The Matt/Matt Debate - Part 2: Borrowing Worldviews

Matt Slick calls in to "The Atheist Experience":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb1mfKJU6bo

For parts 1, 3 and 4 click here:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=C494E2C093CDF2E1

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• TAG
• transcendental
• argument
• matt
• dillahunty
• slick
• atheist
• experience
• debate
• jesus
• god
• christ
• christianity
• logic
• random

[TheoreticalBullshit]

@TON80DB lol! My favorite part was: "can god make eggnog?"

[AntiCitizenX]

@Hanahleia

Are you seriously trying to suggest that I can come to experience "God" though a drug-induced hallucination?

[stiimuli]

@solaphyde and the Islamic version of god and worship adheres to the exact same logical inconsistancies yet you've decided that religion is not worthy of observance.

You've come to two different conclusions in the face of two similar mandates based on either personal preferance or the social paradigm you were born into.

[stiimuli]

@solaphyde So basically, we must adhere to a concept which is contradicted by all reliable information. God wants us to believe blindly without justification upon penalty of infinite suffering. This demonstrates that the biblical concept of a deity is not only unworthy of belief but unworthy of worship even if it was demonstrated existant.

We are not lawless at heart. We have developed intricate systems of behavior over thousands of generations of living in cooperative societies.

[solaphyde]

@stiimuli I'll keep saying it on youtube until atheists get it. Sorry, but you're not critiquing Christianity with your misconceptions. Biblical faith is in the context of accepting whom Jesus claimed to be, NOT having empirical acknowledgement. The Biblical anthropology is that people reject Christ's claim because we are all sinful at heart. Being lawless at heart is the reality of this world. God is loving to himself by upholding justice to lawless sinners.

[stiimuli]

@solaphyde how about god creating many of us unwilling to believe something with insufficient evedence, then being unwilling to provide sufficient evidence to justify that belief he supposedly wants, and then punishing those creations for not believing....in effect, punishing us for the way he created us.

Its like creating a chess board with unstable pieces, then punishing the pieces when they fall over.

Is this just or loving in any way?

[solaphyde]

@lfzadra I'm only going to respond to your critiques of Biblical Christianity. All other false views of gods I have issues with as well. God saving us isn't immoral, but is just because our deserved punishment is carried out vicariously in Christ. Nice try. Just is always upheld 100% in the gospel. Some get wrath, some love, the only difference is grace. God IS still all loving even when punishing sinners. He's all loving to himself by upholding justice. Happy new year.

[lfzadra]

@solaphyde [Christians believe we're evil and don't deserve it] In other words, you have a religion who preaches low self esteem, or maybe the idea that we inherit the sin of others, in the case of the immoral original sin doctrine. Even if none of us deserve it, to save anyone would be immoral too. But this has nothing to do with God´s necessary desires. If he is omnibenevolent, he will wish at least. Again, please, don´t take offense, this is just how I see christianity.

Happy new year!

[solaphyde]

@lfzadra Again, you're not critiquing Christianity when you say he's imperfect if he doesn't want to save anybody. The real problem for the Christian shouldn't be why doesn't he then save everyone. Christians believe we're evil and don't deserve it, and that God is perfect and holy. The real problem is why he wants to save anyone at all when we utterly don't deserve it.

Nice try. You're the one who's only critiquing your misconceptions.

[lfzadra]

@solaphyde [Again, you're not critiquing Christianity. Remember?] Our little chat started with the idea that God is bounded by his nature. Since your version of the christian god does not have at least the desire to save everybody, his nature is imperfect, and he is bounded by this imperfection. This alone demonstrates that your version of the christian god, that is, in principle, perfect, is incoherent, and a prisoner of his own immutable nature, like everybody else.