So where will you go? (81:23)

[firedragon]

Eid milad saeedh @Link

 

[Link]

Eid milad saeedh @Link

Thanks!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We have nobody to blame except ourselves.

I'm going to blame you.

I'm going to blame you and @Link and every other internet apologist who's certain they have the truth and are certain that I'm destined for Hell/outer darkness/separation from God/eternity with a bad haircut/whatever, but couldn't be bothered to put forward an argument that might "save" me that wasn't full of holes.

Maybe you didn't have the rhetorical skill. Go learn those skills, then.

The half-assed approach to theology I see from theists has me convinced that most of you don't actually believe what you say you do.

Think about it: plenty of people - myself included - spend a few days in a classroom every few years to learn first aid and CPR. Have you put even that level of effort into learning logic or rhetoric? If you haven't, then I'm going to figure that you care less about convincing me in order to "save" my "soul" than I care about saving someone's actual life if needed.

Come on, people. When you bother to use arguments at all, it's tired crap from Aquinas or Anselm that was refuted centuries ago. Even if you think the arguments are wonderful, it should be obvious that they don't work. If you're serious about what you say, come up with new, better material.

 

[Clara Tea]

i did that

and i fell off a cliff

Heading toward light makes one light headed.

 

[Clara Tea]

فَأَيْنَ تَذْهَبُونَ

If we don't go to the path towards God and light, where are we going?

Some sinful place of booze, broads, and Baccus. Which doesn't seem like much of a turn off to most.

The royal family of Saudi Arabia seems to want that sort of heaven here on earth. The wealthy, in the middle east, seem immune from God's laws.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm going to blame you.

I'm going to blame you and @Link and every other internet apologist who's certain they have the truth and are certain that I'm destined for Hell/outer darkness/separation from God/eternity with a bad haircut/whatever, but couldn't be bothered to put forward an argument that might "save" me that wasn't full of holes.

If you haven't, then I'm going to figure that you care less about convincing me in order to "save" my "soul" than I care about saving someone's actual life if needed.

It is not the 'job' of any believer to save nonbelievers. Everyone is responsible for their own soul.
If nonbelievers like the evidence for the existence of Messengers of God what are we supposed to do about that? We cannot come up with evidence we do not have.

I don't know anything about Hell or outer darkness but it is a given that anyone who rejects God will be separated from God.
I could end up on the same camp myself.

 

[Link]

I'm going to blame you.

I'm going to blame you and @Link and every other internet apologist who's certain they have the truth and are certain that I'm destined for Hell/outer darkness/separation from God/eternity with a bad haircut/whatever, but couldn't be bothered to put forward an argument that might "save" me that wasn't full of holes.

Maybe you didn't have the rhetorical skill. Go learn those skills, then.

The half-assed approach to theology I see from theists has me convinced that most of you don't actually believe what you say you do.

Think about it: plenty of people - myself included - spend a few days in a classroom every few years to learn first aid and CPR. Have you put even that level of effort into learning logic or rhetoric? If you haven't, then I'm going to figure that you care less about convincing me in order to "save" my "soul" than I care about saving someone's actual life if needed.

Come on, people. When you bother to use arguments at all, it's tired crap from Aquinas or Anselm that was refuted centuries ago. Even if you think the arguments are wonderful, it should be obvious that they don't work. If you're serious about what you say, come up with new, better material.

The vision argument and ontological arguments are all good arguments for existence of God in my view. I can only present what I base my faith on and reasoning on.

Ontological argument is same as Tawhid argument in Quran, just phrased different. It emphasized on how we know God exists through that, rather just emphasizing how we know there aren't more then one God.

The vision argument is also stated in Quran.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The vision argument and ontological arguments are all good arguments for existence of God in my view. I can only present what I base my faith on and reasoning on.

Ontological argument is same as Tawhid argument in Quran, just phrased different. It emphasized on how we know God exists through that, rather just emphasizing how we know there aren't more then one God.

The vision argument is also stated in Quran.

You're missing my point.

What's your goal in making arguments for God? If it's to convince other people, then how good you think the argument is is irrelevant. At some point, you'd say to yourself "gee - even though I think the ontological argument is awesome, I've been using it for years and it hasn't convinced a single person. Maybe I should switch to other arguments."

If you keep insisting on using arguments that you know from experience won't convince anyone, then this tells me that your goal isn't to convince people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is not the 'job' of any believer to save nonbelievers. Everyone is responsible for their own soul.

The fact that you would say this tells me that you don't consider salvation to be that important. Would this be your attitude to, say, someone who needs life-saving first aid?

"Oh, that choking guy isn't my problem. Everyone's responsible for their own airway."

If nonbelievers like the evidence for the existence of Messengers of God what are we supposed to do about that? We cannot come up with evidence we do not have.

You could be more convincing.

At the very least, you could talk to your fellow proselytizers to find out which tactics worked best, and you could abandon tactics that don't work.

 

[Trailblazer]

The fact that you would say this tells me that you don't consider salvation to be that important. Would this be your attitude to, say, someone who needs life-saving first aid?

"Oh, that choking guy isn't my problem. Everyone's responsible for their own airway."

Physical life cannot be compared with spiritual life. There are certain concrete steps that are taken to save a physical body but the soul is more complicated. Everyone is an individual so the same steps do not work for everyone. But even with a physical body, some life-saving measures do not work and that person dies, despite all the best efforts to save him.

