Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheism isn't a belief?
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 181 of 329 (235880)
08-23-2005 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by ramoss
08-23-2005 8:25 AM


Re: science and the meaning of life
ramoss writes:
That is the process they claimed to have gone through. You might claim they mustn't have been 'true christians' to begin with, they thought otherwise. You may rationalise their drifting away from the beliefs anyway you want.
I'm not rationalising Christians anyway I want. There is ample biblical evidence to show (internally) what it is that constitutes a Christian. And it's not devoutness, going to church, believing in God etc. Without getting into a Bible study on the matter, suffice to say that God (if he exists) is the one who makes somebody a Christian...not the somebody.
Oh, and demons are just myth.
Got any evidence to back up that assertion? The discussion has moved on a bit from the old "objective-objective-uber-alles" gig

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by ramoss, posted 08-23-2005 8:25 AM ramoss has not replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 329 (235890)
08-23-2005 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by iano
08-23-2005 8:04 AM


Re: Truth and dare
Thanks for the detailed reply, iano. I'm not going to be able to match you in length and detail, I'm afraid, but I'll continue delving into your point of view...
When athiests say they have considered the idea and rejected it, the most frequent basis for saying this is that "there is no objective/empirical evidence". What they have said in essence, is that God is not to be found on terms that they themselves decide are the terms by which God must be found. And if his existance isn't established on those man-defined terms then he doesn't (or likely doesn't) exist.
But on what basis do they think that God must meet their terms?
I think you provided the answer yourself in Message 168:
iano writes:
The question of correct (or true) answers ultimately is not about whether a thing is true for others - no one will believe you for the same reasons that you don't believe them. What matters is what you believe is true. You are the only one who can decide this. No one can do it for you. Others truth cannot be made your own be they creation stories or talk of a causeless origin to the universe.
It seems that if somebody has considered the idea of God and rejected it, be they athiest or former theist, in your view that they either:
- could not have considered it properly (or with an open mind) or
- never have been found God anyway,
and the way to find God is to approach him with an open mind and follow the journey. Could the same conceivably be true for atheism, i.e could it be true that the reason that you are theistic is because you haven't approached atheism with an open enough mind (or "found" atheism, to coin a term)? How can you distinguish between the two (to pre-empt, there exist atheists who, having discovered athiesm would never entertain the notion of embracing theism again)?
If, of course, you do not have an open mind about atheism, then is it fair to say that you think atheists should have an open mind because they lack something that theists already have?
Thus if one experiences previously unknown, personal-to-them absolute truths (and the onus is on themselves not to manipulate grey-truth so that it becomes white (but they'd be only fooling themselves if they did) then the person can be sure that it had to come from something which is outside man. This might cause them to think God.
I don't understand how a personal-to-them truth can be an absolute truth if truth "is always something that exists outside of mans influence".
Its very difficult to be sure about anything - if somebody's personal truth gave them the Norse creation story, then surely that wouldn't make it true? How do we go about separating an absolutely true personal-to-them truth from a false personal-to-them truth?
The question of whether these 'absolute truths' can be demonstrated to others is irrelevant. The only person that can know this kind of absolute truth is the person themselves. This may sound like a dodge. But if you think about it, you would see that if absolute truths about God could be proven, then there are no more personal searches to embark on. Everybody HAS to believe a surefire proof -without meeting any of Gods criteria (should he have some).
How do you go about demonstrating an 'absolute truth' to yourself? In the examples of absolute truths you gave (speed of light, absolute zero, certainty of death) - these are all concepts where the absolute truth of which can be determined externally (and are in fact dependent on experimental data which could still render them false) - what you seem to be saying is that absolute truths can also be determined internally. If this is the case, how do we resolve the situation where two different people have conflicting "absolute truths"? Presumably, they can't both be true?
In other words, how do you know that your "absolute truth" is THE "absolute truth"?
Humilty means what it says. It means we may have to get down off the throne in deciding what the evidence should be and how the evidence should be evaluated. Like, if God is to be found, it is not unreasonable to expect he might partake in the exercise. Maybe he has some ideas on what evidence is appropriate and how and when it will be presented. We shouldn't exclude the possiblity of his input from our search.
Isn't humility a value-laden term? Some may find it more humble to consider themselves not chosen beings or part of any special creation, for example. Or, similarly, that if a hierarchy of gods exist and mankind is at the bottom of the tree, then that might be the most humble position. I'm guessing therefore that humility is only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for keeping an open mind about a creation story. I don't see anything which is particularly brash* about the Norse story. Should it still be considered with an open mind?
PE
* where "brash" = opposite of "humble"
edits for punctuation
This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 08-23-2005 09:24 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by iano, posted 08-23-2005 8:04 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by iano, posted 08-23-2005 11:02 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 329 (235892)
08-23-2005 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by iano
08-23-2005 5:42 AM


