Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re: OT:Thanksgiving



"Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pLmmj.59974$vt2.46225@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Howard Brazee" <howard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Now, prove me wrong. Just honestly go on record right here that, if you
could
see real and unquestionable proof that the Bible is absolutely true and
reliable,
you would be willing to accept Jesus and submit your life to God.

What kind of proof would you demand before accepting Hinduism as your
religion? Is that the same level of proof you are asking Pete
about?

Howard, you cleverly left out Pete's comment that I was responding to,
which
would have made clear you missed my point. I had claimed non believers
like
Pete did have faith in their secular belief system. Pete objected,
saying he
had no faith, and that his beliefs were entirely based on evidence.

If you are going to attribute words to me, please have the courtesy to
quote them. I do not recall stating that I don't have faith, although I
certainly do rely on evidence to form conclusions.

Okay, let's look at it another way, which I actually prefer. What I'm
trying
to establish here is that athiests believe what they do because they want
to
believe it, not because there is no evidence for God.

Obviously, I disagree, but why do you care what "atheists" (who you are
demonstrably unqualified to talk for) believe?

Does the fact that someone disagrees or questions your belief make a
difference to you?

If it doesn't, then why expend all the energy you are, in argument here?


At the bottom line,
having faith in something is being willing to cling to that belief, even
in
the face of what may appear to be contradictory evidence or experience. It
would be impossible to do such a thing, unless you actually want to
believe.

So, we have established you want to believe in God. Fine. No problem. As an
atheist, I'm not unwrapped by this. As a Christian, why would you be?

No one would continue to believe in something they did not want to
believe,
in such a situation. Thus, the underlying principle of faith is that the
person exhibiting faith does so because they want to have that faith. This
is one popular premise upon which athiests denigrate faith in God, because
it is "based on faith," implying it is not also based on evidence. The
immediate statement you made that I was responding to is this:

Pete Dashwood:
How about those of us with open minds? We don't particularly WANT to
believe anything...but we have to recognize evidence whether we like it
or not...

Thank you for the quote. I've re-read it, re-considered it, and it stands as
written.

I accept that you probably believe that statement, but I do not accept it
as
true for a moment. My contention is that you (along with all athiests and
non-believers), plain and simply, do not want to believe or accept the
existence
of God. You can't accept the idea that there just might be a God out there
to
Whom you may have to give account and be responsible, and you are
unwilling to
submit your will and life to that God, even if the proof of His existence
is
undeniable.

Well, we've already established that isn't true (at least in my case) by a
previous post here today.


In order to clearly establish that, I offered you a challenge to
easily and quickly prove you you really do not "WANT" (as you say above)
the
outcome to be one way or another. Here is my challenge:

Judson McClendon:
Now, prove me wrong. Just honestly go on record right here that, if you
could
see real and unquestionable proof that the Bible is absolutely true and
reliable,
you would be willing to accept Jesus and submit your life to God.
That challenge as worded does NOT establish what you claimed it was intended
to establish in the praragraph preceding.

So, open minded or not? I'm betting you will obfuscate, change the
subject or
otherwise avoid the issue. :-)

Am I right? Let's take a look at your responses below:

I have publicly stated here what I believe and why.

Obfuscation, does not respond to the challenge. I was not questioning
your beliefs. I was asking you to verify your statement that you did
not "WANT" to believe one way or another.

Then, had you said that, I owuld have responded differently, and did so when
you changed your "challenge" and it became clear what you were REALLY trying
ot establish.


I never claimed "complete objectivity" EXCEPT when I was researching the
subject over 30 years. During that time I was agnostic. Now I'm not.

Still unresponsive. It's very simple, do you "WANT" to believe
one way or another, or not?

NO. I have no particular preference for a result. Didn't have while
researching it, don't have today. I hoe that is unequivocal enough, even for
you.

You have no more right to require me to change my current belief, than I
have to require you to convert to Hinduism, as Howard quite correctly
pointed out.

I'n not requiring anything of you! I'm simply asking you to verify
your statement that you don't "WANT" to believe one way or another,
and they you are simply basing your opinion on evidence.


Either he is completely objective without faith,

Nope. You missed the boat... that was a long time ago.

in which case he will make such an
admission, or he is not objective and does have faith, in which case he
won't, thus proving my point.

Nope. There are any number of reasons why I won't play your silly game
and not just the ones you postulate.

More obfuscation and mis-direction. :-)

I COULD be non-objective and rely on faith, as you suggest, but I could
also be objective and still have faith. It is certainly true that I have
"faith" in the conclusions I have arrived at, but this doesn't stop me
re-evaluating what I believe from time to time. New evidence comes in all
the time.

Great! If your "faith" is based on evidence, not "WANT", then you should
have
no problem responding to my challenge, where you get to specify the
quality of
the new evidence presented to you. If you're still "re-evaluating", then
here
is a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate that fact. :-)

(Can you claim truthfully that YOU do that?)

I claim that I have evidence for the truth of the Bible and the existence
of
God (some of which which I've summarized here on occasion), and that I
have
faith in that. I never claimed, as you did, that I do not "WANT" to
believe
one way or another. I want to believe in God. And I believe you "WANT" to
believe there is no God. But you can easily prove me wrong, which is what
my
challenge is all about. :-)

I have now made clear unequivocal statements about this in two posts,
including this one.

You actually WANTED to believe that I WANTED to believe there is no God.
You're wrong. Get over it.

I'm perfectly happy to accept whatever the evidence reveals. Always have
been, hopefully, always will be.

Some tme ago I posted here the percentages I currently have against the
questions to which I want answers. Your "challenge" requires a black and
white answer which is anathema to the processes I follow, and what is
even worse, it would require me to adhere to one strict and narrow cult
which abnegates all responsibility and hangs it on a man tortured to
death 2000 years ago. I already explained why that is unacceptable to me.

Not so; I'm not "requiring" anything of you. I'm simply asking you to
verify the truch of your statement by answering a simple challenge.

To answer your question as formulated REQUIRES me to do something that is
unacceptable, as I explained above. Take the Christian part out of it, as
you did subsequently, and I can answer in a heartbeat. (As I did.)


If you
were presented with evidence that you yourself deemed absolutely and
uncategorically undeniable that the Bible is absolutely true, and that the
God of the Bible exists, would you accept that evidence and be willing to
accept Jesus and submit your life to God? I say that you would not,
because
you do not want to submit to God, regardless of the evidence, and that is
why you invest your faith in athiesm. I.e. the evidence doesn't matter to
you. I even gave you a very easy and simple way to prove me wrong. So,
going to prove me wrong? :-)

I have no vested interest in proving you wrong. But as it happens, you are
very wrong here and you should apologize, as you offered. (I would've spared
you this, but you persisted so savagely you need to think again about your
own motivation.)

I'm still betting you will continue to obfuscate, change the subject and
otherwise avoid giving a direct answer, because you are determined not to
submit your life to God, no matter what. But if you admit that, then you
show your position to be based entirely on what you want, not on evidence
*to any extent whatever*. :-)

And you were completely wrong in both your assumption and the childish,
stupid way you expressed it.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."


.

Relevant Pages