- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Would you vote for an open atheist for national political office?
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:36 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:36 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
, but I do have a sufficient understanding of human cognitive development.
Very nice.
1
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:36 pm to goatmilker
quote:
Very nice.
I agree.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:38 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The point is that everyone has an innate sense of God and without revelation from God to explain who He is and what He requires of us, people tend to come up with their own explanation of the supernatural which best fits their own understanding of the world or their own insecurities or desires and needs.
Again, this is demonstrably untrue. We've seen and studied what happens in infants and children deprived of most or all human contact. They don't even do much as develop the cognitive ability to have what we would consider "thoughts".
And of course we see it in severely mentally disabled individuals as well.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:39 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
They essentially create a religion to put structure around what they know but don't understand.
The fact that you can so perfectly encapsulate one of the major explanations for the world's religions, and do so as an argument for your own religion, without seeing the irony in doing so, is pretty amazing.
quote:
Nope.
So what happens to the billions, including said Amazonian tribe, who aren't provided with a revelation from God you alluded to earlier? Are they doomed to hell through fault of circumstance?
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:42 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:In that vein, knowing our name, or fear of crawling off a cliff is something we are not born with. Both are inevitable with intellectual recognition transferred by birth as normal humans.
Not particularly, but I do have a sufficient understanding of human cognitive development.
This post was edited on 12/20/16 at 5:43 pm
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:42 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Atheism is a belief.
Correct, in as much as Christians don't believe Zeus or Thor or Shiva are real.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:44 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:Correct
in as much as Christians don't believe Zeus or Thor or Shiva are real.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:44 pm to Roger Klarvin
Their just Gods helpers 
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:46 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
For human adults, intellectual curiosity is the default
But curiosity in what? Curiosity is bred from circumstance. Educated Americans in 2016 aren't curious about where lightening comes from, nor are they curious about the possibly of Rah existing.
We are curious about the existence of Yahweh because it's an innate part of our culture. The curiosity about Yahweh and Jesus in India is almost non-existent.
This post was edited on 12/20/16 at 5:47 pm
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:47 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:What you're talking about is the ability to think about and understand the notion of spirituality. There will always be individuals who are cognitively unable to consider such a thing regardless of whether or not they "feel" a spiritual presence. Someone in a coma who isn't thinking about spirituality is not an evidence against it being an innate thing.
Again, this is demonstrably untrue. We've seen and studied what happens in infants and children deprived of most or all human contact. They don't even do much as develop the cognitive ability to have what we would consider "thoughts".
And of course we see it in severely mentally disabled individuals as well.
I liked Strophie's example better, where people with normal (though uninfluenced) cognitive abilities come up with their own understanding of the supernatural even though they are separated from the rest of the world's teachings on such things. That's the pattern we see throughout history. I suppose it can be summarized with believing in something bigger than yourself, which seems to be a very common thing regardless of specific religious expression.
This post was edited on 12/20/16 at 5:54 pm
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:49 pm to Strophie
quote:Is the specific belief in Christ as son of God. So no, there is no specific equation with other belief in that regard. The basics of religious faith are much more transferrable though
Christianity
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:50 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
In that vein, knowing our name, or fear of crawling off a cliff is something we are not born with. Both are inevitable with intellectual recognition transferred by birth as normal humans.
Sure, so long as each are experienced in that environment.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:50 pm to Strophie
quote:It would certainly be ironic if I didn't also say that this is the natural inclination without special/specific revelation from God. Then, of course, the topic shifts from that lack of irony to the topic of "which supposed revelation is the right one", since other religions claim special revelation. At that point we get into the specific teachings of various religions to find out which one seems more legit, coming from a higher power greater than ourselves.
The fact that you can so perfectly encapsulate one of the major explanations for the world's religions, and do so as an argument for your own religion, without seeing the irony in doing so, is pretty amazing.
quote:Tired subject but the short answer is "yes". The longer answer includes such things as federal headship and violation of conscience even without the law of God.
So what happens to the billions, including said Amazonian tribe, who aren't provided with a revelation from God you alluded to earlier? Are they doomed to hell through fault of circumstance?
