Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARCHIVE: Bob Enyart has already lost the debate ...

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Unsurprisingly, theism and atheism both exist as either a belief or conviction system, and there exist people regarding them as supporter of that very belief or conviction system. They are not more not less existing, as for instance: physics, mathematics, philosophy, liberalism, socialism, etc. etc.

    The question though is wether or not the belief in a God is based on some real existence of any Deity. Not surprisingly the answer to that must be hold to be negative (based on the fact that there is no positive indication for the existence of any God). There has not been a proof or disproof for God, neither will there ever be. That is why there is a belief in God, and not knowledge about there being a God. Why would one believe in the existence of something, if we know that that something exists or does not exist?

    The belief in a God stands apart from the knowledge wether there is or is not a God. For the belief in God we can admit that a person can in various degrees have a belief in God. As to the question if it would be possible for a person to have a total absence in a belief in God, we could state that it would not be surprising if at least to some extend people have beliefs. Believing itself is not a rare fact within human consciousness, cause we are not seldom put in a position in which there is a lack of knowledge, to base our actions on.
    Not every person will attribute their belief to God. To the extend in which one does, it can be said that one has a belief in God, and to the extend in which one doesn't it can be said one doesn't belief in God. Even if we attribute our belief to a 'personal God' this of course stands apart from knowing that apart from one's mind and independend of it, there is a God. To the extend of the belief itself, and even to the extend of assigning this belief to a 'personal God', as part of one's own consciousness, there realy can be no problem with that.

    The problem arises when one tries to externalise such a belief, and tries to assign external existence to such concepts of the mind. It is in this respect that we whould thus distinguish between harcore 'believers in God', who externalise their own mind concepts, and those who refrain from it, and keep that a personal matter.

    Since God is a reality within the mind, and within the mind only, we should abstain from even trying to externalize such a concept, and make it to something it isn't. A belief, or to believe in general, is a personal matter, and we should leave the issue with that.
    If we were only able of admitting the truth of the matter, for sure all kinds of wars, struggles and debates about such issues would have no necessity at all.
    Last edited by heusdens; July 5th, 2003, 08:06 AM.

    Comment


    • Most people that claim to be atheists do so because they don't like the idea of God holding them accountable for their actions.

      Comment


      • To me my conviction to atheism is that apart from my own mind and concepts of my own mind, I recognize and acknowledge there is no God.

        I think it therefore quite silly to even attempt to demonstrate, using for example physcical laws, to 'proof' God exists.
        Since God can be residing within one's mind only, and does not have external existence, all such concepts put forward by 'believers' demonstrate or indicate a false belief, because it is a belief in something one knows does not exist.

        Wether one lives up to one own's personal judgements and moral concepts, is entirely up to that person, and (to the extend as to living up the rules of society) is not something to be judged by others.

        The personal judgements themselves take care of that. We are all responsible for the things we do or don't do to ourselves.

        As a person we should take care of ourselves, and as a society take care of each other.
        Last edited by heusdens; July 5th, 2003, 08:20 AM.

        Comment


        • heusdens,
          Having gone through your writings, I see a possible contradiction. I'll try to package it, and then ask you to elaborate. I may be misreading you and will appreciate your clarification.

          Originally posted by heusdens
          The problem arises when one tries to externalize such a [theistic] belief, and tries to assign external existence to such concepts of the mind. It is in this respect that we would thus distinguish between hardcore 'believers in God', who externalize their own mind concepts, and those who refrain from it, and keep that a personal matter.
          You seem to be saying that as long I keep God in my mind and not "assign external existence" to the idea, I'm okay. You argue it is a "personal matter", implying that to bring our God into the public forum is questionable.

          Again you reiterate this concept (as applied to theists):

          Originally posted by heusdens
          Since God is a reality within the mind, and within the mind only, we should abstain from even trying to externalize such a concept, and make it to something it isn't. A belief, or to believe in general, is a personal matter, and we should leave the issue with that.
          If we were only able of admitting the truth of the matter, for sure all kinds of wars, struggles and debates about such issues would have no necessity at all.
          And then you imply that theistic positions are the root of evil:

          Originally posted by heusdens
          If we were only able of admitting the truth of the matter, for sure all kinds of wars, struggles and debates about such issues would have no necessity at all.
          As an aside, are you aware of Stalin's atheistic-driven genocides?

          Having admonished the theist to keep his God in the realm of personal thoughts, you change gears, but only for the atheist. You speak of your atheistic "conviction" and "whether one lives up to one own's personal judgments and moral concepts"

          Originally posted by heusdens
          To me my conviction to atheism is that apart from my own mind and concepts of my own mind, I recognize and acknowledge there is no God.

