Conservative Political Forum

General Category => Religion Forum => Topic started by: marksch19 on October 14, 2012, 09:10:06 PM

Title: Those condescending atheists
Post by: marksch19 on October 14, 2012, 09:10:06 PM
So, I got into another debate w/ an atheist from my school.

I've no problem w/ them, but I'm shocked at how condescending they sound like.

Case in point (condensed, I posted a lot):

Last night, I had a heated discussion over the Net about the nature of God in society. As I'm fond of using the Moral Lawgiver argument (probably one of the most effective around there) I've argued that it is impossible for society to define "good", and that if God doesn't exist, every thing is permitted, and in that cases of communism & nazism, if atheism is true, we should be morally indifferent to it and shouldn't show disgust against it.

I used this quote (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god)):

The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man. The communist torturers often said, 'There is no God, no Hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.' I have heard one torturer even say, 'I thank God, in whom I don't believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.' He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners.

The atheist response? He told me my argument was "irrelevant" and I had "cute, but not valid arguments". Curiously, he never answered my question: Should we've evolved in a society where rape is permitted and normal, would you do it?

His arguments could only be described as a mix of sunday school atheism & 4chan-style argument:

"Since you say the proof God existed is b/c of the Bible, would you say Spiderman also exists b/c he's in a comic?"

I countered: "Nope, as far as I know, nobody worshipped Spiderman for more than 5000 years and died for him. Out of the 12 apostles, 11 were brutally killed. If they knew that Christianity was false, they would repudiate it & profess paganism."

He also said: "If the Moral Lawgiver is true, then why should it be your God? Shouldn't it be the Muslim Allah too?"

I said: "My God never told me to kill an unbeliever to go to heaven."

I'm confused as to why atheists are very keen to recruit others in their cause. I know hobbits don't exist, but I never spend my whole time convincing others they don't exist.

Kierkegaard was right in saying that a lone atheist man, without his peers, would suddenly realise there is a God, so that's why they had to stick together.

Also, I'll never go into debates again, as Proverbs 29:9 says: If a wise man goes to court with a foolish man,
the fool rages or scoffs, and there is no peace.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Skeptic on October 19, 2012, 04:20:41 AM
QuoteThe communist torturers often said, 'There is no God, no Hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.' I have heard one torturer even say, 'I thank God, in whom I don't believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.'

This is a lie, and a rather bad one at that. Your atheist friend did well in not dignifying this with a response. I came from a communist nation, and I can tell you that religion was alive and well there. The churches were packed full every Sunday, and self-avowed Communists attended and fervently prayed to God.

Atheism does not equal Communism. Atheism simply means: A lack of belief in anything supernatural. That's it!!! Atheism does not embrace any political ideologies, and just like there are Communists who are atheists, there are liberals who are atheists, conservatives who are atheist, anarchists who are atheist, etc.

QuoteShould we've evolved in a society where rape is permitted and normal, would you do it?

Are you saying that Atheists are rapists? Interesting, because I was watching YouTube clips of the show "To Catch a Predator" and almost half of all the sexual predator who were busted said something like "I'll never do it again. I'm a good Christian and I read the Bible."

Does that mean that all Christians are sexual predators? Of course not, it just means that Christians are humans and capable of doing evil just like any other human. Likewise, there are good atheists and bad atheists, just like there are good and bad Christians...so your point is? Again, being atheist simply means having a lack of belief in anything supernatural....there is nothing about rape in that definition.

Quote"Since you say the proof God existed is b/c of the Bible, would you say Spiderman also exists b/c he's in a comic?"

I countered: "Nope, as far as I know, nobody worshipped Spiderman for more than 5000 years and died for him. Out of the 12 apostles, 11 were brutally killed. If they knew that Christianity was false, they would repudiate it & profess paganism."

Hinduism is much older than Christianity and millions of Hindus over the centuries have  given their lives in the name of their religion. So your example that Christianity must be true because many people have believed it over the centuries is not a very good example, and is a cop out from having to take your friend's question seriously.

QuoteHe also said: "If the Moral Lawgiver is true, then why should it be your God? Shouldn't it be the Muslim Allah too?"

I said: "My God never told me to kill an unbeliever to go to heaven."

Re-read Numbers and Leviticus in the Old Testament. It is full of examples of rape, genocide, etc.

QuoteI'm confused as to why atheists are very keen to recruit others in their cause. I know hobbits don't exist, but I never spend my whole time convincing others they don't exist.

We are vocal because Christians are constantly trying to push Creationism in our schools at the expense of science. We are vocal because Christians are trying to mix religion and politics constantly, and using their views to tell others how to live. We are vocal because Christians are constantly knocking on our doors and telling us how we are going to burn in hell and how we are evil (despite the fact that you don't know us personally.)  If you did none of that, I would not give a darn what you believed in.

To the moderators: Feel free to ban me now. I was a member of the Hannity forums for over a year and never got into any trouble. A week ago they had a thread asking whether one could be an atheist and a conservative. I replied that it was possible because I am an atheist and a conservative. The next day I got a message that I was temporarily banned for replying to an attack post that someone made on me. Even though I did not remember ever having done so, I'd figure I'd wait to be reinstated to ask the moderators to show me what I did wrong. I was never reinstated from the temporary ban after the time period expired, and no one has ever answered back my email inquiries asking why I haven't been reinstated.

So feel free to ban the evil atheist, I'm quite used to it by now.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Skeptic on October 19, 2012, 05:35:45 AM
One last thing about your post:

QuoteAlso, I'll never go into debates again, as Proverbs 29:9 says: If a wise man goes to court with a foolish man,
the fool rages or scoffs, and there is no peace.

Labeling others foolish because they disagree with you is not a wise tactic. You must debate the opposition because through debate you can refine your arguments, discard what doesn't work in your arguments, and strengthen what does work.

Sometimes we can believe something is true, but through debate we learn that maybe it wasn't true, or only partially true. You have to go into a debate willing to defend your viewpoint, but you also have to go in with an open mind! Sometimes I have believed in something so strongly that I was convinced it had to be 100% right, but through debate and re-examination of my beliefs, I realized I wasn't right. That is what a rational mind does. Do not become close minded. Always challenge and re-examine what you believe in, and never be afraid to be wrong.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: marksch19 on October 19, 2012, 05:12:09 PM
The Leviticus & Numbers you're citing is brought upon by the people who attacked Israelites.

When you're on exodus and trying to find a homeland, and hostile Semitic tribes rise up against you, what do you do? What do you do when the Amalekites themselves practise temple prostituition, sodomy, and child sacrifice? God Himself gave them more than a hundred years to repent, yet they didn't, instead, they still turned on their wicked ways.

It's not just the other tribes that were punished. The Israelites themselves were allowed by God to be conquered and subdued b/c they disobeyed His orders. They've entered a convenant w/ God, yet they had the audacity to defy him.

"And Moses said to them, "Have you spared all the women? 16 "Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the Lord. 17 "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18 "But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves,

God was trying to keep the messianic line pure, as the Israelites in Canaan were exposed to sins.

Other tribes, such as the Amorites, were also given more than a hundred years to repent. Yet they blockaded the Israelites' passage and constantly harassed them even in the wilderness If they repented, they would've been spared. An example is Nineveh.

I'm not saying atheists are rapists, you take things TOO literally, possibly b/c of your reliance on empirical science. What I'm saying is that if there's no absolute evil, there's also no "moral good", in that we're free to do whatever if we want. So technically, why would atheists like yourself object to 'genocide' in the Bible when evolution, if proven correct, according to Dawkins, life would have 'no evil, no good, but blind, pitiless indifference'. Sartre, an atheist, held that life has no point, yet he still condemned genocide & anti-Semitism. Why? Because a worldview consistent w/ evolution maintains that we're only propagators of DNA & expandable. Why do you concern yourself w/ the murder of these tribes, when, in your evolutionary view, humans are nothing but intelligent animals who existed b/c of a cosmic accident?

Are you trying to argue w/ the events in the Old Testament w/ the view of the modern times? You're a man who eats 3x a day, has a house, and finds food in a grocery. Do you have any idea how to live in a society where you're literally always on the verge of death due to these tribes?

Even Nietzsche himself said moral values are important b/c its the antidote against nihilism.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Skeptic on October 19, 2012, 05:25:47 PM
My morality is based on a simple precept: Don't do unto others what you don't want them to do to you. Therefore, I don't murder, I don't rape, I don't steal.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 05, 2012, 02:05:55 PM
Quote from: marksch19 on October 14, 2012, 09:10:06 PM

Last night, I had a heated discussion over the Net about the nature of God in society. As I'm fond of using the Moral Lawgiver argument (probably one of the most effective around there) I've argued that it is impossible for society to define "good", and that if God doesn't exist, every thing is permitted, and in that cases of communism & nazism, if atheism is true, we should be morally indifferent to it and shouldn't show disgust against it.

I forgot what the formal name of the fallacy you are employing is, but basically, you're assuming that, because X truth has bad implications for society, it isn't actually true.  Newsflash, bro (or sis): whether or not something is moral does not have any relevance to whether or not it is true.



Quote
The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man.

I consider myself to be an atheist, but I certainly am not a sociopath.  Why is this the case?

Isn't it a very disturbing implication that humans can only do good through the carrot and the stick?
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Yawn on November 05, 2012, 03:41:28 PM
QuoteIsn't it a very disturbing implication that humans can only do good through the carrot and the stick?

That's NOT what motivates a Christian.  Your misconceptions is why I rarely ever have "conversations" with activist atheists.  Your "morality" is the byproduct of the Christian culture you've grown up in, imperfect though it may be. As the Christian God is rooted out of our culture, the culture will continue its slide into depravity and you won't even see it coming (they are generational changes as morality is forgotten and a secular morality fills the vacuum).
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 06, 2012, 06:34:37 AM
Quote from: Yawn on November 05, 2012, 03:41:28 PM
That's NOT what motivates a Christian.

That's your logic: you think atheists don't have morals because we don't believe in an afterlife.

QuoteYour misconceptions is why I rarely ever have "conversations" with activist atheists.

Hey; when your bible tells you to kill your neighbor for working on Sundays and burn girls for being whores, it's hard to take "Christian morality" seriously.

QuoteYour "morality" is the byproduct of the Christian culture you've grown up in, imperfect though it may be.

Show me one.  Don't murder?  Exists in primates.  Help others?  Confucius was preaching this long before Jesus.  Equal rights?  Don't make me laugh; the bible endorses female oppression and slavery, and John Locke was a deist.

Or did you think that people are out slaughtering each other in India?


QuoteAs the Christian God is rooted out of our culture, the culture will continue its slide into depravity and you won't even see it coming (they are generational changes as morality is forgotten and a secular morality fills the vacuum).

We're already the most advanced time period in human history, largely because religion has at least partially taken the backseat to science and reason.  God told Moses to rape girls and slaughter children in the bible.  Fact.  I can show you the passages if you deny it.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: valjean on November 10, 2012, 01:53:54 PM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 06, 2012, 06:34:37 AM

We're already the most advanced time period in human history, largely because religion has at least partially taken the backseat to science and reason.  God told Moses to rape girls and slaughter children in the bible.  Fact.  I can show you the passages if you deny it.

If you are referring to "advanced" in the sense that morality is more advanced I have to take issue with this. Science by virtue of what it is cannot serve to lead us to value judgements, science is concerned with facts, not moral or ethical claims. Reason will often be a basis for value judgements, but many morals that societies bereft of religion cling to are often not based on true reason and tend to be more emotive. The extent to which you want to say reason is the basis for your morals only has meaning in relation to the assumptions you make about humanity and the world from which your reasoning springs.

I believe atheists can certainly live by a code of ethics. The ethics of Aristotle for example make no appeal to the divine and operate under the golden mean.

But to say that somehow science and reason alone are going to be the basis of ethics for a society is nonsensical. Neither science or reason nor the two in conjunction can say anything meaningful and authoritative about morality if they do not operate under certain assumptions, and these assumptions for them to rightly be assumptions cannot be based on evidence, they are an assumed value judgement. Two systems of ethics both using science and reason can look like polar opposites depending on their underlying assumptions, one could appear great and the other horrific.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: a777pilot on November 10, 2012, 03:21:34 PM
An atheist was walking through the woods.

'What majestic trees!'
'What powerful rivers!'
'What beautiful animals!'
He said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river,
he heard a rustling in the bushes behind
him.

He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot
grizzly bear charge towards him.



He ran as fast as he could up the path.
He looked over his shoulder & saw that
the bear was closing in on him.

He looked over his shoulder again, & the
bear was even closer.

He tripped & fell on the ground.

He rolled over to pick himself up but saw
that the bear was right on top of him,
reaching for him with his left paw &
raising his right paw to strike him.


At that instant moment, the Atheist
cried out:  'Oh my God!'

Time stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.

As a bright light shone upon the man,
a voice came out of the sky.

'You deny my existence for all these
years, teach others I don't exist and
even credit creation to cosmic accident.'
'Do you expect me to help you out of
this predicament?'

'Am I to count you as a believer?'

The atheist looked directly into the
light, and said: 'It would be hypocritical
of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as
a Christian now, but perhaps you could
make the BEAR a Christian?'

'Very well', said the voice.

The light went out. The sounds of the
forest resumed. And the bear dropped
his right paw, brought both paws
together, bowed his head & spoke:

'Lord bless this food, which I am about
to receive from Thy bounty through
Christ our Lord, Amen.'
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 06:53:24 AM
Quote from: valjean on November 10, 2012, 01:53:54 PM
If you are referring to "advanced" in the sense that morality is more advanced I have to take issue with this. Science by virtue of what it is cannot serve to lead us to value judgements, science is concerned with facts,

Any ethics system worth a damn is based primarily on facts.

Quote

I believe atheists can certainly live by a code of ethics. The ethics of Aristotle for example make no appeal to the divine and operate under the golden mean.

Aristotle supported slavery and was a misogynist; I don't think he's the best example.

Quote
But to say that somehow science and reason alone are going to be the basis of ethics for a society is nonsensical.

You are correct.  But what claim to legitimacy does religion have?  It's not enough to offer an explanation or code not provided by other methods of human thought; you need to actually have a reason as to why it is worth using.

The Bible condones rape, genocide, slavery and torture.  If anyone dares to challenge me on this, I can provide dozens of quotes at the drop of a hat.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: valjean on November 11, 2012, 10:35:17 AM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 06:53:24 AM
Any ethics system worth a damn is based primarily on facts.

Care to expand on this?

The statement: "rape is wrong" is not a statement that can be said to be factual, strictly speaking. It is a value judgement that is not provable in any sense. Yet, in spite of this we would all agree that rape is wrong.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 06:53:24 AMAristotle supported slavery and was a misogynist; I don't think he's the best example.

This appears to be an Ad hominem attack on Aristotle. Ancient Greek culture in general was misogynistic, and slavery was common place. Though we may find these things objectionable now, this in no way discredits Aristotle as a philosopher, he was certainly one of the greatest.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 06:53:24 AMYou are correct.  But what claim to legitimacy does religion have?  It's not enough to offer an explanation or code not provided by other methods of human thought; you need to actually have a reason as to why it is worth using.

But who are you to judge what is legitimate and what is not? We live in a pluralistic society, not everyone has the same code of ethics, and if they do, they might not arise from the same source. If three people believe murder is wrong, and one is a Christian, one is an atheist, and one is a Buddhist, what does it matter to me where their beliefs come from at least in terms of the outward effect? Furthermore, why is it not enough for someone to simply believe in their religion and hold to their system of ethics that are derived from that religion. Is it not enough simply because you don't like it? My point is, moral and ethical judgements are not provable in any sense at all in the way other things are proved scientifically, so far be it from me to say that someone's value judgement on what is moral or ethical is not up to snuff solely because it isn't supported by other things that would be to my liking.

Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 10:44:45 AM
Quote from: valjean on November 11, 2012, 10:35:17 AM
Care to expand on this?

The statement: "rape is wrong" is not a statement that can be said to be factual, strictly speaking. It is a value judgement that is not provable in any sense. Yet, in spite of this we would all agree that rape is wrong.

All morality must be based on certain premises, but these should be as self evident, universal and simple as possible.  Everything there should be logical.

Rape is wrong because it causes suffering.  Suffering being bad is relatively unprovable.  But rape is not bad because it is rape; it's bad because it has negative consequences.  This logic is fine, because the premise ("suffering is bad") is hardly one anyone would disagree with.

So why is this distinction important?  Well, some moral systems have ridiculous rules such as "pre-marital sex is wrong" that have no explanation.  They're wrong simply because they're wrong.  They're premises, but hardly self evident or universal ones.  They're not sensible.

Quote
This appears to be an Ad hominem attack on Aristotle.

Yes, but that's only because you used an Appeal to Authority on Aristotle.  If Aristotle's beliefs were outdated as you seem to suggest, then he isn't really relevant from a moralistic standpoint today.

Quote
But who are you to judge what is legitimate and what is not?

I'd ask the Religious Right that wants to impose their subjective and arbitrary moral values on everyone else. 

It's fine to have your own moral code.  But don't impose it on society if it is arbitrary, and certainly don't claim immunity from the law.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: valjean on November 11, 2012, 12:06:08 PM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 10:44:45 AM
All morality must be based on certain premises, but these should be as self evident, universal and simple as possible.  Everything there should be logical.

Rape is wrong because it causes suffering.  Suffering being bad is relatively unprovable.  But rape is not bad because it is rape; it's bad because it has negative consequences.  This logic is fine, because the premise ("suffering is bad") is hardly one anyone would disagree with.

I agree for the most part, but like I said in one of my previous posts, the things you are saying here are not provable and so they cannot be scrutinized by scientific means something you seemed to have suggested had a place in forming ethical standards. I don't think suffering is necessarily bad, we often have to put ourselves through suffering to achieve a greater end, or put others through suffering to achieve a greater end. A coach may have to make his players suffer by running suicides so that they get into shape, or something of this sort. So to me, suffering although it is an issue here, isn't the heart of the issue here as to why rape is wrong. If a woman was drugged into oblivion and was raped while not experiencing suffering in the act, it is still wrong on the basis of the rapist depriving her of the freedom to consent or not to consent, this is the heart of the matter to me, the deprivation of freedom  by the use of force to sexually abuse. Even if for some reason no suffering was experienced by the victim, if they were drugged, the act is still wrong because it deprives the victim of due freedom and due dignity. But for me to make these points, I am not relying on science, I am relying on assumptions that human beings ought to be free to make certain choices, who they have sex with being one of them. Does science support this claim? No. Is it reasonable to say this? Well, I don't quite know. Do people prefer to be free than not free? Yes I would say so. And do people prefer to not suffer rather than suffer? Yes. But do these things necessarily being the case mean that is is reasonable to say it is wrong to deprive someone of freedom or cause suffering? I don't quite know the answer to this either. Is something reasonable simply because we like it? And is something unreasonable simply because we don't like it? All interesting questions, but to wrap this up, my only point here is that someone can look beyond science and their conception of what is reasonable to form ethical judgements, and sometimes they might just seem arbitrary, a matter of preference.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 10:44:45 AM
  So why is this distinction important?  Well, some moral systems have ridiculous rules such as "pre-marital sex is wrong" that have no explanation.  They're wrong simply because they're wrong.  They're premises, but hardly self evident or universal ones.  They're not sensible.

