An atheist who is not so keen on God

jjburklo writes:

quote:

---

This is precisely why an acts based salvation cannot work among other reasons.

---

This is, of course, in direct contradiction to what Jesus said. Salvation is through works. Who are you going to believe? Jesus/Peter or Paul?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

jar responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Depends. What do you mean by "the right thing to do"?

---

​

Doing good things.

---

Why are they good?

quote:

---

Stopping to help a turtle cross the road. Helping someone reach a package on the top shelf. Asking if you can help someone load their groceries.

---

Why are such things good? You haven't defined what "the right thing to do is." You've just given examples without explanation.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Therefore, an atheist and a Christian doing the same thing, even though they both think it is "the right thing to do" are doing something for different reasons.

---

​

Doesn't matter.

---

Says who?

quote:

---

If you had read what I've said in this thread I have never addressed the reasons that the individual did something. It is totally immaterial to the thread.

---

Incorrect. It is the very heart. One cannot comprehend what "the right thing to do" is without defining the reasons for doing them. That's what makes them "right."

quote:

---

What I have been talking of is what value GOD places on the action.

---

Since there is no god for the atheist, what on earth does this have to do with anything?

quote:

---

My point is that it is immaterial what the individual's motive was. GOD will value the good acts of an atheist equally if not greater than those of a believer.

---

That's fine and good, but it isn't what Brian was getting at. As he said: But you can't show love FOR god without god. That's what "for" means. It requires an object. If there is no object, then you aren't doing it "for" anything.In essence, it is co-opting atheism as just a sad, childish way of living. "They know not what they do."How insulting.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

jar responds to me:

quote:

---

That is exactly the point I made.

---

Your point was that you were illogical?Stop being cute.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

jar responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are arguing from a position that unjustifiably defines love as god.

---

​

Nope. Never said that.

---

Yes, you did: If you can't remember your own words....

quote:

---

With every post it becomes increasingly obvious that you haven't read the thread.

---

(*chuckle*)This from someone who admits to having said the very thing he claims he didn't say.Of course, you also claim that your point was illogical and yet you're still sticking by it.

quote:

---

What I have been talking about is GOD's perception of the act.

---

God doesn't understand the concept of doing something for a reason?What do you think the word "for" means?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

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!

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!

Snikwad writes:

quote:

---

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.

---

But that's just it. Nobody is completely rational. Take, for example, someone in the midst of crisis. There is a very common belief that "everything is going to be OK." While the theist might ascribe that belief to god's benevolence, atheists have this feeling, too. "This, too, shall pass." They may claim that the world has been turning for millions of years and past experience shows that while there are down times, they are usually followed by up times; after all, they made it this far, etc.But that doesn't mean this time is going to be like the last time. Past experience is not indicative of future gain and all that. There is no proof or evidence that things are going to get better, but we all believe it (assuming no descent into depression and suicide.)The belief that there is "somebody out there for me." "Love conquers all." All sorts of philosophical positions are out there that atheists believe in.They just don't have any belief in god.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Snikwad responds to me:

quote:

---

This is precisely why science is tentative in nature

---

What does this have to do with atheism? Science isn't atheism.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!