Defending Against Atheism

[Ginger2]

Exactly! And that is why it is so pointless for Christians to argue and debate religion with atheists.

I believe you when you say that if you were shown proof you would still not believe.

Perhaps for an instant, but then you would reject it.

Everything God does for you will be credited to mere chance or luck.

 

[not_a_theist]

Exactly! And that is why it is so pointless for Christians to argue and debate religion with atheists.

It’s pointless if the objective is to turn the other side. Otherwise, it can be fun.

 

[Ginger2]

I agree! I find these discussions very amusing.

 

[Aleii]

Originally Posted by wjb67
I was pretty much on the “If God actually let you see him, then it would be so overwhelming that you couldn’t resist…” side of things. But then in today’s Sunday Catholic Mass reading it told this story (short version):

Lazarus is a poor man who went to heaven, and the rich man who ignored him is in hell. The rich man asks Lazarus to go visit his still living brothers and to warn them lest they come to this place of torment. Abraham (speaking for God) says “If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.”

This now leads me to believe that for some, no proof will ever be good enough to persuade them. Now that I look back, this seems true with the atheists I’ve met. They all want a sign that God exists. They have Moses, the prophets, we here at CAF and other places, the wonders of creation, and so forth, and still they disbelieve.

Also, think about the Hebrews who saw dozens of miracles in Egypt and during the Exodus. Then leave them alone for a few days and they’re worshiping a golden calf. Again, God gave them all that proof and they STILL didn’t believe.

God has a tough job . Ok, I asked because I’ve heard that statement before that if God gave a person absolute proof, then that person would become a slave. But I’ve never been able to fully understand that, given that Moses, Adam, etc, had direct proof and they didn’t appear to be slaves. (among other quandaries) But it sounds like you are instead saying that for some, great lengths would not suffice as proof. In that sense, I do agree that some people can be quite stubborn

 

[melensdad]

It’s not worth my time to explain the semantics of the qualifier “all too often”.

Well you didn’t use it as a qualifier, so you probably would have a hard time explaining something that didn’t exist in your statement.

Please reread your post, at least the one I replied to, then explain to me where the words “all to often” exist within your post. It is fairly clear, that I was responding to your statement I KNOW FOR FACT because I highlighted that text with both bold and enlarged type.

While you did use a qualifier in your judgmental statement about Christians, no such qualifier was written in your supposed factual statement (the one I responded to), that was clearly an overstatement and inaccurate.

 

[not_a_theist]

Well you didn’t use it as a qualifier, so you probably would have a hard time explaining something that didn’t exist in your statement. Or did you mean to imply a qualifying statement

You got me there. Since you’ve shown considerable intellectual prowess to score this point, you don’t need my help to figure out that you answered a statement I didn’t make. Ta-ta.

 

[Mirdath]

Ok, I asked because I’ve heard that statement before that if God gave a person absolute proof, then that person would become a slave. But I’ve never been able to fully understand that, given that Moses, Adam, etc, had direct proof and they didn’t appear to be slaves. (among other quandaries) But it sounds like you are instead saying that for some, great lengths would not suffice as proof. In that sense, I do agree that some people can be quite stubborn

If a particular religion’s idea of the divine was proven to me beyond a doubt, I would still have the choice to worship or not to worship. Instead of ‘does God exist?’ my question would be ‘should I worship this God?’. Depending on what the deity in question is like, I imagine I could answer either way

 

[ricmat]

If a particular religion’s idea of the divine was proven to me beyond a doubt, I would still have the choice to worship or not to worship. Instead of ‘does God exist?’ my question would be ‘should I worship this God?’. Depending on what the deity in question is like, I imagine I could answer either way

Hi Mirdath, welcome back…

If we proved to you that our God exists, then your question would be “Should I worship God?” not “Should I worship THIS God?”

And I would further contend, that if we proved to you that our God exists, that the elements of justice, gratitude, awe, responsibility, and love would make the choice obvious (in fact, choosing NOT to worship God wouldn’t even occur to you).

