Atheism causes creationism

Sarky · 03-12-2011 09:58PM

Pfft, it's their own fault for using their god-given free will to CHOOSE to live there.

Zombrex · 03-12-2011 10:05PM

Newsite wrote: »

Just wow. You think he's a 'better person than me' even though you don't know me from Adam

I know you enough from your posts on this thread to know that when someone explains their charity work you dismiss it as bragging and showing off, despite it being a response to an accusation you yourself made.

So yes Newsite, I know you enough.

Newsite wrote: »

you imply that Christians only do good works as a 'result of guilt-tripping' (even though I even brought this up, and explained it's not like that at all)...and that I should 'focus on bringing my life up to his standard'?

If you cannot simply be happy that someone is helping in their community without belittling what they do as showing off and bragging, then you certainly do need to be focusing on your own life and bringing your own standards higher.

If this is what being a Christian does to you, count me out please.

Newsite wrote: »

I never said he was bragging, I just asked why he brought up the topic at all (again explaining how he was positioning it in opposition to big bad religion).

You know we can simply quote back your posts, right?

There is a massive amount of self-congratulatory stuff and grandiose, greatly misconceived soap-boxing in that post.

Newsite wrote: »

Your hate is showing here.

Oh it certainly is.

I hate self-righteous hypocrites who claim to speak with the authority of a deity so they can judge and belittle others for their good deeds and living good lives.

Newsite · 03-12-2011 10:12PM

Zombrex wrote: »

I know you enough from your posts on this thread to know that when someone explains their charity work you dismiss it as bragging and showing off, despite it being a response to an accusation you yourself made.

So yes Newsite, I know you enough.

If you cannot simply be happy that someone is helping in their community without belittling what they do as showing off and bragging, then you certainly do need to be focusing on your own life and bringing your own standards higher.

If this is what being a Christian does to you, count me out please.

You know we can simply quote back your posts, right?

Oh it certainly is.

I hate self-righteous hypocrites who claim to speak with the authority of a deity so they can judge and belittle others for their good deeds and living good lives.

I am delighted that sonic is helping people. I think it is great, and I said as much.

You don't know me at all. You call me self-righteous, seconds after telling me that someone else, who you've never met is a 'better person than me', and that I need to 'bring up my standards' even though you've never met me, and never will. I actually thought that post was kinda funny!

You never respond to the valid topics I bring up, you just pick out the parts to justify your hatred of Christianity, simmering beneath the surface of your eloquent and oh-so rational posts.

Simtech · 03-12-2011 10:13PM

Simtech wrote: »

I appreciate that your time is valuable. I hope you can find the time to address the questions and points I put to you yesterday.

Does the Bible not have answers to the above? Can you not quote scripture?
Is it that you are required to think independently in order to formulate a response and are unable to do so, so bound are you by what you have internalised through religion.

Aside from anything else, your lack of any kind of response demonstrates a lack of common decency.

Newsite · 03-12-2011 10:15PM

Simtech wrote: »

Does the Bible not have answers to the above? Can you not quote scripture?
Is it that you are required to think independently in order to formulate a response and are unable to do so, so bound are you by what you have internalised through religion.

Aside from anything else, your lack of any kind of response demonstrates a lack of common decency.

For the love of Jove man, it's Saturday night and an anonymous bulletin board, I'll get back to you if I get back to you!

Simtech · 03-12-2011 10:18PM

Thank you for your eventual reply, as lacking as it is.

It speaks volumes.

Zombrex · 03-12-2011 10:18PM

Newsite wrote: »

I am delighted that sonic is helping people. I think it is great, and I said as much.

Do you also want to apologize to him for saying he should do his work in private, that he shouldn't brag about it if he really cared?

Do you accept now that he wasn't bragging or showing off and that accusations against him suggesting that he was were unfair and uncalled for?

Newsite wrote: »

You don't know me at all. You call me self-righteous, seconds after telling me that someone else, who you never met is a 'better person than me' - even though you've never met me, and never will.

Do I need to meet you in order to read your posts?

Cause unless your posts are fabrications I think I can get a pretty good idea about you from them.

Newsite wrote: »

You never respond to the valid topics I bring up, you just pick out the parts to justify your hatred of Christianity, simmering beneath the surface of your eloquent and oh-so rational posts.

Er, which were the "valid topics" you brought up. Please point them out and I will respond to all of them, with gusto even! Cause all I saw was you belittling the work of good man in an effort to win an argument.

More than happy to do this, you will notice here on the Atheism forum that we don't run away from discussing things just because they get troublesome for our beliefs and pre-conceived notions.