Re: science is orthogonal to the meaning of life
quote:
You say there is no reason to believe in God because there is no empirical evidence as to his existance.
That, and that the tenets of the fundamentalist Christianity of which I was a member were self-contradictory.
-
quote:
You accept that Science (whose basis is (or should more often be) the evaluation of empirical evidence) is not equipped to deal with the question.
Yes, science is based on observation and data and the development of theories that explain the data.
-
quote:
You seem to require empirical evidence yet feel empirical evidence isn't to be expected.
No, that is not what I said. God either exists or he does not. If he exists I expect that there should be evidence of that. Unfortunately, the evidence that the Christian god exists is rather weak and no more compelling that any other character from mythology exists.
However, that is very different from what I have been saying in my previous posts. In my previous posts I have been speaking of the purpose of my life, which science cannot answer for me. That is a purely personal journey that I must undertake, and the answers I come up with are based on my own subjective experiences. Again, I judge the "correctness" of my answer by evidence -- however this evidence is entirely subjective, based on whether I feel content and happy and satisfied.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by iano, posted 08-23-2005 5:42 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by iano, posted 08-23-2005 3:15 PM Chiroptera has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 184 of 329 (235946)
08-23-2005 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by iano
08-23-2005 8:16 AM


Re: science and the meaning of life
quote:
Or so the bible would appear to indicate
Who specifically in the NT supports your idea of a one way deal?
quote:
p.s. "Believing in God" is something even the demons did - and they weren't Christians!
James 2:18-19
But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
Although not spoken by Jesus, the point of this part of the sermon is dealing with showing ones faith by good works or actions. IOW, according to this author, the demons believe in God, but their works or lack there of would show their lack of goodness.
Our Christian in question, is very service oriented, trustworthy, and ready to help those in need. So again I would say that this person is a Christian even by this excerpt from James.

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by iano, posted 08-23-2005 8:16 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by iano, posted 08-23-2005 11:30 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 188 by iano, posted 08-23-2005 12:17 PM purpledawn has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 185 of 329 (235958)
08-23-2005 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Primordial Egg
08-23-2005 9:20 AM