Unfortunately, we of limited words and poor debating skills can only pray and hope

 

[tdgesq]

If a particular religion’s idea of the divine was proven to me beyond a doubt, I would still have the choice to worship or not to worship. Instead of ‘does God exist?’ my question would be ‘should I worship this God?’. Depending on what the deity in question is like, I imagine I could answer either way

Whatever happened to Kant?

 

[Aleii]

If a particular religion’s idea of the divine was proven to me beyond a doubt, I would still have the choice to worship or not to worship. Instead of ‘does God exist?’ my question would be ‘should I worship this God?’. Depending on what the deity in question is like, I imagine I could answer either way

(bypassing the free will vs chemicals argument)
Agreed, our actions are choices. I disagree that faith is a choice, however, I think that faith is determined by what we know/experience. That’s why the statement that we would become robots if given certain information seems odd to me. Whether or not I believe in gravity, scientology, evolution, christianity, etc., I still have choices in how I act (even if it goes against the religion)

ricmat:

Hi Mirdath, welcome back…

If we proved to you that our God exists, then your question would be “Should I worship God?” not “Should I worship THIS God?”

And I would further contend, that if we proved to you that our God exists, that the elements of justice, gratitude, awe, responsibility, and love would make the choice obvious (in fact, choosing NOT to worship God wouldn’t even occur to you).

Unfortunately, we of limited words and poor debating skills can only pray and hope

Hrm, so you are indeed saying that people who are given proof of God would be robots (I thought in your last post you were revising it to say that, in essence, some people are stubborn even if given much evidence of something)? Could you please answer these questions then because they keep getting overlooked: Did Moses, Adam, etc have proof of God? If so, were Moses, Adam, etc. robots?

 

[Ginger2]

ricmat,

I disagree with your statement, “Unfortunately, we of limited words and poor debating skills can only pray and hope”

Christians should always start first with prayer, but our limitations are not a hindrance unless we begin to think we are able to convince and explain God thru our own abilities and talents.

God often uses our weakness to show His strength and God does the work thru us - what we have to offer is our willingness to serve.

But perhaps that is what you were trying to convey - that it is really up to God, whether or not our efforts bear fruit?

I also disagree that proof will make someone believe and want to worship God. We can ratuionalize away any thing.

I saw a vision - it must have been my imagination
I had a dream that came true - it was coincidence
They prayed I would be healed - I had the best specialist

 

[Ginger2]

Aleii,

God never takes away our free will. If you are interested in what being a slave to Christ means, there is a Chapter in the Bible that explains this very well.

If you are interested, Let me know if you want to know where to find it or if you would like me to post an excerpt.

 

[Mirdath]

Hi Mirdath, welcome back…

Thanks!

If we proved to you that our God exists, then your question would be “Should I worship God?” not “Should I worship THIS God?”

Of course. There can be only one supreme being, after all.

And I would further contend, that if we proved to you that our God exists, that the elements of justice, gratitude, awe, responsibility, and love would make the choice obvious (in fact, choosing NOT to worship God wouldn’t even occur to you).

Unfortunately, we of limited words and poor debating skills can only pray and hope

That’s not nearly as certain as you seem to think Didn’t we have a similar conversation not so long ago? Obviously I could and would respect such an entity; but my love and my worship are somewhat more reserved. I would not love or worship a malevolent God; would you? If, in a sudden flash, it was revealed to you that God was, in fact, H. P. Lovecraft’s Azathoth, would you worship?

tdgesq:

Whatever happened to Kant?

He died Also, the subject seems to have shifted from ethics to theology. The guy we’re making roll over in his grave right now is Soren Kierkegaard.

 

[ricmat]

Hrm, so you are indeed saying that people who are given proof of God would be robots (I thought in your last post you were revising it to say that, in essence, some people are stubborn even if given much evidence of something)? Could you please answer these questions then because they keep getting overlooked: Did Moses, Adam, etc have proof of God? If so, were Moses, Adam, etc. robots?

Well, I guess I’m still on the fence. On one side M-W-F , and on the other side Tu-Th-Sa.



Of course we always have free will. So we’re never absolutely positively forced to believe in God. But my premise was more that once you actually use you free will to believe in (our) God AND understand what and who God is, that the response is pretty much very logical, and yes, obvious.

In a lot of my posts, I tend to throw out what just happens to be in my mind at the time. I tend not to be adamant about many things. That God exists, yes. Other secondary things…not quite so adamant.

 

[cpayne]

Whatever happened to Kant?

It was imperative that he be elsewhere.

 

[Hubriss]

Hey, sorry this reply took so long.

Even if law isn’t derived from the objective nature of human beings, whether that nature has its source in God or not, it has to be derived in some way from some moral (normative) standards found in nature. Otherwise it isn’t natural law that we are talking about.

It begins with things that we know about the nature of life. All life dies, but what we’ve observed is that it’s the natural will of all life to live as long as it can, and reproduce. We KNOW that this is natural to every living thing, because if it wasn’t then there would be absolutely no life. Now most living things are not able to use their cognition and make choices based on any intellectual capabilities. However we know that most large animals, all mammals, have a memory and are able to make future decisions based on past experiences. But there are such characteristics that are not based on any cognitive skills which we normally call instinct. Some examples of instinct may be the recognition of a mother for pups of some species and the newborns’ instinct of coming to the mother for food such as milk. When sea turtles are born on land, they know to instinctively dash for the water or else they might be caught by other animals on land. Another important one is of course sexual reproduction and sex drive which is based much on the natural hormonal changes in animal bodies that produce this instinct to mate and reproduce.

Now moral law in human society is based on these basic principles that we know, coupled with feelings such as pain, happiness, fear. Morality is not so clear cut and simple as God telling us what to do. There have been countless moral philosophers since even before civilizations began to develope. All moral philosophy for societies has been based on the principles of life and death, and the promotion of prosperity which had usually been measured by the gammot of human emotions (pain, happiness, fear, etc) and wealth. Now this is my understanding I have come to through studying what the experts have said based on their studies of evidense, and my and their reasoning.

It would be interesting to know why you believe that should be your job as an atheist. In any case, the question isn’t whether people have developed laws for society, as even natural law ethical theorists admit that has happened. The question is what those laws are based upon. It is not clear to me that what you’ve described so far could be called “natural law” in any sense of the term.

I guess I consider it my job to try and “convert” religious people is because your beliefs are delusional, and it’s best for society if we do not have that. I especially don’t think these religious delusions should be entitled to any kind of special respect or influence. I believe that religious belief is the result of lack of propper education and reasoning which is partly why America is falling behind and we’re making so many bad choices.

But it’s not just me. You as a Catholic or whatever you are, when you look at Mormons, you see them as delusional for believing in something as rediculous as an angel coming down to dictate the word of God to a man who has absolutely no evidense for it, plus writes things that are contrary to our certain knoweledge. Same with Muslims, they just used your belief and broke off with their own twisted version of God. I just use the same criteria on Jews and Christians.

I will accept that this is how you would act. I also will accept that many other people would act this way. I will also accept that many people believe that societies prosper more when they work together. How does any of this let me know whether it is right or wrong to kill somebody who is trying to steal my food?

The point is there’s nothing to let you know whether it is right or wrong, that all decisions are based on our own reasoning, and that’s how it has always been. I doubt even pacifists would allow that person to steal it, becaus what is to keep him from stealing your next meal? It could mean your life. Even religions’ laws are conditional and based on human reason. It’s not ok to kill someone, but it is if they are going to kill you first, or they have a negative impact on society, or whatever other excuse. Neither laws from God nor laws from humans have been consistent throughout history, but if God is perfect, his laws should be timeless as well shouldn’t they?

 

[Aleii]

Ricmat:
Ok

Ginger:
I was questioning defining “slave” as taking away free will/robot/automaton, not “slave” defined as freely chosing to submit/be obedient.

…and were you thinking about Romans?

Have a great evening!

 

[Ginger2]

Aleii,
“…and were you thinking about Romans?”

No. I was thinking of a chapter in the OT.

