Timmy can you give me a reason not to believe there is a hell?
What about Heaven? Do you have a reason to not believe it's real?
The best reason not to believe in them is that there is no reason to believe in them. They have as much going for their existence as Asgard or Santa Claus. Hell has the additional reason that it is absolutely nonsensical -- infinite punishment for a few decades, at most, of not believing what one certain set of written scriptures (written by men) says? Uh, no.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
It is a concern because, just as before, when you joined the UPC and your understandings of the group were inspired by the group and not because you worked them through for yourself, how are you sure the same thing is not happening again as you define yourself as atheist/agnostic?
Huh? I joined UPC because I already believed what they did. There was little or no conformity needed--I was already there, doctrinally, standards, all that. I don't get your theory about groups. People like groups, and yes groups may "meet needs" and yes, needs change at times. No big deal, really.
Then have you considered that perhaps after you die you will have to answer for your lack of faith?
have you ever seen a radio wave, gravity, or an atom, then how do you know they exist??
There is PHYSICAL evidence for radio waves, gravity, and atoms, and for even stranger things than those. Mountains of physical evidence. The evidence is repeatable and demonstrable. Those discoverers who originally had a hypothesis about the above phenomena understood how KNOWLEDGE works, and they therefore offered a way to test their claims, as well as possessing readiness to overturn their claims if the evidence pointed a different way. This is why your religious beliefs will always remain just claims--nothing demonstrable is offered for evidence except MORE untestable claims--and often a convoluted, humorous series of claims. Nor do religious claims bring with them the willingness to overturn themselves given different or better evidence.
One example of one claim triggering the necessity for more claims--the Noahic Flood would have required thousands of other related miracles at the same time. The believer keeps trying (is required to) make it all "work" against what we already know about the world. You can keep trying to claim that your faith is the same as knowledge. But it is not, and probably never will be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword
have you visited every corner of the universe and can confidently say there is no God, there is no heaven, there is no hell
Doesn't work. Have you visited every corner of the universe to confidently say Leprachauns do not exist? That Thor does not exist? That the Matrix does not exist? That Heidi does not exist? (Who's Heidi? I don't know, but doesn't matter--she exists in an invisible world and she loves you, but will punish the rest of the world.) Sorry, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That is, unless you possess a religious mind, where what you want to be true is confused with the knowledge that evidence provides-- at least the level of evidence that you use when results really matter--such as in every day life. Instead, you have lots of company, and most of your company claims all kinds invisible spirit world beings out there somewhere.
Huh? I joined UPC because I already believed what they did. There was little or no conformity needed--I was already there, doctrinally, standards, all that. I don't get your theory about groups. People like groups, and yes groups may "meet needs" and yes, needs change at times. No big deal, really.
My concern is not with groups in general. For example, a bowling league is a group. You have fun. You bowl. I am talking specifically about groups based around certain philosophies. All groups based around certain philosophies have a certain amount of pressure to conform to the belief system or be categorized as outside of that system. The difference with the UPC and some other religions is the threat of hell if you don't conform. However, all philosophical groups have a certain conformity. Philosophical beliefs are like puzzles. Many groups have a large part of the puzzle there. This is sometimes based on circular logic. you never notice that pieces of the puzzle are missing because you keep going around the same parts of the puzzle and the picture appears complete, even though it is not. It is only when you step outside of that belief system that you begin to see that the puzzle is not whole...you remove yourself from the circular logic. This is why I am very careful about joining up with any philosophical group or belief system. A bunch of your peers can stand around patting you on the back telling you you have finally arrived....you finally understand. But all this is is external validation. First of all, I don't belief any group or person understands anything wholly. We do journey. Some atheist/agnostic arguments seem to have a certain component of closed mindedness, particularly the atheist arguments. Open communication and dialogue (which many people claim to have but do not practice) is the only thing that helps any of us. When I, for example, tried to be a part of an ex-pentecostal group and they railroaded me for still speaking in tongues, I could see they were closed minded. Been there, done that. Not interested. So, I am only interested in being a part of people, no matter what group(s) they are with, if they are open minded and willing to accept me for what and who I am. This doesn't mean people have to AGREE with me. But they have to let me explore.
__________________
Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people doing it. ~Chinese Proverb
When I was young and clever, I wanted to change the world. Now that I am older and wiser, I strive to change myself. ~
...And Marcbee, can you let me know why you think there is no God?
Fair question, Lacy. But I've been offering small zingers about that issue since about post #877 Timmy Talk. So maybe stay tuned to TT, because everything gets covered over and over--unlike in all the other subforums!
But my disbelief could maybe be summarized within two categories of conclusions. 1. The bible is man made, no god in it, just claims of men. 2. My experience with the Jesus God (for 25+ years) was probably all man-made also--no god there, either. My TT Posts #1113 and #1114 are relevant to your question (My Journey out of Superstition.)
Today, I can confidentally also object to god's moral compass, at least the god as portrayed in the bible--he wasn't much of a father, nor much of an example to follow (which makes sense since it's made up by men.) For a paragraph that demonstrates this kind of reasoning, Timmy Talk post #1116, please. (PS, your modern moral compass is better than the god's.)
All groups based around certain philosophies have a certain amount of pressure to conform to the belief system or be categorized as outside of that system. The difference with the UPC and some other religions is the threat of hell if you don't conform.
Indeed. It matters not what you believe, it seems you have to seek out others who believe in a similar way, and then stick together like magnets, in order to feel that you have got it all figured out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG
However, all philosophical groups have a certain conformity. Philosophical beliefs are like puzzles. Many groups have a large part of the puzzle there. This is sometimes based on circular logic. you never notice that pieces of the puzzle are missing because you keep going around the same parts of the puzzle and the picture appears complete, even though it is not. It is only when you step outside of that belief system that you begin to see that the puzzle is not whole...you remove yourself from the circular logic.
Excellent illustration of your point!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILG
This is why I am very careful about joining up with any philosophical group or belief system. A bunch of your peers can stand around patting you on the back telling you you have finally arrived....you finally understand. But all this is is external validation. First of all, I don't belief any group or person understands anything wholly. We do journey. Some atheist/agnostic arguments seem to have a certain component of closed mindedness, particularly the atheist arguments. Open communication and dialogue (which many people claim to have but do not practice) is the only thing that helps any of us. When I, for example, tried to be a part of an ex-pentecostal group and they railroaded me for still speaking in tongues, I could see they were closed minded. Been there, done that. Not interested. So, I am only interested in being a part of people, no matter what group(s) they are with, if they are open minded and willing to accept me for what and who I am. This doesn't mean people have to AGREE with me. But they have to let me explore.
It is very hard to find a group of people who are willing to accept others with their differences. Most of the time, the desire for conformity will isolate the one who does not conform. It can be a lonely place to be.
IF, as Christians, we could understand that we are ONE in Christ, yet each individually seeking to please the Lord as He leads them, perhaps there could be more acceptance among believers for those in a slightly different spiritual place than their neighbor.
I see nothing wrong with any of this. The project is over anyways so your wasting your time on what's finished.
I've already explained that it is part anthropology, part psychology, part prank. Not that the people there ever found out about the prank or were hurt, but just to send the message out to you that apparently your God isn't speaking to Pentecostals today.
Was "cussing in tongues" the anthropology part, the psychology part, or the prank part? (I saw a supposed transcriptions of the cussing/tongues on the former blog.)
It's not too hard to mock a population of people who really think that a Magic-like Being descended from his holy lair in order to install a talking snake in an idyllic garden, and to let the talking snake subvert his "perfectly created creation" to result in the condemnation of most of mankind, but who also invented a system of blood sacrifices to hold off the Magic-like Being's anger for a while, until eventually sacrificing Himself unto Himself for Himself in order to satisfy the legal requirements the MLB invented in the first place. So, today, we have .0001% of the world claiming they can, do, and have to speak in a mysterious language they never learned, in order to be properly connected with the Magic-like Being. So, you're not creative enough to mock all that without pretending to be a part of it? The already-known facts and habits of Pentecostalism are already persuasive enough to warn most of the world--meaning those who realize no need to believe such primitive stories and silly prescriptions.
PS, The first rule of espionage is "don't get caught." But if you do, expect a bad week.
Does your church have discernment? If I walked into a service with the intent of, say, faking a repentance at the altar, complete with "tongues", would your ushers swing me around and toss me out before I even had the chance? Or would they at least interrupt my fake tongues?
Timmy, James Randi did extensive testing of psychics, mediums, readers, etc, and came up with a universal principle that (I think) also applies to the Pentecostals' "gifts of the Spirit." When Randi's test subjects could not come up with the goods in a testable way, they always claimed that his unbelief in their ability somehow affects that ability at that particular time. They just can't "operate freely" in their psychic world when being glared at by an adversarial observer. It's probably the same concept with the Holy Spirit--if you approach It with the intention of a test, then HG can't work right, and HG retracts like a frightened turtle.
An almost opposite concept, yet stemming from the same bible, is when a backslider or exchristian may claim they still have the same spiritual gifts while being very far from God. In those cases, the explanation is, "Of course, because 'the gifts and the calling of god are without repentance.' " So, the God has no objections toward keeping the miraculous working in those cases, but when it comes to formal testing in real time, the frightened turtle concept prevails.
See, whatever explanation it takes to maintain faith! (As you already know.)
The best reason not to believe in them is that there is no reason to believe in them. They have as much going for their existence as Asgard or Santa Claus. Hell has the additional reason that it is absolutely nonsensical -- infinite punishment for a few decades, at most, of not believing what one certain set of written scriptures (written by men) says? Uh, no.
Mmm, or accepting the mis-translations of the Scriptures that God gave us, too--don't forget that one.
Linear Mode
