Z
Zatzat
Guest
No, what he was saying is that your analogies are terrible. He explained why they’re terrible and he gave some solid examples as to why your analogies fail. That was his point.
- Status
J
JRKH
Guest
I think that for the time being you and I are probably about at the end of our useful conversation. I have enjoyed it. You have brought up many points I have previously heard and really I cannot answer them satisfactorally either because of time/space limitations, or more likely my inability to properly form my thoughts into a coherent argument.
I will comment on the bolded section though.
I submit that I do not disreagard my reasoning skills in this matter. I simply begin from another set of core beliefs.
When a scientist has a lot of good, observable, reasons to believe a certain thing is true, he forms a hypothesis. If he then runs into “contraditions” in trying to understand and explain why the thing is true, he doesn’t automatically conclude the thing is false becaue His observations lead him to believe it is still true. He may well have to study the contraditions and possibly adjust his hypothesis and review the data etc again from another angle.
My faith journey is like this. I know I don’t know everything and cannot explain everything. I also know that there are contradictions in the bible. That fact does not negate God, nor does it negate those things that cause me to believe in God.
Through study, and prayer and discussion I will undoubtedly adjust my “working hypothesis” concerning God as I grow in understanding and, hopefully, in holiness.
No - I don’t see this as in any way suspending reason - only suspending rejection.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
I agree with you. My comment was related to “modern morals” in a general sense, not in the sense of every individual.
Obviously we know that, while you feel that collateral damage is never acceptable there are others who would gladly nuke the US or England or Scotland, if they had the chance just because they hate…
This is well put. We are forced to describe God in terms we can understand. God tries to help by inspiring certain writers, but it can only go so far as we are so limited.
This leads to cunumdrums like, “If God can do anything can he make a rock so big that He Himself can’t lift it??”
Peace
James
R
R_Daneel
Guest
How utterly ridiculous - and totally beside the point.Why don’t you just say it outright? You’re ticked off because you hate authority figures.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
It’s the fact that we don’t behave the same way as the people who hate that would make us better than they are. If we descend to the same level, then we are the same evil as them.
M
MikiBee
Guest
Wow… I’ve been reading this thread since it was introduced. I’m really sorry it couldn’t have stayed on track. What started out as an innocent conversation on the day-to-day life of an atheist turned into a lot of harassing and belittling of them instead. As a Christian I am so sorry for that. There are quite a few charitable Catholics posting, but boy… those bad apples can sure ruin it for everyone else.
Faith is simply defined as believing in something you can’t prove. That is what we, as Christians, do. Of course God can’t be proven any more than He can be disproven. It will always be a stalemate. You don’t need a philosophy degree to figure that one out.
Our faith dictates that God gives us the free will to choose Him-or not. He doesn’t belittle and berate us into choosing Him like one or two posters here seem to be doing to the atheists. Let us learn some charity. Evangelizing doesn’t call for hostility.
Faith is simply defined as believing in something you can’t prove. That is what we, as Christians, do. Of course God can’t be proven any more than He can be disproven. It will always be a stalemate. You don’t need a philosophy degree to figure that one out.
Our faith dictates that God gives us the free will to choose Him-or not. He doesn’t belittle and berate us into choosing Him like one or two posters here seem to be doing to the atheists. Let us learn some charity. Evangelizing doesn’t call for hostility.
J
jinminn
Guest
Really? Listen to yourself. For one, you sound like William Lane Craig. Also, this is not how things work today. The far simpler explanation is that the ancient people’s used god as an explanation for their conquests.
Why do we look harshly on things like THIS today? God can command people to take up axes and go after the sinful abortionists, right?
The point is that without any frame of reference for accepting military conquest via god’s command today, we have no reason to suspect that there ever has been valid conquest via god’s commands. Inquisition, crusades, and the like – all human endeavors backed by the rationalization that it was at god’s command.
Yup – if we don’t believe in god, we are a brood of vipers and just want everyone to hate everyone else and the world to end in a giant bloodbath.
My point exactly: every single time someone claims that god provided a directive for killing today, we put them in a mental institution or prison. There is no historical precedent for ever having verified that god spoke directly to a human other than in holy books which by their nature are not accurate historically or scientifically. We have no reason to suspect, therefore, that god actually would command killing back then either.
