Why is disbelief a sin?

[Redbandito]

Hitetlen:

For inanimate objects these concepts do not apply. One cannot say that the avalanche has a purpose (it simply grows), when a pebble is polished nice and round by the tide or a glacier, it does not care, etc. Inanimate objects simply exist.

Is this answer sufficient?

What? This makes no sense in light of your philosophy. Man is created by nothing and for nothing. Therefore, has no purpose. Thus, the only difference between us and inanimate objects is that “we can make our own purpose”? If we are here by chance, we have no more purpose to our life than inanimate objects do. On the other hand, if there is a Creator, then even the inanimate objects have a purpose. It might help to note that we probably have different definitions of purpose. A purpose cannot be self-defined. It is not interchangeable per se with a goal. We can achieve all the goals and the world and still not find our purpose. Just as you could not hand me an invention, leave it with me without an owner’s manual, and expect me to figure out what you created it for, we cannot define our own purpose. Now, I might put good use to your invention, but that doesn’t mean I am using it as you intended it. Your intention for the invention was it’s “purpose”. It was externally imposed on the invention. In the same way, our purpose is externally imposed, otherwise we are talking about something else.

 

[Thal59]

Greetings Hitetlen,

I was glad to see you answered my posts. There are many points you made that I could argue with, but it would take an enormous amount of time. Still, it really isn’t necessary. There is a remark of your that puts everything in perspective…

Originally Posted by Thal59
Hitetlen: you ask if disbelief is a sin? If there is no God, the answer is no. If there is a God, the answer is yes; for nothing can be a sin unless there is a divine authority to sin against.

Your reply…

I would say that if there is a God, then the answer is: “possibly”, depending on what God says about it. Even though I do not believe in God AS this concept is presented in general, I could believe in one with some different characteristics.<<<

Here is the thought that will direct you to the answer you are looking for.

I could believe in one (a God) with some different characteristics.<<<

What you are saying is that you would believe in God if He met with your criteria of what constitutes an acceptable God.

The converse would also be true… I do not believe in God because He does not meet my standards of Godhood. This is pointing the way to the answer you are looking for. Disbelief becomes a sin when it leads to idol-worship.

The ancient idol-worshippers did not worship hunks of stone, metal or wood. (They understood that they could not fashion immortal Gods with their mortal hands.) Their sin was that they dared “reshape” the true God into a form that better suited their wants, needs, and desires - and since they had many wants, needs, and desires, they fashioned many Gods. Gods of battle, fertility, good health, plentiful harvest, sexual pleasures, etc. When someone worships a false diety who approves of their desires, they are in reality worshipping themselves. It is the acknowledgement, validity, and glorification of their personal wants, needs, and desires that they are worshipping.

Hitetlen, you are guilty of the same line of thought…

If God possessed the characteristics I want him to have, I would believe in him. Since He does not, to the best that I can see, conform to my idea of what a God should be like, I do not believe in Him.

Hitetlen, you are guilty of idol-worship. You just don’t have an idol.
Since this is the result of your disbelief; then, yes, your disbelief is a sin.

Thal59

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

Well, you can always pray to “Scotty” to beam you up from here.

Psalm 14, 1: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God”.

1 Corinthians 1, 25: ”For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Romans 1, 18-25: “The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”

Luke 16, 30-31: “…’if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ Then Abraham said, 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.”

 

[adamlsp]

I have put up a new thread called “The Ontological Arguments” if anyone is interested. To discuss some proofs for God and reasons to believe in him since this is what this thread is becoming. Pop in and let me know whaat you think.

Adam

 

[Hitetlen]

>>>I would say that if there is a God, then the answer is: “possibly”, depending on what God says about it. Even though I do not believe in God AS this concept is presented in general, I could believe in one with some different characteristics.<<<

Here is the thought that will direct you to the answer you are looking for.

I could believe in one (a God) with some different characteristics.<<<

What you are saying is that you would believe in God if He met with your criteria of what constitutes an acceptable God.

Two remarks:

Not actually “acceptable” rather “believable”. I see a big difference between these two attributes.

Also it is not necessary that God would resent having a disbelief. If God does not care either way, then disbelief is not a sin.

Thal59:

Hitetlen, you are guilty of idol-worship. You just don’t have an idol.
Since this is the result of your disbelief; then, yes, your disbelief is a sin.

