Main Reason For Atheism

[Chris_W]

cheddarsox:

The fact that science does not have an answer for your questions and keeps searching for natural causes supports your belief in god. That is fine. but scientists cannot stop searching for natural causes, because that is what they do. They cannot stop and say “this is where god did something supernatural” they can say “we don’t know how this happened at the time” and keep searching.

I agree. The only clarification I would make is that my objection is the idea that in order to be scientific one must believe there are naturalistic answers to everything. It is only in this way that I feel science is at odds with theism, and it seems to be the predominant attitude, in my opinion. And so elaborate theories are contrived that can never be verified, but put forth as proof and in turn taught to our children, which give the false persumption that there are naturalistic answers for everything. Science that is used to explore what can be learned, however, is a wonderful thing.

cheddarsox:

I already pointed out that science is impartial, and that scientists that are not impartial are doing bad science…In that way it is like Catholicism…There are people who practice catholicism badly and reflect badly on the church,but that doesn’t change the reality of the set of beliefs and practices and make them bad.

Good point. We agree on that.

cheddarsox:

Yes, theists can answer the question and science cannot, but that does not make the theists right. A wrong answer is not better than no answer at all.

Another good point. I have no rebuttal except to say the answers I adhere to are not given credence merely because they provide ‘an answer’ but because of the convergence of other evidences. My statements were merely trying to address those who choose to accept scientific evidence exclusively.

cheddarsox:

Religion and science are answering different questions. Again, a scientist cannot use the supernatural (until it is proven natural) as an “excuse” for what they cannot explain. That is not science.

Understood. But why is it that in every discussion I’ve had or witnessed between atheists (or agnostics and deists) with theists the ‘impartial’ science is used in an attempt to prove God doesn’t exist? The logical reaction, at least in my mind, is to rebut those arguments by pointing out the inadequacy of science to answer the question, and to point out that there is no reason except the faith of naturalists to believe there must be a naturalistic explanation for everything.

cheddarsox:

The overwhelming evidence is that there are natural causes for things. And if we keep searching, we find them.

If by “things” you mean “everything”, then that is a statement of faith, Cheddar, not a conclusion drawn from scientific evidence…if your science is impartial. Outside of that faith, it is just as likely there may not be a natural explanation.

cheddarsox:

In certain areas, some theists seem to want scientists to stop searching, and chalk it up to god. Is this because theists want science to “prove” god, or because they will feel justified if the scientists “accept” god as a cause? I do not know…

I’m sure there are. And yes we do want scientists to accept God as the cause. Reverting momentarily to your ‘bake a cake’ analogy, scientists seem to think they are required by some unwritten Law to presume there is no author to the recipe they have discovered. But there is no such Law and to adhere to such a presupposition is no more illogical than to assume there was no author to the recipe one follows to make a cake.

cheddarsox:

Since science can never prove there is no god, I don’t see the problem. Why would you not want science to discover yet more awesome truths about this wonderful universe?..

You are misunderstanding me, Cheddar. I do want science to continue to explore and discover those awesome truths.

cheddarsox:

Is the problem that some people lose their faith in the supernatural due to the fact that there are natural causes for things?

Yes, but not quite how you stated it. Many have lost their faith in the supernatural due to the fact that scientists insist there are natural causes for everything.

cheddarsox:

Most people can believe completely contrasting things at the same time. They can hold them both to be true, and act on each belief when it is convenient.

Indeed. And I cannot comprehend how they can do it.

cheddarsox:

If they are forced to choose, or have a personality that does not deal well with inconsistency, then problems arise…

That’s me.

Peace,
Chris W

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

cheddarsox

I can’t account for what others believe or don’t believe. I do know that my scientific investigations have deepened my faith in the divine, but they have also led me away from certain concepts of divinity that I was taught were true.

For example?

I believe Darwin underwent the same experience. Are you talking about the Genesis account of Creation, or are you talking about something else entirely?

If Genesis alone, I can see your change in view. But since Genesis is largely a metaphorical account of Creation (there were no scientists in those days who could study and explain evolution, nor most likely any people who could even understand it) I would cut Genesis some slack and accept the limitations of metaphor which at least go to the heart of evolution by suggestion that Creation was sequential (things were done in a certain order over a period of time, the details being left for the future to discern in a more scientific way).

