Atheist experiences of religious apparitions

kylith

kelly1 wrote: »

If you really want to know what it is, just do the research yourself.

What tends to happen here is that I go off and get a definition of a theological term only to have the explanation ripped to shreds. It's a pointless waste of time. Again, I refer you to 1 Corinthians 2:14.

Maybe you should ask yourself how good an explanation it is if it can be ripped to shreds so easily. I mean, the word of a god shouldn't be able to be debunked by a bunch of people who are not, for the large part, biblical scholars, should it?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

In order to make that point, the atheist must assume that God exists, for the sake of argument. Otherwise he would have just said God doesn't exists and hell isn't real, end of story. The point would not have been made.

The atheist is trying to show that Christianity makes no sense and therefore is false.

All us posters here have to go on is what religious people tell us about their religion. And there are ample opportunities to question, discuss and to point out where there are inconsistencies, unanswerable questions and so on. It's not the fault of people who ask questions if the people choosing to answer them find themselves unable to answer them.

To some of us, that should be an indication to the person who's failed to answer a question adequately, that they should either think more carefully about an answer and provide a better one, or admit that they don't know. I haven't noticed that the religious have ever been especially good in the area of admitting a lack of knowledge - seeming always to prefer, not an admission of ignrance, but instead, a thick cloud of dense verbiage often followed by the sound of the forum's door closing behind them.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

You might have more success here if you were similarly polite here.

I tried politeness at first until I was met with statements like "What's the harm in a few hours on a cross" and something about burying the bas***d [Jesus] in concrete. And nobody said a word about it. Hardly the language of civilized people, is it?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

And nobody said a word about it.

Seems like criticism or lampooning of ideas to me. Personally, I'd just ignore it.

kelly1 wrote: »

Hardly the language of civilized people, is it?

I find it significantly more civilized than telling people, or implying to people or engaging in evasive tactics to avoid saying (while clearly still believing), that they're going to go to hell, there to burn for all eternity. Or, as I was told a few weeks ago, that my actions were always less than those of a priest, since his actions were motivated by grace and mine weren't.

Personally, I find those kind of comments arrogant and chauvinistic beyond belief, where, of course, they are not derisory.

kelly1

kylith wrote: »

Maybe you should ask yourself how good an explanation it is if it can be ripped to shreds so easily. I mean, the word of a god shouldn't be able to be debunked by a bunch of people who are not, for the large part, biblical scholars, should it?

Again:

1 Cor 2:14 The person without the [Holy] Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit

Goodnight ladies and gentlemen. Excuse me while I go have a chat with God before bed.

Deusexmachina

kylith wrote: »

Yes, having a child is more than pregnancy and delivery. But given that pregnancy and delivery are uncomfortable, painful, and potentially life threatening and that that is only the start of having a child why should anyone who does not want to do that be forced to just because the condom broke or they had a stomach upset that meant the pill didn't work?

I didn't say you should have no say, I said you don't get the final say. You can be the best father in the world, but you don't put your health on the line to carry a pregnancy, you don't go through hours of labour, you don't get your vagina cut to deliver it, you don't get mastitis. The final decision has to rest with the person who is most effected by the pregnancy and the birth, and that is the woman.

And IMO 'I don't want to have a child' is not a trivial reason to terminate a pregnancy. It's one of the top reasons to terminate. The alternative is what we have now; women being forced to have children that they don't want, can't afford, or aren't capable of caring for.

I can accept the need for abortion in certain circumstances. However, 'I don't want to have a baby' covers a wide range of possibilities - from 'because I have been raped' to 'because I have already booked my holiday'.

Some reasons are profound, others trivial. Now, I can fully accept the woman having the right to autonomy in the former instance but certainly not in the latter. Fathers are important too.

Nothing is absolute in such matters - these are complex issues. To argue otherwise is reductive. 'Autonomy' means an absolute right without recourse to the man. This merely swaps one injustice for another.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

The person without the [Holy] Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

I can't help but be reminded of The Emperor's New Clothes.

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

Again:

1 Cor 2:14 The person without the [Holy] Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit

Goodnight ladies and gentlemen. Excuse me while I go have a chat with God before bed.

Again, you said that your faith was based on reason. This now seems to be saying that it's a special kind of religious reason that we just don't get.

Also, wouldn't God be the one deciding whether or not the holy spirit is in a person or not, thus giving them the ability to use said special religious reason?
That sounds an awful lot like him interfering with people's will...

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

I tried politeness at first until I was met with statements like "What's the harm in a few hours on a cross" and something about burying the bas***d [Jesus] in concrete. And nobody said a word about it. Hardly the language of civilized people, is it?

