Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

J C · 03-05-2013 10:19pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

No they don't have faith that god doesn't exist, thats kinda the point, the lack of faith.

You're just arguing semantics here. Indeed your double negative actually applies to Theists ... they're the ones who don't have faith that god doesn't exist ... because they believe that He does.

Atheism and Theism are simply opposite sides of the faith dichotomy ... and no amount of semantics can deny this obvious fact.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Not believing in a god is not a position of faith, it's a lack of faith.

Its faith in a lack of faith - as well as other dubious propositions ... like the non-existence of God.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Placing your trust in science isn't that far removed from a faith but with the difference that if you wanted you could do the experiments yourself so your faith is conditional on the trust you have in science.

Your faith is conditional on the evidence (or lack of it) you have for each claim of science.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Having said all that atheism is a sort of extreme protestantism for some of its followers, almost a religion just more a reaction to something than a starting point.

Some atheists define themselves by what they're against ... namely God and Theism ... others simply don't believe in God without any animosity against God or Theism.

tommy2bad · 03-05-2013 11:27pm

J C wrote: »

You're just arguing semantics here. Indeed your double negative actually applies to Theists ... they're the ones who don't have faith that god doesn't exist ... because they believe that He does.
What??
Atheism and Theism are simply opposite sides of the faith dichotomy ... and no amount of semantics can deny this obvious fact.
Again what?
Its faith in a lack of faith - as well as other dubious propositions ... like the non-existence of God.
Head hurting now!
Your faith is conditional on the evidence (or lack of it) you have for each claim of science.
If theirs evidence then it's not faith.
Some atheists define themselves by what they're against ... namely God and Theism ... others simply don't believe in God without any animosity against God or Theism.

Well some do and some don't, whats your point?
Believing without evidence is the definition of faith even Jesus knew that!

J C · 03-05-2013 11:37pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well some do and some don't, whats your point?

You said that Atheism "is a sort of extreme 'protestantism' for some of its followers"... and I was agreeing with you ... some Atheists define themselves (at least, in part) as being 'against' Theism in a similar way that protestantism (at least, in part) used be 'against' Roman Catholocism.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Believing without evidence is the definition of faith even Jesus knew that!

There are degrees of evidence ... and therefore degrees of faith.
The evidence for God is so strong that Faith isn't actually required to know that He exists ... and the evidence for His non-existence is non-existent - and thus Atheism requires very great Faith indeed.

BTW, faith is required to believe that God so loved the World that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes on Him may be Saved.
... but faith isn't required to believe in the existence of God ... all logic and physical evidence points towards an Ultimate Cause of infinite intelligence and power.

MrPudding · 04-05-2013 9:26am

Pushtrak wrote: »

Among the weaknesses of the wager of which there are several, fore example, which religion? Naturally, you'll say Christianity, but that is just your take. You, for instance could be on the wrong end of the wager if Islam is right. The point of the dumb God, though is that this all knowing entity wouldn't see through a ploy of believing just to avoid hell. It is hedging your bets, and a being of the intelligence that is being proposed... It seems unussual that it would not see through/be nonplussed by such a gambit.

I always thought this about the gambit myself, that it was actually quite a negative thing and anyone of faith that argued it was effectively saying their god was dumb and easily fooled. I have come to realise, however, that there is an other option. Rather than being dumb, the god might simply be pathetic. It might not care if the person actually believes for any reason other than hedging bets. It might simply be a pathetic and desperate for attention. We know, in the unlikely event that it exists, that it will have many negative traits, pettiness, vindictiveness, small mindedness etc, it is not much of a stretch for it to be pathetic as well.

When looked in this light Pascal's Wager actually starts to make some sense.

MrP

J C · 04-05-2013 10:54am

MrPudding wrote: »

I always thought this about the gambit myself, that it was actually quite a negative thing and anyone of faith that argued it was effectively saying their god was dumb and easily fooled. I have come to realise, however, that there is an other option. Rather than being dumb, the god might simply be pathetic. It might not care if the person actually believes for any reason other than hedging bets. It might simply be a pathetic and desperate for attention. We know, in the unlikely event that it exists, that it will have many negative traits, pettiness, vindictiveness, small mindedness etc, it is not much of a stretch for it to be pathetic as well.

When looked in this light Pascal's Wager actually starts to make some sense.

MrP

God is a God of Justice and Mercy who has given us the gift of free-will.
We can choose to exercise our free-will to have God (in Justice) pay for our sins Himself and therefore extend His mercy to Save us.
... or we can choose to exercise our free-will to have God (in Justice) have us pay for our sins ... in eternal damnation.
The choice is up to us ... seems like a 'no brainer' to me ... but many people's pride keeps them from availing of Salvation.

God is an omnipotent omniscient infinitely just and merciful transcendent eternal Being.
Any sinful pettiness, vindictiveness, small mindedness etc are the projection of our own inadequacies onto God!!!!
Paschal's wager may have the side-effect of hedging our eternal bets ... but we do have to humble ourselves to make an irreversible commitment to Jesus Christ, when we are Saved - and therein lies the rub, I suppose!!!!

MrPudding · 25-06-2013 6:20am

tatranska wrote: »

Jesus had to die to open the way by dealing with sin.
being good enough couldn't do it. that was why the law wasn't good enough and he came as the only one able to fulfill it and meet its demands.

But why? Why could be not say that living a good moral life was enough? He was god, he wrote the laws, he made the rules. When you say "... it's demands" you are really talking about his demands, the demands came from him. There was no need for it to be so hard. It was go hard because be decided it was going to be hard. Realistically, if you are talking about an all knowing, all powerful god there was no reason for him to make it so hard.

MrP

homer911 · 25-06-2013 8:22am

MrPudding wrote: »

But why? Why could be not say that living a good moral life was enough? He was god, he wrote the laws, he made the rules. When you say "... it's demands" you are really talking about his demands, the demands came from him. There was no need for it to be so hard. It was go hard because be decided it was going to be hard. Realistically, if you are talking about an all knowing, all powerful god there was no reason for him to make it so hard.

MrP

You remind me of the story of Jesus telling healing the paralysed man in Matthew 9 http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/9.htm Christians will tell you that its far easier to accept the free gift of forgiveness from Jesus, than to try and earn something that cannot be earned

MrPudding · 25-06-2013 9:30am

homer911 wrote: »

You remind me of the story of Jesus telling healing the paralysed man in Matthew 9 http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/9.htm Christians will tell you that its far easier to accept the free gift of forgiveness from Jesus, than to try and earn something that cannot be earned

Which completely ignores the question of why it has to be the free gift rather than good deeds. And is it really a free gift? I thought it was hard... Hard implies a cost.

MrP

Zombrex · 25-06-2013 9:53am

homer911 wrote: »

You remind me of the story of Jesus telling healing the paralysed man in Matthew 9 http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/9.htm Christians will tell you that its far easier to accept the free gift of forgiveness from Jesus, than to try and earn something that cannot be earned

This might not be the thread to get into this, but Mr Puddings point is that Christians always talk about what Jesus did as if God was constrained by some sort of external system and was just doing his best to work around it. He wanted to forgive us but he can't, so he had to send Jesus, and he had to declare that salvation only comes through believing in Jesus.

For example, Christians will say it could not be good deeds that save us from hell because we fall so short of God that even if God wanted not to his justice demands that he punish us for our sin.

All of which imply systems and constrains on God from nature, like saying even if I wanted to I can't jump a mile in the air, or saying I wanted to go on holiday but the courts demanded that I pay a fine.

Which is paradoxical if we assert that God is the source of all the rules in the first place.

So when you say "cannot be earned" what that should actually be is "what God has decided cannot be earned". Which doesn't answer Puddings question because he question is why decide that in the first place.

If one asserts that there are no external constraints on God, and that he is omnipotent, then the only conclusion is that everything is exactly how God wants it to be, but could be any other way just as easily.

So it is not that we have to be punished because God's justice demands it, it is that God wants it that way and it could be different.

It is not that good deeds fall short of God's holiness, it is that God wants good deeds to fall short of his holiness, and it could be different.

It is not that one must believe in Jesus to be saved, it is that God wants you to have to believe in Jesus to be saved, and it could be different.

etc etc.

Which goes back to Puddings question, why would God want things to be as they are. Why would he want a constraint that means some people won't be saved? Why would he want to send people to hell? Why would he want to make it so his son suffer on the cross?

Again this might not be the thread for this, maybe the mods can move this to the Atheism/Problems with Christianity thread.

homer911 · 25-06-2013 10:05am

MrPudding wrote: »

Which completely ignores the question of why it has to be the free gift rather than good deeds.

If you look at the Old Testament situation, the Jewish people had to repeatedly offer sin sacrifices, because no sacrifice was good enough for past and future sins. The forgiveness of the sins of the world, past and future, required an absolutely perfect sacrifice - God himself

MrPudding wrote: »

And is it really a free gift? I thought it was hard... Hard implies a cost.
MrP

The cost comes after, not before. Depending on the circumstances of the individual, the cost can be high or low (for example, a Muslim converting to Christianity), but there is always some element of cost because we are called to deny our sinful nature for Christ.

Zombrex · 25-06-2013 10:12am

homer911 wrote: »

If you look at the Old Testament situation, the Jewish people had to repeatedly offer sin sacrifices, because no sacrifice was good enough for past and future sins. The forgiveness of the sins of the world, past and future, required an absolutely perfect sacrifice - God himself

You are missing the point of the question. The question is why? are any of those things the way things are.

Or to put it another way, if God is omnipotent, surely the following could just as easily been reality

The Jewish people didn't have to repeatedly offer sin sacrifices, because a single sacrifice was good enough for past and future sins. The forgiveness of the sins of the world doesn't require an absolute perfect sacrifice

If God decides the rules he decided one reality over another reality. It didn't have to be this one.

homer911 wrote: »

The cost comes after, not before. Depending on the circumstances of the individual, the cost can be high or low (for example, a Muslim converting to Christianity), but there is always some element of cost because we are called to deny our sinful nature for Christ.

Which means it isn't a free gift. If we are required to deny our sinful nature for Christ, then Christs gift isn't free, any more than me saying here have 50 euro now stop smoking. It is essentially a bribe, rather than a gift. But then I guess bribe doesn't sound as nice

homer911 · 25-06-2013 10:16am

Zombrex wrote: »

This might not be the thread to get into this...

A short answer is that God is a God of Love, but he is also righteous and just. God doesn't want to send anyone to hell, nor does he, we condemn ourselves to hell by rejecting his gift.

Christians believe that God put us on this earth to love him and love our neighbours as ourselves, to grow more like him each day, with his help. There is no point in giving people the option of love, without the freewill to choose or reject it. As God is perfect, and nothing imperfect can come into his presence (or he would become imperfect), we must be made perfect, and we are made perfect in Christ Jesus and his death and resurrection.

homer911 · 25-06-2013 10:22am

Zombrex wrote: »

Which means it isn't a free gift. If we are required to deny our sinful nature for Christ, then Christs gift isn't free, any more than me saying here have 50 euro now stop smoking. It is essentially a bribe, rather than a gift. But then I guess bribe doesn't sound as nice

No, its definitely a free gift. To use your analogy, I've done nothing to earn the €50 , there is no debt to be repaid or consequence to the donor if I dont quit smoking. The reward is not the €50, but the hope of a cancer free life. Like the rejection of opportunity to quit smoking, the rejection of Christ has its own consequences

Zombrex · 25-06-2013 10:30am

homer911 wrote: »

A short answer is that God is a God of Love, but he is also righteous and just.

Righteous and just by who's standards? If you are implying that God is righteous and just by standards other than the ones he just made up the you are implying that God is constrained by some notions of justice that are independent to his own. Which leads to the question where do those notions come from? Are they just the way things are, for no reason, and all things including God are constrained by them?

If on the other hand God decides what is righteous and what is justice and it is those things simply by virtue of God deciding it will be, then anything God decides to do is by definition righteous and just. So my second re-written paragraph of Jews in the Old Testament would have been just as righteous and justice if God had decided that was how it would be.

So again you aren't following the question. You are answering the question as if there is only one way things can be, which ironically for a Christian is like saying that God is constrained to do things a particular way.

homer911 wrote: »

God doesn't want to send anyone to hell, nor does he, we condemn ourselves to hell by rejecting his gift.

Who decided that that would require God to send us to hell? If you say that God's justice requires that, who decided what form God's justice would take.

homer911 wrote: »

Christians believe that God put us on this earth to love him and love our neighbours as ourselves, to grow more like him each day, with his help. There is no point in giving people the option of love, without the freewill to choose or reject it.

Who decided that we would exist in a universe where the rules of that universe said there was no point doing that?

homer911 wrote: »

As God is perfect, and nothing imperfect can come into his presence (or he would become imperfect)

Who decided that?

You may think these are flippant questions, but they really aren't. They are actually very serious theological questions, given what properties Christians have proclaimed God to have (omnipotence, omniscience etc).

You are working on so many assumptions about how things must be, eg. God can't be in the presence of imperfect things because that would make him imperfect? Why, is that a rule of nature? If so who decided that rule? What would happen if there was a universe where God being the presence of imperfect things didn't make him imperfect? Why aren't we in that universe?

God has to send people to hell if they refuse his gift? Why, is that a reul of nature? If so who decided that rule? What would happen if there was a univesre where God didn't have to send people to hell for refusing his gift? etc etc

If God decides everything, why are there so many rules that constrain God?

Zombrex · 25-06-2013 10:39am

homer911 wrote: »

No, its definitely a free gift. To use your analogy, I've done nothing to earn the €50 , there is no debt to be repaid or consequence to the donor if I dont quit smoking. The reward is not the €50, but the hope of a cancer free life. Like the rejection of opportunity to quit smoking, the rejection of Christ has its own consequences

Yes but who decides those consequences. This is the point of Puddings question.

Imagine you smoke and your father has the power to give you cancer or not. He says if you don't stop smoking, the consequence of this is that you get cancer. But then you are only going to get cancer because your father is going to give you cancer in the first place if you don't stop smoking.

So you can say that your father is giving you the gift of a cancer free life if you stop smoking. But your father could just as easily let you continue smoking and just not give you cancer. The negative outcome only exists in the first place because your father decided it would exist. He could have just as easily decided they wouldn't, and there would be no down side to smoking.

By definition there can be no reason God has to punish us, because there can be nothing God has to do. Saying he has to because of justice or because of holiness is nonsensical because God decided those things in the first place. God has chosen that holiness demands he punish us. God has chosen that justice demands he punish us. He choose those things when he invented what justice would be and invented what holiness would be, in the same way in the analogy your father decided what the consequences of smoking would be.

The negative outcomes of not accepting God's offer of salvation only exist in the first place because God choose that they would.

It is not a free gift. To be a free gift God would have to be freely helping you avoid something outside of his control. Not only is he not doing that, he is requiring you do something in return. Your father won't give you cancer for smoking (which he decided would be the outcome of smoking), so long as you tell him how great he is every morning. Not really a good deal, is it.

Zombrex · 25-06-2013 10:57am

Think of it this way

You and your brother drink water (or any other innocuous activity)

For some reason your father doesn't like this, so he decides he will poison the water.

He tells you both about this, but says it like it is just an inevitable consequence of drinking water. "Sons you have drunk the water, you will die".

He then says "But, if you gratefully accept this gift I will give you a water antedote that will spare you from the poison. This is my free gift to you because I love you."

Your brother is over joyed. How wonderful our father is, we were facing death because we had drunk the water, but now our loving father will give us this free gift of saving you from death. Of course we will be grateful! That is pretty much the way every Christians speaks about Jesus, only focusing on the gift of salvation from hell, rather than why hell exists in the first place and why we are sent there.

You on the other hand go "Er, hang on a minute. The water is only poison in the first place because you decided to poison it and make dying of poison a consequence of drinking water. You now want me to be happy you are giving me a way to avoid the poison you decided to put in the water, but you want me to 'accept' this gift by being grateful to you for providing it. If I don't you will let the poison kill me"

That is pretty much the non-Christian view of what Christianity claims about God. Doesn't make much sense, does it?

homer911 · 25-06-2013 12:43pm

Your analogy ommits a few key points of the Christian message..

God loves us. He wants us to love him.
Our love for Him is meaningless without the option not to love him (free will)
Our love is put to the test through this gift of freewill, and we fail

In your analogy, the father doesn't tell the sons about the poison until after they have drunk it. That is not love. The father appears to have given them no alternatives to drink, that is not love. In your analogy, the only consequence is physical death - both Christians and non-Christians are subject to this.

So no, your analogy of the Christian message does not make sense..
If this is the non-Christian view of the Christian message, then it just emphasises the need for evangelism

Zombrex · 25-06-2013 1:06pm

homer911 wrote: »

God loves us. He wants us to love him.
Our love for Him is meaningless without the option not to love him (free will)
Our love is put to the test through this gift of freewill, and we fail

Irrelevant to the point. I could have added at the start that the father claims to love his children. It doesn't matter to the analogy because what matters is the actions of the father, not his claim to love his children. The father could say he poisoned the water and wants his children to be grateful for the antidote because he "loves" them, and whats them to "love" him. But I think you can see that isn't how we would think of love.

It doesn't matter if God claims to love us, what matters is how he behaves. That is before you even get to the fact that most Christians define love as what ever God does in the first place, which makes the definition rather circular.

homer911 wrote: »

In your analogy, the father doesn't tell the sons about the poison until after they have drunk it. That is not love.

Yes, that is the point.

God did not consult us about sin or hell or his system of justice. He didn't say "You guys ok with me poisoning the water?" We were just created in a universe where sin means hell and told the only way to not end up in hell is to take the "gift" of salvation (ie we are just told "Yup the water is poison, luckily I have the antidote").

God just poisoned the water and then said Luckily I have the antidote. I'm glad you agree that isn't love.

homer911 wrote: »

The father appears to have given them no alternatives to drink, that is not love.

Yes again that is the point. The father gives them no alternative to the water being poisoned. Their "options" are take the antidote or die. The father decided that the water would be poison, something the sons had no choice in.

The question of why the water was poison in the first place is ignored, at least by the brother who represents Christians.

homer911 wrote: »

So no, your analogy of the Christian message does not make sense..

It does homer, I think you are just not prepared to properly look at the Christian message because frankly you want the antidote more than you want to question why the water is poison in the first place.

It is interesting that you can see these things as not loving when presented the same concept but not as part of the Christian message.

Fanny Cradock · 25-06-2013 1:32pm

Zombrex wrote: »

It does homer, I think you are just not prepared to properly look at the Christian message because frankly you want the antidote more than you want to question why the water is poison in the first place.

Ironic that you should say this because it occurred to me that your own particular understanding of Hell - as outlined in your poisoned water analogy - is both deficient and inaccurate when we consider the classical notion of judgement and absolutely silent when we consider alternative views of what Hell is.

Doctor DooM · 25-06-2013 1:35pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ironic that you should say this because it occurred to me that your own particular understanding of Hell - as outlined in your poisoned water analogy - is both deficient and inaccurate when we consider the classical notion of judgement and absolutely silent when we consider alternative views of what Hell is.

Does the nature of hell matter in this discussion as long as it is agreed hell is a thing no one would ever want to endure?

Zombrex · 25-06-2013 1:41pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ironic that you should say this because it occurred to me that your own particular understanding of Hell - as outlined in your poisoned water analogy - is both deficient and inaccurate when we consider the classical notion of judgement and absolutely silent when we consider alternative views of what Hell is.

If you think that you are missing the point of the analogy.

The actual poisoning of the water is not relevant. You can replace poisoning with anything you like. You can replace it with being licked by kittens for all I care.

The point is that if God is omnipotent and created everything then nothing has to be the way it is and everything is only the way it is because God decided it would be that way and not other way. Therefore Christians appealing to these notions of how things have to be as if they just have to be that way is silly (and deeply ironic considering you are limiting your own omnipotent deity)

This is a continuous problem on this forum, you guys like to say God is the creator of everything but then you limit God so much as to how he could have created everything.

The point of the poison is simply that the water does not need to poisoned. It is only poisoned because the father decided to poison it. Reality, sin, hell, heaven, judgement, love, rejection etc are only the way they are because God decided they would be that way.

So anytime you say something like we must be able to reject God in order to have free will or, God must punish sin or Hell is where we go when separated from God, all you are saying is that the water must be poisoned as if that is the only option. Which of course it doesn't have to be poisoned.

What ever you want to think of hell, we only need God in the first place because he set everything up so that we would need him. There is no reason why any of these concepts (sin, hell, punishment, justice, love etc) have to exist or have to be the way they are described by Christianity.

Can you give me a reason why anything described in Christianity has to be the way it is?

Fanny Cradock · 25-06-2013 1:56pm

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Does the nature of hell matter in this discussion as long as it is agreed hell is a thing no one would ever want to endure?

At least one perspective of Hell is that of annihilationism. There is nothing to endure there. One might even consider this a mercy as opposed to remaining in the presence of a being they hate.

Zombrex · 25-06-2013 1:58pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

At least one perspective of Hell is that of annihilationism. There is nothing to endure there. One might even consider this a mercy as opposed to remaining in the presence of a being they hate.

That isn't relevant to my point. If you want to consider the "water is poisoned" to be analogis to "hell is annihilation" that is fine, the point remains.

Fanny Cradock · 25-06-2013 2:08pm

Zombrex wrote: »

That isn't relevant to my point. If you want to consider the "water is poisoned" to be analogis to "hell is annihilation" that is fine, the point remains.

And that's probably because I was responding to a question put to me by Doctor Doom. I'll try respond to your post later.

Zombrex · 25-06-2013 2:11pm

Zombrex wrote: »

That isn't relevant to my point. If you want to consider the "water is poisoned" to be analogis to "hell is annihilation" that is fine, the point remains.

By the way if anyone thinks I'm talking out my arse, try this little experiment.

Take the statement like (or any statement you like, in case anything thinks this statement doesn't represent their Christianity)

I am an unrepentant sinner who rejects God and I'm being sent to hell

and see how far you can get justifying that statement before you run into the dead end of either "...just because." or "...because God says so."

Seriously, have a go. After every statement use the following statement to justify the pervious statement and see how you get.

For example, he is going to hell because God is holy and must punish sinners. The next sentence should explain why God being holy means he must punish sinners.

It should be eye opening for most of the Christians here.

homer911 · 25-06-2013 2:26pm

What's your point Zombrex?

Christians believe that God is in charge of the Universe. For us adding "...because God says so." to a statement is not the Christian response. The Christian response will be "Amen": so be it, let it happen, because we trust in you, and you are Lord and you know what's best for us

Zombrex · 25-06-2013 2:56pm

homer911 wrote: »

What's your point Zombrex?

The point is that what Christians claim about God and God's love is nonsensical.

I appreciate you don't care because it makes you happy, but you can't really expect others to simply go along with it.

homer911 · 25-06-2013 5:21pm

Zombrex wrote: »

The point is that what Christians claim about God and God's love is nonsensical.

I appreciate you don't care because it makes you happy, but you can't really expect others to simply go along with it.

On the contrary, all Christians care when others reject the gospel, and I find it interesting that despite your opposition/rejection you continue to go on asking questions. I would never expect others to "simply go along with it". Quoting the parable of the sower, this would be seed on rocky ground. Christians need solid roots. Recently there has been some talk of evangelisation and indoctrination. The truth is that Christians cannot , on their own, convert non-Christians, and sometimes arguing with non-Christians is very non-Christian. Christians can only try and live the gospel and share God's message as best they can with God's help. Its up to the individual, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to make up their own mind. The Bible says that God stands at the door and knocks (Rev. 3:20) You have to decide whether to open the door or not. Nobody is going to jimmy it open with a crow bar, and God is not going to keep knocking for ever, because he has given us free will to choose.

Zombrex · 25-06-2013 5:48pm

homer911 wrote: »

The Bible says that God stands at the door and knocks (Rev. 3:20) You have to decide whether to open the door or not. Nobody is going to jimmy it open with a crow bar, and God is not going to keep knocking for ever, because he has given us free will to choose.

I'm not sure what that refers to. The argument here is that Christian claims about God are nonsensical.

Where does the holy spirit knocking on the door come into that? Does God make these arguments appear sensical, or does he just make you not care that they are nonsensical? If I cannot become a Christian without God turning me into one it seems even more odd that he would decide to refuse to save me from his punishment if I don't become one.

It is like someone saying 2+2=5 and when someone else says "Er, no it doesn't" the first person, the person of faith, says once you accept it does you will understanding ...

Not very convincing, is it?

Also if Christian claims are nonsensical and require God in order for you to believe them then that still makes them nonsensical. You can say yes they are nonsensical but I believe anyway because God has done something miraculous, but that is a different argument to saying all this makes sense.

tommy2bad · 25-06-2013 7:17pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Think of it this way

You and your brother drink water (or any other innocuous activity)

For some reason your father doesn't like this, so he decides he will poison the water.

He tells you both about this, but says it like it is just an inevitable consequence of drinking water. "Sons you have drunk the water, you will die".

He then says "But, if you gratefully accept this gift I will give you a water antedote that will spare you from the poison. This is my free gift to you because I love you."

Your brother is over joyed. How wonderful our father is, we were facing death because we had drunk the water, but now our loving father will give us this free gift of saving you from death. Of course we will be grateful! That is pretty much the way every Christians speaks about Jesus, only focusing on the gift of salvation from hell, rather than why hell exists in the first place and why we are sent there.

You on the other hand go "Er, hang on a minute. The water is only poison in the first place because you decided to poison it and make dying of poison a consequence of drinking water. You now want me to be happy you are giving me a way to avoid the poison you decided to put in the water, but you want me to 'accept' this gift by being grateful to you for providing it. If I don't you will let the poison kill me"

That is pretty much the non-Christian view of what Christianity claims about God. Doesn't make much sense, does it?

Your right it don't make much sense! Because it's a misunderstanding of the christian view. The flaw is that the father poisoned the well, the christian view is more like a well that sprang whisky, fine and good for those mature enough to drink but forbidden to the children. Being warned but disobedient the kids drink anyway and get drunk and wreck the gaff. Daddy says "I'm so angry right now go to your room and tidy that up, I'll take care of this mess".

You have a much more pertinent point in the idea that God is bound by some external force that He must obey. Now that's real stupidity.

Zombrex · 25-06-2013 7:40pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

Your right it don't make much sense! Because it's a misunderstanding of the christian view. The flaw is that the father poisoned the well, the christian view is more like a well that sprang whisky, fine and good for those mature enough to drink but forbidden to the children. Being warned but disobedient the kids drink anyway and get drunk and wreck the gaff. Daddy says "I'm so angry right now go to your room and tidy that up, I'll take care of this mess".