You call it ridiculous, but on what basis? I think one could make the argument that society would run much more smoothly if people had less sexual partners. Having less sexual partners would decrease the frequency of the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases for one. And if people had only one sexual partner in their lifetime, the person they were married to, sexually transmitted diseases would be reduced on unseen levels. Now this may not be a good enough reason for you to believe pre martial sex is wrong, but to say it is ridiculous, and not sensible is an overstatement.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 10:44:45 AMYes, but that's only because you used an Appeal to Authority on Aristotle.  If Aristotle's beliefs were outdated as you seem to suggest, then he isn't really relevant from a moralistic standpoint today.

I most certainly did not use an appeal to authority on Aristotle. I merely used Aristotle's ethics, the golden mean, as an example of a code of ethics that do not make an appeal to the divine, countering the belief that is common among some Christians that atheists cannot have an ethical standard to live by simply because they don't believe in God. I could have used any other example to illustrate this, but the example of Aristotle is one of the most well known.

Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: MFA on December 01, 2012, 08:39:49 AM
Quote from: valjean on November 11, 2012, 12:06:08 PM


Rape is wrong because it causes suffering.  Suffering being bad is relatively unprovable.  But rape is not bad because it is rape; it's bad because it has negative consequences.  This logic is fine, because the premise ("suffering is bad") is hardly one anyone would disagree with.

There's certainly more than that.  If "suffering is bad" becomes the highest standard to which we attain, then there's no reason for us to exist at all.  Non-existence would trump suffering.

To be fair, I didn't read the rest of your post.  I just wanted to pick on this one thing.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: JustKari on December 01, 2012, 09:20:26 AM
Quote from: MFA on December 01, 2012, 08:39:49 AM
There's certainly more than that.  If "suffering is bad" becomes the highest standard to which we attain, then there's no reason for us to exist at all.  Non-existence would trump suffering.

To be fair, I didn't read the rest of your post.  I just wanted to pick on this one thing.

Haven't seen you in a while.  Good to see you.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: MFA on December 01, 2012, 07:04:12 PM
Quote from: JustKari on December 01, 2012, 09:20:26 AM
Haven't seen you in a while.  Good to see you.

:smile: Thanks!
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Patriot on December 26, 2012, 05:51:20 PM
Good and Evil exist independent of any specific religion.

The simple proof of that is that Good and Evil existed before Christ.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Seems like if you follow that simple rule it is easy to decide whether you want to be good or evil ....... religion is secondary to any precept that violates that rule.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Ricko on December 26, 2012, 07:46:51 PM
I'll add my 2c of thoughts here. I think I'd be considered more agnostic then athiest. I was raised Catholic and spent 8 yrs in a Catholic grade school and I began to "question the validity" in 2nd or 3rd grade probably...silently in my mind of course :scared:. There were so many inconsistancies and contradictions in things we learned in school. In religion class we'd talk ablut the biblical origin of man and then in science/history class they'd be teaching us about evolutionary theory and the two seemed to contradict each other. And then there were all of those "other" religions and I began to question...who's right?? Now I'm at mid-life and my thoughts are that nobody is right and nobody is wrong, religion/faith exists in your heart and if it makes you happy, go with it.

Anyway, I think my religious upbringing gave me a good set of values to carry on with. I think the Ten Commandments are some good basic rules to live by and as the poster above says, do unto others as you would have done to you. In my younger years I liked to think there was more good then evil in this world but honestly, as I grow older and see all the BAD things that happen in this world, I'm thinking it's more the other way around :cry:.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Yawn on December 27, 2012, 07:11:36 PM
I noticed patroit posted in a long string of threads in this forum but, for some strange reason, ignored THIS thread  :lol:
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Patriot on December 27, 2012, 11:51:50 PM
Quote from: Yawn on December 27, 2012, 07:11:36 PM
I noticed patroit posted in a long string of threads in this forum but, for some strange reason, ignored THIS thread  :lol:

I liked Ricko's post.

Here's a chap who has an open mind.

Realizes there is this religious BS, but hasn't really taken the time to think it through and decided to just muddle his way through feeling more or less secure that if there is a God of the Organized Religions, this God will understand his confusion.

Naturally, I might be wrong in this opinion. But, that's how I see it.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Yawn on December 28, 2012, 04:33:51 PM
'bout time you showed yourself in this thread about those annoying and pompous/elitist followers of the Atheist Religion!  :biggrin:
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on December 28, 2012, 05:55:40 PM
Quote from: Yawn on December 28, 2012, 04:33:51 PM
'bout time you showed yourself in this thread about those annoying and pompous/elitist followers of the Atheist Religion!  :biggrin:
Atheists are funny about God and guns, the only time they acknowledge both are necessary is when someone is breaking into their home.
The first thing they do is call someone that has one, and Pray to God they get there in time.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Patriot on December 28, 2012, 10:19:35 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 28, 2012, 05:55:40 PM
Atheists are funny about God and guns, the only time they acknowledge both are necessary is when someone is breaking into their home.
The first thing they do is call someone that has one, and Pray to God they get there in time.

Might be true about Agnostics. Not true about Atheists.

However, I understand that you're attempting to be hilarious.  :sneaky:
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: MFA on December 31, 2012, 05:29:28 AM
Quote from: Patriot on December 26, 2012, 05:51:20 PM
Good and Evil exist independent of any specific religion.

The simple proof of that is that Good and Evil existed before Christ.

Illogic alert!
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: walkstall on December 31, 2012, 05:37:55 AM
Quote from: MFA on December 31, 2012, 05:29:28 AM
Illogic alert!

MFA, I think s/he is new at this.   :popcorn:
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Darth Fife on January 09, 2013, 08:31:37 PM
Quote from: MFA on December 01, 2012, 08:39:49 AM
There's certainly more than that.  If "suffering is bad" becomes the highest standard to which we attain, then there's no reason for us to exist at all.  Non-existence would trump suffering.

To be fair, I didn't read the rest of your post.  I just wanted to pick on this one thing.

Indeed, "suffering is bad" can hardly be used as an absolute.

The Black Plague caused untold suffering, but the descendants of the survivors benefited from an stronger immune system.

Christ, himself, suffered and died on the Cross.

There are, of course many, many more examples...
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Alexander on January 28, 2013, 01:29:27 AM
Quote from: marksch19 on October 14, 2012, 09:10:06 PM
Last night, I had a heated discussion over the Net about the nature of God in society. As I'm fond of using the Moral Lawgiver argument (probably one of the most effective around there) I've argued that it is impossible for society to define "good", and that if God doesn't exist, every thing is permitted, and in that cases of communism & nazism, if atheism is true, we should be morally indifferent to it and shouldn't show disgust against it.
The atheist response? He told me my argument was "irrelevant" and I had "cute, but not valid arguments". Curiously, he never answered my question: Should we've evolved in a society where rape is permitted and normal, would you do it?

The Moral Argument is one of the most popular, and most effective, among laymen. However, I think what William Lane Craig and his followers fail to realize is that the Moral Argument is only effective on an emotional level. I don't even really view it as an argument for God's existence, but rather as an argument against objective moral values. So, I would have to agree with your friend that this argument is largely irrelevant in the debate over the existence of God. It would be more relevant in a debate about ethics.

Quote
I countered: "Nope, as far as I know, nobody worshipped Spiderman for more than 5000 years and died for him. Out of the 12 apostles, 11 were brutally killed. If they knew that Christianity was false, they would repudiate it & profess paganism."

As you might imagine I don't find this to be a very compelling argument. However, I have tried to look into it further in the past and I've never found the basis for most of these claims.

Quote
I'm confused as to why atheists are very keen to recruit others in their cause. I know hobbits don't exist, but I never spend my whole time convincing others they don't exist.

The condescending nature of this statement is rather ironic considering the title of your post, don't ya think? Anyway, if you lived in a country where 90% of people believed in hobbits you would probably change your tune. If you were barred from holding political office in your state for not believing in hobbits, would you spend more time talking about it? What if lawmakers based their policy decisions on their belief in hobbits and used this as a reason to limit the freedoms of certain individuals? What if families disowned their children for not believing in hobbits? What if people were killed around the world for not believing in the right hobbit? What if all of your friends and family members believed you would be tortured for not believing in hobbits? This is exactly the situation we are in today with God. Don't pretend to not understand that. I think you are fully aware as to why atheists care about this issue. But believe me, I'd be hard pressed to try and think of a less important question than 'does God exist' to be perfectly honest, but unfortunately the actions of some people have made it a question I cannot ignore. And I think you understand this, because after all, atheists don't go around talking about hobbits either. We don't have labels we attach to people based on whether or not they believe in hobbits.

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men." - Robert Ingersoll

Quote
Kierkegaard was right in saying that a lone atheist man, without his peers, would suddenly realise there is a God, so that's why they had to stick together.

Being an atheist living in the Bible belt, I am about as lone as it gets when it comes to my beliefs, but that doesn't change anything. Not sure why that would matter anyway. Everybody knows that you are more likely believe the things that your friends and family do, that doesn't say much about the truthfulness of the belief. Hell, you could even switch the quote to say, "A lone Christian man, without his peers, would suddenly realize there is no God, so that's why they had to stick together" and it would probably be even more accurate. This seems like a weird thing for a Christian to say since they put so much emphasis on community.


QuoteAlso, I'll never go into debates again, as Proverbs 29:9 says: If a wise man goes to court with a foolish man,
the fool rages or scoffs, and there is no peace.


Doesn't the Bible say Christians must always be prepared to defend their faith? And, does this mean William Lane Craig and Dinesh D'Souza should stop debating?
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Murph on January 29, 2013, 06:22:09 PM
Isn't being a militant atheist somewhat hypocritical? I'm just kinda wondering if there is some sort of obligation to spread the faith, or lack therof among atheists.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on January 29, 2013, 06:52:00 PM
Quote from: Murph on January 29, 2013, 06:22:09 PM
Isn't being a militant atheist somewhat hypocritical? I'm just kinda wondering if there is some sort of obligation to spread the faith, or lack therof among atheists.
:lol:
Well said.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Alexander on January 30, 2013, 12:37:05 AM
Quote from: Murph on January 29, 2013, 06:22:09 PM
Isn't being a militant atheist somewhat hypocritical? I'm just kinda wondering if there is some sort of obligation to spread the faith, or lack therof among atheists.

I feel like the answer to this should be somewhat obvious. Like everything else in life, you can choose to be as involved or as "militant" as you wish to be. I don't consider myself a militant atheist, but I do feel a need to answer misconceptions. Because as simple an idea atheism is, it is extremely misunderstood. I don't see why it would be hypocritical to answer misconceptions. That would imply that atheists are somehow "obligated" to shut up and let people say whatever they want whether it is true or not.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: JustKari on January 30, 2013, 07:52:40 AM
Quote from: Alexander on January 30, 2013, 12:37:05 AM
I feel like the answer to this should be somewhat obvious. Like everything else in life, you can choose to be as involved or as "militant" as you wish to be. I don't consider myself a militant atheist, but I do feel a need to answer misconceptions. Because as simple an idea atheism is, it is extremely misunderstood. I don't see why it would be hypocritical to answer misconceptions. That would imply that atheists are somehow "obligated" to shut up and let people say whatever they want whether it is true or not.

I don't think answering questions or defining misconceptions would be considered militant.  What I think Murph is driving at is, there are atheists that do something very close to evangelism.  Everywhere there go, they must spread the word, what they feel is truth.  They have turned what could be described as a lack of religion, into a religion.  This certainly does not describe all atheists, but a certain segment of them does and we had quite the string of that type of atheist come here right after the election.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Murph on January 30, 2013, 11:43:24 AM
Quote from: JustKari on January 30, 2013, 07:52:40 AM
I don't think answering questions or defining misconceptions would be considered militant.  What I think Murph is driving at is, there are atheists that do something very close to evangelism.  Everywhere there go, they must spread the word, what they feel is truth.  They have turned what could be described as a lack of religion, into a religion.  This certainly does not describe all atheists, but a certain segment of them does and we had quite the string of that type of atheist come here right after the election.
Exactly
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Alexander on February 02, 2013, 06:48:55 PM
Quote from: JustKari on January 30, 2013, 07:52:40 AM
I don't think answering questions or defining misconceptions would be considered militant.  What I think Murph is driving at is, there are atheists that do something very close to evangelism.  Everywhere there go, they must spread the word, what they feel is truth.  They have turned what could be described as a lack of religion, into a religion.  This certainly does not describe all atheists, but a certain segment of them does and we had quite the string of that type of atheist come here right after the election.

Generally speaking, atheism just means you don't believe in God. Whether or not you wish to go around telling people that, trying to convince people of that, etc, is a personal question that the individual with have to decide for themselves. Neither side could be consider the "atheist side." Many Christians believe they are called by God to evangelize, so for them this is a necessary part of their religion. This isn't the case for an atheist, it's more of whatever suits your fancy.

Atheists in America and elsewhere are becoming more outspoken for various reasons. My main motivation is that most people I come into contact are genuinely ignorant of what atheism is or what atheists believe. In many cases this leads to them having a rather negative feeling towards people who hold this view, which is rather troubling to me. And on top of this, publicly policy is often dictated with religious themes in mind which often limits the freedom of people who don't follow the "right" religion.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: anti-American on March 03, 2013, 08:40:30 PM
From what I have heard, I think that atheists, rightly or wrongly, tend to view religion as the embrace of "silly" ideas that are highly illogical and thus deserving of condescension. As for the question of moral values without God, I have an opinion about that. I don't think that Christianity is a bad thing and, overall, I think it is a positive force in the world. The simple truth is that many people would struggle to live morally upright lives without a belief in God. Religious people often ask atheists what would prevent absolute moral relativism from running rampant without God. But, in asking such a question, they to take for granted the idea that religion serves to prevent moral relativism from dominating. The existence of the Abrahamic God does no such thing. That is why some people kill innocent people in the name of God and others volunteer at soup kitchens in the name of the same God. Clearly, God cannot be our guiding moral light. I believe that there are absolute morals and that they can be known intuitively. For example, it is immoral to steal from someone because you would not want someone to steal from you.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: pisskop on March 04, 2013, 09:02:22 AM
Believing in God myself, I'd like to point out that atheists are frequently underinformed about religion (and what would motivate them to learn about it, other than to refute it), but no more than any other subject.  Let's face it, the general public is often underinformed, and our little soundbyte society encourages this.

For instance, A fairly intelligent guy told me Friday that:
1) Christianity caused the crumpling of the Roman Empire (not just the west, but all of it).
2) Christianity destroyed our knowledge and caused a dark age.

IMO, science is only the latest step in our evolution of knowledge, one that doesn't obsolete faith and won't be obsoleted by whatever comes next.  Its emperical in nature, and often logically sound.  Religion relies on logic, but ultimately requires faith in the end.

However, I'd like to take this time to point out that many people don't like religion because it represents authority and responibility.  Many dislike it because they've been told to.  MAny more discount it because God tends to be ignored until trouble happens.

But even if you don't believe in a higher power, you always find alternatives to it.  Whether the being in the 5th dimension or the power of man himself, God is manifest in many concepts.  Religion will continue to influence our culture even as we deny it.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Mountainshield on March 04, 2013, 10:28:12 AM
Quote from: marksch19 on October 14, 2012, 09:10:06 PM
So, I got into another debate w/ an atheist from my school.

I've no problem w/ them, but I'm shocked at how condescending they sound like.

Case in point (condensed, I posted a lot):

Last night, I had a heated discussion over the Net about the nature of God in society. As I'm fond of using the Moral Lawgiver argument (probably one of the most effective around there) I've argued that it is impossible for society to define "good", and that if God doesn't exist, every thing is permitted, and in that cases of communism & nazism, if atheism is true, we should be morally indifferent to it and shouldn't show disgust against it.

This is good qualitative statements of moral relativism, if God does not exist then ultimately all moral judgements are subjective and irrelevant. I.e follow your heart, but the heart can go dark places.

The problem with using this in an argument against an atheist is that its not representative of atheism as a collective and therefore not generalizable so the atheist can easily dismiss it as "well thats not what most atheist believe".

What is generalizable though is that every genocidal government/movement of the 20th century and moving on into the 21st century is atheist as a result of their dialectical materialistic beliefs. Not every atheist have these beliefs though, but this doesn't change that atheism as a collective have caused suffering of millions. The atheist will at this point use the Crusades as counter argument but first of all it happened 700-1000 years ago, Ottoman threat to Europe is a factor, destruction of Constantinople shows the pope had economical and not theological agenda etc.

Quote from: marksch19 on October 14, 2012, 09:10:06 PM
I used this quote (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god)):

The cruelty of atheism is hard to believe when man has no faith in the reward of good or the punishment of evil. There is no reason to be human. There is no restraint from the depths of evil which is in man. The communist torturers often said, 'There is no God, no Hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do what we wish.' I have heard one torturer even say, 'I thank God, in whom I don't believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all the evil in my heart.' He expressed it in unbelievable brutality and torture inflicted on prisoners.

The atheist response? He told me my argument was "irrelevant" and I had "cute, but not valid arguments". Curiously, he never answered my question: Should we've evolved in a society where rape is permitted and normal, would you do it?

His arguments could only be described as a mix of sunday school atheism & 4chan-style argument:

"Since you say the proof God existed is b/c of the Bible, would you say Spiderman also exists b/c he's in a comic?"

I countered: "Nope, as far as I know, nobody worshipped Spiderman for more than 5000 years and died for him. Out of the 12 apostles, 11 were brutally killed. If they knew that Christianity was false, they would repudiate it & profess paganism."

He also said: "If the Moral Lawgiver is true, then why should it be your God? Shouldn't it be the Muslim Allah too?"

I said: "My God never told me to kill an unbeliever to go to heaven."

I'm confused as to why atheists are very keen to recruit others in their cause. I know hobbits don't exist, but I never spend my whole time convincing others they don't exist.

Kierkegaard was right in saying that a lone atheist man, without his peers, would suddenly realise there is a God, so that's why they had to stick together.

Also, I'll never go into debates again, as Proverbs 29:9 says: If a wise man goes to court with a foolish man,
the fool rages or scoffs, and there is no peace.


Well, we can prove that there is a God, all the empirical data shows that the universe had a beginning, and intelligent design have pretty much destroyed the theory of evolution (if you disagree then show me empirical examples of a speciment mutating into a entirely new speciment and not just minor variation within species).

What we can't prove is that the force we call God is Yahweh. This is where faith and experience comes in, and you have to experience and understand God intervention before you can acknowledge Yahweh existence wholly.

I was atheist and Dawkin fanboy from age 13-24 and I always made fun of christians and thought divine intervention was BS, feebleminded or self delusion, but I was proved wrong after studying both Darwin, Dawkin, Myers, Craig etc I came to the conclusion that Intelligent Design was right and from personal experience I have experienced divine intervention.

Edit: My point is, you can argue intelligent design, but you can't argue Biblical Faith, it has to be experienced/observed.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: anti-American on March 04, 2013, 10:58:53 AM
God, does not make sense logically. Although I understand why people say there must be some intelligent designer, their own premises actually defeat their conclusion. The argument is basically as follows:

Humans are so amazing and complex that it is absurd to think that time and random events could have created them. The same could also be said of the entire universe. Therefore, there must have been an intelligent creator that purposefully created the universe and life. That creator is God.

