The others...

liah · 01-05-2009 5:11pm

I'm agreeing with kipperhell on this one, though for different reasons.

Using "seems to" started the thread off on quite an offensive note, tbh. We don't see things as "seems to." We see things as fact, there's nothing "seeming" about it, and it just seems belittling to imply that we only think this way because it "appears" this way to us instead of it being factual.

philologos · 01-05-2009 5:15pm

liah and Kipperhell: I explained my reasoning perfectly. There are plenty of non-theists who aren't as sure as you. Infact Sam Vimes used to criticise me for saying that atheists believed that there was no God. He retorted saying that atheists didn't know, but didn't have any reason to assume one. Then there are atheists who consider themselves agnostic atheists. It seems to put the non-belief house in one set I guess. Going much more than "seems to" might be too sure for many agnostic atheists (as they describe themselves). I'm not going to get into a discussion or a debate about this issue. This is just to clarify. Arguing about mere pettiness like this is merely detracting from the actual content of the discussion.

Naz_st · 01-05-2009 5:18pm

Jakkass: That uber-post must have taken you ages to write! Thanks for taking the time and putting all that effort into it.

Valmont · 01-05-2009 5:49pm

Great idea for a thread, if people swallow their pride for just a moment, then maybe we can all learn something without giving any ground on our beliefs.

Belief system: Science

Why theists believe in God:

Life, the universe, and everything is so jaw-droppingly amazing that surely it's not too far fetched to think something intelligent created us all.

Without belief in God and the afterlife, life sometimes feels quite meaningless.

Faith in Jesus/Allah/L.Ron Hubbard can give you strength and help you to overcome personal problems.

This why I believe people are theists. More or less anyway.

kiffer · 01-05-2009 5:50pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Your belief system: Christian

Why do you think atheists are athiests?:
How do you think that atheists justify being atheist?

1) God seems incompatible with evolutionary biology and modern physics.

hum... more evolutionary biology and modern physics show us that we don't need to invoke God for the creation of the universe as we see it now or the complexity that we see in living systems... or for that matter the existence of life ... which seems to fall out of chemistry with out the requirement for a magic spark.

Certainly it didn't happen the way that is described in the Bible. Not incompatible as such... just unneeded for these things.

2) Pain and suffering cannot exist in the same world as an omnipotent omnibenificent.
3) The church is hypocritical, and abuses have arisen out of it.
4) Christians are hypocritical.
5) Christians are judgemental.
6) It seems hard to accept a universal moral system, that is so closed minded.

It's hard to accept that a universal moral system is basically do what I say, not what I do... and what I say today is different from what I said before.
Killing is wrong only so long as God says so, not because of any reasoned reason ... Thou shalt not kill, Go forth and Kill your enemies... OT God is very different from NT God... or so I always thought... the lads over on the Other forum have made a good case from him being as much of a jerk now as ever.

7) It's offensive to believe that Jesus is the only way to save ones soul from hell.

Not exactly ... but I get why you might think that's the issue...
How about It's offensive to believe that humans are all fallen sinners, basically scumbags that deserve to be tortured for ever unless they luck out and find Christ.
OR
The very idea of hell is offensive ...
OR
It is impossible to reconcile Hell as described in the bible and the idea of a loving merciful God...

Which ever way you look at it hell is a major issue... and for me was one of the first things to go...

8) Faith seems stupid because Christians don't think about what they believe.

Many don't, the average punter just muddles by... Faith without ever having thought about the issue would be pointless and stupid... especially when you decry people that don't believe what you believe with out having considered in any meaningful way. But that goes both ways really...

9) Miracles seem absurd.

and often turn out to be hoaxes, mass hysteria or some natural phenomena...
those that don't, don't have enough evidence in their favor to assume that they are anything else. Extraordinary claims, blah blah...

10) Faith seems to breed fanatics, such as suicide bombers, and abortion clinic bombers.
11) Faith seems to be a barrier to a completely secular society.
12) Faith seems to cause hatred and division.
13) Faith seems to breed arrogance.

Extremists would be extreme what ever they believed... best to spot them early and try to make sure they can't do much damage... Faith gives can give them an excuse they wouldn't otherwise have, "I'm doing Gods will!" and so on... someone that has Faith and is missinformed or unstable is very dangerous.
Faith causes hatred and division when the religion involved labels one group of people abominations...
Some people are just arrogant jerks... regardless of what they believe.

14) Christians seem to impose standards on non-Christians.

They seem to try...

but a certain amount of that is understandable, what other people do can effect you directly... it's only really objectionable when people try to impose those standards on things that don't actually affect the imposer ... like other peoples sexualities, partnership choices and so on.
Of course a fun way of getting round this is to make no effort to impose your interpretation or standard and then just tell them they'll be tortured for ever and ever ...

15) God seems to be a monster in certain parts of the Torah, and the historical books.

He does kill an awful lot of people ... which seems to be the easy way out... by all accounts he's a pretty smart guy... you think he could work something better out... other than coming to Earth and blood sacrificing himself...
Again the fact that he comes across as a jerk at time is not in itself enough of a reason to not believe... but it messes up the idea of a loving caring merciful god...

16) There seems to be a diachotomy between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament.

Yup... but he's just got better PR in the NT.

17) The Bible seems to be riddled with contradictions.
18) Christianity seems to be too patriarchal.

It is a little strange that we consider a unique entity that exists outside of and before time male... And that he would then make men dominant over woman in the way the bible proscribes ...

19) Christianity seems to deny personal freedoms.
20) I have never felt any spiritual experience, as such I have no evidence to believe that they occur.

I've had a number of spiritual experiences... and a number of interesting experiences that I would have called spiritual if I'd had them when I was younger... Interestingly enough the only one that I can think of that was vaguely Christian was seeing Jesus's face in a tree... The others included (but not limited too)... out of body experiences, seeing auras around people, seeing orgone and a psychic message from space...

but I'm ok now...

I think it's very hard for people that have never have had a "spiritual experience" to get what it means to you... but also sometimes it's hard for people that put a lot of stock in spiritual experiences to realize that what they consider a spiritual experience other people might just consider a mere interesting, even amazing internal experience and never think to call it spiritual...

21) Prayer seems to fall on deaf ears.

Mysterious ways... :rolleyes: ... The only prayer I believe ever actually gets even close to answered is one for courage/strength and so on... and frankly I think that's more about psyching yourself up then about actually receiving anything external...

22) We have no assurances that divine revelation took place.

Well we don't... except in the book itself, and it would say that wouldn't it.

23) Christianity seems to be based on archaic moral norms, we need to move on.

I think that I have exhausted them, have a go and then add any to my list if you want.

I don't think you did too bad a job but I don't think any of the theists got their heads into Atheist Space any better than any of the atheists got their heads into Theist Space... but that could just be because of the heavy use of 'seem' which has been discussed.

Kipperhell · 01-05-2009 6:09pm

Jakkass wrote: »

liah and Kipperhell: I explained my reasoning perfectly. There are plenty of non-theists who aren't as sure as you. Infact Sam Vimes used to criticise me for saying that atheists believed that there was no God. He retorted saying that atheists didn't know, but didn't have any reason to assume one. Then there are atheists who consider themselves agnostic atheists. It seems to put the non-belief house in one set I guess. Going much more than "seems to" might be too sure for many agnostic atheists (as they describe themselves). I'm not going to get into a discussion or a debate about this issue. This is just to clarify. Arguing about mere pettiness like this is merely detracting from the actual content of the discussion.

You seem to have a a selective problem. You answer points from everybody as if you are a singular authority yet when people point out that your points are not precise you make them all encompassing. So I am telling you your statements are incorrect and offensive by being watered down you have claimed they are all encompassing. When talking about various different points we have made from a variety of sources you bring it down you your individual belief.
Now you have made this massively long post that could have been easily consolidated by forming one list and answering in one go. Instead we have something that is near impossible to track and not worth the effort considering at a glance I can see you fudged parts. It is hard to understand if you have done this intentionally or not.
I tried to head you off at the pass to correct this but you started how you planned to proceed without getting personal I will simply state it is flawed form of discussion that I suspect is intentional.
It appears I have already replied to your big post already.

philologos · 01-05-2009 6:34pm

Kipperhell wrote: »

You seem to have a a selective problem. You answer points from everybody as if you are a singular authority yet when people point out that your points are not precise you make them all encompassing. So I am telling you your statements are incorrect and offensive by being watered down you have claimed they are all encompassing. When talking about various different points we have made from a variety of sources you bring it down you your individual belief.
Now you have made this massively long post that could have been easily consolidated by forming one list and answering in one go. Instead we have something that is near impossible to track and not worth the effort considering at a glance I can see you fudged parts. It is hard to understand if you have done this intentionally or not.
I tried to head you off at the pass to correct this but you started how you planned to proceed without getting personal I will simply state it is flawed form of discussion that I suspect is intentional.
It appears I have already replied to your big post already.

