Any Skeptics out there?

[Starfleet]

Starfleet transmitting message:

I am interested to know who are the non-Christians on 5solas.

Please introduce your self. My shields are down and my weapons are not powered up as you can see. I am just looking for new life forms in 5solas space. I need to know if the races in this sector are friendly or hostile (hopfully not hostile, or I will have to blast them with my phaser banks and the love of Jesus. )


Starfleet
Home of the Maple Leafs

[Tyr]

Going the way of diplomacy I see starfleet. Good idea, allot of "skeptics" as you call us are often put off by hardliners or zealots within the church. Thats what pushed me away, I had 2 relatives who were very hardline and kept telling me I was going to hell for haveing my daughter out of wedlock (her mother and I are married now, 7 years this July). It bothered me allot hearing that because I couldn't figure out what was so bad about my beautifull daughter that would sentence me to hell. I also have other issues as well with the western church. Some examples, the crusades-christians killing christians is not cool, the corruption of the throne of peter- also not cool. The christian end times cults also throw me a bit off the path as I hate hearing that Im going to hell because I don't prescribe to certain thoughts or ways of being. Ok I'm done.

[Starfleet]

Hello Tyr


Whats up

Please read the other post "What Belief". I got things started there for you.

I would like to know how you define "hardliners or zealots"!

In regard to the crusades and other problems Christians have caused: Some times it is easier to listen to ourselves rather then God. If we listen to ourselves then we get in big trouble. If we listen to God less problems occur. Many strive to listen to God, others whether they are Christian or Christian in name only follow what they think best rather then God. Does this help in anyway?

God bless you Tyr

Starfleet
Home of the Maple Leafs

[Stabby]

What is your definition of a skeptic?

Can one be Skeptical and Religious/Spiritual at the same time?

Stabby-------------

[Starfleet]

Hello Peoples

Stabby: you asked...

What is your definition of a skeptic?

In simplist terms "one who doubts". An agnostic is one who says, "One is not sure" or "one cannot know" One can be a skeptical agnostic. An atheist says, "God does not exist" and thus skeptical in regard to Christian Evidences to God's existence.

Can one be Skeptical and Religious/Spiritual at the same time?

It depends on what you mean. I am a Christian and I doubt (or skeptical about) certian doctrinal stances. Or sometimes when trouble hits and I do not understand what is going on, I might - but not necessarly - doubt God's existence. But the doubt does not last long in my case.

I hope this was helpful.

God bless you Stabby

Starfleet
Home of the Maple Leafs

[Stabby]

Or sometimes when trouble hits and I do not understand what is going on, I might - but not necessarly - doubt God's existence. But the doubt does not last long in my case.

So, sustained doubt is Non-Christian. After a certain point, too much doubt (skeptisism) becomes sinful?

How do you differentiate Absolute knowledge from Pragmatic knowledge?

Stabby---

BTW: How do you broach the many anti-Religious themes in Star Trek with your personal philosophy? Isn't The life aboard the Enterpirse entirely secular?

[jhamrick]

"So, sustained doubt is Non-Christian. After a certain point, too much doubt (skeptisism) becomes sinful?"

A Non-Christian is someone who hasn't been reborn.
2nd, I don't think doubt and skeptisism are completely equal. Doubt appears to be a more general lack of faith in something where as skepticism would be questioning,with a sincere desire for the truth.
Anyway, I guess either one could be sinful, though Skepticism could lead to a higher understanding of God, where doubt is pretty much fruitless.


"BTW: How do you broach the many anti-Religious themes in Star Trek with your personal philosophy? Isn't The life aboard the Enterpirse entirely secular?"

Well, that's the way it was before Chewbacca got saved, then he really started evangelizing droids and Humans alike...... Oh I just remembered, I wasn't on the Enterprise, I was on the Millineum Falcon.

[Corbin]

Originially Posted By Starfleet:

An atheist says, "God does not exist" and thus skeptical in regard to Christian Evidences to God's existence.