This is basically the Catholic Church’s attitude toward the theory of evolution and has been pretty much from the time of Darwin, the Church having learned from the case of Galileo that religion and science could accommodate each other so long as they respected each other’s turf.

Generally speaking, today I get the impression from many with strong scientific training (as in the case of Monarchy’s remarks above) that if not for science we would still be in the dark ages … this despite the fact that it was a Christian who invented the printing press that made possible the rapid rise of modern science and the fact that the new age of science was ushered in by Christians … Kepler, Galileo, and Copernicus … not to mention Isaac Newton.

 

[cheddarsox]

my objection is the idea that in order to be scientific one must believe there are naturalistic answers to everything. elaborate theories are contrived that can never be verified, but put forth as proof and in turn taught to our children, which give the false persumption that there are naturalistic answers for everything.
**I am a science educator. The first thing I teach my students is that science is one tool for exploring the universe. It is a useful tool in many instances, but it is not the only tool, nor is it always the most appropriate tool.

Most science textbooks deal with what is widely accepted. Yes, there are way out contrived theories . I do not see these included in textbooks as if they are “the answer”. I see them in non fiction books, presented in journals, and showing up in mags and the news as points of interest, but I don’t see them being presented to children as fact.

When one is being scientific, they are looking for naturalistic answers. That is, by definition, part of the scientific process. But anyone is free to take off their scientist hat at any time, and use another tool to investigate the universe. But when they do so, it would be incorrect to call what they are doing science.

The fact that some scientists appear to be unable to take off their scientist hat and investigate the universe in other ways, is unfortunate, but that doesn’t mean anyone else has to buy into their wild theories. Science, like religion, only has the power that an individual gives it.

I teach my students to understand how science investigation works, so that they can discern for themselves how much to accept the information presented to them.

**why is it that in every discussion I’ve had or witnessed between atheists (or agnostics and deists) with theists the ‘impartial’ science is used in an attempt to prove God doesn’t exist?

Maybe that is the tool they are most familiar with. I don’t know. Still, people’s misuse of science doesn’t make science the “bad guy”.

If by “things” you mean “everything”, then that is a statement of faith, Cheddar, not a conclusion drawn from scientific evidence…if your science is impartial. Outside of that faith, it is just as likely there may not be a natural explanation.

**Yes, theories are all about faith. Faith that what has been observed is a pattern that is likely to be repeated. But theories are a faith that must change when opposing evidence comes in. In that way, it differs from some religious faiths that refuse to change reguardless of new observations.
**

Reverting momentarily to your ‘bake a cake’ analogy, scientists seem to think they are required by some unwritten Law to presume there is no author to the recipe they have discovered. to adhere to such a presupposition is no more illogical than to assume there was no author to the recipe one follows to make a cake.
**science simply does not address the author, it deals only with the recipe. The recipe is all it has, if humans could just go up to the author and get all the answers, science would not be necessary. However, we don’t have that type of access to the author, so we fiddle through it ourselves, using trial and error.
Science may act as if there is no author, because without any way of communicating with the author, it is as if the author doesn’t exist. As far as the job of science goes, an author which is unavailable, is the same as no author at all, because it is of no use in seeking the answers that are trying to be sought.

Science is answering how to make the cake, not who invented the cake. Who invented the cake is the realm of theology.**

Many have lost their faith in the supernatural due to the fact that scientists insist there are natural causes for everything.

**And many have lost their faith as well because some religions insists that people must ignore their reason and experience and limit their understanding of the universe to what is included in ancient texts.

People have a choice what to believe. And most people will choose what is most expedient in their lives. No scientist can *make *a person believe science and leave their faith, just as no religion can *make *a person believe it and refuse to accept anything that may conflict with it.
But neither science, nor religion should stop doing their thing because some people have difficulty making good choices for themselves, or dealing with opposing viewpoints.

I think the problem is that people are aked to choose, as if one tool was the only tool that was valid to investigate the universe. That is as stupid as handing someone one wrench to fix all the problems that might crop up on their automobile.

