Babies going to hell...

[Acriku]

No matter what I did to reach my conclusion, I still lack the belief. If I do not lack the belief, then I have the belief, but since I do not have the belief, I lack the belief. Do you agree?

[emprworm]

No matter what I did to reach my conclusion, I still lack the belief. If I do not lack the belief, then I have the belief, but since I do not have the belief, I lack the belief. Do you agree?

of course you lack belief. someone who disbelieves still lacks belief. whatever state you want to call it, it is not the same as a baby.

you considered....and rejected.

now, reference to your topic: "babies going to hell"....they have not considered and rejected like you have. your unbelief is positive, theirs is negative.

[Acriku]

First of all, applying positive and negative to "the lack of belief," or unbelief as you prefer to call it, is word games. It has no real meaning, and is used by yourself to establish a relevant difference when there is not. Also, even though the path to atheism is not the same as babies, since there is no path for them different than the path to development of itself, they are still atheists.

Next, if you still prefer to say that babies have "negative" unbelief, where does this get you? It brings you to a false satisfication that babies do not go to hell. Playing word games to satisfy yourself is not the way to do things.

Next, since you agree babies lack the belief, we have finally reached the agreement that babies are atheists. Glad we have come to that, and if we haven't then you must explain and provide evidence that a baby does in fact have this belief.

Next, since we both agree babies are atheists because they lack the belief of a god, then we can discuss what gets somebody into heaven.

[emprworm]

First of all, applying positive and negative to "the lack of belief," or unbelief as you prefer to call it, is word games.

lol, of course it isn't. It is the difference between passive and active. And it is a HUGE difference.

Take Euthanasia. There are 2 kinds: Passive and active.

Passive Euthanasia means that you "do nothing and the patient will die." This is like taking someone off a respirator because they are going to die unless you do something to keep them alive. Their bodies cannot survive without direct intervention.

Active Euthanasia, on the other hand, means that the doctor must directly take action and deliberately cause death, that would otherwise not occur if the patient was left alone. (like Dr. Kavorkian injecting patients with killing drugs)

The ethics of passive vs. active Euthanasia are radically philosophically different.

This is exactly the same difference between a baby and an common atheist such as yourself. You have taken action on your world view and have considered and made conclusions regarding the existence of God and/or evidences of such.

Thus the difference between positive unbelief and negative unbelief. Yours is pro-active (positive).

[Acriku]

Now explain positive/negative unbelief in terms of atheism without an analogy and the philosophical differences. If you don't, then why bother going further.

[emprworm]

i already explained it.

once you consider something, and bring it into your "mental courtroom", it is no longer a passive unbelief, but an active one. You actively lack belief in God.

totally unlike a baby.

the difference is so obvious, I am honestly surprised you keep challenging it.

Are you telling me that a baby considers the existence of God and still lacks belief after such consideration?

[Acriku]

But what is the relevance of it being passive or active? Whether someone considers it or not, what is the relevance? That is what I have been wondering.

[emprworm]

"But what is the relevance of it being passive or active? "

it has every relevance in the world! Decisions play a key factor in your burden of responsibility. duh

Decisions, decisions.

[Acriku]

So, we actively lack a belief in every other god, with the exception of myself adding one more, correct?

[emprworm]

So, we actively lack a belief in every other god, with the exception of myself adding one more, correct?

*bangs head on wall*

you just don't listen do you. Well I know why you dont. I just found out that you don't even read my posts. Pretty pathetic.

so instead of typing anything new (which will be a waste since you don't read them anyway) I'll just cut-and-paste.

2 minutes ago, you probably lacked belief in the existence of the Tripedal Esoteric Multiphase Astro Leprechaun- a false god that I just made up. Now that you have heard of this god, however, and I ask you to consider its existence, you will no longer lack belief, but you will have pro-active unbelief. However 2 minutes ago, before you even read my post, you had no knowledge of the postulation of such a deity- therefore you had a lack of belief in it....AND you also did not deny its existence either. So 2 minutes ago, not only did you lack belief in the Tripedal Esoteric Multiphase Astro Leprechaun, but you also did not disbelieve in it either.

So they are actually seperate things.

However, once I present to you the proposed Deity, and ask you to consider the Tripedal Esoteric Multiphase Astro Leprechaun...and THEN you reject it...well no longer do you just have a "lack of belief"...you now have positive unbelief.

once you consider something, and then dismiss it (whether you think it is false, or simply lacking evidence), then you no longer have a lack of belief, but you have an active unbelief- which simply means that you specifically do not believe the merits of the given thing in question. There really is a difference- it is this difference that atheists ferventy latch onto, however, they take it too far. They say that they "lack belief" even after they exhaustively consider God, weighing the evidence in their mental courtroom. Of course, once you consider God, you are then making a conclusion so no longer can you say you have a passive "lack of belief"

lack of belief only applies to something that has not been considered. If you define "disbelief" as making a full conclusion that the thing in question definately does not exist, then fine, i will grant you that point. Yet even though you lack enough evidence for your conclusions, that is not to say you "lack belief" anymore in the same way that you did before I told you about the Necromatic Neon Purple Galactic Sphincter Syphon. Even if you do not want to say "I disbelieve" in God ...at minimum there is no way for you to avoid "I considered it, and still refuse to believe"- in which case you have positive unbelief in the thing considered, even if you wont call it disbelief. Logged

[Acriku]

I explained why, if you would be so kind as to read it, and you can understand my reasons for doing so. No new discussion added, will wait for more.