I am confused. How could I “worship” an idol, if I don’t even have an idol, as you say. Furthermore, I am not aware that I worship anything. Since worshipping is a conscious activity, how can I worship, if I don’t even know about it? I am also not certain what do you mean by the word “worship”? It is not an equivalent of “holding in high regard”. I certainly hold many things in high regard, but I don’t pray to them, I don’t bow down to them, and as I understand the word “worship” something akin to these activities is necessary to worship.

 

[Hitetlen]

Redbandito:

It could. At the very least it CAN provide strong evidence in their favor. Now, to die for a certain philosophy or religion is one thing. But to die for a supposed “myth” that they claim to have been eyewitnesses to is a little different.

Maybe it does for you, but certainly it does not for me. It just underlines that those people who die for a cause, really strongly believe in their cause. Nothing else. It does not substantiate at all that their cause is valid or not. Furthermore, the alleged tortures and deaths of the the people you speak of are only documented in the Bible, which is not good enough to substantiate your claim.

Redbandito:

Sorry. Maybe I’m dense, but I don’t get your point here. Please elaborate.

I was much too terse, I am sorry. What you said was that the belief in God brought very positive results to many people’s lives. I don’t deny this assertion at all. I am just skeptical if it is justified to use the “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” arguement. Maybe those people would have had that wonderful life anyhow, and they only thought that their belief was the trigger. I alluded to the fact that beneficial changes (in health) sometimes come about even if the patients do not receive any medication, they just think they did.

Redbandito:

Why yes, it does! Because we I am all alone, and I realize that my perspective of life leads me on an endless chase of materialism and earthly things that can never satisfy me, I must ask myself the horrible question: What is the purpose of life? With no God there is only one answer to this question: There is no purpose. That is why it is easy to live as an atheist (albeit, inconsistently) but very hard to die as one.

Of course there is no external purpose. I can even say that the life of the believers is without purpose, however their death has one. I am a very upbeat, exuberant person, happy as a bird. Hardly a “depressed” one. I am happy with the Earthly pursuits and find joy in them.

Redbandito:

BTW, as I noted earlier, I was agnostic for a period of time. I have experienced the complete loss of hope for anything by taking the philosophy of “There is no God” to it’s consistent and natural end. Have you? Seriously! Think about the implications that it really leads to. I’m not saying this proves my side, but my point about despair is absolutely true for any consistent atheist. That’s why some of the “great” existential and secular philosophers are so depressed in their philosophy.

Some may be, but I bet you cannot prove that most of them are depressed. As a matter of fact I don’t know about ANY statistical proof, which would show that believers are happier, healthier, more successful than atheists.

Redbandito:

No, evidence is objective. You make the common mistake that other atheists due by equating perception with reality. Just because you don’t accept certain “evidence” does not make it any less objective.

You misunderstand me. The facts that one uses to substantiate a claim are objective. The consequences that people draw from those facts are subjective. The same set of facts is sufficient for one person, and deficient for another.

 

[hurst]

Hitetlen:

Furthermore, I am not aware that I worship anything. Since worshipping is a conscious activity, how can I worship, if I don’t even know about it?

It is a subconscious activity. It is mostly what we do in the secret of our heart, and is made manifest in all of our thoughts words and actions, and not just exterior religious rituals.

Hitetlen:

I am also not certain what do you mean by the word “worship”? It is not an equivalent of “holding in high regard”. I certainly hold many things in high regard, but I don’t pray to them, I don’t bow down to them, and as I understand the word “worship” something akin to these activities is necessary to worship.

Indeed, it is a “bowing down” to something, but again, this bowing is done in the depths of one’s heart. It is what you ultimately subject yourself to.

What do you subject yourself and your whole being to? That is what you worship. Would you agree that you subject yourself to the scientific theories most widely accepted today? That you limit your interior endeavors by what the exterior universe is defined by science as, or by what the heisenberg principle says one may or may not do in the physical world? Do you not limit your very being to the physical world? Have you not done so because you believed the arguments and reasoning of material written by atheists? If so, then you worship, you bow yourself down to the worldview you have formed, garnering praise from other men who you admire - or at least, avoiding derision from these men whose intelligence you admire. Could it be that your idol is your worldview?

