Okay, Let's Cut To The Chase!

[POI]

Dear Christians of all flavor(s),

I trust it is no surprise there exists a populous here, which lay claim to 'atheism', 'deism', or maybe other... In a nutshell, for me, this ultimately means I do not believe any such claimed Christian God exists - trying though as I might.... Which-is-to-mean, I was raised in a Christian house hold. However, after much study, I cannot get myself to belief such a claimed agent actually exists. Chalk it up, ultimately, to the topic of 'divine hiddenness' I guess...?

It is also evident there exists devout 'Christians' in this arena, of all flavors, who may feel they are 'fighting the good fight'; by defending their belief(s)/faith/rationale in the assertion of the existence to the "Christian God".

That being said, I am laying down the gauntlet, so-to-speak... Some here, as well as outside of here, are as sure as anything, that not only does God exist, but the Christian God! Well, I politely disagree. Meaning, I don't believe the "Christian based" assertion/claim.

I can't imagine this request will be anything new. Nor, can I imagine that I will encounter any new sort of enlightenment. But, being this is a rather large and important topic; I will continue to search, optimistically, that there exists some sort of 'concrete evidence(s)' to demonstrate that not only a God exists ---> but also the Christian God.

For Debate:

Please demonstrate the mere existence of the Christian God?

[DaveD49]

I do not believe in a God who just rewards those who believes in Him but takes revenge against those who do not believe. His is a message of love that humans have twisted to fit their own desires to see those who offended them be punished. If a concept fits with the notion of love then, yes, that is from Him. If a concept does not fit the notion of love then it is not from Him. The concept of eternal punishment for sin does not fit the notion of love, therefore it is a man-made invention.

<bolding mine>

How is this not an example of a cherry-picking fallacy?

Simple. It is because we are talking about here are MY PERSONAL BELIEFS. I am not trying to defend one religion over another. I am just talking about what I have found to be true. The concept of "hell" as a place of eternal punishment for sin CANNOT exist side by side to the notion of a loving and forgiving God. Millions of people in their journey towards Him have already proven that the notion of a loving and forgiving God is a true one. Therefore the notion of eternal punishment for sin cannot be real. And as I have pointed out the word translated as "hell" comes from either the word "Gehenna" or "Hades", and neither of them carry the notion of eternal punishment for sin.

[Diagoras]

If a concept fits with the notion of love then, yes, that is from Him. If a concept does not fit the notion of love then it is not from Him.

<bolding mine>

How is this not an example of a cherry-picking fallacy?

Simple. It is because we are talking about here are MY PERSONAL BELIEFS.

Understood, but I’m showing you how you’ve arrived at those beliefs: by cherry-picking.

I am not trying to defend one religion over another.

Well, you’ve certainly advocated for a particular one more strongly than any other, so I’m not sure you are demonstrating impartiality here.

I am just talking about what I have found to be true. The concept of "hell" as a place of eternal punishment for sin CANNOT exist side by side to the notion of a loving and forgiving God.

That’s a reasonable position to take, yes.

Millions of people in their journey towards Him have already proven that the notion of a loving and forgiving God is a true one.

argumentum ad populum?

What proof has been offered?

Therefore the notion of eternal punishment for sin cannot be real.

OR - the notion of a loving and forgiving God is false. From your ‘cannot exist side by side’ argument above, the dilemma can be resolved by allowing for a vengeful God.

And as I have pointed out the word translated as "hell" comes from either the word "Gehenna" or "Hades", and neither of them carry the notion of eternal punishment for sin.

Equally, I could point to plenty of biblical verses supporting the notion of a vengeful God, so using this to support your position doesn’t particularly strengthen the claim.

[Diagoras]

From what I know, no other religion can hold a candle to Christianity.

<snip>

I have not examined all religions. But if Christianity is true (which I have reasons to believe it is), then all others must be false.

There’s a common accusation levelled at non-theists that ‘science doesn’t know everything’. It seems reasonable here to replace ‘all religions’ with ‘all theories’, plus ‘Christianity’ with ‘evolution/Big Bang/abiogenesis’/etc. and as long as one adds, “which I have reasons to believe”, then it’s possible to prove all religion false.

Actually having evidence is a bonus.

[DaveD49]

If a concept fits with the notion of love then, yes, that is from Him. If a concept does not fit the notion of love then it is not from Him.

<bolding mine>

How is this not an example of a cherry-picking fallacy?

Simple. It is because we are talking about here are MY PERSONAL BELIEFS.

Understood, but I’m showing you how you’ve arrived at those beliefs: by cherry-picking.