Re: Truth and dare
iano writes:
The question of absolute truth is ultimately not about whether a thing is absolutely true for others - no one can believe you for the same reasons that you can't believe them. What matters is what you believe is absolute truth. You are the only one who can decide this. No one can do it for you. Others absolute truth cannot be made your own be they creation stories or talk of a causeless origin to the universe
I've reworded the quote to include the concept of absolute truth in the relevant places so as to tie this and the last post together
It seems that if somebody has considered the idea of God and rejected it, be they athiest or former theist, in your view that they either:
- could not have considered it properly (or with an open mind) or
- never have been found God anyway,
The reason why I tried to avoid stating your first comment was to avoid unprovable assertion (unprovable because my absolute truth cannot be shown to such to another). Long before that issue arises however is the issue of examining the atheists attempt to find God/basis for saying No God/ God unlikely. Based on what constitutes a reasonable approach to finding God, we can measure the 'typical' athiest stance (no objective evidence) and see why it would appear to be ill-suited to the task at hand. I'm not sure what your second statement says. A typo I think.
and the way to find God is to approach him with an open mind and follow the journey.
I would suggest that that is a overly stripped down version of a plan of attack. Given what is being looked for, I think one could fill a few pages at least on reasoned assumptions that may be made (assumptions which are okay given a starting point which suspends disbelief for the duration of the search).
Could the same conceivably be true for atheism, i.e could it be true that the reason that you are theistic is because you haven't approached atheism with an open enough mind (or "found" atheism, to coin a term)? How can you distinguish between the two (to pre-empt, there exist atheists who, having discovered athiesm would never entertain the notion of embracing theism again)?
There is a single, but very important difference between the believer and the athiest. To whit. The believer can arrive at a destination and have incontrovertable evidence (for himself). His evidence is useless to anyone but himself. The athiest cannot by definition, arrive at a destination. His evidence is never incontrovertable evidence because all he has is the natural - which is tentitive and can be changed. His evidence is never absolute. He can never be sure that tomorrow won't reveal something that turns his thinking on his head.
If, of course, you do not have an open mind about atheism, then is it fair to say that you think atheists should have an open mind because they lack something that theists already have?
The believer has arrived at a destination. The quest has finished. An option has turned out to be the one. There is nothing to be openminded about. Openminded is for when you haven't arrived at a destination - thus athiests need to be open-minded (though it is understandable that many aren't because they feel close to the destination. Close... but not quite breaking out the Cuban cigars yet.
I don't understand how a personal-to-them truth can be an absolute truth if truth "is always something that exists outside of mans influence".
An absolute truth can reside within a person but not be influenced by the person. The Christian situation for example is that on becoming such, God takes up residence within the person (given that his goal is to change the person, he sets up a site office as it were). So, personal absolute truth but not the persons own. They are as it were plugged into it but it is not them or of them
what you seem to be saying is that absolute truths can also be determined internally. If this is the case, how do we resolve the situation where two different people have conflicting "absolute truths"? Presumably, they can't both be true? In other words, how do you know that your "absolute truth" is THE "absolute truth"?
The examples of speed of light etc were just illustrative that all absolute truths that we know about exist outside the influence of man. Observed by man okay - but outside his influence. That's all I mean here. We don't resolve the issue of conflicting internal (residential as opposed to self-determined) absolute truths between two people. Either both are wrong, one is wrong. Not both are right. No one can tell for sure. It matters not. If God exists, then it is not unreasonable to say that there might well be a significance in finding him or not. You could think of a few yourself I'm sure. If that is accepted, then the only thing that matters is not what other people say they know, but what YOU know. It's YOU and GOD not everybody else and God. You have to decide for yourself.
How do I know I have an absolute truth? The above should indicate that I cannot prove it (although I wish I could). All I can say is that the nature and rarity (you may now agree) of it would be such that, if you tripped across it then it's very rarity would strike you. Analogy? I don't know if you've ever had an orgasm (and this analogy is not meant to indicate level of satisfaction in knowing God (it's much better that an orgasm - obviously, given that he invented the orgasm) ). Imagine though that you have had one and you then try to explain it to someone who hasn't. How far do you think you would get in truly quantifying that the pleasure and peace that can come (sic) with one is far greater than the pleasure one might get from chewing a piece of toffee. And if you had your first orgasm then nobody could argue you into thinking it was in fact just very nice toffee.
It's a bit the same as the difference between man/self made truth and absolute truth. Ponder on the word 'absolute' and see the significance of it in relation to all the truths you currently hold. The word 'orgasm' is to an orgasm what the words 'absolute truth' are to an absolute truth
Isn't humility a value-laden term? Some may find it more humble to consider themselves not chosen beings or part of any special creation, for example. Or, similarly, that if a hierarchy of gods exist and mankind is at the bottom of the tree, then that might be the most humble position.
Who knows. I only posed it in the context of searching for God. It has value elsewhere in life too. Humility (not doormat) is an attractive attribute in a person. The opposite to pride (which isn't attractive). And on a search for God, then anything which makes us 'attractive' can be no bad thing. I may be onto something there. Poeple relate best to those who are attractive. So maybe God relates (or will relate) to a person who is attractive to him. Like, if pride is unattractive to us then it is reasonable to think (in formulating our draft plan of attack) that God wouldn't like pride anymore than we do.
I'm guessing therefore that humility is only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for keeping an open mind about a creation story. I don't see anything which is particularly brash* about the Norse story. Should it still be considered with an open mind?
I too think that humility is but one possible arrow we can load up into our quiver. The interesting part is to think of what others arrows there could be. The Norse story, humble, brash or otherwise is I think again, something for way down the path. Walk before running and all that.
I'm reminded of a mate who said once " I know that there is something out there. It's like I've come to a spiritual roundabout. I know it's there, yu don't have to convince me of that - but how do I know which exit (Islam, Christianity, Buddism etc) to take". Maybe one needs to move down the path a bit before worrying about Norse Creation, Biblical Creation or whatever else is out there.
I'd see it as getting some money in the bank first. When the time comes to spend a little then the country whose currency you have will be the country in which you can spend it. It will only work in one.

