Ask an Atheist

[Demosthenes]

I'm getting the vibe that atheism isn't terribly popular around here.


This is not meant to be inflammatory. This is meant to be a learning experience. I'm curious what you all think about atheism, and if you have any questions for an atheist, I'm well qualified to answer them.

[Melville]

Read Ender's Game recently?

[Demosthenes]

Read Ender's Game recently?


Locke was taken ;-)

[Sketch]

impressive that you get this 'vibe' with all of 2 posts in this forum.

[Mydogatemyhomework]

I'll bite.


1) How can you, an Athiest, be moral?
2) Do you fear death?. ( you will be food for worms)
3) Do you have "faith" in what you think?

[CID_0687]

impressive that you get this 'vibe' with all of 2 posts in this forum.
You saw that too huh?

[Harmonious]

impressive that you get this 'vibe' with all of 2 posts in this forum.It is possible for someone to be a lurker for quite some time.

[biggles53]

And around and around we go again.....

I'll bite.


1) How can you, an Athiest, be moral?
2) Do you fear death?. ( you will be food for worms)
3) Do you have "faith" in what you think?

1. I can be moral because I am capable of assessing what kinds of behaviour are acceptable and welcomed by others.

2. I don't welcome its arrival, but no, I don't fear death. I was very concerened about my mortality when I was about 8, but have since come to terms with it.

3. If "faith" implies belief without evidence...then no.

[sosbillncarolyn]

why ask the questions to begin with?

[Demosthenes]

I'll bite.


1) How can you, an Athiest, be moral?
2) Do you fear death?. ( you will be food for worms)
3) Do you have "faith" in what you think?

1. This question often leads to debates that are completely ungrounded if we don't have a common definition of morality. I'm going to approach this question assuming you're going to try and pursue a moral absolutism versus moral relativism argument:

And to answer: What is it, exactly, that makes you moral?

Nothing about a moral system predicates that the system be dictated by some almighty figure, or even be cosmically true. You may point out, and you'd be correct in doing so, that this approach leads to moral relativism.

What you'd be wrong in doing is equating moral relativism to moral nihilism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your assertion is as follows:

"Because you do not believe in God, you cannot be moral."

This assertion is fallacious. Nothing about my disbelief in God bars me from being a moral person, as per your definition of morality.

A better assertion would be:

"Because you do not believe in God, you cannot justify your moral system."

Which I would agree with, tenuously. But this conclusion isn't terribly exciting. It's a result of any self-referential system (I am a good person so as to be good, etc.). I posit that even your morality suffers from a similar problem. You would probably argue that you are a moral person because God put forth what was moral and what was immoral.

But even in this case, you cannot prove why you are a moral person. Your eventual argument would stem on the fact that you follow God, but you cannot prove the existence or truth of God's word. So an analogous question to you would be, "Why are you so sure God exists, or that the bible is correct?".

My inability to justify my moral system is not unique to an atheist, you see. You actually run in to the same problem, regardless of your staunch belief or disbelief in God.

I am a "moral person" because I've been culturally, evolutionarily, and socially ingrained to be that way (not necessarily in that order). I feel "good" when I do "good" things, and I feel "bad" when I do "bad" things.

If you are going to ask why I wouldn't just start doing bad things if I saw nothing provably "wrong" with them, my only response would be, "Why would I want to stop feeling good?". I like feeling good! ;-)

2. Ah, but you will be food for worms as well.

I fear death, but again, this isn't terribly unexpected, because we wouldn't be such a successful species if we didn't have some psychological mechanism that was effective at keeping us around, or preventing us from throwing ourselves from cliffs. If we didn't fear death, how long do you think we would have lasted?


3. Again, I fear my answer to this question will be hopeless sputtering if we don't already agree on a common definition of "faith", but I'll give it a shot.

I have faith in things that are convenient to have faith in--things that make sense to me. I have faith that I will not fly off the surface of the earth, and that when I stand up to walk somewhere, that I won't fall through the floor.

Most of all, I have faith in reality as I perceive it being rational and ordered to the point I can make meaningful predictions about it.

I do not have faith in God, and I do not have faith in the nonexistence of God. The idea of God, to me, simply isn't at all meaningful or useful, so I have no concern for it.

You may point out that (most of) these things aren't faith at all, they're just common sense! But you'd be surprised how much philosophical gymnastics throughout history has gone in to (trying to) justifying every one of those things I just put forth.

[RayMan]

I'm getting the vibe that atheism isn't terribly popular around here.


This is not meant to be inflammatory. This is meant to be a learning experience. I'm curious what you all think about atheism, and if you have any questions for an atheist, I'm well qualified to answer them.

I enjoy discussing various subjects with pretty much all the atheists who hang out here. They seem to be nice, friendly folk for the most part. There are undoubtedly a few of the religious believers around here that have a hard time with accepting atheists and debating the ideas they bring to the forum, but I think they would be in the minority.

The vibe may just be in your own head my friend.

[Demosthenes]

I enjoy discussing various subjects with pretty much all the atheists who hang out here. They seem to be nice, friendly folk for the most part. There are undoubtedly a few of the religious believers around here that have a hard time with accepting atheists and debating the ideas they bring to the forum, but I think they would be in the minority.

The vibe may just be in your own head my friend.

Well this only helps me, then, because all I'm really interested in is an engaging conversation :-)

[RayMan]

Well this only helps me, then, because all I'm really interested in is an engaging conversation :-)

Enjoy. :D

[Apatriot]

impressive that you get this 'vibe' with all of 2 posts in this forum.

Very astute observation.

[adroit]

Very astute observation.

I lurked on the forums for a good while before posting.

[RayMan]

I lurked on the forums for a good while before posting.

I was reading pretty much every day for two months before I registered and started posting.

[Marleysdaddy]

I was reading pretty much every day for two months before I registered and started posting.

I wish I had been here those two months :whistle:

[RayMan]

I wish I had been here those two months :whistle:

:)):))

[I am the Eggman]

I'll bite.


1) How can you, an Athiest, be moral?


Same way you can. I have the same built in sense of right and wrong that you do, and I can read books and have discussions with others that help me clarify and apply that sense to real world situations. Though I often read books that were written more recently than yours.


2) Do you fear death?. ( you will be food for worms)


In some ways, yes. That fear causes me not to engage in activities that are likely to cause death to come prematurely. Being food for worms just means that after I die I contribute to the cycle of life here on earth.

I don't fear death in the same way chrisitans do, in that I have no fear whatsoever that if I don't believe certain things in ancient books it somehow changes what happens after I die.


3) Do you have "faith" in what you think?


Nope. I don't need faith with regards to morals, death, or lack of belief in a god or religion.

Morals are situational and societal, and need to be evaluated as new information comes to light, and they need to be evaluated everytime we make a choice. Not every choice we make is a clear cut decision between right and wrong.

For example, is slavery moral? The bible allows for it. Is killing an adulterer moral? The bible all but demands it. Is torturing people to force their conversion to christianity moral? Those who did so believed it was. Is it moral to kill people who try to convert you from their religion? One current religion I know of teaches that and has enacted political law to that effect in their countries.

I don't know if anything further happens when I die, and that does not bother me one bit as I have no control over it.

[Voxpopuli]

I have a question for atheists.

If there is no after-life, I assume you value your current life preciously. Its the only existence you will ever have.

So, if there is no after-life and this time on earth is all that you have. Why do you waste your time on the Hannity boards? :D

This question would be directed at those who average more than 5 posts a day.

[Thor]

I have a question for atheists.

If there is no after-life, I assume you value your current life preciously. Its the only existence you will ever have.

So, if there is no after-life and this time on earth is all that you have. Why do you waste your time on the Hannity boards? :D

This question would be directed at those who average more than 5 posts a day.

Who says this is a waste of my time? I enjoy these boards. I wouldn't be here otherwise.

[RayMan]

Who says this is a waste of my time? I enjoy these boards. I wouldn't be here otherwise.

Exactly!

[Koushi Shinigami]

I have a question for atheists.

If there is no after-life, I assume you value your current life preciously. Its the only existence you will ever have.

So, if there is no after-life and this time on earth is all that you have. Why do you waste your time on the Hannity boards? :D

This question would be directed at those who average more than 5 posts a day.

*looks at own post/day count*

Hmmmmmmm :think:

[RayMan]

*looks at own post/day count*

Hmmmmmmm :think:


So, if there is no after-life and this time on earth is all that you have. Why do you waste your time on the Hannity boards? :D

This question would be directed at those who average more than 5 posts a day.

As long as you believe there IS an after-life you are good to go.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Cool

At 31+ posts per day I was kinda worried. ;)

[Thor]

Exactly!

Now, if you were to ask my boss if this is a waste of my time....

[Lie Sniper]

impressive that you get this 'vibe' with all of 2 posts in this forum.

I would say that this "vibe" is inaccurate. As you know there are several active atheist contributors on this forum. "Most" of you are liked and respected. ;)

Aside from the fly by crack-pots that attack you guys and get banned or are quickly refuted through debate, I can only think of a few posters that regularly debate with you guys while teetering on the line of respect.

[RayMan]

Now, if you were to ask my boss if this is a waste of my time....

Sometimes ignorance can be bliss. This is probably one of those times.

[BigJimSlade]

I'll bite.


1) How can you, an Athiest, be moral?
2) Do you fear death?. ( you will be food for worms)
3) Do you have "faith" in what you think?

1) Morality and the following of organized religions or ancient texts hardly go hand in hand. A Sunday school teacher stuffed a young girl in a suitcase with lifetime of being in a "Christian" family. Hitler was quite fond of the bible but seemed to have a very questionable set of morals. He cherry-picked from the bible just as many modern men do... Either momma and daddy didn't raise these people very well or deep down they're hopelessly sick people...

Considering what was happening 2,000+ years ago, many ancient texts aren't socially/culturally relevant anymore. In modern society people drive cars, use computers, are treated with advanced medicine, have a different perspective on things. The threat of "afterlife punishment" just doesn't have the same effect as it did when people were getting pinned up on crosses, blaming the sound of thunder on an angry deity and making up religious rules so people don't eat pork products.

"Don't eat pork or you're a "sinner"!"
just doesn't have the same effect as
"Don't eat pork or you'll get sick and maybe die!"

Morally speaking
"Don't kill people or a red guy with a tail and pitchfork is going to poke you once your dead!"
versus
"Don't kill people or spend the rest of your life in prison or get executed!"
Either way: a well-loved person with a loving heart should know killing is wrong. Gods or no gods.

I think regardless of HOW people got their moral foundation growing up, I think more importantly for the potentially troublesome citizens of the world is if/how they feel guilt and compassion. Do they care enough about their fellow humans to do good and treat others well? If they do something wrong, do they regret that behavior? The most desperate people of this world don't seem to regret what they do and if/how it affects others.

Most people I know are atheists and they all have somehow managed not to murder people (though the goat sacrifices are always a tad messy!). The amount of crimes committed by "Christians" proves that sick people do sick things, regardless of the organized religion they inherited (or chose as an adult).

2) Becoming food for worms sounds scary enough! As a kid during Catholic I was much more scared of death. The imagery can be quite frightening! But religion or not, death is something many of us have to come to terms with... I'm of the school that, for the most part, it's best not to obsess on it while you're busy living...

3) I have faith that as long as people of this world follow their hearts and are brought up to respect others, that they won't harm other people with their ancient beliefs. I hope that if I think positive thoughts and treat people with love and respect they'll do the same.

[Deak2112]

I view atheism in some cases as people that want to live a life of fun and do what feels good in the here-and-now, but see that religion often talks against it so they stop believing so they feel better about doing what they want.

I also see people being atheist because some hard s*** has happened in their lives and they don't understand why God would allow that to happen so they just stop believing.

Others think they are too smart to believe in a God because it equates to believing in magic in their eyes.

And some are just too stubborn to believe in something without 100% proof.

Atheists can be cool though, don't get me wrong.

I don't have anything against atheists, I have sympathy because of what I believe will happen to them. The only atheists I have a problem with are the ones that message me on youtube cussing me out for believing even when I keep to myself, the ones that ironically say I'm wasting time, and the ones that openly say that they want to get people to stop having faith. I've encountered all of them many many times. I won't make any assumptions about the OP, however.

[Meriweather]

Hey, Deak, I see you are new here. You have what is known as a "filter bypass" in your post where you tried to self-filter a naughty word. That is against the ToS for this site. What you are supposed to do is type out the entire word and the filtering system will do its job.

I would urge you to edit your post, especially that asterisked word.

[biggles53]

I view atheism in some cases as people that want to live a life of fun and do what feels good in the here-and-now, but see that religion often talks against it so they stop believing so they feel better about doing what they want.

Aah...nope.

I also see people being atheist because some hard s*** has happened in their lives and they don't understand why God would allow that to happen so they just stop believing.

Nope...not here.

Others think they are too smart to believe in a God because it equates to believing in magic in their eyes.

Sorry...

And some are just too stubborn to believe in something without 100% proof.

Still....no.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that atheists are atheists because of a conscious decision to not believe in a deity. Might I suggest that many (most?) of us have simply never found a reason to believe...!

Atheists can be cool though, don't get me wrong.

You did have me wondering.....

I don't have anything against atheists, I have sympathy because of what I believe will happen to them.

And if you've chosen the wrong god to worship, should I also feel sympathy for what might happen to you....?

The only atheists I have a problem with are the ones that message me on youtube cussing me out for believing even when I keep to myself, the ones that ironically say I'm wasting time, and the ones that openly say that they want to get people to stop having faith. I've encountered all of them many many times. I won't make any assumptions about the OP, however.

I got bitten by a dog once, as a kid. Though most of the other dogs I've met in my life, I got along with fine. Funny that.....

[Deak2112]

I got bitten by a dog once, as a kid. Though most of the other dogs I've met in my life, I got along with fine. Funny that.....

I told you I don't have a problem with atheists. It's when they do stuff that I mentioned that gets them on my bad side. I'm sure you like christians until they start shoving stuff down your throat threatening you with hell. You're being black and white about this.

[captusa]

I'll bite.


1) How can you, an Athiest, be moral?
Easily.
And a lot more moral than many of the Theists I observe.


2) Do you fear death?. ( you will be food for worms)
No. When the worms eat me I won't know it because I will be dead.
BTW Would your Deity deny worms a needed meal ?.


3) Do you have "faith" in what you think?

Probably at least as much as you have in yours.

[Values]

Easily.
And a lot more moral than many of the Theists I observe.



No. When the worms eat me I won't know it because I will be dead.
BTW Would your Deity deny worms a needed meal ?.


Probably at least as much as you have in yours.

Where do atheists get these "easily" gained morals?

[Marleysdaddy]

Where do atheists get these "easily" gained morals?

Asked and answered eleventy-one times.

[RayMan]

Asked and answered eleventy-one times.


I don't see why it is so hard for some Christians to believe that atheists, and even agnostic deists, can have moral values somewhat consistent to those laid out in the Bible.

I don't see them saying Buddhists can't be moral, Hindus can't be moral or those who follow the teachings of Confucius can't live moral lives, even those those religions have nothing to do with the Christian Scriptures.

It seems to fly in the face of common sense to me. I know and work with athesists daily who are nice, polite, helpful, morally upright people. I believe atheists are totally wrong on the God question but I don't believe that makes it an impossibility for them to be nice, law abiding, moral citizens.

It's the agnostic deists that worry me. We need to keep a close eye on them. :whistle:

[I am the Eggman]

Where do atheists get these "easily" gained morals?

I get them from books too, just like you, among other places. However, I don't make the mistake that morals gained from books, ancient ones in particular, represent some kind of absolute morality.

[Marleysdaddy]

It's the agnostic deists that worry me. We need to keep a close eye on them. :whistle:

:))

[Deak2112]

Easily.
And a lot more moral than many of the Theists I observe.

Well maybe according to your morals. That statement is somewhat paradoxical because you define your morality on what you believe it should be then say that you think you are more moral than theists but yet that's only according to your beliefs so if you say your more moral than these theists its only compared to your moral compass. So it seems that you are comparing them to standing moral principles that you may disagree with but still compare yours with. In other words you may call them immoral compared to their beliefs but not yours so are they actually being immoral?

What I'm saying is, for example, you believe that if it feels good you should do it(I'm not saying you believe this, it's an example) so you go and party and stuff and do what you think is okay, but you observe a christian doing it and think that they are being immoral even though you're doing it too and concluded that it isn't breaking your morals but yet you are able to compare their morality to a moral compass that you don't believe in.

I'm reading this and can tell that I'm having trouble putting it into words but hopefully you know what I'm saying.

[adroit]

Well maybe according to your morals. That statement is somewhat paradoxical because you define your morality on what you believe it should be then say that you think you are more moral than theists but yet that's only according to your beliefs so if you say your more moral than these theists its only compared to your moral compass. So it seems that you are comparing them to standing moral principles that you may disagree with but still compare yours with. In other words you may call them immoral compared to their beliefs but not yours so are they actually being immoral?

What I'm saying is, for example, you believe that if it feels good you should do it(I'm not saying you believe this, it's an example) so you go and party and stuff and do what you think is okay, but you observe a christian doing it and think that they are being immoral even though you're doing it too and concluded that it isn't breaking your morals but yet you are able to compare their morality to a moral compass that you don't believe in.

I'm reading this and can tell that I'm having trouble putting it into words but hopefully you know what I'm saying.

Is it not possible for two people to perform the same action and it be a sin for one but not the other?

[Marleysdaddy]

Well maybe according to your morals. That statement is somewhat paradoxical because you define your morality on what you believe it should be

Every human that has a morality defines it on what he or she believes it should be...

[adroit]

Every human that has a morality defines it on what he or she believes it should be...

+1

That's the purpose of our conscience.

[Demosthenes]

Well maybe according to your morals. That statement is somewhat paradoxical because you define your morality on what you believe it should be then say that you think you are more moral than theists but yet that's only according to your beliefs so if you say your more moral than these theists its only compared to your moral compass. So it seems that you are comparing them to standing moral principles that you may disagree with but still compare yours with. In other words you may call them immoral compared to their beliefs but not yours so are they actually being immoral?

What I'm saying is, for example, you believe that if it feels good you should do it(I'm not saying you believe this, it's an example) so you go and party and stuff and do what you think is okay, but you observe a christian doing it and think that they are being immoral even though you're doing it too and concluded that it isn't breaking your morals but yet you are able to compare their morality to a moral compass that you don't believe in.

I'm reading this and can tell that I'm having trouble putting it into words but hopefully you know what I'm saying.

Your argument doesn't really make sense.

I certainly don't have to be an adherent of your moral system to recognize what is or is not moral within your system. That's simply a matter of inspection.

And I'm certainly capable of determining whether or not my actions are in line with what you believe to be moral or immoral.

A "better" argument, which several have tried to pursue, is to point out the differences in our reasons for being moral--our motivations, which I'll let you ponder.


The reasoning is paradoxical! But, your reasons for belief, as it happens, are, logically, just as paradoxical.

I do good because good is good.

You do good because God told you to do good. Why? Because he said so. Why should you follow him? Because it is good to follow God. Why is it good to follow God? Because he said so.

You cannot prove the existence of God, therefore you're in the same boat as everyone else, theist and atheist alike. I like to think I've simply cut a few steps out of the circular reasoning ;-)

[captusa]

Where do atheists get these "easily" gained morals?

Where do all the immoral Theists get their immorality ?

[Deak2112]

Where do all the immoral Theists get their immorality ?

That's a stupid question. When a theist is immoral it's usually because they choose to disobey. It should have no reflection on the religion itself. We are only human and can't be 100% moral every night and day non-stop but rest assure when we choose not to be, the non-believers are there to point it out as a means to discredit the religion.

Like I said, I've dealt with many many atheists before. I'm not saying all atheists fall under what I described but I have seen it enough to find it worth mentioning. I have to put a disclaimer any time I talk about multiple atheists because they often assume I'm generalizing about every single one.

[captusa]

That's a stupid question. When a theist is immoral it's usually because they choose to disobey. It should have no reflection on the religion itself. We are only human and can't be 100% moral every night and day non-stop but rest assure when we choose not to be, the non-believers are there to point it out as a means to discredit the religion.

Like I said, I've dealt with many many atheists before. I'm not saying all atheists fall under what I described but I have seen it enough to find it worth mentioning. I have to put a disclaimer any time I talk about multiple atheists because they often assume I'm generalizing about every single one.

I do not see the morality of conducting ones actions because of the reward of heaven, the fear of hell or to please an imagined Deity.

[Deak2112]

I do not see the morality of conducting ones actions because of the reward of heaven, the fear of hell or to please an imagined Deity.

Well I believe that God commands what is right, not that it is right because God commands so they doesn't apply to me.

[RayMan]

I do not see the morality of conducting ones actions because of the reward of heaven, the fear of hell or to please an imagined Deity.

Ah, but it could be different for those of us who do not consider Him to be an imagined Deity, but rather the real deal. Letting your prejudice show there Cap.

[merryAtheist]

Well I believe that God commands what is right, not that it is right because God commands so they doesn't apply to me.

So you agree with atheists that "what is right" is something that can be determined apart from God. Good. We're on the same page.

[I am the Eggman]

Ah, but it could be different for those of us who do not consider Him to be an imagined Deity, but rather the real deal. Letting your prejudice show there Cap.

Whether real or imagined, there's still a heavy reward/punishment motivation thing going on there. And a built in excuse when you slip ;).

[Demosthenes]

Well I believe that God commands what is right, not that it is right because God commands so they doesn't apply to me.


Could you please elaborate on this?

[I am the Eggman]

Well I believe that God commands what is right, not that it is right because God commands so they doesn't apply to me.
So, when god commanded genocide, including killing women and children, that's morally OK with you?

[captusa]

Ah, but it could be different for those of us who do not consider Him to be an imagined Deity, but rather the real deal. Letting your prejudice show there Cap.
Sorry.
Obviously I was not referring to your Deity which is the real deal.
I was referring to everyone elses Deities.

[adroit]

Sorry.
Obviously I was not referring to your Deity which is the real deal.
I was referring to everyone elses Deities.

ziiiiiing

p.s. I see Tim lurking! Morning to ya, good sir :)

[Tim]

ziiiiiing

p.s. I see Tim lurking! Morning to ya, good sir :)

Good morning to you as well! ;)

I've been super busy with work lately and was up late last night. I'm getting a slow start this morning... just now having my first cup of coffee and contemplating the tasks ahead of me.

I figured I'd check out the latest in the RF before tackling the day.

I miss you guys and hope to have time to join in the conversations again real soon!

Hope you ALL have a wonderful weekend!!!

[adroit]

Good morning to you as well! ;)

I've been super busy with work lately and was up late last night. I'm getting a slow start this morning... just now having my first cup of coffee and contemplating the tasks ahead of me.

I figured I'd check out the latest in the RF before tackling the day.

I miss you guys and hope to have time to join in the conversations again real soon!

Hope you ALL have a wonderful weekend!!!

Back at you. I know you've been missed as well. Hope all goes well with you!

[Marleysdaddy]

Well I believe that God commands what is right, not that it is right because God commands so they doesn't apply to me.

If things are "right" before your god commands them, then the same things are "right" without a god to command them...hence, morality is independent of your god.

[Marleysdaddy]

So you agree with atheists that "what is right" is something that can be determined apart from God. Good. We're on the same page.

Bingo

[Lie Sniper]

If things are "right" before your god commands them, then the same things are "right" without a god to command them...hence, morality is independent of your god.

OK MD, but what I think Deak is saying is morals from religion start out with a base line, clearly defined. I think of it as absent of moral relativity. Right is right, wrong is wrong. There is very little room to justify choices in certain circumstances.

If I'm the sole determining factor on the basis of my morals, I may make exceptions for myself based on my own selfish desires.

As a theist I'm held accountable for my behavior whether or not anyone will find out what I think and do, where as someone without the same accountability to a deity, is only accountable to them self.
This offers some wiggle room and allows for relative morality.

Good Mornin' by the way!:D

[Marleysdaddy]

OK MD, but what I think Deak is saying is morals from religion start out with a base line, clearly defined. I think of it as absent of moral relativity. Right is right, wrong is wrong. There is very little room to justify choices in certain circumstances.

If I'm the sole determining factor on the basis of my morals, I may make exceptions for myself based on my own selfish desires. Perhaps...but most people, theists and atheists alike, think that being selfish is not good.

As a theist I'm held accountable for my behavior whether or not anyone will find out what I think and do
Well, at least you think you'll be held accountable by your god...
where as someone without the same accountability to a deity, is only accountable to them self. And if their 'self' is rational and honest, I predict that they'll act morally also.
This offers some wiggle room and allows for relative morality.
I disagree, but we're cool
Good Mornin' by the way!:D
and a Fine Morning to you!

[Thor]

OK MD, but what I think Deak is saying is morals from religion start out with a base line, clearly defined. I think of it as absent of moral relativity. Right is right, wrong is wrong. There is very little room to justify choices in certain circumstances.


So when "God" gives the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness", he is saying it is wrong to lie in ALL circumstances? There is no room to justify disobeying this edict?

Example: It is May of 1942 and I am hiding a Jewish family in my attic. The Gestapo knocks on my door and asks if I know where any Jewish people are hiding. If there is no justification for lying, "God" would demand that I answer the Gestapo truthfully and tell them about the Jewish family hiding in my attic. Of course, this would lead to the death of these innocent people.

So, would I be immoral if I lie to the Gestapo?

[Marleysdaddy]

Lie Sniper...

perhaps this will clarify my position.

The fact that a person does not believe in a god as the objective source of morality doesn't entail that said person does not have an objective source of morality. Does that make any sense?

[Lie Sniper]

Perhaps...but most people, theists and atheists alike, think that being selfish is not good.

I respectfully disagree. :D
Your assumption of 'most people' cannot be backed. It would probably be more accurate to say, "I hope most people"
The world if full of selfish people.

