Answering an Atheist (2 points I want help with)

[zz912]

Well, like I didn’t expect that response from someone. But that’s why I said ‘all reasonable people’. There are many reasonable people who think that a woman has the right to decide to terminate a pregnancy. And many reasonable people who don’t.

So you saw the fatal flaw in your own argument before others had to point it out to you. That shows some improvement!

And isn’t it funny how you become the sole arbiter of what is a “reasonable” person and what is not.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

So nice of you to take the time to comment.

Often I feel like I’m just wasting time.

You must be in a different time zone other than the U.S. too OR you’re another one of those who cannot sleep!

Thanks for your kindness. We could all certainly use more of that. And I know that not all atheists are the same!

God blesses all

I do not sleep well…perhaps I simply enjoy the twilight hours far too much to waste them…!

 

[Rhubarb]

Rhubard, you’re agnositc. So you’re still searching.
Hope you make it!
Don’t look for explanations.
Look for God
while He may be found.

All-goodness (which is just what omni-benevolence means) is generally considered one of the properties of God. Even if it’s not spoken about in that term.

Also, I’m not pushing my beliefs with these posts or trying to convince someone their conception of God is wrong. The problem of evil is a deeply rooted and long-running debate in academic philosophy. I’m just meaning to shed some light on it from a philosophical perspective.

 

[Rhubarb]

You can be all-good, and still allow another person/entity to choose evil because you have given them free will, and still be all-good. There is no contradiction in this.

The contradiction is when you combine all-good with all-powerful and all-knowing. Now, there are obviously counter-arguments. Free will is often used. Or, fallen nature, etc. Just as a matter of exercise, I’d be very curious to hear an argument that a world with suffering AND free-will is better than a world without suffering and with free-will. (We’re dealing with an all-powerful being. This should be possible) Or even a world without suffering and no free-will.

 

[Rau]

The contradiction is when you combine all-good with all-powerful and all-knowing. Now, there are obviously counter-arguments. Free will is often used. Or, fallen nature, etc. Just as a matter of exercise, I’d be very curious to hear an argument that a world with suffering AND free-will is better than a world without suffering and with free-will. (We’re dealing with an all-powerful being. This should be possible) Or even a world without suffering and no free-will.

Presumably, God requires us to choose him. That cannot be in a world with no evil and no free will.

To be created without consent, with hell as a potential future destination, is the harder thing to understand.

 

[frangiuliano115]

All-goodness (which is just what omni-benevolence means) is generally considered one of the properties of God. Even if it’s not spoken about in that term.

Also, I’m not pushing my beliefs with these posts or trying to convince someone their conception of God is wrong. The problem of evil is a deeply rooted and long-running debate in academic philosophy. I’m just meaning to shed some light on it from a philosophical perspective.

Yes, evil is a big problem both philosophically and theologically.

I think it’s on this thread that I said that some believe they have the solution, but, of course, there is no solution.

But if you can come up with one, let us all know!

Will be following along.

Happy hunting.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

The contradiction is when you combine all-good with all-powerful and all-knowing. Now, there are obviously counter-arguments. Free will is often used. Or, fallen nature, etc. Just as a matter of exercise, I’d be very curious to hear an argument that a world with suffering AND free-will is better than a world without suffering and with free-will. (We’re dealing with an all-powerful being. This should be possible) Or even a world without suffering and no free-will.

Right Rhubard.

The free will argument doesn’t work when it comes to the evil problem.

What am I free to choose?
Good or Evil.
Great. And where did the evil come from?

Fallen nature also won’t work. What made man fall to begin with?

I also like your question. Of course you meant. A world without suffering and** without **free will.

This might get interesting!

God bless

 

[Bradski]

Oh wait. You do speak of moving on. We’re better informed now, we’re better educated, we have access to more information. Yeah. That has really stopped torture, hasn’t it. Kids don’t torture little animals anymore, and no one is getting burned alive.

Well we’re not perfect. But by being better informed we at least know when we’re doing wrong.

"There aren’t that many[reasonable people]. But you’ll recognise one when you see one. They won’t be dogmatic. They’ll listen to valid arguments. They’ll ignore personal preferences. They’ll discount hype and propaganda. They’ll discount invalid evidence. They’ll pass on arguments from authority. They’ll be willing to change their minds. "

Gosh. Is it YOU up there? Are you listening to me? Am I closed minded because I don’t agree with you? Are my arguments not valid? Am I not discounting propganda? Is God just propoganda? Is all my evidence invalid? Gosh. I must be so dumb and unreasonable.

