Why I'm not an Atheist

[Falconv1.0]

It almost appears as if the above person made an account simply to reply to that post. XDDD

Yes, and he made 3 posts before that long ago just to trip us up.

So, what you gotta ask yourself is "Am I trolling, or am I ********?"

._.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Yes, and he made 3 posts before that long ago just to trip us up.

So, what you gotta ask yourself is "Am I trolling, or am I ********?"

._.

Note the "almost". What a terrible response to what I said. O_o May have been the most socially adept thing I've ever seen here.

 

[john!]

* inept

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I was being sardonic john!

 

[Dre89]

Muro- You can prove that a unicorn isn't necessary, it's very easy. Saying you can't is like a creationist saying you can't prove religious or scientific beliefs and need to accept them on faith. The fact you're asking who created God suggests you don't understand the sophisticated notion of God. The whole point behind the idea that God is necessary is that the first cause needs to have different ontological traits than what things in the universe have, because they themselves are caused. So a sophisticated theists God will have uncausable traits.

Kataklysm- Why do I need to present my beliefs to show the flaw in another argument? So if another atheist makes a really bad argument against God, you're saying you can't criticise it until you lay out your own version of atheism first?

Crawlshots- The problem is it's very long and complex. I'm currently writing a 30 000 word thesis on it. This is why I don't present beliefs, I just point out flaws in the arguments of others.

My reasoning is so specific and precise that I criticise other theists and deist as much as I criticise atheists.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Note the "almost". What a terrible response to what I said. O_o May have been the most socially adept thing I've ever seen here.

Oh man, the almost completely changes the sentence when either way the point was ********.

Sure.

 

[GwJ]

Muro- You can prove that a unicorn isn't necessary, it's very easy. Saying you can't is like a creationist saying you can't prove religious or scientific beliefs and need to accept them on faith. The fact you're asking who created God suggests you don't understand the sophisticated notion of God. The whole point behind the idea that God is necessary is that the first cause needs to have different ontological traits than what things in the universe have, because they themselves are caused. So a sophisticated theists God will have uncausable traits.

That still doesn't prove a god is necessary.

 

[kataklysm336]

Muro- You can prove that a unicorn isn't necessary, it's very easy. Saying you can't is like a creationist saying you can't prove religious or scientific beliefs and need to accept them on faith. The fact you're asking who created God suggests you don't understand the sophisticated notion of God. The whole point behind the idea that God is necessary is that the first cause needs to have different ontological traits than what things in the universe have, because they themselves are caused. So a sophisticated theists God will have uncausable traits.

You are making metaphysical assumptions, namely that no physical thing can cause itself. You are assuming they can't and that's what is making God necessary.

Before we had a proper understanding of the universe, Atlas was necessary for the Earth to be held up. No other way it could be done that we knew of.

Kataklysm- Why do I need to present my beliefs to show the flaw in another argument? So if another atheist makes a really bad argument against God, you're saying you can't criticise it until you lay out your own version of atheism first?

Once again you are completely misinterpreting what I am saying. I'm just asking you to present your beliefs. You don't need to in order to show mu argument is wrong, I just look at it as "polite" (for lack of a better word). Whenever you state someone did something wrong you explain it (which you haven't done) then propose your own theory.

Crawlshots- The problem is it's very long and complex. I'm currently writing a 30 000 word thesis on it. This is why I don't present beliefs, I just point out flaws in the arguments of others.

My reasoning is so specific and precise that I criticise other theists and deist as much as I criticise atheists.

This is essentially the primary issue. We all know that it is very long, and very complex. The things I have said here don't 100% match my actual beliefs, but I dumb them down in order to make them a little more relatable. In the philosophy class we all need to be that specific, but this isn't that venue, this is more of a laid back discussion than it is a vigorous debate. In other words, we don't need to be on our top game here, its okay to relax a little.


Now that I have addressed that I want to go into some things. You have the burden of proof to show me God does exist. As everyone has already said, the only way to show something doesn't exist is to show it can't. However, just because it can exist does not mean it does. As for a unicorn, it can exist but there is no evidence to suggest that it does, so there is no reason to believe it does. (note , saying something doesn't exist isn't saying it can't)

 

[Muro]

Muro- You can prove that a unicorn isn't necessary, it's very easy. Saying you can't is like a creationist saying you can't prove religious or scientific beliefs and need to accept them on faith.

how can you prove it, have you met many magical unicorns? there is a chance the magical unicorn created everything, or that he created god.

The fact you're asking who created God suggests you don't understand the sophisticated notion of God.

I'm guessing no one does, since no one has ever interacted with him. All we can do is think how he might be, but we can never be certain. Furthermore there is nothing to sugest that he might exist in the first place. Could you provide the notion you're talking about?

The whole point behind the idea that God is necessary is that the first cause needs to have different ontological traits than what things in the universe have, because they themselves are caused. So a sophisticated theists God will have uncausable traits.

but why can't the "nothing" from which the universe expanded have those same uncausable traits?

 

[crawlshots]

If someone reads all this then they get 100 bonus points.

Jumpman, thanks for your scrutiny of my post, it helps me think. Seriously.

Yes, I was preaching. I held off on it for many pages, but I finally decided to just do it, because 1) I didn't know how else to say what I really wanted to say, and 2) People were commenting on how the thread was going nowhere, so I wanted to throw something different into the mix. Sorry if it was painfully preachy but I said what I wanted to say.

How can you be sure god is talking to you? .... How has he done miracles?