Well, at least you think you'll be held accountable by your god...

Agree.

And if their 'self' is rational and honest, I predict that they'll act morally also.

Again I agree.

I disagree, but we're cool

I disagree with your disagreement!
Relitive morality is a reality. :razz:
You're Fun!:cool:

and a Fine Morning to you!

;)

[Lie Sniper]

So when "God" gives the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness", he is saying it is wrong to lie in ALL circumstances? There is no room to justify disobeying this edict?

Example: It is May of 1942 and I am hiding a Jewish family in my attic. The Gestapo knocks on my door and asks if I know where any Jewish people are hiding. If there is no justification for lying, "God" would demand that I answer the Gestapo truthfully and tell them about the Jewish family hiding in my attic. Of course, this would lead to the death of these innocent people.

So, would I be immoral if I lie to the Gestapo?

Sucks sometimes doesn't it.

OK, just kiddin' ;)

You misunderstand bare false witness.

Mornin' Thor.

[Lie Sniper]

Lie Sniper...

perhaps this will clarify my position.

The fact that a person does not believe in a god as the objective source of morality doesn't entail that said person does not have an objective source of morality. Does that make any sense?

Again I agree. People CAN be moral.
They can have deity believing parents and have inherited a moral baseline, even though they deny the original source.:mrgreen:

[Thor]

Sucks sometimes doesn't it.

OK, just kiddin' ;)

You misunderstand bare false witness.

Mornin' Thor.

"Bare false witness"?!? I hope she looks good!;)

I understand "bearing false witness" to mean "don't lie". What do you think it means?

Mornin' to you as well! :D

[RayMan]

"Bare false witness"?!? I hope she looks good!;)

I understand "bearing false witness" to mean "don't lie". What do you think it means?

Mornin' to you as well! :D

What, you never heard of a bald faced lie?

[RayMan]

So when "God" gives the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness", he is saying it is wrong to lie in ALL circumstances? There is no room to justify disobeying this edict?

Example: It is May of 1942 and I am hiding a Jewish family in my attic. The Gestapo knocks on my door and asks if I know where any Jewish people are hiding. If there is no justification for lying, "God" would demand that I answer the Gestapo truthfully and tell them about the Jewish family hiding in my attic. Of course, this would lead to the death of these innocent people.

So, would I be immoral if I lie to the Gestapo?

I don't feel that bearing false witness has anything to do with your scenario, which by the way I am really bored with after hearing and seeing people use it for over thirty years. Come up with something new Thor. :mrgreen:

Exo 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.


This is talking about not bringing a false testimony against your neighbor in a Jewish court of law, at the time it would have meant before Moses or one of the men he selected to help him. Nothing more nothing less.

To think it would apply to saving Jews from Nazis is a topsy turvy way of interpreting it.


Next?

[Lie Sniper]

"Bare false witness"?!? I hope she looks good!;)

I understand "bearing false witness" to mean "don't lie". What do you think it means?

Mornin' to you as well! :D

:))

Mark 14:55-58

Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found it not. 56 For many bare false witness against him, and their witness agreed not together. 57 And there stood up certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, 58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.
(note spelling)

Definition- Giving false accusations typically in court or to authorities.

In your example-
If you tell the Gestapo you saw the Jews performing witchcraft or eating children etc.... this is BARING false witness.
So yes it is a command against telling lies, but more specifically its against false accusations. Either way, your scenario doesn't fit.
However, knowing you, I'm sure you will come up with another!:D

[Thor]

:))

Mark 14:55-58

Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found it not. 56 For many bare false witness against him, and their witness agreed not together. 57 And there stood up certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, 58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.
(note spelling)

Definition- Giving false accusations typically in court or to authorities.

In your example-
If you tell the Gestapo you saw the Jews performing witchcraft or eating children etc.... this is BARING false witness.
So yes it is a command against telling lies, but more specifically its against false accusations. Either way, your scenario doesn't fit.
However, knowing you, I'm sure you will come up with another!:D

OK, I see what you mean here.

But now I'm a bit confused...

I always thought the "bearing (baring?) false witness" commandment was the source for the basic idea that lying is immoral. From what you're saying, this only applies when someone gives testimony in a court or makes an affirmation to authorities. What is the biblical source that says lying in general is wrong?

[RayMan]

OK, I see what you mean here.

But now I'm a bit confused...

I always thought the "bearing (baring?) false witness" commandment was the source for the basic idea that lying is immoral. From what you're saying, this only applies when someone gives testimony in a court or makes an affirmation to authorities. What is the biblical source that says lying in general is wrong?

That will be your homework over the weekend. Think I'm going to just hand you the ammo for your next attack? I think not. :mrgreen::mrgreen:



Bible Gateway Search Link (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.biblegateway.com%2F&ei=XBf7SeOxFZOMtgOVyLntAQ&rct=j&q=bible+gateway&usg=AFQjCNGfRKFxm_cCRzfR7kANGfT2KyobKw&sig2=ofyCeQUhGpAUX6VTMJvH5w)

[Lie Sniper]

OK, I see what you mean here.

But now I'm a bit confused...

I always thought the "bearing (baring?) false witness" commandment was the source for the basic idea that lying is immoral. From what you're saying, this only applies when someone gives testimony in a court or makes an affirmation to authorities. What is the biblical source that says lying in general is wrong?

Pretending to be confused?:razz:

There are lots of places throughout the OT and NT about lying. Why don't you read it and find out. :mrgreen:

Here is a few:

Proverbs 6:16 Six things are hated by the Lord; seven things are disgusting to him: 17 Eyes of pride, a false tongue, hands which take life without cause
Proverbs 12:19 True lips are certain for ever, but a false tongue is only for a minute.

Proverbs 12:22 False lips are hated by the Lord, but those whose acts are true are his delight.

Proverbs 21:6 He who gets stores of wealth by a false tongue, is going after what is only breath, and searching for death.



Leviticus 19:11 Do not take anyone's property or be false in act or word to another.

Leviticus 19:16 Do not go about saying untrue things among your people

Revelation 21:8 "But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

Revelation 22:15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.


(bold and underline added)

I submit this probably against the wise advice of Ray.
So how about you cannot use the provide scripture, you need to find your own!

How's that Ray?

[Marleysdaddy]

I think Thor's point is that the phrase in the Decalogue "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is often interpreted as a prohibition against lying of any sort, not the specific example you gave in post #70.

[Demosthenes]

This thread has gone waaaay tangent.

Only someone that ascribes to a literal translation of the bible would believe every lie is immoral.

These people would also take issue with a large number of other inane, everyday things, and would, for all intents and purposes, be clinically insane.


If any of you other atheists are pursuing the point that once a believer has conceded the bible is up for interpretation, and that this, in a roundabout way, is fantastic cognitive dissonance, just out and say it :P

[Lie Sniper]

I think Thor's point is that the phrase in the Decalogue "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is often interpreted as a prohibition against lying of any sort, not the specific example you gave in post #70.

I hear you MD. I'm not really a spokesperson on this subject as I hold sympathies for both sides of the discussion. Because of this, further debate would be disingenuous on my part and only for the sole purpose of trying to win the argument.
I originally posted to you because I was trying to play the role of a mediator and as always happens, I got sucked in.

Simply put- I'm not all that interested in putting time into this particular debate, because of my sympathies and its the weekend. I was just having some fun and prefer the role of gadfly or my favorite description, I learned from Ray- Kibitzer. ;)

Although it was fun, I will let one of the more passionate theists respond and I'll remain in the role I feel gifted to fulfill. :mrgreen:


(eta- The above is the classy way to back down. some of you should take note!):))

[Thor]

I think Thor's point is that the phrase in the Decalogue "Thou shalt not bear false witness" is often interpreted as a prohibition against lying of any sort, not the specific example you gave in post #70.

Thank you!:D

[Thor]

Pretending to be confused?:razz:

There are lots of places throughout the OT and NT about lying. Why don't you read it and find out. :mrgreen:

Here is a few:

Proverbs 6:16 Six things are hated by the Lord; seven things are disgusting to him: 17 Eyes of pride, a false tongue, hands which take life without cause
Proverbs 12:19 True lips are certain for ever, but a false tongue is only for a minute.

Proverbs 12:22 False lips are hated by the Lord, but those whose acts are true are his delight.

Proverbs 21:6 He who gets stores of wealth by a false tongue, is going after what is only breath, and searching for death.



Leviticus 19:11 Do not take anyone's property or be false in act or word to another.

Leviticus 19:16 Do not go about saying untrue things among your people

Revelation 21:8 "But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

Revelation 22:15 But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie.


(bold and underline added)

I submit this probably against the wise advice of Ray.
So how about you cannot use the provide scripture, you need to find your own!

How's that Ray?

No, not pretending to be confused. When I was a kid I recall people using the "bear false witness" commandment as a general prohibition against lying.

Thanks for providing the scripture. Now it makes more sense to me.

[ninjoob]

1) Morality is an innate human condition.
2) No, I don't fear death. I don't welcome it either.
3) Define faith.
When I've found myself doing something without any good reason, I abandon it if I can. I minimize wishful-thinking as much as possible.

[Lie Sniper]

1) Morality is an innate human condition.
2) No, I don't fear death. I don't welcome it either.
3) Define faith.
When I've found myself doing something without any good reason, I abandon it if I can. I minimize wishful-thinking as much as possible.

Huh?

[RayMan]

Huh?

I'm guessing he/she is an atheist who thinks we theists over indulge in wishful thinking.

[Deak2112]

So you agree with atheists that "what is right" is something that can be determined apart from God. Good. We're on the same page.

No, I believe God commands what is right because he is incapable of commanding wrong, therefore can only command what is right. But if he says something is right then that means it is because if it wasn't he would be lying which he can't do. So I actually believe both. (My sister wrote the original comment, she refuses to get her own account)

God commands what is right because he can't command what is wrong and its right when he says it is because he can't lie.

[RayMan]

No, I believe God commands what is right because he is incapable of commanding wrong, therefore can only command what is right. But if he says something is right then that means it is because if it wasn't he would be lying which he can't do. So I actually believe both. (My sister wrote the original comment, she refuses to get her own account)

God commands what is right because he can't command what is wrong and its right when he says it is because he can't lie.

Love it. This should generate some buzz.

[Lie Sniper]

(My sister wrote the original comment, she refuses to get her own account)



Now look what she got you into. :rolleyes:
Sisters are like that...:naughty:

[RayMan]

Love it. This should generate some buzz.

Anyone?







Any atheist?






Bueller?

[Lie Sniper]

Anyone?







Any atheist?






Bueller?


Its 7pm, there at the meeting. :mrgreen:

[captusa]

No, I believe God commands what is right because he is incapable of commanding wrong, therefore can only command what is right. But if he says something is right then that means it is because if it wasn't he would be lying which he can't do. So I actually believe both. (My sister wrote the original comment, she refuses to get her own account)

God commands what is right because he can't command what is wrong and its right when he says it is because he can't lie.

I genuinely do not understand how a Theist who believes their Deity is omnipotent concludes that that Deity cannot or does not lie.

[I am the Eggman]

Love it. This should generate some buzz.

Buzzzzz. :)

If I can work thru the circular reasoning there, maybe I'll even comment.

[RayMan]

Buzzzzz. :)

If I can work thru the circular reasoning there, maybe I'll even comment.

I would suggest a tall frosty adult beverage before you being the unraveling.

It is a work of beauty though. Gotta remember I grew up outside of Berkeley in the sixties. We had this form of philosophy we called "acid head logic..."

[SnowSquirrel]

No, I believe God commands what is right because he is incapable of commanding wrong, therefore can only command what is right. But if he says something is right then that means it is because if it wasn't he would be lying which he can't do. So I actually believe both. (My sister wrote the original comment, she refuses to get her own account)

God commands what is right because he can't command what is wrong and its right when he says it is because he can't lie.

You're implying that there's a standard of morality that's different from "whatever God wants," aren't you? If so, what is that standard? Most religions seem to agree that the general rules are "practice this religion devoutly; help out fellow believers; don't kill fellow believers; convert or eliminate outsiders." Half Golden Rule, half chain letter.

[I am the Eggman]

I would suggest a tall frosty adult beverage before you being the unraveling.

It is a work of beauty though. Gotta remember I grew up outside of Berkeley in the sixties. We had this form of philosophy we called "acid head logic..."

Aready had three cognacs and working on a fourth. I got some rough family news.

Though I think I'd have to dig up some window pane, or at least some good shrooms for that to start to make sense.

However, the standard response "Whoa dude, that was deep." should cover it for now.

[RayMan]

Aready had three cognacs and working on a fourth. I got some rough family news.

Though I think I'd have to dig up some window pane, or at least some good shrooms for that to start to make sense.

However, the standard response "Whoa dude, that was deep." should cover it for now.

I'm sorry to hear that. My best wishes and condolences.




Edited to add: 'Righteous, man. Righteous."

[I am the Eggman]

I'm sorry to hear that. My best wishes and condolences.




Edited to add: 'Righteous, man. Righteous."

Thanks, but don't need condolences. My holier than thou, church going sister just announced her soon to be second divorce. She pretty much deserves what she gets because of her own actions, but her kids are a mess. Her oldest two were from the last divorce and really like their step dad, as do I. She keeps telling me she'll be ok because she's saved.

[RayMan]

Thanks, but don't need condolences. My holier than thou, church going sister just announced her soon to be second divorce. She pretty much deserves what she gets because of her own actions, but her kids are a mess. Her oldest two were from the last divorce and really like their step dad, as do I. She keeps telling me she'll be ok because she's saved.

That is always such a rough thing for the kids. Being saved doesn't have a whole lot to do with being a good husband or wife.


(I'll pay for that one if anyone besides atheists comes in here.)

[I am the Eggman]

That is always such a rough thing for the kids. Being saved doesn't have a whole lot to do with being a good husband or wife.


(I'll pay for that one if anyone besides atheists comes in here.)


Yeah, well, she blames her "sinful nature" for all of her faults, not the least of which is she never considers what her actions do to those around her.

Sorry, I'm feeling extra cynical tonight.

[I am the Eggman]

No, I believe God commands what is right because he is incapable of commanding wrong, therefore can only command what is right. But if he says something is right then that means it is because if it wasn't he would be lying which he can't do. So I actually believe both. (My sister wrote the original comment, she refuses to get her own account)

God commands what is right because he can't command what is wrong and its right when he says it is because he can't lie.

Ok, like, dude, like, check this out dude. Say this god dude tells you like, um, not to do somthing because it's just not cool, say killing some kiddies. Um, like, check it out, he then says, Ok, like, this commune of dudes is like sooooo bogus, you gotta go and tell em to believe in the god dude and follow his vibe, but like if they don't you gotta like, you know, off the tribe of bogus dudes, and all their chicks and kiddies. Is that like totally cool cause the god dude said it was totally righteous even after he said it was totally bogus? I mean, like, dude?

[Demosthenes]

No, I believe God commands what is right because he is incapable of commanding wrong, therefore can only command what is right. But if he says something is right then that means it is because if it wasn't he would be lying which he can't do. So I actually believe both. (My sister wrote the original comment, she refuses to get her own account)

God commands what is right because he can't command what is wrong and its right when he says it is because he can't lie.

Why do you believe this?

You must understand that you aren't really bringing anything to the table by making a statement like this.

[merryAtheist]

No, I believe God commands what is right because he is incapable of commanding wrong, therefore can only command what is right.

Therefore God is not omnipotent, correct? I mean, an omnipotent God would certainly be capable of commanding something wrong, or else she wouldn't be omnipotent, would she?

But if he says something is right then that means it is because if it wasn't he would be lying which he can't do. So I actually believe both.

God commands what is right because he can't command what is wrong and its right when he says it is because he can't lie.

So I, as a human, have a capacity that God lacks, that is, the ability to do wrong. This makes me more powerful than God, because I have a choice where God does not; God can do nothing other than what is good, but I, on the other hand, have it within my power to do what is good and what is wrong.

Not only does this make me more powerful than the God you describe, it also makes me significantly more moral. After all, an entity that can only do good is less moral than an entity which can choose good or evil and still chooses good.

It's not so much the good actions that define morality as it is the "choosing" to do good actions. But if God cannot choose, then she is morally deficient.

(My sister wrote the original comment, she refuses to get her own account)
Technically, that's what is known as a "sock puppet" and it's very bad form in online discussions.

[captusa]

No, I believe God commands what is right because he is incapable of commanding wrong, therefore can only command what is right. But if he says something is right then that means it is because if it wasn't he would be lying which he can't do. So I actually believe both. (My sister wrote the original comment, she refuses to get her own account)

God commands what is right because he can't command what is wrong and its right when he says it is because he can't lie.

I am serious.
Where how did you come to the conclusion that God can't lie.
Even if you believe the Bible is the word of God you have no reason to conclude that it is TRUTH other than your conceived idea of God.

[RayMan]

Yeah, well, she blames her "sinful nature" for all of her faults, not the least of which is she never considers what her actions do to those around her.

Sorry, I'm feeling extra cynical tonight.


Not a prob. If I understand what Christianity really teaches she needs to start taking a wee bit more responsibility for her actions.

[RayMan]

Ok, like, dude, like, check this out dude. Say this god dude tells you like, um, not to do somthing because it's just not cool, say killing some kiddies. Um, like, check it out, he then says, Ok, like, this commune of dudes is like sooooo bogus, you gotta go and tell em to believe in the god dude and follow his vibe, but like if they don't you gotta like, you know, off the tribe of bogus dudes, and all their chicks and kiddies. Is that like totally cool cause the god dude said it was totally righteous even after he said it was totally bogus? I mean, like, dude?


Gnarly post man.

[I am the Eggman]

Not a prob. If I understand what Christianity really teaches she needs to start taking a wee bit more responsibility for her actions.

I tell her the same thing. I even tried quoting her some scripture about it, but what do I know, I'm just a heathen desitined for hell. :)

[RayMan]

I tell her the same thing. I even tried quoting her some scripture about it, but what do I know, I'm just a heathen desitined for hell. :)

Well, there is that.

:mrgreen:

[Marleysdaddy]

No, I believe God commands what is right because he is incapable of commanding wrong, therefore can only command what is right.

If your god is incapable of something, your god is not omnipotent

[Deak2112]

I am serious.
Where how did you come to the conclusion that God can't lie.
Even if you believe the Bible is the word of God you have no reason to conclude that it is TRUTH other than your conceived idea of God.

Hence faith.

[Deak2112]

If your god is incapable of something, your god is not omnipotent

God is perfect. It is logically impossible for something perfect to do something wrong or else it is not perfect. It's like asking if God can make a rock so big that he can't lift it, or make a 2-sided triangle. It's logically impossible because it would contradict itself.

Nice try though.

[ninjoob]

Deak2112,
Imagine a person of a rational age, who has never come in contact with a religion, interested in getting into one now. How do you think he should resolve what looks nonsensical to him? You might say faith. All right, but still, he has to pick one to have faith in. How might he do this?

[Lie Sniper]

If your god is incapable of something, your god is not omnipotent

Never did like the word 'omnipotent' to describe God.
Someone help me with this scenario, I can't remember where I heard/read it:


"Can God create a stone so large that He can't move it?"


If He can't create it, He is not omnipotent.
If He can't move it, He is not omnipotent.



Alright my athiest friends, where is this scenerio from? (Dawkins maybe?):think:

Maybe Deak can help me?

[Lie Sniper]

God is perfect. It is logically impossible for something perfect to do something wrong or else it is not perfect. It's like asking if God can make a rock so big that he can't lift it, or make a 2-sided triangle. It's logically impossible because it would contradict itself.

Nice try though.

'Perfect' is defined by the authority.

Believers accept God's authority. God did order the destruction of nations, including women and childeren. You accept this, because you believe God is perfect.

[biggles53]

Never did like the word 'omnipotent' to describe God.
Someone help me with this scenario, I can't remember where I heard/read it:


"Can God create a stone so large that He can't move it?"


If He can't create it, He is not omnipotent.
If He can't move it, He is not omnipotent.



Alright my athiest friends, where is this scenerio from? (Dawkins maybe?):think:

Never really liked this one - seems to be no more than than a game played around the concept of infinity. A little like the riddles that involve dividing by zero - you get a result that is unsustainable.

I much prefer Epicurus' riddle involving omnipotence...

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus (341-270 BC)

[Lie Sniper]

Never really liked this one - seems to be no more than than a game played around the concept of infinity. A little like the riddles that involve dividing by zero - you get a result that is unsustainable.

I much prefer Epicurus' riddle involving omnipotence...

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Epicurus (341-270 BC)

That's deep. :eek:
Thanks Biggles!

[captusa]

God is perfect. It is logically impossible for something perfect to do something wrong or else it is not perfect. It's like asking if God can make a rock so big that he can't lift it, or make a 2-sided triangle. It's logically impossible because it would contradict itself.

Nice try though.

The definition of God as perfect is a human definition.
And of course what is perfect to God may not be discernable to humans.
You have faith that God is perfect and that God does not lie.
Maybe to God lying is just another thing HE does perfectly.

[ChrisRP]

No, I believe God commands what is right because he is incapable of commanding wrong, therefore can only command what is right. But if he says something is right then that means it is because if it wasn't he would be lying which he can't do. So I actually believe both. (My sister wrote the original comment, she refuses to get her own account)

God commands what is right because he can't command what is wrong and its right when he says it is because he can't lie.

God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his only son Isaac.

Is child sacrifice wrong or right? (It matters not that God stopped Abraham later- He commanded Abraham, and Abraham was going to do it. In Hebrews we learn that it never crossed Abraham's mind that it was wrong for God to command this- in fact he was COMMENDED for obeying because he believed God would fulfill His promise to Abraham to make of him a great nation even IF he sacrificed Isaac).

God sanctioned the use of "the lying spirit of prophecy" to entice Ahab to go up to Ramoth-Gilead so that he might be slain.

Is lying right or wrong?

There's at least two cases where God commanded "something that was wrong" that I can see.

[James Juno]

The definition of God as perfect is a human definition.
And of course what is perfect to God may not be discernable to humans.
You have faith that God is perfect and that God does not lie.
Maybe to God lying is just another thing HE does perfectly.

Well put.

[merryAtheist]

I interpret Deak2112's statement:
God commands what is right because he can't command what is wrong and its right when he says it is because he can't lie.

...as an ipso facto recognition that God does not have free will.

[I am the Eggman]

I interpret Deak2112's statement:

God commands what is right because he can't command what is wrong and its right when he says it is because he can't lie.


...as an ipso facto recognition that God does not have free will.

I'm wondering what imposed god's inability to lie? Does god have a god?

[merryAtheist]

...and where did that god get the power to create this god? In other words, does the god of this god also have a god?

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

[captusa]

Originally Posted by Deak2112
No, I believe God commands what is right because he is incapable of commanding wrong, therefore can only command what is right.

Similar to Nixon saying if the president does it, it's not a crime.

[adroit]

As a Christian, this idea that "as long as God commands it, it is right" does not sit well with me at all. How is that any different than Christians claiming that atheists have no true morality because they are at the whims of their selfish desires. If whatever God commands is "right", then is our are we and our morality not at the whims of His selfish desires?

And yes, I believe God is selfish, otherwise he would not be a jealous God.

[merryAtheist]

As a Christian, this idea that "as long as God commands it, it is right" does not sit well with me at all. How is that any different than Christians claiming that atheists have no true morality because they are at the whims of their selfish desires. If whatever God commands is "right", then is our are we and our morality not at the whims of His selfish desires?

And yes, I believe God is selfish, otherwise he would not be a jealous God.

I appreciate your honesty.

[adroit]

I appreciate your honesty.
Thanks. It's a struggle to juggle some things I've grown up to believe and some things that just don't add up. I believe certain issues we read about in the Bible are just skimmed or glossed over by believers because they aren't nice and neat.

Btw, I just noticed your sig pic. I think I'll have a beer as well - the Shiner variety pack is pretty dang good :)

[merryAtheist]

The Shiner variety pack is pretty dang good :)
You must be Texan.

[adroit]

You must be Texan.

Guilty :)

[RayMan]

Guilty :)

The 'dang' gave it away.

[Deak2112]

I interpret Deak2112's statement:


...as an ipso facto recognition that God does not have free will.

So I guess man doesn't have free will because we can't walk on water even though we want to, right?

[adroit]

So I guess man doesn't have free will because we can't walk on water even though we want to, right?

No, man can't walk on water because man isn't omnipotent (and because our weight can't be distributed in such a way that we would be buoyant while standing on water)

[adroit]

The 'dang' gave it away.

I'm not a hick, promise!

[Deak2112]

No, man can't walk on water because man isn't omnipotent (and because our weight can't be distributed in such a way that we would be buoyant while standing on water)

Well God can't lie because it's wrong (as defined in his words aka The Bible) and a perfect being can't do wrong. Say he's not omnipotent, Idc.

[adroit]

Well God can't lie because it's wrong (as defined in his words aka The Bible) and a perfect being can't do wrong. Say he's not omnipotent, Idc.

I couldn't care less whether God is omnipotent or not as I think it's a pointless argument. Let's get back to the subject of morality and its basis. From what I've gathered, you believe morality is based upon whatever God says is right or wrong. What if God says something is wrong, but then later on gives a command to carry out that action?

[I am the Eggman]

So I guess man doesn't have free will because we can't walk on water even though we want to, right?

Free will is about decisions, not about outcomes. One can surely decide to walk on water, but I wouldn't expect it to turn out too well.

[mtdim]

I couldn't care less whether God is omnipotent or not as I think it's a pointless argument. Let's get back to the subject of morality and its basis. From what I've gathered, you believe morality is based upon whatever God says is right or wrong. What if God says something is wrong, but then later on gives a command to carry out that action?

You're ignoring the even more fundamental problem of determining what God says in the first place.

[bitterclinger84]

I guess my question would be (and forgive me if it's been asked and answered) is why?

Why do you believe that there is no higher being? Can you really justify all of existence with science?

[adroit]

I guess my question would be (and forgive me if it's been asked and answered) is why?

Why do you believe that there is no higher being? Can you really justify all of existence with science?

Should there be a need to justify all of existence?

[bitterclinger84]

Should there be a need to justify all of existence?

You don't want your life to have meaning?

[adroit]

You don't want your life to have meaning?

One might think their life can have plenty meaning without knowing the intricacies and origins of existence (helping their fellow mankind, raising good children, leaving a legacy, etc).

[bitterclinger84]

One might think their life can have plenty meaning without knowing the intricacies and origins of existence (helping their fellow mankind, raising good children, leaving a legacy, etc).

But why? If all of that is simply the product of a bunch of atoms bumping into each other, what's the point of doing anything good? And what about the people who think that violent protests and killing cops gives their lives meaning?

[Marleysdaddy]

I guess my question would be (and forgive me if it's been asked and answered) is why?

Why do you believe that there is no higher being?
Because there is no phenomenal evidence of one?

Can you really justify all of existence with science?
If by 'justify' you mean 'explain' then yes...

[Marleysdaddy]

You don't want your life to have meaning?

My life has meaning whether or not a supernatural deity exists.

[bitterclinger84]

Because there is no phenomenal evidence of one?

If by 'justify' you mean 'explain' then yes...

This is where we come to a fundamental disagreement. I see all of creation as "phenomenal evidence" of a higher being. And I have yet to meet anyone who can realistically explain every detail of existence using only science.

[Marleysdaddy]

But why? If all of that is simply the product of a bunch of atoms bumping into each otherthat's a straw man and a false dilemma rolled into one...

what's the point of doing anything good?
because it is the right thing to do
And what about the people who think that violent protests and killing cops gives their lives meaning?
I think they're acting irrationally and are mistaken

[Marleysdaddy]

This is where we come to a fundamental disagreement. I see all of creation as "phenomenal evidence" of a higher being.
You are welcome to that less parsimonious view.
And I have yet to meet anyone who can realistically explain every detail of existence using only science.
Then you haven't met enough good scientists...

[bitterclinger84]

My life has meaning whether or not a supernatural deity exists.

In the present, sure, maybe. But what about eternity? But, as an atheist, you don't believe in anything more than the present, correct? So why bother having any kind of "positive" impact on humanity? And without God, who is to decide what consists of a positive impact?

[bitterclinger84]

You are welcome to that less parsimonious view.

Then you haven't met enough good scientists...

How is my POV "stingy"? I see wonder in everything I see. The cycles of the seasons, the song of a bird, the stars at night. I'm completely in awe of my entire universe. EDIT: I read that wrong. Are you saying that I'm being too generous in my opinion? How can you not be amazed by the world around you?

I know some phenomenal scientists. One of them happens to work for NASA and the other is an engineer for the DOD. Both of them are very strong in their Christian convictions.

[Marleysdaddy]

In the present, sure, maybe.There's no "maybe" about it...and frankly, I find your suggestion that my life might not have meaning ridiculous and insulting.

But what about eternity?
You know no more about eternity than I do...
But, as an atheist, you don't believe in anything more than the present, correct?
I'm not an atheist...but I think atheists are mindful of the past and future as well as the present.
So why bother having any kind of "positive" impact on humanity? Because I think that is the purpose of our existence (and that goes for all people, theists, atheists, pantheists, deists, etc.)

And without God, who is to decide what consists of a positive impact?
Rational people or society or the impacted people, etc.

[Marleysdaddy]

How is my POV "stingy"?I don't know what you mean...If you look at a tree, and posit the existence of a supernatural creator as the ultimate source of that tree, your view is less parsimonious than a view that posits only natural sources for the tree

I see wonder in everything I see. The cycles of the seasons, the song of a bird, the stars at night. I'm completely in awe of my entire universe. EDIT: I read that wrong. Are you saying that I'm being too generous in my opinion? How can you not be amazed by the world around you?
I am amazed by many things...things are amazing with or without an invisible creator.
I know some phenomenal scientists. One of them happens to work for NASA and the other is an engineer for the DOD. Both of them are very strong in their Christian convictions.
If they can't explain existence to you without resorting to "a god did it", they need to brush up on their science.

[bitterclinger84]

There's no "maybe" about it...and frankly, I find your suggestion that my life might not have meaning ridiculous and insulting.

You know no more about eternity than I do...

I'm not an atheist...but I think atheists are mindful of the past and future as well as the present.
Because I think that is the purpose of our existence (and that goes for all people, theists, atheists, pantheists, deists, etc.)
Rational people or society or the impacted people, etc.

I didn't mean to be insulting, I apologize.

A lot of my answers and reactions come from personal experience. Without God in my life, I was a pretty miserable human being. I wanted to make a difference, but was never quite sure where to begin.

Now, I'm not saying that only Christians can do good deeds or make a difference in other people's lives. There have been many great humanitarians who have been ambivalent about religion and faith. But, it has been my experience that our beliefs give us the springboard to do good works for others.

I can't explain the heart that was given to me when I finally allowed God into my life. I thought I was compassionate and loving before that, but it was nothing compared to how I am now.

[bitterclinger84]

I don't know what you mean...If you look at a tree, and posit the existence of a supernatural creator as the ultimate source of that tree, your view is less parsimonious than a view that posits only natural sources for the tree


I am amazed by many things...things are amazing with or without an invisible creator.

If they can't explain existence to you without resorting to "a god did it", they need to brush up on their science.

What about medical cases where the doctors are completely baffled by the patient's recovery? Science isn't the answer to everything.

[adroit]

What about medical cases where the doctors are completely baffled by the patient's recovery? Science isn't the answer to everything.

I don't think a God of the Gaps is, either.

Humans have been baffled by many things. Over time, an explanation eventually reveals itself.

[bitterclinger84]

I don't think a God of the Gaps is, either.

God of the Gaps...that's an interesting way to look at it. It doesn't strike you as a bit....simple to just have it laid out for you?

[Marleysdaddy]

What about medical cases where the doctors are completely baffled by the patient's recovery?
The doctors need to learn more...something physiological and perfectly natural happened...we just don't have the knowledge or tools to understand it yet.

2000 years ago, some doctors thought disease was caused by demonic possession, because we couldn't detect the actual causes (bacteria, viruses, etc.)

[adroit]

God of the Gaps...that's an interesting way to look at it. It doesn't strike you as a bit....simple to just have it laid out for you?

Excuse my obtuseness, have what laid out for me? A scientific explanation for things?

[Marleysdaddy]

God of the Gaps...that's an interesting way to look at it.

That's exactly what is happening in the scenario you posed...something currently not understandable occurs, and someone claims that it must have been the result of a god...

[adroit]

That's exactly what is happening in the scenario you posed...something currently not understandable occurs, and someone claims that it must have been the result of a god...

Indeed. That view never sat well with me because the idea of God is ever shrinking.

[bitterclinger84]

The doctors need to learn more...something physiological and perfectly natural happened...we just don't have the knowledge or tools to understand it yet.

2000 years ago, some doctors thought disease was caused by demonic possession, because we couldn't detect the actual causes (bacteria, viruses, etc.)

*shrugs* If that's what you choose to believe, then that's fine. It's bedtime here in PA, so I'm going to wish you all a good night and a pleasant week!

[adroit]

*shrugs* If that's what you choose to believe, then that's fine. It's bedtime here in PA, so I'm going to wish you all a good night and a pleasant week!

Have a good night :)

[bitterclinger84]

Excuse my obtuseness, have what laid out for me? A scientific explanation for things?

No. To have God laid out for you. If you are truly seeking, He is easy to understand and He is everywhere to be seen. Have a nice night and thanks for the thoughtful thread :)

[adroit]

No. To have God laid out for you. If you are truly seeking, He is easy to understand and He is everywhere to be seen. Have a nice night and thanks for the thoughtful thread :)

Ahh, ok. I'd much rather have God laid out for me. Simplicity is far more beautiful than complexity, IMHO. I truly seek Him on a daily basis, perhaps not as much as I would like, but regardless-I would say he is far from easy to understand when it comes to certain matters.

[captusa]

Well God can't lie because it's wrong (as defined in his words aka The Bible) and a perfect being can't do wrong. Say he's not omnipotent, Idc.

Again why do you conclude God can't lie ?
Whatever God does by your assumption can't be wrong so if and when God lies it can't be wrong.
Even assuming that the Bible are God's words what guarantee is there that God is telling the truth ?
The answer is there is no reason to assume God is telling the truth other than your human concept of God and right and wrong.

[Deak2112]

Again why do you conclude God can't lie ?
Whatever God does by your assumption can't be wrong so if and when God lies it can't be wrong.
Even assuming that the Bible are God's words what guarantee is there that God is telling the truth ?
The answer is there is no reason to assume God is telling the truth other than your human concept of God and right and wrong.

Well you're attempting to break the connection between God and what the bible says about God. This is where the faith stuff comes in so i don't have much more to say. Good discussion though.

[I am the Eggman]

I guess my question would be (and forgive me if it's been asked and answered) is why?

Why do you believe that there is no higher being?

Because I have no evidence of one, and I have no problem answering "I don't know" to questions to which I have no answer.

Can you really justify all of existence with science?
No, nor do I attempt to.

[Demosthenes]

No. To have God laid out for you. If you are truly seeking, He is easy to understand and He is everywhere to be seen. Have a nice night and thanks for the thoughtful thread :)


This doesn't really mean anything. I'm a physicist, and the rules of the universe are neither easy to understand nor everywhere to be seen.

I take issue with the fact that many churches peddle the "truth" packaged in some terribly convoluted emotional appeal. Someone of strong faith in this thread has yet to give a good reason for believing in God, or that it is at all "right", "true", or "correct" to do so.

Your reasons for believing are far more interesting to me than what you believe. I find that arguing over the minutiae of faith leads down a thousand alleys of semantic fencing, and that it's far more constructive to consider the issue at its heart.

Why do you believe in God?

[I am the Eggman]

In the present, sure, maybe. But what about eternity?


What about it? You and I have the exact same knowledge as to what happens after death. That is 0. What you believe happens is irrelevent because it has no effect whatsoever on what we know, and believing a particular thing doesn't make what happens after we die any more true or false.


But, as an atheist, you don't believe in anything more than the present, correct?


I assure you, I know there's a past and a future, and the future includes my children, their children, and so on, including everyone else's children.

So why bother having any kind of "positive" impact on humanity?

See above.

And without God, who is to decide what consists of a positive impact?
I'd ask the same about with a god. And who's god? Which one? If a god exists, nobody knows if the writing in any ancient book accurately describes the god, his demand, or even his morality.

As far as the OT and NT, if the actions of "god" would have been the actions of a human king or ruler, would you still be impressed with the morality of some of the actions described?

[merryAtheist]

The 'dang' gave it away.

Nope. It was the Shiner reference.

[adroit]

This doesn't really mean anything. I'm a physicist, and the rules of the universe are neither easy to understand nor everywhere to be seen.

I take issue with the fact that many churches peddle the "truth" packaged in some terribly convoluted emotional appeal. Someone of strong faith in this thread has yet to give a good reason for believing in God, or that it is at all "right", "true", or "correct" to do so.

Your reasons for believing are far more interesting to me than what you believe. I find that arguing over the minutiae of faith leads down a thousand alleys of semantic fencing, and that it's far more constructive to consider the issue at its heart.

Why do you believe in God?

Initially, because that's how I was raised (devout Christian parents). To a great extent, we are the product of our programming. Once I started actually thinking for myself, the reason shifted towards "because it feels right." My belief is ever shifting and evolving, so I'm sorry I can't give a more tangible answer. I'm sure if I was raised in a devout Islamic family, I'd be Muslim. I see myself shifting more towards a deist point of view, but I guess I like holding on to the foundation that was paved for me by my upbringing.

[adroit]

Nope. It was the Shiner reference.

I probably shouldn't admit this, but I ran out of Shiner (only had one left today) and I wanted something bubbly so I popped open one of the wife's Bicardi Silver (watermelon flavor). :sick::doh:

[merryAtheist]

To a great extent, we are the product of our programming.
Yep. Can't disagree here.
I see myself shifting more towards a deist point of view, but I guess I like holding on to the foundation that was paved for me by my upbringing.
My story is different. I was Catholic for over forty years, and I dropped it all - Catholicism, Christianity, Theism - at the moment in which I realized it was completely untenable to me. I guess you could say my philosophy is "in for a penny, in for a pound."

This is not to say it was a rash decision. It was made after much research and introspection.

Also, I'm not implying anything negative about your journey and/or decisions – just showing a different side of the coin.

[merryAtheist]

I probably shouldn't admit this, but I ran out of Shiner (only had one left today) and I wanted something bubbly so I popped open one of the wife's Bicardi Silver (watermelon flavor). :sick::doh:

That was not very manly. But since you lean towards Deism, I should expect such behavior. :D

[bitterclinger84]

This doesn't really mean anything. I'm a physicist, and the rules of the universe are neither easy to understand nor everywhere to be seen.