          Whether one lives up to one own's personal judgements and moral concepts, is entirely up to that person, and not (to the extend as to living up the rules of society) is not something to be judged by others.
          I would rather argue that to "[live] up to one own's personal judgements and moral concepts, is entirely up to that person", is a universal prerogative, and NOT just an option for the atheist. At first you challenge the theist to keep his God-think to himself, but then suggest the atheist has a moral right to actualize his convictions.

          Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but by innuendo, you seem to be making this unfair distinction between the theist and atheist.

          Certainly to the extent that I believe in God, I will live up to ensuing personal judgments based upon that belief. We call this being "a doer of the word and not a hearer only".

          (edited for typos only)
          Last edited by LightSon; July 5th, 2003, 09:00 AM.
          That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.
          Philippians 2:15

          Comment


          • Originally posted by LightSon
            heusdens,
            Having gone through your writings, I see a possible contradiction. I'll try to package it, and then ask you to elaborate. I may be misreading you and will apprecite your clarification.

            You seem to be saying that as long I keep God in my mind and not "assign external existence" to the idea, I'm okay. You argue it is a "personal matter", implying that to bring our God into the public forum is questionable.
            I was referring to the idea or believe in an external God, as something that could exist outside and apart of one's mind. It's that idea of God I bring into question as being "questionable". At least I myself do not recognize such a God, which on the other side does not abstain me from having my own concept or thought of what the concept of God is all about. And as a matter of fact, most or many of the attributed properties assigned by theism to God, do in fact not realy resemble my thoughts on what God is or is not, which is a source of confusion somehow, and what is why I raised the question.

            It's not my argument that to debate a certain issue is "questionable", since as a matter of fact, we do debate it, and find it meaningfull to debate about it.

            Again you reiterate this concept (as applied to theists):

            And then you imply that theistic positions are the root of evil:
            They aren't my exact words. Nevertheless I think it is a mistake to take the concept of God apart from one's own mind.

            Certainly we can point out to certain historic events, in which for example Christianity 'convicted' people with force and violence to the belief of Christianity. As happened in the case of other belief systems as well.

            As an aside, Are you aware of Stalin's atheistic-driven genocides?
            Whatever you are referring to, I don't see a point in calling the events which took place during the Stalin period as genocide. Genocide is a term referring to the elimination and mass-murder of people of certain ethnic background, and based on the ethnic background only. I see no facts in support of attributing the word 'genocide' to these events. The struggle that took place in the Soviet-Union was not an etnic clash, but class-struggle.

            Whatever is your attitude and opinion on this historic episode of the Soviet-Union under the leadership of Stalin, and whatever wrong may or may not haved occured during that period, and who is to blame for that, is in itself a whole new discussion.

            Not that I won't want to debate about that, but I think it's a little besides the current topic.

            Having admonished the theist to keep his God in the realm of personal thoughts, you change gears, but only for the atheist. You speak of your atheistic "conviction" and "whether one lives up to one own's personal judgements and moral concepts"
            Not just theist, but anyone who tries to make a belief into something it isn't.

            I would rather argue that to "[live] up to one own's personal judgements and moral concepts, is entirely up to that person", is a universal prerogative, and NOT just an option for the atheist.
            I did not imply that it would be the option for just the atheist.
            And I added the phrase that as far as one's actions are concerned, we have to deal with certain societal rules.
            That is, certain actions based on a belief, might be in conflict with societal rules, which can dispermit those actions.

            At first you challenge the theist to keep his God-think to himself, but then suggest the atheist has a moral right to actualize his convictions.
            Not just theist, but anyone who tries to make a belief, someone's personal value system, into something it is not (i.e. something that is 'above' or 'outside' of the human mind).

            I do not understand your statement about suggesting that atheist have a moral right to actualize his / her conviction.

            What is or is not a moral right to them is not to be understood something different then to anyone else.

            I only differentiated about the belief itself, which is to be seen on a personal level, and not to be taken outside of that.

            Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but by innuendo, you seem seem to be making this unfair distinction between the theist and atheist.
            I was making a distinction between a fair belief and an unfair belief, and make the disctinction between a belief in something and the knowledge about something.

            Certainly to the extent that I believe in God, I will live up to ensuing personal judgments based upon that belief. We call this being "a doer of the word and not a hearer only".
            I don't think that would be anything different for anyone else.
            Last edited by heusdens; July 5th, 2003, 10:13 AM.

            Comment


            • Hilston,

              I assume as you have not replied to my previous arguments that we can accept that as tacit approval of them.

              1. That consciousness is merely a product of evolution
              2. That absolute truth or any such concept is merely an invention of man
              3. Atheists are not lying based on a mythological book
              4. Theists are lying as no God has ever “appeared” to them or given them anything like real evidence of its existence.

              I am only making this assumption as you have posted several times after my assertions so I am assuming you accept them.

              Thanks !

              Comment


              • <sidenote>

                Scrimshaw said,

                2 Tim 3:16 - "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

                That verse says that the scriptures are sufficent to THOROUGHLY equip the man of God for EVERY good work.
                Wrong. Read the verse again. It merely says that Scripture is useful for the thorough equipping of the man of God for every good work. It nowhere says that Scripture is solely sufficient.