J
jinminn
Guest
Well put. I enjoyed the discussion and am glad it stayed civil (just caught up on the last 3 pages of posts since I last checked yesterday)…
I wrestle with this a lot. It seems to me that the only way to get past the contradictions is to assume that they have an explanation but that we just don’t know it. This is the case for many areas:
- the Bible
- the problem of evil
- why god appears hidden
- the low occurrence of miracles and why they also appear in other traditions and in no traditions at all (simple, inexplicable healing)
- how the fall worked given evolution, finite human nature, etc. (if the fall did not happen in some sense, then we literally don’t need a redemption)
- on an on
Then, we go visit him and imagine finding him either 1) unwilling to paint or 2) a finger painting in front of him made with chocolate and mayonnaise. I ask what gives and am given a plethora of reasons why it’s actually me who’s got it all wrong. I just don’t get it or am thinking about this all wrong. He really is that good and I just need to trust based on the white canvas or mixture of food while his arsenal of premium tools is off to the side, unused.
Perhaps bad analogy… but that’s the toughie for me. There’s so many objections easily discoverable with reason and I find that I actually do have to make a choice not to think about them and just assume that god has an answer even though no one has figured it out and he’s not revealing it to us.
J
jinminn
Guest
As a recent de-convert or ‘struggling’ Catholic (in the sense that struggling = not believing), this aspect has been extremely frustrating for me. I do want to prove that god does or does not exist. It angers me that out of all things, the one that is most important is the most impossible to prove.
Where I might draw issue with you is when you say ‘It will always be a stalemate.’
The problem is that Christians along with every other religion in the world doesn’t really believe this. Maybe you do, but I’d place a bet that if you currently believe (I noticed your ID says ‘struggling’), you don’t actually believe it’s a stalemate. You believe that you’ve found the truth and have it securely.
A lot of atheists might agree that it’s a stalemate, but have issue with making political decisions based on the opposing side of the stalemate. Namely in matters that are the current ‘hot buttons’ (e.g. homosexuality, birth control, abortion, and creationism/ID).
What do you think about that? I imagine that in the public sphere you would reject, say, same-sex marriage. But why? At some level you’ll resort to (internally but perhaps not verbally) it being what god intended… or perhaps if god’s will isn’t so easily accepted, one will turn to natural points like: obviously we were born this way, something about the government only supporting couples that can bear children, etc.
But what if science can identify genetic tendencies such that it’s simply in the human makeup to be homo/heterosexual (hint: they can)? What if it’s not as much about choice such as most religious like to make it out to be? What then? Now it becomes much more on the level of restricting love of one art form vs. another, stopping someone who just loves ice cream, or what have you. I’m being slightly facetious as I realize sexual matters are of more gravity than ice cream, but the point is that it becomes a preferential matter rather than an intentional abhorrence resulting from the will and disregard for god’s commands.
Anyway, that was one long post to simply challenge you on the ‘stalemate’ hypothesis. It’s stated and used… but no one seems to believe it.
An atheist would simply point out that without any positive evidence, there’s no justification for believe whatsoever. That will bring us to an analysis of the resurrection, miracles, scripture, and the like which is why people write books.
M
MikiBee
Guest
“I” believe, but I also believe the issue of God existing is a stalemate. God cannot be proven or dis-proven. Faith and fact are very different. I am “struggling” because my faith is weak, it isn’t secure. I often wonder if I believe out of fear that it is possibly true, out of fear of possibly going to hell otherwise. My logical side thinks it’s a very good possibility God may not exist, but my emotional side is afraid to not believe. But I have no solid evidence to prove God does exist… it’s like an emotional tug-o-war. No matter how often I beg and plead for God to reveal Himself to me in some way as to remove all doubt, I come up empty.
Well, I only go along with the “rules” because I feel I have to, to avoid hell. But I don’t agree with many of them. Personally, I don’t have a problem with much of what the Church calls sexual sins, unless it hurts someone… using them to fulfill a selfish need. I do not have a problem with consensual sex… be it heterosexual or homosexual. I believe it is an expression of love and pleasure. BUT, because “the Catholic Church says so,” I go along with it because it is my duty to stand behind the Church. But my heart sure isn’t in it. That goes for many things…
I have a very hard time with so much of the Church’s teachings, and 99% of the time when I ask here, it all comes down to “because the Church says so.” That doesn’t really have any weight when you’re trying to prove a point, because that would be assuming the I have a strong enough faith to accept that as an answer. Imagine how silly that sounds to an atheist?