I take issue with the fact that many churches peddle the "truth" packaged in some terribly convoluted emotional appeal. Someone of strong faith in this thread has yet to give a good reason for believing in God, or that it is at all "right", "true", or "correct" to do so.

Your reasons for believing are far more interesting to me than what you believe. I find that arguing over the minutiae of faith leads down a thousand alleys of semantic fencing, and that it's far more constructive to consider the issue at its heart.

Why do you believe in God?

This is where the whole "faith" thing comes in. You say as a physicist that the rules of the universe are not easy to understand. I disagree. If you approach it from a viewpoint of everything being made by one Creator, it makes perfect sense (to me, anyway). I may not know why He chose to make something the way He made it but, hey, it's His universe, not mine :)

Why do I believe in God? See, this is where that whole "personal revelation" thing comes into play. I believe in God because I got to a point in my life where He was so huge that I could no longer deny his existence. It all comes down to Faith.

You might enjoy the books "The Case for Christ" or "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. He was an atheist who set out to prove, basically, that God didn't exist. He ending up proving, to himself, that He does. There are a few others along the same lines, but those are the only two which I have read so far. Heck, I'll even send you my copies!! :)

[RayMan]

I probably shouldn't admit this, but I ran out of Shiner (only had one left today) and I wanted something bubbly so I popped open one of the wife's Bicardi Silver (watermelon flavor). :sick::doh:

You need to go over to the ReconLodge in TP and turn in your man card.

[hben]

Someone of strong faith in this thread has yet to give a good reason for believing in God, or that it is at all "right", "true", or "correct" to do so.

Someone of strong faith has no need to do so since faith needs no reason, and the stronger the faith the less need for reason.

Your reasons for believing are far more interesting to me than what you believe. I find that arguing over the minutiae of faith leads down a thousand alleys of semantic fencing, and that it's far more constructive to consider the issue at its heart.

Why do you believe in God?

Because He called me to do so, and I got tired of running away from Him. I can't give you a reason that will satisfy you until you get tired of running, too. Then, ask me again, and we can talk. :hug:

[bitterclinger84]

You need to go over to the ReconLodge in TP and turn in your man card.

LOL my fiance is always joking about his "man card". It's funny to hear someone else use the same term.

[RayMan]

LOL my fiance is always joking about his "man card". It's funny to hear someone else use the same term.

The term is bandied about fairly regularly in the ReconoLodge.

[Marleysdaddy]

This is where the whole "faith" thing comes in. You say as a physicist that the rules of the universe are not easy to understand. I disagree. If you approach it from a viewpoint of everything being made by one Creator, it makes perfect sense (to me, anyway).
But that's not "understanding" it...that's foregoing understanding in lieu of "a god did it"...so the physicist's argument still stands.

[bitterclinger84]

But that's not "understanding" it...that's foregoing understanding in lieu of "a god did it"...so the physicist's argument still stands.

To me, that's just a semantic issue. If by understading you mean knowing every single thing and knowing how it works and why it works that way then yea, I don't "understand" everything. But then, who can? But I "understand" that things work the way they work because they were created to work that way. Which may sound circular to you but it works for me.

[Marleysdaddy]

To me, that's just a semantic issue.
Okay
If by understading [sic] you mean knowing every single thing and knowing how it works and why it works that way then yea, I don't "understand" everything.That's not what I meant at all...I don't know every single thing and how it works, but there are things that I can understand without resorting to "well, a god did it"
But I "understand" that things work the way they work because they were created to work that way. Which may sound circular to you but it works for me.
That doesn't sound circular...that is circular.

If it works for you, that is fine.

[hben]

Okay
That's not what I meant at all...I don't know every single thing and how it works, but there are things that I can understand without resorting to "well, a god did it"

That doesn't sound circular...that is circular.

If it works for you, that is fine.

But didn't Columbus prove that circular is good?

[merryAtheist]

and the stronger the faith the less need for reason.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[Demosthenes]

Someone of strong faith has no need to do so since faith needs no reason, and the stronger the faith the less need for reason.

But this makes even less sense! Why would you ever do something that you explicitly have no reason for doing? What utility does a reasonless faith have?



Because He called me to do so, and I got tired of running away from Him. I can't give you a reason that will satisfy you until you get tired of running, too. Then, ask me again, and we can talk. :hug:

This strikes me as a false dichotomy bundled in an emotional appeal. You must understand that an atheist sees no reason to believe in God.

From many an atheists perspective, you haven't stopped running at all, you've just convinced yourself of something. My curiosity is why you'd convince yourself of such an unnecessary thing.

[Demosthenes]

This is where the whole "faith" thing comes in. You say as a physicist that the rules of the universe are not easy to understand. I disagree. If you approach it from a viewpoint of everything being made by one Creator, it makes perfect sense (to me, anyway). I may not know why He chose to make something the way He made it but, hey, it's His universe, not mine :)

To me, this perspective is just plain intellectually dishonest. Even if I were a theist, I would strive to understand the world to the best of my abilities.

Why do I believe in God? See, this is where that whole "personal revelation" thing comes into play. I believe in God because I got to a point in my life where He was so huge that I could no longer deny his existence. It all comes down to Faith.

Could you expand upon this?

You might enjoy the books "The Case for Christ" or "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. He was an atheist who set out to prove, basically, that God didn't exist. He ending up proving, to himself, that He does. There are a few others along the same lines, but those are the only two which I have read so far. Heck, I'll even send you my copies!! :)

I've "The Case for Christ" but the argument isn't terribly convincing.

[captusa]

I agree wholeheartedly.
And the more dependent one is on faith the more the ability to reason atrophies.

[Marleysdaddy]

And the more dependent one is on faith the more the ability to reason atrophies.

I'm not sure about that...my current belief in a deity is based on faith, but I keep that separate from disciplines which require reason, and I'd like to think my ability to use reason is continually improving, not atrophying.

[RayMan]

And the more dependent one is on faith the more the ability to reason atrophies.

Doubt it.

Thanks for the grand sweeping generalization based on your private prejudice though. :mrgreen:

[bitterclinger84]

Okay
That's not what I meant at all...I don't know every single thing and how it works, but there are things that I can understand without resorting to "well, a god did it"

That doesn't sound circular...that is circular.

If it works for you, that is fine.

*sigh* I'm not explaining myself very well lol.

I don't resort to "God did it" for everything in the world. I understand (vaguely) how a car works. I know the science of how a flower gets "food" and what a star is technically made of. But the idea that all of this just happened by chance strikes me as ridiculous.

So that's where I get the "God did it" situation. It's not a fallback option. For me, and many others, it's the only option that makes any sense.

[bitterclinger84]

Doubt it.

Thanks for the grand sweeping generalization based on your private prejudice though. :mrgreen:

Isn't it nice when someone reveals their hand that way? :)

[RayMan]

Isn't it nice when someone reveals their hand that way? :)

Cap is an exceptionally fine fellow. One of my faves around here but he can get as snarky as Koushi at times. :mrgreen:

[bitterclinger84]

To me, this perspective is just plain intellectually dishonest. Even if I were a theist, I would strive to understand the world to the best of my abilities.

Could you expand upon this?

I've "The Case for Christ" but the argument isn't terribly convincing.

Again, I'm having trouble explaining this. I'm trying though. Sorry I'm doing such a bad job of it :frown:

I do try to understand the world. Anyone who knows me personally will tell you that I am an annoyingly curious person. As I explained in a different post, a belief in God is not my fallback. It's the only option that makes any sense to me. Trust and Faith are key for a relationship with your Creator.

Ok, now for the expanding on my "personal revelation". I come from a rather broken home. My father is living with another woman although my parents are still married. For years I have struggled with self-esteem issues (being the smart fat girl doesn't play well in school *smiles*) I've struggled with depression since I was about 13. Serious depression to the point of attempting suicide more than once.

Right about now, someone is reading this and thinking "Ok, here come the big 'WOW' moment!". Nope. Gradually I sought help for my depression, made friends and became more comfortable with who I was. My best friend became a Christian and would nag me into going to church or youth services with her. Needless to say, they didn't have anything I was buying.

Then I started dating a guy who's whole family was into the "church thing" and it got to a point where the only way I could really see him on the weekend was to go to church with them. At first I was just there to be there. But as time went by, I got to a point where I genuinely cared about the people around me and for the first time in my life, someone outside of family loved me just...because.

One day, it just hit me. I wasn't in church or even at a church event. I was driving to school to drop off a tuition payment which I was late in making and stressing out over everything. Suddenly, there was just this...calm that completely enveloped me. that was my "AHA!!" moment. I just knew.

So maybe you all can understand why I'm having difficulty explaining this. There gets to be a point where intellectualism just doesn't cut it anymore. There are something that you just know, that you can't explain to anyone who hasn't experienced it before.

If you didn't find "Case for Christ" convincing, I'll try to find some other books. I have a friend who is a lot like the people I've debated with here: very intellectually based and really never does anything based on emotion. And yet, he's the most devout Catholic I've ever met. I'll ask him for some recommendations :)

[I am the Eggman]

*sigh* I'm not explaining myself very well lol.

I don't resort to "God did it" for everything in the world. I understand (vaguely) how a car works. I know the science of how a flower gets "food" and what a star is technically made of. But the idea that all of this just happened by chance strikes me as ridiculous.

So that's where I get the "God did it" situation. It's not a fallback option. For me, and many others, it's the only option that makes any sense.

What you are explaining is basically a "god of the gaps".

What makes you think you need an answer to questions to which you have no answers? And what happens if we come up with answers to questions to which you think that "god did it" is the only answer?

[hben]

But this makes even less sense! Why would you ever do something that you explicitly have no reason for doing? What utility does a reasonless faith have?

Because we believe we have a purpose for being here. Our purpose for being here affects who we are, and that affects what we do.

This strikes me as a false dichotomy bundled in an emotional appeal. You must understand that an atheist sees no reason to believe in God.

Maybe reason is not what is lacking in faith as much as evidence or proof. I have no proof that Christ lives other than I know He lives in my heart. That is proof enough for me, but maybe not for you since you require something more tangible. Before I ever invited Christ to come and live within my heart, I could see His fingerprints all over creation. I never remember trying to reason anything out in my mind. I just believed.

From many an atheists perspective, you haven't stopped running at all, you've just convinced yourself of something. My curiosity is why you'd convince yourself of such an unnecessary thing.

From a believer's perspective, you have convinced yourself that there is no Creator, no Savior, no God and nothing to fear after your death, but it stands to reason for me that it takes more faith to believe in nothing than to believe in the Creator of the mountains, the oceans, the moon, the stars, the sun, the earth and last but certainly not least...LIFE.

[bitterclinger84]

Cap is an exceptionally fine fellow. One of my faves around here but he can get as snarky as Koushi at times. :mrgreen:

Koushi? LOL

I'm sure they're all perfectly nice :) It's interesting to see the prejudices that people hold, though. We all have our own.

[bitterclinger84]

What you are explaining is basically a "god of the gaps".

What makes you think you need an answer to questions to which you have no answers? And what happens if we come up with answers to questions to which you think that "god did it" is the only answer?

The point that you're missing is that regardless of your "answers", the underlying answer is always that God did it. Science only shows how he did it.

[bitterclinger84]

Because we believe we have a purpose for being here. Our purpose for being here affects who we are, and that affects what we do.



Maybe reason is not what is lacking in faith as much as evidence or proof. I have no proof that Christ lives other than I know He lives in my heart. That is proof enough for me, but maybe not for you since you require something more tangible. Before I ever invited Christ to come and live within my heart, I could see His fingerprints all over creation. I never remember trying to reason anything out in my mind. I just believed.



From a believer's perspective, you have convinced yourself that there is no Creator, no Savior, no God and nothing to fear after your death, but it stands to reason for me that it takes more faith to believe in nothing than to believe in the Creator of the mountains, the oceans, the moon, the stars, the sun, the earth and last but certainly not least...LIFE.

:dance::dance::clap:

[Marleysdaddy]

*sigh* I'm not explaining myself very well lol.

I don't resort to "God did it" for everything in the world. I understand (vaguely) how a car works. I know the science of how a flower gets "food" and what a star is technically made of. But the idea that all of this just happened by chance strikes me as ridiculous.

So that's where I get the "God did it" situation. It's not a fallback option. For me, and many others, it's the only option that makes any sense.
Saying "Currently, I don't know, but I'll investigate" is always an option that makes sense...

Resorting to "a god did it" does make sense if one is uncomfortable with saying "I don't know"...what doesn't make sense to me is why in the world anyone would be uncomfortable with saying that.

[Demosthenes]

Because we believe we have a purpose for being here. Our purpose for being here affects who we are, and that affects what we do.

Yes, but why do you believe?

From a believer's perspective, you have convinced yourself that there is no Creator, no Savior, no God and nothing to fear after your death,...

This perspective is wrong, though, because you've made the positive claim: i.e. God exists.

