|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#61
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Atheists?
Janie,
I understand the position you are taking, and the nature of your question. I think if you got things the way you say you would have preferred it, that you would not be very happy with the results. There are answers to your question. If I never failed at anything I would not treasure my successes. If I had never been lonely I would not cherish my friends we could create a society without crime and without violence - all we have to do is surrender our freedom, let someone else tell us what to do with every minute of our lives we could even be pumped full of morphine so we would feel happy all day. Thats not what I want, and all I can say is for some reason, that is not the way God wanted us to live. I do know that in the biblical frame of reference our lives are nothing but an instant. What is 70 years compaired to 700 years? its 10% compaired to 70,000 years? its 0.1% what is 70 years compaired to eternity? mathematically its zero. when we are 100,000 years into eternity this short life will be like nothing but a bad dream. What purpose does it serve? I think only God can answer that. But to look at this from a larger perspective, whether or not we understand why God has done the things He choose to do, has no effect on whether or not He exists. If I dont understand the tax laws, or how to file my tax return, or if I think the IRS is unfair, that does not make the IRS dissapear, and it does not make me exempt from paying my due tax. |
|
#62
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Atheists?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The whole point is that you expect us to presuppose the existence of God, and use that as the justification for the things you advocate (most prominently, belief in God). This is a circular argument. ![]() Last edited by Tristan Lall : 09-05-2005 at 21:16. |
|
#63
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Atheists?
Quote:
But if you dig down deep, and the things that one religion or another speaks to you, matches your inner nature, and you decide "this is the way I will live" even though you dont have absolute proof that you will be rewarded in the end then that accounts for something - that says something about your own nature and character, that you will do the right thing simply because you believe it is the right thing but if God steps in, and confronts you in person, before you make that personal decision, then anything you do after that is out of fear, or out of barganing. That is what you lose if God appears to everyone. You say 'show me God first, then maybe I will do what He wants'. Christianity says, do the things God desires from you, and God will reveal Himself to you, only to you, in His own way. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Other religions assert that God is whimsickle, that His character and nature changes with His mood. Christainity teaches there are three things God cannot do: 1. He cannot change. God is holy and perfect. If He changed in any way, He would no longer be holy, or perfect. This means He does not take back His word, He does not take away what He has given to us, and that includes our freewill. 2. God cannot learn, because He already knows everything. I have already stated I dont think God knows what we will do as individuals, but He does know all the possibilities, so there is nothing we can do to surprize, or teach God. 3. God cannot change the past - to do so would negate our freewill (boy freewill keeps coming up a lot! :^) Quote:
Christianity and other religions do say that we have a direct open line to God. And you have the personal experiences of millions of people as I pointed out before - ask someone why they believe in God? did they have a personal experience? a miracle in their life? An undeniable awareness of Gods presence? Quote:
I can say one thing, you will not find God, or disprove God with an equation or logic or an experiment in a lab. We are emotional creatures - we are not Vulcans - many of the things we do in our lives we do because there is an emotion attached to that endevour. If we are children of God, then God would not be a logical being either, His primary motive would be emotional as well. God may be all-powerfull as we choose to define those words, but we can still bring Him happiness, and we can cause Him pain and sorrow. Thats where the connection is. Last edited by KenWittlief : 10-05-2005 at 00:08. |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Atheists?