"..He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance". (2Peter 3:9)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-23-2005 9:20 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 186 of 329 (235971)
08-23-2005 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by purpledawn
08-23-2005 10:48 AM


Re: science and the meaning of life
purpledawn writes:
Our Christian in question, is very service oriented, trustworthy, and ready to help those in need. So again I would say that this person is a Christian even by this excerpt from James.
But it is not good works that save and only Christians will be saved. Plenty of people do good works. Many of them go to church. That doesn't make a person a Christian.
If Hitler had truly repented before he blew his brains out (or whatever he did) then Hitler went to heaven. The thief on the cross didn't have a chance to do any good works either yet "I tell you the truth..today you will be with me in Paradise"
That's the reason why the Gospel is called 'The Good News'. As far as God is concerned "our righteousness are as filthy rags" We're all stinky, manky sinners, from Mother Theresa to Hitler. Good works are not irrelevant ("be holy for I am holy") but they don't make, along with church going etc, Christians.
Thank God

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by purpledawn, posted 08-23-2005 10:48 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by purpledawn, posted 08-23-2005 12:08 PM iano has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 187 of 329 (235994)
08-23-2005 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by iano
08-23-2005 11:30 AM


Re: science and the meaning of life
quote:
But it is not good works that save and only Christians will be saved. Plenty of people do good works. Many of them go to church. That doesn't make a person a Christian.
But it does according to the passage you shared.
If you looked at the thread "What is a True Christian" you saw that even Christians can't agree on what is a Christian. So your personal thoughts on what is or is not a Christian may or may not be true and the author of James disagrees with you.
Technically the definition of a Christian is a follower of Christ. So our Christian was baptised and accepted Christ as Savior, followed the biblical teachings of Jesus Christ, and believed in God. His faith was obvious in his behavior. According to his church he is saved.
So in our Christian's mind he is saved, he is a Christian, he is seeking a closer union with God.
Again, who supports your idea of once in Christ no way out?

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by iano, posted 08-23-2005 11:30 AM iano has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 188 of 329 (236002)
08-23-2005 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by purpledawn
08-23-2005 10:48 AM


Re: science and the meaning of life
iano writes:
(Once-in-never out deal) Or so the bible would appear to indicate
purpledawn writes:
Who specifically in the NT supports your idea of a one way deal?
It's not a one-way deal. We are involved in sealing the deal. I mean, and maybe you mean too, a once-in-never-out deal (the IRA's motto incidently).
If it is the latter that you mean, then I take it you hold a view that the 'deal' the is dependant on what we do (how 'good' we are) or that the deal can be cancelled if we are not 'good'. If so, then I'm afraid I can't go into it here - simply due to the fact we'd have to get into the meaning of verses like "It is by grace you are saved - not by works - lest any man should boast" vs. "Faith without works is dead"
But for all those here gathered who might want to make a rational judgment for themselves one way or the other . The word Religion derives from the Latin, Re: (concerning, about, regarding) and Legio (the Law). Thus Religion is about keeping laws. "Do this, that and the other and you will be saved. Otherwise you burn".
A God of the weighing scales as it were (which coincidently happens to be the basis for all world Religions)
Or it's not about keeping a lot of Laws, but is about someone (Jesus - the sacrifice that God provided himself) who paid the price that you would otherwise have to pay yourself for breaking the laws -should you, of course, decide to accept Gods generous offer.
A God of grace, from whence 'gratis' (= cost you nothing, costs him everything). The Biblical God in other words...
If in doubt, I reckon folk should plump, on the basis of a deomnstration of sheer love alone (not to mention class and style), for the Biblical God as a basis for their initial investigation