Both science and religion have their place in our lives. I don’t think it is necessary to give one precedence over the other ALL the time. They answer different needs and experiences of the human life. **

cheddar

 

[cheddarsox]

No, I never had a problem with Genesis. I was taught it was a metaphore.

Causing someone to doubt their faith is not something to be taken lightly. A doubt/conversion experience is a painful sometimes dangerous thing.

Much of what happened for me was deeply personal, and involved situations that I choose not to share on a public forum.

Some of it, I feel, was private revelation and I don’t feel that I am called to share.

Some of it might shake other’s faith, and that is not the purpose of this thread, or this forum.

And, I suspect, having discussed with you before, that your interest is so that you can show me how wrong I am, and how right Catholicism is.

I’m not in a place right now to have my faith torn apart publicly and have to defend things that are very personal and important to me. I can defend them. But not feeling like I want to go there with you now.

I was a Catholic for many years. Studied it in great depth, as is my nature. I have regular contact and conversation with my Catholic family of origin, and lots of Catholics here and on other forums I hang out at. I do know what Catholicism is about. So it isn’t a case of me being afraid of reversion.

Maybe another time when I have less on my plate to deal with.

cheddar

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

cheddar

Maybe another time when I have less on my plate to deal with.

Understood.

But I do sympathize with the fear parents have that science (and evolutionary theory in particular) tends to discredit Genesis to the point of inculcating doubt in the students … the very thing you have just talked about and want to avoid by not talking about it any further.

I respect your wishes.

But it seems to me that scientists could likewise respect the wishes of parents who want to protect their children from the faith doubts that seem (unjustifiably, I believe) to leap up when evolution is taught.

I think evolutionary theory, while interesting and vital to the thinking of a well formed scientific mind, might, just might be more than children should be expected to handle without a disruption of their whole world view. Why can’t high school biology restrict itself to understanding **what **biological life is and how it functions, rather than how it came into being?

Why can’t evolution be considered appropriate subject for college level courses, where students might at least be more intellectually and emotionally developed to handle the subject? Isn’t this true in the other subjects taught in high school. Aren’t some topics in physics considered off base because too complicated for young intellects still in early formation? I mean, is the theory of relativity taught in high school? Really taught?

If this accommodation cannot be found, it begins to look more and more to parents that atheists, who dominate the scientific community, have a “conversion agenda” by teaching evolution at the lower levels.

And you’ve just commented on your own unwillingness to submit to someone else’s conversion agenda.

I’ll be away for the rest of the day.

Thanks.

 

[Chris_W]

Cheddar,

Thank you for the thoughtful replies. I am fighting the urge to delve into Catholicism and discuss why it does not contradict what is scientifically known, but I feel this is not the appropriate thread.

You sound very reasonable. I wish I had experienced science taught as you teach it. Unfortunately that has not been my experience. So I suppose I have a bit of a predisposition to accuse scientists of biases that are anti-God.

Perhaps I have been voicing my objections to scientific approaches and theories needlessly, so I would like to change direction a bit, unless you feel I have not responded to something that needs response:

In an earlier post you said something that has me very curious, especially considering the scientific viewpoint from which you come:

cheddarsox:

I do not find science and my faith to contradict one another. In fact, I find it all much more amazing that the universe operates in these fantastic complex ways, rather than by some sort of supernatural magic. That order is what saved my faith,not the other way around.

Could you elaborate, especially the last sentence. How did your view of the order of things save your faith? That is a very interesting statement, in my opinion.

 

[Chris_W]

Hi Monrachy,

Thanks for continuing to chime in now and again. You’ve said a some things that have in particular caught my interest:

Monarchy:

Yes it is, it [the theory of evolution] says abosulutly nothing about the existance of god. And given a choice between religion and science, I’ll take science.

And earlier on in the thread, you said:

Monarchy:

To ‘Chose’ to belive would mean I need to abandon reason and morality, which I will not do.

And Cheddar said (without response from you):

cheddarsox:

Since science can never prove there is no god, I don’t see the problem.

This makes me even more concerned I’ve been barking up the wrong tree so to speak, in trying to explain that science cannot answer the question (presuming that y’all were saying it would somehow).