Silly. This is just another attempt at reducing to the ridiculous. What you call "cherry-picking" is what I call a life-long search of comparing one set of beliefs to another and then comparing each of the beliefs in each of the sets and then deciding whether I can believe any of them over my own thoughts on the matter. I have no list of "things I must believe" that came to me from an outside source.

I am not trying to defend one religion over another.

Well, you’ve certainly advocated for a particular one more strongly than any other, so I’m not sure you are demonstrating impartiality here.

Sorry, but I do not think you fully understand what the word "advocated" means. I certainly may have said that I found that I mostly agree with the teachings of Catholicism but I most certainly have not been advocating it to anyone. The only thing that I have been advocating is that you do your own serious search. And take the chip off your shoulder.

I am just talking about what I have found to be true. The concept of "hell" as a place of eternal punishment for sin CANNOT exist side by side to the notion of a loving and forgiving God.

That’s a reasonable position to take, yes.

Millions of people in their journey towards Him have already proven that the notion of a loving and forgiving God is a true one.

argumentum ad populum?

What proof has been offered?[/quote]

Boy, you really like to mislabel things. I am not making an argument so there can be no "argumentum ad populum". I am not writing a theological study, so why do I need proof of anything? In my life I have met with hundreds of people who have thought that way. It is prevalent in Catholicism where it is taught and is one of the things that I believe. There are 1.2 billion Catholics in the world. Even if only a fraction of them accepted that notion as true that alone would be millions of people.

Therefore the notion of eternal punishment for sin cannot be real.

OR - the notion of a loving and forgiving God is false. From your ‘cannot exist side by side’ argument above, the dilemma can be resolved by allowing for a vengeful God.[/quote]

I take it your comment that "the notion of a loving and forgiving God is false" is coming from some personal experience. If that is the the case then am certainly sorry for that. My life experiences have shown me that He most certainly is loving and forgiving. The notion of a vengeful God does not fit in any of the faiths that I have studied. If that were the case, then He would not be God.

And as I have pointed out the word translated as "hell" comes from either the word "Gehenna" or "Hades", and neither of them carry the notion of eternal punishment for sin.

Equally, I could point to plenty of biblical verses supporting the notion of a vengeful God, so using this to support your position doesn’t particularly strengthen the claim.
[/quote]

I am certain that you could point to plenty of verses in the Old Testament like that. But the Old Testament is not what Christianity is based on. It is based on the New Testament. The OT is the story of one people's understanding of God over a period of over 2,000 years. It begins with very primitive notions of God but through time there is tremendous growth and deeper understanding. This concept can be seen far more clearly if you read the books in the order in which they were written rather than the order in which they are included in the Bible. Christ came at the same time that the Jewish people accepted God on the basis of love and He tied a rocket pack to that concept.

[Clownboat]

Sorry, but that is not my concept of God nor heaven or hell.

My bad, I was speaking about the god of the Bible. I am not familiar with your god concept, but it matters not as you will believe as you choose.

[Diagoras]

What you call "cherry-picking" is what I call a life-long search of comparing one set of beliefs to another and then comparing each of the beliefs in each of the sets and then deciding whether I can believe any of them over my own thoughts on the matter.

<bolding mine>

But that’s not quite the same as what you describe here:

“If a concept fits with the notion of love then, yes, that is from Him. If a concept does not fit the notion of love then it is not from Him.”

You have first come to the conclusion that God is loving. Then you are examining concepts through that lens, and rejecting any concept that doesn’t fit your preconceived idea.

I certainly may have said that I found that I mostly agree with the teachings of Catholicism but I most certainly have not been advocating it to anyone.

Fair enough. I’ll accept that ‘advocate’ wasn’t an accurate description.

And take the chip off your shoulder.

Personal remarks like that aren’t necessary.

I am not making an argument so there can be no "argumentum ad populum".

You say this, but when I read what you wrote, certain words suggest to me that you are making an argument:

“Millions of people in their journey towards Him have already proven that the notion of a loving and forgiving God is a true one.”

How have they ‘proven’ this?

I take it your comment that "the notion of a loving and forgiving God is false" is coming from some personal experience. If that is the the case then am certainly sorry for that.

Thanks for the thoughts, but they aren’t necessary. My life experiences have been hugely positive and fulfilling without a god in sight. I attribute much of that to my own agency, although there’s a decent amount of luck as well, of course.

I am certain that you could point to plenty of verses in the Old Testament like that. But the Old Testament is not what Christianity is based on. It is based on the New Testament.

