Scratch an atheist and you will find a skeptic!

[Vera_Ljuba]

Theists say we can never comprehend God. Where did you get that idea?

No, they say that no one can FULLY comprehend God. Every time you speak of God’s will, you presume that in that specific instance you “know” God’s will. You “know” that God does not approve of homosexual love, you “know” God is against abortions… and so you “know” a whole lot of things… or so you believe.

Every time you say anything about God, you believe that you understand God. We simply like to rub your nose into your contradictory sayings.

 

[PRmerger]

Theists say we can never comprehend God. Where did you get that idea?

That’s because there’s that…

wait for it…

wait for it…

fundamentalist thinking that’s being limned again.

When we say we “know” God, the fundamentalist read this as, weirdly, “Oh, so you’re saying you must know EVERYTHING there is about God then.”

They don’t have the ability to think in both/ands.

They only, peculiarly, think in either/ors.

Either Believers know God and this means they know EVERYTHING and apprehend the Godhead in its infinity…

OR…

Believers must know NOTHING about God.

It’s just so weird why fundamentalists create these odd false dichotomies.

[SIGN]SAAFAF[/SIGN]

 

[inocente]

The question I posed was 'Where is the word ‘all.’ Not - what do think I should have wrote.

:ehh: Horses graze means all horses graze, not some, not a few. You gave no reason for anyone to think you didn’t mean all.

*Ah - the ‘blame the victim’ strategy. If used something from you personal profile to discredit you on a personal level it is your fault for putting that information there. *

Let’s get this straight. If someone clicks on your name and reads that you’ve said you’re a legal advocate, it doesn’t discredit you; but if they then mention that you’ve said you’re a legal advocate, that discredits you. As arguments go, that’s a doozy.

Also, imho words are devalued when abused. A victim is “a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action”. Not someone who feels a bit peeved. But if you really think I’ve harmed or injured you then click on the red triangle and report the post.

If you want to believe I all fundamentalists including radical atheists believe Godlessness is blame for all the worlds ills and homosexuality is an abomination - or is it the case you are now saying I inferred it rather than actually said it - believe that.

Please quote where you think I actually said it. I doubt you can as I think you’re mistaken.

I guess our conversation has now been permanently diverted away from the subject of the thread.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

That’s because there’s that…

wait for it…

wait for it…

fundamentalist thinking that’s being limned again.

When we say we “know” God, the fundamentalist read this as, weirdly, “Oh, so you’re saying you must know EVERYTHING there is about God then.”

They don’t have the ability to think in both/ands.

They only, peculiarly, think in either/ors.

Either Believers know God and this means they know EVERYTHING and apprehend the Godhead in its infinity…

OR…

Believers must know NOTHING about God.

It’s just so weird why fundamentalists create these odd false dichotomies.

[SIGN]SAAFAF[/SIGN]

Very childlike, black and white thinking.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

No, they say that no one can FULLY comprehend God. Every time you speak of God’s will, you presume that in that specific instance you “know” God’s will. You “know” that God does not approve of homosexual love, you “know” God is against abortions… and so you “know” a whole lot of things… or so you believe.

Every time you say anything about God, you believe that you understand God. We simply like to rub your nose into your contradictory sayings.

I do know that God created male and female, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s pretty fundamental. Even evolutionists know that you have to have one of each sex to produce offspring.

But I don’t “know” God. God is mysterious and awesome. I just know God is the opposite of evil.

 

[goout]

I do know that God created male and female, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s pretty fundamental. Even evolutionists know that you have to have one of each sex to produce offspring.

But I don’t “know” God. God is mysterious and awesome. I just know God is the opposite of evil.

Right.
The knowing of God is not a journalistic or scientific head knowledge.
Knowledge of God’s will is personal, as one person knows another. (Vera, please note the difference between personal and individualist…)

God is approachable. We can have knowledge of God, but that doesn’t mean we have specific and complete knowledge of God’s “mind” and will. (Vera, note the Christian meaning of mystery…)
Any more than I have complete possession of my wife’s mind and will.
We have knowledge of a person as revealed, and according to our ability to comprehend.
(Vera, not the difference between those who are created and the creator. Note the relationship between omnipotence and free will, that God doesn’t force knowledge of his will on us)

For instance, the nature of marriage is easily observable for the observant and open-minded. It doesn’t require special revelation that is only available to a select few. We can see design in marriage which may point us to God’s will, or we may deny what we see, or we may choose not to ascribe it to God. Ok…

The discussion displays another rationalist/fundamentalist misunderstanding of Christianity. And this is fine, a person is free to their own beliefs, but what’s the sense of debating with straw men?