Soooo, I am wondering if you could please elaborate on why you feel you would need to “abandon reason” in order to acknowledge the existence of God.

Additionally, since you did not respond to Cheddar’s remarks about science being incapable of disproving God, but then saying “given the choice between science and God…”, I must conclude you** do** see a conflict between the two in some way. Could you elaborate on that matter as well?

This thread will be more intersting to all of us if we are all discussing what we all agree are the issues…which I guess was the purpose of the thread, huh?

Thx,
Chris W

 

[cheddarsox]

Chris,

The order an interconectedness I see in the things I study are so amazing, so intricate, that clearly there is some unity and greater order that everything is subject to.

And clearly this thing that all is subject to is NOT capricious, human-like, or petty. It is ultimately fair, truly omnipresent, and really has a handle on things.

It clearly does not think or operate in the limited manner humans do.

I kept running into it everywhere I turned, and it always has things under control and keeps everything operating purposefully. I recognized it as divine, it fit the general description.

So far, it has not done anything capricious, contradictory, or petty that made me feel that the deities of the faiths I had encountered were not very god-like.

The order and cooperation I experience and observe kept me from going atheist. I could not deny what I experienced and observed. Here it is, doing its divine thing. And here I am, responding with awe and worship.

cheddar

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Reasons for being an atheist is the subject of this thread.

To the extent that evolution promotes atheism in the minds of some, that is legitimate grist for the mill since this thread is dedicated to answering the question: What draws people to atheism?. Whether evolution should be taught in the schools, as I discussed in my last post, was off base. So I’ll retract the questions raised there as inappropriate for this thread. Perhaps someone will start another thread on teaching evolution in the schools.

Would anyone care to summarize their views on why evolution seems to help some people to evolve from theism to atheism, whereas others find easy accommodation of evolution and theism? I know the scientific community is also divided substantially along this line, but I really think “evolution” has become a pretext for some scientists to abandon religion rather than a substantive motive in its own right. That is, some other motive is at work and “evolution” becomes the cover for that other motive … whatever it may be.

 

[Monarchy]

Chris W:

Soooo, I am wondering if you could please elaborate on why you feel you would need to “abandon reason” in order to acknowledge the existence of God.

There is no proof that he exists. If there was I would Believe, but it would have to be proof in the area of science. Something like what you see at the end of Carl Sagan’s excellent novel Contact would be what I except as proof that god exists.

Additionally, since you did not respond to Cheddar’s remarks about science being incapable of disproving God, but then saying “given the choice between science and God…”, I must conclude you** do** see a conflict between the two in some way. Could you elaborate on that matter as well?

Actually I said given a choice between Religion and Science, I would chose science, and that is because science has produced results, and changes it’s assumtions as it is proven wrong. Religion rarely, if ever, does this. But this reminds me of my favorite quote about the bible:

“The bible tells people how to go to heaven, not how then heavens go.”

Science talks about things that religion can’t touch, and religion talks about things science can’t touch. I am perfectly happy with the existance of both, unless someone is trying to force me to choose.

 

[Chris_W]

cheddarsox:

The order an interconectedness I see in the things I study are so amazing, so intricate, that clearly there is some unity and greater order that everything is subject to.

…The order and cooperation I experience and observe kept me from going atheist. I could not deny what I experienced and observed. Here it is, doing its divine thing. And here I am, responding with awe and worship.

I have the same response when contemplating the amazing order of the universe. But why would you not respond to that contemplation with something like this?

cheddarsox:

…you are challenging me with the ultimate questions of the universe. And I cannot answer them. For you, I think they are answered by your faith, as they are for me. But I am also a scientist, and I know that there are natural explanations for things as well.

Or perhaps this?

cheddarsox:

…scientists cannot stop searching for natural causes, because that is what they do. They cannot stop and say “this is where god did something supernatural” they can say “we don’t know how this happened at the time” and keep searching.

Or even this:

cheddarsox:

Yes, [deists] can answer the question and science cannot, but that does not make the [deists] right. A wrong answer is not better than no answer at all.

There is inconsistency in your reasoning, Cheddar. When contemplating the uniqueness of human nature (also mysterious), you have argued against the very same logic you employ in responding to the mystery of the order of the universe (responding with faith in the divine).

If faith in the divine is a satisfactory answer to you for the amazing order of the universe (for which you have found no other answer), why is that same divine entity an unsatisfactory answer for why man has the ability to reason, free will and a conscience (for which you also have found no other answer)?

 

[Chris_W]

Monarchy:

There is no proof that he exists.

Ah. But there is no proof that He doesn’t exist either, if you rely only on science, (since science doesn’t adress the issue) so why would you need to abandon reason? I didn’t ask you why you don’t believe in God, I asked you why you feel you would need to abandon reason to believe in God. You haven’t answered the question.

Monarchy:

Actually I said given a choice between Religion and Science, I would chose science, and that is because science has produced results, and changes it’s assumtions as it is proven wrong. Religion rarely, if ever, does this. .

That’s because absolute truth is unchanging Shall I conclude form your answer that you do **not ** see a conflict between the two (I asked you what the conflict is)?

Monarchy:

Science talks about things that religion can’t touch, and religion talks about things science can’t touch. I am perfectly happy with the existance of both, unless someone is trying to force me to choose.

This again raises the question: Why would you feel you need to choose between the two unless they contradict each other? Lets confine this to science and “theism”, not “religion”, k? There are numerous kinds of religions, but the topic at hand is atheism, not the rejection of a specific religion.

If you believe they contradict each other (science and theism), please explain how.

 

[Chris_W]

Gilbert Keith:

Would anyone care to summarize their views on why evolution seems to help some people to evolve from theism to atheism, whereas others find easy accommodation of evolution and theism?

Not yet. I have a few more questions to ask and answers to hear.

 

[cheddarsox]

Chris W:

I have the same response when contemplating the amazing order of the universe. But why would you not respond to that contemplation with something like this?

Or perhaps this?

Or even this:

There is inconsistency in your reasoning, Cheddar. When contemplating the uniqueness of human nature (also mysterious), you have argued against the very same logic you employ in responding to the mystery of the order of the universe (responding with faith in the divine).

If faith in the divine is a satisfactory answer to you for the amazing order of the universe (for which you have found no other answer), why is that same divine entity an unsatisfactory answer for why man has the ability to reason, free will and a conscience (for which you also have found no other answer)?

You are mixing arguments. In some posts we were discussing atheist beliefs, and why certain “proofs” were not satisfactory etc. In the last post, I was discussing my personal beliefs.

I am able to discuss concepts and other belief systems objectively. I can understand why others don’t see things as I do. The fact that I can understand, and discuss, and even argue for the validity that I recognize in those viewpoints, does not mean I hold those viewpoints.

I understand why many atheists feels as they do. That is not the same as feeling that way myself.

I am not being inconsistent, those are two different conversations dealing with different points.

Objectively discussing certain belief systems. Subjectively sharing about my own.

cheddar

 

[Chris_W]

cheddarsox:

I am not being inconsistent, those are two different conversations dealing with different points.

Objectively discussing certain belief systems. Subjectively sharing about my own.

I don’t intend to be mixing arguments. I understood you to say, that when it comes to human nature, and the attributes we were discussing, that (essentially) you may not have an answer for the questions raised, but that you believe there are likely naturalistic answers, and even though you may not have an answer right now, you don’t feel the need for one either, because a wrong answer is no better than no answer.

Have I misunderstood your argument regarding those attributes of human nature?

If I have not misunderstood your argument, then it is the very same matter when it comes to the order of the universe. There is no scientific answer, yet in this case you feel compelled to answer it with faith in the divine.

I fail to see how I am confusing the issues here. Perhaps you can try again to explain it to me? (I can be dense on occassion )

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris W
*
Soooo, I am wondering if you could please elaborate on why you feel you would need to “abandon reason” in order to acknowledge the existence of God.*

Monarchy commented:

*There is no proof that he exists. If there was I would Believe, but it would have to be proof in the area of science. Something like what you see at the end of Carl Sagan’s excellent novel Contact would be what I except as proof that god exists.
*

But this would be too easy. God tests our belief, our willingness to submit, by making His existence sensed though not with absolute conviction. God expects us to doubt, and asks us to overcome our doubts. He wants us to fall in love with Him rather than to be ravished by him in such a way that we cannot resist.

