thejediknighthusezni said:
^Do believers want evidence and proof?-- Absolutely! I was refering to the attitude among atheists. They insist that because we haven't met THEIR standards of proof, theism can have no practical application.
Seemingly might it not be more accurate to note that without meeting such a standard, the theistic belief might merely be in question? For, assuredly must it not be apparent to still have practical application even were it to lack basis in fact?
"...never cross the road again?"-- I was thinking that the bus represented our inevitable deaths (if Jesus doesn't come soon.) Leaving the road would mean abandoning anything that the Deity would likely find unacceptable.
This provides an improved clarity to the point...in light of which, the original question must be answered somewhat differently.
Essentially, is the simple fact of an individual warning of an impending bus sufficient cause to believe in its inevitable arrival? Would not considerations be made regarding the relative position of the individual (i.e. is he capable of seeing further) as well as his past behavior at this same crossing? For if one were to shout in warning about such a bus and yet frequently be seen to cross the same street without apparent concern might not the words of that one be interpreted differently?
Further, add to this the clamor of numerous individuals sighting all manner of approaching vehicles that this first crier arduously denies and may not the problem become apparent?
"...Freely complying with destroyer."-- One should never comply with an evil destroyer. Well, unless the compliance is in a lesser matter in preparation for a soon strike for greater effect. One should accept the consequences of refusal.
Should one comply with a good destroyer?
Some "believers" are suicide bombers?-- Yes, but this argument is a bit like insisting that nobody should eat fruits and vegetables, as well as rejecting stones, dirt, and poison ivey. You should carefully select what is good for food.
While it may be accepted that a suicide bomber might not be good nourishment, is it then to be considered that an atheistic dictator might a good meal make?
ME regimes and Hitler?-- The "great" totalitarian powers were "essentially" atheist. Hitler was a proud atheist with occasional satanic occult dabblings and plenty of nods to his "Catholic" Jesuit pals.
Did he not equally provide glowing praise for his more Lutheran adherents as well as allow himself an unhealthy indulgence in pagan mythos? Yet allow that it may be accepted that the most efficient in recent history of mankind's oppressors were of the atheistic variety. How might such a commentary affect a claim regarding the purported veracity of atheism?
Essentially, if teaching a population the true source and creation of fire might occasion a greater frequency of arson, should the knowledge of fire's reality be suppressed? To clarify, is the knowledge itself to be blamed or might not the method in which it had been taught be considered a greater suspect?
New religion or one we already have?-- I favor jettisoning EVERYTHING the Roman/Babylon state church has imposed, together with those doctrines that the great Protestant churches have insisted on retaining. We should read the NT CAREFULLY and IN CONTEXT. Most people would be surprised to finally discover Christianity.
Is not this context properly considered that of the older Testament, which ostensibly served as its foundation? If not, what might be its true context?
Knowingly created rebellious than why blame them.-- Here I must rely upon my pathetically limited human perspective. It seems to me that a being with a "God's eye view", seeing past, present, and future SIMULTANEOUSLY, might be simultaneously LEARNING and KNOWING. If you know in advance that Jack is going to punch Dirk in the face for no good reason, Jack's character is not one bit improved by your foreknowledge.
Is this to be understood that God might only have occasion to view humanity on VHS? If so, is it possible that he forgot that He created the original director's cut?
Alternately, if a god is capable of being timeless, how might a future unfold to an all-seeing god? Is not that future eternally apparent? If so, why might such a being judge in the now?
"Power corrupts...."-- The only way, at the end of the day, to escape Lord Acton's dictum is for the leaders to have a fearful and passionate devotion to True Law. If God cares nothing for Law, we are all ultimately lost.
Fair enough...