Nor is suggesting that people who refuse to share your beliefs, which amounts to the majority of humankind as it happens, will suffer for all of eternity. It is worth remembering that while atheists are religious sceptics, so are many Christians such as yourself. The only difference is that you're sceptical of one less religion than we are.

kylith

kelly1 wrote: »

Again:

1 Cor 2:14 The person without the [Holy] Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit

Goodnight ladies and gentlemen. Excuse me while I go have a chat with God before bed.

So, why hasn't your god imbued us with the holy spirit? Does he want us to be atheist so that he can send us to hell?

robindch

kylith wrote: »

So, why hasn't your god imbued us with the holy spirit? Does he want us to be atheist so that he can send us to hell?

The catholic belief is that while "god is everywhere" and therefore in some sense within everybody, non-believers don't accept this, and the deity in some sense respects this belief and refuses to allow the person to accept that the non-believer will believe whatever it is that they'd have believed anyway if they believed the first thing.

ie, you're only going to believe the second thing if you're going to believe the first thing, so it's unhelpful to say that it's foolishness - I'd have said it was much closer to "consistency", though calling it "foolishness" does provide believers with a biblical insult which they can wave at non-believers.

kelly1

kylith wrote: »

So, why hasn't your god imbued us with the holy spirit? Does he want us to be atheist so that he can send us to hell?

Your use of the word "your" is a clue.

looksee

Well obviously, since he has not imbued us with the holy spirit, he is not 'our' god.

GritBiscuit

So, say, when Thor or Ganesha fails to imbue a christian with their particular brand of holy spirit that's proof those gods don't exist and there is only one true religion...but people who aren't imbued with christian holy spirit are closed minded/hearted and are going to be tortured for all eternity for their self-inflicted stupidity...do I have that right?

kelly1

looksee wrote: »

Well obviously, since he has not imbued us with the holy spirit, he is not 'our' god.

The onus is on you to take the next step towards God. He made the first step by sending his son to die on the cross so that we sinners could be reconciled with him. Only then can you receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit. You just need to talk to God and ask him to reveal himself to you. This verse from Isaiah was written about 600 years BC and it prophesies about Christ's redemptive sacrifice:

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

GritBiscuit wrote: »

So, say, when Thor or Ganesha fails to imbue a christian with their particular brand of holy spirit that's proof those gods don't exist and there is only one true religion...

This whole 3000+ gods nonsense is a complete red-herring. There is one God in three persons.

GritBiscuit wrote: »

but people who aren't imbued with christian holy spirit are closed minded/hearted and are going to be tortured for all eternity for their self-inflicted stupidity...do I have that right?

I don't know anything about the extent of torture in hell. The CCC says this:

1035: The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.

spacecoyote

kelly1 wrote: »

Hell is a place of separation from God and this separation is a personal choice. There is no "middle" final place between heaven and hell where atheists can spend their days complaining about God. Those in hell are deprived of God's grace and suffer the consequences.

So, is Earth today, in essence, Hell? Basically atheists can spend their day complaining about God, and on the face of things (famine, hurricanes, dictators, etc....) everyone appears to be deprived of Gods grace, irrespective of their beliefs. If that's the case, I don't think too many Atheists will be put out when end times kick off so, as nothing, in essence would change for them.

kelly1 wrote: »

An atheist cannot expect a place in heaven having denied his creator and denying that he sent his son to die in order to pay the price for the sins, which every one of us has committed.

I don't think a single atheist expects a place in heaven, as they don't believe such a place exists. That's not really the point that was being made. The point is, if a Christian lives a terrible life, but repents for their sins, they will, according to Christian beliefs be granted a key to the doors. But if an atheist lives their entire live in a manner that would be, in essence, the principals that Christianity are supposed to be founded upon, they'll have to suffer damnation, just because God has such a massive ego that he curses you for not believing in him

kelly1 wrote: »

As I've said before, atheists are not willing to seek God through prayer. Instead they wait for physical evidence, putting the onus back on God. But Jesus has told us, "seek and you will find". This is the real crux of the whole theist/atheist divide.

Pretty much 99% of the Christians I know do not pray, attend mass, go to confession, etc... does a person who is, basically, a Christian in name, but not in practice, get a free pass too?

kelly1 wrote: »

This whole 3000+ gods nonsense is a complete red-herring. There is one God in three persons.

I think that's one of the most hilarious statements I've ever read! All other Gods are nonsense, even though they've got their own holy books, with almost identical virgin birth, son of God, etc... stories, many pre-dating yours, but yours is the only correct one, because you believe its so.

You said that you came back to the Christian God after a life changing experience, when you prayed & got answers. How do you know it was the Christian God that answer, it may have been Vishnu listening in & answering your prayers

looksee

Ok Kelly1 this is getting a bit tedious. You just are not 'getting it' are you?

