How do I turn the table on atheists?

[emisher]

I’ll check out the video. But everything I’ve read recently seems to maintain that consciousness is a great mystery. Do you agree that consciousness is immaterial? If all is matter, created by natural means, how in the world did something like consciousness come to be? That’s a huge jump from molecules to concepts such as equality, justice, love, etc.,…Are all scientific theories right?

Even if I did get Dawkins’ meaning wrong, do you concede that according to this logic, there might be angels and demons?

These ideas are not all that whacky to many mainstream university scientists who have spent their careers studying things like, string theory. Most of them that I’ve read about are atheists.

Sex–the existence of God will never be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It requires a submission in faith not unlike a submission in love to a human partner. I never said that only atheists are pleasure seekers. Only that when considering accepting the life that God has called us to in the Bible (Christianity) that the scariest thing is to accept that sexuality is meant to be kept holy and sacred. It is a hard road that many, you’re right, even Christians have a hard time maintaining. Although it must be recognized that Christians believe that God gives grace to those who ask and trust Him. This grace, this mysterious power, allows us to live the life that Jesus shows us. It seems impossible to many to live this life, I know it did for me. But that’s because I didn’t know about grace.

Sadly, what often happens is that Christians stop staying close to God in prayer, desiring their own way over the way that He has shown. Once that happens its not long before there is a fall from grace.

Bible—there are whole books devoted to the apparent contradiction in the Bible. They are not new, they have been analyzed by Christians since the beginning. We have to remember that the Bible was written at a different time and with much different rules than what we might use today. Exact numbers for instance were not important to ancient people. We also have to remember that even today with all of our advanced technology and emphasis on accuracy, there are mistakes in the news everyday. Should I not believe anything in the newspapers?

Killing in the OT–what we don’t understand in the modern world is that these ancient cultures such as the Caaanites were wicked cultures. We read a passage and think–how could God allow such a thing? That’s because we don’t think about what it was like to live in such an environment.

What must it have been like to grow up among such atrocities?
They were practicing human sacrifice. Do you find human sacrifice appalling and sad? What about ritual sacrifice of children? That’s what these ancient people did. They were not innocent people who were ruthlessly steamrolled for no reason. And the children were destined to continue that madness. It’s true many were killed. But the same Bible that tells us about this also says that God is mercy. It also says that this world is not all there is. It also testifies that bodily death, however horrible, to our emotional assessment, is not the end. It also says that Jesus went to share his triumph over death with those who went before. Might those people who didn’t deserve eternal punishment such as the children among the Caananites, have been given a place at God’s table? We would do well to analyze why, in a purely evolutionary world, we too, find such things horrible.

 

[karebear92]

Emisher - I think you might have misrepresented Dawkins’ point re the creator - his point was if you reduce everything back to the creator, you have to then ask, who created the creator, and who created that creator of the creator and so on.

This for me is precicely why I dont find Aquinas’ proofs remotely convincing ie Everything must have a cause, except the first cause, which must be God. (that’s oversimplufued I know but I have gone through the proofs). That Im afraid makes no sense, and isnt even consistent with it’s own logic.

There are thousands of sites and papers refuting these proofs. I find them convincing.

Sarah x

Please follow me on a journey.

We are traveling down the street and from out of nowhere a toy truck comes rolling down the sidewalk. You pick it up and ask me, “where did this come from.” I reply, “it came from the top of the hill, and there must be someone up there who owns the truck.”

So we begin to walk up the hill, and we reach a little boy who owns the truck, and we ask him, “where did you get that truck?” The little boy replies, “I just found it over there one day.”

So you ask me, “how did it get there?”
I reply, “another little boy must have lost it.”
Later that day, we walk past a toy shop and you ask, “did he create it?” So we walk in and describe the truck and the man says he did. You then say, “well the truck looked older than the man.” I reply, “if the man created the truck, then he must be older than the truck.” And you then say, “well then he must not have created the truck.”

I then ask the man if he had any more trucks, and he replies that he is the only man who can make that truck because it has a special part that he designed. He shows it to us and we go back and look at the little boy’s truck, and it has the part. So then we must ask if he really designed that piece, and we look at all of the other trucks and call all toy truck manufacturers and they have no knowledge of that piece. So I conclude that the man must be older than the truck and also must have created it. “You ask, why must the man have created the truck? Maybe it just popped out of nowhere and created the man, and from that the man created more trucks.”

I ask, “which makes more sense, that an intelligent man, older than the truck, created the truck, or that an unintelligent truck came into being from nothingness and created the man?”

This is a highly flawed analogy. I will think of a better one later, but I think you can see what I am saying.

Stuff exists. One can either say that it has always existed, and one day it began to move, and from that more complicated beings developed. But then one must ask, how something unintelligent has always existed and just sporadically began to move? How did everything unmoving begin to move?

One can say that it must have became reality from non-reality, and therefore existence just came into being. Once again, everything (which is nothing) that did not move began to move and became existence.

Or you can say that in order to make something move there must be a mover. Something can’t just move from literal nothingness, so there must be something that existed before it. Since the stuff can’t exist before the person who creates it, the creator must have existed before the stuff. Since the creator existed before the progression of stuff which form material reality, the creator must predate reality. Since reality co-dates time, then the creator must exist beyond time. If the creator exists beyond time, then the creator must have always existed. If the creator always existed it must be eternal. If an eternal being moved something, it must have been moving before it. Therefore, if something moved before everything else and set everything else into motion, then it is the prime mover.

If you notice, this follows a general progression and does not count on something becoming reality from non-reality, being set into motion by nothing. All three require faith, so which one is most logical?

 

[emisher]

There is much archaeological evidence that has bolstered the reliability of the Bible. I’m sure there are some things that are in dispute as to their validity but overall, biblical archaeology has been a fascinating supplement to the biblical record. And as archaeologists themselves have said–so far nothing found has disproved anything in the Bible. It can’t prove its inspiration but it can show it to be very reliable. Do you have anything in particular that has been disputed?

We have to remember that it was not just that the Church was “open to science” The very philosophical foundation that the Christian faith stand upon is what is responsible for the creation of the scientific method itself. Its monotheistic worldview as opposed to the pantheism of the ancient world is what allowed for this advancement. The ancient world was dominated by the view that everything held divinity. As such you didn’t want to be looking into these kinds of things, lest you raise the ire of some deity. But Christianity held that there were no fickle deities all over the placed that held humans hostage to a predestined fate. The Bible and Christianity held that the world was for humankind to enjoy, to learn about, to examine, to care for. As Stanley Jaki and others have pointed out, the actual creation of science as we know it today alluded all ancient civilizations. They created wonderful architecture and engineering projects, many advances in medicine, etc. but they all stopped short of actually creating a specific method of doing science as is universally accepted today.

As for Galileo, the Church was very open to his theories. He was even friends with the pope.
It was not his theories that got him into trouble, it was his brashness. It wasn’t like it was Galileo against the monolithic unscientific Church.
There were many scientists who were not convinced that he was right. As it turned out he was not right about everything that he proposed and wanted the Church to sign off on. The Church is cautious and there was a whirlwind of change sweeping the continent of Europe at the time as everyone was claiming to interpret Scripture for themselves. The Church only asked him to not treat it as fact yet. He went back on his word. There are some really interesting articles on this website explaining the Galileo situation in more depth, with quotes and references so that one can see that there is much more to the story than what we usually think.

The Church is made up of human beings. The Church though, it is believed, is a living body, sustained by divine wisdom, but still grows and matures like any other body. Yes, there were mistakes made by many individuals. There have always been those in the Church who have opted to interpret the Bible more literally, but there have also been those who argued for caution. It just so happens, and this is really interesting even as far back as St. Augustine was one of those who argued for a not so literal interpretation. God, we believe, has allowed it to develop like this, with every generation contributing more and more to the knowledge of both theological issues and in those days scientific matters. That’s the just the way it was believed to have happened, that is, a literal understanding of creation according to Genesis. But the Church, as a body, shouldn’t be faulted for not knowing what is known today. As many have said–the Bible is not a science textbook.

As for eternal punishment, that is a whole post in itself. It is a difficult issue for sure. It is even more difficult for those outside of the faith to understand . I know it was for me. But through prayer and understanding which only comes after, you begin to see that it has to be this way. I will say simply that with trust in God comes the realization that He is not a ruthless tyrant who can’t wait to throw another soul on the fires of hell. He is mercy, but he is also justice. The two cannot be separated. I’ve heard people say that they don’t want to be with God in heaven and that they would be more comfortable in hell. God is a person. As persons ourselves, would we want to take in those who admittedly don‘t like us and don‘t want to be with us? Presuming Hitler died unrepentant, would you want Hitler in you midst? Would Hitler even want to be in God’s midst? It would seem that logic would necessitate there being another realm for those who don’t want to be with God.

However, I would say that I think on judgment day, many people will be surprised. Jesus and the New Testament makes it clear that those who have the knowledge of Him and his teachings will be held to a higher standard than those who do not. There are many Christians who walk around mired in self-righteousness completely confident that they are going to heaven and everyone else is going to hell. Jesus had much criticism for the religious leaders who acted with great hypocrisy. Yet he had great pity for those who were troubled and abandoned without anyone. Every Christian would do well to ponder these things. And every non-believer would do well to ponder the fact that God knows what he is doing. It doesn’t have to be an obstacle to belief. We just have to know that it is out there.

 

[emisher]

And I quite like that as an answer. I dont know. I think its more honest than filling in the gaps with an equally unresearchable entity (not necessarily the God of Christianity I must stress).

I think not - thats why the research never stops. There is always more to find out. Multiverses etc are whacky sounding ideas now, but thats all they are - currently a lot of effort is focused on the possibility the universe explodes and then contracts in cycles.

You could well be right Goodness only knows what He makes of my mind

My answer is personally I dont know. I need a lot more undisputed evidence.

Sarah x

Let me pose this question to you–what do you think the purpose of life is? Do you think that it’s more important to come to the point of being able to love or to being able to know more about how the world works? If you had to choose between the two I mean?
Christianity says that the more important thing is to love, to enter into the mystery of love, beyond all logic and knowledge. Knowledge is important but love alone conquers all.

When I fell in love with my wife, I honestly could not prove that she woudl never cheat on me. I still don’t know for certain that she won’t cheat on me. I proceed on faith because I wanted to enter into the mystery. Entering into human love requires faith in the unknown.
They are intimately bound up together. So back to my original question. Do you think the purpose of life is to only proceed with the right amount of knowledge that I’ll feel comfortable proceeding with or to enter into with faith, into a love relationship? Becasue that’s what we believe this is with God. The question is like it is with a human relationship–can I trust my beloved?

 

[atheistgirl]

Killing in the OT–what we don’t understand in the modern world is that these ancient cultures such as the Caaanites were wicked cultures. We read a passage and think–how could God allow such a thing? That’s because we don’t think about what it was like to live in such an environment.
What must it have been like to grow up among such atrocities?
They were practicing human sacrifice. Do you find human sacrifice appalling and sad? What about ritual sacrifice of children? That’s what these ancient people did. They were not innocent people who were ruthlessly steamrolled for no reason. And the children were destined to continue that madness. It’s true many were killed. But the same Bible that tells us about this also says that God is mercy. It also says that this world is not all there is. It also testifies that bodily death, however horrible, to our emotional assessment, is not the end. It also says that Jesus went to share his triumph over death with those who went before. Might those people who didn’t deserve eternal punishment such as the children among the Caananites, have been given a place at God’s table? We would do well to analyze why, in a purely evolutionary world, we too, find such things horrible.

What I dont understand is this - we would now say it would have been immoral for us to wipe out the entire German population, and justify it by saying all germans are bad to the core. The churches Im pretty sure would never condone such wholesale slaughter. Yet, this is exactly what was commanded for wicked people 4000 years ago. Why could God not have found another way to reach these people other than their wholesale slaughter? Does this mean He had given up on them - that they were beyond redemption? He could not redeem even one of them???
As for human sacrifice - God demanded this of Jephtah - he demanded his daughter for keeping a promise!!! Your arguement about the children is the most disturbing. Would be justify today killing the child of wicked parents just to ensure it does not grow up bad like them and lose his or her salvation? Better to kill it now so it can have a place at God’s table? No one in their right minds would entertain such an idea. And yet, this is used as an apologetic for the Great Moral Law giver??? These are just some of the issues I struggle with. But when I look and see the ‘‘qualities’’ of this God are in tandem with the desires and hopes and emotions of the people, it makes much more sense. By that I mean the exhibition of jealousy, anger, rage, demanding praise and worship, sacrifice, privilage war mongering and nation building. I cant quite reconcile all this with a just and merciful God.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Let me pose this question to you

The purpose of life is to live a life of purpose (Wittgenstein said it first )

When we consider how lucky we are to be here at all, we can chose to waste our time here, or really make it matter.

I think love is a much overused and misused word. I say I love loads of people, but thats not the love I feel for my husband, or my children.

Theres the emotional part, but also a conscious choice element involved. We make choices, based on love or being in love, and sometimes they are the wrong choices. Once again, I wouldnt use the word ‘‘faith’’ the way you use it there - I think it takes trust - not faith. I trust my husband not to be unfaithful to me. I trust him to protect and care for me and his children. I trust him with my life when he drives But this is trust - not faith. We dated and I knew his history before I married him. Everything about him in the relationship and his history said to me I could trust him. ( and he will tell you, boy did I test him ) So for me, trust is a better word than ‘‘faith’’.

As for chosing between love or knowledge - its a false choice. I chose both

Sarah x

 

[karebear92]

I think love is a much overused and misused word. I say I love loads of people, but thats not the love I feel for my husband, or my children.

I disagree. I think that there are many different forms of love. I am sure that you love you mother differently than you love your husband, and I hope you love your children differently than you love them. But just because you love your cousins differently than your children, that does not mean that you do not love your cousins.

Theres the emotional part, but also a conscious choice element involved. We make choices, based on love or being in love, and sometimes they are the wrong choices. Once again, I wouldnt use the word ‘‘faith’’ the way you use it there - I think it takes trust - not faith. I trust my husband not to be unfaithful to me. I trust him to protect and care for me and his children. I trust him with my life when he drives But this is trust - not faith. We dated and I knew his history before I married him. Everything about him in the relationship and his history said to me I could trust him. ( and he will tell you, boy did I test him ) So for me, trust is a better word than ‘‘faith’’.

As for chosing between love or knowledge - its a false choice. I chose both

Sarah x

I would look at the root word of unfaithful. Faith, by definition, is complete trust or confidence in someone or something. So if you simply trust your husband, then you don’t have complete trust in him, which it appears you do.

 

[atheistgirl]

Emisher - you wrote a lot which I need to read properly - Ive got stuff to do right now so we will chat again tomorrow.

Karebear92 - thanks for the trip Lovely talking to you as usual. I gotta run now but catch you tomorrow perhaps.

I quickly looked up faith and got this:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

I see what you mean - #2 about not resting on logical proof or material evidence is where I think about faith mostly being. Perhaps it just depends on the definition we’re using.

Anyhow - have a great evening.

Sarah x

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The purpose of life is to live a life of purpose (Wittgenstein said it first )

When we consider how lucky we are to be here at all, we can chose to waste our time here, or really make it matter.

It seems that you intend us to acknowledge this statement as true. But what is a waste of time, and what does it mean for something to matter? A waste of time to one person may be something of worth to another. Luck to one person is error in the eyes of another. In so far as metaphysical naturalism is concerned, things just are and have no objective value, and to give any significance to life is to foster make-belief in opposition to truth.

I think love is a much overused and misused word. I say I love loads of people, but thats not the love I feel for my husband, or my children.

According to metaphysical naturalism, love, including what we say, do, and think, is nothing more than a blind chemical reaction in the brain in relation to stimuli. I don’t know what true significance you intend to reveal here. You do not love if by this you mean that caring about somebody is the result of your rational will or because you are good. Your behavior is simply the outcome of various chemical reactions. That is all. Its got nothing to do with what “you” will.

Theres the emotional part, but also a conscious choice element involved. We make choices, based on love or being in love, and sometimes they are the wrong choices.

According to metaphysical naturalism, there are no wrong choices. There are just events and actions, and any significance we give to those events and actions are not scientific but instead fantasy.

Once again, I wouldnt use the word ‘‘faith’’ the way you use it there - I think it takes trust - not faith. I trust my husband not to be unfaithful to me.

Trust, faith, whatever you wanna call it.

As for chosing between love or knowledge - its a false choice. I chose both

Sarah x

You have not come to that conclusion based on scientific evidence. Therefore your statement is false.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

As far as I’m aware snails don’t get drunk - but then they blissfully don’t have any concept of the effect of alcohol… Ignorance isn’t always bliss but in this case there is no doubt about it!

Thought I would share, on the recomendation of some one else I started leaving beer out because slugs were killing my plants. I was told they would get drunk off the beer and happily drown. I’m not sure how the emotional state of the slug was established, but tried it anyway. The end result was confirmed. This kept my garden free of slug damage for a couple of years. After that I seemed to have been left with slugs of higher alcohol tolerance. They would take their fill and leave without getting “drunk.” After a total of 5 years beer is nolonger efective. There’s not many snails in my area, so I can’t yet confirm this is applicable to them. But it may be possible.

Anyway I am currently in a third world nation with much poverty and limited internet access (my experiences here are worthy of their own threads). So I’m going offline again. See ya’ll Wednesday night/thursday morning.

 

[tonyrey]

*As far as I’m aware snails don’t get drunk - but then they blissfully don’t have any concept of the effect of alcohol… Ignorance isn’t always bliss but in this case there is no doubt about it! *

I lived in Africa for a long time but was more fascinated by snakes than snails! I don’t drink beer so I take your word for it.

 

[atheistgirl]

why do we have to understand how an uncreated Creator could be possible before we can believe it

Put simply because it makes no sense to think a personal, intervening, uncreated creator exists. And there’s something ironic about using a logical process right up to the last step, then jump to something that is in and of itself illogical.

I found this with some more fundamentalist people Ive spoken with - they deny things like evolution in face of the mountains of evidence, and they deny the Trinity, based on the fact not only is it unscriptural (according to them) but that it makes absolutely no sense. Ive had people say things to me like ‘‘so God sacrificed himself to himself did he’’??!!! ‘‘That just makes no sense!’’ and they then go on to describle how Jesus and God are not the same person, how the trinity is a creation of the Church and so on - and YET - these very same people have no problem what so ever accepting an uncreated creator and think it makes perfect sense

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Therefore, if something moved before everything else and set everything else into motion, then it is the prime mover.

Where did the prime mover come from? Who created the creator? Who created the creator that created the creator? If everything that exists must have a point of creation, you cant just conveniently drop that requirement for the creator. If the Creator exists, the question has to be asked who created them!

All three require faith, so which one is most logical?

There is some fascinating work being done in the field of abiogenesis. The answers are some way off. What is illogical, is to fill in the ‘‘we dont know’’ gaps, with ‘‘a creator must have done it’’ answer. As the thread is about turning the tables on atheists, that particular line of arguement has been debunked a long time ago and just doesnt hold water for atheists.

Sarah x

 

[emisher]

Emisher - you wrote a lot which I need to read properly - Ive got stuff to do right now so we will chat again tomorrow.

Karebear92 - thanks for the trip Lovely talking to you as usual. I gotta run now but catch you tomorrow perhaps.

I quickly looked up faith and got this:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

I see what you mean - #2 about not resting on logical proof or material evidence is where I think about faith mostly being. Perhaps it just depends on the definition we’re using.

Anyhow - have a great evening.

Sarah x

Atheist Girl,

Check out this website, if you’re interested in seeking more about the Jephtah issue:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/06/jephthahs-burnt-sacrifice-of-his.html

I must admit it was not my intention to begin a long debate at this time, but merely to offer a few ideas on ways to help people see that everyone has faith in something.
I enjoy the debate, but I have too many things going on right now to continue.

I just wanted to leave you with a few things and I hope you’re not offended that I’m addressing you directly. Many times people who don’t believe in God really have no intent in admitting that there is any value in religion at all. I don’t believe you are one of those people. You seem to be a genuine seeker who has trouble reconciling all of these various things. I can sympathize, really, I can.

One thing I’ll say is this–don’t make the mistake of thinking that one can just open the Bible and start reading and understanding what is in there, especially the OT. There are some difficult passages in there. Many think, due to the Protestant emphasis on self interpretation, that you can do that, but that is not what we believe as Catholics. Understanding the Bible requires seeking understanding from those who’ve unpacked the difficult parts of the Bible. We believe God intended us to seek knowledge and wisdom from others and from the Church.

As for the issue of why the Christian God over other religion’s gods. I’ve dealt with this issue too. I will say this–once you delve into, really delve into all the religions of the world, you realize that Christianity is really unique in so many ways. For instance, the Judeo-Christian God, is acknowledged to be a Transcendent God as well as a God who permeates everything. This right off the bat is different from other religions. I’ve already touched upon the science angle and how it took a monotheistic view to really get that going. I think that should hold some weight as well. Science did not develop in the pantheist East.
The eastern view of the world and humans is that we continually reincarnate. But where did this idea come from? No one really knows. It showed up at some point in the Hindu scritpures but it was not part of the original beliefs of the religions that we now call Hinduism. There are many scholars who believe that it developed as a means to keep down the lower classes and keep them in check. As you probably know there is a ruthless caste system in India. The fact is that reincarnation and its belief in karma are intimately bound up with the caste system. (it’s interesting that so many Western intellectuals who don’t have to live in the lower classes will defend the caste system) But even Gandhi called it an offense against God. Knowing what we know of human penchant for enslaving others, this is not hard to believe.

Can we really equate a religion that keeps millions of people in bondage to a karmic worldview to a worldview that says–we are all equal to God. There is no mercy in the karmic system, it’s only justice. With Christ, mercy and love were revealed as the other side of the Divine.

As for Hindu’s main prophet/savior figure, Krishna, not much is known about him. In fact, many don’t believe he was a real person who lived. There is infinitely more evidence for Christ.

With Buddhism it’s the same thing, Buddha separated from the established Hindu religions to start his own way. He discarded many of the teachings of Hinduism but he kept the reincarnation and karma. Did he get it right? Did the Hindu phillosophers get it right? We don’t know. But with Christ and his Church we at least have evidence of a very clear beginning. We know exactly where the teaching on resurrection came from.
Also, Buddhism doesn’t even believe in God or a soul.

cont…

 

[emisher]

Atheist Girl,

continued…

As for Islam- which didn’t arise until 600 years after Jesus, it is believed that Jesus was miraculously conceived. It is also believed that he performed miracles and that he will come again. These seem like good reasons to believe that maybe is more than a prophet. How can you believe that Jesus was miraculously conceived but then say that he was just a prophet? That doesn’t seem logical to me.

Same with the ancient pagan religions. Can we simply lump Christianity in with all the pagan religions of the world? Is it fair to equate a religion that sacrifices children to a religion that says that God himself became the sacrifice. I’ve read about the Greek and Roman paganism and how the people found no hope and joy in their pagan system. It was a lifeless slavery to the forces of fate. Maybe that is why when Christ finally came, he was eagerly embraced by millions of people. They recognized that this was something different, a real revelation from a God separate from the world, who wanted to make Himself known to people. To let them know that this world is not the end. The purpose of the world is to come to know how to love, to give oneself over in love to another person. To learn to grow in virtue. As author Peter Kreeft has said, “The universe is a soul-making machine.” There is a purpose to it, even though it sometimes seems that there is no purpose.

To become like Christ, who is the Perfect Human. He is who we were meant to be like. It is a moving thing when we hear a story of someone who gives their life for another. it moves us deeply. Christ is love and he calls us to love. Love requires us to give up ourselves as when a mother stays up all night with a colicky baby, or woirks two jobs to help her kids go to college. Love is uncomfortable. Real love is much more than romance and feelings. It is a hard road and that is what Christ is showing us and revealing to us. We all want to be loved in this unconditional way regardless of what religion we ascribe to. But only Christ has revealed this to this degree.

It’s a mystery why God allows so much religious diversity, I’ll give you that, but given the price we believe he puts on freedom, it’s not a deal breaker. Just because there are many religions doesn’t mean that there still isn’t one that is directly from God.
And as I said in an earlier post it doesn’t’ mean that they are all going to hell.
What it comes down to is this–many people can believe that Christianity is different from all of the other religions in the world because when you study the origins of them, it is evident that they are human inventions. While with Christianity, it is clear that no one could have or would have invented such a religion. The Jews would never have invented such a thing as a human God and the pagans would never have invented such a thing as one God who declared that seeking power and wealth and the seeking of pleasure was not the purpose of life.

I know that you really have a dificulty with the uncreated Creator issue. Honetly, I dont’ know what to say about that. I guess it’s like Elaine on Seinfeld said—“it’s an enigma, a mystery wrapped in a riddle!” There have been many logical thinkers over the course of the centuries who have held the difficulty on the one hand and simply decided to believe anyway. I don’t think it is unreasonable to do that. We all do that. We all have faith in something. The atheist must have some kind of faith the science has some answer as to the origin of the universe., even if it’s many hundreds of years away. There are many things that science has shown us. And i’m aware of the God of the gaps issues. I don’t think it’s wise to chalk everything up to God either, but honestly i don’t see how we could ever prove or show where the universe came from or why there are any universes at all.

If you’re like I was when I didn’t believe in God you may get annoyed when someone says they will pray for you. But for what it’s worth, I will pray for you on your journey of life. I know it’s a hard journey.

 

[atheistgirl]

The Bible and Christianity held that the world was for humankind to enjoy, to learn about, to examine, to care for. As Stanley Jaki and others have pointed out, the actual creation of science as we know it today alluded all ancient civilizations. They created wonderful architecture and engineering projects, many advances in medicine, etc. but they all stopped short of actually creating a specific method of doing science as is universally accepted today.

Thats not exactly a fair representation of the evolution of the scientific method. Thales as far back as the 600’s BC was saying there was a naturalistic explanation of everything and there was no need to refer to myths, gods, the supernatural or anything else.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales

The Islamic scholars Ibn al-Haytham and Al Biruni were the first to use what we would recognise today as the scientific method and they were working back more than 1000 years ago.

When brillant minds of the religious like Bacon came along, they were building on a whole body of scientific method developed as far back as 1500 years earlier.

There are some really interesting articles on this website explaining the Galileo situation in more depth, with quotes and references so that one can see that there is much more to the story than what we usually think.

Ive been reading up on them. And from catholic.com/tracts.

But the Church, as a body, shouldn’t be faulted for not knowing what is known today. As many have said–the Bible is not a science textbook.

I agree with that. But it’s also interesting that the knowledge contained in the Bible is entirely consistent with the knowledge of the people of the time in that place and culture. In fact, other socities were more advanced, knew more accurate astronomy and science, and didnt have the Bible.

Presuming Hitler died unrepentant, would you want Hitler in you midst?

We cannot know the state of his mind and soul at the moment of death, but lets turn this on it’s head and ask, if we presume he recanted, repented and made a worthy act of contrition, would you want him in heaven in your midst?

And every non-believer would do well to ponder the fact that God knows what he is doing. .

It makes sense to think and believe He does. However, to an outsider looking in, it’s pretty hard to accept that on the face of the evidence all around us.

If I can put it this way - if youre a biology major, and you ask your professor how does xyz work and the professor says, look, it just does, we have to accept it, would you think that is a credible answer? Of course not. Yet non believers are told by believers, when they ask ‘‘difficult’’ questions that God knows what He’s doing and there must be a reason for it, even if we cannot see the reason now. The answer, to an atheist, holds the same amount of credibility Im afraid.

We’re told there is objective morality, and an objective moral law giver, and then we read things like this in Job:

Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason.

The ruination of a perfectly good and holy man, for no reason what so ever, other than a bet!!!
The moral law giver can be enticed by Satan

Now I am certain there is a whole body of apologetics around this that I have not read yet, but reading the Bible, taking it on face value as the inspired word of God, sure does raise a lot of issues.
Were someone to do that today, to someone, they would most likely get jail-time. One has to ask what exactly is the morality of this moral law giver, without whom believers say one cannot be objectively moral. The action is either moral, in which case no one could be condemned for doing likewise - destroying someones life, killing their kids, ruining their means of earning a living - or it is immoral, in which case the moral law giver is capable of going that which is immoral which is supposed to be against their nature. Either way credibility takes a hit.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

I must admit it was not my intention to begin a long debate at this time, but merely to offer a few ideas on ways to help people see that everyone has faith in something.

I completely understand - we’re about to get very busy here too so I wont be around so much until after the new year myself - in a few days from now. Im currently in a bit of downtime - the calm before the storm

Can I just say Ive enjoyed our exchanges. It’s been lovely talking with you. Thank you for taking the time to expand on your points, provide links etc and enjoyable reading material and most of all thank you for keeping the conversation very civil, charitable and enjoyable.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

I don’t think it’s wise to chalk everything up to God either, but honestly i don’t see how we could ever prove or show where the universe came from or why there are any universes at all.