I absolutely agree with you that our free will is a constant. Even if Jesus appear to some atheist as he did to the a disciples after the crucifixion, that doesn’t guarantee the atheist would accept him, believe and become a Christian.

Many of the pharisees eye witnessed the mircales of Jesus and still chose to deny him.

Being a “slave” is a free will choice.

 

[tdgesq]

It begins with things that we know about the nature of life. All life dies, but what we’ve observed is that it’s the natural will of all life to live as long as it can, and reproduce.

So observations of nature tell us that people will to live as long as they can and reproduce, and these observations are a basis for morality. Then birth control is wrong, suicide is wrong and abortion is wrong. Do you agree?

We KNOW that this is natural to every living thing, because if it wasn’t then there would be absolutely no life. Now most living things are not able to use their cognition and make choices based on any intellectual capabilities. However we know that most large animals, all mammals, have a memory and are able to make future decisions based on past experiences. But there are such characteristics that are not based on any cognitive skills which we normally call instinct. Some examples of instinct may be the recognition of a mother for pups of some species and the newborns’ instinct of coming to the mother for food such as milk. When sea turtles are born on land, they know to instinctively dash for the water or else they might be caught by other animals on land. Another important one is of course sexual reproduction and sex drive which is based much on the natural hormonal changes in animal bodies that produce this instinct to mate and reproduce.

Well, this is an interesting description of how materialists view the world. But the problem is your descriptive analysis has to be translated into what we should and should not do as human beings if it is to be a basis for morality. Forced sexual conduct promotes the perpetuation of the species. We see it all the time in nature. Even larger more sophisticated animals kill each other and the young and the weak. And of course you’ve left out the litmus test for naturalism - survival of the fittest.

Now moral law in human society is based on these basic principles that we know, coupled with feelings such as pain, happiness, fear. Morality is not so clear cut and simple as God telling us what to do.

Maybe it isn’t clear cut, but you should be able to give us some normative standards that are derived from nature.

There have been countless moral philosophers since even before civilizations began to develope. All moral philosophy for societies has been based on the principles of life and death, and the promotion of prosperity which had usually been measured by the gammot of human emotions (pain, happiness, fear, etc) and wealth.

Okay, then the laws they came up with in an attempt to address these issues are just fine. Right?

I guess I consider it my job to try and “convert” religious people is because your beliefs are delusional, and it’s best for society if we do not have that. I especially don’t think these religious delusions should be entitled to any kind of special respect or influence. I believe that religious belief is the result of lack of propper education and reasoning which is partly why America is falling behind and we’re making so many bad choices.

Wait, I thought it was whatever preserved life and the perpetuation of the species. Whether belief in something is delusional isn’t the standard. This so-called delusional belief in God has led to moral precepts that preserve life. It looks like you are changing the standard.

Any empirical studies to back up your claim that religious belief is causing America to fall behind? No? I guess we’d have to compare how well the former Soviet Union fared in that regard. Yes, good reasoning skills are more necessary than ever.

The point is there’s nothing to let you know whether it is right or wrong, that all decisions are based on our own reasoning, and that’s how it has always been.

Then there isn’t any basis in nature for morality? It’s just all our own personal preference. Like I said, what you are talking about isn’t natural law.

 

[tdgesq]

I doubt even pacifists would allow that person to steal it, becaus what is to keep him from stealing your next meal? It could mean your life. Even religions’ laws are conditional and based on human reason. It’s not ok to kill someone, but it is if they are going to kill you first, or they have a negative impact on society, or whatever other excuse. Neither laws from God nor laws from humans have been consistent throughout history, but if God is perfect, his laws should be timeless as well shouldn’t they?

Yes His laws are timeless. And laws that don’t comport with them are immoral and unjust. There have been many of them throughout history. There have also been people who have incorrectly identified certain moral standards as being based on God’s revelation. This doesn’t help you at all to answer the question of what moral standards exist in nature that tell us what we should and should not do. That’s why a long time ago I stated that atheists should just admit that it is their own personal preference that dictates what is right and wrong. In your case, it sure isn’t natural law.