Ken-
I think this is where the discussion between Atheism and Religion breaks down. Generally, the Atheist asks for proof that god exists. Generally, the religious states that it can not be proven, only accepted. There are people, my self included, who can not accept something that can not be proven in consistent manner. Clearly, you believe very deeply in the existence of God, and you clearly have your reasons for that belief. I don't question it and I don't want to change it. I try very hard to understand where these beliefs come from. It's a constant issue between a person I love very much and myself. Just as I have trouble understanding why such an intelligent young woman would believe so many irrational things, she has trouble understanding why I can't accept something she _knows_ is right and doesn't question at all. I ask her why she knows it's right. 'Because I have faith, and I belive' is the usual response. Try to understand that, to me, that statement just doesn't hold water. It doesn't make sense. I couldn't live my life like that. It's as alien a thought to me to belive as for her to not believe. There is a fundamental difference in how we view one little word. In most other respects, we are very much the same. But when the word 'faith' is concerned, we are as opposed as can be. Faith to her is the corner stone of her life. It is the first thing she thinks of when she wakes, and the last when she goes to bed. Faith to her represents everything she aspires to be; a good Christian in the eyes of God. Faith means god and god means faith. The two are intertwined and connected. To me, faith is antithetical to the very way I live my life. Faith represents to me self dilution, blindness, a weakness. How could I believe something that goes against everything I know to be proven truth? 2+2=5. How could I just accept that although there is no proof that any of it is true? It would be like lieing to myself. Some simply can not manage faith. I won't presume to say that all the atheists on this board, or in the world, are faithless. As has been stated, atheism is a broad term, and there are many different kinds of atheist. I'll try to just speak for my self, but I imagine my feelings are shared. To me, faith is different from trust. Trust is earned. I trust my family, because more often then not they have been trustworthy. I trust my friends for the same reason. I even trust people I've just met, to an extent, because most people I've just met are again, trustworthy. People have proven to me that they can usually be trusted. I have evidence. Faith isn't trust. Faith is faith. I am told to believe in God. Why, I ask. You just have to believe and/or have faith that He is real, and He loves you. Why? Because. The more I ask 'why', the more I am told because. Thats what my discussions usually come down to with religious friends. They can't tell me why, and I can't tell them why not. The lack of evidence simply doesn't bother them, and they can't understand why it should bother me so much. I can trust, but I can't just have faith. Any religion requires faith at some point. You need faith to believe in God. Theres no way around it. You just have to be able to accept something as being true that can not be. You have to accept something that doesn't follow any of the rules. It's like accepting that 2+2=5 to me. I just can't do it, no matter who says it's true or how many say it's true. It just doesn't follow the rules I see everything else follow. As always, I'm not trying to dump on anyones religion, or make statements that anyone feels they have to defend. I wouldn't bother trying to defend against anything I've said. My girlfriend can already do a better job of that, I assure you (did I mention she's intelligent?). I just wanted to maybe convey where I think some atheists are coming from. We could get stuck in an endless loop, one side asking for proof the other stating that proof doesn't matter. That doesn't accomplish anything. But it ends up happening because neither side understands why it's important to the other. I applaud Ken for posing the questions of what being an atheist means, and answering every question put to him. Equally, I applaud everyone who has voiced their views on what being an atheist is, means and why. That takes guts these days- Atheism isn't a very popular view (has it ever been?). I especially thank everyone for keeping this thread civil, interesting and alive. I hope that this kind of discussion keeps a home here, because I think it has value (certainly more then pickup lines). So keep up the good work. -Andy A. |
|
#65
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Atheists?
Andy,
we are on page 5 and I apologize if I am starting to mix peoples posts together, was it not you who said you think the universe is knowable, that we are able to grasp everything, and eventaully we will understand everything? You metioned something about "how could I have faith in something when I know its not true?" I going to assume you are talking about the apparent conflict between science and religion - things that science says are different from what religion says. The age of the earth, or the universe, or the origins of man, evolution. This is a point where christianity and other religions part. The bible is 66 books written by 40 authors over a period of thousands of years, but its purpose is to communicate a unified message to us, the understanding of our relationship with our Creator. It is not intended to be a physics book. It is not intended to be a history book. Scientific or historical information that it contains is only there as part of the understanding of the ways God and humanity have interacted over the centuries. People that try to turn the Bible into a science book or a history book end up on their face. Scientific knowledge is in there, history is in there, but its not complete. A good example that people often bring up is the middle ages, when religious leaders insisted the earth was flat, because the bible speaks of the '4 corners' of the earth - not only was it flat, it was a sqare too! If you look into this seriously the original word used (in hebrew) actually refers to the 4 quarters of a sphere, the four half hemispheres. The hebrews were not mathemeticians, and did not have a developed language of geometry - these words were not comonly used. You can also find other places that say, viewed from a distance the earth is circular, or spherical, and that God hung the earth in space 'on nothing'. But if you go back, the text these things were taken from were not discussions about the shape of the earth - it was talking about some aspect of our relationship with God. That is the message of the bible - the thing that christianity is suppose to communicate - our relationship with God. That message is very clear, and I think you will have a hard time proving that aspect is in error. As for faith - faith is an emotional issue, not a scientific one. Can you love someone unless you have faith in that person, and faith in human nature? Loving someone and trusting your life to them is not logical. You cannot prove that your loved ones love you back (a problem that wealthy individuals often face). You could test someones love: put them in a contrived situation and see how they respond (but that would be a creepy thing to do - if you love someone you have faith in them, and you dont test them). The thing I have faith in as a christian is that Gods character is something I should emulate, and that God loves me. Im not especially worried about how old the earth is, whether or not the earth was flooded (totally or locally) or how many generations existed between Adam and Jesus. Your Creator loves you personally - that is the message. That is the issue of faith. That is what we believe. Does God exist in the first place? If love is being poured out on you like a river, it must be coming from somewhere. Last edited by KenWittlief : 10-05-2005 at 12:21. |
|
#66
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Atheists?
Ken-
Quote:
Quote:
The problem is that I have to belive in God in the first place to accept the bible as anything more then a book written in the bronze age. With out god, the bible holds no more relgious meaning to me then the equivelnt text of the Anazazi. Maybe it's a historical curiosity, but you wouldn't guide your life by it, because you already know the truth about God. The bible doesn't prove the exsistence of God, as nothing does or can. Before any other aspect of Christianty (or any thiestic religon) can be belived, you must first accept the exsistenice of God, a god, gods, ghosts, elves, talking rabbits or any number of things that simply can not be proven true or disproven. Can you beyond any doubt prove to me that elves don't exsist? Don't bother saying that no one has ever proven they do! Lack of proof isn't proof of nonexsistentice, right? Besides, elves can turn invisible and operate out of phase with the rest of the universe, which is why there are no pictures. Since you can't prove that they don't exist, you have to accept that they do, and maybe if your lucky one day one will talk to you and show you his elvish city. Ok, so I'm getting a little to sarcastic here. But do you see my point? This is why the debate between Athisem and Religion doesn't usally get anywhere. Before you can seriously expect an athiest to accept your arguments on what the nature of the Bible, God and Christainty is, you must first provide some credibilty for God. Since that isn't ever going to happen with out some more burning bushes and booming voices from the sky in our everyday lives, I'm not liable to smack my self on the head and say 'oh, now I get it! God exsists because Ken just told me he does!' Quote:
Quote:
-Andy A. |
|
#67
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Atheists?
Quote:
Yes, you can love someone and not have faith or trust in them. If you can't than I'm not human, because out of all of the people I love, I trust only three, and sometimes even then, it's with hesitation. Two of the people I don't trust are my parents, but you cannot tell me I do not love them. Why is love not logical? I know it can be irrational, and even crazy, but I think there's logic behind it too. If you buy a puppy, and you feed it, play with it, pet it and take care of it, it's only logical for that puppy to love you. I also think a lot of people do test the people they love, whether they know it or not, maybe not with contrived situations, but by pushing limits and such. I'll now return you to your regular discussion. Heidi |
|
#68
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Atheists?
