 |
Off The Map Discussion Board for Christians, Atheists and People In-between
(closed to new posts - to participate in ongoing discussion visit our sites otmatheist.com and conversationattheedge.com)
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David S
Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Posts: 1029
Location: Where the crowd isn't
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
(Quotes are from Mike C)
| Quote: | | You're right, there is no absolutely necessary link between these things and God's existence. But neither is there necessary proof for the atheist view of these things either. |
The two positions aren't equivalent, there is a significant difference. The theist is making a positive claim (and a rather extraordinary one) for the existence of a god. The atheist isn't making any such claims but doubts the theist claim (and doubt is the default position until claims are reasonably supported). The atheist doesn't have nor need any evidence/proof as they aren't making a positive claim.
| Quote: | | Things like conscience, beauty, love, joy, wonder, spirituality, etc. are universal human experiences that carry with them a sense that there is something beyond ourselves, that they are more than just movements in our brain, that they have some relation to the fundamental nature of reality. I choose to believe that these experiences are true, that they are in fact indications of something more. And I think that a personal God who is interconnected with his creation is the best explanation of what that "more" is. But of course you are free to believe some other explanation for these experiences, though I don't see why your explanation should be preferable to anyone elses'. What evidence do you have that these experiences are actually deceiving us? |
We all have such common human emotions and experiences and we all tend to interpret those experiences through our beliefs. If your experiences lead you to think there is a god that's hardly surprising, as you already believe in a god. I have similar experiences and not surprisingly I don't see them pointing to any gods. This doesn't seem to me to require any explaining.
| Quote: | ...The "objective rationality" of you atheists is, IMHO, just as much art as anything else.
...How exactly do you propose escaping subjectivity given that we can never step outside of our own heads to view the world from any perspective other than our own? Pure objectivity is a myth, IMHO.
...I have explicitly stated that I believe my story, my explanation of the data, because it IMO it makes better sense of all the evidence
|
Yes humans are not gods and have no true objective basis to stand on. However just because we cannot escape subjectivity that's not a reason to throw out the tools we have discovered to work (shared observation, experimentation, logic, reason, etc.) to embrace fanciful notions that seem to "make better sense of the evidence".
It's not difficult to explain evidence; it's difficult to correctly explain evidence. For example I can suppose that an army of invisible, undetectable ghosts pull everything down to earth and that's why things don't fly off the earth--that fully explains the evidence but is it correct? I could invent a super-being to explain all the aspects in the world that science can't yet explain, yet is that the correct explanation? If you just want an explanation there are plenty out there to choose from. None have any support from the above tools I mention but with faith you can get around that.
The theist believes in god on faith (or as you say because it's a story that explains all the evidence). Many theists say there is nothing that can shake their faith (and you can see that at work when science uncovers an explanation like evolution that goes against the theistic "story").
The atheist doesn't believe in god not because we don't want to be the most important creature in the universe but because we're not convinced it's true. There is no shared observation of god or his effects, no experiments that show he exists to everyone, no logical proofs or compelling reasoning to suggest any gods exist. There are also a lot of reasons/evidence that specific religions/god-views such as Christianity are not true (but that's another subject). Atheists know there might be god(s) but we withhold a final decision on that pending better reasons to believe.
Atheists don't have a story that explains all the evidence. We live in doubt and uncertainty because we're not willing to accept explanations that appear no better or different than wishful thinking. Almost nothing we believe is held sacrosanct. We keep an open mind knowing anything might change as logic, reason, observation, etc. leads us to new conclusions. This is because we know we don't have an objective basis for The Truth so must use the best tools we've found to help us find truth.
You might think we both just believe our own "stories" but I don't see these positions as even remotely similar. One believes a fixed “story”, the other accepts doubt and uncertainty to embrace a continually evolving process of discovery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike C
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 600
Location: Yorkville, IL
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Arguing against absolutes? |
Yep, and I have been for a while. Though not for the reasons you seem to suppose.
| Quote: |
You're not the only theist I've met who argues adjectives against a conveinient and invisible infinity so as to render the meaning of terms themselves void. Then they declare victory. |
And this is not the first time on these boards that I've had to explain that my postmodern epistemology has nothing to do with my religious views per se, and has a lot to do with the fact that after considering all the other philosophical options, I don't see any basis for saying that human beings can ever have anything other than subjective perceptions of the world around us. It's all interpretation, it's all a choice between competing worldviews (i.e. stories). We can have partial evidence and relative certainty, but we should never assume that we have the final word on absolute Truth.
That conclusion was not a crutch to defend my theistic point of view. In fact it flew straight in the face of everything I knew and had been taught about Christianity at the time. Most modern evangelical Christians are very big on "objective, absolute truth" and villify anyone who suggests that this is actually impossible. If I had continued on in the Christian tradition I had grown up in I would have very soon had to give up on my faith all together in order to continue asserting these postmodern views. It was not an easy journey, I lost friends and jobs over it, so please don't patronize me and make it sound like I just invented these philosophical arguments in order to win debates on online message boards.
| Quote: |
Do you agree that logic and discussion are valid ways of comparing the virtues of various ideas? Or is it all smoke and "opinion" and "nobody can be really objective", so why bother? |
I do agree that logic and discussion are useful tools. But I'd also say they have their limits. Can I say that? Does it have to be an either/or? Does it have to be either complete rationalism or complete nihilism?
And do logic and discussion have to be the only tools at our disposal for understanding reality? Why is evidence that can be measured by scientific experiments still the only kind that seems to matter to you guys? Is scientific truth the only kind of truth out there? What about emotional truth, experiential truth, historical truth, aesthetic truth, etc.? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike C
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 600
Location: Yorkville, IL
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | The two positions aren't equivalent, there is a significant difference. The theist is making a positive claim (and a rather extraordinary one) for the existence of a god. The atheist isn't making any such claims but doubts the theist claim (and doubt is the default position until claims are reasonably supported). The atheist doesn't have nor need any evidence/proof as they aren't making a positive claim.
|
Sounds like a convenient excuse not to have to ever defend any of your views.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Things like conscience, beauty, love, joy, wonder, spirituality, etc. are universal human experiences that carry with them a sense that there is something beyond ourselves, that they are more than just movements in our brain, that they have some relation to the fundamental nature of reality. I choose to believe that these experiences are true, that they are in fact indications of something more. And I think that a personal God who is interconnected with his creation is the best explanation of what that "more" is. But of course you are free to believe some other explanation for these experiences, though I don't see why your explanation should be preferable to anyone elses'. What evidence do you have that these experiences are actually deceiving us? |
We all have such common human emotions and experiences and we all tend to interpret those experiences through our beliefs. |
Yes! Exactly my point! I'm glad to see we finally agree on something.
| Quote: | | The theist believes in god on faith (or as you say because it's a story that explains all the evidence). Many theists say there is nothing that can shake their faith (and you can see that at work when science uncovers an explanation like evolution that goes against the theistic "story"). |
There is nothing in evolution that goes against the theistic story. There is nothing in science that goes against the theistic story. There are some fundamentalist versions of Christianity that contradict evolutionary theory, but this is not at all the same as saying that it contradicts theism. Theism as a philosophy is not at all opposed to the findings of science. It's the deistic "God of the gaps" that is threatened by increased scientific knowledge; but deism is not the theistic God nor the Christian God.
| Quote: | | Atheists don't have a story that explains all the evidence. |
Naturalism is a story. Perhaps not all atheists are naturalists but it's hard for me to imagine an atheist that didn't also have a positive belief in naturalism.
| Quote: | | We live in doubt and uncertainty because we're not willing to accept explanations that appear no better or different than wishful thinking. Almost nothing we believe is held sacrosanct. We keep an open mind knowing anything might change as logic, reason, observation, etc. leads us to new conclusions. This is because we know we don't have an objective basis for The Truth so must use the best tools we've found to help us find truth. |
What you're describing sounds more like agnosticism than atheism to me.
I'm down with agnosticism. I'm agnostic about a lot of stuff myself. In a sense I'm agnostic about my own theistic beliefs, since I can't claim to know them with absolute certainty. But as with all knowledge, we eventually have to make a leap of faith based on probability and choose to believe in something so we can get on with our lives and have a basis to make meaningful decisions. That's true of any belief system, religious or otherwise.
| Quote: | | You might think we both just believe our own "stories" but I don't see these positions as even remotely similar. One believes a fixed “story”, the other accepts doubt and uncertainty to embrace a continually evolving process of discovery. |
So you don't see that "a continually evolving process of discovery" can itself be a defining story? To say that this is in itself valuable, that the search for truth through a process of doubting and searching should be a goal in life, sounds an awful lot like an overarching story to me.