As for me, I bow down to my Creator, the one who put me in a body, who conquered my nothingness by giving me a memory, intellect, and will in order to be able to either choose or reject Him! I have no choice but to make a choice. He is my Master, my Owner, yet gives me the limited freedom to make a choice to serve Him willingly or unwillingly. And I judge that Whoever created me at least deserves to be happy with what He created, regardless of what I think is best, and so I will live for Him, and by Him. I do this as a matter of justice and fairness. What happens as a result is up to His good pleasure. (It just so happens that He has chosen to give me a great joy through Mary!, yet I only retain anything by reason of it being what He wants for me)

hurst

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

I remember that I read once that God’s omnipotence does not mean that he can do everything, rather that he can do everyhing that can be drawn on a piece of paper.

The opposite of atheism is not faith. It is knowledge.

 

[Hitetlen]

hurst:

What do you subject yourself and your whole being to? That is what you worship.

Nothing in particular. In my whole life I was fiercely independent, but that does not mean that I “worship” myself.

hurst:

Would you agree that you subject yourself to the scientific theories most widely accepted today?

Absolutely not. I use science as a tool, it is not my master.

 

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

Two remarks:

Not actually “acceptable” rather “believable”. I see a big difference between these two attributes.

Also it is not necessary that God would resent having a disbelief. If God does not care either way, then disbelief is not a sin.

This is the first weak argument you have made on this thread. Perhaps, in the abstract, there is a big difference between the terms “acceptable” and “believe,” but in relation to the actual topic under discussion, which is your rejection of God, you neither accept nor believe in Him. In this case, the terms are interchangeable and your attempt to cloud the issue with a play on words falls flat.

But your second statement makes even lesser sense. Where you came up with the notion or theory that God may or may not resent disbelief, or whether he would care… is beyond me. I find it puzzling that an atheist would base his rebuttal on what he assumes God would or would not care about!

Hitetlen:

I am confused. How could I “worship” an idol, if I don’t even have an idol, as you say.

You should re-read my statements…

The ancient idol-worshippers did not worship hunks of stone, metal or wood. (They understood that they could not fashion immortal Gods with their mortal hands.) Their sin was that they dared “reshape” the true God into a form that better suited their wants, needs, and desires - and since they had many wants, needs, and desires, they fashioned many Gods. Gods of battle, fertility, good health, plentiful harvest, sexual pleasures, etc. When someone worships a false diety who approves of their desires, they are in reality worshipping themselves. It is the acknowledgement, validity, and glorification of their personal wants, needs, and desires that they are worshipping.

This is what you are guilty of. Look at it this way. An idol worshipper does not worship the idol itself; he worships what it represents. (Battle, sex, wine, harvest, etc.) The idol worshipper creates God in the image of his desires, and then praises these inner wants, needs, and desires. The idol is merely a conventional point of referrence that he can project his inner love for his own inner desires toward. He creates an idol that represents his desires, and then he loves his idol - which is the same thing as him loving his own desires. IOW, the idol worshipper sends his love to the token he has made, which sends his love back to him.

In the case of the atheist, the atheist gives his acceptance, belief, approval, validity to his personal desires, only, unlike the idol worshipper, he does not make an idol to reflect or “bounce” his beliefs off of; they stay within himself. The atheist is guilty of what the idol worshipper does, he just doesn’t do it by misdirecting his affection with an idol. The atheist IS his own idol.

Hitetlen:

Furthermore, I am not aware that I worship anything. Since worshipping is a conscious activity, how can I worship, if I don’t even know about it? I am also not certain what do you mean by the word “worship”? It is not an equivalent of “holding in high regard”. I certainly hold many things in high regard, but I don’t pray to them, I don’t bow down to them, and as I understand the word “worship” something akin to these activities is necessary to worship.

You do indeed worship or “hold in high regard” something; your intelligence, your opinion, your surety to be able to discern what is evident and what is not. This is self-evident in your remark…

"I could believe in one (a God) with some different characteristics."
IOW, if God had the characteristics my intelligence, opinion, and surety of evidence demands, then, and only then, could I believe in Him.

I say again, Hitetlen, you are guilty of idol worship, you just don’t have an idol. (Your idol is you.)

Thal59

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

Well, you can always pray to “Scotty” to beam you up from here.

This is my prayer:
Luke 10, 21: "I give you praise, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike. Yes, Father, such has been your gracious will.”
James 4, 6: “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”
Galatians 6, 3: “For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deluding himself.”
Proverbs 16, 18: “Pride goes before disaster, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”

 

[doomhammer]

Doreen:

I have few regrets in life greater than this: that it took me until I was in my 30’s to really choose to follow Him.

