How do you feel about atheists?

[PRmerger]

No estesbob we should never accept anything on “faith”, when we do not know, we simply admit that we do not know.

Of course you do. You take a whole heck of a lot of things on faith.

Here’s a list of things which I daresay that you’ve accept, without ever verifying the evidence:

**-the capital of Mongolia is Ulan Bator. **
You accept this based on faith in your 5th grade teacher. (Unless you’ve actually flown to Ulan Bator, which I’m sure you haven’t. And if you have, simply replace Ulan Bator with some other world capital you’ve never visited)

-the pilot who’s flying you from London to Paris actually passed her undergraduate physics class. You accept this based on faith in the airline. I’m certain you’ve never asked to verify that the pilot who’s flying your aircraft is actually a certified pilot.

**-the bridge you’re driving over was designed by an engineer who believes, with absolute certainty, that the laws of math are correct and hasn’t decided to create her own mathematical formulas. ** You don’t know if she’s done this or not. You simply accept this on faith.

So, as far as the OP goes, I feel confused when atheists claim they should “never accept things on faith” when it’s obvious that they accept a whole lot o’ things solely on…

FAITH.

 

[Faithdancer]

I don’t know if your post is only aimed at Atheists, but as an Agnostic I do not consider myself to be “profoundly alone and profoundly ignorant”.

It seems to be that some posters on this thread believe Atheists are only Atheists because they do not bother to research different religions. As I have said many pages ago, this is not true. I know several Atheists who have looked into Christianity and other religions. They have not found themselves convinced.

Yet there is a great difference between “looking into” Christianity versus being catechized, or having a seminary education.

 

[PRmerger]

Where I might begin to question is where it might come to degree.

Can you offer how much evil would be tolerable for God to be good?

Would God still be good if he eliminated every single disease except for AIDS, for example?

Would God still be good if he removed all pain, except for the pain of stubbing one’s toe?

Would God still be good if suffering was permitted for those 21 and older, but not for infants, teens and young adults? And what if the world was actually a majority of folks aged 30 and over? Would that be ok?

 

[PRmerger]

What does seem to be somewhat out of place, however, is how allowing such an evil may have been necessary in order to support the mother’s free will to react too slowly in a vital moment…further, it is to question how an equal or greater good might be properly imagined to now proceed from such a shattered family…?

An infinite, omnipotent God could certainly make it up to all the individuals who suffered in this life for a finite period of time with an infinite amount of joy, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

Well there is an individual who claimed:

Well, yes. That individual was moi.

The quote you offered says nothing–nothing at all–about arguments being automatically assumed to be proof.

When one might dismiss an argument as ‘nonsensical’ it is quite appreciated if a reason might be given so that a better clarity of any potential misunderstanding might be gained. Currently in responding in such a way it is unclear if you may simply not understand the point at hand or be making a claim that it is not valid. If not valid, kindly explain why.

It’s nonsensical because no one has claimed such a thing.

Take this parallel:

I say: Immunizing your child is one of the best things you can do to protect her.
You say: The fact is that immunizations can give you a sore arm should encourage you to ask the nurse to use a clean needle.

No one has claimed that sore arms are caused by dirty needles.

It’s a nonsensical response.

If a man might be claimed to be the kindest person in the room, is such an argument not greatly augmented by having witnessed his great kindness in times past?

Indeed.

If no such witnessing may have ever taken place, how might the original claim be properly substantiated? If not substantiated, does it not merely appear to be an opinion? Certainly merely stating an opinion is not to be confused with a proof…?

What would an action look like with the Kalaam argument for God’s existence?

So when I agreed with a previous poster that evidence of Christianity’s veracity is best witnessed through the acts of its members rather than by argument alone, I was acknowledging that I am most attracted to the claims of Christianity when I have had first hand experience with its positive fruits…

Well, now…you’ve changed the subject, haven’t you?

When were we talking about evidence for “Christianity’s veracity”.

We’ve been talking, all along, about arguments for God’s existence.

It started with your statement, here:

Is it possible to love a thing without witnessing it in action? Would a pure argument for the potentially unknowable sway the skeptic without proof? Is not action potentially the greatest quiet proof of all?

We weren’t talking about “Christianity’s veracity”.

Please don’t move the goalposts, TB

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Can you offer how much evil would be tolerable for God to be good?

Would God still be good if he eliminated every single disease except for AIDS, for example?

Would God still be good if he removed all pain, except for the pain of stubbing one’s toe?

Would God still be good if suffering was permitted for those 21 and older, but not for infants, teens and young adults? And what if the world was actually a majority of folks aged 30 and over? Would that be ok?

My claim is less that God is good or not good. This to me seems irrelevant as one would simply have to accommodate whatever God might label as good. The point being raised is the degree of evil necessary in order to achieve a desired positive outcome.