Newsite · 03-12-2011 10:34PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Do you also want to apologize to him for saying he should do his work in private, that he shouldn't brag about it if he really cared?

Do you accept now that he wasn't bragging or showing off and that accusations against him suggesting that he was were unfair and uncalled for?

Do I need to meet you in order to read your posts?

Cause unless your posts are fabrications I think I can get a pretty good idea about you from them.

Er, which were the "valid topics" you brought up. Please point them out and I will respond to all of them, with gusto even! Cause all I saw was you belittling the work of good man in an effort to win an argument.

More than happy to do this, you will notice here on the Atheism forum that we don't run away from discussing things just because they get troublesome for our beliefs and pre-conceived notions.

Like the way you run away from the numerous points I made and make about not confusing Christianity and its message with people who clearly twist it to suit their violent agendas, etc. About the fact that sonic was making blatantly erroneous claims about homosexuals being an abomination and about the fact that you can love and obey God AND do good works?

But no, these don't come up on your radar because they don't fit your anti-Christian agenda.

Can you also please catch a hold of yourself in regards to asking me to apologise and to not 'belittle' his good works. AGAIN I say that they are great, I did NOT belittle his good works - that is your prejudiced take on it. Look up what the word 'belittle' means - at no point did I do that - it's just your take on it.

There's so much wrong here, that I wouldn't know where to start. And I won't. I've no interest in your one-eyed posting anymore Zombrex.

Newsite · 03-12-2011 10:45PM

Dades wrote: »

It's a shame that God wouldn't see fit to make it rain in East Africa every now and again. Blame all the humans you like, you can't grow food in dust.

Ok. So which is more true:

That their suffering is more down to:

1) God's design in east Africa not getting that much rain, relatively speaking

or

2) Man's greed and selfishness, exerted by his free will?

?

Simtech · 03-12-2011 10:48PM

Newsite wrote: »

Ok. So which is more true:

That their suffering is more down to:

1) God's design in east Africa not getting that much rain, relatively speaking

or

2) Man's greed and selfishness, exerted by his free will?

?

That's a staggering question! Do you hold that children born in that region are to blame for the lack of rain through their own greed and selfishness? Can you please explain your post further as it is potentially very misleading?

Zombrex · 03-12-2011 10:54PM

Newsite wrote: »

Like the way you run away from the numerous points I made and make about not confusing Christianity and its message with people who clearly twist it to suit their violent agendas, etc. About the fact that sonic was making blatantly erroneous claims about homosexuals being an abomination and about the fact that you can love and obey God AND do good works?

I'm more than happy to deal with that.

Despite evidence to the contrary Christianity promotes the idea that homosexual behaviour is immoral and damaging to society as it teaches that it goes against God's divine plan for how humans should interact with each other and that the presence of homosexual behaviour corrupts communities and must be stricken from the community.

God ordered his people to kill practising homosexuals in Hebrew times, and in the New Testament Paul instructs Christians to remove sinners, including homosexuals, from the community in order to prevent others being tempted by sin. The death penalty was kept as punishment for homosexual acts for most of Christianities existence.

This has lead Christians throughout history to view homosexual behaviour as something to be shunned for society, something to be made outlawed in society (after all it was outlawed in Hebrew times, under pain of death and it is one of the few sins carried over from those times by Paul that Gentiles must abstain from), often using oppressive and violent methods to ensure that it does not occur or is punished when it does occur, in order to protect others in society from being seduced by the sinful acts.

Newsite wrote: »

Can you also please catch a hold of yourself in regards to asking me to apologise and to not 'belittle' his good works. AGAIN I say that they are great, I did NOT belittle his good works - that is your prejudiced take on it. Look up what the word 'belittle' means - at no point did I do that - it's just your take on it.

Saying that someone does charity work in order to show off is belittling their contribution. You may have (afterwards) said what he did was great, but you belittled why he did it.

In fact that is why you said it, to belittle what Sonic was doing in contrast to how you (incorrectly as it turns out) believe Christians would do charity work in secret.

Newsite wrote: »

There's so much wrong here, that I wouldn't know where to start. And I won't. I've no interest in your one-eyed posting anymore Zombrex.

So no apology then. How surprising.

Dades · 03-12-2011 10:55PM

Newsite wrote: »

Ok. So which is more true:

That their suffering is more down to:

1) God's design in east Africa not getting that much rain, relatively speaking

or

2) Man's greed and selfishness, exerted by his free will?

?

Either way you swing it God is majorly responsible for millions of preventable deaths through starvation due to his inaction.

Apportioning blame doesn't let either party off the hook.

So the greedy, violent humans are reprehensible, but so it the omnipotent man in the clouds watching kids die in the dirt for the lack of rain to grow something edible.

Zombrex · 03-12-2011 10:59PM

Newsite wrote: »

Ok. So which is more true:

That their suffering is more down to:

1) God's design in east Africa not getting that much rain, relatively speaking

or

2) Man's greed and selfishness, exerted by his free will?

?

"More" true? Er how about both true?

But considering what God was happy to do in the Old Testament I think God letting a few million African children starve to death is mild in comparison.

Simtech · 03-12-2011 11:10PM

Simtech wrote: »

That's a staggering question! Do you hold that children born in that region are to blame for the lack of rain through their own greed and selfishness? Can you please explain your post further as it is potentially very misleading?

If Newsite, my questions are too difficult to answer, perhaps you should consider only posting in fora where people are likely to agree with you and therefore unlikely to pose any challenge or contradiction to your belief system. You would then be unlikely to have to address the obvious flaws in that system such as reasonable people are wont to raise.

Newsite · 03-12-2011 11:23PM

Simtech wrote: »

Your certainty that you are right has nothing to do with how right you are.
A “feeling of knowing” probably had an evolutionary advantage. If we are certain, we can act on that certainty rather than hesitating like Hamlet. Certainty makes us feel good: it rewards learning, and it keeps us from wasting time thinking too much; but it impairs flexibility.
Richard Feynman said,
“I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things… It doesn’t frighten me.”
On the other hand, many people, especially religious fundamentalists, can’t deal with uncertainty. They demand absolute answers and cling to their certainties even in the face of contrary evidence. Why are people so different in their need for certainty? We know there is a gene associated with risk-taking and novelty-seeking. Burton makes an intriguing suggestion: could genetic differences make individuals get different degrees of pleasure out of the feeling of knowing?
There is a “hidden layer” in our brain whose neurons are influenced by genetics, personal experience, hormones, and chemistry. These factors influence all our thought processes without our conscious knowledge. We would like to think that if everyone had the same information they would necessarily reach the same conclusion, but that just isn’t so. There is no such thing as pure reason. “Reason is not disembodied, as the tradition has largely held, but arises from the nature of our brains, bodies, and bodily experiences.”
The autonomous rational mind is a myth. The concepts of the self and free will are innate useful fictions that allow us to function. Modern neurophysiology tells us our decisions are made subconsciously before we are aware of deciding.

I still await your response to my questions, though I imagine I will have to continue to wait. I guess you can ask questions of others but the same is not allowed of others to you. This much is beginning to seem self evident.

It's funny that you should imply that I am a fundamentalist, and frame in such terms that I am someone who demands I have 'certainty', when, in reality - if you knew me - you'd know that I am someone who has very little need for certainty. As it happens, I have no five year plan and I mainly take things as they come

Simtech wrote: »

So it seems that acceptance or rejection of the God idea, is less about free will than you would have us believe Newsite.

Except that God's grace in enabling you to have faith has nothing to do with free will?

It is only through God's grace, through the Holy Spirit acting on your heart and enabling you to believe, that you want to know God and seek out God and learn more about Him in the first place. He gives you a 'heart' to believe.

Faith and belief are evidence of God's grace, not of man choosing God.

"And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul." (Acts 16:14)

This is not to be confused with seeking to obey him and do His will, and praying for help with this. But as said before, man in his natural state sees no need for God - that's why God and the Bible seem so 'foolish' to him.

Newsite · 03-12-2011 11:25PM

Simtech wrote: »

That's a staggering question! Do you hold that children born in that region are to blame for the lack of rain through their own greed and selfishness? Can you please explain your post further as it is potentially very misleading?

Are you actually taking me up that way unintentionally? Because I find it staggering that you come to that conclusion?!!

Newsite · 03-12-2011 11:27PM

Dades wrote: »

Either way you swing it God is majorly responsible for millions of preventable deaths through starvation due to his inaction.

Apportioning blame doesn't let either party off the hook.

So the greedy, violent humans are reprehensible, but so it the omnipotent man in the clouds watching kids die in the dirt for the lack of rain to grow something edible.

There's no swinging anything here.

I will ask you again - are the millions of preventable deaths down to the lack of rain, or through man's actions, and inactions, stemming from God given free will?