I'll be honest; regarding specific situations, I'm frequently and plainly not sure he's talking to me, which is one way that faith gets involved in everyday life. But sometimes I'm sure, and those times are to die for. God speaks in all kinds of ways. I'll share some personal stories that I normally don't tell people, but I care about this topic greatly. And you asked. And you guys are worth it. One day last week, I was frustrated and mesmerized by a random verse in the Bible, Gal. 6:9 I wanted to believe it and do it, but it seemed so unachievable and fairy-tale-esque. That night, I was talking with a friend who I hadn't seen in a week or more, and he said, "I feel like God wants to encourage you with the verse, 'Let us not become weary...' and he quoted the whole verse. It was encouraging to say the least. The verse made sense to me, in ways that would take too much typing. God used the experience to encourage me to do good, instead of to pressure me to do good, plus I was reminded of how real and involved he is. This example is fresh in my mind since it happened like four days ago, but this kind of thing is literally common with me and people I know who are serious about their faith. You may wonder why God didn't just speak to me himself. Sometimes he does speak directly to people, and sometimes he uses other people. He does the latter because he cares a lot about community and unity (see Jesus' prayer that is John 17, specifically verse 21). My friend and I connected through that.

Having said that, God audibly spoke to me a few years ago. The super short version is that I thought that I was going to marry this girl, and he told me to "let her go". It freaked me out, and I resisted it vehemently, but a year later lots of junk happened between us and the only way I was able to make sense of it was remembering that God had told me to let her go. (Turned out he'd said the same exact thing to her years before.) Now she's getting married to someone else this May, and God has totally dealt with all the junk and I'm still close friends with her and I really like her fiance. I wish you could see it from my perspective. It's a miracle. God proved himself strong and trustworthy through all the crap.

Now, for miracles: two years ago, my roommate was healed in one moment from suicidal depression and he's the freest guy I know now. My other roommate was healed of Crohn's disease two years ago, which is treatable but currently incurable. About ten years ago, I had a massive cyst on the back of my neck that, after a few years of immutability, went down within a few days after some people prayed for it to go away. I have too many examples of healing that I've seen, and exact amounts of money coming in randomly. Here's the thing though--I believe God just does this stuff mostly because he's kind and he likes restoration. If he never did anything miraculous for me from now until the day I die, I would still have every reason to follow him, because of the cross. That's what I really care about, and I want to know it better.

Yes, you can dismiss this stuff as luck or something. But I'm very aware of that, and I presented my explanation, unsatisfactory as it may be, in the last post.

It sounds like you have a case of the God Syndrome. Let me show you a short video of what I mean by that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU

This was actually really interesting and enlightening, and I think that principle can apply to people who are extremely elementary in their faith (not trying to hate on them... you gotta start somewhere), and Christians whose ideas of God originate inwardly and who never open up the Bible. The reason Theresa would be offended and feel rejection is because she doesn't actually believe that the Christian God exists or is who God says he is, and therefore she is more concerned with Anthony's opinion than she is with God's. Actually I think an example of this is currently me, to a degree. Clearly, most people in the thread are opposing what I say, and are "rejecting" what I believe to be ultimate truth; but I haven't left the evaluation of my identity or worth primarily in your hands but in God's, because I've spent a decent amount of time talking to him and reading about what he's like. So, every time I finish my time on SWF and go about other things in my day, I'm pretty much in the same mood I was in before reading y’all’s posts. Oh, and addressing a different point in the video, I can't tell you how much God's and my opinions differ.

You fail to realize that many atheists are former theists. I was a christian up until about 3 years ago and went through a lot of the things you talk about. However, I dismissed that when I realized what I was feeling was nothing unusual or paranormal.

Sorry man. I hope it was your own honest thinking that led you in that direction, instead of people in the church being hurtful. Christians are known to be like that, which is saddening.

Some of my best friends I've ever had were Christians and are now atheists. Likewise, many of my Christian friends used to be atheists (including the roommate mentioned above who used to be depressed). Both groups have many converts.

HOLD IT! I know exactly what you're talking about. You're talking about the whole "free will" argument. If god makes himself known to humankind, then humankind won't have the free will to choose anymore, correct? Too bad there's a DIRECT example of a PERFECT being contradicting that: Satan. Satan was a perfect being who knew god directly and yet he still defied and rejected god, so your argument is invalid.

This is a massive topic, and I wish I could make a multi-page post and realistically expect people to read it! I believe created beings ALWAYS have free will regarding obedience or rebellion against God. If God made angels/people/whoever to not be able to rebel against him at any time, then they would essentially be robots. They wouldn't be choosing to love him or enjoy him. Love is awesome when we do it, because we can choose not to. Yes, that means he created the universe knowing there was room for rebellion, and yes, he knew his Son would be the atoning sacrifice for creation if and when rebellion occurred. Likewise, I believe that in eternity, the people who will be with God forever will always have the option to turn away from him. BUT they won't, because they will remember their constant rebellion during the 70-ish years they spent here, and upon comparing it to the incredible, glorious, thrilling, pain-free, fascinating existence they now know, they will remain facing God with inexpressible gratitude, relief, and awe. What I should have clarified in my last post was that for now, I believe his hiddenness helps maximize the sincerity of our opinion toward him--whether it's positive or negative.

I'm sorry, but I take this argument as one of the most idiotic ones in Christianity. The whole idea that Adam and Eve ruined it for themselves is preposterous. If your god is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good (which you claim he is), then he has ABSOLUTE that Adam and Eve would rebel, correct? Why punish them for something they could not control?