Last edited by Mike C on Tue Jun 06, 2006 7:14 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike C
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 600
Location: Yorkville, IL
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jayson,
Good questions. Unfortunately I don't know that I really have the time to give you a thoroughgoing apologetic for every aspect of the Christian faith right now (which is essentially what it seems you're asking for given the number and scope of your questions) nor does it seem like this is the appropriate thread for that discussion.
But they are great questions. If it doesn't seem like too much of a brush off, I would highly recommend a couple of books to you that do discuss a lot of the issues you raise. The first is Brian McLaren's Finding Faith. The second is Greg Boyd's Letter's from a Skeptic.
I really honestly don't have time to address every issue you raised right now. But let me make just a few quick comments.
| Quote: |
But then we got back, yet again, to this question: why would god make the written "proof" of his existance so open to interpretation, and more importantly, why would he make it so open to WRONG interpretation? Why wouldn't it be ironclad, with no gaps, and why wouldn't he make it jive completely with what we know the natural world to be? |
What if God isn't quite so concerned that we believe he exists as he is that we live according to his way of justice and love? What if his main goal is not just to prove to us his existence. What if his goal is instead to help us become the kind of people we were always created to be?
After all, if the theistic story is true (and let's just suppose for a moment that it is), then we'll all know it eventually anyway. Eventually we'll all die and come face to face with the fact of God's existence, so why bother going to great lengths to prove it now? What if the more important question is whether, when that happens, we will be the kind of people - people of love and compassion and open-hearted acceptance of others - who can actually enjoy God's presence if that is indeed what God is like too.
So I don't know if God cares quite so much about whether or not you believe in him as he does about you becoming the person you were always meant to be, that is, becoming truly and wholly yourself.
| Quote: | | Mike, I've seen you impose limits and rules on god that he cannot break. I"m curious, to you believe there is another god above god who created him and his canvas? |
No I don't. The "limitations" on God's activity are not like arbitrary laws imposed on him by someone else, they are simply part of the definition of what it means to be God. It's similar to how me being male means that I am incapable of doing certain things that only females can do. It's not a rule imposed on me from outside. It's just inherent to who and what I am.
| Quote: | | And this is what it comes down to. The world is scarey, and you feel more comfortable having a gaurdian, even if its imaginary, than you do feeling helpless and alone. It's pascal's wager. |
Haven't we been over this before? (Was it this thread or a different one?) You presume far too much if you think that my faith in God has anything to do with wanting the world to be less scary or lonely, or more safe and secure. Frankly, being a Christian is not at all easy. There are many times when I think about how much less complicated and less uncertain my life would be if I was not a Christian. Trust me, being an atheist is sometimes a very attractive prospect to me.
| Quote: | How about bringing down an immortal avatar? Sounds a lot easier to me.
|
An avatar? You mean a God appearing in human form? Hmmm... you mean like what Christians believe about Jesus? 
| Quote: | Ok, in past conversations you've given god limits on his power in order to justify the existance of sin and the necessity of christ's slaughter.
But now you're saying that god can break his own rules, because he made them.
So now I ask the question again: why did god bother making us with the ability to sin in the first place? Why did he make us in such a flawed way that he would have to murder an innocent in order to save us from his own rules?
Why not break them?
|
It seems to me that there is a difference between breaking "rules" that he himself created, and defying the laws of logic to do something completely against his nature. It doesn't defy his nature to part the Red Sea; it would defy his nature to force an unwilling person to love him.
And for the record, God didn't murder Jesus, we humans did.
| Quote: | Sounds very romantic. God was so filled with love that he created someone to love and share with. But then he gave them arbitrary rules about a piece of fruit, which unfortunately damned them to a horrific place in absence of him. And he joyously commanded his children to slaughter, rape, and torture other people that he just didn't like. And he liked to kill large portions of humanity himself from time to time. But then one day he stopped doing that. Instead, he killed his son. Which still doesn't stop the majority of us from being "removed" from his presence, which is just a nice way to say "tortured for eternity." Then he stopped any large scale miracle making altogether.
|
That's not a fair interpretation of the Christian story, IMHO, but since I know you've heard that version from other Christians who do think about it that way I won't bother to challenge your interpretation just now. Though I would recommend another book, Simply Christian by NT Wright, if you're interested in an alternative version.
