T
tonyrey
Guest
God’s grace is unlimited.
- Status
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I may consider it later. When I think about my attributes that I most strongly feel to be part of my identity the things that spring to mind tend to be more in the area of things that I do/am (ex: occupation, hobbies, the relationships I’ve formed with others) more than the things that I’m not or don’t do (I don’t follow a religion, I don’t play sports, I don’t collect stamps). After I am in a position where I could make a public statement without becoming the recipient of as much out-group hostility, risking loss of my job and closing doors for future employment. For now I’ll have to keep that information limited to friends and family.
It’s in my facebook profile, but keep that information invisible except to a group of people that also are non-religious and my brother (I think he’s also non-religious, but I’ve never asked).
I’m not dead yet and people already do this with me. I’ve been told that I am pretending to not be a Christian and I’m just being humble and hiding it (not sure how that would reconcile against Mat 10:33) or that I’m a Christian and I just don’t know it. I find both propositions to be non-sense. But yes, given that there are people now that would declare I am a Christian despite me telling them otherwise I’m pretty confident there would be people that would declare it after my death. I might just need to leave behind some photographs of myself wearing the scarlet letter (and I don’t mean the one for “Adultry”).This is an excellent idea.
If I ever take a bullet for some one, or donate an organ to a family member in the full and certain knowledge it will result in my death, or throw myself on a granade some nutjob lobbed into a shoping mall, or volunteer to take the place of some one in a death chamber, the very very last thing I would ever want is for religious people to claim me as their own
S
Sair
Guest
Actually, I think you’re missing an important point - there :I don’t think so at all.
The “faith” that atheists object to is belief in an entity for which there is no evidence.
it does appear, though, that there’s a host of atheists who are engaged in this type of belief, based on no evidence whatsoever.
: evidence for humans performing selfless acts of love, and their motivation for doing so is complex and not easily reduced to “Christian” or “non-Christian”.What there is actually no evidence for is the possibility of a thinking, feeling, acting supernatural being who is also bodiless, brainless and in all other ways nonphysical. It’s a miniscule leap of faith to believe in the possibility of a selfless atheist, compared to that required to affirm the possibility that the God of Classical Theism exists.
S
Sair
Guest
So the “displaying” of your god’s works is justification for punishing innocent individuals?
[/quote]
Not to mention the fact that in the gospel of John, the “Jews” are portrayed as demanding that the blood of Christ be upon their descendants. What’s that about, then? Or is this yet another thing that was said but not actually meant?
Of course the church glorifies suffering - every Christian is supposed to “take up his/her cross” and endure suffering joyfully for the glorification of Christ and the attainment of heaven. Nearly every Catholic child is told, if they suffer hardship or pain, not to learn from it and grow stronger and find out how to avoid it, but to “offer it up”. Indeed, the suffering of Jesus is reiterated in all its gory detail every time the Rosary is prayed, and at every Good Friday service. Some straw man…
Actually, merely linking to the article is enough to demonise the church in the eyes of those who consider rape a reprehensible and revolting crime.
I think you missed my point - you would have to demonstrate not just that a person acted out of selfless love (which people do, evidently) but that they were nudged towards this - without their being aware - by your god’s grace.
[/quote]
T
tonyrey
Guest
There is not one minute jot of evidence that mindless molecules have ever magically succeeded in manufacturing one single person.
It is an immense leap of fervent faith to believe in the possibility of an animal without a self capable of unselfish love compared to a person capable of overcoming the survival instinct and choosing to suffer and die for total strangers.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
But they don’t prove God doesn’t exist.No.
You have to take my word for it, in this situation, because the situation here is I’m not giving you any of my personal information, to a complete stranger over the internet.
The framed portraits, the citations, the medals, and the recorded history, are real, physical, evidenced, witnessed and verified.
They can be seen and touched, and the recorded history verified, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks per year.
Not something that can be claimed for your apparition.
Sarah x
A
atheistgirl
Guest
No. They don’t. They prove my ancestors did, and they prove what they did.
Physical, real, verified, witnessed evidence, with offspring.
That can not be said for any Deity of any religion.
And it is not my position that there is ‘‘proof’’ that God does not exist.
How can you prove a negative
It is my position that there is insufficient evidence to warrant me believing such a being exists.
And were such a being to exist, which one?
The God of Christianity, Islam, or the Jews? The other Gods of the other world religions?
It’s a huge leap to go from asserting a God exists, to proving all those other 5 billion people are wrong, and it is your God of the 2 billion Christians that is the God that exists.
Sarah x
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
OK, just making sure we’re still on the same page.And it is not my position that there is ‘‘proof’’ that God does not exist.
How can you prove a negative
(hey wait how come you aren’t agnositcgirl? j/k
)That is a perfectly valid position.
How about one that you and I co-create together? Like first off, I notice you come across as polite, and I like to be polite. So maybe let’s start by saying the our Superior Being is a synergystic superset of whatever forces or inclinations cause us to want to be polite. See? While others work God top-down, you and I can try to work the problem bottom-up. Since the Superior Being is just a mathematically described superset, we would not use the term “God” at this point to refer to our set.
I say “synergistic superset,” because I know that the interactions between elements I’ve put into the set will give rise to additional elements including new sorts of interactions.
Speaking for the God of Christianity, Jesus is a great Truth, Way, Light that will get one to peace, but one has to receive Him properly – unfortunately most Christians don’t because they emphasize dualistic judgments even more, when Jesus came to stop us from making them.
I didn’t get the part about the 5 billion.Sarah x
And you know what? I have become a gospel, and I discuss love in whatever language I can. I had a lot of help from a lot of people getting to this point, and if somebody doesn’t want to hear it was from my faith in God I can explain a shadow of the experience in another way. I’ll talk psychiatry. Mood self-control. Whatever.
I’ve come to realize that the message we want to exchange are more important than the flavor of the vocabulary “wrapper” we put them in. I may be delighted with the way I put something into words, but how the audience receives it is the message that gets across. I care what they hear more than what I think I said, so I take measures to be sure I know what people hear from me. I’m not out to convert anybody to my religion, unless they want to be converted.
Short answer, I don’t believe Christian faith is necessary for Selfless Love, but in my own case it played a significant role in trying to develop same.
Alan
P
PRmerger
Guest
I love it! Think about this, inocente:
Pope JPII called the Jews our “elder brothers in the faith”
Your point: to lay down one’s life for one’s “friends” is better than laying down one’s life for a “stranger”.
Thus, to lay down one’s life for a “brother” is better than laying down one’s life for a friend!
IOW: what Kolbe did for his elder brother in the faith surpasses any (still nebulous) atheistic soldier who jumps on a grenade for his friends.
So, now I think the criterion has been upped: please provide the evidence for an atheist who has given his life for a Jew.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I *have *to take your word for it? I *have *to?
Um, no, I absolutely WILL NOT take your word for* <fill in the blank with whatever concept you’re trying to prove for which there is not a single shred of evidence for EXCEPT FOR YOUR WORD*> *something just because you claim you can prove it. No matter how much I think of you as a person of integrity.
I won’t believe it until you can prove it.
You don’t do the same for Believers.
Same paradigm.
*I will leave your family history out of this to lessen the personal nature of this discussion. Whatever it is you would try to prove to me, based on, “You’ll just have to believe me because I have proof of it in my bedroom but I just can’t show you!” is going to be met with the same response that you would have were a Believer to attempt to prove to you God’s existence using those very same words. You reject that. I reject this. Same paradigm.
L
levinas12
Guest
As usual, you are on target. How can you love someone unless you know them?
That is, love is a form of knowledge - a knowledge of “persons” - when Adam “knew” Eve, it wasn’t just an exchange of biological fluids, he knew her “person”.
But then, on the other hand, when someone gives money to a charity, or, in extremis, dies for his/her countrymen, how would we describe this? Maybe it is a type of love, i.e., a knowledge of persons but persons understood in the same way that an algebraic “x” is understood to be an indefinite number.
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Of course it’s not.
And you know it.
A person can come by my property and see with their own eyes.
A person can see their descendants with their own eyes (Heck one of them is even typing this!).
And you know that very well. And I know you know that very well.
We are real, and living testimony to them. And their efforts are well documented and verified. There is no disputing their efforts, sacrifice and existence.
But because I’m not ever going to give my details to a complete stranger on the net, or release enough information that you could track an ancestor of mine down, and thus identify my family, you think you can equate this to evidence for your God
There is no way you do not see the difference.
Or why I would not be prepared to do such a thing.
Anyhow, if replies continue to imply the only way I will be believed is if I release information to indentify my ancestors that you can examine, then this conversation is over for me.
I’ve already said several times, that’s not going to happen. If you don’t believe me, that’s great.
But I have no more to say about anything that involves identifying my ancestors to you.
Sarah x
P
PRmerger
Guest
You’re peculiarly unable to think in the abstract when it comes to this discussion, Sarah.
The similarity is this: I will not believe without proof.
That just happens to be, exactly, your paradigm: I will not believe without any proof.
Here refers to anything that you’re proposing based solely on your word.
Here refers to the existence of God.
Exactly the same.
I am quite satisfied that you now know how it feels to have your Loved One’s existence questioned.Sarah x
Same paradigm.
You only allow it for yourself.
But not for Believers.
That’s all I’m getting you to understand. Next time you’re in dialogue with Believers I know this will be in the back of your mind, “But I do this, too!”
A
atheistgirl
Guest
That wasn’t always the Popes position on the Jews, was it?
The Jews have quite a different take on it:
jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12273-popes-the
Perhaps it was that kind of thinking though, that led to the kidnapping by Pope Pius IX of Edgardo Mortara, a Jewish boy, who was secretly bapitzed by the Catholic maid, and no way at that time could a non Catholic raize a Catholic.
The fact this little boy, aged 7, was baptized behind his Jewish family’s back, was justification for his forcible removal from his home by Catholic Authorities
Brothers indeed.
Sarah x
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
Are you familiar with the concept of holding something as “provisional true?” IT is a concept that is mutually independent of actual belief and is often helpful in progressing within a discussion, especially given the anonymity that many of us use when communicating in this forum and other forums on the internet.
No, you are not obligated to “believe” anything that Sarah has said. But it isn’t necessary to do so to move forward. There are many discussions here. In which, for the sake of discussion, certain propositions are granted the status of being provisionally true so that discussion can continue. I am sure you’ve held something as provisionally true before to explore a hypothetical or planning for possible and expected outcomes.
Sent from my Windows 8 tablet. Please pardon my mistakes.
S
Sair
Guest
Having given this point some further consideration, I think I would be inclined to stick with “integrity” as the description for someone who acts according to what they believe is the right thing to do. It may not be love, as such - although people do speak of such things as dying for “love” of one’s country and so forth - but it comes from a strong conviction, nonetheless, that what they are doing is what they would want, or even expect, another person to do (for them, perhaps) in the same circumstances.
This might be a similar sort of thing to the ancient idea of virtue ethics, where one’s actions were secondary to, at least insofar as they served as an indication of, the kind of person one was striving to be. So perhaps a part of the motivation for giving to charity, or volunteering at a soup kitchen, or even joining up with the armed forces, might be because one desires to be the kind of person who does such things.
A
atheistgirl
Guest
Well, I guess, if you say so, you must be right …
Nope. You’re be a little bit presumptious there. I have no frustrations what ever about any one questioning the existence of my loved ones, in the sense they existed, and exist: I deal in reality.
Nope. You’re not comparing like for like at all, and I know you know that.
Er, now you really are just way to far ahead of yourself.
In all politeness and with the greatest of respect to you, sincerely, your conversation will be nowhere near any part of my mind.
Because the comparisons are not equal and make no sense.
Me saying to you, I do not believe your Great Aunt Matilda exists, because you refuse to send me a picture of her, or tell me where she lives, or show me a newspaper clipping of her riding on her Penny Farthing, (even though you could) is in no way comparable to me saying I do not believe the all powerful, all knowing, all present, eternal, creator of all things, personal Deity you believe in exists.
And I just don’t believe you can’t see that.
You seem to be missing the point entirely, that whether or not my ancestors existed, or whether or not your Great Aunt Matilda existed, doesn’t matter. Except to a few people, who cares, it doesn’t matter.
So what if neither claim can be proven?
But it matters a great deal if God exists, and if you make the claim, which you do, you need to be able to prove it.
Sarah x
A
atheistgirl
Guest
A
atheistgirl
Guest
No, I don’t do this too.
I’m doing it to you, because your stated requirement for you to believe my ancestors, is for me to send you, a complete stranger, on the internet of all places, my personal history and details.
If you can not understand why there is no way on earth that is going to happen, well …
That would just be nuts, and you know it.
You have set up a comparison game, which you know from the very begining, I am not going to comply with, to prove a point to you, in the interests of my familys, and my, personal safety and anonymity, and then try and claim this is the same paradigm as belivers claiming their Deity exists.
I have always thought of you as a very smart person, so I do not believe you cannot see how disingenuous that is.
Sarah x
For clarification, I am discussing the content of your posts, and not you personally, although I have referenced ‘‘you’’ but only in the context to the post content. References to my family’s and my personal security and anonymity in no way implies I think you are some danger to me or any one else. I know you understand the rules of the internet.
I would still have your back in a heartbeat
S
Sair
Guest
Of course there is. We’re here, aren’t we?
And it is immensely simplistic to suppose that the only way personhood could possibly obtain is through the existence of some nonphysical ectoplasm or supernatural magic. And to claim to actually know that this is the case seems absurd, since we don’t actually know how consciousness arises, although neuroscientists are working on it. For you to say “Consciousness can’t be physical!” is the same species of claim as PRMerger’s “Atheists can’t be martyrs for charity!” in that you are both stating unequivocally that you have already proven a negative.
- Status