I’ll find a link to a thread I started relating to this; you may be interested.

[Edit] Here.

[DaveD49]

Sorry, but that is not my concept of God nor heaven or hell.

My bad, I was speaking about the god of the Bible. I am not familiar with your god concept, but it matters not as you will believe as you choose.

Shouldn't it always be that a person is allowed to believe as he chooses? Each of us is seeking God ultimately in our own way. Certainly that there are some who a handed a book of what to believe and they believe without question. That most certainly is not the ideal. A belief has to make sense to the individual, not be handed to them and told "Here! You have to believe this.!" I have the greatest respect for those who are truly seeking God and using Islam as their guide. But one of the reasons I rejected Islam as my guide was the fact that in a number of areas if a person leaves the Islamic faith they could be put to death. In my mind that has no place in any religion. The individual has to be free to think differently from what the "book" says.

[brunumb]

Shouldn't it always be that a person is allowed to believe as he chooses? Each of us is seeking God ultimately in our own way. Certainly that there are some who a handed a book of what to believe and they believe without question. That most certainly is not the ideal. A belief has to make sense to the individual, not be handed to them and told "Here! You have to believe this.!"

How do you square that with the blatant indoctrination of children into religious belief?

I have the greatest respect for those who are truly seeking God and using Islam as their guide. But one of the reasons I rejected Islam as my guide was the fact that in a number of areas if a person leaves the Islamic faith they could be put to death. In my mind that has no place in any religion. The individual has to be free to think differently from what the "book" says.

Are you saying that people were never put to the sword in the cause of spreading Christianity?

[DaveD49]

Shouldn't it always be that a person is allowed to believe as he chooses? Each of us is seeking God ultimately in our own way. Certainly that there are some who a handed a book of what to believe and they believe without question. That most certainly is not the ideal. A belief has to make sense to the individual, not be handed to them and told "Here! You have to believe this.!"

How do you square that with the blatant indoctrination of children into religious belief?

That has always been one of the silliest arguments atheists make. Even when I was an atheist I saw how ridiculous it was. Are you actually saying that parents have no right to teach their children anything? Let them learn to read and write on their own? 'Go ahead, play with fire!' Obviously any parent has the right to teach their children what they have found to be true. Not to do so would be poor parenting. When the child is old enough to think for themselves then comes the time for questioning things. This is how it should be. A person's faith cannot be, as the song says "Faith of Our Fathers". Do you think you are unique in that you began to question the faith that you were brought up in? Makes you feel as though you are a rebel, doesn't it? I hate to disillusion you but everyone goes through that stage. A person's faith cannot be his father's faith, the individual has to embrace it on their own. Even the vast majority of those who enter atheism in their teens eventually come to a degree of belief. That was confirmed by a PEW study.

I have the greatest respect for those who are truly seeking God and using Islam as their guide. But one of the reasons I rejected Islam as my guide was the fact that in a number of areas if a person leaves the Islamic faith they could be put to death. In my mind that has no place in any religion. The individual has to be free to think differently from what the "book" says.

Are you saying that people were never put to the sword in the cause of spreading Christianity?
[/quote]

How could you possibly come up with that conclusion from what I said? Obviously ANY time there has been "forced conversion" that was a sad chapter in that faith's history.

[Clownboat]

Shouldn't it always be that a person is allowed to believe as he chooses?

Allowed is an odd word since there is no way to stop what a person believes, if said person is using faith that is.

Certainly that there are some who a handed a book of what to believe and they believe without question.

I find your use of 'some' to be a bit dishonest. Most religious people were born into their religion and religion be geography is a real thing. I do get why you would try to not acknowledge this.

A belief has to make sense to the individual, not be handed to them and told "Here! You have to believe this.!"

And that is why religions flurish. Due to parents telling their children what to believe. Either directly or by bringing them to a church to have the church tell them. When my children were younger, I litterally could have convinced them that I hung the moon.

But one of the reasons I rejected Islam as my guide was the fact that in a number of areas if a person leaves the Islamic faith they could be put to death. In my mind that has no place in any religion.

Again, religion by geography. Had you been born in Iran, such a notion is something you would likely expect to find in a religion. Since you were not, it is an odd concept for you.

You know what I find to be an odd concept?
A god that would give humans free will, to either believe in it and get a heaven, or to disbelieve in it and then get eternal torment. What an odd free will concept, I wonder what someone born in India would think?

The individual has to be free to think differently from what the "book" says.

Which is why religions have the greatest success when they get you when your young and impressionable.