Hume

Why do you choose to do so? There is no other reason other than the author requests for it to be locked. If that was not the reason then the moderator would say "Locked for spam" or give a warning to stay on topic. Instead we get "Thread locked on authors request", and no other reason. Nothing is stopping me making a thread on topic again (which does not have much to do with the point of this topic), but there is no reason for it to be locked in the first place other than the authors wishes. The 16 page thread which I am referring to had long posts yet to be answered that people spent time on making and thinking out. Just for their time to be wasted for the sole reason that the author wants a thread locked. What if other people find it interesting? Whats stopping the author from creating a new thread and specifying the topic he wants discussed a little more? Whats the point in locking a thread soley on the authors wishes? What I am bringing up is why can an author request a lock to their thread on a public forum. It is not like they have an authority over it or can control the discussion, thats the moderators job. If there was a reason for locking these threads then they should be given, I understand there was a request on these boards awhile ago that moderators continue to post reasons as to why threads are locked on their reply so people could ask them to be unlocked if they disagreed with them. What does "thread locked on authors request" tell us? Nothing.

This is not directed at one thread, I spoke to Tallest about this a few weeks ago, it came up in a subject for the clan boards. The one that annoyed me most was maybe 4 weeks ago when there was a 16 page long thread that was locked on the authors request after he had not posted on it since the start. The direction of the topic did not go the way he planned. What does locking a thread on the authors request achive? Surley if the thread was so off topic it would be locked by a moderator or warned to get back on track. What actually comes from locking the thread? Why stop a discussion thats already happened, and why doesn't the author open a new thread? If anyone can give me something good that comes from authors being able to lock their threads then please give me a reason. Otherwise it's an uneeded and useless rule.

Hence "moderator like ability". Perhaps you can comment on the point rather than the semantics?

So why are you arguing for this being correct? So answer my question, why does a non believer have to exist so someone already pre-destined to believe can believe? So God sacrificing us so that you can have faith is not martyrdom? God is the one making the sacrifice here, we are the sacrifice to you apparently.

No one's belief is robotic. The believers have enhanced belief towards God's love because of the presence of non-believers, and the non-believers have enhanced belief away from God's love because of the presence of believers. As I have said repeatedly, true love cannot exist without evil and vice versa. You are giving non-believers nothing more than a robotic purpose by saying that we are here so others can use us in order to develop their faith and go to heaven. We have been reduced from humans and equals to an object by your theory, an object in which for some reason enables the true selected few to believe. Yeah, I think so too. In this concept, the non-believers are considered subpar. I can not actually beleive you agree with this. You are saying Christians are worth more than non believers, thats called inequality. It's as bad as racism. God sentences all non-believers, including Muslims, to hell as part of the environment for conditioning believers. Allah sentences all non-believers, including Christians, to hell as part of the environment for conditioning believers. I used Christianity in my self-debate instead of Islam because this thread is about Christianity. This thread assumes the existance of the Christian God. Please answer the question. Are you God? If you aren't, then how do you know sacrifices ended with Jesus? It is one of the main outcomes of Jesus' death. The end of moasic sacrifices, because God sacrificed his son to atone us of our sins.

Why do authors of topics have a moderator like ability to lock their own threads. I can understand this if the threads about them or about their actions but in threads that are discussion, or things that are not about them - it's stupid. If the discussion does not go the way it was planned the author has the ability to lock it, despite the time and effort some people put into their posts and despite any interest others have in the direction of the topic. What is this rule? Whats it's purpose and justification? To me it's just a way for them to take back a thread when they no longer like it, and moderators keep enforcing it. Last time I checked moderators were the ones who are trained to decide when threads go over a certain boundary and up to date on the rules that are enforced. They decide if it is off topic, and so should act appropriately(ie split those posts from the thread) and not close threads on an the authors request.

No one's belief is robotic. The believers have enhanced belief towards God's love because of the presence of non-believers, and the non-believers have enhanced belief away from God's love because of the presence of believers. As I have said repeatedly, true love cannot exist without evil and vice versa. You are giving non-believers nothing more than a robotic purpose by saying that we are here so others can use us in order to develop their faith and go to heaven. We have been reduced from humans and equals to an object by your theory, an object in which for some reason enables the true selected few to believe. Can you please actually explain why someone who believes in the Islamic God affects someone else to beleive in the Christian God, when both are already pre-destined to these choices? What relation do they have to one another? Please do not answer with "We need evil to know love" because it does not explain anything. Yes that is what I'm saying. How many times are you going to repeat what I already said? :P You are not responding to the problem with that conclusion, that being "Sacrifices ended with Jesus Christ" and you saying that God continues to sacrifice non believers for other people.

You are arguing against one type of belief being a robotic action, and promoting another type of belief as being robotic. Which to me seems like a complete contradiction, if someone believing in the Islamic God is a robotic belief, then someone believing in the Christian God is also a robotic belief. Your theory comes down to sacrificing the majority for the minority, sacrificies ended with Jesus Christ. By saying athiests are pre-determined to be atheists you're saying God is sacrificing a huge amount of people so that some may experience him.

Which does not make sense in comparison to what you have written. You claim atheists are pre-destined to be atheists to create an enviroment so a chosen few may develop faith (which you still have not explained why atheism leads to others developing faith), which sounds exactly like the thing you are arguing against. You're saying that we need these robotic like atheists in order for Christians to develop their faith. You are basically saying that we need atheists in order to show faith as not a robotic action, but in reality you have made the atheists nothing more than robots. Yeah, pretty much. But you got one part of that wrong. It's not so that they savor life more, but so that they can savor Him more. Well, that makes all the billions and billions of people throughout history who have died not beleiving, or believing in something else alright then. As long as these chosen few can savour God better, talk about selfishness?

The Christian God therefore sacrifices the majority of people so that a chosen few may spend eternity with him in heaven on purpose? I thought the sacrifices ended with Jesus Christ? According to you, an atheist is predetermined to be atheist to create an "enviroment" so that faith can come about for these pre-chosen minority. How does someone being atheist create an enviroment for someone else to find faith, surley it would lead to the opposite? So your theory leads God to be no better than someone who kills one million people so that a thousand can savour life a little more. How benevolent.

[/hide] Atheism - "No + God". Directly or indirectly, it seems to be a rejection of God. Lack of faith can be one factor, but selfish ideals are one of the things that can BLIND people to any such faith. Also, your "you need to reject something that is real" is correct, although to some atheists, Christianity IS just an idea. You are assuming that atheists first accept that God is more than an idea, then reject it through selfish blindness. Can you tell me what makes a Christian less selfish than an atheist? Is it soley because the Christian is submissive? Is the fact that atheists are not submissive to God the reason why they are selfish? Or are you just assuming that atheists lack any sense of morality, or right and wrong because they lack a God, or to be more specific, lack your God? Yes, the Bible is the only factor for determining if someone is Christian or not. How else would one become Christian if not through the Bible? Someone could become deist (without beleiving in a specific God) or agnostic without reading the Bible, but in order to find and beleive in specifically the Christian God it takes the Bible, and therefore also takes illogical circular reasoning.

I would agree, if that was the case. However we both know that is not true, your assumption that atheism is a rejection of God is incorrect and your reasoning that they can live life on their own and have no need for God is also incorrect. The lack of belief does not come from some selfish ideal. It comes from just a lack of faith, like you have a lack of faith in Scientology or Islam, and to reject something that something first must have to exist. Otherwise you're rejecting merley an idea of it. What i find to be the main factor in this is that God seems not to want to be seen to exist. He's nothing more than a collection of contradictions we are led to beleive exist because he is infinite, beyond us, and beyond our intellect. If he exists he is the biggest paradox we can imagine. What does this point to? Surley the road to belief should be quite an easy one or as easy as a lack of belief. Not 100% dependant on faith, with no evidence and nothing even pointing to his existance. Only a book written two thousand years ago to tell us to believe and have faith, against logic through circular reasoning we are led to need to believe in God or we are to be without him. Yet this is a free choice to you? The scales are weighed equally in each direction for you?

And where does knowledge come from? Experience (or a priori propsitions which are not relevant). We do not experience God, we experience the attributes in God on this earth then apply them infintley.

Of course not, our ideas of God come from our already pre-existing experiences. Omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, perfection and infinite existance all are forms are things we experience taken to another level. Descartes argued that we can not imagine things we do not experience, such as perfection and so the idea must have come from something greater than us, which was God. However perfection is a subjective trait, we can not experience it but we can assign abilities and traits to something in order to make that perfect. I exist in and experience a finite universe, God is perfect so he must be neccessary and therefore must exist infinitely. You can see how these things therefore come about from what we already experience.

Everything our brain imagines is based upon experience, you're saying that our brains are something that they are not. They can not just make up objects without experience of objects.