That wasn’t meant to be a cheap shot against you or Christians in general. I guess that ‘reasonable person’ doesn’t really exist. It’s just a set of ideal characteristics that we should all try to embrace. A list of boxes to be ticked when we make an argument or respond to one to check if we are ‘being reasonable’. My strike rate isn’t any better than most others, I’d say.

And you know who could know the mind of God? Someone infused with the Holy Spirit OR someone who is trying to be in touch with the Holy Spirit. We’re just creatures, after all.

If there were two people who were to know the mind of God, then in your eyes they would always agree on everything at all times and in all circumstances. Do you think that’s feasible?

That’s the problem with the discussion. The preconditions defined (eg. for a “reasonable person”) are always such as to be consistent with what’s required to defend the argument. For the atheist, those preconditions can be guaranteed to not encompass a deity, and thus morality is purely a product of man. The believer adopts the reverse. It’s absolutely reasonable to be dogmatic if that is to follow the requirements of the deity! And it is entirely unreasonable to require the believer to set aside that consideration in gauging morality.

I’d like to think that any position you take can be based on reasonable arguments. If you simply say that you hold to a position simply because ‘God says so’ and quote some scripture, then yes, I’m pretty much going to ignore what you say. Or at least, discount that reason. I’d like to think that your God is reasonable and not capricious so there will be reasonable arguments you can use to argue your position. From a secular viewpoint as it were.

What you seem to be claiming is that the value of having sex for recreation as a moral option for you is a “no brainier” in that it ALWAYS trumps what may end up to be the killing of another human being. Your position makes that other human life morally inconsequential, in principle, as compared to mere having pleasure.

We are the same in that we would welcome any reduction in the number of abortions. We are the same in that we would both agree that no abortions at all would be a good thing. The difference between us is that I would welcome any method whereby you could guarantee that having sex would not result in pregnancy and you wouldn’t. In fact, you demand that sex needs to be potentially procreative in the first instance, whether you want children or not. It’s your bed…you sleep in it.

 

[Rau]

I’d like to think that any position you take can be based on reasonable arguments. If you simply say that you hold to a position simply because ‘God says so’ and quote some scripture, then yes, I’m pretty much going to ignore what you say. Or at least, discount that reason. I’d like to think that your God is reasonable and not capricious so there will be reasonable arguments you can use to argue your position. From a secular viewpoint as it were.

Happily that is mostly so. But your very understanding of “reasonable” rules out obedience to a deity, to anything greater than ourselves. You would hope that there is no need of a deity. As an atheist, how could you hold any other view? Without an external guide, we can only “learn from the past”, and as we know, there is no reason to believe society will move in the right direction. The majority has often been wrong, has adopted wrong positions, and will continue to be so.

 

[Bradski]

Happily that is mostly so. But your very understanding of “reasonable” rules out obedience to a deity, to anything greater than ourselves. You would hope that there is no need of a deity. As an atheist, how could you hold any other view? Without an external guide, we can only “learn from the past”, and as we know, there is no reason to believe society will move in the right direction. The majority has often been wrong, has adopted wrong positions, and will continue to be so.

Well, that has been true of religious societies as well as secular ones. I’m pretty certain that you would discount any argument from a Muslim that was solely based on his interpretation of the Koran. You’d need a reasonable argument over and above his religious beliefs. Ditto those of a Hindu or a Mormon.

So if you would require that from religious believers, why would you expect me to be any different?

 

[Rau]

Well, that has been true of religious societies as well as secular ones. I’m pretty certain that you would discount any argument from a Muslim that was solely based on his interpretation of the Koran. You’d need a reasonable argument over and above his religious beliefs. Ditto those of a Hindu or a Mormon.

So if you would require that from religious believers, why would you expect me to be any different?

I don’t. I simply point out that absent some agreed premises, debates are often doomed. And I point out - importantly - that one man’s reasonable can be another’s unreasonable.

 

[Bradski]

I don’t. I simply point out that absent some agreed premises, debates are often doomed. And I point out - importantly - that one man’s reasonable can be another’s unreasonable.

You *don’t *require a reasonable argument? Well, if the other guy is going to insist that the only reason for any given position is that ‘It is written’, then debate is most definitely doomed. Feel free to ignore him. But I’m sure you would point out to him that his position is untenable. In fact, I would go as far as to say that it is a dangerous position to hold. It results in commercial airliners being turned into weapons.