But this thread has been about theism in general, not specifically Christian theism. One doesn't have to accept the Christian view of God to simply start exploring the possibility that a God of overflowing creative love could actually exist.
| Quote: | | Quote: |
Christians, at least those who know their theology, don't actually believe in an afterlife in some realm outside of the natural world. We never have. We believe in resurrection, which is a different thing entirely. Resurrection is the hope that we will be reborn and remade in this world. |
That's not resurrection, that's reincarnation. |
Then what is resurrection according to you? According to historic Christian beliefs, resurrection actually is kind of like reincarnation except that it only happens once and you're still the same person as before, not some tiger or celebrity or something.
| Quote: |
And are you trying to say that most christians don't know their theology? Because very, very few, mainly ones willing to change their religion in order to fit the natural world, believe in the same things you do Mike. |
Yes I am saying that many Christians don't know their theology. Historic Christian theology, all the way back to the very beginning, has always believed in the bodily resurrection. The Apostles Creed, which is one of the earliest Christian creeds ever written, specifically says "I believe in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting". Resurrection is traditional, orthodox Christian doctrine. Most Christians these days just don't realize is because churches these days are doing an appalling job of actually teaching people about their own faith.
| Quote: |
Mike, you're coming to grips with a lot of the not easy issues of your faith, and I respect that. But I also get the feeling that you're twisting, changing, and tossing out certain concepts because you still *have* to believe in christianity and the idea of being an agnostic or atheist is terrifying to you. Your ideas in some ways are radical compared to standard doctrine, but no less incongruent and inconsistent. |
Again, don't assume you know anything about my motivations. Like I said, the idea of being an agnostic or atheist is at times very, very appealing to me. There is nothing terrifying about it. Being an atheist is not scary to me, it just doesn't make any sense to me. There are just too many other reasons for me to believe in God. Perhaps I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
And I have been in a process of refining what I believe about my faith, but I certainly wouldn't characterize that process as "twisting, changing, and tossing out". To me it feels much more like a rediscovery of what was always there and I never knew about before. People like McLaren and Wright have opened my eyes to things about Jesus, about the Bible and about the Christian faith that were always there but have just gotten clouded by the past few centuries of conservative Christian rabbit trails.
| Quote: | Ok, let's toss out idea of hell altogether for the sake of argument ok? Let's pretend that everyone goes to heaven, but god still gave us free will. Here's the flaw:
1.) god wants us to love him via free will. So he gives us sinful ways.
2.) god eventually either remakes the earth into a perfect place, where we then all have knowledge and proof of his existance, or we all go to heaven, where we all have knowledge and proof of his existance.
According to your laws of free will, god is NOW THROWING FREE WILL OUT THE WINDOW.
Why does that make a lick of sense? God wants to give us free will so we can love him freely, so he gives us sin, death, and destruction. But then eventually he'll take away sin, death, and destruction, and replace it with peace and knowledge.
In the grand scheme of eternity, what does a measley couple of thousand of years mean to a god when it comes to free will? |
You're exactly right. Which is why your initial assumption of no hell, "for the sake of argument", was far too hasty. If free will exists then so must hell.
I'm sorry I don't have time to answer the rest of your questions. The best I can do is refer you to others who have already taken the time to give much better answers than I am capable of. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ir (Helen)
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 609
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | David S wrote:
Atheists don't have a story that explains all the evidence. We live in doubt and uncertainty because we're not willing to accept explanations that appear no better or different than wishful thinking. Almost nothing we believe is held sacrosanct. We keep an open mind knowing anything might change as logic, reason, observation, etc. leads us to new conclusions. This is because we know we don't have an objective basis for The Truth so must use the best tools we've found to help us find truth.
You might think we both just believe our own "stories" but I don't see these positions as even remotely similar. One believes a fixed “story”, the other accepts doubt and uncertainty to embrace a continually evolving process of discovery. |
FYI I posted this quote on CatE for discussion there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Siamang
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 1144
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | What you're describing sounds more like agnosticism than atheism to me. |
Sounds like someone needs to read the atheism faq!