Although some atheists (and they are in the minority) may claim to know that there is no god, most atheists claim no such thing. Atheism is a "lack of belief in god" and nothing more. Those who claim to "know" there is no god are sometimes referred to as "strong atheists", but their thinking is as faulty as those who claim to know that there is a god. Atheists who don't go as far as claiming knowledge of no god can also be called "strong atheists". For instance, atheists who claim an affirmative belief that there is no god usually are also referred to as "strong atheists" even though they do not claim knowledge of such a thing. For now, let me just state that no one can know there is no god for the same reason that no one can know there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, unicorn, or other such creature. Some may say that we can know that there are none of the above since we can trace through history where these characters were created and that the ideas about them have changed over the centuries. The same can also be said of god (except the history of god goes back a bit farther so it is more difficult to track with certainty) but for this arguments sake, let's say that such creatures, although there is a strong probability that they are fictional, can not be 100% positively proven unreal for the basic reason that the entire universe would need to be explored to positively assert the non-existence of such a hypothetical being. If the theist attempts to define their god however, that specific god can be disproven through the use of logic and reason. In these cases, an atheist can accurately state that they know that the god described does not exist.

To summarize, atheism is a lack of belief in god. Basic atheism (of the non-strong variety) on its own does not positively assert anything regardless of what some atheists may say or think and regardless of what theists frequently define as atheism.

[gsr]

Has anyone heard of Peter or Thomas? Or in the older books of the author of Ecclisiastic, Solomon? Or have you heard of what Noah did right after He left the Ark? Or Jonah before and after the evangelism of Ninevah?

I heartily believe that a Christian of faith may have doubts about God, His nature, and their relationship with God and more. Seeking the answers and applying the answers found from seeking Him makes all the difference between keeping yourself on milk and being ready to have more meat.

[Starfleet]

Hello Stabby:

So, sustained doubt is Non-Christian. After a certain point, too much doubt (skeptisism) becomes sinful?

Jhamrick made a good point when he said, "A Non-Christian is someone who hasn't been reborn." (born into God's family [born from above]).
I would like to ask you -> Can someone "constantly" doubt God's existence, and at the same time and in the same sense believe in God's existence? One's worldview lifestyle will show through more on a consistent bases demonstrating what one really believes (generally speaking).

BTW: How do you broach the many anti-Religious themes in Star Trek with your personal philosophy? Isn't The life aboard the Enterpirse entirely secular?

I like Star Trek for the starship battles (special effects) And yes, it is secular just like many other shows. Star Trek is more scientific in its philosophy and thus excludes religion on a objective level.

--"How do you differentiate Absolute knowledge from Pragmatic knowledge?" --

Pragmatic: pretains "to the study of events with emphasis on cause and effect".

An Absolutist believes that truth corresponds to facts and reality and will be actual for all people, all times, and all places.

I still am in the middle of studing the concept of Absolute knowledge and will come to its defence at a later date. Okay?

Starfleet
Home of the Maple Leafs

[gsr]

<< Starfleet
I would like to ask you -> Can someone "constantly" doubt God's existence, and at the same time and in the same sense believe in God's existence? One's worldview lifestyle will show through more on a consistent bases demonstrating what one really believes (generally speaking).
>>

That is the condition of an agnostic. So, yes they exist. No, they are not of the faith. And yes, fruits of repentance and faith should naturally flow from all Christians.

[Stabby]

"A Non-Christian is someone who hasn't been reborn."

Does this mean a Born-again individual loses the ability to question? Or basically, loses the motivation to question, which, ultimately is an inablity to question.

Are Born-Agains and Skeptics then diametrically opposed? A Skeptical Born-Again individual is a contradiction?

How about these definitions jhamrick
To be a skeptic is to question all perceptions and spiritual experiences.

To be doubtful is understanding that one does not have enough Information to make a valid conclusion.

Do these characteristics sound sinful?

. Star Trek is more scientific in its philosophy and thus excludes religion on a objective level.

Star Trek take it a step further though. The Theme of the show is, at its core, anti-Religious. Watch the episode of "who Watches the watchers" or look at how they represent Klingon and Bajoran religions.

Perhaps i'm getting a bit off topic here, but when you represent yourself as "starfleet" you're saying-- i think a purely secular society that treats religion and faith as mere cultural obsticals to ultimate advancement is cool. I always watched the show and thought "whoah, that would really ruffle the religious feathers, how ever did they get that script past the producers?"
I often think the same about the Simpsons.

Stabby------------

[jhamrick]

"Does this mean a Born-again individual loses the ability to question?"

Absolutely not, and that was my point exactly. Being a Christian/non-Christian is not based on actions by the person, it is on the grace of God. So, a believer will most certainly have questions and doubts. A believer will sin. The believer believes his sins are accounted for.