Someone that has never heard about God at all is functionally equivalent to an atheist. It follows that this person has convinced themselves of nothing. It is your job to give this person reason to believe in God.


...but it stands to reason for me that it takes more faith to believe in nothing than to believe in the Creator of the mountains, the oceans, the moon, the stars, the sun, the earth and last but certainly not least...LIFE.

And this is a nonsensical mischaracterization.

I think you think that I am as sure God doesn't exist as you are sure he does exist.

This is not true. I reject the idea of God because it doesn't make sense to me, and it doesn't do anything for me. This doesn't bar the possibility that he might exist, just that I would be incredibly surprised.

If I were to claim that God definitely doesn't exist, this would be analogous to your argument: that he definitely does exist.

My supposition is that the indeterminacy of God's existence makes the entire idea of God worthless. If you want this idea further explained, I can expound upon it, or you could look up Bertrand Russell's teapot argument.

This isn't an argument about faith, because I'm already of the opinion that reasonless faith is a volatile concept--capable of good, but also directly responsible for quite a bit of bad.

[Marleysdaddy]

Bitterclinger,

I'd like you to expound on how you think these two sentences relate to each other, and how you personally formulate a consistent position out of the two.

The point that you're missing is that regardless of your "answers", the underlying answer is always that God did it.

Anyone who knows me personally will tell you that I am an annoyingly curious person.

Thanks in advance.

[Marleysdaddy]

If you didn't find "Case for Christ" convincing, I'll try to find some other books. I have a friend who is a lot like the people I've debated with here: very intellectually based and really never does anything based on emotion. And yet, he's the most devout Catholic I've ever met. I'll ask him for some recommendations :)

I think his Catholicism is based on emotion. I can't see how belief in transubstantiation is in any way "intellectually based".

[bitterclinger84]

Saying "Currently, I don't know, but I'll investigate" is always an option that makes sense...

Resorting to "a god did it" does make sense if one is uncomfortable with saying "I don't know"...what doesn't make sense to me is why in the world anyone would be uncomfortable with saying that.

You all seem to be coming from the position that I and others like me are uncomfortable with "not knowing" something. On the contrary, I'm very comfortable with the idea that I don't know everything. I have no problem at all with the fact that my Creator knows everything.

I must admit that I'm getting a little annoyed by terms such as "resort to". That implies that I am incapable of coming to any sort of conclusion on my own and that God is my "fall back plan". My acceptance of God's omnipotence came after my acceptance of Him as my Father and Creator. It's more like a "Well...duh" moment than a "Well, I've run out of options so I'll just fall back on the ole 'God did it' answer".

And I believe in one of my posts I said that one should never stop searching for the truth. Even as a Christian I enjoy learning about how things work and I search for the truth within the truth. By which I mean that not all Christians believe the same way, so even though I believe that the one true God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and that Christ is the living Son of God who was crucified and then raised from the dead, my beliefs still vary from others who believe in those same principles.

[bitterclinger84]

I think his Catholicism is based on emotion. I can't see how belief in transubstantiation is in any way "intellectually based".

There are some things about the Catholic faith that he describes as "mysterious" and he admits cannot be explained "intellectually". But he is not one to jump head first into something based solely on emotion.

Just because it seems anti-intellectual to you does not mean that it is anti-intellectual.

[Marleysdaddy]

You all seem to be coming from the position that I and others like me are uncomfortable with "not knowing" something. On the contrary, I'm very comfortable with the idea that I don't know everything.
But yet you chose to say "my god did it" instead of "I don't know" :think:


I must admit that I'm getting a little annoyed by terms such as "resort to". That implies that I am incapable of coming to any sort of conclusion on my own and that God is my "fall back plan".
I don't think that phrase carries that implication, but I will stop using it if it offends you.

My acceptance of God's omnipotence came after my acceptance of Him as my Father and Creator.
if there is a god, that entity can not be omnipotent (I think that was discussed earlier in this very thread) If your god can do ANYTHING, your god can LIE to you.

It's more like a "Well...duh" moment than a "Well, I've run out of options so I'll just fall back on the ole 'God did it' answer".
That's my entire point...one never runs out of options because "I don't know but I'll investigate" is ALWAYS an option.

[Marleysdaddy]

Just because it seems anti-intellectual to you does not mean that it is anti-intellectual.

This is a straw man...there is an important difference between 'not based on intellect' and 'anti-intellectual'

[bitterclinger84]

Bitterclinger,

I'd like you to expound on how you think these two sentences relate to each other, and how you personally formulate a consistent position out of the two.



Originally Posted by bitterclinger84 http://forums.hannity.com/firestorm/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=53877641#post53877641)
The point that you're missing is that regardless of your "answers", the underlying answer is always that God did it.


Quote:

Originally Posted by bitterclinger84 http://forums.hannity.com/firestorm/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=53875951#post53875951)
Anyone who knows me personally will tell you that I am an annoyingly curious person.



Thanks in advance.

What makes them mutally exclusive? I believe I already answered this, in a way.

For me, knowing that God created all things and that He knows all of the intricacies of Creation does not mean that I'm not still interested in how that Creation works. I know I will never have all the "how's" but I already have the "why".

How exactly was the earth formed? I couldn't break it down and give you a play by play, but I know that it happened because God decided to create a world for His creations. But I still enjoy learning about all the different theories about the "play by play".

The difference between me and someone who doesn't believe in a Creator is that I'm ok with not knowing all the ins and outs of the how of Creation, because I know the why.

[bitterclinger84]

But yet you chose to say "my god did it" instead of "I don't know" :think:



I don't think that phrase carries that implication, but I will stop using it if it offends you.


if there is a god, that entity can not be omnipotent (I think that was discussed earlier in this very thread) If your god can do ANYTHING, your god can LIE to you.


That's my entire point...one never runs out of options because "I don't know but I'll investigate" is ALWAYS an option.

You seem to be coming from the position that someone who believes that God created all things cannot also be curious about his Creation. Why is that?

[RayMan]

There are some things about the Catholic faith that he describes as "mysterious" and he admits cannot be explained "intellectually". But he is not one to jump head first into something based solely on emotion.

Just because it seems anti-intellectual to you does not mean that it is anti-intellectual.

I believe there is a divide fixed between intellectualism and faith. I just don't believe we have to totally abandon either one in favor of the other.

Many people are able to balance the two. I know there is no intellectual basis to my faith in God. That does not mean I can't figure out how to fix a computer when it breaks down by applying my intellect to the problem in order to diagnose what is wrong and how to fix it.


Then I thank God that he gave me a brain with enough horsepower to learn how to fix computers.

[hben]

Yes, but why do you believe?

Since I can't not believe, I have to believe. It's really pretty simple.

This perspective is wrong, though, because you've made the positive claim: i.e. God exists.

From my perspective you seem to be more of an agnostic than an athiest, but I guess that is irrelevant.

Someone that has never heard about God at all is functionally equivalent to an atheist. It follows that this person has convinced themselves of nothing. It is your job to give this person reason to believe in God.

Someone who sees the sunset, the mountains and the oceans, and simply believes that someone greater than the entire universe had to create everything. He doesn't need to be convinced where it all came from. If he simply asks, and listens, he will be shown. If he simply uses his senses to interpret what they are telling him, God will reveal Himself. I believe it is God's job to give all of His creation the ability to believe, and it is up to His creation to interpret what He has placed right in front of them.

And this is a nonsensical mischaracterization.

I truly don't understand what you mean by that.

I think you think that I am as sure God doesn't exist as you are sure he does exist.

Nobody could be sure God doesn't exist, so I can't be sure what you think I think you think. :confused:

This is not true. I reject the idea of God because it doesn't make sense to me, and it doesn't do anything for me. This doesn't bar the possibility that he might exist, just that I would be incredibly surprised.

I wish I could explain why you don't believe, but there are millions of things in creation that I can't explain.

If I were to claim that God definitely doesn't exist, this would be analogous to your argument: that he definitely does exist.

Ok.

My supposition is that the indeterminacy of God's existence makes the entire idea of God worthless. If you want this idea further explained, I can expound upon it, or you could look up Bertrand Russell's teapot argument.

I would prefer to know your beliefs...not Bertrand Russell's beliefs.

This isn't an argument about faith, because I'm already of the opinion that reasonless faith is a volatile concept--capable of good, but also directly responsible for quite a bit of bad.

Faith that is directly responsible for bad is faith in the wrong god. That is one thing that you can believe.

[bitterclinger84]

Yes, but why do you believe?

This perspective is wrong, though, because you've made the positive claim: i.e. God exists.

Someone that has never heard about God at all is functionally equivalent to an atheist. It follows that this person has convinced themselves of nothing. It is your job to give this person reason to believe in God.

And this is a nonsensical mischaracterization.

I think you think that I am as sure God doesn't exist as you are sure he does exist.

This is not true. I reject the idea of God because it doesn't make sense to me, and it doesn't do anything for me. This doesn't bar the possibility that he might exist, just that I would be incredibly surprised.

If I were to claim that God definitely doesn't exist, this would be analogous to your argument: that he definitely does exist.

My supposition is that the indeterminacy of God's existence makes the entire idea of God worthless. If you want this idea further explained, I can expound upon it, or you could look up Bertrand Russell's teapot argument.

This isn't an argument about faith, because I'm already of the opinion that reasonless faith is a volatile concept--capable of good, but also directly responsible for quite a bit of bad.

And in our opinion, it isn't that God hasn't revealed himself, it's that you haven't chosen to see Him. We're getting to the point that this is going to keep going in circles :)

[RayMan]

And in our opinion, it isn't that God hasn't revealed himself, it's that you haven't chosen to see Him. We're getting to the point that this is going to keep going in circles :)

You guys hit that point hours ago. :angel:

[bitterclinger84]

You guys hit that point hours ago. :angel:

LOL I'm sure we did! I'm stubborn like that, though.

[Marleysdaddy]

[QUOTE=bitterclinger84;53880861]What makes them mutally [sic] exclusive?[/QUOTE

I don't believe I said they were mutually exclusive...I just wanted some more information.

[RayMan]

Since I can't not believe, I have to believe. It's really pretty simple.



From my perspective you seem to be more of an agnostic than an athiest, but I guess that is irrelevant.



Someone who sees the sunset, the mountains or the oceans, and simply believes someone greater than Himself and all that he sees had to create everything has convinced himself on nothing. He simply uses his senses to interpret what they are telling him. I believe it is God's job to give all of His creation the ability to believe, and it is up to His creation to interpret what He has placed right in front of them.



I truly don't understand what you mean by that.



Nobody could be sure God doesn't exist, so I can't be sure what you think I think you think. :confused:



I wish I could explain why you don't believe, but there are millions of things in creation that I can't explain.



Ok.



I would prefer to know your beliefs...not Bertrand Russell's beliefs.



Faith that is directly responsible for bad is faith in the wrong god. That is one thing that you can believe.



Why do I get the feeling that the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades are going to get referenced next?

[bitterclinger84]

[/b]

Why do I get the feeling that the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades are going to get referenced next?

Yea...I winced when I saw that *sigh*

[bitterclinger84]

I don't believe I said they were mutually exclusive...I just wanted some more information.

You implied that they were by asking how I could form a consistent position from the two statements.

[Marleysdaddy]

You seem to be coming from the position that someone who believes that God created all things cannot also be curious about his Creation. Why is that?

I think that person can be curious, but only to a point. The instant a person responds to an unknown with "my god did it", the curiosity has ceased.

Had the curiosity not ceased, the answer might have been something like "well I'm going to need to research that"

[bitterclinger84]

I think that person can be curious, but only to a point. The instant a person responds to an unknown with "my god did it", the curiosity has ceased.

Had the curiosity not ceased, the answer might have been something like "well I'm going to need to research that"

And I completely disagree. You can be curious about how something works while accepting who created it.

I can be curious about a car engine but know, and accept that the Ford company created the car.

[Marleysdaddy]

You implied that they were by asking how I could form a consistent position from the two statements.

You may have interpreted that, but I did not imply it. I simply needed more information.

[Marleysdaddy]

And I completely disagree. You can be curious about how something works while accepting who created it.

I can be curious about a car engine but know, and accept that the Ford company created the car.

That's not a good analogy...I can go to the Ford plant and watch a car being "created"...in fact, I could get a job being a "creator" of Ford cars.

You can't do the same for all the things you might answer with "my god did it".

[bitterclinger84]

You may have interpreted that, but I did not imply it. I simply needed more information.

Ok, I can accept that. :)

Or should I express more curiousity? :think:

[bitterclinger84]

That's not a good analogy...I can go to the Ford plant and watch a car being "created"...in fact, I could get a job being a "creator" of Ford cars.

You can't do the same for all the things you might answer with "my god did it".

Of course it's an imperfect analogy. :rolleyes:

But going to the factory and seeing how they are created is rather akin to a scientist trying to figure out how a flower grows.

I think we've hit a wall. You see creationism as a cop-out, I see it as a truthful, underlying answer to all questions.

[Demosthenes]

Since I can't not believe, I have to believe. It's really pretty simple.

You believe because you believe.

So you don't actually have a reason to believe?

From my perspective you seem to be more of an agnostic than an athiest, but I guess that is irrelevant.

Drawing a distinction between atheists and agnostics isn't really useful. This is binary: you either have faith in God, or you don't.


Someone who sees the sunset, the mountains or the oceans, and simply believes someone greater than Himself and all that he sees had to create everything has convinced himself on nothing. He simply uses his senses to interpret what they are telling him. I believe it is God's job to give all of His creation the ability to believe, and it is up to His creation to interpret what He has placed right in front of them.

You didn't really address the issue. It is not self evident that God exists. You cannot make this claim because you cannot prove this claim. Your job is to give this person that has never heard of God ever a reason to believe in God.


Nobody could be sure God doesn't exist, so I can't be sure what you think I think you think. :confused:

Are you sure God exists?


I would prefer to know your beliefs...not Bertrand Russell's beliefs.

These aren't my "beliefs", this is logic. Hell, I came up with the idea before I read Bertrand Russell's argument. You didn't really address the point.


Faith that is directly responsible for bad is faith in the wrong god. That is one thing that you can believe.

How do you determine what the "right" God is?

[Marleysdaddy]

I think we've hit a wall. You see creationism as a cop-out, I see it as a truthful, underlying answer to all questions.

No, I see Creationism as a perfectly acceptable mythical story explaining how existence came to, well, exist...nearly every human culture throughout history has had a creation story.

[bitterclinger84]

No, I see Creationism as a perfectly acceptable mythical story explaining how existence came to, well, exist...nearly every human culture throughout history has had a creation story.

Mythical being the key phrase there. And that's where we split ways, my friend. :)

[Marleysdaddy]

Mythical being the key phrase there. And that's where we split ways, my friend. :)

So I can place your arguments in context, are you a young earth Creationist?

[merryAtheist]

I know some extremely intelligent believers AND nonbelievers.

I have found that one's inherent intelligence often has little or nothing to do with one's religious beliefs. It is the basic assumptions one has about the world that determine one's beliefs. Intelligence is often used to support those assumptions.

These assumptions function as control beliefs that filter the world for the person in question.

A believer will express curiosity about the world and use her intelligence to explain the work of her God. She does not need to refer to her control belief that God exists, but she can utilize her intelligence to explain the world around her, and give thanks to her God for what she learns.

The nonbeliever expresses curiosity about the world, and utilizes his intelligence to explain the way of nature. He sees no need to attribute to God anything he learns, and he does not need to consider the existence of God in any way in order to explain what he learns.

Neither control belief is inimical to scientific pursuits. Therefore there can be believing scientists as well as nonbelieving ones.

The problem occurs when curiosity is held back or restrained by theology.

[hben]

That's not a good analogy...I can go to the Ford plant and watch a car being "created"...in fact, I could get a job being a "creator" of Ford cars.

You can't do the same for all the things you might answer with "my god did it".

Yes, but whenever I proudly drove my new Ford Pickup off the car lot, I didn't try and fool myself into believing there was no designer or factory anywhere to be found just because I wasn't there when it was designed and built. I was never under the impression that a bunch of metal, plastic and rubber just all accidently came together and formed this beautiful new truck that I found myself driving.

[bitterclinger84]

Yes, but whenever I proudly drove my new Ford Pickup off the car lot, I didn't try and fool myself into believing there was no designer or factory anywhere to be found just because I wasn't there when it was designed and built. I was never under the impression that a bunch of metal, plastic and rubber just all accidently came together and formed this beautiful new truck that I found myself driving.

Thank you! That's what I was trying to get at, lol.

[bitterclinger84]

So I can place your arguments in context, are you a young earth Creationist?

I have some questions about how literal the six day creation period is meant to be taken but other than that, yup.

[bitterclinger84]

I know some extremely intelligent believers AND nonbelievers.

I have found that one's inherent intelligence often has little or nothing to do with one's religious beliefs. It is the basic assumptions one has about the world that determine one's beliefs. Intelligence is often used to support those assumptions.

These assumptions function as control beliefs that filter the world for the person in question.

A believer will express curiosity about the world and use her intelligence to explain the work of her God. She does not need to refer to her control belief that God exists, but she can utilize her intelligence to explain the world around her, and give thanks to her God for what she learns.

The nonbeliever expresses curiosity about the world, and utilizes his intelligence to explain the way of nature. He sees no need to attribute to God anything he learns, and he does not need to consider the existence of God in any way in order to explain what he learns.

Neither control belief is inimical to scientific pursuits. Therefore there can be believing scientists as well as nonbelieving ones.

The problem occurs when curiosity is held back or restrained by theology.

Why does it sound better when someone else says it? :) This is what I've been trying to explain.

[Thor]

Yes, but whenever I proudly drove my new Ford Pickup off the car lot, I didn't try and fool myself into believing there was no designer or factory anywhere to be found just because I wasn't there when it was designed and built. I was never under the impression that a bunch of metal, plastic and rubber just all accidently came together and formed this beautiful new truck that I found myself driving.

BZZZZZTTTTT!!!

You can't compare living organisms with manmade objects.

[bitterclinger84]

BZZZZZTTTTT!!!

You can't compare living organisms with manmade objects.

Maybe he's talking about a rock :)

[RayMan]

I know some extremely intelligent believers AND nonbelievers.

I have found that one's inherent intelligence often has little or nothing to do with one's religious beliefs. It is the basic assumptions one has about the world that determine one's beliefs. Intelligence is often used to support those assumptions.

These assumptions function as control beliefs that filter the world for the person in question.

A believer will express curiosity about the world and use her intelligence to explain the work of her God. She does not need to refer to her control belief that God exists, but she can utilize her intelligence to explain the world around her, and give thanks to her God for what she learns.

The nonbeliever expresses curiosity about the world, and utilizes his intelligence to explain the way of nature. He sees no need to attribute to God anything he learns, and he does not need to consider the existence of God in any way in order to explain what he learns.

Neither control belief is inimical to scientific pursuits. Therefore there can be believing scientists as well as nonbelieving ones.

The problem occurs when curiosity is held back or restrained by theology.


Very nicely stated merry. I believe you should have a beer. :D

[hben]

You believe because you believe.

So you don't actually have a reason to believe?

Honestly, I've never really thought about a reason. I was given the gospel, and I simply believed it. I trust Jesus with all my heart and soul with no thought to reason.

Drawing a distinction between atheists and agnostics isn't really useful. This is binary: you either have faith in God, or you don't.

I said it was irrelevant.

You didn't really address the issue. It is not self evident that God exists. You cannot make this claim because you cannot prove this claim. Your job is to give this person that has never heard of God ever a reason to believe in God.

My job is to love people and preach the gospel message. God's job is to convict them of their sin and convince them that Jesus is their only hope of salvation.

Are you sure God exists?

I am willing to stake my life on it.

These aren't my "beliefs", this is logic. Hell, I came up with the idea before I read Bertrand Russell's argument. You didn't really address the point.

They are your beliefs. Don't you believe that God does not exist, or did I totally misunderstand? Hell was around long before Bertrand Russell's argument for or against it was ever conceived. What other point do I need to address?

How do you determine what the "right" God is?

The right God is the ONE who "so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". :hug: ;)

[RayMan]

BZZZZZTTTTT!!!

You can't compare living organisms with manmade objects.

True. I would suppose that the living organism was much more complex and much less likely to have come into being without a creator or designer.

But that's just me. Wait 'til I get through this Intro to Philosophy course. I'll be knocking your theories all over the place.

Tell the truth, the course in making my brain hurt, but in a good way. It seems to be stretching and expanding in new directions.

My only question is why must some philosophers insist on being such over the top pedants?

[bitterclinger84]

True. I would suppose that the living organism was much more complex and much less likely to have come into being without a creator or designer.

But that's just me. Wait 'til I get through this Intro to Philosophy course. I'll be knocking your theories all over the place.

Tell the truth, the course in making my brain hurt, but in a good way. It seems to be stretching and expanding in new directions.

My only question is why must some philosophers insist on being such over the top pedants?

Amen! Even single-celled organisms are more complicated than many things made by man!

[merryAtheist]

Very nicely stated merry. I believe you should have a beer. :D

I'd like to , but it wouldn't taste very good with this cold.

[RayMan]

Amen! Even single-celled organisms are more complicated than many things made by man!

Thor will be showing back up in a minute to show why I am wrong. I just like to mess with him now and then. He's a fungi.....sorry, meant to write fun guy. :mrgreen:

[hben]

BZZZZZTTTTT!!!

You can't compare living organisms with manmade objects.

Why not? Because it makes too much sense, or because it proves that God's creation is too complex to have happened accidentally thus blowing the atheistic argument away?

[hben]

Maybe he's talking about a rock :)

Rock and roll, baby!!! It reminds me of a little song I wrote a few years ago.


JESUS IS THE ROCK,

AND HE ROLLED AWAY THE STONE,

YEAH, JESUS IS THE ROCK,

AND HE ROLLED AWAY THE STONE,

HE'S THE ONLY ROCK THAT CAN,

ROLL AWAY THE STONE IN MY LIFE :dance:

[RayMan]

Rock and roll, baby!!! It reminds me of a little song I wrote a few years ago.




Here's one that's been around for about forty years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHcLWkCiyHM&feature=related

[mtdim]

Why not? Because it makes too much sense, or because it proves that God's creation is too complex to have happened accidentally thus blowing the atheistic argument away?

I think Thor is referring to the fact that living things reproduce, which means natural selection can act on them as a species. The same is not true of non-living things.

[Marleysdaddy]

Yes, but whenever I proudly drove my new Ford Pickup off the car lot, I didn't try and fool myself into believing there was no designer or factory anywhere to be found just because I wasn't there when it was designed and built. I was never under the impression that a bunch of metal, plastic and rubber just all accidently came together and formed this beautiful new truck that I found myself driving.

There is nothing "accidental" about it but

1) I think you already knew that, as I and others have explained it eleventy times and
2) that is a topic for the GI forum...

[Marleysdaddy]

Why not? Because it makes too much sense, or because it proves that God's creation is too complex to have happened accidentally thus blowing the atheistic argument away?

Had this not been a false dilemma, you would really have Thor between a hammer and a hard place...:mrgreen:

[mrboggs@gop.com]

I'm getting the vibe that atheism isn't terribly popular around here.


This is not meant to be inflammatory. This is meant to be a learning experience. I'm curious what you all think about atheism, and if you have any questions for an atheist, I'm well qualified to answer them.

Plain and simple it's about control and power. Most studies correlate atheists to have higher IQs.

[CID_0687]

Plain and simple it's about control and power. Most studies correlate atheists to have higher IQs.
I wasn't aware that IQ had anything to do with faith.

I guess I'll have to take my 130 and denounce Christianity now. :rolleyes:

[RayMan]

I wasn't aware that IQ had anything to do with faith.

I guess I'll have to take my 130 and denounce Christianity now. :rolleyes:

And I will have to send back that letter from Mensa. Rats. I wanted to join so I could meet up with Geena Davis.

[RayMan]

Plain and simple it's about control and power. Most studies correlate atheists to have higher IQs.

I take it these studies are run by atheists?

[CID_0687]

And I will have to send back that letter from Mensa. Rats. I wanted to join so I could meet up with Geena Davis.
That's why I tried to advise you against that whole Pentecostal Pope thing, but would you listen? Nooo...

[RayMan]

That's why I tried to advise you against that whole Pentecostal Pope thing, but would you listen? Nooo...

I thought I could be smart and love God at the same time....who knew?

[adroit]

*sigh* I'm not explaining myself very well lol.

I don't resort to "God did it" for everything in the world. I understand (vaguely) how a car works. I know the science of how a flower gets "food" and what a star is technically made of. But the idea that all of this just happened by chance strikes me as ridiculous.

So that's where I get the "God did it" situation. It's not a fallback option. For me, and many others, it's the only option that makes any sense.

Emphasis mine. I apologize in advance if someone has touched on this, as I'm just now catching up on the convo and I haven't read all of the responses.

It strikes me as curious that "all of this just happened by chance" is ridiculous, but God just existing and always existince is not. Why is one more or less likely than the other?

[bitterclinger84]

I'd like to , but it wouldn't taste very good with this cold.

Awww, I'm sorry you're feeling sickly. Hope you feel better soon!!

[bitterclinger84]

Emphasis mine. I apologize in advance if someone has touched on this, as I'm just now catching up on the convo and I haven't read all of the responses.

It strikes me as curious that "all of this just happened by chance" is ridiculous, but God just existing and always existince is not. Why is one more or less likely than the other?

Chance vs. Purpose. Life, to me, makes much more sense if there is a purpose and design behind it.

[adroit]

[/b]

Why do I get the feeling that the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades are going to get referenced next?

I was going to reference Joshua.

[I am the Eggman]

I thought I could be smart and love God at the same time....who knew?

You can't. You can do one or the other, alternate as you wish, but not both at the same time.

(sorry, it was too good a straight line to pass up) :) :) :)