                A strong-headed Catholic apologist would eat your lunch for you. Good thing I'm not one. . ..

                <sidenote ends>
                "To deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Charles Spurgeon

                Comment


                • I have to say I think Hilston is pretty much on-target when he says the evidentialist method is unbiblical. I do think Hilston needs to clarify the difference between unbiblical and antibiblical, though. Driving to church on Sunday is unbiblical; there were no automobiles when the Bible was written. Having 66 and only 66 (or 73, depending on your theological leanings ) books in the Bible is unbiblical, unless one ascribes to the "inspired Table of Contents" theory.

                  The question should be: Is Bob Enyart's apologetic approach antibiblical? Personally, I don't feel qualified to answer, but I offer an observation: Nowhere in the Bible do we see a drawn-out treatise citing evidence to prove God's existence. The Bible is written from points of view that takes the existence of God as a given.

                  If the way Bob handles apologetics is antibiblical, then by all means Hilston should set him straight. If it is merely unbiblical but not antibiblical, then I only see problems as far as practicality is concerned: In proving the existence of the sun, it is far more effecient to point to the sun than to all of which it illuminates.

                  I do believe those who have chalked up Hilston's posts to be mean-spirited or vindictive have done him a disservice. Iron is meant to sharpen iron (Proverbs 27:17), and Hilston's one of the sharpest men I've had opportunity to speak with.
                  "To deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Charles Spurgeon

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe
                    I do believe those who have chalked up Hilston's posts to be mean-spirited or vindictive have done him a disservice. Iron is meant to sharpen iron (Proverbs 27:17), and Hilston's one of the sharpest men I've had opportunity to speak with.
                    Apparently you have been gone from TOL for awhile and missed some of Hilston's greatest theological blockbusters of all time.... The Blade Runner and MATRIX parallels.
                    Oh, wise guy eh?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by novice
                      Apparently you have been gone from TOL for awhile and missed some of Hilston's greatest theological blockbusters of all time.... The Blade Runner and MATRIX parallels.
                      Hmm. Apparently I have. I'd read his article on The Matrix at his website some time ago, and I thought it was pretty smart, though.

                      Blade Runner? You mean he was able to stay awake through it?
                      "To deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Charles Spurgeon

                      Comment


                      • I was able to find Hilston's discussion on replicants and gave it a quick scan. The use of robots as metaphor is telling, and consistent with what I know of Hilston's world view, in which the Master Programmer only loves those robots that are programmed to love him back.

                        Robots are tools. Can anyone really envision loving a robot (or series of robots), even one of his own creation, so much that he would lay down his life for the thing? (Unless, of course, the love of God is just another anthropomorphism.)

                        Alas, I'm taking us off topic.
                        "To deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Charles Spurgeon

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe
                          Nowhere in the Bible do we see a drawn-out treatise citing evidence to prove God's existence. The Bible is written from points of view that takes the existence of God as a given.
                          Hmmmm thats odd, I didn't take you for a strict sola scriptura type of guy.
                          Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                          TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Knight
                            Hmmmm thats odd, I didn't take you for a strict sola scriptura type of guy.
                            There are two types of Christians: those who acknowledge the inclusion of some unwritten tradition in their theology, and those who have the tradition in there but don't acknowledge it. This tradition is unbiblical (in that, it's not explicitly written out in Scripture); but hopefully it's not antibiblical.

                            No, I'm not strictly sola Scriptura. My position is probably closer to prima Scriptura; that Scripture should be our primary source and final arbiter in determining which traditions are antibiblical.
                            "To deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Charles Spurgeon

                            Comment


                            • <By the way, I have it on good word that Hilston equates the words "unbiblical" and "antibiblical," and has made the suggestion that I use "extrabiblical" in place of "unbiblical." I see the wisdom of this and will proceed to do so. >
                              "To deny Calvinism is to deny the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Charles Spurgeon

                              Comment


                              • Hi Aussie,

                                Thanks for the taunt.

                                Actually, I've only posted once since your last installment. In case you didn't notice, it's rather long, so I'm making an effort toward boiling it down a bit, elimating certain repetitions. I'm going to take Knight's advice and start a new thread, if you don't mind. That way this one can stick to discussing Enyart's apologetic method. We can take our business "outside," so to speak.

                                Originally posted by Aussie Thinker

                                I assume as you have not replied to my previous arguments that we can accept that as tacit approval of them.
                                Big mistake.

                                Aussie writes:
                                I am only making this assumption as you have posted several times after my assertions so I am assuming you accept them.
                                Again, only once have I posted, and that was because Bob Enyart's show had just aired and I wanted to quickly post the transcript for the consideration of his defenders.

                                When I start the new thread, I'll post a link here.

                                Cheers,
                                Jim

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X