How do you feel about atheists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter punisherthunder
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
3rd Straw man. I am not sure how else to explain this to you. The origin of the universe is unknown.

And as I previously stated… when faced with 2 claims I can reject claim A without accepting claim B.
Well, it depends upon the claims, doesn’t it?

Some times things *are *mutually exclusive.

For example, if I have a coin and I toss it flat into my palm, it’s either going to be heads or tails, right?

If I make the claim that it’s heads…and someone rejects my claim that it’s heads…he is necessarily saying that he believes it’s tails.

Similarly, either the universe began to exist or it has always existed.

There is no other option.
 
I get what you’re saying but of course, that is not the ultimate immortality since it is what the immortal soul craves that really matters.
Fair enough…but perhaps he believed that in offering such a sacrifice he would be guaranteed a place in Heaven? If so, would not his decision then appear to have been fairly logical…?
 
That’s not a “god.” That’s just God.

We believe the Bahai are wrong in rejecting the Trinity and in regarding God’s revelation of himself in Jesus as something less than fully ultimate.

But you will not find that the Catholic Church, in any of its official utterances, suggests in any way that the Bahai worship some god other than the true God.

You may find poorly informed or fanatical Catholics who maintain this.

Edwin
Edwin I noted in your post your statement above

“We believe the Bahai are wrong in rejecting the Trinity …”

I’m unsure how familiar you are with the Baha’i view on the subject of “trinity” but there exists in my view a rather salient definition by Abdul-Baha the Interpreter of the Baha’i Faith found in the book Some Answered Questions and I’ll provide it here:

*"The epitome of the discourse is that the Reality of Christ was a clear mirror, and the Sun of Reality – that is to say, **the Essence of Oneness, with its infinite perfections and attributes – became visible in the mirror. The meaning is not that the Sun, which is the Essence of the Divinity, became divided and multiplied – for the Sun is one – but it appeared in the mirror. This is why Christ said, “The Father is in the Son,” meaning that the Sun is visible and manifest in this mirror.

The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God which becomes visible and evident in the Reality of Christ. ****The Sonship station is the heart of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the station of the spirit of Christ. **Hence it has become certain and proved that the Essence of Divinity is absolutely unique and has no equal, no likeness, no equivalent.

This is the signification of the Three Persons of the Trinity. If it were otherwise, the foundations of the Religion of God would rest upon an illogical proposition which the mind could never conceive, and how can the mind be forced to believe a thing which it cannot conceive? A thing cannot be grasped by the intelligence except when it is clothed in an intelligible form; otherwise, it is but an effort of the imagination.

It has now become clear, from this explanation, what is the meaning of the Three Persons of the Trinity. The Oneness of God is also proved." *116

~ Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 113

*But as to the question of the Trinity: Know, O advancer unto God, that in each one of the cycles wherein the Lights have shone forth upon the horizons, and the Forgiving Lord hath revealed Himself on Mount Paran, or Mount Sinai, or Mount Seir, **there are necessarily three things, the Giver of the Grace, the Grace, and the Recipient of the Grace: the Source of the Effulgence, the Effulgence, and the Recipient of the Effulgence; the Illuminator, the Illumination, and the Illuminated. *Look at the Mosaic cycle – the Lord and Moses, and the Fire the intermediary; and in the Messianic cycle, the Father and the Son, and the Holy Ghost and the intermediary; and in the Muhammadan cycle, the Lord and the Apostle, and Gabriel the intermediary. Look at the sun and its rays, and the heat which results from its rays; the rays and the heat are but two effects of the sun, but inseparable from it and sent out from it; yet is the sun one in its essence, unique in its real identity, single in its attributes, nor can anything possibly resemble it. Such is the essence of the truth concerning the Unity, the real doctrine of the Oneness, the undiluted reality as to the divine Sanctity.
Code:
(Compilations, Baha'i Scriptures, p. 448)
So while our view may be different from many Christians on the subject I’m unsure if you would term it a “rejection” of the trinity.
  • Art 👍
 
Fair enough. 👍

What do you mean by “independently verified”?

And this definition should include your 3 principles of logic being able to be “independently verified”, right?
It means anyone could verify the evidence. The logical absolute are absolute they are self verifying by their very nature. That is why they are the absolutes, EVERYTHING is subject to them. They are not something that need to be verified empirically, though it would be very easy and an utter waste of time to do so.
 
Well, it depends upon the claims, doesn’t it?

Some times things *are *mutually exclusive.

For example, if I have a coin and I toss it flat into my palm, it’s either going to be heads or tails, right?

If I make the claim that it’s heads…and someone rejects my claim that it’s heads…he is necessarily saying that he believes it’s tails.

Similarly, either the universe began to exist or it has always existed.

There is no other option.
It could be a mere simulation. In such a case it may not actually exist nor have ever existed in a real sense…
 
Well, it depends upon the claims, doesn’t it?

Some times things *are *mutually exclusive.

For example, if I have a coin and I toss it flat into my palm, it’s either going to be heads or tails, right?

If I make the claim that it’s heads…and someone rejects my claim that it’s heads…he is necessarily saying that he believes it’s tails.

Similarly, either the universe began to exist or it has always existed.

There is no other option.
Actually you are wrong and this seems to be the crux of the issue. If I toss a coin right now and claim it is a heads, you can perfectly reasonably reject that claim WITHOUT claiming it is a tails.
 
No it is not. Because EP explain the origin of such instincts (protecting kin and the tribe) and the instinct can be applied to a different situation,.
Er…what instict was Kolbe following? Protection of kin or tribe? What kin? What tribe?

Rather, do you mean protection of an absolute stranger out of love?

Why exactly did this instinct develop?

It seems quite obvious to me that this supreme act of sacrifice was NOT instinctual.

