An atheist who is not so keen on God

jar writes:

quote:

---

If doing good things, even small little insignificant things count as expressing love, if doing for the least of them is the same as doing it directly for jesus, then would that not be true across the board?

​

Why would the acts of kindness and just consideration of a professing believer be counted more worthy than the same acts when performed by an atheist?

---

The problem is that this presupposes the divinity of Jesus and thus is a circular argument. It equates "love" with "Jesus" and "god" and thus anything that anybody anywhere does is for Jesus and god if it is done with love.But that's assuming what you're trying to establish. 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. You need to show that a person can't do anything without Jesus or god entering into the equation.Is there nothing that is distinct and separate from god?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

jar writes:

quote:

---

The person who died was an Atheist who did not believe in GOD, but did try to live by helping others and does accept the Scientific Method. He is now faced with rather conclusive evidence that GOD does exist.

​

Will he abandon the Scientific Method and hold on to his non-belief in the face of irrefutable evidence?

---

Huh?How does someone who is presented with direct evidence coming to accept the results of that direct evidence get described as "abandoning the scientific method"?Were physicists "abandoning scientific method" when Newtonian kinematics was replaced with Einsteinian? Or perhaps the reason why the description of kinematics was shifted because of the scientific method?What you have said is that god is allowing himself to be put inside the box and poked, prodded, and tested. In other words, he is allowing himself to be subjected to scientific inquiry.So why on earth would someone who follows scientific inquiry suddenly abandon it when god starts playing by those rules?

quote:

---

Would the GOD I describe damn someone who acted appropriately and simply denied GOD's existence?

---

Dunno. It begs the question of why Jesus needed to die.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

jar responds to me:

quote:

---

Well, I am a Christian and I do presuppose the divinity of Jesus. LOL.

---

Of course, but it is a presupposition and thus cannot be applied to atheists. Any insistence that your vision of the world is necessarily the right one necessarily denies the existence of the atheist.

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 don't think so.

---

I do. When was it agreed that god is love? Again, you presuppose the existence of your god, define him as you wish, and then derive the action of that definition as proof of the existence. Circular argument.

quote:

---

What I believe I need to show is that GOD wants folk to help others, to do the right thing.

---

But the atheist doesn't care. Therefore, this desire of your is irrelevant to the question of whether or not an atheist is "loving god" when he helps other since he does not believe in the existence of god.If you and I both want me to do the same thing but I have absolutely no connection to you and come to the conclusion to do it completely on my own, how am I possibly carrying out your desires? You didn't enter into it. You are completely outside the system. You may agree with what I've done, but you can claim absolutely no part of it.You are trying to say that when a person does something good, it's because of god. Congratulations, jar...you just did away with free will.Is there anything that is separate and distinct from god?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Is there nothing that is distinct and separate from god?

---

​

Asking me, as a Christian? No, of course not.

---

Congratulations. You just did away with free will. This isn't me writing this message to you. It's god. And it isn't you reading it. It's god. The entire universe becomes nothing more than god playing with himself.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Oh, by the way: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. I've been very careful to keep my personal opinions about the existence of god out of this group precisely because I don't want you and those like you to assume anything about me simply because of a position I take. How nice to know that there are still people who can't handle criticism of their claims without demonizing the person making the criticism.And since when did agreeing with evolution make on an atheist? Are you calling the pope an atheist?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I didn't ask those questions for my health, jar. I really want to know:Why do you think I'm an atheist?Why did you equate evolution and atheism?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

jar responds to me.Well...no, he doesn't. Just more of the same avoiding of direct questions:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why did you equate evolution and atheism?

---

​

Because beer often comes in brown bottles.

---

Right. And because many people who advocate evolution are atheists, that means all of them? I asked you a direct question, jar. I would appreciate an answer:Are you calling the pope an atheist?Yes, I read the thread, jar. That's why I responded the way I did: You are assuming what you are trying to prove. Circular argument. Now, answer the question:Since when did evolution have anything to do with atheism? Are you saying god cannot create life that evolves?Are you calling the pope an atheist?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

jar responds to me:

quote:

---

I'm sorry Rrhain but absolutely nothing in any of your posts has anything to do with anything I said.

---

See Message 26 to which your response eventually reduced itself to "Okay. LOL."Then there was Message 27 to which you didn't respond at all.Shall we try it again?You are using a circular argument. You presuppose the existence of your god, define him as you wish, and then derive the action of that definition as proof of the existence.How does this apply to the atheist who has absolutely no connection to god? Or are you saying god is required for everything? Is there nothing that is not directly caused by god?You seemed to agree to that statement but when I pointed out that doing so results in the elimination of free will, you disintegrated and merely responded with, "Okay. LOL."So are you saying there is no such thing as free will? I really want to know.And it would be nice if you responded to Message 27.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

jar once again avoids the question.You mean you didn't write: And you didn't write: Is that what you're saying? You didn't write the above?Let's see if we can get you on the right track, shall we?You said: Now don't you think you have some justification to do here? When did this count as "expressing love"? But even more directly, you go on to say: Don't you think you need to then justify your claim of "doing it directly for jesus [sic]"?After all, this was my direct response to that:

quote:

---

The problem is that this presupposes the divinity of Jesus and thus is a circular argument. It equates "love" with "Jesus" and "god" and thus anything that anybody anywhere does is for Jesus and god if it is done with love.