If you’re going to expose Christianity as a fraud, please do so in the actual arena.

 

[goout]

I also see the idea that God is the opposite of evil. I get it, but God is simply good.

God needs no contrast to be good. The reality of evil does not prove God’s goodness. For us who are human creatures in a state of fallenness, the contrast is striking because we can be evil, and we have a gulf to traverse to realize God’s goodness.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I do know that God created male and female, and that marriage is between a man and a woman.

There is a fundamental difference between “knowing” and “believing”.

 

[Vonsalza]

There is a fundamental difference between “knowing” and “believing”.

A fundamental difference?
No, there is not.

 

[goout]

A fundamental difference?
No, there is not.

Right.
There are distinctions between the two to be made, but they are part of “the whole” (Catholic)

Christianity is relational Vera. Knowing is not journalism or science (but also includes that). Knowing includes the person as part of the whole.

Believing also includes the person.
Heres a good definition of Christian faith:
“God’s grace working in me, to which I respond”
Notice that a relationship is involved in belief. It includes things like trust, consent, assent, submission, admission. Love.

 

[reggieM]

Some time back in this thread, Bradski was quite outraged. Apparently, what I said was “contemptuous”. It was “monstrously outrageous”, and I “should be ashamed”.

The fact that you can actually write that some people could consider rape to be a good things is exceptionally objectionable. It is, without doubt, one of the worst things anyone can do to a fellow human being and for you to use it as a cheap and risibly inept debating point is contemptuous.

That is a monstrously outrageous statement and you should be ashamed for having made it.

Now, I made exactly the same statement to another of Bradski’s fellow atheists.

Originally Posted by reggieM
Evolution gave us rape and torture also so we would need to say those are necessary for human society.
As mentioned above, evolution preserves features in the population for the benefit of of the species. Rape, torture, murder, dictators, world wars – all have been preserved by evolution for the benefit of the species and therefore such things are good, from an evolutionary standpoint.

Simple logic. Rape, torture, murder … these are good from an evolutionary perspective because they have been preserved in our population for the benefit of the species.

Russell_SA responds:

Yes they are, but we have also reached a point to understand just how terrible they are for our social well-being and are always attempting to remove people that promote those behaviors and to change social pressures that bring out that side of ourselves.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14761731&postcount=31

So, what Bradski found “monstrous”, Russell simply accepted and responded to calmly and rationally.
Why the significant difference in responses?

Clearly, Bradski doesn’t like the facts as they stand and there’s simply no way to get around the logic. So, he poured out his hostility against me.

Russell, on the other hand, accepts the logic. He doesn’t run and hide from the implications of the atheist worldview. Evolution preserves rape, torture, warfare - every human behavior we see today. These are for the benefit of human society.

Bradski has nothing to say about that except to hope that I will simply be shamed into not speaking the truth about atheism.

But I’m grateful there is at least one atheist around here who is honest enough to admit the truth. I’d only wish Bradski and others would be as honest and straightforward about their professed beliefs.

 

[PRmerger]

Some time back in this thread, Bradski was quite outraged. Apparently, what I said was “contemptuous”. It was “monstrously outrageous”, and I “should be ashamed”.

Now, I made exactly the same statement to another of Bradski’s fellow atheists.

Simple logic. Rape, torture, murder … these are good from an evolutionary perspective because they have been preserved in our population for the benefit of the species.

Russell_SA responds:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14761731&postcount=31

So, what Bradski found “monstrous”, Russell simply accepted and responded to calmly and rationally.
Why the significant difference in responses?

Clearly, Bradski doesn’t like the facts as they stand and there’s simply no way to get around the logic. So, he poured out his hostility against me.

Russell, on the other hand, accepts the logic. He doesn’t run and hide from the implications of the atheist worldview. Evolution preserves rape, torture, warfare - every human behavior we see today. These are for the benefit of human society.

Bradski has nothing to say about that except to hope that I will simply be shamed into not speaking the truth about atheism.

But I’m grateful there is at least one atheist around here who is honest enough to admit the truth. I’d only wish Bradski and others would be as honest and straightforward about their professed beliefs.

Yes.

That’s because Bradski implicitly acknowledges the existence of Moral Absolutes.

Not so sure about Russell.

When there is tacit acknowledgement that some things are always wrong, and “monstrous”, that is one step closer to acknowledging the existence of a Moral Lawgiver.

 

[reggieM]

Yes.

That’s because Bradski implicitly acknowledges the existence of Moral Absolutes.

Not so sure about Russell.

When there is tacit acknowledgement that some things are always wrong, and “monstrous”, that is one step closer to acknowledging the existence of a Moral Lawgiver.

Russell admits moral absolutes also. He just says that they come from evolution, not from God.

 

[Bradski]

Simple logic. Rape, torture, murder … these are good from an evolutionary perspective because they have been preserved in our population for the benefit of the species.

You are not exactly covering yourself in glory here. You tried to weasel out of your comments before rather than doing the decent thing and apologising.

Apart from the above sentence being completely nonsensical as it relates to any aspect of evolution, your first post on the matter said this:

We still have rape. So, it obviously is still a good thing according to the atheistic viewpoint.

You have had enough chances to apologise for that, but instead of doing so you try to reword your earlier comments to avoid having to do so. You keep posting on this matter and I will keep posting what you said. That you believe that atheists think that the sexual assault of women is a good thing.

I’m giving you another opportunity to retract that statement.

 

[PRmerger]

We still have rape. So, it obviously is still a good thing according to the atheistic viewpoint.

You have had enough chances to apologise for that, but instead of doing so you try to reword your earlier comments to avoid having to do so.

You do realize that each time you express indignation at the monstrous idea that atheism has professed: “rape is a good thing”, you dig yourself deeper into repudiation of atheism, right?

You cannot talk out of both sides of your mouth here.

Either there is no such thing as a moral absolute, and, as atheism professes, rape is a good thing…or rape is indeed a monstrous thing, ALWAYS wrong, and that, my friend, distances you from the atheistic world view.

 

[PRmerger]

This:



[SIGN]SAAFAF[/SIGN]

 

[reggieM]

That you believe that atheists think that the sexual assault of women is a good thing.
.

Why should I apologize for what I believe? I gave my reasons and showed the logic. One atheist agreed with me already. You said nothing about that.
Instead, you are looking for an apology because you didn’t like the argument.

The sexual assault of women is a human behavior that was created and preserved via the evolutionary process for the benefit of the human species.

Materialistic atheism posits that idea. That’s why I showed you one atheist who simply agreed with it.

If you insist on attacking me personally and not dealing with the argument, I suggest that we just move away from this and on to another topic that is more to your liking.

 

[reggieM]

Either there is no such thing as a moral absolute, and, as atheism professes, rape is a good thing…or rape is indeed a monstrous thing, ALWAYS wrong, and that, my friend, distances you from the atheistic world view.

That seems clear. There is no reason for the kind of outrage that Bradski offers here given that atheism posits that morality is subjective. Rapists want to rape - so it is good for them to do that. Or will the atheist say that rape is universally wrong? If so, you cannot derive a universal moral norm like that from materialist evolution which looks only to the survival and reproductive success of the species.

Looking back at that meme, Dawkins had a problem with this kind of thing since he asserts that there is no free will, but then he pretends that we actually have it because it is too difficult to actually live in real life believing that all of our actions are determined by evolutionary, material-physical processes.

I kind of admire Bradski’s outrage because it is a clear sign of an inner conflict that he is facing. The voice of conscience within. He’s actually showing outrage against his own professed worldview. And that is a good thing!

 

[PRmerger]

He’s actually showing outrage against his own professed worldview!

That’s exactly right on.

 

[Bradski]

If you insist on attacking me personally and not dealing with the argument, I suggest that we just move away from this and on to another topic that is more to your liking.

Forget it buddty. You and I have nothing else ro discuss.