There isn't anything that I could do that would please you Kipperhell is there?

sink · 01-05-2009 6:47pm

Jakkass wrote: »

There isn't anything that I could do that would please you Kipperhell is there?

You could embrace logic and reason

:P

Kipperhell · 01-05-2009 6:47pm

Jakkass wrote: »

There isn't anything that I could do that would please you Kipperhell is there?

There is plenty you can do to form a reasonable discussion and that is all I have said should be done. The content is not the problem

Otherwise we get this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HaRFBSq9k

Goduznt Xzst · 01-05-2009 7:11pm

Jakkass wrote: »

1. See point 2 to Zamboni, point 5 to Overblood.
2. See point 3 to Dades.
3. See point 8 to LookingFor.
4. See point 2 to taram.
5. See point 2 to Zamboni.

No offense intended, but as I was trying to decipher what answers I should be reading it reminded of the "Choose Your Own Adventure" gamebooks I used to read as a kid, lol

Zillah · 01-05-2009 8:03pm

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm looking for a thread of some form of conciliation here.

It is the crucible of ideas that is the 21st century, and there is only war.

Valmont · 01-05-2009 8:14pm

It's kind of annoying that some people, just for one second, could not try to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas without smashing the whole thing down into the usual, pointless back and forth that never gets us anywhere.

Kipperhell · 02-05-2009 1:30am

Valmont wrote: »

It's kind of annoying that some people, just for one second, could not try to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas without smashing the whole thing down into the usual, pointless back and forth that never gets us anywhere.

I don't know if you mean me or not but I find it frustrating that we started from a point that curtailed the meaning and was unable to correct the course when it was veering further off. I'll gladly bow out if that is what people think that about my contributions
I personally feel I have tried to discuss the points and am willing to engage but there is limited scope to what can be engaged if one side is using boxing gloves to spar and the other is using a knife.

Overblood · 02-05-2009 1:56am

Valmont wrote: »

It's kind of annoying that some people, just for one second, could not try to engage in a meaningful exchange of ideas without smashing the whole thing down into the usual, pointless back and forth that never gets us anywhere.

One cannot deny their own common sense.

dvpower · 02-05-2009 9:47am

Jakkass wrote: »

Introduction doesn't secure belief. I don't think birth adequately explains converts and so on.

Introduction explains belief in the vast majority of religious people on the planet. Most people who are 'born' into a particular religion stay with that religion. Converts are few and far between in the grand scale of things.

Jakkass wrote: »

Why aren't we all believers if we are biologically predetermined to be so?

Genetics doesn't work like that. It doesn't necessarily predermine religious belief, but perhaps supplies a propencity

Me wrote:

Billions of other religious people on the planet can't possibly be wrong.

Jakkass wrote: »

I find this a foolish argument to propose. I may have done so in my history on Boards.ie, however numbers does not equal truth. This isn't a proper reason to suggest that Christianity is any more through than any other belief system that exists.

I take it you mean that it would be a foolish arguement for a religious person to propose, but it is proposed nonetheless

Jakkass wrote: »

Faith is accepting the evidence, believing in it, and acting upon it.

I often hear faith being explained as accepting something despite a lack of evidence. Depends what you mean by evidence (please please please I don't want to go there).

JC 2K3 · 02-05-2009 3:15pm

Ultimately, I think everyone goes through at least one phase of agnosticism where they do research and try to explore what they believe.

The thing is, I think those who've had lives heavily saturated in religion who go through this phase subconsciously looking for reasons why their faith is valid as opposed to an open minded look at the possibility of no God existing. This is probably due to the influences that happen to surround them due to their faith (i.e. they'll probably have religious friends, have access to and knowledge of Christian literature etc.)

Works the same way with your average Catholic who might go to mass and have a bit of a pray every now and then and one day decides the whole thing seems a bit iffy. Without much Christian influences around them, they're going to reach the conclusion of atheism a lot more quickly and easily.

So basically, forming beliefs is all to do with what's going on in your life and what influences surround you at the time of this agnostic period.

After the belief is formed, it is usually strengthened by further research, which is generally lapped up without much critical thought. Christians might think the complexity of the world being impossible without god is an incredibly strong argument while atheists might think that evolution unequivocally disproves god.

I'm fast becoming a nihilist.

liamw · 03-05-2009 10:17am

Belief: None (atheist)

I'll focus on Christianity but I need to split it up into two different groups based on my experience.

The first group I will focus on is the LARGE majority in my opinion, those who prefer not the think for themselves and remain ignorant, even about their own religion (a lot of atheists will know more about their religion than they do themselves). This group frustrates me.

The other group are more educated and less ignorant. e.g. Jackass

. This usually includes people who would shift from atheism to theism also.

Group 1: Why I am Christian

1. Never really thought about it, this is just the way I am. My parents brought me up as a Christian.
3. I live in a Christian community, everyone else is Christian and this is where I fit in (might not actually say this, but this is justification).
4. Millions of people can't be wrong (this isn't bad logic in principle, but just doesn't work with everything, including religion).
5. I gives me comfort, helps me get through the hard times.
6. Don't/Can't imagine just dying and that's it. Mortality scares me.
7. The Bible is good. We get our morals from it (heard this one recently, a girl friend of mine couldn't fathom how we could have morals without the Bilble. :rolleyes:).
8. Look around at life's complexity, there had to be an intelligent creator behind it all.

Group 2: Why I am Christian
(I'd like someone to help me answer some of these, because I'm not sure)

1. I've examined and studied the books and literature, and come to the conclusion that existence of God is more probable than not.
2. The Bible is historically accurate (all of it???) because there is plently of evidence of the landmarks present in the Bible (temples etc.), all those people couldn't have spread a lie like that or killed themselves in the name of something that didn't happen (eg. resurrection). etc.
3. The fundamental constants of our universe are so finely tuned, it indicates that a creator is the most probable explanation for it.
4. I've seen/witnessed miracles (supernatural events) happen, or I believe that they did. When I weigh up the supernatural explanation vs. the other one, the evidence lies so strongly in favour of the supernatural one, I sitll think it must be true???

Húrin · 03-05-2009 4:41pm

My beliefs: wavering Christian, but always a theist.

Why the other believes:

1. The existence of God is a threat to individual autonomy. Since we seems to have this autonomy by nature, religion must be a political invention to restrain people.

2. All truth claims must be subject to analysis by sense experience and science (empiricism). Religious faith is not subject to these and is thus probably false.

sink wrote: »

Belief system: Humanist

How do you think that theists justify being theists?

Lower standards for determining facts coupled with wishful thinking.

What an obvious attempt at antagonising the OP.

Húrin · 03-05-2009 4:56pm

Overblood wrote: »

One cannot deny their own common sense.

But you can concede that the way you see things is not the exact same way that everyone sees things.

philologos · 03-05-2009 5:17pm

liamw wrote: »

Belief: None (atheist)

I'll focus on Christianity but I need to split it up into two different groups based on my experience.

I'll be dealing with both of the groups if you don't mind

liamw wrote: »

1. Never really thought about it, this is just the way I am. My parents brought me up as a Christian.
2. I live in a Christian community, everyone else is Christian and this is where I fit in (might not actually say this, but this is justification).
3. Millions of people can't be wrong (this isn't bad logic in principle, but just doesn't work with everything, including religion).
4. I gives me comfort, helps me get through the hard times.
5. Don't/Can't imagine just dying and that's it. Mortality scares me.
6. The Bible is good. We get our morals from it (heard this one recently, a girl friend of mine couldn't fathom how we could have morals without the Bilble. :rolleyes:).
7. Look around at life's complexity, there had to be an intelligent creator behind it all.

1. I'd argue that being a Christian is the way I am also. I disagree with the notion that one is a Christian from birth or that Christianity is hereditory. I can remember a time when I wasn't very Christian at all, but over time I have transformed into the person I am now. I'm skeptical over the "I was raised in a Christian family", "I go to mass every Sunday".

2. Fitting in and the community sense could only be considered a very minor reason, or a secondary reason. It is possible for community sense to be formed in secular communities too, or in other religious communities.

3. Argument ad populum. Proportions do not necessarily mean truth. Truth will be held by a minority. Even the Bible discusses the difference between the narrow gate (Christianity) vs the broad gate (others) and that the truth can only be found by going through the narrow gate and only few will find it.

Matthew 7:13-14 wrote:

‘Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy[URL="javascript:void(0);"]*[/URL] that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. 14For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it.'

Even by the reasoning of the Bible, this isn't the best way of argument.

4. Many things can give people comfort.

5. I can't either. However unexpected things can happen.

6. Christians do get morals from the Bible, and it is considered to be a source of divine wisdom. However, to say that one cannot value certain things and make judgements based on those values is quite wrong. Her statement would have been better in saying, "I don't know how atheists can have coherent moral values without a consistent moral source". I sometimes struggle with that myself

7. This argument does appeal to me slightly, I must admit.

liamw wrote: »

Group 2: Why I am Christian
(I'd like someone to help me answer some of these, because I'm not sure)
1. I've examined and studied the books and literature, and come to the conclusion that existence of God is more probable than not.
2. The Bible is historically accurate (all of it???) because there is plently of evidence of the landmarks present in the Bible (temples etc.), all those people couldn't have spread a lie like that or killed themselves in the name of something that didn't happen (eg. resurrection). etc.
3. The fundamental constants of our universe are so finely tuned, it indicates that a creator is the most probable explanation for it.
4. I've seen/witnessed miracles (supernatural events) happen, or I believe that they did. When I weigh up the supernatural explanation vs. the other one, the evidence lies so strongly in favour of the supernatural one, I sitll think it must be true???

1. Yes, however examining books and literature also means examining external sources that could be of use to you in backing up the Biblical record. For example, the Bible may be inspiring, and the Bible may be the authoritative text, however it is a hypothesis. For example, I have a few historical texts at my disposal such as Josephus' - Jewish War, Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews, Eusebius' - History of the Church just in case details about the historicity of Christ, the early church and other figures do need to be substantiated from elsewhere. Research outside of the Bible can also be crucial. However, I may not have done enough of this yet either.

2. As for all of the Bible being historically accurate. There are allegorical texts in the Bible particularly in the books of the prophets. I believe the Bible is subject to literary scrutiny just like any text. To explain the fall of Nebuchadnezzar by which he would be cast out of Babylon for 7 years, Daniel uses parable. Likewise Isaiah and others use parable. It's not as easy as saying is the whole Bible historically accurate, it's as simple as saying that each book has it's purpose. Prophetic books are well, prophesies explained often in allegory. Historical book are books which explain histories. Poetic books such as Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs deal with the human experience.

As for the Resurrection, yes I believe that to be the truth, and I would explain the authenticity of archaeological sites as in the Bible as a different point as I have done in my signature link.

3. Yes, I believe this, you saw that I argued this on the other thread.

4. I can't say that I have experienced a miracle, but I have experienced spiritual experiences yes and this is perhaps the main argument for my Christianity. See the link in my signature, point 4 explains this rather well. As for supernatural vs natural. It's not simply a case that supernatural trumps the natural one. It involves what you can rule out. If you believe the world consists only of natural processes, and natural processes alone, you will never consider the supernatural in any given answer you will provide.

sink · 04-05-2009 12:24pm

Húrin wrote: »

What an obvious attempt at antagonising the OP.

It wasn't meant to be antagonising. I only call things as I see them. I could never accept a lot of the evidence that Jakkass espouses as a basis for his faith. That tells me I adopt a more stringent approach to sorting out what I accept as authoritative evidence and what is not.

I'll admit that the way I see things is no more valid than your own. Using my own thought processes, I think I'm right but how do I know my cognition isn't fundamentally faulty and your argument is actually more reasoned than my own. I have to place faith in my own thought process as it's not something I'm willing to outsource but I'm certainly not going to deny anybody else their own. That is unless I see their own thoughts as fundamentally dangerous which is not the case with the average believer.

Sam Vimes · 04-05-2009 2:08pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam Vimes and others have criticised me for saying that atheism is the belief in God's nonexistence, but rather that atheism is more agnostic.

I didn't actually put you on my ignore list so I could keep an eye on you and now I'm glad I didn't because here you are still talking about me and misrepresenting me with over simplistic statements. I never said atheism is the same as agnosticism, I explained that there are a range of levels of religious beliefs with varying levels of theistic tendency and certainty and I showed you a graph to explain it. Basically my point was that someone can call themselves an atheist while still leaving open the possibility that some evidence might be presented in the future to change their minds

I've just read the god delusion and I found Dawkins explains the levels of theism better than me. Here are numbers 6 and 7 on his list of theistic confidence. He counts himself at level 6

6. Very low probability [of god's existence], but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God....'

And he says he would be suprised to meet many people in category 7, the same as I said to you despite your repeated protestations that that belief represents the majority of atheists. The rest of the levels are on page 73 of the paperback if you're interested

iirc you claim to have read the book but I doubt it because of your repeated misunderstanding of me making the same point (before I read the book btw) and because I have found that 90% of the stuff you bring up is covered quite well in it, in almost all cases using exactly the same logic as is used here whenever you bring up these points. My level of frustration with your posts increased even more after reading the book because you claim to have already read Dawkins' eloquent and air tight rebuttals of so many of the things that you regularly say. What do you expect from us that you didn't get from him? And when we all give the same response that he gave, why do you keep asking the same questions?

I don't expect you to change your position on it because you didn't through repeated clarifications and apparently reading it in the book. This post is to clear up the misunderstanding for others

Zombrex · 04-05-2009 9:47pm

Overblood wrote: »

One cannot deny their own common sense.

Can you point out the post that asked you to do that?

Húrin · 04-05-2009 10:00pm

sink wrote: »

It wasn't meant to be antagonising. I only call things as I see them. I could never accept a lot of the evidence that Jakkass espouses as a basis for his faith. That tells me I adopt a more stringent approach to sorting out what I accept as authoritative evidence and what is not.

I'll admit that the way I see things is no more valid than your own.

But you do think that, to brand your standards for evidence as "higher" than any theists'.

sink · 04-05-2009 10:10pm

Húrin wrote: »

But you do think that, to brand your standards for evidence as "higher" than any theists'.

I was speaking from a broad philosophical perspective. Down here from my subjective perspective using the only reasoning I have available to me (my own) I believe that my standards are higher. But how do I know I'm right in the grand scheme of things, I don't, but I have to go with things as I currently see them for that is the only option open to me.

philologos · 04-05-2009 10:10pm

Sam: I apologise if I did misrepresent your opinion, but that is what I gleaned from it.

Would you like to actually engage with the idea or the spirit of the thread or would you not it's really your choice. I believe we can do more than just mere squabbling, infact mere squabbling infact isn't the way I seek to do this, or any other discussion I will ever do with atheists on boards.ie.

I thank you for your correction, you don't have to be so antagonistic in doing so however, we can learn from eachother and we should learn from eachother wherever possible. It's amazing how hot and bothered some people can get at a thread that is aimed to break the ice a bit in here.

I read up to about chapter 4 in 2007 when the first edition (the bigger one) was still around. I've since loaned it out to a Christian friend of mine to read along with a book about how religion and modern science can be reconciled by Francis Collins. His explanation of the 1 - 7 scale is quite good, however to say that his book is airtight is a bit dishonest considering the errors in theology that he makes throughout his section on "Arguments from Scripture". You cite it as if it is fact though. Just because Richard Dawkins says it doesn't mean that all atheists subscribe to his theory, or anything else. Just because Richard Dawkins says one thing doesn't mean I should automatically view your opinion as being the same. Be a bit reasonable.

You seem to want me to accept your arguments blindly as being "airtight". I don't agree, I think you're mistaken and I think that atheism is a flawed ideology, I'm going to hold that view as I find that it isn't reasonable to hold any other view concerning it right now. You're just going to have to deal with my differing opinion instead of getting all hot and bothered about it. I can see where atheists come from but that's it. I'm not going to ditch my religion.

It seems everything I do, you and certain others seem to want to criticise me at every turn. Go ahead.

sink: Do we need yet another discussion about the standards for evidence in here? Wouldn't it be better try to keep talking about the reasons that were provided by people for atheism or theism from the differing sides and lets try to discuss them and see if anyone can elaborate on any of the reasons given.

johnnyskeleton · 04-05-2009 10:16pm

My belief system: I believe that the gods propounded by all major or minor religions that I have come across don't exist, and I presume the ones I haven't come across also don't exist. I do however enjoy questioning the religiously inclined, and I accept that there may be a divine being (I just don't accept that humans have or could have any knowledge of it). I guess that makes me an agnostic I suppose.

Why Chirstians believe what they believe?

I had a teacher who once asked the class why do parents lie to their children about santa claus? He believed it was because the lie was necessary in order to get them to think critically for themselves, not to take the accepted orthodoxy as truth and to prevent them from growing up to be gullible. I think the same could be used for christianity, in that if people are raised as christians, hopefully they will question it and either find it wanting or else satisfy themselves that it is the one true path. While I would hope most people would naturally choose the latter, there's one born every minute as the fella says.

I guess Christians believe what they believe because they just don't get the joke.

Why does the Christian church teach what it teaches?

I think this is the more interesting question, and the answer is ultimately about controlling other people. There is nothing divine about wanting to manipulate other people's views, it's all too human.

Húrin · 04-05-2009 10:21pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Why does the Christian church teach what it teaches?

Because they believe that God told them to teach it. They want to serve the human need for spiritual fulfilment/life.

Húrin · 04-05-2009 10:24pm

sink wrote: »

I was speaking from a broad philosophical perspective. Down here from my subjective perspective using the only reasoning I have available to me (my own) I believe that my standards are higher. But how do I know I'm right in the grand scheme of things, I don't, but I have to go with things as I currently see them for that is the only option open to me.

That's complete nonsense. The things that appear to be true according to our first impulses, we know, do not always stand to scrutiny. Likewise, because your impulse says that anyone who looks at the evidence the right way MUST follow your atheist belief system, does not make it so. And as a thinking human you should be able to see that.

johnnyskeleton · 04-05-2009 10:26pm

Húrin wrote: »

Because they believe that God told them to teach it. They want to serve the human need for spiritual fulfilment/life.

I mean in a more long term view, encompassing, for example, the crusades and such. They had nothing to do with worshipping god (IMO) and everything to do with power.

sink · 04-05-2009 10:33pm

Húrin wrote: »

That's complete nonsense. The things that appear to be true according to our first impulses, we know, do not always stand to scrutiny. Likewise, because your impulse says that anyone who looks at the evidence the right way MUST follow your atheist belief system, does not make it so. And as a thinking human you should be able to see that.

Your not really following me at all. You just repeated what I said but in different language. I'm quiet open to the fact that I could be wrong and that not everyone will see it the way I see it, but I can only see things as I see them. Your the one whose being antagonistic now, you're not really paying attention to, or thinking about what I am saying.

philologos · 04-05-2009 11:11pm

kiffer wrote: »

hum... more evolutionary biology and modern physics show us that we don't need to invoke God for the creation of the universe as we see it now or the complexity that we see in living systems... or for that matter the existence of life ... which seems to fall out of chemistry with out the requirement for a magic spark.

Hm, interesting. You think that things can come into existence in and of themselves. I.E That the creation can be the creator. This is something I am unable to get my head around.

kiffer wrote: »

It's hard to accept that a universal moral system is basically do what I say, not what I do... and what I say today is different from what I said before.
Killing is wrong only so long as God says so, not because of any reasoned reason ... Thou shalt not kill, Go forth and Kill your enemies... OT God is very different from NT God... or so I always thought... the lads over on the Other forum have made a good case from him being as much of a jerk now as ever.

I think that morals are more that killing is wrong because God says so. Killing is wrong because it inflicts harm on another who is in God's image. We are both members of humanity therefore it is wrong to inflict such harm on our equal no matter what creed, colour, sexuality and so on.

I do think God is an authority in my life though. It's part of the reason why I worship Him, due to the fact I am so in awe in what God has done in my life, and in the lives of others, I'm so in awe at his record of divine revelation. I can't help but be inspired by the word of the Lord in peoples lives.

I don't think the OT God is any different from the NT God. God exacts vengeance and is a rightful judge. Infact I can show you that most of the NT doesn't arise from anything new, but arises from teachings of the Old Testament, for example Jesus' teaching on prayer being of few words was written by Solomon in Ecclesiastes 5:2 almost a thousand years before Jesus ever walked the face of the earth. Jesus was a teacher who taught Jewish justice and Jewish morals in a society that had long forgotten them and Jesus as the Messiah fulfilled prophesy to bring the good news of God's salvation to the Gentiles.

I think if God created the world, He knows what is best for us to do and best for us not to do for our wellbeing.

kiffer wrote: »

Not exactly ... but I get why you might think that's the issue...
How about It's offensive to believe that humans are all fallen sinners, basically scumbags that deserve to be tortured for ever unless they luck out and find Christ.
OR
The very idea of hell is offensive ...
OR
It is impossible to reconcile Hell as described in the bible and the idea of a loving merciful God...

I really don't think that hell is all that offensive if God has given you the opportunity to be saved and to believe in His way, His truth and His life. Hell is warranted for transgressing against the highest authority. I believe God has given you this way out precisely because God loves you. I think humanity can either choose to be stubborn and hard hearted or they can accept God's grace for people are saved through this grace (Ephesians 2).

kiffer wrote: »

Many don't, the average punter just muddles by... Faith without ever having thought about the issue would be pointless and stupid... especially when you decry people that don't believe what you believe with out having considered in any meaningful way. But that goes both ways really...

I agree. I think people should think about their beliefs study them and adopt them if they are satisfied with the conclusion of their study. I personally don't decry other people for different beliefs, but I think they are ultimately fruitless in terms of truth value.

kiffer wrote: »

He does kill an awful lot of people ... which seems to be the easy way out... by all accounts he's a pretty smart guy... you think he could work something better out... other than coming to Earth and blood sacrificing himself...
Again the fact that he comes across as a jerk at time is not in itself enough of a reason to not believe... but it messes up the idea of a loving caring merciful god...

I think that God has given people life and that God has the right to take life away should He so choose. I suppose this is based on the belief in a creator God however.

kiffer wrote: »

Yup... but he's just got better PR in the NT.

See above.

kiffer wrote: »

It is a little strange that we consider a unique entity that exists outside of and before time male... And that he would then make men dominant over woman in the way the bible proscribes ...

Careful. I don't believe God to be male. I relate to God as a Father figure. I do not believe that God has biological organs like the rest of us. God tells Moses to be careful about our standards at the burning bush, saying "I am that I am". I.E take God as God has been revealed, do not impose human standards on God too much.

kiffer wrote: »

I think it's very hard for people that have never have had a "spiritual experience" to get what it means to you... but also sometimes it's hard for people that put a lot of stock in spiritual experiences to realize that what they consider a spiritual experience other people might just consider a mere interesting, even amazing internal experience and never think to call it spiritual...

I hear you. I think it's one of the main stumbling blocks in atheist - theist dialogue.

kiffer wrote: »

Mysterious ways... :rolleyes: ... The only prayer I believe ever actually gets even close to answered is one for courage/strength and so on... and frankly I think that's more about psyching yourself up then about actually receiving anything external...

I'm sure if you asked on the Christianity forum you would hear that people can tell you of many cases that fall outside these categories.

kiffer wrote: »

Well we don't... except in the book itself, and it would say that wouldn't it.

Interesting point. It depends whether or not you think a creator God would take an interest in humanity. From an atheist point of view, and I've thought of this sometimes when people have discussed with me about "The world is so miniscule in the universe, why would God even care about it?" type approaches. I sometimes think to myself there might be some merit in that, then the other side of me says this merely is a testament to God's creation and to the power of God. I end up being amazed.

kiffer wrote: »

I don't think you did too bad a job but I don't think any of the theists got their heads into Atheist Space any better than any of the atheists got their heads into Theist Space... but that could just be because of the heavy use of 'seem' which has been discussed.

We all find it hard to let go

dvpower wrote: »

Introduction explains belief in the vast majority of religious people on the planet. Most people who are 'born' into a particular religion stay with that religion. Converts are few and far between in the grand scale of things.