But who made God? The problem is that God has the same qualities--extended to infinity--that make "him" necessary to exist in the first place. In other words, if there needs to be an intelligent creator in order for a human being to exist then surely there must be an intelligent creator for God to exist. If a human can't just exist without being created then certainly God, being even more complex and amazing, cannot. Religious people have a variety of ways to try to deal with the "who made God" question but they simply cannot answer it.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Mountainshield on March 04, 2013, 11:08:37 AM
Quote from: American on March 04, 2013, 10:58:53 AM
God, does not make sense logically. Although I understand why people say there must be some intelligent designer, their own premises actually defeat their conclusion. The argument is basically as follows:

Humans are so amazing and complex that it is absurd to think that time and random events could have created them. The same could also be said of the entire universe. Therefore, there must have been an intelligent creator that purposefully created the universe and life. That creator is God.

But who made God? The problem is that God has the same qualities--extended to infinity--that make "him" necessary to exist in the first place. In other words, if there needs to be an intelligent creator in order for a human being to exist then surely there must be an intelligent creator for God to exist. If a human can't just exist without being created then certainly God, being even more complex and amazing, cannot.

God does make sense logically, I would advice you to watch a few hours of William Lane Craig on the issue, or read his books or specifically the book "Signature in the Cell".

Your own premise is actually your own defeat because you don't understand the opposition premise.

Cells process and system they operate through are so complex and dependent on every variable and smallest factor to function that it is mathematically impossible  that it was created through random mutation or chance. (The universe had a begninning, so cells could not have been formed through endless mutations, i.e string theory)

The force that created the universe and material dimension transcend both time and matter. Therefore God is not bound by the beginning argument as God is timeless (more correctly out side of time).

Quote from: American on March 04, 2013, 10:58:53 AM
Religious people have a variety of ways to try to deal with the "who made God" question but they simply cannot answer it.



I just answered it.

But if you are serious about this topic then please read the opposition instead of just making up your own premise and putting into religious peoples mouth.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: anti-American on March 04, 2013, 01:44:51 PM
Quote from: Mountainshield on March 04, 2013, 11:08:37 AM
God does make sense logically, I would advice you to watch a few hours of William Lane Craig on the issue, or read his books or specifically the book "Signature in the Cell".

Your own premise is actually your own defeat because you don't understand the opposition premise.

Cells process and system they operate through are so complex and dependent on every variable and smallest factor to function that it is mathematically impossible  that it was created through random mutation or chance. (The universe had a begninning, so cells could not have been formed through endless mutations, i.e string theory)

The force that created the universe and material dimension transcend both time and matter. Therefore God is not bound by the beginning argument as God is timeless (more correctly out side of time).



I just answered it.

But if you are serious about this topic then please read the opposition instead of just making up your own premise and putting into religious peoples mouth.

The alleged mathematical impossibility of the current state of affairs in the universe may be true (although obviously it is just extraordinarily unlikely to come about by "chance," not impossible). But the same could be said of any other state of affairs that could have existed in the universe. Furthermore, if there are a near infinite number of other universes, then many of these other potential states of affair already exist.

The argument I made in my previous post has not been countered. Even if God "transcend both time and matter" and is therefore "not bound by the beginning argument," my original argument remains intact. In fact, as amazing and complex as we humans are, a being that exists outside of time and space and is capable of creating us is much more amazing and complex than we are. If, by virtue of our complexity, we must have been created by an intelligent designer then God, for the same reasons, must also have been so created.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Mountainshield on March 05, 2013, 06:54:29 AM
Quote from: American on March 04, 2013, 01:44:51 PM
The alleged mathematical impossibility of the current state of affairs in the universe may be true (although obviously it is just extraordinarily unlikely to come about by "chance," not impossible). But the same could be said of any other state of affairs that could have existed in the universe. Furthermore, if there are a near infinite number of other universes, then many of these other potential states of affair already exist.

The argument I made in my previous post has not been countered. Even if God "transcend both time and matter" and is therefore "not bound by the beginning argument," my original argument remains intact. In fact, as amazing and complex as we humans are, a being that exists outside of time and space and is capable of creating us is much more amazing and complex than we are. If, by virtue of our complexity, we must have been created by an intelligent designer then God, for the same reasons, must also have been so created.

It's not an alleged impossibility, its a mathematical fact. I would refer you to actually read Signature in the Cell if this is what you actually believe, because its clear you don't know the arguments which you are pretending to argue against. I don't have all the facts memorized and as stated earlier, please read the books of the opposition instead of just reading the books that validate your already embraced view. Thats what I did, and it changed my life. Both politically and socially.

There is no data whatsoever that supports multiverse theory, but from observable data we know the universe had a beginning and we know there is one universe.

The force which we call God does not need to ever have been created because it exist outside of time, it had no beginning and will have no end because it is timeless.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: anti-American on March 05, 2013, 01:53:16 PM
Sometimes raw logic will do the trick. It is a tautological truth that the existence of our current universe is NOT an "impossibility." By definition, impossible states of affairs can never exist. Because the state of affairs of our universe does exist, that state of affairs cannot be impossible.

It is of no particular importance that the alleged God exists "outside of time." If anything, one would think that God's existence "outside of time" and the fact that "he" is a being capable of creating the whole universe and the inhabitants therein would require at least as compelling of an explanation as the existence of the aforementioned things, allegedly created by God, would. What is that explanation? That's what I'm asking.

In other words, it seems entirely ridiculous that our universe needed an intelligent creator but that intelligent creator, being even more "impossible" and inexplicable than "his" alleged creations, needs no creator or explanation other than "he" has always existed "outside of time." If God's existence can be adequately explained in such a manner then, a fortiori, the universe and everything contained therein, including humans, can also be adequately explained that way, thereby rendering God an unnecessary part of any explanation of the universe's existence. 
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on March 05, 2013, 02:29:09 PM
The bigger question is what is God?
Could a simple explanation be that the human experience is a collective of souls needing a place to experience emotion, touch, conjointly created our very existence?

I find too often man wants to put a face on something to give it a tangible appeal, but in reality we are all a part of a higher collective power.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Mountainshield on March 05, 2013, 04:29:43 PM
Quote from: American on March 05, 2013, 01:53:16 PM
Sometimes raw logic will do the trick. It is a tautological truth that the existence of our current universe is NOT an "impossibility." By definition, impossible states of affairs can never exist. Because the state of affairs of our universe does exist, that state of affairs cannot be impossible.

It is of no particular importance that the alleged God exists "outside of time." If anything, one would think that God's existence "outside of time" and the fact that "he" is a being capable of creating the whole universe and the inhabitants therein would require at least as compelling of an explanation as the existence of the aforementioned things, allegedly created by God, would. What is that explanation? That's what I'm asking.

In other words, it seems entirely ridiculous that our universe needed an intelligent creator but that intelligent creator, being even more "impossible" and inexplicable than "his" alleged creations, needs no creator or explanation other than "he" has always existed "outside of time." If God's existence can be adequately explained in such a manner then, a fortiori, the universe and everything contained therein, including humans, can also be adequately explained that way, thereby rendering God an unnecessary part of any explanation of the universe's existence.

I have to say that I doubt you are really looking for answer, because you are not interested in researching arguments that does not validate your already embraced atheist view. I'm sorry if this is not the case, I'm not used to debating polite atheists, and I'm finding myself being the more rude one. And it's fine if you are not really looking for answer too, each to his own. What I dont agree too is that you are stating that christians are illogical and don't have good scientific arguments for their faith or standpoint, this I will never accept.

But motivation aside let me answer your post.

I'm making a conclusion based on the observable data, and the data show that the universe had a beginning. This is based on verifiable data that is proved through science, the multiverse is a theory without any data whatsover, just wishfull atheist thinking. An eternal universe is an impossibility, +1 infinity and -1 infinity can't be the same number, yet if the universe was eternal it would be the same number of time which is not only logically false, but also mathematically false rendering the eternal universe theory invalid.

Because the universe had a beginning, then a fortiori our existence can't be explained as to have always existed or existed outside of time, therefore rendering a Cause for existence outside of time a necessity..
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: anti-American on March 05, 2013, 05:31:12 PM
Before I address what you said, I want to point out that you have not addressed the argument I made.

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 05, 2013, 04:29:43 PM
I have to say that I doubt you are really looking for answer, because you are not interested in researching arguments that does [sic] not validate your already embraced atheist view.

I am not close minded. I have argued with religious people and I have spent a lot time reading their arguments online, although this is the first time I have had an online debate about it. Right now I am very busy and, unfortunately, I do not have time to do additional reading assignments. But, if you present an argument in your post I will read it and respond, as I have so far.

QuoteI'm not used to debating polite atheists, and I'm finding myself being the more rude one.

I'm glad you find me to be polite (if that's what you're saying). I too do not care for the attitudes that many atheists have. I once had a (relatively respectful) back and forth debate with Michael Newdow in person in front of dozens of people. I thought he was making ridiculous assertions and I called him out for it.

QuoteWhat I dont agree too [sic] is that you are stating that christians are illogical and don't have good scientific arguments for their faith or standpoint, this I will never accept.

I'm not a scientist and I'm not a theist. I am, however, schooled in philosophy and the crafts of argumentation, logic, and critical thinking. Some Christian beliefs are incredibly illogical and, in my experience, even many devout Christians will practically admit as much and always fall back on the "God works in mysterious ways" defense.

QuoteI'm making a conclusion based on the observable data, and the data show [sic] that the universe had a beginning. This is based on verifiable data that is proved through science, the multiverse is a theory without any data whatsover [sic], just wishfull [sic] atheist thinking.

I don't disagree with that but multiverse theory cannot be proven or disproven because of the nature of the theory. But it makes sense and seems much more reasonable than the God explanation/theory, which "is a theory without any data whatsoever."

QuoteAn eternal universe is an impossibility, +1 infinity and -1 infinity can't be the same number, yet if the universe was eternal it would be the same number of time which is not only logically false, but also mathematically false rendering the eternal universe theory invalid.

I'm sorry but I honestly have no clue what you mean and I don't think it is my fault that I have no clue what you mean.

QuoteBecause the universe had a beginning, then a fortiori our existence can't be explained as to have always existed or existed outside of time, therefore rendering a Cause for existence outside of time a necessity..

Allow me to try and re-write this argument: (P1) The universe had a beginning; (P2) It follows necessarily that we have not always existed; (C) Therefore, our existence must have been caused by a force outside of time.

This argument gets us exactly nowhere because (1) the "force outside of time" need not be God and (2) the universe didn't need to be caused by anything if God didn't need to be caused by anything.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Mountainshield on March 06, 2013, 01:31:42 AM
Quote from: American on March 05, 2013, 05:31:12 PM
Before I address what you said, I want to point out that you have not addressed the argument I made.

I am not close minded. I have argued with religious people and I have spent a lot time reading their arguments online, although this is the first time I have had an online debate about it. Right now I am very busy and, unfortunately, I do not have time to do additional reading assignments. But, if you present an argument in your post I will read it and respond, as I have so far.

I'm glad you find me to be polite (if that's what you're saying). I too do not care for the attitudes that many atheists have. I once had a (relatively respectful) back and forth debate with Michael Newdow in person in front of dozens of people. I thought he was making ridiculous assertions and I called him out for it.

I'm not a scientist and I'm not a theist. I am, however, schooled in philosophy and the crafts of argumentation, logic, and critical thinking. Some Christian beliefs are incredibly illogical and, in my experience, even many devout Christians will practically admit as much and always fall back on the "God works in mysterious ways" defense.

Well I fully respect your position now that I understand the context of your argument better. We seem to have misunderstanding and disagreement about premises that prevents us from reaching same conclusion or agreement.

You have to know the context about what you are debating, if you are refering to Genesis then yes without proper knowledge and understanding of how to interpret the Bible it will seem illogical and even ridiculous in some cases to an unbeliever. To fully comprehend the Bible you need to have a very good interpreter, wisdom and knowledgable, this is the problem with christianity today, lack of good Priests and Preachers, asking an imperfect human being to interpret word of God will lead to confusion and failure to understand. Like you said, "some christians will fall back too God works in mysterious ways" is a tribute to today lack of good priests/preachers. But I think you too would agree that failure to understand something is hardly an argument against it.

But you also have to be honest about what you are debating now. Intelligent Design, Biblical historical accuracy or a person experience of divine intervention. You can't sweep all topics under one argument in an all or nothing soundbyte debate, thats intellectually dishonest. And this is what happens in most debates.

Quote from: American on March 05, 2013, 05:31:12 PM
I don't disagree with that but multiverse theory cannot be proven or disproven because of the nature of the theory. But it makes sense and seems much more reasonable than the God explanation/theory, which "is a theory without any data whatsoever."

I'm sorry but I honestly have no clue what you mean and I don't think it is my fault that I have no clue what you mean.

Allow me to try and re-write this argument: (P1) The universe had a beginning; (P2) It follows necessarily that we have not always existed; (C) Therefore, our existence must have been caused by a force outside of time.

This argument gets us exactly nowhere because (1) the "force outside of time" need not be God and (2) the universe didn't need to be caused by anything if God didn't need to be caused by anything.

(1) I never said that the force/cause need to be the God of the bible, Intelligent design does not claim this. This is what I meant with my false accusation that you are not after understanding the opposition, because from this statement it is clear you don't know what intelligent design is. I understand that you may be busy with uni or work to take on additonal reading. There are some very good youtube videos of Craig, Myers and even some of Harun Yahya if you want to relax one day and try understand intelligent design.

(2) For something to begin it needs to have a cause. If you disagree with this premise then this is the end of our debate imo. If our basic premises are in contradiction then we can't debate the outcome, if we are to continue we need to settle this first and then move on.

I don't have everything memorized as what I'm telling you now is just what I remember from the books I have read, both Dawkin and Myers. I don't have all the time in world either due to work and wife, so I would recommend anyone interested in this topics to learn from the experts of both atheist and theist side and then make your own conclusion.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: anti-American on March 06, 2013, 06:02:31 PM
Quote from: Mountainshield on March 06, 2013, 01:31:42 AM
[W]ithout proper knowledge and understanding of how to interpret the Bible it will seem illogical and even ridiculous in some cases to an unbeliever. To fully comprehend the Bible you need to have a very good interpreter...,

Christianity is illogical. I went to Catholic school, I grew up in a Catholic household, and I went to mass almost every week as a child so I know enough about the Christian faith to conclude that its central tenets defy logic. If Catholic school teachers, particularly the Sisters, cannot competently teach the faith, then who can? When a kid would question the logic of the religion we were being taught, the teacher's explanation was always some variant of "God works in mysterious way," and ultimately we were indoctrinated not to ask certain questions. We were taught that the most obvious logical holes in the Catholic Church's teachings were not logical holes at all and thus we could not question the faith based on them.

What are these logical holes? Where do I even begin? How about "The Holy Trinity," which consists of three separate entities that are simultaneously not separate entities kind of like the penalty in Obamacare which is simultaneously a tax and not a tax, according to Robert's ridiculous decision.

Catholics believe that what was once wine and unleavened bread is transformed into the literal blood and flesh of a guy that lived two thousand years ago because some guy (the priest) does some hand gestures and utters some words. It can't get sillier than that. And the whole "Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins" story is incredibly illogical. First of all, God, being all knowing, knew that Adam and Eve were going to eat the forbidden fruit and he designed and manufactured (for lack of better words) Adam and Eve, knowing that they would, by their very human nature that God is responsible for programming, disobey his commands. Yet he has a temper tantrum and acts all shocked that they would disobey him. And as a result of his ridiculous reaction, humans born thereafter have "original sin" because of the "sins" of Adam and Eve. That seems fair. But God wanted to forgive this "original sin" that he himself is ultimately to blame for existing in the first place. So he comes up with this convoluted, sadistic, and overly dramatic plot wherein he will forgive our "original sin" against him if we torture and murder his "son" (who is really God himself but not really). That's prima facie absurd if anything is. When I feel that someone has wronged me in some minor way, I don't tell them that I will forgive them if they nail me to a cross nor does any sane person. Yet God did just that.

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 06, 2013, 01:31:42 AMBut I think you too would agree that failure to understand something is hardly an argument against it.

We should be highly suspicious of a belief system with billions of adherents, when almost all of those adherents have little understanding of their actual faith.

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 06, 2013, 01:31:42 AMBut you also have to be honest about what you are debating now. Intelligent Design, Biblical historical accuracy or a person experience of divine intervention. You can't sweep all topics under one argument in an all or nothing soundbyte debate, thats intellectually dishonest. And this is what happens in most debates.

I am not doing this. "Religious experiences," as they are called, are one of the big reasons that people adhere to the Christian faith and believe in a sentient God. People who claim to have these "religious experiences" and, for no obvious reason, completely ignore that many human experiences don't reflect reality (e.g., dreams), do not base their adherence to Christianity on logic. I also agree that biblical accuracy and intelligent design are two separate debates.

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 06, 2013, 01:31:42 AM
(1) I never said that the force/cause need to be the God of the bible, Intelligent design does not claim this. This is what I meant with my false accusation that you are not after understanding the opposition, because from this statement it is clear you don't know what intelligent design is.

I don't think that the "force/cause" needs to be the biblical God. But, here's my question to you: does it need to be a sentient God with a personality? If not, then you agree with my that "God," as Western religions understand "him" to be, does not need to exist.

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 06, 2013, 01:31:42 AMI understand that you may be busy with uni or work to take on additonal reading. There are some very good youtube videos of Craig, Myers and even some of Harun Yahya if you want to relax one day and try understand intelligent design.

Thanks.

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 06, 2013, 01:31:42 AM(2) For something to begin it needs to have a cause. If you disagree with this premise then this is the end of our debate imo. If our basic premises are in contradiction then we can't debate the outcome, if we are to continue we need to settle this first and then move on.

If something needs to have a cause to begin, is it possible for something to exist that never came about? That seems to be an illogical premise. Something that exists must have come into existence otherwise it would not exist because it never would have existed. Just as something can't be in Kansas unless it went there, something cannot exist unless it came about.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Mountainshield on March 07, 2013, 04:14:22 AM
Quote from: American on March 06, 2013, 06:02:31 PM
Christianity is illogical. I went to Catholic school, I grew up in a Catholic household, and I went to mass almost every week as a child so I know enough about the Christian faith to conclude that its central tenets defy logic. If Catholic school teachers, particularly the Sisters, cannot competently teach the faith, then who can? When a kid would question the logic of the religion we were being taught, the teacher's explanation was always some variant of "God works in mysterious way," and ultimately we were indoctrinated not to ask certain questions. We were taught that the most obvious logical holes in the Catholic Church's teachings were not logical holes at all and thus we could not question the faith based on them. What are these logical holes? Where do I even begin? How about "The Holy Trinity," which consists of three separate entities that are simultaneously not separate entities kind of like the penalty in Obamacare which is simultaneously a tax and not a tax, according to Robert's ridiculous decision.

Catholics believe that what was once wine and unleavened bread is transformed into the literal blood and flesh of a guy that lived two thousand years ago because some guy (the priest) does some hand gestures and utters some words. It can't get sillier than that. And the whole "Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins" story is incredibly illogical. First of all, God, being all knowing, knew that Adam and Eve were going to eat the forbidden fruit and he designed and manufactured (for lack of better words) Adam and Eve, knowing that they would, by their very human nature that God is responsible for programming, disobey his commands. Yet he has a temper tantrum and acts all shocked that they would disobey him. And as a result of his ridiculous reaction, humans born thereafter have "original sin" because of the "sins" of Adam and Eve. That seems fair. But God wanted to forgive this "original sin" that he himself is ultimately to blame for existing in the first place. So he comes up with this convoluted, sadistic, and overly dramatic plot wherein he will forgive our "original sin" against him if we torture and murder his "son" (who is really God himself but not really). That's prima facie absurd if anything is. When I feel that someone has wronged me in some minor way, I don't tell them that I will forgive them if they nail me to a cross nor does any sane person. Yet God did just that.