It was COUNTER-instinctual.

And your model doesn’t explain it.

At all.
Why do you think many people like puppies and kittens etc?
I’ve never considered the question.

Why *do *they, do you think?
 
Actually the problem from my perspective is the inability of any non believer to explain how something came from nothing , how life came from nonlife . They ask us accept these two events on blind faith .
Before I get to my response, I should note for anyone subscribed to the thread that estesbob is quoting what I originally wrote for post 545. A few minutes after Eric Hilbert asked us all to play nicer with each other, I edited the post to generalize it and also to bring it back to original topic.

With that all said:

The problem that I spoke off was more a matter of discourse. We’re all trying to make our cases here and for the most part we’re presenting arguments while dismantling others. I just wanted to make sure that we did that constructively.

Here’s my edited post if no one wants to go back a few pages:
Something that relates to this phase of the discussion, but also to the topic as a whole:
Is it possible for an atheist to state that he or she does not believe in God (the Christian version) or Christian Scripture without it being considered offensive by some Christians? In other words if we take the politest and most sincere atheist and have him or her state their disbelief, will there be some offended by that notion regardless of tone?
One thing I want to add to that to ground it in an example, a few years back there were various atheist groups putting up billboards that said “Don’t Believe In God? You’re not alone,” followed by a link to whatever local group paid for it. There was a fraction of people who called the billboards “offensive”. Now remember, this billboards weren’t prosylitizing. There weren’t out to convert anyone. It was merely reaching out to atheists who might interested in meeting with likeminded people. But to some, the very existence of athiests who would state they are atheists was offensive.

As I said I do want to bring this all back to the topic at hand “How do you feel about atheists?” Like in the example I gave it seems some are offended by atheists stating they do not believe in God (the Christian version) or any non-Christian deity. I’d like to know if anybody here feels that way, and if so why.
 
Er…what instict was Kolbe following? Protection of kin or tribe? What kin? What tribe?

Rather, do you mean protection of an absolute stranger out of love?

Why exactly did this instinct develop?

It seems quite obvious to me that this supreme act of sacrifice was NOT instinctual.

It was COUNTER-instictual.

And your model doesn’t explain it.

At all.

I’ve never considered the question.

Why *do *they, do you think?
Well that is very good, but as I have said this is a banned topic and we are on thin ice as it is. Like I said before I suggest the selfish gene if you have an interest in the subject.
 
Well that is very good, but as I have said this is a banned topic and we are on thin ice as it is. Like I said before I suggest the selfish gene if you have an interest in the subject.
Evolution is a banned topic, MrE.

Not EP.

Not the source for why men do supreme acts of agape which a contrary to EP, contrary to our insticts, contrary to everything except…the Christian ethos.

We are discussing why a man would give his life out of love for a stranger.

You have no explanation for this type of behavior.
 
It could be a mere simulation. In such a case it may not actually exist nor have ever existed in a real sense…
Well, I suppose we could also entertain the idea that aliens took over our minds and made us think there’s such a thing as heads and tails…

but let’s just stick with reality as we know it. Not simulations. Not aliens. Not life in multiverses.
 
Evolution is a banned topic, MrE.

Not EP.

Not the source for why men do supreme acts of agape which a contrary to EP, contrary to our insticts, contrary to everything except…the Christian ethos.

We are discussing why a man would give his life out of love for a stranger.

You have no explanation for this type of behavior.
I have already explained it to you. I have no issue if you do not want to accept the explanation. I am not even sure what the point of the discussion is?
 
Well, I suppose we could also entertain the idea that aliens took over our minds and made us think there’s such a thing as heads and tails…

but let’s just stick with reality as we know it. Not simulations. Not aliens. Not life in multiverses.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

A large jar full of gumballs to illustrate the burden of proof.[12][13] It is a fact of reality that the number of gumballs in the jar is either even or odd, but the degree of personal acceptance or rejection of claims about that characteristic is more nuanced depending upon the evidence available. We can choose to consider two claims about the situation, given as:
1.The number of gumballs is even.
2.The number of gumballs is odd.

These two claims can be considered independently. Before we have any information about the number of gumballs, we have no means of distinguishing either of the two claims. When we have no evidence favoring either proposition, we may suspend judgment. If there is a claim proposed and that claim is disputed, the burden of proof falls onto the proponent of the claim. From a cognitive sense, when no personal preference toward opposing claims exists, one may be either skeptical of both claims or ambivalent of both claims.
 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

A large jar full of gumballs to illustrate the burden of proof.[12][13] It is a fact of reality that the number of gumballs in the jar is either even or odd, but the degree of personal acceptance or rejection of claims about that characteristic is more nuanced depending upon the evidence available. We can choose to consider two claims about the situation, given as:
1.The number of gumballs is even.
2.The number of gumballs is odd.

These two claims can be considered independently. Before we have any information about the number of gumballs, we have no means of distinguishing either of the two claims. When we have no evidence favoring either proposition, we may suspend judgment. If there is a claim proposed and that claim is disputed, the burden of proof falls onto the proponent of the claim. From a cognitive sense, when no personal preference toward opposing claims exists, one may be either skeptical of both claims or ambivalent of both claims.
Yes. This is correct. 👍
 
I have already explained it to you. I have no issue if you do not want to accept the explanation. I am not even sure what the point of the discussion is?
The point is the EP is an untenable position.

It has no explanation for acts like that which St. Maximilian Kolbe did.

It is an act which begs for an explanation.

And it can only be explained by Christianity.
 
The point is the EP is an untenable position.

It has no explanation for acts like that which St. Maximilian Kolbe did.

It is an act which begs for an explanation.

And it can only be explained by Christianity.
That is called an argument for ignorance… God of the gaps fallacy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top