Introduction can't secure belief, it can put it in the minds of people perhaps but it doesn't secure it. We need to think for ourselves, and find faith in Jesus Christ for ourselves, we can't rely on our parents forever if we have been introduced that way.

dvpower wrote: »

Genetics doesn't work like that. It doesn't necessarily predermine religious belief, but perhaps supplies a propencity

Fair enough. I concede my objection.

dvpower wrote: »

I take it you mean that it would be a foolish arguement for a religious person to propose, but it is proposed nonetheless

Believe it or not, I can disagree with some things fellow Christians say, or even things I may have said myself in the past. None of us are perfect, and we all make mistakes in reasoning, arguing and so on.

dvpower wrote: »

I often hear faith being explained as accepting something despite a lack of evidence. Depends what you mean by evidence (please please please I don't want to go there).

It does depend on what we mean by evidence, I don't intend on discussing evidence or standards thereof on this thread.

midlandsmissus · 05-05-2009 3:18pm

marco_polo wrote: »

I think this post marks the beginning of the end of this thread.

I see this post got thanks and I think it needs a comment.

Why does my negative post against atheism mark the beginning of the end of the thread, and the op's negative post against theism doesn't?

Bias has no belonging in a thread like this.

Galvasean · 05-05-2009 3:24pm

Zillah wrote: »

It is the crucible of ideas that is the 21st century, and there is only war.

Excellent reference.

philologos · 05-05-2009 3:51pm

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I see this post got thanks and I think it needs a comment.

Why does my negative post against atheism mark the beginning of the end of the thread, and the op's negative post against theism doesn't?

Bias has no belonging in a thread like this.

The OP is me. The point of this was to get into the others shoes. I tried my best to give reasons why atheists don't believe in Christianity. I personally do believe in Jesus Christ. If I can be biased against my own position, I must have done incredibly well in what I aimed to do. These weren't my opinions, these were the reasons how I think atheists justify their position.

The aim of the thread is clearly outlined in the OP, apologies for any confusion caused.

JC 2K3 · 05-05-2009 4:48pm

Jakkass wrote: »

1) God seems incompatible with evolutionary biology and modern physics.

For me, it's more that God is not defined in any scientific sense.

Jakkass wrote: »

2) Pain and suffering cannot exist in the same world as an omnipotent omnibenificent.
3) The church is hypocritical, and abuses have arisen out of it.
4) Christians are hypocritical.
5) Christians are judgemental.
6) It seems hard to accept a universal moral system, that is so closed minded.
7) It's offensive to believe that Jesus is the only way to save ones soul from hell.
8) Faith seems stupid because Christians don't think about what they believe.
10) Faith seems to breed fanatics, such as suicide bombers, and abortion clinic bombers.
11) Faith seems to be a barrier to a completely secular society.
12) Faith seems to cause hatred and division.
13) Faith seems to breed arrogance.
14) Christians seem to impose standards on non-Christians.
15) God seems to be a monster in certain parts of the Torah, and the historical books.
16) There seems to be a diachotomy between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament.
17) The Bible seems to be riddled with contradictions.
18) Christianity seems to be too patriarchal.
19) Christianity seems to deny personal freedoms.
23) Christianity seems to be based on archaic moral norms, we need to move on.

These are not reasons. Specifics of Christianity have absolutely nothing to do with my lack of belief.

Jakkass wrote: »

9) Miracles seem absurd.
20) I have never felt any spiritual experience, as such I have no evidence to believe that they occur.
22) We have no assurances that divine revelation took place.

Yes, these would be reasons.

Borneo Fnctn · 05-05-2009 6:14pm

My beliefs: I have no beliefs as such. I merely make assumptions based on evidence.

Why I think Christians believe:

1. Indoctrination from an early age.
2. Fear of damnation.
3. Feelings of shame for being a sinner.
4. Gratitude to Jesus for dying for my sins (which I still don't really understand)
5. I have no better way to explain the universe and I am not interested in hearing one.
6. I think faith benefits me as a person.
7. I like Christian morals.
8. Christianity is a safe bet. If I'm wrong, I lose nothing.
9. I have genuine faith.
10. Jesus did indeed exist. Therefore he rose from the dead and is the son of God.
11. Christianity is based on love and forgiveness which I think is unique.

liamw · 05-05-2009 7:59pm

Jakkass, am I allowed to retort to your response yet?

philologos · 06-05-2009 9:34am

liamw wrote: »

Jakkass, am I allowed to retort to your response yet?

Yes, go for it

jackpalance: I don't think any Christian would say "I believe in God because I was "indoctrinated" (note the inverted commas). Please try to get into the spirit of the thread.

kiffer · 06-05-2009 5:19pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Hm, interesting. You think that things can come into existence in and of themselves. I.E That the creation can be the creator. This is something I am unable to get my head around.

No...
I think that the idea of a Creator/Prime Mover is nonsensical...
hmmm nonsensical might be a bit strong but let me just say it like this:
As far back as we can figure there is no need to invoke a god...
However if we push back far enough we reach a point beyond which we observe and know nothing...
Must there, at some point, somewhere beyond this limit to our understanding, deep in the mists of time, be a Prime mover?...
An entity, event or agent which itself needs no instigation...
To this you may attribute characteristics, features and motives.
I do not.
I would say that I am ignostic with regards to a deistic prime mover.
I'm willing to say "I don't know", but I acknowledge that this is not as spiritually satisfying as believing in a person who's intellect must be so absolutely alien to our own yet also is capable of similar emotional states as we are... Love, Anger, that finds certain actions to which it may have no analogue abominable, that cares whether or not we believe in it MORE than it cares about our actual actions...

I think that morals are more that killing is wrong because God says so. Killing is wrong because it inflicts harm on another who is in God's image. We are both members of humanity therefore it is wrong to inflict such harm on our equal no matter what creed, colour, sexuality and so on.

Interesting... So do you feel killing is morally wrong independent of Gods will? Intrinsically and in of itself, wrong? Are there actual moral absolutes or just those set by God' Will?
What does made in God's image mean to you? Spiritual image? metal image? physical image?

I do think God is an authority in my life though. It's part of the reason why I worship Him, due to the fact I am so in awe in what God has done in my life, and in the lives of others, I'm so in awe at his record of divine revelation. I can't help but be inspired by the word of the Lord in peoples lives.

Hum... What has God done in your life? I don't mean to be confrontational here... It's just that when people say things like ".. what God has done in my life..." I get a little confused... Generally it looks like people are thanking God for the actions of Free Willed Humans... although that's putting it simply.

I don't think the OT God is any different from the NT God. God exacts vengeance and is a rightful judge. Infact I can show you that most of the NT doesn't arise from anything new, but arises from teachings of the Old Testament, for example Jesus' teaching on prayer being of few words was written by Solomon in Ecclesiastes 5:2 almost a thousand years before Jesus ever walked the face of the earth. Jesus was a teacher who taught Jewish justice and Jewish morals in a society that had long forgotten them and Jesus as the Messiah fulfilled prophesy to bring the good news of God's salvation to the Gentiles.

Ok. as I said ... the lads over on the Christianity forum have made this case pretty strongly before... TBH I don't consider God being the same in the OT and the NT to be necessarily a good thing...

I think if God created the world, He knows what is best for us to do and best for us not to do for our wellbeing.

And I think that if God is the invention of man He does not necessarily know what is best / not best... OR even if he is not purely an invention of man then we do commonly just make up attributes for our gods based on our needs at the time...

I really don't think that hell is all that offensive if God has given you the opportunity to be saved and to believe in His way, His truth and His life. Hell is warranted for transgressing against the highest authority. I believe God has given you this way out precisely because God loves you. I think humanity can either choose to be stubborn and hard hearted or they can accept God's grace for people are saved through this grace (Ephesians 2).

... isn't it amazing how two people can be on completely different wavelengths when it comes to thinking about an issue ...

I'm working off the assumption that Hell is a place of eternal and unrelenting torture as per biblical descriptions... I understand that you maybe working off a different softer less disgusting definition, such as "existing outside of the knowledge of God" or "Oblivion, True Death"... before I go on and try to make clear my objection to the Hell idea and the idea of Justification by Faith alone, please let us know what you actually think "Hell" means/is.

I agree. I think people should think about their beliefs study them and adopt them if they are satisfied with the conclusion of their study. I personally don't decry other people for different beliefs, but I think they are ultimately fruitless in terms of truth value.

:-) interesting... if they find it personally satisfying based on their research how can you claim that it is fruitless in terms of truth value? after all you are using similar criteria to decide that your beliefs are of Fruitful Truth Value...

I think that God has given people life and that God has the right to take life away should He so choose. I suppose this is based on the belief in a creator God however.