When talking to someone who doesn’t even believe in God at all, or even the concept of God— saying “because the church says so,” or “it’s written in the CCC,” or “the Pope is infallible” does not defend your position because they don’t believe in any of those things. It wouldn’t be much different if an atheist would defend their position by saying that our energy is reincarnated after we die, “because Lucky the Leprechaun” says so.
Again, that assumes faith. An atheist doesn’t believe in the resurrection, miracles, scripture or the and the like.
But thank you very much-- You are definitely one of the more respectful people around here. It’s a pleasure to read what you write, and I can sense the passion behind your posts.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
AntiTheist
Because the conception many Christians have of this god is contemptible.
Many Christians or all Christians? If all Christians, exactly* what *do you find contemptible about the Christian God? That he died on the cross for our sins?
*No, I’m not just “guessing” – I’m basing my position on the fact that there is not one iota of proof that any god exists, just as there is not one iota of proof that Bigfoot exists (and please note that I am not comparing your god to Bigfoot – I am comparing the amount of evidence in each case). *
It’s hard to keep up with all the false analogies you are tossing out. There is no way to compare Bigfoot with God. No one says God is an animal on the planet to be found in the same way that you would find Bigfoot. Also, theoretically, science could develop instruments of search that would prove or not prove the existence of Bigfoot. No such instruments could be built to find God either at the end of a telescope or floating on a petri dish.
Scientism is really pathetic in its illusion that if God cannot be found in such places, then God cannot possibly exist.
Again, you have not one iota of proof that God does not exist. Stop demanding proof and then refusing to supply your own!
Because the conception many Christians have of this god is contemptible.
Many Christians or all Christians? If all Christians, exactly* what *do you find contemptible about the Christian God? That he died on the cross for our sins?
*No, I’m not just “guessing” – I’m basing my position on the fact that there is not one iota of proof that any god exists, just as there is not one iota of proof that Bigfoot exists (and please note that I am not comparing your god to Bigfoot – I am comparing the amount of evidence in each case). *
It’s hard to keep up with all the false analogies you are tossing out. There is no way to compare Bigfoot with God. No one says God is an animal on the planet to be found in the same way that you would find Bigfoot. Also, theoretically, science could develop instruments of search that would prove or not prove the existence of Bigfoot. No such instruments could be built to find God either at the end of a telescope or floating on a petri dish.
Scientism is really pathetic in its illusion that if God cannot be found in such places, then God cannot possibly exist.
Again, you have not one iota of proof that God does not exist. Stop demanding proof and then refusing to supply your own!
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
jinminn
Yup – if we don’t believe in god, we are a brood of vipers and just want everyone to hate everyone else and the world to end in a giant bloodbath.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao. All in one century. I could go on and on.
Enough said?
All atheists are not to be judged as Hitlers, Stalins, and Maos. But to hear some atheists in this forum, all Christians are to be judged by the blood baths of the Old Testament, the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.
When was the last time an atheist was burned at the stake? I don’t remember. Do you?
When was the last time Christians were persecuted by atheist tyrants? By the hundreds of thousands, even millions? Jews even more so!
In the last century!!!
Yup – if we don’t believe in god, we are a brood of vipers and just want everyone to hate everyone else and the world to end in a giant bloodbath.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao. All in one century. I could go on and on.
Enough said?
All atheists are not to be judged as Hitlers, Stalins, and Maos. But to hear some atheists in this forum, all Christians are to be judged by the blood baths of the Old Testament, the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc.
When was the last time an atheist was burned at the stake? I don’t remember. Do you?
When was the last time Christians were persecuted by atheist tyrants? By the hundreds of thousands, even millions? Jews even more so!
In the last century!!!
J
j1akey
Guest
Charlemagne II:
You can’t prove God doesn’t exist any more than you can prove giant pink elephants that travel from planet to planet don’t exist.