Simtech · 03-12-2011 11:48PM

Newsite wrote: »

It's funny that you should imply that I am a fundamentalist, and frame in such terms that I am someone who demands I have 'certainty', when, in reality - if you knew me - you'd know that I am someone who has very little need for certainty. As it happens, I have no five year plan and I mainly take things as they come

Except that God's grace in enabling you to have faith has nothing to do with free will?

It is only through God's grace, through the Holy Spirit acting on your heart and enabling you to believe, that you want to know God and seek out God and learn more about Him in the first place. He gives you a 'heart' to believe.

Faith and belief are evidence of God's grace, not of man choosing God.

"And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul." (Acts 16:14)

This is not to be confused with seeking to obey him and do His will, and praying for help with this. But as said before, man in his natural state sees no need for God - that's why God and the Bible seem so 'foolish' to him.

The fact that I do not know you is the reason I asked the two questions about doubt and belief in creationist theory originally. Your lack of an answer left me to infer things from your silence. If I am wrong in my inference then I apologise, though you still haven't answered.

"Except that God's grace in enabling you to have faith has nothing to do with free will?"

So if I'm right then you are suggesting that one is selected by God or the Spirit to believe in him?

Simtech · 03-12-2011 11:50PM

Newsite wrote: »

Are you actually taking me up that way unintentionally? Because I find it staggering that you come to that conclusion?!!

As I said, it is misleading as written. Perhaps further development of the point is warranted?

Newsite · 03-12-2011 11:55PM

Simtech wrote: »

As I said, it is misleading as written. Perhaps further development of the point is warranted?

No worries. I was simply posing the question - is the suffering in Africa to be attributed to God's design in making east Africa drier than say, southern Africa, or is it to be mainly attributed to man's greed, his lust for power, dominance, his selfishness, etc?

Dades · 04-12-2011 12:03AM

Newsite wrote: »

I will ask you again - are the millions of preventable deaths down to the lack of rain, or through man's actions, and inactions, stemming from God given free will?

BOTH.

Dades wrote:

the greedy, violent humans are reprehensible, but so it the omnipotent man in the clouds watching kids die in the dirt for the lack of rain to grow something edible.

I was really curious as to how you might try to respond to my post but I thought you'd at least read it.

So both man's action and Gods inaction cause endless suffering for millions of innocents.

I put it to you, it's always been the primary reason that I became atheist. Nobody has ever been able to give me a reason why a supposedly loving God would allow innocent people live such horrific existences - existences that could be so, so different with a bit of rain.

Can you be the first to justify this?

Newsite · 04-12-2011 12:05AM

Simtech wrote: »

The fact that I do not know you is the reason I asked the two questions about doubt and belief in creationist theory originally. Your lack of an answer left me to infer things from your silence. If I am wrong in my inference then I apologise, though you still haven't answered.

It's kind of a personal question, and I prefer not to answer personal questions here. I prefer to discuss matters which aren't so, even when I could go on a tangent about how good I am and the things I do and don't do when posters like Zombrex cast damning judgment on me and tell me I'm inferior to other anonymous posters and that I should buck up my act

Simtech wrote: »

"Except that God's grace in enabling you to have faith has nothing to do with free will?"

So if I'm right then you are suggesting that one is selected by God or the Spirit to believe in him?

When you say 'selected' - if you mean that God puts it in your heart to believe in Him, then yes. That's not to say that He is believing for you, like you are some sort of puppet though.

Simtech · 04-12-2011 12:09AM

Newsite wrote: »

No worries. I was simply posing the question - is the suffering in Africa to be attributed to God's design in making east Africa drier than say, southern Africa, or is it to be mainly attributed to man's greed, his lust for power, dominance, his selfishness, etc?

Yes, I understood the question, you have merely restated it. I would suggest that the child born in this region cannot be accused of being greedy, lusting for power or dominance, or be selfish. Therefore it bears no culpability. It cannot be said to have free will as such. So where lays the blame for it's death? Is it with God or with man? Both? Neither? How do you see it?

Newsite · 04-12-2011 12:16AM

Dades wrote: »

BOTH.

I was really curious as to how you might try to respond to my post but I thought you'd at least read it.

So both man's action and Gods inaction cause endless suffering for millions of innocents.

I put it to you, it's always been the primary reason that I became atheist. Nobody has ever been able to give me a reason why a supposedly loving God would allow innocent people live such horrific existences - existences that could be so, so different with a bit of rain.

Can you be the first to justify this?

A bit of rain is going to change things that much? It's going to stop the likes of Mugabe slaughtering people, or other dictators sparking civil war, leading to all sorts of other untold suffering?! All these free men exerting free will, to do as they 'see fit'?