I disagree.

Either human life has a fundamental objective value and it is wrong to kill and that applies to a creator... or the creator is not subject to this valuation in which case it's not an objective value...

But that's largely semantic ****.

The parent does not have the right to kill their child... but as someone pointed out we don't "Create" our children we merely reproduce...
What if we built from scratch a True AI? a self-aware sophont... would we have the right to kill it on a whim as you would suggest God has with us?

See above.

Careful. I don't believe God to be male. I relate to God as a Father figure. I do not believe that God has biological organs like the rest of us. God tells Moses to be careful about our standards at the burning bush, saying "I am that I am". I.E take God as God has been revealed, do not impose human standards on God too much.

I hear you. I think it's one of the main stumbling blocks in atheist - theist dialogue.

I'm sure if you asked on the Christianity forum you would hear that people can tell you of many cases that fall outside these categories.

Well... Too be honest... mostly I believe that they are seeing patterns which probably aren't there... confirmation bias, co-incidence, Thanking God for things you should be thanking other humans for... and so on.

Interesting point. It depends whether or not you think a creator God would take an interest in humanity. From an atheist point of view, and I've thought of this sometimes when people have discussed with me about "The world is so miniscule in the universe, why would God even care about it?" type approaches. I sometimes think to myself there might be some merit in that, then the other side of me says this merely is a testament to God's creation and to the power of God. I end up being amazed.

We all find it hard to let go

I really think that people have shockingly different thought processes...

Naz_st · 06-05-2009 5:44pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Hm, interesting. You think that things can come into existence in and of themselves. I.E That the creation can be the creator. This is something I am unable to get my head around.

But you can get your head around God's existence right?

So Either:
1) God came into existence in and of himself OR
2) God is eternal, and always existed.

It's exactly the same argument except you replace the word "God" with "The Universe":

So either:
1) "The Universe" came into existence in and of itself OR
2) "The Universe" is eternal, and always existed.

If you go with option (1) then you have exactly the same question about "How did God come into existence?" as you do about the universe. If you go with option (2) then you could say exactly the same thing about the Universe in general.

What's not to get? If you "get" one position, you "get" the other, no?

Sam Vimes · 06-05-2009 6:55pm

Naz_st wrote: »

But you can get your head around God's existence right?

So Either:
1) God came into existence in and of himself OR
2) God is eternal, and always existed.

It's exactly the same argument except you replace the word "God" with "The Universe":

So either:
1) "The Universe" came into existence in and of itself OR
2) "The Universe" is eternal, and always existed.

If you go with option (1) then you have exactly the same question about "How did God come into existence?" as you do about the universe. If you go with option (2) then you could say exactly the same thing about the Universe in general.

What's not to get? If you "get" one position, you "get" the other, no?

Good point. Human beings are very far from understanding the universe so I can easily see how the universe could have come into being by some natural process that we don't yet understand. On the other hand, the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent supernatural creator who lives outside our universe but sends his son who is also himself to die for our sins presumably to impress himself and turns water into wine and walks on water but lets innocent children die and actively wants to deny us proof of our existence because he values blind faith over evidence based research, etc etc etc. That's something I can't get my head round

liamw · 06-05-2009 7:44pm

Jakkass wrote: »

1. I'd argue that being a Christian is the way I am also. I disagree with the notion that one is a Christian from birth or that Christianity is hereditory.

I don't get this. How can you disagree that, generally, a person's religion is determined as an accident of where they were geographically born?
You can say it doesn't apply to you, but do you honestly and truly believe that if you were born in India you would still be Christian? I'm sorry, but that's very very unlikely and statistics prove it.

2. Fitting in and the community sense could only be considered a very minor reason, or a secondary reason. It is possible for community sense to be formed in secular communities too, or in other religious communities.

Secular communities? Lack of belief / atheism isn't a religion. That's like calling bald a hair style. I still believe that the environment in which you live, has a strong determining factor in what you believe.

3. Argument ad populum. Proportions do not necessarily mean truth. Truth will be held by a minority. Even the Bible discusses the difference between the narrow gate (Christianity) vs the broad gate (others) and that the truth can only be found by going through the narrow gate and only few will find it.

The only reason I even bother in entering discussions like this is becuase so many people believe. And for me, that was one of the hardest things to accept when moving away from religion 'how can so many people be wrong?'. So I looked for reasons for it and found them. To address your response specifically, that almost looks to me like a typical cult tactic. Make the person feel special and unique.

4. Many things can give people comfort.

It's still why a lot of people want and prefer to believe.

5. I can't either. However unexpected things can happen.

Well, I can. And it's really changed my life for the better since I've accepted it. I live my life to a much fuller degree, knowing that when I'm dead, that's it. I actually wouldn't want to live forever anyway.

6. Christians do get morals from the Bible, and it is considered to be a source of divine wisdom. However, to say that one cannot value certain things and make judgements based on those values is quite wrong. Her statement would have been better in saying, "I don't know how atheists can have coherent moral values without a consistent moral source". I sometimes struggle with that myself

Sure, Christians get morals from the Bible but they pick and choose them. And what do you think enables us to pick and choose them? BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG. Certain behaviours are built into us through natural selection. It all makes perfect sense, without the need to invoke the Bible. Especially considering some fallible human wrote the Bible stories. If you're going to tell me that it was the word of God passed through them, then please explain how you think that happened and why.

7. This argument does appeal to me slightly, I must admit.

It appeals to everyone on first instinct. We've already been through the Antropic Principle and other explanations so won't go there.

2. As for all of the Bible being historically accurate. There are allegorical texts in the Bible particularly in the books of the prophets. I believe the Bible is subject to literary scrutiny just like any text. To explain the fall of Nebuchadnezzar by which he would be cast out of Babylon for 7 years, Daniel uses parable. Likewise Isaiah and others use parable. It's not as easy as saying is the whole Bible historically accurate, it's as simple as saying that each book has it's purpose. Prophetic books are well, prophesies explained often in allegory. Historical book are books which explain histories. Poetic books such as Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs deal with the human experience.

Seems like you pick and choose.

As for the Resurrection, yes I believe that to be the truth, and I would explain the authenticity of archaeological sites as in the Bible as a different point as I have done in my signature link.

3. Yes, I believe this, you saw that I argued this on the other thread.

The existance if an archaeological site does nothing to show that a supernatural event happened. That's like me making up a story about how a guy jumped off the spire in the city and flew around for a minute, and then saying it's probably true becuase the spire exists.

4. I can't say that I have experienced a miracle, but I have experienced spiritual experiences yes and this is perhaps the main argument for my Christianity. See the link in my signature, point 4 explains this rather well.

Can you give an example please? I certainly don't think you are lying to me, but you should remember that the brain is very powerful. It takes a very critical person to have what seems to be a 'spiritual experience' and acknowledge it was only his mind playing tricks.

As for supernatural vs natural. It's not simply a case that supernatural trumps the natural one. It involves what you can rule out. If you believe the world consists only of natural processes, and natural processes alone, you will never consider the supernatural in any given answer you will provide.

I wouldn't say I ruled out the supernatural, but for every so called 'supernatural event' there is usually a perfectly reasonable natural explanation that can be adopted instead.

Borneo Fnctn · 06-05-2009 8:46pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Please try to get into the spirit of the thread.

I gave it a good go. I never said the reasons I selected apply to everybody. Some of them apply to some people. Nobody would say they believe because of indoctrination. Obviously. Some people don't have a better reason to believe
though.

Sam Vimes · 07-05-2009 6:11am

liamw wrote: »

The existance if an archaeological site does nothing to show that a supernatural event happened. That's like me making up a story about how a guy jumped off the spire in the city and flew around for a minute, and then saying it's probably true becuase the spire exists.

You're I think the 8th person to point out exactly that logic to him. The example I used was that the existence of Paris doesn't make The Da Vinci Code real. He doesn't see the logic

philologos · 07-05-2009 8:59am

kiffer wrote: »

I think that the idea of a Creator/Prime Mover is nonsensical...
hmmm nonsensical might be a bit strong but let me just say it like this:
As far back as we can figure there is no need to invoke a god...
However if we push back far enough we reach a point beyond which we observe and know nothing...
Must there, at some point, somewhere beyond this limit to our understanding, deep in the mists of time, be a Prime mover?...
An entity, event or agent which itself needs no instigation...
To this you may attribute characteristics, features and motives.
I do not.
I would say that I am ignostic with regards to a deistic prime mover.
I'm willing to say "I don't know", but I acknowledge that this is not as spiritually satisfying as believing in a person who's intellect must be so absolutely alien to our own yet also is capable of similar emotional states as we are... Love, Anger, that finds certain actions to which it may have no analogue abominable, that cares whether or not we believe in it MORE than it cares about our actual actions...

Fair enough. I would hold the view of necessary and contingent beings advocated by philosophers such as Avicenna and Aquinas. If someone retorts with the infinite regress I would advise them to look at the brilliant work of Sadowsky showing how this simply couldn't be the case and that a necessary being is indeed necessary for contingent beings to come into existence. If we were speaking entirely about contingent beings (beings that are said to either exist or not exist) then I would totally understand your objection, as it makes little sense that something that could exist or not exist could also create everything else if I am to go along the lines of the cosmological argument.

This is the only link I could find to the Sadowsky article or elements of it:
http://www.anthonyflood.com/sadowskyendlessregress.htm

If you take a quick google there are other philosophers who agree with his position, and there are others who disagree. So take a read of both.

As for a personal God. I don't think

kiffer wrote: »

Interesting... So do you feel killing is morally wrong independent of Gods will? Intrinsically and in of itself, wrong? Are there actual moral absolutes or just those set by God' Will?
What does made in God's image mean to you? Spiritual image? metal image? physical image?

I like Thomas Aquinas believe that all morals come from God. I.E They are things that if you were being observed from above, that you would find appropriate to do.

You seem to think that Christians don't believe that those who have never heard faith are not capable of being moral.

Romans 2:14-16 wrote:

When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.

As for what I believe about being created in God's image, I believe it to mean that we have a spiritual likeness with God, that we are able to receive Him and He is able to receive us in our daily lives.

kiffer wrote: »

Hum... What has God done in your life? I don't mean to be confrontational here... It's just that when people say things like ".. what God has done in my life..." I get a little confused... Generally it looks like people are thanking God for the actions of Free Willed Humans... although that's putting it simply.

Totally changed my views, and my way of action to other people. That is the most radical change I have seen. If I look back to the way that I used to act there was not much really Christian about it. God has given me a meaning and a purpose that I never had before, and a deep spiritual connection with Him in my life. I could go on about specific events, but I think I should keep it short and sweet on a thread like this.

kiffer wrote: »

Ok. as I said ... the lads over on the Christianity forum have made this case pretty strongly before... TBH I don't consider God being the same in the OT and the NT to be necessarily a good thing...

Consider it what you want. I believe the OT God to be about as just and as fair to His people than the God portrayed in the NT except for the idea of the atonement by the cross coming into it. I can't help but thinking that when atheists mean the OT God they do not mean the whole OT or even most of it when they are referring to it, only the times when God (rightfully) judges those who transgressed His command.

kiffer wrote: »

And I think that if God is the invention of man He does not necessarily know what is best / not best... OR even if he is not purely an invention of man then we do commonly just make up attributes for our gods based on our needs at the time...

You can think that all you want. However, I don't think the idea of God in the Biblical record has changed from the 1st to the 20th if we are to consider the Biblical text hasn't changed either.

kiffer wrote: »

... isn't it amazing how two people can be on completely different wavelengths when it comes to thinking about an issue ...

It is quite.

kiffer wrote: »

I'm working off the assumption that Hell is a place of eternal and unrelenting torture as per biblical descriptions... I understand that you maybe working off a different softer less disgusting definition, such as "existing outside of the knowledge of God" or "Oblivion, True Death"... before I go on and try to make clear my objection to the Hell idea and the idea of Justification by Faith alone, please let us know what you actually think "Hell" means/is.

I consider hell to be a place of eternal punishment too for those who reject Christ and reject God on the day of Judgement. All have fallen short of God's glory, therefore all need salvation.

kiffer wrote: »

:-) interesting... if they find it personally satisfying based on their research how can you claim that it is fruitless in terms of truth value? after all you are using similar criteria to decide that your beliefs are of Fruitful Truth Value...

I personally find them fruitless because I believe all will be judged by Jesus anyway. That was the idea I intended.

kiffer wrote: »

I disagree. Either human life has a fundamental objective value and it is wrong to kill and that applies to a creator... or the creator is not subject to this valuation in which case it's not an objective value...

Actually if God is an authority figure above us, it is up to Him how he decides to punish us for our transgressions. I deem it entirely justified that if people violate this that God can take away their life.

kiffer wrote: »

The parent does not have the right to kill their child... but as someone pointed out we don't "Create" our children we merely reproduce...
What if we built from scratch a True AI? a self-aware sophont... would we have the right to kill it on a whim as you would suggest God has with us?

You answered your own question. See in bold.

It's not on a whim that anyone was punished in the Biblical record. So therefore your hypothetical doesn't really apply to God. God waited for a very very long time before He deemed it necessary to punish His people. Look in 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, and so on to see how much transgression Israel and Judah had built up before they got punished for it by invasion from Assyria and Babylon.

kiffer wrote: »

Well... Too be honest... mostly I believe that they are seeing patterns which probably aren't there... confirmation bias, co-incidence, Thanking God for things you should be thanking other humans for... and so on.

Do you ever think that atheists might be guilty of confirmation bias? Notable point though, perhaps I am.

kiffer wrote: »

I really think that people have shockingly different thought processes...

Indeed.

Naz_st wrote: »

But you can get your head around God's existence right?

So Either:
1) God came into existence in and of himself OR
2) God is eternal, and always existed.

I don't advocate the first as that would make God a contingent being, and I advocate the second as that would make God a necessary being. See what I wrote to kiffer about an infinite regress.

Naz_st wrote: »

It's exactly the same argument except you replace the word "God" with "The Universe":

So either:
1) "The Universe" came into existence in and of itself OR
2) "The Universe" is eternal, and always existed.

It really isn't. We know that the Universe was created, compared to the belief that God was timeless which I would hold.

Naz_st wrote: »

If you go with option (1) then you have exactly the same question about "How did God come into existence?" as you do about the universe. If you go with option (2) then you could say exactly the same thing about the Universe in general.

We really couldn't. The Universe was created a finite amount of time ago. Therefore the Universe is contingent and not necessary. It did not come before all else.

Naz_st wrote: »

What's not to get? If you "get" one position, you "get" the other, no?

The position concerning a contingent being creating other contingent beings doesn't work.

liamw wrote: »

I don't get this. How can you disagree that, generally, a person's religion is determined as an accident of where they were geographically born?
You can say it doesn't apply to you, but do you honestly and truly believe that if you were born in India you would still be Christian? I'm sorry, but that's very very unlikely and statistics prove it.

Did you even read my post? I said I became a Christian, and it became a part of who I am. Being Christian is now a part of who I am.

As for the accident of religion thing, I think I would always have the opportunity of finding Christianity if I was born in India or anywhere else. I don't know for sure, and I think discussing a hypothetical such as this is worthless. There have been millions of converts to Christianity in India including apologetic Ravi Zacharias.

liamw wrote: »

Secular communities? Lack of belief / atheism isn't a religion. That's like calling bald a hair style. I still believe that the environment in which you live, has a strong determining factor in what you believe.

I never said that. Do you not realise that by your definition your GAA club is a secular community, as is your local soccer team. They generally don't hold religious beliefs as a part of the game.

liamw wrote: »

The only reason I even bother in entering discussions like this is becuase so many people believe. And for me, that was one of the hardest things to accept when moving away from religion 'how can so many people be wrong?'. So I looked for reasons for it and found them. To address your response specifically, that almost looks to me like a typical cult tactic. Make the person feel special and unique.

In the atheist POV, it doesn't matter at all whether you are wrong or right. We just go into the ground. In the Christian POV it is of crucial importance. Do you come into discussions like these to cause people to become atheists like you. I'm just curious.

liamw wrote: »

It's still why a lot of people want and prefer to believe.

Yes, I'm aware of that. I just don't think it's a good reason.

liamw wrote: »

Well, I can. And it's really changed my life for the better since I've accepted it. I live my life to a much fuller degree, knowing that when I'm dead, that's it. I actually wouldn't want to live forever anyway.

Funny, I'd say the same about Christianity except for the bit about the afterlife, as I believe you are mistaken.

liamw wrote: »

Sure, Christians get morals from the Bible but they pick and choose them. And what do you think enables us to pick and choose them? BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG. Certain behaviours are built into us through natural selection. It all makes perfect sense, without the need to invoke the Bible. Especially considering some fallible human wrote the Bible stories. If you're going to tell me that it was the word of God passed through them, then please explain how you think that happened and why.

I don't think we do entirely no. We have a sense of right and wrong (see Romans 2) however people can be mistaken in morals. Why do you think Christians advocate many different moral standards to atheists?

I think people can only remember so much of the Bible, but I am trying to apply as much of it to my life as possible. (Where these laws have not been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. Certain Torah laws have been and there is a theological case for it in the New Testament).

Actually life is meaningless without God really. We resort to inventing our own meaning which can be royally screwed up sometimes.

liamw wrote: »

It appeals to everyone on first instinct. We've already been through the Antropic Principle and other explanations so won't go there.

Yes, we have. It doesn't mean that I agree that the earth and humanity aren't important at all or that our creation wasn't amazing. Infact a bigger universe gives more awe to any creation event.

liamw wrote: »

Seems like you pick and choose.

By reading the Bible as the authors intended? The Psalms are a book of poetry, 1 Chronicles is a history book. Like how am I meant to take a passage like in 1 Samuel 5 concerning David moving from Hebron to Jerusalem to be the king of all Israel as a moral law to apply to my life? Do you realise how absurd this is.

I believe in the whole Bible and more importantly I seek revelation in all of the Bible, I merely read in context which is what all people should be doing.

What is with the notion from atheists constantly that the Bible is merely a book of morals? It would indicate to me that you haven't read much of it.

liamw wrote: »

The existance if an archaeological site does nothing to show that a supernatural event happened. That's like me making up a story about how a guy jumped off the spire in the city and flew around for a minute, and then saying it's probably true becuase the spire exists.

I didn't say that. I personally think Sam Vimes should have had the courtesy to let me speak for myself however

If archaeological sites correlate heavily with the Biblical record, it is an indication that there is a level of truth in the Biblical text. It's not a proof of the Bible, I never said it was. I think atheists have difficulty discerning between evidence by indication and evidence by proof.

This is merely 1 indication. I've found the more that pile up the more reason there is to consider that the Bible might just be true.

liamw wrote: »

Can you give an example please? I certainly don't think you are lying to me, but you should remember that the brain is very powerful. It takes a very critical person to have what seems to be a 'spiritual experience' and acknowledge it was only his mind playing tricks.

Sure. This was one of the things I used to notice when I started to read the Bible, pray, and go to church in particular. Bear in mind I went to church a long time before this happened although even as an agnostic this feeling started to play with my mind for a while before I accepted God.

When I do these things, I suddenly feel a very strong sense of purpose, and awe, it was like nothing I could experience doing anything else. As I continued to read I continued to get a confidence through this feeling that what I was reading was truth. I believe this was the Holy Spirit, other people might disagree with me, but it is one of the greatest witnesses in my belief in God.

I'll get x, y, and z saying that I have mental delusions now. I really don't care due to the fact I know that people cannot judge until they have had the same feelings as me concerning the Gospel, and I've talked to many Christians about this in the past and they find the same things in common.

liamw wrote: »

I wouldn't say I ruled out the supernatural, but for every so called 'supernatural event' there is usually a perfectly reasonable natural explanation that can be adopted instead.

I'd argue there isn't one in quite a few cases.

JC 2K3 · 07-05-2009 9:47am

Jakkass wrote: »

Fair enough. I would hold the view of necessary and contingent beings advocated by philosophers such as Avicenna and Aquinas. If someone retorts with the infinite regress I would advise them to look at the brilliant work of Sadowsky showing how this simply couldn't be the case and that a necessary being is indeed necessary for contingent beings to come into existence. If we were speaking entirely about contingent beings (beings that are said to either exist or not exist) then I would totally understand your objection, as it makes little sense that something that could exist or not exist could also create everything else if I am to go along the lines of the cosmological argument.

This is the only link I could find to the Sadowsky article or elements of it:
http://www.anthonyflood.com/sadowskyendlessregress.htm

Why can't the universe be a necessary being?

Why is it so easy for you to believe this, and yet you can't get your head around a universe that created itself? They're both really difficult concepts for any human to comprehend, and I think I speak objectively when I say neither is an easier concept to accept or dismiss logically.

The reason for this, you have outlined later in your post:

Jakkass wrote: »

Do you ever think that atheists might be guilty of confirmation bias? Notable point though, perhaps I am.

Jakkass, without meaning to be overtly judgmental, you are one of the greatest examples of someone led by confirmation bias I have come across. You seem well read in a huge range of pro-Christian literature, CS Lewis being probably the most notable, but you have stated outright here that you don't find science interesting and admitted that you haven't read much on the subject. You've admitted to not really researching other religions either. It seems that you do a lot of research into material that supports your position and form a lot of seemingly intellectual reasons for and insights about your belief, yet being entirely formed without having given any time to any other theory (you may have read a few non-Christian books, but I bet you immediately consider them invalid (It's perhaps even a subconscious reaction) because some Christian writer wrote something contrary), you come off badly in debates a lot of the time, dismissing crucial points made against your arguments or fobbing people off with the title of a book.

Are atheists guilty of confirmation bias? No. A lack of belief doesn't need to be confirmed IMO. If you're perfectly happy with your life, don't "feel the presence of God" or whatever, I don't think you need anything to confirm God's non-existence to justify your position.

Anti-theists however, those who will go out of their way to attempt to disprove God, who are essentially attempting to confirm the non-existence of God. Yes, they are frequently guilty of confirmation bias.

philologos · 07-05-2009 9:52am

JC 2K3: I'm not interested in researching other religions? How do you know that?

I have material from Hare Krishnas, I've read sections of the Qur'an (which I own) and other Islamic material, I also have two copies of the book of Mormon, one thick and one thin I have yet to take a look at these.

I've also read a good bit of the God Delusion, and I may get Hitchen's God is Not Great and other books when I can.

As I say I don't think you really knew how much I actually do consider other viewpoints, it was a bit of a rash judgement though don't you think?

As for science, unfortunately it was butchered for me in school. I didn't find my teacher to be very interesting and maybe that finished me with it. I would be interested in studying it personally but I don't see how this would lead me to atheism necessarily.

JimiTime · 07-05-2009 10:02am

Naz_st wrote: »

But you can get your head around God's existence right?

So Either:
1) God came into existence in and of himself OR
2) God is eternal, and always existed.

It's exactly the same argument except you replace the word "God" with "The Universe":

So either:
1) "The Universe" came into existence in and of itself OR
2) "The Universe" is eternal, and always existed.

If you go with option (1) then you have exactly the same question about "How did God come into existence?" as you do about the universe. If you go with option (2) then you could say exactly the same thing about the Universe in general.

What's not to get? If you "get" one position, you "get" the other, no?

Certainly not. One of the big fallacies of the God debate IMO. We and the universe exist in the Natural world and see its laws etc. So in this natural universe, we canot fathom the universe always existing etc. However, knowing that God is the creator of such laws, and indeed the natural universe, I don't have to apply the natural laws to him, for he is, for want of a better term, the inventor. Saying that we must apply his own natural laws to him is foolish. So God always being there, and the universe alway being there are infinately different concepts.

Sam Vimes · 07-05-2009 10:23am

Jakkass wrote: »

I didn't say that. I personally think Sam Vimes should have had the courtesy to let me speak for myself however

If archaeological sites correlate heavily with the Biblical record, it is an indication that there is a level of truth in the Biblical text. It's not a proof of the Bible, I never said it was. I think atheists have difficulty discerning between evidence by indication and evidence by proof.

This is merely 1 indication. I've found the more that pile up the more reason there is to consider that the Bible might just be true.

I suppose I can acknowledge that in a way. I can see how the discovery of an ancient city called Sodom which was destroyed might mean that the chances of the story about it being true would go from 0.0001% to 0.00100000000000000000005%. The same could be said of The Da Vinci code and the spire of course. To suggest that the increase in probability is anything but completely negligible is ridiculous though, ie the increase in probability is so incredibly low that it is not worth mentioning and it certainly does not belong on a proudly displayed list of reasons for believing in the story.

Tell me Jakkass, what is the difference between the following story and yours? Why is it that mine is clearly ridiculous and yours can be seen as evidence for christianity:

There's a nuclear war and New York is buried. 1000 years from now the city is unearthed and the archaeologists stand there open mouthed and declare: "Wow! That means King Kong was most likely real!!"

The others...

Comments