i am presbyterian i want to convert ..

[humble_in_doubt]

Put aside religion for a moment, and ask yourself the question, why do you believe that the idea of a God is false? I mean greater minds than yours, such as Albert Einstein, were theists. And from the above paragraph, you state “I don’t discount the possibility of something out there that we don’t know about.” How do you reconcile what you’ve just said while claiming your an Atheist?

This is a complicated question because even the term “god” carries with it certain connotations.

For instance there’s various religions in this world, all of which believe in a god (either the god of Abraham or in a transcendent, invisible, all powerful deity much in the same mold as the god of Abraham). Each world religion has one common thread, which is their god has only shown himself in very profound ways to the ancients (before the age of reason).

Many religions claim miracles occur today, however, it can hardly be said any god is running around splitting oceans in half, destroying cities, causing floods, etc. In other words claims of modern miracles involve very soft, intangible, and generally unverifiable events. Even what the CC would tout as verifiable miracles (such as the 67 verified healings among the hundreds of thousands who visited Lourdes, or Fatima) can be readily explained by science (and not in outlandish ways), For one thing doesn’t it seem odd that only 67 out of hundreds of thousands were healed? Can we really imagine that only this small percentage of people had true faith (and all the rest were merely psychologically deluded). That seems like an outlandish assumption. The real truth is that there is a relationship between psychological and physical health. There are verifiable incidents of terminal patients recovering from their illnesses (religious and nonreligious alike). However, just because science can’t quantify this nexus yet … doesn’t mean it’s some god behind it all.

We’re only following after ancient folly with religion. The ancients explained the unexplainable in divine terms, however, today we understand the cause of many events our predecessors explained in such a way (and we know it’s not any god who causes floods, earth quakes, solar eclipses, and so on). In the same way we will eventually understand the relationship between physical and psychological health. Indeed it would behoove us not to explain these things in divine terms, or else what would be the impetus for endeavoring to learn its actual cause? Once we understand these things better we can exploit that knowledge for our benefit (and hopefully heal more patients with terminal diseases).

When I match up the claims of religion against the fact that god has not shown himself in profound ways (when I say profound I mean in obvious and indisputable ways) at any point in contemporary history (or after the age of reason when mankind began examining natural phenomena through the prism of science) this is tangible evidence to me showing the falsity of religion (albeit circumstantial evidence, but decisive all the same). Therefore I do have absolute certainty that religion is false.

That being said … to say with any degree of certainty that I know nothing beyond my comprehension exists is also an absurd assertion. I know what’s it not, it’s not religion, I just can’t say what it is (if there’s anything out there at all)?

 

[josie_L]

This is a complicated question because even the term “god” carries with it certain connotations.

For instance there’s various religions in this world, all of which believe in a god (either the god of Abraham or in a transcendent, invisible, all powerful deity much in the same mold as the god of Abraham). Each world religion has one common thread, which is their god has only shown himself in very profound ways to the ancients (before the age of reason).

Many religions claim miracles occur today, however, it can hardly be said any god is running around splitting oceans in half, destroying cities, causing floods, etc. In other words claims of modern miracles involve very soft, intangible, and generally unverifiable events. Even what the CC would tout as verifiable miracles (such as the 67 verified healings among the hundreds of thousands who visited Lourdes, or Fatima) can be readily explained by science (and not in outlandish ways), For one thing doesn’t it seem odd that only 67 out of hundreds of thousands were healed? Can we really imagine that only this small percentage of people had true faith (and all the rest were merely psychologically deluded). That seems like an outlandish assumption. The real truth is that there is a relationship between psychological and physical health. There are verifiable incidents of terminal patients recovering from their illnesses (religious and nonreligious alike). However, just because science can’t quantify this nexus yet … doesn’t mean it’s some god behind it all.

We’re only following after ancient folly with religion. The ancients explained the unexplainable in divine terms, however, today we understand the cause of many events our predecessors explained in such a way (and we know it’s not any god who causes floods, earth quakes, solar eclipses, and so on). In the same way we will eventually understand the relationship between physical and psychological health. Indeed it would behoove us not to explain these things in divine terms, or else what would be the impetus for endeavoring to learn its actual cause? Once we understand these things better we can exploit that knowledge for our benefit (and hopefully heal more patients with terminal diseases).

When I match up the claims of religion against the fact that god has not shown himself in profound ways (when I say profound I mean in obvious and indisputable ways) at any point in contemporary history (or after the age of reason when mankind began examining natural phenomena through the prism of science) this is tangible evidence to me showing the falsity of religion (albeit circumstantial evidence, but decisive all the same). Therefore I do have absolute certainty that religion is false.

That being said … to say with any degree of certainty that I know nothing beyond my comprehension exists is also an absurd assertion. I know what’s it not, it’s not religion,** I just can’t say what it is (if there’s anything out there at all)?**

Would you say it’s love?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Would you say it’s love?

love is a human idea and emotion … so no it’s not love. When I say what could exist out there I’m alluding to questions like are we alone in the universe, are there multiple dimensions, you know tangible theories.

Love isn’t a thing, it’s an expression, emotion, idea, etc. So there’s no logical relation here.

 

[Good_Fella]

yeah yeah, I know I’ll burn in hell right … whatever. The scare tactics stopped working on me a long time ago. Psychological extortion only works on the gullible, and I can’t be exploited by the purveyors of nonsense; I’m just too smart! Oh yeah but I know … didn’t Paul say something about us intelligent types? I guess he was smart enough to know other smart people would know he was selling nonsense; but hey if it works for yah … best of luck.

I’m curious. As an atheist why did you join a religious forum? Was it just to keep repeating “God doesn’t exist”? The question of God’s existence isn’t the topic of this thread.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I’m curious. As an atheist why did you join a religious forum? Was it just to keep repeating “God doesn’t exist”? The question of God’s existence isn’t the topic of this thread.

actually when I first chimed in on this thread I gave simple and practical advice to the OP (and did not advise him to give up religion). I assume my own stance on these issues compelled people to engage me on the topic of “does god exist” (to which I’m always glad to respond … NO he doesn’t).

As to why I’m here … valid question (although it’s obviously been asked many times). As I said previously, I first jumped on here while bored on a business trip (and I am a former Catholic so I had a natural curiosity). At this point, yeah it’s getting a little old (and I’m questioning my continued participation here). Not that it’s not a well spirited debate, but I also understand it’s a fruitless debate (because we’re all simply too locked into our positions … as is natural I suppose).

 

[Good_Fella]

actually when I first chimed in on this thread I gave simple and practical advice to the OP (and did not advise him to give up religion). I assume my own stance on these issues compelled people to engage me on the topic of “does god exist” (to which I’m always glad to respond … NO he doesn’t).

As to why I’m here … valid question (although it’s obviously been asked many times). As I said previously, I first jumped on here while bored on a business trip (and I am a former Catholic so I had a natural curiosity). At this point, yeah it’s getting a little old (and I’m questioning my continued participation here). Not that it’s not a well spirited debate, but I also understand it’s a fruitless debate (because we’re all simply too locked into our positions … as is natural I suppose).

The late Anglican C.S. Lewis was once a staunch athiest. Have you read his book* Mere Christianity*? It’s easy and fascinating reading and intellectually stimulating.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[humble_in_doubt]

The late Anglican C.S. Lewis was once a staunch athiest. Have you read his book* Mere Christianity*? It’s easy and fascinating reading and intellectually stimulating.

Pax Christu :harp:

I have read Mere Christianity (and C.S. Lewis was certainly a great writer, even though I don’t find his arguments supporting theism all that compelling). I was quite the Catholic at one point in life (studying enough theology in college to almost declare a minor in the subject & having enough patients to read through books like Summa Theologica & City of God … and even pound my way through Calvin’s institutes, dozens of sermons by John Wesley, and that’s just to name a few).

I feel like I’ve given religion its day in court?

 

[josie_L]

I have read Mere Christianity (and C.S. Lewis was certainly a great writer, even though I don’t find his arguments supporting theism all that compelling). I was quite the Catholic at one point in life (studying enough theology in college to almost declare a minor in the subject & having enough patients to read through books like Summa Theologica & City of God … and even pound my way through Calvin’s institutes, dozens of sermons by John Wesley, and that’s just to name a few).