[emprworm]

you explained nothing. i already refuted your

"actively lack a belief in every other god, with the exception of myself adding one more, correct?"

That is rediculous.

Have you ever considered the existence of a trillion gods?

"So, we actively lack a belief in every other god, with the exception of myself adding one more, correct? "

You only actively lack a belief in gods that you have actively considered.

get it right, Acriku, because you are putting words in my mouth now.

Don't just skip to the last sentence of my posts like I believe you are doing. Start from the first sentence, and read through.

[Acriku]

I said I explained why I hit reply right when you post... Sigh. And you could deduce what I was referring to if you continued through my short post - "and you can understand my reasons for doing so." Jeez.

[emprworm]

i posted that b4 i read your explanation for hitting reply.

ok, back on the debate:

So, we actively lack a belief in every other god, with the exception of myself adding one more, correct? "

You only actively lack a belief in gods that you have actively considered.

[Caid Ivik]

Acriku, you think about God as something what is created by our mind, or something what was put into our minds? If you say you lack believe, that means that you haven't created it, what should mean that you really don't know what God is. If you talk you've rejected His presence, than someone had to put Him to you. And something to that one. And this starts a long line, on its beginning can be only He.

It says he showed himself a long time ago and never will, how convenient? You see God in everything, because you believe in it enough for it to make you a little schizophrenic - but hey I may be wrong, I am just observing and concluding.

Bible says He WILL show us Himself. Known apparition was i.e. in 1917, Fatima, Portugal.

[Acriku]

Not in your mind, but in the minds of those who made it up. I can make up the Snargelites, and tell it to everybody else - but I will be the only one who created it in my mind. Then again, I am not debating whether god is made up or not. I know what god is, I believed in him until 3 years ago (or 4, not really an exact time I became an atheist).

Does it say when? A lot of people thought it was 2000, some thought it was 2001, they were wrong. So, are you right? In Fatima, there is speculation as to what happened, sure it is strange - but then again there is probably a logical explanation for it. Perhaps somebody put something in the local water? Heh heh ;)

[Caid Ivik]

But if you cannot prove them you contacted Snargelites, then they won't believe you. One person cannot "create god". You say you have believed in Him for 3 years. And before it was what? You just hadn't enough time to experience. You haven't rejected Him, but just what He wanted from you, possibly because you haven't studied Him from all views, and now you seek only for negatives brought by mistaking humans in Church.

Foreign reporters were in Fatima. Logical conclusion? God connected to world to say we are going to miserable state of communism, that's all we need to know.

[Acriku]

Again caid, this is not the place to debate whether god does or doesn't exist, it is assumed he does.

You got that out of what happened in Fatima? Well, I guess you can come to any conclusion on that one. Like since God only did it there, after a long time, then he must favor the roman catholics. Or he prefers portuguese to any other language, or that he is racist...You can derive anything from it, assuming it is real at all.

[Caid Ivik]

So, you believe in God now? You are strange... ;D

In this view, God is a racist. He positively discriminated Jews to create the biggest and most influental religion in the world. Why St.Mary descended into Portugal can be said He looks randomly. He chosen european nation, because Europe is a centre of His religion, but also a country, which wasn't in a war which in 1917 was on way. If He favores catholics, then you should know why I am in this Church...

[Aeris]

Hey, wait a second. The bible was written by HUMANS. Humans make mistakes and don't know everything. And are you saying that you believe in a "forgiving" God that sends the ignorant to Hell?

[Caid Ivik]

Bible was written by humans with mind controlled in that time by visions from God. We believe in forgiving, loving God, who does not want anyone to be damned ethernally. But also He is judging, just God, who punishes those who are controlled by Evil. How much people will be damned in final judgement isn't known. No one, only He knows, who will be in Heaven or Hell once.

[Acriku]

Heh now that's hard to prove Caid that they were "inspired" divinely...

They could have been inspired by Jesus' death, and then wrote books about it, which they did. Cast out onto the nailed cross doth die, we must maketh a martyr out of this one. You get my drift?

If god didn't want anybody to go to hell, he would DO something about it. But no, he is negligent and made humans that were ready to fall into "evil."