Interesting point because we know the universe is expanding and the traces from the big bang are fading - so we actually have a finite amount of time to get the work done before all evidence of a big bang simply disappears. Unless of course we discover other trace evidence or develop new methodologies.

If you’re like I was when I didn’t believe in God you may get annoyed when someone says they will pray for you. But for what it’s worth, I will pray for you on your journey of life. I know it’s a hard journey.

I wont get annoed at all. How could I? It simply means you are being genuine and consistent with your faith, which I have the greatest of respect for.

I wish you well.

Sarah x

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Athkeistgirl,

Two items, as we happily agree to disagree …

No one here (at least none I am aware of) has ever accused Atheists of avoiding hard questions. The problem is that that avoid the hard answer that then confronts them with God.

The second, as you keep on repeating, is that you find there is no logic in an Uncreated Creator. Yet, you find logic in all of this creation has happened and has do so in amazingly splendid order - you know, it just happened that way - and that makes sense?

Truly I have tried to see the world from the Atheist point of view. As I see it, all of the patterns that appear in everyday life (from the structure of a cell membrane to the latest astroid that just missed Earth) that can be calculated. We can forecast various events because they are predictable - because they have demonstrated a pattern. We look for things we know almost nothing about with the idea that we will know more - because we have every expectation of finding the patters in thier existence. Chaos has no pattern. And, that is one of the reasons I believe in God.

Oh, by the way, the arguments you think have such remarkable validity that you are holding them back lest you destroy our Faith in God … please, do not continue with delusional thinking - just list the links so we can see what you are ‘protecting’ us from

God bless

God bless

Scientists are not avoiding the questions - look at the work thats going on at CERN right now - scientists (and many atheists take a keen interest in science) are struggling to find answers to the most fundamental of questions - as are a lot of atheists. My experience may be different to yours, but I tend to find atheists take on the difficult questions head on. What we tend to be happy doing is saying ‘‘we dont know’’ when we dont know - not attributing an unknown quantity to a diety.

The reason the proofs dont make sense to me, putting it quickly and simply, is the logic is happy to follow a line which says everything that has motion must have a force acting on it, everything that exists must have a creator, and then wildly asserts, the creator and prime mover cannot be created so must always have been. It just makes no sense and the next most obvious question, well, following the line of logic, who created the creator.

It’s similar to the kalam (I think thats what its called) cosmological arguement that has been roundly dismantled.

And it also doesnt answer this question - even if its given the creator cannot be created and has always been - how does that prove the God of Christianity, and not the God of the Koran or Buddha or whoever else?

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Hi, Athkeistgirl,

Two items, as we happily agree to disagree …

No one here (at least none I am aware of) has ever accused Atheists of avoiding hard questions. The problem is that that avoid the hard answer that then confronts them with God.

I cant speak for every atheist, obviously, but I personally, and my family and friends, I can, as I know them intimately - and we most certainly do not avoid the answers that would confront us with God. Trouble is, we cant get to the point where the real God (if one exists) enters the equation.

Yet, you find logic in all of this creation has happened and has do so in amazingly splendid order - you know, it just happened that way - and that makes sense?

Indeed, it makes perfect sense, we can follow the branch of life step by step more or less and the genome work has confirmed the branches of life through the dna record. It makes perfect sense. What doesnt, is to arbitrarily introduce a diety into the process.

Chaos has no pattern.

On the quantum level, this is exactly what we are dealing with - chaos. And that is at the most fundamental element of the universe and everything in it.

please…- just list the links so we can see what you are ‘protecting’ us from

Im sorry but it doesnt work that way. They are there for people to find for themselves. Others, unlike you perhaps, are all too happy to report posts they feel are being used to undermine either faith, catholicism, or the church. That would never be the reason I would post them here, but only to provide links and references and further reading material. It’s a very fine line to walk not to get accused of prozletyzing (is that the word?). Trust me when I say I know what Im talking about here. So, use the search terms, get searching, if youre genuinely interested. PloS ONE is a great place for peer reviewed scientific papers covering all sorts of interesting areas. But there are tons of quality sites, with peer reviewed information, and ground breaking work, out there. Im sure your capable of finding them and reading for yourself, if youre so inclined.

Oh, and here’s a back at you -

Sarah x