It’s what Christians call free will. You are frre to accept God. You are free to reject God. You are free to reject and then to accept. You are free to accept and then reject. All options are open, which is why God is more tolerant than atheists often allow. Whereas atheism often says we are all slaves to a deterministic doom of absolute death, God opens to us the possibility of everlasting life.

But it’s our choice, not His.

Consider the alternative:

God makes His existence so obvious that we cannot possibly deny it. If you think fear of the Lord characterizes Christianity now, wait till you see how much worldwide terror there would be in a world in which everyone knew without a doubt that God exists. We would all be cowed into submission, fear, and trembling.

No freedom there. I sometimes think that after His love for us, the greatest gift God could give us is our human freedom … to choose everlasting life or everlasting doom.

We are virtual gods with that kind of power … and perhaps that’s what Genesis means when it says we were made in His image and likeness.

So is this another reason that atheists cannot abide God? Are they afraid to be free? Are they afraid to be responsible for choosing between heaven and hell? Are they afraid to be heroic by acknowledging and struggling with the powers of darkness? Are they afraid to share in Christ’s passion?

Are they afraid to submit their will to a higher will. Are they afraid to submit their egos to the all highest I AM?

 

[cheddarsox]

Chris W:

I don’t intend to be mixing arguments. I understood you to say, that when it comes to human nature, and the attributes we were discussing, that (essentially) you may not have an answer for the questions raised, but that you believe there are likely naturalistic answers, and even though you may not have an answer right now, you don’t feel the need for one either, because a wrong answer is no better than no answer.

Have I misunderstood your argument regarding those attributes of human nature?

If I have not misunderstood your argument, then it is the very same matter when it comes to the order of the universe. There is no scientific answer, yet in this case you feel compelled to answer it with faith in the divine.

I fail to see how I am confusing the issues here. Perhaps you can try again to explain it to me? (I can be dense on occassion )

I am a pantheist. I believe that the divine is present and works through nature. I believe that which causes all to cooperate to create the reality of the universe is the divine. I cannot explain how it operates, or “why” it does things in the manner it does.
And that is OK with me.

I do not believe in a “supernatural” divine that mystically makes things happen without reguard to the implicit order of the universe that everything else is subject to .

The divine that I was presented when I was younger, was one which behaved outside of the natural order of the universe. I rejected this idea of “god” because, in my experience, I never witnessed any evidence of such. It appeared to me as a way of humans rationalizing that which they did not comprehend by assigning responsibility to a anthropomorphic “god” who behaved in very confusing ways, and this sometimes chaotic behavior was referred to as “mystery”.

I was ready to “go atheist” because I did not believe in this “god”. But the obvious order and unity, the cooperation in the universe, the very reassuring fact that there were laws, and patterns etc. saved me from becoming an atheist. I saw that there was a divine, in these laws, patterns and order. A divine that was not capricious, anthropomorphic or dependant of magic. All the wonders were accomplished amazingly, without the divine ever contradicting itself, or “pulling rank” and doing something outside of the order.

That is the divine I see at work in my life, and in all things. I think it is behind the ultimate workings of the universe. I do not think it steps in, in any mysterious or magical way to make things occur. It always works through the order which is in itself divine.

so, I do believe there is a natural explanation for human behavior etc, and it can be found in the divine, which is the order of the universe. I do not believe that it is supernatural or mystical, because I don’t believe there is anything that is supernatural.

I understand that I use divine in a different way than many. for many people divine=supernatural, for pantheists, it does not. The divine=natural.

The divine does not equal “God” or deity in my belief system.

I hope I did a better job of explaining things this time.

cheddar

 

[Chris_W]

cheddarsox:

The fact that I can understand, and discuss, and even argue for the validity that I recognize in those viewpoints, does not mean I hold those viewpoints.

I am not being inconsistent, those are two different conversations dealing with different points.

Objectively discussing certain belief systems. Subjectively sharing about my own.

Sorry, I couldn’t wait for your reply. I am baffled by this Cheddar.

