Answering an Atheist (2 points I want help with)

[frangiuliano115]

Could we keep Islam out of this? Are we speaking of all religions in general or just christianity??? Islam follows the Koran as I’m sure you all know, and it is a violent book and has nothing to do with our God, as is often stated. (the 3 monotheistic religions - please!)

I believe that’s Muhammad speaking there - not God.

 

[frangiuliano115]

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.

I was supposed to leave this till later, but it’s becoming addictive!

I love how you say everything. So nice to know philosophy.

I’ve often used your last argument, of course in different, simple language but it cannot be accepted because atheists do not believe in an afterlife. This is such a basic difference between us that further discussion is interesting but pretty futile.

Not that we shouldn’t discuss…

God bless

 

[Jelrak_TB]

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.

It is an interesting assessment…yet might I add one further consideration? For if an atheist might be wrong and later discover that God does indeed exist what likely harm has been done? For if the atheist might have sought and lived for honesty…how might an obscure God refuse him entry? For in seeking was it not up to God to then provide the answer? In knocking was it not up to God to open the door? Yet those among us who might consistently seek and consistently knock and yet appear to come up continuously empty must surely be held blameless…for if it might be said that the answer was shown to us, but that we simply failed to see, whose responsibility must that truly be? For is it not to be expected that a god without mortal limits must surely be capable of providing the precise responses as might be considered necessary for the question at hand? Yet what is one to make of the lack of response? Is it to be considered the God has in His design a certain favoritism so as to preclude a given subset?

Further while one may never be able to adequately prove the existence of God, it appears at least reasonable to be capable of disqualifying certain of His characteristics…and if a sufficient number of these might be disproved how is one to truly claim to be following the same god as had been the original intent?

 

[frangiuliano115]

It is an interesting assessment…yet might I add one further consideration? For if an atheist might be wrong and later discover that God does indeed exist what likely harm has been done? For if the atheist might have sought and lived for honesty…how might an obscure God refuse him entry? For in seeking was it not up to God to then provide the answer? In knocking was it not up to God to open the door? Yet those among us who might consistently seek and consistently knock and yet appear to come up continuously empty must surely be held blameless…for if it might be said that the answer was shown to us, but that we simply failed to see, whose responsibility must that truly be? For is it not to be expected that a god without mortal limits must surely be capable of providing the precise responses as might be considered necessary for the question at hand? Yet what is one to make of the lack of response? Is it to be considered the God has in His design a certain favoritism so as to preclude a given subset?

Further while one may never be able to adequately prove the existence of God, it appears at least reasonable to be capable of disqualifying certain of His characteristics…and if a sufficient number of these might be disproved how is one to truly claim to be following the same god as had been the original intent?

Oh my gosh! I have to go do some housework and will leave this up to Peter Plato in whom I have full trust - let me just say that:

It is JESUS knocking NOT you!! YOU’RE the one who has to open the door!

Lata…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yet what is one to make of the lack of response?

What response were you looking for?

Isn’t the whole point of seeking, to be open to the response of God rather than the predetermined one we seek? A gradual opening of one’s being to what God actually has to say to us rather than what we expect God to say?

Isn’t our task to merely be that fertile ground permitting God to sow thoughts, ideas, inspirations at his discretion?

I once read a story of a Buddhist acolyte who kept pressuring his master for answers to deep and profound questions. The master kept giving his student menial jobs and labours to do to engage personal qualities such as persistence, discipline, self-control, clear-mindedness, etc., to ready himself for the answers to those profound questions. As the student became engrossed in doing to the best of his ability the jobs set before him, his character and intellect became clarified so he could begin to see answers to the things that puzzled him without the need of the master saying a word. Sometimes it isn’t that the answers aren’t to be had, but that our condition does not permit us to see the answers that are blazingly obvious if we can only remove our self-imposed blinkers.

Why should eternal treasures be merely “up for grabs” for anyone who demands them or makes a grab at them? God ain’t no fool. He doesn’t cast his pearls before swine - especially when we have assiduously made ourselves into swine. When we, just as assiduously, seek the answers without demanding that we have them by showing “good faith” in a manner that merits those pearls we will receive. What you will find, in the end (or along the way, even,) is that the becoming of the person (your true self) worthy of receiving the eternal pearls is in itself a priceless pearl.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is an interesting assessment…yet might I add one further consideration? For if an atheist might be wrong and later discover that God does indeed exist what likely harm has been done?