"..He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance". (2Peter 3:9)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by purpledawn, posted 08-23-2005 10:48 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by purpledawn, posted 08-23-2005 12:24 PM iano has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 189 of 329 (236011)
08-23-2005 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by iano
08-23-2005 12:17 PM


Re: science and the meaning of life
Good Grief!
In Message 179 you stated:
There is ample which indicates that a Christian (bible-defined) is one who is 'in Christ' and that the old man is dead and gone - he can't be resurrected. Once in Christ and man cannot go back it would appear.
Where in the Bible is this supported?

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by iano, posted 08-23-2005 12:17 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by iano, posted 08-23-2005 2:07 PM purpledawn has replied

bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5014 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 190 of 329 (236021)
08-23-2005 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by iano
08-22-2005 5:57 AM


Re: On Overreaching
The Judge would probably point to one of your countries foundational mottos: "In God we trust.
For the record you will be hard pressed to find "In God we trust" in any of the founding documents and/or mottos of the US. The statement didn't show up till the late 1800's. Mention of God is conspicuously absent in the documentation for the country.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by iano, posted 08-22-2005 5:57 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by iano, posted 08-23-2005 1:37 PM bob_gray has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 191 of 329 (236076)
08-23-2005 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by bob_gray
08-23-2005 12:35 PM


Eye for an Eye ... or Eye of a bald Eagle?
Bob Gray writes:
For the record you will be hard pressed to find "In God we trust" in any of the founding documents and/or mottos of the US.
Fair point Bob. Me and fine detail have a bit of a love/hate relationship. If you want I can modify the post and change the word 'founding' to this from the US Mint site "From Treasury Department records it appears that the first suggestion that God be recognized on U.S. coinage can be traced to a letter addressed to the Secretary of Treasury from a minister in 1861....
(...by which year the US was just getting past of the diaper stage...
so I thought 'founding' would do instead )
Oops Edit: from the US Mint site "Legislation approved July 11, 1955, made the appearance of "In God We Trust" mandatory on all coins and paper currency of the United States. By Act of July 30, 1956, "In God We Trust" became the national motto of the United States.
The devil is indeed in the detail
Speaking of detail. Any view on the remaining detail of the post?
Law systems based on eye-for-an-eye?
The legal system of your country is informed by the idea that there are objective values for right and wrong. If I was to arrive up in court on burgalary charges and said that as a product of evolution I was responding to uncontrolled mutational changes that made me the way I am and was following survival of the fittest in propagating the species by using my mutational advantage to obtain scarce resources from those unable (evolutionarily) to stop me I don't think I'd get very far.
This message has been edited by iano, 23-Aug-2005 06:37 PM
This message has been edited by iano, 23-Aug-2005 06:49 PM

"..He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance". (2Peter 3:9)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by bob_gray, posted 08-23-2005 12:35 PM bob_gray has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 192 of 329 (236101)
08-23-2005 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by purpledawn
08-23-2005 12:24 PM


Re: science and the meaning of life
Papa Admin!! Papa Admin!! Purple Dawn keeps on trying to get me to go off topic. And that's verwy, verwy bold and naughty. And I don't wanna be spanked. WAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
PurpleDawn. There is no way to quickly resolve this. Surely you see that. I'll stick up a verse. You will counter, I'll show context and supporting verses. You'll show other verses and context. You might say "how do you know this is the meaning". I'll say "how do you know the church interpretation is the right one". It's a topic in itself - and one that would exhaust 300 posts in no time flat.
Theres a forum for Bible Study...and this ain't it. Maybe someday eh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by purpledawn, posted 08-23-2005 12:24 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by purpledawn, posted 08-23-2005 5:39 PM iano has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 193 of 329 (236133)
08-23-2005 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Chiroptera
08-23-2005 9:28 AM


