An atheist who is not so keen on God

Rrhain, I've about had it with your persona of smug intellectualism where you come into a post and then proceed to attempt to logically twist the conversation towards proving yourself right.Mind you, I still respect you as a logically thinking individual, but you simply do not see the forest or the trees in this picture! Lets go back to the beginning of the post to prove my point, shall we?Brian starts it out. He states So starts the thread. Brian admits that a true atheist cannot be conscious of God. Jar wants to take the conversation...WITH BRIAN...a bit further. In other words, IF God exists, even as a philosophical idea, acts of kindness would count equally by Him regardless of who does them. Dominion Seraph points out that if God does not exist, no measureable count of emotional response is possible.This is what you don't understand about the thread, however. Jar and Brian came to a common agreement, namely In other words, a communion of agreement was formed between Brian and Jar. This is what I mean't by joining our circle. You yourself were the proof that God need not be a part of the discussion, but you were not within the communion of the flow of the topic. Comprende? It may be insulting to suggest that your opinion is not to be taken seriously, but at this particular conversation and at this particular point being made, you were simply not in sync. Nobody wanted you to assault the logic of our agreed communion by in effect disproving the validity of what was being said. It matters not if you were relativly right because you were not in common agreement. to wit: Again, Brian agrees..reconfirming the communion of the conversation: Brian is allowing Jar to frame the discussion. Jar then says:At this point, Rrhain, nobody who addresses Jar or Brian can break the communion of agreement. The thread is framed, in essence, by these two. Brian affirms Jars right to frame the issue of the possibility of God... Brian is not saying that he believes in God but he IS saying that he believes in Jar for the purpose of the discussion and the verbal exchange. Are you with me so far? The communion of agreement ends when you attempt to reframe the issue by saying Thus, you are asking for proof and in effect saying that proof NEEDS to be established.I say no it does not. The agreement had already been established between Jar and Brian. The proof may be what you seek, but you had no right to reframe the topic or break into the issue with demands on your behalf. The agreement...the communion between Jar and Brian was agreeing on a concept of God. You then said: well, you are demanding that your reframed idea of the topic be considered. No, it cannot be applied to you. Brian had agreed to entertain presuppositions by Jar.No, it denies that your opinion be part of the communion. You cannot prove anything except that you are in disagreement with the terms of the conversation. And you can claim no part of the circle...the circular reasoning of the conversation. All that you are proving to the discussion is the fact that you--representing atheism--need not love God. What you now need to do is show us how you can love us rather than attempt to manipulate the conversation.

I have to say that my chat with Jar was more along the lines of a casual conversation rather than a deep theological discussion.It was agreed that I would go along with Jar's premises so that *I* could understand where he was coming from. That was the purpose of the chat, whether anyone else agrees that Jar's stance is completely in accord with the Bible is immaterial. Our chat served its purpose, which was to enlighten me as to how Jar believed an atheist could love God.It is what he believes, it doesnt mean anyone has to agree with him. I personally find it difficult to harmonise when the rest of the Bible is considered, but he is happy in his faith. Good luck to him.Brian.

quote:

---

Rrhain, I've about had it with your persona of smug intellectualism where you come into a post and then proceed to attempt to logically twist the conversation towards proving yourself right.
  —phatboy

---

You mean his avatar wasn't enough for you? Seriously though, nice post. This was an interesting thread. Thanks Jar and Brian.

The atheist is loving God by doing good works. It doesn't matter if the atheist does this unwittingly. I'm not saying that if you love then that IS God, I'm saying that to love is TO love God, via good works unwittingly for the unbeliever. But the circular would be moot anyway, because logic doesn't constrain God, nor is he under this method of man's arrogance. If you do ANY good then this is ONLY possible because of God - whom is love, and through whom flows all of the created things. Thereby, even logically - all pathways lead back to God(A), which is love's only source. But if I give to the poor, then that's an intended and good action.If you donate your lungs willy nilly, to any hospital to give up to someone in need, and your lungs go to God, then you have helped God breathe whether you like it or not. God has said that to love the least is to love him. So if you love the least, you have given your lungs to God. I can't prove it. We believe this from scripture. But what matters is that if you give yur lungs to a baba then you HAVE give them to God, and he's using them whether you like it or not.----Nevertheless, I'd like to ask you a logical question.If A is the only cause of B,(or only A leads to B) then isn't the inverse and converse also correct?A is B.If only pies cause tastiness, then does tastiness = pies?And no pies = no tastiness?Let's pretend that there is only one Rrhain on earth.you are Rrhain. Rrhian is you. No you = no Rrhain. No Rrhain = no you.God is love. A is B. (Only God is love and he is Gos so only he causes it).God is the source of all things, and only he is love. Therefore if you feel love then that's God. And so B=A is true. Isn't this how man's knowledge is overcome? Apparently - logic only allows A = B, and not B = A. So;I am mike the wiz. mike the wiz is I.No I, then no mike the wiz.Now surely only God is love. And can you - a man, overcome him with logic? Or has he just overcame you?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-24-2005 07:01 AM

