nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I saw a web site that made a fairly convincing argument it was actually
>> satan. For example, satan lives in the fire that burns without
>> consuming, just like the fire of the bush. :-)
> 
> why do you listen to convincing arguments about Satan but not about God? 

I don't. By "convincing argument", I meant "backed up by reasoning and 
biblical quotes."  As opposed to ranting.

Perhaps "a fairly well-supported argument" or "fairly reasonable argument".

Perhaps I should have mentioned that it seemed like a spoof site, more 
making fun of followers of JHVH than actually trying to convince you 
that it's Satan leading the chosen people. Hard to say, tho.

>> God could talk to me personally in a way that made it clear he really
>> was God.  (Now, I might be convinced but merely insane, as in,
>> incorrect. But I'd still be convinced.)
> 
> God talks to us everyday in subtle ways.

Maybe to you. Not to me.

If you think God talks to me in subtle ways, you'll have to explain how 
you know such a thing.

> Besides, if he took the form of Morgan
> Freeman and talked directly to you, would you believe it?  no, of course not,

Possibly. It worked for Jim Carrey, after all. And I imagine if God is 
actually omnipotent, he could manage to convince me even if we were 
created in his image to that extent.

 > He should've take the form of a 20 meter gold talking statue for you 
to believe.
> and even then you might think you end up wandering in a Hollywood blockbuster
> set...

Well, yes, isn't that what miracles are all about?

> Now, don't you think it's too egoistical of your part, like a stubborn child, to
> demand that God provides a particular show for your own enjoyment to restabilish
> your faith?

"Reestablish"?  (Just as an aside, I find that so presumptuous as to be 
mildly offensive. I used to be much more offended by such things, until 
I realized how many religious people are )

And no, I don't think so. I mean, after all, what did it take to 
convince the Romans? Jesus returning to life, performing all sorts of 
miracles. Why is it egotistical for me, and not for Apostle Thomas?

Of course, when you start from the axiom that God is real, present, and 
obvious, then anyone who doubts is insulting said God. When you start 
from the premise that God isn't real, the obvious question that springs 
to mind is "what, outside the Bible, should I look at to be convinced?"

Here's a question for you: What would it take you to convince you that 
ESP is real? Would you consider yourself egotistical to ask to see an 
actual ESP experiment that succeeded? Or is just reading Doctor Mesmer's 
writing good enough for you? If you came across a book written in the 
1700s talking about how there was this one guy who could predict what 
card was coming up next in the deck, would that convince you that ESP is 
real? If not, why not?

>> A religion where everyone actually believed the same things, and who
>> always won wars of oppression against them.
> 
> not possible:  the devil won't let it happen.

The devil has no free will, as well as being less powerful than God, 
yes? Or am I confused on that point? If not, then it's actually that God 
won't let it happen. At least, JHVH won't let it happen. Maybe some 
other God will.

Of course, if it's axiomatic (to you) that JHVH is the one and only God, 
then of course it seems unreasonable to expect this.

>> Humans indistinguishable from us showing up from another planet saying
>> they too were created by God and had essentially the same holy books.
> 
> what if they are not like us at all? 

Then it's not miraculous, it's just evolution. Then it's just a faith 
healer who cures headaches with a laying on of hands, as long as you 
take some asprin too. Why would you think that would convince me of the 
existence of a god any more than rabbits on earth would?

The main thrust wasn't that they show up with the Bible, but that 
they're actually human. Which would imply either that evolution 
proceeded *identically* on another planet, or that something intervened 
to make it so. The likelihood of it being God that did the intervening 
is merely increased by the identical holy book, which would tell you 
which God it was that did the intervening.

See?

> ie. a highly intelligent gaseous life
> form?
> oh, I see!   I can believe in ETs, elves or Santa, but not God...

No, I don't believe in them either. (I believe it's likely ETs are out 
there, but I don't believe it's likely they're around here now.)

I'm not sure what the relationship with what I said was, so I hope that 
the above clarification helps.