This is an Atheism and Agnosticism forum, you are not going to make any progress with us by quoting your holy book that we do not accept. Telling us

The onus is on you to take the next step towards God. He made the first step by sending his son to die on the cross so that we sinners could be reconciled with him. Only then can you receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit. You just need to talk to God and ask him to reveal himself to you.

is pointless, why do you expect anyone here to take a next step (what was the first step?) towards an entity they do not accept exists?

If you want to discuss theology on a basis that assumes belief then you are in the wrong place; why are you persisting? We are happy to discuss theology but it will not be a positive experience for you! If you considered our points as seriously as you expect us to consider yours, you might learn something.

I will just mention in passing that the last person who insisted on this kind of posting and quoting bible texts as though we were supposed to take them seriously ended up confined to his 'own' thread - a thread that has been going on for about 12 years now.

GritBiscuit

kelly1 wrote: »

This whole 3000+ gods nonsense is a complete red-herring. There is one God in three persons.


I don't know anything about the extent of torture in hell. The CCC says this:

1035: The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.

Exactly - it's the hypocrisy of your disbelief in every other god and religion and espousing them as nonsense while simultaneously accusing atheists of some great moral and intellectual failure for doing exactly the same, simply with one more god...and taking offence at any less than flattering commentary regarding that god/religion to boot.

I'm never sure how I'm supposed to take bible quotes - thanks to the schisms, rewrites, translation issues, complete lack of consistency and most of all the chronic cherry picking employed by the vast majority of theist, particularly of the apologetic variety, it just comes across as meaningless babble desperately dressed up as rational discourse and a persuasive argument...a bit like all the proponents of other religions/gods must sound to you. I'm not sure what is so difficult to grasp here?

1123heavy

spacecoyote wrote: »

I think that's one of the most hilarious statements I've ever read! All other Gods are nonsense, even though they've got their own holy books, with almost identical virgin birth, son of God, etc... stories, many pre-dating yours, but yours is the only correct one, because you believe its so.

Well this is it. How many Christians would like to accept that ancient Roman beliefs were full of Vrigin births? Or indeed that some of the major Gods like Mithra and Saturn celebrated their birthday on one particular day that is still a big celebration today

The writing is on the wall, but oh no, those terrible Romans with their virgin birth stories and celebrating son gods on December 25th!

kylith

kelly1 wrote: »

Your use of the word "your" is a clue.

But he could imbue us with the spirit so we'd believe and accept. He could offer definite proof, so we'd believe and accept, but he doesn't. Is it because he's not real or because he wants to torture us?

kelly1

looksee wrote: »

Ok Kelly1 this is getting a bit tedious. You just are not 'getting it' are you?

I do get it, you don't believe. That's your own business.

I was responding to your asssertion: "...since he has not imbued us with the holy spirit, he is not 'our' god." I think I explained reasonably clearly why you won't find the Spirit of God as long as you continue to deny the Spirit.

kylith wrote: »

But he could imbue us with the spirit so we'd believe and accept. He could offer definite proof, so we'd believe and accept, but he doesn't.

I've already given a reason for this. Free will!

kylith wrote: »

Is it because he's not real or because he wants to torture us?

Neither.

kylith

kelly1 wrote: »

I do get it, you don't believe. That's your own business.

I was responding to your asssertion: "...since he has not imbued us with the holy spirit, he is not 'our' god." I think I explained reasonably clearly why you won't find the Spirit of God as long as you continue to deny the Spirit.


I've already given a reason for this. Free will!


Neither.

But it's not free will. how can it be free will if we don't have any proof? All we have is priests saying 'believe with no evidence, or else'.

King Mob

kelly1 wrote: »

I've already given a reason for this. Free will!

But this isn't consistent.
First, it means that people he does give the holy spirit to don't have free will anymore. He is taking their free will by giving them this form of what is basically mind control.
Secondly, you have claimed that he heals people via miracles, which you then also said is a violation of free will. So apparently, using your own reasoning, he's got no issue violating free will.
And thirdly, it was pointed out to you much earlier in the thread that by your own rules, free will cannot exist with the idea of God.

You said you wanted to argue using reason, but when you are confronted with problems, you ignore them.
Doesn't that make you doubt? Why do you have to ignore all these problems if your faith is so based on reason?

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

I've already given a reason for this. Free will!

Again, most people here have attempted to be catholics in good faith when we were kids, teens or young adults.

And no matter how much we squeezed our eyes shut, clasped our hands, prayed till our tongues were dry, not once were we imbued with anything.

You're telling us that everything would be made clear if we just made an effort.

We've done that. Nothing happened.

The truth-claims you're making are therefore evidentially false - mainly because the holy book your quoting from is made up as well.

kelly1

GritBiscuit wrote: »

I'm never sure how I'm supposed to take bible quotes - thanks to the schisms, rewrites, translation issues, complete lack of consistency...

And you evidence for that I assume? Have you actually done any research into the reliability of the bible? Don't you know there's a very high degree of consistency across all the earliest available greek texts? Check Youtube for "reliability of the new testament manuscripts". Do the research, don't take the word of someone with an axe to grind.

kylith wrote: »

But it's not free will. how can it be free will if we don't have any proof? All we have is priests saying 'believe with no evidence, or else'.

Curious reasoning. When you turn to God where you don't have any proof that he exists, that is true free will. There is no coercion whatsoever. On the other hand, if we could prove that God exists, there would be some pressure to obey God's will. God wants us to love him totally freely.

Turning to God without *proof* of his existence is also meritorious i.e. it will be rewarded (John 20:29).

spacecoyote

kelly1 wrote: »

And you evidence for that I assume? Have you actually done any research into the reliability of the bible? Don't you know there's a very high degree of consistency across all the earliest available greek texts? Check Youtube for "reliability of the new testament manuscripts". Do the research, don't take the word of someone with an axe to grind.

[Me]sits back and waits for oldrnwisr to arrive[/me]

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Again, most people here have attempted to be catholics in good faith when we were kids, teens or young adults.

And no matter how much we squeezed our eyes shut, clasped our hands, prayed till our tongues were dry, not once were we imbued with anything.

You're telling us that everything would be made clear if we just made an effort.

We've done that. Nothing happened.

Would you mind elaborating on this a bit please? Were you genuinely seeking God or just going through the motions? Did you ask for help when your faith started to slide? Did you ask God to increase you faith? Or did you get washed away by a secular tide?

The reason I fell away from the Catholic faith is that I never took it seriously, because I didn't receive a good grounding. I was going through the motions. In all my years in school, I never understood the point of Jesus' crucifixion and it was only when I started studying for myself that I began to understand. Having said that, I never lost belief in God.

[Edit: I once asked on this forum what it was that lead to people losing belief in God, and if I'm not mistaken, there was a trend that people's faith began to slip when they found out Santa doesn't exist]

spacecoyote wrote: »

[Me]sits back and waits for oldrnwisr to arrive[/me]

I was referring to consistence across manuscript copies, not inconsistencies within the bible.

kylith

kelly1 wrote: »

Curious reasoning. When you turn to God where you don't have any proof that he exists, that is true free will. There is no coercion whatsoever. On the other hand, if we could prove that God exists, there would be some pressure to obey God's will. God wants us to love him totally freely.

Turning to God without *proof* of his existence is also meritorious i.e. it will be rewarded (John 20:29).

Of course there's coercion if the alternative is damnation. It's like a mugger saying they'll stab you if you don't give them your money; no jury would accept that you had then given him the money of your own free will.

As Robindch says; most of us were Christians. I sang in my church choir for more than a decade. I prayed earnestly with an open heart and... nothing. There was no answer, no voice from the sky, no feeling in my heart. Just the silence of no-one there. So I got over it, I learned about evolution, about humanity's in-built altruism being an evolved trait in herd species like ours. I learned about the thousands of other gods that people believed in before Yaweh arrived on the scene and considered that if those gods, which were believed in just as earnestly, were now myths then why couldn't Yaweh be a myth. I highly recommend Terry Pratchett's Small Gods, a wonderful book about how gods grow and die.

GritBiscuit

kelly1 wrote: »

And you evidence for that I assume? Have you actually done any research into the reliability of the bible? Don't you know there's a very high degree of consistency across all the earliest available greek texts? Check Youtube for "reliability of the new testament manuscripts". Do the research, don't take the word of someone with an axe to grind.

Universe created in 6 days, no to gays, one big boat and two of every species...entire global population from a single husband and wife - made in gods image but full of original sin and an appendix about 6000 yrs ago. That the jist of it? You're absolutely right, sounds waaaaaaay more reliable than any of those skeptic nutters with an axe to grind... Ehhhh...

spacecoyote

kelly1 wrote: »

The reason I fell away from the Catholic faith is that I never took it seriously, because I didn't receive a good grounding. I was going through the motions. In all my years in school, I never understood the point of Jesus' crucifixion and it was only when I started studying for myself that I began to understand. Having said that, I never lost belief in God.

Speaking of Jesus story, and the crucifixion, etc... how does poor old Krishna fit in with your beliefs.

Read number 9 on the attached list:

http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-christ-like-figures-who-pre-date-jesus/

See any strange co-incidences (and that's just using Krishna as an example, never mind the rest on the list)?