I'm not trying to negate your input but I do need try to make clear what I was trying to get across.I am NOT saying that GOD is love. What is am trying to get across is how GOD might view good acts.My only point is that IMHO GOD, as I see GOD, would not value someone's actions based on that person's belief system. Instead, GOD would value those actions for themselves, even if they were performed by an Atheist or someone who professed a belief in some other GOD.This message has been edited by jar, 02-24-2005 09:59 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That's fair enough Jar. I didn't mean to mis-represent you.However, personally I believe 1 John 4.8(if memory serves correct). Which states clearly "For God is love".I also don't think belief in other gods is the correct endeavour according to the bible. Because the OT states (Deutereonomy - can't remember chapter)that idols are made by men, but the Lord God made the heavens and the earth. Also Isaiah, which states that there is only the Lord God, and none else beside him.

That may be your belief but it is irrelevant to this topic.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar, the bible says that God is love. It's what the scripture says, that I say.

Phatboy responds to me:

quote:

---

I've about had it with your persona of smug intellectualism where you come into a post and then proceed to attempt to logically twist the conversation towards proving yourself right.

---

Read: I can't actually respond to the very direct questions you've asked, so I'll just call you a prick and see if that can make you forget the questions.

quote:

---

Brian starts it out. He states

​

Brian writes: writes:

​

Essentially, Christians think that by loving others you love God.

---

But this is the point that has never been justified. Sure, they believe it, but there has never been any evidence that love and god are the same thing. They just say it is and expect others to go along with it.And even more arrogantly, they then project this unjustified attitude onto atheists: When an atheist does something good and loving, he's doing it for god even if he doesn't know that he is.As if a Christian is in any position to tell an atheist what he's doing.

quote:

---

Jar wants to take the conversation...WITH BRIAN...a bit further.

---

Um, if jar wants to keep his conversation with Brian private, then he shouldn't be holding it in a public forum where anybody can respond. I will not apologize nor feel any guilt for chiming in whenever and wherever I choose in a forum designed to promote public discussion. They were perfectly free to ignore me and jar even appeared ready to do just that but couldn't keep his hands of his mouse.Grow up, Phatboy.

quote:

---

At this point, Rrhain, nobody who addresses Jar or Brian can break the communion of agreement.

---

Ahem, two people who agree to the same error are both in error, no matter how much they agree with each other.

quote:

---

Thus, you are asking for proof and in effect saying that proof NEEDS to be established.

​

I say no it does not.

---

Then you are putting forth an illogical argument. Burden of proof is always on the claimant. A proposition was put forward (god is love) and therefore it requires justification upon the one who made it (Christians).

quote:

---

you had no right to reframe the topic or break into the issue with demands on your behalf.

---

I had every right as the conclusion is based upon an unjustified premise. Since false premises can lead to any conclusion you wish, it is therefore incumbent upon the person presenting those premises to establish their veracity if he wishes to have a valid conclusion.It doesn't matter that we all agree that the conclusion follows from the premises. The premises are unjustified and therefore cannot be trusted.Have you seen those various "proofs" that math doesn't work? They depend upon a fallacious statement being made and overlooked. Even though each individual step before and after is logically perfect, a mistake has been made and we end up with a conclusion that is patently false.Where was it established that god is love?

quote:

---

quote:

---

it is a presupposition and thus cannot be applied to atheists.

---

​

No, it cannot be applied to you.

---

Since when was it determined that I was an atheist? Just because I don't believe in your god doesn't mean I don't believe in any god.

quote:

---

Brian had agreed to entertain presuppositions by Jar.

---

Agreeing to an illogical premise does not make it any more logical.

quote:

---

You cannot prove anything except that you are in disagreement with the terms of the conversation.

---

But I don't have anything to prove. I'm not the one making the claim. Those making the claim of god being love are the ones making that claim and it is their burden of proof. The fact that Brian and jar have agreed to skip this step doesn't mean it doesn't still need to be done.It simply means they've agreed to an illogical argument.

quote:

---

All that you are proving to the discussion is the fact that you--representing atheism--need not love God.

---

Since when was it determined that I was an atheist? Just because I don't believe in your god doesn't mean I don't believe in any god.

quote:

---

What you now need to do is show us how you can love us rather than attempt to manipulate the conversation.

---

What's love got to do with it? I'm not the one claiming that love is god. It is therefore not my responsibility to justify it.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You've still conflated love and god without justification. It's a circular argument to define god as love and therefore define love as god.