>> Jesus actually returning to actual Earth would be a good start, too.
> 
> Are you sure?  Who would attest some guy, probably humble and poor, to be Jesus?
>  would you believe him?  oh, I'm betting you would only believe if he started
> walking over the waters or making fish rain...

Yep. Which he probably wouldn't mind doing, if he actually returned to 
earth, see.  I mean, isn't that the next scheduled appearance? The 
miracle of the Rapture?

I'm asked for a list of events that would convince me, as an atheist, 
that there really is divine supernatural power. I provide a list of 
miracles, and your answer is "well, duh, that's not going to happen, 
that would be miraculous!"?

>> Someone announcing that they're going to pray for an end to cancer, and
>> spontaneous remission of all cancers all over the world occurs shortly
>> after.
> 
> that would be Jesus, right?

Not sure what you mean. What would be Jesus? I don't care who it is that 
announces it, or prays for it. Whoever announces it and does the praying 
probably knows which is the right God.

Do you see how you're starting from the presumption that you know you're 
right? Do you see how each response you make implies that the God I 
would wind up believing in is the same one you believe in? That while I 
should believe in your God without miracles, believing in someone else's 
God even with miracles is wrong?

>> A religion where no baby of religious parents is born with birth defects.
> see original sin.

Which one? The JHVH one? The Viking one? The Roman one? The Mayan one? 
How do you know that the original sin you speak of is really the 
original one?

And, somehow, the fact that Adam disobeyed God before he knew any better 
is justification for deformed babies who have done nothing wrong in this 
life? Somehow, *my* knowledge of good and evil seems to be incomplete, 
if this is true, so why am I being punished?

>> A faith healer who can regenerate amputated limbs through the power of
>> touch.

Funny how nobody seems to argue with this one, isn't it?

>> Jesus said that moving mountains is easy for anyone with faith. So, move
>> a mountain. Put Mt Fuji off the coast of San Diego for a week, and I'll
>> believe faith can move mountains.
> 
> Mountains of problems.  Don't read things too literally:  Jesus used parables a
> lot to get his point across.  If God wanted everyone to be like Neo on the
> Matrix he wouldn't have created physical laws in the first place.  Let's be
> consistent, ok?

I am. It's called "a miracle". You're the one that's trying to ridicule 
me for stating that I'd believe in a God who can actually produce miracles.

Put Mt Fuji off the coast of San Diego thru the power of prayer to 
*anyone*, Jesus or Zeus or Quetzalcoatl, and I'll believe that God. That 
you think it's unlikely is simply your lack of faith in the power of 
your own God.

I wasn't asked "what reasonable, likely events will make you believe in 
God." That would be a much shorter list.

>> A ten-year period where no church of that religion is ever struck by a
>> disaster or even lightning.
> 
> that's just lame.  why ten year?  

It seemed a reasonable number. Anything where the likelihood of it 
lasting is exceedingly unlikely will do. It could be one year, if you're 
willing to count (say) every structure with a cross on the top.

The Vatican has a lightning rod on the top. Clearly, someone believes 
prayer by the Pope is insufficient to prevent burning down St Paul's.

> Churches are human institutions and are just
> as fallible and bound to the original sin.

Even the Mayan temples? The Pele shrines? See how you assume you're right?

Would *you* believe in Pele if her followers could walk across magma 
without injury, and her shrines were never damaged by volcanoes? That's 
a serious question: If some other God started performing miracles, what 
would be your response?

In any case, now you're explaining why expecting miracles is 
unreasonable. That doesn't negate my point, however. Yes, expecting 
miracles *is* unreasonable. That you have a rationalization doesn't mean 
I should believe. I find believing in God, especially in the type of god 
you get in monotheistic religions, is unreasonable. Hence, it takes 
something unreasonable to change my mind.

In any case, I thought baptism got rid of original sin or something? Is 
the Pope really still being punished in this world for Original Sin? I 
thought believing in Jesus and/or doing the right rituals got rid of 
that original sin? That whole "Jesus died for our sins" isn't right? Is 
there anything one can do to stop being punished for Adam's "sin"?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message