This post was edited on 12/20/16 at 5:54 pm
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:51 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:False. They are instintive
Sure, so long as each are experienced in that environment.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:52 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
False. They are instintive
So a child would know their name, or even that they have one, without ever being told or called by that name?
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:53 pm to Revelator
Yes I would.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:53 pm to FooManChoo
It still warrants an explanation. The common notion that the severely mentally handicapped automatically go to heaven is not only unbiblical but directly contradictory to the New Testament.
This existence of such people has long been a monkey wrench in Christian theology, so much so that it's almost completely ignored in apologetics circles. CS Lewis called it one of his greatest Christian struggles to the point where it was almost a deal breaker.
No theologically or logically sound explanation has ever been proposed. In the end you're either left with a God who makes exceptions he by nature isn't supposed to be able to make, or one who allows people to be born who will inevitably go to hell through no fault of their own.
This existence of such people has long been a monkey wrench in Christian theology, so much so that it's almost completely ignored in apologetics circles. CS Lewis called it one of his greatest Christian struggles to the point where it was almost a deal breaker.
No theologically or logically sound explanation has ever been proposed. In the end you're either left with a God who makes exceptions he by nature isn't supposed to be able to make, or one who allows people to be born who will inevitably go to hell through no fault of their own.
This post was edited on 12/20/16 at 5:55 pm
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:54 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I suppose it can be summarized with believing in something bigger than yourself, which seems to be a very common thing regardless of specific religious expression.
This is certainly true. I look up at the night sky and sometimes am overwhelmed with a sense of awe; a sense of scope and a sense of being a part of something infinitely more complex and all encompassing than myself. Something much bigger.
But there are strong theories regarding this feeling of "spiritual awe" being resultant of evolutionary causes. And I ascribe to that belief. As a result, there's nothing magical about the sense of wonder humanity, as a collective, feels about the universe or our place in it. It's the result of a rational process.
So this belief in "something bigger than yourself" doesn't provide, in and of itself, anything of value to the argument for Christianity or other religions for me.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 5:59 pm to Roger Klarvin
There is a ton of debate on this that has been going on for centuries.
This is a interesting take I thought.
This is a interesting take I thought.
quote:
.When R.C. Sproul wrote his book, Reason to Believe, he expended considerable effort in explaining why such a position is unscriptural.He prefaced his discussion withthefollowing statements: The unspoken assumption atthis point isthatthe only damnable offense against God is the rejection of Christ. Since the native is not guilty of this, we ought to let him alone. In fact, letting him alone would be the most helpful thing we could do for him. If we go to the native and inform him of Christ, we place his soul in eternal jeopardy. For now he knows of Christ, and if he refuses to respond to Him, he can no longer claim ignorance as an excuse. Hence, the best service we can render is silence (1981, p. 50). 2
Posted on 12/20/16 at 6:00 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:I don't personally have a logical problem with this because I don't believe that every mentally handicapped person automatically goes to Heaven. In fact, I don't believe anyone automatically goes to Heaven.
It still warrants an explanation. The common notion that the severely mentally handicapped automatically go to heaven is not only unbiblical but directly contradictory to the New Testament.
This existence of such people has long been a monkey wrench in Christian theology, so much so that it's almost completely ignored in apologetics circles. CS Lewis called it one of his greatest Christian struggles to the point where it was almost a deal breaker.
No theologically or logically sound explanation has ever been proposed.
I hold to the orthodox view of federal headship where everyone is either represented by Adam (and damned) or represented by Christ (and saved). When conceived, everyone falls under the headship of Adam and the covenant of life/works, being damned by Adam's failure to keep the law and then damning ourselves (being extra damned, if there is such a thing) by our own failure to keep the law perfectly.
When a person is regenerated by the Holy Spirit through the hearing of the preached Word of God, that person moves from one federal head to the other. That person is then judged not by his own works (or that of Adam) but by the works of Christ, and thus is deemed holy in spite of his sins. No one automatically gets saved just because they have a mental or physical impairment.
And with that, I fully expect the "it's not fair" and "God must be cruel" arguments to commence.
This post was edited on 12/20/16 at 6:06 pm
Page 12 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News