We should be highly suspicious of a belief system with billions of adherents, when almost all of those adherents have little understanding of their actual faith.

I'm not Catholic and I agree to the theology of catholicism but I respect the individuals that follow it and acknowledge that more individuals are better people because they are catholic than are worse for it. And I will not answer these statements directly you have made because they are not related to our debate about God existence and I don't believe in catholicism so I have no reason to defend its theology. That you have had bad teachers or bad experiences with religion is not a valid argument against christianity, because its not representative of the majority of christians and these are not direct argument in themselves, they are anological personal examples. And that you have never met anyone able to sufficiently explain you protestantism and christian apolegetic so that you would comprehend it, is a result of the people you have associated with and like you stated yourself, you have never taken the time to understand it either. So this is not an argument against christianity. Same with a person that doesn't understand the argument of Evolution, that he have had bad teachers unable to do this and that many christians don't understand evolution is not an argument against evolution in itself. But I think you too would agree that evolution gets a lot better funding that christian apolegetics do, and evolution is part of federal curriculim world wide, christian apolegetics is not.

Quote from: American on March 06, 2013, 06:02:31 PM
I am not doing this. "Religious experiences," as they are called, are one of the big reasons that people adhere to the Christian faith and believe in a sentient God. People who claim to have these "religious experiences" and, for no obvious reason, completely ignore that many human experiences don't reflect reality (e.g., dreams), do not base their adherence to Christianity on logic. I also agree that biblical accuracy and intelligent design are two separate debates.

I don't think that the "force/cause" needs to be the biblical God. But, here's my question to you: does it need to be a sentient God with a personality? If not, then you agree with my that "God," as Western religions understand "him" to be, does not need to exist.

Well... yes. as stated earlier in at least two of my other posts. I would nott formulate my answer in that I agree fully with you on this because we do have different views on i.e religious/human experience or divine intervention. This is another debate again, but as stated earlier I said that christians can argue the existence of "God" through science and logic, but what we can't argue is that this "force" which we christians call "God" is our biblical "God" we believe in. At least not yet. This is where faith comes in. I fully admit that I can't explain God intervention into my own life, can only state that I know it and I'm not trying to convince anyone that it is real because I simply don't care. Its real to me and thats suffecient reason for me to believe it. But this is a seperate debate from intelligent design.

Quote from: American on March 06, 2013, 06:02:31 PM
If something needs to have a cause to begin, is it possible for something to exist that never came about? That seems to be an illogical premise. Something that exists must have come into existence otherwise it would not exist because it never would have existed. Just as something can't be in Kansas unless it went there, something cannot exist unless it came about.

Yes it is possible if it existed outside of what we percieve as time, I have to read up on the book "Time and Eternity" by William Lane Craig in order to be able to formulate an answer to this statement as I agree that it is a illogical premise that I'm unable to counter at this moment. So I will have to get back to you on this in order to defend my position.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: anti-American on March 07, 2013, 06:23:11 AM
Quote from: Mountainshield on March 07, 2013, 04:14:22 AM
I'm not Catholic and I agree to the theology of catholicism but I respect the individuals that follow it and acknowledge that more individuals are better people because they are catholic than are worse for it. And I will not answer these statements directly you have made because they are not related to our debate about God existence and I don't believe in catholicism so I have no reason to defend its theology. 

I don't dispute that religion makes some people better people, although it makes many people worse than they otherwise could have possibly been. You are a Christian, right? Catholicism is a type of Christianity and I believe that every example of how Catholics' beliefs are illogical that I discussed, with the exception of the body and blood of Christ belief, are also beliefs that non-Catholic Christians have. Seeing as such beliefs are fundamental parts of the Christian story, I think you ought to address them. You believe in the Christian God so what I mentioned is absolutely relevant to our debate about that God's existence. I'm not asking you to defend Catholicism, I'm asking you to logically defend fundamental tenets of Christianity in general.

QuoteThat you have had bad teachers or bad experiences with religion is not a valid argument against christianity, because its not representative of the majority of christians and these are not direct argument in themselves, they are anological personal examples.

My experiences are indeed representative of how religion is taught to children.

QuoteAnd that you have never met anyone able to sufficiently explain you protestantism and christian apolegetic so that you would comprehend it, is a result of the people you have associated with and like you stated yourself, you have never taken the time to understand it either.

In school they "sufficiently" explained Christianity to me and I do "comprehend it." If associating with Nuns doesn't do the trick, what will? I was forced to "take the time to understand" Christianity. Besides, it isn't my job to scour the Earth ten times over looking for somebody who can adequately defend patently illogical beliefs. Trust me, if such explanations exist I would have heard about them by now. Several Christians have assured me that there are explanations and arguments that adequately counter my arguments. But merely asserting that something exists doesn't make it so, whether the thing that allegedly exists is the aforementioned arguments or God himself. 

QuoteI said that christians can argue the existence of "God" through science and logic, but what we can't argue is that this "force" which we christians call "God" is our biblical "God" we believe in. At least not yet. This is where faith comes in.

There, you said it yourself. Your belief in the Christian God is based on faith, not logic. What type of "God" can you make a logical argument for? I am not so much specifically concerned with the Christian God as I am a sentient, personal God in general. Do you agree that such a God cannot be logically proven?

QuoteYes it is possible if it existed outside of what we percieve as time, I have to read up on the book "Time and Eternity" by William Lane Craig in order to be able to formulate an answer to this statement as I agree that it is a illogical premise that I'm unable to counter at this moment. So I will have to get back to you on this in order to defend my position.

Either things that exist have to come into existence in order to exist or they don't. That is, either things can exist without having come into existence or they cannot. If the universe had to come into existence in order to exist then so too does God. The question is, once again, how did God come into existence? If God never came into existence, which is what you seem to believe, then how can God exist? If God did come into existence, when and who or what caused God to come into existence?
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on March 07, 2013, 06:26:42 AM
Quote from: American on March 07, 2013, 06:23:11 AM


My experiences are indeed representative of how religion is taught to children.


Allow me to interject here a moment.
Your experience is one Religion, not representative of all Christians, some Christians would disagree with Catholic teachings across the board.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: anti-American on March 07, 2013, 06:37:08 AM
Quote from: Solar on March 07, 2013, 06:26:42 AM
Allow me to interject here a moment.
Your experience is one Religion, not representative of all Christians, some Christians would disagree with Catholic teachings across the board.

I don't think that's true. For example, what real and true Christian does not believe in the whole "Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins" story? Likewise, what Christian does not believe in a sentient personal God who gets angry at humans, which he himself is responsible for designing and manufacturing, who malfunction, as all humans invariably do? What God creates things that are obviously and fundamentally flawed and then pretends that it is not his fault?
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: walkstall on March 07, 2013, 06:38:56 AM
Quote from: Solar on March 07, 2013, 06:26:42 AM
Allow me to interject here a moment.
Your experience is one Religion, not representative of all Christians, some Christians would disagree with Catholic teachings across the board.


Hell even Catholic disagree.   :wink:
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on March 07, 2013, 06:47:01 AM
Quote from: American on March 07, 2013, 06:37:08 AM
I don't think that's true. For example, what real and true Christian does not believe in the whole "Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins" story? Likewise, what Christian does not believe in a sentient personal God who gets angry at humans, which he himself is responsible for designing and manufacturing, who malfunction, as all humans invariably do? What God creates things that are obviously and fundamentally flawed and then pretends that it is not his fault?
You miss the point, you went on about pomp and circumstance questions placed to the Sisters.
My point is, that many Christians view the Catholic Religion as more a Religion about the Religion, than it is about Christ, like the ritual over the word.
There is a reason it enjoys a pass in the media, most Dems that call themselves Christians are more Catholic than Christian.

Now does it make sense? Point is, you were using Catholicism as representative of all Christians, and nothing could be further from the truth.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: anti-American on March 07, 2013, 06:54:32 AM
Quote from: Solar on March 07, 2013, 06:47:01 AM
You miss the point, you went on about pomp and circumstance questions placed to the Sisters.
My point is, that many Christians view the Catholic Religion as more a Religion about the Religion, than it is about Christ, like the ritual over the word.
There is a reason it enjoys a pass in the media, most Dems that call themselves Christians are more Catholic than Christian.

Now does it make sense? Point is, you were using Catholicism as representative of all Christians, and nothing could be further from the truth.

If I missed a point it was because it wasn't made. I take things literally, so when you say "some Christians would disagree with Catholic teachings across the board" I reasonably interpret that to mean that some Christians would disagree with Catholic teachings across the board. Anyway, there are some beliefs that all Christians share, like the whole Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins story. I am educated about these fundamental beliefs shared by all Christians. How was I using "Catholicism as representative of all Christians" if I talked about beliefs shared by all Christians?
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on March 07, 2013, 07:19:47 AM
Quote from: American on March 07, 2013, 06:54:32 AM
If I missed a point it was because it wasn't made. I take things literally, so when you say "some Christians would disagree with Catholic teachings across the board" I reasonably interpret that to mean that some Christians would disagree with Catholic teachings across the board. Anyway, there are some beliefs that all Christians share, like the whole Jesus died on the cross to forgive our sins story. I am educated about these fundamental beliefs shared by all Christians. How was I using "Catholicism as representative of all Christians" if I talked about beliefs shared by all Christians?
Quote
Christianity is illogical. I went to Catholic school, I grew up in a Catholic household, and I went to mass almost every week as a child so I know enough about the Christian faith to conclude that its central tenets defy logic. If Catholic school teachers, particularly the Sisters, cannot competently teach the faith, then who can? When a kid would question the logic of the religion we were being taught, the teacher's explanation was always some variant of "God works in mysterious way," and ultimately we were indoctrinated not to ask certain questions. We were taught that the most obvious logical holes in the Catholic Church's teachings were not logical holes at all and thus we could not question the faith based on them.

Again, you equate all Christians with the Catholic Religion, just because a certain aspect of the order couldn't answer your questions.
Maybe you should have asked a Protestant, Baptist, Non-Trinitarian etc, but you based your opinion on one branch of Christianity.
That's the point.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: anti-American on March 07, 2013, 07:29:30 AM
Quote from: Solar on March 07, 2013, 07:19:47 AM
Again, you equate all Christians with the Catholic Religion, just because a certain aspect of the order couldn't answer your questions.
Maybe you should have asked a Protestant, Baptist, Non-Trinitarian etc, but you based your opinion on one branch of Christianity.
That's the point.

I have and I have scoured the internet too. If answers to my questions existed, I would know about it. Besides, if someone had good answers, I'm sure Catholics would use those answers when teaching the faith.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on March 07, 2013, 07:37:20 AM
Quote from: American on March 07, 2013, 07:29:30 AM
I have and I have scoured the internet too. If answers to my questions existed, I would know about it. Besides, if someone had good answers, I'm sure Catholics would use those answers when teaching the faith.
What part of Non-Trinitarian Christian do you not understand?
Not all Christians are alike, which is still my point, you judged all Christians on one aspect of a Religion.
Mormons consider themselves Christians as well, while other Christians see them as a cult, one size does not fit all my friend.

For the record, I believe in no Religion.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on March 07, 2013, 09:11:13 AM
Didn't mean to derail the conversation, but I believe established Religion is the reason for many Atheist beliefs, and has locked their minds away from spiritualism, or the ability to accept alternative beliefs.

Instead they took on a militant view of all things God/higher power.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Mountainshield on March 12, 2013, 11:03:01 AM
Quote from: American on March 07, 2013, 06:23:11 AM
There, you said it yourself. Your belief in the Christian God is based on faith, not logic. What type of "God" can you make a logical argument for? I am not so much specifically concerned with the Christian God as I am a sentient, personal God in general. Do you agree that such a God cannot be logically proven?

Either things that exist have to come into existence in order to exist or they don't. That is, either things can exist without having come into existence or they cannot. If the universe had to come into existence in order to exist then so too does God. The question is, once again, how did God come into existence? If God never came into existence, which is what you seem to believe, then how can God exist? If God did come into existence, when and who or what caused God to come into existence?

Sorry for not answering before but I have been really busy with work. To the above posts I agree with Solar about your false generalization and application of your personal experience with christian doctrine, education and belief.

I don't have the time to answer all your posts, but will do so when I have the time, but I wanted to point out this paragraph.

The Christian God can and is logically proven through christian apolegetics, and every atheist argument against christian apolegetic either misunderstand the argument or come with straw men arguments. You have to be specific, what aspect of the existence of Christian God do you find that you are unable to understand logically?

Your argument about coming into existence is a logical false sentence. I'm arguing that God never had a beginning because God exist outside of time and the whole question of coming into existence is non applicable because the premise for something to come into existence does not apply to God due to the fact that it is a force that exist outside time and matter.

I'm going away for a week on a paid business trip to Iceland   :biggrin: But I will continue when i come back and find my books on the subject so I can formulate the argument more eloquently.



Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on March 12, 2013, 11:14:57 AM
Quote from: Mountainshield on March 12, 2013, 11:03:01 AM
Sorry for not answering before but I have been really busy with work. To the above posts I agree with Solar about your false generalization and application of your personal experience with christian doctrine, education and belief.

I don't have the time to answer all your posts, but will do so when I have the time, but I wanted to point out this paragraph.

The Christian God can and is logically proven through christian apolegetics, and every atheist argument against christian apolegetic either misunderstand the argument or come with straw men arguments. You have to be specific, what aspect of the existence of Christian God do you find that you are unable to understand logically?

Your argument about coming into existence is a logical false sentence. I'm arguing that God never had a beginning because God exist outside of time and the whole question of coming into existence is non applicable because the premise for something to come into existence does not apply to God due to the fact that it is a force that exist outside time and matter.

I'm going away for a week on a paid business trip to Iceland   :biggrin: But I will continue when i come back and find my books on the subject so I can formulate the argument more eloquently.
Actually you did quite well. :biggrin:
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Skeptic on March 15, 2013, 09:40:28 PM
Quote from: Murph on January 29, 2013, 06:22:09 PM
Isn't being a militant atheist somewhat hypocritical? I'm just kinda wondering if there is some sort of obligation to spread the faith, or lack therof among atheists.

We are "militant" because Christians force us to. In my local community we have had issues with Christian teachers trying to use the science classrooms to teach creationism instead of science, and we also have politicians trying to pass laws based on their religious morality. What are we supposed to do in the face of that? Stay quiet and hope they will go away?

No! Atheists have been quiet for far too long. If Christians can come knock on my door every Saturday to tell me "Have you heard the good news? God Loves you," or my favorite..."You don't believe in God? You are an immoral person and will burn in hell for eternity." should I just stay quiet because me saying I don't believe in God offends them? I don't think so. If they think they can go around throwing God in everyone's faces and telling strangers they don't know how they will burn in hell, then I refuse to stay quiet because me not believing in their ancient fiction books might possibly upset them.

It's a two way street here. You can't possibly expect to go around throwing God in everyone's faces without expecting someone to tell you to stop or back off because they don't believe in whatever God you happen to believe.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Mountainshield on March 18, 2013, 06:51:29 PM
Quote from: Skeptic on March 15, 2013, 09:40:28 PM
We are "militant" because Christians force us to. In my local community we have had issues with Christian teachers trying to use the science classrooms to teach creationism instead of science, and we also have politicians trying to pass laws based on their religious morality. What are we supposed to do in the face of that? Stay quiet and hope they will go away?

No! Atheists have been quiet for far too long. If Christians can come knock on my door every Saturday to tell me "Have you heard the good news? God Loves you," or my favorite..."You don't believe in God? You are an immoral person and will burn in hell for eternity." should I just stay quiet because me saying I don't believe in God offends them? I don't think so. If they think they can go around throwing God in everyone's faces and telling strangers they don't know how they will burn in hell, then I refuse to stay quiet because me not believing in their ancient fiction books might possibly upset them.

It's a two way street here. You can't possibly expect to go around throwing God in everyone's faces without expecting someone to tell you to stop or back off because they don't believe in whatever God you happen to believe.

I love how you completely miss the obvious civilized and intelligent alternative which is too be the stronger man and don't be so damn sensitive that someone knocks on your door to tell you something or that some politicians want to pass universally acceptable moral laws  :laugh:
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: anti-American on March 20, 2013, 08:27:02 PM
Quote from: Mountainshield on March 12, 2013, 11:03:01 AM
Sorry for not answering before but I have been really busy with work. To the above posts I agree with Solar about your false generalization and application of your personal experience with christian doctrine, education and belief.

I am likewise sorry for my delay--I'm really busy with school. If there is some way to adequately explain why I should accept as true the prima facie absurd dogma that I pointed out, let me know. Maybe Catholic school teachers haven't the faintest clue about Christianity. I'm open to that idea and you could prove it by putting forth compelling arguments that nobody in my life has been competent or intelligent enough to come up with so far.

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 12, 2013, 11:03:01 AMThe Christian God can and is logically proven through christian apolegetics, and every atheist argument against christian apolegetic either misunderstand the argument or come with straw men arguments. You have to be specific, what aspect of the existence of Christian God do you find that you are unable to understand logically?

The notion that God is all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful is illogical. The children that have died painful deaths from disease and starvation while I am writing this are a good example of how God is either not all-loving or not all-powerful. The facts make it impossible for God to be both all-loving and all-powerful. The notion that God is all powerful in isolation is absurd. Can God kill himself? Also, as I have previously explained, the whole "Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins" story is insane and illogical.

Quote from: Mountainshield on March 12, 2013, 11:03:01 AMYour argument about coming into existence is a logical false sentence. I'm arguing that God never had a beginning because God exist outside of time and the whole question of coming into existence is non applicable because the premise for something to come into existence does not apply to God due to the fact that it is a force that exist outside time and matter.

You are asserting that something that never came into existence nonetheless exists. That is perplexing to me. In any event, the fact that God allegedly exists "outside of time" does not mean that "he" does not need a creator under the very reasoning that "proves" that "he" must exist in the first place. The belief that God is necessary because human beings and a universe so relatively hospitable to life surely could not have come about "randomly." It isn't about the fact that the universe has an identifiable beginning, it is about the complexity of humans and the chances of a universe hospitable to life. Again, if humans are so complex and amazing that we need a creator, then surely God, who is infinitely more amazing, must also need a creator of a caliber sufficient to create "him."
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: taxed on March 20, 2013, 09:49:36 PM
Quote from: Skeptic on October 19, 2012, 04:20:41 AM
Atheism does not equal Communism. Atheism simply means: A lack of belief in anything supernatural.

Where do you draw the line between physics/nature you can't explain, and the supernatural?
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: taxed on March 20, 2013, 09:51:18 PM
Quote from: Skeptic on October 19, 2012, 05:25:47 PM
My morality is based on a simple precept: Don't do unto others what you don't want them to do to you. Therefore, I don't murder, I don't rape, I don't steal.

Could you sleep at night if you did something terrible to someone?  Why not? (I assume you couldn't)...
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: taxed on March 20, 2013, 09:55:26 PM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 05, 2012, 02:05:55 PM
Isn't it a very disturbing implication that humans can only do good through the carrot and the stick?