“Too late have I come to love you, O beauty so ancient and so fresh; too late have I come to you” St. Augustine

 

[Hitetlen]

Thal59:

This is the first weak argument you have made on this thread. Perhaps, in the abstract, there is a big difference between the terms “acceptable” and “believe,” but in relation to the actual topic under discussion, which is your rejection of God, you neither accept nor believe in Him. In this case, the terms are interchangeable and your attempt to cloud the issue with a play on words falls flat.

Please make allowance to the fact that English is not my mother tongue, and I don’t use it in a fully instinctive manner. When I choose words (especially during posting of a message), I think them over, and choose them according to my understanding what those words mean.

If you say that in this respect the words “acceptable” and “believable” are synonyms, I don’t percieve them as such. To me “accepting” a proposal is much narrower, than “believing” it. Suppose you receive a letter, in which someone offers you a deal, which seems to be beneficial to you. If you do not believe that the company is legitimate, you will automatically reject the offer. If you believe that the offer is genuine, you still might reject it, for whatever reason.

To me these words are not intechangable in any respect.

Thal59:

But your second statement makes even lesser sense. Where you came up with the notion or theory that God may or may not resent disbelief, or whether he would care… is beyond me. I find it puzzling that an atheist would base his rebuttal on what he assumes God would or would not care about!

Here our difference is not linguistic. Obviously God evaluates human actions according to three categories: some he approves of (worshipping him), some he disapproves of (having sex with contraception) and some he does not care about (watering the lawn). All I said, that “IF” God would not put “disbelief” into the second category, “THEN” it would not be sinful. This was not a rebuttal of anything, simply an “if… then… else…” type of observation.

Even according to the apologists “disbelief” is not always a sin, as they express it in the “invincible ignorance” clause. So it is not valid that God always deems disbelief a sin.

Thal59:

You do indeed worship or “hold in high regard” something; your intelligence, your opinion, your surety to be able to discern what is evident and what is not. This is self-evident in your remark…

I could believe in one (a God) with some different characteristics."
IOW, if God had the characteristics my intelligence, opinion, and surety of evidence demands, then, and only then, could I believe in Him.

I say again, Hitetlen, you are guilty of idol worship, you just don’t have an idol. (Your idol is you.)

Here we may again have a linguistic difference: I most emphatically reject that “holding in high regard” and “worship” are synonyms. Not as I understand these words. I hold many things in high regard, some of them way above my intelligence. Does it mean that I acutally “worship” them? I don’t think so. There are many scientists whose intelligence far surpass mine. Do you think that I “worship” those scientists? I don’t even know them.

 

[Thal59]

Hitetlen:

Here we may again have a linguistic difference: I most emphatically reject that “holding in high regard” and “worship” are synonyms. Not as I understand these words. I hold many things in high regard, some of them way above my intelligence. Does it mean that I acutally “worship” them? I don’t think so. There are many scientists whose intelligence far surpass mine. Do you think that I “worship” those scientists? I don’t even know them.

Worship - (Weorthscipe: Old English,) the condition of being worthy of honor, respect, or dignity. Originally it meant to ascribe honor, worth, or excellence on someone such as a king, magistrate, scholar, or even God.

But, as I am sure you can see, this would be splitting grammatic hairs ad infinitum.

Rather than go along this never-ending road, lets cut to the chase, as it were. The question, as I see it, relates to an understanding of motives. Here are a few of your posts from the past…

Hitetlen:

“If there WOULD be a God, he would be truly merciful, and would not create a hell in the first place. I would not claim to have “infinite” mercy, but I would never think about inflicting eternal punishment on anyone, no matter how horrible they behave. I am not a monster, but - according to your testimony - God IS. Of course I don’t accept your testimony.”

“The question is still the same: what if just ONE person would like to repent in hell, honestly would ask for forgiveness, why would God close his ears and NOT exercise his alleged “merciful” nature. You should not answer this with the assumption that no one would. That is not the point. If tossed into hell, I WOULD.”

“A truly merciful God would pardon them even in hell if they asked for it.”

It seems that your core motivation for rejecting God is that you do not understand His ways. Your intellect cannot conceive of a God with the attribute of mercy doing what you consider to be a cruel act. (Which betrays an inner fear of damnation; i.e. you fear hell, so you deny the existence of the one who can send you there.)

But in every post that I have read of yours, you never weigh your opinion of God’s perfect mercy against His perfect sense of Justice. We would be perfectly merciful to let all criminals go free, but what would that say of our sense of justice? To be just, we try to discipline and rehabilitate some criminals. This discipline is not easy. But if it were easy it would be neither discipline nor effective. Some people call it “tough-love.” But, again, you fear that which is unpleasent…

From another person’s post to you…
“The simple answer is that God allows suffering because He loves you.”