Further, if the argument might be expanded to allow for free will, why might the free will of those who might wish to commit evil seemingly disproportionately outweigh the free will of those who might choose to do good?

An infinite, omnipotent God could certainly make it up to all the individuals who suffered in this life for a finite period of time with an infinite amount of joy, yes?

I am not quite certain. It seems reasonable to assume that God could quite simply make-up all pains in this life with a commensurate reward in the next…yet the danger that such real suffering might overwhelm one whose faith may not be sufficiently strong to weather such a storm must certainly be possible. For if not possible, how might one properly merit such a reward? Yet if possible, what becomes of the one who might grow so hardened by difficulties that every vestige of goodness might flee in favor of bitterness and disdain? For such a one the difficulties of this world must surely have exceeded his/her ability to cope by a given margin or degree. This, too, is a degree to consider…

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Well, yes. That individual was moi.

The quote you offered says nothing–nothing at all–about arguments being automatically assumed to be proof.

It’s nonsensical because no one has claimed such a thing.

Take this parallel:

I say: Immunizing your child is one of the best things you can do to protect her.
You say: The fact is that immunizations can give you a sore arm should encourage you to ask the nurse to use a clean needle.

No one has claimed that sore arms are caused by dirty needles.

It’s a nonsensical response.

Yet had you clarified that this was the source of your confusion it may have been quickly addressed…for in reading over our conversation it seems clearer now that while you might have been referring to love of God and proof of His existence I was referring to love of Christianity and proof of its claims:

It was based upon this response:

A fair strategy…for the atheist is not likely to be convinced by argument, but by action…

…which was in direct reference to the suggestion made that the atheist might be more apt to be convinced by arguments given by an active and faithful Christianity [than by a seeming inert group who might merely advance claims without supporting evidence that they themselves considered their own claims to be real].

 

[RebeccaJ]

-the bridge you’re driving over was designed by an engineer who believes, with absolute certainty, that the laws of math are correct and hasn’t decided to create her own mathematical formulas. You don’t know if she’s done this or not. You simply accept this on faith.

I don’t have much faith when driving over long spans or tall flyovers. I’m in fear for my life the entire time, just looking to get to the bridge abutment. My dear engineers, who I know are well trained and highly regulated, know that my fear is not unwarranted. Bridges freaking FAIL. But they’re a fact of life in a automobile. We have to drive on them to get there and back.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures

 

[Faithdancer]

I don’t have much faith when driving over long spans or tall flyovers. I’m in fear for my life the entire time, just looking to get to the bridge abutment. My dear engineers, who I know are well trained and highly regulated, know that my fear is not unwarranted. Bridges freaking FAIL. But they’re a fact of life in a automobile. We have to drive on them to get there and back.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures

Everything built by man fails. Only God never fails. But then, you already know that.

 

[PRmerger]

My claim is less that God is good or not good. This to me seems irrelevant as one would simply have to accommodate whatever God might label as good. The point being raised is the degree of evil necessary in order to achieve a desired positive outcome.

And what degree would that be for you to be convinced?

Further, if the argument might be expanded to allow for free will, why might the free will of those who might wish to commit evil seemingly disproportionately outweigh the free will of those who might choose to do good?

I don’t believe it does.

And even if there were “disproportionately” more who commit evil than who do good, what conclusion would you draw from it vis a vis God’s existence?

I am not quite certain. It seems reasonable to assume that God could quite simply make-up all pains in this life with a commensurate reward in the next…yet the danger that such real suffering might overwhelm one whose faith may not be sufficiently strong to weather such a storm must certainly be possible

Certainly.

For if not possible, how might one properly merit such a reward? Yet if possible, what becomes of the one who might grow so hardened by difficulties that every vestige of goodness might flee in favor of bitterness and disdain? For such a one the difficulties of this world must surely have exceeded his/her ability to cope by a given margin or degree. This, too, is a degree to consider…

And that is one of the reasons it’s so important to be Catholic.

On our own, it’s way too difficult.

 

[PRmerger]

…which was in direct reference to the suggestion made that the atheist might be more apt to be convinced by arguments given by an active and faithful Christianity [than by a seeming inert group who might merely advance claims without supporting evidence that they themselves considered their own claims to be real].

Ah, well, if you mean that Christians should preach the gospel at all times, and when necessary use words…then…

 

[estesbob]

An infinite, omnipotent God could certainly make it up to all the individuals who suffered in this life for a finite period of time with an infinite amount of joy, yes?

Things do become much clearer when one takes into account eternal life. What we see atheist claiming is that suffering In life is evidence that God does not exist. In my opinion that’s aakin to man who has had a successful and joyful life still mad at God because he got a splinter in his finger when he was in the first grade

 

[Jelrak_TB]

And what degree would that be for you to be convinced?