This is where young atheists begin to go off the rails.  Why would you not do harm to someone?
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: taxed on March 20, 2013, 09:58:17 PM
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 10:44:45 AM

Rape is wrong because it causes suffering.  Suffering being bad is relatively unprovable.  But rape is not bad because it is rape; it's bad because it has negative consequences.  This logic is fine, because the premise ("suffering is bad") is hardly one anyone would disagree with.
This ties into my previous post to you.  Could you sleep at night, and go about your day the next day if you did something terrible to someone, like rape?
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: taxed on March 20, 2013, 10:08:09 PM
Quote from: American on March 04, 2013, 10:58:53 AM
God, does not make sense logically. Although I understand why people say there must be some intelligent designer, their own premises actually defeat their conclusion. The argument is basically as follows:

Humans are so amazing and complex that it is absurd to think that time and random events could have created them. The same could also be said of the entire universe. Therefore, there must have been an intelligent creator that purposefully created the universe and life. That creator is God.

But who made God? The problem is that God has the same qualities--extended to infinity--that make "him" necessary to exist in the first place. In other words, if there needs to be an intelligent creator in order for a human being to exist then surely there must be an intelligent creator for God to exist. If a human can't just exist without being created then certainly God, being even more complex and amazing, cannot. Religious people have a variety of ways to try to deal with the "who made God" question but they simply cannot answer it.

Nor can atheists determine how the universe was created.  You're back to square one.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: taxed on March 20, 2013, 10:15:55 PM
Quote from: Mountainshield on March 05, 2013, 06:54:29 AM
It's not an alleged impossibility, its a mathematical fact. I would refer you to actually read Signature in the Cell if this is what you actually believe, because its clear you don't know the arguments which you are pretending to argue against. I don't have all the facts memorized and as stated earlier, please read the books of the opposition instead of just reading the books that validate your already embraced view. Thats what I did, and it changed my life. Both politically and socially.

There is no data whatsoever that supports multiverse theory, but from observable data we know the universe had a beginning and we know there is one universe.

The force which we call God does not need to ever have been created because it exist outside of time, it had no beginning and will have no end because it is timeless.
And you're defeating your own premise.  Let's figure out gravity and some basic unexplainables we experience every day before we rule out stuff we really don't know about.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: taxed on March 20, 2013, 10:27:32 PM
Quote from: Skeptic on March 15, 2013, 09:40:28 PM
We are "militant" because Christians force us to. In my local community we have had issues with Christian teachers trying to use the science classrooms to teach creationism instead of science, and we also have politicians trying to pass laws based on their religious morality. What are we supposed to do in the face of that? Stay quiet and hope they will go away?

No! Atheists have been quiet for far too long. If Christians can come knock on my door every Saturday to tell me "Have you heard the good news? God Loves you," or my favorite..."You don't believe in God? You are an immoral person and will burn in hell for eternity." should I just stay quiet because me saying I don't believe in God offends them? I don't think so. If they think they can go around throwing God in everyone's faces and telling strangers they don't know how they will burn in hell, then I refuse to stay quiet because me not believing in their ancient fiction books might possibly upset them.

It's a two way street here. You can't possibly expect to go around throwing God in everyone's faces without expecting someone to tell you to stop or back off because they don't believe in whatever God you happen to believe.

It sounds like your perspectives on theology have been strongly influenced by the degrees of how others apply their beliefs.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: anti-American on March 21, 2013, 09:13:22 PM
Quote from: taxed on March 20, 2013, 10:08:09 PM
Nor can atheists determine how the universe was created.  You're back to square one.

Accepting as true the assertion that atheists cannot determine how the universe was "created" and assuming it was "created," Christians are in even more of a pickle. While atheists cannot explain how the universe was created, Christians cannot explain how God was created. If we are to judge each philosophy by the magnitude of the mystery left unsolved, Christianity loses.

Christians have not figured it all out by invoking an entity capable of creating the universe and everything therein because they can't explain said entity. Mentally inventing a force capable of producing the mysterious situation you are trying to explain is not creative, it is tautological.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: taxed on March 22, 2013, 04:02:50 PM
Quote from: American on March 21, 2013, 09:13:22 PM
Accepting as true the assertion that atheists cannot determine how the universe was "created" and assuming it was "created," Christians are in even more of a pickle. While atheists cannot explain how the universe was created, Christians cannot explain how God was created. If we are to judge each philosophy by the magnitude of the mystery left unsolved, Christianity loses.
Christians are covered, because they "have faith". 

Quote
Christians have not figured it all out by invoking an entity capable of creating the universe and everything therein because they can't explain said entity.
Nor can you argue against it.  You're still back to square one.

Quote
Mentally inventing a force capable of producing the mysterious situation you are trying to explain is not creative, it is tautological.
No more ridiculous than theories like the theory of evolution.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: anti-American on March 22, 2013, 07:56:07 PM
Quote from: taxed on March 22, 2013, 04:02:50 PM
Christians are covered, because they "have faith".

What kind of answer is that? You didn't address my assertion, which is that Christian dogma contains a larger unsolvable mystery than would otherwise exist. If the explanatory power of a worldview such as Christianity or Atheism is what is important in evaluating which worldview is "better" than the other and that explanatory power is measured by the magnitude of the unsolvable mystery under each worldview then Atheism is "better" than Christianity.

Quote from: taxed on March 22, 2013, 04:02:50 PM
Quote from: American on March 21, 2013, 09:13:22 PMChristians have not figured it all out by invoking an entity capable of creating the universe and everything therein because they can't explain said entity. Mentally inventing a force capable of producing the mysterious situation you are trying to explain is not creative, it is tautological.

Nor can you argue against it.  You're still back to square one.

You can't "argue against" my baseless belief ("faith") that there is a unicorn-dragon hybrid that lives in my backyard. There are a variety of other exceedingly silly beliefs that cannot be disproved, mainly for reasons related to the problems inherent with attempting to disprove a negative. One who asserts a fanciful claim to explain a mystery, especially if the claim is tautological to the mystery it seeks to explain, bears the burden of proving that his prima facie ridiculous conclusion has some basis in reality. Those who don't blindly believe silly beliefs do not bear the burden to disprove such assertions.

Quote from: taxed on March 22, 2013, 04:02:50 PMNo more ridiculous than theories like the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution is a real theory that is scientifically strong. Religious belief based on nothing but "faith" and, in some cases, misguided logic, is hardly a theory in the scientific sense of the word.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: JustKari on March 22, 2013, 08:20:11 PM
Why in the world would you ever believe in a God who could be explained?  The whole POINT of faith is that you have to believe without seeing, if there is proof, it is not faith.  God was not created, He has always been and always will be, do not try to fit God in your tiny box you call logic, He will never fit.  Many things can not be explained logically, yet they still exist.

Personally, I am glad that my God defies logic, a logical, boring, god that maintained the tiny parameters that Atheists would allow him, would be no God at all. 
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on March 22, 2013, 08:31:25 PM
Quote from: American on March 22, 2013, 07:56:07 PM
What kind of answer is that? You didn't address my assertion, which is that Christian dogma contains a larger unsolvable mystery than would otherwise exist. If the explanatory power of a worldview such as Christianity or Atheism is what is important in evaluating which worldview is "better" than the other and that explanatory power is measured by the magnitude of the unsolvable mystery under each worldview then Atheism is "better" than Christianity.

Nor can you argue against it.  You're still back to square one.

You can't "argue against" my baseless belief ("faith") that there is a unicorn-dragon hybrid that lives in my backyard. There are a variety of other exceedingly silly beliefs that cannot be disproved, mainly for reasons related to the problems inherent with attempting to disprove a negative. One who asserts a fanciful claim to explain a mystery, especially if the claim is tautological to the mystery it seeks to explain, bears the burden of proving that his prima facie ridiculous conclusion has some basis in reality. Those who don't blindly believe silly beliefs do not bear the burden to disprove such assertions.

The theory of evolution is a real theory that is scientifically strong. Religious belief based on nothing but "faith" and, in some cases, misguided logic, is hardly a theory in the scientific sense of the word.
Out of curiosity, have you any belief, faith, any spiritual thought in the least?
Or have you concluded there is nothing, you die, and that's it, poof, it's all over and your soul ceases to exist?
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Murph on March 22, 2013, 09:22:57 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 22, 2013, 08:31:25 PM
Out of curiosity, have you any belief, faith, any spiritual thought in the least?
Or have you concluded there is nothing, you die, and that's it, poof, it's all over and your soul ceases to exist?

Do atheists believe they have souls?
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: anti-American on March 22, 2013, 10:47:20 PM
Quote from: JustKari on March 22, 2013, 08:20:11 PM
Why in the world would you ever believe in a God who could be explained?  The whole POINT of faith is that you have to believe without seeing, if there is proof, it is not faith.

Why would I believe in something that can be explained? Do I really need to answer this? Surely, despite your inexplicable belief in an inexplicable "God" you too believe in something that can be explained. It would be the height of absurdity to believe only in illogical things that can't be explained.

Quote from: JustKari on March 22, 2013, 08:20:11 PMGod was not created, He has always been and always will be...

I was a philosophy major so I don't automatically accept as true conclusory statements such as this one. Give me a logical argument, then we'll talk.

Quote from: JustKari on March 22, 2013, 08:20:11 PMDo not try to fit God in your tiny box you call logic, He will never fit.  Many things can not be explained logically, yet they still exist.

You are now falsely equivocating the idea of explanation with proof of mere existence. Do you believe in Zeus? If so, why not? Why not have "faith" that Zeus is real.

Quote from: JustKari on March 22, 2013, 08:20:11 PMPersonally, I am glad that my God defies logic, a logical, boring, god that maintained the tiny parameters that Atheists would allow him, would be no God at all.

Assuming your version of "God" exists, "he," not atheists, inexplicably limits "his" power. In fact "God" does not have the infinite characteristics that you ascribe to "him" and this can be logically proven.

Quote from: Solar on March 22, 2013, 08:31:25 PM
Out of curiosity, have you any belief, faith, any spiritual thought in the least?
Or have you concluded there is nothing, you die, and that's it, poof, it's all over and your soul ceases to exist?

In order for my soul to cease to exist it would have to exist in the first place. If it does, I know not the nature of it or what it is. Therefore, I cannot opine as to its demise when the body ceases to function.

I used to be a good Catholic. I went to Catholic school, I had a prayer corner in my bedroom, and I played Jesus in a Stations of the Cross demonstration with my confirmation class. Then I started to think for myself, I went to college, I learned how to think critically and logically, and, naturally, I now reject all mythology.

I do, however, "have spiritual thoughts" and I am very philosophical. I don't necessarily fully believe that "there is no God" but I rightly reject organized religion and mythological dogma. If I never believed in Greek mythology or Rumpelstiltskin, why should I believe in Christian mythology--it's the same illogical anti-intellectual nonsense, just another fictional story?

Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on March 23, 2013, 06:08:04 AM
Quote from: Murph on March 22, 2013, 09:22:57 PM
Do atheists believe they have souls?
Good question. I can't imagine how one could live life with the idea that when you die, you are gone forever.
What's the point of growth as an individual, or caring for another individual, why bother to have morals if when you die, it all ends with you as a person?
If it were true, that your entire existence were that of a blink in time, why not live your life as if there were nothing else but self gratification, no other purpose in life but to satisfy ones own personal desires.

Because the answer is, everyone alive knows there is more to humanity than what we experience, and to risk believing this is all there ever will be and to act as if there is nothing more to come after death, is to big of a gamble to take.

Too many atheists claim to denounce God, but in truth they are denouncing Religion, because they hate the idea of having to obey something they've never seen or talked to.
Most are spiritually bereft, not because they are somehow different, but because they've been stagnated out of their disdain for organized Religion, so they pursue proving it's a lie, all the while forgetting there might be answerselsewhere.

I speak from experience, most devout atheists are spiritually stagnated, they never move beyond their hatred, I too used to be like that, but after seeing many miracles, one has to question their very own existence, and to believe they are all that ever will be, is just another faith in and of itself, a misplaced faith, but faith nonetheless.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: JustKari on March 23, 2013, 07:26:48 AM
Quote from: American on March 22, 2013, 10:47:20 PM
Why would I believe in something that can be explained? Do I really need to answer this? Surely, despite your inexplicable belief in an inexplicable "God" you too believe in something that can be explained. It would be the height of absurdity to believe only in illogical things that can't be explained.
Actually, it would be the height if absurdity to worship something no greater than yourself, which is what you propose. 

QuoteI was a philosophy major so I don't automatically accept as true conclusory statements such as this one. Give me a logical argument, then we'll talk.
God is not logical, and you are not really looking for proof anyway because you already know that, you scream for logic so that you can have a rationalization for the devine.  What you really are trying to get us to do is explain away God.  That won't happen, logic is worthless when determining the devine.   

QuoteYou are now falsely equivocating the idea of explanation with proof of mere existence. Do you believe in Zeus? If so, why not? Why not have "faith" that Zeus is real.
Zeus has no power, Zeus was believed in for a very short amount of time, historically speaking, because people realized he was false and powerless.  Even when believers have been whittled down to a handful, faith lives on, because the true God reveals himself to people.   

QuoteAssuming your version of "God" exists, "he," not atheists, inexplicably limits "his" power. In fact "God" does not have the infinite characteristics that you ascribe to "him" and this can be logically proven.
God does limit his power to that which is holy and that which he has promised. 

QuoteIn order for my soul to cease to exist it would have to exist in the first place. If it does, I know not the nature of it or what it is. Therefore, I cannot opine as to its demise when the body ceases to function.

I used to be a good Catholic. I went to Catholic school, I had a prayer corner in my bedroom, and I played Jesus in a Stations of the Cross demonstration with my confirmation class. Then I started to think for myself, I went to college, I learned how to think critically and logically, and, naturally, I now reject all mythology.

I do, however, "have spiritual thoughts" and I am very philosophical. I don't necessarily fully believe that "there is no God" but I rightly reject organized religion and mythological dogma. If I never believed in Greek mythology or Rumpelstiltskin, why should I believe in Christian mythology--it's the same illogical anti-intellectual nonsense, just another fictional story?
Perhaps you would be surprised to know that there are very few things that the Lord hates, religion is one of them, religion is not faith, in fact religion is a killer of faith.  Dogma and religion (both man-made) seek to usurp the holiness if God through human action.  Because they are human, they also do much more harm than good.

As an aside, have you ever read Confessions, by St. Augustine?
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Murph on March 23, 2013, 09:08:26 AM
QuoteAs an aside, have you ever read Confessions, by St. Augustine?

For those that haven't here is a condensed version of the Five Proofs

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm (http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm)

or a longer one:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm)
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: taxed on March 24, 2013, 03:13:43 PM
Quote from: American on March 22, 2013, 07:56:07 PM
What kind of answer is that? You didn't address my assertion, which is that Christian dogma contains a larger unsolvable mystery than would otherwise exist. If the explanatory power of a worldview such as Christianity or Atheism is what is important in evaluating which worldview is "better" than the other and that explanatory power is measured by the magnitude of the unsolvable mystery under each worldview then Atheism is "better" than Christianity.
I'm not saying one is better than the other.  I'm saying there is plenty of unexplained phenomenon, and am simply making the case that you can't say Christians have it wrong when you yourself have no clue about mysteries of life and the universe.


Quote
You can't "argue against" my baseless belief ("faith") that there is a unicorn-dragon hybrid that lives in my backyard. There are a variety of other exceedingly silly beliefs that cannot be disproved, mainly for reasons related to the problems inherent with attempting to disprove a negative.
That's apples and oranges, because we know there are no unicorns.  If we start seeing a lot of history of people seeing unicorns, like Bigfoot, then its worth a discussion of the possibility, as silly as it may be.  In the unicorn example, the belief of it and attempt to support it wouldn't be started from a conversation about our creator or the unexplained in the universe.  Also, the "negative", in the context of the discussion, is who created us, so your point doesn't fit.


QuoteOne who asserts a fanciful claim to explain a mystery, especially if the claim is tautological to the mystery it seeks to explain, bears the burden of proving that his prima facie ridiculous conclusion has some basis in reality. Those who don't blindly believe silly beliefs do not bear the burden to disprove such assertions.
All of which you can't do, as an atheist, because you yourself don't know what our reality is, in the scope of the universe.  You have as much understanding about our creation as everyone else, hence, the "faith" part by Christians.

Quote
The theory of evolution is a real theory that is scientifically strong. Religious belief based on nothing but "faith" and, in some cases, misguided logic, is hardly a theory in the scientific sense of the word.
The same thing is said about man made global warming, but it's a fallacy.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: anti-American on March 24, 2013, 04:50:44 PM
Quote from: Murph on March 23, 2013, 09:08:26 AM
For those that haven't here is a condensed version of the Five Proofs

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm (http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm)

or a longer one:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm)

Like I have said, one of my college majors was philosophy, so I learned about St. Thomas' "proof" of God's existence. According to your first link, his motion argument has premises (or corollaries) stating that "nothing can move itself" and "each thing in motion is moved by something else" and a conclusion stating that something exists that wasn't moved by anything else.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: JustKari on March 24, 2013, 05:52:23 PM
Quote from: Murph on March 23, 2013, 09:08:26 AM
For those that haven't here is a condensed version of the Five Proofs

http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm (http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm)

or a longer one:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm)

I believe St. Thomas Aquinus and St. Augustine are two different men.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Murph on March 24, 2013, 07:20:41 PM
Quote from: JustKari on March 24, 2013, 05:52:23 PM
I believe St. Thomas Aquinus and St. Augustine are two different men.

DUHHH :ohmy:

Now I feel stupid.
How in Hell did I confuse Confessions and the Summa? Need more sleep...
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: JustKari on March 24, 2013, 07:49:30 PM
Quote from: Murph on March 24, 2013, 07:20:41 PM
DUHHH :ohmy:

Now I feel stupid.
How in Hell did I confuse Confessions and the Summa? Need more sleep...

No worries.  :smile:
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Alexander on March 28, 2013, 05:24:13 PM
Quote from: Murph on March 22, 2013, 09:22:57 PM
Do atheists believe they have souls?

Most atheists don't, but this isn't necessary for an atheist to believe. You can believe in an afterlife and the supernatural and still be an atheist. Being an atheist only applies to your belief about gods.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Alexander on March 28, 2013, 05:36:56 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 22, 2013, 08:31:25 PM
Out of curiosity, have you any belief, faith, any spiritual thought in the least?
Or have you concluded there is nothing, you die, and that's it, poof, it's all over and your soul ceases to exist?

Atheism isn't the belief in "nothing." Everything in the universe is quite a lot, after all.

When people ask us (atheists) if we believe in "anything," they are typically asking a more specific question, such as, "Do you believe in anything supernatural?", which is a different question entirely.

When you ask us about "faith," I'm not sure what you mean exactly because I hear so many different definitions of the word. In our normal/everyday conversations the word 'faith' typically means a specific form of religious belief. Under that definition, I do not have any type of faith. But some others, like Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, say that every possible worldview and belief is a form of faith. So under that view, I have tons of faith.

The term "spiritual" is probably even more convoluted these days, sadly. I don't believe in any type of supernatural spirits, but I would describe many experiences as spiritual. Although I would probably avoid using that term just because most people would take it to mean something supernatural. Sam Harris (who is an atheist) has constantly said that there is nothing to exclude people from spiritual experiences regardless of what they believe.

I don't know what happens when I die, but I would be very surprised if it is anything like the afterlife described by the many world religions. I don't believe in a literal afterlife, but I do know that some part of us will always continue on, even if it is just our particles. And just for the record I don't believe in a dualistic soul.

Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on March 28, 2013, 06:07:39 PM
Quote from: Alexander on March 28, 2013, 05:36:56 PM
Atheism isn't the belief in "nothing." Everything in the universe is quite a lot, after all.

When people ask us (atheists) if we believe in "anything," they are typically asking a more specific question, such as, "Do you believe in anything supernatural?", which is a different question entirely.
Actually the question wasn't one of atheism  so much, but directed at the poster, because he comes across a spiritually void.
But thanks for the response nonetheless.

QuoteWhen you ask us about "faith," I'm not sure what you mean exactly because I hear so many different definitions of the word. In our normal/everyday conversations the word 'faith' typically means a specific form of religious belief. Under that definition, I do not have any type of faith. But some others, like Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, say that every possible worldview and belief is a form of faith. So under that view, I have tons of faith.

The term "spiritual" is probably even more convoluted these days, sadly. I don't believe in any type of supernatural spirits, but I would describe many experiences as spiritual. Although I would probably avoid using that term just because most people would take it to mean something supernatural. Sam Harris (who is an atheist) has constantly said that there is nothing to exclude people from spiritual experiences regardless of what they believe.

I don't know what happens when I die, but I would be very surprised if it is anything like the afterlife described by the many world religions. I don't believe in a literal afterlife, but I do know that some part of us will always continue on, even if it is just our particles. And just for the record I don't believe in a dualistic soul.
Strange as it may seem, we are much alike, though I believe in God, just not in the form as you stated, Religious institutions put forth.

Which is why is was trying to get American, (I think that was the posters name) to be a bit more open in his approach to all things spiritual, he strikes me as someone damaged and disillusioned by a specific Religion or Religion in general, which is rather quite common among those claiming Atheist status.

But my take on God is not one of an individual, rather a collective, as one might find in the insect world, termites, ants etc, for lack of a better description.
I see all of us an extension of God, in other words, mankind is God as a collective.
But that's how I've always viewed it, even as a child and it was strengthened after dying a few times.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Murph on March 28, 2013, 06:11:40 PM
Quote from: Alexander on March 28, 2013, 05:24:13 PM
Most atheists don't, but this isn't necessary for an atheist to believe. You can believe in an afterlife and the supernatural and still be an atheist. Being an atheist only applies to your belief about gods.
I' not a theology major, but isn't that closer to transtheism?
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Alexander on March 29, 2013, 01:37:30 PM
Quote from: Murph on March 28, 2013, 06:11:40 PM
I' not a theology major, but isn't that closer to transtheism?

From my understanding a 'transtheist' still believes in some form of god (or gods). An atheist doesn't believe in any god or gods. People often apply other beliefs to atheism that aren't necessarily so, but are commonly believed to be part of the deal because the majority of atheists hold these views. Examples would be not believing in the afterlife or the supernatural, accepting evolution and rejection creationism and Intelligent Design, etc. Some even seem to think certain political views are required if you're an atheist. But this isn't the case, it only applies to your views on God.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Alexander on March 29, 2013, 01:48:54 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 28, 2013, 06:07:39 PM
Actually the question wasn't one of atheism  so much, but directed at the poster, because he comes across a spiritually void.
But thanks for the response nonetheless.

My apologies. I just can't resist giving my input sometimes because so many people hold the view that atheists are zombies who 'believe in nothing'.

Quote
Strange as it may seem, we are much alike, though I believe in God, just not in the form as you stated, Religious institutions put forth.

Interesting, although I should probably state for the record that I do not believe in any type of God, religious versions or otherwise. But I think I understand what you are saying.

Quote
Which is why is was trying to get American, (I think that was the posters name) to be a bit more open in his approach to all things spiritual, he strikes me as someone damaged and disillusioned by a specific Religion or Religion in general, which is rather quite common among those claiming Atheist status.

I think that many atheists come off this way for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Terms like "spiritual" have become synonymous with "supernatural" to many people, so most atheists consider this a dirty word and will try to separate themselves from it. For example, if an atheist enjoys a sunset or beautiful waterfall (or whatever floats your boat) they will be very unlikely to describe this as a spiritual experience because other people will equate this to having a "religious experience" which is not even remotely the same. They don't want to lessen their experience with the wrong language....if that makes sense.

Quote
But my take on God is not one of an individual, rather a collective, as one might find in the insect world, termites, ants etc, for lack of a better description.
I see all of us an extension of God, in other words, mankind is God as a collective.
But that's how I've always viewed it, even as a child and it was strengthened after dying a few times.

Would that not be pantheism?
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on March 29, 2013, 04:31:40 PM
Quote from: Alexander on March 29, 2013, 01:48:54 PM
My apologies. I just can't resist giving my input sometimes because so many people hold the view that atheists are zombies who 'believe in nothing'.

Interesting, although I should probably state for the record that I do not believe in any type of God, religious versions or otherwise. But I think I understand what you are saying.

I think that many atheists come off this way for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Terms like "spiritual" have become synonymous with "supernatural" to many people, so most atheists consider this a dirty word and will try to separate themselves from it. For example, if an atheist enjoys a sunset or beautiful waterfall (or whatever floats your boat) they will be very unlikely to describe this as a spiritual experience because other people will equate this to having a "religious experience" which is not even remotely the same. They don't want to lessen their experience with the wrong language....if that makes sense.

Would that not be pantheism?
That is a bit of a simplification, but for loss of a better description, it will suffice.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: anti-American on March 30, 2013, 04:37:48 PM
I am a spiritual person in some sense of the word. I am a deep thinker. I have many thoughts that cannot be expressed with language. Many things that others never think about are deeply philosophical issues that I think about. I have trouble sleeping at night because my mind just never wants to stop thinking. People say I am too analytical. I can assure all of you that I am not spiritually or philosophically bankrupt. I'm not an atheist because I don't care and never bothered to think much about it; I am an atheist because I care very deeply and have spent God knows how much time (pun intended) thinking about these types of things. 
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: taxed on April 02, 2013, 03:00:27 PM
Quote from: American on March 30, 2013, 04:37:48 PM
I am a spiritual person in some sense of the word. I am a deep thinker. I have many thoughts that cannot be expressed with language. Many things that others never think about are deeply philosophical issues that I think about. I have trouble sleeping at night because my mind just never wants to stop thinking. People say I am too analytical. I can assure all of you that I am not spiritually or philosophically bankrupt. I'm not an atheist because I don't care and never bothered to think much about it; I am an atheist because I care very deeply and have spent God knows how much time (pun intended) thinking about these types of things.

I appreciate that you are smart and a deep thinker, but this is another place where young athiests go off  the rails.  Your assumption that deep thinkers can't have faith and be religious is silly.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on April 02, 2013, 03:58:13 PM
Quote from: taxed on April 02, 2013, 03:00:27 PM
I appreciate that you are smart and a deep thinker, but this is another place where young athiests go off  the rails.  Your assumption that deep thinkers can't have faith and be religious is silly.
Most scientists would agree with you.
I'm a deep thinker and smart as well, if you don't believe me, ask God, we talk all the time. :smile:

I find with age comes wisdom, when no matter how you try, you can't explain certain miracles of life, without coming to the conclusion it had everything to do with an intelligence far greater than all of mankind combined,  past, present and future.

It's pure arrogance for an individual to think they were able to come here without some unseen force helping them along the way.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: anti-American on April 03, 2013, 09:45:47 PM
Quote from: taxed on April 02, 2013, 03:00:27 PM
I appreciate that you are smart and a deep thinker, but this is another place where young athiests go off  the rails.  Your assumption that deep thinkers can't have faith and be religious is silly.

I was not aware that I was making such an assumption. There are certainly some religious people that lack deep thinking skills but there are also plenty of non-religious people with that same deficiency (e.g., godless liberals).

Quote from: Solar on April 02, 2013, 03:58:13 PM
Most scientists would agree with you.
I'm a deep thinker and smart as well, if you don't believe me, ask God, we talk all the time. :smile:

I find with age comes wisdom, when no matter how you try, you can't explain certain miracles of life, without coming to the conclusion it had everything to do with an intelligence far greater than all of mankind combined,  past, present and future.

It's pure arrogance for an individual to think they were able to come here without some unseen force helping them along the way.

It is true that we can't explain the amazing complexity of life and the universe. But it is illogical to think that asserting that the universe and life has "everything to do with an intelligence far greater than mankind combined, past, present, and future" solves the mystery. The problem is that you can't explain this great intelligent "unseen force" that is greater than the existence it is supposed to explain. Therefore, your introduction of what is essentially a lame deus ex machina explanation only creates a bigger unsolved mystery. If the deus ex machina people call God is needed to explain something less complex and inferior to said deus ex machina, then surely the deus ex machina requires an explanation of its own. In other words, if you "know" God exists because life and the universe is too great and complex to exist without some force even greater than God, then God must, for the same reason as the thing it is supposed to explain, have an explanation. n.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: taxed on April 04, 2013, 07:39:40 AM
Quote from: American on April 03, 2013, 09:45:47 PM
I was not aware that I was making such an assumption. There are certainly some religious people that lack deep thinking skills but there are also plenty of non-religious people with that same deficiency (e.g., godless liberals).
My apologies then...


Quote
It is true that we can't explain the amazing complexity of life and the universe. But it is illogical to think that
We don't know.  To assess if something is logical or not, you need to have a pretty strong understanding of the discussion: in this case, creation and beginning of the universe.  I think I'm correct to say it is so vast, and in the scope of the universe, our brain power is so minute that to declare a side of a philosophy that has been discussed since the beginning of time as "illogical" seems silly to me. 


Quoteasserting that the universe and life has "everything to do with an intelligence far greater than mankind combined, past, present, and future" solves the mystery. The problem is that you can't explain this great intelligent "unseen force" that is greater than the existence it is supposed to explain.
I've never walked across a bunch of ants sitting around discussing us humans.  Our senses are only calibrated to a setting that our designer, creator, or whatever, has determined.  A dog, for their own hearing senses, can hear frequencies we can't.  Why?  Who made that decision?  If you want to say it's an evolution, that dogs acquired that heightened sense over time, then fine.  That's a great discussion encompassed by so many biological, astronomical, ecological, and a whole other bunch of 'icals' that we don't even have a gnat's ass hair's worth of knowledge about, in the scope of the universe.  To play the odds, to say we were created is a 50/50 shot.  We were or we weren't.  To go down other roads of philosophy, like theory of evolution, opens up a kaleidoscopic cascade of infinite possibilities that we will never know nor come close to really knowing, significantly reducing the odds that you're on the right track.  With a creator, I can flip a coin and maybe be right.


Quote
Therefore, your introduction of what is essentially a lame deus ex machina explanation only creates a bigger unsolved mystery. If the deus ex machina people call God is needed to explain something less complex and inferior to said deus ex machina, then surely the deus ex machina requires an explanation of its own. In other words, if you "know" God exists because life and the universe is too great and complex to exist without some force even greater than God, then God must, for the same reason as the thing it is supposed to explain, have an explanation. n.

Your assumption is based on you know what God is.  What is time to God?  Is it relative to our time?  How materially dense is God, compared to us?  We can sit in our nice comfy Earth with an ideal climate that our bodies are magically calibrated to live in and point to the sky and say "there is no God" all we want, but to my way of thinking, you aren't appreciating the possibilities of the unexplained universe.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: TNHarley on April 04, 2013, 08:42:45 AM
Is the OP tryign to say morallity is not natural?
That it was given to us from a bunch of shepherds tripping on natural drugs? LOL
:popcorn:
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: anti-American on April 04, 2013, 08:52:21 PM
taxed, I don't think you understand the argument that I am making. The problem is that your deus ex machina explanation for the existence of life and the universe is even more inexplicable, complex, and unlikely to come about naturally than life and the universe. It doesn't bother you that you can't explain God at all but logically justify God's existence as the only way to explain the inexplicable. If the universe and life needs an explanation because it is complex and wonderful, then surely God, being infinitely more complex and wonderful, also needs an explanation. Say there is a hole in my wall that I want to fix. Would it make any sense to make the hole even bigger? No, of course not.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: taxed on April 04, 2013, 10:32:40 PM
Quote from: American on April 04, 2013, 08:52:21 PM
taxed, I don't think you understand the argument that I am making. The problem is that your deus ex machina explanation for the existence of life and the universe is even more inexplicable, complex, and unlikely to come about naturally than life and the universe.
If you say so.  I don't pretend to know how life was created.

Quote
It doesn't bother you that you can't explain God at all
Correct.  I can't explain God.

Quote
but logically justify God's existence as the only way to explain the inexplicable. If the universe and life needs an explanation because it is complex and wonderful, then surely God, being infinitely more complex and wonderful, also needs an explanation. Say there is a hole in my wall that I want to fix. Would it make any sense to make the hole even bigger? No, of course not.
Your assumption that I believe in a God that is "complex and wonderful" implies that I'm religious and believe in such a thing.  I don't know how we got here or how we were created.  I go on a limb and say we came about from the universe somehow, but how, I have no idea.  All I can do is philosophize and think about possibilities, while not labeling those that believe in a supreme being as "illogical", as if I have a clue.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: MFA on April 12, 2013, 07:26:57 AM
Quote from: American on April 04, 2013, 08:52:21 PM
taxed, I don't think you understand the argument that I am making. The problem is that your deus ex machina explanation for the existence of life and the universe is even more inexplicable, complex, and unlikely to come about naturally than life and the universe.

God, by definition, doesn't "come abou.t"

QuoteIt doesn't bother you that you can't explain God at all but logically justify God's existence as the only way to explain the inexplicable. If the universe and life needs an explanation because it is complex and wonderful, then surely God, being infinitely more complex and wonderful, also needs an explanation. Say there is a hole in my wall that I want to fix. Would it make any sense to make the hole even bigger? No, of course not.

What's the alternative?  Multiple universes that could never be verified empirically?  How is that not a bigger hole?

Also, why would it be necessary for a Creator to be more complex than his creation?
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on April 12, 2013, 07:51:59 AM
We're here, therefore something created us, hence a creator.
Why is this so hard for people to grasp?
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: kramarat on April 12, 2013, 08:37:55 AM
Quote from: Solar on April 12, 2013, 07:51:59 AM
We're here, therefore something created us, hence a creator.
Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

It's not quite that simple; it also requires faith.

Although, it also requires faith to believe that in all of the known universe, on a tiny speck of dust called earth, some water and chemical elements that exist throughout the universe got mixed together, and all life on earth was spontaniously created.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on April 12, 2013, 09:01:49 AM
Quote from: kramarat on April 12, 2013, 08:37:55 AM
It's not quite that simple; it also requires faith.

Although, it also requires faith to believe that in all of the known universe, on a tiny speck of dust called earth, some water and chemical elements that exist throughout the universe got mixed together, and all life on earth was spontaniously created.
I'm not even talking about life, I was talking about existence in general, the fact that there is even something in existence, space or matter. Something had to create it.
Then add to that life, one has to be a fool to think all this is an accident, accidents require two ententes for it to happen, otherwise there would be nothing.

For every action, there's a reaction, something created the first action.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: kramarat on April 12, 2013, 09:48:49 AM
Quote from: Solar on April 12, 2013, 09:01:49 AM
I'm not even talking about life, I was talking about existence in general, the fact that there is even something in existence, space or matter. Something had to create it.
Then add to that life, one has to be a fool to think all this is an accident, accidents require two ententes for it to happen, otherwise there would be nothing.

For every action, there's a reaction, something created the first action.

Yeah, but I can also understand how people that haven't been taught about God can easily dismiss the concept. Others that have been taught, are receiving a constant barrage from the left, about how stupid it is, and choose to abandon God on their own.
I don't hold it against any of them. Personally, I've had too many things happen in my life for me to believe in anything but God. I don't bother arguing about it, because there is no way I can expain what God is, in scientific terms. I'm pretty sure that the answer would be beyond our comprehension.

Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on April 12, 2013, 10:41:46 AM
Quote from: kramarat on April 12, 2013, 09:48:49 AM
Yeah, but I can also understand how people that haven't been taught about God can easily dismiss the concept. Others that have been taught, are receiving a constant barrage from the left, about how stupid it is, and choose to abandon God on their own.
I don't hold it against any of them. Personally, I've had too many things happen in my life for me to believe in anything but God. I don't bother arguing about it, because there is no way I can expain what God is, in scientific terms. I'm pretty sure that the answer would be beyond our comprehension.
That's my whole point, it is well beyond our comprehension, and always will be.
For us to even be discussing this is evidence that something huge occurred, and for something to exist, had to come from somewhere, and that somewhere had to have a point of creation, hence a creator.

This is why I try and hammer into hardcore Atheists heads, that something bigger than us exists, whether they want to worship it or not is irrelevant, simply accepting something bigger than life itself is being spiritual, to do otherwise is pure arrogance in the belief they are all that ever was and will be.

I'm not going to try and define this power, whether it's an all seeing entity, or a flux energy, it does exist.
I don't have faith, I only know what I've seen and that is miracles when I tap into that energy in the form of prayer and talking to God.

I can honestly say, that every time I asked for help, I was never given what I wanted, but actually what I needed, it's why I am where I am today and why my life is "to me" perfect.
I thank, (for loss of better description) God for all I have in my life.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: kramarat on April 12, 2013, 12:35:09 PM
Quote from: Solar on April 12, 2013, 10:41:46 AM
That's my whole point, it is well beyond our comprehension, and always will be.
For us to even be discussing this is evidence that something huge occurred, and for something to exist, had to come from somewhere, and that somewhere had to have a point of creation, hence a creator.

This is why I try and hammer into hardcore Atheists heads, that something bigger than us exists, whether they want to worship it or not is irrelevant, simply accepting something bigger than life itself is being spiritual, to do otherwise is pure arrogance in the belief they are all that ever was and will be.

I'm not going to try and define this power, whether it's an all seeing entity, or a flux energy, it does exist.
I don't have faith, I only know what I've seen and that is miracles when I tap into that energy in the form of prayer and talking to God.

I can honestly say, that every time I asked for help, I was never given what I wanted, but actually what I needed, it's why I am where I am today and why my life is "to me" perfect.
I thank, (for loss of better description) God for all I have in my life.

One of the things that gets me into trouble with fellow Christians, is my refusal to condemn those that practice other religions; particularly Buddhism, Hinduism, and even the shamanism that is practiced in certain indigenous tribes.

While I accept Jesus and the Bible as my personal path to God; I also believe that God has revealed Himself to others in different ways. I don't believe that Gandhi will burn in hell for his teachings. A lot of people think that is blasphemy. :sad:
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on April 12, 2013, 12:52:32 PM
Quote from: kramarat on April 12, 2013, 12:35:09 PM
One of the things that gets me into trouble with fellow Christians, is my refusal to condemn those that practice other religions; particularly Buddhism, Hinduism, and even the shamanism that is practiced in certain indigenous tribes.

While I accept Jesus and the Bible as my personal path to God; I also believe that God has revealed Himself to others in different ways. I don't believe that Gandhi will burn in hell for his teachings. A lot of people think that is blasphemy. :sad:
I totally agree!
And what about those that have never heard the word, are they destined to burn in the eternal fire?