But at least we are agreed. Reasonable arguments are required for any sensible discussion. The fact that it might also be ‘written’ or is rubber stamped by the deity of one’s choice, carved into stone tablets, found in ancient manuscripts or written in fiery letters across the heavens is irrelevant.

 

[Rau]

You *don’t *require a reasonable argument?

I’m saying I don’t place expectation on an atheist different froma person of a different faith. All must have reasonable arguments. Adherence to what one believes is the law of the deity is reasonable for that person.

But at least we are agreed. Reasonable arguments are required for any sensible discussion. The fact that it might also be ‘written’ or is rubber stamped by the deity of one’s choice, carved into stone tablets, found in ancient manuscripts or written in fiery letters across the heavens is irrelevant.

Only an atheist could view the deity as a rubber stamper, subordinate to man’s judgement.

 

[Bradski]

I’m saying I don’t place expectation on an atheist different from a person of a different faith. All must have reasonable arguments. Adherence to what one believes is the law of the deity is reasonable for that person.

Agreed. But simple adherence to the law of one’s deity does not constitute a reasonable argument for anyone else. ‘X is wrong because my God says so’ is not a reasonable argument. ‘X is wrong because my God says so AND because of A, B and C’ is (assuming that A, B and C are reasonable arguments in themselves).

Only an atheist could view the deity as a rubber stamper, subordinate to man’s judgement.

I’m sure that you believe that God people with difficult decisions.

‘Dear Lord, I want to marry this woman. Is it the right thing to do?’
‘Dear Lord, I want to invade Iraq. Is it the right thing to do?’
‘Dear Lord, I want to join the ministry. Is it the right thing to do?’
‘Dear Lord, I want children. Is it the right thing to do?’

If He says yes, then one could colloquially say that He has rubber stamped your request.

 

[Peter_Plato]

‘X is wrong because my God says so’ is not a reasonable argument.

Oh, I don’t know about that.

Given that God is omniscient, omnibenevolent and the omnipotent Creator of all that exists, it would seem that ‘X is wrong because God says it is’ certainly is a compelling argument.

Surely, you can’t be claiming that a finite, contingent, severely limited, bipedal animal prone to all kinds of prejudices, errors and moral blindness would be in any position to contend a judgement made by omniscient omnibenevolence, would you?

“Not reasonable,” in whose judgement and by what capacity? Yours as a finite, contingent, limited, bipedalness?

Sure, the sticky issue is how to know what God’s judgement in any matter actually is, but you can’t go around spouting that trying to ascertain what God says on such matters is not a reasonable pursuit.

In fact, attempting to know the truth and knowing God’s will would amount to one and the same thing, so why wouldn’t it be reasonable to attempt to know the truth (essentially what God thinks) about whether X is wrong or right?

Surely, if anyone knows for sure whether X is wrong it would be the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolence that created the whole shebang and grounds its existence, no?

 

[Rau]

Agreed. But simple adherence to the law of one’s deity does not constitute a reasonable argument for anyone else. ‘X is wrong because my God says so’ is not a reasonable argument. ‘X is wrong because my God says so AND because of A, B and C’ is (assuming that A, B and C are reasonable arguments in themselves).

Happiliy this is mostly the case. What should the believer do when reasonable arguments exist on both sides, but one side also aligns with the deity?

 

[Bradski]

Oh, I don’t know about that.

Then you are saying that a Muslim or a Hindu has a reasonable argument if he or she says: ‘It is written’. I’m going to discount all such arguments. It might be a good idea if you did as well. You either have to agree that, for example, the punishment for apostasy is death (it is written, so it’s a good argument!) or you’re going to have to agree with me. Tough call, Peter.

Given that God is omniscient, omnibenevolent and the omnipotent Creator of all that exists, it would seem that ‘X is wrong because God says it is’ certainly is a compelling argument.

For a Christian, yes. Notwithstanding…

…the sticky issue is how to know what God’s judgement in any matter actually is…

If you know someone who knows, then let me know. Otherwise we’re back to Step One. Again.

 

[Bradski]

Happiliy this is mostly the case. What should the believer do when reasonable arguments exist on both sides, but one side also aligns with the deity?

Go with whatever the Big Kahuna wants. That’s assuming that the person actually *knows *what the Big Kahuna wants. You might personally believe you know but how you convince someone else is beyond me.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Then you are saying that a Muslim or a Hindu has a reasonable argument if he or she says: ‘It is written’. I’m going to discount all such arguments. It might be a good idea if you did as well. You either have to agree that, for example, the punishment for apostasy is death (it is written, so it’s a good argument!) or you’re going to have to agree with me. Tough call, Peter.