(I wrote a whole thing here, but this link says it all, so I'll quote that instead.)
| Quote: | Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist — there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more “reasonable” position while atheism is more “dogmatic,” ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. Is this a valid position to take?
Unfortunately, no — agnostics may sincerely believe it and theists may sincerely reinforce it, but it relies upon more than one misunderstanding about both atheism and agnosticism. These misunderstandings are only exacerbated by continual social pressure and prejudice against atheism and atheists. People who are unafraid of stating that they indeed do not believe in any gods are still despised in many places, whereas “agnostic” is perceived as more respectable.
Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure.
This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure — in other words, they may be an agnostic as well.
Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.
Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.
It is also worth noting that there is a vicious double standard involved when theists claim that agnosticism is “better” than atheism because it is less dogmatic. If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists. On the other hand, if theism can be open-minded then so can atheism.
In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn’t faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist.
|
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm
I am an atheist, to be literal, because I worship zero gods. I worship zero gods because I am agnostic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Siamang
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 1144
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Quote: | The two positions aren't equivalent, there is a significant difference. The theist is making a positive claim (and a rather extraordinary one) for the existence of a god. The atheist isn't making any such claims but doubts the theist claim (and doubt is the default position until claims are reasonably supported). The atheist doesn't have nor need any evidence/proof as they aren't making a positive claim.
|
Sounds like a convenient excuse not to have to ever defend any of your views. |
I don't think anyone is doing that. We're explaining our method of weeding out fact from fantasy.
We ask people with ideas that sound like fantasy that they believe as fact to support their claims.
Got a better way? One that doesn't involve special pleading for your invisible sky spirit of choice? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Siamang
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 1144
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Quote: | How about bringing down an immortal avatar? Sounds a lot easier to me.
|
An avatar? You mean a God appearing in human form? Hmmm... you mean like what Christians believe about Jesus? |
Of course, Ill remind you that according to the story, this dude either died or left the planet long ago.
Proof of a claim of immortality would require that he was alive today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Siamang
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 1144
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MikeC wrote: | Quote: | | Why is evidence that can be measured by scientific experiments still the only kind that seems to matter to you guys? Is scientific truth the only kind of truth out there? What about emotional truth, experiential truth, historical truth, aesthetic truth, etc.? |
It's a valid question.
If you use the word "truth" I'm going to assume you stipulate that there is something called "falsehood."
Assuming you believe that it is possible to believe a false thing to be true, then I have a question for you.
Can you please give me a reliable process by which we can consistantly tell whether a proposition is emotionally true or emotionally false?
I'm looking for a toolset here. Because I know people who cried their eyes out watching "Forrest Gump" and I know people who thought it was the dumbest movie ever made. In fact, I found I could never predict what someone's reaction to that movie would be.
Now, if you have a toolset by which we can determine these things, I would like to hear it.
Similarly, if you can give me any method for determining if a concept is asthetically true or experientially true, I'm all ears. Do you have a filter by which you can judge that Pollock's paintings are asthetically true, but subway graffitti isn't?
Can you give me one concept that would be asthetically false?
I'm not sure what you mean by historical truth, because you seem to think it is seperate from scientific truth. Perhaps you can tell me where they differ.
What I'm getting at is not to say that there is no such thing as an asthetic or emotional falsehood.
What I'm saying is that science makes no claim to work in an asthetic sense. Science cannot tell you that Picasso is better than a painting on the wall of a Motel 6.
What I'm saying is as an individual I'm quite capable of making that distinction on my own. You and I may not agree on it, but that's fine. At least we can both agree that paintings exist!
But when we talk about matters of leaps of faith beyond the evidence, I cannot reliably tell a true supernatural belief from a false one.
At least empirical evidence provides me with a workable toolset. You may not like it, because it precludes some of your most cherished beliefs. I cannot prove the core of them to be false.
But about fifteen years ago I found myself in a life weighed down by superstition, and I couldn't reliably find a test that seperated the gold from the dross.
I became convinced that the possibility existed that there wasn't gold in there to begin with. I had no reasonable reason to believe there was any. I had every reason to believe that I was very successful at fooling myself.
So I opted for a sort of philosophical austerity. And that cleared my eyes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JaysonB
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 296
Location: Detroit, MI
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This broken quote stuff is getting old pretty fast. From mike:
| Quote: |
But they are great questions. If it doesn't seem like too much of a brush off, I would highly recommend a couple of books to you that do discuss a lot of the issues you raise....... |
I'm sorry, I don't take book suggestions that way. You're going to have to give me a compelling reason to read the book in the first place, ie provide a solid argument from the book that would warrant my attention. I simply don't have the time to read books that people wish to use as their own personal rebuttal. My father does this. I read lee strobel once to appease him. Then my brain exploded.
| Quote: | | What if God isn't quite so concerned that we believe he exists as he is that we live according to his way of justice and love? What if his main goal is not just to prove to us his existence. What if his goal is instead to help us become the kind of people we were always created to be? |
Then if he isn't concerned about us believing in him and loving him, then why does he toss us in hell if we DON'T? Sounds like someone who's pretty obsessed with having a fan club to me.
| Quote: | | After all, if the theistic story is true (and let's just suppose for a moment that it is), then we'll all know it eventually anyway. Eventually we'll all die and come face to face with the fact of God's existence, so why bother going to great lengths to prove it now? |
This one is easy: the point of going to even LITTLE lengths to prove it now is because so much of what happens when we do meet him after we die is based on how we think of him now.
I've seen no atheist ask for any more proof than what is in the bible, except right in front of their face, not in a 2k year old book with anonymous authors.
| Quote: | | What if the more important question is whether, when that happens, we will be the kind of people - people of love and compassion and open-hearted acceptance of others - who can actually enjoy God's presence if that is indeed what God is like too. |
I understand that your brand of christianity is tailored to suit the obvious problems with the multi-faiths of the world mike (by allowing nice and compassionate people into heaven), but I'm sure you know you certainly are not the mainstream christian view.
But what you're saying here doesn't make sense: God thinks its more important that we follow him and love one another and are compassionate BUT he doesn't want to toss us any proof of his existance because it's not important.
That's what you're saying: proof of god isn't important.
| Quote: | | So I don't know if God cares quite so much about whether or not you believe in him as he does about you becoming the person you were always meant to be, that is, becoming truly and wholly yourself. |
I wasn't "meant" to be anything. *I* chose to be the kind of person that I am, but regardless, mission accomplished!
I like your kind of christianity Mike. I am a compassionate, kind, nice human being. But I get to live like an atheist AND enjoy heaven, I get my cake and get to eat it too!
So if god doesn't care about religious stuff, and he doesn't care about proving his existance, but ALL he cares about is altruism........why do we need to be christians or even worship god at all?
I have my ticket to heaven just like you or the shintoist or the hindu. But I don't have to waiste my time believing in anything.
See how efficient that is? According to what you're saying, religion is useless anyways. You've watered down god and jesus to such a point to hold onto your beliefs that you've nuetered them.
| Quote: | | No I don't. The "limitations" on God's activity are not like arbitrary laws imposed on him by someone else, they are simply part of the definition of what it means to be God. It's similar to how me being male means that I am incapable of doing certain things that only females can do. |
But the natural world has put those limits on you mike, or "god" according to you.
This is circular mike, and this is one of the poorest arguments you've made. You're saying that you're not putting limits on god, but there are certain things god can't do by definition of being god.
That's retarded.
How could god create the entire universe and all of existance if he is limited to what he can do...........ESPECIALLY when it comes to arbitrary stuff. Either god wrote all the rules, someone else did, or nobody did.
| Quote: | | It's not a rule imposed on me from outside. It's just inherent to who and what I am. |
It IS a rule imposed on you from the outside. Natural selection caused you to be a male based on numerous different variables.
NATURE imposed those rules on you.
Are you saying nature trumps god? If there are things that I cannot defy, those are limits buddy. I don't stand there and say "I can't throw this apple, because I impose upon myself a law making me incapable of throwing the apple."
Again, it just seems like you're trying to impose limits on god so that way he "works" for you.
| Quote: | | Quote: | How about bringing down an immortal avatar? Sounds a lot easier to me.
|
An avatar? You mean a God appearing in human form? Hmmm... you mean like what Christians believe about Jesus? |
Yeah, didn't see *that* one coming from a mile away before I wrote this.
Except Jesus is a pretty poor immortal avatar, what his him dying, and not having much proof of his life to begin with.
| Quote: | | It seems to me that there is a difference between breaking "rules" that he himself created, and defying the laws of logic to do something completely against his nature. |
So wait a minute. God creates the universe, but he is bound by logic. So why is god so goddamned illogical?
| Quote: | | It doesn't defy his nature to part the Red Sea; it would defy his nature to force an unwilling person to love him. |
This is such a romantic ideal. God can force waters to part, but he cannot force someone to love him, such is the power and magnificence of love!
(doves fly in the background).
| Quote: |
And for the record, God didn't murder Jesus, we humans did. |
then it wasn't a sacrifice, and god didn't "give" us his only son so that way we would be saved. And god has murdered plenty of other people to not excuse him for us killing jesus and not him.
| Quote: | | But this thread has been about theism in general, not specifically Christian theism. One doesn't have to accept the Christian view of God to simply start exploring the possibility that a God of overflowing creative love could actually exist. |
No. Christians proclaim that god is love. Nobody else does.
There IS a difference between the christian god and *a* god. I won't make a proclamation about the existance of *a* god, I merely take the stance that I will not state there is or isn't until I have proof.
However, I have no qualms about stating that the christian god doesn't exist, because there isn't a lick of evidence that he does, and given the confusing mess that the bible is, it doesn't make me feel bad to make such a statement.
| Quote: | | There are just too many other reasons for me to believe in God. |
Like what?
| Quote: | | You're exactly right. Which is why your initial assumption of no hell, "for the sake of argument", was far too hasty. If free will exists then so must hell. |
Umm, no it doesn't. Hell doesn't have to exist to have free will, and I don't even know why you would make such a statement.
I threw out hell in the argument for YOUR benefit, not mine. If you put hell in, it makes the argument for free will as an excuse even worse. I was saying that even if hell didn't exist, which would make free will easier to swallow, it STILL doesn't make sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Karen
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 847
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Mike C"] | Quote: | | If I had continued on in the Christian tradition I had grown up in I would have very soon had to give up on my faith all together in order to continue asserting these postmodern views. It was not an easy journey, I lost friends and jobs over it, so please don't patronize me and make it sound like I just invented these philosophical arguments in order to win debates on online message boards. |
I'm sorry to hear that you lost friends and jobs over your personal views, Mike C. That sucks. It's really sad to know that someone's honest thinking can be that costly, but I know how true it is.
Somewhere in this thread (or perhaps another), and I'm sorry I can't find the exact quote, you mentioned it likely that atheism must appeal mostly to scientists and engineers ("right-brain" types?), while artists and creative people are more likely to see the hand of god in the universe. (And I'm sorry if I'm misremembering, or mischaracterizing your statement.)
I wanted to respond, though, because I'm a creative person (English major), working in a creative field, and this was something that also bothered me about atheism (or agnosticism, actually, which is what I was contemplating at the time).
The general stereotype is probably true to some extent, because right-brain people perhaps most value empirical evidence and the scientific method. That's at least one reason why there are fewer women than men in skeptics circles, for instance (fewer females in science and engineering).
But as I did some research I found surprisingly many great creative role models who are/were atheists, agnostics and freethinkers. I wish I could find a list of them - I know there's one somewhere. People like Walt Whitman, Mark Twain, Ernest Hemingway, and many of the 20th century modern artists, actors, writers and musicians were all non-believers. (Before the 20th century, even if you were a skeptic or non-believer, you kept it to yourself on penalty of death or never working again, so it's hard to know about the religious beliefs of earlier artists.)
Anyway, there are lots of wonderful artists who hold no belief in god. Bertrand Russell's eulogy of Walt Whitman, which is reproduced in "Freethinkers" by Susan Jacoby, is sheer poetry - it moved me to tears. I'll try to find it online at some point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Siamang
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 1144
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FWIW, I'm an artist by profession.
I have known artists both professional and recreational with a wide variation of beliefs from various worldviews.
I'd also like to add Thomas Edison to that list. His inventions stem from the world of science, but he was certainly one of the most creative thinkers this world has ever seen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike C
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 600
Location: Yorkville, IL
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Karen:
| Quote: |
Somewhere in this thread (or perhaps another), and I'm sorry I can't find the exact quote, you mentioned it likely that atheism must appeal mostly to scientists and engineers ("right-brain" types?), while artists and creative people are more likely to see the hand of god in the universe. (And I'm sorry if I'm misremembering, or mischaracterizing your statement.) |
Actually I think it was Eliza who suggested it. I was merely agreeing that her generalization held true to my own experiences as well. Though not universally true of course. I'm sure there are plenty of creative, artistic types who are also atheists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike C
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 600
Location: Yorkville, IL
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jayson,
I'm not sure if it's even worth trying to respond to your last post. You don't seem to even want to make an effort to understand what I'm saying and instead just resort to namecalling. (Who uses words like "retarded" anymore anyway?  )
And you continually insist that I answer for all the things you don't like about conservative evangelical Christianity, even though you've already figured out that I don't hold to those beliefs anymore myself. So I'm not orthodox (or at least I'm not preaching the same version of Christianity that your father seems to be). So what! Why do you care if I've "neutered" the gospel? You're an atheist, so why is it so important to you for Christianity to be all about people going to heaven and hell? And if I say that it's not all about that, why do you care? Why would it make any difference to you what version of Christianity I hold to? Why not interact with what I'm actually saying instead of griping that I'm not saying the same things as other Christians. Deal with my philosophy on its own merits and stop trying to compare it to what other Christians believe.
Frankly it seems like you're not really interested in real dialogue or understanding. It seems like you're like you're just looking for someone to take out your anger against Christianity on. (But maybe I'm wrong about that. It just comes across that way to me.) Anyhow I'm not up for being your whipping boy. Find someone else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JaysonB
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 296
Location: Detroit, MI
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Jayson,
I'm not sure if it's even worth trying to respond to your last post. You don't seem to even want to make an effort to understand what I'm saying and instead just resort to namecalling. (Who uses words like "retarded" anymore anyway? ) |
I'm sorry. I didn't call you retarded, I called the concept retarded. Maybe that wasn't cool still, and I apologize.
| Quote: | | And you continually insist that I answer for all the things you don't like about conservative evangelical Christianity, even though you've already figured out that I don't hold to those beliefs anymore myself. |
I thought I've been debating your beliefs directly, not evangelical beliefs.
| Quote: | | So what! Why do you care if I've "neutered" the gospel? |
For the same reason that you care to tell me that you've nuetered the gospel? Because we're debating and you're putting it out there?
| Quote: | | You're an atheist, so why is it so important to you for Christianity to be all about people going to heaven and hell? And if I say that it's not all about that, why do you care? |
Because heaven and hell are illogical. And despite you saying its not about that, you STILL believe in a heaven and hell.
You water down heaven and hell so it sounds nice to you and makes you feel better, but in the end, your concept is no different or worse than other christians. And I'm trying to make you understand that despite you trying your very hardest to pretty up the concept of hell with ideas that its simply being removed from god's love, it's still illogical, and it still isn't rational.
| Quote: | | Why not interact with what I'm actually saying instead of griping that I'm not saying the same things as other Christians. |
Could you tell me where I've said that at all?
I'm curious how you reconcile your beliefs Mike, that's my point. Because, at least to me, your beliefs not only don't make sense compared to what christianity has been damn near since its inception, but they don't make any more sense just because you've thrown out things you don't like and held on to things you do.
| Quote: | | Frankly it seems like you're not really interested in real dialogue or understanding. |
Frankly, it seems like you're not really interested in real dialogue or understanding, because my questions are VERY legitimate and are clearly inquisitive. You might not like the questions that I'm asking, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm asking valid questions in direct response to things you saying. I'm taking nothing you say out of context. I"m not calling you names, I'm not blowing off your responses with illogical retorts, I am ASKING QUESTIONS. I"m listening. Understand that.
| Quote: | | It seems like you're like you're just looking for someone to take out your anger against Christianity on. |
Because that's what atheists do: they don't actually belief or understand what they're saying, they just simply hate christianity because of something bad that happened to them and they're taking their revenge out on the truth.
Or maybe I'm just asking questions about how you rationalize everything, and its uncovering some circular arguments of yours. I respect you Mike, and I respect the fact that you are trying VERY hard to reconcile your beliefs with logic and reason. You're trying, and you're still trying, but it feels like you just cannot accept the rationale answer that atheists are providing: that it's not reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
