of someone who turned away before dying - I'm right here. Analyse me.



I never mentioned ethics. I meant 'right' as a synonym for 'correct'.

But if we must get into it, I don't consider being an atheist unethical. I don't believe that I'm doing the world a great favour by assuming a certain theological viewpoint, but not do I consider it to be wrong in that sense. Why do you ask? Do you consider it wrong?



Well done. (Note that, as ever, by "God" I mean the Christian version of God; I'm not going to make generalisations about all nature of potential deities.)



That's also what you said, is it not?



If I may say so, that sounds like a very Chick-esque conversion - by which I mean the type where Christian A mentions Jesus, then Infidel-who's-never-heard-of-Christianity-in-their-life-before B asks them for more information about this Jesus person. This type of conversion is, of course, very rare.



Not sure whether that was a casual remark or a pro-theism argument out of the blue. If the latter, either that's a coincidence or a myth (with all due respect to your mother, of course).



Only three hours? If you think three hours is inconsequential, why don't you work for me for three hours every week?



And yet the vast majority of Christians subject themselves to this, allegedly because their faith requires it. If you think church has no place in Christianity, tell that to my parents (one of whom, incidentally, is an organist and the other helps at the Sunday school).



Eek! Where did that come from? Life certainly isn't useless from my perspective. All things considered, I rather enjoy it.



Ah. Might you be one of those people who believes morality can only come from belief in God?



Oh? And how do you profess to know whether or not I've been "blocked"?

I reiterate for clarity's sake: I have never received anything which is in any clear way a message from God. I have received relatively unlikely coincidences and brief feelings of a vague happiness, but nothing that can not be very easily attributed to statistics and natural phenomena. No-one who tells me that I have received such messages has any authority to judge what I do and don't think.

And frankly, it's downright insulting to attribute my lack of faith to my pride. I could just as easily say that your belief is pride-fuelled, you know.



Um, were you referring to ignoring all but two of an infinite number of possiblities or my post?



Just did. (See the numbered 1-8 bit.)



Yes, and that's why faith is irrational.

Evin: Cheers.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

Wow. I've never been said "cheers" to. Thanks for that monumentous moment in my life

anyhoots, I have a question for you Upsilon.
Do your parents know your atheists? Do they take you to church because they think you still believe in the religion, or do they take to because they want to to reconnect to it?

_________________

Sorry to jump in on your discussion like this - just saw a few points that I'd like to address.



I don't think so. God created everyone, and therefore when an "infidel" (I don't like that term) does something kind or miraculous, it's still a work of God, even if that person doesn't believe in Him.



Point taken. But I personally don't think that there are any rules in Christianity that keep me from enjoying life; even in your example of homosexuality - and LOTS of Christians will disagree with me on this point, I know - I believe that God loves us and I have a hard time believing that he would make people a certain way and then not accept them into His Kingdom. Now before you jump on me and say "What about atheists or murderers or others who are 'made that way'?", well, those things are choices that people make, not God.

But on to your argument...I think that some of the points you have aren't exactly correct...



Specifically with number 3...there really isn't anything God can't do, according to Christian doctrine...also in 6 - God doesn't like the fact that "infidels" are going to hell, you're right, but His "prevention", so to speak is His sacrifice of his only Son, Jesus. But I don't think that just because God doesn't prevent people from going to hell means that He can't prevent it. I mean, come on, would you wanna spend eternity with someone who doesn't like you?



Yes, but it does happen. And God has instructed us to teach all who will listen. Honestly, even as a Christian, I agree with you - the new teacher transferring probably was a coincidence...but perhaps it wasn't.



You're right about that. And I sometimes despise going to church because there are certain persons there who go to be seen and not to worship, because they think it's what they're supposed to do. And I honestly have people like you to thank for pointing that flaw out to me. Which is why when I do go to church (somewhat infrequently) I try my best to communicate with God during the service. But I also talk to God all the time in my regular life, too. I've said it somewhere else on one of these threads that when my life is troubled, there is no comfort like prayer. For me, it works, for others, it doesn't. Agree to disagree.



I can't speak for him/her, but I can speak for myself - morality doesn't come from belief God. God does teach us morality, and give us guidelines, but as you point out, there are plenty of moral atheists. I'm friends with several, and I love them, and I know God loves them too, despite their unbelief. And just in case you're wondering, no, I don't sit around and preach to them....but if they ever came to me and wanted to know about God, I'd teach them the best way I could.