Andy,
Lets look at this from a logical and scientific angle then. If you find an ancient document, that contains either historical or scientific information, or information and insite into human nature then the information it contains is either correct and accurate, or its wrong. Would you agree with that? For example, if this ancient document says the universe had a beginning, before the beginning matter, energy, empty space and even time itself did not exist, and then the universe was created 'from nothing' - we can check into that - we can study the universe and see if it always existed, if its in some repeating cycle, or if something like the big-bang brought the universe into existance 'from nothing'. Now if this ancient document says that information was gathered by astronomical observation, or was obtained from 'someone' who communicated it to us, that does not change the validity of the information itself, right? Hitler made this mistake. He rejected Einsteins work and theories, because he would not accept 'jew science' - he rejected the facts because he rejected the source. What am I getting at? The bible contains incredible insite into human nature. When Jesus preached to the masses the law of the land was an eye for an eye, and justice was brutal - society was brutal. People were amazed when He explained the rules existed to show us our own weaknesses and shortcomings, but the way to live together is through love, forgiveness, reconcillation and kindness. Love for our friends and love for our enemies. It was a totally outragious concept at the time. Now we have lived for hundreds of years with the 'golden rule' - so it seems more natural for us, but back then it was new information, and in other parts of the world it is still a foreign concept. So heres the thing: is the information correct? Are the teachings of Jesus the best way to live? If you put the concepts to the test and live that way, is your life better or worse? And if its better, then does it really matter where the information came from? If the knowledge of human nature is accurate then it stands on its own. Prophecy in the biblical sense had three components: a prophet would communicate: 1. this is how it was, this is how we got to where we are now and 2. this is how it is now - this is whats going on and here are your options and 3. this is whats going to happen next: if you do A then BC&D will happen, else if you do E then XY&Z will happen if we cant be certain about the past part, and the future part hasnt happened yet, all we have to go by is the now part - that we can test. If you follow eastern religions your life will go in one direction. If you believe in karma then your life and your interactions with others will go another way. If you treat people the way you would want to be treated (regardless of how they treat you) then you are on a different path Is this proof? is this evidence? Science says drop a hammer and it will fall and obey F=MA. Jesus says if you do A then BC&D will happen. So you try A and you see BC&D happening. you watch other people doing E and you see them experienceing XY&Z is that proof? Proof of the information, yes. Proof of the source? if the application to your personal life proves to be correct, then does it validate the source? Does the source really matter? I guess at some point you would have to figure out how a carpenter and a couple of simple fishermen 2000 years ago had such a profound insite into human nature, or how Moses knew the universe had a beginning. If the information did not come from them, then from where? But the information itself stands on its on merits. Last edited by KenWittlief : 10-05-2005 at 14:47. |
|
#69
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Atheists?
Quote:
Love is something we choose to do, not a squishy feeling that overwhelms us. We do love people we are at odds with and I think part of the reason is we are holding out hope that our love will reach that person, and the differences will be reconciled. If you were absolutely certain that a person is going to cause you pain and grief for the rest of your life, and there was no hope of the situation ever improving, would you still want to have a continuing relationship with that person? My faith in human nature tells me if Im kind and loving to someone else, that person will be affected by my actions, for the better. |
|
#70
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Atheists?
Wow this definatly strayed from the point of this thread.
|
|
#71
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Atheists?
Quote:
![]() |
|
#72
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Atheists?
I think that Andy has captured the spirit of what I'm getting at rather well. As I read Ken's posts, I can't help but notice the repeated use of concepts that, in order to be valid, require the existence of the Christian god, or Jesus, or some other aspect of Christian scripture. At the heart of the matter, therefore, is the question of how to verify these that these prerequisite things are real and true—after all, from a neutral perspective (not even atheistic—rather agnostic in the strictest sense), it makes sense to look before one leaps; what if it's not only a lie, but in fact, the Norse gods are real, and they condemn devout Christians to the basement of Niflheim? How can you possibly know for sure? What if you're wrong?