I don’t view the end as entry into a place so much as becoming your true self.

The atheist, by his very presumption assumes his not-self (the other that he faces) is mindless, intentionless, purposeless matter. It is in its every essence nothing like personhood or self. So in all the exercise of his quest to become himself, he views this endeavor as essentially one of being alone in the cosmos without hope, purpose or destiny beyond what he creates for himself. His endeavor is essentially sterile because it is self-oriented.

On the other hand, the theist views self as relational with Another. The nature of self is then one of being in relationship with Living, Eternal Being, Personhood.

I suspect being an atheist is not so much a choice but a symptom of one’s current state – one of being a haploid cell (an infertile existent) rather than a zygote. Making oneself ready to receive Other is required for fertility to occur. My advice would be to delve deeply into what it means to be essentially sterile and experience the existential angst full on – it may give a glimpse into the void that needs to be filled and provide the impetus required to make oneself at least somewhat open to receive.

So to answer “What likely harm has the atheist done to himself?” the clearest indicator might be to show the difference between an infertile egg and a fertile one. The difference is that one becomes something new and unique (a chicken) because of (name removed by moderator)ut permitted from Other, while the infertile egg remains simply what it is (an infertile egg.) Unfortunately, we can see what happens to infertile eggs left on their own beyond their shelf life

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

Well, this “difference between us” is telling in that it demonstrates something of the difference in approaches we have towards reality.

You suppose reality ought to bend to your satisfaction and entertainment, I suspect that might be an error on your part.

If our children insisted on running around the house with sharp knives, your approach to solving the problem would appear to be to continually dull the blade and make it less effective so that they do no damage by wielding the sharp knife so they can continue to “have fun” without concern for the purpose or utility of having sharp knives.

My approach is to teach respect for the sharpness of the knives and that anyone holding or using them should know their purpose, have respect for it and clearly see the consequences that ill-conceived and frivolous “use” of sharp knives will bring about.

In the end, your view subordinates the purpose of sex to whatever you choose to make of it – your will being paramount in the determination. My view is that purpose and ends for aspects of reality are built into reality itself. We have no inherent right to subordinate those essential ends to our shortsighted will because disasterous things occur. Our blind willingness to murder babies and traffic in their parts is a symptom of the fact that blind will has great difficulty properly prioritizing the “good” when faced with indomitable pleasure seeking.

The fact that you insist that the solution is to use technology to subordinate reality to human desire rather than address the fact that enshrining human desire as you do makes life itself a lesser and expendable good as far as you are concerned. When it comes right down to having sex or murdering a human being in the womb, having sex, for you, wins out. The onus, according to you, is on others to resolve the problem they, alone, have with prioritizing the value of life over sex. For you, it is not a problem since your “right” to have sex wins out, in principle.

 

[zz912]

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.

The problem of evil is one that most agnostics and atheists realize that THEY must answer as well. And there is no good answer for them as well. Atheists contend that God cannot exist, since evil exists in the world. But atheists must answer for why evil exists in the universe, since atheism denies such a thing as objective evil.

As an example, a male lion will kill the cubs of a rival male. When he does this, everyone recognizes he is not evil, as animals do not commit “good” or “evil”. But yet everyone recognizes that there IS good and evil in the world. Some atheists have tried to answer this by stating that humans are moral agents, so they can recognize and act on good or evil. But this is an insufficient and flawed attempt to answer. Without an objective standard (God) to measure good/evil against, they simply become products of our own personal opinion and nothing more. So there simply is no objective good/evil in the atheist worldview.

And yet every person recognizes that there REALLY is good and evil in the universe. It’s a contradiction that leaves atheism severely lacking.

As to your question about a world without suffering and free will, that is possible, if angels and man had not decided on choosing evil with their free will. They COULD have chosen only good, but did not. The universe WAS without suffering until angels and humans choose evil with their free will

 

[zz912]

Well, this “difference between us” is telling in that it demonstrates something of the difference in approaches we have towards reality.

You suppose reality ought to bend to your satisfaction and entertainment, I suspect that might be an error on your part.

If our children insisted on running around the house with sharp knives, your approach to solving the problem would appear to be to continually dull the blade and make it less effective so that they do no damage by wielding the sharp knife so they can continue to “have fun” without concern for the purpose or utility of having sharp knives.

My approach is to teach respect for the sharpness of the knives and that anyone holding or using them should know their purpose, have respect for it and clearly see the consequences that ill-conceived and frivolous “use” of sharp knives will bring about.

In the end, your view subordinates the purpose of sex to whatever you choose to make of it – your will being paramount in the determination. My view is that purpose and ends for aspects of reality are built into reality itself. We have no inherent right to subordinate those essential ends to our shortsighted will because disasterous things occur. Our blind willingness to murder babies and traffic in their parts is a symptom of the fact that blind will has great difficulty properly prioritizing the “good” when faced with indomitable pleasure seeking.

The fact that you insist that the solution is to use technology to subordinate reality to human desire rather than address the fact that enshrining human desire as you do makes life itself a lesser and expendable good as far as you are concerned. When it comes right down to having sex or murdering a human being in the womb, having sex, for you, wins out. The onus, according to you, is on others to resolve the problem they, alone, have with prioritizing the value of life over sex. For you, it is not a problem since your “right” to have sex wins out, in principle.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[frangiuliano115]

FOR PETER PLATO

A standing ovation is in order!

(too bad it’ll never be understood by most-always hope)

God bless you

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Oh my gosh! I have to go do some housework and will leave this up to Peter Plato in whom I have full trust - let me just say that:

It is JESUS knocking NOT you!! YOU’RE the one who has to open the door!

Lata…

Fran, I always appreciate your posts…

 

[Jelrak_TB]

What response were you looking for?

Isn’t the whole point of seeking, to be open to the response of God rather than the predetermined one we seek? A gradual opening of one’s being to what God actually has to say to us rather than what we expect God to say?

Isn’t our task to merely be that fertile ground permitting God to sow thoughts, ideas, inspirations at his discretion?

I once read a story of a Buddhist acolyte who kept pressuring his master for answers to deep and profound questions. The master kept giving his student menial jobs and labours to do to engage personal qualities such as persistence, discipline, self-control, clear-mindedness, etc., to ready himself for the answers to those profound questions. As the student became engrossed in doing to the best of his ability the jobs set before him, his character and intellect became clarified so he could begin to see answers to the things that puzzled him without the need of the master saying a word. Sometimes it isn’t that the answers aren’t to be had, but that our condition does not permit us to see the answers that are blazingly obvious if we can only remove our self-imposed blinkers.

Why should eternal treasures be merely “up for grabs” for anyone who demands them or makes a grab at them? God ain’t no fool. He doesn’t cast his pearls before swine - especially when we have assiduously made ourselves into swine. When we, just as assiduously, seek the answers without demanding that we have them by showing “good faith” in a manner that merits those pearls we will receive. What you will find, in the end (or along the way, even,) is that the becoming of the person (your true self) worthy of receiving the eternal pearls is in itself a priceless pearl.

Very good points…thank you…

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I don’t view the end as entry into a place so much as becoming your true self.

The atheist, by his very presumption assumes his not-self (the other that he faces) is mindless, intentionless, purposeless matter. It is in its every essence nothing like personhood or self. So in all the exercise of his quest to become himself, he views this endeavor as essentially one of being alone in the cosmos without hope, purpose or destiny beyond what he creates for himself. His endeavor is essentially sterile because it is self-oriented.

On the other hand, the theist views self as relational with Another. The nature of self is then one of being in relationship with Living, Eternal Being, Personhood.

I suspect being an atheist is not so much a choice but a symptom of one’s current state – one of being a haploid cell (an infertile existent) rather than a zygote. Making oneself ready to receive Other is required for fertility to occur. My advice would be to delve deeply into what it means to be essentially sterile and experience the existential angst full on – it may give a glimpse into the void that needs to be filled and provide the impetus required to make oneself at least somewhat open to receive.

So to answer “What likely harm has the atheist done to himself?” the clearest indicator might be to show the difference between an infertile egg and a fertile one. The difference is that one becomes something new and unique (a chicken) because of (name removed by moderator)ut permitted from Other, while the infertile egg remains simply what it is (an infertile egg.) Unfortunately, we can see what happens to infertile eggs left on their own beyond their shelf life

This is an interesting point of view…I will have to ponder this further…

 

[frangiuliano115]

It is an interesting assessment…yet might I add one further consideration? For if an atheist might be wrong and later discover that God does indeed exist what likely harm has been done? For if the atheist might have sought and lived for honesty…how might an obscure God refuse him entry? For in seeking was it not up to God to then provide the answer? In knocking was it not up to God to open the door? Yet those among us who might consistently seek and consistently knock and yet appear to come up continuously empty must surely be held blameless…for if it might be said that the answer was shown to us, but that we simply failed to see, whose responsibility must that truly be? **For is it not to be expected that a god without mortal limits must surely be capable of providing the precise responses as might be considered necessary for the question at hand? Yet what is one to make of the lack of response? **Is it to be considered the God has in His design a certain favoritism so as to preclude a given subset?

Further while one may never be able to adequately prove the existence of God, it appears at least reasonable to be capable of disqualifying certain of His characteristics…and if a sufficient number of these might be disproved how is one to truly claim to be following the same god as had been the original intent?

Jelrak TB, You’ll never get a better explanation than Peter Plato has just given you! And, I hate to be so christianly, but I do believe God has sent him your way.

This is one of those ideas atheists can’t get. That God works in a different way than what we want. I’d just like to add one thing - since there’s not much one could add to what he said:

You say:

**For if an atheist might be wrong and later discover that God does indeed exist what likely harm has been done? **

If you later discover that God does indeed exist, Wonderful! It’s okay. Do you not realize that all believers go through this? However, don’t take forever because one of the harmful consequences comes after you leave this life.

Seems to me like you have enough to digest here, so let me just put out two words you could think about: Jesus - Resurrection. (this will always provide the answer to any precise questions you may have).

That will be your next step my friend and I do believe you just might make it!

God bless you

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Jelrak TB, You’ll never get a better explanation than Peter Plato has just given you! And, I hate to be so christianly, but I do believe God has sent him your way.

This is one of those ideas atheists can’t get. That God works in a different way than what we want. I’d just like to add one thing - since there’s not much one could add to what he said:

You say:

**For if an atheist might be wrong and later discover that God does indeed exist what likely harm has been done? **

If you later discover that God does indeed exist, Wonderful! It’s okay. Do you not realize that all believers go through this? However, don’t take forever because one of the harmful consequences comes after you leave this life.

Seems to me like you have enough to digest here, so let me just put out two words you could think about: Jesus - Resurrection. (this will always provide the answer to any precise questions you may have).

That will be your next step my friend and I do believe you just might make it!

God bless you

Haha, we shall see, my good Fran, we shall see…

 

[Shaolen]

I was going to comment on here but then saw that Gorgias was assisting you and so I knew you were in good hands ������ lol

 

[Bradski]

My approach is to teach respect for the sharpness of the knives and that anyone holding or using them should know their purpose, have respect for it and clearly see the consequences that ill-conceived and frivolous “use” of sharp knives will bring about.

A knife can be used for many different purposes and there are different ways to handle it if you are cutting, chopping, gutting, slicing, paring or just sharpening it.

Your approach appears to be to refuse to accept this, to refuse to believe it has more than one use. I mean, let’s be fair…you won’t even let people put it in a sheath to protect themselves and then express astonishment when they get cut.

 

[Rau]

A knife can be used for many different purposes and there are different ways to handle it if you are cutting, chopping, gutting, slicing, paring or just sharpening it.

Your approach appears to be to refuse to accept this, to refuse to believe it has more than one use. I mean, let’s be fair…you won’t even let people put it in a sheath to protect themselves and then express astonishment when they get cut.

I think the purpose of the sharp edge on knife is clear.

 

[Bradski]

I think the purpose of the sharp edge on knife is clear.

Have you never just sat somewhere on your own and whittled a piece of wood? Or maybe with a friend? I quite enjoy it. As do most people. It serve no purpose other than than the simple pleasure of doing it. It’s quite harmless. Well, as long as you have been taught about the dangers and you are careful whilst doing it.

Peter wouldn’t allow it. ‘That’s not the natural purpose of the knife!’

 

[Rau]

Have you never just sat somewhere on your own and whittled a piece of wood? Or maybe with a friend? I quite enjoy it. As do most people. It serve no purpose other than than the simple pleasure of doing it. It’s quite harmless. Well, as long as you have been taught about the dangers and you are careful whilst doing it.

Peter wouldn’t allow it. ‘That’s not the natural purpose of the knife!’

Wittling, a less intellectual form of carving, seems a reasonable use of a knife.