The two arguments are the same, the only difference is whether we’re talking about ‘human nature’ or the ‘order of the universe’. If the argument you presented, apparently on behalf of those with whom you do not share belief (perplexing as that is) against my statements about human nature is a valid arguement, then it is **also ** a valid argument in the case of the mysterious order of the universe, regardless of whether you are speaking about personal testimony or not. Thus you would be disproving your own belief system. Is that rational? I cannot comprehend what you are doing.

 

[cheddarsox]

Gilbert Keith:

Consider the alternative:

God makes His existence so obvious that we cannot possibly deny it. If you think fear of the Lord characterizes Christianity now, wait till you see how much worldwide terror there would be in a world in which everyone knew without a doubt that God exists. We would all be cowed into submission, fear, and trembling.

**Why? Why would certainty of “God” do that?

What is so terrible about your God that knowing him would reduce humanity to a mass of quivering pulp?

And yet you wonder why people don’t seek out and fall in love with this God? **

No freedom there. I sometimes think that after His love for us, the greatest gift God could give us is our human freedom … to choose everlasting life or everlasting doom.

If what you believe is true, the game of “hide and go seek” God is playing with humanity is one with very high stakes. Strange behavior for one who epitomizes love.

We are virtual gods with that kind of power … and perhaps that’s what Genesis means when it says we were made in His image and likeness.

So is this another reason that atheists cannot abide God?

**To abide a thing, one must first believe in it.

You are assuming that atheists believe, but reject your god.

To believe, but reject, is not the same as not believing.

Atheists are those who do not believe in deity, they are not those who believe, but reject YOUR God.

I am not sure if there is a specific word for those who believe in your God, but reject him (other than The damned)
**

Are they afraid to be free? Are they afraid to be responsible for choosing between heaven and hell? Are they afraid to be heroic by acknowledging and struggling with the powers of darkness? Are they afraid to share in Christ’s passion?

Are they afraid to submit their will to a higher will. Are they afraid to submit their egos to the all highest I AM?

cheddar

 

[Chris_W]

My last post was prior to reading this one (I type slow).

cheddarsox:

I am a pantheist. I believe that the divine is present and works through nature…I understand that I use divine in a different way than many. for many people divine=supernatural, for pantheists, it does not. The divine=natural.

The divine does not equal “God” or deity in my belief system.

I hope I did a better job of explaining things this time.

Ah, so you worship nature? I guess we do not have the same response to the amazing order of the universe after all. I was mis-led by your obscure use of the word “divine”.

Here are some definitions of divine that a quick search of the internet produced:

emanating from God; “divine judgment”; “divine guidance”; "providential: resulting from divine providence; “providential care”; “a providential visitation”
being or having the nature of a god; devoted to or in the service or worship of a deity; “divine worship”; “divine liturgy”
Godhead: terms referring to the Judeo-Christian God
appropriate to or befitting a god; cleric: a clergyman or other person in religious orders; search by divining, as if with a rod; “He claimed he could divine underground water”
of such surpassing excellence as to suggest divine inspiration; “her pies were simply divine”; “the divine Shakespeare”; “an elysian meal”; “an inspired performance”

So, why do you call nature divine? And how is that different than atheism, except that atheists don’t call the same thing which they also believe in “divine” (nature)?

I should’ve looked at your profile sooner. When you said the order saved your faith in the divine, I made the false assumption that by “divine” you meant what nearly everyone else in the world means by divine (God, deity, or deities). I figured you were a deist.

I dislike wasting time and enrgy.

Now though, I am confused why you would point out that when discussing human nature you were speaking objectively about atheism, and when you were talking about the order of the universe, you were speaking subjectively from faith. Do you differ in any way on the subject of human nature than the atheistic position, other than you call nature divine? Why make the distinction?

You mention your view of a divine, which causes things to happen, does its thing, but doesn’t step in in any mysterious way to make things happen, and yet it works through the laws of nature.

Out of curiosity, how does it work through the laws of nature to make things happen? The laws of nature do not change do they? Therefore what was set in motion in the beginning just happens now because the laws are constant…cause and effect only. So why do you believe it is doing it’s thing? It seems to me it requires no participation at all. Is the divine you profess doing something presently?