That isn't relevant to the point. Using your analogy, why does the whiskey make the kids drunk, why when they are drunk do they "wreak the gaff", why does "wreaking the gaff" make God angry.

You have just done what I've been saying, looked at the Christian story only in the context of limits.

tommy2bad · 25-06-2013 7:47pm

No Zombrex, I'm actually trying to explain the story in a christian context. It doesn't have a use outside of that, so why would I try to make the story relevant to another context?
Tempted as I am to extend the metaphor, I'll desist.

Zombrex · 25-06-2013 8:48pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

No Zombrex, I'm actually trying to explain the story in a christian context.

"Explaining the story in a christian context" doesn't change the point. What you said doesn't make any more sense that the analogy I used. You just replaced one analogy (poisoned water) for another (whiskey that makes you drunk), while not addressing the actual point being made about God establishing all the systems at the start.

Benny_Cake · 25-06-2013 9:33pm

Mod note: I've moved some of the discussion from the "Am I going to hell?" thread over here as it's turning into a straight-up Christian / Atheist debate. If anyone feels their posts have been unfairly moved, please send me a PM.

tommy2bad · 26-06-2013 8:15am

Zombrex wrote: »

"Explaining the story in a christian context" doesn't change the point. What you said doesn't make any more sense that the analogy I used. You just replaced one analogy (poisoned water) for another (whiskey that makes you drunk), while not addressing the actual point being made about God establishing all the systems at the start.

Fair point. You were close when you pointed out that God can't be held to any 'rules' if He is God. My contention and I'm aware that this isn't Christian orthodoxy, is that what we are talking about is not the way the universe/world/things are set up from the start. We are talking about a relationship and thats the water that was poisoned when we rebelled.
The whole 'God is this and therefore can't... ' is nonsense, He's God! He can if He wants, thats the point of being God. However a relationship is not something that God has any control over, if He dose control it then it not a relationship, it's a manipulation.
See where I'm coming from?
BTW all this is my personal take, again not Christian orthodoxy though I can support it with texts from the more esoteric end of Christianity, some would say heretical end.

Benny, good spot, this is going over old ground now.

Zombrex · 26-06-2013 10:50am

tommy2bad wrote: »

Fair point. You were close when you pointed out that God can't be held to any 'rules' if He is God. My contention and I'm aware that this isn't Christian orthodoxy, is that what we are talking about is not the way the universe/world/things are set up from the start. We are talking about a relationship and thats the water that was poisoned when we rebelled.
The whole 'God is this and therefore can't... ' is nonsense, He's God! He can if He wants, thats the point of being God. However a relationship is not something that God has any control over, if He dose control it then it not a relationship, it's a manipulation.
See where I'm coming from?

But the relationship doesn't decide anything.

For example, some Christians who don't view hell as a place created for torturing sinners as a form of punishment often explain the descriptions of hell as suffering as merely a consequence of absence of God, and say this isn't God's fault because we choose to go to hell by not accepting God.

Which all might seem reasonable. If you are in a blizzard and you walk outside you can't complain that it is cold.

But if you examine such an idea in the context of God being the creator of all things, it makes less sense. Why does absence of God make someone suffer or feel bad? Who decided that rule of nature?

That would be an example of "poisoning the water".

Or consider what Fanny said above, that for those who view hell as annihilation that might be viewed as a mercy compared to being with someone you don't like for eternity. But why is being with someone you don't like for eternity something that makes you feel bad (I know it does, but then that is something God decided would be the case). Why is annihilation better? Why are the only two options annihilation or being with someone you don't like for eternity?

Christians have a very hard time appreciating what it actually means to say that God is the creator of all things and that no system is above him or limits him.

It is far easier to view God simply as a benevolent agent that operates inside the systems we are familiar with for our benefit. We die, but it is ok because God takes us to heaven. We feel lonely, but it is ok because God gives us companionship. We suffer pain, but it is ok because God rewards suffering.

It is much harder to process the concept that if God is the creator of all then all these things were decided by God. We need a reason why things are here, but we don't really like thinking about that reason beyond high level notions of well God loves us etc.

As an atheist this just is another window into what psychological role the notion of God provides to believers, why the notion of a god that intervenes is comforting and gives reassurance to believers asea in a random world, but the notion of a god who decided everything is in fact mentally stressful as we ourselves cannot process that concept easily. You can't look at a religion like Christianity for more than 5 minutes without coming to the conclusion that the notion of a god is there to facilitate the mental/emotional needs of the believer.

I don't know if you have seen the movie Ruby Sparks, but it is about a guy who invents the "perfect" woman, which is really just a reflection of his insecurities and emotional needs. It is a neat movie because it plays out how much of a fantasy those concepts are, and what they would actually be like if they were true. The girl is a mess as a real person because the ideals the man has as to the perfect woman are not good when actual made real.

That movie always reminded me of Christianity and Christian relationships to the concept of god. Just like the man in the movie who is attached to the idea that they want a girl who adores them, Christians are attached to certain ideas about god because they are mentally/emotionally comforting, without much consideration as to what these ideas would produce if they were actually real.

Fanny Cradock · 26-06-2013 11:03am

Thanks for the condescension.

Geomy · 26-06-2013 11:24am

Zombrex wrote: »

But the relationship doesn't decide anything.

For example, some Christians who don't view hell as a place created for torturing sinners as a form of punishment often explain the descriptions of hell as suffering as merely a consequence of absence of God, and say this isn't God's fault because we choose to go to hell by not accepting God.

Which all might seem reasonable. If you are in a blizzard and you walk outside you can't complain that it is cold.

But if you examine such an idea in the context of God being the creator of all things, it makes less sense. Why does absence of God make someone suffer or feel bad? Who decided that rule of nature?

That would be an example of "poisoning the water".

Or consider what Fanny said above, that for those who view hell as annihilation that might be viewed as a mercy compared to being with someone you don't like for eternity. But why is being with someone you don't like for eternity something that makes you feel bad (I know it does, but then that is something God decided would be the case). Why is annihilation better? Why are the only two options annihilation or being with someone you don't like for eternity?

Christians have a very hard time appreciating what it actually means to say that God is the creator of all things and that no system is above him or limits him.

It is far easier to view God simply as a benevolent agent that operates inside the systems we are familiar with for our benefit. We die, but it is ok because God takes us to heaven. We feel lonely, but it is ok because God gives us companionship. We suffer pain, but it is ok because God rewards suffering.

It is much harder to process the concept that if God is the creator of all then all these things were decided by God. We need a reason why things are here, but we don't really like thinking about that reason beyond high level notions of well God loves us etc.

As an atheist this just is another window into what psychological role the notion of God provides to believers, why the notion of a god that intervenes is comforting and gives reassurance to believers asea in a random world, but the notion of a god who decided everything is in fact mentally stressful as we ourselves cannot process that concept easily. You can't look at a religion like Christianity for more than 5 minutes without coming to the conclusion that the notion of a god is there to facilitate the mental/emotional needs of the believer.

I don't know if you have seen the movie Ruby Sparks, but it is about a guy who invents the "perfect" woman, which is really just a reflection of his insecurities and emotional needs. It is a neat movie because it plays out how much of a fantasy those concepts are, and what they would actually be like if they were true. The girl is a mess as a real person because the ideals the man has as to the perfect woman are not good when actual made real.

That movie always reminded me of Christianity and Christian relationships to the concept of god. Just like the man in the movie who is attached to the idea that they want a girl who adores them, Christians are attached to certain ideas about god because they are mentally/emotionally comforting, without much consideration as to what these ideas would produce if they were actually real.

Some Christian and Sufi mystics often came up with the Idea of being detached from your notion of what God is, isnt, was, and should be....

It makes life much easier for some believers to keep it simple, accept the outcome take life as it is.

A guy I know ofter quotes Anthony Demelo's ideas of detachment and taking action.

Zombrex · 26-06-2013 11:30am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Thanks for the condescension.

Being a Christian I'm not sure you are in the best place to be throwing around accusations of condescension there Fanny. Tell me again how you worked out the true religion on Earth, what the cause and purpose of human existence is and how you have a personal relationship with the omnipotent being that created it all :pac:

tommy2bad · 26-06-2013 12:11pm

@Zombrex,
"If You Meet The Buddha On The Road, Kill Him" Much wisdom in this little koan.

Fanny Cradock · 26-06-2013 1:15pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Being a Christian I'm not sure you are in the best place to be throwing around accusations of condescension there Fanny. Tell me again how you worked out the true religion on Earth, what the cause and purpose of human existence is and how you have a personal relationship with the omnipotent being that created it all :pac:

I see. So you greet the charge of condescension with... more more condescension. Brilliant! Of course, I could easily ask you the same question and it would retain all the same empty rhetorical flurry. But as it would be equally condescending and equally cheap I'll resit the urge lest I'm accused of hypocrisy.

I've never claimed to work out the "true religion on Earth" (whatever that means). What I claim is that there is excellent evidence for the central claims of Christianity and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that Christianity is speaking the truth. If you don't believe these claims then fine but please spare us the genetic fallacy and pop-psychology. I'm quite happy to admit that I could be wrong in my beliefs (I've struggled and overcome many doubts in my time and I expect that I'll experience many doubts in the future - and not just about matters of religious faith). I'm also quite sure that even if I am correct about God as revealed by Christianity I still have a very imperfect understanding of God.

While I appreciate your intelligence and your seemingly endless passion for engaging Christians in conversation, I think that your understanding of certain doctrines can charitably be described as deficient - at least from the perspective of classical/ orthodox Christianity. Consequently you spend a lot of time tilting at windmills of your own making. The issue here is that if you don't understand some of the foundational views of your opponents, or you can't, for whatever reason, accurately represent them after posting here for a decade then you probably never will.

Zombrex · 26-06-2013 2:43pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I see. So you greet the charge of condescension with... more more condescension. Brilliant!

I meet the silly and childish charge of condescension with a rebuttal of hypocrisy. You know there isn't "excellent evidence" for the truth of Christianity. Aside from this so called evidence being constantly and consistently rebutted, you know this because not everyone is a Christian, huge portions of the worlds population flatly reject the claims of Christianity and the evidence that they are true, which tends not to happen if something is genuinely supported by excellent evidence (1 theory of electromagnetism - 40,000 religions).

The response from Christians, including yourself, is that this isn't an issue with the claims of Christianity or the difficulty with actually supporting the truth of these claims, it is an issue with those who are not Christian.

So again, spare me the charge of condescension when most of your posts drip with condescension for those who don't accept the supernatural claims of your religion. I can at least back up my position with something a bit more than just saying it makes sense to me.

And btw before you flatly dismiss my points by saying I'm misunderstanding Christian claims, at least try to understand the point being made and oh I don't know, point out what claim I'm misunderstanding and how this misunderstanding alters the point be made.

Zombrex · 26-06-2013 2:47pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

@Zombrex,
"If You Meet The Buddha On The Road, Kill Him" Much wisdom in this little koan.

Not following.

What does that have to do with the point that God creates all the systems and standards that he then uses to judge and punish us by?

tommy2bad · 26-06-2013 4:21pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Not following.

What does that have to do with the point that God creates all the systems and standards that he then uses to judge and punish us by?

The point of the koan is that if you find God then you probably are following the wrong god!
And your missing my point that God doesn't create all the systems, He created the 'world' He didn't create God so any conditions that involve God are not of His creation at all.
You can blame Him for cancer, floods and itches but as to saying that He can change His nature to acomadate us?

SebBerkovich · 26-06-2013 5:04pm

tommy2bad wrote: »

You can blame Him for cancer, floods and itches but as to saying that He can change His nature to acomadate us?

bad stuff = not God
good stuff = God

Thank God for Bacon

tommy2bad · 26-06-2013 5:07pm

SebBerkovich wrote: »

bad stuff = not God
good stuff = God

Thank God for Bacon

Agree about rashers but the rest? Where did I imply any of that?

Fanny Cradock · 26-06-2013 5:10pm

Zombrex wrote: »

I meet the silly and childish charge of condescension with a rebuttal of hypocrisy. You know there isn't "excellent evidence" for the truth of Christianity. Aside from this so called evidence being constantly and consistently rebutted, you know this because not everyone is a Christian, huge portions of the worlds population flatly reject the claims of Christianity and the evidence that they are true, which tends not to happen if something is genuinely supported by excellent evidence (1 theory of electromagnetism - 40,000 religions).

So you know that I "know there isn't excellent evidence". Unless you are privy to my innermost thoughts you over-egging the epistemological pudding. Please do not speak for me.

And you are still making the category error of comparing electromagnetism with all religions. We have spoken about this before.

Zombrex wrote: »

The response from Christians, including yourself, is that this isn't an issue with the claims of Christianity or the difficulty with actually supporting the truth of these claims, it is an issue with those who are not Christian.

I'm not saying there are no issues with the specific claims of Christianity (or any worldview for that matter). If there were none then there would be no need for apologetics beyond clearing up misconceptions and challenging intellectual dishonesty. I fully understand why people might have honest objections to Christianity. This is partly because I have thought some of the the same things myself and partly because I don't think that life can be wrapped up in a neat little package. There will always be ragged edges - even with true things.

Zombrex wrote: »

So again, spare me the charge of condescension when most of your posts drip with condescension for those who don't accept the supernatural claims of your religion. I can at least back up my position with something a bit more than just saying it makes sense to me.

If anything they ooze, not drip with it. But even then I don't generally think that my posts do. Hopefully less so these days.

I've never claimed that "it makes sense to me" is a defensible position to take. And that's why I don't make this argument. Again, I would ask you not to speak for me.

Zombrex wrote: »

And btw before you flatly dismiss my points by saying I'm misunderstanding Christian claims, at least try to understand the point being made and oh I don't know, point out what claim I'm misunderstanding and how this misunderstanding alters the point be made.

As I said, Zombrex, we've been at this for the best part of 10 years, 10,000+ posts and at least one name change. If you don't get it now then you wont get it. I don't know how much theology you have read, or even if you have ever read the Bible, in a sense this doesn't matter because all you have to do is know enough about what your opponent believes before challenging these beliefs.

MrPudding · 26-06-2013 6:32pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

So you know that I "know there isn't excellent evidence". Unless you are privy to my innermost thoughts you over-egging the epistemological pudding. Please do not speak for me.

And you are still making the category error of comparing electromagnetism with all religions. We have spoken about this before.

I'm not saying there are no issues with the specific claims of Christianity (or any worldview for that matter). If there were none then there would be no need for apologetics beyond clearing up misconceptions and challenging intellectual dishonesty. I fully understand why people might have honest objections to Christianity. This is partly because I have thought some of the the same things myself and partly because I don't think that life can be wrapped up in a neat little package. There will always be ragged edges - even with true things.

If anything they ooze, not drip with it. But even then I don't generally think that my posts do. Hopefully less so these days.

I've never claimed that "it makes sense to me" is a defensible position to take. And that's why I don't make this argument. Again, I would ask you not to speak for me.

As I said, Zombrex, we've been at this for the best part of 10 years, 10,000+ posts and at least one name change. If you don't get it now then you wont get it. I don't know how much theology you have read, or even if you have ever read the Bible, in a sense this doesn't matter because all you have to do is know enough about what your opponent believes before challenging these beliefs.

i think this is a case of you arguing about the colour of the seats when we are saying there is no car.

MrP

Fanny Cradock · 26-06-2013 8:41pm

MrPudding wrote: »

i think this is a case of you arguing about the colour of the seats when we are saying there is no car.

MrP

I get what the debate is about. I was claiming, amongst other things, that while we both recognise the starting point of the respective world-views (broadly, theism and atheism), it's important to accurately represent the other person's perspective if you are arguing against it.

Does that make sense?

marienbad · 26-06-2013 10:20pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I get what the debate is about. I was claiming, amongst other things, that while we both recognise the starting point of the respective world-views (broadly, theism and atheism), it's important to accurately represent the other person's perspective if you are arguing against it.

Does that make sense?

No Fanny it dos'nt . How much effort have you put into analysing and rejecting all those other religions bar your own ?

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments