The war against Ukraine

The following arises from a theme explored on another thread.

When Putin murders women and children, he is a war criminal who deserves to be hated by all good people, everywhere. Even one or two Republicans have sided against him. When Yahweh does something similar. we are urged to examine the background before rushing to conclusions. Smacks of double standards to me.

As long as you support the murder of an innocent child in the womb, you have no foundation from which to criticize God. Remove the log from your own eye before you try to pluck the speck out of someone else's eye.

Another stab at the "shoot the messenger" when the case made is very difficult to rebut.   At least, its getting pretty consistent around here.

I didn't shoot the messenger. I just pointed out the hypocrisy of the post.

Once again, do take care when slinging mud. Calling it hypocrisy to be pro-choice for women and anti war about Ukraine is special pleading, You should know better.

On a more cheerful note, the Pope has blamed NATO for the Russian invasion. There is some sort of case to be made that theists lose their ability to make rational reasoning on non-theistic issues.

Bill wrote:Once again, do take care when slinging mud.   Calling it hypocrisy to be pro-choice for women and anti war about Ukraine is special pleading,   You should know better.

I never said anything about the war in the Ukraine. I said it was hypocritical to condemn God for the death of people while at the same time condoning the murder of infants in the womb. You should know better.

Bill wrote:On a more cheerful note, the Pope has blamed NATO for the Russian invasion.   There is some sort of case to be made that theists lose their ability to make rational reasoning on non-theistic issues.

I really don’t care what the Pope thinks. He is just another religionist. His opinion carries no weight with me.

Now you know how we agnostics feel when evangelicals tell us that our wilful refusal to take their religion as our own will result in us spending an eternity in hell fire screaming. You have spotted that claims that are not backed by compelling arguments are just opinions and are easily dismissed.

Yep, you are perfectly entitled to reject the Gospel just as I reject the Pope’s opinion.

Thank you. This is one of those rare moments when we agree with each other. (I bet it has gone very cold in hell for few moments).

I have always said faith is a personal choice. I can't force anyone to believe when they choose not to.

We agnostics tend to take the position that a worldview is the result of all life experiences to date. To say that someone has the wrong worldview is tantamount to saying that they have led the wrong life.

It is not my fault that no one has ever produced a compelling argument to prove the existence or non existence of a god, I do not believe I have led the wrong life, only that the one I have led has never given me cause to adopt your religion as my own. I did not choose for no case to exist. And if you have one, this is a great place to share it.

Did Ted Kaczynski have the wrong worldview? Would you say he led the wrong life? If yes, how dare you take that position as an agnostic. BTW, Teddy was raised as a nonbeliever as well.

I have presented ample evidence for God, but as your own god, you have dismissed all of it. Live in the darkness is you so choose.

Your "evidence" has all been in the nature of "I have a relationship with Christ.   If you choose to believe in Christ, you will also have a relationship with him."   While oral testimony can be taken as evidence, it is not automatically assumed to be one hundred percent accurate.   That your testimony is true for you does not make it true for everyone.

And in the case if Kaczynski, you are right to point out that mental illness can distort reality out of all recognition.   An evaluation showed him to be a paranoid schizophrenic.   That is one hellum distorting mirror with which to view life.

I should have included a caveat that the worldview of the rational being is the sum of their life experiences.   Choosing what to believe does not seem a valid option for a rational being.   Being persuaded is a different matter.

Any luck on digging up a persuasive argument?

I have presented plenty of evidence to support the existence of God, but you have dismissed it all. Remember though, refusing to undertake the verification process does not make the evidence incapable of being verified.

It take it we agree that all your evidence has been your testimony on how your relationship with Christ works.

If that is the case, the only verification would be to give you a lie-detector test: and all that might prove is how well you can pass such tests.

Personal testimony never qualifies as a persuasive argument. I am not surprised you haven't found such a case yet, for if you had, you would have surely presented it by now.

No it isn't just my testimony. It is the testimony of the disciples, the testimony of the apostles, and the testimony of millions of people for the last 2000 years. I am not surprised that you still haven't believed despite such overwhelming evidence for God. No matter the evidence, people who don't want to believe never will.
John 11:44-46 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.

You would fall into the category of those who witnessed the raising of Lazarus, but scurried away to tell the Pharisees.

The gospels according to the disciples are not eyewitness accounts and do not count as oral testimony.   Using the bible as evidence the bible is true does not count as evidence.

I agree millions of people in history have believed in one god or another.    The reasons for their delusions cannot now be revealed, so their numbers, while interesting, don't amount to a persuasive argument.

I understand why you flail around to try to build a case, for we have established that there is no persuasive case in either direction.   And even if it could be proven that there is a god, that would only indicate that only one of several thousands of religions was based on the existence of that particular god.   All the others would be pointing in the wrong direction - what on earth would the Pope do if it turns out that Allah really is the one true god?

Only Luke was around to record such a momentous event.   I guess the other three disciples and all other potential eye witnesses were have a rest day.   Or all of them thought it was too trivial to record.

Hahaha..you're just making up stuff again. Matthew and John were both eyewitnesses because they were disciples. Mark and Luke were not disciples but were part of the first generation of believers who were both traveling companions of the Apostle Paul. Talk about flailing about.

Again, there is plenty of evidence but if you fail to undertake the verification process that does not make the evidence incapable of being verified. You don't want to verify the evidence because then you discover you are answerable to God and will one day be judged by Him. As your own god you cannot grasp that thought.

I will really try to verify you evidence but need your guidance on how to undertake this venture. Fishing about in the dark is always tricky and often leads to unexpected consequences.

And we do agree that in the four gospels only one of them reported the miracle?

Here's what I recommend, read the Gospel of John with an open heart and mind. Do not try to read the entire book at one time. You don't even have to read a complete chapter at one sitting. Each time you take time to read a portion, ask God to reveal Himself to you. As an agnostic it will feel strange to ask God to help you since you aren't even sure He exists. When you come to a portion you don't understand, ask God to show you the meaning. Keep reading that part until you know what is meant. Feel free also to ask me and I will attempt to uncover a meaning.

And yes we agree that only John recorded the raising of Lazarus. Each Gospel writer had a specific audience he was writing to with a specific purpose. The Gospels are not a biography of Jesus but each was written to present Jesus in a particular light.

If your view is that reading the bible will convince the reader that he is reading the truth and by turning to God you will become religious. That is not verification of evidence, that is swallowing it hook line and sinker.

And if I take on your worldview as my own, I fear I might end up as a bombastic holier-than-thou reprobate.

We shall just have to agree to differ on me undertaking your suggested method of verification. In the meantime I shall go back to relying on justified true beliefs. They have yet to let me down.

So you’re not willing to verify the evidence. So be it. But don’t ask for any other evidence if you’re not willing to examine evidence already presented. And as we have already discovered, there is no justified true belief for someone who refuses to believe. So you’re left to simply believing what you choose.

Despite all my attempts to edify you, you clearly have no idea what a justified true belief is.

And your assumption that people can choose what to believe and what to disbelieve seems, to me, to be highly unscientific. Apart from your failure to convince me to adopt your worldview as my own, do you have any other examples of people choosing to believe something?