Okay - I'm curious - what would you consider as a clear message from God? An angel? Then you'd have people throwing you in the loony bin! They'd never believe you saw an angel. I personally think that God communicates to us and works through us in ways that are appropriate for the time. He knows that if he just started "popping up" and talking to us, we'd probably be labled schizophrenic! Whereas in Biblical times, that wasn't a problem, so he would appear to people. Just like I think that's why there are no named female disciples/ministers/etc. in the Bible - God knew if they attempted to minister, they risked being hurt. Nowadays, women don't have that worry. I don't mean to make a joke of this, so seriously, what would you consider proof?

Upsilon, I just want to end this by saying that I genuinely enjoy having these debates with you. Your arguments are well thought out, and you don't resort to mudslinging, so just in case it needs to be said, I'm not condemning you for your beliefs. I am simply addressing some of the things you've said. I won't ever try to push Christianity on anyone, but if you ever change your mind, or you even want to know more about the man who loved each and every one of us so much that He died for us, just let me know.

_________________

Yes.

As you can see, I don't like to talk about it.



Yeah, but what makes a choice to do something innocuous any more reprehensible than being a certain way? For example, if I buy a book, that's a choice I made, but you can't argue that I should be punished for it. The fact that I'm responsible for it doesn't make it bad.



Surely that's not possible. Note that I gave the example of devising a task he can't do. Either he can do this action or he can't. If he can't, it means there's something he can't do. If he can, it also means there's something he can't do. So either way, it's impossible to be absolutely omnipotent.



If I die immediately after typing this up, will the fact that Jesus was crucified prevent me from going to Hell?



Interesting proposition. You're saying I'd prefer Hell?



Not if everyone saw angels. If everyone knew angels existed and that God existed, everyone would follow him. There'd be no need for innocent people to be sent to Hell.



Ditto here.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

What if christianity isn't the true religion? What if it is the "Church of Spongebob" or the "Jedi Knight" or the "Strong Sad is the devil" religons? Would the non-believers go to a "hell"?

I agree that us atheists are fighting an uphill battle. If we are wrong, we spend an eternity in hell, which sucks. If we are right, we spend eternity decomposing into the ground, while worms suck out our intestines, which sucks.

_________________
<(* ) THRUSTER DUCK
( << )<~~~ WANTS
O O YOUR SOUL

you couldn't have just picked Hinduism or Buddhism or something?


Depends on the religion's teachings


Then your body just decomposes into the ground

I believe that once someone accepts Christ as their Lord and Personal savior...they are saved from the sins that they would have had to pay for (Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord) in hell. It would take all of us an eternity in hell to pay for all of our sins, but Christ, sinless, only took 3 days to pay for our sins...

Christ paid for our sins so we wouldn't have to try to in hell

Forgot to add this...

It's a gift, so you have to accept the gift in order to recieve Christ's payment.

Please don't double-post, XVII. Use the edit button in the top right corner of your post; it's your friend.

_________________

I doubt {insert topic name here} is true... but hey... I'm Christian.

XVII: You have summed up the rather implausible segment of Christian doctrine that states:

1) God loves us and wants to save us from Hell
2) However, God is incapable of saving anybody who doesn't believe in him without them paying off their sins in Hell (even though God is omnipotent)
3) Furthermore, he completely abstains from giving us any evidence of his existence, thus saving us all (even though he loves us)
4) Also, any sin, no matter how miniscule, takes a literal eternity to "pay for" (even though any human action can only have a finite negative effect)

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

Man, and I was so glad to see this circular argument sinking into the abyss as well...

Here's the problem with your argument, Upsilon. As usual, you operate on the assumption that if God wants something, he's obligated to make it happen. You simply ignore the fact that, just like us, God is also a person. It's not necessarily that God cannot save someone without faith, but rather that there's no reason he should. If a person wants no relationship with him, there comes a point at which God will no longer pursue it. Think about it like this: if you were married to a woman you loved, but was constantly cheating on you, wouldn't you eventually get sick of it and tell her to get lost? The same is true with God. He is merciful, but with those who continue to be unfaithful to him, he will finally just get rid of them.

As for this lack of evidence: there's been plenty of evidence. It's just that you claim it's not credible. That's your problem, not his. And just like with that husband with the unfaithful wife, he's not exactly under any obligation to give you anything to prove anything.

