Philosophy, existentialism, quantum mechanics, these things are all great fun. What’s not to love about a riddle, a paradox, a conundrum? They’re like brain teasers, puzzles waiting to be solved. However, it never ceases to amaze me how me can always reason our way into a great deal of trouble. Human beings can rationalize anything and quite cleverly, too. Of course, we’re often wrong, but that’s a whole other story.
Following one such discussion about the nature of ourselves and the existence of God got rather amusing. It was decided that there is no “us,” that the ego was simply a figment of our own imagination, something we dreamed up or evolved into to help us compensate for our rather dreary and nihilistic existence. The problem there being, “who” is actually doing the dreaming? If there is no self then there can be no self to dream up one’s self.
Once again in the process of attempting to disprove the existence of God we’ve simply gone and disproved the existence of ourselves. It’s hard to imagine this conversation continuing at all, since we’ve just managed to prove we don’t even exist, but that’s a conundrum for another time.
Morality however, rears it’s ugly head. What is morality? It’s not all just learned behavior, people seem to have an innate sense of morality that must come from somewhere, our higher selves perhaps? The alternative would suggest that we are just biological units, with no ego or self, which then leads one to conclude that we are incapable of morality of any sort. So higher selves it is.
The next explanation for our existence, for our alleged higher selves, was the collective unconscious of humankind, which made me laugh because I thought of holiday shoppers glued to their i-phones, mindlessly marching along behind the herd. The collective unconscious! It was soon decided that the collective unconscious was actually the collective consciousness, a very intelligent entity that gathered all the human data in a centralized location of the great beyond, a bit like the NSA or perhaps even like…..God Himself. The problem being, this was supposed to be an argument against the existence of God and so far all we’ve managed to do is disprove our own existence. So at this point, we’ve all ceased to exist, but the idea of God is starting to come to fruition.
Clearly we are becoming a bit confused here, eating our own tails so to speak, because while our non existent selves are struggling to dream ourselves and God into existence, it occurs to someone to ask, “So who made the dreamers?”
Now don’t be fooled by the obvious logic behind this question, it’s bad form to be too reasonable in a forum on reason. When this happens, it is necessary to simply shoot the messenger and restore order.
With the click of a mouse, he now ceases to exist, and everyone else gets back to the business of contemplating their own non existence.
The mental gymnastics people are willing to contort themselves into to either deny or disprove the existence of God are rather impressive to watch. I call it the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party. What always baffles me however, is that it never occurs to anyone to ask why? Why is it so important to you to try and reason God away? Where is the pay off there, what is the benefit, what motivates you? That’s where the answer to the riddle lies.
Wally Fry said:
I have asked that question, actually….why? What’s the motivation? Why does it matter so very, very much? It sort of seemed like an obvious question to me. I mean, it seems inexplicable to spend to much time and energy combating something which does not exist….Don Quixote ish sort of.
I’ve never really gotten an answer..hmm.
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Generally most of us pursue something intellectually when we have a matter of the heart that we’re trying to distance ourselves from.
LOL, speaking from experience here, it’s usually not the nature of the entire universe that needs to change, but rather us.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Wally Fry said:
IB…speaking from experience…I actually know the answer anyway..know what I mean?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arkenaten said:
The answer is straightforward and I have explained to you and others several times. The average atheist could not care less what you, as an adult, believe, providing you do not insist that others, and especially children follow this belief.
That you feel compelled to spread it like an unwelcome STD is solely derived from words in a book which you neither correctly understand nor can you corroborate.
Believe what you will – just leave children alone.
.
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Ark…why?
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Why what, Wally?
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Why…..does it matter so vastly to you that belief in God fade away…why?
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Several reasons, but primarily because of the damage religion does to adults ( and by extension, society in general) often as a result of childhood indoctrination.
Do you seriously think it is ‘okay’ to teach children the type of stuff extreme Muslims are now disseminating?
Do you consider it is okay that they are taught to believe and accept without question a book like the Qu’ran and also the Hadiths ab out Jihad and Mohammed being carried to Heaven on a winged horse?
Do you consider it is okay that kids are brainwashed to believe they will be spending an eternity in bliss if they carry out a suicide bombing against infidels?
Well do you?
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Of course that’s wrong, Ark.
But I just wonder how you substantiate that I, or my children are damaged by our beliefs? I’m feeling pretty okay, actually. And your motivation is not to save me from myself LOL. You’d just as soon I take a long walk from a short pier.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Good.
Now explain to me why you believe it okay to teach kids that YOUR God committed genocide and wiped out the entire human population except one soon to be incestuous family.
And on that note, how would you go about explaining the incest to your your or any young children?
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Ark…how come you get to ask all the questions? You made a positive assertion that I, and my children are harmed…time for the rubber to meet the road sir.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
I already answered: by you accepting falsehoods and then inculcating them into your kids – the same way you agree that indoctrinating Muslim kids is harmful – and thus wrong.
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Ark..you have actually misrepresented what I said. I never said teaching children a worldview is wrong. I said teaching children to kill is wrong. And there is a difference.
The act of sharing a worldview is not inherently wrong. My teaching children about Faith in Jesus Christ is, in and of itself, no more wrong our right that you teaching them about non belief.
You have specifically stated that teaching children to believe in God is child abuse..specifically and repeatedly. That statement is what I challenge you on.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
I never misrepresent you simply cherry pick.
Teaching Christianity ( god belief) is tantamount to child abuse as you lie to them. Also teaching them they will burn in hell for not believing is also child abuse.
You teach children that killing is wrong yet you celebrate your god committing genocide?
Hypocrite.
And you have still to answer how you go about teaching your children about the incest that Noah was obliged to indulge in to repopulate the earth.
Are you going to skip this also and cherry pick your way around it?
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Child abuse…ok den. Call the popo on me Ark. Up here 911 is the number. Your comment that teaching children my faith.is child abuse is simply so absurd that any serious comment would be even more absurd than the accusation. Have a wonderful and blessed day Sir.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arkenaten said:
So you agree with teaching genocide and incest to kids?
Well done. You are an indoctrinated hypocrite, Wally.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
And you STILL haven’t answered the question concerning teaching children incest.
Yep .. you truly are a cherry picker of the worst order.
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Arkenaten, there is no way to teach children and not convey a worldview. So you are simply saying atheists should be the ones to decide what worldview parents teach. But that’s tyranny—the very reason we have built into the First Amendment the freedom of (not from, as many like to think) religion.
Becky
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arkenaten said:
What the religious teach their children is based upon a foundation of falsehood and unsubstantiated claims. Lies.
If we are to allow children to be taught Christianity then why not teach them the earth was created in 6000 years and dinosaurs roamed the earth with humans and there was a bloke called Noah who was obliged to indulge in serious incest to repopulate the earth because your god annihilated every other human on the planet.
Lies upon lies.
You should NOT be allowed to teach this tripe to kids.
Are we clear?
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
We’re clear that you think the truth is a lie. And I’m sorry for that. But that God created the heavens and the earth is not a lie. To withhold even the possibility of a being so great who could bring the multiverse into being is the worst kind of “science,” the greatest kind of fabrication. You want children to make up their own minds, but you don’t want them to have all the facts to do so. Now that’s bordering on negligent. And it’s a form of tyranny (do this because I’ve skewed the facts to show only one side of the argument).
Becky
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arkenaten said:
You obviously know nothing about the god you worship.
There is no truth in the biblical tale of creation, which is why you lot cannot agree on it.
And there are two versions in Genesis.
Your ignorance is so blatant it is appalling.
But, please, enlighten me as to where you obtain your ironclad information regarding your god?
Oh, were are still talking about Yahweh, yes?
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Ark, let’s clear up something else: “a bloke called Noah who was obliged to indulge in serious incest to repopulate the earth because your god annihilated every other human on the planet.” That bloke you’re referring to had his wife on board, this three sons and their wives. No one had to commit incest to repopulate the planet.
And your accusation against God tells me that you either must not believe in capital punishment or do not believe God has the right to judge. It’s not hypocritical to bow before the all knowing sovereignty of One who’s ways are perfect. It’s actually quite prudent.
Becky
LikeLiked by 3 people
ColorStorm said:
IB
I am using a one comment coupon
Mr Ark-
Because you appreciate God’s word, was wondering if you ever read these words.
-who speak evil of those things which they know not
-foaming out their own shame
-wandering stars
-appear as a ministers of righteousness
-not afraid to speak evil of dignities (Noah, Moses, Abraham, Christ, Paul, Pilate,)
–clouds without water
-mockers, raging waves of the sea
-filthy dreamers, corrupt minds
And of SOME, have compassion……..
Yep, written by stone age men with perfect knowledge of 2014-15
LikeLiked by 3 people
Arkenaten said:
I have nothing to say to you. You are an imbecile.
LikeLike
Louis from VA said:
Ark…
Even you must admit that your comment to Colorstorm was uncalled for and accomplished nothing in the way of logical argument.
I hope atheists and theists can at least agree on the value of peace.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Smile …
And you think Colorstorm’s comment was worthy do you?
What a silly person you are .
Fera not oh, S/H/It and I have crossed swords on numerous occasions.
I generally treat S/H/It/’s moronic biblical pastiche’s with the utter contempt they deserve.
Of course there will eventually be peace and even more so when idiotic morons stop pushing religious garbage and condemning non believers to Hell.
Not that we believe in any of that drivel, of course, but someone has to stand up for those that cannot defend themselves from the mashed-potato-for brains half-wits that push it?
You have a nice …. y’all.
LikeLike
madblog said:
Arkenaten,I can see that we won’t be consulting you for lessons on manners. You’ve been really out of line here, rude and disrespectful and a couple other things. Obviously your aim is not persuasion. Good luck with that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arkenaten said:
Persuassion?
As for rude and disrespectful.
Lets NEVER forget that your lot was instrumental in over a thousand years of tyranny in the name of your damn god! And dickheads like George Bush STILL cite his god as being instrumental in his decisions.
And we all know where that leads, don’t we. The heinous things done in ”his ” name should make you cringe and make every effort to at least apologise , not least to all to the South American tribes and the indigenous peoples of North America.
Also , perhaps you need a damn history lesson, lady, regarding the formative years of your oh so blessed crispianity?
The pogroms and near genocidal campaigns carried out by the church – the same church that was instrumental in the vulgar redaction and compilation of that ridiculous book you consider so sacred.
How dare you accuse me of being rude?
In your heart you believe every non Christian is going to burn in hell for eternity. And you consider this is justified!
You are nothing but a whinging sanctimonious hypocrite!
Why don’t you take some time-off pushing this garbage and go and read up on some genuine history for a change?
LikeLiked by 1 person
madblog said:
Yikes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arkenaten said:
Truth hurts at times, does it not?
Why not do a little research on the Cathars?
Then you could come right up to date and investigate what those sick nutters from ACE -Accelerated Christian Education -are doing to kids.
And you could always touch sides with the Jehovah’s, Mormons and Muslims.
When you’ve got a bit more ‘enlightened’ about the truth of your god belief and religion, come back and maybe we can have a decent chat without the religious diatribe, hmm?
Have fun in your research.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Ark, you’re rude, redundant, and boring. Take a chill pill and go bother somebody else for a while.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Arkenaten said:
Maybe you should join you mate madblog?
You are cut form the same cloth after all, yes?
Both worship Yahweh.
LikeLike
Louis from VA said:
Ark…
Your animosity is disturbing. If you are trying to defend atheism, the only thing you accomplished via that comment was to paint yourself as an antagonist.
Silly? Why thank you. Maybe it’s cliché to thank people for attempted insults, but I do not deny that I am quite silly at times. 😀 😀 The world needs a good laugh after all. I’m so silly that I happen to have fallen into a remarkable state of sanity.
Peace to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arkenaten said:
There is no need to defend atheism, as it is the natural state of being. You and your sorry ilk need to not only demonstrate that your ridiculous religion contains the truths you claim above all other religions but also above each particular cult within Christianity itself.
And that is a feat I would gladly pay money to see.
LikeLike
Louis from VA said:
Hmm… let’s examine that statement.
If there is no God, then the universe appeared spontaneously from nothing, thus contradicting its own laws.
If there is no God, then humans are the highest moral authority, and therefore if I decide it good to murder everyone I see, then I am right and should not be arrested.
If there is no God, then this must be the only world we have, as humans are incapable of creating an afterlife. And the thought of a few fleeting years of imperfect existence and then eternal death is awfully unhopeful.
Which theological standpoint needs proving again?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Arkenaten said:
Which god are you referring to?
Let’s establish this ground rule first, shall we?
Off you go …tell me which god?
LikeLike
Louis from VA said:
🙂 Ark, you sound like a broken record. But in this case I concede it might be helpful to define our terms.
And how about this: let’s make it really simple. Let’s just take that first point I mention. For the purposes of this discussion, it will suffice to define God as a nameless, impersonal creative force capable of putting the universe into existence.
So, my reasoning runs as follows:
1. Everything that is currently in existence owes its existence to something else. Every effect must have a cause.
2. Additionally, it is a fundamental truth that matter cannot be either created nor destroyed by any means within the physical universe.
3. Suppose the universe spontaneously popped into existence. If it did so without a cause, then it has violated its own laws.
4. And this chain of contingency that runs through the universe cannot extend infinitely into the past, or nothing actually had the means to come into being in the first place.
5. Conclusion:
a. If the creation of the universe was not due to an external cause, then the universe does not exist and neither do we.
b. But we do exist, as does the universe.
c. Therefore there exists some uncreated creative force which exists outside of the physical universe and does not have to receive existence from something else. This we commonly refer to as God.
Satisfied? Feel free to ponder this for a while… It’ll probably be after New Year’s before I can get back to you.
Peace.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arkenaten said:
@Luis
Broken record?
Hmmm … well you are a Dickhead, so there y’go.
Now, if you have a name for your god then let’s go back to basics and you tell me , okay? Hint. He is in the OT and his name begins with Y.
Then afterwards, we can all put out Descartes hats on and discuss metaphysics and philosophy til the moo cows come home! Won’t that be fun, Louis?
So, the name of your god is ….?
Over to you, sunshine.
LikeLike
Louis from VA said:
@Ark
More name calling? You do realize this isn’t middle school any more…
For the purposes of this discussion the character of the God I worship personally is irrelevant. I have defined my terms and offered you a logical argument. Now it’s your turn to refute it, not avoid the question and play the “name your god” card, tattered and faded as it is from overuse. Your options, should you need reminding, are to point out a flaw in a) my terms; b) my premises; or c) my conclusion. If you cannot do any of these, then it seems my point stands, does it not?
I don’t expect to convert you or anything, but it would be nice to see a logical argument from your end. (And I mean that honestly. I’ve probably got as much to learn from you as you have to learn from me.)
Peace.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
No, I am not asking for a treatise, merely the name of your god. ( small g) Once again, it begins with a Y. Need any more clues?
Suggestion: read the ( Torah) Old Testament.
Afterwards we can move on to refuting your little piece of nonsense.
I learned how to identify Dickheads in junior school, by the way.
LikeLike
Louis from VA said:
Fine. I believe in Yahweh, to use that name.
However, as I’ve already stated, the point I make only assumes the term God as an impersonal and nameless creative force, outside of the physical universe. Any argument you make against your imagining of Yahweh with regards to my “nonsense”, would constitute a straw man fallacy.
We are talking about the same “logic”, yes?
Peace.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Excellent! The pupil gets aboard. Well done, Luis.
Wasn’t so hard, now was it?
Now, in future, you can refer to your deity as Yahweh and we can avoid all this Which god confusion.
Make things easier all round.
I am not imagining anything at this point.
It is thew religious that go in for all that metaphysical, imaginary stuff.
I’m mostly a practical sort of bloke.
I enjoy cold beer and how women.
So …you were saying?
LikeLike
Louis from VA said:
…
You’re not saying logic is impractical, are you?
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
Why would you suggest such a thing? That’s not logical?
And this from a person who worships/believes in a god found in an ancient man made text? Surely not, Louis?
LikeLike
Louis from VA said:
🙂 So we’re good then?
In the name of our evidently mutual support of practicality, I have used logic to the best of my ability to demonstrate my point. You are free to use logic to refute it. If you can catch me straying outside the realm of reason, then you win. I’ve laid forth my hand; can you best it?
Let’s see…
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
I don’t need to refute it, simply because the only evidence you have of your god is in the bible, which we know is a load of mythological crap.
Furthermore, even if i were to accede to your ‘creator claims’ you have no evidence it was Yahweh, now do you?
There are plenty of creator deities in cultures across the globe. Why should I pick yours?
You’re gonna have to do a lot more with that logic of yours to convince anyone, Louis.
Sorry …. big fail. Next!
LikeLike
Louis from VA said:
You disagree with the Bible; I did not mention the Bible in my argument.
You disagree with Yahweh; I did not mention Yahweh in my argument.
Big fail you say? Have you refuted my point or its premises?
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
So you are not a deist then?
LikeLike
Louis from VA said:
I am not a deist. But one has to start somewhere.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
So would you mind telling me what you are then, if not a deist?
LikeLike
Louis from VA said:
P.S. Thanks for spelling my name right this time. 😀
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
It’s a combination of lazy, poor eyesight and dyslexia. Be grateful we’re not discussing your dog.
LikeLike
Louis from VA said:
Gotcha. Discussing the existence of dogs… LOL
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
@Ark
We shouldn’t be ALLOWED to teach this?…really? Wow..okay. And how do you recommend we be stopped? I’m very curious as to that answer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arkenaten said:
I didn’t suggest it was possible to implement it – legislate against parents – as law, no this would be silly and ultimately unenforceable. Morally however, is another matter.
Have you not noticed how your founding church has slowly shifted bit by bit? It is now more liberal than would have been imagined only 100 years ago.
Imagine what i will look like in another 100?
But certainly Creationism can be legalized against being taught in state institutions, and already is, and legal investigations are being conducted into such barbaric educational methods as ACE – Accelerated Christian Education, which is nothing but thinly veiled Creationism. There is no reason not to believe that common sense will prevail and this too will eventually be legislated against.
The key is enlightenment, Wally, thus,as science breaks down even more superstitious nonsense eventually beliefs held by people such as you will be regarded as nonsensical and those that hold on to such beliefs as odd or quaint, if one is kind.
More religions have come and gone than you could count and your silly, obnoxious faith is on the wane too, Wally.
It is already happening. All you have to do is listen ….
🙂
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
If it was practical…would you legislate it out of existence?…and btw I agree with the liberalism of the church in recent years but I also remember this:
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
The church won’t die my friend…someday Jesus will come back for her..but she won’t die.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arkenaten said:
You quote the bible, as the reason to demonstrate why you think religion wont die! RFLMAO.
You don’t even understand its history or half of what it contains and what you think you do know has been redacted to hell and gone – by men! Not gods, but humans.
You are living proof that indoctrination works, but thank the gods ignorance is curable.
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Speaking of that…just about time to head to the church cave for my mid week indoctrination. …toodles and cheerio!
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
Ahh, but somebody wise once taught me that the proper word isn’t indoctrinate, it’s immerse 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wally Fry said:
He he he
LikeLiked by 1 person
tildeb said:
Louis from VA,
You set out this chestnut of an argument (a version of Aquinas) and, because it’s in the correct form of a logical argument assume its conclusions are anything more than logically valid. You assume the conclusions accurately reflect reality because you (like Aquinas) presume the premises are an accurate reflection of reality.
They’re not.
Specifically, the first premise sets you up for failure if you are going to immediately make a special exemption from it, that every effect must have a cause. That includes what you later conclude is an ‘uncreated creative force’.
Anytime you feel you have to use opposite terms to describe one thing (typically used in metaphysics like an uncaused cause, uncreated creative force, belief in non belief, a non fish fish, and so on) you know you’ve made a mistake. I don’t care if you call something a Prime Mover or a First Cause or whatever… if what you mean is in some way a special exemption from this premise, then you’ve already given the game away and undermined the first premise from being true, admitted it’s not an accurate reflection of reality.
You also make some ridiculous assertions about what caused the Bib Bang. The accurate premise is ‘We don’t know’ but that honesty doesn’t suit your purposes, now does it? The truth is that you don’t know. I don’t know. Stormcolor and Wally don;t know. But rather than admit this shared ignorance, you fill it in on my behalf as ‘nothing’. You think there really are people – specifically atheists – who believe this ‘nothing’ caused the universe in order to set up the false dichotomy of ‘something’. Oh, and it just so happens (according to your argument) is that the only ‘something’ that could do such a job must be – again, according to you – some divine critter that is exempt from the first premise. And not just any divine critter, mind you. It must be the father of Jesus and not that god of lust Tlazolteotl.
And you know this how?
Right. You don’t know. You have absolutely nothing whatsoever to go by. You have no means at your disposal to differentiate your applied beliefs from reality but presume the logical form gives you permission to simply make up whatever premises best serves the conclusion you already assume to be true.
I suspect that’s why you’re being forced to answer which god you’re talking about… so that you can be challenged to provide compelling evidence FROM reality to support your claim. Of course, all of us already know you’ve got nothing and from this nothing you have created something of equal substance, namely, your god.
LikeLiked by 1 person
a gentle iconoclast said:
Excellent, IB.
Yes, it IS a Mad Hatter’s tea party. And can drive you mad if you think thoughts about nonexistence, etcetera, or it can lead to incredible depression. As a preteen, someone asked me how I knew I existed and this question changed me and caused depression. Minds are fragile. I don’t understand how people can even discuss such things. It’s poison.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Louis from VA said:
That last question is something I hadn’t thought about before… ‘Tis an something interesting to ponder. You make a lot of sense, IB.
At least, I think you do. Seeing as neither of us exist, I can’t say for sure, of course…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Louis from VA said:
IB, you can’t like my comments. They don’t exist either. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
LOL, that’s a rather good point 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
Louis from VA said:
🙂 I would “like” your comment in reply, but…
Hold on. I’m a mindless, irrational Christian. What the hell. *hits like button*
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doobster418 said:
You know, it pisses me off when people feel they have to “disprove the existence of God.” I’m an atheist, but I don’t feel the need to disprove God’s existence. I don’t believe that God exists and the only way I would ever believe that God exists would be if someone could prove God’s existence to me. So just like I don’t hate God (you can’t really hate what doesn’t exist) I don’t need to disprove that God exists. If you believe something doesn’t exist, there’s nothing to disprove. Again, to my unicorn example, I don’t go around trying to disprove that unicorns exist, but I don’t believe they exist and won’t unless someone shows me definitive evidence that they do exist.
However, I know I exist. There is physical, tangible evidence that I exist. People interact with me, they seem me, they talk with me, they touch me. I feel things, I see things, I touch things, I hear things. My existence doesn’t depend upon God existing. I know I exist because I am sitting at my keyboard typing this comment that you are going to be reading after I hit “Post Comment.” If I didn’t exist, then who is typing this and how can you read something from someone who doesn’t exist?
And I know I am a moral person even though I don’t believe that God exists. My morality is both innate and learned…learned from my parents, my teachers, and from society.
All of this, to me, is not mental gymnastics. It’s simply logical, rational, critical thinking.
LikeLiked by 2 people
madblog said:
The problem with your logic here is that the evidence for God’s existence, not only in the distant past, but right here, right now, is literally everywhere. You cannot look, think, feel anything without seeing Him, right there. The unfortunate ability to unsee what is plainly before our eyes is common to all, believers and deniers. It’s part of the self-absorbed human condition.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Doobster418 said:
The problem, madblog, with your logic is that saying that the evidence of God is “literally” all around us is not evidence at all but just something you choose to believe. I can easily look, think, and feel without seeing him right there. It’s not that I’m unseeing what is plainly there. It’s that there is nothing plainly there to see.
LikeLike
siriusbizinus said:
You know IB, I really am grateful you asked the questions.
The reason why people say affirmatively that there is no God, or seek to declare why there is no God, are for the same reasons why people declare there is a God. They do it to be proud of who they are and what they believe, they do it to proclaim what they feel to be true, and they do it to oppose those who would oppose them.
Two human beings who have different beliefs do not shed their humanity for them. They’re simply looking through different lenses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
“They do it to be proud of who they are and what they believe…”
Hmm. I suspect you are quite right about many Christians. Pride however is “having an inordinate opinion of one’s own superiority,” something that actually separates one from God. Coming to Christ actually requires the exact opposite, a willingness to relinquish pride and belief.
LikeLiked by 1 person
siriusbizinus said:
Actually, IB, I was using the word in accord with its other definition of “self-respect” or “self-esteem,” as in “the boy was proud of his high grades in school.”
Now, using the word in the sense you describe is another can of worms entirely, and definitely something I shall ponder today.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
I figured that was what you meant 😉
The thing is, I’m not sure there’s much difference between pride and “self” worth or “self” esteem. Much of following Christ requires you to let go of so much “self” and all of it’s accompanying needs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
madblog said:
Doobster. “It’s not that I’m unseeing what is plainly there. It’s that there is nothing plainly there to see.” I really can’t argue with logical, rational critical thinking such as that.
LikeLike
Mike said:
God is to be sought, not found.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doobster418 said:
Why seek what does not exist. If it does exist, let it demonstrate its existence to me so that I will know to seek it. Otherwise, why wasting my time chasing the unicorn.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eric said:
Actually, I agree with you here Doobster. It’s God who seeks us: remember the parable of the lost sheep? We have to be willing to be found.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Doobster418 said:
I’m willing to be found, Eric. I just don’t believe there’s anyone/anything looking to find me.
LikeLike
Mike said:
Review your logic loop.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Doobster418 said:
At least I have a logic loop. Yours is a magic hoop.
LikeLike
Mike said:
nope. not mine.
You’re smarter that your first comment. I expect more from you.
LikeLike
Eric said:
Doobster:
“I’m willing to be found.”
Then you’re half-way there.
“I just don’t believe there’s anyone looking to find me.”
If you did, you wouldn’t be a lost sheep. Belief and hope are closely related concepts. When you go from ‘willing to be found’ to ‘hoping to be found’, the Shepherd will find you.
LikeLike
Doobster418 said:
I’m sorry, Eric, that you feel I am a lost sheep. I’m not lost at all, even though you probably think I am because I don’t share your beliefs, and since your beliefs are the only “true” beliefs, I must be a lost sheep if I don’t share them. The problem is, Eric, lost sheep that you think me to be, I don’t hope to be found. I don’t need to be found. But if someone magical deity is looking for me, I’m certainly willing to be found.
LikeLike
Eric said:
Doobster:
Sorry if that came across as ‘preaching’ at you. I was trying to explain a dynamic of faith; because most atheists question why Christians stress the ‘necessity of belief’. The Parable of the Lost Sheep puts it more of an allegorical form.
The point I was trying to make is that willingness to be found is positive but insufficient with hope of being found. Hope implies belief, belief leads to faith and so on.
LikeLike
tildeb said:
‘Willingness to be found’ in religio-speak is the same as ‘placebo’ in medico-speak. It’s believing that one’s dependent reporting defines an independent causal connection. This method is a guaranteed way to fool one’s self… to confuse belief imposed on reality to be reality itself.
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
<> Not at all, tildeb. If I’m on a mountain alone, in the dark, can’t find the trail, and don’t know which way I should go, independent thought says to keep looking. But good hiking protocol says, stay where you are and let the searches find you. What searchers? You have to believe there will be searchers. You have to be willing to be found instead of going out to find your way.
So I have this small disagreement with Eric. First a person needs to admit he’s lost. The only people willing to be found are people who know they can’t find the way on their own.
Becky
LikeLiked by 2 people
siriusbizinus said:
Actually, I know plenty of atheists who would agree with your statement. Admittedly, though, not in the way you’d imagine.
LikeLike
Mike said:
How might you know how I would imagine?
Seems a bit presumptive.
Unless, you’re one of the voices in my head… and even then it would be up for debate.
LikeLike
siriusbizinus said:
You’re right, Mike, that was presumptive of me.
What I meant was that it would be interpreted literally as in, God can only be sought and never found because he’s not there. Unless you’ve secretly de-converted from Christianity, I don’t think that’s what your statement, “God is to be sought, not found[]” meant.
LikeLike
Mike said:
You can’t help yourself. You seem to know an awful lot about me…
LikeLike
siriusbizinus said:
I’m not even sure what you’re getting at.
LikeLike
Mike said:
I’m referring to your continued presumptuousness.
You cannot know what my position on God is, nor does it matter. Yet you continue to assume you do. Stay with what you know and search for that which you don’t if ti matters to you.
It is the assumption of knowing all there is to know that handicaps most Atheist arguments.
We are back to where we started.
LikeLike
siriusbizinus said:
I think I know where the misunderstanding is now. Unless I’m mistaken, and please correct me if I’m wrong, you’re thinking that I’m relying on your exact position on belief in God.
To clear things up, I am only assuming that you have a belief in a being called God, in a Christian sense of that word. This is based on other comments you have made on this blog. Feel free to correct me if I am in error as to your belief.
Also, please note that my second comment to you was only to clarify my earlier point. If you need me to simplify it further for you, I shall be more than happy to oblige. At this juncture, I’m not actually reasserting anything. I am merely trying to convey that, according to your past statements here, that you appear to have a belief in God.
LikeLike
Mike said:
I understand. Assuming my position is not pertinent to the discussion… or any discussion…
You may Believe what you want.
You may have Faith that you are correct.
But it does not make it so.
Are you so different? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
lang3063 said:
“Once again in the process of attempting to disprove the existence of God we’ve simply gone and disproved the existence of ourselves.” Priceless. As for the notion that God is responsible to prove his existence to the likes of us I have yet to meet an atheist with a reasonable, conclusive “test” that doesn’t change if it doesn’t go according to plan. They are the masters of the moving target.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Doobster418 said:
I am an atheist and all I’m asking for is tangible, definitive proof that God exists. That “conclusive test” doesn’t change. But to say that God exists because God exists, or because you “feel God’s presence,” or that “God is everywhere” or that you just have to believe and have faith…none of that is tangible, none of that is definitive. It’s what you choose to believe. From my perspective, it’s all inside your head. And that’s fine. If God exists inside your head, and if that gives you comfort and solace, that’s fine. But that doesn’t mean that God exists outside of your head.
As far as being masters of a moving target, it’s easy to do when your target is an invisible, supernatural entity that no one can see but you and those who believe in the existence of God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
“From my perspective, it’s all inside your head.”
There’s kind of a logical fallacy written in there Doobster, that’s somewhat amusing. Everything is “all inside your head.” You are inside your head, your perception of the world around you is inside your head, your non belief is inside your head. Believing in God is the one thing that requires you to face the fact that it is possible for Something to exist outside of your own head. That’s the solipsism paradox at play.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Doobster418 said:
Yes, IB, I am a rather introspective person. But there is a reality that definitely exists outside of my head. It’s the reality I experience every single day, and it’s the same reality that virtually any other human being can experience. For example, if I get on a city bus and I am not the only passenger on that bus, the reality is that every other passenger on that bus is experiencing the bus ride. We may not be experiencing it exactly the same way. Some may be put off by the smell of another passenger. Some are reading newspapers or eBooks, some may be listening to music on their iPhones, some may be chatting away with fellow passengers. But we each are experiencing a bus ride and it’s reality. So that is just one example of something that exists outside of my own head.
This blog of yours. It expresses thoughts and ideas that come from inside your head but it’s something I can see, read, and respond to. Sure, my response to your thoughts and ideas are probably different from most of your other loyal readers, but each of us can see your blog. It’s not just something that exists inside our own heads. It exists and there is evidence beyond what is inside our heads that it exists.
Where is the evidence that God exists outside of your own head? And by “your own head,” I’m talking about not just you, but of those who believe that God exists. I’m not walling myself off from such evidence. I’m not shielding my eyes so that I’m not seeing it. I’m open to it and I’m looking for it. But no one has been able to show it to me, other than to say that the only way to know that God is real is to believe that God is real.
LikeLike
madblog said:
Please prove to me that there is a reality outside your head.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doobster418 said:
Seriously? Is there a reality outside of your head? Or is everything around you just a creation of your own mind, as if a dream. If that’s the case, why even bother to wake up? But, okay, I’ll bite.
If I go to a football game with 50,000 other people and we are all seeing the exact same plays happening on the field, is that reality? It’s not just happening inside my head, is it. Or are all 50,000 of us having a shared vision via a collective consciousness of some sort and the events unfolding on the field are all happening inside our own heads.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“…but each of us can see your blog. It’s not just something that exists inside our own heads. It exists and there is evidence beyond what is inside our heads that it exists…”
Based on what, Doobster? You actually have no proof that this blog exists beyond your own mind and perceptions. You could simply be experiencing a mass delusion. That really is the nature of our existence, all proof and evidence must be filtered through our own heads, heads that are more than capable of deceiving us.
When it comes to God however, you suddenly want verified proof available to you from outside of your own mind, something that in actuality isn’t even possible. Well, I mean God’s existence outside of your perception is quite possible, but if you aren’t wiling to use your mind and your perceptions to process the data, then you can’t really see Him. He is God however, I suppose if He wanted to He could completely bypass your brain and communicate with you in a different way. God can certainly speak to us through our heart and other means that slip in under the radar of all our reasoning.
LikeLike
Doobster418 said:
I do have verifiable proof, IB, that your blog exists outside of my own head. Other people can see and read your blog, not just me. So I know that it exists and it’s not just something I conjured up in my mind. Just as I know that the keyboard on which I’m typing this comment exists. I can feel it. And I can hear the sound of my fingers pounding away at the keys. Others can see the keyboard and hear the sounds coming from it. All of those are examples of evidence that it is real and not just inside my head.
If God is so eager for us to believe that he exists, so eager for us to love him and for him to show us his love, and if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, it would be a cinch for him to offer some verifiable proof that he exists. “He is God however, I suppose if He wanted to He could completely bypass your brain and communicate with you in a different way.” Yes, you would think, if God were real, he could do that. Hey, I’m open. Let him communicate with me in any way that he can that would enable me to see, hear, feel, or experience him.
Wouldn’t God want those of us who are doubters to be able to see something that would assuage our doubts so that we would believe in and embrace God? But instead, we are told that the only way to believe in God is to believe in God.
And speaking to us through our hearts? Well, there’s this thing called biology and the heart is merely a muscle. That the idea that the heart can feel, hear, or do anything more than beat, is a human construct. So when you say God speaks to us through our hearts, you’re talking about our brains, our minds. So if you hear God speaking to you, it’s all inside your head.
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
Doob said: —–I am an atheist and all I’m asking for is tangible, definitive proof that God exists————
You demonstrated that your hands, ears, and eyes all confirmed what your brain knows.
Sooooooo, from whence comes these hands, these eyes, and these ears; and oh, the brain and heart too that just confirmed to you this blog’s existence? And, if the heavens and earth are not proof enough, what is? What else could He do for you? (Well, there is Golgotha’s hill…)
Happy holidays,
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doobster418 said:
CS, you believe that it all — hands, ears, eyes, brains — are God’s creations; all come from God. As do the heavens and the earth. But that’s what you believe. And you believe that because you simply choose to believe it. Where’s the evidence that God even exists in order support your beliefs that God created it all?
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
Ok D:
Forget me- I’m out of the picture, say I’m dead and gone.
What do YOU require, what proof do YOU need? and this twin question was just asked u by Wally, so u can address him if u want.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doobster418 said:
I did respond to Wally. You are not out of the picture, CS. You are not dead and gone. If you were, who is posting your comment?
So I do believe that you exist, CS, even though I can’t see you and certainly don’t believe the way you believe. But I believe you exist because I can see evidence with my own eyes. The evidence is that you have a blog and you make comments on IB’s blog.
Now it could be that you are someone else posting as CS, that CS is merely a persona that someone else is using. But there is someone who exists behind the CS persona. So that is proof that there is someone who exists who is posting as CS.
Maybe God needs to create a WordPress blog. 🙂
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Interesting…but there’s still a question out there. Just interesting your observation that you know Colorstorm is real…even though you have never laid eyes on him…but you have seen strong indications that he is there…not debating though LOL.
LikeLike
ColorStorm said:
I was simply trying to get you to hone in on your requirements, for your proof.
Reading your reply to Wally- There is one word, one concept, one thing that you just described, and it should be enough for you, it is something you have already, and that is:
CONSCIENCE ——————-You know innately there is a God, and I am standing by this statement. And when I say ‘you,’ I also mean mankind. Creation is stamped on our conscience, without contradiction.
The human conscience bar none is a masterstroke.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doobster418 said:
If you believe that human conscience is proof of God for you, that’s great. I don’t believe that it’s proof of God’s existence.
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Hey Doobster…a question. And it’s a serious question; I am not poking or anything. It’s a serious, want to know, question. What would actually constitute verifiable proof? Not saying I can provide that..just wondering how you are defining it? Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doobster418 said:
That’s a good question, Wally. I guess I’m looking for something tangible and verifiable. What that could be? I don’t really know. But it would have to be something that is not something that only I can see or perceive and something that can’t be explained as a natural phenomenon. To say that the sun and the sky and the trees and the animals, and the seasons and the oceans and the tides and that everything is proof does not work. To say that our ability to even ask the question of God’s existence does not work. It’s got to be something that anyone can see or feel or experience in the same or very similar way and agree that it is demonstrates that God exists. It’s anything that transcends the argument that you have to believe in God in order to believe that God exists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wally Fry said:
And sorry Doobster..I meant to add a question. And it is simply me looking for your answer..not debating it..yet LOL.
How to you explain origins? And I don’t mean evolution, etc. Let’s just say I conceded all of the(and I don’t) But if I did…where was the beginning and how did it come to be?
LikeLike
Doobster418 said:
Okay, the issue here is that if I say that nothing existed — even matter — until the Big Bang, you’d say that matter cannot come from nothing. And if I say that matter just always existed, you’d ask where it come from originally.
Your answer to where the beginning was and where it came from is God. But if you can ask me where matter came from, then I can ask you where God came from. And you will likely tell me that he always existed. Yet if I say that matter always existed, you won’t accept that.
And why, I ask, is it so important to know where the beginning was and how it came to be? I can’t know with any degree of certainty, but the fact that I can’t know doesn’t mean I feel I’m missing something and doesn’t necessitate a need in me to create a supernatural deity, a “Creator,” to answer a question that I can’t possibly answer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wally Fry said:
Doobster
That is a more than reasonable answer, thank you for it. I’m actually glad you didn’t respond with a list of scientific theories; any attempt on my part to rebut them would cause this whole chat to die laughing. But….the point is…there is no verifiable proof for any of those ideas either…none.
All we have, Doobster is evidences that we interpret to arrive at our conclusions. And, like it or not, the evidences for a Creator God are, when looked at through the same lens as anything else, at least as compelling as any other source.
I know you aren’t big on the whole heart and mind thing..I respect that, but of course disagree. Because, yes, my weighing of evidences is influenced by feelings in my heart and mind I cannot dismiss. Right, wrong or indifferent…there it is. Doobster, I felt like you for 45 long years…a long time. I commend you for being far nicer and more reasoned than I ever was in my dealings with people like me.
My strongest point to you is one I already covered…We know, by the thing that are created..and we are without excuse. Further…The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
If I am wrong..no harm no foul. All my cells cease to function and I fade into oblivion…on the other hand if you are wrong…then not so great.
I really do appreciate this discussion..thank you for the opportunity to have it.
LikeLike
Doobster418 said:
“on the other hand if you are wrong…then not so great.” Yes, I know. I am doomed to an eternity in hell because God is apparently so insecure that if I don’t believe he exists, I need to be severely punished for the rest of time. That, in my opinion, is another reason to not believe in the existence of this supposedly all powerful, all loving God who feels compelled to punish all those who don’t love him back.
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Yes…I agree..it is a disturbing subject. And I know that no explanation I could deliver will change the way you feel about it. I wish I could…but I cannot. It’ quite natural for us to hate the very thought..I so get that.
God’s attributes are hard for us to get our brains around..so true. But He also loves us…very much. He has given us an out..we just have to take it.
We don’t agree with His perspective…but the reality is that His perspective is the one that matters. The ball is in our court, my friend.
I’m not sure I have anything additional of value to add here..probably gonna not take up more space on IBs blog..she has been very kind and patient..thanks IB!
LikeLike
Doobster418 said:
Just so you know, Wally, I don’t hate the very thought of eternal damnation because I don’t believe that there is an afterlife. And I as I have tried to articulate, I don’t hate that which I don’t believe exists.
But it’s interesting to me that the only “way out” of this supposed eternal damnation is to believe in and embrace God. How convenient.
Anyway, you’re right, no explanation you could deliver will change my mind. Only God could do that, and since I don’t believe that God exists, I am not holding my breath. But thanks for the interesting discussion…and thanks to IB for hosting it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
madblog said:
The atheist will respond that he is ruled by logic and thinking (unlike you), and therefore can only conclude there is no God. Logic! (pixiedust)
But the truth lies elsewhere, and that “why” is a great question. Who wants nothing when there is something? Only someone who doesn’t want to be accountable.
Your conclusions are great. One should also question why it’s easier and more logical to prove we don’t exist than it is to prove that God doesn’t exist….
Lovely that
LikeLiked by 2 people
Doobster418 said:
madblog, you ask “Who wants nothing when there is something?” But this assumes that without God there is nothing. And that’s simply not the case. No one is trying to prove that we don’t exist. We do, we are real. But where is God, other than in your mind?
LikeLike
madblog said:
I was referring to the absence of God as nothing, not saying that there is nothing.
LikeLike
Doobster418 said:
Okay, madblog, you wrote “The atheist will respond that he is ruled by logic and thinking (unlike you), and therefore can only conclude there is no God.” (Oh, and thank your for that slam about my apparent lack of logic and thinking. What a Christian thing for you to say.)
And then you wrote “Who wants nothing when there is something? Only someone who doesn’t want to be accountable.” So what is the implication here? That without God there is nothing and if you don’t believe in God, you don’t want to be accountable? Accountable to what? To God? To oneself? To the nothingness that exists without God?
So what are you saying? My comment was intended to refute your assertion that atheists find it “easier and more logical to prove we don’t exist than it is to prove that God doesn’t exist.” Atheist neither try to prove that we don’t exist nor do we try to prove that God doesn’t exist. We believe that God doesn’t exist and that no one has proven that God exists, so why should we try to prove that God doesn’t exist? That’s just silly.
LikeLike
madblog said:
Doobster, most of the comments you have here are because you are misreading multiple things stated…and as such there’s no point in discussing them. Some of them are my bad. I was not at any point saying that there is nothing, as in nothing exists. I was saying that some atheists prefer a nothingness in the place of God.
That without God you are not accountable is an irrefutable statement. Who would you be accountable to? (In a cosmic context.)
I was not suggesting that atheists try to prove that we don’t exist; I think that’s a misreading of IB’s original post. I was simply commenting that it’s quite meaningful that we can basically reach a conclusion (if we follow our own logic) that we don’t exist easier than that God doesn’t exist.
Finally, as for the slam, are you referring to this?
“Doobster. ‘It’s not that I’m unseeing what is plainly there. It’s that there is nothing plainly there to see.’ I really can’t argue with logical, rational critical thinking such as that.” I’m sorry if it offends you. Why is my comment alone insulting among all this discussion?
LikeLike
Doobster418 said:
So you’re suggesting, madblog that when I exactly quote what people have posted, I’m misreading what they said?
So you wrote, “I was saying that some atheists prefer a nothingness in the place of God.” I don’t want to misread what you wrote, but it seems that you’re saying that if one doesn’t believe God (i.e., is an atheist), that there is nothingness. Did I misread that?
Again, you wrote that you wonder “why it’s easier and more logical to prove we don’t exist than it is to prove that God doesn’t exist.” So again, you seem to be implying that atheists want to prove that we don’t exist rather than admit that God exists. Am I misreading that,, too.
The slam I was referring to was not what you wrote. It was when you said, “The atheist will respond that he is ruled by logic and thinking (unlike you)….” So I took “unlike you,” since your comment was addressed to me, to imply that I am not using logic and thinking. Did you means something else?
But there is one thing that I do agree with you about, and that is that there’s no point in discussing this further, since you apparently believe all I’m doing is misreading what everyone else is saying.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“Atheist neither try to prove that we don’t exist nor do we try to prove that God doesn’t exist.”
And yet, that is precisely what many atheists do! That is what this post is about, yet another discussion with atheists. I didn’t provide any links, but this post is objective, verifiable evidence that atheists do indeed try to prove God doesn’t exist. It is right in front of your eyes Doobster and yet you still claim it isn’t true.
“We believe that God doesn’t exist and that no one has proven that God exists, so why should we try to prove that God doesn’t exist? That’s just silly.”
LOL, Doobster, you are forever telling me atheists are not one monolithic group, and yet you insist on using the collective “We” as if I am making a raid on your clan or something.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Doobster418 said:
IB, I’m sure there are some atheists who try to disprove that God exists. But not all, not most, and possibly not even many. Of course, if you want to cherry pick certain atheists to prove your point, I can certainly cherry pick Christians whose views are extremely radical as well, like those who believe in “Young Earth,” that dinosaurs and man roamed the planet at the same time, or that fossils are the remains of wicked men.
So yes, as an atheist, I definitely claim that it is not true that “many atheists try to prove that God doesn’t exist.”
And yes, I used the pronoun “we” to imply that the one thing that all atheists have in common, by definition, is that God doesn’t exist. That does not make all atheists members of a monolithic group on anything other than what, by definition, atheists believe about God. And since I’m an atheist, I used “we.”
Let me ask you this IB. Christians believe that God exists. Muslims believe that God exists. Jews believe that God exists. So would you call them all — Christians, Muslims, and Jews — a monolithic group simply because they all have the same belief exclusively about the existence of God?
You’re too smart for that, IB, which is why your comment surprises me.
LikeLike
tildeb said:
Too funny about atheists and the notion of a monolithic group!
By definition, the term ‘atheist’ means non belief in gods or a god. Anyone who does not believe in gods or a god are properly defined as ‘atheist’ so, when speaking of those who don’t believe in gods or a god, of course they can be presented as belonging to one ‘monolithic’ group under the term ‘atheist’!
IB, when was the last time you bothered to try to disprove a god you don’t believe in? (Now consider you comment in this light: “And yet that’s precisely what many” theists “do! I didn’t provide any links, but this” comment “is objective, verifiable evidence that” theists “do indeed try to prove that’ some other god “doesn’t exist.” You see what you’re doing? You are trying to make a special category for non believers in your god that you yourself are unwilling to hold as a standard for yourslef towards those gods you don’t believe in.)
As for the question, I sincerely doubt you – or anyone who believes as you do – actively try to disprove those gods you don;t believe in any more or any less than atheists set out to disprove the god they don’t believe in. I suspect we have at least this much in common.
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
I’m a fairly simple guy…so my thoughts are pretty simple. Whether we agree or not, God actually has revealed Himself to us..”For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”
We ought to be grateful He revealed that much of Himself to us.
Doobster, you are very honest about your position. Why oppose something which does not exists. But the question still remains about others…why soooooo strident?
As far as why Christians are strident in our position? Well, that’s pretty easy really. That is what we are commanded to do. “you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” If somebody is doing it out of pride or a desire to prove they are right, then shame on them anyway, because they are wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Doobster418 said:
How convenient it is, Wally, that God’s invisible qualities should be what you say is how God has revealed himself to us. Maybe you should read the definition of “invisible.”
I do not oppose that which does not exist. That’s what I was saying, Wally. I am not angry with God, I do not hate God, I do not feel the need to disprove God. There’s no need to feel anger, hatred, or a to disprove something that is non-existent.
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Doobster…actually I didn’t say invisible, He did. But seriously, I appreciate your honest position, its refreshing so thanks. I was just curious about others who don’t feel the way you do and are quite angry in their actions.
LikeLike
Doobster418 said:
As I have said to IB a few times, those who shout the loudest often represent the fewest. Those “angry” atheists are not representative of the vast majority of atheists…at least none that I personally know. So just as Christians don’t want the most radical and fundamental (and whacked-out) Christians to represent “main stream” Christianity, atheists don’t want “militant atheists” to be taken to reflect the views of all atheists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wally Fry said:
Can one be a fundamentalist and not be whacked out, as you say? LOL. I consider myself fairly radical and fundamentalist…pretty sure I’m not whacked out though.
And your comments are actually accurate I think, people’s volume often far exceeds their numbers eh?
LikeLiked by 1 person
tildeb said:
Ah, the stridency card. Soon it evolve to be ‘militant atheist’ I’m guessing!
Wally, you make the claim that God actually has revealed Himself to us. As I do for any claim, I wonder is this claim true and, if so, how can we know its worth some degree of confidence?
Well, I’ll ask the guy what should be a very simple question: Now that he has been revealed, Wally, would you be so kind as to describe his ‘revealed’ properties to the rest of us (independent of your belief, please) so that all of us can share in the bounty of your revelation? And remember, I specifically would like to understand how you link these properties to this entity so that I too can know about this god.
LikeLike
Wally Fry said:
Well..I guess now you have me in a pickle Tildeb. I am not even going to attempt to explain the attributes of God outside of my belief or outside of what Scripture teaches..sorry to disappoint you. Sad, but true…my entire frame of reference and worldview revolves around those two things. I am most happy to share that if you wish..or you can cruise over and read what I think about those things.
LikeLike
tildeb said:
Wally, I think you’ve got nothing other than your beliefs. If you had, you’d lay it out as the champion for God you are. Your claim is so overreaching that you cannot meet the burden of proof such an astounding claim must have because you have no properties independent of your belief that is responsible for any confidence to be placed in your supposed revelation, your willingness to respect this scriptural authority but not that one, your acceptance of only second and third hand anecdotal evidence that supports your a priori belief. What you’ve got is summed up with one word – faith – and upon that vague and vacuous notion disconnected from the reality we share rests your claim that “Whether we agree or not, God actually has revealed Himself to us.”
No, He hasn’t. Your faith alone empowers that belief . You have confused your belief to be descriptive of reality rather than employ this responsibility, this respect, this acceptance, to reality to inform your beliefs about it.
You are utilizing a classic methodological failure and calling its product knowledge (under the pseudonym ‘revelation’)… presenting what you supposedly ‘know’ as if you ‘received’ it from somewhere other than yourself, other than the beliefs you have intentionally imposed on reality. And therein lies the misrepresentation of your claim.
LikeLiked by 1 person
kayteejay46 said:
Yes. If God doesn’t exist, then why are so many thinkers hell bent on proving he doesn’t. If he doesn’t, then why worry. If he does, then there is not much you can do about it because not believing does not cause a thing to not exist. It exists because it exists. A thought provoking article. Thank you
LikeLiked by 1 person
tildeb said:
Why worry?
Other than being supposedly theologically challenged, that is… or perhaps somewhat ignorant of the nuances and sophistication of various religious beliefs and traditions? Oh, for a few trivial reasons…
because the religious who do invest belief in various gods have a rather profound impact and affect on public policy, public education, public law, public defense, public governance, public finances, public medicine, public treatment of and attitudes towards those who do not share specific religious viewpoints, public investments, and so on. Other than these self-centered quibbles, perhaps the worry stems from real harm done to real people in real life justified solely by religiously inspired directives. A paltry excuse, I know, and hardly worth anyone’s time but maybe the worry is because I am a caring and compassionate moral person concerned with the ethics of public justifications for actions carried out in my name. I think I have a horse in this race. Don’t you agree?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
tildeb, you said, “Other than these self-centered quibbles, perhaps the worry stems from real harm done to real people in real life justified solely by religiously inspired directives.” You mean the “religiously inspired directives” that were behind the founding of the first colleges and universities, behind hospitals and the establishment of nursing, behind the abolition movement, behind work with aids victims in Africa, behind efforts to bring an end to sex trafficking, behind the doctors treating Ebola patients before most Americans even knew what that disease was? That kind of harm? Hmmmm. Even other atheists admit the good that Christians have done in the world.
Becky
LikeLiked by 1 person
tildeb said:
No, I’m referring specifically to harm done in the name of some religious directive. It’s important that this be understood, that the variable in play really is only a religious directive.
It’s far too easy to assume that something good or bad with many variable is attached to religion. For example, in your list you fail to appreciate that Doctors Without Borders intentionally has no religious affiliation whatsoever in order to avoid any charges of using health treatment as a means to evangelize. It’s a purely secular organization… although I have no doubt some of the members may be religious. But, to be clear, it’s not the organization’s non belief that causes its actions (it’s providing health care where few other medical services are available) any more than it’s someone’s religious beliefs that causes them to become servants of some public service.
I think all services offered by various religious organizations that address human concern issues and provide some measure of relief can be accomplished for better reasons that upholding religious directives. In other words, if hospitals are a good idea, then the reasons that support that notion are not religious directives but better ones… like providing health care, for example. Health care is a better reason to provide health services than, say, the religious directives to help the poor and feed the hungry. I think social ills are better addressed by secular institutions for non religious reasons because as soon as you try to include religion into this mix, you get far more problems than solutions. For example, charitable status for religious organizations in the US cost the public purse in excess of 100 billion dollars a year… a cost that everyone – believers and non believers – must subsidize. That’s a lot of health care that could be provided, a lot of social welfare that could be provided, a lot of soup kitchens and second hand clothing collected. What oversight is there in the public domain to see if in fact this public subsidization for religious reasons is actually of a net benefit and worth the cost? Is keeping, for example, a hundred billion worth of healthcare away from people who cannot afford coverage a net gain or a net loss? Seeing certain religious organizations provide some health care is not necessarily a way to evaluate whether or not religion is a net good in this context.
What we can evaluate is by aggregate comparison… that western liberal democracies with higher rates of secular services and lower rates of religious subsidization seem to produce much higher rates of societal health and lower rates of many kinds of dysfunction. What may appear to be a good provided by some religious directive may in fact be better provided by an equivalent secular provider without any religious consideration. This can’t help but raise the very legitimate question as to how much or how little ‘good’ – if any by a fair comparison – privileging religious considerations in the public domain actually produces.
LikeLiked by 1 person
lang3063 said:
Wow. Make one little comment before work and come home to all this! Doobster, please don’t think this is addressed to you personally. I don’t know you and your approach here is refreshingly cool-headed but in my own experience with a number of atheists I have found that logic only lasts as long as it’s convenient. There simply is no proof they will accept because they prefer not to believe. Miracles are no proof because there is no God to perform them; therefore there is necessarily some other explanation. The natural world, human consciousness and conscience plus whatever else you want to throw into the mix cannot prove God’s existence because they START with the premise that he isn’t there. Any proof can be hammered into any mold they like as long as it’s not God shaped. This refusal to believe is as old as humanity itself and thoroughly covered in scripture. If you say you will accept proof then you have to define what constitutes proof. If, on the other hand you are like the people I’ve encountered and will grasp at any straw or look the other way then your denial of his existence cannot be rational.
LikeLiked by 2 people
tildeb said:
There simply is no proof they will accept because they prefer not to believe.
Not true. All we ask for is compelling evidence from reality to back up claims many people make (and often not just contrary, don’t forget, but incompatible if not hostile) about this supposed divine interventionist causal agency. Provide that evidence and you’ll have atheists singing praises to your name that finally… finally… a religious person can demonstrate this connection between their faith-based beliefs and the reality it supposedly describes.
Look, you don’t believe in many claims for exactly the same reason I as a New Atheist don’t: neither of us feels the belief stands on its own merit and therefore is not worthy of our confidence. That’s not an a priori belief we share: it’s a method we use to first consider and then either accept or reject claims that are too weak to invest with compelling reasons for any confidence. Most of us assign some degree of confidence between outright rejection and full acceptance to such claims and (usually) we correlate the degree of confidence to the degree of compelling evidence that supports it. That’s not unreasonable. But when it comes to various religious claims, all of a sudden this approach is either thrown away by the religious supporters or presented by those who continue to use it as some kind of nefarious and villainous approach that is both immoral and unethical!
Atheists aren’t the ones altering the goalposts here. Atheists are the ones who continue to employ the same method you yourself use for almost every claim you encounter but, unlike so many religious folk, are much more likely to have to pay some price for doing so, for daring to reliably and consistently question causal claims and maintaining the intellectual integrity to stand by the same method no matter what the claim may be, no matter how sanctimonious the claimant may pretend to be, no matter how socially acceptable belief in some version of woo might be. And in case there’s any confusion, that consistency and reliability is not a Bad Thing.
The real question is why you don’t do the same?
LikeLike
lang3063 said:
“…we correlate the degree of confidence to the degree of compelling evidence that supports it.” I’m asking this for the last time. It’s really the only thing I’m after on this thread. What would that “compelling evidence” be? If “…you’ll have atheists singing praises to your name that finally… finally… a religious person can demonstrate this connection between their faith-based beliefs and the reality it supposedly describes” then it seems to me that SOMEBODY among all the atheists breathlessly awaiting that piece of “proof” should be able to articulate what that proof would be. If I’m on trial for murder and the prosecution produces a gun with my fingerprints and video of me pulling the trigger that’s convincing evidence. If my supporters are honest they’ll have to say, “We were wrong about this guy; he did it after all.” So how about it?
Do you actually think that educated, adult believers don’t evaluate truth claims critically? Have you read any C.S. Lewis? Or William Lane Craig? Or “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel? Or Augustine? Or biographies of martyrs like Bonheoffer? Or Luther? Or Pascal? Or Solzhenitsyn? Or countless others of various sectarian orientations who reasoned their way to belief through intellectual rigor in their adult years? Do you actually not know that such a body of knowledge, experience and careful, evidence based reasoning exists?
LikeLiked by 2 people
tildeb said:
Thanks for the question, lang3063.
There are two approaches to this question. The first is to ask what compelling evidence from reality led someone like you to instil a very high degree of confidence in any particular set of religious tenets. This lack of compelling evidence listed by such notable authors as you’ve listed (and I have read not just many of them, but many of their works, and great number of previous and modern thinkers who also tried to accomplish this task… but, to be clear, always by avoiding reality’s arbitration of these claims and focusing extensively on metaphysical arguments that relied on premises unsupported by reality). This lack of compelling evidence from reality is what most atheists point to and usually back it up with reminding believers that the strongest correlate for their religious belief is… wait for it… geography!
The second approach is to point out the absence of evidence that should be available if many of the specific religious tenets were taken from reality. Because so much traffic on the internet involves Christians and Christianity in certainly dozens of its thousands of forms, the usual place to start is at the beginning… Genesis being arguably the most common. When we look to reality to find the evidence that should be there if this account had any historical justification, iot soon becomes obvious that the account(s) are not actual. At best, the stories are allegorical. Yet when any Christian is pushed to admit what tenets from this story are held to be historical and actual, sure enough we find zero evidence from reality (population genetics should reveal lineage to a founding couple, geology should reveal evidence of a global flood, biodiversity should indicate a starting point for disembarking animals, and so on). If Genesis is a myth, then so too are its central characters – a necessary element for the symbolic meaning clothed as supernatural critters and things and not a literal and historical reference. This means the very idea of some kind of ‘original sin’ is also metaphorical, which means the later Jesus died an historical and terrible death for a story, which makes no literary sense (first the myth, then… thousands of years later… the characters needed for the story to make sense. That’s backwards, btw).
When combined, these two approaches reveal a very distinct pattern when it comes to justifying religious claims… nothing about them comes from reality and everything about them comes from those willing to believe… without any compelling evidence from reality and, in fact, contrary to and incompatible with how we know reality reliably and predictably operates (ie dead cells cannot reanimate).
So when you ask what evidence atheists would accept, you can now see what kind of evidence from reality is needed… such as compelling genetic evidence, compelling geological evidence, compelling biological evidence, compelling historical evidence, compelling linguistic evidence, and so on… built one upon the other to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that there really is something to this whole Christianity thing. What we have, however, is a world devoid of any such evidence. What the world is full of is people willing to believe the most extraordinary claims without even a shred of evidence. And that tells me that what we have compelling evidence for (from this religious examination) is that we as human beings can fool ourselves very easily and willingly believe even ludicrous claims.
LikeLike
madblog said:
Oh dear, oh dear. Doobster, that comment was NOT addressed to you. In fact, it was addressed to IB before you had even joined the thread! And you are mistaking the meaning. Please go back and read : I was saying that the atheist will insist he is using logic, unlike you–the Christian. See? It is my experience that atheists like to stress that their thinking is driven strictly by logic, as opposed to you the believer, whose thinking is driven by something else. That was my meaning.
I hope this erases my guilt. I truly was not talking to you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tildeb said:
But the thinking is driven by something else. It’s driven by faith. All too often, faith is the master being served in religious belief and not what’s true about reality and how it operates and what we can know about it. Enhancing confidence in faith is what religious belief is all about and disregarding reality’s role in arbitrating claims made about it seems to be an acceptably small price to pay for this faith.
Logic is very often employed by the religious, as is philosophy and metaphysics, to serve this master called faith. Anyone who has had to read (and even comprehend) Aquinas knows perfectly well to what extent logic is used in apologetics and religious accommodationism. I don’t know any New Atheist who suggests otherwise… other than criticize a specific religious claim as being illogical when the presentation fails to follow the proper logical form.
LikeLike
madblog said:
Doobster, as for the other two things, yes, you are misreading them, even after I have attempted to make them clearer. I must be terrifically inarticulate today, so I had better stop.
LikeLike
madblog said:
The way in which comments are listed, their order, is sometimes unfortunate. Remember that replies are posted after comments, other replies added later, and at times you can’t reply directly after a comment. The sequence and order can be misleading. Doobster, I apologize for the misunderstanding.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Hey, Doobster, interesting discussion. I find it interesting that you used IB’s blog as a thing outside yourself and existent because all of us reading it are sharing in the experience. You also mentioned a bus and all the riders have that shared experience, then a football stadium with 50,000 fans watching the same play. So I wonder, how many Christians with a shared experience would it take to be evidence to you that God does exist, does change lives, does love us and forgive us and give us His grace and peace?
Becky
LikeLiked by 2 people
Doobster418 said:
Now Becky, you know I was talking about real, physical things; things for which there is verifiable evidence, tangible evidence, such as IB’s blog, a city bus, and a football stadium. What you’re talking about is a shared belief in something for which there is no verifiable evidence, no tangible evidence beyond faith, that it exists. God exists only because you believe God exists. If, like me, you didn’t believe that God exists, then God would not exist. It’s not that complicated.
And you know what? If believing that God exists changes your lives, and if you feel love and forgiveness and peace as a result of that belief, then I have no objection to your beliefs. The only thing I object to, as I started in my very first comment, is the apparently shared belief that atheists want or need to disprove the existence of God. We don’t. We just haven’t seen any verifiable, tangible, or definitive evidence to persuade us that God does exist. We don’t hate God. We’re not angry at God. God just doesn’t exist to us.
LikeLike
Stan Adermann said:
Interesting post. More interesting conversation. I hope I can, without offending, offer my $0.02.
The concept of living in your own head is familiar to me, having two parents living with dementia. It is quite possible for someone to live a hallucinated life. The problem is that such a life wraps in on itself. It is self-reinforcing, and the delusions one experiences often can’t be disputed or disrupted by anything external. Over time it becomes more internalized, not less since one becomes immune to anything that might hint whether they are wrong. There is a reason this is known as losing your grip on reality.
I can be certain I am not living a delusion because I continually encounter things in the world that are unexpected, and also counter to what I might predict or believe to be the case. I have to conform myself to the life I live, and not the reverse. That is not to say there aren’t imagined things in my perception. I can see the same football game as Doobie and give a different account of it because I come from a different perspective and our descriptions will be at least somewhat subjective. But regardless of our personal views on the game, there are objective, externally verifiable things that are provable regardless of our perspective. If both of us bet on the game, we will be paid or not based on the final score. It is the consistency of these external things that is the ultimate proof that I am not living a delusion.
For anything that is objectively verifiable this way, there are specific actions one can take to make a validation. More importantly, these things can often be accomplished by an automatic apparatus. I can validate both that the moon exists and how far away it is with a laser rangefinder, and something can be set up to report automatically each night, the continued existence of the moon and its increasing distance. The problem I’ve found with religious beliefs is there are no such objective steps I can take to establish the proof. If I want to experience God I should open myself to him? I suspect if I asked each of you exactly how to “open myself to God”, I would get differing answers. And the ultimate proof, “experiencing God”, is a subjective experience at best. I know this because I am an ex-Christian who believed that he had experienced God. I look back on that now not as any proof of God, but evidence of man’s ability to convince himself of nearly anything, so long as he shields himself from whatever might contradict it.
Finally, I’d offer a word about why atheists feel the need to “disprove God”. If it were simply a question of Christians believing one thing and atheists another, there would be little need for an argument, and probably no angry atheists. It is when a Christian (or Muslim) says, “God exists, therefore ____ should be the law,” that a need is created to argue and fight back. Show me objective proof that same-sex marriage causes more harm than good and perhaps we can agree. But a proof that is based upon “God says,” can only be subjective if there is no objective proof that God exists or that the Bible (or Qur’an) is objectively a reflection of his will. When “open yourself and find God” morphs into “open yourself and learn that homosexuals should be denied basic human rights” it’s suddenly less simple and reasonable. Disproving God is one approach to undermining an argument like this that might have real negative effect on the lives of millions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
lang3063 said:
The football game takes place whether you experience it or not. It’s one thing to say the game does not affect me or I don’t like football or I wasn’t there to see it so how do I know it happened. It’s another thing altogether to say I didn’t experience it, therefore it doesn’t exist. It progresses to another thing when 50,000 people tell you about the game they saw but your response is “There’s no such thing as football.” Is it too obvious to point out that God exists whether we believe it or not? Or that he doesn’t exist whether we believe it or not? And why is the football game responsible to prove its existence? According to what criteria? For what purpose? It’s existence is self-evident. It takes place. It is experienced by many, ignored by many others. Those atheists who feel compelled to disprove God’s existence are exactly the same as some anti-football activist who is determined to disprove the everyday eyewitness experience of countless football fans. The point has been made that all we actually know about each other on this thread is what we learn from the fleeting experience of reading strings of words, yet none of us doubt the others exist. We contend that all of existence points to a divine creator but the atheist dismisses such an idea with much less effort than it takes to doubt the existence of a person on the basis of a few typed words or a football game he never saw.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Stan Adermann said:
You’re absolutely right, God’s existence or non-existence is not changed by anyone’s belief or disbelief. But I would hope that the difference between God and a football game would be obvious. Proving a football game is trivial. You can give me an exact address of where to go to see one and the debate can be settled in a moment. That the debate about God’s existence veers into conversations about delusional realities shows there is no such simple proof for God. “Open yourself to God.” “Look inside yourself.” These are far to vague and open to interpretation to constitute a logical proof. I know you exist because of what you write, but a blog comment is an unexceptional occurrence. There is no good reason to doubt you.
The claim that “all of existence points to a divine creator” is an exceptional one. As we’ve become able to peer into the places we thought to find God, instead we find natural processes with no need of a deity to explain them. All of the old stories about God have fallen apart. Six days of creation become 14.5 billion years. The flood story of Noah or rather Utnapishtim morphed from a world deluge to a regional flood in the fertile crescent. God would now seem to be hiding behind the Big Bang, something probably not possible to see beyond.
If every time you gave me the address of a football game I went and found nothing, I would no reason to accept that the game existed. Suppose instead I find 50,000 people sitting around saying “wasn’t that game that happened 2,000 years ago great?” They have convinced each other of its reality, taught their children to believe in the game, but nobody living has actually seen it. Without an actual pigskin on the field, you don’t have a game. Maybe there was some kind of game 2,000 years ago, but if you could go an watch it might bear little resemblance to what the fans think they know.
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Stan, I like your logic and your analogies. They make it easier to understand what you’re thinking. You said, ” I know you exist because of what you write, but a blog comment is an unexceptional occurrence. There is no good reason to doubt you.” The thing is God can also be known by what He writes, literally and figuratively. He “wrote” creation into being, but apparently, you and other atheists did doubt this was His work, so you investigated, but the reality is, this “investigation” presupposes that there is no God. Otherwise, you take into account God said in the actually writing He authored. But no, the Bible is thrown out as myth or fabrication, not evidence as strong as the print on this blog.
As for the game occurring 2000 years ago, that was only the pivotal game. There are games being played all over, all the time. That was the shared experience I referred to earlier. I have never met Eric or IB or Wally or any of the other Christians commenting, but I know we something in common–a kinship, if you will. We’ve all been adopted by the same Father, and we can relate that experience to others and it will be identifiable to all of us. Oh, sure, the details may vary—probably will vary. But we can tell you about a sure, actual something that turned our lives inside out and upside down. That something is a relationship with an actual, existent God. Think about it. If I were to make God up, why would I create Him in a way that is recognizable to IB or Eric or Wally or madblog or any other Christian?
Becky
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Stan, you said, “For anything that is objectively verifiable this way, there are specific actions one can take to make a validation.” The problem is that you are objectively verifying only physical things. Can you objectively verify that someone loves you?
Becky
LikeLiked by 2 people
Stan Adermann said:
Not yet, but we’re actually not far off from being able to do so. People who are “in love” have elevated levels of dopamine, serotonin, oxytocin and vasopressin. It may become possible to have a blood test to determine love.
That’s the problem with retreating to areas not fully understood through science to explain the unexplainable. It’s logic of the gaps, but the gaps are continually shrinking.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“but the gaps are continually shrinking.”
Actually they’re expanding. That is the entire nature of science, the more you now, the less you know.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Stan, if you can’t (yet) prove that someone loves you, are you taking it on faith that they do? Or do you have justifiable reason to think it is true, though you don’t have scientific proof?
Becky
LikeLike
Stan Adermann said:
@Becky,
I had enough relationships prior to my wife to know that I can’t always judge what love is. But at this point I’ve got 22 years of consistent experience with my wife to believe that she either loves me very much or is a world-class actress with some hidden purpose. The former seems more reasonable so I’ll go with that, especially since I know she didn’t marry me for money.
A better question is whether objective proof is the standard required for a personal relationship. If I make a mistake it’s only likely to harm myself, so I’m willing to risk a lower standard for a higher reward. If I were to create legislation on the basis of my wife’s love for me, people would be justified in demanding a higher standard.
And to respond to your earlier comment about the commonality of Christian experience. (And please, don’t take offense at this, it’s not my intention.) Alcoholism, bi-polar, schizophrenia, PTSD, ADHD, Aspberger’s. What two things do these have in common with Christianity? (Not that they’re all illnesses, I don’t think that.) They all take place largely within the mind, and it takes one to understand one. What is different? I used to be a Christian, as did many atheists. We are familiar with this “knowing God” thing. *I* am familiar with it. The difference is we came to a place where we asked ourselves whether the experience was real or imagined.
As for the Bible, I’m familiar with that too. A little fact: among people who go to PhD level studies of the Bible, more people lose their faith than gain it. I wasn’t a PhD student, but it was a thorough reading of the Bible that ended my faith. I have continued to study it (among other things) for thirty-plus years. I find it interesting but nothing in all that time has made me think my loss of faith was wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Stan, you said “among people who go to PhD level studies of the Bible, more people lose their faith than gain it.” So if I understand correctly, you are dismissing experience on one hand because you say, like schizophrenia, it’s all in our heads, but then validate your ideas about the Bible based on experience. Why aren’t the problems of these PhD students nothing more than misconceptions fabricated in their minds?
The point I was making is that if I wanted to make up God, I’d have him shaped a lot more in my favor and with my good at heart. I’d take out things like “sharing His suffering” and “taking up His cross.” I’d be more inclined to say the first shall be first, not last. I don’t want to be last, and I don’t want my desire to be further up the line to be held against me. I simply would have imagined God differently. And I dare say, so would IB or Eric or madblog or pretty much any Christian I know.
But what we have in common is that we accept God for who He’s shown us He is. We Christians disagree about a lot of lightweight stuff. But you won’t find us disputing with one another about God’s holiness or His work to save us through His Son’s death and resurrection. We get who God is (as best we can) and what He’s done.
When someone comes along and says, God is really three separate gods, with Jehovah as the chief, we know that person is a pretender. Or if someone says, Yes, I believe in God—it’s a cosmic force, or if someone else says, Yes, God was married and gave birth to Jesus and his brother Satan, we recognize these persons as pretenders.
But Christians say, God showered me with His mercy and forgiveness. He washed my sins away, and by His grace I have a new life—redeemed, restored, rescued from the dominion of darkness, transferred to the kingdom of God’s dear Son.
How did we all come to that same place if our experiences were imagined? It’s really quite a fantastical place—one that no other religion even hints at. All other religions have some system of working toward enlightenment or acceptance, some through a repeated cycle of trying to do better, life after life. Only Christians admit the truth—nope, no amount of trying gets us where we need to be. We are locked away from what we would be . . . unless someone more capable rescues us, heals us, finds us. Which is what God did through Jesus.
That’s an experience we all share. We are part of the same football game!
Becky
LikeLiked by 3 people
tildeb said:
Nicely said, Stan.
LikeLike
Doobster418 said:
Stan, excellent commentary. But I still don’t think most atheists need to disprove God as much as to push back on laws that the religious, regardless of which religion they are a part of, try to get the rest of us to abide by. IB will tell you that the US is a Christian Nation and that we can thank Christianity for the laws we have and the freedoms we enjoy. But our rights and our freedoms are not God-given rights the laws of the land are, and should be, secular laws; laws that should apply equally to everyone, regardless of race, religion, or gender. And it is the attempt to impose laws that favor one religion over others, or that impose religious dogma on all citizens that atheists tend to push back on.
LikeLike
Stan Adermann said:
Yup, it’s all about the laws. I could care less if someone thinks God says they should paint themselves blue and run naked through the forest. It’s their irresistable desire to make the rest of us run blue and naked that I must protest.
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Doobster, and yet the fact remains that a Christian nation founded on Christian values is the kind of nation that has delivered you the most freedom, in terms of being free to be an atheist. Like it or not, this country has managed to come the closest to delivering laws that do apply equally to everyone, regardless of race, religion or gender.
Take a look at the world around you, in many countries there are no atheists, women are frequently executed, and people perceived not to be of your tribe are set on fire or murdered with machetes. That is the reality of human nature in the absence of those Christian values so many of you claim to dislike.
” But our rights and our freedoms are not God-given rights the laws of the land are..”
“Endowed by our Creator,” Doobster. The alternative is to believe that our rights are bestowed upon us by a benevolent government, and as a result that is who we now serve. The government, from whom all blessings flow.The problem with that line of thought is that what the government gives, the government also has the power to take away.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Stan Adermann said:
This discussion is far too much fun to veer off into politics this way. But I would point to the friezes of the supreme court building as a guide to what our nation might have been founded on. Moses is depicted, along with Mohammed, Justinian, Napoleon and a host of other “lawgivers” through history. We are a Christian nation in the same sense we are Muslim, Confucian, Egyptian, etc. We owe our laws to all who came before, not just one group, modern attempts to rewrite history notwithstanding.
LikeLike
tildeb said:
the fact remains that a Christian nation founded on Christian values is the kind of nation that has delivered you the most freedom, in terms of being free to be an atheist.
Of course! That’s why the builders of that wall of separation between church and state cleverly built that secret door hidden from view to smuggle in those christian values… but made sure any reference to said values were prohibited by constitutional law to be publicly enacted. Devious fellows, those founders.
LikeLike
Paul said:
Hey IB! Like your post – in my experience when there is an error in a mathematical or logical series, the answer comes out as a paradox, such as 1=0 or alive=dead or somesuch. And so it is. I’m just getting caught up on my reading and i scanned over the comments on thos post. Ha! Doob is one dedicated man – either that or he is seeking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arkenaten said:
Er … can someone please tell me, which god we are talking about here?
LikeLiked by 1 person
insanitybytes22 said:
Well, since atheists rarely go out and confront Muslims who are actually beheading people or superstitious animalistic cults whacking off people’s limbs, I’m going to assume we’re talking about Christ and Christianity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Arkenaten said:
Of course they go out and confront them – they got to war over it for the gods’ sake!.
( actually this is probably not strictly true, as renowned Christian and god whisperer George Idiot Bush was probably telling Porky Pies about WMD and just wanted all that oil … y’all, right?)
So , in that case which god are you talking about?
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Arkenaten, there is only one God. There are pretenders, sure, and there are idols, but there is only one self-existent, all powerful, all knowing sovereign. You can’t have two sovereigns ruling over the same thing. Either both are not sovereign, neither is sovereign, or one is sovereign and the other is not. Of course you’re bound to add in a fourth–neither is sovereign, but you have no evidence to refute the claims God has made.
Becky
LikeLiked by 2 people
Arkenaten said:
@Becky
This god you refer to is the one named Yahweh, I presume, right?
You do know that Yahweh once had a missus?
Of course you do because you have studied the Torah, yes?
Please tell me the claims this god made and the source from which you have obtained them?
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
Arkenaten, the English translation we have of God’s self-identified name is I AM, but yes, the Jewish people knew Him as YHWH. And no, He did not have a “missus.” You must have been reading Mormon literature recently.
I’ve studied the Bible which is God’s word, not other extra-biblical writing such as the Apocrypha or the pseudepigrapha.
To knows God’s “claims” you need to read His word. I obtained them by buying a copy at the local book store.
Becky
LikeLiked by 2 people
insanitybytes22 said:
Well, after nearly 100 comments I think we’ve now established that atheists are not the least bit interested in trying to disprove the existence of God. In fact, there seems to be no emotional investment in the issue at all. Nope, just complete indifference and pure logic with no intense desire to refute anything. It’s as plain as the nose on my face. I am completely bemused as to why I ever thought differently.
LikeLiked by 4 people
madblog said:
They also accept apologies really graciously.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Stan Adermann said:
We really aren’t. As has been said more than once, it’s God’s proponents we must contend with.
LikeLike
insanitybytes22 said:
“it’s God’s proponents we must contend with..”
Yes. That’s because it’s irrational to try and argue against the existence of a God you refuse to believe in. In truth the only way you can actually validate and justify your own non belief, is to attempt to point fingers at Christians, as if to say, “see, this is why I don’t believe in God.”
The “why” of why you do that is really fascinating. Atheism requires one to be in a constant state of resistance, forever attempting to justify one’s own non belief.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Arkenaten said:
The problem that you cannot seem to grasp is by using the term god and then creating a pronoun you anthropomorphise a made up deity.
Atheist would be bloody stupid trying to disprove such nonsense especially in light of the fact that no theist has ever presented a scrap of verifiable evidence for such an entity.
Seriously, we really could not one iota that you believe in this nonsense, just stop trying to force everyone else to accept it as the truth.
And you can start by not indoctrinating children. That would at least demonstrate you have some integrity and value that children have the right to make their own decisions concerning these issues as adults
Am I making myself perfectly understood?
LikeLike
Rebecca LuElla Miller said:
“just stop trying to force everyone else to accept it as the truth.” You mean, Arkenaten, the way IB forced you to read her post and comment? 😉
Becky
LikeLiked by 3 people
Wally Fry said:
Hmmmmm…interesting, Becky.
LikeLike
Arkenaten said:
No, the way you wish to impose ”christian values” on society and on children.
LikeLike
lang3063 said:
When people tell me they’re smarter than all the founders of civilization put together, that’s when I give up.
LikeLiked by 2 people
madblog said:
@Becky, your comment to Stan of 11:23 am…I can’t like this enough! NO ONE would create the God of the Bible.
LikeLike
Regarder Fifty Shades of Grey (2015) en streaming said:
Hey ѵery іnteresting blog!
LikeLike
Pingback: Memories From The Mad Hatter’s Tea Party | See, there's this thing called biology...