How do you know you have Sensus divinitatis?

[boatsnguitars]

Calvin proposed the idea: that like sight, he had a sense that was used to feel God.

Of course, there is no God, so it can better be explained that Calvin had a feeling of something, thought he was super special, and he wanted to murder people so he pretended there was a God and used his religion to murder Servitus.

The issue for debate: why do people think that if they feel like Dracula is in the room with them, Then it's true that Dracula is in the room, and if you don't believe it, Dracula fans will kill you?

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #1]

Re: the execution of Michael Servetus, the bigger question is the "Christian Morality" of killing someone because of their theology. Calvin quite literally murdered Servetus.

Calvin is regarded as the author of the prosecution.... Calvin believed that Servetus deserved death because of what Calvin termed "execrable blasphemies".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus

How on Earth do Christians or Christian theologians justify murder (or 'execution' or 'killing') because they disagree with another's theology? Michael Servetus' "mortal sin" was simply that he was not a trinitarian. He believed there was One God who could manifest in different forms. Calvin is revered by many, but this is a MAJOR problem with Christianity, the belief that people should be killed for their thoughts/positions on how to think about God. Of course, there is plenty of Biblical justification for killing for not believing in the 'right' thing.

Just another example of the arrogant insanity that 'Christianity' can project. Jesus would never have advocated such an abomination. This is just another example of the GREAT DIFFERENCE between Christianity and being a follower of Jesus of Nazareth.

Christians love to ignore the brutal history of their religion. Like Muslims, they claim it's a religion of peace, and that the bad stuff is just a few bad apples. However, the hate Calvin felt was cultivated by the Bible over 1500 or so years. They discovered quite early that they could both kill and love their enemy, according to the Bible.

They felt that killing an adulterer, witch, gay person, heretic - etc. - was a loving act because it gave them the opportunity to repent before they were brutally murdered.

It's the same story WLC gives about the murder of the Midianites, where he says it was the loving thing to kill the men, women, children and livestock.
It was loving when God flooded the Earth. It was loving when he razed Sodom and Gomorrah.

[Diogenes]

Christians love to ignore the brutal history of their religion. Like Muslims, they claim it's a religion of peace, and that the bad stuff is just a few bad apples. However, the hate Calvin felt was cultivated by the Bible over 1500 or so years. They discovered quite early that they could both kill and love their enemy, according to the Bible.

They felt that killing an adulterer, witch, gay person, heretic - etc. - was a loving act because it gave them the opportunity to repent before they were brutally murdered.

It's the same story WLC gives about the murder of the Midianites, where he says it was the loving thing to kill the men, women, children and livestock.
It was loving when God flooded the Earth. It was loving when he razed Sodom and Gomorrah.

[emphasis applied]

Yes! And I am just about done here on this forum because of the repeated willful ignorance displayed by "Christians" as they demonstrate they choose to ignore the many Bible passages that challenge their 'faith.'

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #60

The fallacies so far have all been on your side

The Bare Assertion fallacy in the OP was not on my side.

putting my money on a natural physical cause and mechnaism for Life, the Universe and Everything. It is logically sound, Theism is not.

"A natural physical cause and mechanism for Life, the Universe and Everything" isn't all that logical because, logically, there can't be a single physical cause. Each physical cause would need a physical cause underlying it, and a cause underlying that and a cause underlying that.....etc. Thus, material reductionism fails as a simplest explanation since it has to propose a literally infinite number of causes and mechanisms.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #60

The fallacies so far have all been on your side

The Bare Assertion fallacy in the OP was not on my side.

putting my money on a natural physical cause and mechnaism for Life, the Universe and Everything. It is logically sound, Theism is not.

"A natural physical cause and mechanism for Life, the Universe and Everything" isn't all that logical because, logically, there can't be a single physical cause. Each physical cause would need a physical cause underlying it, and a cause underlying that and a cause underlying that.....etc. Thus, material reductionism fails as a simplest explanation since it has to propose a literally infinite number of causes and mechanisms.

As I explained, the mark'There is no God' is a statement of conviction about the Biblical god and based on the internal evidence of the Bible. Do you think there is a Biblegod or not?

The possible intelligent creator is not so cerain because nobody really knows. But until there is compelling evidence for it there is no logical reason to believe in it nor a burden of disproof.

The fallacies in your posts - and never mind the red herring of the OP - were on your side.

Christians love to ignore the brutal history of their religion. Like Muslims, they claim it's a religion of peace, and that the bad stuff is just a few bad apples. However, the hate Calvin felt was cultivated by the Bible over 1500 or so years. They discovered quite early that they could both kill and love their enemy, according to the Bible.

They felt that killing an adulterer, witch, gay person, heretic - etc. - was a loving act because it gave them the opportunity to repent before they were brutally murdered.

It's the same story WLC gives about the murder of the Midianites, where he says it was the loving thing to kill the men, women, children and livestock.
It was loving when God flooded the Earth. It was loving when he razed Sodom and Gomorrah.

[emphasis applied]

Yes! And I am just about done here on this forum because of the repeated willful ignorance displayed by "Christians" as they demonstrate they choose to ignore the many Bible passages that challenge their 'faith.'

Don't give up Think of the undecided whom want to hear what both sides have to offer. It has never been about getting the Theist side to admit they have it wrong, ever.

[Diogenes]

Don't give up Think of the undecided whom want to hear what both sides have to offer. It has never been about getting the Theist side to admit they have it wrong, ever.

:)Thanks. I certainly don't expect to convince anyone who does not know how to analyze facts or doesn't have a clue as to how to evaluate sources of information, but it's tiresome to hear the same absurdities and poor logic over and over. "I know it is true because the Bible told me so" is getting very old, especially when it is used here in Christianity and Apologetics where it, by rule, has no persuasive value.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #64

As I explained, the mark'There is no God' is a statement of conviction about the Biblical god and based on the internal evidence of the Bible. Do you think there is a Biblegod or not?

I don't see any Biblegod qualifier in "Of course, there is no God". And there doesn't have to be a "Biblegod" for there to be a creator.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #54

I was using the logic:
1. We need to account for something that exists(Omniverse)
2. God(Omnibeing) exists
C: Therefore We need to account for something that exists: Omnibeing.

If this is the logic you were using, then you weren't using the logic I'm using.

"God exists" isn't a premise in any of my arguments. I try to reason from observation to logical conclusion. Some of my reasoning may be inductive, but I try to keep it reasonable.

Q: So you do not belief we need to account for something that exists: Omniverse?

[alexxcJRO]

Don't give up Think of the undecided whom want to hear what both sides have to offer. It has never been about getting the Theist side to admit they have it wrong, ever.

:)Thanks. I certainly don't expect to convince anyone who does not know how to analyze facts or doesn't have a clue as to how to evaluate sources of information, but it's tiresome to hear the same absurdities and poor logic over and over. "I know it is true because the Bible told me so" is getting very old, especially when it is used here in Christianity and Apologetics where it, by rule, has no persuasive value.

I have become an atheist in my 19-20 thanks to such debates that are found here.
Debate most of the time is a positive thing. It puts bad ideas and false things to the garbage bin of failed hypothesis.
Your contribution to this process is still valued and important be it small as it is.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #64

As I explained, the mark'There is no God' is a statement of conviction about the Biblical god and based on the internal evidence of the Bible. Do you think there is a Biblegod or not?

I don't see any Biblegod qualifier in "Of course, there is no God". And there doesn't have to be a "Biblegod" for there to be a creator.

I thought I'd explained it. I'll explain. A god as depicted in a particular religion has parameters, so the credibility can be evaluated. The god of the Bible, is a god I can say with some confidence 'Does not exist'. Though one can never be 100% confident. But as regards a Cosmic Mind, we have no parameters, so it is a possibility. On one side, there is the materialist default, on the other the better Fine Tuning arguments. We really don't know, but this some sorta god is not the logical default theory. Disbelief until credibly validated, is.

So again. do you or do you not believe in any of the personal gods including the Abrahamic one or not?

Don't give up Think of the undecided whom want to hear what both sides have to offer. It has never been about getting the Theist side to admit they have it wrong, ever.

:)Thanks. I certainly don't expect to convince anyone who does not know how to analyze facts or doesn't have a clue as to how to evaluate sources of information, but it's tiresome to hear the same absurdities and poor logic over and over. "I know it is true because the Bible told me so" is getting very old, especially when it is used here in Christianity and Apologetics where it, by rule, has no persuasive value.

Take heart, and fight the good fight. The truth matters and there's some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for. The glass is half full, not half empty and there is light at the end on the tunnel.

Pretentious prose apart, I think of the 30 browsers I see are present. I hope they will say to others 'There's some good arguments going on here', and anything that breaks the hoped for information monopoly on whether Christianity (or any other religion) is true is a job worth doing. It is certainly something of a mission for me, and the only thing I've ever been any good at.

[TRANSPONDER]

Don't give up Think of the undecided whom want to hear what both sides have to offer. It has never been about getting the Theist side to admit they have it wrong, ever.

:)Thanks. I certainly don't expect to convince anyone who does not know how to analyze facts or doesn't have a clue as to how to evaluate sources of information, but it's tiresome to hear the same absurdities and poor logic over and over. "I know it is true because the Bible told me so" is getting very old, especially when it is used here in Christianity and Apologetics where it, by rule, has no persuasive value.

I have become an atheist in my 19-20 thanks to such debates that are found here.
Debate most of the time is a positive thing. It puts bad ideas and false things to the garbage bin of failed hypothesis.
Your contribution to this process is still valued and important be it small as it is.

Thank you. I wish we had a regular thread for conversion and deconversion stories (Theists prefer to put spin on it by talking of construction or deconstruction. It doesn't matter, as constructing a Tofu - dreg eglise is nothing to boast about and deconstructing it a public service). Deconversion -accounts (apart from the necessary bias - confirmation, are interesting as the conversion stories really always seem to be for bad reasons. More than half the deconversions seem to be a reluctant resistance to a once -held Faith eroding through thinking or seeing others thinking. All that is required is a mind even slightly open to doubt and question.

It is my firm conviction that the only Unforgivable sin or Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is entertaining doubts and question - outside the Bible-box. Oh the questions within the faith are ok, sectarian strife and Holy Wars apart, but qeustion OF the Bible, Jesusgod and Christianity is the only Real Sin. 'Nobody ever changes their mind' I often hear, but that isn't true, as the majority of atheists are theist who changed theirs.