---

You are trying to argue that anything that is "love" is "Jesus" and "god." But you haven't justified why we should go with this assessment. The mere existence of those who aren't Christian proves you wrong. They do loving things all the time and do so without any connection to Jesus.Or are you denying your own words?You said: This brings into question your comprehension of what the scientific method is. Thus, my response:

quote:

---

How does someone who is presented with direct evidence coming to accept the results of that direct evidence get described as "abandoning the scientific method"?

---

Answer the question: If god presented himself before you and allowed himself to be poked, prodded, and experimented upon, why would somebody who follows scientific method suddenly abandon it?

quote:

---

No where did I equate atheism with evolution.

---

Oh, really? Then what, pray tell, was the subject line of Message 8 of this thread? Are you saying you didn't write Message 8?

quote:

---

No where did I say you are an atheist.

---

Did you or did you not say in Message 34 of this thread, when asked why you equate evolution and atheism: So seeing as how you equated them in Message 8 and did it again in Message 34 and since I am one who advocates evolution, that must mean I'm an atheist, right?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

jar responds to me:

quote:

---

No, that was covered in the context of the thread.

---

Where?Be specific.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are trying to argue that anything that is "love" is "Jesus" and "god."

---

​

Nope. Don't believe I've even hinted at that.

---

Did you or did you not say: You agreed to that. Now tell us how "expressing love...is the same as doing it directly for jesus [sic]" is not equating love and Jesus.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The mere existence of those who aren't Christian proves you wrong. They do loving things all the time and do so without any connection to Jesus.

---

​

Well, it certainly doesn't prove me wrong because I've never said that people other than Christians can not do good.

---

But you've equated doing good with doing it for Jesus. Therefore, those who aren't Christian, when they do good, are doing it for Jesus even though they are actively doing it for some other reason.

quote:

---

I have always said that other folk than Christians do good.

---

But what you are saying is that by doing so, they are doing it for Jesus when they are obviously not.

quote:

---

I have no idea where you are getting your material.

---

From you. That's why I quote you.Help me out here. Stop beating around the bush. Stop trying to be cute. Just come right out and say it directly.[Fixed horrendous typo]This message has been edited by Rrhain, 02-21-2005 03:41 AM

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Phatboy responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Is there nothing that is distinct and separate from god?

---

​

Yes. There is. Do I need to prove it?

---

That isn't the point of the question. It's to determine where someone wishes to draw the line regarding the action of god. It's to determine if one can consider the possibility that there are other ways of looking at things that aren't all wrapped up in god this and god that.

quote:

---

And if I don't or can't prove it, does that mean that you have joined our circle for the moment?

---

Huh?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

He's saying that they do it unwittingly for God.

---

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.If an atheist does something for a reason other than god, then he cannot be doing it for god, even unwittingly. To do something for someone requires intention and atheists do not do anything with any intention directed toward god.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

jar responds to me:

quote:

---

I said yes. I was speaking from my personal point of view, which happens to be Christianity.

---

And I am asking you to justify that position. So far, all you've done is give circular arguments.Stop beating around the bush and come out with it already.

quote:

---

is there any difference in value between an act of kindness or courtesy when performed by a Christian or an Atheist when the only reason for performing the act was that it was the right thing to do?

---

Depends. What do you mean by "the right thing to do"? For Christians, that all too often is equivalent to "for god." 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.

quote:

---

So let me ask you, that same question. Do they have different values?

---

What do you mean by "values"? Again, Christian concepts of "values" tend to reduce themselves to "for god." Therefore, it is clear that atheists cannot be doing things for the same reasons as Christians.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Phatboy responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

And if I don't or can't prove it, does that mean that you have joined our circle for the moment?

---

​

Huh?

---

Um, scripture isn't going to help. I literaly did not understand how what you said related to what I said. Can you rephrase? How does your inability to do something relate to my stance on a position? Wouldn't it require me doing or not being able to do something?Now, it would be nice if you could mention what it is that is distinct and separate from god.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

jar writes:

quote:

---

I am speaking of the value of the action. I think this may also be part of the miscommunication between Rrhain and myself.

---

No, Phatboy had it right on: You are arguing from a position that unjustifiably defines love as god. The mere existence of atheists proves that not to be so. Love is not god. Not to an atheist.Therefore, since "love" means something very different for a Christian compared to an atheist, would it not be the case that doing something "out of love" means something very different to a Christian compared to an atheist?Can you talk about values without bringing god into it?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

jar writes:

quote:

---

The question I asked was whether or not, when actually presented with irrefutable evidence, the actual presence of GOD, the Atheist would abandon the scientific method or accept the evidence.

---

But that makes no sense! Scientific method necessarily requires the acceptance of evidence. You're asking a logical paradox. If he abandons the scientific method, he would refuse to accept the evidence literally staring him in the face. If he's going approach it scientifically, he has to accept the evidence.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!