"Are Born-Agains and Skeptics then diametrically opposed?"

I think everyone is a Skeptic to some extent, or should be. If not, we would all follow the first cult-leader to come along.
Born-agains are diametrically opposed to non-Christians.

"To be doubtful is understanding that one does not have enough Information to make a valid conclusion."

This is actually more of a definition for ignorance, and the acceptance of living in an ignorant state. Surely this isn't admirable to anyone. At least seek the truth and find out what is right and wrong.
Your skeptic definition is good, and that in itself is not a sin. It's actually wise. Keeps you from falling for everything that comes your way.

I honestly thought he Star-Trek thing was a joke. In my opinion, it is just a TV show that Starfleet enjoys. The fact that it is purely fiction, and not supposed to be anything else, completely reconciles it with the Christian belief system.

[Egoinos]

Stabby,

Are you the same stabby we know and love at theologyforums? You certainly seem the same....

[Cephas]

Hello Corbin,

I would first like to say, I enjoy reading your many posts. They are insightful, intelligent and well thought out. Keep up the good work.

Originally posted by Corbin

Although some atheists (and they are in the minority) may claim to know that there is no god, most atheists claim no such thing. Atheism is a "lack of belief in god" and nothing more.

I would not say ‘nothing more’. A Theist would not say a belief in God and nothing more. There is much more to Theism as there is to Atheism as well. Whether one is a ‘strong’ or, what I call, a soft Atheist, they would accomplish the same goal and say there is no God. The soft version is, I believe, nothing more then a convenient way of avoiding a defense of a belief that there is no God. In Angeles book Critique of God and Stein’s An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, Atheism is not just a passive unbelief in God but an assertive denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism. Matter is, Material is and nothing else.

For now, let me just state that no one can know there is no god for the same reason that no one can know there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, unicorn, or other such creature.

Have you ever heard of G.K. Chesterton? If you haven’t, check him out on the net if you can. Whether you would agree with him or not, you will find he is a most intelligent man (as far as my intelligence goes). He once said, “ I have learned more about life by observing children in a nursery then by reflecting upon the writings of any of the philosophers”. He might be overstating things but his point is what is important. The point being that a child has a sense of wonder, a sense of innocence. I can understand what your saying when comparing Santa Claus to God and that we might have a sense of gullibility but on the flip side we cheat ourselves out the sense of wonder. That sense of wonder is ingrained in us and, although it might be misplaced in youth, God is why we wonder.

If the theist attempts to define their god however, that specific god can be disproven through the use of logic and reason. In these cases, an atheist can accurately state that they know that the god described does not exist.

I would be most interested in hearing how the Christian God does not logically exist.
Here are Dr. Norman Geilser’s steps, a bit outdated, for a logical belief in God:[list=1]1-Some things undeniably exist.
2-My nonexistence is possible.
3-Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another.
4-There cannot be an infinite regess of current causes of existence.
5-Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists.
6-This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-perfect.
7-This infinitely pefect being is appropriately called “God”.
8-Therefore, God exists.
9-This God who exist is identical to the God described in the Christian Scriptures.
10-Here the God described in the Bible exist.[/list=1]

[Starfleet]

Hello Everyone

Starfleet: "I would like to ask you -> Can someone 'constantly' doubt God's existence, and at the same time and in the same sense believe in God's existence? One's worldview lifestyle will show through more on a consistent bases demonstrating what one really believes (generally speaking)."

Gsr: " That is the condition of an agnostic. So, yes they exist. No, they are not of the faith. And yes, fruits of repentance and faith should naturally flow from all Christians."

No Gsr, that can not be an agnostic. An agnostic is one who is not sure or says one cannot know. My own dad waivers between agnotisism and Deism. I don't see my dad that often, but when I do he shows signs of agnostisism. I just don't know, he says. Then another time he talks like God does exist. But he has difficulty believe that God interacts with his world (Miracles, Jesus' resurrection, answering prayers and so forth) and thus a Deist.

A Skeptic is one who doubts a certian topic on a regular bases. let me explain...

Lets start here: When is a thief a thief?
a) when one steals for the first time? or
b) when one consistently thinks about stealing when the oppurtunity arises, and then acts on those thoughts.