Such is life
Chiroptera writes:
That (no empirical evidence, and that the tenets of the fundamentalist Christianity of which I was a member were self-contradictory.
You seemed to state that science is not about answering questions when empiricism is an invalid tool to apply to them. Do you agree that if God exists (as a supernatural being) then empiricism is an invalid tool to apply to him?
If so then what remains (from above anyway) is "self-contradictory fundementalism". That would need a bit of fleshing out but could it have been that your non-belief or retraction-of-belief or whatever...was based on other men/womens interpretation of the bible. Or maybe their actions, as Christians contradicting how the bible says Christian 'should' behave (any similarity between s.c.f. and the Pharisees of Jesus' day?) Whatever, it's really in the end only about God and You, not God and what someone else says/does. To adopt/reject someone elses God is about the craziest/safest thing you could do. But to walk away from the issue of his existance altogether can't be rationalised from a rejection of mans actions.
Empiricism = an inappropriate tool for decision making. Mans actions = irrelevant to the question of Gods existance
What other reasons could there be for your athiestic position
No, that is not what I said. God either exists or he does not. If he exists I expect that there should be evidence of that
What kind of evidence do you reckon would suffice? Should it be evidence that is equally comprehensible by all - so as not to exclude the less bright among us. If so the evidence would have to be fairly obvious. If obvious, then there would be no decison to make about God. Everyone would know. Thus we would have a world were everyone believed. Now God has laws. And everyone now believes in God. But no one can keep all Gods laws (believe me I don't try). The wages of sin (even one sin) is death (eternal = Hell). Thus everyone goes to Hell. Maybe God didn't want that to happen so thought of a different way?
Unfortunately, the evidence that the Christian god exists is rather weak and no more compelling that any other character from mythology exists.
Chiroptera....??? C'mon. You're better than this Millions of believers today - despite that advancement of naturalistic explaination that no layman could hope to counter. Despite "Evolution is TRUE" beamed down our tv's every day. All the millions of people over the ages. And some very smart, thinking, critical people amongst them. The Bible is the best-selling book in the world and has been for years. (if you and only you, want the reference I'll dig it up). Growth in Christianity in countries as diverse as China, North Korea, the continent of Africa is immense and Bible supply cannot keep up with demand. Despite attempts by Communist regieme in the former Soviet Union to stamp it out, Christianity is flourishing there again....
....vs Neptune??
However, that is very different from what I have been saying in my previous posts. In my previous posts I have been speaking of the purpose of my life, which science cannot answer for me. That is a purely personal journey that I must undertake, and the answers I come up with are based on my own subjective experiences. Again, I judge the "correctness" of my answer by evidence -- however this evidence is entirely subjective, based on whether I feel content and happy and satisfied.
If you set off to repair your car and the only knowledge of tools and the only tools you had was a hammer and chisel then you may do quite well. You would develop techniques (as I have done when desperate) of removing and re-tightening nuts via hammer and chisel. You could use the hammer handle as a lever. The claw as a way of getting the tyre off the rim. You could scrape old gaskets from the engine block if you re-sharpened the battered chisel edge (using of course, the hammer). You could beat on new fan belts and take pride in the fact that you were getting the a jaw-droppingly-good 500 miles from each of them!!
Measuring happiness and contentment without having anything to calibrate happiness and contentment against means it is impossible to measure happiness and contentment. Except as you say subjectively. Objectively you might be doing great. Or you might be doing badly. One life is all we get. It would seem rational to ENSURE we are getting the best there is, whatever best is. Lifes too precious to make guesses with (he said lighting another smoke). You might be inclined to thing that compared to others your not doing so bad but here we would have mans measure of what's availabe - not Gods. Calibrating yourself of an instrument that hasn't been calibrated?
There's ways to get to God - its not impossible, it's not even difficult. But there has to be a desire. Without that, then of course nothing will happen. Objects at rest...don't get evidence. Not in science..nor anywhere else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Chiroptera, posted 08-23-2005 9:28 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Chiroptera, posted 08-23-2005 5:16 PM iano has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 329 (236202)
08-23-2005 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by iano
08-23-2005 3:15 PM