And, as I have already stated like two jillion times ever two jillion seconds, hell is the consequence of this broken relationship. If your argument is that God ought to find some other way to deal with those who refuse to be reconciled with him, then I must point out the simple logical flaw in your reasoning: the argument is basically that God should show mercy to those who reject his mercy. He should somehow make them get what they keep throwing away. If I kept sending you a present, and you kept telling the UPS guy to shove it, how is it my fault that you never got it?

So, in answer to your own circular argument:
1. God is not obligated to do anything for anybody.
2. Apart from forcing you, how do you expect God to give you anything when you keep refusing to accept it?

_________________

There's a great show on PBS from 2001 called "Question of God". It basically summarizes everything we've been discussing in this thread in four hours. I'd highly recommend it for anyone who enjoys this kind of discussion.

_________________

171st POST ANNIVERSARY!!!

Thanks, Rick. I'll see if I can catch it some time.

_________________

Is anybody here a Lutheran? J/W

But the wife knows that she's married and ignores it. Upsilon is arguing that he does not know any obligation to God.

_________________

Didymus and I are.

Martin would be proud.

_________________

Evin:

More like he doesn't acknowledge any obligation to God. As we are all God's creatures, we all have obligation to him whether we realize it or not.

_________________

But how is that fair? If one is married but doesn't know that, could one be charged with adultery? I think what Upsilon is saying is that he has to know he's married before anyone can charge him with adultery.

_________________

And as we;ve argued before, it really seems more lik Upsilon is also ignoring his marriage. We've been showing God to him all over this thread, but he continues to say no one has ever done so.

Romans 1:20 says, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

You know. Anyone who really examines Creation will see.

Oh, and to all the people who've been posting about getting to Heaven for being a good person, I highly recommend, "Since Nobody's Perfect, How Good is Good Enough?" by Andy Stanley; short, and highly lucid apologetics on the subject. Not only that, but alot of Christian bookstores have it dirt cheap...

Evin, there is such a thing as taking a metaphor too far. My point was that, when God acts retributively toward those who deny him, he is justified in doing so. If I understood Up's argument, he was saying that, if he truly loved us, he would not act in retribution at all. The example of a husband fed up with an adulterous wife was simply to demonstrate that love can, and does sometimes, end that way. Actually, a better example might be that of the parent of a wayward child (say, one who keeps running away). Eventually, the parent has no choice but to simply let the wayward child go his own way. Actually, I seem to remember the Bible mentioning such a story once...

As for obligations to God, it's sort of the same as obligations to the IRS. You can deny any such obligation if you like, but come the Ides of April...

_________________

Yes, but still, if he doesn't know any obligation to God, why should he be obligated? He's arguing that Just because you're telling him that he has a obligation, doesn't make it true.

_________________

Like me putting sharks in the water?

Evin, we have all kinds of obligations in life. Just because he's not aware of them does not exempt him from them. To quote an old addage, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." If a policeman were to pull me over on the highway and ask to see my license and insurance, and I responded, "But I didn't know I needed those," how far do you think that would get me?

The same is true with God. Just because Upsilon, or anyone else for that matter, does not acknowledge any obligation to God does not mean he will hold him innocent. According to St. Paul, the very fact we exist within a created order is notice enough.

And if that's not enough, I'm here as an authorized agent of this God, giving him notice of God's authority. Upsilon may not acknowledge my authority to do speak on God's behalf, but it still does not exempt him from obligations to God, any more than failure to recognize a policeman's badge exempts one from obeying the law.

So here's my response in a nutshell:

1. Ignorance of an obligation does not exempt one from that obligation.
2. The created order itself is notice of God's authority.
3. God has sent authorized agents like myself to notify people of his authority.

_________________

why yes, being an athiest i think i will go to hell

oxymoron'd!

_________________
TIRES TIRES TIRES

And the circular logic makes you head spin

_________________
ANNE WIDDECOMBE, MP IN HER ORIGINAL HAIRSTYLE

I don't assume he's obligated; I assume that he would. Look at it this way: someone you know and love more than anyone else in the world is in grave danger. They don't even know they're in grave danger, but you do. If you clap your hands once, you can save them from the danger. In fact, the thing you have to do to save them requires even less effort, even less sacrifice on your part, than clapping your hands.

Would you do it? Of course you would; you'd be insane not to.

And you're telling me that God, who loves me infinitely more than you love anyone on Earth, has infinitely more wisdom to make the sensible decision and is infinitely more capable of saving me from the danger than you are of clapping your hands, wouldn't save me? Instead he'd hide away up in his clouds and decide to let some flawed human beings tell the entire remaining population of the world that this religion is right, not any of the other religions. And if I'm not convinced, he's just going to shrug and say "Well, I did all I could, but he never believed in Jesus. I'm going to have to condemn him to eternal suffering."

Even if he isn't even partially to blame for infidels' fate (and I quietly maintain that he is) and therefore doesn't have to do anything about it, it doesn't mean he can't.



"Continue"? Continue being unfaithful to him, even through all the messages I've received from him telling me to start worshipping him? (Whatever you do, don't say that I have indeed been receiving messages via the Christians on this board, because I could equally receive such 'messages' from Muslims or Jews if the board was so demographically inclined.) If he ever spoke to me personally, you might have a point, but Evin was right on target: it's absurd to compare my relationship with God to a marriage, since in a marriage the two couples are mutually aware of each other's existence. Your analogy is fundamentally flawed.



It's my problem if the evidence that someone gives isn't credible? I don't think that line would get you very far in court. And yes, I'd say he is under an obligation. Seeing as I'm going to be damned for not believing, I think I'm entitled to some reason to believe.



And as I've stated two jillion times in as many seconds:

Hell as a so-called 'consequence' of this lack of relationship is only the consequence because God says it is. It's completely within his power to remove it altogether.
I can't 'reject' anything that I don't even know to exist.
Unless this UPS guy is invisible, inaudible and intangible, that analogy is flawed (okay, I haven't stated that one exactly before, but it's popped up in several disguises).

And, in answer to yours:

1. Actually, I think he is. As you said, "just like us, God is also a person"; I see no reason why the fact that he created us separates him from moral obligations. And you wouldn't like it if I threw a brick at you then claimed it was my right to do so under a contract that I'd never told you about and which you hadn't signed. And then claimed that I was not obligated to tell you about this contract.
2. How do you expect me to give you this cheque for a jillion dollars if you keep refusing to accept it? ...oh, wait, you didn't know about the cheque? Fair enough, then...



Excuse my short cynical snort, but that's a fairly lame argument. You've shown me nothing apart from a flawed counter-argument to my claim repeated ad nauseam.



Sez you. Paul may think everyone in the world who has ever existed has always known deep down that God is real but was too thick to do anything about it. But I speak on behalf of every non-Christian who has ever lived by saying that I'm not going to be told what I do and don't believe in my heart by some first-century Jack Chick.



And do you think that's fair? If so, you owe me seven million of your American dollars due to a bet I took on your behalf that the sun wouldn't come up this morning. Just because you don't acknowledge any obligation to our agreement does not mean that you don't have to stump up.



Except that a policeman's badge is given by the state and is proof of his status. You have no proof of your status except for the fact that you say you have it. In that case, I'm an agent of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (because I say so), you can't tell me I'm not (because you can't prove that the IPU doesn't exist) and this gives me the authority to tell you what's going to happen to your soul after you die.



1. You know, I'm still waiting for that $7 million...
2. Short answer: No it's not. Long answer: Even if it is, it's not notice of which god. Even if the fact that we exist does imply a creator, that doesn't mean it was your God any more than it is proof of Islam's truth.
3. Agent Upsilon of the IPU at your service.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

Well, considering that even the so-called disciples of the IPU don't even believe in her/it, I'm still not convinced that the IPU makes a hill of beans difference in this argument.

In the ultimate scheme of things, it is God who will judge what is just and what is not. While you might make a decent case from an entirely human perspective, in the long run, it doesn't matter. It's him you'll have to answer to.

As for would versus obligated: I fail to see any real difference in how the two ultimately play out in your argument. You are still expecting God to conform to your standards, rather than the other way around, as it should be.

You've already received plenty of messages that you should worship God. Several from me personally. Just because you don't want to believe the messenger does not mean the message has not been delivered. You demand that God speak to you personally? Why should he? You demand a high privilege there.

And what if he did? Have you given any thought as to how you would respond to God if he did speak directly to you?


a. He does meet moral obligations, but not necessarily the ones that you, a limited mortal human being, are trying to obligate him to.
b. Absurd argument: you have no power or authority to construct such a contract. Governments do. Rulers do. God, as creator of the universe, does as well. And he wouldn't be throwing bricks at people except those who deserve them anyway.


You have been told. Like a jillion times.

_________________