I believe that (a) is a person who stole once, but does not think about stealing on a consistant bases. This person is not addicted to stealing. It was a one time thing. This person is not a thief, but "a person who stole".
(b) is a person who is a thief, because they are addicted to the thought of stealing and acts on that impulse.

Now, when is a skeptic a skeptic? We are all skeptical about certian things. If an obssesive compulsive liar is trying to convince me he is telling the truth, I will be skeptical. I will be skeptical everytime this person claims to be telling the truth until he proves his point true.

So, evertime a person who doubts God's existence on a consistant bases when the topic arises would be a skeptic.

My mom doubts God's existence due to the existence of evil.

Again, we can be all skeptical about something, and we will remain that way in regard to that 'something' until proven otherwise. I am more concerned about the religious skeptic. When I think of skeptic I think of the religious type.

Corbin:" Although some atheists (and they are in the minority) may claim to know that there is no god, most atheists claim no such thing. Atheism is a 'lack of belief in god' and nothing more."

The 'lack of belief' in God in a term in the negative. To state 'there is no God' is in the positive. The term 'lack' is in the lack of evidence to believe. The term 'there is no God' is still spoken because they lack evidence of God's existence.

God bless everyone
Home of the Maple Leafs

[Corbin]

Written By Cephas:

I would first like to say, I enjoy reading your many posts. They are insightful, intelligent and well thought out. Keep up the good work.

Thanks





I would not say ‘nothing more’. A Theist would not say a belief in God and nothing more. There is much more to Theism as there is to Atheism as well. Whether one is a ‘strong’ or, what I call, a soft Atheist, they would accomplish the same goal and say there is no God. The soft version is, I believe, nothing more then a convenient way of avoiding a defense of a belief that there is no God. In Angeles book Critique of God and Stein’s An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, Atheism is not just a passive unbelief in God but an assertive denial of the major claims of all varieties of theism. Matter is, Material is and nothing else.


I would have to agree with you. Atheism has various degrees like you mentioned; (strong, weak, ect). Whether strong or weak, these athiests have reasoned that it is impropable a god exists. What I was trying to state in my previous post is that most athiests do not state that there is absolutley no god, and there could never be a god.

I have not yet had a chance to read Critique of God or An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, but I next time I go to the library I will be sure to look for these books.





Have you ever heard of G.K. Chesterton? If you haven’t, check him out on the net if you can. Whether you would agree with him or not, you will find he is a most intelligent man (as far as my intelligence goes). He once said, “ I have learned more about life by observing children in a nursery then by reflecting upon the writings of any of the philosophers”. He might be overstating things but his point is what is important. The point being that a child has a sense of wonder, a sense of innocence. I can understand what your saying when comparing Santa Claus to God and that we might have a sense of gullibility but on the flip side we cheat ourselves out the sense of wonder. That sense of wonder is ingrained in us and, although it might be misplaced in youth, God is why we wonder

Well I did a little research on the net and I found many sites about him. One of the most interesting sites had a list of all the essays Chesterton had written.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/7854/essays.htm

He seems quite intelligent and I enjoyed reading many of his essays.

I think I know what you might mean when you say a "sense of wonder", similar to what a child has around Christmas. But let me ask you this: If you could turn back time, and relive your youth, would you want to be exposed to the lies of Santa Claus, or would you rather be told the truth right from the start? How would it effect your life? Would you be any further ahead if you were not decieved?
If you found out tomorrow that God did not exist, would you regret the time you spent worshipping him?


[I]
I would be most interested in hearing how the Christian God does not logically exist.
Here are Dr. Norman Geilser’s steps, a bit outdated, for a logical belief in God:

1-Some things undeniably exist.
2-My nonexistence is possible.
3-Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another.
4-There cannot be an infinite regess of current causes of existence.
5-Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists.
6-This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-perfect.
7-This infinitely pefect being is appropriately called “God”.
8-Therefore, God exists.
9-This God who exist is identical to the God described in the Christian Scriptures.
10-Here the God described in the Bible exist.[I]

I have seen many arguments similar to this one in many philosophy books. Personally, I strongly disagree with this philosophy, but let's look at #9 and #10

#9
There several religions that describe their god(s) in a similar fashion. It seems quite coincidental that this logicially reasoned god would be identical to the one presented in Christian Scripture. What reasoning does he provide to show this? I think Geilser needs to fill in a few gaps. Why would this ULTIMATE CAUSE be anything like the subjective God in christian scripture? Why is it not some purple invisible unicorn that lives on neptune? It doesn't add up as far as I can see.