So we’re in the business of demanding that we prove a negative now? Is that how this works? It’s impossible to prove a negative.
You can’t prove God doesn’t exist any more than you can prove giant pink elephants that travel from planet to planet don’t exist.
A
aperture
Guest
I can’t recall anyone blaming Christians for the Crusades, etc. Instead I see people pointing to the Crusades and Inquisition as evidence that Christianity has not been perfect and lovely throughout the ages. Since Christianity claims to be essentially perfect, those are situations that deserve to be brought up.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
You’ve restored my faith, for want of a better word…
A
AntiTheist
Guest
I do find the idea of blood sacrifice contemptible, and I consider any being who constructs a system that necessitates blood sacrifice is a fiendish and/or masochistic monster. Further, I find the idea of substitutionary atonement (the idea that one person’s offense can be transfered to a scapegoat) to be distasteful, as do I find the notion of infinite punishments for finite crimes and the very idea of “original sin” (in which an individual is guilty for the offenses of ancestors). These are all grossly unfair, and quite frankly, dumb. If these are the best ideas of a supreme being, then I’m not impressed, not one little bit.
If you’re impressed by that kind of nonsense, you’re welcome to keep it. Just leave me out of it and stop trying to legislate on the basis of bronze age myths.
I could go on and on about distasteful characteristics found in the god character in the Bible, but I’d prefer to stop right there.
And for the zillionth time, none of them committed their atrocities because of their atheism, but because of their particular political ideology – and while those ideologies are consistent with atheism (everything but belief in gods is consistent with atheism), they are not derived from atheism.
Those ideologies are certainly not consistent with modern secular humanism!
The case is different with religious figures in history who committed atrocity on the basis of what they believed. Now, whether their beliefs were “true Christianity” or not is something that I imagine only true Scotsmen could ever come to a conclusion about, but it’s undeniable that their actions actually derive from those religious beliefs.
M
mo2169
Guest
God help you.
These blasphemous things you write are very disturbing and sinful. Better to not write at all than to write the horrible things you do.
**Isa 5:21 Cursed are those who seem wise to themselves, and who take pride in their knowledge!
Isa 2:22 Have no more to do with man, whose life is only a breath, for he is of no value. **
It’s one thing to be on a journey to find God or truth. You seem to be on a journey to prove Him wrong and talk others into doing the same. see “devil”.
May God forgive you for all this one day.
God bless.
J
j1akey
Guest
This is another well used tactic by all religions in general. Demonize those who disagree and call them worthless and curse them. Rather than trying to live together the enemy must be banished as to not taint everyone else for they might change someones thought process. This is nothing more than classic propoganda. What those two line basically say is to ignore people who educate themselves and tell you anything different than what the bible says. Well if we did that we’d all still be living in the dark ages because no one would try to see beyond what the bible has in it.
A
AntiTheist
Guest
Well, rather than simply finding what I write “disturbing,” I would invite you to actually compose a logical argument against my words so that we can talk.
For example, if you wish to present a case for blood sacrifice being perfectly dandy when it’s ordered by the god you worship, I’d be very interested in hearing that argument (particularly if it takes some form other than, “Whatever he says goes because he’s the most powerful!”).
But you’re not going to do that, are you? As your holy book apparently tells you: “Have no more to do with man, whose life is only a breath, for he is of no value.”
How lovely that your text orders you to consider people like me of “no value.” If ever we needed an indication of the dangers of religious thinking, there it is.
M
mo2169
Guest
When one says sinful things against God, one needs to be informed of his/her blasphemy.
I am taught to let others know that they are sinning not because I’m trying to make myself look better or smarter than you; I don’t care about that. But I care about Salvation - not just mine but also yours.
The other gentleman crossed the line a bit - sorry, it had to be said.
Enemy must be banished? What are you talking about? I can’t tell you I disagree with you without you thinking I’m going to do a “Jihad” on you? Come on man - this is just a Forum.
Propaganda - - If you only knew how wonderful it is to have Jesus in your heart and the love of everyone around you… well, maybe you already do…
“Those 2 lines” - - It means I have obedience to my God. I follow His Word, not those of man -
And I accept His Word and his love unconditionally. I don’t dare to think I know more than Him. -
God Bless…
- Status