Another note on the divine inspiration - was this divine inspiration half-assed? If someone is going to be divinely inspired, there should be 0 errors/contradictions, unless the person was half-assed inspired. So, why would God half-ass inspire the gospels? To throw us off the path of righteousness? Hmm...

[Caid Ivik]

He DOES something to prevent all people to be condemned. What is all that Church about then? Go this Sunday to nearest catholic church, evangelium will be about it:

"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

- Lk 16,19-31

As I am talking for maybe a thousandth time, God gave us FREE will to do anything we want on world without His intervention. But then we will have responsibility on any of our act, good or evil. Every point in our life will be judged. Why He created such weird system I don't know, but also I understand the life should be some challenge. Divine inspiration has to be believed, because no one would write such "suicide" how would any atheist one say (even most christians today after 4000 years we cannot accept adultery as a sin). No one would limit himself without important reason. That is one of the many proves.

[Acriku]

Churches are manmade items, now did God inspire contractors and designers?

Making a church for those who already believe is not doing anything. If anything, it separates those who believe and those who do not because of the hugely whack things that are said in those churches (and God-uh...has praised-uh...this forsaken world-uh, *wipes sweat from forehead*...in Jesus's-uh name-uh...praise-uh the Lord!). Also, God isn't doing anything to help us satan-folk go to these churches and believe. I am doubting his "care" and "want" for us to believe and accept god.

Again, free will does not exist. If god is omniscient that is. God knows when I am going to go to the bathroom next, and has always known it, thus I am forced to follow this and go to the bathroom at the exact time he knew I would. Like the analogy I wrote about before, our lives are like being in a scripted play without knowing it. Also, throughout the bible it says by faith alone we will be saved...

Mk.16:16

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Rom.3:28

"A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

Acts 16:30-31

"Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

For a few examples, and then it says we must obey god...

Mt.12:37

"For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

Mt.16:27

"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works."

Mt.19:17

"If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Right now I am not pointing out contradictions, I am just pointing out that the bible is ambiguous in different things, and it's hard to tell exactly what the bible is telling us. (Note: this is from the King James' Version)

It wouldn't have to be atheists that wrote the book, although it isn't hard to imagine...Over the course of 40-50 years many many books have been written after the death of Jesus (supposedly), and they were written by different authors, so it isn't hard to imagine such a big book being written without 'divine' inspiration. It might have been inspiration of a martyr, but does it have to be divine?

[Caid Ivik]

Churches are manmade items, now did God inspire contractors and designers?

Making a church for those who already believe is not doing anything. If anything, it separates those who believe and those who do not because of the hugely whack things that are said in those churches (and God-uh...has praised-uh...this forsaken world-uh, *wipes sweat from forehead*...in Jesus's-uh name-uh...praise-uh the Lord!). Also, God isn't doing anything to help us satan-folk go to these churches and believe. I am doubting his "care" and "want" for us to believe and accept god.

Again, free will does not exist. If god is omniscient that is. God knows when I am going to go to the bathroom next, and has always known it, thus I am forced to follow this and go to the bathroom at the exact time he knew I would. Like the analogy I wrote about before, our lives are like being in a scripted play without knowing it. Also, throughout the bible it says by faith alone we will be saved...

Mk.16:16

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Rom.3:28

"A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

Acts 16:30-31

"Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

For a few examples, and then it says we must obey god...

Mt.12:37

"For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

Mt.16:27

"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works."

Mt.19:17

"If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Right now I am not pointing out contradictions, I am just pointing out that the bible is ambiguous in different things, and it's hard to tell exactly what the bible is telling us. (Note: this is from the King James' Version)

It wouldn't have to be atheists that wrote the book, although it isn't hard to imagine...Over the course of 40-50 years many many books have been written after the death of Jesus (supposedly), and they were written by different authors, so it isn't hard to imagine such a big book being written without 'divine' inspiration. It might have been inspiration of a martyr, but does it have to be divine?

So, I feared it will end like this. By playing with the Bible's words. Wasn't it you, who discussed about it first? ;)

http://www.dune2k.com/forum/?board=34;action=display;threadid=8921

There are things we have to do for life. Like eating or drinking. These we call reflectional acts. But there are other things, called social acts: relationships, cultural and creative work etc. For every act we have own decision how we will do it (altough some reflexes and internal barriers make some way easier), and with that also our responsibility. Groundly said, God has made a deal with humans. We won't do what he hates and do what he likes and for it we will receive an ethernal life. It is written in all those statements; do what you want, but don't expect He will be on your side, if your unguided acts were against Him.

Also your point on different people writing about SAME things which were about one usual carpenter as atheist would say, this I think helps more to prove it's divine. Altough at least Jesus was a heavenly being, and it was he, who inspired the New Testament. About the Old part, it was written by many times persecuted people (persecuted by Jews also), so it couldn't be written just as art.