Constructing beliefs around a fundamental uncertainty, and then using those beliefs to make the uncertain seem certain is one thing that I can't stand, from a philosophical point of view—the circularity of it lends it credence, because everything seems to fit; upon reflection, though, it is apparent that everything builds upon uncertainty, with the sheer volume of the belief disguising the fact that it is all conjectural, hinging upon that uncertain premise. (Hence, "We Recycle"....) For example: Quote:
I think that Ken feels that his creator was God, and that that god set down some specific principles that Ken should hold in high esteem. The trouble with faith, applied injudiciously, is that it can justify anything. For example, the suggestion that "[i]f love is being poured out on you like a river, it must be coming from somewhere" was used to imply that God exists; but why couldn't it imply that Gaia exists, or that one's loving family exists, etc.? Even if we accept the premise at face value, why assume that it is a reflection of God, when, in fact, it could be a representation of any number of concepts, or maybe just a coincedence signifying nothing special at all? Quote:
Morality is not the sole domain of religion; the fact that the "golden rule" is accepted widely could be the result of Jesus's proselytization, or it could be the result of the fact that such a rule tends to benefit societies in specific ways, regardless of religion. (The supposition that it was a new concept is also strange—I'd be willing to bet that it predates Jesus by at least a few centuries in written form, and that it could be argued that similar—but uncodified—conventions of behaviour have existed in nature for far longer still.) In short, Christians like Ken seem to attribute their morality to religious influences; I prefer to take a less radical stance, and not assume the existence of excess components. In the end, I do suspect that, from a moralistic point of view, much will be held in common. |
|
#73
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Atheists?
Tristan, Andy, Ken and everyone,
Interesting posts so far. I thought I might add a little testimony here. I too went through a time where I doubted the existence of GOD. It was in my enlightened youth during college when all the world seemed so ordered that a supreme being couldn't possibly exist. So, you see, I understand all of your points thus far. I can't prove the existence or non-existence of God but I believe he exists. I can't prove that the Christian God is the only one, but I believe that an omnipotent God would reveal himself in any form that an individual or group might be more willing to accept. So for the Greeks and romans it took several different gods, for Hindus or Buddhists something completely different. There were a few things that began a change in my beliefs from atheist/agnostic to where I am today. The first was travel which opened my eyes to the natural wonders that abound on this great green planet. The biodiversity is beyond understanding in that pure luck, evolution and coincidence could not have come up with the varieties we have. How does a life form evolve into a narwhal or a kangaroo without some push? The shear amount of geographical features and plant life also astound me. In these things there is so much beauty. If you have ever stood on the rim of the Grand Canyon and seen it for more than the biggest hole on the face of the earth or watched the sunset over the west rim or it fall into the ocean off Hawaii it somehow will touch you forever. The second thing to change my mind was having children. What a wonder that we are able to put two beings together and form a third. To watch a child grow and learn is too astounding to not have some other force involved. So I am not giving these things for an argument or explanation just a description of one person's experience and transition. There were a few poignant lines in the movie "Oh God" with John Denver and George Burns that seemed to me to say it best. God said that he gave us a free will but that meant he could not come in change our thoughts or actions. He gave us all the natural resources and intelligence we would ever need and we could use them any way we choose. That meant we could use them for exceptional good or we could screw it up, our choice. We could love our fellow man and advance or we could hate and subjugate and decline. He could make it rain whenever he wanted but why screw it up for everyone so he made it rain inside John's car. The point is for me is that everything could easily be part of God's plan, evolution, the planets, stars, mole rats and the bible, Koran or Stonehenge. These things are not mutually exclusive in my mind. |
|
#74
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Atheists?
Quote:
Good question. How could you possibly know for sure? If the God of Judiasm and Christianity is real, exactly as it has been reportedly communicated to us by the people who interacted with Him then, what proof of His existance, and His character would you (personally) accept? what would you consider acceptable proof? |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Atheists?
Quote:
-Andy A. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|