I feel like I’ve given religion its day in court?

You make it sound like your faith was an intellectual pursuit rather than a matter of the heart. Don’t get me wrong one must always learn about their given faith, but to what degree or emphasis did you apply yourself mentally at the exclusion of your personal/community driven relationship with God?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

You make it sound like your faith was an intellectual pursuit rather than a matter of the heart. Don’t get me wrong one must always learn about their given faith, but to what degree or emphasis did you apply yourself mentally at the exclusion of your personal/community driven relationship with God?

I’m not sure how to even answer that question, but I’ll try to simply explain how I used to feel about faith. I used to be very zealous (like you guys). I was never an extremist or anything like that, but for instance atheists would commonly tick me off; and I had a high level of emotion when I thought about god and Christ.

So I certainly did have passion about my faith, therefore I don’t think it was mere intellectual assent (although I would argue at its core faith is always initially intellectual assent, which precedes any emotional response … but obviously that’s something I say now in retrospect – back when I was religious I would say god was the initiator of my faith).

However, reason was able to overcome passion, and hence I lost the faith I once had. I guess it was a double edged sword. First there’s intellectual assent, which is followed by intense emotion. That emotion, or passion, then acts to cloud our reason (and make no mistake it does). From there on in we’re generally hooked … but in my case my intellectual growth (which was really unconnected to my religious views in the beginning) became my impetus for reconsidering the merits of religion.

 

[Benjamin8o8]

I’m not sure how to even answer that question, but I’ll try to simply explain how I used to feel about faith. I used to be very zealous (like you guys). I was never an extremist or anything like that, but for instance atheists would commonly tick me off; and I had a high level of emotion when I thought about god and Christ.

So I certainly did have passion about my faith, therefore I don’t think it was mere intellectual assent (although I would argue at its core faith is always initially intellectual assent, which precedes any emotional response … but obviously that’s something I say now in retrospect – back when I was religious I would say god was the initiator of my faith).

However, reason was able to overcome passion, and hence I lost the faith I once had.

Since you became an athiest, have you ever asked God to prove His existence to you?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Since you became an athiest, have you ever asked God to prove His existence to you?

Yes … and I’m still an atheist?

 

[josie_L]

Yes … and I’m still an atheist?

When was the last time you asked? I know that this may sound silly but please answer the question.

 

[josie_L]

I’m not sure how to even answer that question, but I’ll try to simply explain how I used to feel about faith. I used to be very zealous (like you guys). I was never an extremist or anything like that, but for instance atheists would commonly tick me off; and I had a high level of emotion when I thought about god and Christ.

So I certainly did have passion about my faith, therefore I don’t think it was mere intellectual assent (although I would argue at its core faith is always initially intellectual assent, which precedes any emotional response … but obviously that’s something I say now in retrospect – back when I was religious I would say god was the initiator of my faith).

However, reason was able to overcome passion, and hence I lost the faith I once had. I guess it was a double edged sword. First there’s intellectual assent, which is followed by intense emotion. That emotion, or passion, then acts to cloud our reason (and make no mistake it does). From there on in we’re generally hooked … but in my case my
intellectual growth (which was really unconnected to my religious views in the beginning) became my impetus for reconsidering the merits of religion.

When did this intellectual growth take place, during law school, after you came back from the war?

 

[josie_L]

Would you say it’s love?

Sorry, for keeping you busy Humble, but you never answered my post.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Sorry, for keeping you busy Humble, but you never answered my post.

I had to scroll up to refresh my memory on this. When I referred to the possibility that something else might be out there … I meant ideas like we might not be alone in the universe, there might be alternate dimensions, etc. So no it’s not love (or any intangible emotion) though if anything does exist it’s possible they might have an emotion like love (albeit I’m not sure what the statistical likelihood of this is … nor does it sound interesting enough to ponder since it’s probably not answerable).

 

[josie_L]

I had to scroll up to refresh my memory on this. When I referred to the possibility that something else might be out there … I meant ideas like we might not be alone in the universe, there might be alternate dimensions, etc. So no it’s not love (or any intangible emotion) though if anything does exist it’s possible they might have an emotion like love (albeit I’m not sure what the statistical likelihood of this is … nor does it sound interesting enough to ponder since it’s probably not answerable).

Why are there so many constants/laws that have given order to chaos? Does it not suggest the possibility that some intelligent being/designer (not refering to the theory by the way) may have put it altogether? And that this possible intelligent designer created the universe out of love, for why else would he have created such beauty for us to behold. One only has to look at crystalline snow-capped mountains, a flaming sunrise, beautiful flowers carpeting a hill, you get the idea, to notice the attention to detail that was taken for everything to be brought into existence. That is why I mentioned “love”. Because nothing less than “love” could have created us.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Why are there so many constants/laws that have given order to chaos? Does it not suggest the possibility that some intelligent being/designer (not refering to the theory by the way) may have put it altogether? And that this possible intelligent designer created the universe out of love, for why else would he have created such beauty for us to behold. One only has to look at crystalline snow-capped mountains, a flaming sunrise, beautiful flowers carpeting a hill, you get the idea, to notice the attention to detail that was taken for everything to be brought into existence. That is why I mentioned “love”. Because nothing less than “love” could have created us.

I hate to point out the obvious … but what happens when you look at starving African kids with bloated bellies, blood soaked innocents killed by militants, etc.? I think the better view is there was no intelligent design (since our design doesn’t really seem that intelligent)?

 

[josie_L]

I hate to point out the obvious … but what happens when you look at starving African kids with bloated bellies, blood soaked innocents killed by militants, etc.? I think the better view is there was no intelligent design (since our design doesn’t really seem that intelligent)?

I hate to point out the obvious . . . but how is this the fault of the intelligent designer who if in his essence is love can only accept love that is freely given? That means we has his creation have the choice to love, does it not? And if we have the choice to love we can choose not to love? And if we do not love, we have hate and/or apathy.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I hate to point out the obvious . . . but how is this the fault of the intelligent designer who if in his essence is love can only accept love that is freely given? That means we has his creation have the choice to love, does it not? And if we have the choice to love we can choose not to love? And if we do not love, we have hate and/or apathy.

so you blame everything good on god and everything bad on whom? Didn’t god create it all according to you? Didn’t he know exactly what would happen when he created earth. Didn’t he know there would be starving kids who rarely make it past five in places like Ethiopia?

What choice did those Ethiopian kids make to deserve their fate? You can’t attribute all bad things to human free will … that’s illogical.

The big question in Christianity is why does evil exist right? Why is their starvation, drought, etc.? If god is this intelligent designer and is as you guys say omnipotent (not to mention omniscient & omnipresent) then why do we have so much horror in this world (that has no nexus to human choice)?

There’s been volumes of elaborate philosophical explanations for this paradox throughout the ages, but the real answer to the riddle is simple enough. Evil, starvation, injustice, and all the rest exist because god does not exist.

 

[Good_Fella]

I hate to point out the obvious … but what happens when you look at starving African kids with bloated bellies, blood soaked innocents killed by militants, etc.? I think the better view is there was no intelligent design (since our design doesn’t really seem that intelligent)?

The blood soaked innocents were killed by those militants you mention, not by God. Human beings have a free will to choose either good or evil. There shouldn’t be any starving kids with bloated bellies because there’s enough food on this planet to feed three times the human population. The problem again lies with societies and the distribution of food.

By the way, who told you that it’s wrong to murder people or ignore the hungry? Mother Nature? I’m afraid she isn’t concerned with what should and shouldn’t be. Our conscience tells us what is right and wrong. If anything points toward the existence of God, it’s the human conscience and the transcendent moral order of our existence. The natural universe is an order of facts which has nothing to do with what should and shouldn’t be. So I doubt the human conscience is an epiphenomenon of dead matter and blind energy. This human faculty was planted in us by a divine Being who transcends the physical order of existence, by someone who has a will of his own with regard to what should and shouldn’t be according to his love and wisdom.

Oops! Now I’m off topic.

Pax Christu :harp: