M
- Status
M
MishellaLee
Guest
I am wrong… my bad… and now that I think about it… athiesm really isn’t a scam… its just what they believe that makes me sorta mad… But athiest with all do respect have a belief… i don’t really understand at all… and who am I to judge them… I just don’t know how they believe that there is no God… I mean i look at the simpliest thing… and I think “Man… God is some artist” You look at creatures…and animals that are so delicate and You have an apreciation what God made…But athiesm is a beliefe… i probably won’t understand… My Dad used to be atheist… but until I found him he started to slowly believe there is a God. :]
But sorry and hope you can forgive me… for being rude …and not open minded.
M
mkinson
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
Is the deification of purposeless particles logical? Is it reasonable to believe blind processes can produce rational beings?
Because we have the power of choice - which is scientifically inexplicable!
Because some are more reasonable than others.
Its correspondence to reality.
Because only God is perfect in every respect.
Innocents are never punished not are those who are ignorant. Those who are evil punish themselves.
“knowing” is an exaggeration. Can you explain how there could be a physical world without accidents, disease, disasters, deformities and destruction?
Can you provide a feasible blueprint of a better world?
An absurd assumption!
C
caoindealbhan
Guest
I don’t believe it is a scam. Something needed to begin the big bang in the beginning. Many things point to the existence of a higher power. Maybe we don’t have videos and photographs, but I believe that the principles for healthy interaction between human beings is taught by most religions. In this capacity religion plays an extremely important role in helping to mold mature citizens of the world.
M
mkinson
Guest
I’m not going to respond to all on the basis that there is a fundamental difference in the way we see the world and therefore those each could become long-lasting threads to themselves.
However, to clarify my stance on innocents being sent to damnation, Mathew probably has the best explanation:
“Enter through the narrow gate. The gate that leads to damnation is wide, the road is clear, and many choose to travel it. But how narrow is the gate that leads to life, how rough the road, and how few there are who find it.”
Or Romans:
“Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.”
T
tonyrey
Guest
If you’re not prepared to defend your statements they are worthless!
Jesus also said “And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away”!
Ever heard of Semitic hyperbole? When you are warning everyone about the dangers of evil you don’t pull your punches - if you have any sense…
E
ElizabethCorbel
Guest
I would point out that in the Matthew quote he states many choose to travel the path that leads to damnation. And in the Romans quote it is the ones that resist that receive damnation. So clearly, the person is making a choice. So damnation doesn’t happen to the innocent, it happens to those who choose to live for themselves instead of for God and for others.
Also, one of the draws of Catholicism for me was that we have become a far more inclusive religion than that espoused by, say, Baptists. Jesus didn’t die just for the Christians, he died for the entire world. And God doesn’t just send his Spirit to Christians, he sends the Spirit to all people, in whatever faith they were raised (which I view as a fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel (Joel 3.1-2)). So if, say, a Buddhist truly tries to live a good life, I believe Jesus will save him/her and they will go to heaven. Note that the Buddhist made the moral choice to live a good life.
(And before anyone jumps in, I am not espousing that we earn our way to heaven. No one can ever deserve heaven. But I believe Jesus has so much compassion, he sees the desire to be good and saves us out of love.)
The reason the pathway to hell is so wide is because it’s hard to live a good life. Example: If the boss thinks John messed up and it was really me, should I tell her it was me? But then she might be mad at me and not give me the promotion/raise/bonus I really need to support my family. So maybe I’d better just stay quiet. Besides, why should I worry about John? Let John take care of his family and his career. After all, it’s not my fault the boss thinks he did it.
But after all the rationalizations, I’ve still chosen to let John pay for my mistake, which is wrong. But it’s a lot easier than walking into the bosses office and saying, “Don’t be mad at John. I’m the one that screwed up. What can I do to make it right?”
So that’s why the path to hell is wide and easy and the path to heaven is narrow and hard. But no, the innocent don’t receive damnation.
E
ElizabethCorbel
Guest
I would point out that in the Matthew quote he states many choose to travel the path that leads to damnation. And in the Romans quote it is the ones that resist that receive damnation. So clearly, the person is making a choice. So damnation doesn’t happen to the innocent, it happens to those who choose to live for themselves instead of for God and for others.
Also, one of the draws of Catholicism for me was that we have become a far more inclusive religion than that espoused by, say, Baptists. Jesus didn’t die just for the Christians, he died for the entire world. And God doesn’t just send his Spirit to Christians, he sends the Spirit to all people, in whatever faith they were raised (which I view as a fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel (Joel 3.1-2)). So if, say, a Buddhist truly tries to live a good life, I believe Jesus will save him/her and they will go to heaven. Note that the Buddhist made the moral choice to live a good life.
(And before anyone jumps in, I am not espousing that we earn our way to heaven. No one can ever deserve heaven. But I believe Jesus has so much compassion, he sees the desire to be good and saves us out of love.)
The reason the pathway to hell is so wide is because it’s hard to live a good life. Example: If the boss thinks John messed up and it was really me, should I tell her it was me? But then she might be mad at me and not give me the promotion/raise/bonus I really need to support my family. So maybe I’d better just stay quiet. Besides, why should I worry about John? Let John take care of his family and his career. After all, it’s not my fault the boss thinks he did it.
But after all the rationalizations, I’ve still chosen to let John pay for my mistake, which is wrong. But it’s a lot easier than walking into the bosses office and saying, “Don’t be mad at John. I’m the one that screwed up. What can I do to make it right?”
So that’s why the path to hell is wide and easy and the path to heaven is narrow and hard. But no, the innocent don’t receive damnation.
C
cyejbv
Guest
cyejbv;7839602:
I know what you mean!!! I really do, I think you might appreciate Augustine. What Pascal writes is good from my perspective, but a bit incomplete as per faith being a gift. True.
But.
Faith and reason are compatible- and it may be worth noting that like happiness, it is considered by some to be a decision, not a feeling. Like yours truly.
Again, I think Augustine might interest you, just for the sake of knowledge. I remember reading Bertrand Russell saying something like, in science if you can’t observe it to name it, then you can’t prove it (I have mangled what he really said, but that was the idea) hence, God was a silly concept. But I disagreed as soon as I read it, because my thought was that gravity existed before Newton observed it. Anyway, as you may be able to discern, I’m not a professional apologist. Nor a scientist, and I actually don’t love math.
But based on the intellect it appears you have, I think a straightforward, non -emotional study of Augustine might be fascinating for you. The challenge I see amongst both “uber” atheists and Christians is emotion when it’s* examination* that is called for.
Have a great weekend,
Pax
M
mkinson
Guest
I posted questions, not statements.
If you would like to have a further discussion on the topics listed, I am more than willing to answer and any all queries over personal messages. I do not feel responding to your assertions would be appropriate for this particular forum as my arguments would be unrelated to this thread topic.
M
mkinson
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
You posted statements as well as questions - to both of which I have responded. If your arguments would be unrelated to this thread then so are those you have already presented. Obviously you are not obliged to respond but I am simply pointing out that this forum is intended for discussion not for potshots which lead nowhere…
M
mkinson
Guest
Upon a further request by tonyrey I will resubmit my responses to our discussion on the forum. I apologize for the lengthy postings.
1.
Me:
Why then do atheists like myself NOT believe in God? If God would be so great, and if we would follow in his path praising his name after receiving proof, why not start now?
My own personal answer: “Because the concept of God isn’t logical.”
tonyrey:
Is the deification of purposeless particles logical? Is it reasonable to believe blind processes can produce rational beings?
Rebuttal:
Absolutely! Atoms, in their individual state, have very specific properties. Those properties are determined by the number of protons and neutrons within those atoms. Surrounding those atoms are electrons which interact with the electrons of other atoms. There is an outer ring around an atom which determines the stability of the electron field depending on the number of electrons on that ring. Atoms will join with other atoms until the electron field has stabilized through shared electron clouds.
In a simplified model think of a pile of sand. No matter how hard you might try to make the sand pile up into a cylinder shape, gravity and friction will cause the sand to fall into the most stable position. It doesn’t take intelligence to make this so, it takes simple laws of physical science.
In regard to complex or rational beings, evolution clearly explains this long process. Any organism with the capability to reproduce will need a food source and a mate. As repetitive functions, such as searching for food, take place generation after generation the organisms that are less efficient at the function will die off due to a lack of viable resources.
As the organism continues to evolve different needs arise based upon the changing climate, predation, geography, etc. Again, the species best able to survive go on, and the others die off.
And then there are genetic mutations due to an improper RNA sequencing or protein loss. Sometimes the mutations are beneficial and sometimes they are not. However, simply put there was no -need- for a Creator for humans to exist. I would even imagine in another million years, assuming we don’t decimate their species, other animals could evolve to communicate intelligently. Humans aren’t special, we’re just first.
1.
Me:
Why then do atheists like myself NOT believe in God? If God would be so great, and if we would follow in his path praising his name after receiving proof, why not start now?
My own personal answer: “Because the concept of God isn’t logical.”
tonyrey:
Is the deification of purposeless particles logical? Is it reasonable to believe blind processes can produce rational beings?
Rebuttal:
Absolutely! Atoms, in their individual state, have very specific properties. Those properties are determined by the number of protons and neutrons within those atoms. Surrounding those atoms are electrons which interact with the electrons of other atoms. There is an outer ring around an atom which determines the stability of the electron field depending on the number of electrons on that ring. Atoms will join with other atoms until the electron field has stabilized through shared electron clouds.
In a simplified model think of a pile of sand. No matter how hard you might try to make the sand pile up into a cylinder shape, gravity and friction will cause the sand to fall into the most stable position. It doesn’t take intelligence to make this so, it takes simple laws of physical science.
In regard to complex or rational beings, evolution clearly explains this long process. Any organism with the capability to reproduce will need a food source and a mate. As repetitive functions, such as searching for food, take place generation after generation the organisms that are less efficient at the function will die off due to a lack of viable resources.
As the organism continues to evolve different needs arise based upon the changing climate, predation, geography, etc. Again, the species best able to survive go on, and the others die off.
And then there are genetic mutations due to an improper RNA sequencing or protein loss. Sometimes the mutations are beneficial and sometimes they are not. However, simply put there was no -need- for a Creator for humans to exist. I would even imagine in another million years, assuming we don’t decimate their species, other animals could evolve to communicate intelligently. Humans aren’t special, we’re just first.
M
mkinson
Guest
2.
Me:
Why have there been hundreds of faiths…?
tonyrey:
Because we have the power of choice - which is scientifically inexplicable!
Rebuttal:
Choice? Yes.
Inexplicable? Not remotely.
If you are unfamiliar with social psychology I would suggest researching it. However, to briefly explain what social psychology is the scientific study of “the behavior of individuals in their social and cultural setting.”
I am no expert in psychology and have only taken two courses on the subject, so I do not want to attempt trying to explain the intricacies of how psychologists are able to evaluate your choices.
However, the basics state that every choice you make is determined by the life you’ve lived. Geography, upbringing, social life, authoritative figures, etc affect your personality as you grow. It isn’t until you are in your late twenties that your prefrontal cortex is fully developed!
If I were to give you a choice: A or B? Which would you choose? If you chose A than there would be a clear, defined reason behind why you tended toward that answer. It could be something that happened earlier in your life that influences, or it could be the pressures of others telling you which you should pick.
For a more personal example, you likely never “chose” to be a Catholic (though many do). If your parents were Catholic and they raised you as a Catholic, then it would be reasonable to see why you later continued to embrace that faith. However, if you were born in Israel, raised as a Jew, you would almost certainly be Jewish!
Me:
Why have there been hundreds of faiths…?
tonyrey:
Because we have the power of choice - which is scientifically inexplicable!
Rebuttal:
Choice? Yes.
Inexplicable? Not remotely.
If you are unfamiliar with social psychology I would suggest researching it. However, to briefly explain what social psychology is the scientific study of “the behavior of individuals in their social and cultural setting.”
I am no expert in psychology and have only taken two courses on the subject, so I do not want to attempt trying to explain the intricacies of how psychologists are able to evaluate your choices.
However, the basics state that every choice you make is determined by the life you’ve lived. Geography, upbringing, social life, authoritative figures, etc affect your personality as you grow. It isn’t until you are in your late twenties that your prefrontal cortex is fully developed!
If I were to give you a choice: A or B? Which would you choose? If you chose A than there would be a clear, defined reason behind why you tended toward that answer. It could be something that happened earlier in your life that influences, or it could be the pressures of others telling you which you should pick.
For a more personal example, you likely never “chose” to be a Catholic (though many do). If your parents were Catholic and they raised you as a Catholic, then it would be reasonable to see why you later continued to embrace that faith. However, if you were born in Israel, raised as a Jew, you would almost certainly be Jewish!
M
mkinson
Guest
3.
Me:
…and why choose one over another?
tonyrey:
Because some are more reasonable than others.
Rebuttal:
I suspect that the main reason the Greek, Norse, Roman, Celtic, and other polytheistic religions are now considered “Mythologies” instead of Theologies is because they weren’t complicated enough, or were too specific and therefore too easy to refute.
What is unique about monotheist religions is that although the stories are written by prophets who had direct contact with God, angels, etc, the religions themselves are based on faith.
Due to this distinction it is far more difficult to prove them false!
However, I personally find it no more reasonable to believe God created the world than I do that the great Titans did it. Both share equally simplistic answers with no supporting evidence.
Me:
…and why choose one over another?
tonyrey:
Because some are more reasonable than others.
Rebuttal:
I suspect that the main reason the Greek, Norse, Roman, Celtic, and other polytheistic religions are now considered “Mythologies” instead of Theologies is because they weren’t complicated enough, or were too specific and therefore too easy to refute.
What is unique about monotheist religions is that although the stories are written by prophets who had direct contact with God, angels, etc, the religions themselves are based on faith.
Due to this distinction it is far more difficult to prove them false!
However, I personally find it no more reasonable to believe God created the world than I do that the great Titans did it. Both share equally simplistic answers with no supporting evidence.
M
mkinson
Guest
4.
Me:
What makes THIS religion more accurate than the next?
tonyrey:
Its correspondence to reality.
Question:
I think this particular assertion confuses me the most. Which aspects are you claiming correspond to reality?
That the world was made by an all-powerful being?
That we humans were created by some other intelligent being?
Please clarify!
Me:
What makes THIS religion more accurate than the next?
tonyrey:
Its correspondence to reality.
Question:
I think this particular assertion confuses me the most. Which aspects are you claiming correspond to reality?
That the world was made by an all-powerful being?
That we humans were created by some other intelligent being?
Please clarify!
M
mkinson
Guest
5.
Me:
Why would a perfect being create imperfect humans (birth defects, low intelligence, etc)?
tonyrey:
Because only God is perfect in every respect.
Rebuttal:
This answer bothers me. Are you claiming that God created birth defects to remind us that we aren’t perfect? If so I find that cruel.
Or, do you accept that some things are not under God’s control?
Me:
Why would a perfect being create imperfect humans (birth defects, low intelligence, etc)?
tonyrey:
Because only God is perfect in every respect.
Rebuttal:
This answer bothers me. Are you claiming that God created birth defects to remind us that we aren’t perfect? If so I find that cruel.
Or, do you accept that some things are not under God’s control?
M
mkinson
Guest
6.
Me:
However, when the end of the day comes I am happier “knowing” that I can’t praise God for good weather, and I can’t praise Him for a healthy child either. To do so would mean that I must also blame God if a child dies in birth, or if a lunatic murders his classmates, or if a tsunami wipes out thousands of people…
tonyrey:
“knowing” is an exaggeration. Can you explain how there could be a physical world without accidents, disease, disasters, deformities and destruction?
Rebuttal:
Absolutely! Isn’t this the very world humanity is striving for?! Every day innovative technologies bring such a world closer to reality.
A thousand years ago the life expectancy was only to the 40s. Now it’s well into the 70s! We’ve engineered buildings to withstand many natural disasters, and we’ve studied weather patterns to give the people advanced warning. We’ve advanced medical research and computers at an exponential rate and we’re only at the very beginning!
Granted, such views are idealistic but I imagine our current lifestyles would seem as an idealistic dream to people living 2000 years ago.
Me:
However, when the end of the day comes I am happier “knowing” that I can’t praise God for good weather, and I can’t praise Him for a healthy child either. To do so would mean that I must also blame God if a child dies in birth, or if a lunatic murders his classmates, or if a tsunami wipes out thousands of people…
tonyrey:
“knowing” is an exaggeration. Can you explain how there could be a physical world without accidents, disease, disasters, deformities and destruction?
Rebuttal:
Absolutely! Isn’t this the very world humanity is striving for?! Every day innovative technologies bring such a world closer to reality.
A thousand years ago the life expectancy was only to the 40s. Now it’s well into the 70s! We’ve engineered buildings to withstand many natural disasters, and we’ve studied weather patterns to give the people advanced warning. We’ve advanced medical research and computers at an exponential rate and we’re only at the very beginning!
Granted, such views are idealistic but I imagine our current lifestyles would seem as an idealistic dream to people living 2000 years ago.
M
mkinson
Guest
7.
Me:
It is not logical, to me, that a God would be responsible for creating a being that could cause such great suffering on his subjects…
tonyrey:
Can you provide a feasible blueprint of a better world?
Rebuttal:
I’m not nearly that creative of a writer, however I can imagine it. Can’t you?
No murders.
No rapists.
No wars.
I might as well just copy and past John Lennon’s “Imagine”.
Me:
It is not logical, to me, that a God would be responsible for creating a being that could cause such great suffering on his subjects…
tonyrey:
Can you provide a feasible blueprint of a better world?
Rebuttal:
I’m not nearly that creative of a writer, however I can imagine it. Can’t you?
No murders.
No rapists.
No wars.
I might as well just copy and past John Lennon’s “Imagine”.
- Status