The truth is always a tough call. The problem is that you are mired in the same muck as all of us. It isn’t as simple as the Hindu or Muslim are wrong (if they are) because they are Hindu or Muslim but because their beliefs are untrue (if they are.)

I have no bigger or tougher call than you, you see, because for me God is Truth and Truth is God.

“I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life.” I recognize that the Truth is Living and Active.

You see yourself as an orphan, all alone to work out the “tough calls,” bereft of any possible help, hope or grace.

By your very denial of the possibility of the Eternal Thou you cut yourself off from help, hope and grace.

For both of us the struggle is to become.

For me it is to become what I was meant to be all along.

For you it is to become …?

What becoming entails is in the present a mystery for both of us.

For me the mystery is merely a veil on what is ultimate reality.

For you, it is, in principle and by presumption, merely null and void. Nothing more than what you make it because YOU make it.

Yet, what is YOU?

You can’t know that either - in principle, though by choice, you are reducible to NOT you.

In principle, I am Other.

One or other of us will be wrong. If I am, I won’t know it. If you are, you will know it.

One or other of us will be correct. If I am, I will know it. If you are you won’t.

I would rather know what I will know than what you will.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Well we’re not perfect. But by being better informed we at least know when we’re doing wrong.

I agree. But what’s funny is that this is why the 10 commandments were given. Most christians would tell you that they’re rules to live by. Yes. Correct. But the hebrews had been in Egypt for about 400 years and had forgotten all they knew and that’s really why the commandments were given. It leads up to the Mosaic Covenant.

That wasn’t meant to be a cheap shot against you or Christians in general. I guess that ‘reasonable person’ doesn’t really exist. It’s just a set of ideal characteristics that we should all try to embrace. A list of boxes to be ticked when we make an argument or respond to one to check if we are ‘being reasonable’. My strike rate isn’t any better than most others, I’d say.

Did’nt take it as such. I think we established a nice rapport. I do see this, though, as a common attitude; even amoung liberals and conservatives who might both believe in God. Each side thinks the other is closed minded and all those other things you said. Have to get away from that for a real discussion. Being closed minded just means that I believe what I believe. I listen to you, but the chances are you’re not going to change my mind unless I’m really seeking to know something different.

If there were two people who were to know the mind of God, then in your eyes they would always agree on everything at all times and in all circumstances. Do you think that’s feasible?

I know many christians who would agree on everything. I have friends like this. I know monks like this. I know other christians, not my friends, who agree on everything. Flaw: What do you mean by everything?? We agree on the big stuff and much of the little stuff. We’d need to be specific and this thread would go on forever. But you’re right that not all christians agree on everything all the time. But everything encompasses so much, doesn’t it?

So do all christians agree on everything in general. NO. But that’s the whole point. Christianity is not about all that. It’s about getting to know the God that created everything.

I’d like to think that any position you take can be based on reasonable arguments. If you simply say that you hold to a position simply because ‘God says so’ and quote some scripture, then yes, I’m pretty much going to ignore what you say. Or at least, discount that reason. I’d like to think that your God is reasonable and not capricious so there will be reasonable arguments you can use to argue your position. From a secular viewpoint as it were.

Any position I’d take would be based on reason. I think God is reasonable and has good reason to illuminate our intellect toward a particular belief. If you’ve noticed I don’t quote scripture to you to prove anything. I think that would be rather silly for me to do if you’re telling me you don’t even believe in who wrote it! Mr. Bradski, I was secular before I was christian. I was born on this planet. It’s just that we didn’t get down to any particulars. But I’m willing to bet you would know all my reasons of why something might be immoral or even just plain dumb. I didn’t check my brain at the door - as they say.

We are the same in that we would welcome any reduction in the number of abortions. We are the same in that we would both agree that no abortions at all would be a good thing. The difference between us is that I would welcome any method whereby you could guarantee that having sex would not result in pregnancy and you wouldn’t. In fact, you demand that sex needs to be potentially procreative in the first instance, whether you want children or not. It’s your bed…you sleep in it.

Oh my. I’m so bad at this quote thing. I do believe I answered other people’s quotes because I was shocked when I got to the last one! And I see you don’t mean it for me. Thankfully! Had to scroll back down and I realized you’re answering other posters. Well, I got my two cents in, I guess.

Wish I had met as many reasonable people as you have.

Will be following the other posts later on today.

God blesses you
Fran