Your reply…
“If that is the reason, I would prefer that he did not “love” me. We can do quite well without this kind of “love”. It is totally incorrect to call this attitude “love” since it is in dire contradiction to what we mean by “love” when it is applied to human interaction.”

Who is the “we” you are referring to? “We” on this website, understand and accept the precept that the father chastizes the child He loves. “We” do not reject that chastisement because it is difficult. You alone, or perhaps other like you, reject this manifestation of love because you simply don’t wish to endure the hardship it may entail.

And so, since you cannot relate to this deity on His grounds, you pretend to demand absolute empirical evidence…

“That would be nice, but belief in a god does not rely on proof or evidence, it relies on faith.”

“God’s existence is a binary problem, it requires no intellectual reinforcement.”

Though I mentioned earlier the “divine peach,” the attributes I used it to display are evident in thousands of other elements of the eco-system. Consider all of the delicate balances both on earth, as well as in the universe necessary for life one earth to begin as well as to flourish. You are a mathematician; what are the odds? While your statement is technically true, that one can accept the existence of God on faith without intellectual reinforcement, it does not mean that intellectual support cannot be a part of that faith. If I deny the almost incomprehensible intelligence behind the miracle of life on earth, then I must also deny the validity of my own limited and flawed intelligence. And, if I do that, then the requirement of intellectual reinforcement fails de facto.

 

[Thal59]

“If there would be actual, empirical evidence of God, there would be no atheists. No one can doubt the existence of an apple, once they hold it in their hands.”

You accept the apple in your hand, but you do not accept the force that caused it to exist. You have no empirical evidence of what constitutes life, nor can you reproduce it in its most elemental form. If the day should come that you can pour chemicals into a flask and create, through math and science, an apple seed that can produce an apple tree as well as apples with it, then I will accept your empirical evidence that there is no God.
So long as this is impossible for man, then I accept the apple as empirical evidence that there is an entity far more intelligent and powerful than you or I.

But this all comes back to what I have stated in earlier threads…

""I could believe in one (a God) with some different characteristics."

---

"If God so wishes, he can come to me and prove to me that he exists. If he would do that I would re-evaluate my position vis-a-vis the concept of “sin”. But not until then."

---

If God had the characteristics my intelligence, opinion, and surety of evidence demands, then, and only then, could I believe in Him. Or, if He came to me, if He accepted my conditions of contact, then “maybe” I would re-evaluate my concept of how I relate to him.

I say again, Hitetlen, you are guilty of idol worship, you just don’t have an idol. (Your idol is you.)

You, Hitetlen, are your own God.

This is all I can say on the matter, I cannot express myself any more clearly. You are on your own.

Thal59

 

[Redbandito]

Hitetlen:

Maybe it does for you, but certainly it does not for me. It just underlines that those people who die for a cause, really strongly believe in their cause. Nothing else. It does not substantiate at all that their cause is valid or not. Furthermore, the alleged tortures and deaths of the the people you speak of are only documented in the Bible, which is not good enough to substantiate your claim.

You totally ignored the point that I made there. There IS a difference between someone who dies for an ideology and someone who claims to have witnessed something with their own eyes. I could believe in Christianity today because I have faith in what is unseen. But that isn’t the claim that these people made. These people claimed to have WITNESSED these things. For them to die for a prank would be ridiculous when they could just renounce it. If you can’t see the difference between the scenario you presented and what ACTUALLY happened, I can’t help you. Furthermore, your last sentence there goes to show why you have little credibility in such matters. Historical documents apart from the Bible are well-known for those who seek them. Are you seeking them?

Hitetlen:

I was much too terse, I am sorry. What you said was that the belief in God brought very positive results to many people’s lives. I don’t deny this assertion at all. I am just skeptical if it is justified to use the “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” arguement. Maybe those people would have had that wonderful life anyhow, and they only thought that their belief was the trigger. I alluded to the fact that beneficial changes (in health) sometimes come about even if the patients do not receive any medication, they just think they did.

No worries and no need for apologies. Anyway, I understand your point here, but do you understand mine? While it is true that this form of argument is not an absolute proof (we aren’t talking about science or math here), it is strong evidence. If your cynical view of this is to be taken, we could never know anything. “Well, how do I know that the marital embrace is what creates children, it could just be something else”. That’s the line of reasoning you’re talking about. The people that have these life altering changes credit God for it. Are you calling them liars? Hmmmm…seems a bit arrogant to me.