It's the primary reason you became an atheist? What about all the amazing things in life that God gives us, do you discount those?

So, would you propose that God stoops in and starts in raining in east Africa? Or stops in raining when it floods in Oz? Or stops the big freeze in Ireland? Are you saying that people in east Africa are suffering primarily because there's no rain?

Or stops Mugabe from doing what he does? What I'm putting to you is that it is man's use of free will that causes the majority of suffering in the world - and that 'not letting it happen' would be to impede the free will He bestowed - right?

Newsite · 04-12-2011 12:19AM

Simtech wrote: »

Yes, I understood the question, you have merely restated it. I would suggest that the child born in this region cannot be accused of being greedy, lusting for power or dominance, or be selfish. Therefore it bears no culpability. It cannot be said to have free will as such. So where lays the blame for it's death? Is it with God or with man? Both? Neither? How do you see it?

Well of course the child can't be accused of it, and I don't know how you could claim that I was implying that? I'm clearly saying that the greed and lust is clearly the primary cause of that suffering.

If you look at the likes of mass drought because of lack of rain, the response from the First World is always there - millions are pumped into relief efforts. Quite often these efforts are deliberately impeded by those in power in the stricken countries, who don't care a jot for their own citizens.

Simtech · 04-12-2011 12:24AM

Newsite wrote: »

Well of course the child can't be accused of it, and I don't know how you could claim that I was implying that?

I'm not implying that. I'm saying that it seems reasonable to hold God as responsible for the child's death or suffering as man. That both bear responsibility. God is seen as guilty through his continuing inaction. I understand your point of view but you must see the validity of mine?

Newsite · 04-12-2011 12:33AM

Simtech wrote: »

I'm not implying that. I'm saying that it seems reasonable to hold God as responsible for the child's death or suffering as man. That both bear responsibility. God is seen as guilty through his continuing inaction. I understand your point of view but you must see the validity of mine?

I do see where you're coming from, but if God acts in saving the child from the acts of man and stop His 'inaction', what happens to free will?

Dades · 04-12-2011 12:40AM

Newsite wrote: »

It's the primary reason you became an atheist? What about all the amazing things in life that God gives us, do you discount those?

In case it's passed you by, it's the amazing things that other people don't get that stand out. Like clean water and something to eat.

I have never witnessed such cynical sidestepping of a question. We're in agreement that humans can be blamed for so much suffering, yet you won't apply that same judgement on the omnipotent man in the sky who with a wave of his finger could end the horror of starvation, even temporarily, for so many.

Newsite · 04-12-2011 12:53AM

Dades wrote: »

In case it's passed you by, it's the amazing things that other people don't get that stand out. Like clean water and something to eat.

Again - whose fault is that, to a large extent?

Dades wrote: »

I have never witnessed such cynical sidestepping of a question. We're in agreement that humans can be blamed for so much suffering, yet you won't apply that same judgement on the omnipotent man in the sky who with a wave of his finger could end the horror of starvation, even temporarily, for so many.

I would say that even as an atheist you can accept that we cannot apply the same judgment to God - it would be arrogant to even think like that.

Of course God could end whatever He so chose - be it a booming economy or a troubled nation in Africa. But you're talking in broad-brush terms - 'end starvation' - does that impede free will? Does He just end the parts that are directly caused by lack of water only (if that can possibly be true), and leave the rest?

Dades · 04-12-2011 02:42AM

Newsite wrote: »

Again - whose fault is that, to a large extent?

Um, the guy who supposedly created the planet?

Newsite wrote: »

I would say that even as an atheist you can accept that we cannot apply the same judgment to God - it would be arrogant to even think like that.

Isn't this the whole point? You refuse to judge God because that would undermine your worldview whereas an atheist has no problem asking why a God stands idly by while innocent people die without ever having a chance to live or prove themselves to be good people because the clean water or food they need is denied them because the village they are born into hasn't seen rain in years.

Perhaps this is why you are still believer - because you refuse to subject your God to the same scrutiny that you accept he subjects us to.

Newsite wrote: »

Of course God could end whatever He so chose - be it a booming economy or a troubled nation in Africa. But you're talking in broad-brush terms - 'end starvation' - does that impede free will? Does He just end the parts that are directly caused by lack of water only (if that can possibly be true), and leave the rest?

Yes - why doesn't he help those people? If you are going to test people to see if they are worthy of salvation why allow so many of them to die horribly from malnutrition before they can give a single thought to anything but living another day?

Atheism causes creationism

Comments