My God is not so vindictive. I believe Jesus is just one of paths, one God gave us, it is those that repeat the word that there is only one path to salvation, I honestly believe Jesus would have something to say about that if he were here today.

I'm not trying to insult Christian believers in anyway, it's just that somewhere along the way during the Crusades, the true meaning has been mangled.

For the same reason a wrathful God has been expunged from most teachings in the last century, I believe the Church will do the same with the teaching that to not be Christian, one is doomed to Hell.

It's for this very reason I left the Church 30 years ago.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Yawn on April 12, 2013, 02:57:41 PM
Quote from: kramarat on April 12, 2013, 12:35:09 PM
One of the things that gets me into trouble with fellow Christians, is my refusal to condemn those that practice other religions; particularly Buddhism, Hinduism, and even the shamanism that is practiced in certain indigenous tribes.

While I accept Jesus and the Bible as my personal path to God; I also believe that God has revealed Himself to others in different ways. I don't believe that Gandhi will burn in hell for his teachings. A lot of people think that is blasphemy. :sad:

Your problem is that you reject the words of "Jesus."  I don't "condemn" them either. Neither does God. But IF you call yourself "Christian," is it reasonable that I can "debate" the issues (doctrines) FROM THE SCRIPTURES?

"Jesus" (you do understand that was not His name) said, "No man can come to the Father EXCEPT through Me."--John 14:6

QuoteI don't believe that Gandhi will burn in hell for his teachings. A lot of people think that is blasphemy. :sad:

The Bible doesn't teach that. "Judgment begins with the House of God"

The CHURCH is being judged (as far as Eternal Life) at this time. Gandhi (who committed incest with his nieces) ISN'T BEING JUDGED UNTIL AFTER THE RESURRECTION.  99% aren't being judged at this time--ONLY the Church of God.

What I'm seeing in your give-and-take with Solar in bashing Christians originates in your acceptance of those Pagan influences in the Church the Bible calls the Great Whore and the Daughters of the Whore (Catholicism and Protestantism). It's that spreading of LIES and False Doctrine that motivates me to speak out against those organizations.

There IS a final punishment in the Lake of Fire. It is DEATH--not eternal torture.  Those who have not been "called" in this life are not being judged. Their time comes after the Resurrection at the end of the 1,000 year Reign of Christ ON EARTH.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Yawn on April 12, 2013, 03:00:56 PM
Why do so many worship this man Gandhi?

QuoteThis article discusses the sexual antics of Gandhi, and it sheds light on his political and personal failures. It highlights his strange habits of urine drinking, and love for enemas. He brings out the facts about his consumption of his own piss, and his drinking of Holy Cow urine. The article lists Mr. Gandhis pedophilia incest, adultery, weird fetishes, and sexual perversion. Our article presents solid proof and well research supporting documentation on these and other issues. The following site lists all material in one place. (The Truth about Mohandas Gandhi). http://rupeenews.com/2011/12/the-evil-in-mr-mohnadas-gandhi/ (http://rupeenews.com/2011/12/the-evil-in-mr-mohnadas-gandhi/) 
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: kramarat on April 12, 2013, 06:26:08 PM
Quote from: Yawn on April 12, 2013, 03:00:56 PM
Why do so many worship this man Gandhi?

I was talking about this guy:

http://sonekichidiya.in/your-platform-to-reform-india-lets-join-hands-and-do-it-january-2013-announcing-a-total-reform-movement/mahatma-gandhi/ (http://sonekichidiya.in/your-platform-to-reform-india-lets-join-hands-and-do-it-january-2013-announcing-a-total-reform-movement/mahatma-gandhi/)

I'm not up to the task tonight, but we'll continue this conversation. I see your quickness to condemn others as a drawback on your Christianity. Did God place you here to pass judgement?
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: anti-American on April 14, 2013, 06:13:33 PM
Quote from: Solar on April 12, 2013, 07:51:59 AM
We're here, therefore something created us, hence a creator.
Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

That's terrible logic. How about this: There's a creator, something created it, hence a super-creator.

Quote from: Solar on April 12, 2013, 09:01:49 AM
I'm not even talking about life, I was talking about existence in general, the fact that there is even something in existence, space or matter. Something had to create it.
Then add to that life, one has to be a fool to think all this is an accident, accidents require two ententes for it to happen, otherwise there would be nothing.

For every action, there's a reaction, something created the first action.

What created the creator? If we need to be created then surely something great enough to create us would also need to be created. I have asked this many times in many ways but nobody seems to want to answer it.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on April 14, 2013, 07:37:32 PM
Quote from: American on April 14, 2013, 06:13:33 PM
That's terrible logic. How about this: There's a creator, something created it, hence a super-creator.

What created the creator? If we need to be created then surely something great enough to create us would also need to be created. I have asked this many times in many ways but nobody seems to want to answer it.

Your logic is flawed, or are you actually admitting we were created?

I think you are putting way too much thought into what may have created us, the fact that we exist at all means we were created by something, but no one knows why or by what and for what reason, but our mere existence is proof of something beyond our limited comprehension.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: JustKari on April 15, 2013, 07:05:36 AM
Quote from: American on April 14, 2013, 06:13:33 PM
That's terrible logic. How about this: There's a creator, something created it, hence a super-creator.

What created the creator? If we need to be created then surely something great enough to create us would also need to be created. I have asked this many times in many ways but nobody seems to want to answer it.

Actually, God is timeless He always was and always will be.  This is "illogical" to you because from a very young age you have been taught that time matters. 

Some people (not necessarily me) think of time as a giant circle.  There is no need for a Super-Creator, God is/was more than capable.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on April 15, 2013, 08:18:05 AM
Quote from: JustKari on April 15, 2013, 07:05:36 AM
Actually, God is timeless He always was and always will be.  This is "illogical" to you because from a very young age you have been taught that time matters. 

Some people (not necessarily me) think of time as a giant circle.  There is no need for a Super-Creator, God is/was more than capable.
That's the thing, time is a human construct, a barrier to human intellect limiting mans ability to understand the infinite possibility that life is far different beyond our realm of understanding.
Something I believe was purposefully put in place so man could experience life without understanding the meaning why we were placed here.
If we had all the answers, we probably wouldn't want to be here. Life is tough for a reason, it is meant to expand our understanding of our deeper meaning in the spirit world.
Be it Heaven or whatever someone wants to call it, it is a gift no matter how it's viewed and it was given to us by our creator.

Understanding life is not what we were sent here for, but rather to experience something we are incapable of realizing in the spirit world, meaning, the tangible of love, hate and everything in between.

Of course this is my interpretation, but after a lifetime of witnessing miracles, I can only conclude this to be only one possibility of real life, there are many yet to come.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: MFA on April 15, 2013, 04:05:46 PM
Quote from: American on April 14, 2013, 06:13:33 PM
What created the creator? If we need to be created then surely something great enough to create us would also need to be created. I have asked this many times in many ways but nobody seems to want to answer it.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but the question implies a lack of understanding about what is meant by the term "God."  God is by definition "uncreated."
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: taxed on April 15, 2013, 07:56:49 PM
Quote from: American on April 14, 2013, 06:13:33 PM
That's terrible logic. How about this: There's a creator, something created it, hence a super-creator.

What created the creator? If we need to be created then surely something great enough to create us would also need to be created. I have asked this many times in many ways but nobody seems to want to answer it.

Are you holding the creation of the universe to that same standard, i.e., was the universe always, or did it create out of nothing?  Do this: pretend God is the universe.  Now, was he always here, or was it created?
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: TboneAgain on April 16, 2013, 04:18:32 PM
Quote from: Solar on April 15, 2013, 08:18:05 AM
That's the thing, time is a human construct, a barrier to human intellect limiting mans ability to understand the infinite possibility that life is far different beyond our realm of understanding.
Something I believe was purposefully put in place so man could experience life without understanding the meaning why we were placed here.
If we had all the answers, we probably wouldn't want to be here. Life is tough for a reason, it is meant to expand our understanding of our deeper meaning in the spirit world.
Be it Heaven or whatever someone wants to call it, it is a gift no matter how it's viewed and it was given to us by our creator.

Understanding life is not what we were sent here for, but rather to experience something we are incapable of realizing in the spirit world, meaning, the tangible of love, hate and everything in between.

Of course this is my interpretation, but after a lifetime of witnessing miracles, I can only conclude this to be only one possibility of real life, there are many yet to come.

Time is hardly a human construct. Men have found ways and standards to quantify time, to understand it and express the way it affects our lives, but I'm pretty sure it exists with or without man. I'm pretty sure that time is a valid concept anywhere in the universe, in a trillion places man has never seen -- and will never see. Even the most radical concepts in the world of physics include time as a constant.

But religion, in all its forms, is very much a human construct. I read just the other day that there are something like 41,000 different denominations of the Christian faith alone. Of course, most of them share some basic principles -- God as Master and Creator, Christ as crucified and resurrected Savior, redemption through Christ, and so on -- but beyond that there are thousands of variations. Even using the same Scripture -- itself a book created and heavily edited through the ages by man -- as a basis hasn't resulted in a monolithic church.

There is no monolithic church because religion is not monolithic, and can never be. I think religion in general is a way for practical rules of living to become "law" without (in some cases) becoming actual law. The Ten Commandments are a prime example of what I'm talking about. "Thou shalt not kill" is obviously a principle that has been codified into civil and criminal law practically everywhere on Earth. We like to see such laws and commandments as "moral" rules, but the fact is they're aimed at preserving the species, plain and simple. (Of course, morality in general is also a uniquely human construct.)

But where is "Honor thy father and thy mother" made into civil law? As a principle, it makes perfect sense, and everyone would agree that it's a good thing to do... but how do you make it into law? You don't. Instead, you make it part of a religion, and enshrine it with morality. If you don't honor Mom and Dad, you won't go to jail (probably), but you're BAD nevertheless. You just might go to Hell when you leave this world.

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" is another good example of what I'm saying. These days, legally, you can covet your neighbor's wife all you want -- and slip over there when the neighbor's gone and help yourself -- and nobody gets in trouble with the law. But obviously, sooner or later the shit will hit the fan, and very bad things will happen. Again, you haven't broken a civil or criminal law, but you've been BAD, and may have earned a one-way ticket across the River Styx.

Honoring your parents and turning away from your bikini-clad neighbor lady are examples of things that are SMART LIVING. They are things that help you get through life. They're hard to put into the rigid confines of human civil or criminal law, but they're easy to incorporate into a faith-based religion.

THAT, I think is what religion is for. The political power doesn't work well in some ways, but the power of God, and the threat of Hell, is meant to put these principles into play.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: kramarat on April 16, 2013, 05:20:44 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on April 16, 2013, 04:18:32 PM
Time is hardly a human construct. Men have found ways and standards to quantify time, to understand it and express the way it affects our lives, but I'm pretty sure it exists with or without man. I'm pretty sure that time is a valid concept anywhere in the universe, in a trillion places man has never seen -- and will never see. Even the most radical concepts in the world of physics include time as a constant.

But religion, in all its forms, is very much a human construct. I read just the other day that there are something like 41,000 different denominations of the Christian faith alone. Of course, most of them share some basic principles -- God as Master and Creator, Christ as crucified and resurrected Savior, redemption through Christ, and so on -- but beyond that there are thousands of variations. Even using the same Scripture -- itself a book created and heavily edited through the ages by man -- as a basis hasn't resulted in a monolithic church.

There is no monolithic church because religion is not monolithic, and can never be. I think religion in general is a way for practical rules of living to become "law" without (in some cases) becoming actual law. The Ten Commandments are a prime example of what I'm talking about. "Thou shalt not kill" is obviously a principle that has been codified into civil and criminal law practically everywhere on Earth. We like to see such laws and commandments as "moral" rules, but the fact is they're aimed at preserving the species, plain and simple. (Of course, morality in general is also a uniquely human construct.)

But where is "Honor thy father and thy mother" made into civil law? As a principle, it makes perfect sense, and everyone would agree that it's a good thing to do... but how do you make it into law? You don't. Instead, you make it part of a religion, and enshrine it with morality. If you don't honor Mom and Dad, you won't go to jail (probably), but you're BAD nevertheless. You just might go to Hell when you leave this world.

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" is another good example of what I'm saying. These days, legally, you can covet your neighbor's wife all you want -- and slip over there when the neighbor's gone and help yourself -- and nobody gets in trouble with the law. But obviously, sooner or later the shit will hit the fan, and very bad things will happen. Again, you haven't broken a civil or criminal law, but you've been BAD, and may have earned a one-way ticket across the River Styx.

Honoring your parents and turning away from your bikini-clad neighbor lady are examples of things that are SMART LIVING. They are things that help you get through life. They're hard to put into the rigid confines of human civil or criminal law, but they're easy to incorporate into a faith-based religion.

THAT, I think is what religion is for. The political power doesn't work well in some ways, but the power of God, and the threat of Hell, is meant to put these principles into play.

Do you believe that the old and new testament, as well as the other books that relate to God and Christ, are fictional constructs of the human mind?

If yes; why would people go to that much trouble?
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on April 16, 2013, 05:28:53 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on April 16, 2013, 04:18:32 PM
Time is hardly a human construct. Men have found ways and standards to quantify time, to understand it and express the way it affects our lives, but I'm pretty sure it exists with or without man. I'm pretty sure that time is a valid concept anywhere in the universe, in a trillion places man has never seen -- and will never see. Even the most radical concepts in the world of physics include time as a constant.

But religion, in all its forms, is very much a human construct. I read just the other day that there are something like 41,000 different denominations of the Christian faith alone. Of course, most of them share some basic principles -- God as Master and Creator, Christ as crucified and resurrected Savior, redemption through Christ, and so on -- but beyond that there are thousands of variations. Even using the same Scripture -- itself a book created and heavily edited through the ages by man -- as a basis hasn't resulted in a monolithic church.

There is no monolithic church because religion is not monolithic, and can never be. I think religion in general is a way for practical rules of living to become "law" without (in some cases) becoming actual law. The Ten Commandments are a prime example of what I'm talking about. "Thou shalt not kill" is obviously a principle that has been codified into civil and criminal law practically everywhere on Earth. We like to see such laws and commandments as "moral" rules, but the fact is they're aimed at preserving the species, plain and simple. (Of course, morality in general is also a uniquely human construct.)

But where is "Honor thy father and thy mother" made into civil law? As a principle, it makes perfect sense, and everyone would agree that it's a good thing to do... but how do you make it into law? You don't. Instead, you make it part of a religion, and enshrine it with morality. If you don't honor Mom and Dad, you won't go to jail (probably), but you're BAD nevertheless. You just might go to Hell when you leave this world.

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" is another good example of what I'm saying. These days, legally, you can covet your neighbor's wife all you want -- and slip over there when the neighbor's gone and help yourself -- and nobody gets in trouble with the law. But obviously, sooner or later the shit will hit the fan, and very bad things will happen. Again, you haven't broken a civil or criminal law, but you've been BAD, and may have earned a one-way ticket across the River Styx.

Honoring your parents and turning away from your bikini-clad neighbor lady are examples of things that are SMART LIVING. They are things that help you get through life. They're hard to put into the rigid confines of human civil or criminal law, but they're easy to incorporate into a faith-based religion.

THAT, I think is what religion is for. The political power doesn't work well in some ways, but the power of God, and the threat of Hell, is meant to put these principles into play.
Sorry, I kind of glazed over and ...
Oh, this went right over your head, didn't it?
Time is definitely a human construct, if man were not here, it wouldn't exist.
Kind of like a tree falling in the forest, if no one heard it, it made no discernible noise.

Point is, the Universe was created solely for our existence, all life.
I know, that sounds vain, but look at it this way, if time did not exist, the big bang would look like a big explosion, or implosion, depending on the theory you prefer.
But slow it down to near stop frame, and throw life into the mix, now we have a place of existence.

From my years of researching the subject, when we die, all those that went before us, will greet us as if they had just finished life here on Earth as well, in fact when we're gone, the Universe will no longer exist, because time does not exist on the other side.
Time is merely a flash in the pan.

You are trying to understand life as wee know it from a human perspective, which by comparison, is that of the ant trying to understand infinity, the concept is far beyond their comprehension, as is life and the universe to us.

Do you really think matter ,physics, algebra, water, etc matter to us after we're gone?
Of course not, it is the here and now, it is all slowed down solely for our existence, or rather all life through out the known expanse beyond us.

Is that too deep? :wink:
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: TboneAgain on April 17, 2013, 02:36:13 AM
Gangin' up on me. Shoulda seen it comin'.   :tounge: :tounge: :tounge:

Why in the world did I stick my toes into this water?

QuoteDo you believe that the old and new testament, as well as the other books that relate to God and Christ, are fictional constructs of the human mind?

If yes; why would people go to that much trouble?

No, and that's not what I said. What I said is that they are works written by man, and heavily (sometimes politically) edited over the centuries. Neither Testament is a work that fell out the sky one day, to be reprinted ad infinitum and verbatim through the ages. King James I, who commissioned the most widely-used translation of both testaments, didn't much care for women, and used his influence to alter the texts to reflect his views. Perhaps more importantly, KJV is the product of a period in England's history when government and church were inextricably entwined.

I must honestly confess that my biblical training, such as it is, does not extend further than the KJV. But that translation remains the most-used in the Christian world. It is what it is.

QuoteSorry, I kind of glazed over and ...
Oh, this went right over your head, didn't it?
Time is definitely a human construct, if man were not here, it wouldn't exist.
Kind of like a tree falling in the forest, if no one heard it, it made no discernible noise.

Point is, the Universe was created solely for our existence, all life.
I know, that sounds vain, but look at it this way, if time did not exist, the big bang would look like a big explosion, or implosion, depending on the theory you prefer.
But slow it down to near stop frame, and throw life into the mix, now we have a place of existence.

From my years of researching the subject, when we die, all those that went before us, will greet us as if they had just finished life here on Earth as well, in fact when we're gone, the Universe will no longer exist, because time does not exist on the other side.
Time is merely a flash in the pan.

You are trying to understand life as wee know it from a human perspective, which by comparison, is that of the ant trying to understand infinity, the concept is far beyond their comprehension, as is life and the universe to us.

Do you really think matter ,physics, algebra, water, etc matter to us after we're gone?
Of course not, it is the here and now, it is all slowed down solely for our existence, or rather all life through out the known expanse beyond us.

Is that too deep?

No, I think time is a constant. The measurement of time is a human construct, and that's one thing, but time itself is quite another. To propose otherwise is to propose that this moment is every moment, that everything that has ever happened is still happening, that all time is now.

And for the record, I think when a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, it still makes a lot of noise.  :tounge:

I'm not privy to know why the universe was created. It massages my vanity to think that it was all done for us; and maybe it was. I simply don't know.

But to classify time itself as a human construct that exists only in this life... that's too many for me. If it were so, what sort of structure could life (however you define it) on the "other side" have? If you remove time as a concept or as a fact, how does anything "happen?" (Or, for that matter, stop happening?) How can there be an existence where there is no tomorrow, no yesterday, and today is just one big blob of "now?"

No, it's not too deep. I've heard these things before. I guess I'm stuck with this pesky human perspective because, well, I'm a pesky human. Accepting the concept of God as Creator and of Christ as Savior is a metaphysical leap for me, as it is for many. It is an act of faith, simply because it cannot be proven by any means we have as humans living on Earth.

Discarding the concept of time is not something I'm willing to do. Yes, I see things from a human perspective. That may be because I'm a human.  :tounge:
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: kramarat on April 17, 2013, 04:33:02 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on April 17, 2013, 02:36:13 AM
Gangin' up on me. Shoulda seen it comin'.   :tounge: :tounge: :tounge:

Why in the world did I stick my toes into this water?

No, and that's not what I said. What I said is that they are works written by man, and heavily (sometimes politically) edited over the centuries. Neither Testament is a work that fell out the sky one day, to be reprinted ad infinitum and verbatim through the ages. King James I, who commissioned the most widely-used translation of both testaments, didn't much care for women, and used his influence to alter the texts to reflect his views. Perhaps more importantly, KJV is the product of a period in England's history when government and church were inextricably entwined.

I must honestly confess that my biblical training, such as it is, does not extend further than the KJV. But that translation remains the most-used in the Christian world. It is what it is.

No, I think time is a constant. The measurement of time is a human construct, and that's one thing, but time itself is quite another. To propose otherwise is to propose that this moment is every moment, that everything that has ever happened is still happening, that all time is now.

And for the record, I think when a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, it still makes a lot of noise.  :tounge:

I'm not privy to know why the universe was created. It massages my vanity to think that it was all done for us; and maybe it was. I simply don't know.

But to classify time itself as a human construct that exists only in this life... that's too many for me. If it were so, what sort of structure could life (however you define it) on the "other side" have? If you remove time as a concept or as a fact, how does anything "happen?" (Or, for that matter, stop happening?) How can there be an existence where there is no tomorrow, no yesterday, and today is just one big blob of "now?"

No, it's not too deep. I've heard these things before. I guess I'm stuck with this pesky human perspective because, well, I'm a pesky human. Accepting the concept of God as Creator and of Christ as Savior is a metaphysical leap for me, as it is for many. It is an act of faith, simply because it cannot be proven by any means we have as humans living on Earth.

Discarding the concept of time is not something I'm willing to do. Yes, I see things from a human perspective. That may be because I'm a human.  :tounge:

I'll agree that humans, (having written the Bible), likely colored God's word with their own beliefs at the time. In fact, while I was watching The Bible, on History channel, a commercial came on from the Catholic church, and in it they claimed that it was Catholics that wrote the entire Bible. Someone must have called them on it, because it only ran once, and they changed the wording to, "We compiled the entire Bible", which is still a stretch.

Over time, we have seen people become Bible obsessed to the point of insanity; the Spanish Inquisition, the Christian Crusades, the Salem witch trials, David Koresh, Jim Jones, and the Westboro Baptist Church, to site a few examples. I don't see these things as a weakness with God, but as a weakness with humans.

Like you said, there are more Christian denominations than can be counted; each one jockeying to be #1 in the eyes of God. This is mostly the reason that I am not big on church. I am going to one now, but the minute I hear them start saying that they have it right, and nobody else does, I'm out.

I think that each individual should accept Christ and God into their hearts, and I don't believe it will be identical for each person. The Bible is a tool to use to help forge that relationship. I know it says to worship in groups and go to church, but I think that was intended to reinforce the individual relationship with God, not form groups that are separate from others, appoint leaders, and impose rules that are created by man. It's a form of socialism, (IMO), and has evolved to the point that it reduces the burden on the individual to know God in his/her own heart.

Anyway, I'm not going to gang up on you. :wink:

I don't think God should be pushed on anyone. He's always available to anyone that asks though.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: Solar on April 17, 2013, 06:22:55 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on April 17, 2013, 02:36:13 AM


No, I think time is a constant. The measurement of time is a human construct, and that's one thing, but time itself is quite another. To propose otherwise is to propose that this moment is every moment, that everything that has ever happened is still happening, that all time is now.

And for the record, I think when a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, it still makes a lot of noise.  :tounge:

I'm not privy to know why the universe was created. It massages my vanity to think that it was all done for us; and maybe it was. I simply don't know.

But to classify time itself as a human construct that exists only in this life... that's too many for me. If it were so, what sort of structure could life (however you define it) on the "other side" have? If you remove time as a concept or as a fact, how does anything "happen?" (Or, for that matter, stop happening?) How can there be an existence where there is no tomorrow, no yesterday, and today is just one big blob of "now?"

No, it's not too deep. I've heard these things before. I guess I'm stuck with this pesky human perspective because, well, I'm a pesky human. Accepting the concept of God as Creator and of Christ as Savior is a metaphysical leap for me, as it is for many. It is an act of faith, simply because it cannot be proven by any means we have as humans living on Earth.

Discarding the concept of time is not something I'm willing to do. Yes, I see things from a human perspective. That may be because I'm a human.  :tounge:
I almost missed this, you know better than to lump replies together... :ttoung:

The reason and attraction were here, is to feel, time, love, hate, hot, cold, time etc infinitude.
That's why life is a gift. In the spirit realm, there is nothing, just existence, but life is a challenge, it is what it is, so we can Feel alive, but it's mere existence is time stopped, so we can get on.

In the spirit world, there is no large or small, up or down, pain, sorrow even love or hate, and time is completely a different view.
Then again, with none of the elements that make us human, what is the use of time?

Imagine yourself wandering through infinity and wondering what those little flashes of light are around you, then stop one of those flashes midstream, get on an electron microscope and peer into the view finder and see debris nearly frozen in time, then zoom in more to discover even smaller bodies floating through space, then zoom in even further and now you see these aren't individual bodies, but rather clusters of more clusters.
So you zoom in with your telescope even further and see brightly lit bodies, trillions of them, even closer upon examination, you discover smaller bodies circling around the bright ones, with even closer inspection you now see color, which is something unique in and by itself considering like time, it doesn't exist.

This color thing interests you, and you want to explore even further, while others around you see other things that attract them, you and others like you agree this little colored object seems interesting at the moment,  so you enter and investigate.
Keep in mind, time does not exist where you come from, so our little excursion was merely a brief moment where we came from and we'll be back in a second, but here, in order to experience this little colorful marble, you have to be one with it on a scale our size to appreciate it.
Any smaller and we couldn't see the vast horizon, any larger and we couldn't feed ourselves or appreciate it's true beauty.

But as quickly as we all entered, we will all depart just as rapidly because it was us, all of us as a collective that stopped that flash in motion to have something to do.
Does that make us a part of God, or God himself, no one knows, but regardless, we are still aware of God and know we have a certain set of agreed upon rules to make our short existence here all the better.
Maybe just maybe, those that were here before us were able to see that our existence here as rather miserable and were sent to heed us warning , reminders of who and why we're here.
People like Noah, Moses, Jesus, but apparently we are a selfish lot and trample on others regardless of warnings from (for a lack of a better term) God, we still ignore the purpose of our existence, to experience the most important part of our journey, the gift of love.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: JTA on April 17, 2013, 04:52:59 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on April 17, 2013, 02:36:13 AM
Gangin' up on me. Shoulda seen it comin'.   :tounge: :tounge: :tounge:

Why in the world did I stick my toes into this water?

No, and that's not what I said. What I said is that they are works written by man, and heavily (sometimes politically) edited over the centuries. Neither Testament is a work that fell out the sky one day, to be reprinted ad infinitum

This is something I've always been curious about. I enjoy reading philosophical texts, much of them originally written in German or some other language. Something that always strikes me as interesting is when I'm reading sometimes the translated text will have an asterisk next to a word or phrase with a note mentioning there's no direct English translation, but the word/phrase sort of means "such and such". Try reading anything by Heidegger and you'll see what exactly what I'm talking about. Some of the words remain untranslated and you're more or less forced to incorporate the words into your vocabulary (Dasein for example is the most obvious. It directly translates into "there-being" if I remember correctly).

You mentioned the bible has been translated many times over from its original language (NT - Greek, OT - Hebrew?). How is one to know that they aren't missing out when reading, say, an the King James version of the bible and not some other version? Surely the differences aren't too great, but can't even slight variations in words and sentences communicate ideas in an entirely different manner? I've heard from others that to get the full effect of certain texts, you must read it in its original language. When I read texts translated from German surely I'm missing out on many of the nuances implicit in the language itself that cannot be translated properly into English. I wonder if the same applies to the bible? The general gist is there I suppose, so maybe that's all that matters. It seems though that for a text that holds such a special place for so many, it ought to be the duty of every Christian to find the oldest, most original untranslated text (if it even exists) and read it in its original form to get the full effect.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: kramarat on April 17, 2013, 05:24:31 PM
Quote from: JTA on April 17, 2013, 04:52:59 PM
This is something I've always been curious about. I enjoy reading philosophical texts, much of them originally written in German or some other language. Something that always strikes me as interesting is when I'm reading sometimes the translated text will have an asterisk next to a word or phrase with a note mentioning there's no direct English translation, but the word/phrase sort of means "such and such". Try reading anything by Heidegger and you'll see what exactly what I'm talking about. Some of the words remain untranslated and you're more or less forced to incorporate the words into your vocabulary (Dasein for example is the most obvious. It directly translates into "there-being" if I remember correctly).

You mentioned the bible has been translated many times over from its original language (NT - Greek, OT - Hebrew?). How is one to know that they aren't missing out when reading, say, an the King James version of the bible and not some other version? Surely the differences aren't too great, but can't even slight variations in words and sentences communicate ideas in an entirely different manner? I've heard from others that to get the full effect of certain texts, you must read it in its original language. When I read texts translated from German surely I'm missing out on many of the nuances implicit in the language itself that cannot be translated properly into English. I wonder if the same applies to the bible? The general gist is there I suppose, so maybe that's all that matters. It seems though that for a text that holds such a special place for so many, it ought to be the duty of every Christian to find the oldest, most original untranslated text (if it even exists) and read it in its original form to get the full effect.

Just my opinion, but when it comes to the Bible, I believe that God intended for us to take in the entire forest, rather than obsessing over the individual trees. Even among Christians, groups of people attempt to take ownership of the true meaning. Much like my conservatism, I believe that the individual should take God's word for him/herself, rather than attempting to make it a collective truth. Humans can mess up anything, it doesn't matter how perfect it started out.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: MFA on April 17, 2013, 06:21:16 PM
Quote from: JTA on April 17, 2013, 04:52:59 PM
This is something I've always been curious about. I enjoy reading philosophical texts, much of them originally written in German or some other language. Something that always strikes me as interesting is when I'm reading sometimes the translated text will have an asterisk next to a word or phrase with a note mentioning there's no direct English translation, but the word/phrase sort of means "such and such". Try reading anything by Heidegger and you'll see what exactly what I'm talking about. Some of the words remain untranslated and you're more or less forced to incorporate the words into your vocabulary (Dasein for example is the most obvious. It directly translates into "there-being" if I remember correctly).

You mentioned the bible has been translated many times over from its original language (NT - Greek, OT - Hebrew?). How is one to know that they aren't missing out when reading, say, an the King James version of the bible and not some other version? Surely the differences aren't too great, but can't even slight variations in words and sentences communicate ideas in an entirely different manner? I've heard from others that to get the full effect of certain texts, you must read it in its original language. When I read texts translated from German surely I'm missing out on many of the nuances implicit in the language itself that cannot be translated properly into English. I wonder if the same applies to the bible? The general gist is there I suppose, so maybe that's all that matters. It seems though that for a text that holds such a special place for so many, it ought to be the duty of every Christian to find the oldest, most original untranslated text (if it even exists) and read it in its original form to get the full effect.

It is possible to do this, but it isn't easy to learn Hebrew.  Greek is easier and since the vocabulary of the New Testament isn't very large (only a few hundred words), it's not inaccessible, even to the layman.

However, most modern translations are translated, not from existing translations, but from the earliest extant collections of texts.  If there are doubts about translation or accuracy, simply look at multiple translations.  It gives you a pretty good idea as to the original autographs.

There's still the issue of idiom, but there are many commentaries available.  Conspiracy theories a là Dan Brown notwithstanding, an accurate reading of the Bible in English is possible and accessible.

(I would add that the KJV is a notoriously bad translation; much of the earliest texts were not available when it was translated (it was largely translated from the Vulgate--a translation of a translation), it was politically motivated (rather than motivated purely by accuracy or doctrinal purity), and the agenda that led the team of translators made for a change in tone of language.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: JTA on April 18, 2013, 01:47:12 PM
Quote from: MFA on April 17, 2013, 06:21:16 PM
It is possible to do this, but it isn't easy to learn Hebrew.  Greek is easier and since the vocabulary of the New Testament isn't very large (only a few hundred words), it's not inaccessible, even to the layman.

However, most modern translations are translated, not from existing translations, but from the earliest extant collections of texts.  If there are doubts about translation or accuracy, simply look at multiple translations.  It gives you a pretty good idea as to the original autographs.

There's still the issue of idiom, but there are many commentaries available.  Conspiracy theories a là Dan Brown notwithstanding, an accurate reading of the Bible in English is possible and accessible.

(I would add that the KJV is a notoriously bad translation; much of the earliest texts were not available when it was translated (it was largely translated from the Vulgate--a translation of a translation), it was politically motivated (rather than motivated purely by accuracy or doctrinal purity), and the agenda that led the team of translators made for a change in tone of language.

The only translation of the bible I've read was the King James. What in your opinion is both the most accurate and accessible version of the bible?
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: MFA on April 18, 2013, 07:47:29 PM
Quote from: JTA on April 18, 2013, 01:47:12 PM
The only translation of the bible I've read was the King James. What in your opinion is both the most accurate and accessible version of the bible?

I don't think there is a single "most accurate" version.  Different versions have their strengths.  NASB is a "word-for-word" translation which is good for indepth study; not great for plain understanding.  NIV is quite good.  Lately I've been reading a translation called "God's Word," that has made a lot of good translation decisions, but also a few poor ones.

The problem, as someone stated, is that no language translates directly.  There are different grammatical rules, lack of straight equivalency, and issues of idiom.  But there isn't a translation that I know of that is so bad that it should be discarded.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: walkstall on April 18, 2013, 08:08:54 PM
Quote from: MFA on April 18, 2013, 07:47:29 PM
I don't think there is a single "most accurate" version.  Different versions have their strengths.  NASB is a "word-for-word" translation which is good for indepth study; not great for plain understanding.  NIV is quite good.  Lately I've been reading a translation called "God's Word," that has made a lot of good translation decisions, but also a few poor ones.

The problem, as someone stated, is that no language translates directly.  There are different grammatical rules, lack of straight equivalency, and issues of idiom.  But there isn't a translation that I know of that is so bad that it should be discarded.


MFA
It's a shame you live in Canada, would you make a good politician young man.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: MFA on April 19, 2013, 05:31:56 AM
Quote from: walkstall on April 18, 2013, 08:08:54 PM

MFA
It's a shame you live in Canada, would you make a good politician young man.  :thumbsup:

:biggrin: NO THANK YOU!
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: JustKari on April 19, 2013, 06:21:45 AM
Quote from: MFA on April 18, 2013, 07:47:29 PM
I don't think there is a single "most accurate" version.  Different versions have their strengths.  NASB is a "word-for-word" translation which is good for indepth study; not great for plain understanding.  NIV is quite good.  Lately I've been reading a translation called "God's Word," that has made a lot of good translation decisions, but also a few poor ones.

The problem, as someone stated, is that no language translates directly.  There are different grammatical rules, lack of straight equivalency, and issues of idiom.  But there isn't a translation that I know of that is so bad that it should be discarded.

I could easily discard "The Message", that version is barely a Bible.  I am reading the ESV, English Standard Version and like it even better than NIV.  There are tons of free tranlations online, you can even buy Bibles with two translations side-by-side.
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: kramarat on April 19, 2013, 07:29:36 AM
Quote from: JustKari on April 19, 2013, 06:21:45 AM
I could easily discard "The Message", that version is barely a Bible.  I am reading the ESV, English Standard Version and like it even better than NIV.  There are tons of free tranlations online, you can even buy Bibles with two translations side-by-side.

Now wait just a minute...

Are you guys saying that there are versions of the Bible, in which the message has been completely distorted? :scared:
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: JustKari on April 19, 2013, 08:16:04 AM
Quote from: kramarat on April 19, 2013, 07:29:36 AM
Now wait just a minute...

Are you guys saying that there are versions of the Bible, in which the message has been completely distorted? :scared:

I don't know that I would call it completely distorted, but it tries too hard to be current.  Here is the Lord's Prayer from The Message (Matthew 6:9-14)
Quote7-13 "The world is full of so-called prayer warriors who are prayer-ignorant. They're full of formulas and programs and advice, peddling techniques for getting what you want from God. Don't fall for that nonsense. This is your Father you are dealing with, and he knows better than you what you need. With a God like this loving you, you can pray very simply. Like this:

Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are. Set the world right;
Do what's best—as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You're in charge! You can do anything you want!
You're ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes.



14-15 "In prayer there is a connection between what God does and what you do. You can't get forgiveness from God, for instance, without also forgiving others. If you refuse to do your part, you cut yourself off from God's part.

 
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: kramarat on April 19, 2013, 09:26:59 AM
Quote from: JustKari on April 19, 2013, 08:16:04 AM
I don't know that I would call it completely distorted, but it tries too hard to be current.  Here is the Lord's Prayer from The Message (Matthew 6:9-14)

Hmmm.....I see what you mean. Kind of a "chill out, God is your buddy", type attitude.

I don't think it's terrible, since God knows what's in our hearts, but they shouldn't be calling that the Lord's Prayer. Also, the opening line, before the prayer, is utter garbage. Christians casting disparaging remarks about other Christians, really gets under my skin. :mad:

I won't be getting "The Message".
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: MFA on April 19, 2013, 04:18:00 PM
Quote from: kramarat on April 19, 2013, 09:26:59 AM
Hmmm.....I see what you mean. Kind of a "chill out, God is your buddy", type attitude.

I don't think it's terrible, since God knows what's in our hearts, but they shouldn't be calling that the Lord's Prayer. Also, the opening line, before the prayer, is utter garbage. Christians casting disparaging remarks about other Christians, really gets under my skin. :mad:

I won't be getting "The Message".

The Message is a paraphrase, not true translation.  It's okay for what it is.

Consider God's Word Translation:

"This is how you should pray:

Our Father in heaven,
    let your name be kept holy.
Let your kingdom come.
    Let your will be done on earth
        as it is done in heaven.
Give us our daily bread today.
Forgive us as we forgive others.
Don't allow us to be tempted.
    Instead, rescue us from the evil one.

"If you forgive the failures of others, your heavenly Father will also forgive you."

Or the New Living Translation:

"Pray like this:

Our Father in heaven,
    may your name be kept holy.
May your Kingdom come soon.
May your will be done on earth,
    as it is in heaven.
Give us today the food we need,
and forgive us our sins,
    as we have forgiven those who sin against us.
And don't let us yield to temptation,
    but rescue us from the evil one.
"If you forgive those who sin against you, your heavenly Father will forgive you."

It can be done in contemporary and very understandable language (without the paraphrase that attempts to "fill in the gaps" of understanding).
Title: Re: Those condescending atheists
Post by: MFA on April 19, 2013, 04:18:47 PM
Quote from: JustKari on April 19, 2013, 06:21:45 AM
I could easily discard "The Message", that version is barely a Bible.  I am reading the ESV, English Standard Version and like it even better than NIV.  There are tons of free tranlations online, you can even buy Bibles with two translations side-by-side.

Yeah, I have friends that use ESV.  It has a really good reputation.