Hitetlen:

Of course there is no external purpose. I can even say that the life of the believers is without purpose, however their death has one. I am a very upbeat, exuberant person, happy as a bird. Hardly a “depressed” one. I am happy with the Earthly pursuits and find joy in them…

Again, that’s your assumption. You haven’t disproved anything yet. I find it hard to believe you have much of an open mind and intellectual humility with such strong, emotional statements such as this. Furthermore, the believer’s life has absolute meaning, since it is the purpose of life to gain eternal union with God. That constantly keeps me moving forward, even when I don’t want to. And congrats to you for being that kind of a person. God’s grace even works for those who don’t acknowledge Him. However, what you and I mean by happy are two very different things. The earthly pursuits can never give the type of happiness I speak of, because they are all centered on “self”. Selfishness is a vice, not a virtue. Further, happiness and joy are two very separate things. I believed I was “happy” in my days as an agnostic as well. However, I had no peace within my self, therefore I found myself constantly chasing more. What else was there for me to do? Now, you may not do this, but that is just because you are not consistent in applying your “philosophy” to real life.

Hitetlen:

Some may be, but I bet you cannot prove that most of them are depressed. As a matter of fact I don’t know about ANY statistical proof, which would show that believers are happier, healthier, more successful than atheists.

No, you are right about that. I can’t “prove it” off hand. Nor do I really care to. These are just observations from talking to agnostics and atheists, and reading their philosophies. Nihilism=Hopelessness and ultimately despair. Nihilism is the only consistent philosophy for an agnostic/atheist. Therefore, if you are applying your philosophy consistently, you will inevitably be depressed. Furthermore, even if I did provide “proof”, you would just reject it due to your “subjective” evidence theory.

 

[Redbandito]

Hitetlen:

You misunderstand me. The facts that one uses to substantiate a claim are objective. The consequences that people draw from those facts are subjective. The same set of facts is sufficient for one person, and deficient for another.

You’re right, I did. Sorry about that. That is pretty similar to what I was saying. The only difference is that ultimately, if we have objective evidence, there must be some OBJECTIVE standard by which anyone open could be convinced. But then, that JMHO.

 

[doomhammer]

Hitetlen:

Simply arguing that many people having the same opinion makes it more justified or believable is the fallacy of “argumentum ad numerum”, and it is incorrect just like the Santa Claus example clearly shows.

Could you bring a better example to try to refute the “argumentum ad numerum”?
As I stated before “You are applying the Santa Claus’ “argumentum ad numerum” to “children”, only a specific group of persons. (Referring the existence of God) I’m talking about “the overwhelming majority of humankind of all ages”. Here lies a quality difference.”

 

[Redbandito]

Hitetlen:

Please make allowance to the fact that English is not my mother tongue, and I don’t use it in a fully instinctive manner. When I choose words (especially during posting of a message), I think them over, and choose them according to my understanding what those words mean.

If you say that in this respect the words “acceptable” and “believable” are synonyms, I don’t percieve them as such. To me “accepting” a proposal is much narrower, than “believing” it. Suppose you receive a letter, in which someone offers you a deal, which seems to be beneficial to you. If you do not believe that the company is legitimate, you will automatically reject the offer. If you believe that the offer is genuine, you still might reject it, for whatever reason.

To me these words are not intechangable in any respect.

Here our difference is not linguistic. Obviously God evaluates human actions according to three categories: some he approves of (worshipping him), some he disapproves of (having sex with contraception) and some he does not care about (watering the lawn). All I said, that “IF” God would not put “disbelief” into the second category, “THEN” it would not be sinful. This was not a rebuttal of anything, simply an “if… then… else…” type of observation.

Even according to the apologists “disbelief” is not always a sin, as they express it in the “invincible ignorance” clause. So it is not valid that God always deems disbelief a sin.

Here we may again have a linguistic difference: I most emphatically reject that “holding in high regard” and “worship” are synonyms. Not as I understand these words. I hold many things in high regard, some of them way above my intelligence. Does it mean that I acutally “worship” them? I don’t think so. There are many scientists whose intelligence far surpass mine. Do you think that I “worship” those scientists? I don’t even know them.

I agree with your whole post. Mark the day and time!

 

[Hitetlen]

Redbandito:

I agree with your whole post. Mark the day and time!

I did with great pleasure!