This is hard stuff. As for all-knowing: Yes, he knew they would rebel. Yes, he knew that he would have to send people to hell. He's serious about people who choose not to follow him, who don’t thank him, who don’t respond to his care for our current condition. He is slow to anger, but he certainly has wrath (and not just the "Old Testament God". God actually displays more wrath in the New Testament than in the Old. See the book of Revelation). To explain it in a Greek-minded, metaphysical way: When an infinite, infinitely good, and loving God creates people that become evil at heart, the separation between the two parties is literally infinite. The chasm is incomprehensible. When we sin against someone infinitely good, we sin infinitely, and we deserve infinitely harsh punishment, because of the universal and inescapable law of reaping and sowing (cause and effect). This God-ordained law works equally positively and negatively (side note: which I feel connects somehow with the concept of yin and yang, and our "flat" universe). A Hebraic-minded person would explain it something like: Yahweh is righteous and good, and when we ungratefully turn from him despite all he’s done, of course he’s going to whoop us. As for all-powerful: I'll take an analogy from C.S. Lewis. God's will and dominion over the earth is like a mother's over her house. The mother entrusts the maintenance of her daughter's room to her daughter as a sign of respect and humble partnership. It would be easier for the mother to keep up with the room herself, but she wants to honor her daughter with a slice of the dominion. She tells her daughter to go clean her room. The room might not and often does not get cleaned. What then do we make of the mother's will? It was her will for the room to get cleaned, which was defied because the girl chose not to. However, the mother's will was, at a higher level, to entrust her plan with her daughter's choices; so in that sense the mother's will is carried out… she’s fundamentally concerned with the girl much more than the room. So, God remains all-powerful, but he respects the laws and oaths he made with us and continues to pursue the partnership he set up in the beginning. As for all-good: I talked about this earlier, but an all-good, loving God, if he wants to create living things that enjoy him, HAS to create a universe that presents the option of rebellion. Either he makes mindless machines that do his will infallibly (which would be nearly pointless because he could do his own will just fine), or he makes people with free will who can choose him and who can give and receive profound enjoyment.

The real question that I've wrestled with for years (being honest here) is this: Ultimately, it boils down to two choices that make sense to me for God to desirably make: creating everything like he did, or just creating nothing at all and being satisfied existing in perfect unity as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit forever. I believe that millions, likely billions of people will be in hell for eternity. With that in mind, I wish that God had just not made anything. But I've been slowly becoming more convinced that his glory is so great that it really is worth it for some to enjoy him forever. It’s still a wrestle though.

I'm skipping a few of your quotes, though I appreciate them, because I think I answered them somewhere up there. Plus this thing is a monster.

Nothing can disprove religion because it was designed in a way for people to not be able to know if it's real or not. That's kinda how it works.

See my previous post for my opinion. In general, personal experience --> certainty. Theories and compelling evidence discovered by someone else --> "it's highly likely/unlikely that...."

Ok, and I know there's a helluva lot of Muslims out there. Does that mean they hold weight in this too? You cannot say that since a lot of people think something, it must be more likely to be true. That's nice to think and is harmless when the outcome is harmless, but when you get down to it, it proves nothing. The majority of the world didn't believe in your god before the time of the Jews. Does that mean you're wrong in that case?

People like Dawkins say there is "probably" no god, because he's doing something called being INTELLECTUALLY HONEST.

You're right, it proves nothing. It was just a hypothesis I had on the spot. Good point about people before the Jews.

Yes, exactly. Dawkins' intellectual honesty leaves room for the possibility for the existence of God. And my intellectual honesty because of my experience, less intelligent though I may be, doesn't leave room for the possibility of the absence of a deity.

100 bonus points.

 

[GwJ]

Oh boy, these are always the hardest to address...

I'll be honest; regarding specific situations, I'm frequently and plainly not sure he's talking to me, which is one way that faith gets involved in everyday life. But sometimes I'm sure, and those times are to die for. God speaks in all kinds of ways. I'll share some personal stories that I normally don't tell people, but I care about this topic greatly. And you asked. And you guys are worth it. One day last week, I was frustrated and mesmerized by a random verse in the Bible, Gal. 6:9 I wanted to believe it and do it, but it seemed so unachievable and fairy-tale-esque. That night, I was talking with a friend who I hadn't seen in a week or more, and he said, "I feel like God wants to encourage you with the verse, 'Let us not become weary...' and he quoted the whole verse. It was encouraging to say the least. The verse made sense to me, in ways that would take too much typing. God used the experience to encourage me to do good, instead of to pressure me to do good, plus I was reminded of how real and involved he is.

I'm going to be flat with you. As a former Christian, I know what it is you're feeling. It's not something that can be proven or disproven to be supernatural and thus I cannot address it very well. When you believe in god, and forgive me if this offends you, you feel/hear/see things that are not there. I talked to god when I was about 15 years old. My grandfather on my mom's side died and I prayed and god talked back to me. I couldn't tell at the time, but I later (like, years later) realized that it was "myself" talking to me, not a supernatural being. It's hard to explain.

This example is fresh in my mind since it happened like four days ago, but this kind of thing is literally common with me and people I know who are serious about their faith. You may wonder why God didn't just speak to me himself. Sometimes he does speak directly to people, and sometimes he uses other people. He does the latter because he cares a lot about community and unity (see Jesus' prayer that is John 17, specifically verse 21). My friend and I connected through that.

Having said that, God audibly spoke to me a few years ago. The super short version is that I thought that I was going to marry this girl, and he told me to "let her go". It freaked me out, and I resisted it vehemently, but a year later lots of junk happened between us and the only way I was able to make sense of it was remembering that God had told me to let her go. (Turned out he'd said the same exact thing to her years before.) Now she's getting married to someone else this May, and God has totally dealt with all the junk and I'm still close friends with her and I really like her fiance. I wish you could see it from my perspective. It's a miracle. God proved himself strong and trustworthy through all the crap.

I'm sorry, but I'm not able to respond to any of this for the reason above.

Now, for miracles: two years ago, my roommate was healed in one moment from suicidal depression and he's the freest guy I know now.

People become un-suicidal sometimes, nothing miraculous about that.

My other roommate was healed of Crohn's disease two years ago, which is treatable but currently incurable.

Define healed. I just googled'd Crohn's disease and found a woman who's gone 20 years without a relapse.

About ten years ago, I had a massive cyst on the back of my neck that, after a few years of immutability, went down within a few days after some people prayed for it to go away.

Prayer for sick people has been shown through studies to not affect people. People who were prayed for didn't do any better than people who weren't. You got lucky; it happens.

I have too many examples of healing that I've seen, and exact amounts of money coming in randomly. Here's the thing though--I believe God just does this stuff mostly because he's kind and he likes restoration.

Tell that to people living in Africa.

If he never did anything miraculous for me from now until the day I die, I would still have every reason to follow him, because of the cross. That's what I really care about, and I want to know it better.

I completely understand though. It's impossible to argue with personal testimony because the only person who can judge it is the person it happened to. Since nobody knows what was going on with your head at the time, nobody will know if what has happened to you was of supernatural order.

Sorry man. I hope it was your own honest thinking that led you in that direction, instead of people in the church being hurtful. Christians are known to be like that, which is saddening.

Of course it was my own thinking. I still have friends in the church. Hell, I became an Eagle Scout in my church's charted Boy Scouting troop.

Some of my best friends I've ever had were Christians and are now atheists. Likewise, many of my Christian friends used to be atheists (including the roommate mentioned above who used to be depressed). Both groups have many converts.

It happens. People convert to various things. There is a small difference though. When people convert from religion to religion, it's usually because the previous religion didn't fulfill the expectations they had and didn't do for them what they needed. When people completely drop religion, it's usually just a case of not buying it.

They wouldn't be choosing to love him or enjoy him. Love is awesome when we do it, because we can choose not to.

I disagree. I forget the name of the analogy, but it was something like the mafia boss analogy. Basically the concept behind the whole deal is, yes, you can love god and get to heaven. You HAVE the free will to reject him, but if you do, you get punished for it.

Imagine a mafia man holding a gun to your head. He's telling you that you can pay him $10k per month to offer his protection, but if you don't pay, he'll kill you. He CAN protect you and you have free will to say no, but you cannot say no without being punished.

That's not free will in my eyes. It's indirect manipulation.

When we sin against someone infinitely good, we sin infinitely, and we deserve infinitely harsh punishment, because of the universal and inescapable law of reaping and sowing (cause and effect).

No. Doing something bad to someone infinitely good does not mean what you did was infinitely bad and deserve infinitely harsh punishment.

God's will and dominion over the earth is like a mother's over her house. The mother entrusts the maintenance of her daughter's room to her daughter as a sign of respect and humble partnership. It would be easier for the mother to keep up with the room herself, but she wants to honor her daughter with a slice of the dominion. She tells her daughter to go clean her room. The room might not and often does not get cleaned. What then do we make of the mother's will? It was her will for the room to get cleaned, which was defied because the girl chose not to. However, the mother's will was, at a higher level, to entrust her plan with her daughter's choices; so in that sense the mother's will is carried out… she’s fundamentally concerned with the girl much more than the room. So, God remains all-powerful, but he respects the laws and oaths he made with us and continues to pursue the partnership he set up in the beginning. As for all-good: I talked about this earlier, but an all-good, loving God, if he wants to create living things that enjoy him, HAS to create a universe that presents the option of rebellion. Either he makes mindless machines that do his will infallibly (which would be nearly pointless because he could do his own will just fine), or he makes people with free will who can choose him and who can give and receive profound enjoyment.

I see you are struggling with the free will notion involving god. Let me give you a secret: It's impossible to account for free will in an all knowing god that is responsible for every single thing to ever happen.

The real question that I've wrestled with for years (being honest here) is this: Ultimately, it boils down to two choices that make sense to me for God to desirably make: creating everything like he did, or just creating nothing at all and being satisfied existing in perfect unity as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit forever. I believe that millions, likely billions of people will be in hell for eternity. With that in mind, I wish that God had just not made anything. But I've been slowly becoming more convinced that his glory is so great that it really is worth it for some to enjoy him forever. It’s still a wrestle though.

So it's worth punishing billions of people for all of eternity so that billions of other people can experience heaven for all eternity? Gee, what a kind god. What an honor.



You're right, it proves nothing. It was just a hypothesis I had on the spot. Good point about people before the Jews.

And my intellectual honesty because of my experience, less intelligent though I may be, doesn't leave room for the possibility of the absence of a deity.

That is not intellectually honest then. Either you're ignorant or you're being dishonest.



I'm sorry if I'm being rude, but there are certain things in Christianity that I just do not agree with at all.

 

[Chuee]

This example is fresh in my mind since it happened like four days ago, but this kind of thing is literally common with me and people I know who are serious about their faith.

You can find the same thing in most theistic religions. If people want to hear the voice of God, they will.

Having said that, God audibly spoke to me a few years ago. The super short version is that I thought that I was going to marry this girl, and he told me to "let her go". It freaked me out, and I resisted it vehemently, but a year later lots of junk happened between us and the only way I was able to make sense of it was remembering that God had told me to let her go. (Turned out he'd said the same exact thing to her years before.) Now she's getting married to someone else this May, and God has totally dealt with all the junk and I'm still close friends with her and I really like her fiance. I wish you could see it from my perspective. It's a miracle. God proved himself strong and trustworthy through all the crap.

See above
Also that's not a miracle. You believing it was a supernatural event =/= it was a supernatural event.

Now, for miracles: two years ago, my roommate was healed in one moment from suicidal depression and he's the freest guy I know now.

There's no plausible reason to believe that he stopped being suicidal for supernatural reasons.

About ten years ago, I had a massive cyst on the back of my neck that, after a few years of immutability, went down within a few days after some people prayed for it to go away. I have too many examples of healing that I've seen, and exact amounts of money coming in randomly.

People being cured of something isn't a miracle, nor evidence for supernatural healing.
Stuff like that go away naturally.







Sorry man. I hope it was your own honest thinking that led you in that direction, instead of people in the church being hurtful. Christians are known to be like that, which is saddening.

Some of my best friends I've ever had were Christians and are now atheists. Likewise, many of my Christian friends used to be atheists (including the roommate mentioned above who used to be depressed). Both groups have many converts.

There's most likely more atheist converts, because most people are raised Christian, at least around now it's the case.

If God made angels/people/whoever to not be able to rebel against him at any time, then they would essentially be robots. They wouldn't be choosing to love him or enjoy him.

Bad point. God is all-powerful so if he wanted to he could. That and he could at LEAST give us reasonable, solid evidence for his existence.

This is hard stuff. As for all-knowing: Yes, he knew they would rebel. Yes, he knew that he would have to send people to hell. He's serious about people who choose not to follow him, who don’t thank him, who don’t respond to his care for our current condition. He is slow to anger, but he certainly has wrath (and not just the "Old Testament God". God actually displays more wrath in the New Testament than in the Old. See the book of Revelation). To explain it in a Greek-minded, metaphysical way: When an infinite, infinitely good, and loving God creates people that become evil at heart, the separation between the two parties is literally infinite. The chasm is incomprehensible. When we sin against someone infinitely good, we sin infinitely, and we deserve infinitely harsh punishment, because of the universal and inescapable law of reaping and sowing (cause and effect). This God-ordained law works equally positively and negatively (side note: which I feel connects somehow with the concept of yin and yang, and our "flat" universe). A Hebraic-minded person would explain it something like: Yahweh is righteous and good, and when we ungratefully turn from him despite all he’s done, of course he’s going to whoop us. As for all-powerful: I'll take an analogy from C.S. Lewis. God's will and dominion over the earth is like a mother's over her house. The mother entrusts the maintenance of her daughter's room to her daughter as a sign of respect and humble partnership. It would be easier for the mother to keep up with the room herself, but she wants to honor her daughter with a slice of the dominion. She tells her daughter to go clean her room. The room might not and often does not get cleaned. What then do we make of the mother's will? It was her will for the room to get cleaned, which was defied because the girl chose not to. However, the mother's will was, at a higher level, to entrust her plan with her daughter's choices; so in that sense the mother's will is carried out… she’s fundamentally concerned with the girl much more than the room. So, God remains all-powerful, but he respects the laws and oaths he made with us and continues to pursue the partnership he set up in the beginning. As for all-good: I talked about this earlier, but an all-good, loving God, if he wants to create living things that enjoy him, HAS to create a universe that presents the option of rebellion. Either he makes mindless machines that do his will infallibly (which would be nearly pointless because he could do his own will just fine), or he makes people with free will who can choose him and who can give and receive profound enjoyment.

This is what I don't get. Christians use hell like everyone who supposedly go there CHOOSES to go there. Which is complete ****. You don't choose to go to the Muslim hell, because you aren't Muslim. You don't choose, you accept a different reality because that's what you believe. I don't choose to go to hell. If I died and stood at the throne of God, I wouldn't want to go to hell. Yet I'd still receive eternal burning, torture, and damnation for not worshiping him and acknowledging his existence. You say that as an all loving, forgiving God. I say that's a tyrannical, ruthless, cruel, jealous, and self-centered God. To say God is all loving, yet sends innocent, good people, who might have been raised believing it was wrong, or even died before even hearing about it, to be tortured for eternity because of something as tiny and insignificant as that is contradictory.
Also your point about the mother completely fails, because good parents don't lock their kids in basements and beat them. Oh, and you should really stop saying God has. God has no limitations whatsoever in his creation of us. He can create free-will and non-rebellion otherwise he wouldn't be all-powerful. That, and God doesn't even provide sufficient evidence for reasonable people to believe.

Yes, exactly. Dawkins' intellectual honesty leaves room for the possibility for the existence of God. And my intellectual honesty because of my experience, less intelligent though I may be, doesn't leave room for the possibility of the absence of a deity.

That's because you absolutely want to believe in God. To the point where voices in your head are automatically the voice of God, and anyone who is healed is healed because of God. Your viewpoint leaves no room for the non-existance of your God because you don't want to believe that your beliefs could possibly be wrong.

 

[GwJ]

I do want to say that it was extremely tough, emotionally, for me to even respond to what you're saying crawlshots. So please don't be mad at me for what I said.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Praying does not do crap. What is the criteria for prayers to be answered? Does it depend on who is praying? What they are praying about? How many people are praying for the same thing? No, none of it seems to make a difference, it is entirely arbitrary, not to mention already proven false.

As for sinning infinitely against something infinitely good (I wonder what it means to be infinitely good?) then that means sinning against someone is measured by how good the victim, which is DEFINITELY not the case. All "sins" are equal, and also the fact that if it was otherwise, it suggests some people "deserve" to be sinned against more so than others. Worst of all it suggests that if someone was not good at all (or not very good) then sinning against them isn't all that much of a big deal.

As for miracle coincidences, I have on thing to say to all anyone can say about it. It is a VERY common delusion among humans, and it happens with a bunch of things in life. It is like thinking that every time you look at the clock it is 11:11 (or whatever time) or most of the time, and in actuality, that is hardly the case. But do you know WHY people think things like that? Because we make note of the 11:11s we see, and not when we look at it seeing something less valuable to our minds. This type of thing happens all the time, I always see people saying something like, and I sometimes catch myself thinking it too, and then I think on it and see how much of a misconception it is.

What I'm saying is, in reality, "miracles" like that are so barren in existence that we don't realize how meaningless it actually all is.

 

[Jockmaster]

Ok, so I have a couple scenarios that have always pushed me away from Christianity (I was raised in it) because they seem so nonsensical. For the record: don't take my vernacular or simplification as me demeaning Christianity, I always try to respect the religion.

1) Ok here's the situation I see in Christianity
>God creates man
>God creates everything
>Everything includes Satan and sin
>He lets sin in the Garden of Eden in the form of the snake (Satan)
>He then condemns humanity for the original sin he created
>He then sends himself to Earth (Jesus)
>He sacrifices himself to himself to save us from the sin He created

It simply doesn't make sense to me, it seems like this whole plotline is overlooked in the story of Christianity

2) What happens to people who have never heard of God or Christianity? I've looked in to it and it is seemingly never addressed in the Bible

Are they simply judged on their behavior and moral standing? If so I wish I had never heard of God, simply so I could just live a good life and get in to heaven

Are they simply sent to Hell? They never did accept Jesus as their savior and never once felt love for God...why should they get to go to Heaven?

Once again, hope no offense is taken

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I have always heard people respond that people are judged through their behavior in the instance outlined in 2), although, I'm not sure what their basis is for that.

 

[Dre89]

This thread is going to make me explode, even if it no longer halves defence anymore.

None of what I've ever said is proof of God's existence. So people saing 'this doesn't prove God is necessary' have totally missed the point.

I know a unicorn isn't necessary because it consists entirely of contingent traits, and for it to be metaphysically necessary, every single aspect of a unicorn would contribute to causing the universe. So basically, if the hypothetical unicorn didn't have a horn or was an inch shorter, that would mean the universe couldn't exist. That's what being metaphysically necessary is, your traits are necessary to cause existence. A unicorn's traits can't be necessary because contingent traits can't have been the only things capable of causing existence, because continent by definition means 'not in every possible world' or 'could have been other possibilities'.

Unicorns also fill no other role of necessity, such as conditional necessity, so there is no reaosn to believe in them. I don't need to prove a unicorn absoutely does not exist to know it isn't rational believe in them, because it doesn't meet the criteria for rational belief ie. necessity or being experienced in some way. The point is it's not so obvious whether sophisticated notions of God meet the necessary criteria or not, you have to prove whether he does or not.


I never assumed physical beings can't cause themselves. If I were to make an argument which says that, I would justify it, but for the one millionth time, I'm not making an argument for God.


You people seem to think that if I point out you're assuming something unjustifiably, that I must automatically think the opposite positions should be the default assumption. That's a a straw man and really simplistic thinking.

The sophisticated notion of God is the notion of God that more informed theists believe in. For example, no sophisticated theist believes in a God that's a guy in the clouds with a beard. Anyone who thinks that God is logically/metaphysically equal to the philosopher's or theologian's God should not be participating in this thread.

And if you actually still thought the Christians are meant to believe in a God that's a guy in the clouds with a beard (some stupid ones probably do, but they're not meant to), then you also shouldn't be debating in this thread.

 

[GwJ]

Ignoring what Dre posted for the moment, I do want to address prayer.

If the christian god is omnipotent and omniscient, why does he need prayer? If he has knowledge of everything (and since he's timeless, he knows before you even know) and can do anything, why does he even need prayer? It would seem he just likes the attention.

 

[Mota]

I love when a natural disaster occurs in some part of the world and I see everyone posting everywhere on the net
":sadfaced: pray for **so-and-so country**, repost if you have a heart"
2 weeks later
"Oh the victims are getting back on their feet and rebuildng? God heard our prayers!! DUH"

Praying does jack ****. If you really cared you'd donate or volunteer in some way to help.

People like to feel special. GOD HEARS MY PRAYERS!! HE CLEARLY FAVORS ME!

meanwhile

Girl died after father turned to prayer instead of doctors
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/02/us-daughter-pray-death

 

[kataklysm336]

I never assumed physical beings can't cause themselves. If I were to make an argument which says that, I would justify it, but for the one millionth time, I'm not making an argument for God.

You never assumed it but we don't know that. You did say that physical things can't cause themselves (you said they are contingent), but you haven't justified it. That has been one of my points that you continually ignore each and every time I post.

You people seem to think that if I point out you're assuming something unjustifiably, that I must automatically think the opposite positions should be the default assumption. That's a a straw man and really simplistic thinking.

And you are strawmanning here. That isn't what is being said, at least not from me. I don't think you are taking the opposite position because you pointed out flaws, I think you are taking the opposite position because you have stated it multiple times essentially that you believe God is necessary, that all physical things are contingent, that you support the PSR, etc that you have not provided evidence for because "it's too long" or "I'm not arguing that so I don't need to justify anything."

The sophisticated notion of God is the notion of God that more informed theists believe in. For example, no sophisticated theist believes in a God that's a guy in the clouds with a beard. Anyone who thinks that God is logically/metaphysically equal to the philosopher's or theologian's God should not be participating in this thread.

I don't think living in the clouds, and having a beard is a necessary condition for God. Don't play stupid or act ignorant Dre. People aren't as stupid as you think.

Don't worry though, I am finished at this point. You haven't addressed any of my points back to you because you are just above that and I am stupid, even though you refuse to explain why. That's not a debate, I am just talking to myself.

 

[:mad:]

I love when a natural disaster occurs in some part of the world and I see everyone posting everywhere on the net
":sadfaced: pray for **so-and-so country**, repost if you have a heart"
2 weeks later
"Oh the victims are getting back on their feet and rebuildng? God heard our prayers!! DUH"

Praying does jack ****. If you really cared you'd donate or volunteer in some way to help

Couldn't help but think of this.

Spoiler

 

[Teran]

ALL YOU LITTLE HULKAMANIACS SHOULD SAY YOUR PRAYERS TO ALMIGHTY GOD.
brother

 

[GwJ]

Try me.

 

[Teran]

 

[Dre89]

Many more prayers go unanswered than answered. The people who think that prayer works are the ones who live in privellged western countries who asked for something and got it. When you consider the fact that like 90% of the world's population have poor quality lives and face things like starvation, disease and violence, at least 90% of the world's prayers go unanswered.

If God saves people from natural disasters, then he's also the one who caused them. Pretty much anything God saves you from was something he put there in the first place, including Hell, which despite being created by Satan, He has decided not to abolish and considers it a fitting place for those who believe they have no reason to believe in God.


Kataklysm- It's been so long since someone has tested my patience this much.

Why would I need to prove physical beings are contingent, that the PSR exists, and that God is necessary if I'm not making an argument for God.

I would only need to do those things if I'm making an argument for God. The things you're asking me to do would basically steer me into making that argument. In this this thread, I haven't assumed a single metaphysical proposition about the question of God. The ones I do believe I actually do justify when I make an argument for God, which is why my thesis is going to be at least 30 000 words.

Again, I'm not assuming any position as default. There are no default metaphysical positions, because any mp position is positive. So when I say 'you're assuming X' I'm not assuming the opposite, or assuming the opposite is the default position. So if anyone says to me 'you're assuming X' or 'you still haven't shown Y' they've got no idea what they're talking about.

 

[GwJ]

Dre, can you at least layout your argument for god? It would make everything SO much easier.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Dre, can you at least layout your argument for god? It would make everything SO much easier.

Dre? Make things easier?

Pfffffttttttttttttttttttttt.

 

[Dre89]

How would that make things easier? What do my personal beliefs have anything to do with people assuming metaphysical propositions?

The reason why I don't want to do it is that it's too long if I'm going to reason out everything, and it doesn't contribute anything to thread.

 

[GwJ]

Mostly because we're curious.

 

[Falconv1.0]

For some reason this me of that time GofG pointed out one of the terms Dre used, when put into a google search, brought up the ****ing thread. You know, implying he was kinda making **** up as went.

Just Saiyan.

 

[Oasis_S]

Maybe we should all watch this before trying to understand Dre.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Maybe we should all watch this before trying to understand Dre.

Ahahahahahahaaaaaa.

Hell **** no.

 

[Dre89]

For some reason this me of that time GofG pointed out one of the terms Dre used, when put into a google search, brought up the ****ing thread. You know, implying he was kinda making **** up as went.

Just Saiyan.

Philosophers often need to do use their own terminology because they're identifying a new concept. Besides, people educated in philisohy understand my terminology without requiring clarification, or will understand it as soon as I define it.

If I say something that isn't mainstream philosophy, I mention that, and I mentioned I'm an outlier on this particular issue.

As for that meditation thing, I think that's using a more modern definition of the word, where it simply substitutes for spiritual or non physical.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Dudejack thinks he's a philosopher now.

Man what a fun thread this has turned into.

 

[The Iron Wolf]

Interesting blog, to say the least. I actually felt that at times I'd become an atheist but similar reasons to the ones you listed are what held me back from adopting that position(or that of agnosticism). I have some other 'religious' oriented reasons as well but yeah. I'm a Muslim and regarding Jesus we don't really accept that he was 'divine'. He was simply a Prophet. I had a whole lot else to say but I feel too drained to continue at this time. Maybe I'll come back tomorrow heh.

 

[john!]

Dudejack thinks he's a philosopher now.

Man what a fun thread this has turned into.

will you shut the **** up and contribute something for a change?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Here's my unpopular opinion, as a Christian, about the problem of scientific proof regarding the existence of God. I think the scientific evidence is there to lead someone to belief in a god, but it always seems to be just unconvincing or ambiguous enough to be dismissed as not hard evidence (I could talk about some of that evidence in another post).

Then it fails in its goal of leading people to god. Look, I'll be frank: the only way the "evidence" could possibly point to god is if you already believe in him. If we assume that your god is real, here's what he provided:
– One ancient collection of texts which are completely and utterly inaccurate and fail to meet the requirement of "loving" in any meaningful way when describing him.
– Miracles in the distant past, which may or may not have actually happened and for which the evidence is very, very miniscule.
– Miracles in the present, which have been universally debunked and proven to be scams
– Revealing himself to individual people... Who already believe in him... And then providing contradictory messages to other people.

Come on, an all-powerful god could do way better than that.

I'm drawn to him because I've realized… through experience… that I can talk to him and he listens, he actually speaks back to me (not usually in the ways that I'd expect), that he's always right, that he does miracles in my life and my friends' lives simply because he likes people, that he makes sense of all my needs, desires, gifts, issues, etc. He is literally life, strength and joy to me, and that's why I choose to get up half an hour before I "need" to every morning so I can spend time with him. I’m not bragging and I’m not better than anyone, but I literally enjoy him. This is all very hard to understand if you haven't experienced it, and understandably so. Discovering the God of Christianity is so much more than scientific evidence or metaphysical speculation, although those are important. Discovering God is personal.

That's nice, and all... But I need you to keep something in mind: other religions have this too. For every christian who claims a personal relationship with god, and a personal understanding of him, there is a Muslim who claims the same relationship with his (incompatible) god, or a Hindu who claims the same relationship with any number of their gods. I don't think you're lying, just like I don't think that they're lying. But I think that going from that, there's really only one good explanation: a psychosis. A very harmless, common, and simple psychosis, but a psychosis nonetheless. You're talking to an invisible friend. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, so to say, but it's still not a good sign.

But you see, this is why we'll never have "proof" that God exists or doesn't exist anytime soon (I mean, proof that convinces all of humanity). There’s so much I don’t know but I’ll try my best to explain this. 1) I believe God wants to meet us all on an individual level. He could make himself visible to humankind easily (and the Bible says he will one day), but he doesn't want to people to obey him just because they see him and are scared they will get punished if they don't.

...But... You're a Christian. Do you not believe in Heaven or Hell? If so, then you differ from the vast majority of Christians in the world.

It wouldn’t be individual anymore. In my opinion, that's called religion... it's performance-based, results-based, and there's no life in it. This principle is seen at work in many religious families. The parents do their best to instill good morals and biblical truths into their children, but neglect to teach them that God wants us to talk to him. The kids behave pretty well through growing up and high school years because their parents expect it. Then they leave home and are just like any other non-religious person their age after a few years, because their faith was never their own. They don't know how to go to God during rough times, so they go the easier, fleetingly gratifying routes of video games or pornography (or anything really). I know because that's been me in many ways.

Some of them. Others are told exactly that – in fact, are informed that if god isn't speaking to them, then something is wrong. And yet, somehow, they stop believing. Possibly because they don't speak to their imaginary friend. You're just straight-up wrong in generalizing this.

So, the very basis of religion has indeed not been disproven. It has been disproven that the earth is the center of the universe, but I am not rattled by that at all, because it doesn’t contradict anything I know about God, and actually it makes me enjoy science even more.

But isn't it somewhat telling that the most religious are the most commonly dead wrong?

I have a hypothesis: that the amount of people in the world who believe with sincere, 100% certainty that God exists far outnumbers the amount of people who believe with 100% certainty that God does not exist. This wouldn’t mean that God exists per se, but it would show shed light on the notion that so many people have experiential understanding of his existence, which trumps everything in one’s own mind. Atheists have good scientific arguments, but no personal experience to back up their beliefs. (Granted, tons of people who call themselves Christians don’t either.) This struck me when I listened to Richard Dawkins say that he thought it was "very unlikely" that God doesn't exist. He's smarter than me, but it seems like I'm more sure than he is. I want to hear y'all's thoughts about this, as I'm sure I will.

The concept that someone is smarter but still less sure is not a new one. In fact, it's a long-standing and generally solid generalization – not always correct, but more often than not, the smarter you are, the less you'll be certain about things. Look up the Dunning-Kruger effect. This is why, for example, Rush Limbaugh knows that climate change is a hoax, but Michael Mann is still open to evidence to prove his research wrong. The fact that more people are absolutely certain of something doesn't make it any more accurate.

The most convincing evidence that God (Jesus) exists for me has always been the presence of miracles. I've seen people healed and heard numerous stories of people coming back from the dead after seeing the "afterlife" with testimonies that line up with whats written in the Bible.

For the most part, faith healers are charlatans who peddle snake oil to those who are both desperate and stupid enough to believe. There is no solid evidence of miracles, and has never been any.

I wont deny that there have been actors involved in some healings but there is plenty of evidence of real healing miracles occuring.

All right, let's see that evidence? I mean, miracles are a pretty big deal. There should be a ****ton of people up in arms about it if it actually happened.

Just for clarity I was talking about people who had been confirmed dead and came back to life, not near death experiences. The problem is I dont remember exactly where I read it so my argument really has no backbone.

...Oh. Well that kinda settles that.

There are accounts of people who have never heard of Christianity dying and coming back to life with stories that line up with Biblical principles. Considering they had no former knowledge of christianity in their life how could they have just made these visions up?

Not only does this require some very good proof,

Scientists who believe God doesn't exist are flawed in their theory of the big bang, and there's a great argument to counter it. If the universe has been around for billions of years, more specifically, the solar system, why are we all still alive? What I mean is that stars in space expand into red giants once they burn out all their energy. If the sun expanded that far, mercury and Venus would be swallowed, and earth's surface would have melted. However, the sun is still far from expanding into a red giant, so the universe can't be billions of years old, so the big bang theory is false. The universe was created thousands of years ago, not billions.

The big bang theory is supported by theists and atheists alike, including a great many Christians. Your objection makes absolutely no sense either way. The big bang did not create the planets and stars fully formed. Our sun formed approximately 4.6 Billion years ago, well after the big bang. A medium-sized star like the sun can easily maintain its hydrogen fusion for that long.

When you feel the need to question such a ubiquitous and widely accepted theory, it would serve you well if you felt the same need to, you know, actually know anything about it. You're like someone arguing that evolution is impossible because "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Or someone arguing that Christians are all wrong because of carbon dating.

This thread is going to make me explode, even if it no longer halves defence anymore.

Do I even have to say anything?

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Dudejack thinks he's a philosopher now.

Man what a fun thread this has turned into.

To be a philosopher doesn't require some sort of certificate of official permission to think deeply on things dudejack. Philosophy is used by everyone, all a philosopher is is someone that acknowledges that fact.

Sadly almost no one realizes this and they don't entertain thoughts very seriously, resulting in narrow-minded types.

will you shut the **** up and contribute something for a change?

Unlikely. At the very least Oasis finally said something amusing.

But isn't it somewhat telling that the most religious are the most commonly dead wrong?

That has always been something I thought strange with how people think. When Christians here how God is reported saying he can stop the Sun with his hands and still time as he prevents its rotation around the Earth, they merely chalk it up that the idea of God doesn't change when they know that is obviously nonsense, they just think the person who wrote it had made a mistake. The same applies to all outdated ethical things.

It is VERY telling when our direct and initial source of the idea of God has ethically, logically, and scientifically unacceptable things sprinkled all over it. To think you can just remove the sprinkles and say what is left is what is good and true is a baffling concept. Another example of people who just desire to believe.

 

[Falconv1.0]

will you shut the **** up and contribute something for a change?

Definitely not.

Also sorry Holder of the Heel, I can't entertain anything Dre really says as something "serious", brother.

 

[Theftz22]

If you guys want to see Dre's argument so badly why don't you just read the thread where he summarized it:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=316335