You could be more convincing.

At the very least, you could talk to your fellow proselytizers to find out which tactics worked best, and you could abandon tactics that don't work.

What works to convince one person will not work for another person because all humans are individuals. Moreover. what worked to convince a believer that there is a God was different for all of us, so I can only explain what worked to convince me. I have explained that I believe in God because of the Messengers of God, and because of Baha'u'llah in particular, who is proof that God exists for me. For other believers it was the Bible or something else that convinced them.

The question is, what would convince you?

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Heading toward light makes one light headed.

that goes a long way to explain why I didn’t see the cliff

 

[Link]

You're missing my point.

What's your goal in making arguments for God? If it's to convince other people, then how good you think the argument is is irrelevant. At some point, you'd say to yourself "gee - even though I think the ontological argument is awesome, I've been using it for years and it hasn't convinced a single person. Maybe I should switch to other arguments."

If you keep insisting on using arguments that you know from experience won't convince anyone, then this tells me that your goal isn't to convince people.

It has convinced people when I talk to them personally about it. Somehow on the internet, it's harder to convey and clarify, then an one on one conversation.

 

[F1fan]

It is not the 'job' of any believer to save nonbelievers.

Assuming they need saving, which is questionable.

Everyone is responsible for their own soul.

Assuming souls exist.

If nonbelievers like the evidence for the existence of Messengers of God what are we supposed to do about that? We cannot come up with evidence we do not have.

That's only a problem for believers.

I don't know anything about Hell or outer darkness but it is a given that anyone who rejects God will be separated from God.

Assuming a God exists. which is unlikely. But what you seem to be saying is that the mind of a mere mortal has the power to displace God's presence. That's impressive.

I could end up on the same camp myself.

Yeah, to a non-believer like myself having to work so hard to maintain religious belief would be like hell.

 

[Trailblazer]

Assuming they need saving, which is questionable.

I did not say they needed saving. Saving is a Christian concept.

Assuming souls exist.

I do know that.

That's only a problem for believers.

It is not a problem for believers since we already have a belief.

Assuming a God exists. which is unlikely. But what you seem to be saying is that the mind of a mere mortal has the power to displace God's presence. That's impressive.

No, that is not what I was saying. God can be present but if we are unaware of God's presence then we are separated from God.

Yeah, to a non-believer like myself having to work so hard to maintain religious belief would be like hell.

Not all believers have to work as hard as others. I just happen to have some personal issues with God so I have to work harder to try to resolve them. However, I do not have to work hard at all to maintain my religious beliefs.

 

[F1fan]

I did not say they needed saving. Saving is a Christian concept.

I'm not sure why you were referring to it as a real thing.

I do know that.

Really? So science and objective thinkers should consider souls to be real? Explain how you know this, and use facts.

It is not a problem for believers since we already have a belief.

belief based on a lack of credible evidence We've been over this. There's no reason to believe in implausible ideas that lack evidence. It's a problem for you in debate.

No, that is not what I was saying. God can be present but if we are unaware of God's presence then we are separated from God.

Only if you assume a God exists, and all this above is also true. None of this is realistic or believable.

Not all believers have to work as hard as others. I just happen to have some personal issues with God so I have to work harder to try to resolve them. However, I do not have to work hard at all to maintain my religious beliefs.

Theists don't deal in fact, so it's a lot of work to maintain these implausible concepts, especially those who engage in debate.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm not sure why you were referring to it as a real thing.

Because 9-10ths_Penguin brought it up when he said: ↑

I'm going to blame you.

I'm going to blame you and @Link and every other internet apologist who's certain they have the truth and are certain that I'm destined for Hell/outer darkness/separation from God/eternity with a bad haircut/whatever, but couldn't be bothered to put forward an argument that might "save" me that wasn't full of holes.

If you haven't, then I'm going to figure that you care less about convincing me in order to "save" my "soul" than I care about saving someone's actual life if needed.

Really? So science and objective thinkers should consider souls to be real? Explain how you know this, and use facts.

I did not say that science and objective thinkers should consider souls to be real. I cannot give you facts because the existence of a soul is not a fact. I do not know it as a fact, I know it as a belief.

belief based on a lack of credible evidence We've been over this. There's no reason to believe in implausible ideas that lack evidence. It's a problem for you in debate.

Belief based upon evidence that is not credible to you, but it is credible to me and other believers, otherwise we would not believe.

It is not a problem for me in a debate because I am not codependent. I just present the evidence I have, then the ball is no longer in my court.

Only if you assume a God exists, and all this above is also true. None of this is realistic or believable.

I do not assume a God exists. I believe a God exists and that what I said about God is true. Obviously it is not realistic or believable to you because you are coming from a very different point of view.

Theists don't deal in fact, so it's a lot of work to maintain these implausible concepts, especially those who engage in debate.

It is not difficult for me at all because I am rational enough to know that God cannot be proven as a fact, yet that has no bearing on whether God exists as or not, since proof is not what makes God exist; God either exists or not.

 

[Viker]

I'm on the Path of the Light.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

فَأَيْنَ تَذْهَبُونَ

If we don't go to the path towards God and light, where are we going?

To Enlightenment. To Freedom. A better world.

 

[Viker]

 

[ChristineM]

فَأَيْنَ تَذْهَبُونَ

If we don't go to the path towards God and light, where are we going?

Im going the way my life takes me, free from religious restrictions and dogma.