Re: Such is life
quote:
Do you agree that if God exists (as a supernatural being) then empiricism is an invalid tool to apply to him?
I would agree that if God decided to leave no verifiable evidence as to his existence, then science has nothing with which to work.
-
quote:
What kind of evidence do you reckon would suffice?
Well, he could actually walk into my house and speak with me. Even perform a few minor miracles that I would specify, just like Gideon, to prove to myself that I am not crazy. That would be one way.
-
You know, I feel as if we are not discussing the same topic. I really can't figure out the point you are trying to get across. I am an atheist. I feel that my disbelief in god is justified by a lack of evidence as to his existence. Not only do I not really understand what you are trying to say, I don't even know whether you are even responding to this or making a different point altogether.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by iano, posted 08-23-2005 3:15 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by iano, posted 08-24-2005 6:02 AM Chiroptera has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3458 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 195 of 329 (236218)
08-23-2005 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by iano
08-23-2005 2:07 PM


Beg To Differ
Beg To Differ
quote:
Purple Dawn keeps on trying to get me to go off topic.
Thread Topic: Atheism isn’t a Belief
Much as I dislike instant replays, here it goes.
In Message 158 you state:
quote:
Reason for God Chiroptera? Because God, in the face of the above, is not at all an unreasonable place to start a quest. My advice (for what it's worth): start with the destination, then go on the journey.
In Message 171 I brought up the fact that there are Christians who started with the destination as you advise, but the journey led them away from belief. Not necessarily to a new belief.
In Message 175 instead of addressing this type of journey you decided to define Christianity (poorly, I might add). You list all common Christian characteristics and state:
quote:
I would suggest that none of the above constitutes a Christian thus if the above were base from which someone moved to athiesm (or anything else) then they moved alright, but not from Christianity
In Message 177 I directed you to the thread What is a True Christian which shows that Christians can’t agree on what a Christian is.
So I gave you a short description of our Christian:
Our "Christian" for this discussion grew up in the church and went through Bible Study before being baptized and accepting Christ as Savior. Our Christian was a very avid person of prayer. Praying to God to me states our Christian believed in God. After 30 years of Church life our Christian engaged in intense Bible Study and prayer searching for more about God, seeking to know God better.
You had implied in Message 175 that seeking was the key and a true belief in God.
But in Message 179 you dismiss our Christian’s belief and pretty much were saying it was false. Implying his journey wasn’t true seeking.
quote:
The person did all this stuff, but was the person a Christian? You seem to know the bible. There is ample which indicates that a Christian (bible-defined) is one who is 'in Christ' and that the old man is dead and gone - he can't be resurrected. Once in Christ and man cannot go back it would appear.
In Message 184 I asked you to support the statement above and show me where the bible supports this thought. I also gave you a little more info on our Christian, which is supported by the verse you supplied from James.
Our Christian in question, is very service oriented, trustworthy, and ready to help those in need. So again I would say that this person is a Christian even by this excerpt from James.
Apparently you didn’t understand the question, because in Message 188 you didn’t provide anything to support your statements in Message 179.
In Message 189 I asked you again to support your statements, which is not unreasonable.
You are the one implying that my Christian is not a true Christian and that if he was able to become an atheist, that his belief wasn’t real either.
As I said earlier: Technically the definition of a Christian is a follower of Christ. So our Christian was baptized and accepted Christ as Savior, followed the biblical teachings of Jesus Christ, and believed in God. His faith was obvious in his behavior. According to his church he is saved.
So in our Christian's mind he is saved, he is a Christian, he is seeking a closer union with God.
You are trying to negate my Christian’s 30+ years of belief instead of realizing that the journey doesn’t always take one to belief.
Now if the Admins truly feel that this is off topic, they can move this post to my thread: Get To Know God (GTKG) 101. I feel it is very much on topic there. You can lay out the journey for all to see and discuss.

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by iano, posted 08-23-2005 2:07 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by iano, posted 08-24-2005 6:20 AM purpledawn has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024