[Corbin]

Posted By Starfleet:

The 'lack of belief' in God in a term in the negative. To state 'there is no God' is in the positive. The term 'lack' is in the lack of evidence to believe. The term 'there is no God' is still spoken because they lack evidence of God's existence.

What I meant to say was, (and what I said in my previous post to Cephas)

Atheism has various degrees like you mentioned; (strong, weak, ect). Whether strong or weak, these athiests have reasoned that it is impropable a god exists. What I was trying to state in my previous post is that most athiests do not state that there is absolutley no god, and there could never be a god.

[Starfleet]

Hello Corbin

Corbin: "What I was trying to state in my previous post is that most athiests do not state that there is absolutley no god, and there could never be a god."

I understand what you are saying. They couldn't or at least shouldn't say, "that there is absolutley no god" because many of them who are relativist have trouble with anything absolute.

God Bless you Corbin

Starfleet
Home of the Maple Leafs

[smugg]

Originally posted by Cephas
[snip]

I would be most interested in hearing how the Christian God does not logically exist.
Here are Dr. Norman Geilser’s steps, a bit outdated, for a logical belief in God:

I'd like to comment on Dr. Geisler's Law of Non-contradiction (Christian Apologetics pp.237-259):

1-Some things undeniably exist. For example, I cannot deny my own existence. To deny my own existence is a self-contradictory statement. I must exist in order to deny that I exist. Therefore some things, namely me, undeniably exist.

Sure, okay, Dr. Geisler is starting out strongly.

2-My nonexistence is possible. While I exist, it is not necessary that I exist because necessary beings can not change. However, I change. Therefore my nonexistence is possible.

Already he has introduced this 'necessary being' -- in other words, God. Without warning and with no reason, this comparison to a 'necessary being' has been dropped into the equation. The whole argument is whether there is a 'necessary being' and Dr. Geisler is taking him (Him) for granted in point #2...

Anyway, it's true that the bundle of nerves and organs forming the consciousness which calls itself Dr. Norman Geilser could cease to function, but the electrons, protons, and neutrons which form him will not cease to exist.

3-Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another. Since I do not necessarily exist, there must be some other factor that currently causes my existence.

I don't buy it. A rainstorm may someday cease to drop rain (and no longer be a rainstorm) but there's no compelling reason to think it was brought into existence by anything but an interaction of heat and wind.

Ah, but is it necessary heat and wind?

4-There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence. A chain of causes wherein each cause is both currently causing existence and having its existence currently caused at the same moment is illogical.

I think I understand what this means, but I'm not sure why he chooses to continually qualify all these causes with the word 'current.' If my understanding of biology serves me, I was only 'caused' once. I don't cease to be just because the event which brought me into the world has itself ceased.

Unless I really do understand why he does it. The distinction seems to be (ahem) necessary for his argument (but unnecessary for the real world). He is on a slippery slope here and even though the argument is poorly thought out, he seems to realize that at some point he might end up arguing for a dead or missing 'first cause.' Therefore, it isn't enough to make God necessary, but to make Him continually necessary.

5-Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists.

See? Even though this argument has failed to show why God is necessary as well as why His continued existence is necessary, Dr. Geisler feels confident enough to proclaim this non sequitur.

6-This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all knowing, and all perfect. If this uncaused cause were not, then it would be a changeable being. A changeable being can not be uncaused.

Again, we are left uninformed as to why the attributes of infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all knowing, and all perfect are surmised. At best, the God Dr. Geisler has shown us was needed only to start the whole thing off. Certainly this implies a certain amount of power, but none of these other qualities are as self-evident as he would have us believe.

7-This infinitely perfect Being is appropriately called "God."

Or Doug. I'm not sure what bearing this statement has.

8-Therefore, God exists.

Another pronouncement unsupported by the argument itself.

9-This God who exists is identical to the God described in the Christian Scriptures.

This must be the largest leap of faith of all. Yahweh, as described in Jewish scripture, and Jesus, as described in Christian scripture, demonstrate none of the qualities named in point 6.

Why couldn't this god also be Brahmin or Chronos?

10-Therefore, the God described in the Bible exists.

Nope.

Now, I don't have a doctorate in philosophy from Loyola University like Dr. Geisler, but even I can see right through this ham-handed attempt at converting the gullible.