At one time it seemed somewhat reasonable to assume that God might behave as would a parent in that the allowing of calamity might be a form of punishment suited to the correcting of an untamed humanity. Later it seemed possible that hardship might be the primary means by which humanity might gain in depth of character and sympathy. Yet in either scenario it seemed difficult to fully appreciate God in the role of loving parent who might allow certain disproportionate suffering relative to the apparent requirements. For is not a loving parent supposed to care if his punishment might seem oppressive in the tense in which his children might still live? For what justice is to be found in rewarding children from overreaching behavior once they have grown and left the house if during the growing they might have become scarred and resentful of the alleged abuse?

Further, in holding God culpable for such mishaps would it not appear in either case that such would assume an active God in a world in which free will must needs be possibly overridden from time to time?

I don’t believe it does.

And even if there were “disproportionately” more who commit evil than who do good, what conclusion would you draw from it vis a vis God’s existence?

Well here I am considering the difference in will between an innocent victim whose free will must needs be violated by an aggressor whose free will does not seem generally to be equally so impeded.

Certainly.

And that is one of the reasons it’s so important to be Catholic.

On our own, it’s way too difficult.

Perhaps…though to avoid the difficulty suggested by one not being born inside a Catholic milieu is it fair to consider each religion its own proper guide-wire to Heaven? If not, how is justice served by having some with easier alleged access to Heaven than others…?

Thank you for the thoughtful discussion…

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Things do become much clearer when one takes into account eternal life. What we see atheist claiming is that suffering In life is evidence that God does not exist. In my opinion that’s aakin to man who has had a successful and joyful life still mad at God because he got a splinter in his finger when he was in the first grade

It is a reasonable suggestion…

…yet the child might well remember the time they stepped upon a splinter of glass and that, rather than assistance with its extraction, the only apparent response from their father was the suggestion that in time they might learn to appreciate the experience…

 

[estesbob]

It is a reasonable suggestion…

…yet the child might well remember the time they stepped upon a splinter of glass and that, rather than assistance with its extraction, the only apparent response from their father was the suggestion that in time they might learn to appreciate the experience…

So would that mean their father didn’t exist?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

So would that mean their father didn’t exist?

Perhaps for all intents and purposes…?

More seriously, if there is an actual God, I sometimes wonder how we would even understand His lessons? I sometimes wonder, if He were to exist, whether all of creation might not simply be a mere thought experiment that He might have chosen to consider at a given moment…perhaps while waiting in line at the bank…?

 

[PRmerger]

For is not a loving parent supposed to care if his punishment might seem oppressive in the tense in which his children might still live?

Do you immunize your children, TB, assuming you are a parent (and if you’re not, try to be charitable to the analogy and think in the abstract)?

Imagine how it looks from a 5 yr old’s POV. “This Big Mean Father is holding me down so mean nurses can stick me over and over and over again with a painful needle!”

But we all know that good parents will indeed hold down their children so they can “suffer” with the pain of shots.

And there is no explanation which will console this 5 yr old into saying, “Oh, thank you, Father! I get it now! You are creating immunogenic agents in my system so I can fight disease. You do love me!”

 

[PRmerger]

Well here I am considering the difference in will between an innocent victim whose free will must needs be violated by an aggressor whose free will does not seem generally to be equally so impeded.

Perhaps you should not be so parochial in your outlook?

That is, try to look at the bigger picture.

Perhaps…though to avoid the difficulty suggested by one not being born inside a Catholic milieu is it fair to consider each religion its own proper guide-wire to Heaven? If not, how is justice served by having some with easier alleged access to Heaven than others…?

Thank you for the thoughtful discussion…

So you can see why Catholicism asserts evangelism as having such great import.

 

[PRmerger]

It is a reasonable suggestion…

…yet the child might well remember the time they stepped upon a splinter of glass and that, rather than assistance with its extraction, the only apparent response from their father was the suggestion that in time they might learn to appreciate the experience…

Except that the child didn’t know that the father sent a surgeon to the house to remove the splinter.

The child simply thought it was serendipity. Not through the Father’s Hand.

 

[estesbob]

Perhaps for all intents and purposes…?

More seriously, if there is an actual God, I sometimes wonder how we would even understand His lessons? I sometimes wonder, if He were to exist, whether all of creation might not simply be a mere thought experiment that He might have chosen to consider at a given moment…perhaps while waiting in line at the bank…?

In my case, in addition to the fact he one actually spoke to me, I have seen too many wonders and miracles in my life to doubt God’s existence . I’ve also seen the wonders he is working in other’s lives . To be honest I cannot understand how anyone can live in this world and not believe in God . For those who say he’s not working any wonders in their life I say you’re not letting Him