---

​

The atheist is loving God by doing good works.

---

Says who? You just invoked the circular argument. God is love, therefore those who do love are doing it for god.Not the atheist. The atheist is doing it simply for love. There is no god involved.Where was it established that god is love? Yes, I know you believe it, but that isn't good enough.

quote:

---

quote:

---

To do something for someone requires intention

---

​

But if I give to the poor, then that's an intended and good action.

---

Really? You mean if I give smallpox infected blankets to poor people, I'm doing something good?You seem to keep forgetting that there is the word "for" in there. You cannot do something FOR something if that object that receives the action isn't involved.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You need to prove that things done out of love are necessarily done for Jesus even if the person doing it doesn't know it

---

​

I can't prove it.

---

Then your argument is based upon an unjustified assertion and therefore is illogical. You are in no position, then, to complain about someone deviating from your insistence that they behave according to your opinion.

quote:

---

If A is the only cause of B,(or only A leads to B) then isn't the inverse and converse also correct?

---

Since you want to be formal, let's be formal. You seem to want to be saying q iff p (no, that is not a typo). Therefore, p if q and ~q if ~p. Yes, this is true.What has not been established, however, is q iff p.

quote:

---

God is love.

---

Says who? You? Why should we believe you? Atheists seem to find love without god without any trouble.

quote:

---

Now surely only God is love. And can you - a man, overcome him with logic? Or has he just overcame you?

---

Or perhaps you seem to think that your mental ejaculation isn't a mess.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Rrhain--at best, we have two differing worldviews. You claim that you believe in A God but not MY God.
You state, however, that We? How do you know that you do not believe in my God?My logic in dismissing your god is that you are being disagreeable merely to prove your point. My point is that agreement IS possible
with love as a common denominator. You claim to believe in a god, right? Tell us the characteristics that your god embodies.Who says that we need to have empirical and naturalistic methods of proof for justification of our belief? Based on your logic, you could walk into a room full of Christian Believers and declaere in effect that there was no valid proof for their belief. Until and unless you can prove that our belief is a product of our vain imagination, you can do nothing more than opt out of this public debate. You have no unique God that is apart from the absolute God. Your belief is nothing more than your own ego and logic that is defying any authority not created by or confirmed by yourself.You cannot expect me to verify my Faith according to your terms.Additionally, you cannot frame it according to the laws of scientiofic proof because faith and belief do not fall within that discipline.We can possibly never agree on THIS one!This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-26-2005 01:07 AM

Phatboy responds to me:

quote:

---

You claim that you believe in A God but not MY God.

---

No, I don't. I've been very careful not to state anything about whether or not I actually believe in god. I do not wish to have my statements dismissed simply because someone thinks I do or do not believe.What I claim is that simply because I don't believe in your god, that doesn't mean I don't believe in any. You see the difference, yes?

quote:

---

Who says that we need to have empirical and naturalistic methods of proof for justification of our belief?

---

Because the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. You want others to go along with you, you have to explain why.

quote:

---

Based on your logic, you could walk into a room full of Christian Believers and declaere in effect that there was no valid proof for their belief.

---

Yep.That's why it's called "belief." That's why it's called "faith." It's because you can't prove it.There are lots of things that people believe in without evidence. Even atheists. The important point is to know what they are.

quote:

---

You cannot expect me to verify my Faith according to your terms.

---

Sure, I can. Logic works for everyone. Burden of proof is on the one making the claim.That would be you.

quote:

---

Additionally, you cannot frame it according to the laws of scientiofic proof

---

Who said anything about "scientiofic" [sic] proof? I'm just talking about logic. While science has a lot to do with logic, logic is not science.

quote:

---

faith and belief do not fall within that discipline.

---

Congratulations. You figured it out. I've only said it over and over again. You can believe whatever you want...just be honest about it and admit that it's belief.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I take it you’re not talking about the nonexistence of god[s], because if I recall correctly you make a point out of defining atheism not as the positive assertion that there is/are no god[s], but rather as lack of belief. In other words, nonexistence of belief as opposed to belief in nonexistence. What things do atheists believe in without evidence?

---

"Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom."
--Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

UFOs, Alien abduction, Bigfoot, Yeti, Nessie, Men in Black, Govt Conspiracy, Urban Legends, Julia Roberts actually deserved to win an oscar for best actress... My favorite: internationaljewishconspiracy.com is almost here!This message has been edited by custard, 02-26-2005 04:02 AM

Good point. Well, except for that last oneno one really believes that. In retrospect, that was a stupid question. What I meant was what do rational atheists believe in without evidence, but then again that wasn’t what Rrhain originally said at all. I take it the answer is nothing, unless I’m missing something.

---

"Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom."
--Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker