Atheists:

  • Thread starter Thread starter bradwill911
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Veritas248 said:
Bear in mind you are reading an English translation which may or may not have the best Translation of the original Greek. Make sure the Translation you use is accurate.
.
Click to expand...
Pity the creator of the universe didn’t think to deal with arguments of correct translation when spreading his only message of salvation via the written word.
 
Detales said:
One completely ignorant in the sense, non-sense, actuallly, that you are looking for, starts with unmodified awareness rooted in Consciouness as such. No contents. Then the relative nature of person, ideas, thought, and manifestation are experientially understood as events within and dependent upon Consciousness, by whatever term you use to lable that. Anthropomorphists call it God and make an unfortunate proceedural errror yeilding the necessity of a religion that deteriorates into dogmas. This is in contrast to an all inclusive Self referent and supporing morality. When the “other” is understood as the Self, how can harm be done? What is not to be understood? All else is the realm of the shapes of gold. You can argue til forever about what shape gold ought be. The shape alters not the gold itself. Religion insists on a particular shape in order for the gold to be. Gold knows nothing of shape. It is Itself. This is experiencible, knowable. All else derives from THAT.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Then we start from there and progress outward. Did the self create itself? If not, we must find out who or what, did.
 
Veritas248 said:
Ok, I’ll try an experiment with you to show you what I mean.

Let’s start by emptying all bias and knowledge.

All we have are our five senses and our thoughts.

If we can’t trust our senses, what can we trust?

Idealism, the belief that all is an illusion denies the five senses with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. It also suggests that we create our own realities, which once again, is based on no evidence at all. So Idealism is out.

Materialism, the belief that all that can be known can be known by the five senses, is also out,because there are some things that cannot be known by the five senses. Thoughts, numbers, abstract principles, etc. So no Materialism.

I’ll stop here and ask, Is my analysis, keeping in mind that all we have is our five senses and our thoughts, reasonable?
Click to expand...
What’s so wrong with our five senses? They are there for a reason; to protect us from the dangers in our world. Instincts are essential for our survival. 😉

If this analysis works for you and helps you sleep at night, then, yes, it is reasonable. :yup:

For me, it wouldn’t. These two beliefs are far too black and white for me. Beliefs and concepts are way more complex than that.
 
phantasm said:
Exactly, like the objective truth of Hinduism.
Click to expand...
What are you getting at? Objective means true for EVERYONE. I’ll grant that IF Hinduism is true, then it is objective. That has yet to be proven, and seems quite unlikely that it will.
 
Blade_and_Blood said:
What’s so wrong with our five senses? They are there for a reason; to protect us from the dangers in our world. Instincts are essential for our survival. 😉

If this analysis works for you and helps you sleep at night, then, yes, it is reasonable. :yup:

For me, it wouldn’t. These two beliefs are far too black and white for me. Beliefs and concepts are way more complex than that.
Click to expand...
We’re not done. It was just a start. There is plenty more to analyze.
 
Veritas, that last about Christianity vs Hinduism is very subjective and incomplete on both ends. Look to your Garfield quote. He agrees, it seems with Mary Baker Eddy, who said “Science or suffering.”
 
Veritas248 said:
Christianity has a lot more going for it than Hinduism.
Click to expand...
So says a Christian. Ask a Hindu and I suspect you will get a different answer.

Are you really blind to what point I’m making, and a point I’m making very effectively?

RELIGIOUS TRUTH IS SUBJECTIVE TO THE BELIEVER AND YOUR RESPONSES ARE CLEAR EVIDENCE OF THAT.
 
Blade_and_Blood said:
Actually, I’m gonna side with phantasm; It’s pretty much the same… vaguely, the only difference would probably be age. :o
Click to expand...
Nope. Christianity has one thing that Hinduism doesn’t. The resurrection. Prove the resurrection, you prove Christ was God. Prove Christ was God, you prove Christianity.

Actually, I’m going to take that route instead of what I started. My main area of expertise is History, so I can explain this much better
 
Detales said:
Veritas, that last about Christianity vs Hinduism is very subjective and incomplete on both ends. Look to your Garfield quote. He agrees, it seems with Mary Baker Eddy, who said “Science or suffering.”
Click to expand...
As one who has studied the facts about both religions for years, I feel secure in my judgment. That is an odd interpretation of that quote. I take it to mean that accepting the Truth means destroying your pride, hence, makes you miserable.
 
Not really sure where to jump in or even if I should. I know I’m not going to convince anyone that their belief is incorrect, no one likes to be told that they are wrong. I’m no different. If an atheist or Muslim tells me I’m wrong, I go on the defensive too.

What I believe is helpful with these types of discussions is just simple question and answer.

Why do you not believe in a god?
  • I would assume that the answer is more in depth than, “Well, a Christian God is just as likely as a Muslim God or Hindu gods or a purple unicorn, etc.” That doesn’t really answer the question at hand. I agree, absent of tradition of some sort, you could convince someone of the likeliness of any of these.
Why are you not Hindu?
Why are you not Muslim?
Why are you not Buddhist?
Why are you not Christian?
Why are you not _______ ?

These are the questions that I think atheists should be prepared to answer. I also believe a Christian should be prepared to honestly answer why they do believe in God and why they do believe in a Christian God rather than the God or gods from these other traditions. Admittedly, I’m not familiar with every religious tradition and only vaguely familiar with some of the non-Christian traditions. I’m more familiar with Islam since I have a close Muslim friend. It’s not an easy exercise, and I’m a devout Catholic.
 
Veritas248 said:
I take it to mean that accepting the Truth means destroying your pride, hence, makes you miserable.
Click to expand...
Now I’m confused, are you talking about the truth of Hinduism, the truth of Buddhism, the truth of Judaism, the truth of Scientology, the truth of Islam or the truth of Christians?

Which subjective truth are you talking about?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top